In February, a threadbare polycotton bedsheet landed on the desk of Simon Roberts, CEO of Sainsbury’s. A “protest by submit”, it had been despatched by the Sheffield-based designer, maker and eco activist Wendy Ward. “I bought this from Sainsbury’s no less than 10 years in the past,” she wrote within the accompanying letter. “It has served me effectively. Nevertheless, I’ve no sustainable choices obtainable for what I ought to do with it.” Past restore, it was too broken to donate to a charity store, she defined. She couldn’t compost it because it had been blended with polyester, and he or she couldn’t repurpose it as cleansing cloths, as, being polycotton, it wasn’t absorbent. And, she added, “I don’t need to put it right into a textile recycling assortment because the chances are it is going to be shipped abroad or incinerated and never recycled.” Ward certified her assertions with hyperlinks to revered sources – as a sustainable trend PhD pupil, she is effectively knowledgeable on such issues.
“The one motion I can personally take,” she continued, “is to place it into my normal waste bin. I don’t need to do that, as in Sheffield all normal waste is incinerated as ‘power restoration’. This isn’t a sustainable possibility as such processes have been proven to be as damaging to native air air pollution as burning coal.” So, she concluded, “as Sainsbury’s is liable for designing and manufacturing this product, making selections to make use of polycotton without any consideration for what could possibly be carried out as soon as it reaches the tip of its life, I’ve determined to return it to you. I’d actually love to listen to what you resolve to do with it.”
Sainsbury’s response, despatched from its govt workplace, was “a lame fob-off”, Ward says, and skim as if it had been “minimize and pasted from a complaints template”. (Pattern platitude: “Sainsbury’s all the time welcome suggestions from prospects.”) However when she shared her protest along with her 20,000 Instagram followers, the resounding approval – “Good!” “Please add your template” – motivated her to launch a marketing campaign: #TakeItBack. She created an adaptable, intentionally non-combative letter (“Should you’re confrontational, it gained’t go anyplace,” she tells me), and inspired her followers to return their useless garments to manufacturers. “It’s an empowering motion,” she says. “I used to be wresting again a little bit of management as a client.”
I joined Ward’s #TakeItBack marketing campaign, sending my daughter’s ravaged college tights to Marks & Spencer’s CEO, Stuart Machin. To the UK heads of Uniqlo and H&M, I despatched my children’ broken polyester-blend T-shirts, and to French Connection’s CEO, a greyed, misshapen T-shirt of mine that’s so timeworn, it’s clear, all accompanied by a model of Ward’s letter. I do know they’ve all been acquired, as a result of I tracked them, on Ward’s recommendation; equally, I washed the whole lot first. M&S was the primary to reply, reminding me about its “industry-leading sustainability programme”, Plan A, and its take-back scheme. Uniqlo despatched a letter acknowledging mine, and “will reply as quickly as potential”. I haven’t heard again from H&M or French Connection but.
Ward recommends following up in the event that they don’t reply the important thing questions: “What would you counsel I do with this merchandise?” and “What are you really doing about this downside?” She’s not sure how many individuals have joined her marketing campaign, although she doesn’t count on huge numbers but: “I do know I’m preaching to the transformed.”
You could be pondering: why not donate your undesirable garments and different textiles to a charity store? Finish-of-life textiles have for a few years been a invaluable income stream for charities. Rag retailers would purchase them by weight and promote them on to be down-cycled into stuffing, blankets, wipes and so forth. However many UK charity outlets are actually “having to spend cash eliminating waste textiles”, says Daybreak Dungate, an impartial guide who advises charities on textile recycling. Certainly, Ward’s protest was impressed by an indication in her native charity store asking prospects to eliminate “broken, torn or worn-out objects” within the bin, “as the price of disposal could be very excessive”.
The rising rag mountain notably impacts impartial charity outlets and small chains, which lack the donation volumes of larger chains to woo textile collectors into taking their scrap (they’re primarily concerned about reusable objects for export). “We will’t afford to upset our rag service provider,” says Emma King of Somerset-based Weston Hospicecare charity outlets. “In the event that they cease coming, our inventory rooms turn into a well being and security nightmare, and we are able to’t settle for extra donations.” King considers herself “fortunate” – they’re nonetheless getting paid for his or her unsold textiles: “Ten years in the past, although, we’d get 65p per kilo. Now it’s simply 10p.” They attempt to promote their scrap in-store, advertising and marketing it as upcycling initiatives and craft cloth. Extra distant outlets in Cornwall and Devon are having to drive their waste clothes up the nation, she says, “as a result of it’s not financially viable for retailers to drive to them”; many outlets are actually compelled to refuse donations.
My native impartial charity store, Second Life in East Sussex, discovered itself in “a disaster state of affairs”, says supervisor Naomi Phitidis. In December, the rag service provider stopped coming, complaining that it was receiving an excessive amount of end-of-life clothes (the store had been donating the very best of its unsold textiles to native charities for homeless folks, rescue animals and households in want). “As a result of it prices the rag man to recycle scrap, they needed the great things too,” Phitidis says. “And we weren’t even getting remunerated for it – it was simply to get it out of the store.” However the workforce felt uncomfortable about their unsold clothes going to Ghana, and their scrap to Pakistan, a worldwide hub for textile recycling (that’s customary follow, by the way in which – the environmental motion charity Wrap experiences that, of the 469,000 tonnes of used textiles that handed by means of UK sorters and graders in 2022, 425,000 tonnes had been exported). So as a substitute they reluctantly determined to have the scrap incinerated regionally (at a price), and to renew donating regionally, thus avoiding “waste colonialism”. “It’s miserable,” says Phitidis. “Making the precise selection is so troublesome.” Second Life now asks prospects to not donate stained or broken clothes: “We needed to say sure to it, but it surely’s simply an excessive amount of.”
