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.

India’s cotton trade policy has recently shifted, creating uncertainty for textile producers and potentially wider ripple effects across global clothing markets. While the measures were introduced with domestic considerations in mind, their implications could extend far beyond India — influencing clothing prices, fibre choices, and textile waste flows worldwide. India is one of the world’s largest producers and processors of cotton, as well as a central hub for global garment manufacturing. After a period in which imported cotton was subject to standard import duties, the Indian government temporarily suspended these duties in late 2025 to ease pressure on domestic textile manufacturers. The suspension was explicitly time-limited, and as of early 2026 the longer-term direction of India’s cotton import policy remains unclear. The government has retained the option to reinstate duties or adjust them depending on market conditions, domestic farmer interests, and broader trade considerations. For textile producers, this has introduced a degree of uncertainty around raw material costs rather than a stable new equilibrium. India is one of the world’s largest producers and processors of cotton, as well as a central hub for global garment manufacturing. Why India’s cotton import policy matters for clothing prices Cotton remains the single most widely used natural fibre in everyday clothing. Changes in cotton trade policy directly affect input costs for manufacturers, which in turn influence retail outcomes. When cotton becomes more expensive — or when future pricing is uncertain — manufacturers typically respond in one or more of the following ways: Higher retail prices for cotton-based garments, Substitution toward cheaper synthetic fibres, or Cost-cutting elsewhere in the supply chain, often affecting durability and quality. Even temporary policy shifts can contribute to price volatility, particularly in a global industry that relies on long planning cycles and predictable input costs. Implications for reuse, fibre substitution, and textile waste In theory, higher cotton prices could make reused clothing more competitive relative to newly produced garments. In practice, however, past experience suggests that rising or uncertain raw material costs more often accelerate fibre substitution than reuse. This tends to increase reliance on synthetic fibres, which are generally more difficult to recycle and more likely to contribute to long-lived textile waste. As a result, changes in cotton economics can indirectly shape the composition of garments entering second-hand markets, recycling systems, or waste streams in the years ahead. Why the timing of India’s cotton policy matters in 2026 The policy shift comes at a moment when many countries are struggling with fast fashion’s environmental impacts. Even though India’s suspension of cotton import duties was temporary, its effects may continue to unfold during 2026 as producers, traders, and brands adjust sourcing strategies. Small changes in the economics of a dominant fibre like cotton can quietly influence what kinds of clothes are made — and ultimately what kinds of textiles end up being reused, recycled, or discarded.

Following the agreement to introduce a €3 flat fee on small parcels imported into the EU, several policymakers are already questioning whether the measure will be sufficient to curb the surge of ultra-cheap goods entering the European market, particularly via online platforms. EU €3 parcel fee on ultra-cheap imports and fast fashion questioned by EU lawmakers Speaking after the decision, Irish MEP Barry Andrews warned that the fee may need to increase if it fails to slow the flow of low-cost deliveries, particularly from Chinese e-commerce platforms. He has previously argued for a charge closer to €5 per parcel. The debate highlights growing concern within EU institutions that trade measures alone may not be sufficient to address the environmental and economic impacts of ultra-fast fashion business models. Policymakers are increasingly linking the issue to rising textile waste, pressure on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems and uneven enforcement of EU sustainability rules in cross-border online sales. Four billion parcels underline limits of trade measures More than four billion small parcels are delivered to European households each year. With more than four billion small parcels delivered to European households each year, the fee is widely seen as an initial step rather than a final solution. Further action on platform regulation, market surveillance and producer responsibility is now firmly on the political agenda. The debate over the EU fee on ultra-cheap imports and fast fashion reflects a broader shift in EU policy, in which trade instruments are increasingly linked to waste management, producer responsibility and digital market regulation rather than narrowly defined tariff protection.

A new research report outlines how future EU labels could help consumers, authorities and markets distinguish durable products from greenwashing. How can consumers know what a garment is really made of — and whether it is designed to last? A new report from the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) places textile labelling at the heart of the bloc’s future product policy. The report forms part of the evidence base for upcoming EU rules on ecodesign and sustainable products, including the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. It outlines how mandatory textile labels could work in practice, what information they must contain and how compliance could be checked across the entire value chain. The report places EU textile labelling rules at the centre of the bloc’s future product policy. Under the proposal, garments made primarily of textile fibres would be required to carry verified information on fibre composition. Labels would need to be legible, standardised and available in all official EU languages in the countries where the product is sold. The aim is not only to inform consumers, but also to make market surveillance more effective. A new research report outlines how future EU labels could help consumers, authorities and markets distinguish durable products from greenwashing. Why EU textile labelling rules has become a policy issue The background is well known. Fast fashion, complex fibre blends and vague sustainability claims have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish short-lived products from garments genuinely designed for durability, reuse and recycling. By strengthening labelling requirements, the EU hopes to influence both consumption and production. Products that are difficult to recycle or repair would become easier to identify, while sustainability requirements could be enforced in practice rather than remaining abstract principles. For textile producers and importers, this implies stricter obligations — but also greater regulatory clarity. Once the rules enter into force, expectations for accessing the EU market will be more transparent. Future textile policy is not only about volumes and waste, but about information, transparency and accountability built into every garment.

When environment ministers from around the world gathered in Nairobi in December, the seventh session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) concluded with decisions that could have far-reaching implications for how textiles are managed globally. The meeting resulted in a new medium-term strategy for the UN Environment Programme for 2026–2029, alongside an updated resolution on chemicals and waste. Together, they reinforce the push to accelerate the transition towards circular material flows — including for textiles. The UN decision on used clothing taken at UNEA-7 places textiles more firmly within global waste and chemicals policy. For the EU, this is more than international diplomacy. The bloc’s ongoing overhaul of textile policy, covering extended producer responsibility, ecodesign requirements and stricter market oversight, rests on the same fundamental question debated in Nairobi: when is a garment a resource, and when does it become waste? UN decision on used clothing and global waste policy New global agreements on waste and chemicals are setting the framework that future EU textile policy will have to operate within. UNEA-7 highlighted the need for global definitions and coordination. For countries in Africa and other parts of the Global South, the issue is particularly sensitive, as a strict classification of second-hand clothing as waste risks undermining established reuse markets and limiting access to affordable garments. At the same time, the direction of travel seems clear. Textiles are increasingly treated as a core part of the global waste challenge, closely linked to chemicals, microplastics and rapidly rising consumption levels. For the EU, this adds pressure to demonstrate that its textile strategy not only reduces waste at home, but also works in a global context. When the next UN Environment Assembly takes place in 2027, textiles are expected to feature even more prominently. By then, EU rules will no longer be proposals — they will be reality. The decisions from UNEA-7 mark a continued shift toward viewing textiles as part of global waste and chemicals policy, rather than solely as a trade or consumption issue. Read more: UNEA-7 Resolutions and Decisions

