Europe is building new rules to control textile waste, increase circularity and track material flows. But as these rules take shape, a central problem is becoming visible. Large parts of the textile system they are meant to regulate remain only partially understood. Across Europe, the textile system is entering a new phase Over the past few years, EU textile policy has expanded rapidly. Separate collection of textiles is being introduced across member states. Controls on exports of used clothing are tightening. New rules on unsold goods are being prepared. And additional reporting requirements are now under discussion. Together, these measures are designed to build a more circular textile system. But they are also being applied to a system that is still only partly visible. A system under pressure and still difficult to map In warehouses, sorting facilities and collection systems across Europe, operators report rising volumes, declining material quality and increasing operational complexity. At the same time, the pathways through which textiles move after use are becoming harder to track. Some garments are collected and resold. Others are exported. Some are downcycled. And a significant share still ends up in disposal. But as flows become more fragmented and conditions more constrained, visibility into what happens to textiles after collection remains limited. As Reuse News has previously reported, a share of garments already disappears from view after failing to find a viable market — raising a broader question: More rules, but limited oversight In recent weeks, the European Commission has taken steps that point to a growing awareness of this gap. A new consultation under the proposed Environmental Omnibus aims to simplify parts of the regulatory framework, including rules affecting circular systems. At the same time, the Commission is preparing updated reporting requirements under the Waste Framework Directive to improve tracking of textile flows. On paper, these are technical adjustments. In practice, they signal something more fundamental. The system is becoming harder to operate and harder to understand. Policy is reshaping flows faster than they can be tracked Current EU textile policy is not only increasing volumes entering the system. It is also changing how those volumes move. Separate collection is bringing more textiles into formal systems. Export controls are altering where and how used clothing can be traded. New obligations are increasing the need for sorting and documentation. Together, these changes are reshaping the structure of textile flows across Europe. But the mechanisms to fully track and understand those flows are still being developed. The proposed reporting framework, for example, is not expected to be adopted before 2027. Until then, large parts of the system will continue to operate with limited transparency. As textile flows become harder to track and outcomes more uncertain, a broader pattern begins to emerge. A system that is only partially visible This creates a structural tension in the EU’s textile strategy. Policies are accelerating the transformation of the system by increasing volumes, introducing new requirements and reshaping existing pathways. At the same time, the tools to fully observe and manage that system are not yet in place. The result is a system that is not only under pressure, but only partially visible. And as volumes continue to grow, what happens outside the visible part of the system may become increasingly important. From building rules to understanding the system EU textile policy is entering a new phase. If the past years were about building regulatory frameworks for circular textiles, the current phase is about making those systems function in practice and understanding what they actually do. Because before a system can be fully regulated, it needs to be fully seen. Source:   European Commission – Waste Framework Directive The initiative forms part of the EU’s broader textile strategy, where increased collection and stricter regulation are reshaping post-consumer textile flows across member states.

Across Europe, pressure in the textile system is no longer abstract. It is becoming visible. Collection volumes are rising, export markets are shifting, and parts of the system designed to handle used textiles are struggling to keep pace. Now, the European Commission is beginning to adjust existing rules — not to introduce new ambitions, but to make the current system work in practice. Across Europe, signs of strain are emerging across the textile system. Operators handling used clothing report rising volumes, weaker margins and growing operational complexity. Policies designed to reduce waste and increase circularity are now interacting with a system that is already under pressure. In response, policymakers are beginning to shift focus — from setting new targets to making existing rules operational. Last week, the European Commission opened a consultation on its proposed “Environmental Omnibus”, a package aimed at simplifying parts of EU environmental legislation, including rules affecting textiles and circular systems. On paper, the initiative is about reducing administrative burden. In practice, it signals a growing need to make existing rules operational. The system is becoming harder to operate. What the Environmental Omnibus means for EU textile policy Over the past few years, EU textile policy has expanded rapidly. New requirements on textile collection, tighter controls on exports of used textiles, and upcoming rules on unsold garments are all designed to build a circular system. But as Reuse News recently reported, these changes are also putting pressure on the system that handles used textiles. Volumes are rising. Quality is declining. Costs are increasing. The Environmental Omnibus suggests a shift in focus. The emphasis is no longer only on adding new rules, but on adjusting how existing rules function in practice. What is the Environmental Omnibus? An “omnibus” is a legislative update that modifies several existing legal acts at once. In this case, the European Commission is reviewing parts of its environmental regulatory framework to: simplify reporting requirementsreduce overlapping obligationsimprove compliance across EU member states The consultation signals that the regulatory framework for circular textiles is still being developed and adjusted. Closed collection bins for used clothes in Sweden, due to system failures. Growing pressure on textile collection and sorting systems The push for simplification comes as both material and regulatory pressure increase at the same time. More textiles are entering collection and sorting systems, while rules governing how they are handled are becoming more complex. The result is a growing gap between policy ambition and operational reality in the EU textile system. The Commission is not changing direction. But it is beginning to adjust how the system works. A new phase in EU textile policy implementation EU textile policy is entering a new phase. If the past years were about building regulatory frameworks for circular textiles, this phase is about making those systems function in practice. This is often where structural constraints and unintended effects become visible.

