reuse Archives - Clothing research

Defibering the future

tobiasson on 4. February 2025

The Wasted Textiles project took the trip to Norsk Tekstilgjenvinning in Sandefjord, and were privy to an introduction to one of the few recycling projects that can actually have something to offer, as the founder Pål Erik Haraldsen has understood the limitations and that it may sometimes be wise to say ‘no’.

Photo, behind, from left: Anita Austigard, IVAR, Bjørn Erik Rui, Vesar, Kristiane Rabben, Mepex, Jens Måge SIRK Norge, Anne-Lene Lundsett, RIG, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO, Håkon Bratland, SIRKNorge, Alexandra Eng, Revise/NG, journalist, Sofie Nesse Horsberg, Revise/NG. Front row, from left Nazia Nourin Moury og Solveig Birgitte Jacobsen Aarak, both NTNU.

As February started, the SIFO project Wasted Textiles arranged a study tour of the start-up company that has been praised by, among others, the Minister of Environment and Climate as a solution for the future Norsk Tekstilgjenvinning (Norwegian Textilerecovery). Twelve curious men and women from SIFO, Sirk Norge, Mepex, NTNU, Vesar, IVAR, Revise/NG and RIG took the trip and received answers to the many questions they had about this project.

Before a tour of the open and clean factory premises (no reason to take for granted for those of us who have visited recycling companies further south in Europe), we received a clear introduction to the background of NT and the plans for the future. – As of now we sort 1 to 5 tons a day, explained Pål Erik, who started in 2021 – after many years on the supplier side with Healthworkers hospital clothing. Thus, it was the health and hotel sectors that he also started with, because these have uniform products that are easier to work with than textiles from private households.

But what primarily distinguishes this factory from others we have seen, or heard about, is that the fiber to fiber recycling is neither mechanical nor chemical, in the classical sense; it is a ‘defibration’, a more advanced form for mechanical recycling. – I had to come up with a completely new word, explains Pål Erik. The machine, which ‘opens up’ the materials and fibers, is rather unique; the founder found it in Italy and believes it is one of a kind, at least on this scale. Each material that goes into the process, whether it is wool, cotton, polyester or polycotton – requires fine-tuning to obtain fibers that are long enough that they can be carded and spun into new thread and only a small proportion end up being downcycled. Through windows on the machine, we get to see the entire process in practice. Above us, an ingenious humidity system pumps out water vapor, while at the same time the textile dust is sucked out of the air. Should a fire occur, everything stops automatically and is isolated.

Ambitious goals

The latter is incredibly important, because the dust is highly flammable, and when some of us visited a downcycling plant in Poland, we learned – in the smell of foul-smelling anti-mold chemicals – that spontaneous combustion of the textile dust occurred at irregular intervals. That’s just how it was.

During 2025, Pål Erik believes that the plant will have a capacity of 5,000 tons, while long-term plans are for 30,000. To achieve this, automation, AI training and robots are part of the future. In the meantime, the world’s most advanced camera technology is used to identify the fiber content of reference textiles in all mixing ratios. It is the ‘clean’ textiles that can be recycled and defibrated into new thread today, even though they have also experimented with the ‘worst possible mixtures’. – Wool is probably the first thing we will achieve profitability for, he says, showing off the raw material that Gudbrandsdalens Uldvarefabrik will spin from the factory’s own offcuts that previously went to incineration. – We are also working on a project with Aclima, with merino wool.

Economic sustainability and social responsibility are the two most important pillars for NT, sustainability in a more conventional sense he would rather not use about the process, even though it uses both minimal electricity and water – and since they sort by color – no hazardous chemicals. – We have also chosen to say ‘no’ to products from Shein and Temu in our production line, because we do not know enough about the chemicals they use. So, we take these products out.

Pål Erik shows off the nurse’s uniform where over 50 percent is recycled fiber. Photo Jens Måge.

They collaborate with many, including Kirkens Bymisjon and Fretex, who send them what is too damaged to reuse. If they still find things that should be reused rather than shredded, Tise and Finn are the recipients. While we are standing there, a home-knitted polar bear sweater from the 1980s appears. – It is probably acrylic, since it has not been taken out, Pål Erik speculates. We are standing by the machine that takes pictures of all the garments with a hyperspectral “camera”, and based on what it registers and is set to identify, blows the garments out for further processing – today’s do was to sort into cotton, viscose and polyester with a minimum of 95% of this fiber content.

-They must be as clean as possible, in terms of fiber content and of course laundered. We cannot use wet or dirty textiles, and unfortunately the collection towers get damp when they are outdoors. There must be better solutions. For example, collection inside shopping malls. We have also found a solution for 50-50 cotton and polyester.

Because he has hired a Ukrainian textile engineer, he gets good support precisely in finding solutions for the fiber qualities; and when the raw materials, threads or fabrics are tested in the company’s lab, they get a report card that others can be green with envy over. – Maybe we will build a spinning mill here too, as it is not necessarily so labor-intensive.

Not that finding employees is a problem, many people want a job here, we understand. And the prospects for the company – which has received a lot of financial support from Innovation Norway, the Norwegian Retail and Environment Fund and the Research Council, totaling 50 million kroner – are that they could become profitable in 2026. Despite having gone from 50 to 5,000 square meters in no time. But then they charge at ‘both ends’, both from those who want to get rid of the textiles and those who buy the recycled fiber: The cotton is sold to Spain, the wool to Norwegian customers and polycotton also has a market, as mentioned. He also showed off hospital uniforms with 52% recycled fiber, which have withstood both washing and use, and which appear both softer and more comfortable than regular uniforms.

Not a goal to have recycled fiber in everything

They are constantly trying out new solutions, but taking one step at a time. He wants to and believes in trying out hemp as a replacement for polyester in a cotton blend. And otherwise says ‘no’, not only to Shein and Temu, but is also clear that the EU’s idea that all textiles should have recycled content is nonsense. – Curtains are fine with recycled fibers, but fine wool t-shirts, that’s really just nonsense, emphasizes Pål Erik, even though he may be undermining his own business model with such a statement.

He also hopes that there are products that could disappear from use or at least not end up as hostages in the circular economy, as they create major problems. When we ask for a wish list of these, which the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation could use more ink to get rid of rather than the current focus on physical strength, repairability and recycled content, Pål Erik lists: – Clothes with printed logos, with electronics and sequins, and sportswear with lots of Spandex. He is also not particularly enthusiastic about thin nylon stockings, thongs and bras with underwire – and believes that they belong in residual waste and should be sent to incineration rather than recycling, which is the opposite of what the official policy currently demands. GoreTex jackets, on the other hand, he believes must first and foremost be used ‘up’, and then must be treated as toxic waste and incinerated separately.

Today’s incineration of these does not take into account PFAS, Pål Erik believes. Thus an intermediate storage of such textiles might be necessary until better solutions are found.

Socks – the most neglected of all garments

tobiasson on 5. June 2024

Master student Maria Kupen With with her two supervisors on either side.

Maria Kupen With’s Master thesis is entitled A new narrative of Neglected Socks. An exploration of new value creation and narratives for materials through creative fashion practice. She recently delivered her Masters at the Department of Art, Design and Drama – Fashion and Society – at OsloMet.

Inspired by the preliminary results from Anna Schytte Sigaard’s PhD in Wasted Textiles, Maria Kupen With decided to work with socks – the item discarded in the largest quantities and the worst condition. Socks are so intimate and used socks are not sold in second-hand shops, maybe not even shared for fear of contamination. If these could be upcycled, then what could not be?

Her practice-led approach included collecting socks from friends and family and a local charity, analyses of the socks’ condition, their disposal reasons etc., and creative exploration of the material and its potential. She created prototypes and a pre-exhibition to confront viewers with the transformed material – in the form of a jacket-tent, sweaters and textured pieces – and registered their potential to elicit emotional responses and challenge current attitudes and perceptions of discarded and worn-out materials.

The thesis touches upon our relationship with nature through cleanliness, bacteria, bodily fluids, as well as pilling and other signs of wear, and how this can change when engaging with the objects, as Maria herself experienced in the practice of making from worn socks, going from thinking they are “icky” to deciding to wear her own pieces. The visitor of her pre-exhibition also reflected on their relationships with second-hand clothing usage more broadly. The thesis hence uses design to create both value and discussions around value, a much needed perspective in a throw-away consumer culture.

Maria Kupen With was supervised by Lisbeth Løvbak Berg at SIFO and also Siv So Hee Steinaa. In the photo we see the three of them at the Master’s exhibition, enveloped in Maria Kupen With’s work.

TPR gets some serious airplay

tobiasson on 1. April 2024

Volumes, policy measures and Targeted Producer Responsibility all fitted into discussions the week before Easter, where some of us jumped back and forth between Webex, Zoom and Teams, recordings and live webinars. The take-aways are that several policy tools are mired in antiquated ideas that seriously need updating from research, and that the conversations around volumes and sufficiency are what actually can drive change.

STICA’s Climate Action Week coincided with intense webinars from EU’s Joint Research Center on ESPR’s stakeholder review and also PEFCR for apparel and footwear’s open hearing, presented by the Technical Secretariate’s lead. Yes, it was dizzying, but most importantly, Targeted Producer Responsibility and questions surrounding how EU actually plans to address the issue of volumes and degrowing the sector did got airplay.

Kerli Kant Hvass, who is one of our Wasted Textiles partners, presented Targeted Producer Responsibility during the session on the obstacles facing new circular business models during STICA’s Climate Action Week, hosted by Michael Schragger from Sustainable Fashion Academy and lead for Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action (STICA). In the session Circular Business Models Are Critical for Climate Action – So What Is Preventing Them from Becoming Mainstream? she explained the concept, and continued her argument during the panel discussion towards the end:

“Focusing on the product and assuming this will result in sustainability has serious limitations. Instead, collecting data in the waste streams, and establishing if a product has been used for half a year or for ten years, actually establishing its duration of service (DoS), can give the database for modulating fees.”

TPR got nods

We noticed that Maria Rincon-Lievana, from the EU Commission and DG ENV nodded a lot when Kerli repeated this. Sarah Gray from UK’s WRAP, who is wrapping up a PhD on to what degree circular business models actually have climate and environmental impact, wholeheartedly backed Kerli’s call for dating products in order to gain data on the actual DoS of products for comprehensive LCAs.

Sadly Paola Migliorini, also from DG ENV, did not hear when Luca Boniolo from Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) said the following in the session on The Legislative Race Is On: Legislation & Regulation in the European Union (we can only hope she reheard the entire session later):

“Labelling regulation presents an opportunity (…) for instance introducing the production date on the label (…) we can know how long the product has been circulated at the end of life. If we do waste audits, we can estimate the DoS to understand was it used to 10 years or was it used for two weeks and then it was discarded and it can also support consumers in knowing that they have the right of a legal guarantee from the purchase date of two years during which if the product fails under normal circumstances, they have the right of it being repaired for free.”

He said much of the same during the session on Sufficiency, To Green-growth, Overconsumption & Degrowth: Can Sufficient Emissions Reductions Be Achieved in the Current Paradigm?

“EPR can for instance be based on how long the product was on the market based on waste audits and the date of production, and thus we can modulate who will have to pay a higher fee. We need to incentivize the reduction of the volumes placed on the market.”

This is the whole idea behind TPR, and even if Luca did not specifically mention TPR, he was voicing the principles behind it.

Old-fashioned or not fit for purpose, or both?

So, what is old-fashioned about the approach the policy-makers are taking? What are the tools that are not fit for purpose?

As it was ESPR and PEFCR we were lectured on the same week, the following thoughts arise.

ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation) clearly is based on the faulty assumption that 80% of a product’s environmental impact is decided in the design phase. So, it is intertwined with predicting for example durability, repairability, recyclability and thereby assuming DoS. The problem is, as SIFO research shows, only one-third of textile products or apparel go out of use because they are used up, so if ESPR is going to eco-modulate EPR fees (which seems to be the idea) this will be based on pure guess-work, or what could be more diplomatically called predictions.

TPR suggests the opposite, building the eco-modulation on what becomes waste prematurely and modulated ‘against’ what captures value in the new business models, as Kerli so well described in her presentation.

The hen or the egg?

For PEFCR (Product Environmental Category Rules) the problem is that they are meant to underpin ESPR, but JRC have actually not decided if they are fit for purpose, they said as much in their presentation. So, currently PEF seems to be in limbo, perhaps only fit for Green Claims (Baptiste Carriere-Pradal said as much in his presentation, but also hinting that ESPR would have to use PEF).

PEF is not aiming to be a consumer-facing label, only a set of 16 “frankenproducts” (12 for apparel, four for footwear) which you as a company can compare your product to, and say if your product is “greener” than the “frankenproduct” based on very strict LCA parameters. The data-base that these parameters are resting on, have serious data issue, and may be why France when presenting their “amost-PEF-compatible” label, have taken out one of them (physical durability), In addition, France also is not making GHG emissions the most important parameter – counting for 1/4^th of the ‘score’, which PEF currently does.

The main problem, though, is understanding. Consumers understanding what and why.

Simply: In ESPR there is a demand for recycled content, and this is heavily stressed. During the sessions, I asked simply “why?” and presented the latest IVL report with a 1.3% climate reduction for large-scale recycling in the EU. What also surfaced during the week was that only 11% of EU’s population want recycled content. So, win-win or lose-lose to demand recycled content?

Apparel for real life or for bureaucratic purposes?

The issue then feeds into PEF, and how the scores of the “frankenproducts” actually have meaning when talking about real life. Why are stockings, socks and leggings the same “frankenproduct”? What are sweaters actually – when we all know they differ enormously and also their function. It seems, in the end, that everything is a desktop solution for real life actualities.

Having good clothes that are fit for purpose, not apparel that fit policy purposes, should be the goal. They will be used the longest and deliver on DoS. Using ESPR, with PEF as the underpinning logic, will not at all help either the environment, climate change or Europe’s consumers.

So, all in all, listening to the STICA webinar, so well organized by Michael Schragger, gives better insight on where we need to go, than both the JRC organized webinar (which sadly is not publicly available even if it was recorded) and the PEFCR webinar (which can actually be accessed), put together. EU still needs to get their heads around that it’s not at the product level, but at the systems level, that change needs to happen. Let’s hope STICA gave them food for thought.

Fashionscapes for Transformation: EU addresses plastification and a just transition

tobiasson on 1. December 2023

The main point made during EcoAge and MEP Alessandra Moretti’s joint event in the EU Parliament was to link the increased plastification in the fashion sector with social injustice upstream and downstream in the value-chain.

Livia Firth, founder of EcoAge and moderator of Fashionscapes for Transformation, has relentlessly these last months hammered in the point that these are two sides of the same problem at several high-profile events, namely the massive overproduction of apparel. No less for the second time in the EU Parliament.

The mix of speakers and participants was impressive, with representatives both old and young, from industry and research, as well as political heavy-weights, and voices both from the Global South and North. The voices heard during the event were diverse, but unison in their messaging: The massive overproduction, based on cheap synthetics, cannot continue. This has even sunk in with the policy-makers, who echoed the same concerns in well-prepared speeches, in line with Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius key-note, stating “fast fashion must become past fashion”.

SIFO’s Ingun Grimstad Klepp, who had been – together with Irene Maldini – a speaker at the last EcoAge event in the Parliament, had no official role in Fashionscapes; however, Livia Firth asked her intervention after the panel had presented and discussed multiple aspects related to social issues missing from the Textile Strategy, and what instruments could encourage deplastifying. The much-repeated idea that quality or durability are the silver-bullet that will instantly degrow the sector was, however, debunked by Klepp. But before getting to this, let us dive into the proceedings.

MEP Beatrice Covassi in the foreground. Right before Ingun Klepp (seated to her right behind) was asked to intervene.

It was to be sure, an intense two-hour wake-up call, related to EU’s Textile strategy and Green Transition. MEP Alessandra Moretti, as hostess of the event and key note speaker Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius both high-lighted how ambitious these plans are, and had many good points in what they brought forward. Where disagreement surfaced, was around fiber-to-fiber recycling of synthetics – presented as a potential for a thriving new European industrial bonanza. As several pointed out, this will only increase the use of synthetics, continue to bring down prices and result in even more microplastics. As China produces 95% of today’s synthetics, why should they sit back and see Europe take over the market? That is not how market economics work. This is a blind alley, or as we say in Norwegian ‘believing in Santa Claus’, as several in the audience reiterated.

The main theme was divesting the fashion industry of its fossil fuel reliance, of course also in the fiber area, with waste colonialism and degradation of nature in the global south to satisfy the constant craving for newness in the global north, resulting in massive overproduction. This is of course based on fossil fuel input, but as just pointed at, recycling the same material is not the answer.

Livia Firth, MEP Alessandra Moretti, Commisioner Virginijus Sinkevičius, Simon Giuliani from Candiani Denim and CEO Laurence Tubiana, European Climate Foundation (ECF).

“This shows how the issues cannot be dealt with in isolation, but we need to look at them more holistically than is currently done in the 16 (or more) legislative pieces forthcoming from the EU,” was echoed by several participants after the meeting.

Laurence Tubiana, CEO of European Climate Foundation, who was the last speaker on the panel, claimed she was rather shocked that social issues are not better integrated into the Textile strategy where 80% of the work-force, we were told, is female and does not receive a living wage. However, these workers are also the ones facing the brunt of climate change, toxic chemicals in the soils and waterways, alongside being at the receiving end of our textile waste.

