The 300 signatories collectively source garments worth approximately $26 billion from Bangladesh and Pakistan, spanning more than 2,000 factories that employ over 3.4 million workers. This milestone marks the broadest industry participation the Accord has seen since its founding.

A Renewed and Reinforced Commitment to Worker Safety

The International Accord was renewed in 2023 for a further three-year term, with provisions for automatic renewal for an additional three years — making it the longest commitment in the Accord’s history. The Accord functions as a legally binding agreement between brands and trade unions, with the primary objective of ensuring that garment factories maintain conditions where workers are not exposed to the threat of fires, structural collapse, or other accidents that can be addressed through proper health and safety measures.

Joris Oldenziel, Executive Director at the International Accord, commented on the record signatory count: “This is the highest number of brands that we have to date. This represents a very strong commitment to workplace health and safety to ensure that workers who are producing your clothes can work in safe factories.”

Oldenziel elaborated on the scope of the program’s operations: “Under the Accord, we implement the program at 2,000 factories covering 3.4 million workers in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. We do that through safety inspections, monitoring remediation, worker training and providing access to remedy.”

Concrete Progress on the Ground

Oldenziel acknowledged the tangible steps that have been taken in recent years by brands and their suppliers to identify, prevent, and reduce safety risks across factory floors. Among the improvements cited, thousands of fire doors have been installed, fire alarm systems have been put in place, building structures have been reinforced, and safety committees have been trained across participating facilities.

These advances represent the practical implementation of the International Accord’s workplace health and safety framework and reflect the collaborative effort between brands and their supply chain partners in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Ongoing Challenges Underscore the Need for Continued Commitment

Despite measurable progress, Oldenziel was clear that the work is far from complete. “At the same time, we do see there are still reports of accidents and fires happening on a regular basis in garment factories. Therefore, the continued commitment from the brands to the Accord is as important now as it was a decade ago — for the workers themselves, of course, but also for the brands to fulfil their human rights due diligence responsibilities.”

The urgency of this continued engagement was brought into sharp focus last year when at least 16 people were killed following a fire at a garment factory in Dhaka. The International Accord described the incident as a “stark reminder of the devastating human cost of inadequate safety measures.” The tragedy reinforced why human rights due diligence obligations remain central to the Accord’s mandate and why sustained brand participation in the framework is critical.

The record 300 International Accord brands now collectively represent the strongest industry-wide commitment to garment factory safety across Bangladesh and Pakistan to date, anchoring both the moral and legal imperative to protect millions of workers in global supply chains.

What the Green Threads DPP Carbon Audit Measured

The Green Threads DPP carbon audit was specifically designed to focus on down processing, drawing on actual facility and supply chain data to quantify the carbon footprint of Allied’s operations rather than relying on estimates or industry generalizations. The result provides brands with a far more precise benchmark for evaluating the carbon impact of the down they source and the methods used to prepare it for finished products.

Daniel Uretsky, President of Allied Feather + Down, commented on the findings: “We’ve known for years that down plays an important role in building a more circular and lower-impact apparel value chain. These audited results allow us to put real numbers behind that belief. The data shows that our processing methods deliver a dramatically lower carbon footprint than other down providers, giving brands objective information they can use when making material decisions.”

Key Findings from the Carbon Footprint Audit

The down carbon footprint audit found that Allied’s processing methods generated 0.48 Kg CO₂e per KG of down — approximately 85% lower than estimated industry averages of 3.2 Kg CO₂e per Kg for conventional down processing, and 57.9% lower than published figures of 1.14 Kg CO₂e per Kg for recycled down. Additionally, the audit determined that the carbon footprint of Allied’s sustainable down is 95% lower than the estimated carbon footprint of polyester fibres used in alternative insulations.

These figures represent the outcome of years of sustained effort across Allied’s global facilities and in close collaboration with its supply chain partners.

Facility-Level Initiatives Driving Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Allied’s Hangzhou facility has implemented several operational measures that directly contribute to the reduced greenhouse gas emissions recorded in the audit. On-site water reclamation systems allow 95% of all water to be reused, with only approximately 5% lost through evaporation. The integration of solar power, alongside broader energy efficiency initiatives throughout the facility, has also meaningfully reduced overall energy consumption and carbon emissions.

A longstanding collaboration with Allied’s detergent supplier led to the development of eco-friendly detergents specifically formulated to perform effectively in cold water and rinse more easily. This innovation has substantially reduced the volume of water traditionally required for additional rinse cycles, while simultaneously lowering energy and gas consumption across the processing operation.

Sustainable Down as a Renewable, Low-Carbon Material

Uretsky further highlighted the broader material characteristics that distinguish Allied’s down within the global insulation category: “These results reinforce what makes Allied’s down unique within the global insulation category. Not only is down a renewable material that already exists as a byproduct of the food industry, but when combined with our processing methods, it also creates significantly less carbon. That’s a powerful combination for brands looking to reduce environmental impact without compromising performance.”

The independently audited carbon footprint data is intended to give apparel and outdoor brands objective, data-backed information when making sourcing and material decisions, particularly for those with sustainability commitments or emission-reduction targets tied to their supply chains.

The three newly published tools are designed to translate the standard’s expectations into on-the-ground actions, giving organisations of varying sizes and risk profiles a structured path toward compliance. The Materials Matter Standard introduces mandatory criteria for the protection of human and labour rights throughout raw material production and processing facilities, establishing people-centred sustainability as a core expectation across global supply chains.

Three New Resources to Guide Implementation

The first of the three tools, the Human Rights and Livelihoods Quick Guide, offers an overview of the human rights requirements within the Materials Matter Standard. It introduces the core themes of the standard and provides organisations with a starting point for implementation.

The second resource, the Human Rights Risk Assessment Tool, is built to help companies systematically identify, prioritise, and respond to human rights risks within both their own operations and their wider supply chains. This tool supports a structured approach to due diligence that is aligned with the needs of businesses operating at different scales.

The third resource, the Human Rights Commitment and Code of Conduct Template, provides a formal framework that organisations can use to commit to upholding human rights principles and to put in place a code of conduct as they transition to the new requirements.

Together, these tools are intended to assist companies in addressing concrete issues such as fair working conditions, appropriate compensation and benefits, safeguards against excessive working hours or overtime, and the identification and support of people in vulnerable or high-risk positions within supply chains.

A Standard Grounded in International Frameworks

Textile Exchange’s approach to due diligence under the Materials Matter Standard draws on two internationally recognised frameworks — the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidance on responsible business conduct and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The organisation has stated that its approach is designed to be practical and achievable for businesses across varying sizes and operating contexts.

The framework is also expected to help companies allocate resources and efforts in proportion to their specific risk profiles, while maintaining a baseline of accountability for respecting human rights in textiles across the entire industry.

Siobhan Cullen, Human Rights and Social Responsibility Lead at Textile Exchange, commented, “Stronger human rights and livelihoods practices are central to meaningful sustainability progress and resilient supply systems. The Materials Matter Standard sets a holistic set of requirements incorporating respect for human rights, with the new guidance and tools released today supporting organisations in putting those requirements into practice. By transitioning to the Materials Matter Standard, organisations can play a key role in embedding greater social responsibility across the textile supply system and support a fairer and safer industry for the people and communities that depend on it.”

Scope of the Materials Matter Standard

Beyond human and labour rights in supply chain operations, the Materials Matter Standard spans several broader dimensions of sustainability. The unified framework applies consistent criteria across the fashion and textiles sector, covering climate, nature, and animal welfare considerations in addition to the people-focused requirements now being supported by the new resources.

The Materials Matter Standard brings together what were previously separate material standards under Textile Exchange into one cohesive framework, aimed at reducing complexity and improving consistency of accountability across certified supply chains.

Timeline and Effective Dates

The three resources — the Human Rights and Livelihoods Quick Guide, the Human Rights Risk Assessment Tool, and the Human Rights Commitment and Code of Conduct Template — were officially published on 1 September 2026.

The Materials Matter Standard itself is scheduled to become effective on 31 December 2026. Following that, all audits will be required to be conducted under the new framework from 31 December 2027, giving organisations a structured transition window to prepare their operations, supply chain relationships, and documentation accordingly.

The release of these tools signals the industry’s preparedness for heightened expectations around labour rights in textiles, with Textile Exchange positioning the Materials Matter Standard as a central instrument for driving social responsibility at scale across global textile supply chains.

