A brand-new jumper, never worn, sent straight to the shredder: what long counted as ordinary business practice is now forbidden in the European Union. Since Sunday, 19 July, large companies may no longer destroy unsold clothing and footwear. Instead they must resell the goods – with a discount, for instance – or donate them.
The rule is part of the EU's Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), in force since July 2024, which aims to make products more sustainable across their entire life cycle. The problem it targets is sizeable: the European Environment Agency estimates that four to nine percent of all textiles in the EU are destroyed without ever being worn. Their disposal alone generates up to 5.6 million tonnes of CO2 a year, the European Commission says – as much as two to three million cars. Every discarded item also wastes the raw materials, water, energy and labour that went into making it.
For now the ban applies to large corporations; medium-sized firms follow later. Exceptions remain – for damaged, soiled or counterfeit goods, and for donations that social organisations fail to accept within a deadline. Germany's Federal Environment Agency frames the measure as a way to cut avoidable waste, conserve resources and promote the reuse of still-usable products.
Whether principle becomes practice is the point of contention. The German textile and fashion industry association calls the law out of touch with reality; its expert Jonas Stracke warns of added bureaucracy and dismisses the ban as a „paper tiger“ as long as functioning collection, sorting and recycling systems are lacking. Environmentalists are divided too: Greenpeace's Moritz Jäger-Roschko welcomes the ban in principle but sees loopholes – such as mislabelling goods – and demands rigorous enforcement. The real problem, fast fashion, he argues, is left untouched.
For all the criticism, the rule marks a change of course: for the first time the EU has made the destruction of new clothing the exception across Europe, rather than a convenient routine. How much it achieves will hinge on enforcement – but the direction is right.