The deadline for EU member states to translate broad-sweep sustainability regulations into tangible progress is looming, and Italy has put the latest stake in the ground.
At the Venice Sustainable Fashion Forum in October, Italy announced that it is working on extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for the textile sector, expected to come into force in the first quarter of 2026. It’s a quick turnaround for brands currently in the dark about how to prepare and how much budget to allocate for EPR fees. Laura D’Aprile, head of the department for ecological transition and green investments at the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security, said the draft decree has already undergone two stages of consultation and is currently being finalized at the Ministry’s Legislative Office, at which point the details will be shared.
All EU member states are required to implement EPR for textiles by April 17, 2028 under the EU Waste Framework Directive, which came into force on October 16. Exactly how this happens is open to interpretation. Per EU protocol, each member state will dictate its own terms, meaning EPR will differ between markets — a logistical nightmare for brands that operate across borders.
EPR is the first of several pieces of EU sustainability regulation beginning to roll out that are subject to countries’ own interpretations, causing confusion for brands and factories alike, who are craving simpler and clearer rules on compliance.
“Directives are adopted at EU level, but then have to be transposed by member states,” says a spokesperson for the EU Commission. “This means that it is up to each individual member state to develop its own laws to determine how to apply these rules.”
No standardized approach
Currently, only France, Latvia, Hungary and the Netherlands have EPR schemes in place. Others are taking steps in the same direction. Spain has published draft legislation, which is now open for consultation, and Germany has also announced that textile EPR is in development. Norway’s Environment Agency submitted a proposal for textile EPR to its Ministry of Climate and Environment on October 28, expecting it to come into force in January 2027.
Already, the country-level interpretations are riddled with discrepancies. France requires brands to report on the number of items placed on the French market and the category of product, while the Netherlands, Latvia and Hungary require the collective weight of items on the market. Campaigners have cited the number of items as a preferable approach since this could provide helpful insight on overproduction, but it is unlikely that brands would be comfortable having to publish this information publicly due to the scrutiny it could bring. However, others have highlighted that reporting by weight could lead to unfairness, as brands who sell higher quantities of heavier items such as denim, bags and footwear would face higher fees than those selling predominantly lighter products. Time frames for reporting also differ between quarterly or annual.
Some EPR schemes are eco-modulated, meaning that lower impact products carry a lower fee. But brands hoping to take advantage of this may find themselves rewarded in some countries and penalized in others, depending on what the national government wishes to incentivize. Italy’s EPR is expected to be eco-modulated, for example, but will likely prioritize different eco-credentials to France, which rewards products designed with certain durability criteria, products certified by select environmental labels, and products containing recycled material. “To date, France has been giving bonuses depending on specific quality criteria. The way the quality is calculated is unlikely to remain the same in the Italian system, should they wish to use this parameter,” explains Baptiste Carriere-Pradal, co-founder and director of 2B Policy, which advises brands on how to navigate sustainability regulation. France is in the process of revising its eco-modulation criteria.
According to D’Aprile, one of the core aims of the Italian EPR scheme is to support its existing textile recycling facilities, with €150 million ring-fenced for new infrastructure to collect pre and post-consumer textile waste, upgrade recycling engineering and construct new recycling plants. “We had to consider a proportionate balance between the reuse and secondhand chain, as well as industrial need for recycled materials, in order to create a solid supply chain for the national fashion industry,” she says. “New recycling facilities funded by [Italy’s] NRRP [National Recovery and Resilience Plan] will help the resilience of the system.”
EPR is just one of the EU regulations that will affect textiles, but it has one of the widest scopes. The legislation applies to any company placing products in European markets, regardless of where they are based. The EU has stated that microenterprises (those with 10 or fewer employees) do not have to comply until April 17, 2029, but this can be overruled by national EPR laws.
Questions over compliance
Other EU directives are undergoing a similarly fierce debate, with lobbyists pushing to reduce their scope and water down their requirements in the name of “simplification”, leaving brands with high levels of uncertainty.
The European Commission maintains that the so-called omnibus package — which was brought forward in February and is currently under debate — will simplify the legislation. Sustainable finance reporting, sustainability due diligence, EU taxonomy, carbon border adjustment mechanism, and European investment programs are all in the firing line. Its spokesperson says: “The proposals will reduce complexity of EU requirements for all businesses, notably SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] and small mid-caps, focus our regulatory framework on the largest companies, which are likely to have a bigger impact on the climate and the environment, while enabling companies to access sustainable finance for their clean transitions.”
The reporting requirements set out under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), for example, are now in question, after the European Parliament voted in favor of restricting the measures on November 13. Now, CSRD will only apply to companies with more than a thousand employees and a turnover of €50 million, while CSDDD will apply exclusively to companies also with more than a thousand employees and an annual net turnover exceeding €450 million. The deadline for member states to transpose CSDDD into national law will be extended by one year under the revised package. Following the vote, the Omnibus Simplification Package has entered negotiations at the European Council level. A final decision is expected by the end of 2025.
“Brands don’t like uncertainty. The biggest learning of the Omnibus is that a law which is validated in one day can be undone just six months after, while companies were preparing for it. So it gives a huge lack of clarity, and many brands feel they are in a complete fog,” says 2B Policy’s Carriere-Pradal.
Nina Hajikhanian, Patagonia’s general manager for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), says that, while the brand no longer falls under the scope of CSDDD or CSRD, it is pressing ahead with plans, including the publication of its first impact report on November 13. “We need to make changes, and it seems governments are too slow, and you can see the temperature dropping,” Hajikhanian says. “So, while we were really advocating for legislative change, even though we don’t fall into the grid that is required to do certain CSRD reporting, here in Europe, we decided to do what we felt was most impactful anyway.” The impact report includes the outcome of Patagonia’s first double materiality assessment, which it conducted to comply with the anticipated CSRD EU legislation before the Omnibus.
Despite frustration at how slow legislation has been up to this point, Carriere-Pradal believes it is worth taking the time to ensure any revisions are fit for purpose. “I think the most important point is this ambivalence about simplification, yet creating more short-term complexity and potential distrust in the process,” he explains. “If you want to simplify, take time to do it properly.”
While arguing over the finer points can look like progress is stalling, simplification and unification remains necessary, agrees Marina Prados Espínola, director of public affairs at Policy Hub, which represents the textile sector’s position on EU policy. “There is the risk of moving away from the core objective of the EU strategy for improving the sustainability of the sector,” she says. “With the lack of clarity, the risk of market fragmentation, and the divergent points of view, [it becomes more of] a bureaucratic exercise.”
Next steps for brands
On December 3, the European Commission is set to release an “Environment Omnibus”, which is expected to include clarification on some terms of the Waste Framework Directive, such as the requirement for businesses to report on items by weight. A revision of the Waste Framework Directive is also planned for 2029, so brands can expect further uncertainty and changes over the next few years. The review will assess the effectiveness of existing textile EPRs in reducing textile waste and supporting recycling infrastructure. It will also outline necessary changes, address whether larger reuse operators should also pay EPR fees and explore the possibility of setting targets across specific areas, such as collection or reuse rates. Brands will be invited to contribute to the report throughout this process.
As far as EPR goes, it might be a while before the EU standardizes eco-modulation. In 2027, the EU is expected to outline more details on what is considered a sustainable product as part of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) regulation. This will also cover digital product passports (DPPs) and a ban on destroying unsold stock, creating a unified law across all EU member states. Many believe this regulation will be used as a framework by national governments for eco-modulation in their EPR regulations.
“We have many years [ahead] when there will be different discrepancies and different implementations for each of the member states,” advises Carriere-Pradal. “So brands need to properly equip themselves to be able to gather regular intel on how things are developing.”
In the meantime, brands should start gathering the data needed for the broadest scope possible, says Prados Espínola. “We know that there is a need to have visibility on the quantity that you re putting on the market. Start having data on the potential elements that will be measured for the eco-modulation scheme too, for example, metrics on recycled content.” D’Aprile agrees: “We recommend businesses to assure the tracking of the whole value chain from the production to the management of residues, in order to be fully ready to implement the new model.”
As brands and governments navigate a turbulent legislative landscape over the next few years, frustrations are intensifying, but in the ironing out of the details, neither must lose sight of the goal to create a fairer, greener EU market for clothing and textiles.
Anne-Marie Vikla, director of the waste, chemicals and supervision department in the Norwegian Environment Agency, recommends that as well as staying informed, brands should get involved in shaping legislation, a muscle fashion hasn’t flexed enough in the past. “It is important for businesses to familiarize themselves with the proposal and provide input when the draft legislation is out for consultation,” she says.
