Amazon in the UK, Wasting 124,000 items a week (tech/consumer waste)

[DrMacintosh]

It all comes down to opportunity costs. Amazon can use the space for other things and the cost of selling the items to someone else is higher than just tossing them in the trash. 

[poochyena]

23 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It makes no sense as to why Amazon is even allowing those knockoff products

well... they aren't.. hence why they take them down and presumably destroy them

24 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think that means Amazon is so huge they can't even keep track of the knockoff stuff that comes in.

a business of any size can have that issue though.

[PocketNerd]

You see this, and add the fact that we're wasting large portions of food that could go to those who need it, it really drives home the point that we live in an incredibly unjust and lop-sided society.

[Bombastinator]

32 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It all comes down to opportunity costs. Amazon can use the space for other things and the cost of selling the items to someone else is higher than just tossing them in the trash. 

The issue I think is how to not do that.  There’s a business in my town named axe man.  They pay nothing for all the stuff they sell.  What they do is get stuff for free from businesses in situations like this and simply flog it for whatever they can get.   I don’t think they make a lot of money but it seems to keep the owner AMD employees fed.   Something similar might be of use here. 

[wanderingfool2]

17 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

This is often from companies that want to claim they are "green" or going "carbon neutral", while pulling this kind of crap onto everyone.

Not only that, but from what we have seen how they treat their workers in both the US and europe, its not something to trust and it's all for senseless profit.

Also the problem of general WASTE that can be BOUGHT from amazon, like 2x more disposable products compared to what you find in a general store.

Amazon is going to grow like cancer, and make the body (everyone else) have to deal with the aftermath, while they soar what ever profit that might become less, due to the issues they bring upon the world.

Like building up a trash pile, until all piles are filled and no where to put it and other things.

I think the part that the article glances over is that of the "124,000" items destroyed it might not be up to amazon to decide (since it's not their product).  e.g. I send 10,000 items to the Amazon warehouse but only sell 1000 before giving the order to destroy them.  Amazon can't turn around and sell those 9000 items, they literally have to destroy them (sure, some they might be able to donate, but that is up to the seller to decide not Amazon).

 

The other thing is things like masks, it doesn't matter if they were returned in what appears to be new condition...they aren't allowed selling them (imagine if someone resealed them after putting poison in them...because there are some sick people out there who would)

 

The other consideration is the spread sheet they used for "124,000" an week seems to be counting by days, and has more than 7 columns to it...so I don't know if it should be relied upon that it's 124k a week.  It's also 124k including the amount that is sent to the recycling.

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I suspect that is correct.  Amazon used to be just products they carried.  Fulfilled by Amazon was a real cesspool for a while.  Bad enough that “fulfilled by Amazon” became “this is probably fake.  Pretend it doesn’t exist”.  I understand it’s a bit better now.  I don’t know how much.  Personally I suspect “fulfilled by Amazon” probably needs to be pulled entirely or have its who they”fulfill” requirements changed and made a lot more strict.  Supposedly this happened to a degree.  I don’t know.  I don’t buy Amazon much.  I have a sister that does and she’s actually received a brushing product which says a lot.  She actually likes the thing.  It’s a bird shaped snowball maker.  Not something she would have paid for, but as a free product it was kind of neat.  Sucks to be involuntarily part of a scam though.  She reported it I understand.

I'm not sure how good "fulfilled by amazon" is unless you're buying items that are things in demand. But i've heard that rechargeable batteries, SD cards, and car parts are common items to be faked and sometimes even sold by Amazon, the differences can very subtle and hard to spot unless you know what to look for.

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

well... they aren't.. hence why they take them down and presumably destroy them

a business of any size can have that issue though.

The items getting destroyed is the issue, but its cheaper than sending it back or figuring out a way to donate things. I can understand items like face masks getting destroyed, but power tools I think should be recycled.

[Quackers101]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think the part that the article glances over is that of the "124,000" items destroyed it might not be up to amazon to decide (since it's not their product).  e.g. I send 10,000 items to the Amazon warehouse but only sell 1000 before giving the order to destroy them.  Amazon can't turn around and sell those 9000 items, they literally have to destroy them (sure, some they might be able to donate, but that is up to the seller to decide not Amazon).

 

The other thing is things like masks, it doesn't matter if they were returned in what appears to be new condition...they aren't allowed selling them (imagine if someone resealed them after putting poison in them...because there are some sick people out there who would)

I'm not really caring for the masks, as it's a health product under the current situation.

However, if amazon wants to grow as big as it wants while trying to promise said claims and take in these offers, I would expect them to follow along what they say and claim.

Even though just the recycling sector of the world is in bad shape and lies too, about what companies do. It doesn't mean that amazon can give clear contracts and have a rule in how their warehouses are going to be run and to follow set guidelines. Something amazon can decide if they own the space other people are going to use, unless it goes under the notion of things being "free" and this is another hidden cost in how they run things.

Quote

The other consideration is the spread sheet they used for "124,000" an week seems to be counting by days, and has more than 7 columns to it...so I don't know if it should be relied upon that it's 124k a week.  It's also 124k including the amount that is sent to the recycling.

Yes, it was kind of a baseless topic, but doesn't change the wast amount that gets sent and the containers one see that might go daily to a dump and the amount.

 

 

Tracking sucked below, but else it talks about the issue and some that tries to filter some of the chaos.

 

[DeScruff]

Im not surprised. Ive worked retail, and yeah unsold items get trashed.
Its always scummy when its basic necessity items like clothes, which can be given to charities.

That said, sometimes even charities do not want some of this crap.
Hiring/dedicating people to process items, moving and sort inventory is time and labor intensive.
Its why the Red Cross, or any kinda disaster relief don't like item donations, and would prefer cash donations. - Not to mention cash can be used to purchase exactly what is needed.

[Master Delta Chief]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think the part that the article glances over is that of the "124,000" items destroyed it might not be up to amazon to decide (since it's not their product).  e.g. I send 10,000 items to the Amazon warehouse but only sell 1000 before giving the order to destroy them.  Amazon can't turn around and sell those 9000 items, they literally have to destroy them (sure, some they might be able to donate, but that is up to the seller to decide not Amazon).

 

The other thing is things like masks, it doesn't matter if they were returned in what appears to be new condition...they aren't allowed selling them (imagine if someone resealed them after putting poison in them...because there are some sick people out there who would)

That's something that shouldn't be happening at all. If the seller delivers excessive amounts of their products to Amazon in the hopes of getting it sold, those items that are leftover shouldn't be destroyed if they can still be used. I don't think the option of destroying the items should be given if they can still be used. Either you donate it all to a charity/organizations that require said stuff or you recycle it by taking usable parts out of it and so on. 

 

The mask question is something that can possibly be solved by having a quality control or other similar departments check the items whether there isn't any damage or anything else on them. 

[GDRRiley]

===moved to off topic===
Amazon as a retailer isn't tech news.

[Quackers101]

8 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

Amazon as a retailer isn't tech news.

okey, so it's only "tech tech news" now?

also by the same token, there is more of such "general news" in tech news currently.

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, Quackers101 said:

okey, so it's only "tech tech news" now?

no, its been moved to off topic

[wanderingfool2]

13 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

The mask question is something that can possibly be solved by having a quality control or other similar departments check the items whether there isn't any damage or anything else on them. 

No.  Just no.  It doesn't matter if you do QC on it, something such as masks should never be resold/donated if they have been returned by someone.  People can easily reseal things to make it look as though it wasn't touched.

 

13 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

That's something that shouldn't be happening at all. If the seller delivers excessive amounts of their products to Amazon in the hopes of getting it sold, those items that are leftover shouldn't be destroyed if they can still be used. I don't think the option of destroying the items should be given if they can still be used. Either you donate it all to a charity/organizations that require said stuff or you recycle it by taking usable parts out of it and so on. 

Amazon isn't unique in this.  There are other warehouse/distribution partners out there that have the exact same policies.  My cousin for example works for one of them, and mentioned that any product, where the packaging was damaged, the vendor would have the choice to either give the product to the employees or destroy it.  With destroy being the preferred choice by most vendors (the justification being they didn't want to encourage "accidental"  employee damage).

 

The instant you start donating things as well (especially other companies products), you start assuming liability.  I mean, even in the video those power bricks they showed looks like the classical power bricks that are rated at under 15A and get overloaded causing house fires.

 

Sure, in an ideal world this wouldn't be happening, but it's wrong to single out Amazon...it's prevalent in likely many industries

[Spotty]

14 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

The mask question is something that can possibly be solved by having a quality control or other similar departments check the items whether there isn't any damage or anything else on them. 

Even excluding the point @wanderingfool2 made, paying someone to go through all of the returns to manually inspect every item for signs of tampering is incredibly labour intensive. If they happen to let something slip through, especially when it comes to medical supplies, then Amazon could be liable for any harm caused as a result. As unfortunate as it is it's far cheaper to just trash them.

[MartinTheActor]

Chipping in with a non-tech perspective. I used to publish collections of poetry and for a while sent consignments to amazon to be able to have the fancy 'Fulfilled by Amazon' listing. It meant that buyers got the items quicker and I hoped would sell better. When I began to wind up the publishing business, I had a choice, keep paying for the storage, or have the items destroyed. Due to the high cost of shipping it just wasn't worth my time, or money to have the items returned to me. I think it ended up being like 25 out of 500 books were unsold. At a trade paperback size, it was a simple business decision. 

Looking back, I can't honestly say I'd do anything differently. As a micro-business we were operating on tiny margins and it just didn't make sense to do anything else. I do wish that Amazon had a better disposal policy that maybe included sending that stuff to recycling or reclamation, but I'm assuming that would need owner permissions or there would be other legal issues.

We in the UK had a car scrappage scheme about a decade ago where any second hand car scrapped would give you £2000 to use to purchase a new vehicle. It was meant to allow people to trade up to more environmentally friendly vehicles. Those cars that were sent in were legally required to be scrapped. Even if they were perfectly functional, the government hamstrung themselves by not allowing functional vehicles to be reclaimed or resold and ultimately being more environmentally damaging.

Sadly, the laws, governance and policies that have developed around inventory disposal are just a sad by product of our modern world. It could and should be better, but we'd all have to pay a little bit more, and if we're honest I would guess most people will try the less expensive thing most of the time.

[JZStudios]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:00 PM, poochyena said:

Would love to hear amazon's side of it. There is absolutely good reason to trash things. For electronics, its could be due to the item being faulty but idk why the books and some other items would be destroyed.

I think its misleading to suggest ALL of it is destroyed for no reason, but I think its safe to say SOME stuff is needlessly destroyed. Hard to say exactly what the ratio is without hearing amazon's side of the story.

Hard to have a defective book. Am curious why it doesn't go to tech or other recycling centers. Funny coming from a "green recyclable" company. Heard companies in Europe are paying an emission tax in an attempt to get them to cut down. Maybe one for garbage disposal would work too. Those thousands of pounds of shredded paper could go to the recycling facilities. Then again the US doesn't actually recycle anything, they just sell it off to other countries that aren't buying them.

 

Slightly off topic, but I recently learned that a bunch of places are shutting down coal power plants in favor of biomass plants, in which they just burn straight trees, animals, and tires. Because somehow even though it's less efficient and creates more pollutants than coal it's better for the environment.

 

Hard to buy into all this when the corporatism is just dumping thousands of tons of waste every year.

[Quackers101]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I mean, even in the video those power bricks they showed looks like the classical power bricks that are rated at under 15A and get overloaded causing house fires.

Then they should not be classified as an UK power extender. As they should have fuses that should prevent fires, or if they are not up to standard with their rating?

although sure, there could be a lot else wrong with it or more dangerous or failed components or fuses.

Quote

Sure, in an ideal world this wouldn't be happening, but it's wrong to single out Amazon...it's prevalent in likely many industries

Amazon is one of the biggest global companies out there, from the web to delivery to storage and various apps and software.

Once amazon starts something and as seen with the growth, it can be destructive, as for the cheaper options can be fine for businesses, again with a hidden fee to those cheaper options. Which might again become cheaper with worse results, while others that might try to stand up against amazon will be beaten by such pricing and options.

So in my view, this is just going to make everything more expensive over time and worse for everyone from a leading global company, a bit like apple in the tech space, and how would not want things to change when they are one of the biggest world changing companies out there to set some examples.

 

But might be better to say that, you will get a "freer" adjustability for smaller business with these digital stores and options, to market to a larger audience
 compared to the more traditional stores. that digital shopping and stores, which might be the worst part and trend,rather then a certain big digital store/company in and of itself.

1 hour ago, MartinTheActor said:

Chipping in with a non-tech perspective. I used to publish collections of poetry and for a while sent consignments to amazon to be able to have the fancy 'Fulfilled by Amazon' listing. It meant that buyers got the items quicker and I hoped would sell better. When I began to wind up the publishing business, I had a choice, keep paying for the storage, or have the items destroyed. Due to the high cost of shipping it just wasn't worth my time, or money to have the items returned to me. I think it ended up being like 25 out of 500 books were unsold. At a trade paperback size, it was a simple business decision. 

Looking back, I can't honestly say I'd do anything differently. As a micro-business we were operating on tiny margins and it just didn't make sense to do anything else. I do wish that Amazon had a better disposal policy that maybe included sending that stuff to recycling or reclamation, but I'm assuming that would need owner permissions or there would be other legal issues.

