The Cost of Quality Returns: The Fixable Faults Brands Write Off
By Joanna Lambert, Founder and CEO, Opera Garment Solutions
A large share of apparel returns come back for quality reasons: surface marks, loose threads, missing trims, transit damage and light try-on wear. Research from Ben-Gurion University, analysing around 630,000 returned garments in Europe, found that between 22% and 44% never reach a second consumer. Many of those faults are fixable. The cost of quality returns is the resale-ready value written off when the operation cannot grade and recondition them.
Why clothes get returned, and which reasons are recoverable
Fit and size drive the largest share of apparel returns. The garment fits differently from what the customer expected, so it comes back unworn or barely handled. Changed minds and catalogue mismatches make up another sizeable block. These returns are usually clean and need little more than inspection before they go back to stock.
A smaller share comes back for quality reasons, and this is where recoverable value sits. McKinsey, in “Returning to order”, groups return reasons into fit, expectation and quality categories rather than publishing one fixed split. The qualitative pattern across the industry is consistent: fit and size dominate, while quality, defect and damage form the minority that is most often binned.
Quality returns cover a familiar set of conditions. A dress arrives with a faint makeup mark at the neckline. A jacket has a button that worked loose in transit. A coat carries crush creasing from a parcel. A garment shows light wear from a customer trying it on at home. In each case the construction is sound. The presentation has slipped below the standard a brand will put back on a full-price shelf.
How much do product-quality returns cost fashion brands?
The cost of a quality return is the difference between the resale-ready value of the garment and whatever the operation recovers when it cannot restore that garment. Ben-Gurion University research analysing around 630,000 returned garments in Europe found that between 22% and 44% never reach a second consumer, and returns that cannot go straight back to stock are discounted, liquidated or written off.
Each of those routes recovers a fraction of the original value. In Opera’s pilots, a garment sold to a jobber returned under 7 per cent of its value, with labels stripped and the item moved through clearance channels. A write-off recovers nothing and books the full sunk cost against margin: design, fabric, cut-make-trim, inbound freight, duty, warehousing and returns handling. For the full markdown and liquidation picture, the cost of markdowns and liquidation on returns sets out the spectrum of disposal routes by recovered value, and the CFO’s case for returns recovery covers the wider P&L decision.
The figure that matters for a quality return is the gap between that under-7-per-cent jobber return and the price the garment was built to command. A high-value garment carries the most headroom. An occasion dress, a tailored jacket or a leather piece returned for a fixable cosmetic fault represents a large write-off for a fault that did not require the garment to leave the resale channel.
The difference between a genuinely faulty return and a recoverable-fault return
A genuinely faulty return has a fault present from production: a flaw in the fabric, a construction failure, a defect that was there before the customer ever handled it. A recoverable-fault return can look similar at the disposition point. The garment left the factory sound and picked up a cosmetic issue after purchase, through handling, try-on, transit or storage.
This is what we call post-purchase quality: the condition of a garment once it has left the retailer, been handled or worn, and come back. It sits apart from manufacturing quality, which is fixed at the point of production. A post-purchase fault is a surface and presentation problem on an otherwise sound garment.
Industry data does not separate genuinely faulty returns from those with a fixable cosmetic fault. That absence is the point. When the operation cannot grade the difference, it defaults to one disposition for both, and recoverable garments go out at clearance prices or to write-off alongside the genuinely unsaleable. The table below maps common quality-return reasons against whether cleaning, conditioning and light repair can restore them.
| Quality-return reason | Typical condition on arrival | Recoverable via cleaning, conditioning and light repair | Often genuinely unsaleable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light try-on wear | Surface marks, faint creasing, light odour | Yes, where the fault is cosmetic: clean, condition, press | n/a |
| Makeup or tan transfer | Cosmetic marks at neckline or cuffs | Yes, where the fault is cosmetic: spot and stain cleaning | If set into delicate fabric and dye-damaged |
| Creasing, fold or bale marks | Packaging and storage creasing | Yes: steam and press | n/a |
| Odour or mustiness | Handling or storage smell | Yes: clean and condition | n/a |
| Loose threads or minor seam slippage | Light construction looseness | Yes: clean and condition, then light repair | n/a |
| Missing or detached trim (button, sash, hem label) | Trim absent or poorly re-attached | Yes: clean, then re-attach or replace trim and reticket | If bespoke trim unavailable |
| Transit or packaging damage | Crush creasing, surface marks | Yes: clean, press, repackage | If structural, such as a seam torn in transit |
| Detacher-gun mark | Pinhole or surface mark from tag removal | Sometimes, where the mark is surface only and cleanable | If the fabric is pierced or pulled |
| Manufacturing defect (true fault) | Fault present from production | No, outside post-purchase recovery scope | Yes, a genuine fault, not within recovery remit |
| Heavy soiling, set stains, structural tears | Beyond light reconditioning | No | Yes |
The last two rows hold the line on honesty. A manufacturing defect is a production fault and falls outside post-purchase recovery. Heavy soiling, set stains and structural tears are genuinely unsaleable. The recoverable column is conditional throughout: recovery applies where the fault is cosmetic, never as a guarantee.
Can returned clothes be cleaned and resold?
In most cases of post-purchase quality faults, yes. The garment runs through a reconditioning process that restores it to a resale-ready standard.
