From ESPR framework to real impact: what the latest EU updates mean for fashion and textile businesses

On 9 February 2026, the European Commission drew a clear line: unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear shouldn’t be destroyed anymore. Under new measures linked to the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), the ​“what do we do with leftovers?” question is turning into a compliance question.

If you’re a brand or store in the COSH! community, this may matter for more than optics. It affects your stock strategy, product design, reporting, partnerships, and communication. And it’s another signal that the market is moving from ​“good intentions” to proof and process.

We unpacked ESPR once before, back in 2024. Now it’s time for the update, what changed, what’s coming, and what you can already do to stay ahead.

At COSH!, we follow ESPR and DPP developments closely, as they directly affect how sustainable brands and stores will be assessed, partnered with and regulated in the coming years. This update is particularly relevant for European fashion brands, multi-brand stores and textile SMEs active in the EU.

What changed since 2024?

The ESPR has now been formally adopted, and the European Commission has started publishing timelines, delegated acts and implementation dates that make the impact very real, especially for brands and retailers working with textiles, apparel and footwear.

The most recent publication at the start of 2026 is about the ban on the destruction of unsold good, and it’s related reporting obligations.

Ban on the destruction of unsold products. 

One of the most concrete changes for fashion businesses in the EU (brands and multibrands): From 19 July 2026 onwards, destroying unsold products will be prohibited as a rule, not treated as a normal end-of-life option.

Linked to this, the problems caused by our textile waste don’t stay in Europe alone. It also has a severe impact on other regions in the world.

Destruction will only be allowed in strictly defined exceptions, such as:

• Health, hygiene or safety risks
• Legal non-compliance (for example for safety if a product is contaminated with harmful chemicals like PFAS or other harmfull substances)
• Severe damage or contamination during the production process, ​“provided that repair is not technically feasible or cost-effective”
• Failed donation or reuse attempts (after documented effort)
• Products that are unfit for their intended purpose

Even then, destruction must be justified, documented and supported with evidence that alternatives were considered first.

This ban will apply to all medium-sized (from 2030 onwards) and large enterprises (from July 2026 onward), small and micro enterprises are exempt. 

COSH! Feares that this exemption could create incentives for multinationals to route unsold stock through micro entities. The ESPR acknowledges this risk and allows the Commission to extend obligations to micro/​small firms if there is evidence of circumvention in the future.

Reporting & disclosing unsold stock

Apart from the ban on destroying unsold stock, companies will also be obligated to disclose information about their unsold stock.

For large enterprises this goes into effect on 2 March 2027, for medium-size enterprises on 19 July 2030. Here too, small and micro enterprises are exempt, but the expectations for this transparency will travel through the value chain. 

What that means in practice

• If a brand sold the stock to a retailer/​wholesaler, so the retailer/​wholesaler owns it and manages end-of-life. Then the reporting obligation lands on the retailer/​wholesaler, who has to report if they end up discarding/​destroying the unsold products.
• As a large or medium-sized company, you have to report when the unsold stock is still under your control (e.g., your own webshop/​shops/​warehouse) or when someone else discards it for you (e.g., you instruct a logistics provider to dispose of goods, or a contract says the retailer destroys goods ​“on the brand’s behalf,” or you take back returns and then discard).

Exceptions or escape hatches? The real test starts here

At first view, banning the destruction of unsold fashion is a big breakthrough. But the real impact will depend on how tightly the exceptions are interpreted, and whether the system rewards the right end-of-life choices.

1) ​“If repair is not technically feasible or cost-effective”

This is the most worrying loophole. If ​“cost-effective” is allowed to mean ​“cheaper than repair right now,” destruction could stay the easiest escape route, especially in a market where repair is still underfunded and recycling is becoming the more subsidised, streamlined option.

Our view: if EU policy and EPR schemes continue to make recycling the financially ​“best” route, then repair will almost never win on price, not because it’s impossible, but because the system makes it lose. That creates a perverse incentive: design and logistics won’t improve for repair if brands can always claim it’s not worth it.

