Trims Becoming the Hidden Faultline Splitting Circular Ambitions From Industrial Reality

Homeboy Threads and Looptworks illustrate both the promise and fragility of early-stage circular systems. What did these pilots reveal about the real economic bottlenecks—is it labour cost, technology gaps, or the absence of consistent demand?
Eileen Mockus: Pilots show that promise and fragility coexist. They revealed three recurring economic pinch points: (a) labour costs - manual sorting/preprocessing remains labour intensive and expensive; (b) technology gaps - automated sorting can identify fibre but struggles with small, heterogenous trims and mixed constructions; and (c) demand uncertainty - without reliable downstream offtake and pricing, pilots can’t scale into continuous operations. In short: labour + imperfect automation + weak demand commitments form a three-way choke.

You note that manual preprocessing is “labour- and cost-intensive,” yet automation without standardisation risks misfiring. How do you see that balance playing out—between human skill and machine precision—in the next wave of textile sorting?
Eileen Mockus: We anticipate a hybrid trajectory in the near term: machines (optical, IR, AI cameras, robotics) will increasingly handle fast, coarse sorting and colour/fibre fractionation, while human skill will remain essential for nuanced preprocessing, quality control and handling novel trims. Over time, as feedstock specifications tighten and detection/robotics improve, the human share will shrink - but humans will still be needed for exception handling and higher-value preprocessing for years. Investment should therefore target augmenting human productivity (semi-automation) and standards that make full automation technically feasible. 

The report introduces Valvan’s Fibersort and TrimClean systems as signs of progress. But given their recovery rates—30–40% for jeans, for example—are we simply automating inefficiency, or genuinely moving toward scale?
Eileen Mockus: These systems materially improve throughput and increase the volume that’s usable for chemical and higher-value recycling - that’s progress. But recovery rates (e.g., 30–40% for complex garments like jeans in current demonstrations) show we’re not yet near a “perfect” solution; automation today can raise baseline efficiency but still leaves a lot of material needing further processing or manual intervention. The right framing: Fibersort/TrimClean move the needle meaningfully, but they must be complemented by better trim design, feedstock specs and downstream process improvements to reach true scale. 

Cyclone and GR3N present two contrasting visions of scale—one internalising preprocessing, the other licensing its technology. Which of these models do you believe offers the more viable route to system-wide circularity?
Eileen Mockus: Right now, we need all approaches working in tandem. Different models will be better suited to different geographies, markets, and manufacturing contexts. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the industry, it’s too early to say there’s one right path.

The report calls for harmonised “feedstock specifications.” Who needs to lead that—recyclers, brands, or policymakers—and what’s standing in the way of alignment right now?
Eileen Mockus: Leadership should be shared, but different actors must own different pieces:

• Brandsmust adopt design-for-recycling specs (trim materials, attachment methods) and commit to supplier compliance.
• Recyclers and technology providersshould translate technical tolerances into practical sorting/preprocessing specs.
• Policymakerscan convene, mandate minimum standards, and create enforcement/compliance mechanisms (EPR rules, procurement standards).

Barriers to alignment: commercial competition (companies reluctant to standardise if they see advantage in proprietary approaches), lack of common economic incentives, data gaps, and fragmented regulation across regions. Overcoming these requires neutral convening (industry consortia, NGOs) and targeted policy nudges. 

Many of your recommendations hinge on Extended Producer Responsibility and Digital Product Passports. How confident are you that regulation will push alignment faster than the market can?
Eileen Mockus: Yes—if designed well. EPR creates financial responsibility and can fund sorting/recycling infrastructure; DPPs provide the traceability/data that recyclers need to avoid wholesale trim removal. Together they change incentive structures faster than purely voluntary market action. That said, regulatory design matters: mandates tied to measurable outcomes (recycled content, reuse targets) and interoperable DPP standards will be far more effective than loose or patchy rules. Policy can catalyse markets, but it must be integrated with procurement and investment signals.

Finally, CSTIM’s next phase aims to give brands “tailored guidance” on trims and contaminants. If you could fast-forward five years, what would success look like—a technical breakthrough, a shared standard, or a cultural shift in how products are designed? 
Eileen Mockus: Success will be a combination of three things, not one exclusive outcome:

• Shared standards & specsfor trims and feedstock that most major brands adopt (so recyclers see consistent inputs).
• Measurable scale-up of preprocessing capacityand demonstrated higher recovery rates from automated + semi-automated lines (Fibersort/TrimClean class systems capturing far more than today's 30–40% in complex items).
• Cultural and procurement shift—designers and brands routinely design with recyclability in mind, and specify recycled materials to increase demand.

Increased demand for recycled materials would be the single fastest lever to unlock downstream automation and investment, turning uncertainty into bankable demand.