[cm2012]

Essentially: unsold clothing is worth less than zero and recycling most clothing creates more emissions than it saves. So the law is forcing headache for nothing.

[teraflop]

If companies are taking raw materials worth more than zero, and turning them into clothing worth less than zero, then I think deterring them from doing that is beneficial to society overall.

[cperciva]

If they knew in advance that the clothing wouldn't sell, they would never have made it!

But companies stockpile goods in anticipation of potential demand. For example, they'll "overproduce" winter coats because some winters are colder than average. This sort of anti-overproduction law means that the next time there's an unexpected need -- for example an unusually cold winter -- there will be a shortage because there won't be any warehouses full of "just in case" inventory.

[charcircuit]

What about cases where 2 pieces of clothing when bundled together have value due to making it more efficient for people to find the right size, but over the right size is found the other becomes waste? A company can't prevent a consumer from ruining the wasted clothes.

[zos_kia]

The worth is zero because the producer doesn't pay for the externalities (pollution, landfill usage etc). So essentially it is "free" because it is subsidized by everyone.

The "headache" is just : produce what you sell, sell what you produce, don't fill the world with your shit.

[charcircuit]

What landfill doesn't charge fees?

[binarymax]

Or rather, since we know fast fashion is horrible because of the things you just said - it forces a more thoughtful approach to production.

[vanviegen]

Discouraging superfluous production is not nothing.

[ninalanyon]

If the headache causes companies to improve their product pipelines so that there is less waste then surely there will be less recycling.

[cm2012]

Also: this will lead to it being harder to find clothing in your size in the EU (since each size is a new sku and must be inventory managed per the law)