We in the UK had a car scrappage scheme about a decade ago where any second hand car scrapped would give you £2000 to use to purchase a new vehicle. It was meant to allow people to trade up to more environmentally friendly vehicles. Those cars that were sent in were legally required to be scrapped. Even if they were perfectly functional, the government hamstrung themselves by not allowing functional vehicles to be reclaimed or resold and ultimately being more environmentally damaging.

Sadly, the laws, governance and policies that have developed around inventory disposal are just a sad by product of our modern world. It could and should be better, but we'd all have to pay a little bit more, and if we're honest I would guess most people will try the less expensive thing most of the time.

yes, and nice to hear from someone who might have been using amazon.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, MartinTheActor said:

I do wish that Amazon had a better disposal policy that maybe included sending that stuff to recycling or reclamation, but I'm assuming that would need owner permissions or there would be other legal issues.

I don't know why throwing it in the garbage wouldn't need permission but recycling would. Seems more likely that Amazon just doesn't want to hire someone to separate the recyclables, and then they would need to pay for pick up and delivery to multiple sites instead of just the dump.

 

Seems to me like there's money to be made in recycling plants. You could get a warehouse and charge companies to drop stuff off, hire people to sort it, then the plants themselves to actually recycle the materials and sell it back to the manufacturers. Give them a tax incentive to prioritize recycled materials over new materials.

 

Instead, what we have now where I live is an extra charge for a blue bin that they don't do anything with other than take it to the dump.

[Master Delta Chief]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Amazon isn't unique in this.  There are other warehouse/distribution partners out there that have the exact same policies.  My cousin for example works for one of them, and mentioned that any product, where the packaging was damaged, the vendor would have the choice to either give the product to the employees or destroy it.  With destroy being the preferred choice by most vendors (the justification being they didn't want to encourage "accidental"  employee damage).

 

The instant you start donating things as well (especially other companies products), you start assuming liability.  I mean, even in the video those power bricks they showed looks like the classical power bricks that are rated at under 15A and get overloaded causing house fires.

 

Sure, in an ideal world this wouldn't be happening, but it's wrong to single out Amazon...it's prevalent in likely many industries

Of course Amazon isn't the only one that does this, but they are one of the largest corporations out there. I wouldn't be surprised if the local webshops where I live cause the exact same problem. It's something that needs to be addressed in the entire industry, especially for those who deal with food products and electronics. Of course you're going to be libel if you donate something away or resell it, that's always the case. You as a company need to make sure that nothing is wrong with said product before giving it away. I honestly couldn't care less if it's going to cost them more money, they've plenty of that to begin with.   

 

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Even excluding the point @wanderingfool2 made, paying someone to go through all of the returns to manually inspect every item for signs of tampering is incredibly labour intensive. If they happen to let something slip through, especially when it comes to medical supplies, then Amazon could be liable for any harm caused as a result. As unfortunate as it is it's far cheaper to just trash them.

Fair enough. One thing that is indeed going to be a problem for that is in fact that it's labor intensive, though perhaps one day such thing can be done easier. That said, it would be a better idea to prevent the overproduction of masks or any other item for that matter just to avoid this particular problem in the first place. 

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

Of course Amazon isn't the only one that does this, but they are one of the largest corporations out there. I wouldn't be surprised if the local webshops where I live cause the exact same problem. It's something that needs to be addressed in the entire industry, especially for those who deal with food products and electronics. Of course you're going to be libel if you donate something away or resell it, that's always the case. You as a company need to make sure that nothing is wrong with said product before giving it away. I honestly couldn't care less if it's going to cost them more money, they've plenty of that to begin with.   

 

Fair enough. One thing that is indeed going to be a problem for that is in fact that it's labor intensive, though perhaps one day such thing can be done easier. That said, it would be a better idea to prevent the overproduction of masks or any other item for that matter just to avoid this particular problem in the first place. 

Yeah verifying merchandise is untenable.  One would need to find a way where it could be sold at a reduced price or even given away without such.  I don’t know if things even CAN be sold warrantyless in that country though.  Throwing things away costs money.  Giving them away can actually be cheaper.  There are businesses like a axe man that actually subsist on that.

[MartinTheActor]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

I don't know why throwing it in the garbage wouldn't need permission but recycling would. Seems more likely that Amazon just doesn't want to hire someone to separate the recyclables, and then they would need to pay for pick up and delivery to multiple sites instead of just the dump.

 

Seems to me like there's money to be made in recycling plants. You could get a warehouse and charge companies to drop stuff off, hire people to sort it, then the plants themselves to actually recycle the materials and sell it back to the manufacturers. Give them a tax incentive to prioritize recycled materials over new materials.

