The textile reuse and recycling industry is bracing for a surge in regulation just as waste volumes swell and clothing quality declines—but it says policy is being drafted without enough input from the people who actually run the circular system. At an industry session in Gothenburg this month, participants warned that the transition to a circular economy could lose momentum unless governments engage directly with the sector and build rules around how textile trade and processing work in practice.
The warning was a consistent theme at the BIR Textiles Division side session on 2 June, where representatives from across the global value chain debated how incoming rules will reshape collection, sorting, reuse and recycling. “We are facing fundamental shifts driven by policy, market developments and the growing urgency to deliver real circularity,” said division president Martin Böschen, describing the moment as a “critical” turning point for the industry. For many in the room, the stakes are clear: poorly designed textile recycling policy could restrict trade flows, create unintended waste bottlenecks and weaken the very systems policymakers say they want to scale.
Multiple rule changes are arriving at once
Industry speakers pointed to several policy tracks converging at the same time. The UN Basel Convention is beginning new work on used textiles, with proposals that could reclassify certain shipments and potentially introduce new trade friction. In Europe, the EU Waste Shipments Directive is due to apply from May 2027, even as key operational details remain uncertain. Meanwhile, extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes are proliferating across the EU and beyond, pushing new financing and accountability structures into a supply chain that is already struggling with volatile economics.
A recurring criticism was that regulation is being shaped by reputational narratives rather than trade mechanics. Jessica Franken of US-based SMART said Basel discussions are being influenced by a “negative media narrative” about used clothing and warned that extreme approaches could undermine a cross-border reuse system that has functioned for more than a century.
Markets are changing faster than policy assumptions
Even without new rules, recyclers say the market is becoming harder to manage. They cited falling garment quality, soaring fast-fashion volumes and a widening mismatch between what is collected and what can realistically be resold. Nohar Nath of India’s Kishco Group argued that fast fashion is the underlying driver—and that solutions sit primarily with brands, consumers and governments, rather than with the recycling trade that is left to deal with the downstream consequences.
Data disputes are also complicating policymaking. Estimates of “unusable” textiles inside clothing bales vary dramatically, from below 1% to as high as 60%. Jennifer Wang of Full Cycle Resource Consulting urged policymakers and journalists to treat such claims cautiously, asking who was surveyed, how the study was funded and whether the methodology reflects real-world sorting. She warned that headline figures often circulate without context—then reappear in policy debates as though they were settled facts.
Sweden’s experience shows how rules can backfire
Sweden was repeatedly cited as a cautionary case. A mandatory textile separation requirement introduced last year triggered widespread public messaging that people could no longer throw away worn-out socks and similar items. The result was a surge in collections—much of it low-grade material with little resale value—overwhelming collection points. Industry pressure ultimately led to a revision that allowed damaged textiles to return to residual waste streams.
Karolina Skog of the Nordic Textiles Network said the episode shows why textile recycling policy must be aligned with market realities and supported by clear public communication, especially around the difference between “reusable” and “recyclable.” When those categories are blurred, she argued, both environmental and economic value are lost.
Who gets to shape the rules?
Some of the sharpest comments focused on fairness and voice. Franken described the current dynamic as “policy colonialism,” warning that the Global North risks imposing compliance models on Global South markets without consulting the communities and businesses that depend on second-hand imports. Pakistan—one of the world’s largest importers of used clothing—does not yet have the data systems, financing or technology to meet ambitious traceability and EPR expectations, said Zainab Naeem of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute. She added that customs classifications often fail to clearly separate textile waste from reusable second-hand clothing, complicating enforcement and reporting.
Still, speakers highlighted emerging solutions. In Ghana, the Landfill2Landmarks initiative is working with the national standards authority to develop a recognised bale standard designed around what actually sells locally, with the aim of isolating poor-quality exporters without penalising responsible sorters. An ISO standard for cross-border second-hand trade is also in development.
The Gothenburg session closed on a shared conclusion: regulation can support circularity, but only if it is built on credible data, consistent definitions and continuous dialogue with the industry responsible for collecting and processing textiles at scale. As Böschen stressed, keeping channels open with regulators is now essential—not optional.
