From Trends to Waste Cycles: Why the Law Must Slow Fast Fashion
By Charmaine Goh and Shernace Seet, mentored by Quak Fi Ling
Introduction
Fashion no longer moves in seasons. It moves in micro-trends that sweep through TikTok and Instagram and vanish just as quickly. Within days of a look going viral, ultra-fast fashion platforms like Shein and Temu flood the market with cheap replicas. Within months, once the trend dies, those same garments end up in landfills or are shipped off overseas as tightly packed bales of textile waste.[1]
This vicious cycle, from runway to viral video to landfill, has become so normalised that we often mistake it for economic efficiency. It isn’t. The modern fashion industry is a staggering regulatory failure hiding in plain sight.[2]
When we talk about the crisis of fast fashion, the standard critique usually points the finger at individual consumers. We blame impulsive shoppers, the culture of clothing hauls, and a generation supposedly addicted to throwaway habits. But this framing is dangerously incomplete. It places the entire moral responsibility on the buyer while completely letting the architecture of the business model off the hook.[3]
Fast fashion is not just a consumer problem. At its core, it is a system built on externalised costs.[4] Clothing is sold at rock-bottom prices not because it is genuinely cheap to produce, but because the true costs such as environmental degradation, toxic chemical runoff, carbon emissions, and exploitative labour, are systematically displaced onto workers, municipal waste systems, and the planet.[5] We are currently generating an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste globally every single year, a figure that is projected to hit 134 million tonnes by 2030.[6] These are not the accidental side effects of a niche industry. They are the highly calculated structural outputs of a supply chain designed to be fast, cheap, and entirely opaque.[7]
The Price Illusion: Why a $9.90 Dress is Never Just $9.90
To understand the legal and economic failure at play here, we have to ask a question: How can a dress cost just $9.90?[8]
In environmental economics, there is a concept called a negative externality. This happens when the producer of a good does not bear the cost of the harm their production causes to third parties. Because the producer is not paying for the damage, the market price of the good ends up artificially low, completely understating its true social cost.[9]
In the fast fashion ecosystem, these externalised costs are everywhere.[10] The contaminated groundwater near textile dyeing factories in Bangladesh, the microplastic pollution clogging up our oceans, and the massive carbon emissions from air-freighting packages. None of these costs are factored into the $9.90 price tag.[11] They are borne by society at large.[12] The same applies to the people making the clothes. Garment workers in major producing nations are routinely subjected to wage suppression and unsafe conditions.[13] The low price of the garment is not a miracle of modern logistics, but a direct result of wage theft and environmental neglect.[14]
This brings us to a difficult tension. If we actually introduce laws that force brands to act responsibly, the cost of production will go up,[15] and these costs will inevitably be passed down to the consumer. In a cost-conscious economy, especially during times of high inflation, doesn’t raising the price of clothing hurt lower-income consumers the most?
This is a very real social consequence, and fast fashion brands frequently weaponise it, claiming they are democratising fashion by making it accessible to everyone.[16] But we have to look at what is actually being democratised: access to low-quality, short-lived garments produced from synthetic materials.[17] Allowing companies to artificially suppress prices through environmental destruction and human exploitation is not a sustainable or ethical social welfare policy.
This doesn’t mean that fashion companies are solely responsible. Even if the law finally corrects price signals and reins in overproduction, it is still consumers who decide how many garments to buy, how long to keep them, and whether they treat clothes as disposable or durable goods. In practice, the fastest way to slow fast fashion is a mix of regulation and everyday habits. Buying fewer but better items, repairing and reusing clothing, and refusing to treat trend cycles as a measure of personal worth. Educating ourselves about supply chains and waste systems is part of an intergenerational duty, caring for the planet not only as present consumers but as stewards for the next generation.
A higher price that reflects the actual cost of making a garment isn’t a social failure; rather it is the market finally telling the truth.[18] Yes, if clothing takes up a larger share of our income, we will have to buy less of it. But if the goal is to protect vulnerable consumers, the solution is not to allow unregulated ultra-fast fashion to destroy the planet.[19] Instead, policy should focus on making alternative models such as an affordable secondhand market, so that people priced out of new clothes still have access to durable, well-made garments.[20]
Greenwashing and the Ultra-Fast Fashion Giants
For years, the industry’s answer to these criticisms has been self-regulation. Brands release glossy sustainability reports, make voluntary pledges to reduce emissions, and launch conscious collections made from slightly less harmful materials.[21]
Now, we have enough data to know that this approach is failing entirely. Without enforceable laws, the industry naturally defaults to greenwashing, marketing themselves as eco-friendly while their core business models remain deeply destructive.[22]
Take Shein, for example. The company has repeatedly made public commitments to sustainability, promising to clean up its supply chain.[23] Yet, looking at the data, the narrative falls apart. According to Shein’s 2024 sustainability report, the company’s carbon emissions from transporting products actually increased by 13.7% in a single year.[24]
The answer lies in the business model. Unlike traditional retailers who ship goods in bulk via ocean freight, Shein and Temu rely heavily on a direct-to-consumer model.[25] They ship millions of individual, plastic-wrapped packages directly from factories in China to doorsteps in the US, Europe, and Singapore,[26] often by air, which is a far more carbon-intensive option than ocean shipping.[27] So, while Shein might promote a recycling initiative on its Instagram page, its actual logistical infrastructure is accelerating climate change.[28]
This proves exactly why voluntary pledges are structurally inadequate. When a brand’s fundamental profit engine relies on extreme overproduction and high-carbon logistics, a voluntary sustainability pledge is just a public relations exercise.[29] Only the law can force a change in corporate behaviour.[30]
The Rise of Capsule Wardrobe and Rentals
If the law steps in and makes overproduction expensive, the market will be forced to innovate.[31] We no longer have to rely on traditional retail alone. Alternative consumption models are already emerging globally that challenge the idea of clothing ownership altogether.[32]
One of the most interesting developments is the clothing rental model.[33] Platforms are increasingly offering subscription services where users rent a capsule wardrobe for a month, wear the items, and return them in exchange for a new set.[34] This completely decouples consumption from ownership.[35]
From a sustainability standpoint, this flips the corporate incentive structure upside down.[36] For a fast fashion brand selling a $10 shirt, the goal is planned obsolescence: the shirt is deliberately made to wear out quickly so you buy another one.[37] But for a rental company, their profit depends on that exact same garment surviving dozens of washes and wears across multiple customers.[38] Suddenly, it is in the business’s financial interest to ensure the garment is highly durable, easily repairable, and made of quality materials.[39]
It remains an open question how well the rental model works in a hot, humid place like Singapore, where sweat and hygiene expectations mean a lot of washing. Even so, it represents exactly the kind of structural experimentation we need.[40] It shows that if we penalise disposability, businesses will find creative ways to provide value without relying on endless volumes of new clothes.[41]
How the Law is Catching Up in the European Union
If we accept that voluntary measures have failed, what does actual regulation look like? Today, the European Union is serving as a testing ground for advanced supply chain legislation, providing a clear blueprint for how the law can intervene.[42]
Supply Chain Due Diligence
Historically, if a factory in a developing nation dumped toxic dye into a river to make jeans for a European brand, the brand faced zero legal liability.[43] That is changing.[44] The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CSDDD”), formally adopted in 2024, now obliges large companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate environmental and human rights harms throughout their entire value chain, rather than treating overseas suppliers as someone else’s problem.[45]
Although corporate lobbying significantly narrowed the final bill, so that it applies only to large companies with over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover,[46] the directive still marks a real shift: ignorance of your supply chain is no longer a valid defence.[47] Importantly, this affects non-EU brands selling into Europe too, giving the law an extraterritorial bite.[48]
Digital Product Passports (“DPPs”)
Perhaps even more revolutionary is the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).[49] Under this law, every garment sold in the EU will progressively be required to carry a DPP.[50]
Imagine looking at a jacket in a store, scanning a QR code on the tag, and immediately seeing verified data on exactly where the raw cotton was grown, which chemicals were used in the dye, what percentage of the fabric is recycled, and how to recycle it at the end of its life.[51] That is what the DPP mandates. In practical terms, it forces brands to map their supply chains down to the raw-material level.[52] If a brand cannot prove where its materials come from, it can be barred from the European single market.[53] Transparency is no longer a marketing slogan, it is becoming a condition for market access.[54]