 

Instead, what we have now where I live is an extra charge for a blue bin that they don't do anything with other than take it to the dump.

Okay, not a legal professional but taking a guess using only the kind of twist government style logics that come into place....

Company A gives amazon their stock to warehouse and sell. Amazon sell most, but Company A don't want to pay for warehouse space any longer. If Amazon were to sell/auction/recycle/redistribute the stock, Company A might claim it had a legal entitlement to the monies generated from the sale. This could form some sort of theft/fraud or other such claims.

I know it seems like common sense, but in all seriousness, I would be willing to bet that at least one supplier would demand a cut of what is generated by selling or auctioning what otherwise would be waste. So, when weighing up legal costs, or other admin costs, again it'll come down to the money that amazon decide it to be cheaper to dump than to resell/redistribute/recycle.

Eventually, in order to make any money off even recycling, Amazon would be using items that they have agreed to dump to make more money. In twisted business world logic this would mean potential claims that amazon wouldn't have made the money without the waste stock supplier, and therefore owed the supplier a cut. The world of inventory management and logistics is a difficult thing to crack and I know enough to realise that there's a reason for the perceived silliness.

Edited June 23, 2021 by MartinTheActor
Clarifying a point

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

Hard to have a defective book.

I looked up one of those books in the bin, here it is https://smile.amazon.com/Good-Great-Some-Companies-Others/dp/0066620996/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=good+to+great&qid=1624470649&sr=8-1

over 1,000 used copies, most of which are selling for under $2 or even under $1. Its literally cheaper to trash used books than to store them. "Donating" just moves the burden to thrift/charity shops who will eventually do the exact same thing, trash them (or recycle i guess, but paper isn't a very valuable recyclable item.). I agree, I HATE seeing so much waste, but you can't see it as just a few books, there are over a thousand used copies of just this one book on amazon, so imagine how many more there are of other books. Its not a manageable amount to just donate or resell.

[JZStudios]

2 hours ago, MartinTheActor said:

Okay, not a legal professional but taking a guess using only the kind of twist government style logics that come into place....

Company A gives amazon their stock to warehouse and sell. Amazon sell most, but Company A don't want to pay for warehouse space any longer. If Amazon were to sell/auction/recycle/redistribute the stock, Company A might claim it had a legal entitlement to the monies generated from the sale. This could form some sort of theft/fraud or other such claims.

I know it seems like common sense, but in all seriousness, I would be willing to bet that at least one supplier would demand a cut of what is generated by selling or auctioning what otherwise would be waste. So, when weighing up legal costs, or other admin costs, again it'll come down to the money that amazon decide it to be cheaper to dump than to resell/redistribute/recycle.

Eventually, in order to make any money off even recycling, Amazon would be using items that they have agreed to dump to make more money. In twisted business world logic this would mean potential claims that amazon wouldn't have made the money without the waste stock supplier, and therefore owed the supplier a cut. The world of inventory management and logistics is a difficult thing to crack and I know enough to realise that there's a reason for the perceived silliness.

I don't think they make money from sending it to the recycler though. I mean, I'm not a business, but you have to pay for garbage disposal and extra for recycling. The only time I've heard of being paid for recycled material is clean, sorted, metal scrap like aluminum shavings and leftover copper tubes. In terms of "circumventing" the legal problem if they were paid to recycle, it wouldn't be hard for Amazon to change a line of policy to state that they don't share income from recycled materials. If you've given up on your order of stock it would probably be pretty successfully argued that you're not intending on making any more income from it. Recycling is just another form of waste disposal.

 

And if that was a problem, then the tax solution I mentioned earlier would be a fix. Don't pay them for the recycled material, but make it more beneficial to do so.

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

paper isn't a very valuable recyclable item.

It could be if the US would actually open proper recycling plants. Did you know in Cali recycling centers are buying entire warehouses and just storing paper?

[poochyena]

37 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

It could be if the US would actually open proper recycling plants. Did you know in Cali recycling centers are buying entire warehouses and just storing paper?

opening more recycling plants doesn't make it much more practical. Some things, its cheaper and uses less energy to just throw away and make new ones than to recycle.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

It could be if the US would actually open proper recycling plants. Did you know in Cali recycling centers are buying entire warehouses and just storing paper?

Only if those recycling plants are actually recycling stuff, for example a lot of electronic items just get shredded then get sent to be melted down to recover the valuable metals in the chips and circuit boards. I think its a real shame that good working electronic items get destroyed when at least some of it should be reused first.