Making EPR Work for Textiles in the UK

UK textiles recovery is collapsing under rising costs and public pressure. EPR remains the only workable route forward.

Every year, the UK discards millions of tonnes of textiles, yet most are landfilled, burned, or exported with little accountability. Charity shops and collectors struggle with low-quality donations and unsellable stock. Councils spend millions disposing of clothing through general waste, while producers contribute nothing to these costs.

You can also read: The Fashion Industry Needs an Alternative to Recycled PET.

Promised reforms on Extended Producer Responsibility for textiles remain in consultation, exposing the system. The question is whether EPR can rescue a failing waste economy and create a circular textiles system.

Why EPR Matters for Textiles

The UK textiles system is collapsing under financial and environmental strain. Collectors report losses of up to £430 per tonne, leaving a funding gap approaching £90 million yearly. Councils already spend £73 million annually to remove textiles from household waste, and projections show this could rise to £200 million by 2035. Producers face no responsibility for these escalating costs.

Extended Producer Responsibility would force those placing garments on the market to pay for their collection and recycling. France has shown that such levies can build industrial-scale sorting and processing capacity. In contrast, voluntary initiatives in the UK have proved inconsistent, unreliable, and widely distrusted by industry and the public. EPR is not an optional policy experiment. It is the only credible mechanism capable of shifting responsibility back to producers, closing the funding gap, and averting the breakdown of the UK textiles recovery system.

Is EPR for Textiles Realistic in the UK?

DEFRA pledged in 2018 to review producer responsibility for textiles by 2025. Yet progress has been minimal, and the sector continues to struggle. Waste operators and councils carry the financial burden, while producers contribute nothing to collection or disposal. Jordan Girling from WRAP has described EPR as “very viable” and essential to stabilising the system.

The practical challenges, however, are significant. James Beard of Valpak warns that fast fashion generates low-quality clothing that is difficult to recycle. Export markets for used textiles are also weakening, which reduces income for collectors. Recycling technologies exist but remain underdeveloped and require sustained investment to operate at scale. Political attention has focused on packaging and electronics reforms, leaving textiles without clear direction. Reliable data on volumes, lifecycles, and disposal pathways is also missing, which weakens policy design.

Despite these constraints, EPR remains realistic for the UK if leadership accepts that inaction is already costlier than reform.

Building Confidence: How to Make Textiles EPR Work in the UK

Confidence in producer responsibility will only grow if the framework is legally enforceable. Investors and operators will not commit without binding targets that guarantee long-term demand for recycling capacity.

Transparent data is also fundamental. At present, material flows are poorly tracked, which undermines both accountability and planning. A functioning EPR must close these gaps with consistent reporting across collection, reuse, and final treatment.

Industry collaboration offers another path forward. WRAP’s Textile Collections System Transition Programme has created a platform for brands, retailers, and councils to coordinate, but participation remains uneven.

Consumer engagement must also be embedded within the system. Visible EPR fees and colour-coded impact labels could make waste costs transparent at the point of purchase, shaping choices more directly. Claire Shrewsbury of WRAP has argued that “EPR should be introduced with eco-design standards so products last longer and are made to be recycled.”

Taken together, these measures form the minimum requirements for a credible system. Without them, EPR risks being another policy ambition that fails to deliver results.

Consumer Behaviour and Activism: Citizens are Forcing the Issue

The absence of a formal policy on textile waste is driving citizens to act on their own. Many consumers in the United Kingdom are no longer satisfied with limited disposal options or with opaque corporate sustainability claims. They are now confronting the system directly and forcing retailers to take back what they have sold.

One striking example is the action taken by Wendy Ward, a sewing teacher and author. Faced with a worn polycotton bedsheet that could not be recycled, she packaged it up and sent it back to Sainsbury’s. She attached a clear message that the retailer should deal with the waste it had created. This single act quickly developed into the #TakeItBack campaign, which encouraged people across the country to return unwanted textiles to major retailers.

Evidence confirms this wider readiness. WEFT research found more than 70 percent of UK adults support a formal EPR scheme for textiles. Over 80 percent back visible charges at purchase, with most willing to accept £1 on higher-value clothing. Focus groups showed people prefer the word “charge” and trust it more when the purpose is clearly explained. Although price, comfort, and fit still drive clothing choices, sustainability matters when options are visible and simple to act upon.

Public willingness to take disruptive action indicates that citizens are prepared to support change, even if it comes with costs or behavioural shifts. What is emerging is a form of cultural readiness for EPR. Citizens have already signalled that the status quo is unacceptable. They have demonstrated through action that they are willing to participate in new systems of accountability.

While government delays persist, citizen pressure is creating momentum. If harnessed effectively, this growing activism could make the UK one of the easiest markets to implement textile EPR.