France’s Anti-Fast Fashion Law
France became the first European state to enact a dedicated anti-fast fashion law in July 2026 (Law No. 2026-602), targeting what it calls “ultra express fashion”.[55] Producers of new textile products such as clothing, footwear and household linen fall into scope where their practices shorten garment lifespans by flooding the market with large numbers of new references and setting prices so low that repair becomes irrational, secondhand goods and redistributed unsold stock are expressly excluded.[56]
The law uses four main levers. First, it imposes a progressive per-item environmental penalty on ultra-fast fashion products, ranging from €0.25 to €12 per item in 2026 and rising to a ceiling of €20 by 2030, capped at 50% of the product’s pre-tax price, with proceeds earmarked for textile collection, sorting, reuse, and recycling in France.[57]Second, from 1 January 2027, all advertising for ultra-fast fashion brands is banned, including the use of free in promotions, and influencers are prohibited from promoting such brands, with fines of up to €100,000 per breach.[58]Third, online platforms must display prominent messages next to prices that encourage moderation, repair, reuse, and recycling, disclose environmental and social impacts, and indicate the country of manufacture.[59]
On paper, the law is clearly aimed at ultra-fast online platforms such as Shein and Temu.[60] While in practice, repeated revisions have narrowed its scope and spared many European fast-fashion players from the harshest penalties.[61] Critics question whether the eco-tax levels are high enough to change business models, and whether brands will simply pass costs on to consumers, especially without complementary social policies.[62] Yet France’s move still matters. It is the first time a European jurisdiction has said, in statute, that ultra-fast fashion is structurally incompatible with climate goals and therefore warrants targeted financial and advertising constraints.[63]
Bringing it Home: Singapore’s 3% Problem
For Singapore, the French experiment suggests a pragmatic path. Rather than copying tobacco-style advertising bans immediately, given the uncertainty around them, we could start by adopting the underlying economic logic — levies calibrated to environmental impact, channelled into local textile collection and recycling infrastructure, building on the Resource Sustainability Act 2019 (“RSA”) and the new Beverage Container Return Scheme (“BCRS”). Over time, regulators could then consider together rules on the misleading “eco” claims and influencer promotion of ultra-fast fashion, using consumer-protection and media-regulation tools that Singaporean readers already understand.
It is incredibly easy for us in Singapore to view fast fashion as a distant, global issue. We imagine it as something that happens in sweatshops in South Asia and landfills in the West. However, the statistics paint a very different, deeply local picture.[64]
According to 2024 data, Singapore discarded a massive 206,000 tonnes of clothing and textiles.[65] Out of that mountain of waste, only 3%, about 7,000 tonnes, was recycled.[66] To put that into perspective, Singapore’s overall recycling rate across all waste streams is around 52%.[67] Textiles are lagging so far behind that it is actively dragging down our national sustainability targets.[68]
As we are a high-income, high-consumption society with limited physical space, fast fashion’s downstream waste burden hits us hard. The cheap clothes we buy online eventually end up in our bins, and ultimately, in the Semakau Landfill, which the government projects will run out of space by 2035.[69]
Local community efforts are trying to stem the tide. If you live in an HDB estate, you’ve probably seen the yellow textile recycling bins operated by Cloop, a local circular fashion enterprise. Cloop operates hundreds of these bins islandwide, diverting hundreds of thousands of kilograms of textiles from the incinerator. They also host clothes swaps and promote secondhand shopping.[70]
While initiatives like Cloop are vital, we have to ask ourselves: how much of the broader problem can they realistically solve? Social enterprises and community recycling efforts are highly targeted and rely on the goodwill of people who wash, bag, and drop off their old clothes.[71] Statistically, they are only capturing a tiny fraction of the waste.[72] More troublingly, these donation channels often end up acting as a sponge, absorbing the consequences of corporate overproduction.[73] There is a real limit to how much cheap, unwearable fast fashion our local thrift stores and recycling bins can take before they become overwhelmed.[74] Downstream recycling simply cannot fix upstream overproduction.
The Resource Sustainability Act
If community action isn’t enough to solve a problem of this scale, what can be done at a larger, national level in Singapore?[75]
This is where the law must step in, specifically through Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) frameworks. Under an EPR scheme, the company that produces a product is legally and financially responsible for managing that product at the end of its life.[76] The RSA currently enforces EPR obligations for e-waste and is expanding to cover packaging.[77]
Bringing textiles under the RSA seems like the obvious next step, but regulating garments is far more complex than regulating plastics or electronics. To understand how EPR functions in practice, we can look at Singapore’s approach to plastic waste.
