{"$schema":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/json-schemas/R2.22/Lobbyregister-Registereintrag-schema-R2.22.json","source":"Deutscher Bundestag, Lobbyregister für die Interessenvertretung gegenüber dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung","sourceUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de","sourceDate":"2026-04-22T16:19:52.562+02:00","jsonDocumentationUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/open-data-1049716","registerNumber":"R003108","registerEntryDetails":{"registerEntryId":71865,"legislation":"GL2024","version":24,"detailsPageUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/suche/R003108/71865","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/c7/96/690067/Lobbyregister-Registereintraege-Detailansicht-R003108-2026-02-05_10-12-38.pdf","validFromDate":"2026-02-05T10:12:38.000+01:00","fiscalYearUpdate":{"updateMissing":false,"lastFiscalYearUpdate":"2025-05-12T19:51:56.000+02:00"}},"accountDetails":{"activeLobbyist":true,"activeDateRanges":[{"fromDate":"2024-09-05T16:38:19.000+02:00"}],"firstPublicationDate":"2022-03-08T09:24:21.000+01:00","lastUpdateDate":"2026-02-05T10:12:38.000+01:00","registerEntryVersions":[{"registerEntryId":71865,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/71865","version":24,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2026-02-05T10:12:38.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":63105,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/63105","version":23,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-07-31T13:42:06.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2026-02-05T10:12:38.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":62897,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/62897","version":22,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-07-29T16:36:36.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-07-31T13:42:06.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":56297,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/56297","version":21,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-05-27T09:42:27.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-07-29T16:36:36.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":54391,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/54391","version":20,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-05-12T19:51:56.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-05-27T09:42:27.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":47900,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/47900","version":19,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-12-11T15:39:32.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-05-12T19:51:56.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":43737,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R003108/43737","version":18,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-09-05T16:38:19.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2024-12-11T15:39:32.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true}],"accountHasCodexViolations":false},"lobbyistIdentity":{"identity":"ORGANIZATION","name":"H&M Hennes & Mauritz B.V. & Co KG","legalFormType":{"code":"LEGAL_ASSOCIATION","de":"Rechtsfähige Personengesellschaft","en":"Partnership with legal capacity"},"legalForm":{"code":"LF_KG","de":"Kommanditgesellschaft (KG)","en":"Limited partnership (KG)"},"contactDetails":{"phoneNumber":"+49403509550","emails":[{"email":"CSAttachments.de@hm.com"}],"websites":[{"website":"www.hm.com/de"}]},"address":{"type":"NATIONAL","nationalAdditional1":"H&M Hennes & Mauritz","street":"Spitalerstraße","streetNumber":"12","zipCode":"20095","city":"Hamburg","country":{"code":"DE","de":"Deutschland","en":"Germany"}},"capitalCityRepresentationPresent":true,"capitalCityRepresentation":{"address":{"type":"NATIONAL","street":"Rosenthaler Str.","streetNumber":"40-41","zipCode":"10178","city":"Berlin"},"contactDetails":{"phoneNumber":"+49403509550","email":"CSAttachments.de@hm.com"}},"legalRepresentatives":[{"lastName":"Browarczyk","firstName":"Lukasz","function":"Geschäftsführer","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":false,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Mirzaie-Boadi","firstName":"Oldouz","function":"Geschäftsführerin","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":false,"contactDetails":{}}],"entrustedPersonsPresent":true,"entrustedPersons":[{"lastName":"Georgi","firstName":"Theresa","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false}],"membersPresent":false,"membershipsPresent":true,"memberships":[{"membership":"Handelsverband Deutschland"},{"membership":"DAK-Gesundheit"},{"membership":"Bundesverband E-Commerce & Versandhandel Deutschland e.V."}]},"activitiesAndInterests":{"activity":{"code":"ACT_ORGANIZATION_V2","de":"Sonstiges Unternehmen","en":"Other company"},"typesOfExercisingLobbyWork":[{"code":"SELF_OPERATED_OWN_INTEREST","de":"Die Interessenvertretung wird in eigenem Interesse selbst wahrgenommen","en":"Interest representation is self-performed in its own interest"},{"code":"CONTRACTS_OPERATED_BY_THIRD_PARTY","de":"Die Interessenvertretung wird in eigenem Interesse durch die Beauftragung Dritter wahrgenommen","en":"Contracts are awarded to third parties to represent own interests of the company"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SPECIES","de":"Artenschutz/Biodiversität","en":"Species protection/biodiversity"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_POLICY","de":"Arbeitsmarkt","en":"Job market"},{"code":"FOI_DEVELOPMENT_POLICY","de":"Entwicklungspolitik","en":"Development policy"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_SERVICES","de":"Handel und Dienstleistungen","en":"Trade and services"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_CONSUMER_PROTECTION","de":"Verbraucherschutz","en":"Consumer protection"},{"code":"FOI_SCIENCE_RESEARCH_TECHNOLOGY","de":"Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie","en":"Science, research and technology"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_RIGHT","de":"Arbeitsrecht/Arbeitsbedingungen","en":"Work right"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_ECOMMERCE","de":"E-Commerce","en":"E-commerce"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_FOREIGN_TRADE","de":"Außenwirtschaft","en":"Foreign trade"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"}],"activityDescription":"Die Public Affairs-Abteilung von H&M verfolgt zwei Ziele. Erstens setzen wir uns dafür ein, dass die Gesetzgebung in verschiedenen Ländern und Regionen positive Auswirkungen auf unser Geschäft hat und einen systemischen Wandel in der Branche bewirkt. Zweitens bringen wir eine externe Perspektive ein und erläutern, wie sich politische und geopolitische Entwicklungen auf unser Geschäft auswirken.\r\n\r\nWir sind davon überzeugt, dass ein gut durchdachter regulatorischer Rahmen das Potenzial hat, den dringend notwendigen Wandel in der gesamten Branche zu beschleunigen und unsere eigenen Fortschritte bei der Erreichung unserer Geschäftsziele zu unterstützen. Daher ist es wichtig, dass wir uns dafür einsetzen, dass die Gesetzgebung realistisch und umsetzbar ist und die gewünschten Ergebnisse erzielt. \r\n\r\nWir tun dies durch einen engen Dialog mit Behörden, politischen Entscheidungsträgern und Regierungen. Auf diese Weise können wir sicherstellen, dass die Erkenntnisse und das Wissen, das wir im Laufe der Jahre gewonnen haben, in den Gesetzgebungsprozess einfließen, und wir können den betroffenen Interessengruppen die praktischen Auswirkungen solcher Gesetze erläutern. Im Wesentlichen geht es darum, die politischen Entscheidungsträger über unsere Branche zu informieren. Wir nutzen jede Gelegenheit, um Entscheidungsprozesse, die unser Geschäft beeinflussen können, zu verfolgen und uns daran zu beteiligen. Insgesamt setzen wir uns als Unternehmen für eine Gesetzgebung ein, die zu einer effizienteren, fortschrittlicheren und nachhaltigeren Modeindustrie führt. "},"employeesInvolvedInLobbying":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","employeeFTE":1.0},"financialExpenses":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","financialExpensesEuro":{"from":150001,"to":160000}},"mainFundingSources":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","mainFundingSources":[{"code":"MFS_ECONOMIC_ACTIVITY","de":"Wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit","en":"Economic activity"}]},"publicAllowances":{"publicAllowancesPresent":false,"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30"},"donators":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","totalDonationsEuro":{"from":0,"to":0}},"membershipFees":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","totalMembershipFees":{"from":0,"to":0},"individualContributorsPresent":false,"individualContributors":[]},"annualReports":{"annualReportLastFiscalYearExists":true,"lastFiscalYearStart":"2023-12-01","lastFiscalYearEnd":"2024-11-30","annualReportPdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/38/14/690066/Jahresabschluss-HM-2023-2024.pdf"},"regulatoryProjects":{"regulatoryProjectsPresent":true,"regulatoryProjectsCount":3,"regulatoryProjects":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006747","title":"Umsetzung der EU Waste Framework Regulation in nationale Regulierung","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung (EPR) hat das Potenzial, die Sammlung und das Management von Alttextilien und -abfällen grundlegend zu verbessern. Die Bundesregierung soll dazu bewogen werden, sich für eine harmonisierte Ausgestaltung von EPR-Systemen einzusetzen, die Anreize für die Wiederverwendung von Produkten und Materialien schafft. Zudem sprechen wir uns für eine weiterhin zulässige Fortführung unserer Kleidersammlungen in den Geschäften aus. Die im Rahmen von EPR entstehenden Gebühren sollten Ökodesign-Kriterien widerspiegeln, die sich auf ESPR beziehen.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006748","title":"Umsetzung der EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Informationsanforderungen zum Rezyklatanteil auf Produktebene sollten im Rahmen der Verordnung verbindlich eingeführt werden. Diese erachten wir als praxisnah und gut umsetzbar. Ebenso begrüßen wir die Einführung von Leistungsanforderungen (Performance-Anforderungen), die im Sinne eines Portfolio-Ansatzes für den Rezyklatanteil formuliert werden. Zudem sprechen wir uns für eine verhältnismäßige und schrittweise Umsetzung der Offenlegungspflichten für besorgniserregende Stoffe (Substances of Concern, SoC) aus – vorausgesetzt, diese stehen im Einklang mit bestehenden Regelwerken wie REACH.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006749","title":"EU Union Customs Code Revision ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Zollverfahren sollten gestrafft und modernisiert werden. Gleichzeitig fordern wir die Digitalisierung der Zollprozesse voranzutreiben, was die Fähigkeit der Zollbehörden, den Binnenmarkt zu schützen, stärken wird. Diese Maßnahmen sollten sicherstellen, dass den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten keine unnötigen Verwaltungslasten auferlegt werden. Wir fordern, den vorgeschlagenen Zeitrahmen zu verkürzen, sofern den Unternehmen eine Vorbereitungszeit von 18 Monaten eingeräumt wird.  ","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_FOREIGN_TRADE","de":"Außenwirtschaft","en":"Foreign trade"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_SERVICES","de":"Handel und Dienstleistungen","en":"Trade and services"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_CONSUMER_PROTECTION","de":"Verbraucherschutz","en":"Consumer protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]}]},"statements":{"statementsPresent":true,"statementsCount":5,"statements":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006747","regulatoryProjectTitle":"Umsetzung der EU Waste Framework Regulation in nationale Regulierung","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/b6/59/316580/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406110039.pdf","pdfPageCount":1,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Avenue des Nerviens 85 | B-1040 Brussels | www.eurocommerce.eu\r\nMembers of the Council of the European Union\r\nBy e-mail\r\nBrussels, 28 May 2024\r\nSubject: Proposal for a revision of Waste Directive 2008/98/EC – Non-paper on addressing the impact\r\nof “fast fashion”\r\nDear Madam/Sir,\r\nThe undersigned industry representatives write to you in view of the upcoming COREPER meeting on\r\n29th May 2024 on the Commission’s proposal for a revision of EU Waste Framework (Directive\r\n2008/98/EC). In particular, we would like to seek your support for resolving a matter of Better\r\nRegulation stemming from the recent non-paper by Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands with\r\nproposals to address the impact of “fast fashion” within European sectoral regulations on textiles and\r\nfashion.\r\nOur sector prioritises a more circular textile economy, and we see significant opportunities in ongoing\r\nfuture textiles and apparel legislation to facilitate this transition. Introducing new measures with new\r\nobjectives within the current Waste Framework Directive revision at this stage of the legislative\r\nprocess, however, raises concerns. Such a late-stage amendment, lacking proper impact assessments,\r\nwould disrupt established legislative progress and have unforeseen consequences.\r\nWe strongly advocate for maintaining the focus of the Waste Framework Directive revision's on\r\nimproving the overall environmental outcome of textiles wate management. This includes measures\r\nto improve separate waste collection and extended producer responsibility, in a harmonised approach.\r\nIn addition, we stress that qualifying ecodesign requirements for eco-modulation fees should only be\r\npart of discussions under Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and future delegated acts on\r\ntextiles, and not under the context of the Waste Framework Directive.\r\nThe industry remains fully committed to collaborating with the EU to achieve a more sustainable textile\r\nsector. We believe focusing the Waste Framework Directive revision on its core objective will yield the\r\nmost significant progress in combating textile waste.\r\nThank you for your time and consideration. We welcome the opportunity for further discussion on this\r\ncritical matter.\r\nYours sincerely,\r\nChristel Delberghe Ignacio Sierra Armas\r\nDirector General, EuroCommerce President, EBCA"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-05-29"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006748","regulatoryProjectTitle":"Umsetzung der EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation ","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/1a/c0/524413/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2505270001.pdf","pdfPageCount":5,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"H&M Group’s Input zur Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation und zum Ökodesign-Workshop vom 09. Mai 2025\r\n\r\nAllgemeine Kommentare\r\n-\tWir sind überzeugt, dass die ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation) ein wirkungsvolles Instrument ist, um die Industrie nachhaltig zu transformieren und den Wandel hin zu umweltfreundlicheren Produkten innerhalb der EU voranzutreiben. Voraussetzung dafür ist jedoch eine sorgfältige Vorbereitung, die auf wissenschaftlich fundierten Erkenntnissen sowie verlässlichen Daten beruht.\r\n-\tInformationsanforderungen zum Rezyklatanteil auf Produktebene erachten wir als praxisnah und gut umsetzbar. Ebenso begrüßen wir Performance-Anforderungen, die im Rahmen eines Portfolio-Ansatzes für den Rezyklatanteil formuliert werden.\r\n-\tWir unterstützen eine verhältnismäßige, schrittweise Umsetzung der Offenlegungspflichten für besorgniserregende Stoffe (Substances of Concern, SoC)– vorausgesetzt, sie stehen im Einklang mit bestehenden Regelwerken wie REACH. Insbesondere halten wir den ersten Schritt im vorgeschlagenen SoC-Prozess – die Offenlegung von SVHC-Kandidatenstoffen – für sinnvoll und praktikabel.\r\n-\tKritisch sehen wir hingegen die aktuellen Diskussionen zu Mindestanforderungen hinsichtlich Recyclingfähigkeit und Reparierbarkeit. Diese Anforderungen sind in ihrer jetzigen Form schwer auf die gesamte Bandbreite textiler Produkte anwendbar.\r\n-\tDie Vision einer nachhaltigeren Textilindustrie ist ein zentraler Bestandteil unseres Geschäftsmodells und unserer Unternehmensphilosophie. Seit vielen Jahren setzen wir uns aktiv für Innovationen und nachhaltigere Praktiken ein. Gleichwohl benötigen neue regulatorische Anforderungen ausreichende Planbarkeit und angemessene Vorlaufzeiten – Aspekte, die im Rahmen des ESPR-Standards zwingend berücksichtigt werden sollten.\r\n\r\n\r\nHaltbarkeit\r\n-\tEine funktionierende Kreislaufwirtschaft erfordert die Verlängerung der Produktlebensdauer – somit wird Langlebigkeit zu einem zentralen Hebel für den Wandel in der Bekleidungsindustrie. \r\n-\tWir empfehlen nachdrücklich, die physische Haltbarkeit zu berücksichtigen, indem die häufigsten Ausfallursachen anhand der entsprechenden ISO-Prüfnormen identifiziert werden. Die nachstehende Tabelle zeigt die häufigsten Versagensarten bei Textilprodukten und -geweben auf und enthält Empfehlungen zu Normen, die zur Durchsetzung und Einhaltung herangezogen werden sollten. Zudem gibt die Tabelle an, ob die Haltbarkeitsanforderung auf Ebene des Endprodukts oder des Gewebes gemessen werden sollte und legt fest, für welche Materialkategorie die jeweilige Anforderung gelten soll. Die Tabelle der Einfachheit auf Englisch:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\tCategory description\tKey Parameters (unit) and Test Method\tSimulation of the ageing process\r\n1\tID #1-9 (excluding socks) in table 44 (line 2939)\r\n \r\nFor ‘PU coated fabrics, only wash tests applies.\tAppearance after wash (all textile products): \r\n•\tISO 15487: Method for assessing appearance of apparel and other textile end products after domestic washing and drying but only for the parameters related to durability and not for parameters related only to quality.\tWe strongly recommend applying 5 cleaning cycles to all product descriptions. \r\n \r\nFor ‘Jackets, and coats’, 3 cleaning cycles.\r\n \r\nFor “Dry clean only” products, X dry cleaning cycles.\r\n\t\tDimensional Stability Shrinkage (all textile products): \r\n•\tISO 6330 for domestic washing and drying procedures for textile testing, or ISO 3175 for Professional care, dry-cleaning and wet cleaning, also according to the care label. \r\n•\tISO 5077 for the determination of dimensional change after washing and drying.\t\r\n\t\tPilling (only knitted products):\r\n•\tISO 12945-1: Determination of fabric propensity to surface pilling, fuzzing, or matting. Part 1: Pilling box method.  \t\r\n\t\tFabric Tensile Strength (only woven products):\r\n•\tISO 13934-1 OR ISO 13934-2 \t\r\n\t\tFabric bursting (only knitted products):\r\n•\tISO 13938-2\t\r\n4\tAdditional tests to the general ones if a product has functional claims\t•\tISO 4920: Water repellency \r\n•\tISO 811: Water proofness\r\n•\tISO 9237: Wind proof\t\r\n\r\n\r\nReparierbarkeit\r\n-\tDie H&M Group ist der Auffassung, dass das Kriterium der Reparierbarkeit bei Textilprodukten nicht zur Anwendung kommen sollte. Aufgrund der großen Vielfalt an Materialien, Verarbeitungsweisen und Produktarten im Textilbereich ist es in der Praxis kaum umsetzbar, für sämtliche Ausführungen passende Ersatzteile bereitzustellen. Der damit verbundene Aufbau umfangreicher Lager- und Logistikstrukturen stünde zudem im Widerspruch zum übergeordneten Ziel der Ressourcenschonung und Nachhaltigkeit.\r\n-\tUnsere Kund*innen haben bereits die Möglichkeit, Reparaturzubehör bei H&M zu kaufen. Darüber hinaus finden sie auf unserer Website ein e-Learning-Angebot, das die richtige Pflege und Repapraturanleitungen bietet. Diese Infrastruktur ist für uns in Ordnung, jedoch sprechen wir uns gegen eine zentrale Website aus, auf der alle Brands ihre Informationen zur Verfügung stellen.\r\n\r\nRecyclingfähigkeit\r\n-\tBegrenzung auf maximal zwei Materialien pro Produkt: Diese Anforderung ist aus unserer Sicht nicht praktikabel, da sie die gestalterischen Möglichkeiten sowie die Umsetzung von Ökodesignprinzipien erheblich einschränkt. Unser erklärtes Ziel ist es, ausschließlich Materialien mit verbessertem Nachhaltigkeitsprofil einzusetzen – sei es recycelt oder aus verantwortungsvoll/nachhaltig gewonnenen Quellen. Um diesem Anspruch gerecht zu werden, ist der Einsatz von mehr als zwei Materialien pro textiler Fläche oft unumgänglich. Eine pauschale Begrenzung würde nicht nur innovative Materialkombinationen verhindern, sondern steht auch im Widerspruch zur aktuellen Recyclingrealität – insbesondere in Bezug auf neue, recycelte Materialien. Statt die Recyclingfähigkeit zu fördern, könnte eine solche Einschränkung diese eher behindern.\r\n-\tRecyclinginfrastruktur: Die derzeitige Recyclinginfrastruktur ist noch nicht ausreichend entwickelt, um flächendeckend hohe Anforderungen an Materialtrennung und -verwertung erfüllen zu können. Die H&M Group engagiert sich seit Jahren aktiv im Aufbau und der Skalierung textiler Kreisläufe – unter anderem durch Initiativen wie das Sammelprogramm Garment Collect, das Joint Venture Looper zur Optimierung der Sortierung von Alttextilien sowie Syre, ein Projekt zur Skalierung des Textil-zu-Textil-Recyclings. Unsere Erfahrungen zeigen deutlich: Es braucht industrieübergreifende Lösungen und Kooperationen, um Mindestanforderungen effektiv umzusetzen. Darüber hinaus sprechen wir uns dafür aus, dass Unternehmen, die freiwillig über regulatorische Vorgaben hinaus in nachhaltige Materialien und Kreislaufmodelle investieren, entsprechend anerkannt und gefördert werden.\r\n\r\nRezyklatanteil\r\n-\tJa zu Recyclinganteilen: Wir befürworten die Angabe des Recyclinganteils auf Produktebene (z. B. welcher Prozentsatz des Produkts aus recycelten Materialien besteht – diese Information, basierend auf Transaktionszertifikaten, kann über den Digitalen Produktpass auf Produktebene weitergegeben werden). \r\n-\tHier sprechen wir uns für einen Portfolio-Ansatz auf Unternehmensebene aus, um mehr Flexibilität zu ermöglichen. Der Mass-Balance-Ansatz kommt dem am nächsten und ist derzeit für uns die praktikabelste Lösung – diesen bevorzugen wir, da er sowohl technische Erfordernisse als auch rechtliche Ambitionen vereint.\r\n-\tEine Strategie auf Portfolio-Ebene ermöglicht es den Unternehmen, die Verwendung von Rezyklaten zu optimieren, die Langlebigkeit und Funktionalität der Produkte zu erhalten und gleichzeitig die Verwendung von Rezyklaten zu maximieren, wo dies möglich ist. Diese strategische Zuteilung von recycelten Materialien verbessert die Kreislaufwirtschaft, indem sie den Gesamtanteil an recycelten Inhalten erhöht und gleichzeitig die Produktqualität gewährleistet. Dies ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, um eine weitere Skalierung der Textilrecyclingindustrie zu ermöglichen und gleichzeitig die bekannten Kompromisse bei der Produktgestaltung auszugleichen. Auf diese Weise wird ein Ansatz auf Portfolioebene mit den ESPR-Zielen der Förderung von Ressourceneffizienz und Kreislaufwirtschaft in Einklang gebracht.\r\n-\tWir schlagen vor, auf den derzeitigen Kapazitäten und der Verfügbarkeit von Recyclingfasern in der Industrie aufzubauen und eine erste Leistungsanforderung einzuführen - eine obligatorische Mindestschwelle für den Markteintritt auf der Ebene des Gesamtportfolios - gepaart mit einer Informationsanforderung auf Produktebene.\r\n\r\nUmweltaspekte\r\n-\tIm Hinblick auf mögliche Anforderungen zur Offenlegung der Umweltauswirkungen von Produkten und die PEFCR (Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules) für Bekleidung und Schuhe: Die H&M Group war aktiv an der Entwicklung der PEF-Kategorievorschriften für Bekleidung und Schuhe beteiligt, die im Mai von der Kommission genehmigt wurden. Wir möchten jedoch betonen, dass diese Methodik als freiwilliger und richtungsweisender Rahmen für Umweltproduktangaben entwickelt wurde – und nicht als Grundlage für Marktzugangsvoraussetzungen wie etwa Anforderungen im Rahmen des ESPR-Durchführungsrechtsakts (DA). Es ist entscheidend, dass jede Anforderung im Rahmen des ESPR DA sowohl umsetzbar ist als auch nachweislich die beabsichtigte Wirkung erzielt. Leider sind weder die PEFCR noch andere bestehende Methodiken zur Messung der Umweltauswirkungen von Bekleidungsprodukten derzeit ausgereift genug, um flächendeckend für alle Bekleidungsprodukte auf dem EU-Markt angewendet zu werden. Daher empfehlen wir, die Umsetzung entsprechender Anforderungen aufzuschieben, bis eine geeignete Methodik entwickelt und ihre Umsetzbarkeit für die gesamte Branche nachgewiesen wurde.\r\nVorhandensein besorgniserregender Stoffe\r\n-\tDie H&M Group unterstützt grundsätzlich das Prinzip der Rückverfolgbarkeit von besorgniserregenden Stoffen (Substances of Concern, SoC) sowie die daraus resultierenden Vorteile. Gleichzeitig ist es uns wichtig, dass die Informationsanforderungen im Rahmen der ESPR einen klaren Mehrwert bieten und nicht im Widerspruch zu bestehenden oder zukünftigen Prozessen und Verpflichtungen gemäß REACH und CLP stehen. Unser Ziel ist es, sicherzustellen, dass diese Anforderungen pragmatisch umgesetzt werden, präzise und nützliche Informationen liefern und dass die ESPR wirksam zur Verbesserung der Produktzirkularität sowie weiterer Aspekte der ökologischen Nachhaltigkeit beiträgt – und gleichzeitig Innovation und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Chemie-, Konsumgüter- und Recyclingindustrie stärkt.\r\n-\tIn diesem Zusammenhang möchten wir den Vorschlag der AFIRM-Gruppe (https://afirm-group.com/) für eine schrittweise Einführung der SoC-Anforderungen hervorheben, der sich wie folgt zusammenfassen lässt: Die vorgeschlagenen SoC-Informationsanforderungen basieren auf einem Meldegrenzwert von 0,1 % Gewichtsanteil (w/w) sowie auf einer Behandlung komplexer Erzeugnisse, die mit den Meldepflichten für besonders besorgniserregende Stoffe (SVHC) gemäß Artikel 59 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006 (REACH) übereinstimmt. Folgende Übersicht der Einfachheit auf Englisch:\r\n•\tInitial Tranche (effective 18 months following entry into force of the delegated act for textiles) \r\no\t (a) Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) identified via Article 59(1) of REACH-  \r\no\t(c) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) regulated under Regulation (EU) 2019/2012 \r\n•\tSecond Tranche (effective 36 months following entry into force of the delegated act for textiles) \r\no\t- (b)(i) carcinogenicity categories 1 and 2; \r\no\t- (b)(ii) germ cell mutagenicity categories 1 and 2; \r\no\t(b)(iii) reproductive toxicity categories 1 and 2; \r\n•\tThird Tranche (effective 54 months following entry into force of the delegated act for textiles) \r\no\t- (b)(viii) respiratory sensitisation category 1 \r\no\t- (b)(ix) skin sensitisation category 1; \r\no\t- (b)(x) hazardous to the aquatic environment — categories chronic 1 to 4; \r\no\t- (b)(xi) hazardous to the ozone layer; \r\no\t- (b)(xii) specific target organ toxicity — repeated exposure categories 1 and 2; \r\no\t- (b)(xiii) specific target organ toxicity — single exposure categories 1 and 2 \r\n•\tFourth/Final Tranche (effective 72 months following entry into force of the delegated act for textiles) \r\no\t- (b)(iv) endocrine disruption for human health categories 1 and 2; \r\no\t- (b)(v) endocrine disruption for the environment categories 1 and 2; \r\no\t- (b)(vi) persistent, mobile and toxic or very persistent, very mobile properties; \r\no\t- (b)(vii) persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent, very bioaccumulative properties; \r\n\r\n-\tDarüber hinaus sind wir der Auffassung, dass Anforderungen zur Offenlegung von Informationen über besorgniserregende Stoffe (SoC) zunächst für formulierte Produkte der chemischen Industrie gelten sollten, bevor sie auf fertige Textilerzeugnisse angewendet werden. Chemikalienlieferanten sind in einer besseren Position, um die Konzentrationen chemischer Inhaltsstoffe in ihren Formulierungen zu kontrollieren und zu steuern.\r\n-\tBeispielsweise werden viele SoCs, die in der zweiten und dritten vorgeschlagenen Stufe erfasst sind, in Sicherheitsdatenblättern (SDS) nur dann angegeben, wenn sie in Formulierungen in Konzentrationen von über 1 % enthalten sind. Es ist daher möglich, dass SoCs in fertigen Produkten in Konzentrationen von über 0,1 % vorkommen, ohne dass deren Vorhandensein zuvor über ein SDS offengelegt wurde – was analytische Tests zur einzigen Möglichkeit macht, ihre Anwesenheit in Textilprodukten zu ermitteln. Das Testen auf Tausende von Chemikalien in Millionen (oder mehr) Materialien ist jedoch weder praktikabel noch wirtschaftlich umsetzbar.\r\n-\tEin verlässliches Rückverfolgbarkeitssystem, das bei den Chemikalienherstellern beginnt und entlang der Lieferkette bis zu den Bekleidungsunternehmen weitergeführt wird, ist daher entscheidend für eine pragmatische, genaue und zeitnahe Erfassung von SoC-Informationen.\r\nLabel\r\n-\tEin zusätzliches physisches Etikett wird als nicht notwendig erachtethi, da bereits eine verbindliche Textilkennzeichnungsverordnung existiert. Zudem ist der Mehrwert eines nicht-digitalen Trägers unklar, wenn mit dem Digitalen Produktpass (DPP) bereits ein Instrument vorgesehen ist, das dieselben Informationen enthält. \r\n-\tWir sind der Ansicht, dass die Einführung einer weiteren physischen Kennzeichnungspflicht dem Zweck der ESPR zuwiderlaufen würde – nämlich die Ressourceneffizienz zu steigern und die gesamte Umweltbelastung von Produkten zu verringern.\r\n-\tDer Zweck eines zusätzlichen physischen Labels ist daher nicht ersichtlich.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nContact person for Global Public Affairs:\t\tContact person for Germany:\r\nMs Pernilla Halldin\t\t\tMs Theresa Georgi\r\npernilla.halldin@hm.com\t\t\tTheresa.georgi@hm.com\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMUKN)","shortTitle":"BMUKN","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":21}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-05-26"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006748","regulatoryProjectTitle":"Umsetzung der EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation ","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/76/34/524415/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2505270002.pdf","pdfPageCount":68,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"3-Mar-25 Confidential Final Version\r\nEBCA FEEDBACK TO JRC TASK 4 OF THE PREPARATORY STUDY ON TEXTILES FOR\r\nPRODUCT POLICY INSTRUMENTS\r\nMarch 2025\r\nContents\r\nEBCA FEEDBACK TO JRC Task 4 of the Preparatory study on textiles for product policy\r\ninstruments.........................................................................................................................................................................1\r\nGeneral comments.......................................................................................................................................................2\r\nPhysical Durability ......................................................................................................................................................2\r\nMaintenance...................................................................................................................................................................3\r\nRepairability ..................................................................................................................................................................3\r\nWaste Generation ........................................................................................................................................................3\r\nRecyclability and Recycled Content.....................................................................................................................3\r\nEnvironmental Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4\r\nSubstances of Concern...............................................................................................................................................4\r\nEBCA Comments on analysis of technologies .......................................................................................................5\r\n9.1. Relevant Product Aspects ................................................................................................................................5\r\n9.2. Analysis of technologies ...................................................................................................................................8\r\n9.2.1 Physical Durability...........................................................................................................................................8\r\n9.2.2 Maintenance..................................................................................................................................................... 22\r\n9.2.4 Waste Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 34\r\n9.2.5. Recyclability and recycled content........................................................................................................ 43\r\n9.2.6. Environmental impacts.............................................................................................................................. 56\r\n9.2.7 Substances of Concern................................................................................................................................. 63\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Final Version\r\nThe European Branded Clothing Association (EBCA) welcomes the opportunity to provide\r\nfeedback on the Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) preliminary study for the elaboration of the ESPR\r\nDelegated Act for Apparel Textiles. EBCA members represent 75 well-known global brands across\r\n14 members. We welcome the ESPR as a critical regulatory framework for improving the\r\nenvironmental performance of apparel and empowering consumers to make more informed\r\npurchasing decisions.\r\nWe are however deeply concerned about the report's lack of scientific evidence, recent data, and\r\naccurate representation of the sector's current realities. The arguments and conclusions often\r\nrely on outdated assumptions or simplistic considerations, failing to adequately address the\r\ncomplexity of our global value chains or acknowledge the industry’s sustainability efforts. In our\r\nanalysis, we underline several key recommendations that require careful consideration:\r\nGeneral comments\r\nEBCA calls to improve the referencing of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. There are numerous\r\nshortcomings in Task 4 due to a lack of scientific evidence supporting the preliminary study. The\r\npreparatory study should acknowledge and consider the industry's current work in improving\r\nproduct performance and supply chain manufacturing. Many statements are incorrect or\r\ninconsistent with market realities.\r\nFurther, it is crucial to note that following the structure prescribed by the Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP) and evaluating sustainability aspects based on Best\r\nNot Yet Available Techniques (BNAT) introduce significant challenges when applied to apparel.\r\nFurther, clarifying the purpose of concepts Base Case, BAT and BNAT as the connection between\r\nthese concepts and future ecodesign measures, is critical. EBCA strongly ask for clarification of\r\nthe relevance of these concepts for defining future proposed policy options. Otherwise, the\r\nmethodology relies on speculative assumptions about future technologies, industry practices, and\r\nconsumer behaviour, undermining the reliability of assessments against current benchmarks.\r\nMoreover, the methodology distorts the product descriptions, and the BNAT description assumes\r\nthese innovations will be feasible and scalable, which may not materialize, creating a gap between\r\ntheoretical potential and practical implementation.\r\nFinally, EBCA asks the JRC to build a stronger link between the analyses and the conclusions. The\r\nreport points at important points (on for example fibre composition or product functionality), but\r\nunfortunately, these are not reflected in the conclusions which only partly reflect the analyses\r\nand the sector’s realities. Furthermore, evaluating product aspects in isolation fails to account for\r\ntrade-offs, such as reduced durability when using recycled content or diminished durability to\r\nfacilitate ease of repairability. This will be important to include in Tasks 5 and 6.\r\nPhysical Durability\r\nWe strongly advocate for the JRC to revisit and simplify the proposed durability testing\r\nrequirements (see our proposal on table 44), ensuring high and realistic quality requirements\r\nthat are relevant for minimum market access criteria. In addition, we strongly recommend\r\nadopting a risk-based testing approach like the approach known from REACH and/or The General\r\nProduct Safety Regulation to keep compliance and administrative costs and lead times\r\nreasonable.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Final Version\r\nFinally, it is crucial the JRC merges ‘product descriptions’ to reflect the importance of the\r\ntechnology of the fabric (knitted vs. woven) to enhance clarity, reduce complexities, and minimize\r\nthe risk of misinterpretations. This includes focusing on test methods to identify the most\r\ncommon failure modes.\r\nMaintenance\r\nWe advocate for full alignment with the Textile Labelling Regulation (TLR) to establish a clear\r\nframework for maintenance information. It is essential to restrict physical label content to only\r\nthe most necessary information.\r\nWe suggest that detailed maintenance instructions, if deemed necessary, be offered primarily in\r\ndigital formats to maintain label size and wearer comfort, ensuring a technology neutral\r\napproach.\r\nRepairability\r\nWe oppose the introduction of ecodesign requirements on repairability due to complexity and\r\nexpected limited impact.\r\nWe propose a move towards enhancing repair services instead of imposing strict repairability\r\nrequirements, as these do not guarantee that products are actually repaired.\r\nThe JRC should assess to what extent the mandatory availability of spare parts would increase\r\nthe amount of textile waste.\r\nWaste Generation\r\nIt is critical to be able to rely on all waste feedstocks (including post-industrial, pre-consumer and\r\neventually post-consumer waste) to facilitate further scaling of recycling technologies. It is wrong\r\nto assume that including post-industrial waste into future recycled content targets would\r\nincentivize the industry to produce more waste, this must be corrected.\r\nThe JRC should ensure that definitions of waste align with relevant ISO standards and the Waste\r\nFramework Directive (WFD), specifically on the definition on discarded unsold goods (preconsumer waste) must align with the provisions of unsold goods in the framework regulation to\r\nensure legal clarity.\r\nRecyclability and Recycled Content\r\nEBCA calls on the JRC to refrain from regulating recyclability in the form of eco-design measures\r\nat this stage, to avoid the risk of hampering the further development of the textile-to-textile\r\nrecycling industry.\r\nThe JRC should focus on identifying common disruptors and setting flexible, high-level guidelines\r\nthat can adapt as technology progresses, and on building the right infrastructure across the EU to\r\ncollect, sort, and prepare materials for recycling.\r\nOn recycled content, EBCA calls for enabling a stepwise approach for an effective transition by\r\nincluding post-industrial, pre-consumer, and post-consumer waste feedstocks into the eco-design\r\ndefinition of recycled content for apparel to support the recycling industry to scale further.\r\nEBCA members believe that the DA for Textiles should establish a minimum requirement for the\r\nincorporation of recycled content at the portfolio level content – a compulsory minimum\r\nthreshold for market entry at the global brand portfolio level – paired with an information\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Final Version\r\nrequirement at the product level. Minimum requirements on a portfolio level enable faster\r\nadoption and achievement of even more ambitious recycled content levels as companies can\r\ndirect higher volume of recycled materials to the product types that can absorb recycled content\r\nthe best. Minimum requirements at portfolio level would also leave room for brands to balance\r\nconsiderations for functionality and longevity. This should be paired with an information\r\nrequirement at product level.\r\nEnvironmental Impacts\r\nRobust scientific research is paramount to accurately assess environmental impacts and support\r\ninformed decision-making.\r\nShift the focus to facility-level data to create incentives for improvement, especially for producers\r\noutside the EU meeting European standards or equivalent.\r\nSubstances of Concern\r\nEmploy a pragmatic stepwise approach to gather information on substances of concern (SoCs),\r\nprioritizing those relevant to textiles and ensuring clear, enforceable requirements.\r\nEngage industry organizations like AFIRM in the development of frameworks related to SoCs to\r\nensure relevance and applicability.\r\nIn summary, EBCA urges the JRC to incorporate these recommendations to enhance the\r\neffectiveness of the ESPR framework and facilitate progress within the apparel industry. Our\r\ncommitment to sustainability and responsible practices drives our collaborative efforts in\r\nshaping regulations reflective of the industry's realities.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nEBCA COMMENTS ON ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGIES\r\n9.1. Relevant Product Aspects\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.1.2 2594 Define apparel, clothing, and garments appropriately: While the report focuses on apparel, it predominantly\r\nreferences fashion, suggesting other segments of apparel do not share the same foundational assumptions. We\r\nsuggest using the same definition as HS codes for classifying products.\r\n9.1.2 Exclusion of\r\nnonrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2623-2702 Guiding\r\nquestions\r\nFollowing the structure prescribed by the Methodology for Eco-design of Energy-related Products\r\n(MEErP) and evaluating sustainability aspects based on Best NotYet Available Techniques (BNAT)\r\nintroduces significant challenges when applied to apparel: It relies on speculative assumptions about\r\nfuture technologies, industry practices, and consumer behaviour, undermining the reliability of assessments\r\nagainst current benchmarks. Moreover, the methodology distorts the product descriptions, and BNAT assumes\r\nthese innovations will be feasible and scalable, which may not materialize, creating a gap between theoretical\r\npotential and practical implementation. This approach risks imposing unrealistic expectations on\r\nstakeholders, potentially alienating them and detracting from actionable progress in sustainability efforts.\r\nWe strongly recommend developing the methodology for selecting the guiding questions on which the\r\nconclusions on the identification and grouping of relevant product aspects were based.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\ndurability\r\ndefinition\r\nTable 41: Keeping in mind that the ESPR is intended to raise the minimum environmental performance level\r\nfor all textile apparel products placed on the market: The word “highly” is used in the majority of the definitions\r\nin Table 41 outlining the required characteristics of products. It seems to imply that the regulation will only\r\naccept products with an aspirational durability/eco-design performance level, instead of it defining the general\r\nbaseline/minimum requirements for what a durable product would be, which must be the initial intention of\r\nthe ESPR and the delegated act for apparel textiles.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\ndurability\r\ndefinition\r\nWe recommend excluding soiling as it is very specific. Characteristics as resistance to soiling should not be a\r\nrequirement for apparel with normal everyday wear or for fashion apparel as there is no reason for adding\r\nunnecessary chemicals to the fabric to prevent soil. Indeed, Resistance to soiling is more a parameter for\r\nworkwear as it will be more exposed to heavy dirt etc.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\ndurability\r\ndefinition\r\nDesign for disassembly can be a problem for product safety - for example kids wear due to choking hazards.\r\nDesign for disassembly can therefore conflict with General Product Safety Directive (GPSD), the EU Directive\r\n2001/95/EC of the European parliament and of the council of the 3rd of December 2001 on general product\r\nsafety.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 and\r\n2939\r\nTable 41\r\nand 44 –\r\ndurability\r\ndefinition\r\nSeam slippage is included in the definition. However, in Table 44, the test method for Seam strength/resistance\r\n(ISO 13935-2;2014) is used. Seam slippage and Seam Strength (or resistance) is not the same. Please adjust\r\ndurability definition in table 41 to align with table 44.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\nreliability\r\ndefinition\r\nIn table 41 it is stated that a reliable product should be desirable to the user for long time. How should\r\ncompanies do this? Is it via a risk assessment evaluation for what is expected that might need to be repaired?\r\nand is it on all product types? Is it not something that is covered by the \"right to repair\" or is it smaller repairs\r\nthat this refer to? For maintenance; this should be covered by the care icons on the care label.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\nwater use\r\nand water\r\nefficiency\r\nIn table 41 it is stated that “an item of textile apparel with low water use or high-water efficiency should […]\r\nuse materials which are not water intensive in their manufacturing stage”. Please note here that recycled\r\nmaterials often have a higher water usage which must be taken into account when setting recycled content\r\nrequirements.\r\n9.1.3 Grouping of\r\nrelevant\r\nproduct\r\naspects\r\n2732 Table 41 –\r\nwater use\r\nand water\r\nefficiency\r\nIn table 41 it stated that “an item of textile apparel with low resource use or high resource efficiency should,\r\namong other things, use materials that throughout its life cycle stages (1) consume raw materials produced in\r\nsustainable way, (2) indirectly use land assuring its future use with the same activity, (3) use ecosystems\r\nwithout damaging their biodiversity and general balance”.\r\nWe strongly recommend defining (1), (2), and (3) more concise and will be very difficult to measure in practice.\r\n2732 Table 41 -\r\nWater use\r\nLaundering activities are beyond the control of manufacturers. It is necessary to provide evidence and\r\nexamples to demonstrate how a single item of apparel can reduce water consumption during laundry. Without\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nand water\r\nefficiency\r\nsuch support, the proposal should be reconsidered. This report should include a solid and scientific foundation\r\nfor the proposals to enable policymakers to make informed decisions.\r\n2732 Table 41 -\r\nExpected\r\ngeneration\r\nof waste\r\n“ideally it should be designed to increase emotional attachment to the user to limit the demand for new\r\nproducts,”\r\nIt's impossible to measure this, as each customer may have different reasons for their emotional attachment\r\nto the garments. Some might prefer timeless pieces, while others value unique elements. This variability makes\r\nit impractical to set specific requirements. Eco-design measures must be both measurable and verifiable.\r\n2740-2744 Emotional durability lacks a clear definition and is not supported by sufficient scientific research regarding its\r\nimpact on the use of garments. It is not an intrinsic characteristic of the product, making it challenging to\r\nanalyse comprehensively. Ecodesign legal requirements should be evidence-based, measurable, and pertain to\r\naspects of the product that can be controlled during design and manufacturing. Consequently, emotional\r\ndurability should not be considered in this context.\r\n2733-2766 Table 42 shows a risk matrix that reflects the interaction between product aspects and product parameters\r\nreported in Annex I to ESPR. It is important to highlight that “Presence of substances of concern” has only one\r\ninteraction in the whole table, the interaction with “Use of substances, in particular, the use of substances of\r\nconcern”\r\nWhile the statement included in line 2766 is claiming the presence of substances of concern strongly affects\r\nother product aspects.\r\nIt seems strange to give so much emphasis on the presence of SoC in line 2766 and only state one interaction\r\nin table 42.\r\nWe suggest you reevaluate the table or the wording to confirm the message the JRC wishes to report and\r\neliminate any kind of contradiction that could mislead the reader.\r\n2791 The report has not extensively analysed or measured the connection between business models and the impact\r\nof a single product. The goal of the ESPR is to regulate products, not business models. Additionally, the\r\npreliminary study should be based on scientific criteria rather than qualitative opinions and speculations about\r\npotential relationships and impacts. Unless supported by an impact-based report on this topic, any comments\r\n2792 In the context of ecodesign requirements, user behaviour cannot be controlled or predicted by designers and\r\nmanufacturers. Therefore, to ensure legal certainty, ecodesign legal requirements should be founded on\r\nevidence-based, measurable aspects related to controllable product factors during design and manufacturing.\r\nUncontrollable and speculative aspects, such as consumer behaviour, should be excluded from the scope of the\r\nreport.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n9.2. Analysis of technologies\r\n9.2.1 Physical Durability\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.2.1.1 -The\r\necosystem\r\nof physical\r\ndurability\r\n2832-2848 User\r\nbehaviour\r\n- relation\r\nbetween\r\nprice of\r\nproducts\r\nand their\r\nintrinsic\r\ndurability\r\nproperties\r\nThere is scientific literature on the relationship between price of products and their intrinsic durability\r\nproperties, and this literature conclude that you cannot establish a relationship between price and intrinsic\r\ndurability properties. For example this Undvik de billigaste T-shirtarna (in Swedish) and this\r\nhttps://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-working-business/news/article/5346/why-price-does-not-indicate-howlong-clothes-will-last?utm_source=chatgpt.com\r\n9.2.1.1 The\r\necosystem\r\nof physical\r\ndurability\r\n2829\r\n+\r\n2894\r\n+\r\n2939\r\nFigure 21,\r\ntable 43,\r\nand table\r\n44 – using\r\nAITEX as\r\nthe main /\r\nsole\r\nsource\r\nWe strongly recommend relying on a larger range of scientific and industry references for providing evidencebased scientific support to the European policymaking process. It could be by requesting data from SGS and\r\nBureau Veritas which globally are the biggest testing companies.\r\nFigure 21 presents an overview of the factors influencing the physical durability of textile apparel but fails to\r\nconsider these characteristics when proposing possible durability criteria.\r\n9.2.1.1 Physical\r\ndurability -\r\nThe\r\necosystem\r\nof physical\r\ndurability\r\n2860-2862 Business\r\nmodels –\r\nrelation\r\nbetween\r\nbusiness\r\nmodel /\r\nfrequency\r\nof\r\ncollection\r\nPlease provide references to the science supporting the relationship between the company’s business model\r\nand their product’s physical durability.\r\nIncluding a paragraph about the business model in a discussion on the physical durability of the product appears\r\nto lack direct relevance. The report does not provide an explanation for how the business model relates to\r\nphysical durability, and there seems to be no clear correlation. The paragraph includes generalized statements\r\nthat may not align with the scientific nature of the report, which is expected to be based on data. Additionally,\r\nthis paragraph does not present sources or data to support its claims.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nand\r\nphysical\r\ndurability\r\nThis lack of scientific evidence and accurate representation risks undermining the purpose of the preliminary\r\nstudy, which is to provide a solid and scientific foundation for the future definition of legal ecodesing\r\nrequirements.\r\nSpecifically, the following statement lacks supporting evidence:\r\n“Usually, economic operators using this business model would not promote physical durability of the textile\r\napparel because the item would be changed or disposed of by the user relatively soon after purchase.”\r\n9.2.1.2 Natural vs\r\nsynthetic\r\nfibres –\r\nduality or\r\ncomplexity?\r\n2877-2879 Material\r\ncompositi\r\non\r\nIt is stated that “the majority of textile apparel on the EU market is made from blends of natural and chemical\r\nfibres (48-60%). Single-fibre products account for a smaller share, with 18-28% made of cotton and 11-17%\r\nmade of polyester”. The fiber composition very much depends on the product as t-shirts and jerseys are often\r\nmade of mono-materials whereas other products, like jackets and coats, are made of different fibers and\r\ncompositions.\r\n2892-2896 According to table 43, the key parameters included later in table 44 are based on the most common textile\r\napparel failure modes analysed by Cooper and Claxton namely pilling, visual inspection, tensile strength,\r\nbursting strength, and dimensional stability. However, table 43 does not specify if these failure modes apply to\r\nall product categories. This distinction is crucial for defining key parameters in table 44. Cooper and Claxton\r\nshow that for woven products such as shirts, jeans, formal trousers and jackets, discolouration, colour change,\r\nfabric breakdown and holes in seams are the main failure issues. However, in the case of knitted products such\r\nas cardigans and t-shirts, the primary failure issues are pilling, colour fading, loss of dimensional stability and\r\nholes in seams. Based on these findings, which are also supported by our members’ technical expertise, pilling\r\nfor woven products should not considered a key parameter.\r\nThe ecodesign requirements should be designed to maximise their effectiveness whilst ensuring a feasible and\r\nscalable implementation framework. For that, they should be selected based on the most common causes of\r\napparel failure. Based on Cooper and Claxton findings, these will be the key parameters based on the most\r\ncommon apparel failures: dimensional stability (ISO 5077), fabric breakdown (evaluate with tensile strength\r\n(ISO 13934-2) for woven products and bursting resistance (ISO 13938-2) for knitted products), pilling for\r\nknitted products (ISO 12945-1) and colour changes/appearance in general after washes (ISO 15487). It is\r\nimportant to note that the ISO 15487 (appearance after wash) assess aspects like colour but also the seams and\r\ntrims so the inclusion on seam strength as a key parameter is not relevant as it was not identified as a most\r\ncommon cause of failure.\r\n2897-2898 Although this sentence mentions that the characteristics of the new fibre (minimum requirements) are fibre\r\nneutral, the framework defined on Table 44 does not specify thresholds by type of fibre because, as it is quoted\r\nin the document, textile apparel made of any type could meet the thresholds of the table 44 (line 2939). Upon\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nexamining table 44 and its thresholds, we can observe that while some thresholds align with international\r\nmarket practices and the average quality of a good product, others exceed market norms, setting very high\r\nstandards (please see below comments for specific examples). This is particularly demanding for garments\r\nmade from certain blends, such as regenerated cellulosic fibres (viscose) or animal fibres like wool and\r\ncashmere, among others. For example, to achieve a grade≥ 4 in pilling for a sweater after 14400 cycles (ISO\r\n12945-2), is unfeasible in a blend of wool with polyester for example, especially when the percentage of wool\r\nin the blend is higher than the synthetic fibre. And this situation would turn into more complicated when the\r\npercentage of recycled fibres in the garment is increased.\r\nThis “fibre neutral” approach was also taken into in the physical durability of the PEFCR. At the beginning the\r\nPEFCR for apparel set requirements for certain fiber types (animal fibers such as wool, cashmere, mohair, or\r\nregenerated cellulosic fibers as viscose). After discussions, the approach was to define thresholds that were\r\nachievable for any type of fiber in order not to discriminate against other more resistant fibers as synthetics.\r\nThe solution was to reduce the thresholds to facilitate the use of these fibers and avoid overly complicating the\r\nprocedure. We think that this approach should be considered since the intrinsic properties of these fibers will\r\nnever be the same as others as synthetic fibers. A procedure with very high thresholds or testing conditions\r\nmight foster the use of synthetic fibers over natural ones. Furthermore, specific thresholds with lower\r\nrequirements could be implemented for certain fibres without excessively complicating the procedure.\r\nIn summary, we call for a fiber approach that does not discriminate fibers and gives a disadvantage to natural\r\nfibers.\r\n2903-2904 The purpose of durability tests is to identify product failures, not to simulate the aging process. So, we oppose\r\nJRCs focus on simulating the aging process as this is significantly different from durability testing as simulation\r\nof the aging process. If simulating the aging process. We disagree with only consider washing and not drying\r\nand ironing in the aging process. We think that the procedure to evaluate the aging, should follow faithfully the\r\ncustomer behaviour where both the washing, the drying and ironing are carried out as per the care label. This\r\napproach allows brands to more accurately simulate real-life conditions and everyday user activities within\r\ntheir homes. The drying process is a crucial factor in garment care, as it significantly impacts wear and tear,\r\neven more so than washing. Additionally, ironing plays an important role in stabilizing the garment after\r\nwashing and drying. Therefore, it is essential to implement an aging process that closely replicates real-life\r\nscenarios and customer behaviour.\r\n2909-2910 The need to reanalyze all parameters after the aging process is a critical point affecting the applicability and\r\naffordability of the proposed framework. This is not the approach that the industry has taken over the years to\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nassess durability of garments. It is not reasonable to analyze all parameters since dimensional change or\r\nappearance are already analysed after repeated cleaning cycles following their international ISO standards.\r\nAdditionally, ISO 15487:2018 itself verifies the effects of parameters like pilling after cleaning cycles and\r\nevaluates the appearance of seams where their integrity can be assessed. So that, reanalysis after cleaning cycles\r\nis not necessary for all the tests and should be limited to dimensional change and appearance, following their\r\nrespective ISO standards.\r\n2910-2912 This approach will not improve durability performance and does not align with the industry's longstanding\r\npass/fail method.\r\nDefining performance as a percentage doesn’t allow the establishment of a level playing field, as it rewards the\r\ndegree of decrease rather than the actual performance of the product. As a result, a product with a lower\r\ndecrease but worse final performance might be considered \"more durable,\" which may not accurately reflect its\r\ntrue durability.\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Table 44 Recognise industry practises and expertise on durability testing and integration of recycled content: We\r\nappreciate the effort the JRC has put into developing the 2nd milestone report, but we are concerned about the\r\nfailure to recognise industry expertise on critical product aspects such as durability (table 44) and recycled\r\ncontent (section 9.2.5). The cost implications linked to the testing requirements likely arising from excessively\r\nhigh testing requirements foreseen as well as the exclusion of post-industrial waste as a feedstock for recycled\r\ncontent, are both absolute – both considerations would make it more challenging for the industry to effectively\r\nimprove the environmental performance of apparel.\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Table 44 From the JRCs Q&A, we understand that the characteristics of the new products are not minimum performance\r\nrequirements and that these will be addressed in Task 6.\r\nIf the characteristics of the new product for all tests in table 44 were JRC’s recommendations for minimum\r\nperformance requirements, they are unreasonably high and a significant number of apparel products will not\r\nbe able to meet these characteristics, even if the products are produced solely with new synthetic virgin fibers.\r\nThe characteristics of the new product are therefore not suitable as minimum performance and market access\r\nrequirements in the ESPR.\r\nIt is further unclear if these characteristics of the new product also apply to products that have been made of\r\nrecycled content or have been repaired, upgrade, refurbished and remanufactured. Overall, such products will\r\noften not be able to meet these high requirements. We strongly recommend the JRC to consider if and how all\r\nrelevant product aspects impact durability and the proposed market access requirements in table 44.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.2.1.3 2939/Table 44 Product\r\ndescriptio\r\nn from the\r\nperspectiv\r\ne of\r\nphysical\r\ndurability\r\nSimulation of the ageing process – an unnecessarily high number of washing cycles\r\nThe purpose of durability tests is to identify product failures, not to simulate the aging process. The industry is\r\nadvocating for a solution that is scalable and affordable for all economic actors across the industry. The\r\nproposed levels by JRC/AITEX do not meet those requirements in anyway: the proposed approach that products\r\nshall be tested for the key test parameters both before and after multiple washing/drying cycles as well as\r\nsuggesting up to 30 times washing cycles as suggested in Table 44, is not considering scalability, 3rd party lab\r\ncapacity, efficiency, sustainability, and affordability – all these points are crucial to secure the success of the\r\nESPR. Contrary, industry experience shows that most product failures can be detected after 5 wash cycles,\r\ntherefore 30 wash cycles will put significant test burden on the industry - tests that would not be needed to\r\ndetect the most prominent failure modes. Product testing is a time-consuming and a costly undertaking, both\r\neconomically and environmentally, so regulating unnecessary testing should be avoided.\r\nThe experience says is that it is not necessary to do 20 or 30 cleaning cycles to discriminate if a garment does\r\nnot wear out as a consequence of repeated cleaning cycles. For example, in dimensional stability the main\r\nchanges of dimension are produced within the first 3-5 cleaning cycles, where the garment releases all the\r\ninternal tensions accumulated during the spinning and weaving. After 3-5 cleaning cycles the dimension of the\r\ngarment stabilizes, and further cleaning cycles would have little effect on its dimensional change.\r\nOther failures as colour issues (staining or fading) comes up during the first cleaning cycles when the garment\r\nloses the residual colour not eliminated during the latest stages of manufacturing of the garment.\r\nOther remarkable point with the aging process with 20 or 30 washings is the timing and cost needed to complete\r\nthe whole process, because if we do 20 or 30 washings in an accredited laboratory, the cost would be high and\r\nthe time to get results would be also long.\r\nFor one hand, regarding testing time, this approach is not operational since it would be time-consuming to carry\r\nout all the cleaning cycles. We have evaluated the time needed to accomplish the table 44 proposal with several\r\naccredited laboratories. As an average, applying 30 cleaning cycles (washings + dryings + ironings) in a shirt as\r\ndefined in table 44, would require 25 days to get the result for all tests. We acknowledge that table 44 proposal\r\ndoes not contemplate dryings and therefore the timings would be shorter, but the procedure would not simulate\r\nthe real customer behaviour.\r\nAnother key factor is the current capacity of testing laboratories to handle incoming requests if this approach is\r\nimplemented. According to standards \"ISO 3759:2011\" for dimensional change or \"ISO 15487:2018\" for\r\nappearance, only one sample unit should be included in the washing machine during a cleaning cycle. These\r\ntests are performed before applying one cleaning cycle as per \"ISO 6330:2021,\" which requires that only one\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nunit along with ballast be analyzed. If the aging process involves many washings and the lab has numerous\r\nsamples to analyze, it could significantly reduce throughput. A surge of customer requests for the same test\r\ncould create bottlenecks and delaying lead times.\r\nIt is important to understand the difference between wash cycles needed to appreciate a garment’s overall\r\nphysical durability, including its failure modes, and how many wash cycles it would actually last in the use phase.\r\nEqually important is to understand that only washing, without wear cycles in between, will not correctly\r\nsimulate a garment’s ageing process. Most garments are stretched and exposed to humidity and other external\r\nfactors when used in between washes and, in particular for cellulosic fibres (cotton, MMCF), this will have a\r\nhuge impact on the results from proposed testing.\r\nChapter: Physical and chemical effects of domestic laundering processes, p 125-171; Ed: C. Carr; Chemistry of\r\nthe Textiles Industry; Springer Science & Business Media, 2012\r\nISBN: 9401105952, 9789401105958\r\n9.2.1.3 2939/Table 44 Product\r\ndescriptio\r\nn from the\r\nperspectiv\r\ne of\r\nphysical\r\ndurability\r\nThe category description in table 44 does not follow similar manufacturing processes, does not have similar\r\nfunctions, and does not count with similar main failure modes as the category descriptions in table 44 mix\r\nknitted and woven products and does not reflect how the product’s composition (man-made vs natural fibers\r\nand mono materials vs. blends), and surface treatment (for example raised, brushing, and peach) significantly\r\nimpact failures and the durability performance of the product.\r\nWe strongly recommend JRC to use the below table instead of the current table 44. The below table merges ID\r\n#1-9 from table 44 into one ‘Category Description’ that clearly reflects the importance of the technology of the\r\nfabric (knitted vs. woven) to enhance clarity, reduce complexities, and minimize the risk of misinterpretations.\r\nThe below table also includes the standard Test Methods to identify the most common failure modes.\r\nWe strongly recommend addressing psychical durability by focusing on the ISO test standards for identifying\r\nthe most common failures. The following table outlines the ISO standard test to identify the most frequent\r\nfailure modes in textile products and fabrics.\r\n3\r\n-Mar\r\n-25 Confidential Version\r\n4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nID Category\r\ndescripti\r\non\r\nKey Parameters\r\n(unit) and Test\r\nMethod\r\nCharacteristics of the\r\nnew product\r\nSimulation of the\r\nageing process\r\n1 ID #1\r\n-9\r\n(excluding\r\nsocks) in\r\ntable 44\r\n(line 2939)\r\nFor ‘PU\r\ncoated\r\nfabrics,\r\nonly wash\r\ntests\r\napplies.\r\nAppearance after\r\nwash (all textile\r\nproducts): • ISO 15487:\r\nMethod for\r\nassessing\r\nappearance\r\nof apparel\r\nand other\r\ntextile end\r\nproducts\r\nafter\r\ndomestic\r\nwashing and\r\ndrying but\r\nonly for the\r\nparameters\r\nrelated to\r\ndurability and\r\nnot for\r\nparameters\r\nrelated only\r\nto quality.\r\nFrom the JRCs Q&A, we\r\nunderstand that the\r\ncharacteristics of the new\r\nproducts are not minimum\r\nperformance requirements\r\nand that these will be\r\naddressed in Task 6.\r\nIf the Characteristics of\r\nthe new product were\r\nJRCs recommendations\r\nfor minimum performance\r\nrequirements, these are\r\nunreasonably high and a\r\nsignificant number of\r\ntextile products would not\r\nbe able to meet these\r\nrequirements, even if the\r\nproducts were produced\r\nsolely with new synthetic\r\nvirgin fibers\r\n– as the\r\nCharacteristics of the new\r\nproduct are far from being\r\n‘fibre\r\n-neutral’ as otherwise\r\nstated in line 2897\r\n-2900.\r\nWhen setting minimum\r\nperformance\r\nrequirements, the\r\nWe strongly\r\nrecommend applying\r\n5 cleaning cycles to all\r\nproduct descriptions.\r\nFor ‘Jackets, and\r\ncoats’, 3 cleaning\r\ncycles.\r\nFor “Dry clean only”\r\nproducts, X dry\r\ncleaning cycles.\r\nDimensional Stability\r\nShrinkage (all textile\r\nproducts): • ISO 6330 for\r\ndomestic\r\nwashing and\r\ndrying\r\nprocedures\r\nfor textile\r\n3\r\n-Mar\r\n-25 Confidential Version\r\n4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\ntesting, or\r\nISO 3175 for\r\nProfessional\r\ncare, dry\r\n-\r\ncleaning and\r\nwet cleaning,\r\nalso\r\naccording to\r\nthe care\r\nlabel.\r\n• ISO 5077 for\r\nthe\r\ndeterminatio\r\nn of\r\ndimensional\r\nchange after\r\nwashing and\r\ndrying.\r\nfollowing factors are\r\nimportant to include: • Materials\r\ncomposition\r\n(manmade vs.\r\nnatural fibres)\r\n• Mono vs. blends • Weight (for woven\r\nproducts)\r\n• Trade\r\n-offs with\r\nother product\r\naspects\r\n• Surface treatment\r\nPilling (only knitted\r\nproducts): • ISO 12945\r\n-\r\n1:\r\nDeterminatio\r\nn of fabric\r\npropensity to\r\nsurface\r\npilling,\r\nfuzzing, or\r\nmatting. Part\r\n1: Pilling box\r\nmethod.\r\nFabric Tensile\r\nStrength (only woven\r\nproducts): • ISO 13934\r\n-1\r\nOR ISO\r\n13934\r\n-\r\n2\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nFor Task 6 and following above table, we strongly recommend JRC to focus the discussion of market access\r\nvalues on what the minimum requirements should be for ensuring ‘the removal of the worst performing\r\nproducts from the market’ (as stated in recital 24 of the ESPR as a key purpose of setting performance\r\nrequirements). Setting lower requirements than current ones in table 44 (under ‘Characteristics of the new\r\nproduct’) will not mean low quality, but ‘high and realistic’ quality requirements.\r\nWe strongly recommend JRC to apply clearer definitions to table 44 to avoid loopholes and to ensure that all\r\nproduct groups are included. This includes tailoring as well as allowing the flexibility to include new products\r\nthat do not fit clearly into one specific category.\r\nFabric bursting (only\r\nknitted products):\r\n• ISO 13938-2\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Table 44: Implications on test capacity: The proposed durability framework is expected to put a huge strain in\r\nlab capacity and likely to increase led times significantly. How does the JRC see the lab capacity and lead time\r\nconnected to testing up to 30 washes for all products placed on the EU market and has the JRC undertaken any\r\ncapacity mapping done of current status? We believe undertaking such a mapping, including calculating the\r\nexpected use of energy and water purely in testing, will be critical to undertake before concluding on mandatory\r\ndurability requirements under the ESPR. Our understanding is that this level of wash cycle requirements will\r\nincrease cost and lead time significantly, and that such test capacity does not exist today. Requiring wash testing\r\nbefore and after ageing process will add significantly lead time and cost as well, especially if such testing should\r\nbe done on each product category. Therefore, the industry strongly recommends that product testing is to be\r\ndone on a risk-based approach.\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Table 44: given the number of tests to be undertaken anticipated, it will be critical to adopt a risk-based\r\napproach for ensuring compliance with eco-design measures, as applied under the REACH Regulation or the\r\nGeneral Product Safety Regulation. This will ensure efficiency and effectiveness by minimising bottlenecks at\r\ntest facilities, discarded test-products, administrative burdens, and potentially higher consumer prices. Table\r\n44/JRC 4th milestone does not add any view on if a risk-based approach to compliance testing is\r\npossible/foreseen - this must be considered in the consecutive work of the JRC/preparatory study.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Table 44; Cannot look at testing only, to ensure durable products: The durability of the product will not only\r\ndepend on the results from the physical tests performed, it will also depend on the product’s design, fit and\r\nmaking. There are different ways to secure that the product is durable over time, for example a lightweight\r\nfabric with a lower tensile strength could still be used for a product with a looser fit/design - and still be durable.\r\nThis is not possible to capture when looking at test results only.\r\n9.2.1.3 How to\r\nassess\r\nphysical\r\ndurability\r\n2939 Table 44 –\r\nwear\r\nsignificant\r\nly impacts\r\nthe\r\ndurability\r\nof a textile\r\napparel\r\nproduct\r\nBeyond 5 cleaning cycles (depending on product, see comments to 9.2.1.4 / table 44), the number of cleaning\r\ncycles do not express the objective physical resistance of a textile apparel, nor does more than 5 cleaning cycles\r\nsimulate ageing as it does not include wear.\r\nMost failures will appear after washing based on 5 cleaning cycles for most products. For jackets and coats, up\r\nto 3 cleaning cycles are sufficient.\r\nFurthermore, the standard testing methods do not account for the use-phase, why garments that are washed\r\nwithout wear-testing are more prone to failing than a garment that is wear-tested, as it is not exposed to\r\nperspiration and moisture over time.\r\nTo exemplify, we have conducted a washing test of a cotton t-shirt in our own brand lab. One washing test was\r\nwithout wear between each wash, the other was with wear between each wash. Below, the pictures show\r\nappearance after 50 washes. The results clearly show the importance of wear between washes.\r\nThe t-shirt that was worn between washed perform significantly better than the t-shirt that was not worn\r\nbetween washes. The exposure to perspiration and moisture over time keeps the quality of the fabric. This is\r\nespecially the case for natural fibers.\r\nThese results also show that the reliability of durability tests like appearance after wash on higher and higher\r\nnumber of washes will be skewered for natural fibers, why the results for natural fibers will not be as good as\r\nresults after testing the use and durability in real life environments.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nA durability score defined by e.g., number of washing cycles will therefore give preference to synthetic materials, as these do not show the same differences between pure wash testing and wash testing including wear\r\ntesting.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nFurther, to keep the appearance after wash after 20 washes then some of the chemicals used today will not\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nwork and more chemicals will need to be added to ensure that the appearance will be the same. More energy\r\nand water will also be used with such a high number of washing cycles.\r\n9.2.1.3 2939 Technical feedback on product description from the perspective of physical durability (table 44):\r\nThe requirements for all tests are unreasonably high and a significant number of products will not be able to\r\nmeet these requirements, even if the products are produced solely with new synthetic virgin fibers.\r\nIn general, for all product groups, if the number of washes under the ageing process is expected to meet the\r\nrequirements according to the requirement under the “characteristics of new product” ISO 15487, it is\r\nunrealistic, as the requirements are high after 20 or 30 wash cycles. There will be only very limited\r\nproducts/fabrics that will not have any changes after this high number of repeated washes. (colour change –\r\npilling – trimming aspect – self standing).\r\nFor woven products (trousers, denim, shirts, blouses and jackets) pilling requirement for woven products) is\r\nset at level ≥4 regardless of fiber type, fabric or treatment. This is unrealistic, as some mixed fiber composition\r\nhas an increased pilling tendency compared to e.g. products made of 100% polyester, in addition, fabrics made\r\nof soft spun yarn with short fibers have a certain tendency to pilling by nature (also mix. Cotton/linen). Finally,\r\nsome fabric treatments such as brushing has an influence on the pilling tendency too. In general pilling tendency\r\nis significantly affected by fibre types, yarn type incl. tpi and fabric structure, this has not been taken into\r\nconsideration in the JRC.\r\nFor knitted products (sweaters and t-shirts) Pilling requirement is unrealistic, especially as the 14.400 (equal 4\r\nhr) test cycles are not commonly used in the fashion industry, it is typically 10.800 (3 hr) and 7.200 (2 hr) for\r\nsoft or woolen products. In general pilling tendency is significantly affected by fibre types, yarn twist and fabric\r\nstructure, this has not been taken into consideration in the JRC. A tight and compact construction will only have\r\nlittle or no pilling, whereas loosely (soft) knitted fabrics are more likely to show pilling.\r\nFor knitted products (sweaters and t-shirts) bursting requirement, the set level will not be achievable for all\r\ntypes of fabrics, or compositions, e.g. polyester are having higher levels compared to cotton, whereas special\r\nyarns and fabric construction or treatment will have lower bursting level (slob yarns, wash effects, burn out\r\neffect etc.)\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nFor hosiery (leggings, stockings, tights and socks) abrasion requirement is extreme high for normal socks with\r\nmajority composition of cotton. The Bursting requirement is also very high for normal socks, for stockings it\r\nmight be more realistic? (Furthermore, the knit construction for stockings tights and socks are different weft\r\nknit versus warp knit.). Source: https://www.faa-design.com/files/4/10/4-2-desoki.pdf, slide 4 (page 232)\r\nFor jackets and coats requirement to pilling is not achievable for all products e.g. woolen jackets, or in mixed\r\nfibre composition.\r\nOn pilling, the high requirements suggested in table 44 will mean that brands will start making constructions\r\nwith no pilling and stop making loose knitted with loose yarns of natural origin. Which is unfortunate, as these\r\nproducts can easily last for years with the right maintenance.\r\nFurther, it is unclear if these requirements also apply to products that has been made of recycled content or has\r\nbeen repaired, upgrade, refurbished and remanufactured. Overall, such products will often not be able to meet\r\nthese high requirements.\r\nWe strongly recommend consulting quality experts such as SGS, Bureau Veritas, and Dr. Mark Taylor (Leeds\r\nUniversity) on the appropriate categories, number of washing cycles and requirements. Using AITEX, which\r\ndoes not work with testing fashion products, as the sole source is insufficient for providing evidence-based\r\nscientific support to the European policymaking process.\r\nNot feasible to reach grade 5 for cross staining. This is a result that is almost never given by laboratories even if\r\ncolour stays the same due to scale used in the method. This is also not a reasonable level when considering\r\ndifferent types of dyes etc.\r\nPilling resistance test: minimum grade 4 not reasonable after 2000/14400 cycles considering different types of\r\nfabrics consisting of varying fibre lengths and strengths. Same goes for pilling evaluation after multiple washes.\r\nColour change after wash: min. grade 4 not reasonable based on the number of washes proposed. Certain dyeing\r\nmethods (not only indigo dyed fabrics) intentionally gives the fabric a naturally faded look before wash and\r\nthen continuously after wash. This is a design option, e.g. for denim it is an integral part of its popularity among\r\ncustomers.\r\nFor bursting strength suggest using test area of 7.3 cm2 instead.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nIt is mentioned that a 5-step grading system is used for Assessment after wash of colour change, pilling, selfstaining as well as assessment of CF to Sea Water and CF to Chlorinated Water. However, the scales used have\r\nhalf grades in-between as well, making it a 9-step grading system.\r\n9.2.1.4 Description\r\nof product\r\ntechnologie\r\ns per\r\ncategory\r\n2939 Not\r\naligned\r\nwith\r\nPEFCR 2.0\r\nIt is stated that the reported number of cleaning cycles is aligned with version 2.0 of the PEFCR A&F (Quantis,\r\n2024). This is clearly incorrect. In PEFCR 2.0, tests evaluating product deformation, specifically dimensional\r\nstability and spirality will be evaluated after 5 care cycles. Tests evaluating appearance after care cycles, ISO\r\n15487, will be evaluated after 15 care cycles.\r\n3009 Table 45 (guidance on the calculation of performance): what is the meaning of this scoring/calculation? Is it\r\nmeant to be communicated on each product?\r\n9.2.2 Maintenance\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n9.2.2 Maintenance 3012-\r\n3022\r\nGeneral/\r\nIntroduction\r\nThere must be full alignment with the Textile Labelling Regulation (TLR) to ensure efficiency, clear\r\ndefinitions, and legal coherence as well as avoiding information overload. In TLR annex 1, care label fibre\r\ndescriptions are listed.\r\nHowever, potential additional information on how to care about garments to complement the information\r\non the inner physical label (as regulated under TLR), should be defined under the Delegated Act, in\r\naccordance with requirements set by the TLR. In an era of digitalization, EBCA supports the reduction of the\r\nsize of a physical label by focusing on necessary information only and relying on symbols. Should captions\r\nor detailed explanations be implemented based on existing evidence, these are better suited for digital\r\nformats. Adding extensive details to physical labels risks increasing their size, reducing wearer comfort, and\r\npotentially leading to labels being removed entirely.. We are concerned by the extensive list of proposed\r\ninformation (p.26-27) and the proposal to rely on written format.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\n3028-\r\n3029\r\nOngoing efforts on facilitating label understanding do not focus on combining both symbols and captions in\r\nphysical labels, as the text seems to indicate, but rather on the standardization and improvement of symbols\r\nalone. It is worth noting that, historically, captions were replaced by symbols to streamline physical label\r\ndesign and reduce bulk.\r\n3031 The figure shown is based on a care label regulated under New Zealand’s labelling standards. Considering\r\nthat these regulations date back to 1998, their suitability as a reference for current best practices is\r\nquestionable, given the changes in practices and techniques since then.\r\n3045-\r\n3047\r\nUser\r\nbehaviour\r\nThis statement is confusing and contradicts other parts of the report which state:\r\n\"No research was found analysing the potential relation between the price of products and their intrinsic\r\ndurability properties.\"\r\n\"Price is another important aspect that users consider when purchasing textile apparel, but generally, they do\r\nnot regard it as an indicator of quality and therefore do not consider it to indicate physical durability.\"\r\nIf customers don't associate quality with price, it's hard to assume they link price with product care. The\r\nreport should be based on scientific and validated assumptions, using a comprehensive approach rather than\r\ncompiling isolated findings from references that contradict each other.\r\nLine 3075 Table 46 We welcome the inclusion of the following best practices in Table 46: consistent label placement for\r\nconsumer ease, material-based instructions and pre-sale label verification to ensure compliance.\r\nRegarding products that consist of multiple materials or components, care instructions should focus on the\r\nmost sensitive or delicate parts rather than providing part-based instructions for every material. Focusing\r\non the most sensitive parts helps to streamline the labelling process while ensuring that the primary care\r\nneeds of the product are addressed. This approach avoids the unnecessary complexity that could arise from\r\ngiving detailed instructions for each individual component. An apparel item is a single piece that cannot be\r\ntaken apart for individual care. This must also be aligned with current approach taken under ISO standard\r\nfor care labelling.\r\n9.2.2.1 The ecosystem\r\naffecting\r\nmaintenance\r\n3023-\r\n3076\r\nindustrial\r\nbest\r\npractices\r\nTable 46\r\nWe do not agree to require information on legibility or label durability as this will be covered in TLR for the\r\nlabel as whole if needed. The ESPR should focus on the sustainability of the garment itself – testing the\r\ncompliance of the labels would require additional washing and costs. To increase the sustainability and\r\nlegibility of physical textile labels, we propose that the labels should be smaller and have more information\r\non the digital label.\r\nAs also listed in table 46, there are no BC or BAT for storing nor wearing. We therefore recommend not\r\nincluding this information as it is not a part of TLR.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nIt is highly unlikely that there will be an ISO / international standard for storing and wearing. As an example,\r\nwhat will it mean for the product guaranty if a consumer wears a product for sport if the care label says that\r\nit is a leisure time product? And similarly, if a consumer folds a product even though the care label says that\r\nthe product should not be folded. Or if the consumer has not stored the product in a tempered, dry, and dark\r\nplace as temperature, humidity and light also have an impact. Consumer behaviour cannot be checked and\r\nis not under the control of the producer. All information on storing and wearing must be recommendations\r\nand not suitable for information nor performance requirements under the ESPR.\r\nPlease also note that correct storing often also depends on the hanger – especially for jackets and outerwear.\r\nTable 46 mentions a pre-sale verification of care instructions before a product is placed on the market. Such\r\npre-verification is already done by the brands/manufacturers today. To avoid bottlenecks, unnecessary\r\ncosts, and bureaucratic exercises without value, such pre-certification should continue as a requirement on\r\nthe brand/manufacturer but not set requirements to use a third-party verifier.\r\n9.2.2 3059-\r\n3065\r\nLegislative\r\nframework\r\nand\r\nindustrial\r\npractives\r\nMandatory care instructions should be covered in TLR and should not in addition be regulated under ESPR.\r\nThis would create double regulation.\r\nWe do not agree on having care instructions mandatory in both in text and symbols. Text needs translations\r\nwhich will lead to longer care labels, so text should be voluntary if so. The care symbols provided by many\r\nbrands on textile labels have been a clear to way to transmit care information to consumers.\r\n3078-\r\n3082\r\nThe paragraph in question makes value judgments about business behaviour without providing evidence or\r\nexplanation (\"businesses might tend to invest little attention on communicating care instructions\"). It lacks\r\nanalytical insight and should therefore be omitted. The purpose of the preliminary study is to lay a solid and\r\nscientific foundation for future legal ecodesign requirements, rather than to make assumptions.\r\n9.2.2.1 3080-\r\n3082\r\nBusiness\r\nmodel – care\r\ninstructions\r\nPlease provide science-based evidence for this statement: “In general, companies that want to promote longlasting products might pay particular attention when providing maintenance instructions. Differently,\r\ncompanies that want to promote a fast turnover in the consumption of textile apparel might tend to invest\r\nlittle attention on communicating care instructions”.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nThis statement is not substantiated by evidence and is highly questionable --> if JRC does not have evidence\r\nto support this, it should not be included - especially considering that most of the larger, within-EU actors in\r\nthe fashion industry also distribute their products on markets with mandatory care information.\r\nFurther, the statement doesn’t seem to take the obligations in the Textile Labelling Regulation into account\r\nas this will make it mandatory to communicate care instruction.\r\n3095-\r\n3099 We do not agree to add directions of type and dose of detergent in the care instruction.\r\nDosage information for household detergents is already regulated under Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of\r\nthe European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, Annex VII B\r\nDetergent type is a customer choice, based on information provided by detergents manufacturer.\r\n3111-\r\n3117\r\nCare information in the inner physical labels will be governed by the Textile Labelling Regulation (TLR),\r\nwhich is currently under review. This aligns with practices in other markets outside the EU.\r\nMaintenance information requirements under the ESPR should, therefore, complement existing efforts,\r\nutilizing digital tools like the DPP to provide supplemental and targeted guidance without duplicating\r\nregulatory obligations. For instance, captions or further explanations, where relevant and duly justified, are\r\nbest suited for digital formats, which offer flexibility without compromising consumer accessibility.\r\n3120-\r\n3121\r\nThis assumption is flawed as real-world user behaviour often deviates from ideal scenarios, adding\r\nunpredictability. Integrating user behaviour into measurement models is challenging due to its resistance to\r\nprecise measurement or standardization.\r\n3124 Table 47 The assessment of technologies appears to assume that increasing the amount of care information — from\r\nsymbols alone (baseline) to captions (BAT) and eventually detailed explanations (BNAT) — automatically\r\nimproves garment maintenance and durability. To justify this approach, there must be clear, evidence-based\r\nproof that more detailed instructions result in better consumer understanding, improved maintenance\r\npractices, and measurable gains in product durability.\r\n9.2.2.3 3124 Table 47 Without solid evidence linking captions and detailed care instructions to improved maintenance and product\r\ndurability, it remains uncertain whether such requirements would provide substantial value.\r\n3124 Storage -\r\nTable 47\r\nThe report does not justify whether there is scientific evidence demonstrating a causal link between\r\nstorage instructions and increased product durability, which raises questions about the validity of\r\nincluding this information.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Heading Line Topic Comments\r\nFurthermore, storage advice is of limited practical use given that storage options are highly dependent on\r\nindividual consumer circumstances, such as available space and living conditions. Even if some consumers\r\ncould find this information helpful for specific types of apparel, it may not be feasible for many to implement\r\ndue to practical constraints.\r\nTable 47\r\n/ 3124\r\nWearing Wearing instructions are unlikely to significantly influence maintenance practices, as consumers determine\r\nhow garments are used based on personal preferences. While such information could be potentially relevant\r\nfor specific technical items, such as apparel designed for adverse weather conditions, the report does not\r\nprovide evidence to support a causal link between wearing instructions and product durability. If these\r\nrequirements were to be applied, they should be limited to cases where there is clear evidence of a\r\ndemonstrated benefit to their inclusion, rather than being implemented systematically.\r\n9.2.2.3 Table 47\r\n/ 3124\r\nISO\r\n3758:2023\r\nIt is not appropriate to define best practices based on a single standard for care symbols, as multiple\r\nstandards exist globally, and compliance with all relevant regulations is necessary. Brands already\r\nincorporate care symbols on their products, which may align with various standards, including but not\r\nlimited to ISO 3758. Several countries, such as Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Tunisia, the UK, and certain EU\r\nMember States, mandate the use of GINETEX symbols for standardized care labelling, while the USA and\r\nCanada follow ASTM standards, and Korea has its own regulations. Given this diversity, ensuring alignment\r\nwith internationally recognized symbols is essential for brands to maintain global compliance.\r\nRepairability 9.2.3\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\n3128-3133 According to the ESPR, repairability is defined as the ability of a defective product or waste to return to\r\na condition where it fulfils a product to its intended use. However, the report seems to incorporate a\r\nsubjective element for textiles, as follows: “in the context of textile apparel, this return to the intended\r\nuse includes the acceptance by the user, who should still be satisfied with the potential new aesthetics of\r\nthe product after repair operations”. Although the repair of garments should focus on restoring\r\nfunctionality rather than aesthetics, the above seems to imply the opposite. Furthermore, aesthetics are\r\nsubjective and vary according to individual consumer preferences, which cannot be regulated from a\r\ndesign and manufacturing perspective. Additionally, due to the nature of textile products, restoring the\r\ninitial aesthetics of the product cannot be guaranteed. Ecodesign requirements should rely instead on\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\nfeasible solutions that provide legal certainty for producers, without depending on future consumer\r\ntastes beyond the control of producers, and thus pivot towards objective elements.\r\nMoreover, this subjective component is not, in fact, taken into account in consumption regulations (i.e.\r\nDirective 2019/771 on the sale of goods) when it provides for the possibility for consumers to request\r\nthe repair of non-conforming products (subject to the terms provided therein).\r\nUltimately, precisely because aesthetics are subjective and vary according to individual consumer\r\npreferences, imposing repairability requirements (or, ultimately, repair obligations) would not\r\nnecessarily serve the intended purposes, since its effectiveness would depend largely on consumers'\r\nbehaviour or preferences. In other words, establishing repairability requirements would not guarantee\r\nthat products are repaired (because whether they are finally repaired does not depend on the producers),\r\nbut would only indicate that that they are potentially repaired.\r\n9.2.3 Repairability 3128-3240 General,\r\necosystem\r\naffecting the\r\nrepairability\r\nThe link to psychical durability must be further clarified, as requirements on repairability can have\r\nsignificant impact on the design and durability of the product. Scope must be clarified, which trim\r\ncategories are included?\r\nResponsibility must also be clarified for:\r\nProduct safety, kids wear products can for example not be designed for disassembly if this poses a safety\r\nrisk for kids in the use phase, and\r\nGuarantee reasons, the brand cannot be responsible for the durability of the product after a product has\r\nbeen repaired. As a minimum, repair must be done by authorized repair service to ensure the quality of\r\nthe product.\r\n9.2.3.1 The\r\nEcosystem\r\naffecting the\r\nrepairability\r\n3178-3179 Business\r\nmodel –\r\ndesign for\r\nrepair\r\nDesign for repair / disassembly is becoming more common and reflected in Project REWEAR (Fashion\r\nFor Good) - Sorting for Circularity Europe Expands to Address Rewearable Textile Crisis - Fashion for\r\nGood\r\n9.2.3.1 The\r\necosystem\r\naffecting the\r\nrepairability\r\n3180 - 3183 Fashion\r\ntrends\r\nAs the report correctly identifies, today, most consumers do not have the skill or tools to perform repairs\r\nthemselves.\r\nAn important element to keep in mind: it is criterial to consider the social aspects of repaired products.\r\nPatched and mended products are not acceptable in a lot of contexts or even considered a symbol of\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\npoverty outside of niche sub-cultures. Therefore, repair of garments can unfortunately not be considered\r\nas a universal - or even a first-hand - solution for broken/worn garments.\r\n3187-3189 Fashion, irrespective of being expensive or inexpensive, holds the potential to evoke personal\r\nsignificance and reflect individual identity. The assertion that the price of a product correlates with\r\nemotional attachment overlooks the complexity of consumer relationships with textile apparel.\r\n3187-3196 These explanations about the price of the repair appear to be not entirely relevant as the following\r\nparagraph mentions that self-repair is the most common practice.\r\n9.2.3.1. The\r\necosystem\r\naffecting the\r\nrepairability\r\n3190-3196 Price of\r\nrepair\r\nUltimately, realising repair and uptake of repair is about reducing effort and cost on the part of the\r\nconsumer. Therefore, avenues making it considerably cheaper for consumers to repair like eliminating\r\nVAT or making repairs deductible, are likely to be more effective for enabling repair. However, such\r\npolicy considerations are outside the scope of the ESPR and product design specifically.\r\n3209 The above assertion is not entirely accurate. In fact, attention is drawn to various regulations currently\r\nexisting that impose repair obligations on producers:\r\n(i) Directive 2019/771 on the sale of goods (that it is applicable to consumer products, including\r\ntextiles) ensures that consumers can request the repair of non-conforming products, including textiles,\r\nwithin a minimum two-year legal guarantee unless repair is impossible or disproportionate (and\r\ntherefore subject to the terms provided therein).\r\n(ii) Additionally, the Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825), also applicable in our case,\r\nenhances consumer rights by requiring information on spare parts availability, estimated costs, repair\r\nprocedures, maintenance instructions, and repair restrictions, fostering transparency and informed\r\nchoices.\r\nAlthough we are aware that ESPR operates at different times and refers to different aspects than those\r\nprovided for in the abovementioned regulations, both regulatory regimes (ESPR and consumption\r\nregulations indicated above) can be considered as complementary to the extent that they reach the\r\nlifecycle of the physical products at the level of reparability (an ultimately, repair)\r\nThe result of the foregoing is (i) the disproportionate administrative and other burden that Union\r\nregulations could entail for both producers and the competent authorities from the point of view of repair\r\nof the goods (which at the same time could be an obstacle to compliance with the different obligations\r\nprovided) and (ii) the risk of overlapping that different regulations could entail in some aspects and\r\ntherefore the necessary regulatory coherence that must exist across different regulations with an impact\r\non the repairability (an ultimately, repair) of the goods.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\n3210-3217 The report seems to suggest that textile products that are eventually subject to repairability\r\nrequirements under the ESPR might be subject to a repair obligation under the Right to Repair\r\nDirective (i.e. Directive (EU) 2024/1799 of 13 June 2024). Subject to the terms provided for by the legal\r\nacts that might be adopted, the most direct consequence would be that these products should\r\npotentially be repaired, free of charge or for a reasonable fee, within a reasonable period of time and\r\noutside the obligations already existing within the legal warranty period. Taking into account the\r\nvarious elements –some of them pointed out in the report- (e.g. presence of great subjectivity in the\r\nrepair decision, lack of consideration by users of the importance of reparability in the purchase\r\ndecision, different cultural perceptions or various regulations currently existing that impose repair\r\nobligations on producers, unlike other product aspects -e.g. durability or recycled content- not\r\nregulated to date), we believe that the application of obligations under the ESPR and thus the definition\r\nof repair requirements is not feasible for textiles and could impose a disproportionate burden on\r\nproducers for the following reasons:\r\n• Repair depends on consumer demand. REFASHION's (i.e. French eco-organization for apparel\r\nproducts) implement a repair bonus for apparel products that hast not led to an increase in the\r\nnumber of repairs despite the significant reduction in repair costs for consumers as a result of\r\nthis initiative.\r\n• Having repair requirements is not securing its repair. The “Circular textiles policy review”,\r\nwhich recognises that classification for reuse does not guarantee that the garment is actually\r\nreused, but only that it is potentially reusable, the reason being the subjectivity of the\r\nconsumer. In particular, it establishes the following: “But a key limitation in the legal\r\nframework and the setting of EoW criteria for the reuse of textiles is that they can only\r\ndetermine that sorted textiles are potentially reusable. Even if an item is deemed appropriate\r\nfor reuse there is no guarantee that it will be reused in practice as this is contextual”. Another\r\nexample would be the “Environment Working Papers No. 253 “Extended Producer\r\nResponsibility in the garment sector” issued by the OECD, which provides that, as regards\r\nobsolescence in the textile sector, a distinction is made between “absolute obsolescence” (when\r\nthe producer is not functional), and “relative obsolescence” (when the product is still functional\r\nbut the consumer discards it by other means). In this case, the producer could only be imposed\r\nobligations with respect to the first one (i.e. absolute obsolescence), because the second does\r\nnot depend on him. The above is regardless of certain doubts regarding the definition of\r\n“reparability” and, by extension, of “repair” (for example, what should be the understanding of\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\n“defective product”, “intended use” or “intended purpose”, or the appropriateness of linking it\r\nwith “waste”).\r\n• Limitations (technical, operational, even cultural or of other nature)\r\nThe report does not appear to be making reference to the limitations (technical, operational,\r\neven cultural or of other nature) in the repair of products when reflecting upon the possible\r\nincorporation of requirements in this regard. It is critical to consider above-mentioned\r\ndifficulties in imposing requirements relating to the repairability and subsequent repair of\r\ntextiles.\r\nFor example the insufficiency of a network of professional repair shops with sufficient solvency\r\nand technical means; the unavailability of specialized workshops to repair certain products (e.g.\r\nproducts with technical features, heat-sealed zippers, etc.), the lack of machinery or the\r\ncomplexity of certain products (e.g. those with many components) or fabrics (e.g. noble fabrics\r\nsuch as silk) can make repair difficult at a technical and operational level, so that the potential\r\nrequirements in terms of repairability (and ultimately repair) would be unfeasible in some\r\ncircumstances.\r\n(i) Limitations of machinery\r\nWe could find sewing machines or tools not suitable for the type of fabric or for advanced repair\r\ntechniques, or lack of specialized equipment, overlockers or tools for thick fabrics, since manual\r\nrepair cannot match the precision of industrial machines.\r\n(ii) Limitations of knowledge\r\nWe could find limitations related to the repairer's expertise: such expertise can be vital in the\r\nhigh-precision repair required by delicate garments such as lace, silk or technical fabrics or, on\r\nthe contrary, incorrect handling of the fabric or machinery due to lack of experience, which can\r\naggravate the damage that is intended to be repaired, or there may be difficulty in identifying the\r\nappropriate repair technique/material depending on the defect (e.g. elastic sewing threads,\r\ninvisible stitches or 5-thread overlock).\r\nIn fact, the REFASHION (i.e. French eco-organization for apparel products) “EU Manifesto For a\r\nSustainable and Circular European Textiles and Footwear Industry” published in December 2024\r\n(and available at REFASHION’s platform) recognizes the lack of repair professionals as a concern.\r\nWe can also find limitations in terms of the compatibility of materials and techniques, for\r\nexample: use of incompatible materials that cause tension in the seams or long-term\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\ndeterioration or new seams that do not match the existing ones in terms of stitch, style or\r\nresistance.\r\n(iii) Limitations of fabric\r\nWe could find limitations related to the impact on appearance and dimensions, for example:\r\nrepairing the defect may reduce or increase the size of the repaired parts; or repairing defects\r\nmay cause imbalance in symmetry, especially in structured garments such as jackets or trousers,\r\nif the repair is not uniform, or loss of elasticity in stretch fabrics or technical fabrics, making it\r\nimpossible to recover the original shape (e.g. domestic washing at high temperatures or in\r\nalkaline environments).\r\nOther limitations are related to the fabric derivatives that do not meet intrinsic quality, for\r\nexample: intrinsic problem of the material or the production process and irreversible or very\r\nlikely to reappear such as pilling, or repairing a contaminated thread, lint or open stitch can end\r\nup damaging the functionality of the product when trying to repair it or there may be garments\r\nthat are very difficult to repair, either due to the type of defect they have, such as a tear in the\r\nfabric, or due to the design of the item.\r\nOther limitations are production process derivatives (i.e. printing, screen printing and similar),\r\nsuch as printing defects or defects in the placement of sequins or appliqués, both cases of\r\nimpossible or very difficult repair, respectively.\r\n(iv) Limitations of stain\r\nWe could find limitations related to biological substances, such as blood stains or bodily fluids\r\nthat can transmit diseases (e.g. hepatitis) or mould or fungus on the fabric that can cause arthritis\r\nor very serious respiratory problems.\r\nAnother limitation would be the one related with the products that can affect the integrity of\r\nfabric, for example, some stain removers are effective against specific stains, but improper use\r\ncan cause discoloration, weakening of fibres or irreversible damage to fabrics.\r\nTherefore, the imposition of potential repair requirements, which can be very burdensome for\r\nretailers, must certainly take into account the impossibility or high complexity of repairing in\r\ncertain cases.\r\nThe above is also in line with EU legislation such as the Sales of Goods Directive 2019/771 and the\r\nDirective of Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition 2024/825, which provide both\r\nobligations to and information on repair. In fact, enabling consumers to require repair of the goods\r\nshould encourage sustainable consumption and could contribute to greater durability of products.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\nHowever, the consumer’s choice between repair and replacement should be limited where the option\r\nchosen would be legally or factually impossible or would impose costs on the seller that would be\r\ndisproportionate, compared to the other option available.\r\nTherefore, although consumption regulations operate differently from the ESPR, they are sensitive not\r\nonly to cost but also to the (im)possibility of carrying out the repair in the event of receiving a request\r\nfrom the customer to bring the product in conformity.\r\n3225-3226 While product-related properties can be assessed through technical criteria, factors such as emotional\r\nattachment or fashion trends are subjective and not clearly defined, which is why they should not inform\r\nthe development of standards. They are difficult to track and implement, leading to insecurity for the final\r\nconsumer.\r\n3232 Table 48 Although modularity, the use of standardised parts and spare parts are considered relevant in the\r\ndocument to ensure reparability of products, we disagree for the following reasons:\r\n(i) Modularity\r\nThe document seems to be aware of the drawbacks that modularity can produce, which we fully share.\r\nThis comes when the texts mentions that “In the context of textile apparel, modularity leads to trade-offs\r\nwith comfort, because seams or components joining different parts of the textile apparel create a\r\ndiscontinuity in the fabric in contact with the skin which is usually perceived in terms of discomfort.\r\nAdditionally, modularity leads to a trade-off with the physical durability because seams are weak parts\r\nof textile apparel” (section 9.2.3.1 of the report).\r\nThat is, discomfort can certainly occur due to seams or removable parts at critical points of the garment,\r\nelbows, armpits or knees.\r\nHowever, in addition to the potential inconvenience of modular garments, modularity (which we\r\nunderstand as “achieving interchangeability of garment parts”) could lead to shrinkage problems (which\r\nwould occur if different raw materials or structures were used), colour migration or colour transfer\r\n(which could occur if the parts did not have the same tolerance-fixing dyeing process) or fuzziness or\r\n“fibre transfer” (caused by different fabric structures between modular parts), which would certainly\r\naffect the quality of the products (and, as it is known, the latter is something that is desired to be improved\r\nunder the ESPR -and which again highlights the important link between both product aspects, durability\r\nand repairability-). Moreover, there might be differences in durability between modular parts (i.e.\r\ndurability is not the same for the crotch, elbows or cuffs as for the front or back parts that are not exposed\r\nto friction).\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\nIn addition, such modularity would not be possible in some circumstances (e.g. if different raw materials\r\nor structures were used).\r\nThe potential imposition of modularity requirements, in addition to creating the problems indicated\r\nabove, may certainly limit the creative nature of the textile industry, something that the report also\r\nmentions.\r\n(ii) Standardised parts\r\nAlthough the use of standardised parts are considered relevant in the report to ensure reparability of\r\nproducts, the truth is that the textile industry has been using standardized parts in certain cases\r\n(depending on, for example, fabric or whether it is a “basic” or “collection” product) for a long time now.\r\nThis is the case with zips, sewing thread, buttons, fasteners or even machinery.\r\nThat is, based on the standardization of these parts, the textile industry can make certain adjustments for\r\nreasons of creative nature. That is to say, although the parts used can be standardized, these standardized\r\nparts can in turn be customized by the textile industry players (e.g. by dyeing those parts). However, if\r\ndespite the fact that the textile industry already uses standardized parts, it is desired to promote the use\r\nof additional standardized parts, this could greatly impair the creative nature of the textile industry, in\r\naddition to other difficulties that could be encountered, such as limitations arising from the subjection of\r\nthese elements to intellectual or industrial property rights , or collateral effects that might occur, such as\r\nthe eventual emergence of interest groups.\r\n(iii) Availability of spare parts\r\nMandating the availability of spare parts may be of limited use given the low consumer demand and\r\npreferences and the remaining aspects pointed out in the report.\r\nIn fact, the report states that “Making available spare parts for all these different items would imply the\r\nmanufacture of product parts that most probably would never be used due to the fast-changing\r\npreferences…”.\r\nThe above would potentially result in surplus parts that remain unused, an aspect already highlighted in\r\nthe report.\r\n9.2.3.2 Repairability 3224-3234 How to assess\r\nrepairability\r\n(table 48)\r\nWe oppose the introduction of a performance requirement on repairability and recommend focusing on\r\noffering information to consumers about the how to repair products. Repairability for textiles differs\r\nfrom other product categories, such as electronics, as the clothing repair is not as technical and complex,\r\nand the availability of spare parts is more widespread and standardized.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection headings Line Topic Comments\r\nDesign for disassembly can imply more materials / resources in the design phase. It must have a clear\r\nadded value to design for disassembly.\r\nStandardised fasteners (and other trims) are stated as a driver for repairability. But references for this\r\nstated assumption are lacking. Is the lack of standardized fasteners (and other trims) really a barrier to\r\nrepair; how often can a product not be repaired due to lack of standardized fasteners (and other trims)?\r\nRepair instructions can enhance repair for consumers, but most likely not for professional repair\r\nservices. Such repair instructions must not be too complex as repairs done by consumers are most often\r\nrelatively simple.\r\n9.2.4 Waste generation\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\n9.2.4 Waste\r\ngeneratio\r\nn\r\n3241-\r\n3252\r\nDefinit\r\nions\r\nCritical to Align definitions with existing ISO standards applied in the industry: In the section on waste generation, the\r\ndefinitions of post-industrial, pre-consumer and post-consumer waste are not aligned with the definitions set under ISO,\r\nwhich is currently widely used in the industry and applied by existing standards on the market (e.g. Textile Exchange\r\nstandards). Recognising the efforts that the industry has already taken by not changing already functioning business\r\npractises, will be critical to reduce the costs and effectiveness of implementation.\r\nIt is highly critical that the definition does not align with WFD - especially when eco-modulation in WFD is supposed to be\r\nbased on ESPR requirements.\r\n3253-\r\n3254\r\nAccording to the WFD, “waste” refers specifically to any substance or object that the holder discards, intends to discard, or\r\nis required to discard. Therefore, unsold products can only qualify as waste where they are discarded or intended/ required\r\nto be discarded by their holder.\r\nThis interpretation aligns with the Commission's ongoing work under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation\r\n(ESPR) regarding the reporting of discarded unsold goods (article 24 ESPR), which only applies to goods sent for preparing\r\nfor re-use, recycling, other recovery including energy recovery, or disposal – all of which constitute operations applicable\r\nnot to products but to waste according to the WFD. It is also consistent with the preliminary views of the Commission on\r\nthe definition of “discarding” as the act of disposing a product, which consequently renders the unsold consumer product\r\nwaste as set out in question 133 of the document ESPR Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (page 65).\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\nBesides, this interpretation aligns with the ongoing work by the JRC End-of-Waste team –aiming to establish the End-ofWaste criteria for textiles which regarding pre-consumer waste–, which differentiates between articles that are donated to\r\ncharities, redirected to outlet shops, third party sellers or exporters, and unsold products that are dispose as waste by\r\nretailers (Developing EU-wide End of Waste criteria for textile waste – Background paper for the 2nd stakeholder workshop,\r\nlines 279-284).\r\nMoreover, the definition of “pre-consumer waste” provided in the report does not align with the ongoing work by the JRC\r\nEnd-of-Waste team. According to the framework in development, pre-consumer waste is defined as waste generated at the\r\nretail level and by retailers (ibid, p. 13). However, the Task 4 Report indicates that pre-consumer waste includes waste\r\ngenerated at both the retail and manufacturing stages. Besides, the Task 4 Report itself is not consistent on this matter\r\nbecause, despite the previous reference to pre-consumer waste as being generated at both the manufacturing and retail\r\nstages (section 1.2.4, page 32), in the specific section on pre-consumer waste (section 1.2.4.2.2, page 35), it refers exclusively\r\nto “the retailer stage” and to the policies “of the retailer”. In this sense, waste generated during the manufacturing stage\r\nqualifies as “post-industrial waste” (section 1.2.4.2.1, page 34).\r\nIn light of these comments, this sentence should be reformulated as follows: “Pre-consumer textile waste is generated at\r\nretailer stage, and it includes the following discarded unsold products”.\r\n3255 This sentence should be removed. According to JRC’s work on end-of-waste criteria, pre-consumer waste is defined as waste\r\ngenerated at the retail level. Products that manufacturers do not send to brands or retailers due to order changes or\r\ncancellations cannot be classified as pre-consumer waste because they are not generated within the retail stage. Instead,\r\nthese products fall under \"post-industrial waste,\" which originates directly from the manufacturing stage, as stated in\r\nsection 3.1.1 of JRC’s work on end-of-waste criteria (Table 1.- “Overview on post-industrial textile waste from different\r\nstages of manufacturing”). Besides, the Task 4 Report itself is not consistent on this matter because, despite the previous\r\nreference to the “finished products that the manufacturers do not send to their customers due to order change or\r\ncancellation” as pre-consumer waste (line 3255), in the specific section on post-industrial waste (section 9.2.4.2.1, page\r\n124), it refers expressly to “changes or even cancellation of orders” as one of the causes of the increase in post-industrial\r\ntextile waste at the manufacturing stage.\r\nFurthermore, the report lacks clarity regarding the reasons for order changes or cancellations. A notable reason is noncompliance with product standards established by brand retailers in contractual agreements with manufacturers –in terms\r\nof e.g. health, safety, hygiene, or quality. When manufacturers fail to meet these requirements, the resulting waste at the\r\nproduction stage should be classified as post-industrial waste, reflecting its origin in the manufacturing process rather than\r\nthe retail stage. Proper classification is crucial to ensure alignment with waste management practices and avoid\r\nmisrepresenting waste sources.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\n3257 This sentence should be rephrased as follows: “Products that were ultimately discarded after being placed on the market\r\nand not purchased by consumers”.\r\nProducts that were placed on the market but not purchased by consumers can only be classified as waste if they are\r\nultimately discarded, consistent with the WFD’s definition of waste.\r\nThis interpretation aligns with the Commission's ongoing work under ESPR regarding the reporting of discarded unsold\r\ngoods, which only applies to goods sent for preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery including energy recovery or\r\ndisposal –all of which constitute operations applicable not to products but to waste. It is also consistent with the preliminary\r\nviews of the Commission on the definition of “discarding” as the act of disposing of a product, which as a consequence\r\nrenders the unsold consumer product waste as set out in question 133 of the document ESPR FAQs (page 65).\r\nBesides, this interpretation aligns with the ongoing work by the JRC End-of-Waste team –aiming to establish the End-ofWaste criteria for textiles which regarding pre-consumer waste–, which differentiates between articles that are donated to\r\ncharities, redirected to outlet shops, third party sellers or exporters, and unsold products that are dispose as waste by\r\nretailers.\r\nIn any case, those products that were not purchased by consumers at the time, but which may be subject to a subsequent\r\ntransaction (e.g. purchased by consumers after return to the store, sold at discounted prices in internal distribution\r\nchannels, redirected to outlet shops, third party sellers, etc.) do not constitute unsold goods. These items only qualify as\r\nunsold if they ultimately fail to find a market and remain in the inventory of the retailer or third party, retaining their\r\nownership. Moreover, they do not become “discarded unsold products” / “waste” until they are eventually discarded\r\n(Developing EU-wide End of Waste criteria for textile waste – Background paper for the 2nd stakeholder workshop, lines\r\n284-291).\r\n3258 This sentence should be rephrased as follows: “Products that after being purchased and returned by the consumer, were\r\nultimately discarded by the retailer”.\r\nProducts returned to the retailer after being purchased can only be classified as waste if they are ultimately discarded,\r\nconsistent with WFD’s definition of waste.\r\nThis interpretation aligns with the Commission's ongoing work under ESPR regarding the reporting of discarded unsold\r\ngoods, which only applies to goods sent for preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery including energy recovery or\r\ndisposal –all of which constitute operations applicable not to products but to waste. It is also consistent with the preliminary\r\nviews of the Commission on the definition of “discarding” as the act of disposing a product, which as a consequence renders\r\nthe unsold consumer product waste as set out in question 133 of the document ESPR FAQs (page 65).\r\nBesides, this interpretation aligns with the ongoing work by the JRC End-of-Waste team –aiming to establish the End-ofWaste criteria for textiles which regarding pre-consumer waste–, which differentiates between articles that are donated to\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\ncharities, redirected to outlet shops, third party sellers or exporters, and unsold products that are dispose as waste by\r\nretailers.\r\nIn any case, those products that were not purchased by consumers at the time, but which may be subject to a subsequent\r\ntransaction (e.g. purchased by consumers after return to the store, sold at discounted prices in internal distribution\r\nchannels, redirected to outlet shops, third party sellers, etc.) do not constitute “unsold goods”. These items only qualify as\r\nunsold if they ultimately fail to find a market and remain in the inventory of the retailer or third party, retaining their\r\nownership. Moreover, they do not become “discarded unsold products” / “waste” until they are eventually discarded\r\n(Developing EU-wide End of Waste criteria for textile waste – Background paper for the 2nd stakeholder workshop, lines\r\n284-291).\r\n3259-\r\n3262\r\nThis sentence should be removed. Finished products that fail to meet retailers’ standards –in terms of e.g. health, safety,\r\nhygiene, or quality– are not accepted as they do not fulfil the contractual requirements or product specifications agreed\r\nupon with manufacturers. These rejected items, originating from manufacturing defects or failures, can therefore not be\r\nconsidered pre-consumer waste since they never enter the retail process or reach consumer-facing standards.\r\nInstead, these items should be classified as “post-industrial waste,” reflecting their origin as manufacturing outputs that\r\nwere unsuitable for retail distribution. This is also consistent with the Task 4 Report which mentions the lack of\r\nmanufacturing quality control at the manufacturing stage leading to low-performing products rejected by fashion brands\r\nas one of the causes of the increase in post-industrial textile waste at the manufacturing stage (section 1.2.4.2.1, page 34).\r\nIt is also aligned with JRC’s work on end-of-waste criteria which mentions production errors as one of the causes of “postindustrial waste” (Developing EU-wide End of Waste criteria for textile waste – Background paper for the 2nd stakeholder\r\nworkshop, lines 271).\r\n9.2.4.1 3264-\r\n3266\r\nTextile\r\nwaste in\r\nnumbers\r\nYearly\r\nappare\r\nnt\r\nconsu\r\nmption\r\nof an\r\nEU-27\r\ncitizen\r\nThis estimate is a bit lower than \"commonly used\" 11-15 kg/citizen cited in public debate/EEA.\r\n9.2.4.1 Textile\r\nwaste in\r\nnumbers\r\n3278-\r\n3281\r\n%-\r\nrecycle\r\nd\r\nMainly just the 100% cotton white waste that is recycled. There are some reports on post industrial waste that GFA has\r\npublished: https://globalfashionagenda.org/resource/promoting-textile-waste-management-and-recycling-in-the-\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\ngarment-footwear-and-travel-goods-gft-sector/ and https://globalfashionagenda.org/resource/pre-feasibility-report/.\r\nLarge part is \"downcycled\", used for filling in cushions, isolation etc.\r\n9.2.4.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3289-\r\n3293\r\nNumbe\r\nr of\r\nnew\r\ncollecti\r\nons\r\nIn section 5.6 of the 1st milestone report it is indicated that retailers place on the market up to one collection per week.\r\nHowever, this is highly questionable. No assumptions in this report should be based on this statement unless properly\r\nsubstantiated.\r\n9.2.4.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3289-\r\n3293\r\nand\r\n3318-\r\n3319\r\nNumbe\r\nr of\r\nnew\r\ncollecti\r\nons\r\n‘Collections’ must also be more clearly defined, what does this include or not include?\r\n3291-\r\n3295\r\nWhat are the references or scientific evidence supporting these statements?\r\nTo the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to support a direct correlation between certain business models\r\nand waste generation. Waste generation is more closely related to e.g. inefficiencies in production processes or product\r\ndurability, than specific commercial practices such as discounts.\r\n9.2.4.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3294-\r\n3295\r\nNumbe\r\nr of\r\nnew\r\ncollecti\r\nons\r\nIt is stated that “the dominant business models of many fashion designers, fashion brands and retailers incentivize the\r\ncontinuous consumption of new products: generating a sense of urgency and exclusivity by placing on the market numerous\r\nlimited editions and using the dark pattern in online sales (see section 6 of the 1st milestone)”. Not substantiated and highly\r\nunlikely, and a very serious accusation.\r\nThe EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) specifically prohibits the use of dark patterns, so the statement is highly unlikely to be\r\ntrue. Otherwise, the JRC should check with the relevant competent authorities whether cases have been opened to\r\ninvestigate this. So far, we are aware of one case by a Very Large Online Platform being accused of using dark patterns.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\n3296-\r\n3300\r\nThe claim oversimplifies the dynamics of consumer-led operation models. Companies leverage advanced forecasting tools,\r\ndata analytics, and trend prediction techniques to accurately gauge customer demand. This approach enables them to work\r\nclosely with suppliers and issue orders for items with a high likelihood of selling, thereby minimizing unsold inventory and\r\nreducing the risk of overproduction.\r\n3321 Since the generation of post-industrial waste incurs a cost to the manufacturer (as it results from inefficient resource\r\nmanagement), the trend is always to be more efficient and reduce post-industrial waste generation rather than the opposite.\r\nIt is worth noting, however, that even if global consumption increases, the only waste stream that can be definitively said\r\nto grow proportionally is post-consumer waste.\r\n9.2.4.2.1 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3308-\r\n3329\r\nPostindustr\r\nial\r\nwaste\r\nIn section 5.6 of the 1st milestone, it is described that “the business model of European and North American fashion\r\ncompanies relies on the manufacture of companies located in third countries”. This is a too simplified way of describing the\r\ntiers in the supply chain.\r\nBelow is a description among others as there is no common taxonomy on how to describe the tiers in the textile supply\r\nchain. It is also important not to mix legal terms in ESPR. If tier-levels are too simplified, brands could be categories as\r\nmanufacturer as brands use own names in products, but do not necessarily have control of production.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\n9.2.4.2.1 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3317-\r\n3329\r\nPostindustr\r\nial\r\nwaste\r\nIt is stated that “Lead time from the concept of the textile apparel to the potential customer purchase could be as short as\r\n15-21 days. This business model challenges a careful design, resource planning, and quality control during the\r\nmanufacturing processes”. This is more nuanced as lead times are most often significantly longer than 15-21 days, often\r\nbetween 6 to 12 months.\r\nFurther, cancelling orders is not standard practice. Many companies are selling pre-sold products which mean they do not\r\nhave incentives to cancel orders. Purchasing practice and collection system primarily allows brands to place orders only\r\nafter receiving customer orders to minimize risks. As a result, order cancellations are often extremely rarely and must have\r\na very good reason.\r\n9.2.4.2.1 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3345-\r\n3347\r\nPostindustr\r\nial\r\nwaste\r\nIt is stated that “However, despite technological developments, there is a lack of standardised industrial best practices that\r\nenable the reduction of post-industrial textile waste. The authors are not aware of any specific legislation in producing\r\ncountries specifically addressing this type of textile waste”.\r\nHowever, best practices are being identified via so-called SWITCH project in Bangladesh where it is highlighted how\r\nmanufacturers collaborate with waste handlers. Most of the waste is not properly segregated, so the waste handler either\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\npasses it on to someone who can segregate it and then export it to recyclers in India, or the non-segregated waste is\r\n\"downcycled.\" It must be acknowledged that there is a huge informal sector handling waste.\r\nSee also: Pre-feasibility Report - Global Fashion Agenda - of Post Industrial Textile Fiber-2-Fiber Recycling in Bangladesh.\r\nFurthermore, it is important to note that the textile industry has a great variety of product types, making uniform\r\nstandardization of production difficult to achieve. It is more important to utilize efficiently the generated waste rather than\r\ndowncycling. There should be standard practices for waste handling and to increase the utilization efficiency, cf. the\r\ninclusion of post-industrial waste as recycled content.\r\n9.2.4.2.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3351-\r\n3355\r\nPreconsu\r\nmer\r\nwaste\r\nIt is stated that “the literature reports different improvement potential when adopting the Best Management Practices: preconsumer waste due to returns could be decreased from 44% to 22% or from 25% to 13%.\r\nIt is very important to underline returns are not waste and should not be accounted as being sent to destruction. The vast\r\nmajority of returns are in a condition to be resold as they are. A lower fraction of returns needs minor washing or mending\r\nbefore being resold and only a very low number of returns are in a condition where they cannot be prepared for reselling.\r\n3360-\r\n3361\r\nThe statement does not reflect actual industry practices. In reality, effective retailers often adopt low-inventory models,\r\nsuch as demand-driven replenishment strategies, to adapt swiftly to changing market conditions. These approaches\r\nminimize excess stock and allow retailers to respond more dynamically to consumer preferences. Enlarging inventories\r\nwithout assessing consumer demand, as suggested, is generally counterproductive.\r\n9.2.4.2.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3369-\r\n3371\r\nPreconsu\r\nmer\r\nwaste\r\nIt is stated that “The former describes users purchasing multiple sizes of the same item and returning those that do not fit”.\r\nIt is also important to note that especially for women, the different shapes of a body can interact with the need to purchase\r\nmore sizing - it can be a difficult to determine the right size, as even sizes made based on the same ISO standard can fit\r\ndifferent body types (in the same size) differently and depending on the design (e.g. cut) of the garment, the right size can\r\nvary.\r\n9.2.4.2.2 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3372-\r\n3373\r\nPreconsu\r\nIt is stated that “from a legislative perspective, the destruction of pre-consumer textile waste is often preferred by\r\ncompanies because there is taxation advantages related to VAT payment (Duhoux et al., 2024)”. However, still important to\r\nnote that the preference is to sell the products first. Then comes donation (which could lead to both reuse, recycling and\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\nmer\r\nwaste\r\ndestruction, e.g. ICO - but this depends on the service provider, not us as brands). Then comes destruction (but this is also\r\nquite expensive).\r\n3377-\r\n3378\r\nThis statement should be deleted.\r\nThe statement is not aligned with JRC’s ongoing work on End-of-Waste criteria for textiles. According to the latest draft,\r\n“pre-consumer waste” is defined as waste generated at the retail level, while waste generated during the manufacturing\r\nstage qualifies as “post-industrial”.\r\nMoreover, unsold products can only be considered waste when they are discarded or intended/required to be discarded by\r\ntheir holder, in line with the WFD. This is further underpinned by the preliminary views of the Commission on the definition\r\nof “discarding” as the act of disposing a product, which as a consequence renders the unsold consumer product waste as set\r\nout in question 133 of the document ESPR FAQs (page 65).\r\n9.2.4.2.3 Analysis of\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\n3405-\r\n3407\r\nHow to\r\nassess\r\nand\r\ndescrib\r\ne\r\nproduc\r\nt\r\ntechno\r\nlogies\r\nin the\r\ncontex\r\nt of\r\nwaste\r\ngenera\r\ntion\r\nWith overconsumption and overproduction being such indeterminate concepts, generalized statements such as this one\r\nshould not be included in the document. Establishing causality between how a business operates and consumer behaviour\r\nin such a deterministic matter is risky and technically inaccurate. It appears that the study aims to assert ideas that are not\r\nsupported by scientific evidence\r\n3490 Table\r\n51\r\nChemical recycling for cellulosic fibres: While there are technologies with high TRL that can process pure cotton, those\r\ntechnologies are mainly based in Asia and are only using cotton linter (the subproduct of the ginning process ) as a feedstock.\r\nThese technologies are used to produce pulp to produce viscose filament and do not have capabilities to treat complex\r\ncotton post consumer waste blend or even coloured cotton rags. There are also technologies in Europe able to produce pulp\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n9.2.5. Recyclability and recycled content\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.5.1 3422-3468 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nThe ecosystem\r\nof recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent -\r\ngeneral\r\nWe propose to build on the industry’s current recycled fibre capacities and availability and introduce an initial\r\nperformance requirement — a compulsory minimum threshold for market entry at the global portfolio level —\r\npaired with an information requirement at the product level – paired with an information requirement at the\r\nproduct level. Minimum requirements on a portfolio level enable faster adoption and achievement of even more\r\nambitious content levels as companies can direct higher volume of recycled materials to the product types that\r\nSection Headings Line Topics Comments\r\nfrom cotton waste mainly coming from cotton rags and with simple colours. It is important to note that, as previously\r\ndiscussed, these technologies primarily operate with post-industrial waste. Hence, considering the subsequent proposal\r\nregarding recycled content, which excludes post-industrial waste, the status of this recycling technique will undergo\r\nsignificant changes. Post-industrial waste should not be excluded of the recycled content definition (see future comments\r\non section 9.2.5.4)\r\n3490 Table\r\n51\r\nChemical recycling for synthetic fibres: While there are depolymerization techniques processing PA6 at scale, the capacity\r\nis very limited, there is just one plant available in Europe and another one in Asia.\r\n3490 Table\r\n51\r\nChemical recycling of wool – rich blends: The most common recycling technique and with the lowest environmental impact\r\nto recycled wool is mechanical recycling. As per actual knowledge, chemical recycling of wool fibers are not commonly used.\r\n3518 While the representation is very low, the figures have to be detailed as for example, the majority of the actual recycled PA 6\r\navailable on the market is coming from post-industrial yarn waste and from a thermomechanical process, the figure of the\r\n2% might not correspond to the chemical depolymerization technique. Same for the 7% of recycled wool, that figure might\r\ninclude mechanical recycling of the wool.\r\n3518 Waste generated at the manufacturing stage is considered post-industrial waste and not pre-consumer textile waste.\r\nThe definition of “pre-consumer waste” does not align with the ongoing work by the JRC End-of-Waste team. According to\r\nthe framework in development, pre-consumer waste is defined as waste generated at the retail level and by retailers (ibid,\r\np. 13). Besides, the Task 4 Report itself is not consistent on this matter because, despite this reference to pre-consumer\r\nwaste as being generated at the manufacturing stages, in the specific section on pre-consumer waste (section 1.2.4.2.2, page\r\n35), it refers exclusively to “the retailer stage” and to the policies “of the retailer”. In this sense, waste generated during the\r\nmanufacturing stage should qualifies as “post-industrial waste” (section 1.2.4.2.1, page 34).\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\ncan absorb recycled content the best. Minimum requirements at the portfolio level would also leave room for\r\nbrands to balance considerations for functionality and longevity.\r\nWhile acknowledging that the Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is mostly focused on what\r\nrequirements to put in place for the product itself, there are multiple reasons why setting requirements on\r\nproduct level will be extremely complex. There is the number of different materials and trims, discrepancies\r\nbetween calculation methods, but also – and most importantly – the function of the product itself and the\r\nrecyclability of a product.\r\nMany companies are already tracking their raw material or fabric consumption at portfolio level. Minimum\r\nrequirements on a portfolio level would therefore enable faster adoption and achievement of even more\r\nambitious content levels. If companies are given the freedom to operate and base the inclusion of recycled\r\nmaterials at portfolio level on considerations like availability of materials, longevity, or functionality of the\r\ngarment, it would enable the companies to have a higher uptake of recycled materials, than what is possible\r\nthrough a product level approach. It will be easier to direct higher volume of recycled materials to the product\r\ntypes that can more easily absorb such high volumes.\r\nMinimum requirements at portfolio level would also leave room to balance considerations for functionality and\r\nlongevity, while ambitious requirements would still work as a driver to ensure the inclusion of recycled content\r\nfor the circular transition and to counter climate change.\r\nApplying a portfolio-level requirement within the ESPR is both practical and legally backed, as the\r\nimplementation in the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), Single Use Plastics\r\nDirective (SUPD), and the Batteries Regulation have taken a similar approach. We consider that the ESPR legal\r\nframework provides the flexibility and tools to introduce eco-design requirements at the portfolio level.\r\nMore specifically, under the ESPR, Article 5, paragraph 3 gives the European Commission the authority to select\r\nor develop tools or methodologies necessary for setting eco-design requirements. This provision allows for\r\nflexibility in implementing performance standards and opens the door to portfolio-level recycled content\r\nrequirements, as the article does not specify a restriction to product-level measures alone. Setting requirements\r\nat the portfolio level would align with the overarching goal of the ESPR, which is to reduce environmental\r\nimpacts across the product lifecycle, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability in meeting these objectives.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.5 3455 It is incorrect to state that sorting is only relevant for post-consumer waste. Also in cases for post-industrial\r\nwaste, these are waste streams that will need some form of sorting, at least on fibre composition, colour, fibre\r\nlengths etc.\r\n9.2.5 3460-3474 Clarification of the word ‘accuracy’ and how sorting is done today: it is critical to note that in used garment\r\nsorting today, this is done in a two-step procedure. NIR technology will be more accurate compared to manual\r\nsorting when it comes to detecting the material surface composition, i.e., sorting for recycling. However, manual\r\nsorting is more accurate for detecting if the garment is reusable or not. Today, NIR technology is not suitable\r\nfor sorting if a garment is reusable. Sorting for reuse is done manually and happens as a first preliminary sorting\r\nstep.\r\n9.2.5.1 3470-3472 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nThe ecosystem\r\nof recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nIt is stated that “information [on the label] is not necessarily accurate”. We do not agree with this statement and\r\ncall on the authors to add a reference / source that has identified this as a general issue in the textile industry.\r\nIf such reference / source is not available, then please delete this assumption.\r\n9.2.5.1 3519-3520 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nThe ecosystem\r\nof recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nThe ecosystem of recyclability and recycled content should also include open loop recycling. Waste streams\r\nfrom other industries, mainly PET bottles, are being as upcycled material for new textiles products.\r\nAt present, recycled PET the only polyester recycling option available to the industry at scale. Finally, although\r\nnot a closed-loop solution, recycled PET has a lower environmental footprint compared to virgin materials and\r\ncan therefore help companies efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions overall.\r\nPlease also note that the latest development in chemical recycling is the ability to break down plastic waste to\r\nmonomer. Monomers are the smallest building blocks for new plastic materials. Monomer recycling is a very\r\npromising open loop recycling development as it enables plastic waste materials to be recycled to various new\r\nproducts. Supporting these technologies will enable more efficient recycling and benefit various industries such\r\nas textiles, packaging, and food. Limiting textile recycling to closed loop recycling will significantly limit\r\ninnovation in future chemical recycling technologies in EU which are rapidly developing currently.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.5.1 3533-3534 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nThe ecosystem\r\nof recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nIt is stated that damaged fibres are a reason for why post-consumer waste has largely not been used as feedstock\r\nuntil now. This is hardly true as post-consumer textile waste only contains damaged fibres if the products\r\ncontain mechanically recycled content which often has shorter fibers – if this is what is meant by ‘damaged\r\nfibres’. Please clarify or provide a reference for this assumption.\r\n9.2.5 3550-3560 Business\r\nmodels and\r\nuser\r\nbehaviour\r\nBarriers to\r\ndevelopment of\r\na market for\r\nrecycled fibers\r\nCorrection: The section states that the main barrier to the development of a market for recycled fibres results\r\nfrom the general low cost of products: from the raw material to the final product placed on the market. This is\r\nincorrect. The main barriers for realising a recycling economy today are the cost difference between virgin\r\nmaterials and recycled materials, continued challenges in quality comparing virgin and recycled materials and\r\nthe still lacking infrastructure for collection and sorting of textile waste on a global level.\r\nIn addition, it is critical to note that post-industrial waste is a critical lever to realise the recycling economy.\r\nThis waste stream is needed to test new innovations in recycling technology and its exclusion can potentially\r\npush the inflection point further. The assumption that absence of a legislative framework on certain categories\r\nof waste (post-industrial in this case) would be exploited, is not a valid argument. Fabric manufacturing comes\r\nwith a cost for manufactures and brands that is inclusive of inputs, wages, utilities, compliance etc and\r\ncompanies have a strong interest in minimising these costs. There may be inefficiencies in the system, but that\r\ndoes mean this would ‘incentivise’ generation of waste. Therefore, we strongly recommend including postindustrial waste in the definition of recycled content, at least in a transition period until recycling of postconsumer waste is up to par, as a critical leaver for scaling textile to textile recycling technologies. Not accepting\r\npost-industrial waste towards recycled content requirements would make it significantly more challenging for\r\nrecyclers to scale today.\r\n9.2.5 3565 - 3567 Certification\r\nscheme\r\nTextile Exchange Transaction Certificates allow for tracking of recycled content. Based on where the textile\r\nrecycling industry is today, It is necessary to rely on the existing verification systems, e.g. Global Recycled\r\nStandard” (GRS) and Recycled Claim Standard” (RCS). These are systems that are already implemented, credible\r\nand their development was based on extensive cross-industry experience.\r\n3579 Legislative\r\nframework\r\nCorrection: the ESPR prohibits the destruction of unsold ‘discarded’ textile products. The ESPR defines unsold\r\ngoods as “any consumer product that has not been sold including surplus stock, excess inventory and deadstock\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nand products returned by a consumer on the basis of their right of withdrawal in accordance with Article 9 of\r\nDirective 2011/83/EU or, where applicable, during any longer withdrawal period provided by the trader.”\r\n9.2.5.2 3590 How to\r\nassess\r\nrecyclability\r\nDefining Recyclability\r\nFive characteristics of recyclable textile have been defined by the JRC: Requirements 1 to 4 for recyclability\r\nare associated with the ecosystem needed for collecting, sorting, pre-treating, and recycling, rather than the\r\nproduct or its design. The establishment of this ecosystem is the focus of other initiatives such as the EPR\r\nunder the Waste Framwork Directive, not the ESPR. The DA for Ecodesign should define requirements that can\r\nbe addressed through the design and manufacture of products.\r\nPlease consider the following feedback on the proposed recyclability definition:\r\n1. It can be effectively collected;\r\n--> how is ‘effectively collected’ defined/measured and how will this be secured? Although mandatory collection is\r\nsupposedly in place as of 1 January 2025, this is not yet implemented at scale in the EU and certainly not the case\r\non a global level. Given the globality of the sector, this is critical to take into account.\r\n2. It can be sorted, i.e. segregated from other textile waste and sent to the subsequent suitable recycling\r\npathways;\r\n--> how is ‘’suitable recycling pathways’ defined/measured and how will this be secured? Although mandatory\r\ncollection is supposedly in place as of 1 January 2025, this is not yet implemented at scale in the EU and certainly\r\nnot the case outside the EU.\r\n3. It can be pre-treated before recycling, or can be sent directly to recycling without specific pre-treatment;\r\n4. Its fibre content can be fully used as feedstock for one or more recycling techniques to produce recycled\r\nfibres usable in textile products;\r\n--> how is ‘fully used as feedstock’ defined and measured? As already acknowledged in the preliminary study, textile\r\napparel products are complex products, normally consisting of many components. These components can also be\r\nmade from different fibre materials, that are generally not difficult to disassemble from each other, e.g., a skirt\r\nwhere the main fabric is composed of 100% wool with an acetate lining. We question the usefulness of the proposed\r\nrecyclability concept, if say, said skirt would not be deemed recyclable while there is already a working recycling\r\nsector for the mechanical recycling of wool. Also, already today most recycling systems have some kind of tolerance\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nto variation in fibre composition, even if as little 1-2%. We caution that this specific criterion may result in that no\r\ntextile apparel products would be deemed recyclable under the ESPR within the foreseeable future.\r\n5. It has no elements or substances in amounts that disrupt the collection, sorting, preparation for recycling and\r\nrecycling, or that limit the use of the recycled fibre.\r\n--> there are no known SOCs that mechanically, functionally or practically hamper recycling today.\r\nRegarding point 5, while it pertains to product design and manufacture, it lacks specific details. For legal\r\ncertainty and to ensure level playing field, the DA should specify the elements and substances, along with their\r\namounts, that will disrupt recycling. To the best of our knowledge, there are no substances or elements that\r\ncompletely prevent textile recycling, as various recycling technologies can complement each other and address\r\ndifferent challenges.\r\nVerification of recyclability definitions: If JRC envisions to define recyclability at this stage and foresees that\r\nall five characteristics to be needed for a textile apparel product to be defined as recyclable, then the JRC must\r\nfurther assess how brands can ensure compliance in verifying and documenting all 5 points, as well Market\r\nSurveillance Authorities. As referenced before, it is critical that eco-design requirements are measurable and\r\nverifiable. At this stage, defining effective eco-design requirements for recyclability is premature.\r\n9.2.5.2 3593-3607 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecyclability\r\nIt is stated that “a recyclable textile apparel must have the following five characteristics”.\r\nOne of these five characteristics is that “it’s fibre content can be fully used as feedstock”. This is not true, as a\r\ntextile apparel can in principle also be recyclable if not 100% of the fibers need to be recyclable. As an example,\r\nsleeves or a hood might not be recyclable, but the rest of the garment is. In case the non-recyclable part can be\r\ndisassembled, or only a small portion of the garment contains non-recyclable fibers, a garment can still be\r\nrecyclable.\r\nAnother of these five characteristics is that “it has no elements or substances in amounts that disrupt the\r\ncollection, sorting, preparation for recycling and recycling, or that limit the use of the recycled fibre”. This is\r\nimportant, BUT how do we get to the understanding of what the list of disruptors are? Nobody understands this\r\nfully. At least it is not shared with brands. We are miles away from understanding this as we are miles away of\r\neven knowing fully what dyes and other additives we use in the textile industry. One thing is disrupting the\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nprocess another important aspect is \"legacy chemicals\" - we should make sure we don’t carry over hazardous\r\nchemistry from waste to recycled products.\r\nIt is critical to clearly define what is recyclability. Today, recyclability often means that a textile product is\r\ntheoretically recyclable (although even the definition of theoretically recyclable may also vary from actor to\r\nactor) if it can be collected, processed and reused as raw material or in new products. However, there is no\r\nguarantee that it will actually be recycled. It is actually recyclable, when these operations are industrialized in\r\na competitive and economically viable way to effectively produce high quality recycled fibers at scale.\r\nActual recyclability depends not only on a technical demonstration under lab conditions but need to be scalable\r\nat industrial scale and be economically viable to attract the necessary investments.\r\nThree additional characteristics are crucial to ensure that textile apparel is actually being recycled to new\r\nproducts, as this is based on a demand for recycled fibres. This demand only comes if these three additional\r\ncharacteristics are present:\r\nThe quality of the recycled fibre - meaning that it doesn’t compromise the expected design (fx color) of the new\r\nproducts.\r\nThe availability / security of supply, it must be a scale to plan for a production with recycled content\r\nThe price of the recycled fibres – currently the price gap is too significant.\r\nSince recycling capabilities vary widely in the EU Single Market, setting rigid, uniform requirements now would\r\nlikely stifle innovation and misalign with what’s technically feasible. Instead, the study should focus on\r\nidentifying common disruptors and setting flexible, high-level guidelines that can adapt as technology\r\nprogresses, and on building the right infrastructure across the EU to collect, sort, and prepare materials for\r\nrecycling.\r\n3604 Could you please provide clarification on the literature that established the definition of recyclability?\r\n3608 Considering that it has been mentioned that the ability to meet criteria 1-4 depends on the available\r\ninfrastructure, it must be taken into account that the maturity or development of this infrastructure is\r\ngeographically dependent. Therefore, the criterion of being capable of being collected, separated, and recycled\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nwill vary depending on the geography in which it takes place. The situation will not be the same for waste\r\nmanagers in certain European countries or regions outside the EU. This will require greater specificity in the\r\ndefinition of these criteria.\r\n9.2.5.2 3620-3622 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nReference to\r\nWFD\r\nIt is stated that “the generic definition of recyclability reported in section 9.1 is inspired by the WFD”. It must\r\nbe aligned to ensure coherence between ESPR and WFD, if not it can result in ineffective implementation and\r\nlegal uncertainties.\r\n3636 to\r\n3639\r\nWhile BAT products can be processes by the techniques highlighted in table 52, the maturity of the technology,\r\nin terms of integration into the market, and global availability needs to be taken into account. The main\r\nrecycling output is also key the assessment, as there are potential limitations in quality coming from those\r\nrecycling techniques, the best example is the mechanical recycling technique, as the recycled fibres are shorter\r\nthan virgin fibers. Also important to mention that those BAT are not generally using post-consumer textile as a\r\nfeedstock, as it is stated in the report, the use of post-consumer is challenging due the reason stated in page 41\r\nof the report.\r\n3644 The aspect of technological neutrality is not clearly represented, and it is unclear how Task 6 will address this\r\nissue. Could you please provide an explanation?\r\n9.2.5.4 3648-3677 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecycled\r\ncontent\r\nIt is stated that “The assessment takes into account two main aspects”, one being: “a verification system capable\r\nto track fibres coming from post-consumer textile waste”.\r\nUnfortunately, such a system does not exist. With chain of custody standards, brands cannot verify on a\r\nproduct’s transaction certificate (TC) if the waste is from textile-to-textile waste. There is not a traceability\r\nsystem from when the product is collected until it is used by the recycler / the producer of recycled fibres.\r\nTextile Exchange (TE) standards do distinguish between pre-consumer and post-consumer feedstock, based on\r\nISO definitions (ISO 14021). However, within the ‘pre-consumer’ category, there’s no differentiation between\r\npost-industrial and pre-consumer, as ‘post-industrial’ lacks a specific ISO definition and is often used\r\ninterchangeably with pre-consumer within the industry.\r\nTextile Exchange and others are working to standardise these terms, collaborating with suppliers, recyclers,\r\nand brands to define and classify waste, and they’re exploring ways to digitize feedstock information for better\r\ntraceability through the supply chain.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nStandards like those from Textile Exchange are evolving to add criteria, such as ensuring inputs are textile\r\nfeedstock and outputs are suitable for textile applications. However, restricting too much the definition of\r\nrecycled content in the short term could discourage brands from including post-consumer, textile to textile\r\nrecycled content in their products due to the risk of non-compliance, effectively preventing them from accessing\r\nthe market.\r\n3660-3665 What evidence supports the claim that incorporating post-industrial waste into recycled content promotes the\r\ncreation of such waste? We strongly disagree with this assertion. The efficiency of processes, such as cutting\r\npatterns or other procedures, will remain unchanged even if post-industrial waste is used to produce recycled\r\nfibres. This is primarily due to economic factors; the original fabric incurs a cost. Reintroducing post-industrial\r\nwaste into recycled fibres would effectively mean incurring this cost twice, prompting the industry to avoid\r\nsuch practices in favour of maintaining efficiency. Nonetheless, utilizing post-industrial waste in recycling\r\nprocesses is crucial for several reasons: (i) Given the inherent nature of the textile production process, some\r\nwaste is inevitable, and landfilling should be avoided; (ii) Its use is essential to meet certain quality\r\nrequirements, particularly in mechanical recycling.\r\n9.2.5.4 3655-3657 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecycled\r\ncontent\r\nSpinning\r\ntechniques\r\nIt is stated that “the reference to the performance of recycled fibres takes into account the technological\r\ndevelopments in spinning techniques, which over time will be capable to spin fibres with lower performances”\r\n– if so, please clarify how to overcome what is the incentive to invest in new spinning techniques etc. if you are\r\nonly allowed to place items on the market that are recyclable?\r\nIf you both need to ensure that there is a recycling solution, but also that the output can be used for textile\r\nproducts in a way that does not compromise other eco-design requirements, such as durability.\r\nThis will create a path dependency and make it very difficult for new innovations to emerge (because while\r\nthese new innovations might be recycled content, it is not certain that they in themselves are recyclable for new\r\ntextile products). This also needs to consider that recycled content can’t be recycled indefinitely, but only so\r\nmany cycles.\r\nSo e.g. if you with the new eco-design requirements set durability thresholds high, then a garment made out of\r\nrecycled content might not in itself be recyclable as the output cannot be used for new textile garments.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.5.4 3658-3665 post-industrial\r\nwaste is a\r\nresult of\r\noverproduction\r\nor\r\ninefficiencies.\r\nWe strongly disagree that post-industrial waste is a result of overproduction or inefficiencies. The industry has\r\na strong incentive to limit post-industrial waste as much as possible as this is an economic loss for the business\r\nand disagree that including post-industrial waste would create an incentive for business to produce more if it.\r\nThere is a clear economic benefit for brands and suppliers to strive for the highest material efficiency and\r\noptimisation of processes, thus minimizing post-industrial cutting waste. Reducing and minimizing waste by\r\nfocusing on material and pattern efficiency is a key priority, not only to us, but the overall industry. In the\r\nprocess of securing that apparel products have the right fit and adequate sizing for customers, there will always\r\nbe some post-industrial waste from garment production. A resource of great economical value risks being lost\r\nif it is not accepted as recycled content.\r\nToday, the industry has identified this waste stream as a very attractive waste feedstock for recycling, as it is a\r\nwaste feedstock of reliable quality, produced in line with the latest environmental standards (including\r\nchemical restrictions)– and can therefore help scaling textile to textile recycling technologies, as is one of the\r\noverall objectives of the EU Strategy for Textiles.\r\nAs correctly identified in the preliminary study, post-industrial waste is a waste stream with very limited\r\navailability and will become even more limited in the future. Therefore, relying on post-industrial waste alone\r\nto meet future recycled content targets will not be possible. The sector instead considers post-industrial waste\r\nas a steppingstone towards the recycling of post-consumer waste.\r\n3670-3671 The statement is unfounded and does not reflect the practical realities of retail and manufacturing operations.\r\nRetailers and manufacturers are driven by profitability, and it is highly unlikely that they would intentionally\r\ncreate waste simply to recycle it. Instead, the primary commercial motivation is to minimize waste in the\r\nproduction process and reduce costs.\r\n9.2.5.4 3670-3672 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecycled\r\ncontent\r\nOn pre-consumer waste, it is stated that “the inclusion of these types of textile waste as the source of the\r\nrecycled content of a new item would incentivize their generation”.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nThis is most likely a false assumption as brand and manufacturers have a more significant incentive to not\r\nincrease production costs. All else equal, fibers from pre-consumer waste is has an additional cost that brands\r\nand manufacturers would like to avoid.\r\nFurther, if this is a valid assumption, then the same assumption can be applied to post-consumer waste, meaning\r\nthat the inclusion of post-consumer waste as the source of the recycled content of a new item would incentivize\r\ntheir generation.\r\nFrom our perspective, the key focus should be on incentivizing an efficient transition toward the objectives of\r\nthe ESPR. In a transition phase this can include not only post-industrial, pre-consumer, and post-consumer\r\nwaste.\r\n9.2.5.4 3674-3677 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecycled\r\ncontent –\r\ndefinition\r\nIt is concluded that “in the framework of the PS, the definition of recycled content should be narrowed down\r\ncompared to that reported by the ISO 14021 and used in section 9.1. Following the two aspects reported above,\r\nthe recycled content is the proportion, by mass, of recycled fibres coming from recyclable textile apparel\r\ndisposed of as post-consumer waste”. What are the technical reasons for deviating from an internationally\r\nagreed standard like ISO 14021 specifically in the case of textiles?\r\nThis is highly critical and will significantly impact the textile industry in a negative way. We strongly\r\nrecommend that the JRC adopt ISO’s approach to defining recycled content and align as well with the work on\r\nthe definition of criteria for End of Waste for textiles.\r\nApplying a definition of recycled content with to narrow a focus will impede the uptake of recycled content and\r\nthus slow down the transition towards a more circular economy, which is why a definition on recycled content\r\nmust include waste from other waste streams as well as the inclusion of not only post-consumer waste, but also\r\npost-industrial and pre-consumer waste. This is not only a question of availability, but also to the level of impact\r\nand traceability as well as tackling the risk of legacy chemicals in post-consumer waste.\r\nGiven the current state of the textile recycling industry, existing verification systems are critical to support both\r\npre- and post-consumer waste towards recycled content requirement. Textile recyclers are still scaling up their\r\ntechnologies and rely on all available waste types to test and improve their processes. It’s currently unrealistic\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nto operate on post-consumer waste alone, but in the long term, post-consumer waste is seen as an essential\r\nsource to meet large recycling demands, especially since pre-consumer waste is limited by nature.\r\nOnly 1% or less origins from post-consumer waste. (source: McKinsey Study on scaling textile recycling in\r\nEurope, 2022) Post-consumer waste exists but the infrastructure is not in place meaning supply is not existing.\r\nThis definition is based on an assumption that new and improved technologies will emerge. Plus, what will\r\nhappen to the post-industrial waste (cut-offs), this would create incentives to dispose it, instead of recycling it.\r\nPre-consumer waste is a readily available resource in closed-loop recycling systems. Disallowing its use would\r\nslow progress heavily toward circularity in the transition phase, as fewer recycled fibers would be available for\r\nmanufacturing new garments. We need both post-industrial, and pre- and post-consumer waste.\r\nSetting a single recycled content requirement that includes both post-industrial and post-consumer waste will\r\nhelp recyclers grow. Adding a specific requirement for post-consumer waste right now could restrict the growth\r\nof recycling technologies and overall supply. As the industry matures, setting sub-requirements for postconsumer waste could become feasible, helping to balance supply with rising demand for recycled content.\r\nFurther:\r\nThere is not a traceability system from when the product is collected until it is used by the producer.\r\nCompared to post-consumer textile waste, post-industrial textile waste has a higher quality, , and can more\r\neasily be traced as this textile waste origins from comes from retail or industrial production processes.\r\nPost-consumer waste on the other hand can often not be traced, its compositions are unknown.\r\nIn addition, the recycling of other materials like wool, viscose, lyocell etc. is not at a commercial scale viable for\r\nminimum requirements, why further investments and financial incentives are needed before setting to legal\r\nminimum requirements.\r\n3700 When evaluating the incorporation or increase of recycled content, it is essential to ensure an understanding of\r\nthe potential adverse impacts that such material may have on other parameters covered by this regulation, such\r\nas durability. Since the content of recycled fibers (currently mainly sourced from mechanical recycling, and\r\ntherefore intrinsically of lower quality than virgin fibers) may negatively impact the garment's performance in\r\nterms of resistance and its ability to maintain appearance over time.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n3674-3677 When defining recycled content performance requirements under ESPR, it is focal to include post-industrial\r\nwaste into the definition:\r\nthe preparatory study argues against the inclusion of post-industrial textile waste as a source simply because it\r\ncould incentivise the generation of this type of waste. This is not a valid argument as fabric manufacturing comes\r\nwith X cost for brands and manufacturer that is inclusive of inputs, wages, utilities, compliance etc. Post\r\nindustrial waste can be reduced overall, but it will always be generated. The argument of incentivisation does\r\nnot make economic sense for any of the players involved.\r\nToday, we are still seeing evidence that it is challenging for textile recyclers to scale. They are dependent on all\r\nwaste resources (pre and post) to test, calibrate and scale their technologies. It is unfortunate to date unrealistic\r\nto build a system based only on post-consumer waste feedstock. However recyclers see port-consumer waste\r\nfeedstock as a highly interesting feedstock source to in the long run ensure sufficient volumes for their\r\noperations, as post-industrial/pre consumer waste feedstock is by default limited.\r\nNeed to find legislation that is feasible for all actors and regions to meet. Counting both pre- and post-consumer\r\n-waste feedstock, would be such an approach.\r\nOverall, there is a need to Increase the demand for recycled content (post-consumer specifically) i.e. legislation\r\nmust find a balanced approach between supply of feedstock and creating demand for recycled content ie. target\r\ncannot be too low.\r\nWhen calculating recycled content, to effectively reach the objectives of the ESPR and the EU textile Strategy, a\r\nportfolio-level approach will be critical to balance for the known trade-offs between eco-design measures whilst\r\nat the same time effectively scale recycling:\r\n3678-3682 The meaning, purpose and reasoning of this section is unclear to us. We would suggest rephrasing this section.\r\n9.2.5.4 3684 Recyclability\r\nand recycled\r\ncontent\r\nHow to assess\r\nrecycled\r\ncontent – table\r\n52, status of the\r\nmaterial\r\nIt is stated that “worn material with damaged fibres […] is often relatively dirty, with various form of stains and\r\nmoist content, generating mould, and hygienic problems”. This highly depends on the source and on how the\r\ntextile waste products have been collected.\r\n3651 Correction: a verification system that can track both post-industrial waste and post-consumer waste streams.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n9.2.6. Environmental impacts\r\nRegarding the request for data input from the industry to develop the Base Case:\r\nWe fully understand the JRC’s need for data from the industry to develop the base case for environmental impacts for apparel. However, we would like\r\nto remind the COM and the JRC about the work undertaken by the industry during the past decade to develop the aspirational and voluntary framework\r\nPEFCR A&F and populating it with primary and secondary data. We believe it is unrealistic to assume that the industry would be able to submit relevant\r\ndata for the base case within the span of the 2nd milestone consultation, particularly given that product, rather than facility data (which is what the\r\nindustry gathers today) is asked for.\r\n\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.6 3701-3707 Environmental\r\nimpacts\r\nGeneral From our perspective there is a general need for data to support decision-making in countries outside\r\nthe EU. As stated in the report, environmental protection measures are often less stringent at the\r\nnational level in these regions, but that does not mean that facilities do not implement BAT and\r\nEuropean protection standards. Environmental impacts are influenced more by technologies,\r\npractices, and resource inputs than by geographic location alone. Efficient production technologies\r\nand sustainable practices can mitigate environmental impacts in any location. We recommend shifting\r\nthe focus to the technology level to create stronger incentives for improvement among low performing\r\nproducers in these countries. This approach ensures that producers meeting European limit values\r\nare not penalized unnecessarily. Data on facility level is also more easily available than data at product\r\nlevel as impacts are measured on facility level and many facilities often produce a variety of products\r\nusing variable settings of production lines and different products for more than one brand.\r\nWe do not agree that facilities outside of EU have a higher environmental impact per default. The\r\nparagraphs seem to generalise and penalizes non-European suppliers who are doing things well.\r\nEnvironmental impacts are influenced more by technologies, practices, and resource inputs than by\r\ngeographic location alone. Efficient production technologies and sustainable practices can mitigate\r\nenvironmental impacts in any location. For example, Bangladesh is the country with most LEED\r\nPlatinum facilities, with 61 out of the top 100 highest rated LEED certified factories in the world.\r\nSuch developments highlight that robust environmental practices can and are being adopted\r\nvoluntarily, even in countries with less stringent environmental regulations.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSource: https://textilefocus.com/bangladesh-now-global-leader-with-229-leed-certified-greenfactories/\r\nFrom our perspective there is a general need for data to support decision-making in countries outside\r\nthe EU. Environmental protection measures are often less stringent at the national level in these\r\nregions, but that does not mean that facilities do not implement BAT and European protection\r\nstandards. We recommend shifting the focus to the facility level to create stronger incentives for\r\nimprovement among producers in these countries. This approach ensures that producers meeting\r\nEuropean limit values are not penalized unnecessarily. Data on facility level is also more easily\r\navailable than data at product level as impacts are measured on facility level and many facilities often\r\nproduce a variety of products using variable settings of production lines and different products for\r\nmore than one brand.\r\n9.2.6.1 3709-3758 Environmental\r\nimpacts\r\nProcess\r\ntechniques\r\nWe miss a chapter on the environmental impact on raw material production level.\r\nThis highlights certain data gaps related to process techniques, which are essential for conducting\r\nrobust impact assessments. Therefore, the data included in the EF database should provide the\r\nnecessary granularity to enable more accurate assessments.\r\nSince the industry has limited traceability to process techniques, it could be more relevant to look at\r\nchanging to low emission energy sources (e.g. RE) in production to make an impact. Rather than to\r\nfocus on focusing efforts in getting information on processing techniques.\r\n3740 According to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), \"water consumption\" refers\r\nto the portion of water withdrawn that is not returned to the source, often due to evaporation,\r\nproduct integration, or contamination\". On the other hand, “water withdrawal\" refers to the total\r\nvolume of water removed from natural sources (surface or groundwater), regardless of whether it is\r\nconsumed, treated, or returned.\r\nBased on this, the provided quote should instead refer to \"withdrawal.\" Referring incorrectly to\r\n\"consumption\" may overstate the environmental impact of a process, as it implies that the water is\r\npermanently removed from the system. Conversely, framing the issue as \"withdrawal\" provides a\r\nmore accurate basis for understanding the process's water use, including opportunities for reuse,\r\ntreatment, or return to the source.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n3745-3747 As discussed above, the provided quote should instead refer to \"withdrawal\", in line with the\r\nEuropean Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).\r\n3763-3764 This statement fails to acknowledge the diversity of business models that exist, such as those driven\r\nby street markets, supermarkets, small local stores, independent designers, and specialized sectors\r\nlike sportswear or work clothing. These models, which span a broad spectrum of retail approaches,\r\nare crucial to understanding the complexity of the industry. The attempt to reduce these diverse and\r\nmultifaceted business structures into two categories—consumer-led and brand-led—ignores the\r\nnuances that shape actual market behaviour. Furthermore, the tendency to link these business\r\nmodels to specific issues or challenges, despite acknowledging the absence of any clear cause-andeffect relationships, indicates a reliance on unfounded biases rather than grounded industry insights.\r\n3771-3777 The phrase \"trend turnover is a fundamental factor that defines a business model\" is broad and\r\nsomewhat vague. It doesn't specify how this applies universally across industries or within a specific\r\ncontext, making it difficult for policymakers to extract actionable insights.\r\nThe cause-effect relationship is based on unverified assumptions. The occurrence of two events\r\nsimultaneously does not necessarily indicate a connection between them. For instance, business\r\nmodels that adapt their designs to rapid trends are not inherently linked to obsolescence and early\r\ndisposal. A business model focused on meeting customer demands can adapt its offerings to match\r\ndemand, thereby reducing excess inventory and increasing profitability. This approach does not\r\nimply, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that such retailers do not prioritize durability. The\r\ndocument appears to connect these two factors without data to support the link, leading to\r\nconclusions based on unsupported premises.\r\n3784 Environmental impacts are influenced more by technologies, practices, and resource inputs than by\r\ngeographic location alone. Efficient production technologies and sustainable practices can mitigate\r\nenvironmental impacts in any location.\r\nSuggestion: “The location of different stages of the supply chain can also affect the environmental\r\nimpact of products.”\r\n3784-3789 The statement that outsourcing the transformation process to third countries is linked to lower\r\nlabour costs and less stringent environmental regulations is not necessarily accurate. The mere\r\noccurrence of two factors does not imply a direct connection.\r\nThe choice of outsourcing is often driven by practical considerations such as the availability of raw\r\nmaterials rather than just cost or regulatory differences. For example, much of the cotton and\r\npolyester, key fibers in the textile industry, is sourced from countries like India, China, or Pakistan,\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nwhere these materials are abundant. Given that Europe's contribution to global cotton and polyester\r\nproduction is less than 5%, it is logical for companies to outsource the processing of these materials\r\nto regions closer to their source, rather than focusing on labor or regulatory conditions in the\r\nproduction phase.\r\n3797-3798 We disagree with this statement for two reasons. On the one hand, extending the lifespan of an item\r\nonly reduces the impact of the function it serves and, therefore, reduces the user's impact. The\r\nmanufacturing of an item has a fixed environmental impact regardless of how long it is used. On the\r\nother hand, companies whose business model is based on renting products tend to have a massive\r\nportfolio to meet different consumer demands. For example, car rental companies, which have an\r\nextensive fleet that is renewed frequently. These two factors should be considered and evaluated\r\nbefore making such a strong statement.\r\n3807-3808 The statement does not align with recent consumer trends. For instance, surveys conducted in Spain\r\nsuggest that 75% of people purchase only the garments they need, indicating a more practical and\r\nneed-driven approach to clothing consumption.\r\nReference (page 8): https://gestionresiduotextil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/estudiogestion-residuo-textil.pdf\r\n9.2.6.1 3759-3804 Environmental\r\nimpacts\r\nBusiness\r\nmodel of\r\neconomic\r\noperators in\r\nthe\r\necosystem\r\nWe emphasize the necessity of robust scientific research to underpin the inclusion of parameters\r\nbased on business models in measuring a product's environmental footprint. Without a\r\ncomprehensive understanding, there is a risk of oversimplifying or misrepresenting the\r\nenvironmental impacts associated with different business models. For example, the relationship\r\nbetween a product's time of wear and its environmental impact during manufacturing is not linear or\r\nstraightforward.\r\nConsequently, Some of the statements in the section are overly generalized. For instance, not all\r\ncompanies focusing on timeless styles prioritize durability or reverse logistics.\r\nSimilarly, the environmental performance of factories cannot be solely attributed to their location.\r\nHigh-performing factories in third countries can outperform outdated facilities within the EU that may\r\nnot align with Best Available Techniques (BAT) due to the high costs of updates. This complexity\r\nhighlights the need for a more nuanced discussion of supply chain impacts.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n9.2.6.1 3709-3758 Process\r\ntechniques\r\nHow to calculate product Environmental footprint\r\nFollowing the previous comment, it is highly unclear how the process techniques referenced in this\r\nsection would be connected to a specific product. The ability to reflect the type of energy used per\r\nproduct seems completely absent in the analysis. To be able to calculate the environmental impact of\r\na product, such clarifications will be critical to make.\r\n3779-3781 Business\r\nmodel of\r\neconomic\r\noperators in\r\nthe ecosystem\r\nproduction\r\ntime\r\nThe section states that: \"Shorter production times increases the probability of manufacturing errors.\r\nThis also increases the generation of waste, due to the required destruction of products that cannot be\r\nsold.\" What source has the JRC referred to here? Longer lead times do not necessarily indicate longer\r\nproduction times. There are other processes involved in lead times, such as the delivery process,\r\nwhich has a greater impact on lead times than production.\r\n3793-3798 Ownership\r\nof apparel\r\nThe section states: \"products sold under this business model (sold as a service rather than a product)\r\nproduce lower environmental impacts, due to the higher intensity of use among different users across\r\ntheir lifetime\" The assumption that a product used by multiple consumers automatically leads to a\r\nlonger lifespan or reduced environmental impact is overly simplistic. For example, a garment that is\r\nworn by several people throughout its rental lifecycle could still be discarded after the same number\r\nof uses as a garment owned by one individual.\r\nInstead of focusing on niche business models like rental services, the study should concentrate on the\r\nbroader, more impactful areas of the industry, where there is a larger potential for improving\r\nsustainability and reducing waste.\r\n3799-3802 Textile as a\r\nservice\r\nThe section states: \"Textile apparel that is commercialized as a service will need higher levels of physical\r\ndurability, which can require for example a more dense fabric with higher amount of fibres and electricity\r\ncompared to products with lower performances.\" From our experience, this is true in terms of material\r\nuse/fabric choices, but not always in terms of electricity use in production. Can the JRC highlight what\r\nsources it is referring to here?\r\n9.2.6.1 3810-3813 Environmental\r\nimpacts\r\nUser\r\nbehavior\r\nThe text states that when \"a consumer chooses to acquire a product that has been placed on the market\r\nunder a business model based on fast trend turnovers and short production times, they are\r\ncontributing - possibly unknowingly - to the environmental impacts associated with that business\r\nmodel.\"\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nHowever, the definition of \"fast trend turnovers\" and \"short production times\" needs further\r\nclarification. What metrics or studies support that these business models directly lead to higher\r\nenvironmental impacts per product? Additionally, is this statement addressing the environmental\r\nimpact per product, or is it related to the total amount of products purchased? The causal link between\r\nconsumer choices and environmental impact is stated broadly without specific evidence or data to\r\nquantify the effect. The phrasing \"they are contributing - possibly unknowingly\" introduces an\r\nemotive judgmental tone. Documents made to inform policymaking should aim for neutral, objective\r\nlanguage that does not introduce a biased framework. Terms like \"fast trend turnovers\" and \"short\r\nproduction times\" are not defined, leaving their specific characteristics open to interpretation.\r\nc 3863 Legislative\r\nframework -\r\nEnv\r\nTable 53 Table 53: Environmental performance levels for emissions into water in specific regions\r\nThe COD limit values for China ranging 7-30 000 mg/L, which is wide enough to offer limited\r\ncomparison value. It does not specify if this table is comparing direct discharge (more stringent) or\r\nindirect discharge (through municipal treatment plans, less stringent limit). In China, the limits\r\ndepend on specific material process and provincial-level regulations. Section 5.7 and 10.5.2 of the 1st\r\nmilestone referenced as source does not specify. Many in the industry follow the ZDHC tools in this\r\ncontext. The Roadmap to Zero Programme (ZDHC) is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiative that\r\nworks with various stakeholders in the fashion industry to phase out hazardous chemicals from the\r\nglobal value chain of fashion.\r\n9.2.6.1 3841-3878 Environmental\r\nimpacts\r\nLegislative\r\nframework\r\nand\r\nindustrial\r\nbest\r\npractices\r\nIt is problematic to compare energy use per fibre type here. Certain fibres are chosen for their\r\nfunctionality and performance capabilities, so fibre is not a variable that can be changed to reduce\r\nenergy. It would be better to refer to energy efficiency in production processes and low-impact energy\r\nsources, as that is something that can be influenced. For the use phase consumer behavior during use\r\nphase that differs a lot from country to country.\r\n3818-3822 The statement appears to be overly speculative and outside the scope of a report, as it introduces an\r\nunnecessary focus on social norms rather than on tangible, evidence-based solutions to\r\nenvironmental impact. These norms can vary significantly between cultures, making it overly\r\nsimplistic and potentially irrelevant for EU-wide action\r\nAdditionally, suggesting that such practices should be regulated seems unrealistic, as they pertain to\r\ncultural traditions and personal choices, which are not typically subjects for regulatory intervention.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\n3830-3831 This statement is extremely generalist. For example, choosing cotton, polyester or wool-made\r\ngarment influences its environmental impact. Choosing whether the garment is easy ironing also has\r\nan impact on use stage. Deciding whether the garment is black or white affects it as well. A wrinkleresistant garment probably will have less impact during the use phase, but probably the finishing\r\nprocesses will increase significantly the impact of the manufacturing process compared to other\r\nscenarios.\r\n3836-3838 The term \"symbolic value\" is ambiguous and lacks a clear definition, making it difficult for\r\npolicymakers to understand or measure its impact. Without clarification, it risks being perceived as\r\nspeculative or abstract. It is a subjective and highly individual factor, making it challenging to address\r\nthrough policy measures. The focus on \"symbolic value\" diverts attention from systemic factors, such\r\nas industry practices or structural barriers to recycling and reuse, which are more directly\r\naddressable by policymakers.