Waste

Lithuanian researchers have developed methods to convert textile waste into alternative fuel and cement additives. Their work showed that textile-derived ash could partially replace conventional cement while improving compressive strength. The approach addressed mounting textile waste volumes, reduced carbon emissions from cement production and supported circular economy goals across two highly resource-intensive industries.

Efforts to regulate global textile waste are reshaping debates over who defines sustainability and who bears its costs. A UNEP initiative to standardise “waste” classifications has triggered backlash from reuse economies, exposing how circularity policies can threaten livelihoods and distort trade while ignoring the real drivers of overproduction in wealthier manufacturing nations.

As policymakers seek to standardise global rules on textile waste, African traders find themselves contending with definitions that could reshape their markets. Atobrah Edward Brinkley, Secretary of the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association, argues that lived realities of reuse and repair deserve equal recognition within sustainability frameworks largely framed by institutions far removed from their economies.

As international agencies develop new criteria for textile “waste,” concerns are emerging over how these definitions affect circular trade and livelihoods. SMART, the US-based association for secondary materials and recycled textiles, urges clarity and inclusiveness. Its Director of Government Affairs, Jessica Franken, stresses that credible environmental frameworks require full transparency and peer-reviewed data.

Efforts to tighten global definitions of “waste” have sparked a struggle over the future of reuse economies. Teresiah Wairimu Njenga, who leads the Mitumba Consortium Association of Kenya, argues that poorly conceived guidelines risk collapsing viable circular systems under the guise of environmental reform, while the real issue of fast-fashion overproduction remains unaddressed.

As the global textiles industry faces mounting scrutiny over waste, UNEP’s efforts to define what counts as “used” or “discarded” are sparking tension. Critics warn that new circularity rules risk undermining reuse economies in developing countries, threatening livelihoods and exposing how environmental ambition can collide with economic dependence.

The UK generates 3.26 million tonnes of textile waste each year, and half of it is non-fashion. says a new report. The finding challenges widespread assumptions that discarded clothing dominates the problem. The report identifies large flows from household interiors, uniforms, healthcare products and technical applications.

ReHubs has announced a comprehensive strategy to industrialise textile circularity across Europe by 2032, establishing systematic coordination between recyclers, manufacturers, and brands. The alliance plans to mobilise substantial investment through integrated supply chain management and strategic financing orchestration across European markets.

A European Commission study has uncovered systemic flaws in how Italy, Czechia and Romania manage discarded textiles. Despite strong recyclability potential, weak sorting infrastructure, low-value markets and reliance on exports undermine circular progress. Researchers warn that Europe risks losing both resources and credibility, as recyclable garments continue to slip into waste streams or leave the continent instead of feeding domestic recycling industries.

Pakistan’s fashion sector is undergoing rapid change, shaped by industrial growth, heritage practices, and sustainability challenges. The country’s integrated supply chain, reliance on cotton, and emerging use of synthetics highlight systemic risks. Traditional eco-friendly practices are fading, while small-scale sustainable brands point to alternative paths. Weak governance, industry greenwashing, and missing education remain critical barriers to meaningful progress.