“Children in Ghana grow up not knowing what the ground looks like, as it covered with a permanent layer of textile waste,” Matteo Ward, Co-Founder of Wrad Living, told the audience. He was echoed by Yayra Aghofah, Founder of The Revival in Ghana who pointed out that they have to pay for this same waste that pollutes their environment and that will eventually end up as microplastics. This sad fate, several came back to.

MEP Beatrice Covassi immediately followed up Ingun Klepp’s intervention, requested by Livia Firth, Yayra Aghofah, founder of The Revival, online, in the background.

Black Friday was also a theme, as Yayra Aghofah suggested that they would be inundated with the results of this frenzy very soon, so action is needed now, not in 2026 or 2030. This, of course, underpins the need of immediately labelling season and year products go to market, so that Duration of Service can be captured when the items go into the diverse waste streams. Panelist Paola Migliorini from DG Environment claimed the EU “is helpless in regulating Black Friday”; ignoring that there are ways to legislate or counter-act such market forces with so obviously devastating outcomes. However, it was positive that overproduction had such a central place in the proceedings, both related to how they tie in with the plastification of fashion and with waste colonialism.

During the panel discussion, Livia Firth used the phrase “the Plastic Elephant in the Room” referring to the very back-bone of the fast fashion industry, synthetic fibers and their exponential growth, giving a nod to Consumption Research Norway’s recent report The Plastic Elephant: Overproduction and synthetic fibres in sustainable textile strategies.

Three from the audience were asked to intervene at the end, the first was Urska Trunk from Changing Markets Foundation, talking about the source for polyester for several fashion companies is still Russian oil.

Ingun Klepp, MEP Alessandra Moretti, and to the far right MEP Beatrice Covassi. The woman in the middle of th MEP-bouquet we haven’t yet identified…

Then Ingun Klepp was asked to comment on ‘quality’, and she explained how the only information consumers receive is price, and this isn’t necessarily directly related to quality. She then went on to say that with the EU’s strategy focusing on durability, plastics will win. This in light of the reality that people do not discard textiles because they are ‘used up’, and this is the problem facing the Global South and receivers such as The Revival. Especially as there is more and more polyester, and will be more, and these materials, when exported to the Global South rather than incinerated, will eventually end up as microplastics.

This was immediately picked up by MEP Beatrice Covassi, who clearly was frustrated with the fact that the consumer has so little information about the products available and thus struggles to make good choices, and wanted to applaud professor Klepp’s input.

The last person, who was asked to comment, was Nicholas Rochat, Founder of the plastic-free sportsbrand Mover, who said that with more recycled polyester – even fiber to fiber – will only contribute to more microplastics. He described being in the mountains at 2000 meters, and still encountering microplastics, and no longer being able to eat fish, as they are contaminated.

But the main take-away was that the Commission seems to have a belief that all the 16 plus different policy instruments will ‘even everything out’, but the reality is that they are in danger of making things worse in tandem, actually promoting synthetics, if the focus on durability continues alongside eco-modulating fees based on weight.

As the participants filed out, one of them sidled over to Klepp and said, simply: “Norway, douze points”.

Removing the silk gloves and pulling a (historic) punch

tobiasson on 16. November 2023

Wardrobe and Climate was the over-arching theme for a CHANGE event at the Norwegian Folk Museum in Oslo: how we can convey historical knowledge about resource thinking, crafts and wardrobe joy in the museum’s costume collections. An academic hybrid conference morphed into a hands-on evening.

“How did they do it?” was the big question posed during the hybrid seminar during the day, where around 25 attended in person and the same number joined us virtually; and where Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, both from Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at Oslo Metropolitan University, spoke about two forthcoming papers. These are: Variety in dress: Norwegian and Swedish clothing 1780-1880, co-authored by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng, Pernilla Rasmussen, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, and Towards a closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear: Wardrobe planning regimes in women’s weekly magazines 1908-2023.Here the authors are Ingrid Haugsrud, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Vilde Haugrønning.

Ingrid Haugsrud presented findings from Norway’s oldest women’s magazine.

The headline was “Unused resources for CHANGE: Fashion, history and sustainability”, and the question was why does history matter? Why do we need to talk about historical practices in the discussion around the environmental impact of textiles and clothing? asked Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp, before she then went into how dress-practices from Norway and Sweden during the 100-year period spanning from 1780 till 1880, could offer clues to variety without excessive wastefulness. The red thread being that when we have less clothes, we take much better care of them and assign them high value.

This was followed by Ingrid Haugsrud speaking about “A closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear. Wardrobe planning in Norwegian weekly magazines 1908-2023”, where her analysis of three time-periods in the history of Norway’s oldest surviving women’s magazine which is KK (Kvinner og klær), that started out as Nordisk Mønstertidning. The three main themes that emerged for early 1900s, 1970s and 2020s were: Making do with what one had and at the same time creating variety, mix and match wardrobes (creating an illusion of having more than one actually does) and finally “the capsule wardrobe” and cleaning out/ridding oneself of unused things. The latter having led to a waste colonialism issue in the global south as an unforeseen problem.

Else Skjold led the panel, engaging both the physical and the digital audience.

After the two talks speakers were done, they were joined in a panel by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng and Pernilla Rasmussen, monitored by Else Skjold. Here Marie Ulväng pointed out that in the 19^th century, a household-budget for apparel was as much as 1/4^th of the total. Which is a far cry from today’s share.

Later the same day, many of the participants joined others for a hands-on behind-the-scenes deep-diving into old wardrobes and textile know-how. Participants guessed what materials were hidden in jars based only on how they felt to touch, and also the weight of two garments, an old wool skirt which had belonged to Åse Roe from Tinn in Norway and a silk dress woven in the 1750s, with several reincarnations in the 1800 and 1900s.