Apparel emissions rose 6.3% in 2024, following a 7.5% increase in 2023. The year before that, emissions had declined slightly. According to the institute, 2024 is the most recent year for which data is currently available. Fashion industry emissions that year reached roughly 1 gigaton — a figure comparable to the entire climate footprint of Japan.

A Trend That Raises Serious Concerns

Kurt Kipka, chief impact officer at the Apparel Impact Institute — a nonprofit dedicated to advancing sustainability within the fashion sector — described the pattern as troubling. “The trend is one that’s quite concerning,” he said. “It is a clear sign of increased usage of materials.”

Kipka pointed to cost as one of the most significant barriers to fashion decarbonization. Virgin polyester, he noted, remains cheaper and more readily available than its recycled counterpart, which requires considerable energy to produce.

Energy Price Volatility Adding Pressure

With energy prices being pushed higher by volatility stemming from the Iran war, Kipka said this environment underscores the urgency for clothing producers to move away from oil and gas dependence. “That’s where renewable energy sources and onsite battery storage become a more attractive proposition,” he said.

Financial Consequences on the Horizon

Separate research from the Apparel Impact Institute warns that the sector faces a 34% drop in profits by 2030 unless companies act swiftly to reduce their carbon pollution. Supply chain disruptions and rising operating costs are cited as key contributing factors if the industry fails to course-correct on apparel emissions 2024 trends.

Some Progress, But Green Commitments Slipping

The report does acknowledge meaningful progress in certain areas. The number of apparel companies that have approved science-based climate targets, or formally committed to setting them, climbed from approximately 100 at the end of 2021 to more than 700 as of June this year. Several major brands have reported double-digit reductions in their emissions and have increased the proportion of recycled fiber used in their garments.

Brands Walking Back Earlier Pledges

Despite these advances, a number of businesses within the sector have scaled back their sustainability commitments amid shifting political conditions and ongoing inflation pressures. Burberry, for instance, announced earlier this year that it was delaying its previous net zero target by a decade — pushing the goal from 2040 to 2050.

The broader picture painted by the institute’s findings is one where fashion industry emissions continue to climb even as parts of the industry make measurable gains, and where sustainable apparel ambitions are being tested by economic realities and supply chain volatility.

Zara’s Commanding Share Within Inditex

The revenue breakdown for H1 2026 places Zara in a position of overwhelming dominance within the broader Inditex brand family. With nearly 70% of Inditex’s total revenue attributed to the Zara label alone, the brand continues to function as the primary commercial engine for the group. This concentration of revenue within a single brand reflects the scale and consumer reach that Zara has built across global markets.

Inditex operates a range of fashion labels, yet the H1 2026 data makes clear that Zara remains in a category of its own when measured against the group’s overall financial output. For a conglomerate of Inditex’s size and diversity, such a pronounced revenue share from one brand is a notable indicator of where consumer demand continues to flow within the global apparel sector.

What This Means for the Global Apparel Industry

The global apparel industry has seen significant shifts in brand performance and consumer spending patterns, and the Zara Inditex revenue split in H1 2026 adds a meaningful data point to that broader picture. As fashion retail continues to evolve, the sustained commercial weight of Zara within Inditex’s portfolio speaks to the brand’s enduring relevance in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Inditex as a group continues to draw industry attention not just for its scale, but for how its revenues are distributed across its brand architecture. The near 70% contribution from Zara in H1 2026 makes it evident that despite the presence of other labels within the group, the flagship brand commands a disproportionate share of consumer spending.

The Zara Inditex revenue figure for the first half of 2026 will likely serve as a reference point for analysts, retailers, and investors tracking performance trends within the global apparel space, particularly those monitoring the concentration of brand value within large fashion groups.

What Is Fuelling the Secondhand Surge

According to the published market analysis, no single factor is responsible for the rise of secondhand apparel. Instead, it is a combination of converging pressures. Cost-of-living challenges are nudging budget-conscious consumers toward more affordable wardrobe alternatives. Online resale growth platforms have matured significantly, offering genuinely convenient and accessible shopping experiences. And sustainability-driven purchasing decisions continue to pull in a growing segment of shoppers who choose resale on principle rather than price alone.

Within the broader apparel resale market, clothing is projected to be the fastest-growing segment, with footwear following closely behind.

