understanding end-of-life and recycling practices · the questionnaire generated 36 responses. of...

Understanding end-of-life and recycling practices Part 1: Future goals and barriers within different tiers of the textile supply chain

Textile waste is a global issue that brands areincreasingly required to take responsibility for. Withavailable technologies and innovations continuing tomake huge strides, it is becoming increasing apparentthat the biggest challenges may come, not in the formof the recycling processes themselves but ratherthrough the ability to collect and process thefeedstocks that will be required to make theseprocesses economically viable.

In this first-part of a two-part study, a quantitativedigital survey was carried out to explore currentpractices, problems and barriers within the textilesupply chain that affect textile recycling. The secondpart will comprise a qualitative study with a small subset of respondents to further explore the key pointsidentified in this first report.

The survey was designed with the aim of informing thedevelopment of collection and sorting infrastructuresrequired by textile recycling technologies through areview of practices related to post-Industrial and pre-consumer waste, excess stock and post-consumerwaste. It identified a broad desire to improve, but alsohighlighted areas that have remained static andidentified reasons behind this.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Textile waste is a global issue that brands areincreasingly required to take responsibility for withincreasing consumer and legislative pressures.Available technologies continue to make huge strideswith improvements in the efficiency of both chemicaland mechanical recycling and new innovations andprocesses. However, it is becoming increasingapparent that the biggest challenges may come, not inthe form of the recycling processes themselves butrather through the ability to collect and process thefeedstocks that will be required to make theseprocesses economically viable.

The application of microwave technology is beinginvestigated through the DEMETO project1, which

aims to be the first feasible and sustainable(economically, environmentally and socially)industrial application of chemical treatment for reuseof PET/polyester waste streams. It is one that holdsgreat potential for the industry due to its continuous,rapid depolymerisation process, and the ability toprocess mixed waste (fibre blends, trims etc).

In order to ensure the viability of such ground-breaking technology, there is a requirement todevelop further understanding of where waste isgenerated, how infrastructure for the collection offeedstocks for recycling can be improved and brandpractices for dealing with these issues.

1. The research project DEMETO receives funding from the European Union‘s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) under grant agreement no. 768573. https://www.demeto.eu/

INTRODUCTION

https://www.demeto.eu/

In 2020 a quantitative survey was designed andcirculated digitally amongst the outdoor, sports andsustainability sectors.

The objective was to improve understanding ofcurrent end-of-life and recycling practices and futuregoals and barriers to these, within the different tiers ofthe textile supply chain. The intention was to produceresults that offered a valuable insight into what will berequired to further establish textile recycling andcircular practices in the consciousness of brands.

The survey was split into three sections:

• Post-Industrial and pre-consumer waste• Excess stock• Post-consumer waste

METHOD

The questionnaire generated 36 responses.

Of these:• 42% identified as Original Equipment

Manufacturer (OEM)

• 8% identified as Tier 1 (T1) suppliers

• 8% identified as Tier 2 (T2) suppliers

• 42% identified as ‘other’ and this included brands, retailers, consultants, stakeholders from a variety of positions in the recycling chain.

Question: What is your role in the supply chain?

DEMOGRAPHICS

OEM

Other (please specify)

T1

T2

The objective for the first set of questions was toestablish knowledge around levels of wastegeneration by T1 suppliers in the post-industrial/pre-consumer stages.

Respondents were asked if they had knowledge ofhow much waste was generated by their factories.

Of 33 respondents; 34% knew how much waste theirfactories generated, 30% did not and 33% were notsure.

Question: Do you know how much waste your factory/factories generates?

RESULTS – POST-INDUSTRIAL & PRE-CONSUMER

Yes

No

Not sure

The following question examined how factory wastewas handled.

Of 34 respondents, 45% of stated that the factoriesthey used did recycle their waste, a further 44% wereunsure, whilst 9% stated that their factories still didnot undertake any recycling operations.

