Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why would WalMart and H&M waste like this?

This week the New York Times reported a disheartening story about two of the largest retail chains. You see, instead of taking unsold items to sample sales or donating them to people in need, H&M and Wal-Mart have been throwing them out in giant trash bags. And in the case that someone may stumble on these bags and try to keep or re-sell the items, these companies have gone ahead and slashed up garments, cut off the sleeves of coats, and sliced holes in shoes so they are unwearable.

This unsettling discovery was made by graduate student Cynthia Magnus outside the back entrance of H&M on 35th street in New York City. Just a few doors down, she also found hundreds of Wal-Mart tagged items with holes made in them that were dumped by a contractor. On December 7, she spotted 20 bags of clothing outside of H&M including, "gloves with the fingers cut off, warm socks, cute patent leather Mary Jane school shoes...


Asked by AprilDJC at 9:55 AM on Jan. 8, 2010 in Just for Fun

Level 20 (8,524 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (19)
  • It has to do with the property/distribution rights of the manufacturer of the goods. I worked in retail and the "owner" of the brand determines what happens to unsold goods. If they do not allow the stores to donate them and dictate that unsold goods must be destroyed than in order for the store to carry that merchandise they must comply. When a store purchases goods, they are only purchasing the right to sell the goods in accordance with the manufacturers rules. If Walmart owns the rights to the goods they destroyed- then yes they are wrong. A boycott would need to be against whatever brand does not allow their goods to be donated. What a whacked out world we live in where certain manufacturers do not allow their goods to be donated because they do not want to dilute their brand. It is like saying "who wants to wear something that those in need get for free" SAD!

    Answer by justmyopinion at 10:29 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • AprilDJC

    Answer by AprilDJC at 9:56 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • Heartless and tax deduction maybe.

    Answer by bebita at 9:57 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • If this story is true. They are wrong. Why would they do that?

    Answer by louise2 at 9:59 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • that's just wrong!

    Answer by Juggalette0327 at 10:06 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • The walmarts here sale their old stuff ( clothes included) to the dollar tree and 99 cent store.

    Answer by Mrs.Owen86 at 10:13 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • sell**

    Answer by Mrs.Owen86 at 10:13 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • it's their clothes! they don't HAVE to donate them. that's like me telling you you have to recycle EVERYTHING! and you can't eat or use certain things bc it's bad for the environment and i don't like that. they can do what they want, it would have been better if they donated, but it's their right.

    Answer by angevil53 at 10:27 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • I agree, justmyopinion. It is a sad world when multimillion dollar corporations would rather destroy good, warm clothes than give them to people who have NOTHING. Guess that just goes to show the greed and focus on profit in America today.

    Answer by AprilDJC at 10:32 AM on Jan. 8, 2010

  • April- No doubt. I mean REALLY- there are some brands that feel like if "poor" people wear them no one else will want to. They should give us more credit as humans than that! I guess the super rich that run these corporations may feel this way, but I would think that most people would think donation over destroying is good business. Its interesting that they will give money to charitable organizations and flaunt that in advertising-but oh no, don't allow "these" people to wear their clothing. I guess you are right-its greed and the desire to be "top dog". UGH!

    Answer by justmyopinion at 10:44 AM on Jan. 8, 2010