Textile Collection Methods

Three of the most common methods of textile collection are textile banks, charity or local authority kerbside or door-to-door collections, and charity shop surplus and unsold stock collections. Textiles can also be collected from sources such as Cash for Clothes shops, and school and workplace fundraising collections, although the UK still sends around 0.8 to 1 million tonnes of textile waste to landfill. The main market opportunity of diverting more of these waste textiles is to create more revenue for collectors and charities (Bartlett et al., 2013).

Textile Banks

Bartlett et al. (2013) cite textile banks as the route used for 36% of all collections, indicating this method as the main form utilised by surveyed collectors. This confirms an assertion by Woolridge et al. (2006) that civic amenity donation banks are also the most frequently used system, where clothes can be disposed of alongside other recycling facilities such as those for glass, paper and plastic. Joung and Park-Poaps (2013) therefore recommended increased drop-off sites or community collections bins, placed in easily accessible locations, as strategies to promote textile donation and prevent discarding. For a local authority to increase their provision of textile collection banks would require negotiation with the collection agency.

Textile bank collection contracts are often complicated and contentious agreements between commercial organisations and local authorities. Often a commercial textile collector will not have the contract to collect from their immediate local vicinity, but for the region in which they have successfully tendered. Contracts will often not be exclusive to each region, with several organisations able to collect and operate in overlapping areas. For example in 2011 nine Welsh local authorities commissioned a regional textile bank contract with JMP Wilcox, a commercial collector based in the West Midlands (WRAP, 2012a), although Antur Waunfawr are another contractor who also collects in North Wales (Claes, Clissold, et al., 2012).

16

In a trial comparing the composition of textile feedstocks from various sources, Claes, Clissold, et al. (2012) found collections from textile banks to comprise of a high percentage (85%) of material suitable for re-use and resale across a wide range of markets, including premier grade, vintage, lightweight and heavyweight clothing most suitable for immediate resale in Eastern European markets. It was noted that most of the textiles were clean and some had even been freshly laundered prior to donation. According to Bartlett et al. (2013) 140,000 tonnes of textiles were collected through 12,000-15,000 textile banks in 2010, with an estimated increase of 3 to 4 tonnes per bank a year. This is a positive indication for their accepted use by the general public and it may be possible that increasing the convenience and availability of such services would be more effective and secure than kerbside collection.

Morley et al. (2006) have quoted figures from the Salvation Army Trading Company which shows that textile bank donations peak around the autumn months and are at their lowest in December. Morley et al. (2006) cited research by The Charities Advisory Trust, that showed that 94% of the public believed charity shops to be an effective method of raising money for causes, and a survey from the Association of Charity Shops which showed that 51% of those donating used items did so in order to support a charitable cause.

While charities stand to benefit from the proceeds made through the resale of used clothing, theft of used textiles from collection sites can seriously undermine both the commercial and charitable gains to be made from textile collection, reuse and resale, tipping the balance in an already volatile industry. Estimates of lost revenue range from £2.5 to £50 million per year, or 15% of items. In a study into textile theft, the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) estimated that textile theft from banks, at 11%, was higher than from door-to-door collections (just 2%). LWARB found that textile banks with letter box style openings were more susceptible to theft than those with chuted openings. Damage to locks was also recognised as a significant problem, with collectors such as LMB developing banks with no locks that required crane lifting to be emptied. A Market Snapshot published by WRAP in 2016 valued textile bank collections at around £220 per tonne, and figures published by Letsrecycle.com placed the value of textile bank collections between £150 to £260 per tonne in 2016 (Letsrecycle.com, 2016a). Figures from Letsrecycle.com show a clear drop in value for textile bank collection over the period from 2013 to 2016. Figures shown in a WRAP report on feedstock value from 2012 (£260 to £360) also show an overall drop in the value of textile bank collections compared to 2016 prices (Ripper and Morrish, 2012)

Door to Door Collections

Door-to-door collections are the second most widely used form of textile collection at 23% of all collections for those surveyed by Bartlett et al. (2013), and can include collections on behalf

17

of charities or local authorities. It is noted by Morley et al. (2009) that the availability of kerbside collection almost doubled in the period from 2002 to 2008, as consumer studies have shown convenience to be the major factor in increasing the reuse and recycling rates for clothing.

Householders receive donation bags through their letter boxes and are asked to fill them with their unwanted clothes, textiles and other items such as books and toys, and leave them out on doorsteps for collection on a designated day. Due to the overlapping nature of door-to-door collections, donators can often be faced with a variety of options from different organisations all placing collection bags through their letter boxes. Bartlett et al. (2013) estimated that 23%

of all textile collections surveyed occurred as part of charity door-to-door schemes. Local authorities also operate similar kerbside collection schemes, in which textiles are collected alongside household waste and recycling, and in combination it is estimated that a total of at least 109,000 tonnes of textiles were collected directly from homes in these two ways (21,000 from LA kerbside collections and 88,000 from charity door-to-door collections) (Bartlett et al., 2013).

The quality of textiles collected through either charity door-to-door or local authority kerbside collections in which textiles are pre-separated by donators; and co-mingled recycling collections in which textiles are placed in bins alongside other recyclates is vastly different (Ripper and Morrish, 2012). In WRAP’s textile feedstock trials, results demonstrated that local authority kerbside collections and charity door-to-door collections yielded as much as 82%

and 83% clothing suitable for re-use, respectively, whereas no items at all from the co-mingled collections were suitable for re-use without extensive washing and drying efforts (Ripper and Morrish, 2012). Potential recovery rates stood at around 37% for intact items requiring cleaning from the co-mingled collections, with the rest of the items too damaged, soiled and contaminated to be of use (Claes, Gardner, et al., 2012d). Items placed into collection bags for charity or local authority collections was found to be in good condition, and had been washed and often folded for donation (Claes, Gardner, et al., 2012a; Gardner et al., 2012).

