Proposed California Textile Recycling Bill Hits Delay
In March of this year, California State Sen. Josh Newman proposed a “stewardship program” for the state’s fashion and textile industries. Called the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2023, Senate Bill 707 (SB707) would have made California the first state to require its fashion manufacturers to help set up free collection sites in every county where consumers can drop off unwanted items. The collection centers would have been funded by imposing a fee on the brands and other companies selling the covered products into the state.
After the announcement, several entities such as the California Fashion Association voiced concern over what this could mean on a larger scale. There were also several groups and individuals that supported the bill, including Doug Kobold, executive director of the California Product Stewardship Council, which sponsored the bill.
The bill failed to pass this year, according to Just Style. The outlet reports that California SB707 was recently withdrawn from a legislative hearing. The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) told Just Style the delay will give all stakeholders time to consider how to structure the legislation in what could be the first textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program in the U.S.
The AAFA, along with Accelerating Circularity Inc. and American Circular Textiles, wrote a letter to Assembly member Luz M Rivas stating they had a “vested interest” in the success of SB707; however, there are some crucial details of the proposed program the organizations feel need to be re-evaluated. Many of the concerns focus on the timing and lack of infrastructure to manage the collected items.
For example, the groups call for it to be a two-year bill. They feel the additional time would afford all stakeholders the ability to learn from both California’s own pilot EPR program passed last year, as well as ongoing efforts in the European Union to stand up a textiles EPR program.
Insight for Apparel Decorators
Gary Jones, vice president, Environmental, Health, and Safety Affairs for PRINTING United Alliance, shares his thoughts on the subject. “Given the experience with some of the other Extended Producer Responsibility programs implemented in Canada and the EU addressing printed paper and packaging, I have very little confidence that any EPR bill for such a wide type of product (i.e., clothing) will ever be successful,” he feels.
When SB707 was first proposed, Jones noted that it could affect apparel decorators as they can fall under the definition of a “producer.” The delay instead works in favor of the community, he feels. “The most positive aspect of the delay is that ‘producers’ will not be forced into a bureaucratic system that will impose significant fees on their products,” he explains. “Despite the claims made by those who support these types of programs, the fees are passed along to the consumer, resulting in the cost of clothing to increase above the already higher costs due to inflation.”
Jones breaks it down like this: Proponents of EPR programs claim costs won’t pass onto the consumer. They think producers will absorb the fees, but that will not happen as producers cannot just simply absorb price increases without it negatively impacting their bottom line.
He points to the recent experience we have had with inflation. “Some brands tried to hold the line, but eventually had to increase the price of their products,” says Jones. “Inflation has driven up the costs for manufacturers and in turn, they have either increased their prices or downsized their products to maintain a price point. In either case, the consumer ends up paying a higher cost.”
While it seems that overall a delay to SB707 is beneficial, Jones still expresses caution. “You might see a ballet referendum appear that would impose a EPR program that is worse than the one outlined in the legislation,” he states. “Ballet referendums are usually not negotiable as they are driven by special interest groups that have a very specific outcome as a goal. The legislative process does allow for some negotiation, so you are better off in a legislative scenario. You are not always able to achieve a positive outcome, but you can at least raise objections and present alternatives that might be better.”