UPV Implementation: A Difficult Challenge

In the context of the Green Deal, the Netherlands has taken a pioneering step with UPV (Extended Producer Responsibility). Essentially set up at the request of Secretary of State, Stientje van Veldhoven by InRetail and Modint, it has now become an independent entity under the Stichting UPV (UPV Foundation). The textile industry causes more CO2 emissions than international aviation and shipping combined, so action is needed.

What is it about?

The Secretary of State aims to reduce the mountain of clothing waste and bring circular products to market. This is a good idea because, on average, a Dutch person discards about 17 pieces of clothing each year. Of these, 8 are sent to clothing collectors, and 9 end up in the trash or container, eventually ending up in the incinerator. The 8 pieces collected are sorted by organizations, with 70% eventually being resold in stores and 30% also ending up being incinerated. Collectors rarely recycle, as their business model relies on resale, which was quite profitable until online sales made a major impact.

The current idea is for importers and producers to contribute a fee per piece of clothing (currently €0.10, increasing over time) to fund recycling efforts. What is currently done is more downcycling, but the goal is to make new clothing from old clothing—clothing from clothing. This is currently achieved at a rate of 1% on a fairly exclusive level, but it should be 30% by 2025!

The challenge is that clothing design and production have never considered a circular model. All the materials developed had to look good, feel soft, and be washable. Much time and energy went into these materials, but not into making them circular. You see it on the wash/care label: 5 different materials in a sweater is not uncommon, and such a mixed quality is virtually non-recyclable. The same applies to basic qualities like cotton, viscose, and wool. Many initiatives have been started but have yet to achieve real results. It requires adding a lot to create something that resembles clothing. The only exception is polyester, which can be melted down and turned into new yarn of the same quality. This yarn can then be used to make new clothing. A lot of polyester is produced, but most of what is on the market is still the aforementioned qualities.

Polyester is often perceived as a type of plastic—warm and uncomfortable. While this was true years ago, much progress has been made with this material that makes it quite versatile. You can easily add features like breathability, drycool, odour reduction (95%), and UV protection. Initially, these were achieved with chemicals, but now there are smarter solutions that save much water, chemicals, energy, and CO2 emissions. Combined with circularity, this makes the product highly sustainable.

You would think that everyone would opt for this, but unfortunately, when given the choice between organic cotton, a milder form of ecocide, or recycled polyester dope-dyed coffee yarn, a more sustainable alternative, the former is often chosen. Cotton sounds better even though it is less sustainable. There are no valid reasons to justify this choice other than that it appeals to a higher emotional value.

We won’t solve anything if we continue to produce non-circular products. It starts at the design table, from how beautiful to how circular, and there is no compromise—it is only circular if everything can be processed, and that is much harder for a jacket than for a T-shirt. Collections often run a year ahead of retail sales, so 2025 is very close. There are solutions with circular materials; now we just need the courage to take the right steps!

Reg Nelemans
Founder/Owner of FashionPower