FASHION RETAILER
RETURN RECEIPT

Returned, Not Resold

Ever wonder what happens to the clothes you return?

Most of them never make it back to the shelves —
and here's why.

We followed returned sweaters through the hidden logistics chain to uncover how fashion returns become too expensive to save.

by Namira Haris

Read the full story ▾
TXN 2024-RTN-1108

I bought a $30 sweater from Amazon. I returned it three days later — wrong size. I printed a free return label, dropped it at UPS, and got my refund before I was back in my apartment. On a typical day when Americans return $2.2 billion worth of merchandise according to the National Retail Federation , transaction: complete. Conscience: clear. But I hid an AirTag inside before sending it back. What I discovered over the next 45 days reveals the dirty secret of "free returns": My sweater now sits in a warehouse at 250 Lake Ave in Buffalo, New York, where it will likely remain until it's destroyed. Not because it's damaged. Not because nobody wants it. But because of an economic principle the industry calls "negative clearing price" — it costs more money to move my sweater anywhere than the sweater is worth.

This is the hidden crisis of fashion returns that retailers don't advertise alongside their "free returns" promises. With online apparel return rates hovering between 30–40%, millions of perfectly wearable sweaters enter a reverse logistics system where they become what industry insiders call "negative clearing price" items — products that literally cost money to exist. The math is brutal: a $30 returned sweater instantly drops to $1 in wholesale value, but costs $15 to ship anywhere. Each return generates 1.2 kg of CO₂ before reaching its final disposal site. This investigation traces what really happens to the clothing we send back, revealing how "free returns" might be fashion's most expensive lie — both economically and environmentally.

FASHION RETURNS
COST BREAKDOWN
Original Retail $50.00
Return shipping -$15.00
Processing -$8.00
Storage -$5.00
Repackaging -$3.00
- - - - - - - - - -
Value after costs $19.00
Liquidator offer $2.50
===========
FINAL LOSS -$16.50
|||||| |||| | ||||| |||

A former returns industry startup founder, who requested anonymity after his company failed, learned this lesson the hard way. During a 45-minute interview, he laid out the economics that killed his business model. "The clothing has a negative clearing price," he explained. "Nobody wants to pay for it because the shipping costs more than the item is worth. You're essentially paying someone to take your garbage." His startup had attempted to rescue returned merchandise and find it new homes, but the math simply didn't work.

The scale is staggering. Goodwill Industries reports keeping 4.4 billion pounds of used goods in circulation annually, yet even they acknowledge that only about half of donations are suitable for traditional retail stores. The rest flows through outlet stores, bulk sales to salvage buyers, and eventually overseas markets or landfills. Martin Somoza from Buffalo Exchange explains that unlike thrift stores accepting all donations, resale buyers act as "a sort of filter," carefully selecting only items in excellent condition. This means the vast majority of returned merchandise, items with minor flaws, outdated styles, or simply too much supply, gets rejected at every turn.

What retailers frame as generous return policies becomes a cascade of waste, with each returned sweater generating approximately 1.2 kg of CO₂ emissions before even reaching its final disposal site. In this system, "free returns" might be fashion's most expensive lie.

400 Miles to Nowhere

Watch as one sweater's journey reveals an entire system of waste

DAY 1 • 2:30 PM

Boston - Whole Foods

On October 15th at 2:47 PM, I stood outside the Whole Foods on Massachusetts Ave in Boston with an Amazon sweater hiding an AirTag in its seams. The return kiosk scanned my QR code in seconds. "Return processed," the screen cheerfully announced.

Value: $30.00
DAY 1 • 5:45 PM

Watertown - UPS Facility

Within hours, my sweater had traveled from Cambridge to a UPS sorting facility in Watertown. The first miles cost more than you think - $3.50 for initial pickup alone.

Cost: -$3.50
DAY 2 • 11:00 AM

Connecticut - Regional Sort

Regional consolidation point where returns are sorted and batched. Here, my sweater joined thousands of others, all heading to their final destinations.

Cost: -$7.00
DAY 3 • 8:00 AM

Syracuse, NY

By Day 3, it reached the regional distribution center in Syracuse, New York. Each stop added costs: sorting, linehaul transport, handling.

Cost: -$11.00
DAY 5 • 6:31 AM

Lancaster, NY - The Graveyard

The sweater had traveled 400 miles over 5 days to reach what industry insiders call a "reverse logistics hub", a euphemism for warehouse purgatory.

Final Loss: -$16.50

The environmental toll compounds the economic waste. My sweater's 400-mile journey generated 1.2 kg of CO2 from transportation alone—the trucks, vans, and sorting facilities all burning fuel to move a sweater that nobody wants. That's equivalent to driving 3 miles in your car, just for one return. Multiply that by Amazon's 8 million daily returns, and you get the carbon footprint of 24 million miles driven every single day, purely from moving unwanted items through the reverse logistics chain. But the journey doesn't end at the warehouse. Industry sources confirm that after 90 days of storage, these sweaters face three fates: shredding for industrial rags (releasing microplastics), baling for export to Ghana (doubling the transport emissions), or incineration (direct atmospheric pollution). The AirTag can't track what happens in the shredder.

Your Return Impact

10
🚗 30 Miles Driven
+
💨 12 kg CO2
+
🌳 0.5 Trees to Offset
=
⚠️ 42.5 Total Impact Score
That's equivalent to burning 5 gallons of gasoline

A Tale of Two Sweaters

My two tracked sweaters revealed the stark divide between physical and digital retail.

Walmart: The Success Story

The Walmart sweater told a success story: returned to the Quincy store, it was back on the sales floor within 48 hours. Two weeks later, my AirTag pinged from a residential address in Quincy. Someone bought my return. The system worked exactly as intended—a simple reshelf and resale. Total cost to Walmart: maybe $2 in processing.

Amazon: The Failure

The Amazon sweater told the opposite story: after traveling 400 miles to Lancaster, New York, then on to Buffalo, it sits in warehouse purgatory at 250 Lake Ave, accumulating storage fees on top of the $28.50 already spent on transportation. It will likely never move again.

Same sweater. Same reason for return. Two completely different fates.

As Renu Pokharna from India Recycles confirmed during our interview: "Physical stores resell. But online retailers don't for some reason. Amazon has some strange policies in terms of reselling merchandise. If you return something to a brick and mortar store, they'll reset it, put it back on the shelves."

The contrast exposes an uncomfortable truth: this crisis is entirely self-inflicted by online retailers. Walmart proves returns can be handled efficiently and sustainably. Amazon proves they choose not to.

Amazon's Response

When I reached out to Amazon for comment, spokesperson Austin Stowe painted a different picture. He claimed the Lancaster facility has a "97% resellable rate" and insisted the AirTag had been "separated from the sweater" at the returns center. Yet the tracking data contradicts this—the AirTag traveled from Lancaster to Buffalo, where it remains after 45 days at 250 Lake Ave.

Stowe pointed to Amazon's "85% landfill diversion rate" but admitted this includes all waste, not specifically returns. When pressed for the actual percentage of returned clothing that ends up in landfills, he responded: "I don't actually have that." He suggested the Buffalo location might be a recycling facility called "Clean Fiber Solutions," but couldn't confirm what happens to items there. The company's sustainability page uses terms like "energy recovery"—industry speak for incineration that environmental advocates call greenwashing.

The Numbers Tell the Story

By overlaying my tracking data with industry logistics costs, the full picture emerged. That Boston to Buffalo journey? $28.50 in total transportation and handling. The sweater's resale value upon arrival? $1 at wholesale rates, if anyone would even take it. My AirTag had documented the exact moment my sweater crossed into "negative clearing price" territory, somewhere on I-90 in Western Massachusetts, about $8.50 into its journey. From that point forward, every mile was a loss, every handling a deeper dive into economic impossibility. The tracking proved what Ben Weiss had told me: these items literally cost money to exist.

What Industry Experts Really Say

While Amazon deflects with sustainability reports, industry experts confirm the reality. Retail expert Carly McGinnis told Yahoo News that returned items "may end up in landfills," particularly when processing costs exceed their value. BBC Earth reports that only 50% of returned items make it back on sale, with 9.6 billion pounds of returns going to landfill annually in the US alone. The New Yorker documented the industry's "negative value threshold," where items become too expensive to save. As one liquidator operating near Buffalo told me: "Once something hits negative clearing price, disposal becomes the most economically rational choice."

The Silent Aftermath

The last update revealed the most damning evidence. My AirTag continues pinging from 250 Lake Ave in Buffalo—an industrial area filled with trucks and warehouses. Despite Stowe's claims of separation, the tracker followed the exact route industry insiders say returned clothing takes to liquidation facilities. This is where returns go to die, sold by the truckload to whoever will take them, or eventually landfilled when even liquidators won't pay shipping costs.

