SMART Debunks Persistent Myths About the Second-hand Textile Trade

1. Is waste being dumped in the Global South?

No. Second-hand clothing moves because there is strong demand for it. Importers buy only what they can sell, and unusable items are screened out long before export. Field research across several countries shows that most goods arriving in markets are wearable, with waste appearing in small, manageable fractions. Where disposal challenges exist, they reflect gaps in municipal waste systems, not deliberate dumping.

Studies conducted across Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, and Guatemala consistently find that: 80–95% of imported SHC is wearable, resalable, repairable, or repurposable True waste fractions are typically 1–10%, and often as low as 1–3% By contrast, the frequently cited “40% waste” figure is methodologically weak, originating from small, qualitative samples that were not designed for broad extrapolation or policymaking. Just like any other trade, it only works if it is economically viable, which means goods without resale value simply do not move through the system. The evidence clearly shows that SHC exports are not a disguised waste stream, but a high-value reuse system with minimal residual waste.

2. Do people want secondhand clothing?

Yes. This trade exists because demand is strong. In markets across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, people choose secondhand clothing for its durability, quality, and affordability. Families rely on it because it offers well-made garments at prices that match real incomes, and traders rely on it because customers know what they want and buy consistently. Secondhand clothing creates vibrant local economies: tailors repairing and resizing garments, vendors selecting the best pieces for their stalls, and small entrepreneurs building stable livelihoods around a product people trust. Far from being forced onto communities, SHC is actively sought out because it meets their needs better than more expensive new goods or cheap ultra-fast fashion.

3. Does secondhand clothing undermine local textile industries?

No. SHC and newly made garments serve different customer segments. They are not substitutes, they are complementary. If SHC were restricted, the resulting gap would unlikely be filled by local production. Instead, low-income consumers would be pushed toward ultra fast-fashion imports from Asia, which are poorer in quality, more environmentally costly, and do little to strengthen domestic industry.

4. Are used textiles unsafe or hazardous?

Secondhand clothing is made up of everyday garments that people have already worn safely, and regulators treat them that way. Authorities in the United States, the EU, the UK, and Canada all classify used clothing as non-hazardous unless it has been visibly contaminated, which is rare. Concerns about safety come from how clothes are manufactured in the first place, not from their reuse. Communities that buy and sell secondhand clothing are simply giving garments a longer life, not handling dangerous materials.

5. If clothing contains synthetics, should it be treated like plastic waste?

No. Clothes are made to be worn again and again, and secondhand use extends that life while reducing the need for new synthetic fibers. Treating garments as if they were single-use plastics ignores the value they hold for the people who buy, sell, and repair them. Concerns like microfiber shedding come from how fabrics are made in the first place, not from reuse. The solution lies in better design choices by producers, not in restricting the circular systems that keep clothing in use longer.

The more textiles we reuse, the more we reduce demand for virgin petrochemical fibers. From a policy standpoint, well-structured Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs that reward responsible production and discourage poor design practices offer the most effective framework for tackling this issue. Misclassifying textiles as plastic waste would impose unnecessary administrative burdens, disrupt legitimate circular trade thereby worsening the environmental impact of fashion, and jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of small and medium-sized enterprises that anchor global reuse and recycling networks.

6. Is the secondhand clothing trade good for the planet?

Yes. Reuse is one of the most effective ways to reduce the environmental impact of clothing. Every time a garment is worn again, it avoids the resource use, emissions, and water demand required to produce something new. Research shows that only a small share of items entering secondhand markets ends up as waste, and where disposal challenges exist, they reflect broader waste-system gaps rather than the trade itself. The real environmental pressure comes from how much new clothing is produced, not from the communities keeping garments in circulation for longer. Reuse cuts environmental impacts by up to 70‑fold compared with new production (e.e.g one reused t-shirt yields an average savings of more than 3 kg CO₂-equivalent) primarily by avoiding the resource- and energy-intensive processes associated with textile production, such as: Water use, particularly from cotton cultivation and wet processing.

Energy consumption across fiber production, spinning, weaving, dyeing, and finishing. Greenhouse gas emissions from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and global supply chains. Chemical inputs and pollution from dyes, finishes, and textile treatment processes. By extending the life of clothing, reuse delivers the greatest environmental benefit and plays a key role in reducing the overall impact of fashion.

7. Would stricter controls on the movement of secondhand clothing improve environmental outcomes?

There is no evidence that tighter restrictions on secondhand clothing trade would help the environment. One proposal that has surfaced in international discussions is to apply Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedures, a system originally created for hazardous materials. PIC requires exporting and importing governments to exchange formal approvals before any shipment can move, adding layers of paperwork, delays, and compliance costs.

Applying a system meant for dangerous substances to reusable clothing would slow the movement of garments that still have value, make imports more expensive, and push many small traders out of the market. The likely outcome would be more clothing ending up in landfills simply because reuse pathways were interrupted. A circular economy works when goods circulate efficiently, and adding barriers tends to increase waste, not reduce it.

8. Would restricting secondhand clothing help domestic recycling grow?

No. Reuse and recycling are interconnected stages of the same circular system. Secondhand markets generate the steady flow of sorted materials that recyclers rely on, and without that volume and grading, recycling becomes harder and more expensive to operate.

Closed loop textile recycling uses mechanical or chemical fiber-to-fiber processes to turn used textiles back into fibres that can be made into new garments. Open loop textile recycling typically relies on mechanical shredding that produces lower-grade materials, such as insulation or padding. Cutting off secondhand imports would remove a major source of recoverable textiles that enter the recycling system (these materials are called feedstock), increase landfilling or incineration in both exporting and importing countries, and reduce the supply recyclers need to innovate and scale. Recycling grows when reuse thrives, not when it is restricted. A functioning circular economy prioritizes reuse first, followed by recycling, because each stage provides the foundation for the next.

9. What is the solution to the global textile waste crisis?

The global textile waste crisis is driven by how much new clothing is produced and consumed in high-income markets, and by how quickly those garments are discarded. The core problems are overproduction and dependence on cheap, fossil-fuel-based fibers.

In countries that import secondhand clothing, these garments are not creating a crisis. They are meeting real demand for affordable, good-quality clothes and keeping products in use for longer. Secondhand markets help absorb some of the excess created elsewhere and turn it into livelihoods, repair work, and everyday value. Real solutions lie in reducing overproduction, improving design and durability, and making producers responsible for the full life of what they sell. Strengthening reuse and repair, including the secondhand trade, works alongside these changes to reduce waste and environmental pressure globally.

Written by SMART, the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association which represents global leaders in textile reuse and recycling.