The sequence starts with inspection and grading. Each garment is assessed against a defined resale-ready standard and sorted by the treatment it needs. Cleaning and conditioning come next, because most post-purchase faults are surface presentation: stain and mark removal, deodorising where needed, controlled drying, then steaming and finishing to restore the line of the garment. Light repair follows only where it is needed, such as a re-set button, a re-stitched hem or a replaced trim. The garment is then graded again and repackaged to standard.
Fabric decides the route. A silk piece goes through a hand-wash and form-drying route. A leather item is conditioned before any cleaning attempt. The resale-ready preparation use-case covers how this works at item level, and the customer-return damage use-case covers returns that come back marked from a customer’s home.
A returned occasion dress with a makeup mark at the neckline shows the order in practice. The mark is spot-cleaned, the garment is conditioned and pressed, and only then is any minor repair considered. It returns to the shelf at full presentation, having never been treated as waste.
Why fixable returns still get written off
The disposition decision usually happens in a general warehouse or third-party logistics operation whose fastest route for a marked garment is jobber clearance or write-off. There is no in-house capability to clean, condition and recondition a garment to resale-ready, so a fixable item takes the same exit as a genuinely ruined one.
The decision is made under time pressure by people who are not equipped to grade post-purchase quality or to recover it. The reasons returned clothing gets written off instead of resold covers this operational default in full. The result is that recoverable garments are written off for an operational reason, not because they were intrinsically ruined.
What returns quality data tells your sourcing team
Returns reason data, captured at the point of recovery, shows which constructions, suppliers and fabrics produce recoverable returns and which produce write-offs. That feeds the next-season sourcing conversation: a trim that keeps working loose, a fabric that marks easily, a construction that does not survive transit. McKinsey notes that most retailers lack this visibility and do not understand the full unit economics of their returns, which weakens product and sourcing decisions upstream.
A recovery operation produces this data as it runs. Each garment leaves a record of its inbound condition, the fault it came back with, the treatment performed and the value it returned at. Grading post-purchase quality on the supplier scorecard turns reconditioning from a back-end cost into a feedback loop the quality and sourcing seats can use. Opera Garment Solutions runs recovery across a distributed model, giving a brand a single point of access to a network of professional garment care experts in the market where the stock sold.
Frequently asked questions
Why do clothes get returned?
Most apparel returns are driven by fit and size, where the garment fits differently from what the customer expected. Changed minds and catalogue mismatches account for another large share. A smaller portion comes back for quality reasons such as marks, loose threads, missing trims, transit damage or light try-on wear. These quality returns are the ones most often written off despite being recoverable.
How much do quality returns cost fashion brands?
The cost of a quality return is the resale-ready value of the garment minus whatever the operation recovers when it cannot restore it. Ben-Gurion University research found that between 22% and 44% of returned garments in Europe never reach a second consumer. In Opera’s pilots, a garment sold to a jobber returned under 7 per cent of its value, and a write-off recovers nothing while booking the full sunk cost.
Can returned clothes be cleaned and resold?
In most cases of post-purchase quality faults, yes. The garment is inspected and graded, then cleaned and conditioned to remove marks, odour and creasing, with light repair only where needed. It is then graded again and repackaged to a resale-ready standard. Genuine manufacturing defects and heavy structural damage fall outside this and remain unsaleable.
What is the difference between a faulty return and a recoverable return?
A faulty return has a defect present from production, such as a fabric flaw or a construction failure, and cannot be recovered. A recoverable return left the factory sound and picked up a cosmetic fault after purchase, through handling, try-on, transit or storage. The recoverable fault is a surface and presentation problem that cleaning, conditioning and light repair can usually restore.
What share of returned clothing is never resold?
Ben-Gurion University research analysing around 630,000 returned garments in Europe found that between 22% and 44% never reach a second consumer. Industry data does not separate genuinely faulty returns from recoverable cosmetic faults, so part of that never-resold share is binned for operational reasons rather than genuine damage.
Are returned clothes thrown away?
A meaningful share is. Returns that cannot be put straight back to stock are often sold to a jobber, at under 7 per cent of value in Opera’s pilots, or written off, because the operation has no capability to grade and recondition them. From 19 July 2026, the ESPR Article 25 destruction ban removes the write-off option for large enterprises selling apparel into the EU, which changes the economics of how quality returns are handled.
How does returns data improve product quality and sourcing?
Returns reason data captured at recovery shows which suppliers, fabrics and constructions produce recoverable returns and which produce write-offs. That feedback informs next-season sourcing and quality decisions. McKinsey notes that most retailers lack this visibility, which weakens their understanding of returns economics and their ability to act on the patterns upstream.
The cost of quality returns is hidden because the operation never grades the difference between a fixable fault and a genuine one. Grading post-purchase quality at the disposition point, and reconditioning the garments that can be recovered, turns a write-off line into recovered revenue and produces the sourcing data to reduce the next season’s returns.
References
- R. Roichman, B. Sprecher, V. Blass, T. Meshulam and T. Makov. The convenience economy: product flows and GHG emissions of returned apparel in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 210, 2024 (study of over 630,000 returned apparel items; between 22% and 44% never reach a second consumer).
- McKinsey & Company, “Returning to order: Improving returns management for apparel companies” (May 2021): return-reason data feeding product and sourcing feedback loops; most retailers lack full returns unit-economics visibility.
( About the author )
Joanna Lambert
CEO & Co-Founder, Opera Garment Solutions
Joanna Lambert is CEO and co-founder of Opera Garment Solutions, which recovers returned, damaged and unsold clothing for fashion brands across the EU and the UK from hubs in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain. She writes on the EU destruction ban and on what returned stock is worth when it goes back to sale.