\r\n3837-3838 The environmental impact of a garment has two main components: a \"fixed\" part that depends on the\r\ngarment itself (including materials, processes, distribution, and end-of-life), and a \"variable\" part\r\ncorresponding to the impacts of its use (washing, ironing, etc.). Before making such statements, it is\r\nnecessary to clearly define the system's function and the Functional Unit. If the Functional Unit is one\r\ngarment, the impact of a durable garment will be much higher when considering the impact of its use.\r\nOn the other hand, if the Functional Unit is wearing one garment once, the impact of that single use of\r\na durable garment will be much lower, as the total impact is divided by the number of uses.\r\n3874-3878\r\n3883-3885\r\nThe paragraphs generalises and penalizes non-European suppliers who are doing things well.\r\nEnvironmental impacts are influenced more by technologies, practices, and resource inputs than by\r\ngeographic location alone. Efficient production technologies and sustainable practices can mitigate\r\nenvironmental impacts in any location. For example, Bangladesh is the country with most LEED\r\nPlatinum facilities, with 61 out of the top 100 highest rated LEED certified factories in the world.\r\nSuch developments highlight that robust environmental practices can and are being adopted\r\nvoluntarily, even in countries with less stringent environmental regulations.\r\nSource: https://textilefocus.com/bangladesh-now-global-leader-with-229-leed-certified-greenfactories/\r\n3885-3887 The statement assumes that users \"tend to change frequently their wardrobe\" without providing\r\nevidence or acknowledging variability in consumer habits. This generalization oversimplifies the\r\nissue and shifts undue responsibility to consumers rather than addressing systemic drivers.\r\nThe claim that the best case (BC) promotes overproduction and overconsumption is unsupported by\r\ndata or case studies, reducing its persuasiveness.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nThe sentence does not clearly explain what constitutes the \"base case\" business model. While it\r\nimplies that overproduction and overconsumption are central to the BC, it fails to define whether this\r\nreflects typical industry practices, a specific geographic focus, or another benchmark. This ambiguity\r\nmakes it difficult to understand the scope or purpose of the BC analysis.\r\n9.2.7 Substances of Concern\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n9.2.7 Presence of substances\r\nof concern\r\nGeneral Main question/main feedback: how does the JRC envision that SoC information\r\nrequirements for apparel textiles will enable information flow in the supply chain.\r\n9.2.7 3898-\r\n3907\r\nPresence of substances\r\nof concern\r\nGeneral A comprehensive list of all the substances of concern that textile products contain would\r\nmean all CLP classifies chemical substances.\r\nAs a minimum, the CLP classifications must be prioritized, for example by focusing on\r\nCMR-classifications first and then apply a stepwise approach for including additional\r\nclassification to make the requirements specific and relevant. We strongly recommend\r\nincluding AFIRM and / or other relevant industry organizations in this process.\r\n9.2.7.1 3942-\r\n3944\r\nPresence of substances\r\nof concern\r\nEcosystem of\r\nSubstances of\r\nConcern -\r\nManufacturing\r\nfactors and\r\nprocess\r\ntechniques\r\nA robust evidence base on the usage of chemicals must not include more than tier 1\r\nmanufacturers Chemical Inventory Lists. Important to note is that these lists are facility\r\nspecific, not product specific. Product specifics lists for more than tier 1 is far from being\r\navailable. This must be taken into consideration by the JRC.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\n3964-\r\n3969\r\nThe wording of these chapter leads to the presumption that the source of substances of\r\nconcern is directly linked to the chemical products used by supply chain located outside\r\nthe EU. We deem that this presumption is not totally correct.\r\nPlease note that the textile industry is a downstream user of chemical products supplied\r\nby the chemical industry. We understand that the chemical industry is the responsible to\r\nensure a chemical product is safe and should increase the transparency on chemical\r\nsubstances formulated in the chemical products they sell. It is well known that the lack of\r\ntransparency on the chemical ingredients (only substances classified with hazard in CLP\r\nand in concentration above specific thresholds, the possibility to not name the substance\r\nto allow the chemical industry to protect their IP, among others) all these limitations\r\nhampering the traceability of SoC using the Safety Data Sheets (SDS). These limitations\r\nhave been explained and highlighted by many position papers (from brands and trade\r\nassociation); and even European Commission mentioned partially in the Chemical\r\nStrategy on Sustainability (chapters 2.1.2 achieving safe products and non-toxic\r\nmaterials; and, 2.4 A comprehensive knowledge base on chemicals).\r\nThese limitations on chemical transparency are affecting both the supply chain inside EU\r\nand outside EU to the same extent.\r\nAdditionally, the supply chain outside EU has additional limitations on chemical\r\ntransparency due the lack of harmonized hazard criteria (those hazards contemplated in\r\nEU CLP but not currently implemented in UNs GHS), the international regulations on\r\nchemical product impose different requirements in chemical ingredients disclosure,\r\namong others. These additional limitations affect only and exclusively the supply chain\r\noutside the EU. These limitations have been explained and highlighted by many position\r\npapers (from brands and trade association); and even European Commission mentioned\r\npartially in the Chemical Strategy on Sustainability (chapters 2.1.2 achieving safe\r\nproducts and non-toxic materials); and, 2.4 A comprehensive knowledge base on\r\nchemicals).\r\nIn conclusion, we confirm that all the supply chain (EU and non-EU) is affected by\r\nlimitations to allow the traceability of SoC, but non-EU have additional limitations that\r\naffects in higher degree than EU. Please revise the wording to reinforce these issues in\r\norder to avoid any misunderstanding in the reader, because the current wording suggest\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSection Line Heading Topic Comments\r\nthere is no problem on traceability of SoC in supply chain located in EU. We also strongly\r\nadvice the JRC to connect to the Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management\r\n(AFIRM) Group to get their input on Substances of Concern in the apparel supply chains.\r\n9.2.7.2 4076-\r\n4087\r\nMisunderstanding of RSLs and MRSLs: RSLs and MRSLs are mentioned as supply chain\r\ntransparency measures. This is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of how\r\nsubstance restrictions work in the industry. They are not tools for chemical contents and\r\nhazards disclosure but rather negative lists, detailing substances that are not to be used\r\nduring manufacturing and/or present in the final products.\r\nThe number of substances listed in for example AFIRM RSL, are far more limited than what\r\nthe ones expressed under the definition of SoC to be even considered to be applicable. It\r\nis also critical to highlight that working with RSL (defining what should not be in an\r\narticle) is not going enable brands to get the information on what substances are in the\r\nfinal article.\r\n9.2.7.2 4097 ECHT project is mentioned as a relevant project to develop traceability information\r\nplatforms on there of SOC. This is still at the very initial stages and while it shows that\r\nindeed multiple initiatives are ongoing to tackle these challenges, that does not mean that\r\nthey are mature enough to be actual relevant for businesses by the time ESPR\r\nrequirements will go into force.\r\n4128-\r\n4129\r\n4134\r\nThe report acknowledges the correlation of durability with repairability. This is key from\r\na technical perspective of product design and conception, since improving product\r\ndurability would prevent the need for future repairability aspect.\r\nBased on the above, and on the arguments included in comments on lines 3210-3217, we\r\nthink that reparability requirement should not be defined\r\n6197-\r\n6199\r\nThe report includes reference to a study performed in Spain to measure the behaviour of\r\nclients towards the purchase of apparel made without harmful chemicals. In the first\r\nplace, the study seems low representative with a low sample size of 2000 people in a\r\ncountry of 48.37 million citizens, corresponding approximately 0.004% of the\r\npopulation of Spain.\r\nIn the second place the statement in lines 6197-6199 does not reflect exactly the\r\noutcomes of CECU study in 2023. The report is saying that 61% of the consumers in the\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nstudy declared that the restriction of hazardous chemicals in apparel is the second most\r\nimportant measure that policy makers should take. But the reality is that 61% is the\r\npercentage of total mentions the respondents selected this topic, but with different\r\nlevels of importance because the question requested the respondent to select the 3 main\r\nactions that the authorities should take to promote sustainable products and reduce\r\ngarment consumption: 23.8% selected chemicals in apparel as 1st choice, 22.1% selected\r\nas 2nd choice and 15.3% selected as 3rd choice. All of these percentage sum up the 61%\r\nmentioned in line 6197 of JRC report.\r\nMoreover, the Spanish study declared the following outcome on page 27:\r\n“The two measures considered a priority by the majority of citizens are banning the sale\r\nof clothing containing hazardous chemicals and banning the sale of clothing that is not\r\nmanufactured under fair conditions. Both are mentioned by six out of ten citizens\r\n(61.2% and 59.7% respectively) and around a quarter of the population considers them\r\nto be top priorities (23.8% and 25.3% respectively).”\r\nIn conclusion, the wording in the report is mixing the total percentage of mentions with\r\nthe priority level, and this could mislead the reader. Because in the correct terms, as the\r\nSpanish study states in its outcomes, 60% consider the authorities should ban the sale of\r\nclothing containing hazardous chemicals and only a quarter (23.1%) consider this\r\nmeasure a first priority.\r\n10.9.1.10 7501-\r\n7503\r\nQualitative assessment\r\nbased on technical,\r\nsocioeconomic and\r\nenvironmental\r\ndimensions\r\nDefinitions of product\r\naspects in ESPR\r\nGlobal water\r\nuse and water\r\nefficiency\r\nThe statement \"water consumption for materials extraction and manufacturing accounts\r\nfor 4% of global freshwater extraction, and cotton accounts for 2.5% of water consumed\r\nglobally\" requires clarification. The Cotton Misinformation Report (link) mentions that\r\ncotton uses approx. 3% of global agricultural water, aligned with its share of arable land\r\n(~2.7%). This suggests a focus on agricultural water rather than global.\r\n10.9.1.14 7639-\r\n7669\r\nQualitative assessment\r\nbased on technical,\r\nsocioeconomic and\r\nMicrofiber\r\nshedding\r\nWe strongly call on the JRC to, in addition to microplastics, also include micro-fibre\r\nshedding. – The Microfiber Consortium (TMC) has shown that natural fibers have a higher\r\nfibre shedding and that these fibre fragments also create a risk for the environment due\r\nto the chemical treatment of these natural fibre fabrics. The consecutive analysis of the\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nenvironmental\r\ndimensions\r\nDefinitions of product\r\naspects in ESPR\r\nJRC in the upcoming task must assess fibre fragmentation as a whole and must address all\r\nfibre types (natural, synthetic, and man-made cellulosic) equally. Current test methods for\r\nmeasuring fibre fragmentation have not been designed to assess fibre fragmentation in\r\nfinished products and are hence inappropriate for regulatory purposes at consumer level\r\nwithout further development and research. We strongly call on the JRC to connect with\r\nTMC for any of the consecutive analysis done, to get access to the latest scientific research\r\non fiber fragmentation.\r\n10.9.1.15 7716-\r\n7739\r\nQualitative assessment\r\nbased on technical,\r\nsocioeconomic and\r\nenvironmental\r\ndimensions\r\nDefinitions of product\r\naspects in ESPR\r\nGlobal GHG\r\nclaims\r\nThere’s a clear tendency to refer to a wide range of studies with varying methodologies\r\nand outdated data, which creates confusion for decision-makers in the industry. For\r\ninstance, the JRC report cites energy consumption data from 2004 - raising questions\r\nabout its relevance today. We rely on the most recent and credible data available,\r\ncurrently we refer to the 1.8% share of global GHG emissions calculated in 2023 by AII.\r\nHowever, the lack of transparency and context in many other figures circulating within\r\nthe industry underscores the need for consistency in the way we calculate and\r\ncommunicate claims about GHG emissions and other impact categories.\r\nSee also: EU clothing material footprint lower than expected | Materials & Production\r\nNews | News\r\n10.9.1.16 7769-\r\n7770\r\nQualitative assessment\r\nbased on technical,\r\nsocioeconomic and\r\nenvironmental\r\ndimensions\r\nDefinitions of product\r\naspects in ESPR\r\nExpected\r\ngeneration of\r\nwaste\r\nIt is stated that “Most of the leftover material from textile apparel manufacturing (postindustrial waste) ends up dumped or burned”. It seems unlikely as leftover material (like\r\ncut-offs) can be used for new products after being recycled. If it is an issue, it will create\r\nincentives for recycle these leftover materials if the definition of recycled content follows\r\nthe ISO 14021 standard and is not narrowed down to only include post-consumer waste.\r\nThrough the so-called SWITCH project in Bangladesh where it is highlighted how\r\nmanufacturers collaborate with waste handlers. Most of the waste is not properly\r\nsegregated, so the waste handler either passes it on to someone who can segregate it and\r\nthen export it to recyclers in India, or the non-segregated waste is \"downcycled.\" It must\r\nbe acknowledged that there is a huge informal sector handling waste.\r\n3-Mar-25 Confidential Version 4\r\nSee also: Pre-feasibility Report - Global Fashion Agenda - of Post Industrial Textile Fiber2-Fiber Recycling in Bangladesh."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMUKN)","shortTitle":"BMUKN","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":21}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-05-26"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006748","regulatoryProjectTitle":"Umsetzung der EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation ","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/c1/79/524417/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2505270003.pdf","pdfPageCount":10,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"FINAL VERSION 1\r\nEBCA Position on the ESPR Delegated Acts for Textiles\r\nDecember 2024\r\nEBCA highly welcomes the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and Delegated Act\r\n(DA) for Apparel Textiles as a critical regulatory framework aimed at improving the environmental\r\nperformance of apparel and empowering consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.\r\nTo ensure its effectiveness, it is critical that the ESPR creates a level playing field for the whole\r\nindustry, ensures policy coherence with other EU legislation and avoids fragmentation on the Single\r\nMarket.\r\nEBCA would like to draw attention to the following points:\r\nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF THE DELEGATED ACT: ...................................................2\r\nADOPTING A HARMONISED EU-LEVEL APPROACH THAT PREVENTS MARKET FRAGMENTATION. .......................................................2\r\nESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE AND SCALABLE ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR ALL TYPES OF COMPANIES......................................2\r\nENSURING EU COMPETITIVENESS, THE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE MUST BE EXTENDED BEYOND 24 MONTHS TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT\r\nTIME FOR BOTH BRANDS AND SUPPLIERS TO GET READY FOR THE REQUIREMENTS THEREBY REFLECTING THE GEOPOLITICAL, SOCIOECONOMICAL, AND INNOVATION CHALLENGES......................................................................................................................3\r\nFOR ECO-DESIGN SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................3\r\nPROPORTIONAL AND IMPACT-DRIVEN REQUIREMENTS: STARTING WITH PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL\r\nFOR IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................3\r\n➢ Set durability criteria based on the most common apparel failure modes ..................................................4\r\n➢ Recycled content at company’s portfolio level to avoid tradeoffs and reflect market realities...................5\r\nINFORMATION REQUIREMENTS BASED ON EXISTING PRACTICES TO MITIGATE THE RISKS OF INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND\r\nFOSTER SUSTAINABLE CHOICES AMONG CONSUMERS .............................................................................................................6\r\n➢ Information requirements in the Digital Product Passport achieving the objective of ESPR........................6\r\n➢ Information requirements on fibre attributes..............................................................................................6\r\nAVOIDANCE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES......................................................................................................................7\r\n➢ Recyclability..................................................................................................................................................7\r\n➢ Traceability of substances of concern (SoC) .................................................................................................7\r\n➢ Consistent product categorisation ...............................................................................................................8\r\nANNEX I – EBCA PROPOSAL FOR THE TEST STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE MOST COMMON FAILURE\r\nMODES ..................................................................................................................................................................9\r\nANNEX II ISEAL..................................................................................................................................................... 10\r\nFINAL VERSION 2\r\nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF THE DELEGATED ACT:\r\nAdopting a harmonised EU-level approach that prevents market fragmentation.\r\nAdopting a harmonized EU-level approach for eco-design requirements is crucial for making\r\nsustainable apparel the standard across the Union Market. A unified framework ensures regulatory\r\nconsistency, which not only simplifies compliance for businesses but also fosters fair competition.\r\nWithout this harmonization, varying national standards could create technical challenges,\r\nleading to contradictory demands and increased risk of non-compliance for businesses\r\noperating across borders.\r\nTo prevent market fragmentation and maintain a single EU-wide industry standard, the future\r\nDelegated Act must explicitly prevent the development of parallel national eco-design\r\nlegislation. This approach will ensure uniformity across Member States, providing legal clarity for\r\ncompanies and minimizing regulatory inconsistencies that could otherwise disrupt the smooth\r\nfunctioning of the Single Market.\r\nEstablishing an affordable and scalable enforcement framework for all types of companies\r\nEnforcement of new ecodesign requirements brings pressure on value chain actors who have to\r\ninvest in new processes which require time, resources, and adaptability.\r\nAs rightly indicated in the ESPR legal framework, economic operators should be responsible for\r\nproducts’ compliance with the eco-design requirements in relation to their respective roles in the\r\nsupply chain. This is particularly challenging for smaller partners. The textiles’ supply chain\r\ncomprises a significant proportion of European textile businesses, with 80% of enterprises falling\r\nunder the category of micro, small, or medium-sized.\r\nEBCA members supports that it is the obligation of the manufacturers to ensure that their products\r\ncomply with the relevant requirements, as it stands in the ESPR. However, the documentation for\r\nthe compliance of products should follow a risk-based approach. Such risk-based approach will\r\nensure compliance, and effectiveness by reducing bottlenecks at testing facilities, administrative\r\nburdens, and the risk of potentially higher consumer prices, plus minimizing the volume of discarded\r\ntest-products. This involves creating an internal testing program aimed at identifying and testing\r\nproducts with the highest risk of non-compliance, leveraging the manufacturer’s expertise and\r\nsubstantial knowledge.\r\nFurthermore, the enforcement of eco-design requirement criteria should be based on alreadyexisting tools such as the declaration of conformity as laid down in the General Product Safety\r\nRegulation 2023/988, including the provisions of the presumption of safety by presumption\r\nof conformity, with the addition of random product tests by national authorities. In this\r\nconfiguration, we strongly recommend not requiring CE marking and the declaration of conformity\r\nshould include the necessary adaptations for textile products that currently do not fall under the\r\ncurrent scope of CE marking.\r\nFINAL VERSION 3\r\nEnsuring EU competitiveness, the implementation timeline must be extended beyond 24\r\nmonths to ensure sufficient time for both brands and suppliers to get ready for the\r\nrequirements thereby reflecting the geopolitical, socio-economical, and innovation\r\nchallenges.\r\nThe textile sector is embedded in the global market from the extraction of raw materials to the\r\nmanufacture of yarns, fabrics, and apparel, and finally, to the retailer, materials cross the world\r\nbefore reaching the consumer. The industry has become a key sector of the economy in many\r\ndeveloping countries, offering significant employment especially to women. We therefore gather a\r\nmultiplicity of actors along the chain – a majority of which are SMEs, dealing with great variables in\r\nterms of legislation, economies, and even culture.\r\nThe textiles market is itself highly fragmented as no brand or retailer owns more than 2% of the\r\nmarket value.\r\nIt is fundamental to take into account the global dimension of the textile value chain when setting\r\nrequirements. There is an opportunity to create incentives for global investments, foster innovation\r\nthrough research and development, and upskill the global supply chain workforce. This approach will\r\nhelp future-proof the clothing sector and support its green-digital transition. Indeed, any suppliers\r\nand supplier countries will need support in order to meet the upcoming eco-design\r\nrequirements. This is particularly important in areas such as access to renewable energy, recycling\r\ntechnologies and their location, waste collection, fibre availability, and targeted R&D. This must be\r\ncoupled with continuous engagement and dialogue with producing countries and all actors in the\r\nvalue chain, notably fabric and garment manufacturers.\r\nAs brands, EBCA members operate on varying timelines that span several months from design to\r\nmanufacturing. This window poses significant challenges, as it limits the ability of these actors to\r\nbuild capacity, learn and adapt their processes.\r\nWe call on the EU Commission to consider this when adopting eco-design measures. Therefore, EBCA\r\nadvocates for longer transition periods on eco-design requirements for new products. This means\r\nextending the implementation timelines beyond 24 months to ensure both brands and suppliers\r\nhave sufficient time to prepare for the requirements.\r\nFOR ECO-DESIGN SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS\r\nProportional and impact-driven requirements: starting with performance requirements with\r\nthe highest potential for improvement\r\nThe DA for Apparel provides a unique opportunity to drive positive change. However, ambitious\r\nenvironmental goals must be balanced with practical considerations for implementation. Initially,\r\nthis framework should focus on a stepwise approach by including the eco-design requirements with\r\nthe highest potential to improve apparel performance.\r\nAdditional requirements could be added later when technological development has matured and\r\ncurrent data gaps have been addressed through careful impact assessment and evaluation. This\r\napproach would give companies and supply chain actors the opportunity to develop innovative\r\nsolutions, enabling them to make progressive investments rooted in a clear baseline. IT would also\r\nFINAL VERSION 4\r\nallow them to invest progressively, ensuring they are well-prepared as additional requirements are\r\nintroduced over time.\r\nConsequently, to remain competitive and to ensure the DA’s effectiveness, EBCA recommends\r\ninitially focusing on eco-design requirements with the greatest potential for impact. These\r\ninclude durability requirements based on the most common apparel failures and recycled\r\ncontent at the portfolio level. Prioritizing these areas allows for a practical, phased approach that\r\nbalances ambitious sustainability goals with industry readiness. This ensures that different actors\r\ncan adapt progressively without undue burden.\r\n➢ Set durability criteria based on the most common apparel failure modes\r\nAn effective circular economy calls for extending the product lifetime, making durability a key driver\r\nof change in the apparel industry. Currently, there are no standardised framework to define and\r\nmeasure durability for apparel, as various criteria exist to evaluate different quality aspects of\r\ngarments. Therefore, we support selecting international ISO or ISO compatible standards whose\r\nparameters and test methods, according to a defined set of protocol, provide the same results.\r\nTo address durability in the Delegated Act, we must focus on the most prevalent failure modes of\r\napparel, grounded in scientific research1 and supported by EBCA members' technical know-how.\r\nThese include dimensional stability, appearance after washing, shrinkage, pilling, fabric bursting for\r\nknitted products, and fabric tensile strength for woven products. For further information on test\r\nstandards and conditions for the most common failure modes, please refer to Annex I.\r\nFurthermore, durability requirements must ensure scalability and industry onboarding by defining\r\ntesting based on risk analysis and promoting cost-efficient procedures. EBCA recommends\r\nfollowing ISO or ISO standards whose parameters and test methods, according to a defined set of\r\nprotocol, provide the same results and reflecting real-life conditions. For example, standards\r\nrequiring laundry before testing should be performed under a predefined number of cleaning cycles\r\naccording to the care label durability requirements must ensure scalability and industry onboarding\r\nby defining testing based on risk analysis and promoting cost-efficient procedures. For instance,\r\nthe denim and its indigo colour are expected to fade over time and cannot be considered as a failure.\r\nProduct testing is a costly undertaking, both economically and environmentally, so duplication to\r\nmeet the needs of different brands should be avoided wherever possible.\r\nFurthermore, given the number of tests anticipated, we propose to adopt a risk-based approach for\r\nensuring compliance with eco-design measures, as applied under the REACH Regulation or the\r\nGeneral Product Safety Regulation. This will ensure efficiency and effectiveness by minimising\r\nbottlenecks at test facilities, discarded test-products, administrative burdens, and potentially higher\r\nconsumer prices.\r\n1 Cooper, T., & Claxton, S. (2022). Garment failure causes and solutions: Slowing the cycles for circular fashion.\r\nJournal of Cleaner Production, 351, 131394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131394.\r\nFINAL VERSION 5\r\nFurthermore, some EBCA members have demonstrated that standard testing methods do not account\r\nfor the use phase. Garments that are washed without wear-testing are more prone to failing than\r\nthose that are wear-tested, as they are not exposed to perspiration and moisture over time. The\r\nexposure to perspiration and moisture helps maintain the quality of the fabric. Therefore, while ISO\r\nor equivalent quality tests can provide an indication of the expected durability of products, caution\r\nshould always be exercised when setting standards.\r\n➢ Recycled content at company’s portfolio level to avoid tradeoffs and reflect market\r\nrealities\r\nThe complex nature of apparel products—such as their intended use, the wide variety of fibers, yarns,\r\nand fabrics, existing recycling technologies, and the lack of recycling infrastructure—impacts the\r\ndesign choices for textile products. This leads to trade-offs between key product aspects, such\r\nas durability, functionality and integrating recycled content.\r\nTextile recycling technologies produce varying quality outcomes depending on the material\r\ninputs. For example, the current mechanical recycling of natural fibres like cotton results in shorter\r\nfibre lengths compared to virgin fibres, reducing strength and durability.\r\nMoreover, defining a requirement for recycled content must balance the supply of feedstock with\r\nthe need to drive demand for recycled materials. A thorough assessment of global feedstock\r\navailability and the quality of recycled materials considering the use and type of fibres (natural,\r\nsynthetics, etc.) is critical in this context, as consistent data is not yet available.\r\nEBCA members believe that the DA for Textiles should establish a minimum requirement for the\r\nincorporation of recycled content at the portfolio level. This will drive the scalability of recycled\r\ncontent while identifying gaps to foster innovation. This portfolio approach will enable brands to\r\nfocus on the impactful incorporation of recycled content while balancing the needs for more durable\r\nproducts.\r\nAdditionally and given that no more than 1-2 % of post-consumer textiles are recycled into new\r\ntextile fibres, the DA should gradually increase the mandatory incorporation of recycled fibers\r\nto drive demand, upscale innovation and support the recycling industry.\r\nThe recycling technology landscape have the potential to radically shift with the emergence of highgrade textile-to-textile recycling innovations in the next few years. These technologies will drive the\r\nuptake of post-consumer feedstocks, significantly increasing post-consumer waste content in textile\r\nproducts. In the meantime, there is still a need to further innovate and calibrate recycling\r\ntechnologies for textiles while also strengthening the collection and sorting infrastructure to prepare\r\nfor extended producer responsibility. It is critical to be able to rely on all waste feedstocks\r\n(including post-industrial, pre-consumer and eventually post-consumer waste) to facilitate\r\nfurther scaling of recycling technologies. The industry has launched several projects to reduce the\r\namount of post-industrial waste. For example, the EU funded project SWITCH to Circular Economy2\r\n2 Unlocking Bangladesh's circular apparel industry - collaborative strategies and innovation promoted at a\r\nBGMEA-led event | SwitchToCircular.eu\r\nFINAL VERSION 6\r\nis building a collaborative approach to create a circular ecosystem in Bangladesh and tackle preconsumer textile waste. These efforts should be taken into account.