What we believe should happen:

• “Cost-effective” must be defined with stricter rules.
• Brands should have to prove they tried repair through (certified) partners and transparent cost benchmarks.
• The policy should actively make repair more competitive, not accidentally penalise it.

2) ​“After donation or reuse was attempted”

We support donation and reuse, which is why we see a big risk in this exception. Current sorting and resale companies are already struggling under the overload of low-quality fast-fashion items that are being donated. 

If large companies can flood second-hand channels with massive volumes, they can claim they ​“did the right thing,” while shifting the burden to charities, social enterprises, and circular hubs that already struggle with sorting costs, storage, and unsellable waste.

And here’s where the current setup can still let overproduction slip through: ​“Unsold products must be offered for donation for at least 8 weeks to at lease 3 social economy entities within the Union”. This risks becoming a box-ticking pathway to destruction for big fast-fashion brands..

Because if a company keeps overproducing low-quality, hard-to-resell garments that social economy organisations simply can’t accept (due to quality, seasonality, volume, or processing costs), then after the documented donation window, the items can still end up destroyed.

Our view: if the end result can still be destruction after a formal ​“offer,” then there’s little real incentive for big players to:

• produce less
• design for durability and resale from the start
• raise quality so items are actually reusable

What we believe should happen:

• Donation obligations should be paired with prevention incentives (reducing volumes, improving durability, designing for reuse).
• “No takers” shouldn’t automatically justify destruction, it should trigger accountability: why was this unfit for reuse in the first place?
• Social economy shouldn’t be treated as a safety net for overproduction, they should be protected from becoming the underpaid sorting department of fast-fashion volumes.
• Brands should share the cost of sorting and handling if they offload large quantities.

3) ​“Products unfit for their intended purpose”

This exception highlights an uncomfortable truth: some products should never have been produced, shipped, or stocked in the first place.

If items are routinely ​“unfit,” that points to upstream failures: weak quality control, unrealistic production timelines, cost pressure, and poor supplier oversight.

Our view: the burden shouldn’t land on end-of-life exceptions, it should land where the failure happened: quality and supply-chain management.

What we believe should happen:

• Repeated ​“unfit for purpose” cases should trigger audits and penalties, not an easy disposal route.
• Brands should be expected to show preventive controls (Quality assurance checkpoints, supplier agreements, testing).
• The rule should discourage ​“fast and faulty” business models, not quietly absorb their waste.

The bottom line

This ban is a powerful signal, but exceptions shape behaviour. If the exceptions are too flexible, they don’t protect circularity; they protect convenience.

At COSH!, we’ll be watching how these rules are translated into practice, because the goal can’t be ​“less public destruction.” The goal has to be less overproduction, better design, real reuse and repair, and accountability that doesn’t stop at the warehouse door.

Your questions answered:

1. What is the ESPR and how does it affect fashion and textile businesses in the EU?

The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is an EU law that sets sustainability requirements for products sold on the European market, including textiles, apparel and footwear. It affects how fashion businesses design products, manage materials, handle unsold stock and provide product information, shifting sustainability from voluntary practice to mandatory product rules.

2. What does the ban on destroying unsold textiles mean in practice?

From 19 July 2026, medium-sized and large companies will no longer be allowed to destroy unsold textiles as a standard practice. Destruction will only be permitted in strictly defined cases, such as safety risks or severe damage, and must be documented and justified. This rule changes expectations across the entire fashion value chain.

3. Do fashion brands and retailers have to report what happens to their unsold goods (and how)?

Yes, under the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781), large and medium-sized companies will have to publicly disclose information on ​“discarded unsold consumer products” (i.e., unsold goods that are thrown away/​destroyed). 
This disclosure is typically done on the company’s website, and companies that already publish (CSRD) sustainability reporting can often include it there (or link to it), as long as it follows the EU’s required format once the implementing rules apply.