Hands-on research: Is it silk, viscose or…?

The audience was also invited to talk about their own wardrobes and clothes with Ingun and Ingrid in what evolved as a deep-dive in a theme that was brought forward during the hybrid seminar: a need for a better language about our wardrobes and what makes them sustainable. Watch and listen to the hybrid webinar by clicking here

Engaged participants discussing with Ingun and Ingrid.

Used but not used up – what do we know about textile waste?

tobiasson on 23. October 2023

Ingun Grimstad Klepp presenting the findings from the Plastic Elephant

If you are interested in the findings presented during the hybrid seminar, the video and the presentations are now available.

Both the volumes of textile waste, and the interest in what to do with it, is growing. Fortunately, knowledge about what textile waste consists of is also growing, as is the interest to regulate the sector.

In this webinar, we will summarize several recent reports on textile waste in Norway and other countries, as well as a report that examines whether environmental strategies take seriously the fact that if the textiles are to be used up, then less must be produced. The clothes we dispose are often used – but far from used up.

– How can disposed textiles be used in the best possible way to ensure new use, and what kind of knowledge enables us to reduce the amount of used but not used up textiles?
– How much textiles, especially synthetics, are disposed in Norway? What does wasted textiles consist of, why and how are they disposed?
– Which regulatory measures will can be implemented in order to reduce the volumes of textile waste?

Click here to see the video (link).

Click here to find the PDFs of the presentations (link).

This is an open dissemination seminar under the Wasted Textiles research project at SIFO, OsloMet, funded by the Research Council of Norway and the Norwegian Retailers Environment Fund.

Questions related to the TPR proposal

tobiasson on 17. March 2023

The Wasted Textiles team have had many meetings with policy-makers, politicians, NGOs, textile industry representatives and other interested parties regarding our Targeted Producer Responsibility proposal. We have collected questions we have been asked and here you will find the answers to these questions. If you have other questions, feel free to send them to us, and we will answer them as best we can, and make them publicly available.

Q: How to obtain knowledge about the lifespan of textiles?

A: Lifetime can be measured in number of years, or the number of times something is used. The proposal is to use the length of the use phase as the most important criterion. We propose that the brand and date of production/import will be made mandatory in the future legislation. In the long term, it will then be possible to measure how long the usage phase is on average per brand. We will also be able to say something about the number of uses. The clothes that have not been used will usually be recognizable, and likewise, clothes that have been used until they are worn out. The main method of TPR will be waste analyses and it is possible to do the analyses of the life span in different ways, also related to the type of textile.

Q: Is it only the quantity and age of the textiles in the waste stream that determine the size of the fee?

A: Our proposal is that the quantity and age of discarded textiles shall determine the fee together with the cost of capturing the End of Life (EoL) value for the products. This means that textiles with a high price on the second-hand market, or based on their material composition are a resource for recycling, will have a lower price or even not generate a fee at all, in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.

Q: How to guarantee that the product carries information about the garment and the brand?

A: The rules today safeguard this to a certain extent, as the labels or the printed information need to withstand a certain number of laundry cycles. It is often also possible to determine the brand by visible logos or because the clothes are recognizable for other reasons. In practice, some will be unidentifiable, but as the sample pick analysis will give representative numbers, this is not the biggest hurdle. There will be enough waste to make statistical and significant compilations.

Q: With the Digital Product Passport (DPP) work underway to update the rules on what information is mandatory on textiles, is it premature to require that the date of manufacture (or date of placing on the market) must already appear on the label?

A: No. There can be interim solutions on the way to a product passport, and as picking analysis is a known method to gather data from waste streams, this is vital in order to quickly assess how long products have been in use before they are discarded. It is possible to analyse the age of clothes in the waste streams without dating the clothes, but dating will give better accuracy and make the analyses easier. In addition, the dating of clothes will have a number of positive effects for consumers, such as giving consumers a greater opportunity to compare the technical quality of the clothes and determine how long they have been in use. This will strengthen the right to complain which is linked directly to the number of years, thus empowering EU citizens. It will also be an important link to transparency about production conditions. We, therefore, suggest that product date labelling should be included in the coming revision of the EU Textile Labelling Regulation, independently of EPR/TPR.

Q: Who will do the waste picking analysis?

A: We envision the work being carried out by third-party analysis agencies/research institutions with expertise in picking analyses and apparel, overseen by a public authority to oversee the implementation and ensure transparency.

In the Wasted Textiles project, the analyses are based on a collaboration between an analysis agency, MEPEX, with experience from sorting agents for other waste streams, researchers with experience with textiles, and the largest charity in Norway, along with Consumption Research Norway (SIFO)’s experience with different versions of wardrobe methods. Collectively, a method has been developed to look at the composition of the textile waste. Based on this work, it will be possible to further develop a method that meets the specific requirements of an EPR/TPR system.

Q: How to estimate how old a garment is by looking at waste streams or reuse collection streams?

A: Unused clothes are generally recognized by the fact that they have price tags on them, or that they are found in large quantities of similar clothes (unsold). Age can otherwise be assessed based on style, technical details and wear-and-tear. We are not talking about detailed information, but about broad assessments. Textile waste today consists of textiles produced over many decades and there have been technological and aesthetic changes in apparel over the past 50 years, although apparel has not changed as quickly as e.g., electronics. Accuracy will of course be easier when the date becomes a mandatory part of labelling textiles. Accuracy will also be better if the staff who carry out the analysis have the appropriate textile expertise.

Q: What are the criteria for a TPR fee?

A: TPR can be used and combined with different varieties of EPR and other political instruments. If it is to have the effect of reducing overproduction and making fast fashion out of fashion, then it depends on the fee being high enough to affect the producers, their business models and downstream decisions. However, it is not the size of the fee that distinguishes TPR from other EPR systems, but the way it is calculated.