\r\nConsequently, given the infancy and current business challenges of textile recycling, we\r\nrecommend avoiding separate requirements for post-industrial waste and post-consumer\r\nwaste in the initial phase. This approach will help prevent hampering further scaling of\r\ninnovation in textile-to-textile recycling.\r\nOn a side note, EBCA suggests referring to the ISO 14021 Standards for Environmental Labels to\r\ndefine requirements for recycled content. The industry relies on standards and certifications like the\r\n“Global Recycled Standard” (GRS) or “Recycled Claim Standard” (RCS) to ensure that materials label\r\nas ‘recycled’ genuinely include recycled content. These standards are developed through industrywide initiatives such as Textile Exchange. The auditing and certification of Textile Exchange\r\nstandards are conducted by third-party certification bodies, ensuring that the information is\r\nexternally verified and credible.\r\nInformation requirements based on existing practices to mitigate the risks of increased\r\nadministrative burden and foster sustainable choices among consumers\r\n➢ Information requirements in the Digital Product Passport achieving the objective of\r\nESPR\r\nEBCA supports the introduction of information requirements that complement the existing\r\ncomposition information on the physical inner label as regulated under the Textile Labelling\r\nRegulation, through the introduction of the Digital Product Passport (DPP). The information\r\nrequirements of the Textiles Delegated Act should be displayed in a digital format only and\r\nfurthermore, The information in the DPP should be limited to the requirements defined in the\r\nTextiles Delegated Act and displayed digitally.\r\nThe granularity of the information should consider the fragmentation of textile supply chain, as\r\nbrands are heavily reliant on their manufacturers to access data. We thus call European policymakers\r\nto carefully define the type and level of information necessary to assess products’ environmental\r\nperformance. Information should be required when it clearly supports consumers’ choices, public\r\nauthorities to monitor compliance and, helps private entities shift towards more circular practices.\r\n➢ Information requirements on fibre attributes\r\nTo inform consumers about sustainable fibres used in apparel products, the Delegated Act must\r\ninclude information requirements regarding the use of such sustainable fibres. A predefined list of\r\nfibres categorized by specific attributes should be created, relying on industry-wide, verifiable\r\nstandards recognized as best environmental practices. We suggest the following attributes: recycled\r\nfibres, organic fibres, and responsibly sourced fibres.\r\nFor effective implementation, the system must accommodate intermediate certifications to\r\nensure feasibility, considering the extended time often required to obtain final certification for fibres.\r\nThis approach allows fibre attributes to be communicated to consumers at the point of sale, even if\r\nFINAL VERSION 7\r\nfinal certifications are pending, thus maintaining transparency and promoting consumer\r\nawareness without delay.\r\nFor this information requirement, the industry can initially rely on existing industry standards\r\ndeveloped in this context. Applicable standards should meet the following criteria:\r\n• Be based on industry-wide standards recognised as best environmental practices.\r\n• Define a system to verify the content of the fibre in the final product.\r\n• Meet the ISEAL3 Community Member Requirements for standards and are member of the\r\nISEAL Alliance.\r\n• Have robust chain of custody in place or a plan to implement one.\r\nAs technology evolves, information traceability can rely on other systems like fibre tracing, as long\r\nas they comply with industry standards and are widely used.\r\nAvoidance of unintended consequences\r\nEstablishing effective ecodesign requirements for apparel requires a balanced approach. Without\r\ncareful consideration, overly rigid measures could unintentionally stifle innovation or impose\r\nimpractical demands on the industry. A pragmatic approach to certain requirements is essential\r\nto prevent negative impacts while fostering progress and advancing circular economy objectives.\r\n➢ Recyclability\r\nApparel recycling is an area of rapid innovation, with ongoing research and development essential\r\nfor maximizing circularity. However, before establishing specific recyclability requirements, it is\r\ncritical to address the existing technological challenges and gaps in industry knowledge.\r\nWithout this foundational work, rigid requirements could hinder innovation and limit the potential\r\nof emerging solutions.\r\nGiven the diverse nature of apparel products, no single recycling solution can effectively address all\r\nvariations. Each technology has unique strengths and limitations, requiring different preparation\r\nprocesses and capabilities for handling various fibre combinations. Therefore, a flexible framework\r\nis necessary—one that accommodates the multiple recycling pathways available and adapts to\r\nevolving technologies. At the same time, we call for an initiation of a systemic and scientifically\r\nrobust study of recyclability and recyclability disruptors at the EU level\r\n➢ Traceability of substances of concern (SoC)\r\nThe textile industry is a downstream user of chemical industry and depends on the information\r\nprovided through the REACH Safety Data Sheets. Without this information, downstream users would\r\nneed to perform extensive testing for each substance before marketing their products, which is\r\nunrealistic due to the vast number of substances and the high testing costs involved.\r\nTherefore, information requirements on substances of concern (SoC) should align with existing\r\nregulations like REACH and CLP, focusing on the identification of specific substances. This should\r\n3 See annex\r\nFINAL VERSION 8\r\nbe coupled with a framework that mandates the chemical industry to disclose the identity and\r\npresence of SoCs in their products via Safety Data Sheets.\r\nWe thus recommend a pragmatic, stepwise approach to enacting information requirements\r\nof Substances of Concern over time. This is necessary to perform targeted impact assessments and\r\nstakeholder consultations for the vast number of substances included in scope, ensuring that the\r\ndisclosed information is accurate, beneficial, and credible. If the value does not clearly outweigh the\r\nburden after targeted impact assessment and consultation with stakeholders, or if it is not possible\r\nto conduct appropriate assessments and consultations, the information requirement should not be\r\nimplemented. Instead, it should have a deferred application date or be exempt until the value\r\nproposition is established after which it can be included in a future revision of the delegated act for\r\napparel textiles.\r\nRegarding recyclability disruptors –substances that may hinder reuse and recycling–, the EU\r\nshould adopt a flexible approach, as a universal recycling solution for apparel products is not yet\r\navailable. What cannot be effectively recycled by one technology might still be suitable for processing\r\nby alternative methods. Additionally, measures targeting substances that may hinder reuse and\r\nrecycling must consider trade-offs with the functional requirements of garments, including their\r\ndurability. Currently, substances that hinder recycling of textiles are those substances restricted\r\nunder EU and other legislation without practical consideration of existing textile recycling processes,\r\nrather than substances that functionally prevents textile-to-textile mechanical recycling.\r\n➢ Consistent product categorisation\r\nFor product categorisation and segmentation, we suggest partly relying on the Product\r\nEnvironmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR). We appreciate the Technical Secretariat’s efforts\r\nto define product categories following the NACE categorisation Chapter 14 and segmentation of\r\nfabrics (knit and woven). However, we call for conversion between the NACE and HS Coding system\r\nto ensure consistency. The EU classification of economic activities for apparel and footwear under\r\nchapter C14 (manufacture of wearing apparel) does not correspond exactly to chapters 61 to 63 in\r\nthe CN codes.\r\nFor more information, please visit our website at https://ebca-europe.org/ or contact us at\r\nsecretariat@ebca-europe.org.\r\nFINAL VERSION 9\r\nANNEX I – EBCA PROPOSAL FOR THE TEST STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE MOST\r\nCOMMON FAILURE MODES\r\nFAILURE MODE TEST STANDARD & CONDITIONS CATEGORY\r\nAppearance after\r\nwash\r\nISO 15487 for assessing appearance of apparel and other\r\ntextile end products after domestic washing and drying.\r\nOnly the parameters related to durability.\r\nTest conditions: The test should be conducted by\r\nsubjecting the garments toSeeing only a few wash cycles\r\nare needed to detect the main failures (and washing is an\r\nenergy-consuming process), the test should be\r\nconducted by subjecting the garments to a minimum of\r\nwash cycles e.g., 3-5 cycles, several wash cycles and\r\nanalysing the results after ironing (considering the care\r\nlabel instructions to ensure that durability is not\r\ncompromised under real-life conditions).\r\nAll textile\r\nproducts\r\nPilling ISO 12945-1 for the determination of fabric propensity\r\nto surface pilling, fuzzing, or matting. Part 1: Pilling box\r\nmethod.\r\nTest conditions: This test must be conducted by\r\nsubjecting the garments to 10,800 cycles (180 min).\r\nKnitted\r\nDimensional\r\nstability\r\nshrinkage\r\nISO 5077 for domestic washing and drying procedures\r\nfor textile testing.\r\nAll textile\r\nproducts\r\nISO 6330 for the determination of dimensional change\r\nafter washing and drying.\r\nTest conditions: The test should be conducted by\r\nsubjecting the garments to several wash cycles and\r\nanalysing the results after ironing according to the care\r\nlabel.\r\nFabric bursting ISO 13938-2\r\nTest conditions: The test must be carried out using a test\r\narea of 7.3 cm2 (30.5 mm diameter).\r\nKnitted\r\nFabric tensile\r\nstrength\r\nISO 13934-2 Woven\r\nFINAL VERSION 10\r\nANNEX II ISEAL\r\nWhy are standards critical and what is ISEAL?\r\nAdvancing sustainability in the textile industry could be based on a combination of privately held\r\nstandards and public policy. However, at present, there are variations in both the quality and scope\r\nof standards and certifications. Even the more credible standards and certification systems are not\r\nperfect solutions to avoid negative impacts on people and nature. The industry therefore\r\nunderscores the importance of relying on credible standards for certification of materials\r\nwith certain sustainability attributes linked to potential information requirements under\r\nESPR.\r\nIn this context, we recommend relying on standards that meet the International Social and\r\nEnvironmental Accreditation Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) Code of Good Practice for Sustainability\r\nSystems – see link : This Code of Good Practise sets sets out how standards should be developed,\r\nstructured, governed and improved over time. This includes being independently verified, having\r\nmulti-stakeholder consultation and decision-making in place, and ensuring the standard\r\ncontains clear requirements that can be measured and assessed.\r\nThe International Social and Environmental Accreditation Labelling Alliance (ISEAL Alliance) is a\r\ncollaboration of eight international social and environmental standard setting and accreditation\r\norganizations, which represents most of the NGO driven social and environmental certification\r\ninitiatives worldwide. The main objectives of ISEAL are to improve the methods of standard setting\r\nand conformity assessment as a means to improve both the credibility and the accessibility of\r\nsustainability certifications"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMUKN)","shortTitle":"BMUKN","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":21}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-05-26"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0006749","regulatoryProjectTitle":"EU Union Customs Code Revision ","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/7e/58/316582/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406110038.pdf","pdfPageCount":6,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"H&M Group’s Recommendations on the reform of the EU Customs Code  \r\n\r\nNovember 2023  \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nH&M Group welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission's proposal for a revised Union Customs Code (UCC). This proposal strengthens the legal framework for customs and makes it suitable to address recent challenges. \r\n\r\nThe European Commission's comprehensive customs reform proposal aims to make the EU's customs system more efficient, effective, sustainable, and compliant with EU product regulations and new sustainability regulations under the EU Green Deal. Specific measures include centralizing customs data management, streamlining customs procedures, and investing in new IT systems to better identify and target high-risk shipments, reduce administrative burden, automate tasks, and improve efficiency and effectiveness. \r\n\r\nH&M Group welcomes the proposal’s aim to streamline and modernize customs procedures, while increasing digitization of customs processes which will strengthen the customs authorities’ ability to protect the internal market. However, these measures should ensure no unnecessary administrative burden is placed on traders.  \r\n\r\nWe believe the EU's customs union plays an important role in protecting the internal market from unfair competition from outside the EU and preventing trade in illegal products. It is also an essential enabler of legal trade with third countries, which creates prosperity for the EU. \r\n\r\nH&M Group strongly advocates for the swift implementation of this essential reform. We urge the Commission to shorten the timeframe proposed, provided businesses are given an 18-month lead time to prepare.  \r\n\r\nForm \r\n\r\nTherefore, H&M Group:  \r\n\r\nUrges the Commission to shorten the proposed timeframe of the essential customs reform, while ensuring that businesses have 18 months to prepare. \r\n\r\nSupports the Commission’s proposal to remove the 150 Euro de minimis threshold for customs duties, which will increase harmonization while ensuring a fair and safe trading environment. \r\n\r\nWelcomes the creation of the deemed importer regime, which will shift both financial and non-financial responsibilities from consumers to economic operators. \r\n\r\nStresses that shortening the storage period for third-country goods in temporary warehouses may lead to increased administrative and logistical burdens. \r\n\r\nWelcomes the introduction of the Customs Data Hub to increase digitization but notes that the new system should have a realistic implementation timeline. \r\n\r\nEmphasizes that only the necessary data should be provided to the EU Customs Data Hub, and that access to the data should be restricted. \r\n\r\nSupports the EU Customs Authority and stresses that this should not be an added layer.  \r\n\r\nAppreciates the implementation of the Trust and Check trader program while noting it should bring tangible benefits to companies.  \r\n\r\nIs concerned about the proposed rules on customs penalties, which appear to be unproportionate. \r\n\r\nH&M Group is particularly interested in the following key features:   \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe duty-free status for low-value consignments from third countries will be removed (abolishment of the 150 Euro De minis threshold for customs duties) and the creation of the concept of deemed importer. \r\n\r\nParcels valued up to EUR 150 that are sent directly from a third country to a consignee in the EU are currently exempt from customs duties. The customs duty exemption for low-value goods was enacted in 1983 and increased in 1991 and 2008. Until 1 July 2021, there was also a VAT exemption on imported goods of negligible value (below EUR 22). Both exemptions were justified by the disproportionate administrative burden of handling customs declarations for charging low customs duties and VAT on low-value goods. \r\n\r\nThe European Commission proposes to remove the duty-free status for low-value consignments from third countries. A key reason for this is that 65 percent of these consignments are undervalued and should not have been covered and cleared as low-value consignments. This mis-valuation gives foreign goods that should be subject to duty an unfair competitive advantage over competing goods within the EU. \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group supports the European Commission's ambition to introduce a more modern framework for customs that reduces fraud and increases transparency for traders and consumers. Among the several policy proposals, the UCC revision suggests creating the deemed importer regime and removing the customs duty exemption for goods valued up to EUR 150. The deemed importer regime in the EU proposal of customs reform is a major change that will affect both the collection of customs duties and VAT, and compliance with EU product regulations. Under the new regime, online intermediaries will be responsible for customs formalities and payments, as well as ensuring that the products they sell comply with EU product safety and environmental requirements. This is a much-needed shift in responsibility from the individual consumer. \r\n\r\nH&M Group welcomes and supports the European Commissions' ambition to level the playing field between e-commerce within the EU and from third countries.  Our group has always supported free trade, advocating for the removal of barriers, and minimizing tariffs to foster a more open, dynamic, and competitive single market. Nevertheless, it is also important to ensure a fair and safe trading environment for all parties involved. Therefore, H&M Group's position is aimed at addressing some longstanding problems within the current EU customs system connected to consumer protection and fair competition for companies. \r\n\r\nThe EUR 150 de minimis threshold, that currently exempts goods from customs duties, was initially intended to facilitate commerce, especially for small consignments, but has been exploited by some parties as a loophole to bypass regulations. This has unfortunately led to the influx of unsafe and non-compliant products into the EU market. Evidence gathered during the work of the Wise Persons Group shows that dangerous, non-compliant products still enter the EU market every day1. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, we believe this can undermine the EU: s ‘circular economy’ agenda and the upcoming enforcement of EU regulations under the EU green deal agenda. The current EU customs threshold of 150 euros undermines the circular economy by allowing non-compliant products to enter the market. These products often contain harmful chemicals or are made with unsustainable materials. As a result, they cannot be easily repaired, reused, or recycled.   \r\n\r\nAnother reason to remove the current duty-free status for low-value consignments is to ensure competitive neutrality towards EU goods and reduce the incentives to deliberately undervalue the customs value on imports to avoid paying duty. Companies selling products on the EU market should regardless of country of origin comply with the same regulations and rules.  \r\n\r\nWe support aligning VAT and customs rules, rather than considering them in isolation. This would increase synergies, simplifications, and reduce compliance costs. For example, the implementation dates for VAT and customs changes should be aligned, and the VAT de minimis has already been abolished, while the customs de minimis is still in place. \r\n\r\nUnder the proposed EU Customs Reform, the deemed importer would be responsible for both financial and non-financial risks associated with imported goods. This could deter businesses from importing unsafe or non-compliant goods and encourage them to take more responsibility for ensuring that their goods comply with EU regulations. This would simplify the process for both businesses and consumers, and it would also help to reduce the risk of fraud. \r\n\r\nFor these reasons, H&M Group welcomes the proposed changes in the EU Customs Union reform, particularly the abolition of the EUR 150 de minimis threshold and creation of the deemed importer regime. We believe that this change will effectively close the loopholes, thereby ensuring a level playing field for all actors in the EU. Furthermore, H&M Group anticipates that this modification will increase consumer protection by ensuring all goods entering the EU are compliant with safety, environmental, and social standards. \r\n\r\nShorten Storage Period for Third-Country Goods in Temporary Warehouses \r\n\r\nAccording to Article 149 of the UCC, third-country goods in a temporary warehouse must be assigned to a customs procedure or re-exported within 90 days of their presentation to customs. In the EU Commission's proposal, the storage period is shortened to 3 days and to 6 days for an approved recipient. In exceptional cases, that deadline can be extended. \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group believes that there is not a valid reason to change the current deadline of 90 days regarding temporary storage. The significantly shortened time limits proposed by the EU Commission presents significant administrative and logistical burdens to our industry and supply chain and may result in a substantial deterioration for our company. First, the proposed new time limits would erode the advantages that exist regarding current application of temporary storage and our transit hub in the EU. Second, economic operators' IT and administrative systems are built around the current timeline of 90 days allowed for temporary storage. \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nA new EU Customs Data Hub will be created to replace the current fragmented IT system.  \r\n\r\nThe aim of the EU Customs Data Hub is to eventually replace today's more decentralized IT solution, which is based on 17 different IT systems with common and national components, with a centralized set of systems and services. Businesses will be able to start using the EU's customs data hub from January 2032 and will be required to do so by 2037, when it is supposed to be fully operational. \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group is positive to the establishment of an EU Customs Data Hub. Digitization is important for simplifying customs procedures and reducing red tape, which benefits both European companies and EU customs authorities. \r\n\r\nConsidering the significant delays in the implementation of the current IT systems, it should be ensured that there will not be similar delays in the implementation of the EU Customs Data Hub. A well-coordinated transition or gradual rollout is necessary to enable businesses and authorities to transition to the new system and avoid bottlenecks or delays.  \r\n\r\nThis should be considered in accordance with the implementation schedule. Any delays mean that companies miss out on the benefits of simplifications that the customs data hub has for customs processes.  \r\n\r\nIt is important that the development and implementation of digital solutions, both at EU level and at national level, takes place in cooperation and dialogue with economic actors to ensure that digitization leads to real simplifications for companies. \r\n\r\nThe UCC can be aligned and made more coherent with other sustainability proposals by exploiting synergies and avoiding overlaps between different regulatory proposals. This is especially important for the various databases being developed under European legislative initiatives, such as the Digital Product Passport, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the textile labeling regulation, and the ban on forced labor product regulation. Aligning these databases will ensure data standardization, interoperability, reuse and less administrative burden. \r\n\r\nH&M Group acknowledges the need for a unique identifier to connect all parties and information provided to the Data Hub. However, we emphasize that only the necessary data to comply with regulations should be provided, preferably only once to the Data Hub and reused in subsequent steps of the customs procedure. \r\n\r\nWe also believe that access to the Data Hub by authorities other than Customs Authorities should be extremely limited and restricted to the minimum need-to-know necessary. We also want to be able to track who accessed our data and for what purpose. \r\n\r\nIn addition to data security concerns, data quality is also a key element. The Data Hub should strive to collect high-quality data in order to be effective. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, it is of the utmost importance for our company to ensure that internal processes and data management are in line with the new requirements and for this guidance may be needed from the relevant authorities. For H&M Group, it can i.e., mean the need to evaluate existing systems and processes and invest in updated technological solutions. \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nA new EU Customs Authority will be established to coordinate risk management and data analysis across the EU. \r\n\r\nThe \"EU Customs Authority\" is proposed to be established at central level from 2026 and to be fully operational from 2028. The new EU authority shall carry out risk management and analysis, develop and maintain the EU customs data hub, and have a key role in dealing with restrictive measures and crises. \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group supports the introduction of a common European customs authority that strengthens and streamlines the EU's common customs cooperation. Together with the EU Customs Data Hub, the EU Customs Authority has the potential to help reduce compliance costs for businesses and national customs authorities. At the same time, the EU's joint customs authority can optimize risk management for the national customs authorities, thereby allocating and prioritizing control resources where they are most useful, which benefits legal trade.  \r\n\r\nThe EU Customs Authority should help guide, coordinate, and support national customs authorities to bring about more harmonization, especially in the implementation of customs codes across the EU. However, it is important to ensure that the new authority does not become an additional layer of bureaucracy for the companies. \r\n\r\nBased on the European authority's core tasks, see Article 209 of the new UCC, it is important to establish common standards and recommendations on best practices to create and maintain harmonization and equal treatment between EU countries. \r\n\r\nA new \"Trust and Check trader\" status will be introduced for businesses with a good track record of customs compliance. \r\n\r\nThe system of approved economic operators, AEO, is being developed through the introduction of a new status called \"Trust and Check trader\". The permit can be given to an actor who meets the formal requirements and who has demonstrated good customs management in the past three years. A license as a Trust and Check trader means, among other things, that customs duties and taxes regarding imports into the EU are paid in the country where it is established and obtained the permit. \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group welcomes the initiative on introducing the “Trust and Check Trader “. We expect that \"Trust and Check trader\" will strengthen the already existing Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) program for trusted trade, as well as making it easier and less burdensome for certified traders to collaborate with Member States Customs authorities and ports of entry. Thus, we welcome the clear legislative guidance and requirements, available to the businesses in due time. \r\n\r\nThe introduction of a new registration as a Trust and Check trader must bring tangible and actual benefits, such as customs simplifications and fewer controls, for the companies that are approved after applying. A certification must be based on trust from the authorities towards certified companies so that checks are made to a greater extent against specific flows and companies based on risk. \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nNew rules on customs penalties \r\n\r\nNew provisions on customs penalties are introduced, see Article 254 of the new UCC. In relation to the current Union Customs Code, the proposal for a new Union Customs Code contains developed provisions on penalties. A common framework is proposed which sets out a core of customs infringements and non-criminal penalties. The proposal states, among other things, that the minimum level of duty surcharges for intentional errors amounts to 100-200 percent of the amount on which the duty surcharge is calculated and in other cases, which are not due to intent, the duty surcharge shall amount to 30-100 percent of the amount on which the duty surcharge is based.  \r\n\r\nIn the Swedish Government Office's factual memorandum, Faktapromemoria 2022/23:FPM97 från den 21 juni 2023, regarding the EU Commission's proposal for a reform of the customs union, it appears that the Swedish government is critical of proposed changes regarding new customs penalties.   \r\n\r\nH&M Group comment: H&M Group broadly welcomes the introduction of a common framework setting a baseline for customs infringements and non-criminal penalties. However, we believe that the proposal should ensure proportionality of penalties for intentional and non-intentional errors. The current foreseen baseline amounts go beyond the necessary thresholds needed to ensure adequate implementation. The proposal should also include a sound legal basis for their implementation. \r\n\r\nFor more information \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nGlobal Public Affairs Lead Trade   \r\n\r\nName: Nesli Al Mufti \r\n\r\nEmail: nesli.almufti@hm.com \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nGlobal Public Affairs Lead Tech, Sales and Taxes  \r\n\r\nName Ulf Emanuelli  \r\n\r\nEmail: ulf.emanuelli@hm.com \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n  \r\n\r\n_________________________________________________________________________ \r\n\r\nH & M Hennes & Mauritz AB (publ) was founded in Sweden in 1947 and is quoted on Nasdaq Stockholm. H&M’s business idea is to offer fashion and quality at the best price in a sustainable way. In addition to H&M, the group includes the brands COS, Monki, Weekday, & Other Stories, H&M HOME and ARKET as well as Afound. For further information, visit hmgroup.com    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium der Finanzen (BMF)","shortTitle":"BMF","url":"https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-04-01"}]}]},"contracts":{"contractsPresent":false,"contractsCount":0,"contracts":[]},"codeOfConduct":{"ownCodeOfConduct":true,"codeOfConductPdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/07/37/690065/Code-of-Ethics-Policy-Business-Partner.pdf"}}