Photo: Canva
Are Fashion Brands’ Recycling Schemes Misleading Consumers?
The Times in the UK performed an investigation that sought to uncover the truth about what really happens to clothing waste that is donated to specific take-back bins set up by popular fashion brands such as H&M, Nike, and C&A.
They were not happy with what they uncovered.
According to the article, a donated clothing item that is intended “for recycling is being shipped across the world, where items that cannot be sold are at risk of being burnt and sent to open dumps.”
George Harding-Rolls posted additional details on LinkedIn about this investigation, which was completed in cooperation with Changing Markets Foundation.
By attaching tracking devices to various garments, they “tracked 21 items from 10 fashion brands through their take-back schemes. Garments were donated to H&M, Zara, C&A, Primark, Nike, The North Face, Uniqlo and M&S stores in Belgium, France, Germany and the UK, or posted them to a Boohoo scheme. Despite the slogans, three-quarters of items (16 out of 21 or 76%) were either destroyed, left in warehouses or exported to Africa, where up to half of used clothing are quickly shredded for other uses or dumped.”
More specifically, they found that:
- Seven garments in total were destroyed or downcycled, four of which were shredded to make stuffing or rags.
- One good-condition item dropped off at C&A was burned for fuel at a cement plant (despite their bin claiming to “give clothes a second life”).
- An item dropped off at Primark ended up in a landfill, while Primark’s bin specifically states it prevents any clothes from ending up in landfills.
- Four items given to H&M and C&A ended up in Africa in areas with waste problems and high pollution.
- Five items in total were reused in Europe or made it to a resale shop.
- Only one item was resold in the same country where it was dropped off.
Another interesting statistic that the video in the LinkedIn post points out is how “countries in the Global South are overwhelmed with used clothing imports, 20-50% of which is of such bad quality that it immediately becomes waste.”
Ultimately, the investigation claims it “shows that not only are these take-back schemes sending clothes in good condition to be shredded and burned, but they are also contributing to the burden of fast fashion waste dumped in African countries.”
With this inconsistent practice being exposed, consumers are once again put in a precarious position where they cannot necessarily trust the integrity of given sustainability solutions. This should not deter consumers from recycling their clothes, it just means that, as always, one cannot blindly take promises at face value.
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Should there be more preventative measures taken to ensure that clothing is being reused? Should companies that fail to monitor and fulfill their sustainability promises be held accountable?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Paula Rosenblum
Co-founder, RSR Research
Allison McCabe
Director Retail Technology, enVista
I was never aware of the magnitude of this problem until it surfaced on RetailWire some months ago. The problem is not just used clothes but also unsold apparel. The magnitude of the entire problem is overwhelming. What industry generates so much waste?
Many solutions to solve the unsold problem are good business.
The consumer throwaway is a much more significant challenge. In the U.S. alone, 34 billion pounds of clothing are thrown away annually. That’s 100 pounds for each of us.
I wonder how much of the consumer disposal has little to do with the item wearing out and more with “I am just tired of it” or “It isn’t fashionable anymore”. We are a very spoiled culture.
The take-back bins are there for only one reason…not to take back the clothing but to relieve the shopper of guilt.
Yes, there should be truth in those signs. Those organizations that take back should be held accountable. If they must tell the truth, they likely will stop doing it. My concern is that all that clothing will then go straight to the trash.
Absolutely more needs to be done. These are classic examples of greenwashing and the firms that make claims about how they re-cycle used goods need to be held accountable to these claims. Ultimately, we all share in protecting the earth and minimizing the impact from the waste we create, and retailers and brands have an obligation to play their role in the process. Saying you’re going to re-cycle goods, only to have them dumped in Africa or in a landfill is unacceptable.
Returns are fodder in this sad game. Why fashion retailers aren’t using every possible way to reduce returns is beyond me. They should be held accountable. Why aren’t they donating these item’s directly to homeless shelters instead of shipping them half way across the globe? It wouldn’t take much effort to set up a sustainability program that is truly just that, but it seems that the impression of sustainability is more important than actually making it happen.
