Fast fashion brands like Zara and H&M present an entirely new collection every 2 weeks. With the birth of ultra-fast fashion brands such as Shein and Shop Cider, the turnover rate has been reduced to less than a week. But this trend raises two uncomfortable questions: Do all the clothes get sold within such a short time period? Whatever happens to the ones that are not sold?
It is the fashion industry’s open secret that new, unworn items are often shredded, burned, or dumped in landfills. The difference from general textile waste, which is harmful but often necessary in the production process, is that deadstock refers to unsold and returned goods that are destroyed before use. While one might think this is just a problem of fast fashion, luxury brands have also been called out for the same issue, and for a long time, this was both legal and largely invisible. Now, the law is finally catching up and drawing a line.
How big is the problem?
There are three main reasons why brands destroy clothes instead of taking alternative measures. The first is to protect exclusivity and brand image. This is especially true for luxury brands that do not have the option of putting unsold items up for sale. By destroying goods instead of selling them at a lower price, luxury brands maintain their ‘premium’ image, and also prevent their items from going to an ‘undeserving’ non-target audience. Even if the brand is not luxury, keeping prices within a price range is a crucial part of brand control. Secondly, keeping items in storage can lead to grey market and counterfeits. Because deadstock items are new, they can leak into and be sold in secondary markets-also called the grey market- where there is no quality control or brand oversight. Leaked items can also be the starting point for counterfeit production, meaning that deadstock left in warehouses or liquidation channels is vulnerable to both risks. The final reason is that it’s simply more economical. Keeping items requires storage fees, and if the brand were to resell said items, it would require additional costs in repackaging, repairing, and reselling. On the other hand, destruction contracts are less costly and more predictable in large batches- as opposed to storage fees that increase based on volume and time. For high-volume sellers, destruction is often the “smartest” choice.
On top of all the reasons to destroy deadstock, e-commerce’s generous return policies are only fueling the problem. E-commerce return rates reach over 20%, and are even higher for categories like eveningwear and athleisure. Many customers return garments after wearing them once for social media, causing hygiene seals or packaging to be broken, makeup, deodorant, and perfume marks on clothes, or just simply broken and in need of repair, steaming, or reprocessing. Such unsellable goods directly intensify deadstock creation, resulting in most returns being destroyed, not resold.
According to the 2024 EEA/ETC report, approximately 7% of all textiles placed on the EU market are destroyed before use, amounting to 264,000 to 594,000 tons per year. As for returned goods, up to one-third of returns are destroyed. This isn’t just a problem for clothing; shoes, accessories, mixed textile goods, as well as jewellery and perfume, are getting destroyed too. These figures make clear that deadstock destruction is a systemic issue, not a niche practice.
Deadstock destruction has become a problem in numerous cases, from luxury brands like Burberry to fast-fashion brands like H&M. In 2018, Burberry faced significant backlash for burning up to 28.6 million euros of unsold stock to “protect brand value”. Although the practice was legal, the reputational fallout was severe, urging Burberry to announce internal changes that would end the destruction of unsold goods. Amazon, an e-commerce site known for its generous return policies, underwent an investigation in 2021 for an alleged “millions” of unsold or returned items being destroyed yearly. While Amazon denied wrongdoing, the public pushed them to pledge expansion of donation and recycling programs. This case highlighted how high return rates can lead to massive destruction, even on platforms not traditionally associated with fashion. Investigations in Europe have shown that major fast-fashion brands are also routinely sending unsold goods to incineration plants or exporting them to countries with landfills. NGOs and journalists have traced tons of unworn clothing from Europe to countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Chile.
While none of these cases led to legal lawsuits, they sparked moral outrage and media debates, often leading to internal policy changes and constantly raising customer awareness on the issue.
The law wakes up
Until recently, destroying deadstock goods was perfectly legal under property law logic: brands own the goods, so they are free to destroy them. It was difficult to prove the destruction was causing direct consumer harm because environmental damage was considered too diffuse to attribute to a single actor. As a result, destruction was legal and unregulated.
However, the landscape is now changing. The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is one prime example of an environmental law affecting fashion, implementing a ban on destroying unsold textiles and footwear, along with mandatory reporting requirements. The ESPR aims to impose eco-design requirements on the entirety of the production and disposal process, ensuring product function and quality while also reducing environmental damage. Once the regulations take effect, textiles will be among the first product groups to be regulated and will require a DPP (Digital Product Passport) to be sold.
France’s Anti-Waste Law for a Circular Economy (AGEC, Anti-Gaspillage pour une Economie Circulaire) aims to transform the cycle of production, consumption, and waste into a more sustainable circular economy. The law consists of five main areas: moving away from disposable plastic, better informing consumers, fighting against waste and for reuse, taking action against planned obsolescence, and producing better. This means that the fashion industry is prohibited from destroying clothes and requires them to donate, reuse, or recycle instead.
Overall, the EU and several national governments are moving towards Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems, making brands financially and legally responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products. This makes deadstock destruction economically unattractive and lawfully risky.
These regulations and laws collectively shift deadstock destruction from “a cost of doing business” to a potential violation, urging businesses to come up with new, better solutions.
What this means for fashion’s future
Now that brands cannot rely on destruction as the easy, cost-effective solution, they will have to rethink realistic measures on:
- Overproduction levels
- Discounting and outlet strategies
- Inventory forecasting and supply chain planning
- Investment in recycling/repair/take-back programs
- Resale/rental infrastructure
The industry is already showing signs of change, with more brands investing in textile-to-textile recycling, launching repair programs, and exploring controlled resale. But this does not mean the end of fashion-related environmental problems, for new solutions bring about newer problems, from greenwashing to (another example).
Deadstock destruction has been a long-time secret of the fashion industry. Now, with new laws and increased public interest, the question is no longer “do brands destroy unsold goods?” but “what systems will replace destruction, and do they come with their own problems?”
Author: Sunwoo Kang
Sunwoo Kang studies Fashion & Textiles and Business Administration at Seoul National University. She is interested in the intersections of fashion, law, and finance- particularly how creative industries operate within the systems of regulation and capital. Having worked in finance and as a content creator, she developed a deeper interest in the structure surrounding the fashion ecosystem. Outside of academics, she enjoys curating fashion archives and exploring fashion trends and predictions.
