This week, the European Commission announced a provisional agreement reached between the European Parliament and the European Council regarding the revision of the Waste Framework Directive. The amended Waste Framework Directive will “promote a circular economy throughout the EU, notably by fostering innovation and moving towards more sustainable industrial and consumer practices,” the Commission stated, noting that it marks “a significant step forward in addressing textile and food waste, while reinforcing the EU’s competitiveness.”
From a fashion perspective, the Waste Framework Directive will impose extended producer responsibilities on the makers of “textile and footwear products.” Specifically, under the amended directive, each Member State will set up its own Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) scheme for textile and footwear products under which producers – whether based in the EU or selling to customers in the EU via e-commerce – must fund the collection, sorting, and recycling of their products through EPR schemes.
From a timing perspective, the Directive, which comes amid a larger push in sustainability and supply chain-focused legislation in the EU (see below), will apply by the end of 30 months from when it first takes effect. Small enterprises (those employing fewer than 10 people) will have an extra 12 months to comply with the new rules.
> The Directive is expected to place “extra financial and regulatory burdens on businesses, including fast-fashion brands and online retailers, amid growing scrutiny of the environmental impact of consumer industries,” the FT reported, noting that “the cost of compliance is expected to fall mostly on companies that flood the market with cheap disposable fashion items.”
Boston Consulting Group and Fashion for Good released a report this week, in which they dive into next-gen materials – or “novel and innovative fibers and materials with desired improved environmental and/or social outcomes.” While the global landscape is shifting rapidly, with “climate change intensifying resource scarcity, geopolitical dynamics disrupting supply chains, and evolving business models demanding greater sustainability, waste valorization, and transparency,” the two companies assert that “many brands remain unequipped for the material transition already underway.” Against that background, they set out a roadmap for fashion brands to scale next-gen materials.
> In a nutshell: Next-gen materials, including textile-to-textile recycled polyester or lab-grown cotton represent a critical opportunity for the fashion industry to significantly transform its impact. These are innovative fibers and materials with enhanced sustainability, performance, or functionality that are currently in early commercialization or development and require further technological advancement and cost optimization for widespread adoption. Embracing these materials is becoming a business imperative, driven by tightening regulations in Europe and beyond, shifting consumer demands, and rapid technological advances. With demand for these materials projected to outpace supply by 2030, the need for collective industry action is today more urgent than ever. This business case will be a key factor in accelerating the next-gen transition.
A Few Key Takeaways
> The bulk of next-gen material growth is expected to come from textile-to-textile recycling solutions, which are poised to gain significant market share in man-made cellulosic, natural, and synthetic fibers. This momentum is driven by industry prioritization of recycling technologies and the increasing focus of legislation on waste management and circularity.
> Transitioning to next-gen materials is crucial for cost efficiency, compliance, and competitive advantage. Companies are encouraged to integrate next-gen ambitions into core strategy, supported by cross-functional innovation teams.
> Both individual and collective efforts are needed for industry-wide transformation, with collabs coming in the form of: (1) aggregating demand across brands to achieve economies of scale, optimize costs, and improve supply chain efficiency; (2) coordinated sourcing and standardized fabric blends to streamline production and lower costs; and (3) pooling investment resources to fund next-gen startups, sharing financial risk and amplifying impact. (Collective action here does, of course, potentially raise questions/concerns from an antitrust POV.)
> Demand is projected to outpace supply by 2030, risking exclusivity for a few brands; Brands that act now will lead the next-gen materials revolution, as they “present significant opportunities during a time of mounting challenges, including climate change, textile waste accumulation, geopolitical turbulence, tightening regulations, and commodity competition.”
Turns out that even when you remove a vowel from your brand name, there may still be competition – but maybe not confusion. That is one of the things to be garnered from an opinion from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) this week. In a non-precedential opinion on the 18th, TTAB dismissed opposition proceedings brought by Givn Goods, Inc. against IBMG, LLC’s applications to register the mark “GIVN” for cosmetics and online retail store services. Givn Goods argued that the registration of “GIVN” by IBMG would likely cause confusion with its own “GIVN” mark for use on bottled drinking water.
Not so, according to the TTAB, which held that despite the identical nature of the marks, Givn Goods failed to demonstrate that the goods and services were sufficiently related or that they shared overlapping trade channels.
The TTAB noted that while both parties used the identical mark “GIVN,” the products they offered – cosmetics and skincare products by IBMG versus bottled drinking water by Givn Goods – are fundamentally different and marketed through distinct channels. Givn Goods attempted to argue that brands like Evian and Aquafina marketed both water and cosmetics, but the TTAB found the evidence insufficient to establish a consumer expectation that these types of goods come from a common source. Moreover, the TTAB observed that the goods were offered in separate categories on retail platforms like Amazon, further supporting the argument of distinct trade channels.
There is more to unpack here, and so, stay tuned.
An Italian court has lifted the special administration imposed on Giorgio Armani Operations, a unit of the Armani fashion group, following corrective measures to address labor practices involving its Chinese-owned subcontractors. The court action, initiated in April after investigations revealed that the company had subcontracted work to suppliers exploiting workers, was terminated early due to Armani’s swift compliance with required organizational models and supplier control procedures.
Over the past 10 months, Giorgio Armani Operations restructured its supply chain, severing ties with at-risk suppliers and implementing best practices approved by the court. The company emphasized its commitment to ethical standards, stating that the actions of two suppliers contradicted the brand’s values.
This case is part of broader investigations into labor exploitation within Italy’s luxury fashion industry, which have also affected other prominent brands, including Alviero Martini and an Italian subsidiary of LVMH-owned Dior. The Milan Court of Justice has suggested a nationwide initiative to ensure compliance with labor laws across the luxury supply chain.