The fashion industry's shift toward environmentally friendly practices has been long overdue. A 2020 review published in the academic journal Nature Reviews Earth and Environment painted a concerning picture: the industry contributes about 20% of industrial water pollution, 30% of marine microplastic pollution, and 3% to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it generates over 92 million tons of waste annually, of which only 1% is recycled into new clothing.

In response, some forward-thinking and appealing solutions have emerged: shirts made from recycled plastic bottles, biodegradable textiles derived from mushrooms, bacteria, or banana leaves. However, while these solutions may have some effect, they struggle to address a more critical factor—there are still too many clothes on the market. A report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation shows that between 2000 and 2015, clothing production doubled, exceeding 100 billion pieces. The World Economic Forum estimated in 2016 that the global annual production of clothing had reached 150 billion pieces.

"This is exactly the opposite of what is needed to reduce environmental impact," said Ingun Grimstad Klepp, professor of clothing and sustainability at Consumption Research Norway at Oslo Metropolitan University. "For the environmental burden, the most important thing is to reduce production volume and increase the number of times each garment is used. This is very simple."

Although switching to more environmentally friendly materials sounds promising, according to a 2020 UN report, fiber production accounts for only about 12% to 15% of a garment's environmental impact (covering pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource use). If this portion were halved by changing materials, the overall impact would only be reduced by 6%. Klepp said, "That's too little to have potential. But what if we halve clothing production now? That is feasible and wouldn't affect our access to clothing."

One obvious sign of overproduction is that luxury brands often burn or destroy unsold inventory. For example, Burberry burned goods worth $38 million in 2017. That same year, Richemont, which owns brands like Cartier and Montblanc, destroyed watches worth $572 million.

Regarding the actions of brands like Burberry, Timo Rissanen, associate professor of fashion and textiles at the University of Technology Sydney and co-founder of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion, analyzed: "In a sense, this is seen as a strategy to protect the brand—though somewhat paradoxical—aimed at maintaining exclusivity, ensuring that unsold goods don't flow into discount channels that could harm the brand. But especially over the past two decades, this practice has become quite common."

In 2018, H&M made headlines for having $4.3 billion in unsold goods. According to the Danish investigative journalism program "Operation X," between 2013 and 2017, at least 60 metric tons of these were sent to power plants for incineration. However, H&M issued a statement saying those products were either moldy or had excessive lead levels, and stated it does not burn functional clothing.

Following a wave of criticism from investors and consumers, Burberry publicly announced in 2018 that it would immediately stop burning unsold goods. Since companies are not required to report destruction, it is difficult to know exactly how many garments are burned or destroyed each year. A study commissioned by the sustainability organization MVO Nederland showed that about 21 million items (6.5% of inventory) in Dutch stores were unsold, with about 33% of these only sold after discounts. The study found that most unsold inventory was donated or recycled, but 600,000 garments were destroyed without ever being worn.

The financial incentives for destroying clothing

Although it seems counterintuitive, destroying intact unsold clothing has become financially rational. Elizabeth Napier, assistant professor of marketing and international business at the University of Toledo in Ohio, who has studied the practice of destroying unsold goods, said, "It's just so cheap to manufacture these fast fashion products." She explained that fast fashion attracts customers and stimulates frequent purchases by quickly bringing runway designs to retail stores at low prices, but demand is difficult to predict precisely, especially when production is overseas and goods take time to ship.

For large corporations, the cost of the goods themselves is extremely low, so destroying them does not constitute a significant loss. Clothing production is typically outsourced to countries with much lower wages, which often have looser environmental and labor regulations, where human rights violations may go unpunished. Mass production lowers the cost per item, and the goods themselves are not durable. "This means consumers have to buy repeatedly," Napier said.

"In traditional business thinking, growth is usually seen as good, and the means of growth are less important than growth itself. It's like collectively believing a lie—that there are no limits, but the truth is that limits exist."

— Timo Rissanen, Associate Professor at the University of Technology Sydney

Moreover, there are additional financial incentives for destroying clothing. In the United States, if imported goods are unused and exported or destroyed, companies can apply for a refund of 99% of the tariffs on these products. In Italy, companies can also apply for tax credits for destroying unsold goods. In the race to sell more, destroying unsold goods becomes a cost-effective sacrifice, even though they consumed natural resources, contributed to atmospheric and water pollution, and occupied human labor.