The EU is preparing a historic shift by introducing mandatory producer responsibility for textiles, a reform intended to reshape how textile waste is financed and managed across Europe. The goal is clear, brands placing textiles on the European market must also pay for the cost of managing them as waste. But even before the system comes into force, a structural risk has emerged. The explosive volume of ultra-cheap garments shipped into Europe by platforms such as Shein threatens to undermine the framework before it is fully operational. A key reason is how these platforms enter the market. Unlike traditional retailers, much of Shein’s clothing is shipped directly from China to individual European consumers in millions of small parcels. This direct-to-consumer model makes it difficult to identify a producer or importer established in the EU, which is normally required to register, report volumes and pay Extended Producer Responsibility fees. As a result, large textile volumes can reach European wardrobes while remaining only partially captured by EPR systems designed for domestic or EU-based actors. As the EU now moves to counter ultra-fast-fashion imports with new customs fees on small parcels, the central question is becoming harder to avoid. Can Europe’s most ambitious circularity reform withstand the world’s fastest-growing fashion platform? Direct-to-consumer imports expose gaps in producer responsibility As Europe begins implementing its new Extended Producer Responsibility framework for textiles in 2025 and 2026, the intention is to internalise environmental costs. EPR fees are meant to finance sorting, reuse, recycling and improved waste management infrastructure across the continent. At the same time, ultra-fast fashion import volumes are accelerating. Platforms such as Shein operate with extremely low price points, data-driven design and near-instant production cycles. The result is a scale of textile inflow that few existing systems were designed to handle. The core logic of EPR is simple, whoever places products on the market must also pay for managing them when they become waste. But when products are sold through cross-border platforms with no clear producer entity established in the EU, that logic becomes difficult to enforce. The risk is that compliant European brands, retailers and importers end up carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden, while overall textile volumes placed on the market – and eventually entering waste streams – continue to rise. Parcel fee signals political recognition of the problem This imbalance has now prompted a concrete EU response. On 12 December 2025 , EU finance ministers agreed to introduce a temporary flat fee of €3 on low-value parcels  entering the Union from outside its borders. The measure, which will apply from 1 July 2026 , is widely understood as targeting platforms whose business models rely on shipping millions of individual parcels directly to consumers, particularly from China. The fee is intended as an interim solution ahead of a broader customs reform, including the abolition of the duty-free threshold for small consignments and the rollout of more advanced digital customs systems. It represents a political acknowledgement that ultra-fast-fashion imports are placing pressure on existing regulatory and economic structures. However, the new fee is not part of the textile EPR legislation itself. While it may reduce some cost advantages and slow the growth of micro-parcel imports, it does not resolve the underlying question of how EPR fees are calculated, reported and enforced for cross-border platforms. Can textile EPR survive Shein? Why ultra-fast fashion challenges the logic of EU textile EPR The structural mismatch remains. Textile EPR systems assume identifiable producers, local representation, consolidated reporting and long-term accountability. Ultra-fast fashion platforms operate on almost the opposite logic, fragmented shipments, minimal physical presence, limited traceability and algorithm-driven production responding directly to consumer demand. A flat parcel fee may slightly rebalance competition, but it does not ensure that the textiles entering Europe are fully accounted for within EPR systems. Nor does it guarantee that fees collected correspond to the actual volumes placed on the market. When a single platform can ship more garments into Europe than many national retail chains combined, while remaining only loosely integrated into producer responsibility frameworks, the risk is not merely financial. It becomes a question of systemic credibility for Europe’s circular economy policy framework. From parcel fees to system design: a growing policy mismatch According to Reuse News’ review of EU policy documents and customs reform proposals, the scale and structure of ultra-fast fashion imports were not central assumptions when textile EPR systems were designed. The EU has begun to recognise that ultra-fast-fashion imports are challenging the foundations of its circular economy policies. But unless the largest volume actors are fully integrated into EPR systems, with transparent reporting and proportional financial contributions, the framework risks being undermined from the outset. For reuse organisations, waste operators and European retailers, this is no longer only about competition. It is a systemic risk to the infrastructure meant to support reuse, recycling and waste reduction. The question facing policymakers is therefore no longer hypothetical. Can textile EPR function when one of Europe’s largest textile importers operates through a market model that does not align with the system’s basic design? The new parcel fee is a step toward addressing that gap. Whether it is followed by deeper integration of ultra-fast-fashion platforms into Europe’s responsibility frameworks will determine whether textile EPR becomes a cornerstone of circularity, or a system strained by forces it was never designed to absorb. Sources • European Commission communications on textile strategy and consumer protection • EU reports on customs and import framework changes coming in 2026 • Policy analyses on Extended Producer Responsibility and textile flows Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations Read more: Two EU decisions mark a shift for Europe’s textile market