Question: Does your factory/factories recycle their waste?


Yes

No

Not sure

Question: If YES, what waste do they recycle?Tick those options that apply to your firm.


Upon attempting to discover the composition of therecycled factory waste, it was found that:• The majority of the waste recycled by factories was

identified as being scraps of PET fabric or paperwhich were equally identified.

• Plastic packaging made up the next most recycledmaterial.

• Other materials identified as being recycledincluded water, iron and blended fabrics such aspolyester/cotton and fabric scraps.

• It was also noted that in some cases, the differentsuppliers of OEMs were undertaking varyingamounts of recycling, some did, whilst others didnot.

• Those who had already stated they did not recycleare denoted by N/A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PET fabric scrapsPaper packagingPlastic packagingN/A

Question: If PET fabric scraps are recycled, do you know how this is undertaken and by whom?


Respondents were questioned on who wasundertaking the recycling of PET fabric.

Of 26 respondents, only 15% stated that they knewwhere and how PET fabric scraps were recycled whilethe majority, were either not sure (46%) or did notknow (38%).

Yes

No

Not sure

Question: Question: If a third party wished to collect your factory textile waste, how would you envisage this happening?


In an attempt to determine the most appropriatelocation of recycling facilities.

Of 31 respondents, 84% agreed that in terms offactory waste, it was preferable to recycle the wastein the country where it was generated. Whilst only16% stated that it would be preferable to be shippedto Europe for processing. Shipped from

factory to Europefor processing

Collected andprocessed in thecountry where thefactory is located

Question: Who should be responsible for financing this? Tick those options that apply.


With regard to who should finance the recycling ofwaste, there was a trend toward respondentsbelieving the recycler should be responsible forpurchasing the waste. However, there was also adesire for brands to be financially responsible forgetting waste to the recycler, with specific commentsalso suggesting that all parties should be responsiblein some form for costs incurred, including the mills.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The recycler

The brand

The mill

Third Party logisticaloperator

Question: How do you deal with consumer returns? Tick those options that apply to your firm.


The next section sought to understand howconsumer returns of unwanted items of stock and B-Grade stock was handled.

With regards specifically to consumer returns, of 32responses, it was found that:• The predominant means is to reprocess the stock

and then resell it.• The second most popular option was to send this

stock to charity.• A number of respondents confirmed that they

were warehousing this aspect of their stock.• The remaining percentage stated that such items

were sent to landfill.• Comments made by respondents identified this

stock as being sold for textile recycling or textileshoddy.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reprocessed andresoldSent to charity

Warehoused

Sent to landfill

Question: How do you deal with B-grade stock? Tick those options that apply to your firm


When it came to methods of processing B-Gradestock a more detailed picture continued to emerge.

Similar to customer returns, of 33 respondents:• The majority stated that B-Grade stock is

reprocessed and resold at a reduced RRP.• The second most popular choice was to send such

stock to charity.• However, the next two preferred options were to

send this stock either to landfill or to have theretailer put such items beyond use and credit theretailer for the return.

• Finally, a small number confirmed they were alsowarehousing B-Grade stock.

• Other practices included being burnt to recoverenergy. 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reprocessed and resold at areduced price

Sent to charity

Sent to landfill

Retailers put items beyond useand are credited withoutreturning the itemWarehoused

Other (please specify)

Question: Do you currently have excess stock? If YES, choose the number of units that most closely represents your company's excess stock holding.

RESULTS – EXCESS STOCK

Respondents were asked to comment on the issue ofexcess stock generated by both over production andunpopular styles and the levels of stock currentlyheld by brands.

Of 30 respondents:• There was a clear tend towards respondents being

unsure as to the quantity of units their respectivecompanies held in this category.

• The other options generated similar levels ofagreement.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not sure10,000 unitsNone1000 units20,000 units50,000 units5000 units

Question: Do you have a strategy to reduce your excess stock holding?


To break this down further, respondents werequestioned if there was a strategy for addressingresidual stockholding.

Of 30 respondents:• 67% confirmed that they had one in place,• 23% stated that they were unsure• 10% had no strategy. Yes

No

Not sure

Question: If YES, what strategies are being used to address excess stock? Tick those options that apply to your firm


In terms of the strategies that brands were adopting:• The most common trend was the sale of stock at a

reduced RRP.• This was followed by the implementation of an

effective stock management system or sendingstock to charity.

• None of the respondents included sending stockto landfill as a strategy.

• A small number did identify the use of sendingproduct for recycling or warehousing stock as partof their strategy.

• Those respondents who stated that they had noexcess stock are denoted by N/A.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Product sold at a reduced price

An effective stock managementstrategy

Products sent to charity

Products sent for recycling

Products warehoused

N/A

Products sent to landfill

Question: Do you undertake or offer any of the following? Tick those options that apply to your firm


When asked about services offered to extend oreffectively deal with a product at its end-of-life:• 72% stated that they offered product repair

services to their customers.• 32% offered a rental platform.• 32% were operating a take-back scheme at end-of-

life.• 28% practiced the process of design for

disassembly.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Product repair

Product reprocessing andresale

Products are recycled

Product rental platform

Return service at end of life

Design for disassembly

Question: If YES, do you offer an incentive to encourage consumers to return products at their 'end of life'?

RESULTS – POST-CONSUMER WASTE

Of those who offered a takeback scheme:• 50% provided an incentive for consumers to do so.• 45% did not.• The remaining 5% were unsure of the details.

Yes

No

Not sure

Question: If YES, what form of incentive do you offer? Tick those options that apply to your firm


The most common of these incentives was a percentage discount off their next purchase, followed by a reward card and money back.

In this instance, N/A relates to there being no offering of a take back service.

N/A % off nextpurchase

Reward card Money back0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N/A% off next purchaseReward cardMoney back

Question: If you were to offer consumer returns at ‘end of life’ for reprocessing, how would this operate? Tick as many as would work for your brand


On investigating how brands would envisage aproduct return service working at the ‘end-of-life’:• The preferred option was for the retail section of

respective brands to act as collection posts.• This was closely followed a preference for

customers returning direct to brands by post.• Another popular option was for collection to be

undertaken by an established private firm.• The least preferred option was for the use of

established collections points at locations such assupermarkets. Whilst collection at general outdoorretailers was also less popular.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Collection in brand specificretails stores

Collection by return mail toyour head office

Collection through anestablished private collector

Collection at establishedmunicipal waste collectionpointsCollection in outdoor industryretail stores

Collection at establishedrecycling points such assupermarkets

Question: If you are NOT offering any of these services, what are the barriers to progressing such a project? Tick those options that apply to your firm


With regard to the barriers to offering such services,of 20 respondents:• Lack of resource was identified as a key issue.• This was followed closely by lack of financial

viability and lack of capability to recycle in equalparts.

• A lack of knowledge, infrastructure in the supplychain, insurmountable complexity was alsoidentified by a similar percentage of respondentsas key factors in levels of progress in recycling.

• No respondents cited a lack of company attitudeor the issue not being their problem as factors fornot addressing a need to recycle.

• Nor did any respondent claim to be waiting forappropriate legislation around the subject to be afactor. A small did state that they had triedimplementing solutions and had failed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Don’t have the capabilities to recycle

It’s not financially viable

N/A

Do not have the knowledge to make ithappenThe supply chain infrastructure is notgood enough to arrange recyclingIts too complicated

Don’t have the capability to reprocess and resellNo consumer demand for this service

Tried and it didn’t work

No company appetite for it

Not our problem after we have sold it

Waiting for legislation


On the matter of PET consumption, 23 respondents stated that their brands used recycled fibres in their rangesand the same number all stated that they intend to increase this percentage across their range.

DISCUSSION

This survey generated a range of interesting andvaluable insights and it serves as a good barometerfor where the industry is currently positioned in termsof its recycling attitudes, activities and the associatedissues.

In terms of the key data that can be taken from thissurvey, it is apparent that more can be done tounderstand the practices of recycling specificallyundertaken within the supply chain. This knowledgeis valuable as it allows brands to address areas ofwaste that they may be unknowingly driving andprovides an opportunity for all parties to reducewaste in appropriate ways.

The knowledge that PET fabric scraps are beingrecycled is encouraging, but there is also a cleardeficiency of knowledge in this area as to how this is

undertaken.

The location, collection and financing of end-of-lifeprocessing for both factory waste, B-grade stock andconsumer returns is a matter that involves all partiesalong the supply chain and the trends in the dataconfirm this. Results suggest that factory wasteshould be processed in the location that they aregenerated and the majority of respondents felt thatthe recyclers should pay that cost.

Further to this, respondents felt that at their end-of-life products should be collected by their own brandretailers or returned directly to the brand. However, ifcollection at end-of-life is to follow this preferredroute, then this highlights a strong brandcommitment to the process, both financially andlogistically.

DISCUSSION

The data related to the handling of returned, unsoldor unsellable items indicates that there remains asignificant issue with how unsold stock is dealt with.The majority of respondents stated that a strategyexisted for reducing excess stockholdings. Within thiseffective stock management strategies were apparentand none of this unsold stock was being sent tolandfill, although recycling, warehousing and charitywere used.

However, it was not the same story with returneditems, most of which were reprocessed to be resoldand the remainder either sent to charity, landfill orwarehoused.

There was a similar situation with B-Grade items,

which suggests that while there is awareness of theneed to reduce excess stock, more work is required toreduce the amount of clothing going to less desirableend-of-life options such as landfill.

DISCUSSION

The most common solution offered by brands toextend the life of products was to offer a repairservice.

With regard to returns and recycling, there weresimilar numbers of respondents stating that theyoffered a return service for product at the end of life,and those who stated that the product was beingrecycled suggesting they were the same respondentsand that all returned products were being recycled.

A similar number of respondents also identified theundertaking of design for disassembly as being apractice they undertook.

The practice of offering an incentive for returns wasinconclusive and there was an almost even splitbetween those who did, and those who did not and

the questioning did not establish if the practice wassuccessful.

The barriers to undertaking services that address theend-of-life processing of products proved highlyinsightful. None of the respondents stated that theywere waiting to be obligated by legislation or indeedclaimed to no longer be responsible once a producthad been sold.

The main barriers were around lack of companyresources and knowledge, capabilities to recycle andfinancial viability. Complexity and recyclinginfrastructure were also mentioned, which is relatedto the responses regarding where products should becollected and processed and who should beresponsible.

CONCLUSION – CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this report finds that there is a clearcommitment to the use of rPET and to furtherincrease this going forward. However, the results ofthis survey make it clear that infrastructure,knowledge and financial viability need addressing asa matter of priority if the recycling of product at theirend-of-life is to become common place and waste ingeneral is to be reduced throughout the supply chain.

This report is the first of two pieces of research intothis subject, the second of which will be in the form ofqualitative questioning of a smaller sample set usingquestions developed from this quantitative study.

Copyright © 2020 European Outdoor Group.

European Outdoor Group is registered in Zug, Switzerland, CHE-110.337.967

No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or

redistributed without the prior written consent of the European Outdoor Group as well as the author.

For more information about this report, please contact us at +44 1539 727255.

You can also write to: [email protected] www.europeanoutdoorgroup.com

To cite this report: Turnbull, J.: “Understanding end-of-life and recycling practices

Part 1: Future goals and barriers within different tiers of the textile supply chain”.

European Outdoor Group, September 2020.

http://europeanoutdoorgroup.com

http://www.europeanoutdoorgroup.com/

understanding end-of-life and recycling practices · the questionnaire generated 36 responses. of...

Documents