Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Each person who throws away food waste at lunch in their workplace could generate enough electricity every week to charge a mobile phone 13 times, a poll of 1,000 office workers has found.

The research, commissioned by UK waste management company Biffa, found that despite people taking actions to reduce their food waste at lunch, half of respondents said they throw away part of their lunch in their workplace each week.

The main reasons for throwing away food at lunch was as a result of inedible food waste, such as banana skins or eggshells (45%), busy schedules or plans changing (30%), poor food quality (28%), standard portion sizes too large (25%), and overordering (15%).

The findings come ahead of the forthcoming Simpler Recycling legislation where all businesses in England with 10 or more full-time employees will have to separate plastic, paper, card, glass, metals and food waste from general waste from 31 March 2025 or risk a fine.

76% of people who eat lunch in their workplace are still unaware of the Simpler Recycling scheme.

Commenting on the survey, Maxine Mayhew, Chief Operating Officer, Biffa Collections and Specialist Services at Biffa, said: “It’s clear from our research that there is an urgent need for businesses to improve food waste recycling ahead of Simpler Recycling, but wider awareness and education is also vital.

“By making small changes, we can have an important positive impact on the environment and support a more sustainable future.”

The research also found that 18% of people are dissatisfied with their current recycling options at work, with four in ten not even having a separate food waste bin in their workplace.

The post Office workers throw away enough food waste per week to charge a mobile phone 13 times appeared first on Circular Online.

25% of fashion retailers in the UK and US say they have “limited or no visibility” of textile items in factories and distribution centres.

The report by Avery Dennison is based on a survey of 250 senior fashion retail supply chain decison makers in the UK and US and found many were limited in item-level visibility.

The research also revealed that their supply chain is “highly problematic with regular disruptions” for 30% of respondents, while only 22% categorised it as “efficient and responsive”.

The Boosting Margins – The Power of Enhanced Fashion Supply Chain Visibility report found that 61% of the smaller companies, those with annual revenue between $1m and $9.99m, feel they have full visibility.

The research split the companies surveyed into six different revenue categories. Larger companies appear to be impacted the most by a lack of visibility, with 44% of firms with annual revenue above $1bn believing they have a complete view.

Full visibility was found to be most challenging for medium-sized retailers with only 11% of the $250m-$499m revenue cohort saying they had achieved this. Only six out of the 250 companies surveyed had “no visibility”.

50% of those surveyed said their company has “visibility into most items”.

Delia Glover, vice president of product, innovation, and solutions development at Avery Dennison, commented: “Trying to operate without clear visibility into your supply chain – essentially operating in a supply chain fog – makes it impossible to track the movement of inventory and deploy data analytics to reduce waste.”

The research also asked the decision makers to select up to four challenges they face due to a lack of item-level visibility in their supply chain.

Almost 30% cited last-minute changes to garment labelling, which rose to 42% for firms in the $500m and $999.99m revenue size bracket.

26% selected identifying supply chain disruptions in real time, 25% selected reduced agility in diverting orders to alternative suppliers or destinations, and 25% selected inability to meet compliance requirements on materials traceability.

The post 25% of US & UK fashion retailers have limited visibility of items appeared first on Circular Online.

25% of fashion retailers in the UK and US say they have “limited or no visibility” of textile items in factories and distribution centres.

The report by Avery Dennison is based on a survey of 250 senior fashion retail supply chain decison makers in the UK and US and found many were limited in item-level visibility.

The research also revealed that their supply chain is “highly problematic with regular disruptions” for 30% of respondents, while only 22% categorised it as “efficient and responsive”.

The Boosting Margins – The Power of Enhanced Fashion Supply Chain Visibility report found that 61% of the smaller companies, those with annual revenue between $1m and $9.99m, feel they have full visibility.

The research split the companies surveyed into six different revenue categories. Larger companies appear to be impacted the most by a lack of visibility, with 44% of firms with annual revenue above $1bn believing they have a complete view.

Full visibility was found to be most challenging for medium-sized retailers with only 11% of the $250m-$499m revenue cohort saying they had achieved this. Only six out of the 250 companies surveyed had “no visibility”.

50% of those surveyed said their company has “visibility into most items”.

Delia Glover, vice president of product, innovation, and solutions development at Avery Dennison, commented: “Trying to operate without clear visibility into your supply chain – essentially operating in a supply chain fog – makes it impossible to track the movement of inventory and deploy data analytics to reduce waste.”

The research also asked the decision makers to select up to four challenges they face due to a lack of item-level visibility in their supply chain.

Almost 30% cited last-minute changes to garment labelling, which rose to 42% for firms in the $500m and $999.99m revenue size bracket.

26% selected identifying supply chain disruptions in real time, 25% selected reduced agility in diverting orders to alternative suppliers or destinations, and 25% selected inability to meet compliance requirements on materials traceability.

