Not always a win. There have been a few reports that sending large numbers of clothing donations to areas that don't specifically need them has the result of harming local industry that would otherwise be able to produce and sell clothes.

▲

anigbrowl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OK, send them somewhere else or sell them at a discount

but brand dilution

I don't care. If you over produce then you made a bad economic decision, tough luck. Destroying goods for accounting reasons is an abhorrent policy driven by greed.

	▲	to11mtm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is kinda the real thing at play here... and the 'wave' in the economics; After all, the company could have arguably instead produced fewer product, sold what they have already sold for the same price, paid their workers the same amount of money to do less work, they wouldn't have to pay for the destroyed goods, and wouldn't have had to pay for the wasted input materials... All in the name of profit FOMO.

▲

Der_Einzige 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The appearal industry is among the most exploitive in the world. It's good to kill it before it springs up. Bangladesh is not anyone's example of a model country.

▲

mint5 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You seem so certain despite having it backwards as likely as not.

the western ordered cheap quality overproduction solution of swamping developing countries with it, where much also ends in a trash heap, means they can continue the exploitive and environmentally destructive mass production.

Smaller local industries would be economically better for the countries, supply more aligned so less waste, and there’d be less of the bad factories in Bangladesh.

▲

JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Note specifically that I said local industry. I don't mean some factory owned by a global chain.

	▲	Der_Einzige 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm specifically talking about local, small business. Giant companies usually have better labor protections in the 3rd-4th world than small buisness does.