the obligation of the company to be more transparent in dealing with Overproduction? Yes, says the economist Björn Asdecker.
taz: Mr Asdecker, the Federal government wants Online retailers to destroy in the future, fewer returns. The extent to which they do so far?
Björn Asdecker: According to the data we have collected in 2014 and 2018, destroy the traders interviewed 3 to 4 percent of the returns from their Online sales. Overall, approximately 0.5 percent of the outbound shipments, it will not be sent back.
does not Sound much. This is a relevant Problem?
The relevance will increase. So far, the e-Commerce has a share of 13 to 14 percent of the total trade, however, with a strong upward trend It will be sent in the future, significantly more and thus more return give.
the destruction of undamaged Goods Is not only a Problem of the Online trade?
Yes and no. In our survey, the retailers that sell both online and stationary have described, namely, that the Internet channel is destroyed. However, the stationary trade is much larger. Annually, there are about 20 million dumped returns with an average residual value of 5 to 10 Euro. It is, therefore, destroyed Goods worth 100 to 200 million euros a year. Similar studies to unsold Overproduction, there is not, but according to industry estimates, is here thrown away goods to the value of 7 billion euros. Returns are discussed a lot, which distracts from the actual Problem.
Why are there no Figures?
Björn Asdecker , since 2014, the research group on returns management at the University of Bamberg. He is also conducting research on the topic of “E-commerce-logistics”.
Because the company will give no information about it. To our questions about how to deal with returns, the retailers have responded, because it was a marginal part of a larger study; questions dealing with the Overproduction in General, you would not answer well. There are no reliable values. In this respect, it is good that the Federal government wants to introduce their amendment for the first time, reporting requirements for the company. What is missing, however, are Sanctions: What happens if retailers comply with the transparency obligations? To the best of my knowledge is nothing in the draft law.
there Are countries that make it better than we do?
On paper, some of the Western European States are certainly more than we are. But it’s not from my point of view. It is a step in the right direction. Next is to look at how the law is being implemented by means of legal regulations and in practice, it is lived.
as Long as Goods are not sold, they are the dealers or manufacturers. You are allowed to in their property rights intervene?
of course This is a question for lawyers, I’m an economist. But I think you can impose on dealers or manufacturers of certain duties of Care, if their Actions do not have consequences for the General public is unacceptable. And a waste of resources falls safely below.
Could prohibit the government of the citizens, yet useful furniture, or Smartphones to throw away?
This would be for my taste to little more pragmatic, that would let the voters don’t like. Apart from that, it must also be A part of the disposal is unavoidable, not every recycling or any Recycling makes sense. However, the manufacturer should make more than in the past thought about how to make their products durable and repairable, cue Ecodesign. Also, Deposit systems, could contribute to the principles of the circular economy in practice, to anchor.
A growth-oriented economy thrives on the fact that all of the to constantly buy new things. This is a Problem with the waste can be solve?
We agree probably all that, our economic system is the consequence of our individual actions. In order for our GDP growth, and each of us must consume us. But the question is how. We could eat no more three times per week, cheap meat, but once a week, sustainably produced, expensive. Or we don’t buy cheap electronics more that needs to be replaced after a few months or a year, but long-lasting and invest in repairs. Then also that leads to growth, but to a better.