Producers would pay different levels of EPR fees depending on:

How old the clothing is when going out of use (very old clothing generates no fee, while very new would generate a high fee)
How reusable/recyclable the clothing is (clothing types with profitable pathways have a low fee)

TPR will ensure a level playing field for a European-based textile industry, global brands and online producers, so-called ultra-fast-fashion brands. TPR will catch all textile waste, regardless of where the garment was made or imported from, thus addressing the challenge of online trade/e-commerce and “free-riders”. Further work is needed on the details of how the fees are calculated for each individual producer, for specific product groups or for the industry as a whole.

Q: Can picking analysis actually underpin the legal validity of fees?

A: The legal foundation, implications and further development of TPR are in the current EU Waste Framework Directive, and in the coming revisions. The current WFD (article 8a) defines minimum requirements for member states and their EPR-systems, f. ex. stating that eco-modulation shall be used when it is possible. But until now we have not seen eco-modulation being used in accordance with the waste hierarchy, nor the polluter pays-principle, when it comes to irresponsible production and consumption, and its waste export, and there are limitations in the current directive when it comes to setting fees that go beyond the waste phase. The EU textile strategy from March 2022 announced that there will be a harmonised producer responsibility in the EU set forth in the coming revisions.

We will rely on legal experts and funding for further work with the legal aspects of TPR. It is likely that the retroactive aspect will be contended. If producers are held responsible for the waste they have produced long before the scheme comes into effect, they will balk. It will, however, only be a temporary problem. It is also possible to use TPR combined with sales/import statistics, so that TPR is used to modulate the fee, but that it is based on the imports/production taking place at the same time. We consider it unlikely that the analysis of the waste itself would not be reliable enough. Picking analyses are used on other waste streams and is a recognized method.

Q: Will TPR be costly to operate?

A: The costs of operating the scheme will be covered by the fee, as is normal for other control schemes for industries. TPR is based on national samples taken annually or every two years, and is assumed to be administered at low cost.

For TPR to work (reduce quantities and thus environmental burdens) it is important that the fees are high enough. This will provide money that can be used for, among other things, the operation of the system. In existing EPR-schemes the fees are often set very low so that there is little room for covering other than minimum administrative costs.

In general, there is too little waste regulation supervision and with many new EU regulations to be followed up, it is necessary to strengthen supervision on national and municipal levels. The knowledge that the picking analysis will provide is important data for monitoring the effect of the EU’s textile strategy and for making the best possible use of textile waste. It is difficult to imagine effective policy and product development without knowledge of the waste.

Q: How can we trust those who will be doing the picking analysis, that the data they collect is good enough to eco-modulate fees based on the findings?

A: In contrast to much environmental work, TPR is not based on information provided by the actors themselves, but by an independent third party with no financial interests in the matter. Why should a research or analysis agency not be trusted? It is, after all, common to use a third party to obtain information precisely to ensure independence. A major problem in the textile industry is that concepts, perspectives and what is perceived as knowledge are often produced by the industry itself and its organisations. Selective analyses, on the other hand, can be carried out by independent analysis agencies/researchers.

Q: Will TPR affect companies that want to invest in circular business models and charities that are dependent on revenues from second-hand trade?

A: Circular BMs, such as repair, rental, etc. are struggling financially today due to the competition with cheap new clothes. By making it more expensive to sell what hardly gets used, the over-production will be impacted and eventually reduced (provided the fee is high enough). This will strengthen the possibility for such BMs. The companies that work with further processing of textile waste (repair, redesign, recycling and all intermediate forms) will be able to receive financial help for product development and support from the EPR system and this subsidy will improve their financial sustainability.

Q: In the EU, 99,9% of the actors in the textile sector are SMEs. How will TPR capture meaningful data about them, and ensure that they are not treated unfairly?

A: For once, we are lucky that the fashion and sports apparel sector are dominated by big, global companies with large volumes. This means that they will dominate in the picking analysis.

Q: How will the collected fees be allocated and used?

A: The allocation of the fee has not been elaborated in the proposal for a TPR system. However, we believe that it is important that the TPR funds will be allocated to support as a minimum (non-exhaustive list):

operation of the system (incl. picking analysis and calculations, the logistics)
support proper use of collected textiles according to the waste hierarchy, incl. charities, markets for reuse and repair
support the work with reducing synthetic textiles, preventing the spread of microplastics and cleaning up the textile waste in developing countries
support municipalities that need to build up collection, sorting and treatment facilities
support countries, regions, businesses and NGOs in the global south in cleaning clean up landfills and rivers and establish functioning waste management systems
stimulate technology innovation, research, development and investments

Q: Can TPR be useful for other policy measures than EPR?

A: TPR is a way of “capturing” the use phase, which otherwise remains a “black hole” in LCAs. In other words, a very important factor for calculating environmental impact in the whole lifecycle of a product, is not taken into account. TPR will make a valuable contribution to gathering meaningful data – and thus can have an impact on many policy measures, especially the ones based on LCA data.

Q: The EU Textile strategy aims for durable, repairable, recyclable apparel and footwear, that also contains recycled content – does TPR contribute to this, or is it counter to these aims?

A: TPR will contribute by bringing forward knowledge and data on how effective these aims are in delivering on the issues around durability. Through the picking analysis it is possible to collect various information on discarded or donated products, i.e., if the discarded or donated items have been repaired, or other relevant information related to the Textile Strategy aims.

Q: Does the TPR have the potential to address just transition, more local value-chains, eco-design and other issues that the EU are addressing through other strategies and programs?

A: The results from the picking analysis will feed into eco-modulation, and be the opposite of traditional eco-design, which only projects assumptions on lifespan. The data collected will be ‘proof of the pudding’ on what actually has a long lifespan, and cancel part of the eco-design directive, through providing actual data and incentives for making lasting products. TPR will use the market forces, and let the companies themselves decide how they tackle this, but make it costly to make products nobody wants. This will be valuable for the New European Bauhaus. We also see synergies for Farm to Fork, the EU’s new Soil Mission, and other programs and strategies, for example, the Plastic strategy. We know the EU aims for a more holistic, non-siloed way forward, and TPR offers an opportunity for this, based on how to award apparel that stays in use for a long time (indigenous, traditional, local, etc.) up against low-quality products that have a very short lifespan.

