Amazon To Cut Waste Following Backlash Over the Destruction of Unused Products (nbcnews.com) 72
Amazon has launched two programs as part of an effort to give products a second life when they get returned to businesses that sell items on its platform or fail to get sold in the first place. From a report: The so-called Fulfilment by Amazon programs, announced in a blog post on Wednesday, will help to build a circular economy, the company said. It comes less than two months after British broadcaster ITV reported that Amazon was destroying millions of items of unsold stock at one of its 24 U.K. warehouses every year, including smart TVs, laptops, drones and hairdryers.
The online giant was sharply criticized by U.K. lawmakers and environmental campaigners at the time and Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to look into the allegations. In a blog post on June 28, Greenpeace said ITV's investigation showed it was clear Amazon "works with within a business model built on greed and speed." The group also described the environmental and human cost of Amazon's wastefulness as "staggering."
The online giant was sharply criticized by U.K. lawmakers and environmental campaigners at the time and Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to look into the allegations. In a blog post on June 28, Greenpeace said ITV's investigation showed it was clear Amazon "works with within a business model built on greed and speed." The group also described the environmental and human cost of Amazon's wastefulness as "staggering."
The obvious solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People didn't like it when all the TP and hand sanitizer was bought up.
Re:The obvious solution (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a world of plenty, but manufacturers regularly destroy old stock to prevent downward pressure on their prices.
Truckloads of merchandise have been taken straight to destruction for DECADES when they have aged off of the shelves.
This is nothing new, and is only news because OMG AMAZON!!!
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a world of plenty, but manufacturers regularly destroy old stock to prevent downward pressure on their prices.
Would explain all those buried E.T. game cartridges.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you imagine what it would have done to their stock price if people had actually bought those? Yeah, they did the right thing. :-D
Re: (Score:3)
Buried No More!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yo Grar
...and this is a bad thing [Re:The obvious...] (Score:3, Insightful)
We live in a world of plenty, but manufacturers regularly destroy old stock to prevent downward pressure on their prices. Truckloads of merchandise have been taken straight to destruction for DECADES when they have aged off of the shelves.
Yep. And this is bad
Re: (Score:3)
Charging the true cost of disposal would make people a lot more thrifty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The obvious solution (Score:4, Interesting)
They offer the manufacturer two options on a return - return back to them or disposal.
Disposal means Amazon chucks it in the trash. Manufacturers don't get paid for the disposed item. So the cost is borne by the manufacturer in that they made a product that they didn't get money for.
The problem is, Amazon makes returns easy. So easy, that if you buy stuff like clothing, instead of selecting the right size, people just pick one item and buy it in 5 sizes, try them on to find the one that fits, then return the other 4 items.
Same goes with other items - can't decide if you want the item in Red or Black? Buy both! Look at them in person, then return the one you don't want.
This results in Amazon having an extraordinarily high return rate, and having to dispose of stuff like clothing that were never worn (just tried) and brand new products that were never used, just the box opened.
All the other retailers, like Walmart and Amazon? They don't have the problem because people just try it in store, or they see the product in various colors in store and then decide then. Their returns are generally either changes of mind ("we didn't need the item after all") or it was defective.
And this is a problem, with product being tossed in the trash because their only sin was the consumer didn't like the color as much as the other one.
It's also something you hardly see elsewhere - I'm sure Apple doesn't run into the issue where someone buys an iPhone in every color so they could pick the color they liked and then return the other opened units. Of course, it helps to have demo models plastered everywhere so people can see the color they're actually getting at any random store...
It's one thing if Amazon was throwing away product that was defective. But they're tossing perfectly good product, which should disgust everyone. It's like a supermarket that throws away perfectly good food at the end of the day to avoid having to deal with day olds (which is why there are many charities that take unsold food and give them to the homeless and hungry). Though many supermarkets were also caught out throwing away perfectly good food that wasn't even at the best before date yet - they just needed to make space and tossed the food into the trash.
Hell, it makes "showrooming" suddenly a big deal. Who knew Best Buy was an environmental hero by just letting people see the product first.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. For third parties, yes - disposal may be high. But for first party items, at least, I know clothing is commonly resold, and 'Amazon Warehouse' is selling their repackaged returns. I don't know volumes.
