European 'destruction ban' is officially in effect: a historic day for fashion?

From July 19, clothing brands are no longer allowed to burn their excess stock or have it 'destroyed' in any way. This makes it less attractive to order in bulk from factories, which involves large orders at a low cost. From now on, the buyer will have to pay for what is left over.

'Ban on destruction of unsold goods' in brief

In Europe, an estimated 4 to 9 percent of unsold clothes are destroyed annually before they are ever worn. According to EU data, this waste generates approximately 5.6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, roughly equivalent to Sweden's total net emissions in 2021. In France alone, around 630 million euros worth of unsold non-food products are destroyed annually, as reported by The Fashion Law. A significant portion of this comes from returns.

To tackle the problem, an instrument was devised in Brussels as part of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR): a ban on the destruction of unsold clothing, clothing accessories and footwear. Professionals also refer to it as the 'ban on destruction of unsold goods'. Member states will determine the fines for violators and who will monitor enforcement. In the Netherlands, for example, this is the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) and the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).

The ban also includes a reporting obligation. From February 2027, large companies must publicly disclose in a standard format how many unsold products they discard and what happens to them, such as recycling or landfill. For smaller companies, both obligations will only come into effect in 2030. For now, the changes will therefore only affect companies like Zara or Shein.

What is 'destruction'?

The definition of 'destruction' in the ESPR focuses on the bottom of the waste hierarchy (the waste pyramid). It concerns products that are intentionally sent to landfill, incinerated, or processed for energy recovery after being deliberately labelled as waste.

If a company donates the clothing, resells it second-hand (re-use), or transforms it into something new (upcycling), it falls outside the ban. Despite these good circular intentions, such a definition also creates a loophole. A common criticism is that large companies with strong legal expertise find ways to export the problem. They sell unsold stock in bulk as 'second-hand clothing' or 'residual stock' to traders outside the EU, for example in West Africa or Latin America. On paper, this is considered re-use and is therefore legal. In practice, however, a huge portion of this clothing is unsellable and still ends up on giant textile landfills abroad. This is not the brands' problem, because once there, EU rules no longer apply.

Opportunity for deadstock textiles

Brands and ateliers with beautiful fabrics also see the obligation as a welcome challenge to create new fashion from 'deadstock': leftover fabrics or entire garments. It has long been known that this form of reuse leads to exciting fashion and a positive environmental impact. Platforms like Nona Source, launched by LVMH in 2021 as part of its environmental strategy, connect designers with 'archive fabrics' and leather from major luxury houses at 'competitive prices'. For now, these fabrics are only available within Europe. The ESPR could potentially give such a business a boost.

Reactions from the industry

Ultimately, the ESPR is not only intended to make the industry more sustainable from within, but also to guide consumers through the less-than-transparent fashion industry. "The law has significant value because it makes both companies and consumers aware of the need to combat waste," says Lizbeth Nowé, director of the Belgian industry association Creamoda.

She has her doubts about the law's impact on the Benelux region. Local brands there produce relatively small quantities; in practice, these items already find a second life through sales, street markets, outlets, or buyers who take over the remaining stock. For these countries, the law mainly confirms existing practices and forces companies to keep records of them from now on.

Nowé also notes that there are quite a few exceptions to the rules. Unsafe products; clothing that infringes on intellectual property; items that are too damaged or soiled; and products that still have no buyer after being actively offered for sale or donation for eight weeks may still be destroyed. As long as a brand can prove it has gone through these steps, little will change.

On the other hand, she foresees that due to the new customs rules that tax parcels to Europe more heavily, platforms like Shein will further shift their model to European stock and distribution centres. Then it is not inconceivable that the volume of unsold goods within the EU will also increase, and the ban will become "very relevant" for these players.

Nowé explains: "For international platforms, it is now becoming less attractive to ship directly from China to European consumers. Some players will opt for distribution from warehouses on EU territory, which also shifts the risk. Companies will have to forecast demand in advance. Errors in these forecasts can lead to larger stocks, more returns, and potentially more surplus or unsold goods within the EU. These products on European territory will then have to be given an alternative destination, such as resale, reuse, or donation."

There is some nuance to this. The legal assessment depends on several factors. These include who owns the goods, whether the products have been placed on the EU market, and which party ultimately decides on the disposal or destruction of the goods.

The German industry association Gesamtverband textil+mode takes a stronger stance. It argues that the new measure ignores reality and primarily burdens the domestic industry with yet more pointless bureaucracy.

Jonas Stracke, head of circular economy and resource efficiency at the association, says: "No German or European manufacturer simply destroys new goods, although that is the impression the name of the law gives." According to the expert, the clothing still has value for local SMEs, and surpluses in practice go to outlets or charity. Only minimal quantities that are unusable due to transport issues (such as mould contamination) or significant production defects are discarded.

Stracke: "For greater sustainability, what is primarily needed are well-functioning collection, sorting, and recycling structures, as well as a market for recycled textile fibres. As long as these conditions are lacking in the EU, the destruction ban, with all its extra administrative red tape, will remain merely a paper tiger."

The German association's biggest frustration is that European fashion brands are being subjected to new regulations, while hundreds of thousands of parcels of cheap Asian ultra-fast fashion enter the market daily, albeit better regulated since last month. Because these platforms often do not have a European headquarters, it remains legally difficult to tackle the overproduction they cause, while their cheap textiles clog up local clothing collection bins.

In Spain, due to the presence of fashion giants like Inditex (Zara's parent company), a relatively large number of companies fall into the first group that must comply with the law. Gema Gómez, vice president of the Asociación de Moda Ética y Sostenible (AMES), thinks it is a lot for these companies to handle at once: new requirements for ecodesign; Digital Product Passports; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR); due diligence; and rules for less greenwashing and more transparency.

Despite this pressure, Gómez sees that many SMEs are taking a wait-and-see approach: "In many cases, companies are waiting until the entire regulatory framework is in effect before taking action." This is a dangerous strategy, she warns, because regulation has now shifted from a purely legal obligation to a strategic business case.

Her biggest concern is that the law will simply shift the problem elsewhere. "Already, around 80 percent of Europe's exported used clothing ends up in the Global South." Gómez fears that, lacking options in Europe, brands will ship their surpluses across the border and have them destroyed there anyway.

She is critical yet hopeful about the ESPR: "A truly circular economy is not just measured by how much clothing we manage to save, but by how we can limit the production of excess in the first place."

The destruction ban can be found in Article 25 of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation.