A recent LinkedIn post by the European Commission has triggered a lively discussion about how Europeans manage their old clothes, just days after the implementation of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive. The Commission’s post included a poll asking professionals to share how they deal with unwanted garments — by donating, repairing, reusing, or discarding them. The response was immediate and substantial, with hundreds of comments highlighting the growing awareness of textile waste and the need to shift towards more sustainable habits. EC's Linked In post Many respondents emphasised the importance of reuse and repair , arguing that extending the lifespan of clothes is one of the most effective ways to reduce environmental impact. Several also pointed to the problem of overconsumption , particularly of cheap fast-fashion items imported from China , which dominate the lower end of the European clothing market. The timing of the post was no coincidence. The revised Waste Framework Directive introduces new rules for separate collection of textile waste  across EU Member States by 2025, aiming to reduce landfill use and encourage recycling, reuse, and circular business models. Also the dominating narratives debate about textile waste is currently questioned from several organisations. Most people is donating used clothes While some praised the EU for raising awareness through social channels, others called for stricter regulation  of textile imports and stronger producer responsibility schemes  to ensure fashion brands play their part in reducing waste. The Commission’s engagement on LinkedIn signals a broader strategy to use professional platforms for public dialogue on environmental policy — and underlines how textile waste has become a defining issue  in Europe’s sustainability agenda. Read more: EC:s Linked In Post Read more: Urgent call: EU must act against ultra-fast Fashion and implement textile regulations

A group of members of the European Parliament is pressing the European Commission to take immediate and decisive action to curb the rise of ultra-fast fashion in the EU market. In a priority question, MEPs from the PPE group ask how the Commission plans to use trade and regulatory tools to protect Member States from unfair competition and non-compliant textiles. The MEPs pose two urgent questions to the Commission: If the Commission considers that national legislation falls short, what urgent action will it take at EU level to protect Member States from unfair competition? How many weeks will the Commission need to take the requisite measures? Will the Commission commit to using all the legal and trade instruments at its disposal to ban the sale on the European market of ultra-fast fashion products that do not conform to EU legislation?   MEPs ask how the Commission plans to use trade and regulatory tools to protect Member States from unfair competition and non-compliant textiles from ultra fast-fashion Why the urgent call for EU to implement textile regulations? Ultra-fast fashion refers to extremely low-cost, high-volume clothing imports that reach the European market often through parcel shipments and offer minimal longevity or sustainability. According to the MEPs, the issue is exacerbated by large volumes of small-value parcels: EU customs services recorded about 4.6 billion parcels worth under €150 in 2024, many of which contained textile products that do not comply with EU legislation. The textile industry is a significant sector: for example France’s trade deficit in the textile industry (excluding energy) is said to be over 20 %. Furthermore, the fashion-retail ecosystem is now being reshaped by players like SHEIN, which announced on 1 October 2025 that it would open its first physical stores in France. Just two days earlier, the European Commission had requested that the French authorities postpone adoption of a national law aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry, citing potential conflicts with EU law. Will EU act and implement textile regulations against ultra fast-fashion For EU policy-makers, the challenge is two-fold: first, enforcing existing legislation on textiles (covering product safety, environmental standards, trade compliance) and second, tackling the business model of ultra-fast fashion which relies on rapid turnover, minimal cost, and often low quality and unsustainable production. The sheer volume of parcels and imports complicates customs enforcement and regulatory oversight. MEPs argue that without stronger EU-level action, Member States risk being flooded with textile goods that undercut local producers, bypass environmental obligations and degrade market standards. The opening of retail outlets by ultra-fast-fashion brands in major EU markets adds urgency to the demand for a robust EU response. What could happen next The European Commission now faces pressure to detail a timeline and strategy for intervention. Possible actions include: Deploying customs and trade-law tools to block non-compliant textile imports. Harmonising EU-wide standards and enforcement for textile products, especially low-value parcel shipments. Considering bans or restrictions on ultra-fast-fashion goods that fail to meet legislation. Enhancing transparency and due-diligence obligations on brands and importers operating in the EU. In summary: EU must act against ultra fast-fashion and implement textile regulation MEP:s Question : Europaparlamentet Read more: Why China’s ultra fast fashion industry probably doesn’t want you to buy second-hand clothes

A coalition of representatives from the global textiles collection, reuse, and recycling sectors — joined by policymakers and academic experts — has issued an open letter to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), raising serious concerns about the integrity, methodology, and practical implications of UNEP’s Circularity and Used Textile Trade Project. While acknowledging UNEP’s ambition to drive sustainability and circularity in the textile sector, the signatories warn that the project’s current approach risks unintended harm. The proposed global guidelines to distinguish used textiles from textile waste, they argue, lack sufficient rigour, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion. If adopted in their present form, these guidelines could adversely affect millions of livelihoods in the second-hand clothing trade and hinder meaningful circular economy outcomes. “We are concerned that the project’s findings may not fully reflect the realities of the global textile trade,” said Alan Wheeler, CEO, Textile Recycling Association, UK. “UNEP’s willingness to adopt unverified findings betrays its stated commitment to impartiality and undermines public trust. We demand that UNEP correct its course, commission truly independent research, and reconsider its guidelines.” “What we have seen throughout this consultation process is not the objective inquiry that we expect from a UN programme,” said Jeffren Boakye Abrokwah, Chairman, GUCDA. “The Circularity and Used Textiles Trade project could reshape national trade policies that affect the livelihoods of millions of people around the world. In Ghana, for example, UNEP’s research partner is an NGO with a pre-existing waste advocacy campaign that is financially supported by the ultra-fast fashion industry. We have rightly raised concerns about national dialogues where many participants were closely connected to the NGO and questions were leading or closed-ended, which may have affected the neutrality of the data collected.” Textile sector accuse UNEP of flawed guidelines and methodolgy Data integrity and methodological opacity The letter highlights discrepancies between the textile waste figures cited in UNEP’s drafts and those found in prior academic and industry studies. Signatories argue that critical data has been shared without disclosure of collection techniques, analytical processes, or validation protocols — preventing independent scrutiny or stakeholder engagement. Insufficient inclusion of industry actors Despite consultations via workshops and surveys, many grassroots collectors, sorters, traders, and small-scale actors report that they were excluded from meaningful participation. The letter claims the consultation timeline was rushed, access to draft materials was limited, and certain voices dominated the discourse, diminishing the chance for comprehensive, balanced input. Definitions and conflict risks Central definitions — particularly what qualifies as “waste” versus “used textile” — appear to have been applied without adequate peer review or disclosure. Compounding the issue, the coalition raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest: in Ghana, for instance, the research partner leading stakeholder dialogues reportedly has ties to an NGO campaigning on waste issues and receives funding from ultra-fast fashion interests. “There’s a serious risk UNEP’s work will be tainted unless it disengages from activist organisations beholden to fast fashion interests,” warned Teresiah Wairimu Njenga, Chair, Mitumba Consortium Association of Kenya. “The potential harm to communities in Kenya, and indeed worldwide, could be profound.” In summary this is a very sharp criticism and accusation from the textile sector against UNEP. The dominating narrative about Europes dumping of textile waste in African countries has long been challenged and rebuked by both the industry and academic experts. What might looks like textiles is actually plastic. Calls to Action The coalition’s open letter presents a set of urgent demands: Suspend advancement  of the current draft global guidelines until the underlying research is independently validated and better aligned with the realities of international used-textile trade. Publish full transparency  by releasing research methodologies, data sources, definitions, and drafts across all study countries, allowing for peer review and open stakeholder feedback. Broaden representation  by engaging independent and regionally grounded experts and practitioners to collaborate on genuinely inclusive and evidence-based global standards. The letter ends on a collaborative note, urging UNEP to treat these recommendations not as criticism but as an opportunity to reinforce the legitimacy, impact, and fairness of this important global effort. The signatories express willingness to engage in constructive dialogue toward a more equitable and sustainable global textiles trade. Read open letter here Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Context & Background UNEP’s Circularity and Used Textile Trade Project  operates across Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan and Tunisia, aiming to develop policy guidance and global criteria to help distinguish used textiles from waste. UNEP - UN Environment Programme   he initiative is part of the broader One UNEP Textile Initiative, which seeks to align all UNEP textile work around key goals: eliminating hazardous chemicals, curbing overproduction and overconsumption, and scaling circular business models. While global guidelines could guide more sustainable trade practices, observers have flagged the difficulty of creating one-size-fits-all criteria for diverse national contexts and value chains. The letter underscores that guidelines disconnected from on-the-ground realities may backfire, harming small actors and undermining access to affordable clothing in many regions.

"It is fast fashion  -  driven by overproduction and throwaway culture  -  that fuels the textile waste crisis. Yet blame has shifted onto a sector that actively reduces waste - the second-hand sector. The claim that this sector exports waste is not supported by data, and it defies logic." Sven Pedersen, Editor in Chief for Reuse News comments about the open letter to UNEP. United Nations Environmental Programme's (UNEP) push for clearer definitions of textile waste is welcome  - precise terminology benefits all stakeholders. But such efforts must be grounded in evidence. UNEP’s approach suggests second-hand clothing is a key source of textile waste, yet available evidence and operational realities point to more nuanced practices and systems.  I have worked in second-hand clothing for over 26 years, the last 10 in Kenya. Here, the trade is a lifeline  -  supporting 2 million incomes and 24 million livelihoods. For many, it is the only way to access decent clothing with dignity. Even in low-income areas, people are well-dressed and take pride in their appearance. Despite claims that textile waste is choking Nairobi’s streets and landfills, that is not what I have seen. After more than ten years here  -  and I have also visited the Dandora landfill  -  it is clear that textile waste is minimal and makes up only a small part of the overall waste stream. In Kenya, clothes are reused, handed down, and worn for years. People buy far less than in high-consumption economies, where fashion trends drive constant turnover. In the Global North, perfectly good clothes are routinely discarded  -  not out of need, but because people can afford to replace them. Much of this waste is incinerated, making it invisible while contributing significantly to CO₂ emissions  -  about 10% of global footprint. Blaming second-hand clothing for textile pollution is misleading. This trade keeps garments in use, reduces demand for new production, and supports millions of livelihoods. Traders in Ghana protesting against false narratives about textile waste earlier this year. Extensive research Extensive studies from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ghana show textile waste in second-hand imports is minimal  -  typically 2% to 5%  -  mostly due to human error in manual sorting. The claim that this sector exports waste is not supported by data, and it defies logic. It is fast fashion  -  driven by overproduction and throwaway culture  -  that fuels the textile waste crisis. Yet blame is unfairly shifted onto a sector that actively reduces waste. Here is why it is inaccurate to claim that the second-hand clothing trade exports textile waste: Textile waste is not traded internationally -  it would lead to financial losses for exporters, importers, and local traders. The second-hand clothes sector systematically avoids it. Exporting textile waste to the Global South makes no economic sense.  Incineration in Europe costs €0.05–€0.07/kg, while shipping to Kenya is more than €1/kg. Garments are carefully sorted before export to meet import standards.  The sector has decades of experience tailoring supply to diverse global markets through close collaboration with local traders. Shipments are demand-driven, initiated and prepaid by importers.  These clothes are not ‘dumped’ – they are valued commodities actively sought by traders and consumers in the Global South because of good quality.   False claims about of a high percentage of waste in second-hand clothing are harmful and it is extremely important that research is grounded in thorough evidence. Such claims threaten a sector that provides millions of livelihoods and access to affordable, dignified clothing. Second-hand sector not to blame for textile waste crisis The sector is a working circular economy  -  not a waste stream. It keeps garments in use, reduces landfill and incineration, and strengthens economic resilience. Restricting it undermines a proven solution. These realities are precisely why I support the open letter to UNEP, which calls for greater transparency and methodological rigour in research on distinguishing used textiles from textile waste. Sven Pedersen Editor in Chief Read more: Textile sector accuses UN Environmental Programme of flawed data and methodology Read more: Mountains of textile waste growing in Europe - not in Africa Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate

The collection of clothes and textiles has quickly become a logistical and economic trial for many actors in Europe. Two of the largest operators in Germany have filed for insolvency, and collection organizations in Sweden are struggling to keep operations running. "It's a system on the brink of collapse," says Cristofer Ståhlgren and Lars Råsberg from Human Bridge, Sweden's largest collector of used clothes. "Is this really what they intended?" they ask. Human Bridge has agreements with over 140 municipalities and has been operating since 2001. Prior to recent legislative changes, the organization collected approximately 12,000–13,000 tons of textiles annually. These items were sold to sorting companies in Europe, with the proceeds funding Human Bridge's primary mission: donating medical equipment to developing countries. "It started already in 2023" However, in 2023, Swedish authorities began halting shipments of used clothing due to new EU directives prohibiting the export of household waste. Although 95% of Human Bridge's collections consist of clothing, the inclusion of small amounts of shoes and bags led to shipments being classified as household waste and subsequently stopped. "We were forced to burn usable clothes, bags, and shoes that otherwise would have gone to second-hand shops around the world," says Ståhlgren. "This was already on the brink of disaster." Cristofer Ståhlgren, Sales & Logistics Manager Human Bridge, Sweden To circumvent this issue, Human Bridge began sorting textiles in-house, a resource-intensive process that strained their finances. "We began at that point to already be financially stretched to the limit," Ståhlgren adds. Increased Volumes and System Overload In January 2025, Swedish authorities implemented the EU directive requiring separate collection of textile waste, prohibiting disposal of textiles in household trash. This led to a surge in textile volumes, overwhelming collection organizations like Human Bridge. "Suddenly our collection volumes increased by up to 80%," Ståhlgren reports. "That meant we needed even more resources, and it became even harder to manage financially." Swedish collecting bins closed due to overflow of textiles. The consequences were severe: many collection points had to be shut down because they couldn't handle the increased volumes. This disruption undermines the entire system designed to address the textile industry's environmental challenges. The fewer clothes that go to the second-hand market, the more will be incinerated, and the more new clothes will be produced. This is is exactly what the EU in the long run wants to prevent. Temporary Reversal and Lingering Concerns In response to the crisis, the Swedish government announced that, starting October 1, 2025, it would again be permissible to dispose of unusable textiles in household waste. However, Ståhlgren remains skeptical about the effectiveness of this change. "No, we'll see. I've been wrong before, so I really don't dare hope for anything in this situation," he says. Human Bridge warns that without urgent financial support, the system for collecting clothes could be near collapse. In some municipalities, they are planning to terminate collection agreements; others are forced to pause operations. The organization is urging municipalities to temporarily cover additional costs until a producer responsibility scheme is in place. Such a scheme would require textile manufacturers to take responsibility for collection and handling, a measure that is currently under development. The EU Parliament has recently adopted an agreement on producer responsibility for textiles, which is set to be implemented by 2028. System at a Crossroads The intended goal of the legal change is clear: to steer Sweden toward more circular management of textiles, where clothes and fabrics are reused or recycled rather than incinerated. However, in practice, the system is at its breaking point: infrastructural limitations, heavy regulation, and a weak economic model threaten to undermine these ambitions. If nothing is done to strengthen capacity, provide financing, and clarify the regulatory framework, the goal may turn into a system in ruins, with much of the collected material still ending up incinerated. For Human Bridge and similar organizations, this is a situation requiring quick solutions—or the risk that efforts simply won't be enough. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Reuse News - Mountains of textile waste growing in Europe - not in Africa

Fast fashion giants like Shein, backed by China’s manufacturing powerhouse, are increasingly targeting the global market, with a particular focus on Africa. But behind their advertisements and ultra-low prices there might be a deeper strategy: undermining the thriving second-hand clothing industry, which is seen as a large obstacle for expansion. There are a few facts strongly supporting this theory. The African second-hand market, fueled by imports from wealthier nations, has long served as a vital component of the circular economy. It extends the lifespan of clothing, reduces waste, and provides affordable options for millions of consumers. However, Chinese ultra fast fashion brands are eager to expand their markets-shares. China's ultra fast fashion industry probably doesn't want you to buy second-hand clothes Africa has become a battleground for fashion dominance. The continent imports massive quantities of second-hand clothes, which sustain local businesses and create jobs in sorting, repairing, and reselling garments. For decades, this circular system has been both economically and environmentally sustainable. But fast fashion brands probably view this as a threat. Their business model depends on high turnover and mass consumption, leaving no room for durable garments to circulate in the economy. This leads to the assumption that China's ultra fast fashion industry probably don't want you to buy second-hand clothes. Supporting NGO:s with a waste narrative One strategy seems to be donating substantial amounts of money to foundations and organisations that promote information about the supposed negative impact of the second-hand market in Africa. The OR Foundation, for example, has received at least $15 million from Shein. This organisation has been one of the most vocal in promoting the claim that nearly half of second-hand imports to Ghana consist of unusable clothing that ends up in landfills. But these claims have been debunked by several other studies, yet they continue to be widely circulated. Learn more:   The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Learn more:   GUCDA Report refute claims of textile waste in Ghana Another organisation in Kenya, ACT, Africa Collecting Textiles, have made similar claims about the second-hand import to Kenya. These claims have also been refuted by several organisations and studies. ACT is also partly funded by Shein and received 5 million Euro in 2024. Learn more:   EAC Report refute claims of textile waste in Kenya The environmental cost The ultra fast fashion model comes with a massive environmental footprint. Producing millions of garments at breakneck speed requires enormous amounts of water, energy, and raw materials. These clothes are often poorly made, meaning they cannot be reused or recycled effectively, leading to increased textile waste. In contrast, the secondhand market plays a crucial role in reducing waste and mitigating the fashion industry’s climate impact. By extending the life of clothing and replacing the need for new production, it offers an environmentally friendly alternative that aligns with global sustainability goals. A well-functioning system under threat Shein and other similar brands approach threatens to disrupt a system that has worked efficiently for decades. Second-hand clothing not only supports sustainable practices but also provides affordable apparel to millions in low-income regions. Ultra fast fashion, with its low prices and poor quality, undermines this system, creating a cycle of overconsumption and waste. This disruption isn’t confined to Africa. As ultra fast fashion brands expand their reach, they challenge the global second-hand industry, which has been instrumental in reducing textile waste in wealthier nations. If second-hand markets collapse, the result will likely be more landfill waste, higher carbon emissions, and a step backward for the circular economy. Opposite to what politicians, policymakers and the public in Europe want. The call for action Environmental advocates are calling for stronger regulations on ultra fast fashion brands, particularly in regions like Africa where their impact is most severe. Policies such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) and import tariffs could help curb the influence of ultra fast fashion. Shein’s financial support for organizations that criticize the second-hand clothing trade appears to form part of a broader strategy. While often presented as sustainability efforts, such initiatives raise questions about the underlying motives behind them. Written by Thomas Lundkvist

This is Maja Nellström - Project manager at IVL - Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Her team recently published a report examining and comparing climate impact from reuse (second-hand), recycling and incineration. A recent study by the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute has provided a comprehensive assessment of the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of various methods for managing textiles collected in Sweden. The research focused on reuse and recycling practices both within Europe and internationally, as well as the option of incineration and it show that reuse is by far the best option for the climate. The findings indicate that reusing textiles offers the most significant climate benefits, regardless of whether the reuse occurs in Europe or elsewhere. This advantage is primarily because the highest environmental impact arises during the manufacturing phase of clothing. Extending the lifespan of garments through reuse reduces the need for new production, thereby diminishing the associated environmental footprint. The study also examined the environmental implications of recycling compared to incineration with energy recovery. While recycling textiles can lead to lower water consumption—benefiting processes like cotton cultivation—the difference in climate impact between recycling and incineration in Europe is relatively minimal. Beyond environmental considerations, the research highlighted the economic and social advantages of the second-hand clothing market. For households with limited budgets, this market provides both income opportunities and access to affordable apparel. The study underscores the importance of ensuring that exported textiles are genuinely reused and not merely disposed of in importing countries. A high rate of disposal among exported textiles can diminish the environmental benefits of reuse. Additionally, the longer a garment is used and the more it replaces the need for new clothing, the greater the environmental advantage. These insights are particularly pertinent in light of Sweden’s new legislation mandating the separate collection of textiles, which came into effect on January 1, 2025. The law aims to promote sustainable handling of collected textiles, and this study provides valuable guidance for stakeholders involved in textile management decisions. In conclusion, the report advocates for prioritizing textile reuse over recycling and incineration to achieve the most favorable environmental outcomes. It also calls for careful consideration of the quality and destination of exported textiles to maximize their sustainability benefits. Link: The IVL-Report

Hundreds of dealers and traders in the second-hand clothing industry in Accra, Ghana entered the streets Thursday to protest against what they call unbalanced and false narratives about the industry. In the crosshairs of the protesters' anger is the OR Foundation, an organization that has for several years claimed that the second-hand industry is exacerbating the waste problems in Ghana. The Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association issued a statement in connection with the event, where they explained their reasons for the protest: The OR Foundation has consistently portrayed the used clothing trade in a negative light - spreading false, unbalanced, and damaging narratives that seek to discredit our work and tarnish the image of Ghana internationally. These reports have painted an inaccurate picture of our operations, ignoring the significant role our industry plays in job creation, poverty reduction, and sustainable livelihoods for thousands of Ghanaians.  We find these actions not only disrespectful to our trade, but also harmful to the dignity and reputation of the Ghanaian people. The OR Foundation’s continuous misrepresentation of the Kantamanto market, in particular, is unacceptable and must stop.  During the protest, the participants held up images published by the OR Foundation, they believe are fake and not reflecting reality. Several other news platforms have notised the protest and reported about it: Texfash: "Misinformation campaign condemned" Ecotextile: "Protest against campaign claims" Joyonline: "Textile waste claims anger dealers" Here you can read more about the story that form the basis of today´s demonstration.

"Few industries might be so misunderstood as our industry. This is particularly sad when these misconceptions start to influence politicians and other decision makers" These are the words from Örjan Österdal, CEO of Humana Second Hand Fundraising Projects, one of Europe's largest second-hand clothing enterprises. A non-profit enterprise that´s been a part of the second-hand trading since the nineties. "I would argue that the second-hand clothing industry is a very well functioning circular economy, but it is now under a threat from politicians whose ambition is just that - to create a circular economy system. It is a paradox, to put it mildly" The prevailing media narrative suggesting that 40% or more of second-hand clothes imported into Africa end up in landfills has faced strong criticism from experts and operators within the second-hand industry. These claims are not only unverified and misleading but also disregard the economic logic of the trade. “It would be both illogical and uneconomical to import clothes that end up being discarded,” says Örjan Österdal. “First of all, the cost of importing second-hand clothing is extremely high. In Kenya, for example, taxes, tariffs, and fees amount to over 70% of the purchase price.” Read more: Misconceptions about textile waste in Africa threatens the circular textile economy But, let´s start from the beginning. How does this industry really work? The truth about the second-hand industry is probably far from what you've been told What actually happens to the clothes we drop into collection bins outside shopping centers and recycling facilities? Many people assume that “someone” collects them and ships them off to Africa, where they are left for anyone to take. For many years, secondhand clothing has been part of a professionalised global industry—a commercial trade spanning multiple wholesale levels across continents and providing employment for millions of people. The container you place your clothes in is owned by an organisation or company. They are responsible for purchasing and placing the container, regularly emptying it, performing an initial sorting, and then selling the clothes to a sorting company. This process helps fund the collection operation, which requires labor and transportation. Many nonprofit organisations use the revenue from selling unsorted second-hand clothing to finance aid projects, while some for-profit companies also participate in this trade. Export and import The sorting company that purchases the clothes conducts a more detailed sorting process—sometimes into more than 400 different categories. Items are separated by type, such as shoes, jackets, pants, and sweaters, and further sorted by size, gender, fashion style, or material. Once sorted and packaged, the clothing is sold either to domestic market retailers or exported to importers in other countries. Importers then