Not only are returns killing their bottom lines, but some online tools can actually boost conversions while cutting down on bracketing and other reasons for returns. The PR story and the real story are as far apart as political ads with this problem. Say one thing and do the opposite. Come on, fashion retailers, solve the problem before the sale, not after the return. It will be better for the environment and better for your profitability, too.
Great points Ken! There are a lot of strategies that can be deployed to reduce the quantity of returns. We have debated the issue of free shipping on returns that encourages customers to bracket sizes, knowing they will return some or most of the items purchased online. If consumers were responsible for the cost of shipping returns, they would be more careful about what products they purchase, which would reduce returns.
Your other key point about keeping returned products in the U.S. makes sense. We have a lot of people that are in need of clothing right here and it would be easier and more cost effective to donate the product to homeless shelters and other charities that support people in need.
It all starts with validating the quantities of apparel that a company is creating. Current manufacturing rewards quantity…the more that is made, the lower the cost. Minimum quantities must be met to be produced. Minimum print runs. Minimum fabric quantities.
Additional quantities are produced to meet outlet sales demand rather than using outlets to liquidate existing product. As long as there is a potential profit benefit from increased quantities, More is not more value, its more potential waste.
Exactly – validating the quantities of apparel that are produced and quantifying adoption rates to sell-thrus should be required practice.
Brands and retailers should be held accountable from concept to production. The product creation process needs to be overhauled and overdevelopment needs be called out.
Transparency and visibility into the supply chain is the only way we will have a front row seat into the product journey.
How many buyers get an open-to-buy budget of $1,000,000 and spend that budget if they need it or not?
How many decades have we spent training the customer to continually update their wardrobe, whether it’s at the Old Navy level or the Gucci level? More stores in more malls. We have the “endless aisle” on-line. Now we have Shein and Temu. And all of a sudden we expect everybody to tap the brakes? Show me the brand or retailer who is going to step up and say, “What we really need to do is shrink our business in order to mitigate the waste factor and get positioned for sustainability. And here is how we are going to accomplish that.” I think this problem is bigger, and will take longer to solve, than anybody is really willing to say out loud.
Jeff, you said it out loud and you are absolutely right.
The EU, even before this report, has already been focusing in on accountability here, if only to insist on truth in advertising. This is the second “gotcha” analysis I’ve seen in less than a year, so anticipate many more to come.
The end game here is going to be for governments to insist that the brand “owns” the product all the way through to disposal or recycle, even after a consumer has purchased it. Some companies have made headway towards much greater recyclability – H&M in particular, even though they were caught in this latest analysis. The more you can reuse the same materials over and over (breaking garments down into thread that becomes the new fabric), the more your component costs approach zero. Seems like a great incentive to me.
But in the meantime, retailers and brands are also going to have to move more into a mentality that “high” sell-through rates aren’t going to be enough – ultimately, it should cost a retailer more to have product left over at the end of the season than it costs to leave some demand on the table. And I don’t know of any retailer that thinks that way, or has a business model built to support that kind of thinking. Which means, good luck shaming them into change!
Not so easy to reuse. See my note below
I’m more focused on CPG than fashion, but I’ve been learning as quickly as I can, and I’m starting to come around to former Timberland COO Ken Pucker’s view that the vast majority of industry-initiated strategies are insufficient.
Convenience and novelty are so culturally embedded that it’s vastly more profitable (and preferred by many shoppers) to produce, use, and dispose of fashion and many other consumer goods than to make and price them for durability, repair, and reuse.
A growing number of retailers are launching resale programs, but as Ken notes, they typically represent under 1% of sales for participating retailers.
Without accountability and a level playing field, we’ll keep moving too slowly.
I teach my students “Culture eats strategy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.” You are right. We have a ulture problem.
More should and could be done to successfully ‘recycle’ clothing so that it doesn’t end up in landfills. Importantly, if a company states clearly that it has programs in place to improve this situation, then senior leadership should be held accountable. There’s little difference between a large CPG manufacturer of, say, bottled water and the programs it sponsors to recycle plastic bottles and the programs that retailers sponsor for clothes. Both should adhere to their commitments and be held accountable for their actions.
