Tougher rules for discarded clothes — but textile production volumes remain outside EU climate control

Across Europe and in international forums, new rules are tightening how used clothing is collected, sorted and shipped. Governments are building systems to manage what happens after garments are discarded. Yet most of the sector’s climate impact occurs long before clothes are thrown away — and that part of the system remains structurally harder to regulate.

Summary:

EU institutions and international bodies are entering a more operational phase in textile governance. Export controls are tightening, extended producer responsibility schemes are being rolled out and classification rules are being clarified under the Basel Convention. Many of these measures are designed to address the environmental and trade risks associated with used clothing flows. At the same time, production volumes — where most emissions occur — remain outside direct regulatory limits. Addressing scale is proving more complex than regulating disposal.

EU textile governance moves from strategy to enforcement

Textile policy in Europe is entering an operational phase.

From 2025, separate textile collection becomes mandatory across the EU. By 2028, all Member States must introduce Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles. These systems will require companies placing garments on the market to finance collection, sorting and treatment.

National authorities are now defining fee structures, governance models and cost allocation mechanisms — decisions that will determine how financial responsibility is distributed across the value chain.

At the same time, the revised Waste Shipment Regulation tightens scrutiny of textile exports. Authorities must assess whether shipments qualify as products intended for reuse or as waste subject to stricter controls. The distinction is legally decisive: misclassification can shift regulatory obligations, trade permissions and enforcement thresholds.

Under the Basel Convention, technical discussions continue on the classification and reporting of used textiles in international trade. The outcome may influence documentation requirements, traceability standards and cross-border movements well beyond Europe.

Taken together, these processes bring used clothing more firmly into waste governance and trade control frameworks. They are designed to improve transparency, prevent misclassification and reduce environmental harm associated with poorly managed textile flows.

Political momentum behind export controls has partly been driven by claims that international trade in used clothing contributes to waste burdens in receiving countries. However, the scale and systemic impact of those claims remain empirically contested, and data gaps continue to shape the debate.

Extended producer responsibility shifts financial power — but not production levels

Textile EPR schemes represent a structural shift in regulatory logic. For the first time, producers will be required to finance end-of-life management at scale.

This creates new financial flows, new data requirements and new institutional roles for compliance organisations and national authorities. Fee modulation — linking costs to product durability or recyclability — could influence design decisions.

But EPR does not limit how many garments can be placed on the market. It redistributes end-of-life costs without directly constraining production volumes.

The regulatory signal is therefore corrective rather than restrictive.

Waste law is established territory. Production control is not.

Upstream, policy instruments look different — and more cautious.

The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) provides a legal basis for textile-specific durability requirements, recycled content criteria and information obligations. Digital Product Passports are being developed to improve traceability and material transparency across supply chains.

A ban on the destruction of unsold textiles is being phased in for large companies, combined with reporting obligations intended to increase visibility around excess stock and corporate sustainability reporting rules now require more detailed disclosure of environmental and supply chain impacts.

These measures target product design, transparency and business practices. They can extend product lifespans, improve material efficiency and increase market scrutiny.

What they do not do is set binding limits on production volumes.

The unresolved climate question: scale

Environmental impact in textiles is concentrated at the beginning of the lifecycle — in fibre production, processing, dyeing and manufacturing. Global clothing output has more than doubled over the past two decades, while European consumption remains structurally high.

Regulating waste flows builds on established environmental law and administrative practice. Regulating production volumes raises broader questions about trade policy, industrial competitiveness, consumer demand and global supply chains. There is no existing EU framework designed to cap output in a globalised industry characterised by complex cross-border production networks.

The result is a structural asymmetry: regulatory clarity is advancing rapidly in end-of-life management, while production scale — where the majority of emissions occur — remains outside direct quantitative control.

The tightening of rules around used clothing marks a significant shift in textile governance. Whether comparable enforceability can be developed at the production stage remains one of the central unresolved questions in EU textile climate policy.