Regardless, surely all these disposal costs are factored in to the price? Unless you're claiming that Amazon is preying on 3rd party sellers who are unaware of the potential return rates and costs of disposal, and they lose money by selling on Amazon.
It's reasonable to disl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Walmart, Tesco, Target and the like are spending a nice chunk of change to make sure that Amazon is the designated retail bad boy, I'd be really really surprised if Greenpeace didn't get funding specifically to finance this "expose" of the very same practice that they're guilty of. The propaganda has gotten bad enough that most people (even on SlashDot) blame Amazon for the hollowing out of the downtown business districts of small towns across the US in the 1980s, when Jeff Bezos never even sold his first
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Corporate Security, I help run the 4th or 5th largest access/alarm/video system on the planet. (AWS is #1 and the Fulfillment Centers are number 3 or 4). Why?
Counter-intuitively, often the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
You posted that a couple times here, and I see why. At first glance, it might seem like the availability of seconds would tend to reduce the prices of the primary/premium product.
Those who study such things (economists and MBAs) discovered something interesting a few decades ago. Something that explains why the same car is available in four trim levels, and why you can spend either $5 or $25 seeing the same movie in the same theater.
They figured out that if Dodge sets *A* price for the Dodge Charger, they have to set it to be affordable for most of the market. Around $33K. However, by offering NINE different prices for mine different trim levels and packages, they can charge $80K for the most expensive one. Only the least expensive one needs to be affordable to the lowest-budget people in the target market, at $30K. The average sales price of a Charger is a much HIGHER, not lower, by having the different options. In several cases, they are essentially selling a $180 spoiler for $3,000.
You might think that only applies to big-ticket items like cars. If you check the price of a movie ticket this afternoon, you'll probably find it costs about $5 to see a movie on a Wednesday afternoon. Go to that same movie theater on Friday night and get a popcorn and a soda and you'll probably pay at least $25, maybe $35.
If the theater had only one price option, it would need to be about $8-$9 in order to be affordable to most movie goers. The availability of the "weekday matinee, no popcorn or soda" option allows the theater to charge a total of $35 for the Friday night option with popcorn and a soda. It INCREASES, not decreases, their total sales and average sales price.
Interesting effect, eh.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The more responsible ones send the goods to other markets for sale. Works best with stuff that can't get sold back to the primary market via the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The obvious solution (Score:4, Interesting)
We live in a world of plenty, but manufacturers regularly destroy old stock to prevent downward pressure on their prices.
This.
There used to be a pretty good market for used tools and industrial equipment. But manufacturers' groups finance recyclers that will walk into used and surplus stores and offer to write a check for the entire inventory. And then off to the smelter it goes. No fair piling up only the stock that doesn't move. It's all or nothing. And the common outcome is that these stores usually take the check and close.
Don't even get me started on similar practices with US Government and military surplus. But here, a few suppliers have been caught buying up surplus stocks, re-packaging it and reselling it to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago, National Cash Register (NCR) used to buy up and destroy all their used cash registers leaving businesses with no option but to buy new.
The wonders of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing new, and is only news because OMG AMAZON!!!
This is news because people are starting to care, and Amazon presents a fantastic target at reducing the problem in a singular and central way thanks to their excessively large size.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a fulfilment center doing returns. The reason they almost universally throw shit away is because people are disgusting assholes. I only did one peak season there and saw returned:
Multiple plungers with shit and/or dried blood
Underwear with pubic hair and/or blood
Sex toys covered in shit
Wasn't me who opened it but saw a pic from another line in the same building: a graphics card that someone literally took a shit on, closed the box and sent it in.
And I can't see where they're going to get people
The counterproductive solution (Score:2)
Buy more from Amazon so they don't have any stock left over.
If the wastage is a given fraction of the amount of product sold, that would be counterproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
Did amazon pay you to say this?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the opposite. People should stop buying all the crap they do and this issue (mostly) wouldn't exist.
