Since 19 July 2026, large companies in the EU have been prohibited from destroying unsold clothing, clothing accessories and footwear.

The rule does not only cover incineration or landfill. Under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, sending usable unsold stock directly for recycling can also count as destruction.

This distinction matters for brands, retailers and online sellers deciding what to do with excess stock and customer returns.

Which companies are affected?

The ban currently applies to large enterprises operating in the EU. Medium-sized enterprises will become subject to the same prohibition from 19 July 2030.

Micro and small enterprises are exempt.

The obligation applies when a company destroys covered products itself or arranges for another company, such as a fulfilment provider or waste operator, to destroy them on its behalf.

Outsourcing the physical treatment of the goods does not remove the responsibility of the company making the decision to discard them.

Which products are covered?

The initial ban covers unsold:

• apparel;
• clothing accessories;
• footwear.

The detailed scope is based on the product categories listed in Annex VII of the ESPR.

An unsold consumer product can include more than end-of-season stock. The definition also covers surplus inventory, deadstock and certain products returned by customers under their right of withdrawal or a longer returns period offered by the seller.

Products already purchased and used by consumers are not covered by this particular ban. Their end-of-life treatment is addressed through waste legislation and textile EPR rules instead.

What counts as destruction?

The ESPR defines destruction broadly.

It includes intentionally damaging a product or discarding it as waste. This can include:

• recycling;
• energy recovery;
• incineration;
• landfill;
• other disposal operations.

The important point is the change in status. When unsold clothing is discarded as waste and sent directly for recycling, it has been destroyed for the purposes of the ESPR, even if its material is recovered.

Recycling is therefore not a general alternative to the destruction ban.

What does not count as destruction?

Keeping the product in use remains possible.

Companies may still:

• sell stock through standard or discounted channels;
• sell through alternative markets;
• donate usable products;
• repair or refurbish products;
• prepare products for reuse;
• remanufacture products where appropriate.

Discarding a product solely so that it can undergo preparation for reuse, refurbishment or remanufacturing is excluded from the definition of destruction.

This creates an important distinction between preparing a garment for reuse and processing it as recycling material.

A returned jacket sent for cleaning and repair before resale is being prepared for reuse. The same jacket cut into fibres for material recycling is being destroyed under the ESPR.

When can unsold clothing still be destroyed?

The ban is not absolute.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/296 sets out limited cases in which destruction may still be permitted. These include situations where products:

• present a health or safety risk;
• cannot legally be placed on the market;
• infringe intellectual property rights;
• are unsuitable for reuse;
• are damaged beyond technically or economically reasonable repair;
• contain defects that cannot be remedied;
• cannot be donated or redistributed despite the required efforts.

These are defined exceptions, not general business justifications.

A company cannot destroy stock simply because continued storage is expensive, demand is low, resale could affect the brand’s positioning or recycling is operationally easier.

Where an exception is used, the reason must be supported by evidence.

Does an exception make recycling acceptable?

Yes, but only after a valid exception has been established.

Where destruction is legally permitted, the products must still be treated in line with the EU waste hierarchy. Recycling should generally be prioritised over energy recovery or disposal.

The correct order is therefore:

1. Determine whether the product can remain in use.
2. Check whether a defined exception permits its destruction.
3. If destruction is permitted, select the most appropriate waste treatment route.

The existence of a recycling option does not itself create an exception.

What evidence must companies retain?

Companies relying on an exception must be able to demonstrate why the products could not be sold, donated, repaired, prepared for reuse or otherwise kept in use.

The appropriate evidence depends on the reason for destruction. It may include:

• safety or quality assessments;
• test results;
• documentation of legal non-compliance;
• evidence of physical damage or defects;
• records relating to rejected donation or redistribution options;
• information from the operator receiving and treating the products.

Supporting records must generally be retained for five years and made available to the competent authority when requested.

A general internal label such as “damaged stock” is unlikely to be sufficient where it does not explain the condition of the products or why repair and reuse were not possible.

The disclosure obligation is separate

The ESPR also requires companies to publicly disclose information about unsold consumer products that they discard.

This is separate from the destruction ban.

The disclosure obligation covers information such as:

• the number and weight of discarded products;
• the reasons they were discarded;
• the waste treatment routes used;
• measures taken to prevent future destruction.

Companies should therefore distinguish between two questions:

• Was the destruction legally permitted?
• Was the required information recorded and disclosed?

Meeting the reporting requirement does not make an otherwise prohibited destruction lawful.

This is not textile EPR

The destruction ban comes from the ESPR. It is not a textile EPR obligation.

Textile EPR generally concerns the financing and organisation of collection, reuse and treatment once textiles become waste. Depending on the country, it may involve registration, volume reporting, fees and authorised representation.

The ESPR destruction ban instead addresses what companies may do with unsold consumer products before they enter normal waste-management channels.

A company may therefore be subject to both sets of rules.

What companies should verify

Businesses managing unsold clothing, footwear or returns should establish:

• whether the company falls within the current size threshold;
• which stock and returns meet the definition of unsold consumer products;
• which routes keep products in use rather than turning them into waste;
• whether any planned destruction is covered by a specific exception;
• whether the evidence supporting that exception is sufficient;
• whether discarded quantities and treatment routes are captured for disclosure.

The key change is not that every unsold item must be donated or resold.

It is that destruction, including direct recycling, can no longer be used as a routine stock-management option without a defined and documented legal reason.

How Viron can support

Viron helps companies distinguish between ESPR product obligations and textile EPR requirements across the EU.

We can assess which obligations apply to a company’s sales model and coordinate textile registrations, reporting and authorised representation where required.