The deeper we looked, the less sense it made

Over the course of my career, I have investigated complex issues, controversial claims and political debates. I have seen industries defend the indefensible. I have seen campaigners exaggerate problems. I have seen policymakers make mistakes. But I cannot remember encountering a case quite like this one.

What has surprised me most is not that people disagree about second-hand clothing exports. Disagreement is normal. What has surprised me is how many important political and regulatory processes now appear to be influenced by assumptions that few people have seriously examined.

Over the past 18 months, Reuse News has investigated some of the most widely repeated claims about textile waste exports to Africa. We travelled to the places most often cited as evidence. We reviewed reports, studies and policy documents. We spoke to traders, researchers, policymakers, industry representatives and campaigners.

What we found was not what I expected.

Again and again, we encountered a gap between the confidence with which claims were being made and the evidence available to support them.

The further we followed the chain of evidence, the harder it became to find solid support for some of the assumptions that now underpin major policy discussions. Claims were often repeated more frequently than they were verified. Numbers travelled from report to report. Narratives became accepted truths. In some cases, the underlying evidence appeared remarkably thin considering the political consequences that could follow.

As journalists, we are trained to ask simple questions. How do we know this? What is the evidence? Who measured it? Can it be verified?

Too often, we found that these questions had either not been asked or had not been answered.

Perhaps the most unsettling part of this investigation has been watching how rapidly these assumptions have moved from advocacy into policy.

Today, governments, regulators and international institutions are discussing measures that could reshape global second-hand trade for decades. Some of these discussions are taking place within the European Union. Others are happening through international bodies such as UNEP and the Basel Convention. These are serious institutions.

Like many people, I have generally assumed that systems of this scale and importance are built on rigorous analysis, extensive consultation and robust evidence. This investigation has challenged that assumption.

Not because policymakers are acting in bad faith. That is something I truly don't believe. But because complex systems can sometimes develop momentum around ideas that feel true long before they have been thoroughly tested.

That possibility should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand in this debate.

Reuse News was created for exactly this kind of moment.

The initiative grew out of a concern shared by several organisations in the second-hand sector. Over time, many felt that public reporting and policy discussions around used clothing had become increasingly one-sided, while the people and systems actually involved in reuse were rarely examined with the same seriousness.

Reuse News is financed by actors within the second-hand industry. But its assignment is clearly defined: to produce independent journalism on issues related to textiles, fashion, reuse and circularity.

That distinction matters. We were not created to publish industry messaging. We were created because independent journalism is the only credible way to challenge weak assumptions, test competing claims and bring complex realities into public view.

We are not an advocacy organisation. We are not a trade association. We are not an NGO. Our role is not to defend a predetermined position. Our role is to ask questions.

The global reuse sector sits at the intersection of environmental policy, international trade, poverty reduction, circularity and climate ambitions. Yet despite its growing importance, it remains poorly understood by many of the people making decisions about it. We believe that is a problem.

Good policy depends on good information. Good information depends on scrutiny. And scrutiny requires someone willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is what we have tried to do with this investigation.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. Our responsibility is simpler than that.

To ask difficult questions.

To challenge assumptions.

And to make sure that decisions affecting millions of people are based on evidence rather than repetition.

After many months of reporting, I have fewer certainties than when we began. But I have become convinced of one thing: Before we redesign a global reuse system that supports livelihoods, extends product lifetimes and provides affordable clothing to millions of people, we should first make sure we truly understand how it works.