A Second Independent Report Arrives at the Same Conclusion

What gives these figures added weight is that GlobalData is not alone in its findings. ThredUp’s 14th Annual Resale Report, published in April 2026, projects the global secondhand apparel market will reach $393 billion by 2030, growing at roughly twice the pace of the overall apparel retail category.

For the United States specifically, ThredUp’s report projects the domestic clothing resale market will reach $78.8 billion by 2030. Notably, American resale grew nearly four times faster than traditional clothing retail in 2025 alone. Gen Z and Millennial shoppers are expected to account for more than 70 percent of that resale growth through 2030.

Why the $338.4 Billion Figure Carries Real Weight

The significance of $338.4 billion projection goes beyond the headline number. Two independent research organisations, working with different data sets and methodologies, are arriving at the same underlying conclusion — the apparel resale market is undergoing a structural shift, not a passing trend.

The effects of this shift are already visible at street level. The thrift store experience that many consumers grew up with — casual, unhurried, and largely under the radar — looks noticeably more competitive than it did even five years ago. As institutional investment and full-scale retail infrastructure flow into the clothing resale category, the nature of that market changes with it.

Two independent research organisations. Two separate methodologies. One consistent signal — this is no longer just a trend. This is a market.

The report, titled Why Every American Made Clothing Manufacturer Left Standing in Los Angeles Matters More Than Ever, was published by ARGYLE Haus of Apparel, a Los Angeles-based apparel development and clothing manufacturing company. It traces the arc of Los Angeles garment manufacturing from its mid-1990s peak through decades of outsourcing, factory closures and steady workforce contraction, while also spotlighting the resilience and depth of capability that has endured through it all.

A Shrinking Industry With Growing Relevance

Drawing on California Department of Industrial Relations registration data, the analysis found that licensed garment manufacturers and contractors in Los Angeles have declined by approximately 26% since 2014. Apparel employment has contracted even faster over the same period, leaving a narrower but notably more capable field of companies equipped for full-service clothing development and production.

Houman Salem, founder and CEO of ARGYLE Haus of Apparel, spoke to what that consolidation means for the brands that rely on domestic production. “Los Angeles may have fewer garment businesses than it once did, but what remains is powerful,” Salem said. “The surviving manufacturers carry generations of technical knowledge, skilled craftsmanship and specialized production capabilities. For brands committed to American-made clothing, that expertise has never been more valuable.”

Why Fragmented Production Creates Problems for Fashion Brands

The analysis takes particular aim at the challenges fashion startups face when attempting to coordinate separate vendors across the production pipeline. When brands must independently manage pattern makers, sample rooms, graders and cut-and-sew contractors, inefficiencies multiply and the margin for error grows with each handoff.

As an alternative, the report highlights the competitive advantages offered by a vertically integrated Los Angeles apparel manufacturer — one capable of guiding a product from initial concept through pattern making, sample development, fit testing and small-batch clothing manufacturing under a single roof. This kind of end-to-end capability, the analysis argues, is precisely what makes the surviving Los Angeles manufacturers so valuable in today’s market environment.

Tariffs and Supply Chain Pressures Redirect Attention Toward USA Clothing Manufacturing

The timing of the analysis aligns with a broader industry conversation. As tariffs, international shipping disruptions and global supply chain uncertainty push more brands to reconsider their sourcing strategies, USA clothing manufacturing — and Los Angeles in particular — is drawing renewed attention.

The analysis notes that Los Angeles remains the country’s deepest and most established apparel production hub. The full-service manufacturers that have weathered the industry’s long decline now offer a set of advantages that overseas supply chains frequently cannot match: direct communication with production teams, faster product development cycles, lower minimum production quantities and hands-on quality oversight throughout the manufacturing process.

These are precisely the conditions that matter most to emerging brands, where speed to market, quality control and flexibility can determine whether a product line succeeds or fails.

LA Apparel Manufacturers: A Legacy of Craft and Capability

What the analysis ultimately underscores is that the story of Los Angeles apparel manufacturers is not simply one of decline — it is equally a story of adaptation. The businesses that survived decades of industry pressure did so by becoming more skilled, more specialized and more equipped to serve the complex demands of modern American-made clothing brands.

For fashion companies evaluating domestic garment production as a serious option, the pool of available LA apparel manufacturers may be smaller than it was thirty years ago, but the depth of expertise concentrated within that pool represents a significant and often underestimated resource.

