The cost of doing nothing is not nothing

This post is by Kristina Bull, co-founder of WEFT.

Reindustrialisation is the government’s word of the moment, and the Modern Industrial Strategy promises growth in every postcode.

The level of ambition is welcome. What it doesn’t acknowledge is that there is already industry here, already employing people but heading for collapse, while the policy it needs to support is unpublished, namely the Circular Economy Growth Plan.

The growth plan, which the government has ready but is holding back, was expected to set out the legislative route for textiles. At its heart, most of the textiles sector expected to see textiles Extended Producer Responsibility (tEPR): a system whereby the businesses that put clothing and textiles on the market help to fund what happens to them at end of life.

The plan has now been delayed since autumn 2025. Ministers have said next steps will be outlined shortly, although there is still no confirmed publication date.

The EU and California are ahead While the UK waits, the EU has surged ahead. By April 2028, every member state will have to have a textiles EPR scheme in place. While there are now discussions about implementation, administration and eco-modulation (which would see charges vary depending on environmental impacts), the direction of travel is clear. Further, California has passed a law (SB707) which means producers will be charged for products placed on the Californian market from 2030. CalRecycle will outline final details in 2028.

The clarity of these jurisdictions provides certainty for investment and technologies, as those companies will go where the rules are known and clear.

Delays do not delay costs The UK government has talked a lot about the cost of living in recent months, and I am sure it will be referenced heavily in the budget on 28 October too.

However, the single lens of the cost of a product does not give the full picture. It ignores the costs incurred of not acting, and how that lands on UK consumers and the economy. Delaying EPR will not protect households from the cost of dealing with textile waste. It simply changes how, and where, they pay for it.

Not having a textiles EPR scheme doesn’t mean the issues of textile waste will go away. It means that vast quantities of clothing will still continue to accumulate somewhere, and the economics of managing, collecting and sorting it will become less and less viable.

The costs simply land somewhere else. On charities. On councils. On taxpayers. On communities.

The cost of doing nothing is not nothing. We are already paying for it.

A range of factors contribute to that:

Fly-tipping. When textile banks overflow or close, bags end up on pavements and in lay-bys. Councils clear them, and council taxpayers foot the bill. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra’s) own figures show local authorities dealt with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents in 2024-25, up nine per cent on the previous year, with household waste (which includes clothing and textiles) accounting for 62 per cent of all incidents.

A failing high street. The UK high street is already in acute distress, and the absence of a level regulatory playing field for textiles is accelerating that decline rather than protecting it. Physical fashion retail closures have continued at pace through 2026.

UK high-street retailers carry the costs of shops, staff and business rates, while overseas online sellers ship vast volumes of cheap clothing straight to UK doorsteps. Government has already recognised this imbalance on customs duty, and is scrapping the relief on low-value imports by 2028. Until textiles EPR does the same for end-of-life costs, the UK retailers who stock our high streets compete with sellers who pay nothing towards the waste they create.

A buckling charity sector. Charities depend on donated clothing for income. They are now handling more low quality stock than they can sell and are having to pay to dispose of what they cannot sell, making the business model less viable. That money comes straight out of the funds for the causes they serve.

Collectors and sorters struggling. These businesses are the backbone of UK textile recovery. With falling prices for used clothing and rising costs, many are running at a loss. Some have already closed. Once that capacity goes, it is slow and expensive to rebuild.

There is an absolute difference between managing a transition and allowing or watching a system collapse. Rebuilding capacity later would cost far more than supporting a transition now.

None of these costs appear on a clothing price tag. All of them are paid by the public in the end.

Reindustrialisation starts with what we already have
A well designed Circular Economy Growth Plan would stop the system collapsing. It would give collectors, sorters, charities and recyclers the stability and clear rules they need.

It would also help keep more of the economic value of clothing here in the UK. Through reuse, repair, sorting, fibre recycling and remanufacture rather than allowing all that value to leave the country. It would make the UK an attractive place to invest and grow a business, bringing jobs and opportunities with it.

That is reindustrialisation in practice. The Modern Industrial Strategy rightly backs new industries. But it must also involve stopping the collapse of existing ones that could be a British success story. Circular economy policy should not be treated simply as environmental policy. Done properly it becomes industrial policy too.

The cost of doing nothing is not nothing. We are asking the government to publish the Circular Economy Growth Plan, with a clear timetable for textiles EPR, without further delay.