Key takeaways (at a glance)

• 80%+ want an itemised environmental charge shown at point of sale.

• 60% prefer a traffic-light label (green=low impact, red=high) over numbers/£ alone.

• £0.50 per item goes largely unnoticed, even on low-cost clothing.

• £1 is acceptable to consumers on items over £40.

• Behaviour nudges start above charges of  £1 per item.

• 70% want the charge introduced; among weekly clothes buyers, 60% would likely use simple sustainability information.

• Support is consistent across income groups.

• Potential to unlock £2–4bn/year for UK collection, reuse and recycling - without calls on the Exchequer.

Why this matters 

EPR for textiles is coming. The UK is actively exploring Extended Producer Responsibility for clothing and home textiles – with findings from the Taskforce due imminently. When changes land, brands and retailers that have already readied for visible, itemised charges and simple labelling will move faster, avoid scramble costs, and shape how the system works in practice.

​

Be ready, not reactive. This research shows consumers will accept modest, transparent charges when the purpose is clear. That gives industry and policymakers a practical route to pilot, iterate and scale, before obligations become mandatory. Early action de-risks compliance, strengthens supplier relationships, and builds a credible story for investors and customers.

​

Real-world impact, not just compliance. Fashion and textiles drive heavy material use and waste, with persistent issues from overproduction to low recycling rates. Funding from a small, visible charge can help close the loop - expanding UK collection, reuse and recycling, supporting domestic sorting capacity, and reducing what ends up in landfill, incineration or overseas waste streams.

​

Simple design = better outcomes. Clear language (“charge”, not “fee”) and traffic-light labels help shoppers understand the purpose and use the information. That supports behaviour change at point of sale, channels funds to proven interventions, and makes it easier to measure outcomes like waste prevention, fibre recovery and lower environmental harm.

​

Fairness matters. Our findings show broad support across income groups; policy design should keep it that way, clear ring-fencing of revenues, and ongoing monitoring to avoid disproportionate impacts.

What we found (in a bit more detail)

• Modest, visible charges are acceptable. Most shoppers don’t notice £0.50; £1 on higher-priced garments (>£40) is also acceptable. Charges over £1 start to influence choices toward “more sustainable” options.

• Transparency builds trust. Over 80% favour a clearly displayed, itemised charge at point of purchase. 60% prefer a traffic-light label to communicate impact at a glance.

• Language matters. Focus groups preferred the term “charge” (not “fee”), especially when its purpose is clearly explained (e.g., funds textile recycling and reuse).

• Understanding drives behaviour. When people understand the charge and label, they’re more likely to use them to guide purchases. 70% want the charge introduced; among weekly shoppers, 60% say they’d likely use simple sustainability info.

• Priorities & equity. Price, comfort and fit still lead. Making sustainability easy and visible increases its weight in decisions. Tolerance was consistent across income groups, but policy should still guard against disproportionate impacts.

• Grow green jobs without burdening the Exchequer. Ring-fenced, per-item charges could unlock £2–4bn/year to scale UK collection, repair, reuse and recycling. That creates skilled jobs in sorting, logistics and reprocessing and, because it’s producer-funded, it doesn’t place a direct call on the Exchequer.