Any attempt to reduce the 200,000 tonnes of textile waste Australia sends to landfill hills every year must begin with a campaign to curb overproduction and overconsumption of clothing, say QUT researchers.
- Australians are world's most avid clothes buyers: we have textile landfill hills to match
- We buy the equivalent of 56 new pieces each of clothing a year
- Fast fashion fuels the waste mounds with largely synthetic fabric that pollutes landfill and waterways
- Mandatory product stewardship regulations on the horizon if voluntary schemes fail to curb overproduction and overconsumption
Any attempt to reduce the 200,000 tonnes of textile waste Australia sends to landfill hills every year must begin with a campaign to curb overproduction and overconsumption of clothing, say QUT researchers.
Professor Rowena Maguire from QUT School of Law led an analysis of submissions from textile stakeholders to the 2019 Senate Standing Inquiry into Waste, including the textile specific session, run in 2019.
The researchers grouped the submissions broadly into retailers, for-profit and non-profit recyclers, industry bodies, the public, community groups and activists who provided suggestions on what to do about Australia's growing mounds of textile waste.
"We are the world's number one buyers of clothing with 56 new pieces a year, yet we already have in circulation enough clothing to last 100 years," Professor Maguire said.
"The clothing industry produces about between 2-8 per cent of global emissions, relies on synthetic materials that pollute landfill and run-off water with microplastics.
"Add to this the questionable labour practices where these items are produced, the export of unwanted, often unusable, clothing to poor countries where much of it ends up in landfill, and we have an ongoing human rights and environmental disaster on our hands."
"Some European countries have taken mandatory measures to dampen over consumption with, for example, France's Ultra-Fast Fashion tax which will in the future add about A$16 to each item of ultra-fast fashion," Professor Maguire said.
"This tax is targeted at the cheap, rapidly changing fashions from the likes of Temu and Shein but exempts European based labels such as H&M and Zara."
Professor Maguire said Australia had relatively weak regulations on textiles. Australia has no national policy on textile circularity and sustainability and many of the circular economy policies and strategies and both the Commonwealth and State levels do not address textiles in any detail.
As textiles have not previously been highly regulated, reform has started with a voluntary scheme which is seeking to bring textile industry stakeholders on the journey of product stewardship changing obligations and to build capacity for textile recycling in preparation for a potential future mandatory scheme.
"Seamless puts a 4-cent levy on each new item put on the market that was intended to raise $36 million annually to develop: circular design incorporating easier to recycle, more durable or recycled content; circular business models to extend the useful life of clothing; behaviour change and incentivised collection and recycling infrastructure."
Co researcher Professor Amanda Kennedy, from QUT's School of Law, said participation in the scheme had seen around 60 brands and retailers involved.
"Ultra-fast fashion such as Temu and Shein are not covered by the scheme, raising issues around free-riding resulting in a few good brands and retailing footing the bill for ultra-fashion recycling," Professor Kennedy said.
"This lack of buy-in could lead to mandatory regulations.
"The most common solution suggested by stakeholders was a circular economy with industry bodies and retailers seeing textile waste as a problem to be managed and thus did not question their sale practices which are centred on mass consumption.
"They viewed the problem as requiring governments to lead the way and invest in new recycling technology to repurpose textiles."
The analysis found that charitable recyclers focused on the social good of the collection and resale of clothing nationally, Professor Kennedy said.
"Charities also avoided framing the problem in which the Global North is responsible for the flow of textile 'waste' to the Global South, and highlighted, instead, the economic benefits of export and the move to an accreditation scheme to ensure only usable clothing is exported."
Professor Kennedy said viewing 'waste' as a problem only after it was created meant options to prevent waste in the first instance, through better design or consideration of curbing overall production and consumption, were absent.
"A circular economy is not just better waste collection and recycling. It calls for a systematic shift in the way waste is viewed and how materials and products are valued," she said.
"The circular economy seeks to promote a transition from managing waste to focusing on preserving resources."