During a recent high-level meeting between the two organisations, a comprehensive programme was outlined, targeting over 100 factories through a structured screening and baseline assessment process. The initiative seeks to help these factories adopt more effective chemical management systems, strengthen their wastewater performance, and embed stronger environmental practices into their day-to-day operations.

Programme Framework and Tools

Participating factories will be supported in implementing ZDHC’s established frameworks and tools, including Chemical Inventory Lists (CIL), InCheck, and the Supplier to Zero programme. As part of this rollout, factories will also receive dedicated training and technical support for their staff to ensure on-the-ground capacity is built effectively.

A key feature of the programme is the incorporation of ClearStream wastewater testing across 25 wet-processing sites. This testing is designed to identify major issues in wastewater and chemical management and to guide site-specific improvements where they are most needed.

The initiative also includes planned collaboration with chemical formulators and suppliers to strengthen chemical management throughout the broader supply chain, ensuring that improvements are not limited to factory floors alone.

Implementation and Solution Partners

Two organisations have been identified as implementation and solution partners for this programme. Amin & Jahan, a provider of research and development services, and Swiss consultancy firm ECOPSIS participated in the discussions in this capacity, signalling a multi-stakeholder approach to delivering the programme’s objectives.

Industry Leaders Highlight Key Priorities

BKMEA Vice President Mohammad Rashed underlined the importance of establishing transparent and objective criteria for selecting the factories that will participate in the programme. He emphasised that the selection process must be designed to deliver measurable improvements rather than serve as a procedural exercise. Rashed also pointed to the potential benefits of developing shared environmental infrastructure, including centralised wastewater treatment facilities, as a means of addressing industry-wide wastewater management challenges at a systemic level.

BKMEA Director Minhazul Hoque stressed that factory support must remain at the heart of the initiative. He observed that the programme should prioritise hands-on capacity building and technical support, rather than adding to the audit or compliance burdens already faced by factories. Hoque added that on-the-ground guidance and assistance would be central to achieving real and lasting progress in sustainable textile production.

Delivering Practical, Factory-Level Impact

BKMEA and ZDHC have stated that the overarching aim of this initiative is to deliver practical, factory-level capability and to accelerate the uptake of responsible chemical and wastewater management across the knitwear sector. Partner organisations are expected to support factories through each stage of improvement, ensuring that the programme translates into tangible outcomes for participating sites.

The collaboration between ZDHC and BKMEA reflects a shared commitment to raising environmental standards in Bangladesh’s knitwear industry, with chemical management and wastewater management identified as the two most critical areas requiring structured, industry-wide intervention.

The numbers behind Grupo Beta’s use of the CreateOne platform were notable: over 1,600 questions answered, more than 100 applications generated, and an adoption rate that surprised even experienced technology professionals. Daren Hull, CEO of CreateOne, acknowledged that the pace was unlike anything previously observed with a client.

The Core Problem: Do Factories Really Know Their Costs?

The platform, developed by Resonance, is designed to sit as an economic decision layer atop existing supply chain or ERP systems, running real-time calculations to determine whether a given order or set of orders is actually profitable. Factories today are committing to materials and labor before knowing whether an order will return a margin — a structural challenge made worse by tripling container costs and shifting tariff environments.

Lawrence Lenihan, Resonance’s executive chairman and co-founder, framed the problem in direct terms. The issue is not simply a lack of data — it is a lack of operating truth. A factory may expect 100-yard material rolls and receive 50-yard rolls instead, instantly invalidating its cost assumptions. Traditional systems often require workers to export data into dozens of spreadsheets — in one cited case, as many as 90 — which makes timely, accurate decision-making nearly impossible.

Lenihan and his team drew on nine years of directly running a plant, brands and a closed-loop manufacturing system. That firsthand experience shaped the architecture of CreateOne, which combines AI with swarms of agents, a memory system and a hybrid temporal graph network sitting atop a directed acyclic graph — producing what Lenihan described as deterministic outputs that reflect real costs in real time.

Profitability Is a Portfolio Problem

One of the key insights driving the platform is that factory profitability is not determined order by order — it is a portfolio question. Two individually unprofitable orders may become highly profitable when combined due to shared operations and maximized efficiency. The system accounts for this complexity, enabling factories to reorganize their book of orders to optimize margins across the whole.

