By Warren Koshofer and Maggie Franz
Every year, tons of unwanted garments end up in landfills across the United States. This waste problem continues to escalate, driven largely by the rise of "fast fashion," which prioritizes speed over sustainability and produces garments meant to be worn only a few times. This practice is at odds with the fashion industry's stated sustainability goals, which encourage designs that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling.
The Rise of Fast Fashion and Sustainability Efforts
For both fashion brands and consumers, focus has increasingly shifted to sustainability and circularity, which has become a 'make-or-break' factor for fashion brands. New York Fashion Week illustrated this shift clearly, serving as a platform for designers to showcase eco-friendly innovations that seek to marry style and environmental consciousness. For example, Christian Siriano showcased two pieces—a trench coat and a wide-leg pant set—made from Circ Lyocell, a fabric made using 40 percent recycled textile waste. Siriano’s choice not only underscored his commitment to integrating sustainability into fashion, but also showed that eco-friendly materials can deliver the same elegance as traditional fabrics.
For its part, Coach also transformed used leather jackets, chinos, and discarded pajamas into trendy, streetwear-inspired looks. By turning what could have been waste into fashion pieces, Coach tapped into Gen Z’s desire for both individuality and environmental responsibility. And in a fitting commentary on fashion’s waste problem, British performance artist Jeremy Hutchison took to the streets with his ‘Clothing Zombie,’ designed to portray the 92 million tons of textile waste produced globally each year. Hutchison, dressed as an eight-foot-tall ‘zombie’ made of discarded clothing, is still making daily appearances in New York to symbolize the fashion industry waste problem ‘zombie in the room’.
The Economic Challenges of Sustainability
Solving this waste problem and fostering sustainability through the use of natural materials to supplant synthetics is a daunting task. Two brands that had strong followings—New York’s Mara Hoffman and Australia’s Kit X—succumbed to the increased cost of natural materials, with the competitive fashion industry not shifting significantly enough to prioritize sustainability over the fast pace of production and staying ahead of trends. In addition to grappling with the increased cost of producing garments and getting them to market, fashion brands may have to deal with additional costs at the back end of a product’s useful life.
The Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024
Enter the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (the “Textile Recovery Act”), a bill approved by both houses of the California legislature earlier this month. This first-of-its-kind bill, now awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature by September 30, calls for the creation of an Extended Producer Responsibility Organization (EPRO) for apparel and other textile products, designed to manage the collection, sortation, and recycling of discarded products.
The proposed Textile Recovery Act requires companies that make clothing and other textiles sold in California to create a non-profit organization by 2026 that would set up hundreds of collection sites at thrift stores, begin mail-back programs, and implement additional recovery and recycling measures for discarded products. Clothing producers and retailers doing business in California will have to pay fees to the EPRO to finance the plan for collection, transportation, repair, sorting, and recycling of used garments. Similar programs already exist in California for the disposal of mattresses, carpets, and pharmaceuticals. For example, California’s Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act requires that mattress retailers take back customers’ used mattresses at no additional cost and then arrange and pay for recycling.
Industry Pushback and Revisions
It is no surprise that the Textile Recovery Act has met with significant pushback from various fashion industry trade groups, especially concerning who will be responsible for the costs of the EPRO. One contentious issue has been whether large third-party vendors like Amazon, Temu, and Shein—who sell substantial volumes of garments in California—would be required to contribute financially. In response to this, the bill was revised to include brands, retailers, and importers in the definition of “producers,” ensuring these large third-party platforms are held accountable.
Industry players also expressed concern over the types of recycling deemed acceptable. Fashion brands with existing take-back programs, resale, and reuse efforts wanted these initiatives recognized as valid recycling measures. The bill was adjusted to address some of these concerns, allowing advanced textile recycling to be included as an acceptable channel for the disposal of waste.
Compliance and Enforcement
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) will oversee the implementation of the Textile Recovery Act, which includes approving the EPRO and monitoring compliance. Clothing manufacturers, retailers, and third-party sellers who make over $1 million per year selling covered goods in California will be required to participate in the EPRO. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to $10,000 per day, or up to $50,000 per day for willful non-compliance.
Looking Ahead: Will the Textile Recovery Act Move the Needle?
Whether Governor Newsom signs the Textile Recovery Act by the end of the month remains to be seen. Should it pass, the legislation could have profound implications for an industry already grappling with the costs of sustainability.
On the one hand, the proposed law may spur further innovation, much like the creative recycling efforts showcased at New York Fashion Week by Christian Soriano and Coach. Designers and brands could be incentivized to adopt sustainable materials or explore ways to reuse second-hand goods, potentially reducing the volume of discarded garments. The rise of second-hand fashion, as seen in events like the Council of Fashion Designers of America’s “Pre-Loved Fashion Week,” could become a permanent fixture in the industry.
Conversely, the added costs of compliance could disproportionately burden smaller fashion brands, which already struggle to compete in a market dominated by fast fashion and larger players. These smaller companies may face the same fate as Mara Hoffman and Kit X or become targets for acquisition as the industry consolidates further.
One thing is certain: fashion industry players should monitor Governor Newsom’s decision closely. If signed into law, the Textile Recovery Act will necessitate significant adjustments to business models, and brands will need to prepare to shoulder the financial and logistical burdens that come with compliance.
This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.