What actually happens to the clothes that are never sold? Each year, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of garments fail to find a buyer in Europe. Most are redistributed through secondary markets. But a smaller share simply disappears from view — with limited data on where it goes or how it is handled. Now, the EU’s Ecodesign regulation is about to bring this hidden part of the system into focus. A commonly cited figure is that around 20 percent of garments go unsold. But this does not mean that one in five items is never used. It refers to products that fail to sell in their initial retail cycle, including returns, and are then redistributed through channels such as markdowns, outlets and off-price sales. Most eventually find a buyer. What remains is a much smaller, but more consequential share: garments that fail to find a market at all. This fraction, according to EU estimates, represents roughly 4–9 percent of all textiles placed on the European market, equivalent to approximately 264,000 to 594,000 tonnes per year. It is this residual stream of unsold clothing that is now being targeted by regulation. Limited data on the residual stream of unsold clothing The problem is that there is no clear picture of what this residual stream consists of, or how it is handled in practice. While resale channels such as outlets and discount platforms are relatively well understood, the final stages of the process remain opaque. What happens to garments that cannot be sold, even at a discount, is not systematically documented. This lack of transparency is structural. Until now, companies have not been required to disclose how they manage unsold products that are ultimately discarded as waste. EU estimates are therefore based on partial data and industry assumptions rather than comprehensive reporting. Approximately 264,000 to 594,000 tonnes of unsold clothes effectively disappear every year through destruction. Ecodesign regulation introduces reporting requirements for unsold textiles The Ecodesign regulation changes this. Companies will be required to report how they handle unsold clothing and footwear, including the volumes discarded and the reasons why. For the first time, policymakers and the public may gain insight into a part of the system that has largely remained out of view. The EU’s stated objective is to reduce waste and emissions. Fewer new garments should be destroyed before use. But the regulation also alters the cost structure of overproduction. If unsold goods can no longer be disposed of, the cost of forecasting demand incorrectly increases. In theory, this could lead to tighter production volumes, improved demand planning and more cautious inventory management. In practice, the outcome remains uncertain. Structural constraints in the fashion system limit immediate effects The fashion industry is structurally built on volume, speed and availability. Producing less carries risks in the form of missed sales, while producing more has historically been manageable through markdowns, secondary channels and, in some cases, destruction. Without that final option, companies will need to identify alternative pathways for managing surplus. These may include deeper discounting, expanded outlet channels, extended storage or new forms of redistribution. A key question is whether part of this volume will move into second-hand markets. On the surface, this appears plausible. Unsold garments are intact, unused and often of higher quality than much of what is collected post-consumer. In a global context, where European fashion cycles are less relevant, they may retain resale value. But this is not only a question of product quality. It is also a question of system capacity. Second-hand and recycling systems face capacity and value constraints Across Europe, infrastructure for handling used textiles is already under pressure. Collection volumes are increasing, while margins in sorting and resale are declining. Even if unsold garments have resale value, it is unclear whether existing systems can absorb additional volumes at scale. At the same time, one of the long-term solutions highlighted in policy discussions, fibre-to-fibre recycling at scale, remains limited. Most textile recycling today results in lower-value outputs, and fully circular systems are still in development. This leaves a limited set of practical pathways for managing surplus: resale, redistribution, downcycling or waste. With destruction now restricted under the Ecodesign regulation, one of these pathways is being removed. The regulation is clear about what should not happen. Less clear is what should happen instead. Until there is better data on how unsold clothing is currently handled, it remains difficult to assess how the system will respond when one of its final exit routes is removed.

