Integrating Product Stewardship into the Clothing and Textile Industry: Perspectives of New Zealand Stakeholders

Abstract

The clothing and textile industry has become one of the world’s greatest polluters as tremendous volumes of clothing are produced, used, and disposed of at alarming rates. The industry must transition from its linear take-make-waste model towards a circular economy where textile products are kept in circulation and waste is minimized or eliminated. Product stewardship, an environmental management strategy where producers take responsibility for their products through design to the end-of-life stage, is one option to enable the circular economy. The aim of this research was to explore stakeholder drivers, barriers, and strategies for product stewardship participation in New Zealand. Qualitative data gathered through interview and survey methods of 25 stakeholder perspectives including designers, manufacturers, and retailers were analysed for emerging themes. Key findings suggest that product stewardship operating within the current linear system can only go so far; changes must occur at every stage of the value chain with all stakeholders making efforts towards circularity. Given the complexity of the product stewardship system, greater government regulation and incentive policies are likely needed to mainstream product stewardship and increase its material impact. The results of this study highlight the importance of contextual factors and capacities for tailoring regional product stewardship schemes to local needs.

1. Introduction

Clothing is an essential part of everyday life for humans, both for physical protection and the expression of one’s identity [1]. While clothing continues to serve these functions, the use and value of clothing has changed drastically with the rise of fast fashion capabilities. Prior to industrialization and garment mass production, clothing and textiles were inherently valuable due to the time and labour required to produce them [2]. Clothing was used, reused, repaired, and recycled until it “literally disappeared” [2] (p. 19). The life cycle of clothing was thus innately circular as garments were made with longevity in mind, valued through its use and reuse, and its natural components could degrade if disposed. However, streamlined supply chains, the introduction of shorter fashion seasons, and affordability of clothing compared to other consumer goods [3] meant that clothing could be purchased in large volumes, used for a shorter amount of time, and disposed of without a second thought. The increased use of synthetic fibres, chemicals, and notions in garment production also led to prolonged environmental impacts of discarded clothing as these materials persist under landfill conditions. The linear economic system of clothing brought on by the industrial revolution remains in place today [4].

If sustainable development is defined as ensuring our present needs are met “without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [5] (p. 43), then the fashion industry can be considered the antithesis of sustainability or environmentalism [6,7]; we are producing far more than we need, without considering the long-term environmental or social consequences. Fast fashion manufacturing has substantially sped up the turnover of clothing as garments are produced in tremendous volumes and are worn less before they are discarded. Global production of clothing has more than doubled between 2000 and 2015, beyond 100 billion units annually, while the average number of times a garment is worn before being discarded decreased by 36% within this same period [8]. Manufacturing just one tonne of textiles can pollute up to 200 tonnes of water for dyeing and finishing [9]. These processes, along with bleaching and cleaning, involve over 8000 chemicals and 3600 dyes, many of which directly or indirectly harm aquatic life, human health, and pollute nearby soil and water sources [10,11]. In addition, the fashion industry contributes to our global carbon emissions with textile production anticipated to account for 26% of the Earth’s carbon budget by 2050 if current production rates continue [8] (in this estimation, the carbon budget is based on a 2 °C global warming limit [1]). According to Niinimäki and colleagues [12], estimates of the textile industry’s carbon emissions often exclude the consumer-use phase (e.g., transport, laundering), indicating that emissions associated with textile products are likely much higher.

An increased level of clothing production coupled with lower rates of clothing utilization has inevitably led to high volumes of waste. In our current system, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) [8] estimates that we dispose of 48 million tonnes of clothing per year, the majority of which is landfilled or incinerated. High rates of clothing production and resultant waste has led to a host of environmental problems, all of which are urgently important to address in our current climate crisis. These problems can be more difficult to tackle due to the lack of transparency and fragmentation of the clothing and textile (C&T) supply chain. Many proposed solutions to mitigate the environmental impacts of the supply chain do not address the complexity of the fashion industry; rather, they focus on individual stakeholders, particularly with an emphasis on the consumer adoption of sustainable clothing practices (for examples see [13,14,15,16]). However, this consumer-focused approach does not address the fundamental changes to the fashion system that are required to achieve a sustainable future for the C&T industry.

2. Background

2.1. Circular Fashion

To stop the overuse of resources, reduce emissions, and minimize clothing and textile waste, the industry needs to move away from its linear model back to a circular model. A transition to a circular economy within the fashion industry has been suggested to address the environmental impacts created at all stages of the clothing life cycle [8,17,18]. The main principles of the circular economy are to “design out waste and pollution, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems” [8]. In applying these circular principles to the C&T industry, textile value chain functions are based on a cradle-to-cradle approach [19] whereby the entire life of a garment is considered in the design phase. Products are designed with the intention of using virgin natural fibres, recycled synthetic fibres, production waste, and post-consumer waste as raw material inputs [19]. However, from a CE perspective, textiles at the end-of-life stage are no longer considered waste; rather, they are seen as a resource or input for other production processes [19]. Resource use is reduced in terms of fibre production while also implementing more sustainable production practices that reduce the use of water, chemicals, and energy. Textile products are designed with longevity in mind, by using high quality materials and durable production techniques that are fit for the item’s functional purpose. Garment life extension strategies such as reuse and repair are employed during the use phase [20]. An additional step of collecting production waste or end-of-life textiles is then added to the value chain where these materials are sorted based on condition and reusability to either be reused or recycled to become inputs at the beginning of the production cycle [19]. In effect, the value chain becomes a closed loop, with materials and processes flowing in a self-sustaining, cyclical manner [19].

In general, research relating to circular fashion (CF) has been largely exploratory with academic publications, mainly qualitative in nature, having increased since 2017 [21]. Jia et al. [22], Kazancoglu et al. [19] and Ki et al. [21] reviewed the available CF literature and developed conceptual frameworks for drivers, barriers, strategies, and practices for implementing circular fashion which range from specific to general. These drivers, barriers, strategies, and practices can be categorized as being internal or external to C&T industry stakeholders [21]. In summary, these studies found stakeholders are motivated to implement CF practices for several reasons including improving the environmental impacts or health effects of their products; customer or competitor pressures; government regulation; to be seen as an industry leader; or to create new business opportunities. In fact, a report published by the Circular Fashion Summit [23] estimates that circular fashion could be a $5.3 trillion market. Sillanpää and Ncibi [20] argue that the C&T industry is “one of the industrial sectors with major opportunities for CE for resources’ reduction (primary ones), recovery, and recycling, with substantial economic and environmental benefits” (p. 152).

However, stakeholders face obstacles in implementing CF due to limited stakeholder knowledge/awareness, lack of technical and physical infrastructure, lack of policy or enforcement, and financial barriers, among others. To overcome these barriers, the literature suggests various strategies to make stakeholder’s CF practices more easily adopted and effective [21]. These strategies include collaborating with other stakeholders, implementing CE principles in the design phase, or setting up take-back programs for waste textiles. In terms of actual CF practices adopted by C&T stakeholders, Ki et al. [21] categorized these as closing resource loops (keeping materials and products in circulation through closed- and open-loop recycling and avoiding incineration/landfilling); slowing resource loops (designing and producing products to be used longer); and narrowing resource flows (improved resource efficiency or using less resources to make the product). Additional circular practices include collaborative relationship development between stakeholders throughout the supply chain, product re-design, pollution prevention through supply chain reconfiguration, new product design, and product stewardship [22].

2.2. Product Stewardship in the Clothing and Textile Industry

Achieving circularity within the clothing and textile industry means several changes are needed; however, this transition will not be instant, without challenges, or because of siloed stakeholder efforts. Rather, circularity “will be the result of well-coordinated actions initiated at different parts of the system” [24] (p. 84). Therefore, collaboration is needed amongst all those who have a stake in the industry including producers, non-governmental organizations, waste management, government, as well as consumers or end-users as they ultimately determine the lifespan of their clothing. Product stewardship offers a way to share this responsibility as all stakeholders do their part to reduce the environmental and social impacts of textile products [25]. Product stewardship, as defined by Lewis [25] (p. 5), is “the principle that everyone involved in the manufacture, distribution or consumption of a product shares responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of that product over its life-cycle”. Here, the responsibility for products is removed from being solely on consumers or whomever is in possession of the product at the end of its usable life; rather, many stakeholders work collaboratively based on the stage of the garment life cycle they have control over. Of particular importance is the role of manufacturers because of their effect on the product life cycle, especially end-of-life opportunities, due to initial decisions made regarding materials and manufacturing processes [25,26,27].

While product stewardship was developed in response to growing amounts of solid waste and decreased landfill space, it goes beyond the end-of-use activities such as recycling and waste diversion by engaging producers to design with end-of-life in mind [25]. Drivers motivating PS include internal and external stakeholder expectations and concerns regarding the product, the social and environmental impacts of the product through its lifespan, and the social or environmental priorities of an organization [25]. Understanding these drivers helps to clarify the necessary strategies for PS which can take the form of policy, design, procurement, or recovery initiatives [25]. Examples of these strategies include company sustainability policies outlining environmental targets, conducting lifecycle assessments of products, designing clothing to be more easily repaired or recycled, providing production standards or guidelines for suppliers at the procurement stage and auditing the supply chain, or offering take back schemes as a form of textile recovery [25]. Few examples of product stewardship exist at a regional level, aside from France which is currently the only country with a mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles [28].

2.3. Research Aims

As with studies on the circular economy, academic literature on PS implementation for the C&T industry, particularly for voluntary schemes, remains largely exploratory. In addition, little work has been carried out to understand the implementation of circular practices across firms [24]. PS implemented at a broader level (i.e., regional level or product sector) is a way to connect individual stakeholder actions and provide a means to achieving circularity. Therefore, the aim of this research was to identify potential drivers, barriers, strategies, and enablers for integrating product stewardship into the clothing and textile industry from the perspectives of industry stakeholders. The following research questions (RQ) were proposed to address the study aims:

• Why are stakeholders motivated to participate in product stewardship?
• How do stakeholders’ current sustainable management practices align with product stewardship strategies?
• What barriers do stakeholders face for participating in product stewardship?
• What opportunities exist to better enable product stewardship?

3. Methodology

The research questions were addressed through a qualitative approach using case study methodology. We use qualitative methods, specifically semi-structured interviews and hybrid on-line semi-structured interviews, due to the exploratory nature of this case study. We seek to understand the key stakeholders and contextual factors that are most influential in product stewardship schemes. While the environmental impacts of textile production, use, and disposal are global, the scope of this study is limited to a single country—New Zealand—as context-specific solutions are required to mitigate these impacts.

3.1. Case Study Context

Over the last 30 years, manufacturing in New Zealand, including apparel manufacturing, has transitioned to value products where items are distinguished based on better quality, brand name, enhanced performance, product innovation, or fulfilling a specific function or service niche [29]. While some large New Zealand companies (i.e., with over 100 stores) exist, the majority of New Zealand retailers are smaller, independent companies [30]. Most New Zealand fashion brands have sought low-cost offshore manufacturing in China or South East Asia [31]. Additionally, many stages of garment manufacturing such as fibre, yarn and fabric production occur outside of New Zealand, even if the last steps of garment production (i.e., cut-make-trim processes) are performed locally [31]. Even so, these companies will typically import fabric or raw materials for final stage manufacturing [31]. Some local manufacturing still takes place for premium designer or ethical fashion brands [31], yet, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [29], it is unlikely that substantial production will return.

The New Zealand government is working towards a circular economy approach when it comes to addressing waste [32]. The Ministry for the Environment is currently developing New Zealand’s new waste strategy which will provide direction and guidance for addressing waste and recovering resources [33]. As part of New Zealand’s new waste strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 will also be updated and strengthened [33]. In its current form, the Waste Minimisation Act provides a framework for national product stewardship including how priority products are determined and communicated, requirements for stewardship accreditation, and monitoring accredited schemes [34]. Currently, six products have been declared as priority: tires, electrical and electronic products (i.e., e-waste), agrichemicals and agrichemical containers, refrigerants, farm plastics, and plastic packaging [35].

3.2. Interviews

Multiple sources of data were collected between April 2020 and March 2021 for the purpose of exploring the case in-depth and to understand the case within its real-world context [36]. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants within the clothing and textile industry in New Zealand, including designers, manufacturers, and retailers. Semi-structured interviews were suitable for the research as it works well for professionals who have limited time to offer for interviewing and makes use of an interview guide [37]. The structure of the interview guide varied based on the type of stakeholder being interviewed although there was overlap between them. In alignment with the research questions, the interview questions were related to motivations for engaging in product stewardship initiatives, company environmental policies, opportunities, and challenges for reducing clothing/textile waste, and support for sustainability initiatives. Questions focused on clothing and textile waste due to PS originating for the purpose of waste prevention/reduction; however, if the participant chose to talk about other relevant aspects of PS, environmental initiatives, or waste reduction efforts, then this was encouraged. Although questions were prepared in advance, some questions naturally emerged from the interview discussions. In this manner, the interview resembled more of a guided conversation [36], co-constructed by the researcher and participant. Notes were taken during the interview to further inquire about specific topics that were not covered by the interview guide. All interviews occurred using the Zoom video conference platform, except for one telephone interview. Initial interviews ranged in length from 26 min to 2 h and 14 min.

3.3. Surveys

To enable easier and more convenient participation in the research, interview questions were translated to an online survey using Google Forms. Survey questions were a combination of open-ended, multiple choice and check-box responses to save time for the respondents. Questions covered the same topics as the interviews but were adjusted slightly with additional probes to account for the lack of researcher-participant interaction. Some questions were added based off preliminary themes from initial interviews, literature on PS engagement [28,38], and the Fuji Xerox Product Stewardship Roadmap [39]. In this sense, the survey could be considered a hybrid semi-structured interview as participants had the opportunity to elaborate on their responses as much as they liked but could do so without needing to coordinate a time with the researcher. Although interview participants had the opportunity to review the interview guide before the interview if requested, the survey was beneficial as participants could see the questions and take time to write thoughtful responses to the questions or to locate answers to questions (e.g., regarding the company’s environmental impacts or company policies, if available). Prior to the interviews and on the first page of the survey, participants completed a company/organizational survey to provide background information on the size and location of the company/organization to ensure their headquarters were in New Zealand.

Consistent with case study research, data were gathered from New Zealand based documents and statistics on textile waste reduction, publications related to the case and company-specific reports, where possible. These data were important in contextualizing product stewardship in New Zealand and corroborating the interview and survey findings.

3.4. Research Participants

Interview participants were initially identified by their current or former membership with the Usedfully—Textile Reuse Programme (TRP), a collaborative effort between the private and public sector to design and develop a nation-wide system in New Zealand to capture waste textiles, find solutions for them, and measure the impacts of these solutions. Many current or former members of the Usedfully—TRP members had taken action to reduce their clothing and textile waste, so they were ideal participants to begin with as they would have previous experience with attempting to integrate sustainability initiatives into their waste streams. Additional participants were recruited through recommendations of interviewees and due to their knowledge of circularity and product stewardship in New Zealand. The use of theoretical sampling allowed for an in-depth exploration of topics as additional participants could be interviewed based on the emergence of important concepts [40]. Some participants held multiple roles by working for circular businesses but also by having positions on different advisory boards related to advocating for sustainability in New Zealand. A total of 12 participants were interviewed, a sample size consistent with other case studies examining similar topics [41,42].

Survey participants were also purposefully selected based on their role and knowledge of the industry (i.e., responsible for the design, manufacture and sale of clothing and textiles in New Zealand) as they were the types of businesses relevant for the Usedfully—Textile Reuse Programme. Participants were found through a web search using the terms “New Zealand” + (clothing OR textile OR fashion) + (brands OR designers OR manufacturers OR retailers) or were mentioned by participants during the interviews. A list of companies was created with each company then searched individually to find contact information, to ensure the company was still in business, and that they were based in New Zealand. The list was member-checked by a key informant in New Zealand to confirm relevant companies had been added. Companies were contacted via website contact form or e-mail. After making initial contact with someone from the company, the survey link was forwarded to 38 interested individuals, resulting in 13 completed surveys. The number of participants for the interviews (12) and survey (13) was deemed sufficient as saturation in qualitative studies can be reached with 6 to 12 participants [43] (

Table 1. Summary of interview participants and survey respondents.

Participant (P) or Respondent (R) Code	Industry Segment(s)	Number of Employees	Location
Participant 1	Usedfully key informant	-	-
Participant 2	Usedfully key informant	-	-
Participant 3	Usedfully key informant	-	-
Participant 4	Usedfully key informant	-	-
Participant 5	Circularity/sustainability consultant	-	-
Participant 6	Circularity/sustainability consultant	-	-
Participant 7	Textile rental	500+	Auckland
Participant 8	Waste management	1–4	Auckland
Participant 9	Apparel manufacturing	100–199	Wellington
Participant 10	Apparel manufacturing	500+	Auckland
Participant 11	Apparel manufacturing	500+	Auckland
Participant 12	Commercial apparel purchaser	500+	Wellington
Respondent 1	Clothing/textile design; Apparel manufacturing; Non-apparel manufacturing	50–99	Christchurch
Respondent 2	Clothing/textile design	1–4	Auckland
Respondent 3	Apparel manufacturing; Retail	200–499	Christchurch
Respondent 4	Apparel manufacturing; Retail	50–99	Lower Hutt
Respondent 5	Retail	1–4	Nelson
Respondent 6	Apparel manufacturing	1–4	Auckland
Respondent 7	Retail	200–499	New Zealand
Respondent 8	Apparel manufacturing; Retail	20–49	Christchurch
Respondent 9	Clothing/textile design; Apparel manufacturing; Retail	5–9	Martinborough
Respondent 10	Clothing/textile design; Apparel manufacturing; Retail	5–9	Christchurch
Respondent 11	Apparel manufacturing; Retail	20–49	Invercargill
Respondent 12	Clothing/textile design; Apparel manufacturing; Retail	1–4	Dunedin
Respondent 13	Apparel manufacturing	50–99	Christchurch

).

3.5. Data Analysis

With the permission of the interview participants, each interview was recorded using a handheld audio recorder or recorded through Zoom. Using the Otter.ai speech-to-text platform, the audio files were uploaded and transcribed automatically then reviewed to ensure accuracy. Both the interview and survey data were analysed using the qualitative research software NVivo 11 to organize and compare codes. The first step of thematic analysis occurred through initial or open coding by “taking raw data and raising it to a conceptual level” [44] (p. 2). Open coding was followed by axial coding, where codes that frequently appeared across multiple interviews were synthesized and conceptualized into analytical or thematic categories [45]. Initial coding was data-driven, while second-level coding was concept-driven [46] and guided by the research questions which were grounded in circular fashion and product stewardship literature [19,21,22,25]. Categories were then compared to one another, with conceptually similar categories becoming higher-level categories and eventually themes [47]. This process continued until no other themes emerged from the data [40].

3.6. Data Validity and Reliability

Three tests have been addressed to ensure quality of the research design for this exploratory single-case study: construct validity, external validity, and reliability [36]. Construct validity of the data was addressed through triangulation by using multiple data types to ensure that the findings are valid [48]. Different data types were used to view the topic from multiple perspectives with secondary data corroborating the interview and survey findings. In addition, interviewing multiple people from the same company allowed for member-checking among participants and the use of follow-up interviews presented opportunities for participants to provide clarity on topics and confirm the researcher’s interpretation of the initial interviews. A final member-check by presenting key informants with a summary of the case description and obtaining feedback on the research findings also contributed to the study’s construct validity. External validity was ensured by basing the research plan and questions on the relevant literature and by comparing the study findings with the literature throughout the data analysis. Finally, the reliability of the study was addressed by maintaining a research portfolio throughout the study to document study procedures and using a codebook to consistently apply codes, categories, and themes to the data during analysis.

