When we talk about textile waste, most people picture old clothes. Outdated t-shirts, torn jeans, sweaters that no longer fit. But behind that simple image lies a far more complex, diverse — and challenging — reality.

Textile waste is rarely homogeneous. To truly grasp the scale of the problem, we need to look not just at what textile waste is, but where it comes from, how it arrives, and what form it takes.

On one side, there’s post-consumer waste — garments that have already passed through the hands of consumers. These show up in municipal collections, donation bins or second-hand channels. And while this stream is growing rapidly, it’s also becoming increasingly difficult to manage: it’s unpredictable, highly mixed, and demands a careful mix of technology and common sense to bring it back into circulation.

On the other side, there’s pre-consumer waste — textiles that never made it to the final user. This includes returns, excess stock, labeling errors, or garments that have been sitting in warehouses for years. It’s often assumed this kind of waste is easier to deal with — and sometimes it is. But not always. Especially when it comes in garment format, it often brings its own set of challenges: security tags, stubborn labels, awkward folding… and something many overlook — a lack of product diversity that can make industrial reuse harder. When everything in a batch is identical, it becomes harder to stabilise the output mix and find valuable second-life applications.

Another important dimension is where the waste comes from: from controlled industrial processes (traceable, more standardised) or from informal flows, where uncertainty multiplies. But perhaps the most decisive factor is the format itself. It’s one thing to process fabric offcuts, threads or yarn cones — and quite another to handle a finished garment. Garment-format waste, whether post- or pre-consumer, is where things get complicated. It takes up more space, demands more manual handling, and makes it harder to identify composition or materials.

In the middle of all this, there’s one type of waste that many assume is already “solved” — cutting waste. It’s common to hear that “that’s already taken care of,” as if all production leftovers were already flowing through stable reuse channels. But in reality, only the part that has demand and market value is moving — and often through informal, untracked routes. The rest, the less attractive and less valuable portion, is still largely unmanaged. Even in countries with a strong industrial legacy like Spain or Portugal, this waste remains under the radar. And that should be a red flag for all of us.

Because circularity won’t happen just because we say so. It will only happen if we design infrastructure, value chains, and business models that understand each type of waste for what it really is — not what we wish it were.

Why pressure on post-consumer waste is only going to grow

There are at least three forces accelerating this transformation.

First, regulatory pressure is mounting. The EU is moving toward extended producer responsibility and mandatory separate collection for textiles.

Second, the global second-hand market is shrinking. Countries in the Global South are tightening controls on used clothing imports, raising questions about both the social and environmental impact of these flows.

And third, there’s increasing demand for real circularity — not just from institutions, but from consumers and brands alike. Traceability, transparency, and accountability are no longer optional.

This puts us in a position where post-consumer waste in garment format is going to grow, whether we like it or not. And it will demand new, flexible, scalable industrial solutions.