The fashion sustainability story has been growing louder and louder. “Reusing clothing” is harder than it sounds.
Stella McCartney took it on herself to figure out what to do with the millions of yards of cotton that get left on the cutting room floor. It’s not so simple. The length of the cotton strand matters, and so cuttings, and old clothes, can’t be made into garments requiring long thread.
The entire process is fraught with environmental problems, from dye in the water, to the human toll of production to excess cotton on the front end, and finally, to clothing that doesn’t sell.
No one is going to like the answer but we need to roll back to the idea that we’re making too much low-quality stuff. Fast Fashion is insanely wasteful. Somehow, we have to create a market buzz around other solutions.
Lately, my household has started searching for high end apparel at vintage stores. Higher quality, better vibes, and supporting local businesses.
Making promises and being shown not to keep them can be a big problem.
Investigative journalism is very often the medium that exposes things.
Providing information to consumers about what happens to their recycled items could well be a differentiating factor for a retailer. Perhaps providing information or QR codes to websites and videos with statistics and details at collection points would be a great way to start. As consumers become more conscious of their overall impact this could be a big area to consider. Ultimately consumers vote with their wallets so this makes a lot of sense
There is an apparent contradiction between the rise of conscious consumerism and the continued popularity of disposable fashion. With the relentless product offers and low prices offered by Shein, H&M, Zara, and others, it’s also challenging for cash-strapped consumers dealing with a sustained inflationary period and the cost of living challenges.
However, consumers may need to be educated on the significant impacts of their purchase decisions. In the age of trust and transparency, there are some key considerations:
▪️ It takes about 700 gallons of water to produce one cotton shirt. That’s enough water for one person to drink at least eight cups per day for three-and-a-half years
▪️ It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans. That’s more than enough for one person to drink eight cups per day for ten years
▪️ Waste, which is one of the main items on the sustainability agenda, is usually considered from a consumer point of view. Over 65% of all textile products end up in landfills every year
There are also pricing considerations for consumers. Consumer intent to buy sustainable fashion is increasing, but price, availability, and information barriers remain prevalent. Consumers will increasingly expect and demand an emphasis on sustainability from fashion brands. While circular business operating models are becoming increasingly important over the next five years, the challenge for retail businesses is how to do this at a lower cost, provide value to consumers, and at an affordable price.
Over the years my friend Kerry Bannigan has taught me a lot about the fashion industry and sustainability. Kerry is the founder and executive Director of the Fashion Impact Fund. Her Conscious Fashion Campaign, in collaboration with the United Nations, works to accelerate global industry action in support of the Sustainable Development. I was taken aback when I read these (and other fashion industry related) statistics recently on her Instagram:
“Up to 100 billion garments are produced by the fashion industry every year. And each year, as much as 92 million tons of clothing ends up in landfills. Only 20% of textiles are collected for reuse or recycling globally.”
It’s so easy for retailers to hang a sign promising to recycle clothing and then not actually do it. The sad part is this practice has made it hard to believe anything businesses say these days. Clearly, we all have to do better.
Big problem needs simple solution. When someone purchases an item, add on a recycling fee. When the item is returned to a recycling center, the fee is returned, or the collected money is used to help get the item recycled.
While I think there’s maybe a little naivete here – at least to the extent that we expect the number to be 100% (and is “downcycling” a good thing or not?) – maybe it’s just best to avoid the whole topic by using one of the options shown under the poll.
Charities aren’t perfect either, but I trust Goodwill or my local shelter more than Primark, et al…companies that are heavily incentivized to see that things are not recycled.
All businesses should be accountable for their actions. What an embarrassing practice to offload waste onto other countries and give them the burden of discarding – all in the name of being sustainable! Unfortunately we can’t take a company’s word for their actions and will eventually need to regulate or perform these types of investigations on a regular basis.
Yet another blow to the good will and integrity of a more sustainable environment. Companies that collect clothes for recycling but then fall short of their promises should explain why. In the very least, companines should be more transparent about all recycling options of donated clothing so that consumers can make more informed decisions.
Consumers already question most brand sustainability efforts. These dismal findings are not helping the cause.