This dovetails nicely with less people on the planet. Fewer people (a few billion less) means less use of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
People should stop buying all the crap they do and this issue (mostly) wouldn't exist.
The result would be negative actually. You'd have the brick and mortar stores disposing of the same amount of merchandise but now people would have to drive to get their stuff rather than having it delivered.
Returns side-business. (Score:2)
Bring back returns pallet. [youtu.be]
greed and speed (Score:5, Insightful)
oh, like practically every big business?
Businesses that don't prioritize speed and greed almost always get out-competed and run out of business by those that do. "It's just good business".
I'll never understand why people frame statements like this as though they're being some extreme exception to the norm, rather than BEING the norm. Probaby just fishing for a shock.
Re: (Score:3)
oh, like practically every big business?
Businesses that don't prioritize speed and greed almost always get out-competed and run out of business by those that do. "It's just good business".
And they do this because their customers often value low price and high availability/speed over other things...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NO, they do this because releasing those products for sale at reduced price would produce a downward pressure on all of their prices, and profits
This is about the core values of Capitalism as practiced with current MBA training, that requires maximization of profits over everything else
When will the means of production be so efficient that cost of production is insignificant enough to lower consumer prices?
Never
Re: (Score:2)
"When will the means of production be so efficient that cost of production is insignificant enough to lower consumer prices?
Never"
Indeed, here in the US we have seen a huge chunk of our productive economy automated away. What little remained was offshored as much as possible, and continues to do so. During the last 40 years I have seen *zero* of the savings passed on to the consumers, who now have less of a future if they have one at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not really illegal, but it will open the door for activist investors, like Carl Icahn, who can get the shareholders to sue the board of directors to remove executives and get a more profit oriented person in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get your MBA training from?
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, the number of voices supporting more ethican businesses drops like a stone when you start asking who's willing to give up a little of their convenience and pay more for a product/service by shopping at a "kinder" business.
Maybe related to the trajedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] I think?
I mean, I'd shop at "kinder" businesses if I thought it'd make a difference. But I don't think enough of us would do that
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you do this by regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
An amazing [youtu.be] system.
Re: (Score:1)
oh, like practically every big business?
Every small business too. Nobody goes into business to lose money. That's called a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Greenpeace they're fishing for donations. They know that Amazon is the officially designated whipping boy of the retail industry so they're looking for someone to pay them to write more trash "exposes". Once upon a time they were a useful organization that did good work, but that was a long time ago.
Companies don't like refurbished (Score:5, Insightful)
The second hand market, is something that most vendors hate.
1. They get their profits the first time a product is sold, not the subsequent times.
2. Resold or Refurbished models sell for less than the new versions, means they are cost competing with their own products.
3. Any damage or fault in the resold product can give a negative opinion of the products, that may not be the fault of the vendor.
4. There is an expense in evaluating any returns to make sure it is capable for resale.
5. Extra shipping costs, If that return stub brings you to your local landfill vs back to some state a thousand miles away.
I am not saying we shouldn't be able to resell and buy resold items, I actually think we really should, but we need to know why vendors put so much effort into stopping it.
Re: (Score:3)
You're mixing things with number one. A second-hand market isn't the same thing as a resale market (scratch and dents and refurbs fall into this category as well)
Number two usually has either a lessor warranty, and/or missing bonuses and items.
Number three is usually why they say it's a resale item with a limited return policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The second hand market, is something that most vendors hate.
This is not a second hand market. Companies with premium products and large margins actively embrace the refurb / returns policies as they get to minimise cost by selling something they would otherwise destroy and still derive a profit in doing so.
Companies selling small Chinese shit that probably belongs in the landfill anyway and don't see any benefit (in fact see a cost) of checking the return and setting it up for resale hate this market.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Resale is not always the best decision (Score:5, Interesting)
BLUF: It's often cheaper to just throw the item away and replace with a new one, because the remaining value of the used item is less than the cost of shipping, inspection, repair, and relisting.