The European Commission has launched a new infringement procedure against Lithuania for failing to properly transpose the EU’s Waste Framework Directive into national law. T he case was announced as part of the Commission’s March infringements package, a regular review of how EU legislation is implemented across member states. Infringement procedures are used when the Commission believes national authorities have not correctly applied EU law. The Waste Framework Directive is a cornerstone of EU waste policy, setting out key principles such as the waste hierarchy, recycling targets and responsibilities for waste management systems. While the procedure concerns Lithuania specifically, enforcement of the directive has broader implications for several emerging policy areas, including textile waste management. Many of the measures now being developed under the EU’s textile strategy build on the legal framework established in the directive. The case highlights the ongoing challenge of translating EU environmental legislation into functioning national systems across the bloc.

A proposal linked to the European Commission’s Environmental Omnibus initiative has triggered concerns among recycling industry representatives about the future enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) rules. The proposal would suspend, until 2035, the requirement for producers selling products in EU countries where they are not established to appoint a local Authorised Representative responsible for ensuring compliance with national EPR systems. Recycling Europe has warned that removing this obligation could make it harder to ensure that foreign producers register, report volumes and contribute financially to waste management schemes. According to the organisation, the change could increase free-riding, weaken traceability and ultimately undermine the functioning of recycling systems across the EU. The issue is particularly relevant as the EU prepares to roll out new textile EPR systems , which are expected to finance the collection, sorting and treatment of used clothing across the bloc. Industry groups argue that weakening enforcement mechanisms at this stage could complicate the implementation of those systems.

Europe is preparing to ban the destruction of unsold clothing. The move is widely welcomed as a step towards a more circular textile economy. Few people argue that usable garments should be burned or discarded. But the decision arrives at a complicated moment for Europe’s textile system. In many parts of the continent, the infrastructure designed to handle used clothing is already under growing pressure. The question now facing policymakers is straightforward, even if the answer is not: what happens to unsold garments when destruction is no longer an option? Ecodesign regulation introduces new rules for unsold clothing Under the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, companies will soon be required to disclose how they handle unsold clothing and footwear. Large companies will also be prohibited from destroying unsold products, with the aim of reducing waste and encouraging reuse or recycling. The logic behind the measure is simple. If companies cannot dispose of excess stock through destruction, they will have a stronger incentive to manage it differently, through resale, donation or recycling. In theory, fewer clothes will be wasted. In practice, however, the question is where these garments will go. Europe’s textile collection and sorting systems are already under strain Across Europe, the systems that collect and sort used clothing are experiencing significant changes. New rules require households to separate textile waste instead of discarding it in general waste streams. As a result, large volumes of textiles are now entering collection systems that were originally designed primarily for reusable garments. At the same time, the market conditions for second-hand clothing have become more difficult. Several traditional export markets have weakened in recent years, while competition between sorting operators has intensified and resale prices for used garments have declined. The result is a system where volumes are rising while margins are shrinking. Sorting companies and charitable collectors in several countries have reported growing costs and increasing pressure on storage and sorting capacity. Textile recycling capacity remains limited In the longer term, policymakers expect textile recycling to play a much larger role in absorbing Europe’s clothing surplus. Significant investments are being directed toward new textile-to-textile recycling technologies. But industrial-scale recycling for mixed post-consumer textiles remains limited. Most clothing collected in Europe today can only be recycled through processes that produce lower-value outputs such as insulation or industrial materials. Fully circular fibre-to-fibre recycling is still emerging and currently handles only small volumes. This means that reuse markets continue to play a crucial role in extending the lifespan of garments that remain wearable. EU ban on destroying unsold clothing does not address production volumes The ban on destroying unsold clothing addresses one part of the textile waste problem: the treatment of excess inventory. But it does not change another fundamental dynamic of the global fashion system: the scale at which new garments are produced. Clothing production has grown rapidly over the past two decades, and large volumes of garments continue to enter the market each year. When those garments remain unsold, they add to the growing pool of surplus clothing that must be redistributed, reused or recycled. If fewer garments are destroyed and recycling capacity remains limited, more of that surplus will need to be absorbed elsewhere in the system. A new capacity challenge for European textile policy Europe’s textile policies are entering a new phase. Governments are introducing rules to collect more textiles, monitor clothing flows more closely and prevent the destruction of usable products. These measures are intended to reduce waste and encourage more circular use of materials. But they also raise a practical question about system capacity. If more clothes are collected, fewer are destroyed and recycling systems are still developing, the pressure on the rest of the textile system inevitably grows. For now, the answer to where those clothes will go remains uncertain. What is clear is that Europe’s textile system will have to find new ways to handle the growing surplus.

In recent years, regulation of used clothing has moved rapidly up the political agenda. At the same time, a growing number of regulatory processes are focused on what happens after garments are discarded, while the questions of overproduction and overconsumption remain largely unresolved. This imbalance is striking in climate terms. The textile sector is estimated to account for roughly 2–4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with most of the impact occurring upstream in fibre production, processing, dyeing and manufacturing. The climate impact linked to what happens after a garment is discarded represents only a marginal share of that footprint, yet it is precisely this part of the system that current regulatory efforts are focusing on. The textile sector is estimated to account for roughly 2–4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions Export rules are tightening. Textile shipments face greater scrutiny under the EU Waste Shipment Regulation. And under the Basel Convention, technical discussions are exploring whether certain second-hand textile exports should be classified as waste.Taken together, these developments signal a clear shift. Reuse and second-hand clothing have become central objects of textile governance. Why are second-hand textile flows becoming a focus of textile policy? Several dynamics appear to converge. One is institutional. Waste regulation is an established policy domain with existing legal tools and administrative structures. Expanding those frameworks to include textiles is considerably easier than attempting to regulate production volumes in a globalised industry. Visibility also matters. Global flows of used clothing are highly tangible. Images of large volumes of garments arriving in markets in Africa or Asia have become powerful symbols in debates about textile waste. Production systems, by contrast, are geographically distant and embedded in complex supply chains. Advocacy has also shaped the agenda. In recent years, several NGOs have framed global second-hand trade as an environmental burden for importing countries. These narratives have contributed to growing political momentum around export controls and classification debates within EU and Basel policy processes. Finally , focusing on second-hand flows allows policymakers to demonstrate action on textile waste without confronting some of the more politically difficult questions surrounding production scale, consumption patterns and trade policy. Together, these dynamics help explain why reuse has moved to the centre of textile policy discussions. But they lead to a further question: If new regulatory attention is built on the assumption that second-hand flows represent a significant environmental problem, how strong is the evidence behind that assumption? This questions are examined further here: How robust is the evidence behind environmental claims in the second-hand clothing trade? Tougher rules for discarded clothes — but textile production volumes remain outside EU climate control

Much of the current momentum in textile policy is built on growing concern about the environmental consequences of global second-hand clothing flows. Underlying many of these discussions is a basic assumption: that large-scale trade in second-hand clothing contributes significantly to environmental harm in importing countries. But how well documented is that assumption? Reliable data on the environmental impacts of global second-hand trade remain surprisingly limited. While a number of reports highlight visible waste challenges in major importing hubs, far fewer studies have been able to quantify the environmental effects of second-hand flows in a systematic way. Field observations versus widely circulated imagery In several high-profile cases, the narrative has been shaped as much by imagery as by data. Reuse News has previously reported from locations frequently cited in the global debate about textile waste, including coastal areas in Ghana often portrayed as destinations for European clothing waste. Field reporting and photographic documentation from those locations did not support the widely circulated image of beaches overwhelmed by discarded garments. Instead, the dominant waste streams observed were plastics and other municipal waste. This does not mean that textile waste problems do not exist. Markets handling large volumes of used clothing inevitably generate some unsold or low-value material that must be managed locally. Coastal areas in Accra, Ghana is often portrayed as destinations for European clothing waste. Field reporting and photographic documentation from those locations does not support this narrative. Instead, the dominant waste streams observed were plastics and other municipal waste. Textile waste and clothing consumption But it is important to distinguish between different types of textile waste. All garments, whether new or second-hand, eventually reach the end of their useful life. The presence of textile waste in a country therefore reflects overall clothing consumption and local waste management systems, not only the origin of the garments themselves. Framing textile waste primarily as a consequence of second-hand imports risks obscuring this basic fact. If consumers in countries such as Ghana or Kenya were instead purchasing larger volumes of newly manufactured garments, often inexpensive ultra-fast-fashion products produced elsewhere, the same items would still eventually enter the waste stream once they reached the end of their life. Scale and waste management systems This raises a broader question about scale. Clothing consumption levels in many African countries remain far below those seen in Europe or North America. Estimates of annual garment purchases in countries such as Kenya or Ghana are typically a fraction of European consumption levels, often less than one fifth. That does not mean textile waste management is easy. Many cities across the Global South face serious challenges in managing municipal waste streams, including plastics, organic waste and other materials. Textile waste forms part of that broader system. But available evidence suggests that textiles represent only a small share of overall urban waste streams in most cases. The environmental challenges facing these waste systems are therefore wider than textiles alone. Evidence gaps in the second-hand clothing policy debate Seen in this context, the environmental question may be less about whether second-hand clothing exists in local markets, and more about how waste management systems cope with end-of-life materials of all kinds. Yet current regulatory debates increasingly frame second-hand trade itself as a central environmental problem. As governments move to tighten export rules and redefine how used textiles are classified in global trade, the strength of the evidence behind that framing becomes increasingly important. If second-hand clothing is becoming a central focus of textile regulation, how robust is the empirical foundation for treating it as a major environmental driver? It is a question that remains far less settled than current policy debates might suggest. Read more: The unresolved climate gap in textile policy Why is textile policy focusing on the smallest part of the problem?

