The Dutch textile sector, long shaped by the global fast fashion model, faces mounting sustainability pressures from waste, resource depletion, and opaque supply chains. In response, the Netherlands has declared a national mission: 100% circularity in textiles by 2050, with an interim target that by 2030 half of all textile products sold contain at least 30% recycled content and that 50% of inputs are recycled post-use. This mission is widely supported by industry bodies, network organizations, and entrepreneurs, though disagreements persist over reshoring production, supply chain ethics, and the role of consumers.
Researchers applied a mission-oriented innovation systems (MIS) framework to examine how Dutch actors are structuring efforts across multiple solution trajectories. Seven were identified, but three dominate: secondhand use, mechanical recycling, and chemical recycling. Each trajectory aligns with specific circularity strategies and exhibits distinct technical and market dynamics.
The secondhand trajectory is the most mature, in the acceleration phase, with around 2,500 businesses offering recommerce, rental, and non-commercial resale. Growth is driven by online platforms and established “kringloopwinkels,” supported by consumer familiarity and low technical barriers. However, resource mobilization is a challenge: only 10–15% of collected garments are resellable, leading to competition for high-quality stock. Coordination among sub-models is weak, and stationary shops face pressure from low margins and competition. Despite these issues, rising legitimacy and market formation make this trajectory a stable growth engine.
Mechanical recycling, which converts fabrics back into fibers via shredding and carding, sits in the take-off stage. Dutch clusters link SMEs, collectors, and sorters, but industrial spinning and weaving capacity is scarce. The process demands clean, sorted inputs and often blending with virgin fibers, limiting full circularity. A “catch-22” hampers progress: brands hesitate to commit without large-scale, consistent output, while recyclers cannot scale without guaranteed demand. Fibersort technology improves sorting, but label inaccuracies and absence of standardized certification undermine legitimacy. Knowledge sharing is constrained by competitive secrecy, and consumer awareness remains low.
Chemical recycling, in early development, involves depolymerizing fibers to create new ones, potentially closing the loop without virgin inputs. Start-ups like SaXcell and Worn Again are piloting plants, often with support from universities and large chemical firms. Technologies are energy-intensive at small scale, infrastructure is minimal, and markets are nascent. Legitimacy is high among stakeholders, who see it as the only trajectory capable of fully closing the loop, yet it competes with mechanical recycling for resources and policy attention. Retailers show interest but seek exclusivity, limiting collaborative acceleration.
Across trajectories, common barriers emerge: low textile quality, inadequate collection systems, and insufficient consumer pressure keep demand for recycled fibers weak. This deters investment in infrastructure and innovation, especially in recycling. Incumbent retailers engage selectively, advancing low-barrier solutions like secondhand while holding back on riskier, high-impact innovations. Such strategic behavior diverges from “classic disruption” models, where incumbents resist change entirely; here, they shape the mission’s direction by favoring incremental over radical shifts.
Coordination is another systemic weakness. Regional clusters, such as in Twente, demonstrate effective closed-loop collaboration, but national-level coordination across trajectories is limited. The Dutch Circular Textile Valley has a nominal coordinating role but lacks mandate and resources to align regional and sectoral efforts. Without stronger integration, sustainability gains in one trajectory may not translate to system-wide impact.
Government guidance has been significant in setting targets and funding experimentation, yet complementary legal instruments have lagged. This has allowed “waiting games” to persist in recycling trajectories. A proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, where producers pay fees per item sold, could shift incentives. EPR revenues could fund infrastructure, market development, and national coordination, potentially transforming the Dutch Circular Textile Valley into a central value chain management body. Such an instrument could also strengthen directionality, resource mobilization, and cross-trajectory coordination.
Given the global nature of textile supply chains, national efforts are partly dependent on international actors. Building European and global coalitions to scale circular infrastructure and innovations, such as advanced textile tracking technologies, could amplify the Dutch mission’s impact. The study underscores that viewing trajectories in isolation risks overlooking interdependencies that shape overall transition dynamics. Instruments like EPR, coupled with robust coordination and strategic engagement with incumbents, are pivotal to moving the Dutch MIS from a formative to an acceleration phase.