Korea Urged to Make Fashion Producers Pay for Textile Waste Recovery

400,000 tons of discarded textiles put Korea's recovery system under pressure

Korea discards about 400,000 tons of textiles a year, yet less than 20 percent is recycled. Brands are believed to supply roughly 900,000 tons of clothing annually for the Korean market, much of it designed and priced for short use. Research cited by lawmakers and legislative analysts also estimates that textiles generate roughly 10 percent of the country's industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

Those figures are driving calls to make clothing producers help pay for what happens after their products are discarded. As of December 16, 2025, members of the National Assembly, the Ministry of Environment and policy researchers are discussing extended producer responsibility, known as EPR, alongside a collection and recycling network run by the state, investment in recycling technology and campaigns encouraging more responsible consumption.

Less than 20 percent of 400,000 tons means that fewer than 80,000 tons of discarded textiles are recycled annually, using the estimates cited in the policy discussion. Most remaining material is downcycled, exported, incinerated or landfilled, in Korea or abroad. Downcycling means turning material into products of lower value, such as padding or cleaning rags, instead of making new clothing fibers.

Advocates propose defining textile waste in law for both households and businesses, then testing EPR for about two years before full enforcement. No start date for that proposed pilot or full enforcement has been given. The discussion comes as Europe tightens requirements for producers to fund recovery and disclose product volumes, creating potential trade barriers for Korean firms that fall behind.

What producers would become responsible for

EPR gives producers financial responsibility, and sometimes responsibility for operating services, for products after consumers finish using them. For textiles, brands, manufacturers and importers would fund and organize collection, sorting and proper treatment. The cost of dealing with an unwanted garment would become part of the producer's responsibility.

Analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development finds that well designed EPR programs can increase recycling, move costs away from municipalities and encourage better product design. Fair, transparent fees and clear definitions are central. EPR also needs to work alongside design standards, consumer information and rules for separate collection.

Korea already applies EPR to several product groups. The Ministry of Environment sets annual recycling obligations, while the Korea Environment Corporation, or KECO, reviews plans and performance. Producers can meet their obligations through collective systems or organize their own recycling and report the results to government.

That structure could be extended to textiles. Producers would register, report the amounts they place on the market and pay fees supporting collection, sorting, reuse and recycling into new textiles where possible. Government would set targets and check performance. Reliable information about quantities and fiber composition would help determine whether money is producing measurable results.

Where discarded clothing goes today

Korea's discarded garments are mostly sorted for basic reuse and downcycling. A substantial share is exported to Southeast Asia and Africa. Researchers estimate that about 40 percent of what leaves the reuse stream goes overseas, often with limited quality control. Items that cannot be sold or reused are incinerated or landfilled.

Synthetic fibers add to the environmental challenge. Disposal carries a climate cost, and textiles can release microfibers, tiny strands shed from fabric. Korea also lacks a comprehensive monitoring system showing how much material is collected, reused and recycled. That gap makes it difficult to set recovery targets and measure progress.

Kim Kyung min, a legislative research officer at the National Assembly Research Service who authored an October analysis of textile waste, said international market pressure is already pushing producers to take greater responsibility across their supply chains. She described how global brands can set requirements for suppliers through broader environmental, social and governance commitments.

We can push EPR outside the country's legal boundary as well,

Kim also warned that exporters would face higher compliance requirements in markets demanding producer responsibility and transparency about volumes. For Korean businesses, domestic waste policy and access to overseas customers are becoming connected issues.

Lawmakers point to legal reform and public support

An aide to Rep. Kim So hee, a member of the National Assembly's Environment and Labor Committee, said textile waste had been raised during recent government oversight. The aide described the priority sought during the audit period.

We brought up the issue during the National Assembly's government audit period from October to November, saying textile waste should be on top of the country's EPR list,

Kim Kyung min argues that legal requirements can bring rapid change when accompanied by public support and infrastructure. She pointed to Korea's earlier reforms in separating and treating food waste as an example of rules and services developing together.

In 2005, Korea introduced the world's first laws to treat food waste, and they remain effective until now. It demonstrates that legal improvement and social consensus can accomplish a meaningful change in the short term,

The textile proposal follows that approach: establish legal responsibilities while providing practical places to leave unwanted garments and facilities capable of processing them. Consumer participation would need to grow alongside the collection network.