The disaster is going on downstream, too. To know why end-of-life textiles pose such an issue, we have to have a look at the industries coping with them – the collectors, sorters and recyclers. The sector is going through “partial collapse”, in line with a forthcoming Wrap report, seen solely by the Guardian. “Not everybody goes to make it by means of,” Wrap’s senior textiles specialist, Cristina Sabaiduc, tells me. Wrap discovered that the UK’s worn-out textiles are costing collectors and sorters £88m yearly to gather and course of – no surprise they don’t need them. Given this monetary burden, Sabaiduc predicts that “textile banks in our neighbourhoods will disappear and charity outlets will not take donations; charities should pay to incinerate [waste] and we’ll be placing stuff within the bin, even when we don’t need to.” The lack of income will likely be deadly for some companies, she provides.
It’s already occurring. A decade in the past, there have been “60 or 70 sorting and grading corporations”, says Dungate. “Now solely a dozen stay … This market was booming, but it surely’s come to a crunch level.”
after publication promotion
Many imagine quick trend to be the wrongdoer. A 2024 Wrap report defined that the “saturation of low-quality quick trend” implies that charity outlets are promoting fewer used garments, and are subsequently sending extra to rag retailers. The low high quality “leads to much less revenue for reuse and recycling sectors”, which ends up in a rise in offshoring – ie it’s simply not definitely worth the trouble right here. Numerous store managers inform me quick trend doesn’t promote effectively for them as a result of it dates shortly and doesn’t put on effectively over time (in line with the European Fee, 50% of garments are discarded attributable to pilling and color fading). At Second Life, volunteers filter roughly 250kg of unsold clothes each fortnight – and that’s only one small store.
With the market flooded with unsaleable used clothes, it’s inevitable that scrap holds minimal worth. What’s extra, there isn’t a enterprise case for what Ward calls “true recycling”, the place undesirable textiles are recycled into new, fashion-grade materials (often called fibre-to-fibre recycling). In line with Ross Barry of LMB Textiles, fibre-to-fibre recycling is dearer – and far more durable to do – than shopping for virgin polyester – “the most cost effective type of plastic going”. Unsurprisingly, progress with fibre-to-fibre recycling has been minimal: “It’s not even at a drop-in-the-ocean stage but,” says Barry (recycled-polyester clothes is usually created from plastic bottles, not outdated garments). Apart from, artificial garments have a excessive calorific worth, states the {industry} web site Recycling Inside, which means that incineration for power restoration makes business sense – not least when virtually 70% of all textiles comprise human-made fibres.
OK, however what concerning the many fast-fashion take-back schemes, the place you possibly can drop off undesirable, used clothes to be reused or recycled (H&M, Primark, Zara)? Sadly, there’s little proof to show they’re sustainable. A 2023 investigation by the environmental marketing campaign group Altering Markets Basis (CMF), entitled Take-back Trickery, discovered that 75% of clothes donated to trend shops – amongst them, Marks & Spencer, H&M, Zara and Nike – was destroyed, deserted in warehouses or despatched abroad. Since then, says CMF’s Urska Trunk, “We’ve seen no indication that the state of affairs has modified – take-back is textbook greenwashing.”
A 2024 report by Remake, a sustainable trend motion group, discovered that not one of the main trend manufacturers evaluated had been sufficiently clear about what occurs to clothes collected by means of take-back programmes. (Reskinned’s take-back scheme, run by LMB, could possibly be a greater mannequin – it collaborates with 32 manufacturers together with Finisterre, Seasalt Cornwall and Sweaty Betty, and says it resells solely to the worldwide north. The remainder is repurposed by designers equivalent to ELV Denim and Ahluwalia, or recycled into insulation, stuffing, wipes, and so forth.)
So you possibly can see why aware shoppers need to take fast-fashion manufacturers to activity. Ward has additionally despatched her companion’s denims again to Sainsbury’s, as a result of, she says, “the elastane has degraded, in order that they have saggy knees and that bizarre fluting, and I can’t consider a strategy to treatment the issue”. Eilidh Weir, a Perthshire-based artist, additionally despatched her children’ artificial college trousers again to Sainsbury’s. “They had been second- or third-hand, I’d already mended them, and so they had been trying actually ratty,” she says. “I wouldn’t really feel proper handing them on, and I don’t need them to finish up in poorer nations – or the bin.” Sainsbury’s declined to touch upon these points when contacted.
The very fact stays that doing the precise factor with our garments after they die appears like a “actually troublesome, unsolvable downside”, says Ward. Issues could possibly be completely different, she believes, if the coverage of prolonged producer duty (EPR) – which holds corporations accountable for his or her merchandise’ end-of-life impression – had been enforced (Ward calls her marketing campaign “guerilla EPR”). Whereas there are not any plans to legislate for textiles EPR within the UK, the EU is predicted to implement obligatory EPR for textiles throughout the subsequent couple of years. EPR is important, says Dungate, “to be able to fund the infrastructure for gathering, sorting and recycling [waste clothing]”. However, Ward provides, “many really feel cynical about whether or not our authorities has the balls to do it”.
Ward hopes her #TakeItBack marketing campaign will illuminate what she views as a “hidden downside” – she likens charity outlets and rag retailers to “Wombles eliminating stuff that we don’t must be confronted with. Individuals assume they’re doing a superb factor and that their garbage will likely be of some use, however I believe your common individual could be shocked in the event that they had been confronted with the fact.”
