Their plan for what to do instead is an indifferent shrug:

"Instead of discarding stock, companies are encouraged to manage their stock more effectively, handle returns, and explore alternatives such as resale, remanufacturing, donations, or reuse."

▲

rootusrootus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So they’ll donate it to someone who will then destroy it.

▲

digiown 4 hours ago | parent [-]

As the recipient of that donation, why would I actually destroy it when I can sell it?

▲

moralestapia 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Because that's what you agreed to, that's why they donated it to you.

▲

digiown 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Then that's not a donation, just some shenanigans to bypass the law, which regulators presumably understands could happen.

	▲	moralestapia 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Welcome to Planet Earth in 2026 :)

▲

jonstewart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Laissez faire. They’re making businesses absorb the externalities, as they should.

▲

ars 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

▲

TheChaplain 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't be surprised if products are sent abroad for destr^Wrecycling.

No I am not joking, some german company hid an airtag in a old computer that went to recycling. It ended up somewhere in Thailand, being not very environmentally friendly taken care of.

▲

alt227 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Remember when UK council recycling bags were found in rubbish dumps in the Myanmar jungle?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7070709/Plastic-pac...

	▲	dgxyz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not just that. I have seen Morrisons supermarket bags in some weird places around the world!

▲

vscode-rest 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would be a carbon tax. This is plain overregulation.

▲

philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Just businesses being intrinsically incentivised to not produce waste by the loss of profit is already a good motivation.

	▲	estimator7292 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If that were true, we wouldn't have companies overproducing and burning unsold products to protect profits on the next model. Business and economics don't work the way you naively assume. Businesses should have a natural incentive to provide an environment that doesn't kill workers because it's cheaper to not kill someone and not hire a replacement. This is entirely disjoint from the reality where we have laws saying things like "you must stop a machine before putting a person inside it". Business and economies are not rational by any definition of the word. If something feels like it will be easier or more profitable, business will happily shovel children into the active machinery of a printing press until government forces them to stop. We have something like 200 years of labor laws around this point. You should probably read some history and ask yourself why every government on the planet has been compelled to force legislation on business to protect the interests of the people.