Europe’s textile collection system slowed the bleeding – but structural risks remain

When the EU requirement for separate textile collection came into force across member states at the turn of 2024/2025, the ambition was widely shared across Europe: more reuse, less incineration, and a first concrete step towards a circular textile economy. One year later, experiences from multiple countries point in a similar direction. Collection volumes increased faster than systems could sort, allocate, and treat the material. Bottlenecks emerged in several member states, from Sweden to France and Germany.

As Europe enters 2026, the immediate pressure has eased in many places. However, beneath this apparent stabilisation lies a deeper structural problem: without sufficiently developed sorting capacity and viable end markets, separate textile collection risks becoming a logistical success but a circular failure.

A European pattern in separate textile collection – Sweden as an early indicator

Sweden was among the countries where the consequences of mandatory separate textile collection became visible early. When textiles previously discarded as residual waste were redirected into dedicated collection streams, volumes increased sharply, while average quality declined.

During spring and summer 2025, several effects became apparent:

• overloaded collection points,

• charitable second-hand organisations increasingly acting as de facto pre-sorting units for municipalities, often without formal mandates or full cost coverage,

• and large quantities of separately collected textiles still ending up in incineration after basic sorting.

These developments did not represent a uniquely Swedish failure, but rather an early manifestation of a Europe-wide sequencing problem: regulation moved faster than sorting capacity, treatment infrastructure, and the development of stable end markets.

Collection bins in Sweden closed due to overflow and limited funding for collecting and sorting

Policy adjustments and partial stabilisation in textile collection systems

n Sweden, regulatory interpretations and practical guidance were adjusted in autumn 2025. Certain textile fractions – heavily soiled, badly damaged, or hygienically problematic – were increasingly redirected back to residual waste streams. The intention was to reduce inflows of material with no realistic pathway to reuse or recycling.

Comparable stabilising measures, both formal and informal, can be observed across several European textile collection systems:

• stricter acceptance criteria at collection and sorting points,

• clearer communication to households,

• more selective handling further down the chain.

The effect has been tangible. Acute system stress has eased. Yet stabilisation should not be mistaken for resolution.

Zooming out: the same structural problem across national textile systems

France – textile EPR did not prevent system strain

France has operated a textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for more than a decade. Despite this, tensions intensified in 2025 as collection and sorting organisations publicly warned that compensation levels no longer reflected the real costs associated with higher volumes and declining quality.

The French experience underlines a critical point: EPR alone does not guarantee system resilience if financial mechanisms are not continuously adjusted to material realities.

Germany – market pressure shifts within the textile value chain

In Germany, where textile collection relies heavily on private and charitable operators, falling prices for sorted fractions combined with rising disposal costs have placed parts of the sector under severe financial strain, including reported insolvencies.

Here, the challenge is less about the absence of regulation and more about insufficiently robust markets for sorted textiles under increased policy-driven volumes.

The Netherlands – textile EPR in force, system equilibrium still forming

The Netherlands introduced textile EPR in 2023, with more binding targets entering into force in 2025. While the framework is comparatively advanced, early experience indicates that it takes time for financing structures, sorting practices, and material flows to stabilise.

EPR has added administrative and financial structure, but has not yet resolved how medium- and low-quality textiles can be consistently diverted away from incineration at scale.

Belgium and Denmark – rising textile volumes, unresolved cost allocation

In Belgium, particularly in the Brussels region, and in Denmark, policy emphasis has focused on diverting textiles from residual waste. This has driven up collection volumes, while simultaneously exposing the same unresolved question: who pays for sorting, and where does the material go when reuse is not viable?

Entering 2026: less chaos, unchanged systemic risks for textile collection and circularity

Entering 2026: less chaos, unchanged systemic risks

As Europe moves into 2026, the overall picture is strikingly consistent:

• separate textile collection is now embedded in law,

• the most acute bottlenecks have eased,

• but systems remain far better at collecting textiles than at using them effectively.

Three structural risks continue to dominate:

Sustained pressure on second-hand actors Across many countries, charitable organisations still function as first-line sorters, often without full cost coverage. This risks undermining the most mature and functional circular segment of the system.

Incineration as the default safety valve When alternatives are lacking, energy recovery remains the only scalable endpoint for large volumes, even after separate collection. The risk is not that incineration disappears, but that it becomes normalised and less visible.

Recycling technologies constrained by feedstock quality

Without early quality separation and stable, standardised flows, fibre-to-fibre recycling remains largely confined to pilot projects, despite strong political ambition.

The deeper risk: a “temporary” system that becomes permanent

The central danger in the coming years is not renewed acute collapse, but something more subtle: that Europe settles into a prolonged interim state characterised by

• high collection rates,

• underfunded sorting,

• and continued reliance on incineration.

If this interim configuration solidifies, both second-hand markets and recycling innovation risk being weakened, even as policymakers continue to describe progress.

Conclusion

Separate collection was intended as the starting point of a circular textile economy. Experience from Sweden and across the EU suggests it has instead functioned as a stress test for the entire value chain.

How Europe manages the sorting and allocation gap in the years ahead – before fully mature producer responsibility systems and end markets are in place – may ultimately determine whether textile policy is remembered as a genuine transition, or as another case of ambition colliding with material reality.

Written by

Thomas Lundkvist

Editorial note

This article focuses on textile collection and sorting in Europe. During 2026, Reuse News will also follow developments related to the legal status of second-hand textiles in international trade, including ongoing processes under the Basel Convention.