With the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), textile producers are made responsible for a large part of the lifecycle of their products, including the waste phase. In the Netherlands, EPR systems already exist for car tyres and end-of-life vehicles, packaging, electronic equipment, and batteries and accumulators. From 2023, an EPR system for textiles will also be added to this list.

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has drafted a draft 'General Administrative Order' (AMvB) for this purpose. Recycling Netwerk, together with the Plastic Soup Foundation, has formulated a critical response in its submitted opinion. Both the objectives and the governance of the new EPR system fall short. We are asking the government to introduce an independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles. In addition, there must be a focus on prevention, reuse, and high-quality recycling. For this, close attention must be paid to product design and raw material reduction.

Towards a circular economy

It is of great importance that the Dutch government takes raw material reduction as a starting point when designing environmental regulations. Only through far-reaching raw material reduction can we reduce the impact of various industries on the environment and the climate.

The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the draft AMvB states that "textiles […] are one of the most polluting industries worldwide, wasting a lot of raw materials" (p. 5). In addition to CO2 emissions, textiles are also highly burdensome for land and water consumption. During the production and use of textiles, chemical substances and microplastics are released into the environment. The government must address the impact of textiles on the environment and climate more clearly and must explain how the current proposal helps to reduce that impact. This is currently not happening sufficiently.

Enforceability of regulations 

In addition, it is important that the statutory targets are enforceable. That is a lesson the government must learn from the problems with the EPR regarding glass recycling. For years, the producer responsibility organisation Stichting Afvalfonds failed to meet the targets for glass recycling. But that never led to enforcement or sanctions. Through a lawsuit in 2019, RNB attempted to force the government to act when the producer responsibility organisation Stichting Afvalfonds Verpakkingen failed to meet the recycling targets for glass packaging. The Council of State ultimately decided that Stichting Afvalfonds could not be held responsible for this because they were dependent on third parties (such as municipalities) to meet the targets.

With this regrettable state of affairs in mind, we would like to see the government ensure that it can also enforce the targets for textiles, regardless of the level of ambition at which they are formulated. It is important to realise this for all regulations in which producers are made responsible for environmental goals, so not just for the EPR textile scheme. The environment does not benefit when targets only exist on paper and are not implemented in practice because there is no enforcement or no sanctions for non-compliance. 

Regulations on the lobbying practices of producer responsibility organisations

As we raised in an earlier article, the governance of EPR systems in the Netherlands falls short. Producer responsibility organisations, which implement policy on behalf of individual producers, in some cases use their strategic position to lobby against environmental policy. It is unacceptable that producer responsibility organisations, which are established by legislation to achieve an environmental goal, often turn out to be firm lobbyists on behalf of producers.

Given the pivotal role and social purpose of producer responsibility organisations, the government should monitor this closely. Therefore, we ask the government to introduce regulations on the lobbying practices of producer responsibility organisations.

The Netherlands lags behind other European member states when it comes to lobbying regulations, according to research by the OECD. The government should, among other things, establish that producer responsibility organisations, based on their expertise, should only inform policy, but not influence it.

Independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles

The government mainly coordinates policy around the sustainability of product groups with producers and producer responsibility organisations, even though it concerns environmental legislation for the general public interest. We believe it is important for the government to consult a diverse group of actors in the policy process, so that a better picture of feasibility and effectiveness is created.

We therefore advocate for the introduction of an independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles. This proposal is based on the advice of Utrecht University, d

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has drafted a draft 'General Administrative Order' (AMvB) for this purpose. Recycling Netwerk, together with the Plastic Soup Foundation, has formulated a critical response in its submitted opinion. Both the objectives and the governance of the new EPR system fall short. We are asking the government to introduce an independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles. In addition, there must be a focus on prevention, reuse, and high-quality recycling. For this, close attention must be paid to product design and raw material reduction.

Towards a circular economy

It is of great importance that the Dutch government takes raw material reduction as a starting point when designing environmental regulations. Only through far-reaching raw material reduction can we reduce the impact of various industries on the environment and the climate.

In the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the draft AMvB, it states that "textiles […] are one of the most polluting industries worldwide, wasting a lot of raw materials" (p. 5). In addition to CO2 emissions, textiles are also highly burdensome for land and water consumption. During the production and use of textiles, chemical substances and microplastics are released into the environment. The government must address the impact of textiles on the environment and climate more clearly and must explain how the current proposal helps to reduce that impact. This is currently not happening sufficiently.

