May I still destroy unsold aluminium stock?

What you must concretely do

What is expected of you

The ESPR contains a separate section on the destruction of unsold consumer goods: Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1781. That section is not primarily written for aluminium semi-finished products, but for consumer goods in a broader sense. For companies working with aluminium it is nevertheless relevant to know about, because the approach — reporting, and in certain cases a ban — will be filled in product group by product group through delegated acts. What exactly will fall under aluminium remains to be determined.

Reporting obligation on destroyed unsold products

Article 24 of the ESPR provides for an obligation for certain market participants to report on the quantity of unsold consumer goods they destroy, and the reason for doing so. For a company with 10 to 100 employees, this means in practice that destruction of stock can no longer be an internal, undocumented decision once this obligation applies to a product group: from that point on, a numerical overview must be kept, broken down by reason (overproduction, returns, quality deviation, end of life cycle, and the like).

Possible ban on destruction for specific product groups

Article 24 also opens the way to a ban on destroying unsold consumer goods, to be worked out per product group through a delegated act. Such a ban therefore does not apply automatically to all products falling under the ESPR — it must be established separately. For aluminium semi-finished products, no delegated act has been published that addresses this at present. What such a ban would concretely mean for this sector, and whether it will come about, cannot be said at this time.

Exemptions and the role of smaller enterprises

Articles 23 and 25 allow for exemptions, including in relation to the size of an undertaking and situations in which destruction is reasonably the only option (for example in the event of safety risks). How those exemptions will be filled in exactly — which business size, which cases — is still to be determined at EU level. For a mid-sized company, the key now is to know that there is a difference between the general reporting obligation and a possible ban, and that both are established separately per product group.

Relationship with the digital product passport

There is an indirect connection between this part of the ESPR and the product passport. A passport records data on a product from the moment it is placed on the market; if a product is never sold and is nevertheless destroyed, the question remains what happens to the associated passport data. That has not yet been worked out. Anyone wondering what a digital product passport for aluminium exactly contains will find the basis there; the destruction rules are a supplementary, separate piece of legislation within the same regulation.

Where things go wrong in practice

A few situations in which companies may inadvertently run into these rules, or draw conclusions too early:

• Stock is destroyed without recording the reason. Once the reporting obligation for a product group becomes effective, reconstructing afterwards why and how much was destroyed is more difficult than keeping track of it at the time itself.
• Assumption that a ban already applies when there is no delegated act. Some companies anticipate reporting from other sectors (such as textiles, where this topic has been discussed for longer) and incorrectly assume that the same already applies to aluminium.
• Confusion between "unsold" and "rejected for quality reasons". Material that is rejected due to a technical defect falls into a different category than surplus, saleable stock — the distinction is relevant to how a possible future obligation could work out.
• No distinction between own stock and a customer's stock. In supply relationships, it is not always clear who would be responsible for reporting under a future regulation: the manufacturer, the importer, or the party that ultimately destroys the inventory.
• Destruction decisions are made decentrally (on the shop floor or in the warehouse) without a central overview. This makes it more difficult to compile a report on short notice if requested.

What you can document now

Without a concrete obligation for aluminium already existing, it is possible to lay a foundation now that can be used later:

• An internal overview of destroyed unsold inventory, with date, quantity and reason — even if this is not yet mandatory.
• A fixed procedure for the distinction between destruction due to overproduction, returns and quality deviation.
• Agreements with suppliers and customers about who keeps which inventory data, especially for aluminium that passes through multiple links in the chain.
• A note on which product groups (profiles, castings, packaging aluminium) a possible future delegated act is most likely to apply to, so that monitoring of new regulations can be more targeted.

This aligns with the broader question what can already be done while the rules are not yet final: do not wait until an obligation is officially in force, but get the administrative basis in order beforehand. For companies that specifically wonder how this applies to material already in the warehouse at the time new rules come into force, there is a separate overview on what to do with aluminium inventory already there when the rules come into force. And because this entire part of the ESPR only becomes concrete through supplementary regulation for each product group, it is useful to know what a delegated act is exactly and why it determines what is expected of a company — only after its publication will it become clear whether, and how, aluminium is subject to a destruction ban or reporting obligation.