EPR: Due Diligence Is a Fundamental Component of Any Legislative Framework

The definition of a producer is clear: "One line of thinking is that a producer should be defined as the entity that makes the sale to the final consumer, as they could be considered to have the greatest responsibility for driving the (current high levels of) consumption of new textiles.'' The responsibility is fixed on brands and retailers primarily. Do you think this leaves room for manufacturers / factory owners (as industry has traditionally described them) to wriggle out of the whole debate? What we’re talking about here for EPR is who is responsible for the costs of end-of-life care, and who can best drive the changes in design necessary to support improved end-of-life management and reduced environmental impact. The reason we propose brands (and in some cases retailers) take this responsibility, is because they are driving consumption and already do (or should) have the responsibility to ensure products are designed for circularity.
Manufacturers and factory owners will, either directly or indirectly, feel the impacts of this. If a brand has specific designs that are required to reduce the costs they incur through an EPR scheme, they will go to those manufacturers that can meet their requirements. If a manufacturer will not design products in a way that reduces the cost burden on a brand, the brand suffers. This provides an incentive for brands to only work with those suppliers that support them in designing for circularity. It’s therefore in suppliers’ interests to engage and collaborate with brands when it comes to design, to avoid losing business.

The entire onus will be on brands and retailers. Do you think they are capable of delivering? Especially given that they have, by and large, themselves been largely responsible for the mess around?
At the end of the day, they must be capable of delivering. Circularity within the industry is not a “nice to have”, but a necessity. It’s imperative that on a systemic level, brands and retailers work together to ensure this transition. That is why legislation is so important – the fragmented nature of the fashion and textiles industry means that a few big players cannot solely influence the industry’s trajectory – you need legislation to ensure all players change together and create the economies of scale necessary to facilitate a viable transition to circularity.

It is important to note, however, that the industry is facing further pressure outside of sustainability regulations. In the short to medium term, there are continuing concerns around disruptions to supply chains, as well as increasing costs (the lingering impacts of covid-19, the current crisis in the Ukraine). These impacts are also being felt by consumers, with the soaring cost of living likely to impact disposable income. While reduction in consumption of fashion and textiles is a necessity – we must remember that this transition will be a significant shift for industry from how it currently operates. This will need to be carefully navigated and supported, to ensure circular, low impact, viable textiles consumption systems can be delivered by the sector.

Any such EPR legislation would mean that lots of things would have to be put in place. Flawless and harmonious processes, plus funds. Big players might have the wherewithal to do all that. But small players might have a problem. How do you react to that?
This is one of the areas that requires further exploration. We know that smaller players may struggle in particular with some of the more administrative requirements – such as the level of reporting required. Ultimately, that is why legislation is so important. These systems can be designed and harmonised, to reduce administrative burden as much as possible. However, smaller brands and retailers may need concessions (initially, or longer-term), such as simplified reporting requirements, to ensure the required transition can be implemented. But, it’s important to remember that given a large proportion of the industry is SMEs, if they are excluded from requirements, we are not ensuring the circularity of the industry as a whole. As mentioned previously, supporting the industry’s transition will be crucial in the current political and economic climate.

This is for the EU. But once you have systems and processes in place, brands and retailers wouldn't want a different set of rules for their partners elsewhere in the world. So, do you see this extending to other countries more by default, than by design?
That is the hope. We are in a unique position for the textiles sector in that the lack of regulation up until now provides an opportunity to influence global, systemic change. If there are specific requirements in a large market like the EU, this may have knock-on impacts on the global marketplace. Industry will be supportive of this, as it harmonises their requirements, reducing the burden of potentially conflicting legislative requirements.

Do you foresee a backlash from brands and retailers? Or are they likely to fall in place? One of the prime reasons, among others, for climate negotiations constantly hitting roadblocks, is about who will fund everything. The EPR thing is a microcosm of that; do you expect similar bottlenecks?
The industry has known for a long time, in the EU at least, that increased regulation was coming. As such, legislation can be favoured by the industry as it spreads responsibility systemically among all.

EPR is of course only one policy that will lead to costs for brands. There will certainly be lobbying to reduce the costs that the industry is responsible for. However, there is already a precedent of EPR in France at least, where many in the industry are already obligated to contribute funding. What we propose is already more extensive, so this could lead to blocks in the discussion. However, ultimately what is being proposed will ultimately benefit those brands/retailers that take the lead in terms of design and supporting the development of improved end-of-life management, for example, supporting the production of recycled fibres that they can use in their products. Given there is so much scrutiny on the industry to do better (both from consumers and governments) it will be difficult for the industry not to commit more substantially, given the scale of change required.

These are complex subjects, and unless you know it like the palm of your hand, you can't even get started. So, is there a plan to make these subjects and issues easily digestible for the average industry person?
I think what is more important is that we communicate the *right* information to consumers. Ultimately, as you say, this is highly complex. Consumers do not want to be overwhelmed, they want and should only need the information necessary to inform their purchasing choices. Ultimately what’s needed is to influence behaviour change to reduce consumption, and transition towards sustainable purchasing habits. That is why labelling and communication campaigns are two key measures we have proposed. Development of such policy needs to ensure consumers are informed appropriately with representative information, rather than deluging them with data to the point at which they do not even engage.

There have been reports of many companies abiding by the law in Europe, but going amok elsewhere. Is there a way that companies are made to work elsewhere just as they do at home?
Due diligence is a fundamental component of any legislative framework. That is why as part of both EPR and the other policy measures, appropriate, stringent systems of due diligence, enforcement and transparency systems are required (and proposed) to ensure compliance.