Clothing take-back schemes have issues: downcycling, limited resale, lost items, and shipment to Africa with poor waste management. Schemes promote more consumption.

Clothing take-back schemes by fashion brands have flaws: downcycling, limited resale, lost items, and shipment to Africa with poor waste management. Many schemes incentivize more consumption. As EU legislation emerges, brands lack control over returned clothes, and producer responsibility should include sorting, investment in end-of-life, and measures to reduce overproduction.

This investigation exposes flaws in clothing take-back schemes operated by fashion brands. Trackers revealed four key issues: Downcycling and destruction of items in good condition, limited resale, items lost in limbo, and shipment to African countries with inadequate waste management. The global collection company SOEX handled six tracked items, three of which were shipped to Africa while the rest were downcycled. Many take-back schemes also incentivize further consumption, perpetuating fast fashion. As EU legislation on waste trade and discarded clothes emerges, the role of these schemes must be understood. Brands lack traceability and control over returned clothes, and producer responsibility should include proper sorting, investment in end-of-life management, and measures to reduce overproduction.

This investigation exposes the shortcomings of clothing take-back schemes operated by fashion brands. Through the use of discreet trackers, the study followed 21 items submitted to ten brands' take-back programs in Europe, uncovering four key issues:

Downcycling and Destruction: Seven items in good condition were quickly destroyed, dumped, or downcycled into lower-quality products, disregarding the waste hierarchy that prioritizes prevention and reuse.

Limited Resale: Only five items found a second life, either in a second-hand shop or with a customer on the same continent. Two were even sent to Ukraine, adding to the burden of a country at war.

Lost in Limbo: Multiple items became ensnared in the global used clothing trade, lingering for months in indeterminate locations or never leaving their original drop-off point. Brands have benefited from the reputational gains of take-back schemes without actually doing anything with the collected clothes.

Shipped to Africa: The most concerning finding, where items entered second-hand clothing markets in countries with inadequate waste management, often ending up in landfills or being burned. Two C&A and two H&M items were in this category, traveling thousands of kilometers.

The investigation also identified key players, such as the global collection and recycling company SOEX, which handled six of the tracked items. Despite the items being in good condition, three were shipped to Africa, and the rest were downcycled, suggesting a focus on waste disposal rather than finding new homes in Europe.

Furthermore, many take-back schemes compound the problem by offering incentives for customers to immediately purchase more products, perpetuating the fast-fashion model that drives excessive consumption and waste.

As critical legislation gathers pace in the EU to regulate the waste trade and the life of discarded clothes, it is vital that the role of take-back schemes is properly understood and integrated into the legislation. The findings show that brands have very little traceability and control over the fate of the returned clothes, and producer responsibility must include proper sorting, investments into better end-of-life management, and upstream measures to reduce overproduction.

Take-Back Trickery: An Investigation into Clothing Take-Back Schemes

Fashion brands often promote take-back schemes as a convenient way for consumers to return unwanted clothes, promising to give them a second life through donation or recycling. However, this investigation reveals a discrepancy between brands' claims and the actual fate of the collected clothing.

Through the use of discreet AirTag trackers, the investigation tracked 21 items submitted to ten fashion brands' take-back schemes in the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany. The findings expose the shortcomings of these schemes, categorized into four groups:

1. Downcycled or Destroyed: Seven items were quickly destroyed, dumped, or downcycled into lower-quality products, despite being in good condition. This indicates a disregard for the waste hierarchy, which prioritizes prevention and reuse before recycling.

2. Resold within Europe: Only five items found a second life, either in a second-hand shop or with a customer on the same continent. One item was resold in the same country, while two were sent to Ukraine, adding to the burden of waste experienced by a country at war.

3. Lost in Limbo: Multiple items became ensnared in the global used clothing trade, lingering for months in indeterminate locations and warehouses, or never leaving their original drop-off location. Brands have benefited from the reputational gains of operating a take-back scheme without actually doing anything with the collected clothes.

4. Shipped to Africa: The most concerning category, where items entered massive second-hand clothing markets in countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in a significant portion being bound for landfill or burned. Two C&A items and two H&M items were in this category, traveling thousands of kilometers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritania, and Mali.

The investigation also identified key players in the system, such as the global collection, sorting, and recycling company SOEX, which handled six of the tracked items. Despite the items being in good, resellable condition, three were shipped to Africa, and the remainder were downcycled, suggesting the company's focus is more on waste disposal than finding new homes for the items in Europe.

Furthermore, many take-back schemes compound the problem by offering vouchers, discounts, or member points for customers to immediately purchase more products, perpetuating the fast-fashion model that drives excessive consumption and waste.

As critical legislation gathers pace in the EU to regulate the waste trade and the life of the clothes we throw out, it is vital that the role of take-back schemes in this system is properly understood and integrated into the legislation. The findings show that brands have very little traceability and control over what happens to the clothes returned, even in the schemes they operate. Producer responsibility must include and finance proper sorting and investments into better end-of-life management, as well as upstream measures that lead to the reduction of overproduction.

In conclusion, the investigation exposes the discrepancy between brands' claims and the actual fate of the collected clothing, revealing that take-back schemes often offer consumers a false sense of environmental responsibility, tricking them into thinking they are making a responsible choice.