Singapore rolled out the BCRS on 1 April 2026. Under the BCRS, consumers pay a 10-cent deposit when they buy a bottled drink, and they get it back when they return the empty bottle to a machine. The model works because a plastic bottle is a single, uniform, and easily verified item.[78]
However, it is not possible to replicate this 10-cent deposit model onto a T-shirt. A garment is a logistical nightmare to recycle. A single jacket might be made of a blend of cotton and polyester, stitched together with nylon thread, dyed with complex chemical compounds and fitted with metal zippers and plastic buttons. By charging a deposit on a piece of clothing, how do we verify its return? How do we account for a shirt that is torn to shreds versus one in perfect condition? The complexity of the product makes a consumer deposit system nearly impossible to implement.[79]
Because of this product complexity, a consumer deposit system for garments is nearly impossible to implement.[80]Instead, textile EPR laws must put the burden squarely on the producers.[81] A suggestion for Singapore could be to mandate that all fashion retailers operating here, including e-commerce giants, pay a strict levy based on the total volume of garments they import and sell. Those funds could then be legally ring-fenced to build industrial-scale textile sorting and recycling infrastructure locally, rather than just exporting our waste overseas and calling it recycled.
Conclusion
We need to stop treating sustainable fashion as a niche, premium lifestyle choice only for those who can afford it. Instead, we must treat robust supply chain laws, producer responsibility, mandatory due diligence, and digital product passports as essential market-correcting tools.[82] These laws do not eliminate consumer choice, but ensure that the choices we make are finally honest.[83]
At the same time, no statute can truly force us to buy less, mend what we own, or stop chasing every viral micro-trend.[84] That is where consumer responsibility comes in. We owe it to the next generation to align our personal habits with the ecological reality that the law belatedly reflects, instead of using low prices as an excuse to look away.
The trend cycle is spinning faster than ever, and it will not slow itself down voluntarily.[85] That is exactly what the law is for, but it will work best if it is backed by people who are willing to change how they consume.[86]
This op‑ed itself was co‑written by authors from different disciplines, underscoring a simple truth: law cannot be written in isolation from commercial realities and value drivers. Any serious attempt to slow fast fashion must bring legal analysis and business practice into the same room.
References
[1] European Parliament, Fast Fashion: EU Laws for Sustainable Textile Consumption (Briefing, 12 September 2025). European Parliament, “Fast fashion: EU laws for sustainable textile consumption”, European Parliament, 12 September 2025 <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20201208STO93327/fast-fashion-eu-laws-for-sustainable-textile-consumption> (accessed 12 August 2026).
[2] Reed Smith, Always in Season: Luxury, Fashion, and the Law - France Adopts Fast Fashion Bill to Curb Textile Industry's Environmental Impacts (Client Briefing, 25 September 2025). Nicolas Walker, Natasha Tardif, Yasemin Cimen and Camille Martin Saint-Léon, “Always in Season: Luxury, Fashion, and the Law - France Adopts Fast Fashion Bill to Curb Textile Industry's Environmental Impacts”, Reed Smith, 25 September 2025 <https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102l69a/always-in-season-luxury-fashion-and-the-law-france-adopts-fast-fashion-bill/> (accessed 12 August 2026).
[3] European Commission, Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles (2026).
[4] ESG Today, EU Parliament Adopts Rules Targeting Fast Fashion by Making Producers Pay to Recycle Textiles (13 March 2024).
[5] Zero Waste Europe, Transposing Textiles EPR: The EU State of Play in 2025 (Policy Report, December 2025).
[6] "The Legal Battle Against Fast Fashion" Fashion Law Journal (2025). Khushboo Gehlot, “Wear it Today, Waste it Tomorrow: The Legal Battle Against Fast Fashion and Waste Production”, Fashion & Law Journal, 30 May 2025, <https://fashionlawjournal.com/he-legal-battle-against-fast-fashion/> (accessed 12 August 2026).
[7] European Parliament, Fast Fashion: EU Laws for Sustainable Textile Consumption (Briefing, 12 September 2025).
[8] Rachel Bick, Erika Halsey & Christine C. Ekenga, "The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion" (2018) 17 Environmental Health 92.
