EU Does Not Align with Its Own Principles as Established Under Waste Hierarchy

You emphasise heavily on prevention. Apart from what you talk about, there is the question of consumption above) and then there is the question of durability (apart from the reuse that you mention). What is your understanding of clothing durability in this context?
Theresa Mörsen: Physical durability does not equal how long clothes are actually used. Constantly changing fashion trends incentivise people to renew their wardrobe. This phenomenon is driven by the shift to online shopping, home deliveries, and mounting social pressure driven by aggressive advertisement, especially targeting the younger generations via social media. Not surprisingly, the average European clothing consumption has increased by 40% between 1996 and 2012.

You write about the majority of EU member states standing the risk of missing their 2025 recycling targets. What is it that you have observed on the basis of which you make this statement? Could you please share some examples?
Theresa Mörsen: The EU has recently published the 2023 Early Warning Reports that show precisely which countries are at risk of missing the re-use and recycling targets for municipal and packaging waste for 2025. Only nine Member States are on track to meet the 2025 targets: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia. The other states are at risk of missing one of both targets. Overall, EU waste generation is on the rise and the average European still generates 530kg of municipal waste per year. Reducing textile waste and retrieving it from municipal waste can hence make a valuable contribution to meeting the reuse and recycling targets.

Private enterprises, SMEs, and some players smaller than the SME too matter. Legislation impacts those that have reached a certain level, and policy proposals are ‘wait and observe’. Is there a plan/policy to be able to reach out to all players?
Theresa Mörsen: For certain policies there should be exemptions for very small businesses. However, this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, for bigger fashion players, we propose an EPR (extended producer responsibility) fee on volumes that would apply when a certain threshold of products placed on the market is reached.

Your paper says: “reducing overproduction of clothes can significantly decrease the industry’s carbon footprint.” Is it only about overproduction or does consumption also factor in? How do you propose to check that?
Theresa Mörsen: Overproduction and consumption are two sides of the same coin. However, the sector depends on creating demand for clothes that most people don’t need but desire due to advertisements and social pressure. We don’t blame individual consumers for their decisions. What is needed is a systematic change that enables sustainable business models to thrive. Evidence shows that 30% of clothes produced are not even sold to consumers, unveiling how overproduction is factored into the dominant business model of the sector.

A lot of the recycling in the EU means putting it in containers and transporting it to the less developed countries in Africa, Asia and the like. What plans do you see shaping up to check this unabated dumping of textile waste in faraway countries?
Theresa Mörsen: The WFD proposal includes some provisions on textile sorting prior to export. It remains to be seen if this will prove an effective measure. One issue that we see is that there is a difference between sorting reusable clothes and those clothes actually being reused — if a garment is in theory reusable that does not mean there is an actual demand for the item in recipient countries and it might still end up in a waste dump.