Across Europe and in international forums, new rules are tightening how used clothing is collected, sorted and shipped. Governments are building systems to manage what happens after garments are discarded. Yet most of the sector’s climate impact occurs long before clothes are thrown away — and that part of the system remains structurally harder to regulate. Summary: EU institutions and international bodies are entering a more operational phase in textile governance. Export controls are tightening, extended producer responsibility schemes are being rolled out and classification rules are being clarified under the Basel Convention. Many of these measures are designed to address the environmental and trade risks associated with used clothing flows. At the same time, production volumes — where most emissions occur — remain outside direct regulatory limits. Addressing scale is proving more complex than regulating disposal. Further reading in this series : Why is textile policy focusing on the smallest part of the problem? How robust is the evidence behind environmental claims in the second-hand clothing trade? EU textile governance moves from strategy to enforcement Textile policy in Europe is entering an operational phase. From 2025, separate textile collection becomes mandatory across the EU. By 2028, all Member States must introduce Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles. These systems will require companies placing garments on the market to finance collection, sorting and treatment. National authorities are now defining fee structures, governance models and cost allocation mechanisms — decisions that will determine how financial responsibility is distributed across the value chain. At the same time, the revised Waste Shipment Regulation tightens scrutiny of textile exports. Authorities must assess whether shipments qualify as products intended for reuse or as waste subject to stricter controls. The distinction is legally decisive: misclassification can shift regulatory obligations, trade permissions and enforcement thresholds. Under the Basel Convention , technical discussions continue on the classification and reporting of used textiles in international trade. The outcome may influence documentation requirements, traceability standards and cross-border movements well beyond Europe. Taken together, these processes bring used clothing more firmly into waste governance and trade control frameworks. They are designed to improve transparency, prevent misclassification and reduce environmental harm associated with poorly managed textile flows. Political momentum behind export controls has partly been driven by claims that international trade in used clothing contributes to waste burdens in receiving countries. However, the scale and systemic impact of those claims remain empirically contested, and data gaps continue to shape the debate. Extended producer responsibility shifts financial power — but not production levels Textile EPR schemes represent a structural shift in regulatory logic. For the first time, producers will be required to finance end-of-life management at scale. This creates new financial flows, new data requirements and new institutional roles for compliance organisations and national authorities. Fee modulation — linking costs to product durability or recyclability — could influence design decisions. But EPR does not limit how many garments can be placed on the market. It redistributes end-of-life costs without directly constraining production volumes. The regulatory signal is therefore corrective rather than restrictive. Waste law is established territory. Production control is not. Upstream, policy instruments look different — and more cautious. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) provides a legal basis for textile-specific durability requirements, recycled content criteria and information obligations. Digital Product Passports are being developed to improve traceability and material transparency across supply chains. A ban on the destruction of unsold textiles is being phased in for large companies, combined with reporting obligations intended to increase visibility around excess stock and corporate sustainability reporting rules now require more detailed disclosure of environmental and supply chain impacts. These measures target product design, transparency and business practices. They can extend product lifespans, improve material efficiency and increase market scrutiny. What they do not do is set binding limits on production volumes. The unresolved climate question: scale Environmental impact in textiles is concentrated at the beginning of the lifecycle — in fibre production, processing, dyeing and manufacturing. Global clothing output has more than doubled over the past two decades, while European consumption remains structurally high. Regulating waste flows builds on established environmental law and administrative practice. Regulating production volumes raises broader questions about trade policy, industrial competitiveness, consumer demand and global supply chains. There is no existing EU framework designed to cap output in a globalised industry characterised by complex cross-border production networks. The result is a structural asymmetry: regulatory clarity is advancing rapidly in end-of-life management, while production scale — where the majority of emissions occur — remains outside direct quantitative control. The tightening of rules around used clothing marks a significant shift in textile governance. Whether comparable enforceability can be developed at the production stage remains one of the central unresolved questions in EU textile climate policy. Read more: Why is textile policy focusing on the smallest part of the problem? How robust is the evidence behind environmental claims in the second-hand clothing trade?

