Earlier this month, I had a front row seat to the future of textile recovery in the Innovation Zone at the Textile Development Conference in San Diego. I have worked as one of the judges as well as leaders from product management, investment and advanced manufacturing.
The space competition was a compressed version of the real world, where the founders had minutes to convince the judges that their solution could change the system that currently sends many sounds of fabric to be discarded, while the products face increasing pressure to prove progress.
Pitch after pitch offered new ways to deal with the rising tide of discarded clothing: scale-up platforms, rapid sorting technologies, systems that enable fiber-to-fibre recycling. The talent is real, and the pitches from Alternew, Fibarcode, IntheLoopAi, and the eventual winner, Intrinsic Advanced Materials, were very impressive. But from the judge’s table, one truth is hard to ignore: we are asking for the “ultimate innovation” to fix the problem that is actually the top problem of overproduction and overconsumption.
US consumers throw away 10.4 billion items of disposable clothing each year, about 4,000 truckloads per week, according to 2024 data from Garson & Shaw. No matter how strong the voice sounds, any solution needs to understand the problems that come with these many things. Much of the fabric is sent to landfills in states such as California’s landscaping projects and new signage.
That is why the most important circular devices cannot rely on future technologies. It also uses what we have today—the systems that keep clothing in place and that make economic recovery possible.
Recycling is a major engine of US jobs. The apparel sector supports an estimated 342,000 US jobs, compared to less than 90,000 in American apparel manufacturing. In other words, the “recycling economy” is not diminishing; is one of the largest generators of the American apparel value chain. In California, a recent report by collector USAgain shows that improved collection facilities and greater diversion of old clothing for reuse could create thousands of green jobs and reduce emissions.
And re-use is global for a reason: it meets basic pricing needs that new clothes often can’t. If it could do that, it would only be fashion clothes that are very cheap at the expense of the environment. In Guatemala, used clothes are four times cheaper than new imported clothes. In 2023, Guatemala imported 131 million kilograms of used clothing under Harmonized System code 6309, and 98.6 percent of its total used clothing imports came from the US.
In El Salvador, due to consumer demand, second-hand clothing now accounts for a third of all clothing imports. Of the 21+ million items of clothing identified in the latest survey of used clothing in the country, 99.6 percent were sold for less than $15, with $3 being the most common price. This is what a price tag looks like when it works.
Discussions about downstream waste related to the second-hand clothing trade deserve serious attention. But the response must be evidence-based, not driven by ideology that destroys the channel that keeps clothes around for a long time while saving green jobs, providing affordable clothes to low-income families, and replacing the need for the production of new clothes that require resources.
Several studies of used imports show that waste is often less than 5 percent, and findings from our latest report in Guatemala show textile waste percentages between 9.2 and 11.8 percent in unorganized bales, down to 5 percent in organized streams. Most importantly, many retailers buy unorganized ropa cruda because it supports local sorting, local jobs, and prices that serve local demand. A clear push for pre-sorting may sound like “better regulation,” but it can also shift value and work away from host countries without improving outcomes.
The Innovation Stage left me optimistic about innovation, but I’m also convinced that we’re avoiding the main question. Yes, we need better repair methods and better recycling technology over time. But those resources can’t carry the weight of the entire system if the industry maintains flood return pipes faster than any other possible solution. We can’t invent our way out of the endless growth of clothing.
If manufacturers and policymakers want a reliable circulation on a large scale, they should prioritize measures that reduce waste and keep clothes in use for a long time, long-term planning and reuse, build a
The real circulation of textiles is starting to rise: produce less, produce better, and the clothes keep being used for a long time, with strong recycling methods that are already working in scale. Creativity is important. But without a serious commitment to tackling overproduction and overconsumption, it will never be enough.
Lisa Jepsen is the CEO of Garson & Shaw LLC, a world leader in the vintage clothing business, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Lisa’s lifelong commitment to recycling and sustainability began in childhood due to demanddressed in donated or expertly recreated clothing, including her first dress, which was made from her mother’s wedding dress, itself made from World War II parachute nylon.
In the 1970s, while working as a teacher, Lisa organizationedclothes he drives with his students and they sell donated clothes charity markets to development aid support in South Africa. This experience laid the foundation for a lifelong career dedicated to promoting the reuse of clothing. Lisa started working full time in the vintage clothing sector in 1994, initially in Poland and later on In the Netherlands, it supplies retailers in Eastern Europe and Africa. In the late 1990s, Lisa founded Garson & Shaw Ltd in the UK, which would later become Garson and Shaw LLC in the US.
With over 25 years of industry leadership, Lisa remains a passionate advocate for recycling and a champion of circular solutions around the world.
#Innovate #Fashion