Could Extended Producer Responsibility spark a circular textiles revolution? How realistic is the idea of implementing a scheme for textiles in the UK? Circular Online investigates.
An Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes collects the costs of collecting and disposing items from the companies producing them – an example of the “polluter pays” principle.
The UK is set to introduce EPR for packaging in 2025 after deferring the policy by 12 months.
Last year, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) produced the An EPR of Everything, Starting With Batteries White Paper, which recommended the targeted implementation of EPR to textiles as well as batteries.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Pushing the Boundaries of EPR Policy for Textiles report calls EPR a “necessary part” of the solution to the global textile waste problem.
EPR for textiles is already in place in France, Australia, and the State of California. One place lagging behind is the UK.
How realistic is a UK scheme for textiles?
Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, told Circular Online a scheme in the UK “very viable”.
“In 2018, via the Resources & Waste Strategy, Defra committed to reviewing measures for EPR for five new waste streams by 2025, one of which was textiles,” Girling said. “Furthermore, industry is generally very supportive of a well-designed EPR system being implemented for textiles in the UK.”
James Beard, Head of Voluntary Compliance at Valpak – a Reconomy company – said there are several “significant barriers” to a UK-wide EPR scheme for textiles.
“The quality of post-consumer textiles is often poor due to the dominance of fast fashion, complicating recycling and reuse efforts,” Beard explained. “Additionally, the UK’s textile-to-textile recycling technology is still in its early stages, requiring substantial investment to scale and effectively handle the growing volume of textile waste.”
Beard continued that the resale value of textiles in global export markets is also declining, which affects the sustainability of UK-based collection and sorting companies already struggling with rising costs.
Industry is generally very supportive of a well-designed EPR system being implemented for textiles in the UK.
When we spoke to Valérie Boiten, Senior Policy Officer at Ellen MacArthur Foundation, about the “Pushing the boundaries of EPR policy for textiles” report she explained what she sees as the main barriers to implementing a scheme in the UK.
“With any policy, there will be political barriers. You need political agreement across the various political parties,” Boiten said.
“I think over the past two years there has been a strong ask from industry to implement EPR systems, including for textiles, but that hasn’t translated into political acceptance yet.”
Valpak’s James Beard told us that the government’s focus on other priorities, such as packaging and WEEE reforms, has delayed and confused conversations around progressing textile EPR.
Beard said: “There is also the challenge of limited resources and bandwidth within the government, which is driving a need for a sequential approach to the implementation of these policies rather than a parallel one.
“Politically, introducing new measures that could increase costs for both businesses and consumers is particularly sensitive in the current economic climate, with stagnation and rising household expenses.”

Boiten explained to Circular Online that policymakers want to be reassured of the impact of EPR policy.
“This is, I suppose, where you get to a second challenge,” Boiten said. “To demonstrate impact, you need to have data.
“You need to understand where we are today. What’s the typical pathway for our textile products? How long are they being used? At what point are they being thrown away? What are our current collection rates, reduction rates, recycling or downcycling rates or waste rates?
“It’s really hard currently to answer these questions, because we have a very fragmented reporting landscape, and that is something that makes it hard to increase political momentum because it’s quite hard to say this is where we are, and if you implement EPR policy, you’ll get there.”
Boiten explained that the data doesn’t exist today in the UK to demonstrate the impact of EPR.
But if the problem is a lack of data, the dichotomy comes as, potentially, the best solution to collecting data could be through implementing EPR.
Any scheme will require a huge amount of reporting. Boiten told us EPR can help create more transparency and more certainty in policymakers’ minds, which could encourage them to commit to more ambitious targets and policies.
How can textile collections and sorting fix a leaky collection system?
“Separate collections need to be convenient for citizens. It needs to be easily accessible. It shouldn’t take people a very long time to reach a place where they can hand in their textiles separate from other waste streams,” Valérie Boiten, Senior Policy Officer at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, explained.
“I think it’s really down to every country to decide on what that looks like, and also will be different in urban areas versus more rural areas. Maybe have collection points in people’s workplaces or in schools, or just make it very easy.
“Because that’s also a problem with the current collection systems, we need a vast amount of communications and awareness-raising campaigns that all textiles are welcome, not just the high-quality, reusable clothing that is still in very good condition.
“Then we need to have a collection system for all textiles, including the worn-out ones – maybe your kitchen towels or your curtains. All these items to be most efficient need to go into the same separate collections.”
What would be the consequences of a UK EPR scheme for textiles?
Girling told us the main consequence of a textiles EPR system in the UK would be the increase in funding for domestic collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure, which he said is “desperately needed”.
“EPR can incentivise circular product design by encouraging producers and brand owners to design products to be more easily recyclable, reusable, and durable from the outset,” Girling said.
“Of course, a textiles EPR system would mean a higher bill for producers and brand owners.
“But the industry seems very happy to fund the management of the products they place on the market once they reach their end-of-life, they just need a mechanism to support them to do this efficiently.”
Valpak’s James Beard said EPR would be a significant change for textile producers and retailers in the UK as producers could face higher costs.
“This financial responsibility could initially place strain on businesses, particularly smaller ones, but it would also incentivise the adoption of sustainable practices, such as using recyclable materials and designing products for durability,” Beard said.
Of course, a textiles EPR system would mean a higher bill for producers and brand owners.
However, Beard explained that EPR could also present opportunities for producers and drive innovation and sustainability in the textile sector.
“EPR could open the door to wider access to recycled materials, reducing reliance on existing supply chains,” Beard said.
“By embracing circular economy models, such as take-back schemes or resale platforms, companies could tap into the growing consumer demand for sustainable products.
“Additionally, businesses that proactively adapt to EPR requirements could enhance their brand reputation and gain a competitive edge.”
As has been previously mentioned, EPR for textiles may be considered ambitious in the UK but it has already been implemented in countries around the world.
However, Boiten highlighted that only one country has a rich history of EPR for textiles: France.
“I think France is on the journey where they move from a conventional EPR, which was largely focused on collecting and recycling more, to a scheme that’s trying to reduce new items placed on the market in the first place.
“France has introduced a repair bonus, where some of the revenues generated by the EPR scheme are used to refund citizens when they have a fashion item or garment repaired.
“There you can see that France is moving away from a purely waste management focus to something that’s a bit more systemic and really trying to impact how we consume fashion.”

