Will the EU’s Ban on Destroying Unsold Stock Actually Work?

Environmental Action Germany (DUH), a Berlin-based NGO, expressed skepticism in July regarding the EU's new regulations, arguing that the exemptions will not tackle the fundamental issue of overproduction, which the ESPR (Ecological Sustainability of Products Regulation) intends to discourage. Viola Wohlgemuth, a senior expert on textiles and circular economy at DUH, stated in a press release, “The ban on destruction only addresses the symptoms, not the cause: the mass overproduction of short-lived fast fashion textiles. When the bathtub overflows, you don’t grab a mop — you turn off the tap.” DUH identified potential loopholes, such as allowing destruction if stock cannot be donated or if repairs are prohibitively expensive. Article 25 (b) of the regulation indeed permits exceptions for products deemed “not repairable in a cost-effective manner.”

Implications for Textile Recycling

A significant point of division within the sector is the classification of recycling unsold stock. Currently, recycling is considered destruction and is prohibited unless specific exemptions apply. Brands will no longer be able to send batches of unsold items to recyclers for repurposing into new yarns. This restriction pertains to pre-consumer stock that could still be utilized, not post-consumer waste, as regulators aim to prevent recycling from becoming an easy way for brands to dispose of unsold inventory. This could create considerable difficulties for textile recycling companies that are striving to scale up operations and require raw materials. Matteo Aghemo, co-founder and CEO of Musthad, who recently hosted a webinar on the destruction ban for over 100 prominent brands, commented, “According to many companies, this is stupid because we are trying to fill the capacities of recyclers.”

Espínola from Policy Hub views the exemptions as a necessary compromise. “It doesn’t make sense to categorize recycling as destruction of the product and to completely prohibit recycling, because there are cases where you need to do so,” she explained. “Conceptually, it was a big fight to have recycling included under the definition of destruction because we need to incentivize and stimulate recycling to move to the next stage of recycling infrastructure globally.”

Many organizations concur that recycling unsold stock should be a last resort, pursued only after all other options have been exhausted. Andreas Dorner, general manager of Re&Up Recycling Technologies and a member of the T-2-T Alliance, emphasized the importance of the waste hierarchy: “If a product can be resold and reused, it should stay in the circle as long as possible.” He believes that brands should not rely on textile-to-textile recycling of unsold stock as a sustainable long-term strategy, as it does not address the underlying problem. “It’s not the right way to do it from the ethical side or the economic side,” Dorner stated. “We just reinforce overproduction by using more and more raw materials, and then we will have more to recycle.”

Too Soon to Say

While the EU has established the framework, the enforcement and imposition of penalties will fall to national authorities. The adequacy of additional funding for these bodies remains uncertain. Espínola raised the question: “They are going to be checking for all these different pieces of legislation, and are we considering increasing resources? Are we considering what they need? That is key. We need a level playing field. If we have the rules, we need to apply the rules in an efficient way to make sure everyone is complying.”