On this page
Starting around mid-2026, large companies selling apparel and footwear in the EU will no longer be allowed to destroy unsold goods. That rule was written with warehouse overstock in mind, but returns — especially the ones caused by a shopper guessing wrong on size — feed the exact same pile. Brands that haven't connected the two are about to find out the hard way.
For years, the easiest way to deal with a returned garment that couldn't be resold at full price was to send it to landfill or an incinerator. It was cheap, fast, and invisible to the customer. The EU's Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) closes that option for large companies, and the returns pipeline is where a lot of that "unsellable" inventory actually originates.
What the ESPR Destruction Ban Actually Requires
The European Commission's ESPR introduces a prohibition on destroying unsold consumer products, with apparel and footwear named as a priority category. Large companies face the obligation first, with the rule taking effect around mid-2026; smaller and medium-sized companies get a longer runway. The regulation also requires companies to disclose how much unsold stock they discard and why, which means destruction volumes stop being a private operational detail and become a public data point.
This isn't a vague sustainability gesture. It's a binding rule with disclosure requirements attached, coming from the same European Commission body that is simultaneously tightening cross-border ecommerce rules — including removing the EUR 150 customs de minimis exemption and adding per-parcel handling fees. Read together, the direction is clear: moving goods across borders and discarding them at the end of their life are both getting more expensive and more visible.
Why Returns Are the Hidden Source of "Unsold" Stock
Most people picture "unsold apparel" as last season's leftover inventory sitting in a distribution center. In practice, a large share of the stock that ends up unsellable arrives there through the returns door, not the original production run. A dress that comes back worn once, slightly stretched, or missing its tags often can't go back on the shelf at full price — it gets marked down, bundled, or scrapped.
Apparel and footwear already carry return rates well above the retail average, and shoes in particular sit near the top of that list. In the US, online returns ran close to 19-20% of purchases in 2024, and total returns reached roughly $890 billion according to the National Retail Federation. A meaningful share of that volume is fit-driven: the customer ordered a size based on a guess, and the guess was wrong.
Here's the mechanic that connects the two policies:
| Stage | What happens | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase | Shopper picks a size chart guess or brackets sizes | Cart converts |
| Return | Wrong size comes back, often worn or repackaged | Reverse logistics queue |
| Disposition | Item can't be resold at full price | Markdown, outlet, or destruction |
| Post-2026 | Destruction restricted for large EU sellers | Liability sits on the balance sheet |
That last row is the new part. Once destruction is off the table as a release valve, every garment that reaches the "can't resell" stage has to go somewhere — donation, recycling, secondary markets, or storage — all of which cost money and staff time that destruction used to skip.
The Compliance and Cost Math Brands Are Missing
McKinsey has estimated that returns cost fashion brands more than $40 billion globally per year, a figure that predates the added weight of destruction-ban compliance. That number was already built on processing, shipping, and markdown costs — none of it accounted for a regulatory requirement to responsibly dispose of stock that used to just get burned or landfilled.
Bracketing makes this worse specifically in the EU market. Roughly half of Gen Z shoppers admit to bracketing — ordering multiple sizes with the plan to return what doesn't fit — according to NRF research. Every bracketed order that comes back wrong-sized adds another unit to the pile a brand now has to actively manage rather than quietly discard. Around 7 in 10 US retailers already charge for at least some returns (Zara and ASOS charge in the $4-5 range), which shows the industry already treats returns as a cost center worth pricing — the EU rule just adds a disposal obligation on top.
Where YourSizer Fits
YourSizer doesn't touch EU compliance directly — it addresses the input side of the equation: how many garments come back wrong-sized in the first place. The virtual sizing widget takes a shopper's measurements or photos and recommends a size against each brand's actual size chart, rather than a generic one, at the point of purchase.
Fewer fit-driven returns means fewer garments entering the "worn once, can't resell at full price" category that eventually needs an EU-compliant disposition path. It doesn't eliminate returns caused by taste, damage, or changed minds, but it directly shrinks the fit-guess portion — which is the largest single driver of apparel returns industry-wide. Teams evaluating this can walk through the ROI of a size recommendation tool to see how the reduction typically pencils out against implementation cost, and review how fit data improves inventory planning once fewer units are cycling back through reverse logistics.
Practical Steps Before the Deadline Lands
Brands selling into the EU should treat mid-2026 as a hard planning date, not a distant policy detail. Three things are worth doing now rather than later.
- Audit current destruction volumes and reasons — the disclosure requirement means this data will need to be reported, so it's better to know the baseline before it's mandatory.
- Separate returns-driven unsellable stock from original overstock in reporting, since the two need different fixes (fit accuracy versus buying/planning).
- Pilot a size recommendation tool on the highest-return categories — typically fitted apparel and footwear — before the compliance deadline, so the reduction is already showing up in the numbers when reporting starts.
Brands that have already tackled the broader question of how to reduce returns in fashion ecommerce are closer to compliant than they think, simply because a smaller returns pile is a smaller destruction-ban problem.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the EU destruction ban apply to all retailers, or just large ones?
The obligation phases in for large companies first, around mid-2026, with smaller and medium-sized enterprises given additional time before the rule applies to them. Any brand shipping apparel or footwear into the EU market should check its size classification under the regulation rather than assuming the deadline doesn't apply, since thresholds are based on company size, not just where headquarters sit.
Are returned items actually counted as "unsold" under ESPR?
A returned item that a retailer decides not to resell at full price functionally becomes unsold stock the moment that decision is made, even though it was technically purchased once already. The regulation's disclosure requirements focus on stock that goes unsold and gets discarded, and reverse-logistics teams are increasingly the source of that stock rather than original overproduction, which is why returns reduction has become a compliance-adjacent lever rather than just a customer-experience one.
Can better sizing really move the needle on a regulatory deadline this specific?
It won't solve compliance by itself, but it changes the volume math. If fit-driven returns make up a large share of the apparel and footwear units that eventually can't be resold, cutting that share before the destruction ban takes effect reduces how much stock a brand has to route through costlier disposal channels like donation or recycling. It's a volume lever, not a paperwork lever, and it's one of the few return-reduction tactics that acts before the item ever comes back.
Is this only relevant for EU-based brands?
No. Any brand — including US or Turkey-based sellers — shipping apparel or footwear to EU customers over the qualifying volume threshold falls under the rule. Given that Turkey's own ecommerce return rate has been reported around 25-26%, well above the EU average, brands selling cross-border into the EU from higher-return markets have extra reason to get ahead of both the fit problem and the compliance timeline together.
Conclusion
The destruction ban was written as an environmental policy, but its practical effect on fashion brands is closer to an inventory accounting problem: unsellable stock that used to disappear quietly now has to be tracked, reported, and responsibly handled. Since a large share of that stock originates in the returns pipeline rather than original overproduction, the brands best positioned for mid-2026 are the ones already working to prevent wrong-size purchases before they ever ship — turning a compliance deadline into a straightforward argument for fixing fit earlier in the funnel.