The research was conducted by Professor Maguire and Professor Kennedy, from QUT's School of Law, Professor Alice Payne from RMIT, and Annastasia Bousgas.
The study, Regulating the 'trouble' of used textiles: Insights from Australia, was published in the Environmental and Planning Law Journal.
- We buy the equivalent of 56 new pieces each of clothing a year
- Fast fashion fuels the waste mounds with largely synthetic fabric that pollutes landfill and waterways
- Mandatory product stewardship regulations on the horizon if voluntary schemes fail to curb overproduction and overconsumption
Professor Rowena Maguire from QUT School of Law led an analysis of submissions from textile stakeholders to the 2019 Senate Standing Inquiry into Waste, including the textile specific session, run in 2019.
The researchers grouped the submissions broadly into retailers, for-profit and non-profit recyclers, industry bodies, the public, community groups and activists who provided suggestions on what to do about Australia's growing mounds of textile waste.
"We are the world's number one buyers of clothing with 56 new pieces a year, yet we already have in circulation enough clothing to last 100 years," Professor Maguire said.
"The clothing industry produces about between 2-8 per cent of global emissions, relies on synthetic materials that pollute landfill and run-off water with microplastics.
"Add to this the questionable labour practices where these items are produced, the export of unwanted, often unusable, clothing to poor countries where much of it ends up in landfill, and we have an ongoing human rights and environmental disaster on our hands."
"Some European countries have taken mandatory measures to dampen over consumption with, for example, France's Ultra-Fast Fashion tax which will in the future add about A$16 to each item of ultra-fast fashion," Professor Maguire said.
"This tax is targeted at the cheap, rapidly changing fashions from the likes of Temu and Shein but exempts European based labels such as H&M and Zara."
Professor Maguire said Australia had relatively weak regulations on textiles. Australia has no national policy on textile circularity and sustainability and many of the circular economy policies and strategies and both the Commonwealth and State levels do not address textiles in any detail.
As textiles have not previously been highly regulated, reform has started with a voluntary scheme which is seeking to bring textile industry stakeholders on the journey of product stewardship changing obligations and to build capacity for textile recycling in preparation for a potential future mandatory scheme.
"Seamless puts a 4-cent levy on each new item put on the market that was intended to raise $36 million annually to develop: circular design incorporating easier to recycle, more durable or recycled content; circular business models to extend the useful life of clothing; behaviour change and incentivised collection and recycling infrastructure."
Co researcher Professor Amanda Kennedy, head of QUT's School of Law, said participation in the scheme had seen around 60 brands and retailers involved.
"Ultra-fast fashion such as Temu and Shein are not covered by the scheme, raising issues around free-riding resulting in a few good brands and retailing footing the bill for ultra-fashion recycling," Professor Kennedy said.
"This lack of buy-in could lead to mandatory regulations.
"The most common solution suggested by stakeholders was a circular economy with industry bodies and retailers seeing textile waste as a problem to be managed and thus did not question their sale practices which are centred on mass consumption.
"They viewed the problem as requiring governments to lead the way and invest in new recycling technology to repurpose textiles."
The analysis found that charitable recyclers focused on the social good of the collection and resale of clothing nationally, Professor Kennedy said.
"Charities also avoided framing the problem in which the Global North is responsible for the flow of textile 'waste' to the Global South, and highlighted, instead, the economic benefits of export and the move to an accreditation scheme to ensure only usable clothing is exported."
Professor Kennedy said viewing 'waste' as a problem only after it was created meant options to prevent waste in the first instance, through better design or consideration of curbing overall production and consumption, were absent.
"A circular economy is not just better waste collection and recycling. It calls for a systematic shift in the way waste is viewed and how materials and products are valued," she said.
"The circular economy seeks to promote a transition from managing waste to focusing on preserving resources."
The research was conducted by Professor Maguire and Professor Kennedy, from QUT's School of Law, Professor Alice Payne from RMIT, and Annastasia Bousgas.
The study, Regulating the 'trouble' of used textiles: Insights from Australia, was published in the Environmental and Planning Law Journal.
