Who Pays for Textile Recycling? Understanding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Textile recycling depends on much more than recycling technology alone. Collection systems, sorting facilities, transport, and specialised recycling plants all form part of the same value chain. But none of this infrastructure exists without investment. The obvious question is: who should pay for it?

For decades, the answer was simple: municipalities and taxpayers covered most of the costs of collecting and managing textile waste. Producers manufactured and sold garments, consumers bought them, and once those products reached the end of their lives, responsibility largely shifted to the public sector. As textile waste continued to grow, this model became increasingly difficult to sustain.

Europe's answer is Extended Producer Responsibility, better known as EPR. Despite its name, EPR is not simply another environmental tax. Its purpose is to preserve the value of materials by creating a stable source of funding for the systems that keep textiles in circulation. Instead of treating waste as somebody else's problem, producers contribute financially to managing the products they place on the market.

But where does this money actually go?

In most European countries, producers pay their contributions to Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs). These organisations manage the funds and invest them across the textile value chain. Depending on national implementation, EPR contributions can support separate collection systems, sorting facilities, preparation for reuse, recycling infrastructure, research and innovation, consumer awareness campaigns, and reporting systems needed to meet European requirements. Rather than disappearing into a government budget, the funds are intended to strengthen the infrastructure that makes circularity possible.

One of the most innovative aspects of the new EPR systems is eco-modulation. Instead of charging every product the same fee, contributions can be adjusted according to how easy a product is to recycle. A simple cotton T-shirt made from a single fibre may require a lower contribution than a garment combining polyester, elastane, metallic threads, decorative coatings, sequins, and plastic accessories. In other words, better product design can directly reduce the costs of end-of-life management. For the first time, recyclability becomes as much an economic incentive as it is an environmental objective.

This approach has already proven successful in other sectors. Deposit return systems for beverage containers operate on a similar principle: producers help finance collection infrastructure, making it possible to recover high-quality materials at scale. Textile EPR aims to achieve the same shift - creating reliable funding that supports collection, sorting, reuse, and recycling instead of relying solely on public budgets.

Perhaps the biggest opportunity created by EPR is that it encourages investment across the entire value chain. New sorting facilities, recycling technologies, digital traceability tools, logistics networks, and markets for recycled fibres all become part of the same economic system. Recycling is no longer viewed simply as waste management, but as a source of valuable secondary raw materials that can remain in circulation for much longer.

At RMP, we believe that well-designed EPR systems help turn waste into a resource, create the financial conditions needed for innovation, and encourage collaboration across the entire value chain. For businesses, this is not only about preparing for new requirements - it is about recognising the opportunities that emerge when materials are designed to retain their value long after their first use.