17 June 2026 – Textile Extended Producer Responsibility is becoming one of the most important regulatory developments for the European textile and clothing sector. As EU and national rules evolve, producers will increasingly be required to register, report products placed on the market and contribute financially to the management of textile waste.
A new analysis developed within the Textile PRO Forum shows that the practical implementation of textile EPR systems remains highly fragmented across Europe.
The document, Toward harmonised Textile EPR Systems in Europe: analysis and recommendations, presents the results of Workstream 1 of the Textile PRO Forum, focused on reducing administrative burden for producers. The work was led by Dr. Eng. Viola Corbellini, Strategic Development and Innovation Expert at Erion Textiles.
The analysis is based on input from 12 Producer Responsibility Organisations covering 11 countries. It compares how existing and emerging textile EPR systems approach registration, reporting, Placed on the Market declarations, invoicing, payments, producer identification and digital tools.
The results confirm that there is no fully harmonised approach across countries. Registration timing may vary from year-round registration to advance registration before placing products on the market. Registration channels also differ, with some systems relying on online portals, others on direct contact with PROs, public authority systems or mixed models.
Reporting requirements are equally diverse. Some systems require annual reporting, while others request quarterly, twice-yearly or even monthly submissions. Differences also exist in the reporting units used, the level of product detail required, the treatment of material composition, recycled content and repairability, and the use of simplified reporting options for smaller producers.
Invoicing and payment practices are another area where further alignment is needed. The analysis identifies different approaches to payment timing, pre-payments, instalments, calculation methods and invoice delivery. Eco-modulation is not yet widely applied in the systems analysed, but it is expected to become more relevant as national implementation develops.
This fragmentation creates complexity for textile producers, especially companies operating in multiple countries or selling online across borders. It can also reduce data comparability, weaken interoperability and make enforcement more difficult.
The Textile PRO Forum analysis identifies several priority areas for harmonisation. These include clearer definitions of producer obligations, a minimum EU-aligned dataset for registration, more consistent reporting calendars, simplified reporting options for small producers, predictable invoicing rules and interoperable digital systems based on common standards.
The aim is not to remove all national specificities. Instead, the Forum calls for a common core of rules, data and processes that can support coherent national systems while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.
The findings will be discussed at the next Textile PRO Forum plenary meeting, where participating PROs will continue working towards practical recommendations for a more harmonised and effective textile EPR framework in Europe.