pay duties and taxes before reselling the clothing to shops or smaller wholesalers within their country. These smaller wholesalers, in turn, supply market vendors and secondhand shops. In many African countries, thousands of stores specialize in selling second-hand clothing. Second-hand industry offers affordable clothing for millions For many African nations, where a significant portion of the population lives below the poverty line, second-hand clothing offers a vital opportunity to purchase affordable apparel. Unlike in Europe, where second-hand shopping is often viewed as a niche or trendy choice, in Africa, it forms a fundamental part of the clothing market. Studies show that approximately 90% of Africans buy second-hand clothing (source: Institute of Economic Affairs Kenya ) Employment and economic impact In Kenya alone, government estimates suggest that the second-hand clothing industry employs over 2 million people. The customs and tax revenues generated are substantial, and if second-hand imports were to stop, it would deliver a devastating blow to the national economy, the job market, and the general population. Redistribution of surplus Clothing overconsumption in Europe is staggering. In Sweden, for example, the average person is estimated to purchase between 50 and 60 garments per year. Clothes that are no longer wanted are either discarded or, if deemed useful to others, placed in collection bins. In contrast, the average African citizen buys only 2–4 garments per year and can only afford to spend a fraction of what a European would pay for a single item. This redistribution process extends the lifespan of clothing that would otherwise be incinerated or sent to landfills, while also providing access to quality garments for poorer communities. In essence, it represents a global redistribution of surplus. Climate impact A recent study from the IVL Institute in Sweden examines the textile industry's climate impact and compares various methods for managing clothing surplus in European countries. The findings reveal that reusing textiles provides the most significant climate benefits, regardless of whether the reuse takes place in Europe or elsewhere. This advantage stems from the fact that the highest environmental impact occurs during the manufacturing phase of clothing. By extending the lifespan of garments through reuse, the demand for new production decreases, thereby reducing the overall environmental footprint. The study also compared the environmental effects of recycling versus incineration with energy recovery. While recycling can reduce water consumption—particularly beneficial for processes like cotton cultivation—the difference in climate impact between recycling and incineration within Europe is relatively minor. Read More: The IVL report Conclusions So what you have been told about the second-hand industry is probably quite far from truth. Within the industry, there is a strong concern—and perhaps even fear—that exports from Europe to regions such as Africa may be restricted or even banned. The reasons for this include the belief that a significant portion of the clothing ends up directly in landfills in Africa. The troubling aspect of this prediction is that, firstly, the proportion of waste among imported clothing is not as large as often claimed, and secondly, restricting exports would have a highly negative impact on millions of people. The obvious risk would be that ultra-fast fashion companies, such as Shein, would expand in the African market, which would significantly contribute to growing landfills since their clothes usually are not durable enough for reuse. At the same time, the amount of clothing we are forced to burn in Europe would increase significantly, as we would no longer be able to export them for reuse to parts of the world where they are in demand. Written by Thomas Lundkvist

Since 2021, much of the debate around the environmental impact of the global textile industry has been dominated by reports alleging that Europe is dumping its clothing waste in African countries. However, these reports do not hold up to factual review. The evidence instead points to a narrative that has misled journalists, politicians, environmental activists, and the public alike. But how could such a widespread misperception take root? The year 2021 plays a pivotal role in this story.That was the year when claims began to circulate stating that 40% or more of Europe’s second-hand clothing exports to African countries consisted of unsellable garments, considered waste upon arrival. We've all seen the widely circulated images of rivers, beaches, and dumpsites in Ghana—images that contributed to the country being labelled “the dumping ground for Europe’s unwanted clothes”. In the second-hand industry, however, these claims have been met with considerable scepticism and in Ghana they have even taken to the streets to protest against these “unsubstantiated claims”. Watch clip from protests in Ghana here We searched for the mountains of textile waste In our previous article we decided to go to Ghana and look for the “mountains of textile waste”. But we couldn’t find them. There is undoubtedly an overwhelming amount of waste, but it is mostly plastic. Textile waste is only a few percent of the total waste stream in Ghana, and it does not come from second-hand imports. You can read the full story here.   What looks like textiles from a distance, is actually plastic, not dumped clothes. So the next question is of course: how could this happen? A piece of research gains traction It's hard to find substantial references to exported textile waste to Africa prior to 2021. Something clearly shifted that year. In fact, two significant developments occurred in the months between autumn 2021 and summer of 2022 that seem essential in the formation of this narrative. Late 2021 the OR Foundation emerged—a US- and Ghana based non-profit organisation, advocating for environmental justice, ecological prosperity, and a new model of fashion beyond consumerism. They published a research into textile waste in Ghana. They called it a  “multimedia presentation”, and it’s emotional appeal, photos and videos seemed to show a rather difficult situation with textile waste emerging from second-hand import. The presentation gained rapid traction—picked up by major media outlets, widely shared on social media, and even discussed within EU policy circles. Journalists and politicians forwarding unsupported claims As media coverage and the OR Foundation’s own public relations began reaching policymakers and analysts within the European Union, the waste narrative and the 40% figure started to emerge in reports and presentations from EU. This has probably accelerated the work with policies to restrict the export of second-hand clothing from the EU to non-EU countries. In several reports, EU officials directly cite the 40% figure as justification for proposing stricter regulations—some even advocating for second-hand clothing to be classified as waste at the point of export. This is one of these reports, from the European Environment Agency. Even if the OR Foundations research often is referred to in the media as a study or a report, it is important to note that none of their official publications detail their methodology. However, it has been mentioned that it is based on interviews with a number of second-hand clothing traders in Ghana.   