The granularity extends to depreciation, maintenance costs and even thread expenses. For manufacturers competing in the Western Hemisphere, the platform’s ability to identify idle labor during changeovers as a primary cost driver reshapes how factories measure and pursue efficiency.

In one live example shared by Hull, a customer with nine active orders was shown a blended margin of 2.1 percent across the group, a 2.5 percent margin on the most profitable single order and a flagged sewing efficiency issue potentially tied to missing payroll data on the production floor.

Grupo Beta’s Path to Deployment

Rod Rozell, Chief Operating Officer of Grupo Beta, reconnected with Hull and Lenihan after recognizing that the platform had matured into something capable of transforming operations at scale. He emphasized that AI’s value is diminished when different departments use separate tools without integrating insights — and that CreateOne’s unified approach addresses this limitation directly.

Rozell described the leap in capability as moving from steam locomotives to a fundamentally different mode of transportation entirely. He also highlighted the speed of onboarding, noting that Grupo Beta was wired on July 24th and within weeks was ready to move from proof of concept to live implementation.

The platform is being used not by engineers but by staff in planning, finance and operations — and observations from frontline workers are feeding directly into the system’s evolving model. For an industry navigating AI apparel manufacturing adoption without a clear roadmap, CreateOne’s rapid, floor-level deployment offers a concrete illustration of what a working strategy can look like.

The policy direction was established through the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, adopted in 2022. The strategy targets a textile industry in which products sold in the EU are more durable, repairable and recyclable, contain a greater share of recycled fibres, avoid hazardous substances and carry greater producer responsibility across their life cycle.

For a global industry built around fragmented production networks, the significance is considerable. The EU is not simply regulating what happens inside Europe; it is increasingly influencing how products are designed, sourced, documented and manufactured before they ever reach European borders.

From sustainability strategy to binding market rules

A central pillar is the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), which entered into force in July 2024. It establishes a framework for setting mandatory ecodesign requirements and introduces the concept of the Digital Product Passport (DPP). The regulation also creates a framework to prevent the destruction of unsold consumer products.

Textile apparel has now been identified as a priority product group under the EU’s 2025–2030 ESPR Working Plan. The European Commission currently plans to adopt the textile-specific delegated act in the fourth quarter of 2027, after which detailed requirements and implementation measures will follow.

This timeline gives the industry some preparation time, but it also means companies cannot wait until the final rules are published. Product-development cycles, supplier qualification and investments in traceability systems can take years.

The impact is likely to spread through the entire value chain because EU buyers will need evidence from upstream suppliers to demonstrate compliance.

Digital Product Passports will change supplier data requirements

One of the biggest changes will be the Digital Product Passport. The EU’s emerging framework is designed to make product information accessible across the life cycle, potentially including product identification, fibre composition, origin, relevant economic operators, sustainability information, repair and maintenance information, reuse and recycling information and compliance documentation.

For global textile manufacturers, this turns traceability into a commercial capability rather than simply a reporting exercise.

A garment supplier may increasingly need to provide verified information on the fibres it purchases, the origin of materials, processing stages, recycled content, production facilities and other product-level information. That information must then travel through multiple tiers of the supply chain.

The challenge is significant because apparel supply chains remain highly fragmented. McKinsey notes that more than 60% of global apparel production is conducted by small and medium-sized suppliers, many of which face funding and capability constraints when responding to multiple sustainability requirements.

As a result, the next competitive divide may be between suppliers that can provide reliable, structured sustainability data and those that cannot.

EPR shifts the economics of textile production

The EU has also moved forward with mandatory textile EPR through the revised Waste Framework Directive, adopted as Directive (EU) 2025/1892. The legislation requires Member States to establish EPR schemes covering textile, textile-related and footwear products, with producers financing collection, sorting, preparation for reuse, recycling and other treatment costs. Member States are required to establish these schemes by 17 April 2028.

Importantly, financial contributions can be eco-modulated according to product characteristics linked to durability, circularity and waste prevention. Member States may also differentiate contributions based on practices associated with ultra-fast and fast fashion.

This can ultimately influence global sourcing decisions.

If poorly designed products generate higher end-of-life costs, brands will have greater incentives to source garments that last longer, use recyclable materials and avoid construction features that make fibre recovery difficult. Suppliers able to manufacture circular products efficiently could therefore gain business, while suppliers dependent on low-cost, low-value production may face pressure.