The post 25% of US & UK fashion retailers have limited visibility of items appeared first on Circular Online.

Neil Grundon, Chairman of Grundon Waste Management, puts forward his views on plans to bring Energy-from-Waste facilities into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.

Every now and then it is important to look back before we go forward. There is not much sense in repeating the mistakes of the past in the rush towards a noble goal.

I am talking about the UK Government’s plans to bring the Energy-from-Waste (EfW) sector into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It reminds me of when the Landfill Tax was introduced nearly 30 years ago – more of which later.

In order for the EfW and ETS scheme to move forward, operators would have to measure the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that exits the EfW stacks, with the samples used to work out how much we pay to buy carbon credits.

It is suggested (among other benefits) that doing so will help to drive behavioural change amongst waste producers, including reducing the volume of plastics in waste.

I am a big fan of measuring, monitoring and reporting – and see it as quite exciting. Indeed, we are already collecting this data at our Lakeside EfW facility. What worries me is how the sampling and testing process will be managed.

I fail to see how the industry can accurately and fairly, without challenge, measure and calculate an individual waste producer’s fossil carbon contribution. What we can do, however, is use that data to drive change in the composition of waste.

Being able to measure those anthropogenic CO2 statistics and knowing how much fossil fuel carbon is going up the chimney gives us a strong platform to press for the removal of certain types of plastics.

If we made fewer things out of fossil fuels and instead used biofuel-based plastics, the majority of emissions become biogenic. At that point, we hand over to the nascent and ever-developing technology that is carbon capture and storage (CCS).

But I’m probably getting ahead of myself. One of my main concerns about the ETS proposal is simply that it is overcomplicated. It would be much more straightforward to charge us an emissions tax based on the data collected – we don’t need to be trading carbon credits.

The chances of the scheme involving something sensible, workable, simple and chargeable, that ends up improving the environment and the economy is anyone’s guess.

We only have to look back at the impact of the Landfill Tax to consider lessons that could have been learned.

Like most taxes, it was mainly introduced for political rather than practical reasons, as politicians from all parties found their in-trays filling almost as fast as the landfills their constituents were complaining about.

The Landfill Tax solved a few things all at once. Landfill became, along with alcohol and cigarettes, a “sin” and taxed accordingly with the “polluter” picking up the bill.

Politicians were then exonerated as the cause of the “sin”, and a clever tweak to the legislation allowed a proportion of the tax to be used locally by the landfill operator or environmental body for environmental causes.

The tax was easy to understand and apply to customers whilst being set at a level where it was easier to pay rather than change behaviour. In the early years, all it resulted in for the waste industry, apart from a few first movers building recycling plants, was a large capital expenditure on weighbridges.

This all changed when Labour came into power, the tax escalated quickly, along with fraud by certain elements of the industry.

Some sort of trading scheme was established, which only local authorities seemed to understand; and councils, fearing escalating costs and a public hostile to the most sensible alternative to landfill (namely advanced moving grate incinerators with energy recovery), quickly signed off on multi-billion pound white elephant Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plants that residents are still paying for in 2025.

Fast forward to today and the latest government bête noir is combustion of any kind (unless it is wood pellets from America) in case it emits CO2.

That is fair enough unless you have a job to do. Namely, disposing of all the waste that cannot now go to landfills because they are not there anymore.

It feels like a never-ending roundabout from which there is no escape.

The post Grundon: Testing times for Energy-for-Waste operators appeared first on Circular Online.

A new Ellen MacArthur Foundation on reuse in the Global South has called for countries to set clear definitions and targets for reuse systems.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s report, written in partnership with WWF, explores the possibilities for reuse in the Global South by highlighting case studies of how companies in this region are using reuse models.

The Reuse in the Global South report says companies in the Global South are facing common challenges to scaling reuse solutions.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlighted that these challenges include access to finance required for upfront infrastructure investments and regulatory restrictions on delivering certain products in reusable packaging.

The case studies also found there is a lack of common guidelines and standards to ensure consistency in establishing reuse across value chains.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation common guidelines are important because they facilitate collaboration, reduce complexity, ensure compatibility, build consumer confidence, simplify compliance, and accelerate innovation.

The report found to be most effective, reuse systems must be tailored to the local context. However, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlighted universal conditions that can support the transition to reuse systems.

Three policy priorities were highlighted in the report:

• Harmonised guidelines and regulations to support reuse;
• Setting clear definitions and targets for reuse systems alongside targets to reduce virgin plastic use can provide the impetus for companies to drive progress;
• Targeted incentives to support reuse initiatives, such as tax breaks or subsidies, while simultaneously introducing disincentives for single-use packaging.

The post Ellen MacArthur Foundation report calls for global reuse targets appeared first on Circular Online.