Funding announced The second key development occurred a couple of months after OR Foundations presentation in 2021, and sheds further light on this evolving narrative: the disclosure of the foundation’s funding sources. In 2022, it was announced that Shein—a multinational Chinese ultra-fast-fashion giant— entered a "multi-year agreement between The Or Foundation and Shein to create an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Fund. In a global first, Shein will commit $50 Million to the fund over five years". This is a corporation that, to most, likely appears as one of the greatest threats to what the OR Foundation claims to be fighting against. Shein has frequently been singled out in environmental debates as one of the worst offenders in the global fashion industry. Ultra-fast-fashion refers to extremely low-cost garments, produced rapidly on-demand and designed for short-term use. These clothes are often worn only a few times before being discarded. Crucially, they are largely made from synthetic, plastic-based materials—contributing significantly to environmental degradation. Like other Asia-based ultra-fast-fashion companies, Shein has seen explosive global growth in recent years. Yet one market remains relatively underdeveloped for the brand: Africa. In many African countries that import second-hand clothing, these goods dominate the local fashion market. Studies show that up to 90% of the population purchase and wear second-hand garments to some extent. This might be perceived to represent a significant obstacle to the expansion of ultra-fast-fashion companies on a continent with 1.5 billion potential customers. This is how deceptive narratives about textile waste actually fuel ultra fast fashion. Summary There is no scientific evidence or peer-reviewed study to support the claim that 40% of second-hand clothing imported into African countries consists of unsalable items that are immediately dumped in landfills. On the contrary, several academic studies suggest that a more realistic figure is below 5%. These studies have been conducted in major second-hand import markets such as Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda.Textile waste levels in African nations are not disproportionately high compared to other continents, and the waste is certainly not primarily coming from second-hand imports. Despite this, both media reporting and the documents underpinning EU policy decisions frequently reference the same “study” — the research presented by the OR Foundation in 2021. Academic research suggesting significantly lower figures is entirely absent from the EU’s official policy reports. You can read two of them below. The OR Foundation has never concealed its financial support from Shein, the Chinese ultra-fast-fashion giant. The foundation maintains that both it and Shein are sincere in their efforts to reduce the fashion industry’s environmental harm. OR Foundation representatives have also verbally stated that they remain critical of Shein’s environmental practices. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more:   The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debat e - Part 1 Read more:   GUCDA Report refute claims of textile waste in Ghana About Reuse News Reuse News is a news platform covering developments in reuse, recycling and environmental issues  related to the textile industry. Our work adheres to professional journalistic and editorial standards. Our goal is to support better-informed journalists, influencers, researchers and policymakers in the textile sector. We are funded by organisations active in clothing collection, second-hand trade and international development work, and the initiative was born out of a growing need to counter misinformation in this field.

A wave of policy changes is currently underway in the EU, aimed at tackling the environmental damage caused by the textile industry. Yet early signs suggest these reforms may be making the problem much worse. One of the reasons might be that some of the data it is based on, is flawed. It has been claimed, that the export of second-hand clothing to African countries is in fact a way for European countries to dump unwanted clothing waste. Nearly all reports on the subject come from Ghana. So we decided to go there. This is what we found—or perhaps more accurately, what we didn’t. There is no doubt that the textile industry is among the most climate-damaging sectors. The environmental impact of clothing production is immense, and garments are increasingly made from synthetic, plastic-based materials. Add to that the massive overconsumption of clothing in the Global North and the mountains of textile waste it produces. But in recent years—since 2021, to be precise—a relatively small part of the textile industry has come under the spotlight: the trade and handling of second-hand clothing. Despite the fact that the second-hand sector arguably extends the lifespan of textiles, redistributes surplus clothing from the Global North to the Global South, and contributes both to job creation and affordable clothing for comparatively poorer populations, it has become the target of growing criticism. Why? The truth about the second-hand export debate not quite as it usually is described in media Claims of 40% waste in exports Critics argue that the problem lies in the quality of second-hand clothing exported from Europe to countries in, for example, Africa. A significant portion of these garments are said to be unusable—torn, dirty, or otherwise unfit for resale—and are therefore discarded as waste upon arrival. The figure most commonly cited in debates is that around 40% of second-hand clothing imports to African countries are considered unwearable and thus treated as waste. This exacerbates an already difficult waste management problem in African countries. The prevailing narrative that has gained traction in mainstream media, social media, debates, and conferences is that "Europe is dumping its clothing waste in African nations". Where are the mountains of waste? There is only one way to find out whether the claims about imported textile waste are true: go to Accra and visit the places where the waste is said to be. So this is what we did. We meet up with "Kevin" on one of Accra’s beaches. He says he has guided many TV crews to the places where textile waste can be found. For a small fee, he can guide us