The Swedish automated textile-sorting facility Siptex, widely regarded as the world’s first large-scale industrial plant of its kind, is now being offered for sale, its owner Sysav has confirmed. The decision marks a significant shift for the project, which was originally developed to help close the loop in textile recycling through advanced sorting technology. Launched as part of a research and innovation initiative and later transitioned into full operation by Sysav in Malmö, Siptex uses near-infrared and visual spectroscopy to automatically sort post-consumer textiles by fibre type and colour — a critical step toward high-quality material recycling. Siptex, one of the worlds first and largest plants for recycling textiles Sysav’s board unanimously decided to sell the facility after ongoing operational difficulties. Despite its innovative design and potential to enhance circularity in the textile value chain, Siptex has faced long periods of inactivity due to a lack of ready markets for sorted textile output and the bankruptcy of key industry partners. As a result, roughly 1,200 tonnes of unsorted textiles  remain at the plant with no buyer lined up. Sysav CEO Malin Dahlroth said to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the initiative was “an important and bold investment,” but acknowledged that the market and regulations have not evolved as quickly as needed since the facility’s inception. Beyond the specific circumstances of this closure, the case highlights broader weaknesses in today’s fiber-to-fiber market. Large-scale textile sorting depends on stable downstream demand, predictable material flows, and pricing mechanisms that reward recycled fibers, conditions that are still largely missing. As long as recycled fibers struggle to compete with virgin alternatives, sorting facilities remain exposed to market volatility. The shutdown therefore raises questions not only about one plant’s viability, but about whether the current system is structurally capable of supporting fiber-to-fiber recycling at scale. The sale process will seek a buyer who can make use of the facility — potentially beyond textile sorting — but the future of the stored material remains uncertain if no buyer emerges. Sources: Sysav Aftonbladet

On 12 December, EU member states agreed to introduce a flat €3 fee per small parcel imported from outside the EU, primarily affecting low-cost platforms such as Shein and Temu. While formally a trade measure, the decision has direct implications for material flows, waste volumes and the functioning of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems. The fee will apply to consignments valued below €150 – a category that now accounts for billions of parcels annually , mostly originating from China. The EU argues that the sheer volume has overwhelmed customs authorities, undermined product safety enforcement and distorted competition, while simultaneously driving large flows of short-lived products into European waste systems. From a circularity and EPR perspective, the decision is significant. By raising the cost of ultra-low-value imports , the EU is addressing the inflow of products that typically have low durability, poor traceability and weak or absent producer responsibility. In practice, the fee functions as an indirect tool for steering material flows – where trade policy begins to operate as waste policy. The move also highlights a structural tension: without control over inflows, EPR systems are left to manage the consequences of excessive volumes, rather than addressing the upstream drivers that generate them. Fees on ultra-cheap imports - Why this matters now: This is the first time the EU has agreed on a general per-parcel fee in response to e-commerce volume pressures, signalling a shift from circularity rhetoric toward material-flow governance grounded in trade and enforcement realities.

Two closely linked EU decisions are set to reshape the competitive landscape for Europe’s textile and apparel sector. Together, they signal a more assertive approach to market supervision at a time when circularity ambitions risk being undermined by fast-growing ultra-fast-fashion platforms. In November, EU finance ministers agreed to remove the €150 duty exemption for small parcels — a loophole heavily exploited by Shein, Temu and others. From 2026, all parcels entering the EU will be subject to proper customs duties and declarations, closing a gap that has long favoured low-cost imports. Just weeks later, EU institutions approved the reform of the Union Customs Code (UCC), introducing a more harmonised and data-driven customs system. New digital tools, including the EU Customs Data Hub, are designed to strengthen coordination between national authorities and make enforcement more consistent across the Single Market. A clearer shift for Europe's textile market emerges The sequence is telling: stricter rules will only matter if the EU has the capacity to enforce them . Ending the small-parcel exemption removes the legal loophole; the updated UCC provides the operational backbone needed to detect and act on non-compliance.For Europe’s emerging circular textile systems — from eco-design to future EPR schemes — this combination is critical. Without effective border controls, compliant producers risk being undercut before circularity can scale. So this is a clearer shift for Europe's textile market, Fashion industry responds Director General Isabelle Maurizi, European Branded Clothing Association The latest decision has been well received by European apparel brands. In a statement, the European Branded Clothing Association ( EBCA ) called the UCC reform “a significant step toward a more effective and modern customs framework.” According to Director General Isabelle Maurizi, greater harmonisation and digitalisation will help enforce upcoming sustainability requirements while offering companies a more predictable regulatory environment. EBCA also underlines that customs reform must align with broader EU legislation on products, sustainability and consumer protection to secure a genuinely level playing field. EBCA Pressrelease:

The EU has approved the reform of the Union Customs Code (UCC), introducing a more harmonised and data-driven system aimed at tightening market surveillance and improving coordination between national customs authorities. The updated framework is designed to support upcoming sustainability requirements and ensure more consistent enforcement across the Single Market, particularly as textile and apparel markets face rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce. This clearly strengthen EU market oversight The decision comes only weeks after the EU moved to abolish the €150 duty exemption for small parcels — a reform expected to further reshape the conditions for fast-fashion imports. An extended article of both decisions is available here .

Does second-hand clothing really undermine local textile industries in African countries such as Ghana and Kenya? It is a claim that has been repeated for decades. But when we look at what the evidence actually says, the picture becomes far more nuanced. The idea that second-hand imports “kill” local textile production rests on an intuitive logic: if cheap used garments flood the market, domestic producers cannot compete. The claim has been used by political leaders, advocacy groups and even international institutions. But very few of these arguments have been grounded in empirical research. Recent studies from the World Bank, International Trade Centre (ITC), RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, and several African universities point to the same conclusion: second-hand is not the primary reason for the decline of domestic textile industries. 1. Domestic textile production had already collapsed before second-hand imports increased In countries like Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, local textile industries went into decline in the 1990s and early 2000s due to structural challenges: high energy prices, outdated machinery, lack of investment capital, unstable trade policy and competition from cheap Asian imports. In most cases, the industry was weakened long before second-hand volumes became significant. Second-hand market in Gikomba, Nairobi 2. The real competition is ultra-fast fashion from Asia Multiple trade datasets show that consumers in African urban markets do not choose between “local production” and “second-hand”. They choose between: new, ultra-cheap imports from China, India, Bangladesh and Turkey, and second-hand clothing from Europe and North America. Local producers simply cannot match the price levels of these new imports. Even if second-hand vanished overnight, the domestic industry would still face the same competitive pressure from low-cost Asian manufacturing. 3. Second-hand often fills a market gap, rather than replacing local manufacturing Field studies in Kenya and Ghana show that second-hand garments are consumed by segments that local producers do not serve: low-income households that need durable clothes at very low prices. This suggests that second-hand and domestic textile production operate in different market segments. 4. What we cannot  conclude This does not mean second-hand is without impact. Local traders in new clothing may feel competitive pressure. Some manufacturing niches could be affected. And the environmental cost of low-quality fast fashion—whether new or reused—remains a concern. But the broader claim that second-hand imports “destroy local industry” is not supported by current evidence. Does second-hand clothing undermine local textile industries. Evidence says no. Based on the best available studies, second-hand imports are not the main driver of weakened textile industries in Africa.  Structural economic factors and competition from ultra-fast fashion play a much larger role. Second-hand remains one of the most resource-efficient ways to meet consumer demand—and a significant part of the real circular economy. Written by Thomas Lundkvist This article is based on a synthesis of well-established research and international analyses on second-hand markets and the development of textile industries in Africa. The sources listed below are representative studies and reports  in this field and reflect the broader evidence base that informs the article’s conclusions. World Bank (2020, 2019); ITC (2021); RISE (2023); Frazer (2008, Economic Journal); KIPPRA (2021); Ghana Statistical Service (2022); UNCTAD (2020); UNEP (2022); Staritz & Whitfield (2017).

