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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A report from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute highlights both the promise and the fragility of today’s international textile reuse system. While the study documents a well-organised value chain linking used-clothing collections to thriving second-hand markets, it also underscores that regulatory, logistical and political pressures in Europe risk undermining one of the few proven circular models that actually works. The report highlights how used textiles collected in Sweden are routed through specialised sorting centres and then exported for reuse in markets where demand is strong. In the case study following Humana Lt’s operations, approximately three-quarters of all collected garments were suitable for reuse, with only a small fraction classified as waste. In Kenya, these garments generate jobs, support small businesses and extend the lifespan of clothing that would otherwise be downcycled or incinerated. "There is a well-functioning value chain for reuse. Clothes that we cannot find a market for in Sweden today are given a longer life in a new market. The sorting facilities have developed specialised expertise in sorting by both quality and product categories, with the value increasing at each stage", says Mathias Gustavsson at IVL. The IVL Report contradicts claims that Europe is dumping its textile waste in Africa Contradict waste narrative These findings directly contradict a widespread narrative portraying second-hand exports to Africa as “waste dumping”. The economics simply do not support this claim: exporting low-quality, unsellable textiles is financially irrational for collectors, who face both sorting costs and significant import duties in receiving countries. Instead, the report shows that the global reuse trade is driven by market demand and quality controls—not the disposal of unwanted waste. European policies destabilising Yet, the study also warns that new European policies risk destabilising the system. Mandatory separate textile collection, now being rolled out across Member States, often fails to distinguish between reusable garments and true textile waste. When these streams mix, contamination increases, quality declines and fewer garments can be resold—threatening the viability of reuse both domestically and internationally. Amanda Martvall, textile expert at IVL, says: "Collection should be designed to avoid mixing these two types of textiles. This will improve the quality of both textile streams, enabling clothes to be reused in the first instance, and other textiles to be recycled in a cost-effective manner once the technology is in place". At the same time, political resistance to second-hand imports in parts of East Africa, coupled with growing global scrutiny of textile waste, places additional pressure on exporters. Without clear differentiation between reuse and waste management, European legislation may inadvertently funnel more textiles into recycling and incineration—even though reuse remains far more climate-efficient. A well functioning reuse system might undermined by incoming regulations Why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations The IVL report therefore lands at a critical moment. It shows that a working, economically viable reuse chain already exists and delivers significant environmental and social benefits. But it also makes clear that this model is not guaranteed to survive the next wave of regulatory reforms unless policymakers adopt more nuanced approaches. For the circular economy to live up to its promise, Europe must protect and strengthen the reuse value chain—not disrupt it. And that begins with acknowledging what the data shows: the export of used clothing is not a dumping problem, but one of the most effective reuse systems we currently have. This is why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Full IVL-Report Read more: True & False about second-hand clothing Read more: "Is this what they wanted? To nearly collapse the system for collecting clothes?"

The suspension follows a petition claiming Kenya signed the deal without properly consulting its East African Community (EAC) partners. The Kenyan government has now moved quickly to contain the fallout after the East African Court of Justice halted implementation of the EU–Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement . Kenya’s Trade Minister Lee Kinyanjui stressed that the EPA remains crucial for Kenyan exporters and essential for jobs across its agricultural and manufacturing sectors. He pledged uninterrupted market access for European partners while Nairobi appeals the ruling. For Europe’s second-hand textile industry, the decision injects a new element of risk into an already fragile global supply chain. Kenya is a key sorting and transit hub for used clothing, and any legal uncertainty around trade frameworks can influence logistics, compliance requirements and long-term investment decisions. The Kenyan government is now seeking to overturn the suspension and is engaging with other EAC member states to clarify regional obligations. The outcome will be closely watched in Europe, where recyclers, sorters and re-use operators depend on East African stability to maintain volumes, meet sustainability targets and navigate increasing regulatory pressures at home. Read more: The Kenya Times

Nearly 50 Swedish and Nordic fashion companies — including H&M, Lindex, Acne Studios, and Björn Borg — are demanding a VAT cut on used clothes. The campaign is being driven in collaboration with STICA  (The Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action), a non-profit focused on reducing the fashion industry’s climate impact. According to STICA, “low profitability in secondhand sales” is the biggest obstacle preventing circular business models in the fashion industry from competing with traditional linear models. It is pointed out that because each secondhand garment is unique and handling costs are high, turning a profit is especially difficult. Increased profitability would encourage more players to enter the secondhand market, and for existing ones to invest more heavily. The group is urging the Swedish government to include the VAT cut in its 2026 budget. So far, however, no such measure has appeared in the government’s proposal. These demands are coming during a period when the second-hand industry in Europe are struggling to survive, despite the fact that reuse is considered the most important part of a circular economy. One reason for this struggle is new EU-regulations that lead to higher costs for second-hand enterprises.

The pressure on UNEP and Basel Convention is building up when it comes to classification of used textiles. Last week SMART (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association) has submitted detailed formal comments to the Basel Convention Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), strongly urging them to reject proposals that would reclassify used textiles as “waste,” “hazardous waste,” or “plastic waste.” SMART cautions that such regulatory changes, though likely well-intentioned, would severely disrupt functioning circular-economy systems that keep billions of garments in circulation, support millions of livelihoods in developing economies, and prevent massive amounts of clothing from ending up in landfills. The backbone of global circular economy “Used textiles are not waste — they are the backbone of the global circular economy,” said Jessica Franken, Head of Government Affairs at SMART. She warned that classifying secondhand clothing as hazardous or waste could undermine systems already delivering significant environmental and social benefits. What often is described as textile waste is actually plastic. Here from a beach in Ghana. In its letter, SMART emphasizes that robust, data-driven research consistently shows that 80–95%  of secondhand clothing exports are reused, resold, or repurposed, while only 5–10%  prove unwearable—directly challenging outdated and methodologically weak studies often cited in policy debates. SMART also highlights that these markets sustain millions of jobs in regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia, generate government revenues, and contribute meaningfully to global circularity. Furthermore, life-cycle analyses cited by SMART suggest that extending the life of garments through reuse dramatically reduces carbon emissions — by as much as 70-fold compared to producing new clothing. Rejecting the proposed reclassifications, SMART argues, would preserve legitimate reuse and recycling flows. The association urges regulators to distinguish clearly between reusable goods and waste in trade codes, and to focus policy efforts upstream—targeting overproduction and fast fashion via Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures rather than penalizing reuse. Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: used textiles is not waste A couple of weeks ago sixteen organisations published an open letter directed to UNEP regarding concerns over flawed data and non-transparent processes, when it comes to used textiles, second-hand trade and waste. UNEP has not yet given any public answer to this, but the pressure on both UNEP and Basel is now building up regarding correct data and analysis about the second-hand trade and what should be considered facts and verifiable data. Written by Thomas Lundkvist About SMART The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART)  is a nonprofit international trade association founded in 1932. Its members — companies involved in collecting, sorting, and reusing or recycling both pre-consumer and post-consumer textiles — operate across the globe. SMART advocates for high standards and best practices in textile reuse and recycling, providing a forum for its members to network, educate, and influence policy. Read more: Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines