Around the globe, counterfeit items that mimic the appearance of genuine products have become widespread, fuelled by the expansion of e-commerce and the influence of social media. SMEs are particularly vulnerable, as many rely on a small number of distinctive product designs and have limited capacity to monitor and enforce their design rights. These pressures add to Irish counterfeiting losses and challenge the resilience of Irish fashion businesses.

Enforcement action around the FIFA World Cup

A major international enforcement action earlier this month, supported by the EUIPO and targeting counterfeit sports merchandise, led to the seizure of more than 66,000 fake football jerseys and kits intended for distribution during the FIFA World Cup 2026. The products imitated official designs, crests and distinctive elements of national football teams and were intended for sale through illegal street markets, unauthorised online channels, social media platforms and other illicit distribution networks.

“The estimated value of the seized counterfeit goods exceeded €2m, while the economic damage to intellectual property rights holders is estimated at more than €7m.” Authorities reported numerous arrests linked to suspected intellectual property offences, and investigations remain ongoing. The focus on counterfeit goods linked to the FIFA World Cup reflects how major tournaments can draw illicit activity into high-demand categories.

“When there are major international sporting events, we clearly see an increase in the number of counterfeit goods seized,” said Yann Ambach, head of tariff and trade policy at French customs. “We are dealing with large-scale fraud, criminal networks and poly-criminality. Manufacturing, transporting and buying a counterfeit product is not a trivial act. It fuels criminal networks, results in job losses, a loss of expertise and a loss of tax revenue.”

Design’s role in purchasing and risk

Consumer behaviour also shapes exposure to counterfeit goods. Around 13% of Europeans report having intentionally bought counterfeit products, rising to 26% among younger consumers aged 15-24. Product design is particularly valued by younger consumers, and 76% of Irish consumers are willing to pay more for better-designed products.

Design-led sectors remain vulnerable to counterfeiting, with estimated losses of €12bn in clothing and €2.7bn in handbags and jewellery each year across the EU. As design becomes a more important factor in purchasing decisions, creators and businesses face growing risks from unauthorised copying and counterfeiting. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, 80% agree design is an important factor in their purchasing decisions; this group is more likely to pay higher prices for better quality and to associate design with positive emotions.

While quality and price are still central to consumer choice, the strong role of design increases exposure to counterfeiting across fashion, furniture, electronics and other consumer goods. For Irish fashion in particular, the combination of design appeal and global online marketplaces adds pressure to protect legitimate products and reduce Irish counterfeiting losses.

Protecting designs and safeguarding markets

“European design is one of our greatest competitive strengths. It shapes the products we trust, value and enjoy every day while helping businesses stand out in the global market,” said the executive director of the EUIPO, João Negrão. “Research confirms that consumers, especially younger generations, recognise the value of good design. Protecting designs gives creators the confidence to innovate and businesses the edge to compete generating the growth and competitiveness on which Europe’s economy relies.”

Across these developments, enforcement backed by the EUIPO, a focus on intellectual property protections and continued monitoring of counterfeit goods especially around events like the FIFA World Cup remain central to supporting intellectual property rights holders and the wider market.

Analysts say the likely impact is not simply a loss of advertising inventory, but a fundamental slowing of the feedback loop that has powered fast fashion’s “see it, buy it” economy. The UK under-16 social media ban would remove a major channel through which micro-trends spread, gain social proof, and translate into near-immediate purchases—an especially critical dynamic for online-first ultra-fast fashion platforms.

Analysts feel the removal of these discovery engines could significantly weaken the pace at which trends reach younger consumers. Social media platform such as TikTok and Instagram have sped up the cycle between trend discovery and purchase, benefiting online fast fashion brands such as Shein, Temu and Cider most. Without those platforms, the trend cycles and their adoption among those under-16s are likely to slow heavily. For brands and retailers such as Shein, which operate primarily by releasing constant small batches of new products, this slowing cycle among young teen shoppers will be at odds with their business model, potentially leading to excess stock and the need to discount already low prices. However, these brands have time to react and adjust their assortments prior to the ban taking place.

The analysis suggests the risk is greatest for brands that treat social media as both storefront and demand signal testing, scaling and killing products based on rapid online engagement. If that engagement is reduced in a key age cohort, the model that depends on frequent drops and fast inventory churn could become harder to manage, increasing the chance of misreads and markdown dependency.

Not all retailers face the same level of exposure. Companies that reach younger shoppers through physical retail, household purchasing dynamics, or proprietary digital ecosystems may be better insulated from the disruption created by the UK under-16 social media ban. “Primark, for instance, drives footfall through its in-store experience and low-priced product ranges rather than paid or organic social media promotion, and Next reaches young shoppers through family connections as well as its app and loyalty ecosystem. Both carry lower exposure to this disruption than pure social-media-driven competitors,” Iles said.

The proposed ban also lands at a moment when fashion retailers are already dealing with a difficult operating backdrop. Iles noted the policy would stack on top of weakening consumer confidence driven by cost-of-living pressures, higher production expenses, and margin strain linked to elevated energy and oil prices amid conflict in the Middle East. Added tariffs and a more uncertain global trade environment are further tightening the space for error, particularly for businesses that compete primarily on price.

The implications may stretch beyond clothing. Because social platforms also shape purchasing in other trend-sensitive categories, the restriction could influence demand patterns in teen-focused segments such as health and beauty, where viral products and rapid trend turnover have become central to how brands generate momentum.

For fast-fashion operators, the next year becomes a planning window: diversifying acquisition channels, adjusting product cadence, and building alternative routes to younger consumers before spring 2027 reshapes the digital terrain.

The divergence points to shoppers becoming more deliberate about what they buy in categories viewed as non-essential, with fashion among the most exposed. While other discretionary segments also cooled, the declines were smaller than in apparel. Shipments in cosmetics, food and drink, toys and gifting slipped by between 5% and 8%, according to the data.

By contrast, categories linked to the home and everyday lifestyle showed strong gains, suggesting spending is being redirected rather than disappearing. Homewares shipments rose 23%, while tool and DIY deliveries increased 19%. Pet and animal products grew 17%, and sports equipment shipments were up 14%, reinforcing a picture of consumers prioritising home improvement, wellbeing and practical purchases as summer approaches.

At the same time, Scurri’s findings highlight a second shift: shoppers may be buying less fashion, but they are raising the bar for delivery. Next-day delivery usage rose 29% compared with the same period last year, making it an increasingly dominant choice at checkout. Standard delivery lost ground, with the proportion of customers selecting it falling by 2.7%. Signature-required services also gained momentum, increasing by nearly 13%.

Scurri chief marketing officer Gavin Murphy said the combination of tighter purchasing and higher delivery expectations reflects a more nuanced consumer mindset. “These figures point to an interesting shift in consumer behaviour. Consumers remain cost-conscious and are carefully considering their purchases. However, once they’ve decided to buy, they increasingly want the confidence that comes from a fast, convenient and reliable delivery experience.”

Scurri said next-day delivery now represents more than 31% of preferred shipping selections, making it the leading premium option. Signature services account for a further 23%, indicating that speed and reassurance are becoming part of the perceived value of an online purchase.

The data suggests that, even under ongoing economic pressure, consumers are less inclined to compromise on fulfilment quality. Retailers that assume shoppers will always trade down to the cheapest shipping option may be misreading the moment, Murphy argued. “Retailers often assume that economic pressure means shoppers will always choose the cheapest delivery option available. Our data suggests the opposite. Delivery has become part of the product experience. Consumers may be buying fewer items, but they are increasingly willing to invest in services that help them receive those purchases more quickly and with greater confidence.”

Scurri also recorded a sharper drop in international parcel flows than in domestic shipments. Overseas deliveries from the UK fell by almost 26% year on year, suggesting consumers are approaching cross-border purchasing with more caution, potentially influenced by higher delivery charges and fulfilment complexity.

With fashion shipments fell 22% while home and lifestyle categories advanced, Scurri’s snapshot suggests UK ecommerce is not slowing so much as shifting. The message for retailers, Murphy said, is that delivery is increasingly tied to loyalty and repeat purchasing. “As competition intensifies, retailers need to recognise that delivery is no longer simply an operational function. It’s a customer experience channel and a loyalty driver. The retailers that give consumers the right balance of speed, convenience and flexibility will be best placed to win repeat business,” he concluded.

The Rise of the Discerning Chinese Consumer

China’s robust economic growth over recent decades has fostered a burgeoning middle class with expanding disposable incomes, fueling a substantial increase in domestic consumption of fashion goods. The Chinese fashion market is projected for continued expansion, with revenue reaching approximately US$276.42 billion in 2025 and an anticipated annual growth rate of 6.86% from 2025 to 2029. This expanding consumer base, particularly among younger generations like Gen Z, is characterized by a growing preference for authenticity, wellness, and cultural resonance in their fashion choices, shaping new fashion consumer trends. Consumers are increasingly seeking value-driven and experience-focused purchases, with a significant portion of luxury spending now remaining within China.

Redrawing the Global Apparel Manufacturing Map

Simultaneously, China’s traditional role as a primary manufacturing hub is evolving. Rising labor costs within the country have prompted many international brands to diversify their sourcing strategies, shifting production to other Asian economies such such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Indonesia. This recalibration of the apparel supply chain is not merely a cost-driven decision but also a strategic pivot influenced by geopolitical factors and the pursuit of resilient, agile production networks. While China remains a leading exporter of apparel, its imports in this sector have seen a steady and significant rise, tripling between 2010 and 2024. This surge presents a substantial opportunity for developing Asian countries to expand their exports to China.

Domestic Brands Asserting Influence

Beyond its role as a consumer powerhouse, China is cultivating a vibrant ecosystem of domestic fashion brands and designers. The “Made in China” label is transforming into “Made for China” or “Designed in China,” with local brands gaining strength and international recognition. This is evident in the increasing dominance of domestic brands in China’s top fashion turnover rankings, which grew from 15% in 2011 to over 30% in 2021. Chinese designers are adeptly blending traditional elements with contemporary styles, creating a “new Chinese style” that resonates deeply with local consumers who prioritize cultural connection and authenticity.

Luxury Fashion: A Strategic Focus on China

The shifting landscape also significantly impacts luxury fashion China. Western luxury brands are increasingly focusing on the Chinese fashion market, recognizing its immense potential. Chinese consumers are projected to account for 60% of total global spending growth on luxury items by 2030. During periods of restricted international travel, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, luxury spending that might have occurred abroad was redirected to mainland China, further emphasizing the market’s domestic strength. While a pivot towards a “quality-over-quantity” strategy is observed, with a focus on flagship stores and VIP clients, the emphasis on the discerning fashion consumer trends remains paramount.

Sustainability and Technological Integration Driving Innovation

The evolution of the Chinese fashion market is also deeply intertwined with a strong push towards sustainability and technological integration. There is a notable increase in demand for eco-friendly and ethically produced fashion items, influencing fashion consumer trends. China’s government actively promotes a greener textile and fashion industry through policies outlined in its 14th Five-Year Plan, encouraging the adoption of cleaner production techniques and sustainable practices. Innovations include investment in organic cotton production, waterless dyeing technologies, and closed-loop recycling systems. Furthermore, the industry is embracing advanced technologies like AI, smart textiles, and digital product passports to enhance efficiency, transparency, and innovation across the global fashion industry.

In summary, China’s transformation from a manufacturing powerhouse to a pivotal consumer and import market marks a significant turning point for the global fashion industry. This China’s Fashion Market Evolution underscores the importance of understanding dynamic consumer preferences, adapting to evolving apparel supply chain models, and embracing sustainability and technological advancements to thrive in this new era of global fashion.

The Ascendance of Pre-Loved Clothing

Against this pressing environmental backdrop, the burgeoning appeal of pre-loved clothing represents more than just a fleeting consumer whim. Many industry observers believe it signifies a profound shift in how consumers perceive value, ownership, and responsible consumption. What was once primarily viewed as a budget-friendly alternative has evolved into a conscious lifestyle choice. Consumers globally are increasingly embracing second-hand fashion not only to save money but also to actively reduce waste, discover unique styles, and make more responsible purchasing decisions. This sustainable fashion resale trend is rapidly becoming an undeniable force within an industry traditionally propelled by constant newness.

Consumer Embrace and Environmental Gains

Consumer behavior clearly demonstrates this evolving shift. Reports indicate that approximately 60 percent of global consumers anticipate shopping in the resale market by 2026. In the United States alone, nearly two-thirds of adults regularly acquire pre-owned goods, ranging from everyday thrift-store finds to carefully curated designer resale items. Beyond affordability and the allure of vintage aesthetics, rewearing and reselling garments offer substantial environmental advantages. Studies suggest that pre-loved clothing generates roughly 20 to 40 percent fewer lifecycle emissions compared to newly manufactured items. At a time of heightened scrutiny over overproduction and disposable consumption, the resale market is effectively extending the lifespan of garments, offering the fashion industry a crucial glimpse into a more circular fashion future.

Extending Garment Life: A Core Principle

The fundamental appeal of pre-loved clothing lies in its simple yet powerful premise: prolonging the utility and aesthetic life of garments. Every item purchased second-hand directly reduces the demand for new production, thereby lessening the need for water, energy, chemicals, and virgin raw materials. This practice also prevents wearable items from prematurely entering landfills, significantly alleviating the environmental burden imposed by a throwaway culture.

Navigating the Complexities of Growth

While the environmental and economic benefits are clear, it is crucial to acknowledge that viewing thrifting as an ultimate, perfect solution is an oversimplification, a perspective that holds merit. The mainstreaming of second-hand fashion introduces its own set of complexities. There is a potential risk of encouraging overconsumption even within the resale market itself, as lower prices might prompt individuals to acquire more than necessary, inadvertently undermining the very sustainability objectives it aims to foster. Furthermore, the globally interconnected nature of the fashion industry means that significant shifts in consumer purchasing habits, such as a strong move towards pre-loved clothing, can have notable economic ramifications for nations heavily reliant on garment manufacturing and exports.

A Path Towards a Circular Fashion Future

Despite these complexities, many experts contend that pre-loved clothing plays a far more impactful role than it is often recognized. As awareness of fashion’s substantial environmental cost continues to grow, an increasing number of individuals are critically re-evaluating not just what they purchase, but also the frequency and underlying motivations of their choices. In an era marked by pervasive overproduction and overconsumption, opting for an existing garment might appear to be a minor individual decision. However, many believe it collectively drives a substantial positive change. The future of truly sustainable fashion may not lie in the next collection unveiled, but rather in the deliberate act of giving existing apparel a valued second life, cementing the sustainable fashion resale trend as a critical pathway towards a more responsible industry.

The BSI’s MESH resilience survey indicated that over half, precisely 54%, of respondents experienced a major apparel supply chain disruption in the past year. This figure is often perceived as a judgment on logistics, encompassing ports, freight, geopolitics, and the broader push for resilience. From a brand’s perspective, disruption often appears as an external, unwelcome event. However, a closer look reveals a different reality.

Understanding Supply Chain Disruption from Within

From an operational standpoint, the landscape of disruption shifts. Mill lead times dictate the entire calendar, and the cut-and-sew floor simply inherits this schedule. The majority of what a brand classifies as a factory problem can be traced back weeks earlier to the product development stage, an area not typically flagged for risk management. This reframing offers a sharper perspective than the common understanding that “resilience is built upstream.” The premium-specific version highlights a crucial distinction: on signature fabrics central to a brand’s identity, the standard commodity playbook of diversification, dual-sourcing, and spreading exposure is fundamentally flawed. A signature fabric is the design; a second source often means a different garment entirely. For luxury fashion, seeking a second supplier can paradoxically introduce fragility.

Brands that effectively absorb shocks are not necessarily those with the most suppliers, but rather those that integrate risk management into their product development processes. When late orders are analyzed by their actual causes, the ranking is counter-intuitive: fabric-related issues constitute the single largest cause, accounting for roughly half of all delays. This includes extended mill lead times, dye-lot variations, and the necessity to re-dye deep-tone silks that fail to match approved samples. Factory scheduling and quality rework collectively form a clear second category. Surprisingly, customs and shipping – areas that typically generate the most industry anxiety – represent the smallest band of all. This prioritization of causes is even more pronounced in premium than in commodity apparel.

A high-volume program commits sufficient yardage to a single dye lot, allowing the mill to schedule it efficiently and absorb variance across the run. In contrast, a premium line operates against protective measures: small quantities, fabric-led design, the most demanding materials, and limited leverage at the mill. Thus, the fabric risk that scale dilutes in commodity production becomes highly concentrated in small-batch luxury fashion. This is not an isolated operational quirk; it is a structural cost inherent in how premium goods are made.

The Nuances of Fabric and Color

Consider the most exposed element in this breakdown: color. A lab dip approved on a small swatch can drift significantly during bulk production. Dyeing is a batch chemistry process, not a photocopier; factors like bath temperature, liquor ratio, and dyestuff lot all influence the final outcome, with deep jewel tones on silk being particularly susceptible. A shade deemed acceptable on a single meter can fail across two thousand. Worse, it might pass under a studio’s daylight lamp but fail under the warm LED lighting common in boutiques – a phenomenon known as metamerism, a structural oversight a brand cannot identify at the approval stage.

This deferral of risk has a specific anatomy. A fabric may be quote-confirmed in a proposal but still not be on the mill’s confirmed-stock list. A mill might confirm material quality but not a production slot for the required week; availability and scheduled run timing are distinct confirmations, only one of which secures the calendar. And a factory, facing a stalled supply, might quietly substitute a material that meets the specification sheet but lacks the desired “hand.” By the time any of these issues surface, it’s often six weeks too late, with substantial financial implications. A fabric chosen purely for its appearance on a mood board, without a confirmed mill, a realistic lead time, or a tested dye lot, is not a decision but a deferral with a photograph attached.

The equally challenging aspect of this problem, often overlooked in resilience literature, is not abstract geography but the specific fabric type. Commodity wovens and basic jerseys can be processed by dozens of interchangeable mills, offering a wide and forgiving supply corridor. However, the qualities defining a premium brand – fine-gauge jacquards, specific laces, cutwork, or specialty silks at precise weights – typically rely on a select handful of specialist mills. This constitutes a naturally narrow supply corridor. A lace mill, for instance, generally won’t produce a custom quality below its minimum yardage, silently restricting smaller fashion orders. This forces brands to over-buy to meet minimums, await shared dye runs, or forgo the quality entirely. This concentration is most acute for hero fabrics – those with no viable substitute and often no second source at all, such as mill-exclusive jacquards, specific silk “hands,” or a lace house’s proprietary pattern. For these, the effective risk management strategy within the apparel supply chain is not to thin relationships but to commit earlier – to greige, to yarn, to a booked production run – and for truly irreplaceable cloths, to hold stock.

The handoff from product development to production is a critical fault line because a swatch differs fundamentally from a production run; the gap is physical, not clerical. A lace or jacquard struck off on a sample loom will behave differently on a bulk machine, where changes in gauge and tension alter its “hand.” A fine-gauge merino or cashmere knit might sample beautifully but fail on shrinkage and recovery at bulk. A bias-cut silk that measures correctly when flat will drop and twist once hung. Furthermore, a sample sewn by a skilled tailor with unlimited time merely certifies that an item can be made, not that it can be produced by a piece-rate operator – a completely different claim for intricate details like a hand-rolled hem or consistent smocking tension. Sampling is not a dress rehearsal; it is where the load-bearing decisions are actually made.

Development as Risk Management

To genuinely integrate risk management into product development requires separating two failure modes commonly bundled by the industry. Availability risk – where the cloth exists but arrives late – can be mitigated through earlier commitment and, where genuinely possible, a second source. Performance risk – where the cloth arrives on time but its hand, drape, shrinkage, or color is incorrect – cannot be fixed by a second source; it is hedged only by rigorously testing the bulk quality before approval. Confusing these two distinct risks leads to principled but ineffective action plans.

From this understanding, several practical steps emerge, none requiring new technology:

• Grade every hero fabric by its existence, not merely its appearance. The most certain option is cloth already in hand – held stock. Next is cloth a mill can confirm to a specific run date based on an existing relationship – booked. The least certain is cloth still to be sourced on the open market – open. The sampling clock should begin at sourcing, not after.
• Perceive your fabric corridor as an exposure, not merely a convenience. Map each hero cloth back to its specific mill, transforming hidden concentrations into deliberate choices.
• Ensure sample approval signifies production-readiness, not just photo-readiness. Approve samples cut from bulk-delivered cloth and sewn on the actual production line. This should be against a bulk lab dip checked under multiple lighting conditions, and accompanied by a wash-and-shrinkage test on the final quality – not just a swatch sewn by a master in the sample room.
• Shift timeline expectations upstream. The weeks that determine on-time order shipment are the product development weeks, not the cut-and-sew weeks. Applying late pressure on the factory cannot compensate for careless fabric decisions made early in the process.

None of these measures are glamorous. They represent the upstream, pre-production discipline that ultimately dictates whether a brand spends its future years firefighting or successfully shipping. The broader resilience conversation has historically focused on the visible end of the apparel supply chain – freight, ports, borders – because that is where disruption announces itself most overtly. However, the critical decisions that determine an order’s survival through challenging periods are made much earlier, in quiet rooms, over cloth and patterns, long before anything reaches a container. Therefore, the true test for enduring resilience is narrower than merely “building resilience.” The brands that exhibit genuine resilience will not be those that reacted fastest downstream; they will be the ones who meticulously separated availability risk from performance risk and graded every hero fabric before becoming enamored with it.

In EMEA, revenue rose 2% on a reported basis but fell 5% in constant currency, with declines across both direct-to-consumer and wholesale. The company cited softer consumer demand tied to the prolonged effects of the conflict in the Middle East and its broader macroeconomic impact.

In the Americas, revenue decreased 1% reported and 2% in constant currency, as growth in direct-to-consumer was offset by lower wholesale revenue.

In Asia-Pacific, revenue increased 10% reported and 6% in constant currency, including an approximately 4% favorable impact from the timing of Lunar New Year.

By brand, Tommy Hilfiger revenue increased 3% on a reported basis but declined 2% in constant currency. Calvin Klein revenue rose 1% reported and fell 3% in constant currency.

Financial performance highlights

Gross margin was unchanged at 58.6% for the quarter, with PVH attributing this to higher US import tariffs, a more promotional environment, and a margin impact from bringing women’s categories in-house.

On a GAAP basis, operating margin was 6.1% in Q1 FY26, compared to negative 16.7% in the prior-year period. GAAP earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were $124m, improving from a loss of $332m a year earlier. PVH Q1 operating margin metrics and constant currency results are central to the company’s quarterly revenue update.

Outlook for Q2 and FY26

For fiscal 2026, PVH now expects revenue to be approximately flat on a reported basis, compared with a slight increase previously, and to decrease slightly in constant currency. The company reaffirmed its non-GAAP operating margin outlook of approximately 8.8% on a non-GAAP basis.

Full-year earnings guidance includes non-GAAP EPS between $11.80 and $12.10, reflecting a negative tariff-related impact and positive effects from tariff refunds and foreign currency. For the second quarter, PVH expects revenue to decline 3% to 4% and projects non-GAAP operating margin of about 9.5%, including an estimated 470-basis-point benefit from tariff refunds. Second-quarter earnings guidance calls for non-GAAP EPS of $3.00 to $3.10.

Stefan Larsson, PVH chief executive officer, said: “We delivered on our plan and commitments in the first quarter, reflecting our disciplined PVH+ Plan execution and the consumer momentum we are building with our two iconic global brands, Calvin Klein and TOMMY HILFIGER. Importantly, we grew our direct-to-consumer business, with growth in stores and online across both brands.”

Melissa Stone, PVH Corp. interim chief financial officer, said: “For the full year, while we continue to expect growth in our Americas and APAC businesses, our EMEA performance is expected to be negatively impacted by the prolonged effects of the Middle East conflict, resulting in our now lowered full year revenue outlook.

“We are maintaining our overall operating margin guidance, as our earnings outlook now includes the benefit of tariff refunds, enabling us to absorb the prolonged effects of the Middle East conflict while continuing our planned investments.”

Summary

PVH closed the quarter with quarterly revenue growth on a reported basis, offset by a constant currency decline, steady gross margin, and an operating margin of 6.1%. Regional trends were mixed, with APAC growth and EMEA softness, and the company updated outlook and earnings guidance for FY26 and Q2 while reiterating a focus on direct-to-consumer initiatives.

A coalition of major UK general and fashion retailers has written to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to warn that the government’s timetable for changing how low value imports are treated at the border is far too slow. The group argues that waiting until 2029 to implement the planned change leaves domestic retail exposed for years—particularly now that faster moves in the US and the EU have, in their view, redirected more low-value parcel traffic toward the UK.

The signatories include a broad mix of fashion and mass-market names, alongside industry bodies, signalling a rare alignment across different retail segments. In the letter, the group backs the policy intention set out in the 2025 Budget—closing the “de minimis” threshold that allows low-value parcels to enter with lighter customs treatment—but says the proposed implementation date risks neutralising the benefit.

They wrote that they welcome the decision to close the de minimis threshold, “but we are increasingly concerned about the proposal to implement this by 2029”. The letter adds: “Having taken the decision to do this to support UK retailers and high streets, the Government must accelerate implementation or risk undermining the objective you aim to achieve.”

The plea comes as low value import volumes have continued to rise sharply. The retailers cite dramatic growth in LVI trade, including a jump of more than 50% between 2023/24 and 2024/25. They argue that the de minimis threshold has evolved into a long-term competitive distortion, creating an uneven playing field between UK-based retailers—who employ staff locally, pay UK taxes and incur import duties—and overseas sellers that can ship directly to consumers with fewer border costs.

In their assessment, the UK is now facing heightened exposure because other large markets are tightening sooner. The letter points to the US having acted last year and the EU moving to introduce changes this summer ahead of more comprehensive reforms planned for 2028. With those routes tightening, the group claims the UK has become a more attractive destination for low-value parcel flows, deepening the pressure on domestic retailers.

The retailers argue the shift is already visible rather than hypothetical. They cite a rise in marketing spend targeting UK shoppers, a sharp increase in low-value parcel volumes over the past several years, and more frequent product safety issues. Their warning is that the problem government signalled it wanted to address in late 2025 is now intensifying, making 2029 an inadequate response. In their words: “This is not a future risk, it is already happening… A problem the UK Government recognised and sought to correct in November 2025 is therefore intensifying through 2026, not 2029. There is an urgent need to act now”.

Alongside the competitiveness argument, the group also frames low value imports reform as a revenue opportunity. They suggest a flat fee of £2.60 per parcel aligned to the EU’s proposed €3 charge could generate around £1.7 billion annually. For a government focused on closing fiscal gaps, the retailers present the proposal as a measure that could both rebalance competition and raise funds.

The message from the coalition is that low value imports reform is already time-sensitive. In their view, the longer the UK waits, the more consumer demand, marketing budgets and cross-border logistics will lock in patterns that are harder to unwind—leaving domestic retailers to carry the cost of a loophole that competitors elsewhere are moving to close sooner.

The statement, which includes endorsements from major apparel manufacturers like Decathlon, H&M Group, Lacoste, Primark, and Reformation, alongside leading resale platforms such as ThredUp and Vinted, advocates for a multifaceted approach to policy reform. A central tenet of the proposal is the reduction of value-added tax (VAT) on resold products and repair services across the European Union, coupled with the elimination of sales tax on these activities in the United States and Canada. Furthermore, the group suggests a reduction in labor costs associated with resale and repair operations through lower labor taxes in the EU and the provision of labor tax credits in the U.S. and Canada.

The initiative also champions the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies. As detailed in an accompanying Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, these policies would introduce additional costs for primary production, thereby incentivizing resale and repair. The revenue generated from these EPR schemes could be directed towards building essential infrastructure for collection and sorting of used garments, facilitating smoother operations for resale and repair services.

The push for these policy changes comes at a time when the fashion resale and repair markets are demonstrating substantial growth. The global second-hand market experienced a 13% expansion in 2025, capturing 10% of worldwide apparel spending, and is projected to reach $393 billion by 2030. While the repair market is more challenging to quantify, its value in Europe alone was estimated at 2.7 billion euros in 2024, with a forecast of 3.7 billion euros by 2030.