Unsold inventory is becoming a supply-chain issue

The EU is also targeting a major source of textile waste: products that are never sold or used.

In February 2026, the European Commission adopted measures under the ESPR to support the prohibition on destruction of unsold apparel, clothing accessories and footwear. For large companies, the ban takes effect on 19 July 2026; medium-sized companies are expected to follow from 2030. Companies must also disclose information about unsold consumer products discarded as waste.

This could change purchasing and inventory strategies across the international supply chain.

Brands may become more cautious about over-ordering, while suppliers could see greater demand for flexible production, smaller runs and shorter lead times. Better forecasting, postponement strategies and more agile manufacturing could become increasingly valuable as companies seek to reduce surplus stock and returns.

The regulation could therefore accelerate the shift away from the traditional model of producing large volumes at the lowest possible unit cost.

The waste trade is also being reshaped

The EU’s circularity push does not end at product sale. It increasingly addresses what happens after textiles become waste.

The European Environment Agency estimates that EU countries generated around 6.94 million tonnes of textile waste in 2022, while only about 15% of household textile waste was separately collected. The EEA also reports that around 1.4 million tonnes of used textiles were exported from the EU in 2025, with Africa and Asia accounting for most destinations.

This trade is complex: exported textiles can be reused, recycled, re-exported, landfilled or otherwise disposed of. The EU is therefore tightening rules intended to prevent textile waste from being falsely classified as reusable material.

The revised waste-shipment framework introduces significantly stricter controls, with new rules for exports of non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries applying from 21 May 2027.

For global recyclers and used-clothing markets, this could redirect material flows. Countries and companies that have built businesses around sorting or processing European textile waste may face higher documentation and environmental-management requirements.

At the same time, the pressure could stimulate investment in European sorting and textile-to-textile recycling capacity, reducing Europe’s dependence on overseas waste-processing routes.

Raw materials and Tier 2 suppliers move into the spotlight

Perhaps the most important long-term effect will be upstream.

Circularity cannot be achieved simply by changing a garment label. It requires changes in fibre selection, yarns, fabric construction, dyeing, finishing, trims and garment assembly. The biggest sustainability impacts frequently occur before a garment reaches the sewing factory.

McKinsey estimates that Tier 2 production, including fabric production and treatment, typically accounts for 45% to 70% of a fashion brand’s Scope 3 emissions.

This means brands are likely to place increasing pressure on spinning mills, dyeing units, finishing plants and material suppliers—not just garment factories.

The result could be greater vertical integration, stronger supplier partnerships and more regional material ecosystems. McKinsey’s research also indicates that apparel companies are already moving toward deeper, longer-term relationships with suppliers as they seek sustainability, resilience and efficiency simultaneously.

Compliance may become a sourcing differentiator

The global impact of EU textile circularity rules is therefore likely to extend well beyond compliance departments.

Suppliers able to demonstrate traceability, recycled-content capability, reliable environmental data and circular product design may become preferred partners for European brands. Those lacking digital systems or investment capital could gradually lose access to higher-value export orders.

This presents a particular challenge for smaller producers. Creating traceability across multiple tiers, segregating recycled materials, documenting production data and integrating digital systems all require investment.

However, the same requirements could create new commercial opportunities. Demand may rise for recycled fibres, chemical recycling, mechanical recycling, repair services, resale platforms, digital traceability providers, material testing and supply-chain data management.

A more regional and interconnected supply chain

The ultimate result may not be the end of global sourcing, but its transformation.

The EU is effectively pushing the industry toward supply chains that are more traceable, resource-efficient and circular. The winning model may combine global manufacturing with stronger regional recycling networks, closer supplier relationships and better digital visibility.

The European Commission’s own data underline how early the circularity transition remains: only 13% of the most popular clothing items analysed across five European online markets in February 2026 contained at least 20% recycled content.

That low starting point indicates both the scale of the challenge and the potential size of the emerging market.

For textile and apparel companies worldwide, the strategic question is therefore changing. Compliance is no longer simply about ensuring that a finished garment passes a European requirement. It is about redesigning the supply chain so that sustainability information, responsible materials and end-of-life considerations are built into the product from the beginning.

The European market is creating that pressure through regulation. The consequences, however, will be felt across the global textile economy.