[9] Economics Observatory, Fast Fashion: What Are the True Costs? (25 March 2025).
[10] Ibid.
[12] Rachel Bick, Erika Halsey & Christine C. Ekenga, "The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion" (2018) 17 Environmental Health 92.
[13] World Resources Institute, By the Numbers: The Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of “Fast Fashion” (10 January 2019).
[14] Economics Observatory, Fast Fashion: What Are the True Costs? (25 March 2025).
[15] Economics Observatory, Fast Fashion: What Are the True Costs? (25 March 2025).
[16] Rachel Bick, Erika Halsey & Christine C. Ekenga, "The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion" (2018) 17 Environmental Health92.
[17] World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) & Ritch, Fast Fashion Disaster (2025).
[18] Economics Observatory, Fast Fashion: What Are the True Costs? (25 March 2025).
[19] Annarita Colasante et al., "How Consumer Shopping Habits Affect Willingness to Embrace Sustainable Fashion" (2023) Applied Economics Letters 1.
[20] World Resources Institute, By the Numbers: The Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of “Fast Fashion” (10 January 2019).
[21] European Parliament, Fast Fashion: EU Laws for Sustainable Textile Consumption (Briefing, 12 September 2025).
[22] Zero Waste Europe, Transposing Textiles EPR: The EU State of Play in 2025 (Policy Report, December 2025).
[23] DitchCarbon, Shein Emissions Breakdown & Climate Score (2025).
[24] Helen Reid, "Fast-Fashion Retailer Shein Reports Transport Emissions up 13.7% in 2024", Reuters (13 June 2025).
[25] Ibid.
[26] Apparel Resources, SHEIN's Transport-Related Emissions up 13.7%, Says Report (14 June 2025).
[27] Helen Reid, "Fast-Fashion Retailer Shein Reports Transport Emissions up 13.7% in 2024", Reuters (13 June 2025).
[28] Impakter, Shein's Carbon Emissions Skyrocket in 2024: What's Behind the Surge? (18 June 2025).
[29] European Commission, Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles.
[30] Reed Smith, Always in Season: Luxury, Fashion, and the Law — France Adopts Fast Fashion Bill to Curb Textile Industry's Environmental Impacts (Client Briefing, 25 September 2025).
[31] Coherent Market Insights, Global Circular Fashion Market Trends & Forecast, 2026–2033 (Market Research Report, April 2026).
[32] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Fashion and the Circular Economy (Deep Dive Report, 15 September 2019).
[33] Future Market Insights, Circular Fashion Rental Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment, 2036 (Industry Report, March 2026).
[34] Nelis Global, Slowing Fast-Fashion: Clothing Rentals as a Circular Economy Solution (14 October 2024).
[35] Bluesign, Circular Fashion: What It Means for Brands and Supply Chains (Industry Guide, 7 May 2025).
[36] Future Market Insights, Circular Fashion Rental Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment, 2036 (Industry Report, March 2026).
[37] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Fashion and the Circular Economy (Deep Dive Report, 15 September 2019).
[38] Bluesign, Circular Fashion: What It Means for Brands and Supply Chains (Industry Guide, 7 May 2025).
[39] Future Market Insights, Circular Fashion Rental Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment, 2036 (Industry Report, March 2026).
[40] Nelis Global, Slowing Fast-Fashion: Clothing Rentals as a Circular Economy Solution (14 October 2024).
[41] Coherent Market Insights, Global Circular Fashion Market Trends & Forecast, 2026–2033 (Market Research Report, April 2026).
[42] European Commission, Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (Policy Overview, 2026).
[43] European Parliament, Fast Fashion: EU Laws for Sustainable Textile Consumption (Briefing, 12 September 2025).
[44] International Partnerships (European Commission), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) (2026).
[45] Ibid.
[46] ESG Dive, EU Parliament Votes to Weaken Corporate Sustainability Laws (14 November 2025).
[47] Normative, CSDDD, Explained: The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (22 May 2026).
[48] International Partnerships (European Commission), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) (2026).
[49] Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament.
[50] Intertek, The Clock is Ticking: Get Ready for the EU's Ecodesign & Digital Product Passport (28 May 2025).
[51] Carbonfact, Digital Product Passport for Textiles: What Fashion Brands Need to Know (5 January 2026).