Q: How will TPR help to phase out fast fashion?

A: If the fees are high enough to deter the increased plastification of our wardrobes and for clothing that we keep, use and love for a long time, to be awarded amnesty, then TPR will help phase out fast fashion.

Q: How will this affect the developing countries, who rely on second-hand clothes from the EU and the trade of these clothes?

A: TPR has the potential to affect developing countries in two ways. Firstly, the TPR fee should address the issue of waste colonialism, i.e., quantities of textile waste exported (as mentioned earlier in the paper but needs further study for concrete proposals).

Secondly, in line with the EU’s strategic goal to handle its own textile waste rather than exporting it to the Global South, TRP will indirectly affect this export in the long run, through the expected reduction of fast fashion and the volumes being exported.

TPR is also an opportunity for EPR to reduce quantities imported into the EU and thus if the fee is set high enough, it will affect the quantities that go out of use and thus what is exported to developing countries. This is very important, as it is the Global North that creates the major waste problems, which has been recently documented by EEA, Changing Markets Foundation and The OR Foundation. TPR’s goal is to affect the quantities being produced (fast fashion) and exported as waste and thus reduce negative environmental impacts and the related problems in production, use and disposal. These are environmental problems that particularly affect developing countries in that both the production takes place there and that the waste ends up there.

Q: Can TPR be used in other product areas?

A: Yes. That is a good idea to explore. As far as we know, there are no similar systems for other product groups; however, many products are sold with dates and also information on expected lifespan, which is a good basis for developing a TPR system. It would be possible to install a counter in f. ex. a laundry machine or coffee maker, so that the fee is not only based on years of use, but also laundry cycles or coffee-pots made. Using both years of service life and other available information in the modulation of the fee will contribute to more durable products for many product categories.

See the full briefing paper that was sent to the EU representatives below.

Download the briefing paper TPR Q&A Download

New briefing outlining research behind the TPR proposal

tobiasson on 17. March 2023

During a meeting earlier this year with a team from the European Commission Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans’ office, the authors of this new paper were asked to supply more background on the Targeted Producer Responsibility they presented.

As the first step in supplying more research-based data and knowledge, the paper entitled “Critical review of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF): Why PEF currently favors synthetic textiles (plastics)” and therefore also fast fashion was sent to the meeting-participants and published online. This was, however, only the first of three papers promised. The second, “Research input for policy development based on understanding of clothing consumption“, a research briefing, goes into the research behind the proposal. It is now sent to the meeting participants and is therefore also made publicly available.

For this research briefing, additional researchers who are not part of the Wasted Textiles project were engaged, and who have also recently been recruited to roles at SIFO: Kate Fletcher and Irene Maldini. Authors from Wasted Textiles are Lisbeth Løvbak Berg (SIFO, OsloMet), Tone Skårdal Tobiasson (NICE Fashion/UCRF), Jens Måge (Norwegian Waste Management and Recycling Association). Kerli Kant Hvass (Revaluate/Aalborg University); and of course, the main author Ingun Grimstad Klepp.

This briefing paper builds on research and evidence from SIFO’s 75 years of consumer research on clothing and the ongoing projects CHANGE, Lasting as well as the mentioned Wasted Textiles, addressing the problem of overproduction of textiles. It draws attention to the importance of incorporating the latest consumer research in the design of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – or rather our suggestion TPR – and other textile policies currently being developed in the EU. It is written by a diverse group of academics and practitioners who are seeking to support change in the sector.

The briefing puts forward that the authors see a trend in various policy discussions and documents based on the belief that making garments more durable, will reduce the quantity of clothing produced. Scientific research does not provide evidence for this, which is exactly what this briefing aims to show. The briefing is, however, not only a criticism of the lack of research-based policy tools. The authors also offer suggestions on how to make these tools effective in the challenge that lies ahead of us: Making fast fashion out of fashion.

Read the full briefing below.

Research briefing on clothing consumption Download

Download the research briefing on clothing consumption Download

Presentation of preliminary findings from the Wasted Textiles PhD project

tobiasson on 19. January 2023

March 14th, 2023, 10 am to 12 noon. Athene 1 (auditorium), Pilestredet 46, OsloMet.

PhD Candidate Anna Schytte Sigaard will present preliminary findings based on data collection from 28 Norwegian households in three areas of Norway: Oslo, Vestfold and Salten. This is part of her PhD Want Not, Waste Not: A wardrobe study approach to minimizing textile waste from Norwegian households.

Each household collected textile items that they would have otherwise discarded during a period of 6 months. They participated in a start-up interview at the beginning of the collection period and two interviews about the collected textiles after 3 and 6 months. All textiles (more than 3000 pieces) were brought to SIFO for analysis where they have been registered according to different physical properties and the story for each textile, from acquisition to disposal, has been recorded.

The findings will grant insights into consumption of clothing and other textiles from households in Norway.

A more detailed agenda will be shared closer to the event date.

Snacks and coffee/tea will be provided.

Location: Athene 1 (auditorium), Pilestredet 46, 0170 Oslo

If you are interested in joining in person, please contact Anna Schytte Sigaard. email: annasiga@oslomet.no

It is also possible to join via Zoom, using this following link:
https://oslomet.zoom.us/j/68769021034?pwd=eEVxb1lQSW4vNkdmbDZFamNvb2x1dz09

New Research Centre in Copenhagen based on wardrobe research

tobiasson on 6. January 2023

The CHANGE masterclass seminar held at the Royal Danish Academy in Copenhagen September 30^th 2022 hosted another interesting occasion. This was the launch of KLOTHING – Centre for Apparel, Textiles & Ecology Research. The first Danish research center on fashion, textiles and sustainability lead by me, Associate Professor, PhD, Else Skjold, who has been central in developing the wardrobe method since the beginning of my PhD study (Skjold, 2014).

