Who is responsible?

Our goal is a sustainable fashion industry. We know that we cannot achieve this alone. In our previous blog posts, we have shown why this is so difficult: myths about secondhand, greenwashing, the challenge of changing consumption habits, and the often opaque fashion industry.

We see it as our task to create an offering that convinces customers – because it is good, not because they have no other choice. Worldwide, there are companies, initiatives, and projects that offer exactly these alternatives. Everywhere, people, organizations, and policymakers are investing time and money to advance or highlight sustainable solutions – through accelerators, awards, or targeted funding.

The shift towards sustainable fashion is happening only slowly. Mini-steps are being taken, such as initial regulations on cheap imports, but this is not enough. Many do not even know how sustainable their life really is, greenwashing is hard to recognize, and no one can know all the details of every industry. The responsibility to change consumption behavior is still seen as lying with the consumers. Many things are not even known to consumers. When we ask, most believe they live sustainably – presumably this is only partially true. Consumption habits are deeply ingrained and often difficult to identify. Seeing through greenwashing is complicated, and knowing all the details of every industry is almost impossible. We cannot blame anyone for not knowing exactly how problematic the fashion industry is or which companies are truly operating sustainably.

Politics must take on a larger role instead of offloading the responsibility onto consumers. The equation is simple: the fashion industry causes massive ecological damage – around 10% of global CO₂ emissions, enormous water consumption, chemical pollution, and millions of tons of textile waste annually. The greatest consequences affect people in the production countries. At the same time, nations worldwide have committed to climate targets: the Paris Agreement calls for limiting global warming to well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goal 12 "Responsible Consumption and Production" and Goal 13 "Climate Action," also set clear political benchmarks.

If sustainability and the circular economy are political goals, then politics must also ensure changes in the fashion industry. We are only talking about the climate here so far – social problems are also involved, and these are also politically determined. Therefore, it cannot be up to consumers alone to bring about change.

What has been implemented so far?

Politics has taken initial steps in recent years to steer the fashion industry. At the EU level, the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles has existed since 2022, calling for clothing to be durable, recyclable, and produced in compliance with social standards. The Ecodesign Regulation, which mandates durability, repairability, and recyclability for many everyday products, has been in effect since July 2024 – textiles are among the first product groups. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has required all member states to collect textiles separately since January 2025 and ensures that manufacturers pay for the costs of recycling – not the general public. The ban on destroying unsold clothing has also been in force since December 2023. Further measures such as the Green Claims Directive or the digital product passport are intended to create transparency and prevent greenwashing. In Germany, the Supply Chain Act has been in effect since January 2023, obligating large companies to check for human rights violations in their supply chain. And yet there are large gaps. The German Supply Chain Act only applies to very large companies – many fashion firms simply fall outside its scope. For indirect suppliers, companies only have to act upon concrete evidence, even though the worst incidents often happen right at the beginning of the supply chain. There is no real environmental link, hardly any protection for indigenous groups, women, or fair wages. Although the Ecodesign Regulation prohibits the destruction of clothing, it leaves electronics out – millions of tons of resources continue to be destroyed. And greenwashing can continue until the implementation of the Green Claims Directive in 2027.

A good example comes from France: there, the Anti-Fast Fashion Act enforces eco-taxes (starting from 2025 at 5€, up to 10€ per item by 2030, with a maximum of 50% of the sales price), combined with advertising bans and transparency requirements. The revenue flows into the promotion of sustainable, local fashion. The message is clear: the industry bears the costs, not the consumers. This is a correct approach – and it raises the question of why similar measures are not being implemented EU-wide.

So what is needed?

Existing regulations show: politics is active, yes, but often hesitant. The responsibility remains heavily with consumers. And this is despite the fact that the industry causes massive damage to the climate, water, and people. That manufacturers, importers, and companies are finally paying for the costs of their products and their consequences is a step in the right direction – but much remains to be done.

If you imagine the industry, it becomes clear what would be possible: closed-loop systems in which textiles are designed to be reused, recycled, or biodegradable. Resources could be used longer and not simply lost, thus reducing energy and material consumption. This is not a dream; it is practically feasible – it only requires clear rules.

If the framework conditions for repair, reuse, and remanufacturing are right, significantly more could be repaired, refurbished, or resold. Resources would be conserved, waste reduced, and sustainable business models would have a real chance. A ban on the destruction of unused products would also be a step that has an immediate effect: clothing and electronics would have to systematically re-enter the cycle instead of ending up in landfills.

Just as sensible is clear protection against greenwashing. Consumers could truly understand which products are sustainable – instead of fighting their way through marketing claims. And fundamentally: sustainability and climate protection are political goals. They cannot be achieved through individual purchasing behavior alone. If politics sets the framework, these approaches become immediately implementable – and we could see real changes in a short time.

A single market for secondary raw materials, fair repair options, reduced regulatory hurdles for reuse and refurbishment – all this is technically feasible, economically sensible, and would have an immediate effect. Politics can regulate this. And that is exactly why it must act. It is no longer about whether we want to, but about the fact that the possibilities are there and must be used – for the climate, resources, and people.