Slow Fashion Blog

Beyond Bins: Fashion Take-Back Schemes That Actually Work

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the fashion industry is a major contributor to global waste levels. With its reliance on linear supply chains and overproduction, the sector generates a staggering 92 million tonnes of textile waste each year – a figure projected to rise sharply (1). In 2025, we’re consuming 62 million tonnes of textiles each year, with fashion forecasters predicting this will climb to 102 million tonnes by 2030 (1). These numbers pose an urgent question: Where will all this discarded clothing go?

Currently, much of it ends up in landfills or incinerators. But in response to the growing demand for accountability and environmental responsibility, some brands are exploring circular solutions with take-back schemes positioned as a key piece of the puzzle.

What Are Take-Back Schemes and How Do They Fit Into Fashion?

Take-back schemes are designed to tackle the waste crisis at its root: the end of a garment’s life. They fall under the umbrella of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a principle where companies take ownership of their products not just through production and at the point of sale, but throughout the entire product lifecycle, including disposal and reuse (2).

According to the Circular Economy Practitioner Guide, take-back schemes are ‘initiative(s) organised by a manufacturer or retailer to collect used products or materials from consumers and reintroduce them to the processing and manufacturing cycle’ (3). In practice, this often looks like consumers returning used clothing in exchange for store credit or discounts.

One high-profile example is H&M’s Garment Collection Programme, where shoppers are rewarded with vouchers for donating clothes via in-store bins. On the surface, this seems like a win-win: less landfill waste, more circularity, and a convenient, accessible drop-off point for consumers. But beneath the surface, many of these schemes have drawn sharp criticism for their lack of transparency and effectiveness.

Take-Back Trickery: When Green Promises Don’t Add Up

Despite their promising premise, many take-back schemes have been accused of doing more for brand image than the planet.

In 2023, the Changing Markets Foundation (CMF) released a damning report titled ‘Takeback Trickery’. Their investigation found that 75% of clothing donated to fashion brands (including giants like H&M, Nike, Marks & Spencer and Zara) was either abandoned in storage, shipped overseas or outright destroyed. CMF campaigner Urska Trunk remarked in 2024, “We’ve seen no indication that the situation has changed – take-back is textbook greenwashing” (4).
The 2024 report by sustainable fashion watchdog Remake echoed these concerns, revealing that none of the major fashion brands investigated could provide sufficient transparency about where donated clothing actually ends up (5). Without traceability or third-party verification, take-back schemes run the risk of becoming superficial marketing tools rather than meaningful sustainability solutions; a tokenistic gesture from brands hoping to clean up their environmental image.

When Take-Back Works: Genuine Circular Models

While many take-back schemes fall short of their promises, a few brands are proving that circular fashion can be done right with transparency, accountability and impact.

Patagonia’s ‘Worn Wear’

Outdoor gear brand Patagonia has long been at the forefront of ethical fashion. Its take-back initiative, Worn Wear, allows customers to return used Patagonia items in exchange for store credit (6). This credit can then be traded in to purchase from the Worn Wear website, which stocks second-hand garments that are still in retail condition and are backed by Patagonia’s ‘Ironclad Guarantee’ (7). Customer donations then join the stock listed on the website, making them available to new buyers at a discounted price. This creates a circularity loop and substantially reduces the chance of good quality clothing ending up in landfills or incinerators.

Items not fit for resale are funneled into Patagonia’s recycling stream, where they are recycled or repurposed. In collaboration with materials innovator Eastman, Patagonia recycled 8,000 pounds of pre- and post-consumer textile waste using molecular recycling in 2024, and they have previously upcycled and resold through their ‘ReCrafted’ line (8). Even garments that can’t be repurposed immediately are kept out of landfills and stored with the aim of finding better disposal solutions (9). Patagonia champions an attitude of acceptance when it comes to taking back customer kit, with a philosophy of accepting everything, landfilling nothing.

Eileen Fisher’s ‘Renew’

Eileen Fisher is a women’s casualwear brand that creates its garments from eco-friendly fabrics. Its ‘Renew’ takeback scheme is proving to be one that lives up to the brand’s environmental claims. Renew is backed by full transparency on exactly how the scheme operates, giving consumers full insight into where their clothes are going and what the team do with them (10).

So, how does it work? Customers can return their worn Eileen Fisher garments either to stores or through the post, and receive a $5 store credit reward per item. The donated clothes are then either re-sold in dedicated second-hand outlets after cleaning and repair, or are recycled into new garments and products. Eileen Fisher has shared that it collects an impressive 250,000 to 300,000 items annually (10), and it has a thorough system to ensure each piece ends up in exactly the right place with nothing going to waste.

Since Renew’s inception in 2009, the programme has collected over 2 million garments, with 660,885 of those garments being resold (11). Operating on such a significant scale, Renew works to keep clothing out of landfills and extends the product life cycle of Eileen Fisher clothing – a clear example of takeback scheme success.

Decathlon’s ‘Buy Back’

Sports and outdoor brand Decathlon has extended its take-back model through the ‘Buy Back’ programme. Initially launched for bicycles, it now includes equipment for fitness, racket sports, camping and watersports. The amount awarded per trade-in is determined by an online quote followed by an in-store confirmation (12), and once donated goods have been evaluated, the customer receives vouchers that can be used in store.

This initiative is part of Decathlon’s broader sustainability efforts to encourage responsible consumption and reduce environmental impact. The scope of its environmental efforts is broad, including movement towards scaling circular economies and eliminating waste: with Decathlon stating that its purpose is to “move towards a future that creates value through second life products, products renting, products repairing and recycling solutions and services” (13). While not focused solely on clothing, the programme shows how take-back models can succeed in other product categories, promoting a shift in consumer culture towards reuse.

Summary: A Circular Future, Or Just Another Loop?

Take-back schemes represent one of the most visible efforts by fashion brands to address the enormous waste crisis their industry perpetuates. On paper, they offer a pathway toward circularity; a system where materials are continually reused and nothing goes to waste. But as many reports show, the effectiveness of these schemes varies wildly. For every Patagonia or Eileen Fisher, there are several major brands making unverified claims, dodging transparency or quietly disposing of returned garments through incineration or export.

As circular fashion gains traction and Extended Producer Responsibility becomes more central to sustainable policy and practice, brands will need to move beyond symbolic gestures. Transparent, traceable and genuinely circular systems are not just a moral imperative – they’re a necessity for an industry under increasing scrutiny.

Whether take-back schemes evolve into robust systems or fade into another greenwashed gimmick will depend on regulation, consumer pressure and the industry’s willingness to invest in systemic change. But one thing is clear: a fashion future that values longevity, reuse and responsibility is no longer just desirable, it’s essential.

Sources:

Share with others

Annie Chant

Annie, a Fashion Marketing & Management graduate with honours, is a sustainability practitioner from Dorset, England. She is a contributor to SFM’s UK chapter as a content creator, research volunteer, and blog writer, championing sustainability and slow living in all aspects of life.