News

Sustainability & Recycling

A Mapping Study Without The Map

• By  Textile Excellence
• March 15, 2026

Mapping of Textile Waste Value Chain in India is a recent report released by the Ministry of Textiles. Unfortunately, it reads largely as a compilation of generic information and known definitions rather than an in-depth study of a subject as important as textile recycling.

The report devotes considerable space to explaining concepts - mechanical recycling, chemical recycling, circularity and related terminology - much of which is already widely documented. Yet definitions alone do not constitute analysis. More importantly, they do not amount to a mapping exercise.

This raises a basic question: what exactly constitutes a case study and a mapping study?

A mapping study is a systematic analysis that identifies, documents, and organises the key components of a system, sector, or value chain in order to understand its structure, scale, and relationships. Its purpose is not merely descriptive; it seeks to locate and quantify the actors, processes, flows, and infrastructure that shape the ecosystem being studied.

The most basic requirement of a mapping study is quantitative baseline data. For textile recycling, this would include the number of recyclers in the country, their geographic distribution, installed capacities, and the technologies being used.

None of this is adequately presented, even as market size estimates till 2030 are reported. Even in clusters mentioned in the report such as Panipat, Ludhiana and Saharanpur, among others, there are no numbers indicating the scale of recycling activity, the number of units, capacities involved, technologies used, trade trends. There are also no detailed accounts of successful recycling or upcycling initiatives emerging from these clusters.

The report repeatedly emphasises the production of low-value outputs from recycled textiles. There is little recognition of the growing number of initiatives that convert pre-consumer textile waste into longer-life products such as furniture, accessories, or design-led fashion. Designers and small manufacturing units experimenting with zero-waste production and high-value upcycling receive no attention.

The methodology section mentions a study size of just under 100 units. If such field engagement had been carried out in depth, examples of innovative recycling and upcycling efforts would almost certainly have surfaced.

Instead, the report appears to rely heavily on desk research. A modest exploration of publicly available sources, including industry discussions on professional networks, would reveal numerous enterprises experimenting with creative recycling approaches. Textile trade publications often provide more practical insights into recycling developments than what is presented here.

The section on case studies mentions only four Indian companies - Vardhman Textiles, Arvind Limited, Shahi Exports and Usha Yarns, and even these are described briefly using information that is already widely known. Those are examples, not case studies.

Which moves us to define what a case study is - A case study is a real-world example analysed in depth to generate practical understanding and transferable insights.

The treatment of pre- and post-consumer waste is similarly simplified. The report provides little technical insight into recycling technologies, operational challenges, or the economics of different recycling pathways.

Some references also appear without context. For instance, the mention of the Waghri community appears abruptly, with no background explanation or analysis of its role in textile waste handling.

The section on policy interventions is equally limited. There is no meaningful discussion of textile waste collection systems within Indian municipalities. Instead, the report refers briefly to European policy initiatives without examining the practical challenges those systems have faced, including collection difficulties and the closure of several recycling facilities.

There is also no reflection on why some Indian brands and retailers discontinued used clothing collection initiatives that began nearly two decades ago.

Policy recommendations, meanwhile, are ambitious but detached from practical realities. Proposed timelines of two to five years for systemic changes appear optimistic when basic solid waste segregation itself has struggled to take hold across many cities despite years of effort.

Overall, the report reads as though the Terms of Reference were addressed in a checklist manner. For policymakers seeking guidance or industry stakeholders hoping to understand the recycling ecosystem, actionable takeaways are virtually non-existent. The report contributes little in terms of practical policy direction or meaningful insights for the textile recycling sector.

We still managed to put together key takeaways with reservations.

Key Takeaways

• India generates an estimated 7,073 KTPA of textile waste annually, comprising both manufacturing waste (pre-consumer) and discarded garments and household textiles (post-consumer).

• Post-consumer waste forms the largest share of textile waste and is largely managed through informal networks, donation systems, second-hand markets, and community collectors.

• Pre-consumer waste has significantly higher recovery rates, with most manufacturing waste reused, recycled, or downcycled within existing industry systems.

• India also imports roughly 600 KTPA of textile waste, mainly second-hand clothing and mutilated rags, which feed into domestic recycling operations.

• The study uses a mixed-method research approach, combining industry data, interviews with manufacturing units, municipal authorities, and informal sector actors, along with waste-flow analysis and triangulation with secondary sources.

• Textile waste flows in India are highly dependent on informal networks, including brokers, aggregators, manual sorters, and second-hand clothing markets.

• Major recycling hubs such as Panipat play a central role in processing manufacturing waste into recycled yarn, blankets, and filling materials.

• India’s textile recycling ecosystem is currently dominated by mechanical recycling, while emerging technologies such as chemical recycling offer long-term potential for higher-quality fibre recovery.

• Life Cycle Assessment findings suggest recycled fibres can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly for viscose and polyester where recycled alternatives avoid raw-material extraction.

• Several large textile firms, including Vardhman Textiles, Arvind Limited, Shahi Exports, and Usha Yarns, are experimenting with recycling initiatives, renewable energy adoption, and resource-efficient production.

• Global circular textile initiatives demonstrate a range of business models including recycling systems, product life-extension, resale platforms, sharing models, and product-as-a-service approaches.

• International policy initiatives such as the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles and the Netherlands’ EPR for Textiles Decree illustrate evolving regulatory frameworks aimed at promoting circularity.

• Consumer perception remains a major barrier to adoption of recycled textiles, with concerns around quality, hygiene, durability, and price.

• The report proposes a policy and market roadmap for circular textiles, including EPR systems, traceability tools, recycling clusters in hubs such as Panipat and Tiruppur, green procurement mandates, certification schemes, and financing mechanisms for recycling infrastructure.

Key Concerns

• The headline estimate of 7,073 KTPA of textile waste lacks transparent calculation details, making independent verification difficult.

• The research sample is relatively small compared with the scale of India’s textile sector.

• Heavy reliance on interviews and extrapolated estimates rather than measured waste data may affect the reliability of national projections.

• The informal sector, although repeatedly acknowledged as central to textile reuse and recycling, is not analysed in sufficient depth.

• Claims such as 97% recycling of pre-consumer waste appear unusually high and may conflate recycling, upcycling, and downcycling, potentially overstating circularity.

• The report focuses heavily on NGOs and community actors while underrepresenting commercial recycling markets and private sector value chains.

• Several sections appear descriptive rather than analytical, particularly corporate case studies and international circular economy examples.

• Many global examples originate from European and US markets with stronger regulatory frameworks, limiting direct applicability to India.

• The economic feasibility of advanced recycling technologies - particularly chemical recycling - is not fully assessed in the Indian context.

• The Life Cycle Assessment analysis is limited to a cradle-to-gate scope, excluding use phase, transport, and end-of-life impacts.

• Consumer perception barriers are discussed largely from a branding perspective without supporting market research data.

• Policy evaluation relies primarily on qualitative scoring frameworks, which may introduce subjectivity and limit comparability.

• The report’s policy recommendations are broad and aspirational, with limited prioritisation, financial estimates, or implementation mechanisms.

• Multiple sections show duplicated passages and incomplete references, suggesting weak report integration.

Industry voices

Industry professionals responding to the textile waste mapping report expressed a wide range of reactions ranging from cautious optimism about India’s recycling ecosystem to serious concerns about environmental risks, technical limitations, and policy gaps.

Some participants warned that India could unintentionally become a global dumping ground for textile waste, particularly with growing imports of used clothing and recycled textile material. With Panipat already functioning as a major recycling hub, several voices cautioned that without strong waste management systems, the city could face mounting environmental pressures similar to those seen in large second-hand clothing markets in parts of Africa.

Technical experts also highlighted limitations of mechanical recycling, which remains the dominant method in India. According to practitioners, shredding and garneting processes often produce only 30–40% spinnable fibre suitable for yarn, with the remainder becoming short fibres or residual waste that must be downcycled or disposed of. The challenge becomes even more complex when dealing with blended fabrics, chemically treated materials, or garments with mixed components.

At the same time, others pointed out that pre-consumer waste from garment factories is already widely recycled, particularly by open-end spinning mills in hubs such as Coimbatore, Panipat, and Samana. However, post-consumer waste remains far more difficult to collect and sort, largely due to fragmented supply chains and the absence of formal collection systems.

There was also debate about emerging policy tools such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Digital Product Passport (DPP). While some industry stakeholders believe these frameworks could improve traceability and sorting efficiency, others questioned their practicality, arguing that current sorting technologies rely more on optical detection and fibre identification rather than digital garment data.

Despite differing views, there was broad agreement on one point: sorting and material identification remain the central bottleneck in textile recycling, and without significant improvements in collection systems, fibre separation technologies, and product design, recycling alone cannot solve the textile waste challenge.

Finally, several participants stressed that the industry must not skip the basic hierarchy of waste management - reduce, reuse, and repair before recycling - warning that an excessive focus on recycling could simply shift waste further down the chain rather than preventing it.  

Technical experts also highlighted limitations of mechanical recycling, which remains the dominant method in India. According to practitioners, shredding and garneting processes often produce only 30–40% spinnable fibre suitable for yarn, with the remainder becoming short fibres or residual waste that must be downcycled or disposed of. The challenge becomes even more complex when dealing with blended fabrics, chemically treated materials, or garments with mixed components.