Check the label on the shirt you're wearing right now. There's a good chance it says something like "60% cotton, 40% polyester" — a blend so common it's become invisible. That label is also, quietly, a recycling dead end.

For years, blended fabrics have been the fashion industry’s most successful material. They’re soft, durable, and cheap to produce. But the same chemistry that makes a garment feel good makes it almost impossible to recycle. Cotton and polyester are structurally incompatible — to process one, you essentially have to destroy the other. And because the two fibres are woven together intimately, most recycling facilities don’t attempt the separation at all. The garment gets incinerated, or it slowly decomposes in a landfill somewhere far from where it was purchased.

This isn’t a niche failure. It’s the central contradiction of sustainable fashion — the one that most recycling labels and brand commitments quietly avoid.

We produce more, not better

The textile industry now generates 132 million tons of fibre every year, more than double what it produced 25 years ago. Much of that growth comes from fossil fuel-based synthetics — polyester, nylon, acrylic — which are cheap to manufacture and integral to the blended fabrics that dominate modern clothing. Only 8% of fibres in the global clothing supply chain come from recycled sources.

Elizabeth Cline mapped this trajectory in her essential book Overdressed: The shockingly high cost of cheap fashion, which tracked how the rise of fast fashion turned clothing from a considered purchase into a disposable commodity. What Cline described in 2012 has only accelerated — more collections, faster cycles, cheaper garments, and a growing mountain of discarded textiles that the industry has no coherent plan to address.

The instinct to recycle feels like the right response. Drop the old shirt in a collection bin. Feel better. Move on. But what actually happens to that garment depends almost entirely on what it’s made of — and most of the time, the answer is: nothing useful.

The problem no one talks about on the label

Textile recycling broadly falls into two categories. Mechanical recycling shreds garments into fibres that can be re-spun into lower-quality yarn — used for insulation, stuffing, or industrial wiping cloths. It’s limited, and it destroys the fibre quality in the process. Chemical recycling breaks down fibres into their molecular building blocks so they can be reformed into virgin-quality materials. It’s more promising, but it requires the input material to be chemically consistent.

A blended fabric is neither. Cotton is a natural cellulose fibre. Polyester is a synthetic polymer. To chemically recycle cotton, you need an acidic or enzymatic process. To chemically recycle polyester, you use glycolysis or methanolysis — both of which are incompatible with cotton. When you put a 60/40 polycotton shirt into either process, you get a degraded mess of both. The result is that the vast majority of blended textiles — which represent a huge proportion of everything in your wardrobe — are effectively unrecyclable by any current method.

This is what Dana Thomas documented in Fashionopolis: The price of fast fashion and the future of clothes — that for all the green messaging from fashion brands, the structural problems of textile waste run deeper than most consumers are led to believe. The sorting problem, the blending problem, the geography of waste — these are systemic, not superficial.

A breakthrough from Amsterdam

In January 2025, researchers at the University of Amsterdam’s Industrial Sustainable Chemistry group, working with the Dutch chemistry company Avantium, published a paper in Nature Communications that may represent the first real solution to the blending problem.

Their method — called sequential chemical recycling — uses highly concentrated hydrochloric acid at room temperature to dissolve the cotton component of a polycotton fabric while leaving the polyester completely intact. The cotton is broken down into glucose, which can be used as a feedstock for bio-based products including renewable plastics. The polyester fibres remain solid, physically separating from the dissolved cotton, and can then be fed into existing polyester recycling processes. In trials using real post-consumer polycotton waste at Avantium’s pilot plant in Delfzijl, the process achieved a 75% recovery rate of glucose from cotton and 78% recovery of polyester monomers — high enough to suggest commercial viability.

"Many parties are trying to get either of these things done but no one has succeeded yet. Our techno-economic analysis looks rather favourable."

— Prof. Gert-Jan Gruter, Chief Technology Officer, Avantium

What makes this notable isn’t just the chemistry. It’s that the process works on actual worn, post-consumer garments — not laboratory samples of pristine fabric. The pilot plant tested real discarded polycotton textiles and demonstrated that the cotton cellulose could be fully hydrolysed under industrially relevant conditions. The acid, importantly, can be recovered and reused, which matters considerably for the environmental footprint of the process.

Avantium plans to move the technology to a demonstration plant in 2026, with commercial-scale operations of 100,000 tonnes annually targeted by the end of the decade.

When the law forces brands to pay

Technology alone rarely drives systemic change. The more interesting shift may be happening in policy.

The Netherlands introduced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation for textiles in July 2023, with mandatory compliance targets coming into force in January 2025. Under the rules, every company — retailer, manufacturer, importer, or online supplier — that places clothing or household textiles on the Dutch market is now financially responsible for the collection and processing of that textile waste. There is no minimum threshold. A small brand selling five hundred units is subject to the same framework as H&M or Zara.

The targets escalate over time: by 2025, producers must ensure 50% of textiles placed on the market the previous year are prepared for reuse or recycling. By 2030, that rises to 75%. A quarter of recycled materials must be fibre-to-fibre by 2025, rising to a third by 2030. For brands that have spent years treating textile waste as someone else’s problem — municipalities, charities, landfill operators — this is a significant structural change. The cost of managing waste is now internalised into the product.

The EU Waste Framework Directive requires all member states to establish separate textile collection systems as of January 2025, with full national EPR schemes mandatory by 2027. California became the first US state to adopt a dedicated textile EPR law, and other states are advancing similar legislation. The direction of travel is clear: the era of externalised textile waste costs is ending, at least on paper.

2030 is still far — what we can do now

It would be easy to read this as good news and keep buying. But the Avantium technology is still at pilot scale, and commercial deployment is five or more years away. EPR regulations are only as effective as their enforcement. The Netherlands is ahead of most of the world on both fronts, and even there, the targets are still modest relative to the scale of waste being generated.

Global textile production is projected to reach 149 million tons by 2030 — and current fibre-to-fibre recycling rates sit below 1%. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is not going to be closed by a single chemical process and a handful of national policies.

What both Overdressed and Fashionopolis argue, in different ways, is that the most durable response to a broken system isn’t waiting for the system to fix itself. It’s consuming less, choosing better, and understanding the material reality of what you buy. Checking the label — not just for care instructions, but for what the garment is actually made of and what that means at the end of its life — is a small act with a cumulative logic. It doesn’t replace the need for structural change. But it resists the comfortable fiction that dropping a blended-fabric shirt in a recycling bin is the same as keeping it out of landfill.

The chemistry is finally catching up to the problem. The law is beginning to hold brands accountable. What changes now is that neither excuse — “it can’t be done” or “it’s not my responsibility” — holds as cleanly as it once did.

Browse the full Sustainability archive for more.

References

  • Leenders, N. et al. (2025). “Polycotton waste textile recycling by sequential hydrolysis and glycolysis.” Nature Communications, 16, 738. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-55935-6
  • University of Amsterdam / HIMS (29 Jan 2025). “UvA research leads to viable solution for polycotton textile waste recycling.” hims.uva.nl
  • Avantium N.V. (29 Jan 2025). “Avantium finds important solution for polycotton textile waste recycling.” newsroom.avantium.com
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “EPR for textiles in the Netherlands.” ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
  • Dutch Government / ILT. “Extended producer responsibility for textiles.” english.ilent.nl
  • Carbonfact (2026). “Overview of all textile extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws.” carbonfact.com
  • Cline, E.L. (2012). Overdressed: The shockingly high cost of cheap fashion. Portfolio/Penguin.
  • Thomas, D. (2019). Fashionopolis: The price of fast fashion and the future of clothes. Apollo.