Europe's timetable increases pressure on exporters

A recent political agreement at the European level calls for member states to establish textile producer responsibility schemes within 30 months of the directive entering into force. Producers would cover the costs of collecting, sorting and recycling textile waste.

The planned coverage includes clothing, accessories, footwear and household textiles such as blankets and curtains, with possible coverage of mattresses. Obligations would apply to all producers placing covered products on the EU market, including businesses outside the EU selling through ecommerce. Micro enterprises would receive an extra year to comply while remaining within the system.

Member states would set producer fees under principles allowing higher charges for products with poor environmental or social performance, or for business models selling very large volumes. Separate textile collection would become the norm across the EU, and many national schemes would use producer registers requiring volume reports.

International brands may need a legal entity in each country where they sell and may face fees in each jurisdiction. That would increase paperwork and costs, particularly for products made from blends that are difficult to recycle. Korean exporters would need product data and recovery arrangements capable of meeting those requirements.

Existing schemes show both benefits and risks

France and the Netherlands already operate textile EPR systems. Both use fees that vary according to product features, a practice often called ecomodulation. Products that are easier to reuse or recycle can attract lower fees. Recycled content and designs that make repair easier can also qualify for benefits.

These schemes are typically managed through a producer responsibility organization under public oversight. Such an organization allows producers to meet obligations collectively. Outside textiles, new packaging EPR programs in places such as Colorado show how an approved plan can define covered materials, collection standards and reporting rules while moving funding responsibilities from municipalities to producers.

Those models highlight the need for clear definitions, fair sharing of costs and strong oversight. They also show why collecting more material must be matched by the ability to sort and treat it properly.

Research on the trade in used garments warns that increased collection in exporting regions can send more poor quality items to countries dependent on imports but lacking adequate sorting and disposal capacity. Some imports are then dumped or openly burned. That concern supports investment in domestic collection and sorting, reduced exports of textile waste with little value, and the EU's tightening controls on waste shipments.

Defining the products and businesses covered

Korea would need precise legal definitions, a clear list of covered products and a realistic rollout timetable. The proposed scope includes apparel, footwear and household textiles. Mattresses may require special treatment because their handling needs differ from those of garments.

European industry groups warn against mixing products legally treated as hazardous after use into ordinary textile collection. Certain personal protective equipment and medical devices can create contamination risks and conflicts with safety rules. Korea could address that issue through explicit exclusions and instructions for safe handling where needed.

Producer obligations would need to cover domestic brands, importers placing goods on the Korean market and remote sellers shipping directly to Korean consumers through ecommerce. Under the proposed model, all would register with KECO, receive a unique producer number and report volumes by product type.

Small companies may need phased entry or simpler administrative requirements while still contributing fairly. A clear definition of the responsible producer would help determine who must pay when a garment is manufactured, imported, branded or sold by different businesses.

Fees could reward clothing that lasts and can be recycled

Producer fees could be lower for products with high recycled content, a single fiber type, better durability and parts that are easy to separate. Durability and repair would help keep clothing in use, while simpler materials would make eventual recycling easier.

Complex blends containing elastane and fabrics with heavy coatings could attract higher fees because they are harder to recycle. Higher contributions could also apply to business models that sell very large volumes and encourage rapid replacement of clothing.

Fee revenue would support separate collection in neighborhoods, sorting equipment that identifies fiber mixtures, repair and reuse networks, and investment in recycling textiles into new textiles. Separate collection matters because garments mixed with other rubbish are harder to recover in usable condition.

Funding must extend beyond items that can readily be sold. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which has advised governments and brands on circular textiles policy, stresses the need for clear objectives and sufficient money to manage the full waste stream.

Funding is essential to cover the net cost of managing all discarded textiles, not just items with high market value.

A system focused only on valuable garments would leave the difficult and costly material without adequate support. Transparent fees and public oversight would help direct producer contributions toward the collection and treatment services that need them.

Sorting technology is the gateway to better recycling

Textile recycling faces practical limits. Mechanical recycling can process some cotton and wool, but it shortens fibers and reduces quality. Polyester can become new fiber through mechanical recycling of clean streams such as bottles, or through chemical processes that break material into its building blocks. Polyamide has similar potential.

Elastane and complex fiber blends remain major obstacles. A sorting system must identify what a garment contains before directing it toward an appropriate process. Modern equipment uses near infrared scanners and digital product information to identify composition.

Better labeling would support that work. Digital product passports, expected to store material and care information, would also help make product details available for sorting and recycling. The proposed system therefore connects information supplied by brands with the equipment used after clothing is discarded.

Investors need a dependable supply of material and steady demand to finance new recycling plants. Contracts funded by producers could guarantee both incoming textiles and purchases of recycled fiber, reducing investment risk and helping facilities grow.

Brands could support recovery from the design stage by reducing blends that cannot be recycled at scale and choosing trims, dyes and finishes that do not interfere with reuse or recycling. Building durability and repairability into garments would extend their useful life before recycling becomes necessary.

A public collection network with traceable results

Advocates want a transparent collection system run by the state, supported by producer funding and public oversight. Municipalities could add textiles to existing collection routes or expand collection banks in apartment complexes and commercial districts.

Digital tracking would follow quantities through collection, sorting, reuse and recycling. Charities and traders in secondhand clothing could participate through contracts setting quality standards and protecting domestic reuse. Public dashboards could show where material goes and what recovery services achieve.

Exports of textile waste would be reduced gradually as domestic sorting and recycling capacity grows and data shows better collection at home. A clear plan to reduce shipments of material with little value would keep responsibility focused on managing Korea's discarded textiles rather than moving the burden abroad.

Brands would establish or join take back systems connected to the national network, share volume and fiber composition data, and work through a producer responsibility organization where appropriate. Long term agreements to buy recycled fiber would give new plants a market.

Consumers would separate textiles from mixed waste, repair and resell clothing, and buy fewer items of better quality when possible. Clear collection rules and visible drop off points would make participation easier. Better collection and sorting could support more local reuse and more recycling into new textiles instead of padding and rags.

What the proposed pilot would test

Lawmakers and the Ministry of Environment are weighing a pilot lasting about two years to test legal definitions, data reporting, fees and collection models in urban and regional settings. Early milestones could include a national producer register, mandatory reporting by large producers and an initial network of public collection points.

Korea could use that period to establish collection, reuse and recycling targets before expanding nationally. Coordinating the rollout with Europe's schedule would help exporters develop the data and systems required for both markets and could reduce later compliance costs.

The sequence outlined in the policy discussion spans earlier reforms, recent parliamentary scrutiny and proposed future implementation:

• 2005: Kim Kyung min cites Korea's food waste laws as an example of legal reform supported by social consensus.
• October: Kim's National Assembly Research Service analysis examines textile waste.
• October to November: An aide to Rep. Kim So hee says textile EPR was raised during the government audit period.
• December 16, 2025: Korea's textile EPR proposal and a pilot of about two years remain under discussion.
• Within 30 months of the EU directive entering into force: The European political agreement calls for national textile producer responsibility schemes, with micro enterprises receiving an extra year to comply.

Senior government leadership would need to coordinate waste management, circular economy, trade and industry policy. KECO could manage registration and data, while municipalities operate collection with producer funding. Transparent records and audits would allow the public to follow results as the system expands.

What to Know

• Korea discards about 400,000 tons of textiles annually and recycles less than 20 percent.
• Brands are believed to supply roughly 900,000 tons of clothing annually for the Korean market.
• Research cited by lawmakers and analysts estimates that textiles generate roughly 10 percent of Korea's industrial greenhouse gas emissions.
• Lawmakers and researchers want producer funding, public collection services and investment in textile recycling.
• A proposed pilot lasting about two years would test definitions, reporting, fees and collection models.
• European plans call for textile EPR schemes within 30 months of the directive entering into force, including obligations for sellers outside the EU.
• Clear product coverage, fair fees, separate collection and accurate fiber data are central to the proposed Korean model.
• Stronger domestic sorting, reuse and recycling would support a gradual reduction in exports of textile waste with little value.