France has temporarily increased financial support for textile collection and sorting under its Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, raising payments from around €228 to €268 per tonne. The €40 uplift is intended to prevent insolvencies in a sector under mounting economic pressure. The decision comes as France’s textile recovery system faces a widening structural gap between volumes placed on the market and volumes collected. In 2024, nearly 891,000 tonnes of new textile products were placed on the French market, while collection volumes reached approximately 289,400 tonnes. Operators report falling resale values, rising logistics costs and saturated export markets, particularly in parts of Africa. The higher payment level is designed to cover a larger share of net sorting and logistics costs and preserve the collection and treatment capacity built up under the French REP system. Without intervention, industry representatives warned that bankruptcies could undermine both employment and recycling infrastructure. The measure is presented as temporary. At the same time, the government has signalled broader structural reforms to the textile REP framework, aimed at improving economic viability, traceability and domestic recycling performance. Discussions reportedly include stronger cost alignment within the system and potential financial penalties targeting ultra-fast fashion models. France’s move highlights a wider European question: whether textile EPR fees are calibrated to reflect real system costs in a market increasingly strained by overproduction and volatile second-hand demand. As the EU prepares to harmonise textile producer responsibility across Member States, the French case offers an early test of how quickly national systems can come under financial stress.

The Swedish company Circulose has announced it will restart commercial-scale production at its facility in Sweden later this year, marking a rare development for industrial textile-to-textile recycling in Europe. The plant, previously operated by Renewcell before its insolvency in 2024, was the world’s first commercial chemical textile recycling facility for cotton-based textiles and has now been revived under new ownership and a revised strategy. The restart comes at a time when the global textile recycling sector is struggling to move beyond small-scale pilots and demonstration projects toward stable industrial volumes. Across Europe and beyond, new ventures are emerging, but complex value chains, uneven collection systems and supply constraints have kept truly commercial textile-to-textile recycling rare. Recent initiatives in the United States, France and Spain have focused on building textile regeneration hubs that integrate sorting and pre-processing with recycling, but most remain in early implementation phases. Industry observers have pointed to logistics, access to consistent and quality-controlled feedstock, and regulatory uncertainty as key barriers to scaling fiber-to-fiber recycling. Textile recycling, fiber-to-fiber, is still underdeveloped for stable industrial volumes. Demand-linked production model for recycled dissolving pulp Circulose’s announcement underscores both the potential and the fragility of industrial textile-to-textile recycling. The company said preparations are underway for production to resume in the fourth quarter of 2026, with new CIRCULOSE pulp expected before year-end. The material is a dissolving pulp made from discarded cotton textiles and is designed to be processed into regenerated cellulosic fibres such as viscose, lyocell and modal. Chief executive Jonatan Janmark said the company has aligned its production plans with confirmed demand and secured commitments from eleven partner brands before restarting operations. He described the restart as a milestone for scaling next-generation materials and said the ambition is to integrate recycled dissolving pulp into existing fibre supply chains. Strategic agreements have also been signed with fibre producers, including Tangshan Sanyou, Aditya Birla Group and Jilin Chemical Fiber, aimed at anchoring commercial volumes within established viscose and cellulosic fibre production. Until new production is fully operational, orders are being supplied from existing inventory produced prior to Renewcell’s bankruptcy. Circulose was acquired by private equity firm Altor in 2024, and the company’s revised approach signals a shift toward demand-linked production rather than speculative capacity expansion in advance of secured offtake. Industrial textile-to-textile recycling in a shifting EU policy context The revival carries symbolic weight in a European context where several high-profile textile recycling ventures have struggled to secure long-term profitability at industrial scale. At the same time, EU policymakers are advancing rules under the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles intended to increase recycled content, strengthen separate textile collection and restrict the destruction of unsold textiles. These measures are expected to influence future demand for recycled fibres and secondary raw materials. Yet upstream challenges remain significant. Large-scale textile-to-textile recycling depends on reliable access to sorted, traceable and quality-controlled textile feedstock, an area where collection, sorting and pre-processing infrastructure across Europe is still uneven and in transition. For now, Circulose stands as one of the few examples of a commercial-scale textile-to-textile recycling facility in Europe returning to operation after insolvency. Whether this restart marks a turning point for fiber-to-fiber recycling will depend less on technology alone and more on how effectively supply chains, collection systems, regulatory frameworks and market incentives align in the years ahead.