Boiten explained there’s a conventional version of EPR, which is largely focused on collecting more textiles.
Then there’s the more ambitious version of EPR, which is based on circular economy principles, which tries to impact the design, quality and performance of these products, and business models.
Beard said that a “successful” EPR scheme for textiles should aim to achieve both objectives, as they are interconnected and crucial for sustainability.
“Increasing the collection and recycling of textiles is essential for diverting waste from landfill and incineration, reducing environmental harm, and recovering valuable materials,” Beard explained.
“However, focusing solely on collection and recycling addresses symptoms rather than the underlying causes. Encouraging producers to alter the design of textile products is equally important.
“By promoting durability, repairability, and recyclability through financial incentives or penalties, EPR schemes can reduce waste at its source and extend product lifespans.
“This dual approach – targeting downstream recovery while driving upstream design changes – will help create a more robust circular economy for textiles.
“The goal should be to reduce the overall environmental impact while fostering innovation and sustainable practices within the industry.”
How would a UK scheme affect textile exports?
Girling told Circular Online that he doesn’t see any barriers large enough to prevent an EPR scheme for textiles from being viable in the UK.
However, he said an EPR scheme would lead to a “sudden increase” in the collection rates of textiles, which means time is needed for investments in infrastructure to scale capacity.
Girling warned that there is a risk that, if the capacity is not there, this could lead to the stockpiling of used textiles in the UK or inevitably mean an increase in exports to the Global South.
If countries in the Global North establish EPR schemes for textiles, Boiten warned they need to be aware that a “quite significant share” of material will end up being exported.

“While there’s a fee being paid to guarantee the waste management of these products in one jurisdiction; ultimately, these products become waste in a different jurisdiction, and the fee will never travel or will never follow the products to this other country,” Boiten said.
This is a problem the Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlighted in its Pushing the Boundaries of EPR Policy for Textiles report. Boiten said that policymakers and academic experts in the industry need to look into solutions and, at the very least, establish data sharing.
“Something that we could also consider is a distribution of funding,” Boiten said. “If a certain percentage is exported to Ghana, then you could also argue that the percentage of the EPR fees is equally distributed to Ghana to fund the waste management of the textiles over there.
“But at the moment, as we also said in the paper, that’s a very conceptual, theoretical debate, and what we hope is that this report sparks further debate and we see more proposals and more studies happening over the next two years.”
What is needed to secure market confidence in EPR?
If the UK is going to implement an EPR scheme for textiles, there will need to be more investment in infrastructure.
Boiten emphasised the importance of making EPR mandatory to give businesses the confidence to invest as the targets are legally binding.
“This type of scheme targets the entire industry equally, which means that there is a very strong incentive to meet these targets on reuse or recycling or collection,” Boiten explained.
“Typically what happens is that producers form a coalition. They form a producer responsibility organisation that is a separate legal entity which implements or meets the EPR obligations on their behalf.
“It’s that entity that tenders out contracts or engages in contracts with suppliers on collection services, for example.
“This is where you see that because they need to meet these legally binding targets, producers will engage in these contracts for nine years or longer.
“That gives quite a lot of certainty, because there is an established funding stream, there’s an established framework that will not go away tomorrow.
“When it’s not dependent on political will, or it’s not dependent on a CEO’s vision or goodwill, it’s set in stone, that’s where it helps.”