Disclaimer: Last thing I had to return was a toaster (4.5 star review average) that, on the lowest setting, would burn the bread black, and if you released it early manually, would leave around half of each side mostly untoasted, while the other side was, again, pitch black. I considered trying to fix it, but really? I should have taken some pictures and posted a negative review. Maybe they would have offered me a free(working) toaster. I figure the problem was cheap quality control, the timer out of spec, the heating wires not strung properly. Whatever. 2nd toaster(different brand) worked.
Okay, disregarding the "selling used returned stuff at a lower price competes against our main line", as I think that most of that is a valid market where, like with pirated copies of movies and such, the consumer of those wouldn't actually buy a full price product, I think there are a number of arguments against reusing returned merchandise. That said, "most" of the things I browse on amazon will have used versions available, just not from Amazon.
I think what's happening here is that one has to consider the various price differences and expenses involved.
First up, the price you pay is to get, say, a toaster, delivered to you by Amazon, or even if you buy one from a brick department store or Walmart, is generally going to be multiple times what Amazon, Walmart, or such paid to get the toaster to a port of entry(odds of toaster being made in China: 99%). We're talking a $20 toaster is probably under $5 at the port of entry.
"Most" of the cost after that is things like the platform, sales reps, the credit card system, taxes, infrastructure, shipping(within the US), etc...
Anyways, for a lot of products, especially ones with obscene markups like "beats" headphones, the cost of shipping them back is actually more than the product is worth. It's literally cheaper to throw it away than to bring it back. Inspecting it, with somebody who's paid something like $15/hour, probably costs more like $30/hour(you don't necessarily want a minimum wage person doing the inspections; you want somebody with a brain*), just makes it worse.
It's like repairing electronics. Other than some fairly simple tasks like replacing the battery, repairing components went away as manufacturing methods advanced, making it so that to repair a board you needed more and more expensive equipment, while the cost of the board itself dropped and dropped. To the point that just replacing the board if something on it fails is the cheaper option. And once you can't justify the expensive soldering equipment using some level of volume, well, that option goes away completely. Don't forget that even if the component is trivial in cost, and you have the equipment to do the replacement, shop labor is around $100/hour these days. Which means if that $115 board for your stove fails, if it is going to take the shop tech more than an hour to diagnose and do the replacement, it's cheaper to buy a new board anyways.
*People with brains shouldn't be working for minimum wage.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So if they had to resell returned items, at some point it becomes more profitable to sell stuff that's both repairable [ifixit.com] and worth repairing than stuff that isn't.
I can't wait!
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes items are returned for a good reason
More often than not that "good reason" is that the item is utter trash in the first place. I remember a time when Amazon was the alternative to ebay where the latter was filled with cheap garbage. You wanted something that barely works, ebay Chinese import, you wanted something from a respectable company, Amazon.
These days Amazon is just like ebay.
Hairdryers??? (Score:2)
Not to detract from the seriousness of the environmental impact, but HAIRDRYERS? How did that get into a list that is made up of pricey electronics?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because they too have to be wifi enabled so that you can dry your hair from your iphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, consider the price of "smart tvs": $140 for a 32" unit. Right on the front page of Amazon.
I had to scroll a bit for it, but I found a hair dryer that's listed at $180 on Amazon's listing for "hair dryer".
So I'd argue that there is some level of overlap.
I think that the deal with hair dryers is that, compared to a TV or laptop, testing and "Recertifying" one might be cheap.
Though I agree, "one of these things is not like the others" is a valid point here.
Re: (Score:3)
The list wasn't long enough to impress, so Greenpeace had to pad it with some other stuff.
So, let's see... (Score:2)
Amazon was throwing stuff out because of "greed and speed." So, this program is gong to cost, not save, money and time, and time is money. How is Amazon going to recover that cost? Well, ultimately through higher prices. Virtue signalling costs money, folks.
recurrent cycle of advancing failure (Score:5, Interesting)
step 1. Government creates an incentive for waste and inefficiency. Specifically, tax policy rewards the destruction of new goods by permitting corporations to reduce their tax payments by writing off losses.
step 2. Corporations rationally respond to the incentive. Amazon destroys unpopular new or returned goods and writes of the loss, instead of selling at a discount, because the tax deduction for the loss is larger than the revenue after taxes from their discounted sale.
step 3. Government officials badmouth corporations. You can't trust those evil corporations, they are needlessly destroying the environment for greed.
step 4. Government officials promote bigger government. Unlike those greedy corporate bastards our only concerns are for the wellbeing of humankind and the environment. So give us more money, power and control.
step 5. Go to step 1.
