How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra‑fast fashion

Thomas Lundkvist
Oct 31
4 min read

Updated: Nov 1

The European Commission is navigating increasingly complex terrain in the textiles sector — with two apparently contradictory priorities emerging in parallel. On one hand, it is taking aim at ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China, while on the other it is pressing ahead with policies that could significantly restrict exports of second‑hand clothing to African countries. The combined effect threatens to accelerate the dominance of Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion clothing on the African continent — and raises concerns over unintended environmental and social consequences.

Two bold directions

Earlier coverage by Reuse News highlighted how Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion platforms are penetrating global markets and reshaping trade flows of used and new garments. In addition, recent coverage (for example by Euronews) shows that imports of fast‑fashion into Europe rose by 14 % in the first half of 2025 versus a year earlier — with China accounting for an overwhelming share of parcel shipments.

Simultaneously, the EU is developing rules under its circular‑economy and textile‑waste agenda that would tighten controls on the export of used textiles (and potentially second‑hand clothing) to third‑countries, citing concerns that large exports end up as waste in countries ill‑equipped to manage it. This EU strategy might fuel ultra-fast fashion, opposite the intentions.

A problematic convergence

The push to curtail Chinese ultra‑fast imports and the push to limit second‑hand exports are not independent. They converge to create a systemic risk: if European second‑hand flows to Africa are curtailed, and Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion exports continue or increase, then the African market may become even more heavily dependent on Chinese ultra‑fast apparel — with possible ramifications:

Reduced competition: Second‑hand imports from Europe have traditionally supplied large volumes of affordable garments to African markets. Restricting these flows may reduce competition and drive more sourcing towards ultra‑cheap Chinese new imports.
Increased waste risk: Ultra‑fast‑fashion garments often have shorter lifespans and may be of lower quality. If Africa becomes saturated with cheaper fast‑fashion items rather than used garments with longer real‑use value, the risk of clothes quickly entering waste streams may increase.
Social‑economic impacts: The used‑clothing trade supports local markets, sorters and traders in many African countries. A sudden reduction in supply may undermine livelihoods even as ultra‑fast imports dominate, shifting value away from local actors.
Mountains of textile waste grows in Europe. When export of used clothes from Europe is decreased, the textile waste in Europe will grow. Since there is now functioning system for recycling textile fibers, more textiles will go to incineration, which is increasing the negative climate impact.

EU:s intention to reduce the negative climate impact from the textile industry might lead to opposite result.

Why the EU is acting

From the EU’s perspective the arguments driving both directions are clear:

The textile industry is a major source of resource use, emissions and waste, and the EU is committed to transition towards a circular economy in textiles.
The surge in ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China and elsewhere is seen as undercutting European producers who must meet higher environmental and social standards.
At the same time, the EU has highlighted that used‑textile exports to Africa may lead to dumping of non‑reusable garments and contribute to waste burdens in countries with weak waste‑management infrastructure.

A costly gap in this assessment

Given the EU’s intention to reduce the textile industry’s negative climate footprint and push the development of a circular economy, the above assessment could constitute a costly mistake. The judgment that exports of second‑hand clothing from Europe largely consist of unusable garments which go straight to waste has in recent times been strongly rejected by actors within the industry (Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines).

A review by Reuse News has also shown that the figures on large volumes of textile waste have no support in qualitative investigations and that the narrative is partly driven by money from precisely those Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion companies that is pointed out as a problem: How deceptive narratives about textile waste fuel ultra-fast fashion

Unanswered questions

However, the policy mix raises important questions that remain unresolved:

To what extent are second‑hand exports actually leading to waste in African countries — versus being a valid route of reuse?
Will limiting second‑hand flows without simultaneously controlling ultra‑fast new‑garment inflows simply shift dependence rather than reduce waste?
How will Africa’s local economies, which have grown around used‑clothing markets, respond if supply from Europe falls while cheap new imports from China rise?
How will the EU ensure that restrictions on one stream (used‑clothes exports) do not perversely drive growth in a higher‑volume, lower‑quality alternative (ultra‑fast fashion)?

Summary: How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion

The EU finds itself in a strategic double‑bind: tackling Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion imports on the one hand, while tightening rules on second‑hand clothing exports on the other. Without careful calibration, the result might lead to a textile strategy that may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion and a surge of ultra‑cheap new garments into Africa just when access to higher‑use‑value second‑hand garments is restricted.

For the circular‑economy goals to prevail, policymakers must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that Africa’s clothing markets, local value chains and waste‑management systems are not left worse off.

Written by

Thomas Lundkvist