Do Zara and H&M generate 12 times more textile waste than Shein?

As the 2026 legislative debate centres on implementing decrees for the law against ultra-fast fashion, a field study challenges our assumptions. The primary burden on the circular economy does not currently stem from new digital players, but from legacy brands. The saturation of recycling channels is linked to this long-established production model.

Public debate has identified a primary culprit: ultra-fast fashion, with its industrial production pace and low prices. Data collected by the National Network of Recovery and Recycling Centres for the “Stop Fast-Fashion” coalition reveals a much more complex reality inside sorting bins. Of the 33 reuse organisations studied this quarter, almost half of the garments deemed unusable come from ‘first-generation’ brands like H&M, Zara and Primark. In contrast, new online players such as Shein or Temu account for just 5 percent.

A time lag linked to consumption patterns

This disparity is primarily explained by a historical accumulation effect. Products from ultra-fast fashion are still a minority in sorting centres, mainly due to their recent emergence. Although these players have managed to position themselves in the top five best-selling brands in France in 2025, it takes an average of two to four years for a garment to be donated or discarded.

The current flow arriving at recovery centres is therefore a reflection of consumption patterns from the 2021-2023 period. With a record 4.1 billion garments introduced to the French market in 2025, according to preliminary estimates from Refashion, the sector is suffering from the accumulation of volumes produced by brick and mortar chains long before the explosion of the Asian direct-to-consumer model. For reuse organisations, the immediate operational challenge remains managing the legacy of traditional fashion, whose durability has progressively become comparable to that of the entry-level range.

A growing convergence of models

The analysis shows a convergence in practices. To remain competitive against online prices, the so-called ‘first-generation’ brands have continued to accelerate their production cycles in 2025. This decrease in the intrinsic quality of the fibres makes their second life increasingly difficult.

From a systemic point of view, the distinction established by current regulations raises questions for professionals. By focusing primarily on the criteria of rapid renewal, i.e., more than 1,000 new models per day, the legislator might be overlooking the enormous volumes generated by brick and mortar distribution. These volumes, however, constitute the bulk of textile waste collected at the beginning of 2026.

Towards extended and global responsibility

The “Stop Fast-Fashion” coalition advocates for regulatory mechanisms, like the financial penalty linked to the eco-contribution (Extended Producer Responsibility), to be applied uniformly to any brand exceeding certain annual production thresholds. This paradigm shift transfers the financial burden of a product's end-of-life from public authorities to the brands through a reinforced environmental contribution integrated into their business model.

Although 37 percent of Gen Z confirms in 2026 to have given up buying throwaway fashion, according to the 2026 Responsible Consumption Barometer, the saturation of sorting channels is a reminder. The transition to a circular textile economy continues to be hampered by the critical mass of garments already in circulation. These garments come from a model with much deeper roots than the arrival of the internet giants.

This article was originally published in another language on the international FashionUnited network and then translated into English using an artificial intelligence tool.

This article was translated to English using an AI tool.

OR CONTINUE WITH

Fast fashion

Recycling

Shein

Temu

Zara