4. Results and Discussion

Through a qualitative analysis of the data, three main themes emerged. The first theme relates to the parts of the textile and clothing industry that currently exist to support circularity. This includes stakeholder drivers for product stewardship and stakeholders’ current sustainable management practices that align with product stewardship strategies. The second theme is about the necessary parts of the clothing and textile system that might be currently missing or otherwise preventing a circular transition, including the challenges or barriers that must be overcome. The third theme is related to addressing these barriers and changes to the surrounding context that would better enable product stewardship, and thus circularity.

4.1. Product Stewardship within the Current Linear System

4.1.1. Drivers of Product Stewardship

Product stewardship motivations were consistent with drivers previously identified in the circular economy literature [21,22] and have been categorized according to whether the company or organization had an internal motivation to address their environmental impacts, whether this motivation comes from external pressures, or both. These drivers have implications for how to best appeal to stakeholders to engage in PS systems. Furthermore, these motivations could indicate the speed or order in which stakeholders adopt or join a PS scheme.

For many industry participants, taking responsibility for their environmental impacts was seen as the “right thing” to do (P7; P9; R1; R3; R4; R6; R7). In these instances, environmental concern is part of the company’s purpose or mission, and decisions are made with environmental benefits or impacts in mind. This high internal motivation to address their environmental impacts could be explained by the study population in that those who agreed to participate are inherently interested in sustainability or are leaders in the space because of their current involvement with the TRP. This supports findings that stakeholders who implement circular practices are likely to be seen as sustainability leaders or innovators in the industry [42]. Relatedly, a sense of responsibility to the environment motivated participants in their sustainability efforts (R8; R9). One participant stated that they are “already looking for ways to reduce waste; it is and always has been part of the company’s DNA” (R4). For these participants, sustainability and environmentalism play an integral role within the company. Two survey participants responded that joining a product stewardship scheme could provide them with guidance on implementing more sustainable practices. Lastly, an internal incentive to address textile waste for companies or organizations such as those with rental models or involved in waste management was simply the volume of waste they handled. These types of businesses obtain the immediate feedback of how much waste is being generated and are, therefore, motivated to engage because of these first-hand waste experiences.

The most common external motivator highlighted by industry participants to address environmental impacts was customer pressure (P9; P10; P11; R10). Participants discussed their incentive to improve sustainability in response to customer queries about their sustainable practices. One organization that was interviewed relies on volunteers to repurpose donated clothing that cannot be sold in its current condition. Although textile waste was prevented in the process of repurposing, the purpose of the organization was to advocate for and upskill these volunteers. As the participant explains, “we’re advocating for people learning to sew so that they understand what it takes. And then they think twice about buying fast fashion. It skills them up” (P8). Relatedly, another company represented in the survey was driven by advocacy and upskilling people by providing employment to women who are vulnerable or living in poverty, in addition to wanting to improve the environmental health of the planet. These two participants demonstrate that social and environmental motivations may be intertwined in driving sustainability initiatives.

Participants shared how sustainability initiatives can function as a “good story” for the company or organization (P1; P4; P11; P12). In other words, companies could use their environmental initiatives as a marketing story to attract customers while simultaneously improving or demonstrating their sustainability. Knowing that a “good story” will come out of a project was seen as an encouraging factor for engaging in a sustainability project. One participant who manufactures textile products explained how their own customers may be motivated to invest in garments made from more sustainable fibres (e.g., recycled fibres or alternative biodegradable fibres) if they knew that the story, and resultant business, would be worth the initial financial investment. While not as widely shared, other drivers for product stewardship included demonstrating brand leadership (P2; P3; P7), to be held accountable to sustainability standards (R2; R6), and for company or organizational credibility (R5).

Participants noted that, in an ideal world, stakeholders should be motivated to act if their activities or products knowingly contributed to environmental damage. If a PS scheme is voluntary, however, then there must be other reasons for stakeholders to join aside from environmental or social concern. Engaging stakeholders who are not motivated by environmentalism means demonstrating the benefits of product stewardship membership that will appeal to their priorities or interests. For those motivated by external customer pressure, engaging in environmental practices could appease growing consumer demand for sustainable products and improve brand image [49]. Olesen [50] describes cause-related marketing, where collaborative campaigns are created between for-profit and non-profit organizations to address a mutual cause, as a growing strategy to enhance brand image. Collaborations between industry stakeholders and non-profits (e.g., charities or second-hand organizations who accept textile donations) through the vehicle of a PS scheme could appeal to those participants and alike stakeholders who are motivated to engage in sustainability initiatives by the opportunity of a “good story”. This supports findings from Kant Hvass [51] who found that participants in her study used storytelling to improve customer engagement and bring them back to the store.

The maturity of a brand or company might nudge them in the direction of investment in a PS scheme. Two companies represented in the interviews have been in business for over 100 years, while a third has been operational for 88 years. Lahti et al. [52] argue that established brands may struggle to transition toward circularity because of difficulty in forecasting their future without any previous experience or data to draw upon. However, the results of the study show that perhaps established companies have already been through the process of understanding that the “low hanging fruit” options are insufficient for achieving circularity. Future schemes should begin engagement with those who are willing to invest in a system development (i.e., those motivated internally by environmental concern). These stakeholders could be identified by their involvement in other circular or environmental initiatives.

The current textile system does not capture the true costs of products (e.g., the natural resources and labour that have gone into it) [53], so unless measures are put into place that would cause environmental impacts to be reflected in the price of a product, or unless brands experience increased resource scarcity or mandated EPR legislation, then laggards may not become engaged until they are forced to do so. However, uncertainties and logistical challenges highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic means that “companies must introduce new tools and strategies across the value chain to future-proof their business models” [54] (p. 9). Product stewardship as a tool to build circular systems and resiliency in value chains could be another potential selling point as businesses look to secure their future in the industry.

4.1.2. Strategies for Sustainability Improvement

As PS accounts for more than just the disposal stage [25], it was relevant to understand sustainability efforts throughout the value chain and efforts made to minimize environmental impacts throughout the product life cycle. Encouragingly, all participants were engaged in sustainability initiatives in some form or another, although this engagement could be explained by the study sample being already interested in sustainability initiatives. Participant strategies aligned with those suggested by Ki et al. [21] to slow, narrow, and close resource loops as well as those outlined in Lewis’ [25] product stewardship framework categorized as policy, design, procurement, and recovery strategies.

For some participants, sustainability efforts were formalized through a company or organizational sustainability policy. Four out of five companies represented in the interviews and seven survey participants reported that their company has a sustainability policy. Policies from survey respondents covered a range of initiatives to enhance their companies’ social and environmental sustainability including fair or ethical labour practices, consumer education or awareness building, and chemical usage. Decisions about sustainability or waste reduction policies or practices were mostly made by those in high level positions such as owners, managers, or directors, while some companies reported having a sustainability team or working group for these initiatives. Of those companies/organizations represented in the survey with a sustainability policy, most used the company website or social media platforms to communicate these policies to the public. Interview participants also communicated through their websites or through sustainability or Corporate Social Responsibility reports. Despite not all companies having an official environmental or sustainability policy, 11 of the 13 survey respondents had pages on their website dedicated to sustainability, traceability, or transparency. These websites also listed various certifications or standards that respondents’ companies or products adhered to including Fairtrade, Responsible Down Standard, bluesign^®, the Higg MSI, Global Organic Textile Standard, Oeko-Tex, ZQ wool certification, and 1% for the Planet where 1% of company sales is donated to environmental non-profit organizations. Furthermore, two companies who responded to the survey are members of Mindful Fashion NZ, which outlines a code of conduct for members to follow on issues related to labour standards, transparency and traceability, and environmental protection.

When it comes to monitoring environmental impacts, one interviewee discussed measuring their waste-diversion practices holistically, while others did not currently monitor their textile waste generation. Survey participants monitored a variety of environmental impacts, with production/purchasing, waste volumes, and packaging materials at the top of the list. One interviewee described how his company had investigated carbon zero certification yet decided against it because it would only certify their onshore supply chain, while most of their manufacturing, and thus carbon emissions, occur offshore.

Niinimäki [55] argues that the use of standardized eco-labels is more reliable than a company’s own environmental claims. However, the choice of the participant to forego carbon certification due to it only covering the carbon emissions of local manufacturing alludes to the challenges of sustainability claims within the global nature of the textile industry. This finding suggests that additional studies to compare eco-labels and various environmental metrics would be helpful for stakeholders trying to decide the certifications and measurements best suited to their production processes and products. The environmental standards or certifications that participants adhered to were focused on upstream value chain activities, supporting earlier research that there is a lack of certification for downstream activities such as waste collection and recycling [19,56]. While a PS certification could be developed for downstream value chain activities, there would be complexities with determining the criteria and enforcing this type of certification. A company in Morana and Seuring’s [57] study affixed a label to all products made of 100% polyester so that these items could be returned at the end-of-use; however, a lack of communication between retailers and consumers about the ability to return these products hindered the scheme’s success. Therefore, labels for textiles within a PS scheme could be an alternative to certification but still provide a way to differentiate these products from those not included in a voluntary scheme. A label could indicate the return options to end-users, but effective communication strategies are required to make end-users aware of the scheme.

Many participants demonstrated life cycle thinking by considering the environmental impacts of their products from design to the disposal stage. Participants thought about the sustainability of the garments at the beginning of their life so that there are better options for the products at the disposal or end-of-life stage (P9; P10; P11; R7; R10; R11). This included creating durable products meant to last, “core styles” that could transcend seasons or trends, or making products intended to be recyclable. Not only does this thinking relate to the textile product itself, but the associated wastes that come along with it. For example, one participant stated:

We are now on that journey of thinking—the whole life cycle. And where it can end up and that’s right through from not only the garment but then to all the packaging and the ticketing and everything surrounding that product.

(P9)

Life cycle thinking has been found to contribute to the success of product stewardship schemes for other industries or products [25], indicating that this perspective is critical for developing circular systems. Life cycle thinking provides greater coherence between different stages in the value chain or circular system by considering the product in relation to use and end-of-use activities, and how the product might be put back into manufacturing processes.

In addition to life cycle thinking, companies responsible for their own design and manufacturing incorporated sustainable fibres such as recycled polyester or organic cotton into their product lines (P10; P11; R2; R7; R12). Participants also discussed moving away from synthetic fibres, where possible, and replacing these with natural fibres. Similarly, participants who purchased their garments from outside manufacturers discussed how they sourced more sustainable textiles in the first place to improve their environmental impacts (P9; P12). Some participants who manufacture had implemented techniques to minimize textile waste at the garment production stage (R9; R10; R13). These techniques included efficient fabric cutting or whole garment technology. One participant described how the company “use[s] practises to minimise waste like fabric cutting in the most economical way, even altering patterns to create less waste” (R9).

Procurement strategies were not as widely utilized by industry participants, although some interview participants noted that ethical sourcing and finding suppliers with practices in alignment with sustainability policies was important. These participants, who purchased or supplied corporate textiles, workwear, or uniforms, were beginning to have discussions with their suppliers about what can be accomplished with the textile products they have purchased at end-of-life and what these suppliers might plan to do in the future (P7; P9; P12). One participant stated how her company plans to budget for end-of-life options at the procurement stage, once a viable solution for waste textiles is in place. Another participant discussed how his company was planning for end-of-life options through procurement contacts. By starting these discussions and actively searching for ethical suppliers means that participants are planning for end-of-life at the procurement stage. These examples suggest that procurement is an opportune stage to engage upstream manufacturers and suppliers. If these upstream stakeholders get more inquiries from brands or retailers as their customers, the same logic could follow that they may be willing to adjust their production techniques to align with customer preferences for sustainable offerings. In having these conversations at the procurement stage, it might spread awareness of product stewardship schemes and help to share responsibility for minimizing product impacts with upstream stakeholders. Clearly, integrating circular practices within the “take” and “make” stages of the linear system through policy, design and procurement are also vital for an overall systems transition [58].

Participants reported several current recovery processes to divert textiles from landfill disposal. These included reuse options where textile products were donated to local or international charities, fashion schools, or sewing groups; given away to staff; sold as scraps; or sold at discounted rates. Through diversion efforts such as these, survey respondents stated that very few items were left over for landfilling. That little waste was reportedly sent to landfill could again be explained by the types of companies and organizations represented in the study and their place in the value chain (e.g., retailers who do not currently handle post-consumer textiles) but also how current responsibility for end-of-use or end-of-life textiles is typically held by the end-user. Instead, donation, giving away or repurposing were end-of-life options taken where possible. Only one interviewee had a rental model, while only one other was involved in the waste management of textiles. These two participants highlighted the vast amounts of waste they had to send to landfill as one of the major reasons they were searching for end-of-life solutions.