Enforceability of regulations

In addition, it is important that the statutory targets are enforceable. That is a lesson the government must learn from the problems with the EPR regarding glass recycling. For years, the producer responsibility organisation Stichting Afvalfonds failed to meet the targets for glass recycling. But that never led to enforcement or sanctions. Through a lawsuit in 2019, RNB attempted to force the government to act when the producer responsibility organisation Stichting Afvalfonds Verpakkingen failed to meet the recycling targets for glass packaging. The Council of State ultimately decided that Stichting Afvalfonds could not be held responsible for this because they were dependent on third parties (such as municipalities) to meet the targets.

With this regrettable state of affairs in mind, we would like to see the government ensure that it can also enforce the targets for textiles, regardless of the level of ambition at which they are formulated. It is important to realise this for all regulations in which producers are made responsible for environmental goals, so not just for the EPR textile scheme. The environment does not benefit when targets only exist on paper and are not implemented in practice because there is no enforcement or no sanctions for non-compliance.

Regulations on the lobbying practices of producer responsibility organisations

As we raised in an earlier article, the governance of EPR systems in the Netherlands falls short. Producer responsibility organisations, which implement policy on behalf of individual producers, in some cases use their strategic position to lobby against environmental policy. It is unacceptable that producer responsibility organisations, which are established by legislation to achieve an environmental goal, often turn out to be firm lobbyists on behalf of producers.

Given the pivotal role and social purpose of producer responsibility organisations, the government should monitor this closely. Therefore, we ask the government to introduce regulations on the lobbying practices of producer responsibility organisations.

The Netherlands lags behind other European member states when it comes to lobbying regulations, according to research by the OECD. The government should, among other things, establish that producer responsibility organisations, based on their expertise, should only inform policy, but not influence it.

Independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles

The government mainly coordinates policy around the sustainability of product groups with producers and producer responsibility organisations, even though it concerns environmental legislation for the general public interest. We believe it is important for the government to consult a diverse group of actors in the policy process, so that a better picture of feasibility and effectiveness is created.

We therefore advocate for the introduction of an independent organisation for circular value chain management of textiles. This proposal is based on the advice of Utrecht University, which states that the financial and operational responsibility for achieving circular objectives must be separated from the strategic objectives. This organisation (or possibly a management tier within the EPR organisation) formulates strategic objectives for the EPR system and monitors the transparency of the organisation. The organisation must consist of a broader group of actors involved in the transition to a circular economy, so not just producers.

Prevention target for a reduction in textile production

The targets as proposed in the draft AMvB may seem ambitious, but our thorough analysis reveals they fall short on several points. For instance, the Rebel/Tauw study "Towards an EPR for textiles", which serves as the basis for the present AMvB, states: "targets must stimulate. They must (1) be achievable, but not too easy, (2) be capable of being tightened over time, and (3) be measurable without too much discussion."

In our view, the government has completely forgotten in the draft AMvB that targets must steer based on environmental impact. As we pointed out above, the reasoning does not seem to start from the environmental impact of the textile industry, but mainly from a cost-benefit analysis.

Although the draft AMvB does talk about the waste hierarchy, the highest level of the waste hierarchy, prevention, seems to be completely missing from the proposal. This is remarkable given that the main question of the Rebel/Tauw study is: "what objectives (based on the circular textiles policy programme) can be formulated in the field of at least prevention, reuse, and recycling of textiles, in order to ensure a more circular textile chain?" Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive also states that when drafting legislation and policy initiatives, the waste hierarchy is maintained when setting priorities.

We therefore advocate for the introduction of a prevention target regarding the quantity of textiles placed on the market per calendar year. The article should:

determine a reference year for the quantity of textiles placed on the market. We propose that this is 2022;

formulate prevention targets for 2026 to 2030 relative to the reference year. This could be, for example, -2% in 2026, rising to 10% less weight of textiles placed on the market in 2030.

Encouraging both reuse and recycling

The combined targets must contribute to the transition to a circular system for textiles. The preparation-for-reuse and recycling target of 75% in 2030 therefore seems to be a big step in the right direction. However, these targets present a distorted picture. Because a maximum percentage of 100% is assumed, the set target seems to achieve ¾ of this. But the actual percentage is not 100%, but 200%. For preparation for reuse, a percentage of 100% can in theory be achieved. The same applies to recycling. This means that the target of 50% in 2025 and 75% in 2030 must be set against a theoretical maximum of 200%. There are various reasons why that 200% will not be achieved, but the draft AMvB should pay attention to this issue. It must be made clear why this specific target was chosen and why the targets for 'reuse' and 'recycling'

Recycling Netwerk and Plastic Soup Foundation are of the opinion that the arguments for combined targets do not lead to optimal outcomes for the environment. The underlying study by Rebel and Tauw advocates for a combined target with the argument that this allows producers to make an optimal 'economic and ecological' trade-off themselves (p. 23). However, producer responsibility organisations look for the most efficient (read: cheapest) way to achieve the statutory targets. Producer responsibility organisations go for what is cheapest for them. The system is not designed in such a way that if a producer chooses the route that would be best for the environment, they are rewarded for this through, for example, financial relief. The only thing imposed through regulations is the achievement of targets. Producers will always do that in the cheapest way.

Therefore, in our view, it would be more logical to formulate separate targets, so that it can be guaranteed that both reuse and recycling are maximised. Why a trade-off was chosen within the current targets is unclear.

In our view, a combined target can be useful as an addition to ambitious targets for prevention, preparation-for-reuse, and recycling. As more and more is recycled and reused, the 'law of diminishing returns' kicks in, making it increasingly expensive to achieve reuse and recycling. An applied example: 60% recycling and 40% reuse are individually achievable targets. But the extra steps are often the most expensive, and then a combined target of over 100% would give producers the freedom to achieve the extra environmental gain in the most cost-efficient way.

We therefore think that the level of ambition of the targets falls short. If we follow the reasoning above, then if the combined targets are kept in the final AMvB, the percentage should be above 100%. A target must also be achievable, so that may be a reason to choose the current level of ambition. However, the current targets seem to have been determined mainly 'intuitively'.

The environmental crises we are facing are so urgent that it is necessary to formulate the highest possible targets that are also achievable. The government has not done this.

Based on the information available, we propose a combined target of 122%, to be achieved in 2030. This figure is based on the expectation that at least 80% can be separately collected and recycled. Of the textiles collected separately, 53% will be reused (which is currently the case according to "Massabalans Textiel 2018" by Ffact). We assume that the share of reuse of what is separately collected can remain at the same level of 53%. This brings us to a combined percentage of 80% + 53% * 80% = 122.4%. In these targets, it must be taken into account that for both preparation-for-reuse and reuse in the Netherlands, the initial percentage must be increased. In the current proposal, the targets for 2025 are conservative. We propose that the targets steer towards raw material reduction from the very beginning and must therefore immediately yield improvement compared to current recycling and reuse rates.

Evaluate faster

The draft regulations state that the measures will be evaluated after five years at the latest. However, we recommend evaluating three years after the regulations take effect (i.e. early 2026). If it turns out that textile producers are not meeting the set targets, the government must, given the seriousness of this polluting waste stream, take extra measures. However, if it turns out that textile producers have been able to achieve the targets relatively easily, the government must adjust the targets upwards. The target must be geared towards reducing the environmental impact of textile production as much as possible, not on what the producers involved describe as 'feasible' themselves.

Make textile producers also responsible for textiles in residual waste

In the draft decree, the government limits the responsibility of textile producers to the portion that is collected separately. But also for the portion that is not collected separately, the responsibility should lie with the producers. The government can achieve this by making textile producers pay for the collection and recycling of textiles that end up in residual waste, or by introducing a tax on the quantity of textiles present in residual waste.

Eco-modulation

It is important that the government encourages textile producers to pursue higher reuse and recycling targets than the legal minimum. We therefore advocate for the application of eco-modulation based on the model of the French EPR for textiles. This contains a bonus-malus system that, among other things, rewards producers for 1) a demonstrably longer lifespan of their products, 2) the use of recycled materials coming from the post-consumer phase in their products, and 3) the use of recycled materials coming from the post-production phase in their products. It is important here that the government investigates which rates should be used within the bonus-malus system to actually encourage producers.

Microplastics have a major impact on the environment and human health (see Barboza et al, 2018; Wright and Kelly, 2017; Zarus et al., 2021). Fish and shellfish ingest the microplastics present in the sea, after which they enter the human body through the consumption of these animals. Other animals become entangled in them or suffocate. Microplastics also appear to influence human hormone levels.