3 Mins Read
An investigation by German reporters alleges Nike has been destroying new shoes that have been returned, instead of reselling them.
Nike could be shredding sneakers that are completely new, an investigative report by a team of journalists in Germany has found. According to the report by NDR, Die Zeit and research startup Flip, the sportswear giant has sent new, undamaged shoes that have been returned to the brand to be downcycled at its recycling plant, rather than reselling it.
Returned sneakers are sent for downcycling
Customers often return new shoes to brands after realising they don’t fit exactly how they thought it would. Perhaps it was the wrong size, or the style didn’t quite match their look—many of these pairs don’t even make it out the door and have the labels still on. So they bring them back to the brand, assuming they will be put back on the shelf for another shopper.
Turns out, sneakers that have been returned to Nike aren’t being resold. Instead, they have ended up in a recycling plant, where they are shredded—or “downcycled”—into smaller pieces that can be used as materials that partially make up new goods. It’s unlikely that a recycled shoe can be entirely transformed into a new one, since many feature multiple materials, glues, and stitching that makes 100% recycling nearly impossible.
What is likely to happen is that parts of the shoe might be blended with other virgin materials, still using up more resources and fueling new fashion production. Part of it could go to waste, even.
According to the new investigation, this is what is happening to perfectly new, undamaged and unworn sneakers returned to Nike in Germany.
Related: Amazon throwing millions of dollars in unsold stock into ‘destroy’ bins, investigation exposes
GPS trackers
The team used GPS trackers to figure this out. After purchasing a new pair from Nike, the reporters did not wear the shoes or leave a scratch but added a GPS tracker to the unblemished sneakers.
“We really took care that these shoes were not defective in any way—they didn’t have a scratch,” explained journalist Christian Salewski, founder of Flip.
The trackers showed that the sneakers had been sent to a recycling centre in Herenthout, Belgium, where goods are shredded and downcycled into other products, contradicting Nike’s claim that “unworn and flawless items are being put back on the shelves for resale”.
This could be a violation of the German Recycling Management Act, which states that returned goods that are fit for use mustn’t be disposed of or recycled unless it has already exhausted all other approaches to extend the product’s lifespan, such as resale. Breaking the law could lead to a €100,000 fine for Nike, which is not much for the sportswear giant, but could lead to huge ramifications for the brand’s reputation.
Consumers are becoming increasingly savvy when it comes to detecting greenwash from companies, and are more willing to vote with their wallets by boycotting brands that don’t align with their social and environmental values.
In a statement sent to Fast Company about the report, Nike defended its actions, noting that the shoe had been altered to have the GPS trackers installed and “could pose a safety hazard” if it had been resold.
Lead image courtesy of Unsplash.
-
Sally Ho is Green Queen's former resident writer and lead reporter. Passionate about the environment, social issues and health, she is always looking into the latest climate stories in Hong Kong and beyond. A long-time vegan, she also hopes to promote healthy and plant-based lifestyle choices in Asia. Sally has a background in Politics and International Relations from her studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
As a seasoned expert in the field of corporate sustainability and responsible business practices, my extensive knowledge and experience provide a unique perspective on the recent investigative report regarding Nike's alleged destruction of returned sneakers. I have closely followed the intersection of environmental concerns and corporate behavior, making me well-equipped to dissect the intricacies of this case.
The evidence presented by the German investigative team is compelling and indicative of a potential breach in Nike's commitment to sustainable practices. The use of GPS trackers on new, unused, and undamaged sneakers allowed the reporters to trace the footwear's journey to a recycling center in Herenthout, Belgium, where the shoes were downcycled instead of being resold.
This revelation is particularly significant in the context of the broader sustainability landscape. The act of downcycling, while better than outright disposal, raises concerns about the efficiency of resource utilization. Sneakers returned in pristine condition could potentially be resold, adhering to the principles of a circular economy and reducing the environmental impact associated with new production.
The concept of downcycling, as explained in the article, involves shredding returned sneakers into smaller pieces for use in manufacturing new products. However, the complexity of modern sneakers, with multiple materials, glues, and stitching, poses challenges to achieving a fully circular system. This intricacy in design often necessitates blending recycled materials with virgin resources, potentially perpetuating the consumption of new resources and energy.
Moreover, the potential violation of the German Recycling Management Act adds a legal dimension to the issue. If Nike is indeed found to be disposing of goods that are fit for use without exhausting other avenues such as resale, it could face fines under existing legislation. While the monetary penalty might not be a significant deterrent for a company of Nike's stature, the reputational damage resulting from such practices can have far-reaching consequences.
Consumers today are increasingly discerning and value-driven, actively seeking brands that align with their environmental and social values. The public response to allegations of environmentally unfriendly practices, commonly referred to as "greenwashing," can lead to boycotts and a decline in brand loyalty.
In response to the report, Nike defended its actions, citing safety concerns related to the altered sneakers with GPS trackers. This justification introduces a layer of complexity, raising questions about the balance between product safety and sustainable practices.
In conclusion, this investigation into Nike's handling of returned sneakers underscores the challenges companies face in balancing environmental responsibility, legal compliance, and consumer expectations. The outcome of this case will likely influence not only Nike's future practices but also contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding sustainability in the fashion industry.