In the debate around second-hand clothing and the circular textile economy, many myths and half-truths persist. This article aims to separate fact from fiction — exploring what really happens with donated clothes, how much is recycled, the impact of overproduction, policy changes, and the global imbalances in the used-clothing market. So here is True and false about second-hand clothing 1. Do the clothes I donate really help? True.  Donation is not the end of the line — second-hand is part of a well-developed global system. Your donated garments are sorted, graded, and either sold locally or exported. The proceeds from reselling these clothes fund collection, sorting, and transportation, ensuring that many of these garments get reused rather than discarded prematurely. Also a significant part of the second-hand industry has long been run by charitable organisations, which means that the clothes you donate not only find new use around the world, but also that much of the revenue they generate goes to aid work. 2. “Nearly half of donated clothes end up as waste” — Myth or fact? False.  The common claim that 40% or more of donated clothing becomes waste lacks credible evidence. There are no robust, peer-reviewed studies supporting this figure. In fact, many in the industry have pushed back against this narrative, seeing it as harmful to the legitimacy of reuse as a climate-positive strategy. Reuse News has covered this topic in many articles. You can read them here 3. Oversupply of new clothes: the root problem True.  One of the biggest challenges is not just what happens after clothes are used, but how many new garments are produced. European production and import volumes are massive: according to the European Environment Agency, the EU consumes an average of 19 kg of textiles per person per year. eea.europa.eu This overproduction fuels waste: clothing consumption is high, but reuse and recycling capacities are not keeping up. Zero Waste Europe Moreover, some garments never even reach consumers — studies estimate between 4–9 % of clothes sold in Europe are destroyed before use. circulareconomy.europa.eu The scale of overconsumption, especially fast fashion, is a fundamental barrier to creating a truly circular textile system. Zero Waste Europe 4. How much of clothing is actually recycled? Unfortunately, very little.  Only a very small share of used textiles is recycled back into new clothes. According to EU data, about 1 %  of used textiles end up being recycled into new garments. European Commission Recycling is technically and economically difficult: many clothes are made from mixed fibres, have complex constructions, or contain elastane, trims, etc. As a result, most recycled textiles in Europe are downcycled into lower-value products like insulation or industrial rags, rather than being made into new fashion items. 5. Why new sorting legislation in Europe? Policy ambitions — and unintended side effects. The EU is rolling out stricter rules for how textiles should be collected and sorted to promote circularity. European Commission However, these well-meaning regulatory changes have increased costs for organizations that collect used clothes. This has made it harder for many non-profits to sustain their operations, as they must comply with more rigorous sorting requirements. eea.europa.eu In some cases, these regulations might even discourage reuse, because meeting the new standards is expensive — threatening the second-hand infrastructure that depends on sorting and redistribution. 6. Glut of second-hand clothes in Europe Yes, there is an oversupply. Currently, Europe is experiencing a surplus of used clothing. This is driven by several factors: key export markets (such as Russia and Ukraine) have contracted significantly, and new EU sorting rules have increased the volume of clothes delivered to collection centers — including lower-quality items.The surplus has depressed resale prices, making it economically difficult for second-hand traders to operate. Many collection organizations are forced to pre-sort more aggressively before selling onward, raising their costs and undermining their business models. 7. Classification of second-hand clothing as waste A controversial policy debate. There is an ongoing process — notably within UNEP and under the Basel Convention — about whether used clothing should legally be classified as “waste.” If second-hand garments are officially labeled as waste, it could trigger stricter export controls, more bureaucracy, and higher costs for trade. Many in the reuse sector oppose this shift, arguing that it would hamper circularity by making reuse operations less viable and slowing down cross-border trade in second-hand clothes. Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: Used textiles not "waste" True and False about second-hand clothing - Why all of this matters The textile sector’s circular transformation is more complicated than many believe. Second-hand clothes often do have a second life, and donations support a broad, global system — but persistent myths about waste risk undermining that system’s credibility. Meanwhile, recycling remains underdeveloped, and policy changes, though well-intended, can harm reuse infrastructure. Most critically, the underlying problem is overproduction — we are simply making too many new garments, many of which never get fully utilized.If we want a truly circular textile economy, we need honest discussions, smarter regulation, and a realignment of incentives — toward reuse, better design, and lower material throughput. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: Used textiles not "waste" Read more: How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra‑fast fashion Read more: "Is this what they wanted? To nearly collapse the system for collecting clothes?"