Morley et al. (2009) recommended that in order to achieve a high reuse and recycling rate, the number of household collections schemes should be increased. However this would present an increased likelihood for the theft and ‘bogus collection’ of textiles left out for door-to-door collection (Bureau of International Recycling, 2013). Research undertaken by LWARB indicated that of the 32 collection routes samples, 18.75% of collections may have been subject to theft, resulting in around a rate of theft of 1.8% of all clothing left out for collection (London Waste and Recycling Board, 2014b). A lack of awareness by donators regarding who should be collecting bags left out for donation may, in part, account for bogus collections occurring. LWARB found that although all organisations collecting door-to-door were at least in part doing so to raise funds for charity, some made no reference to this at all, making it more

18

difficult for the public to check who should be collection the bags left out (London Waste and Recycling Board, 2014b). Further limitations to this collection method are presented in the average price range of the material. Collections could be purchased for between £600 to £900 per tonne in 2012, considerable more than other feedstock sources (Ripper and Morrish, 2012). Due to high costs and recognised problems with theft and disputed collections, it is questionable as to whether increased provision of door-to-door collecting in its current format would provide reliable solutions for diverting additional textiles from the waste stream, despite the factor of increased convenience for donators.

Charity Shop Collections

Charity shop collections account for 19% of all collections by weight for the commercial collectors surveyed, however Bartlett et al. (2013) note that they are the most widely used collection route available to the public, with over 9,000 shops in the UK. Donators are able to take their unwanted items to a charity shop, where the majority of donations are resold in the shops themselves, with any surplus or unsold stock sold on to commercial collectors for reuse or recycling. Bartlett et al. (2013) estimated this to be around 170,200 tonnes in 2010, or 46%

of all charity shop donations. The quality of charity shop collections has been found to be high in a trial for WRAP by Burke et al. (2012). 88% of the charity shop sample was found to be suitable for reuse, including clean, intact clothing suitable for vintage, premier and export grades. To further ensure the high quality of charity shop collections that are sold onto commercial collectors, the Textile Recycling Association drew up guidelines in 2014 for

‘Charity Shop Grade’ clothing and textiles. These specifications were designed to eliminate waste and high concentrations of low value goods from the collections, ensuring that a reliable market value could be obtained for the items contained (Textile Recycling Association, 2014).

Ripper and Morrish (2012) estimated the price of charity shop collections to be between £500 to £560 per tonne in 2012, although figures from letsrecycle.com (2016) show that the price of charity shop collections has fallen steadily over the period from 2013 to 2016; from a peak of between £530 to £580 per tonne at the start of 2013 to as low as £250 to £330 at the start of 2016.

11 Other Collection and Disposal Streams

Cash for Clothes shops offer consumer the opportunity to gain back some of the value from their unwanted clothes and textiles by selling them to a retailer or agent by weight. Consumers receive around £0.40 per kg of clothing (www.cash4clothes.co.uk). In samples surveyed on behalf of WRAP, Cash for Clothes collections were found to be in good condition, containing items suitable for reuse and export (Claes, Gardner, et al., 2012c). In-store collection schemes have also become more popular in recent years, with high profile campaigns by high street retailers; such as Marks and Spencer’s ‘Shwopping’ and H&M’s ‘Recycle Your Clothes’

initiatives. Working towards the responsible disposal of clothing, Marks and Spencer partnered with the globally renowned British charity Oxfam. As part of its ‘Plan A’ social responsibility objectives, the retailer ran a ‘Clothes Exchange’ scheme in which a £5 money off voucher is exchanged for each bag of returned, unwanted clothing, originally purchased from its stores (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Marks and Spencer, 2011). The scheme not only increased donations of used clothing items, but also sales in stores (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009).

Through regular collections and two 'One Day Wardrobe Clear-Out' events, the scheme collected 1.8 million garments in its first year, and 3 million in its second year, helping to raise

£3.3m for Oxfam (Marks and Spencer, 2011).

Consumers can also dispose of their unwanted textile items in household rubbish, where it enters into the waste stream and often ends up in landfills. Morgan and Birtwistle (2009) cited Burke et al. (1978) in categorising consumers as those who simply discard products or those who dispose of them responsibly. A report by Morley et al. (2009) recommended targeting lower socio-demographic households to obtain a higher yield of textiles, as it is suggested that lower socio-economic groups discard the greatest percentage of textiles in their residual household waste, indicating that it is low cost (and lower quality), rather than out-dated clothing which is discarded. In addition to such strategic methods, a recent trend for clothes swapping events has provided another means of recycling post-consumer textiles. Events such as these help raise public awareness of clothes swapping, as demonstrated by the BBC programme

‘Twiggy’s Frock Exchange (2008), in which participants exchanged items of clothing and accessories with each other, giving the items ‘a new lease of life’ (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009). Furthermore, Morley et al. (2009) claim that swap events or ‘swishing parties’ raise public awareness and the image of clothes swapping. These initiatives therefore demonstrate the importance of responsible deposits and collection of unwanted used textile clothing items.