Despite these promising market trajectories, fashion sustainability and circular models face inherent challenges. High labor costs, which account for approximately 35% of the cost of a resold item and 50% of a repaired item, and the inconsistent supply of pre-owned goods are significant hurdles. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation report highlights that while increasing production of new items leads to economies of scale, processing a large volume of individual used items demands disproportionately more effort per unit.

This new report is an extension of the Fashion ReModel project, initiated in mid-2024 by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This project collaborates with thirteen brands to increase their revenue from circular business models over three years. Early feedback from participating brands consistently indicated that current economic systems disincentivize these circular economy practices.

The report’s modeling explored the impact of three specific policy interventions on the U.S., Canadian, and EU apparel industries. These interventions included reducing EU VAT on resale and repair to 6%, eliminating U.S. and Canadian sales tax on resale, and adjusting labor taxes to lower associated costs for resale and repair jobs. Additionally, a portion of hypothetical EPR fees was allocated to support circular economy infrastructure, mirroring successful subsidy systems like the French “repair bonus.”

Collectively, these proposed policy levers could significantly boost gross profit margins for resale and repair, potentially increasing them by up to 23% in European markets and 12% in the U.S. and Canada. While policy is a critical driver, the report also acknowledges that other factors such as consumer behavior, access to finance for smaller businesses, and product design standards are vital for the sustained growth of circular business models in the apparel industry. Until comprehensive policies are enacted, enhancing supply chain resilience, reducing emissions, and fostering customer engagement remain crucial for building internal support for circular strategies.

Consumers are increasingly vocal about their preferences, and their engagement with the circular economy is growing, creating an expectation for brands and businesses to offer such services. This collective action by industry leaders underscores the urgent need for supportive government policy to foster a more sustainable and resilient textile innovation landscape.

Origin and purpose

A recommendation, drafted by the Nordic Youth Council and further developed by the Nordic Council Committee for a Sustainable Nordic Region before adoption, calls for clearer consumer information, measures to prevent greenwashing and misleading marketing, and improved working conditions across the textile sector. The action reinforces a push for Nordic textile transparency and for systems that help consumers make informed decisions.

Consumption and waste figures

Reports cited in the recommendation indicate Nordic countries have higher per capita clothing consumption than the global average, while only a small portion of donated garments is reused locally. The European Economic Area recorded that in 2019 some 1.7 million tonnes of textiles were exported from high-income countries to lower-income ones. A study referenced in the recommendation found clothing in the Nordic region is often worn seven to eight times before being discarded and that under 1% is recycled through closed-loop systems.

Stakeholder comment

Nordic Youth Council member Lone Kristiansen said: “Most consumers want to make more sustainable choices, but understanding what goes into products is too difficult. We can’t expect individuals to know everything about the whole production chain. It’s time for a more transparent system to help consumers make better decisions.”

Materials, policy and certification

The recommendation notes synthetic and fossil fuel-based materials dominate global textile production, accounting for 62% of output and contributing to carbon emissions. It also records that in Europe around 600,000 tonnes of textiles are incinerated each year. The EU’s textile strategy within the Waste Framework Directive aims to limit resource use by holding manufacturers accountable for the volume of clothing produced, destroyed and exported. Nordic countries began work in 2024 on a framework for textile producer responsibility, and a new EU directive coming into effect in September will require improved consumer information on product sustainability.

The recommendation highlights established Nordic tools such as the Nordic Swan ecolabel, recognised by 97% of regional residents. The Swan label assesses full product life cycles and applies criteria to textiles including recycling-conscious design, chemical restrictions and limits on plastic or decorative materials. Certification requires measurement of microplastic release, prohibits incineration of unsold items, enforces fibre content standards and mandates compliance with International Labour Organisation conventions. Despite broad public recognition of the Nordic Swan, relatively few regional clothing brands have obtained the certification.

Emphasis

The Nordic Council’s action renews emphasis on using recognised schemes such as the Nordic Swan to strengthen textile sustainability, reduce greenwashing and improve consumer information while advancing producer responsibility.