[52] Authentica, ESPR and Digital Product Passport: A Complete Guide for Fashion Brands (9 March 2025).
[53] Regulation (EU) 2024/1781.
[54] Carbonfact, Digital Product Passport for Textiles: What Fashion Brands Need to Know (5 January 2026).
[55] Law No. 2026-602 of 8 July 2026 aiming to reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion (France); Intertek, France Adopts Landmark Law Targeting Ultra-Fast Fashion (Client Insight Bulletin, 22 July 2026). <https://www.intertek.com/products-retail/insight-bulletins/2026/1548-france-adopts-landmark-law-targeting-ultra-fast-fashion/> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[56] Lexology, France Adopts Landmark Law Targeting Ultra-Fast Fashion (13 July 2026). <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c2fda3ea-416b-44ca-9d8f-63e65dfcf131> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[57] Bureau Veritas, Introduction of Ultra Fast Fashion Law in France (Regulatory Update, 30 July 2026). <https://www.cps.bureauveritas.com/newsroom/introduction-ultra-fast-fashion-law-france> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[58] Library of Congress, France: New Fast-Fashion Law Adopted to Limit Textile Waste (Global Legal Monitor, 14 July 2026). <https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2026-07-14/france-new-fast-fashion-law-adopted-to-limit-textile-waste/> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[59] Lexology, France Adopts Landmark Law Targeting Ultra-Fast Fashion (13 July 2026). <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c2fda3ea-416b-44ca-9d8f-63e65dfcf131> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[60] Bureau Veritas, Introduction of Ultra Fast Fashion Law in France (Regulatory Update, 30 July 2026).
[61] Intertek, France Adopts Landmark Law Targeting Ultra-Fast Fashion (Client Insight Bulletin, 22 July 2026).
[62] Library of Congress, France: New Fast-Fashion Law Adopted to Limit Textile Waste (Global Legal Monitor, 14 July 2026).
[63] Lexology, France Adopts Landmark Law Targeting Ultra-Fast Fashion (13 July 2026).
[64] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Sustainable Singapore Blueprint: Waste Statistics (NEA Annual Report, 2024).
[65] Cloop, Closing the Fashion Loop: Singapore Textile Statistics (Impact Report, 2025).
[66] Ibid.
[67] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Solid Waste and Resource Management Statistics (2024).
[68] Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (Singapore), Singapore Zero Waste Masterplan: Second-Term Progress Update (2025).
[69] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Sustainable Singapore Blueprint: Waste Statistics (NEA Annual Report, 2024).
[70] Cloop, Community Engagement and Textile Diversion Initiatives (2025).
[71] Qian Hui Tan & Brenda S. A. Yeoh, "The Temporal Dimensions of Textile Circularity Loops: A Community Initiative at Shortening Loops and Prolonging Textile Lives in Singapore" (2024) 205 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 107532.
[72] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Solid Waste and Resource Management Statistics (2024).
[73] Qian Hui Tan & Brenda S. A. Yeoh, "The Temporal Dimensions of Textile Circularity Loops: A Community Initiative at Shortening Loops and Prolonging Textile Lives in Singapore" (2024) 205 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 107532.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Resource Sustainability Act 2019.
[76] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (Policy Overview, 2024).
[77] Resource Sustainability Act 2019, ss 12–25.
[78] National Environment Agency (Singapore), Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) (1 April 2026).
[79] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, We need Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy for textiles to reduce fabric waste (Policy Brief, 2024).
[80] Ibid.
[81] Resource Sustainability Act 2019.
[82] Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products [2024] OJ L; International Partnerships (European Commission), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) (2026).
[83] Carbonfact, Digital Product Passport for Textiles: What Fashion Brands Need to Know (5 January 2026).
[84] Annarita Colasante et al., "How Consumer Shopping Habits Affect Willingness to Embrace Sustainable Fashion" (2023) Applied Economics Letters 1. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2023.2290578> (accessed 12 August 2026)
[85] European Parliament, Fast Fashion: EU Laws for Sustainable Textile Consumption (Briefing, 12 September 2025).
[86] Reed Smith, Always in Season: Luxury, Fashion, and the Law - France Adopts Fast Fashion Bill to Curb Textile Industry's Environmental Impacts (Client Briefing, 25 September 2025).
Comments