Two survey respondents offered repair services for their clothing, while eleven study participants discussed how they repurposed textile products. Repurposing efforts could refer to downcycling into rags, upcycling into one-of-a-kind or value-added products, or even reconstituting waste into hand-knitting yarn. Participants also highlighted their efforts to address other areas of waste including recycling non-textile materials when possible and eliminating or switching from plastic packaging to paper-based or compostable packaging (P10; P11; R5; R8; R9; R13). One company discussed how they were also eliminating plastic tags from their clothing products. An additional area of sustainability that some participants’ companies/organizations have addressed are reducing their transport emissions by electrification of transport fleets (P7; P12) or by allowing customers to pay to offset their carbon emissions when purchasing online (R9). Participant recovery strategies were still largely linear in that items could be reused directly or in some downcycled manner, but eventually destined to be landfilled. Despite these recovery strategies, the findings demonstrate a lack of focus on end-of-use by most participants.

In addition to survey participants’ current sustainability efforts, they were asked what areas they feel they could address or improve upon. Reducing or eliminating packaging followed by providing fair or ethical labour opportunities were the two top areas survey respondents felt they could address. Respondents discussed the possibility of offering take-back services for their garments to resell or repurpose (R1; R2; R3; R7; R10; R13) and stated that they could investigate existing reuse and recycling options within New Zealand for waste textiles (R1; R3; R5; R7; R13).

Stakeholders’ existing practices can be formalized through PS membership. In this sense, PS schemes can take advantage of what can be carried out within the current system to implement more efficient changes. The transition to CE will not be immediate, so existing infrastructure and capabilities can be considered to achieve “quick wins” [39] (p. 7) and [59]. Since the process of developing an industry-led PS scheme at a regional level is so novel, those implementing schemes should consider how to best capitalize on the resources that are already developed such as available environmental metrics, technologies, and stakeholders’ existing knowledge and services (e.g., repair or rental services). Taken together, these findings reveal a contradictory scenario where PS schemes operating within the linear economy can only become so circular, yet PS is needed to move towards system circularity. Therefore, innovative steps need to be taken to further the transition to circularity.

4.2. Factors Preventing System Circularity

Barriers for Product Stewardship

Unsurprisingly, costs or financial concerns were seen as a barrier for product stewardship participation and sustainability efforts in general (P8; P9; P10; P11; R1; R2; R3; R4; R5; R9; R13). This included the costs of transitioning to the use of sustainable fibres, pressure of an ongoing financial commitment if one was to join a PS program, or costs for end-of-life solutions that had not been budgeted for in the procurement stage. When asked directly what barriers might prevent PS participation, one survey respondent answered: “Financial concerns are probably top of the list. Garment manufacturing is very tough, and profits are slim, so initiatives need to be cheap and easy to initiate in order to get take up in the industry” (R1). For one interview participant, trying to encourage their customers to purchase more sustainable fibres (e.g., organic cotton or Better Cotton Initiative certified fibres) was difficult because of the added cost for customers. Relatedly, the cost of sustainable fibres versus conventional fibres was seen as a barrier for companies to stock more sustainable fibre lines.

Even prior to COVID-19, businesses have had to balance financial profitability with sustainability efforts, where sustainability can often be considered an “add-on” but not the focus of business. Several researchers have reported that costs are a barrier to engaging in circular fashion practices [19,21,24,42,49,60]. However, with anticipated increases to New Zealand’s waste disposal levy, the costs of PS participation may seem more accessible to stakeholders. For other EPR models, the costs of end-of-life processes can be passed along to the customer in the cost of the product [61], so PS schemes will have to consider the various funding models that will be accepted by stakeholders. In communicating the benefits of PS or “selling the system” and engaging industry stakeholders, emphasizing eventual cost savings by avoiding landfilling fees could help. Furthermore, new business models that arise from “tapping into current waste streams” (e.g., rental/leasing models, resale models, recycling) can be a potential selling point for stakeholders concerned about costs [49] (p. 371).

Often discussed alongside financial concerns was labour or the necessary people to dedicate time and effort to program participation (P8; R10; R13). Sufficient staff time or “dedicating time and human resources to something that doesn’t have a direct financial gain” (R13) was seen as a challenge. Another barrier is the condition of textiles at the end-of-use or end-of-life phase which makes it difficult for any direct reuse option (P8; P9; P12). On the commercial textiles side, this would be uniforms or other corporate wear that has been worn for activity that may result in physical damage or sweat, while fast fashion garments may be in poor condition due to the initial lower quality of the garment. Participants discussed how this condition posed challenges in terms of what options there were for the garments besides using as rags or landfilling. For example, one participant dealing with corporate textiles stated,

[...] whereas the postal and delivery uniforms are synthetics and heavily used so very heavily worn, sweat stained, etc., because of the use they get. So, you know, you have the corporate uniform, theoretically is easy to find an end-of-life solution for it, whereas the delivery uniform is very much low-grade textile at the end of its life, so a lot harder to find the solution for. So, we kind of had to treat the two quite differently in terms of what we could potentially do with it and what we’d end up with.

(P12)

Clothing conditions also had implications for donated textiles in that instead of being able to sell these garments for another use, they had to be landfilled. This barrier relates to the issue of textile sorting as well since these “problem textiles” pose challenges for sorting processes.

Interviewees discussed how other areas of waste or sustainability were of higher priority within their business than textile waste (P7; P9; P12). This could be due to the volume of waste in relation to other waste streams, such as packaging, or because the nature of the business deals with other areas with higher impacts. For example,

Our main focus really is decarbonisation. So, you know, getting our carbon emissions down. And I think when we were looking at uniforms, we were in a place where we were doing lots of tiny little projects everywhere, whereas over the last few years, we’ve worked really hard to spring everything in and just make some big differences in one or two environmental areas. And carbon is our number one thing to reduce.

(P12)

Textiles as a lower priority form of waste means that action to address textile waste could be delayed or put off by stakeholders.

An external barrier faced by many participants was a lack of governmental support for sustainability initiatives. All survey respondents stated that they received no direct support from the government. Aside from the government’s Waste Minimisation Fund for reuse, recovery, or recycling initiatives, participants received little support in the form of funding or through textile regulations. One participant noted that despite the government’s goals to reduce emissions or other environmental impacts associated with climate change, there are no practical levers put into place to achieve these goals. Lack of infrastructure in the form of local manufacturing, textile waste aggregation centres, or infrastructure to reprocess waste textiles was also highlighted as a barrier to product stewardship (P7; P6; R7; R11). As manufacturing has generally moved offshore, this has meant that using waste textiles as raw material for textile reprocessing is not currently a viable option within New Zealand. Furthermore, as New Zealand manufacturing is primarily limited to wool, physical infrastructure to deal with synthetic fibres is lacking.

Brand or company/organizational size was seen as a challenge as participants discussed how larger brands can more easily make sustainability changes within their business due to broader reach (i.e., larger supply chain and logistics networks) and scale (need or ability to place larger orders) (P3; P6; R2). Furthermore, P3 discussed how larger brands have a big enough scale to make more impactful changes and can use their size as leverage to make significant changes within the supply chain. In addition, brand size also had implications for which factories they could work with: “It is also challenging to find factories with certifications when our units are low because only bigger factories can afford them” (R14).

A barrier for sustainability action shared by one survey participant was that they were unsure which sustainability initiatives to focus on because of the number of options available. In their words, “it can be challenging to know what is the best next step in sustainability (i.e., is it better to have organic cotton or WRAP certified factories?)” (R2). As there are many options for guidelines and certifications, it can be challenging to know which one will have greatest impact and is the best fit for the company. Another survey participant stated that “the current business structure and ways of working” (R13) was itself a challenge for sustainability. One interviewee also highlighted how the neoliberal consumption model that the fashion industry operates in has added significant complexity to the issue; the size of the industry, its fragmented supply chains, and the scale of its environmental impacts were all seen as a great challenge in integrating product stewardship within the industry. Lastly, a survey participant, while in the minority, mentioned that they had not yet faced any barriers to address the environmental impacts of their products; rather, they argued that it was a matter of making an effort.

The barriers identified highlight the complexities that companies and organizations are faced with when making decisions related to sustainability. Waste priorities at both the national and business level was identified as a barrier as other waste streams tended to be put ahead of textiles due to greater volumes or perceived impacts. However, the findings imply a disconnect between government and waste management practices and their goals to address climate change. There is evidence to support the claims that the clothing and textile industry is a major contributor of carbon emissions and consequently to climate change [8,62], yet few levers are in place to mitigate these impacts. This could relate to that fact that most textile manufacturing and thus carbon emissions take place offshore; however, climate change impacts are also associated with the use and disposal stage of textiles. Communicating the impacts of these stages with government and stakeholders and drawing connections between textile waste as essentially organic and plastic waste (which are both often addressed first) could help to prioritize textile products in waste streams. Survey respondents felt that they had little to no influence over government policies or decisions related to PS. However, collective recommendations on behalf of stakeholders could be more influential than individual companies approaching government on their own.

The above findings demonstrate that product stewardship can only go so far within the current linear economy, further highlighting “the difficulties of retro-fitting existing business models to become more sustainable” [58] (p. 6). Unless stakeholder barriers are addressed, circular systems cannot be achieved.

4.3. Closing the Loop

Product Stewardship Enablers

Current challenges or barriers faced by stakeholders could be leveraged into opportunities for closing the loop on product stewardship systems. These enablers were consistent with those identified in the literature by Ki et al. [21]. While the interview and survey participants identified numerous barriers for product stewardship, they also highlighted several factors that would better enable them to address their environmental impacts. Interview participants demonstrated having a systems perspective in that they had moved away from “low hanging fruit” solutions (i.e., easily implemented solutions such as using recycled fibres) towards an understanding that a change in system is necessary (P1; P2; P3; P7; P12). Participants talked about the need for long-term sustainability that is a result of creating a circular system with “linked-up thinking” and looking at the value chain holistically, rather than one-off or instant solutions (P3). Having a systems perspective was, therefore, seen as a valuable way of thinking to advance circular initiatives.

Raising consumer awareness of the sustainability issues surrounding the industry was identified as one way to challenge the status quo and promote or advance PS and circularity (P1; P2; P3; P4; P6). If consumers are educated on the impacts of their clothing purchases and behaviours, then they can start putting the pressure on companies, as well as government, to act. Interview participants noted they have seen an increasing awareness from consumers, especially young consumers who have just completed university, and that additional consumer education would help increase customer pressure. Previous studies have identified limited consumer awareness regarding clothing environmental impacts as a challenge for sustainability [51,63]. Although it was not discussed as a challenge in this study, consumer awareness was acknowledged as an important area to address as not only do business models and systems need to change to be more circular, but consumer mindsets as well. Consumer education and engagement have been suggested to equip the public with knowledge of textile sustainability to nudge the industry in the direction of change and provide consumers with information to improve their purchasing, use, or disposal practices [51,64]. This research supports previous calls for consumer education, adding that information about product stewardship and consumer roles within it should be included in educational material. Retailers can act as an important point of communication between brands and customers [57]; therefore, the benefits and opportunities offered by product stewardship should be communicated to all stakeholders within the value chain. Brands or PS members can draw upon open-source educational materials provided by NGOs such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, WRAP UK, or Fashion Revolution.

Relatedly, the end-user or consumer will need to be considered in the development of PS schemes as they play an important role in the return of products and ultimately decide the disposal route. Transaction costs such as time, required knowledge or information, planning, and transportation must not be too high for the end-user for them to participate in reverse logistics services [57,65]. As different disposal methods for used clothing exist, the transaction costs for these different methods will vary [57]. For instance, throwing a garment away in the trash has a low transaction cost aside from potential psychological costs of knowing that it is not an environmentally friendly disposal option. Closed-loop supply chain processes need to compete with alternative disposal routes with lower transaction costs [57]. Therefore, convenient means of product returns must be established (e.g., incorporated into existing disposal routes such as donation), or the end-user must be incentivized in other ways (e.g., knowledge of environmental savings; store vouchers; regulations) to account for potential higher transaction costs of take-back schemes or other reuse/resale activities. These considerations are important for consumer participation in PS schemes.

Interview participants also highlighted the importance of monitoring textile flows, specifically textile waste, for understanding the scale of the problem (P1; P2; P3; P6). Despite the lack of textile waste monitoring at the national level, collecting waste-diversion information is important to measure the effectiveness of sustainability efforts. While global statistics are helpful to have an integrated picture of C&T environmental impacts, regional statistics are critical for addressing these impacts in a practical manner and developing a scheme that can deal with a specific scale of waste. At the same time, emissions, resource use, and other environmental impacts need to be associated with products to gain a greater understanding of diversion efforts. To support these monitoring efforts, individual companies and organizations could purposefully track their own textile flows and resource use to fill knowledge gaps. Ongoing monitoring by stakeholders is important to have up-to-date information on textile flows going forward and could also be helpful in supplementing textile waste-diversion data.

