Day 33: Are take-back schemes really helping save the planet? This report says no

7/27/2024

Day 33: Are take-back schemes really helping save the planet? This report says no

Take-back schemes are widely marketed by fast-fashion brands as a solution to the industry’s waste problem. With slogans like “Let’s close the loop” (H&M) and “Give your clothes a second life” (C&A), these programmes claim to offer consumers an easy way to recycle their old clothes, with promises of either reusing the garments or recycling them into new items. But are these programs really effective?

A investigation by the Changing Markets Foundation set out to test the actual outcomes of these take-back schemes. Through the use of discreet airtag trackers, the study followed 21 items submitted to various brands, including H&M, Zara, Primark, Nike, and others, across Europe. The results reveal a much grimmer reality behind the glossy marketing promises.

After 11 months of tracking, the fate of the returned clothes fell into four categories: downcycled or destroyed, resold in Europe, lost in limbo, or shipped to Africa.

Unfortunately, the investigation found that many of these items were not reused as promised, but instead discarded, destroyed, or downcycled, often with no transparency to the consumer.

For example, one pair of trousers dropped off at M&S was downcycled at a Veolia plant within a week, despite being in perfect condition.

The downcycling or destruction of items in good condition was particularly concerning. Of the tracked clothing, seven pieces were downcycled or burned for energy in cement plants, despite being perfectly reusable. One item deposited at C&A in France, which still had its original tag attached, was shredded rather than being resold, highlighting a blatant disregard for waste prevention. As the report notes, “Brands and their contractors are failing to properly sort clothing,” suggesting that these schemes aren’t truly addressing the waste hierarchy, which prioritises reuse.

Of the 21 items tracked, only five were resold within Europe. This may sound promising, but a closer look reveals that these garments were not necessarily resold in a sustainable or beneficial way. For instance, two items made their way to Ukraine for resale, where the used clothing trade has been described as a “poisoned chalice”, adding to the waste burden in a war-torn country. Only one item was resold in the same country where it was originally deposited.

Several items appeared to have simply fallen into a black hole within the global used clothing trade. These pieces lingered in warehouses or never even left their original drop-off locations. The report found that brands profited from the goodwill associated with take-back schemes while doing nothing at all with the collected clothes. Instead of being recycled or reused, many garments were left in limbo, further highlighting the gap between brand promises and reality.

Several items were shipped to Africa, often to countries lacking proper waste management infrastructure. Four items, including pieces deposited at H&M and C&A, ended up in massive second-hand clothing markets in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mauritania and Mali. In these markets, a significant portion of the clothing becomes landfill waste or is burned, exacerbating an already dire environmental crisis in the Global South.

One skirt from H&M took a staggering 24,800 km journey, only to end up in a vacant lot in Bamako, Mali, suggesting it was likely dumped.

The report draws attention to the fact that between 20-50% of imported second-hand clothing in Africa becomes waste. As the Changing Markets Foundation points out: “It is highly concerning that brands’ take-back schemes are directly contributing to this problem,” further perpetuating the cycle of environmental degradation.

Many take-back schemes offer consumers discounts or vouchers for returning clothes, which only fuels further consumption. 13 out of the 21 items tracked came with some form of reward, encouraging customers to immediately purchase more products. “In this way they [the brands] are perpetuating the very model of fast fashion that drives excessive consumption and waste, without addressing the systemic issues, like moving away from the wasteful fast-fashion model or investing in innovative fibre-to-fibre technologies,” says the report.

Ultimately, the report makes it clear that these schemes do little to address the root causes of the fashion industry’s waste problem. “Brands have very little traceability and control over what happens to the clothes returned even in the schemes they operate,” the report states.

As the fashion industry grapples with its environmental impact, there is a growing push for stronger regulations. In July 2023, the European Commission proposed revisions to the Waste Framework Directive, which would hold brands responsible for the end-of-life management of their products through extended producer responsibility (EPR) measures. This would include mandatory fees to cover collection, sorting, recycling, and disposal, as well as limitations on exports of used clothing to the Global South.

The Changing Markets Foundation calls for these reforms to go even further, urging for mandatory reuse and recycling targets, as well as measures that reduce overproduction. By taxing synthetic fibres and implementing eco-design criteria, the industry could take meaningful steps toward sustainability.

Everything I wore on day 33 of the 90 days of Shein challenge: