Fashion Can’t Spin Circularity Anymore Without Hard Evidence on the Table

The CTI process is structured around seven steps. Which of these proved most challenging to adapt to the realities of the fashion and textile value chain—and why? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: The methodology is structured into seven steps to facilitate the application of the performance indicators. While the first four steps focus on the quantitative analysis of circularity performance using companies’ data, the last three steps involve a qualitative analysis of the data-based results. The performance can be assessed at either a product, facility or company level.

Among all stages, the data collection and exchange phase (Step 3) is often the most challenging and time-consuming—particularly when indicators are applied across the entire organization. However, as previously noted, the CTI framework requires the same datasets that companies must report to comply with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Thus, this guidance provides practical support by identifying the relevant data source across the value chain, organizing and streamlining the data collection processes and translating the collected information into actionable insights to enhance circularity performance. Where impact indicators are selected, the insights also provide direction to decarbonize operations and reduce impacts on land use.

The report notes that data collection—especially primary data—remains time-consuming and resource-intensive. How did you approach the issue of granularity and traceability, especially for brands with limited visibility beyond Tier 1? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: Due to the resource-intensive nature of collecting primary data, we recommend that companies start the process as soon as possible. Most importantly, companies should focus on establishing effective collaborations with internal and external stakeholders across the value chain to identify the sources, the data quality and clarify the data structures all of which contribute to more efficient data management and facilitate any necessary data corrections or future updates.

Many brands continue to face limited visibility beyond Tier 1 suppliers, which underscores the importance of adopting a value chain approach. The second guidance is designed accordingly: when indicators are applied consistently by all suppliers throughout the manufacturing process, they enhance transparency and enable data exchange across the whole value chain. To accelerate adoption, companies are encouraged to engage Tier 1 suppliers in identifying and building relationships with suppliers beyond Tier 1, and to support them in implementing the Circular Transition Indicators where needed.

You’ve added a new approach to regenerative inflow. What definitional or scoping challenges arose when distinguishing regenerative materials from recycled ones—particularly in cases like pre-consumer waste or compostable blends? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: The approach to regenerative inflow in CTI is not new in itself; it has always been recognized within the CTI framework as a renewable—and therefore circular—inflow. However, in this second edition of the guidance, additional information, structure and resources have been included to support companies better manage data related to renewable inflow, along with a practical checklist of actions to

support the categorization of renewable inflows as regenerative. It is important to note that regenerative and recycled materials represent two distinct categories within circular material flows. Regenerative materials refer exclusively to bio-based materials such as cotton, linen, wool, and leather. Nevertheless, in a CTI assessment, both regenerative and recycled materials are considered circular, with equal weighting in the scoring. Similarly, recycled materials are accounted as circular regardless of whether they originate from post-consumer or post-industrial sources.

The guidance was shaped in consultation with over 80 companies. Were there areas—across the value chain or among stakeholder types—where consensus proved difficult to achieve? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: In developing the second edition of the guidance, the most challenging and exciting topic to redefine was the recovery potential calculation. In particular, we focused on the identification of more granular categories for the circular design principles, their assessment methods, and their weight in the quantitative performance score, which we decided to distinguish per value chain stakeholder.

Based on extensive input from industry stakeholders, we assigned weighted scores to the design principles according to their relative impact on actual recovery, applying the waste hierarchy to prioritize higher-value recovery strategies.

For example, physical durability was weighted more heavily than care instructions, as designing products that last longer has a direct and stronger effect on extending product lifetimes. While care instructions do influence durability, their impact ultimately depends on consumer behavior and how well the guidance is followed. In other words, we evaluated the extent to which companies can control each factor’s contribution to product longevity—comparing inherent design features such as durability with external factors such as care instructions. This led us to place greater emphasis on durability, recognizing it as a key element in keeping products in use for longer.

You suggest that the framework can support both internal strategic planning and regulatory disclosure. In real-world terms, how do you see companies using it first—internally for risk and performance, or externally for compliance and positioning? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: Indeed, the CTI framework can support companies in both internal strategic planning and regulatory disclosure. Defining the objective of the CTI assessment is the first step of the methodology. Since each company has different needs and levels of maturity in its circularity transition, the way CTI is applied will vary. The most advanced companies - those that have already established circular data collection systems and piloted circular business models - are likely to use CTI primarily for risk management and performance assessment. Conversely, companies that are at the early stages of their circularity journey and focused on meeting regulatory requirements will find the framework a valuable guide to ensure compliance and structure their initial efforts.

With so many metrics, labels, and frameworks already in play, what does WBCSD see as its most credible role in the circularity space—standard-setter, technical educator, or cross-industry convenor? 
Elisabetta Rocchi: WBCSD is an impact-driven and member-centric organization. Therefore, its role changes according to the need of the members and the impact that can be achieved. When it comes to circularity, we have been working on projects that positioned WBCSD as both a voluntary standard-setter and a facilitator for pre-competitive, cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collective action. On one hand, the adoption and implementation of quantitative assessments will continue under the Integrated Portfolio Sustainability Performance Assessment (IPSPA) and the Global Circularity Protocol for Business, based on the Circular Transition Indicators (CTI), which will launch at COP30 on 11 November 2025; on the other hand, the work on Value Chain Action will focus on mobilizing collective action and investments by members.

Specifically talking about circularity in the Fashion and Textile sector, we are currently scoping a Value Chain Action project aimed at increasing the amount of high-quality, cost-competitive, low-carbon Textile-to-Textile recycled feedstock available across the value chain.

In this next phase of the WBCSD fashion work in circularity, we plan to convene a pre-competitive multi-stakeholder platform to drive collective action to unlock the potential of circularity to meet global demand for secondary feedstock by supporting the deployment at scale of textile-to-textile recycling, sorting, design for recycling, data exchange and traceability, and securing collective investment in collection and sorting systems.