Collaboration amongst stakeholders and having shared values with collaborators was highlighted as an important factor for successful sustainability efforts (P1; P2; P3; P6; P8). Due to the size of the C&T industry in New Zealand as well as the size of individual brands or retailers, collaboration was seen as critical for sustainability. Bringing multiple organizations together means that there is enough scale in the form of financial and human resources as well as volumes of waste to begin to implement circular solutions. The study has also highlighted the importance of collaboration for PS development. Comparable to the participants in Franco’s study [24], survey respondents identified brand size as a barrier to sustainability in that they had a lack of industry reach or scale. Searching for similarly sized manufacturers or suppliers with shared values of sustainability and subsequent relationship building could be a way to address this barrier [24]. Lahti et al. [52] suggest small- and medium-sized businesses create steering committees to overcome barriers associated with transitioning to a circular economy, such as contractual obligations and difficulty in forecasting how to design lucrative business models. An advantage of these cross-collaborations or using third-party providers is that companies can rely on others’ expertise regarding a specific process or product (e.g., reverse logistics; technology) rather than having to become experts in these areas themselves [51,52]. Collaborations may prove difficult due to the competitive nature of the industry but, for small companies, it may be one of the few ways for them to compete with large fast fashion players in the global system. Furthermore, the global COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of collaboration even between competitors [54]. Industry stakeholders will “need to share data, strategies and insights on how to navigate the storm” [54] (p. 8), and PS schemes provide such an opportunity.

Participants also noted how increased government support would help their initiatives. All survey participants stated that they had no direct support from government, yet study participants acknowledged how policy (e.g., mandatory regulations for textiles) or financial support through investment in infrastructure would help to accelerate industry sustainability as well as individualized efforts (P3; P10). Some participants (R2; R3; R7; R13) stated that they received support in the form of sustainability guidance from organizations such as the Sustainable Business Network, a membership-based social enterprise enabling circularity through collaboration, Mindful Fashion NZ, or WasteMinz, another membership-based organization focused on management related to waste reduction, resource recovery, and land contamination. Additionally, sustainability frameworks and guidance were provided through certifications such as the B Corp Assessment Tool, Fairtrade International and Global Organic Textile Standard. Regulatory measures have been proven to help textile diversion efforts in regions such as France and Markham, Ontario [28,66]. The mandatory PS principles outlined by the Product Stewardship Institute [27] place many areas of responsibility on the government, including enforcing the system rules, making a level playing field for all producers, and educating the public. In the absence of government regulation, areas of responsibility (e.g., enforcement and level playing field) would fall to other stakeholders who must voluntarily take on these roles. The role of government in mandatory schemes is important for enforcing PS but perhaps its other role has been to bring stakeholders together when mandatory PS is legislated. Aside from policy, government can still play a role by building public awareness and encouraging stakeholders to participate in PS initiatives. Furthermore, governments can invest in infrastructure that makes local or onshore textile collection, sorting, and reprocessing more feasible.

Returning to the principles of the circular economy where waste and pollution are designed out, products and materials are kept in use, and natural systems are regenerated [8,17], the linear economy is just beginning a circular transition in New Zealand. Taking innovative steps by capitalizing on stakeholder drivers and sustainability strategies, working to overcome stakeholder barriers, and addressing the above enabling factors can facilitate circularity within the system. These factors, summarized in

Table 2. Summary of drivers, strategies, barriers, and enablers for product stewardship as identified by the research participants.

Drivers	Strategies	Barriers	Enablers
Doing the “right thing” Sustainable inherent in the “company’s DNA” First-hand waste experiences Sustainability guidance Customer pressure Waste disposal levy Advocacy Opportunity for a “good story” Demonstrate brand leadership Accountability/credibility	Policy: Company sustainability policy Customer communication Design: Life cycle thinking Sustainable fibres Minimizing waste Procurement: Sustainable sourcing Recovery: Reuse options Repair Repurposing Addressing related wastes	Financial concerns Required labour Clothing physical condition Other business priorities Lack of government support Lack of infrastructure Current linear system Brand size Numerous sustainability options (i.e., multiple certifications)	Systems perspectives Government support Infrastructure NGO support Consumer awareness Environmental monitoring Firm collaboration Scale Shared value

, would help to overcome some of the barriers or challenges highlighted by the research participants and equip them with the necessary tools to reduce their environmental impacts and work towards circularity.

5. Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations

Product stewardship has been discussed as one possibility for stakeholders to take responsibility for their textiles and minimize or eliminate waste throughout the product life cycle. Literature on the topic has offered examples of brand level product stewardship and mandated extended producer responsibility but has not examined how to initiate textile PS systems at a regional level without government regulation. This study has aimed to address this gap by exploring the drivers, strategies, barriers, and enablers of product stewardship from the perspectives of industry stakeholders. The research findings suggest that several factors must be considered and addressed to move towards greater circularity within the C&T industry. The findings also emphasize the importance of context when it comes to product stewardship development. Just as brand level PS initiatives depend on the scale and capacities of an individual brand, regional level PS also depends on the region’s ability to collect, sort, and reprocess end-of-use or end-of-life textiles effectively and efficiently. An understanding of relevant stakeholder drivers, strategies, and barriers is also necessary to determine what is contributing to, and what is needed for, a change in systems. In other words, it highlights the factors enabling or preventing stakeholders’ sustainability efforts within the current linear system and what additional factors are needed for circularity. The study supplements research specific to clothing and textile product stewardship beyond the brand level which, so far, has been an underexplored area and provides a means for comparison for future studies.

A single-case study methodology was chosen for the research to explore an approach to PS at the regional level. With this choice comes the acknowledgement of the limitations and vulnerabilities of single-case studies in terms of generalizability [36,60]. The study did not account for all relevant stakeholders who might influence or be affected by product stewardship (i.e., government, consumers, and waste management). The perspectives of these external stakeholders on PS for clothing and textiles are needed as these actors play critical roles in the success of product stewardship. It would also be worthwhile to examine the perspectives of industry stakeholders who are not internally driven by environmental concern (i.e., laggards) to understand how to effectively engage them in product stewardship.

Further examination of product stewardship models in other contexts is needed, including those that are similar and dissimilar to New Zealand in terms of policy, manufacturing capabilities, and size, amongst other factors. For instance, a Canadian PS model would need to account for federal, provincial, and municipal government policies as well as a large geographic spread which would have implications for transportation and emissions if an implemented system was nation-wide. Therefore, additional models and examples of PS at a regional level are needed to determine best practices. With the European Commission’s announcement that by 2025, European Union member states must separately collect textile waste and divert it from landfill and incineration [67], there will be ample opportunities to study emerging models for textile end-of-life processes.

Finally, as sustainability includes social and economic pillars in addition to the environment, research considering the social and economic impacts of product stewardship and circular initiatives on garment workers and business profitability are also avenues worthy of further study.