End-of-life textiles: Two streams with major differences
In Denmark, we distinguish between two streams of discarded textiles: textiles collected for reuse and textile waste collected by municipalities.
UFF Humana has several decades of experience collecting and handling textiles for reuse. In recent years, the organisation has also entered the textile waste market and now handles this fraction on behalf of municipalities.
UFF Humana therefore has in-depth knowledge of the composition of both streams.
This is why Tekstilretur, together with our Nordic colleagues, visited UFF Humana to gain a closer insight into the differences between the two streams.
This insight is important because the collection of textiles for reuse will also be covered by the extended producer responsibility rules under the Waste Framework Directive.
One of the major changes coming in 2028 is that textiles handed in by citizens will always be classified as waste, even when they are handed in for the purpose of reuse. They can only be reclassified as reusable textiles following a professional assessment.
Following the sorting of reusable textiles collected by social enterprises, the discarded textile waste could be transferred to producer responsibility organisations such as Tekstilretur. This makes it relevant to also gain a better understanding of what this stream consists of.
In 2024, municipalities collected 6,700 tonnes of textile waste, while social enterprises collected 52,800 tonnes of textiles for reuse.
Only around half of all textiles are separately collected from households, while it is estimated that the other half ends up in general waste or incineration.
UFF Humana continuously collects data on the composition of the two streams, and the data shows that they are very different.
The most significant difference between the two streams is their quality.
There is considerably less material suitable for reuse in the textile waste stream. At the same time, this is the part of the textiles that has the highest value and for which producers will take over responsibility from 2028.
On the other hand, a large proportion of textile waste is unusable, often due to moisture or dirt.
There is therefore significant potential to move more of these materials higher up the waste hierarchy, allowing more textiles to be reused or recycled. This could lead to both better results and improved economics.
This is something we at Tekstilretur will be looking into more closely.
UFF Humana has also started exploring repair and preparation for reuse on a smaller scale. They have established a workshop with a small sewing facility that works with good-quality textiles that cannot immediately be reused, for example because they carry a logo.
Repair and extending product lifetimes are also addressed in the Waste Framework Directive.
UFF Humana’s experience could therefore be relevant to Tekstilretur if producers are required to comply with the Directive’s obligations to inform citizens about, among other things, repair, preparation for reuse and refurbishment.
The visit to UFF Humana was part of the Nordic PRO collaboration, where we work across Denmark, Norway and Sweden to prepare the best possible framework for the treatment of textiles under extended producer responsibility.