Rising inflows, uneven material quality and delayed financing are pushing parts of the system towards instability. RREUSE and a coalition of European social and circular economy organisations has issued a stark warning: the EU’s textile collection and sorting system is under acute pressure. The statement came 18 January, just months after separate textile collection became mandatory across the EU under the revised Waste Framework Directive, and before extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles are fully operational in many member states. RREUSE describes the situation as an unfolding crisis for collectors and sorters. Since the obligation to collect textiles separately took effect, volumes have increased significantly in several countries. However, collection is only the first step in a longer and more resource-intensive chain. Sorting, grading, preparation for reuse and potential recycling require labour, logistics capacity and stable end markets. In many regions, that infrastructure is still adjusting to the new regulatory landscape and to the forthcoming EPR framework. “The influx of disposable fashion, and therefore low quality, non-reusable and non-recyclable garments, is overwhelming recovery systems,” said Neva Nahtigal, Director of RREUSE, as part of the coordinated industry warning. She added that the organisation is “extremely concerned about what this means for the future of social enterprises across the EU.” Overflowed collection bin in Sweden. Financing gap in textile EPR rollout A central concern is the gap between rising inflows and secured financing. Extended producer responsibility systems for textiles are being rolled out across Europe following amendments to EU waste legislation, but implementation timelines, fee structures and governance models vary. In the meantime, many collectors, including social enterprises that rely on resale revenues, face higher operational and compliance costs without corresponding financial support. The result is mounting economic pressure at the front end of the post-consumer textile system. “Social economy actors are pioneers of the circular economy, reusing goods instead of destroying them. Today, we can’t afford to pay for the consequences of global overproduction,” said Eve Poulteau, Chief Executive of Emmaüs Europe. “Producers and marketers must accept the consequences of their actions and economically support our actions.” Material quality and export market uncertainty Quality is another structural challenge. As more textiles enter separate collection streams, the share of low-value or non-reusable items increases. That material must still be sorted, documented and handled in line with waste legislation, even if it cannot easily be resold or recycled at scale. At the same time, export markets for used textiles are becoming more uncertain amid ongoing debates over waste classifications, shipment controls under the Waste Shipment Regulation and tightening environmental standards in importing countries. For operators who depend on international resale channels to finance collection and sorting, this adds another layer of regulatory and commercial risk. Sequencing of reforms creates transitional strain RREUSE does not question the goals of mandatory separate collection or textile EPR. Instead, the coalition argues that the sequencing of reforms is creating strain. Collection obligations have moved ahead quickly, while financing mechanisms, market outlets and domestic recycling capacity are still catching up. The imbalance leaves local collectors and sorters exposed during a transitional period in the EU’s circular economy transition. The warning also comes at a moment when EU policymakers are tightening rules on the destruction of unsold textiles under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and placing greater emphasis on keeping materials in circulation. If inflows continue to rise before sorting and recycling capacity stabilises, pressure on the system could intensify further. For now, the message from parts of the reuse sector is clear. Europe’s textile collection system is expanding rapidly under new EU waste rules, but the economic and logistical foundations needed to support that expansion are still under construction. About RREUSE RREUSE is a Brussels-based European network representing social enterprises active in reuse, repair and recycling across more than 20 countries. It engages in EU policy debates on waste, circular economy and extended producer responsibility, representing organisations involved in activities such as textile collection and sorting.