too, we gather. So the next day, we follow him to the beaches of Jamestown—perhaps the most frequently featured location in reports about second-hand waste in Ghana. When we arrive, the beach is full of young people picking up litter and trash. The cleanup is organised by the OR Foundation, a non-profit based in Ghana and run by two Americans. The foundation is one of the main forces behind the portrayal of Ghana as a dumping ground for the Global North’s clothing surplus. But the litter being collected on the beach, with few exceptions, isn’t clothing. Unsurprisingly, it’s almost entirely plastic. Jamestown Beach in Accra, Ghana. One of the beaches said to be overflowed with textile waste. Volonteers cleaning up Jamestown beach in Accra. A place said to be overflowed by textile waste. But in fact, most of it is plastic. It's not textiles, it´s plastic bags Kevin tells us that all the clothing has already been cleared from the beach. There are other places, he says, where we’ll be able to see the piles of clothing. So we head to another beach. But again, there are no textiles. We continue upriver, passing Korle Lagoon—another location frequently mentioned in reports about textile waste. Here, we find large amounts of litter. But very little of it is textile. At first sight the trash on the beach look like old clothes and textiles, and there are som pieces, but almost all of it is plastic. And particularly plastic bags. Plastic bags looks a lot like textiles from a distance. There are many landfills and dumping sites along the river. It’s been said that when it rains, clothing waste is washed along the river and out into the ocean. But nowhere do we find any mountains of textile waste. In some places, from a distance, it may look like clothing waste—but as we get closer, it becomes clear that it’s plastic. Plastic bags, from afar, can very easily be mistaken for textiles. There are some garments here and there at the beach, but it is estimately only a few percent of the total amount of waste. We visited all the places in Accra that are said to be where unwanted, discarded second-hand clothing ends up. We went to the beaches, we visited the dumping sites, we climbed onto and around several landfills, and we followed the river that runs through the city. But nowhere did we find any evidence that Ghana is a dumping ground for Europe’s cast-off clothing. On the banks of the river that runs trough Accra there is a lot of waste. But most of it is plastic. Nowhere are the mountains of textile waste to be found. It might look like textiles from a distance, but as you get closer, you discover that textiles is a very small part of it As we travel around trying to locate the textile waste reported on by media outlets around the world—and which has, to a large extent, shaped EU policies and regulations on second-hand clothing—it’s hard to understand how things ended up this way. Even if the beach we visited had truly been cleared of clothing, all the other places we’ve seen should be overflowing with textile waste, if the media coverage is to be believed. We leave Ghana puzzled. How did this happen? Who stands to gain from it? We’ll be back with more soon. Written and produced by Thomas Lundkvist & Kristjan Sigurjonsson More to watch: More to read: What does the traders say? Edward Atobrah Brinkley We meet Edward Atobrah Brinkley. He is the Secretary General of the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association, an organisation representing importers and retailers of second-hand clothing in Ghana. "Claims that 40% of second-hand imports end up as waste have been circulating in the media for years. But those of us who live and work in this industry have never been able to understand where these so-called mountains of clothing waste are. We've really searched—but we haven't found them," he says. “Every country has textile waste—and so do we,” says Atobrah. “But the waste consists of clothes that have been worn many times and then discarded. It doesn’t come from second-hand imports.” “Our research shows that textile waste makes up just a few percent of total waste,” he says. We learned that one such study was carried out by the Metropolitan Research and Education Bureau, which concluded that no more than 5% of imported second-hand clothing could be considered waste. You can read that study here . Protests in Ghana Traders in Ghana protest agains misinformation campaigns about textile waste This is exactly what importers and second-hand clothing traders in Ghana have been trying to say for years, but nobody want's to listen, as it seems. They argue that the reported volumes of waste supposedly generated by second-hand imports are completely inaccurate—and that the mountains of textile waste said to exist in Accra simply do not. As recently as March 2025, hundreds of people working in Accra’s second-hand industry took to the streets to protest what they claim is a deeply misleading portrayal of the trade. Their frustration is understandable: such claims threaten not only their livelihoods, but their very ability to earn a living and live with dignity. 2,180 shipping containers of textile waste The images and reports in media appear convincing. The message is that nearly half of Ghana’s imports of second-hand clothing are unusable and end up directly in landfills and on beaches. But to anyone with even a basic understanding of how the second-hand clothing trade works, this claim sounds both unlikely and illogical. Ghana imports over 130,000 tonnes of second-hand clothing each year. If 40% of that were waste, it would amount to around 2,180 shipping containers annually—or roughly 182 containers every month. That’s a vast amount of textile waste. But it would also mean that importers are unable to sell half of what they bring in—a remarkably bad deal by any measure. Especially considering they pay both duties and taxes to bring the clothes into the country.

Textile Exchange released its annual Materials Market Report alongside its Materials Benchmark Insights and Trends 2025 and its Climate+ Dashboard. Together, the reports show global fiber production hit a record 132 million tons in 2024, more than double since 2000. Despite nearly a decade of climate pledges, raw material use across fashion, footwear, and home textiles keeps climbing, pushing the industry further from the 1.5°C climate goal of limiting global warming to safe levels.  The report highlights fashion’s central contradiction: brands are sourcing more “preferred” materials, but those gains are outpaced by the relentless growth in overall production. As long as the industry keeps making more materials, especially fossil-fuel synthetics, emissions will continue to rise.  The takeaway is that sourcing improvements matter, but on their own, they are not enough to offset the impact of increasing production.  Links: Materials Benchmark Insights Climate+ Dashboard