From 2025, EU Member States will be required under the Waste Framework Directive to establish separate collection systems for used textiles. This regulatory shift comes against a backdrop of significant textile waste generation: in 2020, the EU-27 produced an estimated 6.95 million tonnes, equating to roughly 16 kilograms per person. Of this, 4.4 kilograms per person were collected separately for reuse and recycling, while 11.6 kilograms per person ended up in mixed household waste streams. Post-consumer waste — clothing and household textiles that have been used — accounted for 82% of the total.
Collection systems vary widely across Europe. Street containers, or bring points, dominate, often supplemented by civic amenity sites. Indoor collection offers cleaner, higher-quality textiles suitable for reuse but is constrained by limited access points and opening hours. Bring points can gather large volumes but face contamination risks from moisture and mould, which erode economic viability. Door-to-door collection, while potentially convenient, carries higher costs and theft risks. As Wagner (2022) notes, bring points are generally the most suitable for collecting large quantities of acceptable quality textiles, but location, frequency, container design, and clear labelling all influence performance.
The average capture rate for textile waste in Europe stands at just 12%, leaving the majority to be incinerated or landfilled. Luxembourg and Belgium lead with 50% capture rates, followed by the Netherlands at 37% and Austria at 30%. With the impending EU regulation, collection rates are expected to rise, though the quality of collected items may decline, potentially reducing incentives for reuse. Janmark et al. (2022) caution that this shift could unintentionally divert textiles toward recycling, which is less environmentally sustainable than reuse.
Treatment capacity presents another bottleneck. In 2020, 1.95 million tonnes of textiles were collected, yet only 1.41 million tonnes were treated within the EU. The gap likely reflects exports for treatment outside the Union. Landfilling has declined from 21% of textile waste in 2010 to 11% in 2020, while energy recovery increased from 9% to 16% over the same period. Sorting remains labour-intensive and is often outsourced to countries with lower labour costs. The Netherlands and Poland are major sorting hubs, with capacities of 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes annually, respectively. However, Poland and Czechia still send notable volumes to landfill, underscoring the need for expanded recycling infrastructure.
Recycling capacity in Europe is estimated at 1.25 to 1.3 million tonnes annually until 2025, with mechanical processes handling around 1 million tonnes and chemical recycling covering 250,000 tonnes. Much of this output is downcycled into rags or insulation materials rather than regenerated into high-quality fibres. The open-source Textiles Sorting and Recycling database lists over 50 fibre-to-fibre recyclers, though many remain in pilot phases.
Policy developments aim to address these structural issues. The European Commission’s 2023 proposal for harmonised Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations for textiles seeks to channel producer contributions into waste prevention and preparation for reuse. Currently, mandatory EPR systems exist only in France, Hungary, and the Netherlands, with voluntary schemes in Flanders and partial obligations in Croatia. A challenge arises when large volumes of used textiles are exported; EPR fees remain in the exporting country, depriving receiving nations of funds for end-of-life management. Thapa et al. (2023) suggest transitioning to “Ultimate Producer Responsibility,” which would require high product traceability and ensure accountability across borders.
Economic realities complicate the promotion of repair and reuse. High labour costs in Europe, combined with low prices for new garments from manufacturing hubs in Asia, make large-scale repair commercially unviable. Subsidies for repairs funded through EPR fees, along with tax reductions for reuse practices, could help bridge this gap.
Data harmonisation remains a critical need. Definitions of waste versus reusable textiles differ between Member States, affecting reporting accuracy. In Germany and Wallonia, textiles disposed of in bags are classified as waste until sorted, while in Denmark and Sweden, intent and communication from collectors influence classification. Cyprus considers textiles in bins as waste, but those exchanged directly between people as products. Without standardised definitions and mandatory reporting, it is difficult to set and monitor performance targets for collection, reuse, and recycling. Establishing consistent guidelines would enable clearer benchmarking and drive progress toward a truly circular textile economy.