Text: Else Skjold/KLOTHING

In CHANGE, I am responsible for the WP5 regarding the continuous recruiting of junior- and senior researchers for further development and consolidation of wardrobe research, and dissemination of new knowledge to both research, industry, and policy makers. With the newly established centre, wardrobe research will have a strong outpost and knowledge hub in Scandinavia to support and strengthen the WP5, the work being conducted at SIFO in Oslo, and the broadening out of wardrobe research altogether.

The name is a result of the dialogue between myself and professor, PhD Kate Fletcher, who is also part of the CHANGE project, and currently affiliated with the Royal Danish Academy (among others). With the title KLOTHING, the centre is rooted in a Scandinavian context, since the spelling of clothing with a “K” stems from Norse language. The title thereby suggests how research departing from exactly Denmark and Scandinavia might contribute to effecting a CHANGE. Therefore, the founding pillars of the centre are focusing on the core value of the Scandinavian welfare states that everyone should have equal opportunity, which is mirrored in the Scandinavian traditions for user-inclusive and collaborative design that was developed throughout the 20^th Century.

The center is placed at the Royal Danish Academy which covers the Design School, the Architect School and the Conservation School. This implicates that the knowledge production of the center has a basis in the three respective areas of research, artistic development work, and practice. This means that the center will produce knowledge in the shape of both academic writing and research-led design development work at the highest artistic level, thereby testing and validating how a circular and sustainable future might appear in physical design artifacts and prototypes.

KLOTHING is affiliated with the Institute of Architecture and Design that represents the full scale from ceramics to clothing and textiles, and to furniture, interior, and architecture. It is thereby embedded in a research- and education environment strongly affected by the iconic Danish Modern Furniture traditions deriving from the 1950’s and 1960’s, and represented by designers such as Børge Mogensen, Kaare Klint, and Finn Juhl. It is particularly in this modernist movement and its functionalist tradition for investigating user-behavior and -needs and the use properties of design objects for various occasions (i.e. storage for clothing etc.), that there is a strong tie to the CHANGE project and its interest in occasions and categories of clothing designed for specific purposes.

An engaged team studying Danish storage systems with historical roots. From left to right: Irene Maldini, Vilde Haugrønning, Liudmila Aliabeva, Anna Sigaard, Kirsi Laitala, Ingrid Haugsrud, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg and Kerli Kant Hvass. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson.

These traditions for a sensitivity towards use and use properties of design are interpreted in KLOTHING as an important foundation for restoring the fashion- and textiles sectors’ ability to deliver products of high and long-lasting use value. Going back to the aspirations of the welfare state of providing equal opportunity for everyone, it is obvious that in a current context this will imply a deep sensitivity for various user groups and their needs and aspirations, across gender, race, age and other important parameters that are not recognized in the current fashion system.

It is here that wardrobe research is a key driver for understanding how design creates value in practices of maintenance and use, and in circular services such as resale, rental, re-design, adjustment tailoring and similar. Wardrobe research could be seen as crucial in the years to come, as there is a need for building eco-systems, logistics and new practices for a more circular and sustainable fashion- and textiles sector that is centred on long-time use of resources. Basically, wardrobe research is key because circularity requires skills, practices, understandings, logistics and value systems that are based around use rather than on fashion trends. But the ecosystems political and economic incentives for establishing this do not exist and are complex to build up.

This is why KLOTHING will be tied up to traditions for collaborative design approaches and co-design developed from the 1970’s and onwards in Scandinavia that go well in hand with the cooperative business model represented by large Danish companies such as COOP and Arla. These business models were built on the idea that together we can do more. Typically, they consist of many small enterprises and stakeholders with a shared infrastructure for knowledge-building, know-how and revenue creation. Like a small welfare state within the welfare state. This template for collaborative research means that the center will primarily work action-based and in collaborative settings across sciences and sectors/stakeholders. This work has already started, as KLOTHING is embedded in the politically funded research partnership on circular economy for plastics and textiles affiliated with the Innovation Fund Denmark, TraCE. Here Jesper Richardy is part of the team.

As part of the event-packed day that culminated in the launch of KLOTHING, we also arranged a lunch with NGOs, policy makers, industry organizations and the CHANGE team to discuss issues surrounding the EU’s new textile strategy and greenwashing. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson.

Ultimately, the ambitions of the CHANGE project of creating an actual impact at more systemic level is also embedded in the ideas behind KLOTHING. This is found in the strong inspiration of the movement propelled by the manifesto of the Nordic Cuisine from 2004. What they basically did was to reject the focus on French cooking tradition that had pushed local produce and culinary practices into almost oblivion. They believed in a much more locally rooted practice that respected natures’ boundaries and seasons. In welfare and balance for both human and non-human species. In elevating local resources and in making them precious through skilled craftmanship at the highest level. All in collaboration between citizens, politicians, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders for the common good.

From the launch. Photo: Johanne Stenstrup

This could seem as a highly protective and inward-looking project. But what happened was that they inspired local craftmanship and resourcefulness – a decentering of what good cuisine was all about – and thereby stimulated tools and supporting philosophy for a more caring and rooted practice together with chefs all around the globe. Just like this movement, KLOTHING seeks to inspire new landscapes of fashion and textiles that are decentered, inclusive and respectful of plural voices and aesthetics, whilst respecting planetary boundaries and principles of biodiversity. This line of thinking was initiated in the master programme that was launched September 2020 at the Royal Danish Academy; Fashion, Clothing & Textiles; New Landscapes for Change.

The hope going forward is to reach out and invite fellow researchers and students from other learning environments, as well as industry partners, policy makers and other stakeholders, in the understanding that no one can make a CHANGE on their own.