The disconnect between Amazon's polished PR language and the reality at 250 Lake Ave reveals the uncomfortable truth: even Amazon can't make the economics of returns work. Their own statement admits that "energy recovery"—burning for fuel—remains an option when "there are no other options for re-use or recycling." For my $30 sweater sitting in Buffalo with negative clearing price, incineration might genuinely be the most "economically rational" choice.

The Journey of Fashion Returns

The Donation Myth

The donation myth adds another layer of deception. Tim Raines from the Salvation Army's donation processing team confirms that less than 10% of donated clothing arrives with tags still attached - contradicting retailers' claims about robust donation programs. "We do have several retailers we work with," he says diplomatically, but admits the volume of new merchandise is "certainly a low percentage." The Salvation Army operates 30+ processing centers across the Northeast, yet even they're overwhelmed, ultimately baling unsold items for textile recyclers.

ReSupply, a logistics company that handles donation pickups for charities, confirms massive seasonal spikes in volume, particularly after holidays when return rates peak. "We see seasonal spikes in donation pickups," they report, though they note "a large portion of the volume we handle is used clothing" - not the new returns retailers claim to donate. At Buffalo Exchange and similar resale shops, buyers see the pattern daily: "First retail, then liquidation, then donation, then us. We're the last stop before disposal."

Renu Pokharna at India Recycles facility Textile sorting process Baled clothing for recycling Mountains of textile waste Textile processing in India

Renu Pokharna and the reality of textile "recycling" in India

Even Eileen Fisher's acclaimed RENEW program—the industry's supposed gold standard—reveals this is sophisticated greenwashing, not a genuine solution. Yes, they turn 10% of returns into limited collections. But that means 90% still becomes waste, just expensive waste with better PR. The company essentially pays customers to feel better about disposal, a luxury only a brand with $500 price points can afford. When I asked if this was scalable industry-wide, their spokesperson pivoted to discussing "innovation" and "circular economy aspirations." Translation: even the best-case scenario loses money on every item. If Eileen Fisher can't make the economics work, what chance does a $30 Amazon Essentials sweater have?

The myth extends globally. Renu Pokharna, founder of India Recycles, shattered another comforting lie: "Out of 100 garments we receive, maybe one has tags. India has banned reselling imported secondhand clothing—we can only shred them." The Panipat mills she describes, often touted as "recycling centers," are actually grinding perfectly good clothes into fiber because economics demand destruction over reuse.

Even more absurd is the circular journey some returns take. Industry sources confirm that returned SHEIN items shipped to Malaysia and the Philippines get resold through aggregators back to American consumers. "Your returned $30 sweater travels 20,000 miles to end up in someone's closet in Ohio," one liquidator told me. "The carbon footprint is insane, but somehow that's cheaper than processing it domestically."

The Liquidation Machine

Paul Curry from Bay State Textiles, operating 3,000 collection bins across Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Puerto Rico, inadvertently revealed the distinction between returns and donations. "Your sweater is queued for liquidation... might take six months to a year," he explained. Yet his bins see mostly worn clothing, not returns - highlighting how these are completely different waste streams. When asked about carbon footprint, he deflected: "That's EPA's job."

Direct Liquidation and Amazon's own mac.bid auction site expose the shadow redistribution system. Pallets of "uninspected returns" and "condition unknown" merchandise sell for $500 when original retail was $15,000 - a 96% loss. Ocean State Job Lot and similar liquidators survive on these margins, proving the negative clearing price Ben Weiss described. My sweater, sitting at 250 Lake Ave in Buffalo, has likely already been bundled into such a pallet, waiting for a buyer who may never come.

"There's enough clothing to clothe the next six generations. Why are we still making more? People just need to be happier."

- Renu Pokharna, India Recycles

"Fast fashion is the real story."

- Paul Curry, Bay State Textiles

"I don't actually have that figure."

- Austin Stowe, Amazon spokesperson, when asked what percentage of returned clothing ends up in landfills

My tracked sweater still sits in Buffalo—250 Lake Ave—a $30 monument to a system where convenience trumps sanity. It will never be worn again, not because it's worthless, but because we've created an economy where saving it costs more than letting it rot. The solution isn't better recycling or smarter logistics. It's acknowledging that "free returns" is a lie we tell ourselves—one that costs $816 billion annually, generates municipal-scale emissions, and turns perfectly good clothing into global garbage.

Next time you click "free returns," know this: someone, somewhere, will pay the price. If not you, then a worker in Panipat breathing synthetic dust, a community in Ghana living next to textile mountains, or your own children inheriting a planet where we spent more energy returning clothes than wearing them.

The real question isn't whether we can afford free returns. It's whether we can afford to continue pretending they exist.