EPR and ESPR: Choosing the right circular models to meet your brand’s compliance requirements

This regulatory shift arrives alongside the mandatory rollout of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes across Europe as of 2028 under the revised Waste Framework Directive.^{3 4 5} This creates a dual pressure: brands must both prevent items from entering waste streams and fund the systems and infrastructure to collect and process what were previously regarded as ‘end-of-life’ products. Compliance has therefore moved from a ‘tomorrow problem’ to a critical operational consideration. 

Therefore, for sustainability professionals in fashion, the question isn’t whether to build circular infrastructure, but which specific circular models satisfy both compliance requirements and business objectives – and how to deliver the operational capabilities these models demand ahead of the fast-approaching deadlines. Frontrunner countries provide crucial examples: their infrastructure setups, industry partnerships and implementation challenges provide a roadmap for brands still designing their approach.  

Act now: Timelines for ESPR and EPR compliance 

ESPR destruction ban 

The ban on the destruction of unsold (and returned) clothing and footwear applies to large businesses from their first full financial year after ESPR enters into force, meaning from 19 July 2026. Medium-sized companies will be within scope as of 19 July 2030.⁶  Small and micro-sized businesses are exempt. Companies will also be subject to annual reporting obligations, detailing the number and weight of textiles discarded per year by product category, plus why they were discarded and what happened to them.⁷ 

EU-wide EPR rollout 

The revised Waste Framework Directive entered into force on 16 October 2025.⁸ Member States have 20 months to transpose it into national law (i.e. by June 2027) and 30 months to establish dedicated EPR schemes for textiles (i.e. by April 2028). EPR fees will be charged to brands based on either the total weight of products put on the market or the number of individual items made available.^{9 10} These fees finance collection schemes and the management of collected textiles for reuse, recycling and disposal. In certain countries, EPR fees will be adjusted according to specific product sustainability criteria – such as durability and recyclability – in a process known as ‘eco-modulation’. 

Opportunity or threat? Learning from circular frontrunners 

Brands looking to minimise their regulatory exposure under EPR and ESPR could do worse than learning from two countries that lead the field in terms of implementation: France and the Netherlands. Digging into the evolving fashion circularity landscape in these countries provides clear indications of how brands should prioritise their investment in preparation for EU-wide compliance. First, which piece of legislation is more important: EPR or ESPR? At first sight, ESPR might seem to be the more likely candidate, given that fines for non-compliance are expected to be significant.¹¹ 

 In addition, circular approaches are more directly applicable to ESPR compliance: integrating circular business models such as repair and resale is a proven method to reduce levels of unsold stock, thereby limiting regulatory risk exposure. However, the example of France’s EPR implementation shows that adapting your operations for EPR compliance is just as important. It’s not just a case of paying your dues to a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) such as Refashion. It’s also about (re)designing your products for circularity to avoid potential negative impacts on your bottom line. 

This is due to the ‘eco-modulation’ mechanism baked into the EPR rules, which makes it possible to reduce your brand’s PRO contributions based on the circular potential of your products.^{12 13 14} PROs like Refashion adjust EPR fees based on the durability, recyclability and material composition of clothing and footwear, creating direct financial incentives for circular design.^{15 16} Increased uptake of circular business models is also indirectly encouraged through France’s recently introduced anti-waste law (see chapter 2). This highlights the importance of understanding the interconnections between regulations. 

The new battleground for circular value 

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, EPR for textiles has been in force since 2023 – with full fees due as of 2025.¹⁷ The country has taken the approach of clearly defining specific end-of-life destinations based on the weight of items that a brand or producer puts on the market. For example, EPR in the Netherlands requires 50% of clothing placed on the market by producers to be prepared for recycling or reuse by 2025 (rising to 75% by 2030).¹⁸ The rules also specify that 10% of textiles must be prepared for reuse within the Netherlands by 2025, rising to 15% by 2030. This is by far the most meaningful target from a circularity perspective, requiring a strategic approach to infrastructure implementation. Sure, you can simply pay your dues to a Dutch PRO like UPV Textiel, but this risks leaving a valuable revenue stream – and invaluable customer loyalty lever – on the table. 

Why? By facilitating circular solutions such as take-back and repair, Refashion and its peers may become your brand’s indirect ‘competitors’ in the circular value chain: would you rather that your garments be handed to one of Refashion’s partner locations to be converted into new fibres,¹⁹ or would you rather they remain within your brand’s circular ecosystem? Circular initiatives are a proven brand loyalty booster (source), and in an age where loyalty is at a premium (source), it’s an advantage that many cannot afford to let go of. The growth of EU PROs means this is yet another operational decision that cannot be put off until tomorrow. The battle for circular value retention has already begun. 

The question is, then, which circular model or models will enable you to both address your brand’s regulatory risk exposure and maximise circular value creation? 

Your fashion circularity decision framework 

Choosing which circular model is best suited to your brand’s needs means looking at your specific operational and competitive context. While some general conclusions can be drawn based on your geographical presence (the US is a global clothing rental frontrunner,²⁰ for example, while France leads the European market in resale²¹ and Italy has an established track record in textile recycling²²), the most important factor to consider is your customer base. Without active participation and engagement, circular scale-up will flounder. However, the right circular model can inspire lasting loyalty. 

Model #1: Repair and lifetime extension 

Infrastructure requirements: 

 A network of repair facilities or partnerships, trained technicians, parts inventory management, logistics for product collection and return and customer communications. 

Case study: 

Nudie Jeans runs 33 physical repair shops across 20 cities and offers over 15 additional repair stations via partners to scale capacity. Since it started offering free repairs, the Swedish brand has repaired approximately 500,000 pairs of jeans, with 68,342 repaired in 2024 alone.²³ The program operates on a straightforward promise: bring in your Nudie jeans, get them mended for free, no purchase required. Customers can also request free home repair kits with patches, needles, thread and instructions. In parallel, customers receive a 20% discount on new products when they bring in an old pair of Nudie jeans. In 2024, the company sold 3,513 refurbished jeans under its Re-use collection label. 

Model #2: Take-back and resale 

Infrastructure requirements: 

Collection points (for example, retail stores or municipal partnerships), sorting facilities, condition assessment processes, refurbishment capacity, marketplace platforms, pricing algorithms and customer incentive structures. 

Case study: 

Patagonia’s Worn Wear programme continues to be a reference case for resale at scale: in 2025, the programme has kept more than 212,000 used items in circulation, with 174,799 items repaired across the globe.²⁴ It’s also worth noting that the Worn Wear line was quick to achieve profitability and had the added bonus of attracting customers an average of 10 years younger than the brand’s typical profile.²⁵ This demonstrates the vital importance of keeping circular value within your brand’s circular ecosystem. 

Model #3: Subscription and ‘closed-loop’ systems 

Infrastructure requirements:  

Advanced reverse logistics networks, industrial cleaning and repair operations, inventory management systems for tracking individual items through multiple use cycles and product design for durability. 

Case study 

Rental fashion tends to skew towards the high-end (Rent the Runway being a notable US example), with mid-market offerings (such as For Days, which discontinued its rental offering) much less present. However, US-based Nuuly is proving that the appetite for mid-market rental is growing, at least in the US. Launched in 2019, Nuuly is the rental arm of URBN (parent company of Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie).²⁶ Its $98-a-month subscriptions, allowing access to a selection of six garments, have enabled it to turn a profit for the first time this year. However, rental is yet to gain much traction in Europe. 

Preparing for an uneven regulatory playing field 

One significant obstacle on the path to setting up an effective circularity framework is the potential for variations in implementation, particularly with regard to EPR, across EU Member States. One example is the differences in reporting requirements. Of the countries with EPR for textiles in place, France requires producers to report the number of items made available on the market, while the others (Hungary, Latvia and the Netherlands) operate on weight-based reporting.²⁷ In addition, eco-modulation specifications vary by geography. Finally, brands will need a legal entity or representative in every market where their products are sold, creating further complexity.²⁸ 

Perhaps most important for the success of EPR as a circular catalyst will be the extent to which brands seek to retain the maximum potential value of their products. A recent policy briefing by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation warned that many EPR schemes risk putting too much emphasis on recycling and not enough on keeping products in use for longer. This would, effectively, limit the true environmental benefits of the legislation. Both brands and circular operators have an essential role to play here: brands can ensure that their adaptation to EPR requirements aligns with a pragmatic and reuse-focused vision of circularity, and operators can make this vision as financially and operationally feasible as possible. It’s a joint commitment, with shared benefits. 

In this evolving landscape, end-to-end visibility of your entire value chains – whether it’s knowing the recycled content of specific products or their end-of-life outcomes – will become a prerequisite. With ESPR reporting requirements and Digital Product Passports arriving, real-time inventory visibility enables optimisation that goes beyond compliance. In addition, multi-channel routing capabilities – whether products are destined for resale, rental, refurbishment or material recovery – will be key for brands looking to capture and maximise circular value. In short, prioritising internal readiness and external awareness will allow you to seize the opportunities of this new compliance context.