Ban the destruction of unsold new clothes and appliances in principle, and require companies to report how much they throw away
Steps to make it happen
- Big companies that sell clothes and appliances record where their unsold goods go.
- Companies stop burning or smashing new items that still work, except in special cases.
- Companies mark down unsold goods, give them away, or reuse them as parts and materials.
- When a company must throw something away for safety, it writes down the reason and keeps the record.
- Each company publishes every year how much it threw away and why, for everyone to see.
- Outside experts check that the published numbers are correct.
- When people can see how much is thrown away, companies work harder not to make too much.
- Throwing away new items that still work becomes something no one does anymore.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal sets up a system that, in principle, bans disposing of unused products that were left unsold or returned, while they are still usable, by burning, landfilling, or shredding them, and also requires companies to report how much they disposed of. It starts with clothing, shoes, home appliances, and electronics, which are produced in large volumes and put a heavy burden on resources. It applies to manufacturers and retailers above a certain size, and to online sellers that store and ship goods themselves. Small businesses are either excluded or only have to file a simple report. Companies are asked to consider where unsold goods go in this order: sold at a discount, donated to social welfare groups and similar organizations, repaired or stripped for parts, and recycled as materials. Exceptions allow disposal of goods that do not meet safety standards, goods under a recall order, goods that cannot be reused for hygiene reasons, and counterfeits, and in those cases the reason and amount must be recorded. The published report covers the types and amounts of products disposed of, the reasons for disposal, and the amounts sent to donation or recycling along with where they went. An independent third party checks the numbers. Destinations are not accepted if they push more donations than the receiver can handle, or if they ship large amounts abroad as secondhand goods and leave the disposal to the local community. The proposal also asks that each society adjust its tax rules so that companies that donate are not treated worse than those that throw goods away.
BenefitsCuts waste of usable resources and encourages rethinking overproduction
If new items that still work are no longer thrown away, the raw materials and energy used to make them are not wasted, and the amount of trash and the emissions from burning go down. When unsold goods go to donation or discount sales, they reach people who need them and people who want to buy cheaply. The bigger effect comes from the system of publishing how much is thrown away. Once overproduction, which could not be seen from outside before, shows up as numbers, consumers, investors, and business partners can use it to make decisions, and companies have reasons to plan production more carefully, make goods only after receiving orders, and find ways of selling that lead to fewer returns. If throwing goods away becomes a costly choice, businesses that repair, resell, or reuse materials can grow more easily, and new jobs may be created. For society as a whole, collecting data on how much goes unsold in each field gives a base for policies on how to use resources.
DrawbacksCosts for companies rise, and the problem may move elsewhere
The heaviest concern from opponents is interference in business decisions and the costs that come with it. Storing and sorting unsold goods and finding donation or resale routes takes warehouses, workers, and transport, and in the end those costs may be added to the price of products. Some also argue that what to dispose of, and how much, is for each company to decide, and that a country or region should not tie its hands in detail. Also, if huge amounts of clothes and appliances with nowhere to go flow in as donations or secondhand goods, the receiving groups may not be able to handle them, or cheap used goods may flood markets in low-income regions and hurt local industries and shops. Even if a rule bans it, following that flow beyond national borders is not easy. If the exceptions for safety and hygiene are used widely, they could become a loophole that lets companies keep throwing things away. For brand-name goods, it may be harder to tell real items from fakes, and it should not be overlooked that the work of reporting and checking weighs most heavily on small companies.
Learn the background
Because fashions change quickly and online shopping has spread, far more clothes and appliances are being made than can be sold. With online shopping, people buy without holding the item, so more of it is returned, and quite a few goods come back unused. Storing these goods, or sorting them and selling them again, takes time and money, so in some cases it is cheaper to burn or smash them in bulk and throw them away. There have also been reports of companies destroying new goods to protect a brand's value because they do not want discounted items on the market. But water, energy, and raw materials have already been used, and greenhouse gases already released, when a product is made. If it is thrown away unused, all of that cost is wasted. On top of that, in many societies there is almost no record of how many new items are thrown away, so the size of the problem is not even known. In some places, rules against destroying unsold goods have already started, and the question is how to make overproduction, which is hard to see, visible.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes