To be disgusted with Amazon throwing out new items?

[rockingthelook]

I saw an item on the news last night about Amazon throwing out brand new items, I just can't comprehend the sheer waste, why not donate to charity? It is also interesting to see that even though it was the main feature of the news last night that it hasn't been reported on the Daily Fail website, however there are plenty of ads/articles highlighting the best buys for the Amazon Prime sale days... just saying......

@CatsArePeople

People are outraged because it Amazon. In fact its pretty normal for businesses to get rid of unsold goods. "Donate to charity" is a pretty unrealistic idea.

I know it's not just amazon.

However, there is something deeply, deeply wrong with goods being just sent to landfill in this manner. Why is "donate to charity" so unrealistic, exactly?

@BarbarianMum

This is normal business practice.

That doesn't make it ok.

Maybe wait until Amazon gives the exact reasons why they're doing this before berating them?

@PixieKitten

Maybe wait until Amazon gives the exact reasons why they're doing this before berating them?

They do it because they don't want to store items which don't sell, or items that have been returned and they can't be arsed to restock them.

So rather than consider the environmental impact of just chucking this away and the millions of pounds being wasted, they just send it all to landfill.

And yes, lots of companies do this. It's not a good thing though, is it?

Why is "donate to charity" so unrealistic, exactly?

Tax (written off v given away)
Storage
Transport
Staff costs in sorting out what is and isn't able to be donated

And the small matter that much of the stuff in the warehouses doesn't actually belong to Amazon.

@BadLad

Why is "donate to charity" so unrealistic, exactly?

Tax (written off v given away)
Storage
Transport
Staff costs in sorting out what is and isn't able to be donated

And the small matter that much of the stuff in the warehouses doesn't actually belong to Amazon.

None of those issues are insurmountable. The fact is, many businesses do manage to act responsibly and have zero waste policies.

Maybe it needs the government to step in, but there is something fundamentally wrong in a system which manufactures, transports and stores products only for them to end up in landfill and there really isn't an argument otherwise.

Maybe the cost of sending an unused item to landfill should be made much, much more expensive?

I used to work at M&S. The clothes that weren't sold even after being on sale were cut up and put in a box with blue dye. It was a sad task.

Very few businesses deal with the range of products and logistics that Amazon do. It would be a massive task to sort through the vast number of products all around the country to decide what can safely be donated. So not completely insurmountable, but not realistic.

And, as I said, much of the stuff stored isn't actually theirs, but managed on behalf of smaller sellers. I presume that writing stock off has tax advantages for those smaller sellers, but even if that's not the case, there will be legal issues with Amazon just donating stuff belonging to third-party sellers.

Like I said then, perhaps fundamental changes to tax rules etc need to change, as well as policies around how amazon charge for storage and handling of goods.

It's not good enough to just say "oh, it's a bit hard to sort this out so fuck it, off to the tip with it"

Just like it's not good enough for M&S to purposefully destroy clothign that could very easily go to those in need, even ignoring the sheer environmental cost that was incured to get those clothes made only to be destroyed.

Things like this should be completely unacceptable.

I’m all for donating to charity if it were cheaper but I understand why these donations still have tax implications, otherwise it would be easily abused.

Zero waste policies are great on paper but are mostly green washing, in my experience.

And ultimately, charities also throw away stuff to landfill.

Maybe then as has been suggested that the sheer cost of sending perfectly usable stuff to landfill should be so prohibitive that the amount of scrapped items is reduced that way.

Maybe the tax system needs reformed to allow items to go to charity fair easier.

Ultimately given the environmental cost of all this stuff and the finite resources we have this should clearly not be happening on the scale it does. Excuses about tax implications are just that and can be dealt with if there is enough willing to do so.

It's not just "a bit hard", it's a very difficult process, with complicated legal and tax issues.

I work at a convenience store. The amount of perfectly good food we throw away is disgusting. I'd take it home for the next day, but we aren't allowed.

So then legal and tax reforms have to take place. I’m guessing we have an environment minister who can help resolve this issue with the legal people?

It’s a kick in the teeth when so many of us are trying to reduce reuse recycle if businesses bin perfectly usable stock.

I was also fairly shockef.
If the stock owners are doing it I do not understand why they don't just give it their poorly treated 0 hour contract staff.

It is shocking.

Why are they over producing stuff in the first place. If it’s clothes then that’s terrible. So many people can’t afford new clothes.

I feel sad for the planet. I reuse as much as I can. Hand down toys and clothes to friends children. I’d happily wear second hand clothes to save it from landfill.

@LivingLaVidaCovid

I was also fairly shockef. If the stock owners are doing it I do not understand why they don't just give it their poorly treated 0 hour contract staff.

There are several reasons. For example, there are tax advantages in writing off stock as opposed to giving it away. Also, many brands think they will be devalued if their products end up going cheaply on Craigslist, Facebook marketplace etc. And if workers are just given damaged but useable stock, they have a reason to damage the packaging if that means more stuff just given to them.

Why is "donate to charity" so unrealistic, exactly?

Because charities aren't exactly a dumping ground. If a charity has no use for particular items, they too go to landfill, only its the charity that has to pay for disposal.

@gumball37

I work at a convenience store. The amount of perfectly good food we throw away is disgusting. I'd take it home for the next day, but we aren't allowed.

We wanted to give fresh food to charity after closing each day (apparently you can't when it's out of date). None was willing to come from it and half wanted it hours before closing. Few places I spoke tp had similar experiences so we just eat it.

They probably wouldn't let you take it so it wouldn't encourage so me to hide stock etc. Unfortunately some would do

I expect the press haven't picked it up as it was ITV's own investigation, so there'll be rivalry issues as well as ITV having done all the legwork, contacts etc. Unless it becomes a big enough story for the rest to not be able to ignore, they won't be letting ITV set their news agenda for them.

All retailers do

There's too much red tape around what can be donated to charities it's often not worth it

Is the outrage on this thread purely because it's Amazon, or do people really have no idea how much perfectly useable stuff supermarkets and other shops chuck away each day?

Part of the mad economic system where it’s cheap to make things and ship them all over the world.
If we were serious about climate change and looking after the planet this wouldn’t happen.