Rissanen noted that a key factor in overproduction is the rise of polyester. He and his colleagues wrote that since the 1970s, natural fiber production has remained relatively stable, while polyester production has exploded. It is this fossil fuel economy that makes cheap and hard-to-recycle polyester clothing possible, and also "creates an illusion of no limits, as if we can keep producing endlessly," Rissanen said.

Is real progress actually being made?

After the controversy over burning clothing, Burberry said it would begin working with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing the transition to a circular economy. However, Burberry is currently not on the foundation's partner list. When asked whether it still works with the brand, the nonprofit declined to comment. Burberry has also publicized other practices. In its 2022 Code of Conduct published on its website, the company committed: "For surplus materials or unsellable finished products, we will reuse, recycle, or donate them. We never destroy unsellable finished products." The company also stated in its 2022 annual report that it donates raw materials and finished goods to charities, design schools, and colleges, and partners with UK second-hand resale and rental company My Wardrobe HQ to sell and rent new and used items.

H&M also joined the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in 2016 and announced its ambition to become a circular business by 2040. Since then, it has launched several initiatives to reduce its carbon footprint, including creating repair and recycling programs, launching its brand resale platform H&M Pre-Loved, and releasing children's clothing lines aimed at using sustainable materials. In early 2023, the Norwegian Consumer Authority criticized H&M for not disclosing the amount of unsold clothing in Norway. A company spokesperson told Sourcing Journal that this amounted to 75 tons across global stores, but all of these items were donated, resold, or recycled—none of the unsold garments were sent to landfills or incinerators.

However, Napier said that brand partnerships with nonprofits do not necessarily mean the problem is being solved. She has studied such collaborations. "It's hard to tell what is actually being done versus what is just lip service or an attempt to 'greenwash,'" she said. "I've never found tangible results." For short-lived partnerships, results are even scarcer, and that is the norm. She cited two examples: in 2015, H&M partnered with the World Wildlife Foundation to launch a sustainable cotton initiative, but the nonprofit dropped the fast fashion brand in 2019, citing failure to take certain sustainability measures. Burberry had also partnered with Oxfam to donate unsold clothing, but after the burning scandal broke, Oxfam immediately ended the partnership.

Companies may argue that overproduction (even on a large scale) is inevitable because consumer demand is difficult to predict. But Napier pointed out that sophisticated algorithms for targeted advertising are everywhere. "You can read the information on my browser right now and push these products to me, so why does overproduction still exist?" she said. "Why can't we accurately predict what consumers will or won't buy?" If companies have not yet stopped growth and overproduction, Napier believes it is because they have not been held accountable.

"Good business needs good regulation," Klepp said. Otherwise, smaller brands that may practice more ethically will not be able to compete. "They need a level playing field. They need the fast fashion system to be less economically powerful, because we need to make it easier for the 'good guys.'"

Some progress has been made in regulation. In 2020, France passed a law banning the destruction of unsold goods. The French Ministry of Ecological Transition quantified the current problem in an English-language note: France destroys products worth €630 million annually, including 10,000 to 20,000 metric tons of textiles. "That's equivalent to the weight of one to two Eiffel Towers." The law took effect at the end of January 2021, and the ministry's message was clear: "In the medium to long term, the entire industrial sector will have to rethink inventory management to reduce overproduction." As of December 31, 2024, destroying unsold textiles will also become illegal in Spain.

Currently, the EU is pushing for similar measures. In 2022, it launched its Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, which includes a campaign against fast fashion. Regulations on the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products are under negotiation, with a possible vote in the Environment Committee in June and a plenary vote in July, meaning negotiations with EU member state governments could begin in the autumn. The current draft lays the groundwork for a future ban, first requiring companies to report the destruction of unsold goods. Meanwhile, the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has prioritized banning the destruction of unsold textiles in its draft position.

Klepp worries that if donating or recycling unsold goods is difficult, a ban on destruction may have limited effect. She and her colleagues propose that instead of completely banning destruction, it should be strictly tracked and made extremely costly—thereby making overproduction as costly for businesses as it is for the environment. Regardless of the approach, Napier believes that without regulation, companies are unlikely to break the overproduction habit on their own, unless individual CEOs have strong environmental values and impose them on the company. And from her experience talking with executives, she is not optimistic. "When I asked them about sustainability, I was laughed out of the room."