Economists working from first principles would reduce corporate waste and environmental harm by devising government policies to reward, not punish efficient business practices. Governments often do not because, by reducing justification for intervention, social improvement hinders the work of politicians and bureaucrats to concentrate ever more power in their own hands. Medical doctors do not spread disease to increase demand for treatment and care, nor automobile mechanics damage vehicles to spur business. Not every profession should be trusted in that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
step 1. Government creates an incentive for waste and inefficiency. Specifically, tax policy rewards the destruction of new goods by permitting corporations to reduce their tax payments by writing off losses.
So instead of regulating waste and fraud, you propose to remove the tax incentive for writing off losses? I think this would be the same write off as any general expense. You would want to get rid of the incentive for a business to risk an investment in growth?
Unsold items? (Score:1)
Good Use? (Score:1)
No insurer will touch it (Score:2)
For any returned object, you'll never be sure if some nutjob put some poison in your toaster or a bomb in the TV or anything really.
It's just not worth the risk.
But they named a stadium CLIMATE PLEDGE... (Score:1)
The motive was logical (Score:3)
The parent article is an emotional response framing the profit motive (without which we'd have nothing) as evil but it makes good clickbait for 100-IQ potatoes.
Screening returns (whoever does it) for resale is expensive, especially when it comes to electronics. Many returned products bought cheap will be re-returned when the item is still sold and not serially tracked. That's of legitimate concern to businesses. (Contrary to the frother ideology, business can have legitimate concerns. We'd have nothing you didn't make ourselves without the profit model proven over thousands of years.)
There is more to pollution than "objects" but those are easy for non-techies (who have opinions not formed by information) to froth about.
The carbon footprint of the return/screen/resell process is real.
The practice of destroying returned items too inexpensive to make resale worthwhile deeply offends people who want free/cheap stuff. I suggest they offer a VIABLE business model to Amazon and other retailers and get rich solving the problem. It won't be easy as it seems but could make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotal, but there *is* a thriving 2nd-hand market for Amazon "returns" in Mexico, mainly near commercial POEs with the US (like Tijuana). Through a few different liquidators you can purchase odd-lot pallets of Amazon returns. You then resell what you can, usually in swap meets or street markets. It seems a little dystopian but the market works. After all, it is doubtful that someone in Ensenada will sue a US distributor for a bad toaster, a flakey web cam or jeans that have a butt-cheek cut a little larg
"will help to build a circular economy" (Score:2)
Amazon already has a circular economy: You send back broken/non-functional merch and post a 1-star review. Amazon turns around and sells it to someone else. They also return it and also post a 1-star review. Amazon repeats the process until they find someone who doesn't return it within the return window. Product has been sold! Repeat the process with the next broken thing. Amazon does this all the time with technology (hard drives, etc). You see literally the same 1-star reviews and sometimes even
Reminds me of my Nike job as a kid (Score:1)
The don't destroy product they auction them. (Score:1)
I worked for Amazon in office years ago and in warehouse recently.
More recent I worked for a clearance wholesaler. AMAZON acutions off truckloads of product, keeping the profit for themselves. The only trashed items are still technically owned by merchants and defective. Go to sites like 888lots, or midwestservice and supply.
That's how bin and clearance stores get at least some mech. Article is absurd.
Amazon resale = Minefield for unknown dangers (Score:2)
I used to sell my used stuff on Amazon, and it is objectively getting worse. At one point, I think they were competing with eBay, so opened up their platform to smaller sellers (like me getting rid of things in garage cleaning). But since eBay is no longer a threat, they went to a different direction.
Apparently, they don't care about quality, but "customer satisfaction" is important, at all costs. Sorry, I am kidding, at the cost of 3rd party sellers, and wasting lots of resources.
I have a friend who sells