Eco-modulation of the textile EPR fee: France already operates it, Spain transposes it by 2027

Two models, one same directive

The governance of textile waste in the European Union is grounded in the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, whose substantial amendment via Directive (EU) 2018/851 introduced the general minimum requirements for extended producer responsibility schemes in its Article 8a. That article requires that the financial contributions paid by producers be modulated, « where possible, for individual products or groups of similar products, taking into account in particular their durability, reparability, re-usability and recyclability and the presence of hazardous substances ». Despite this mandate, national implementation shows divergent execution speeds.

The French jurisdiction accumulates almost two decades of operational experience in textile extended producer responsibility — it was the first EU country to establish it — following the creation of the regime in 2007 (art. L541-10-3 of the code de l’environnement, with implementing decree 2008-602). This regulatory longevity has allowed the French regulator, under the subsequent AGEC Law (Loi n° 2020-105) and the Climate Law (Loi n° 2021-1104), to introduce and refine its financial modulation system, today codified in the 2023-2028 cahier des charges.

In Spain, Law 7/2022, of 8 April, on waste and contaminated soils for a circular economy, transposed the general obligations of Directive 2018/851. However, the crystallisation of textile EPR was postponed to a specific regulatory development, whose draft Royal Decree closed its public consultation phase on 4 September 2025 and remains pending approval. Both countries are currently adapting their legal systems to the new Directive (EU) 2025/1892, which establishes the mandatory nature of collective textile Extended Producer Responsibility schemes by 17 April 2028. However, the starting point is diametrically opposite. While France adjusts an already calibrated modulation engine, Spain must build a governance and financial model from scratch, facing the dilemma of activating modulation immediately or deferring it through a transitional flat fee.

How Refashion’s eco-modulation operates (2023-2028)

The French regulatory framework for modulating contributions in the textiles, footwear and home-linen sector is consolidated in the Order of 23 November 2022 (Arrêté du 23 novembre 2022), which sets the terms of reference (cahier des charges) for the 2023-2028 period. This text establishes a system of bonuses and penalties that penalises obsolescence and rewards circularity, applied on a base fee. According to the 2025 detailed declaration scale, that base fee ranges from €0.02 to €0.20 per item depending on the category — a T-shirt pays between €0.02 and €0.04; a coat, around €0.14 — varying by product type and rayon (child, woman, man), not by eco-design.

On that base, the bonuses are applied. The durability bonus requires passing physical tests in Annex III of the terms of reference — abrasion resistance by the Martindale method (NF EN ISO 12947-2) and dimensional stability on washing (NF EN ISO 5077) — and is weighted by a factor according to the product category. It reaches €0.70 per reference (€0.07 once the first 100,000 units of each category are exceeded); the recognised environmental-label bonus adds €0.30 per reference. Only products that exceed the thresholds obtain the reduction.

On the composition vector, the modulation incentivises the incorporation of post-consumer recycled materials. The rule defines direct bonuses: €1,000 per tonne of recycled raw material in a closed loop (sourced from post-consumer textile waste), and €500 per tonne for open-loop recycling. Since January 2025, penalties for recyclability problems have also been introduced.

The bonus is subtracted from the base fee, so that a durable product, with recycled material or with an environmental label, pays appreciably less than its equivalent without those attributes. The system requires unavoidable material traceability and obliges companies to audit their supply chains in order to access the bonuses.

What the Spanish draft proposes: modulation envisaged but deferred

The draft Royal Decree regulating textile and footwear products and the management of their waste in Spain transposes the mandate of Law 7/2022. Article 42 of that law defines the general obligations relating to financing, stipulating that product producers must cover the costs of separate collection, transport and treatment. In its specific development, the draft MITECO Royal Decree establishes in its Chapter II the obligation to finance these operations through contributions to the SCRAPs.

Article 29(3) of the Spanish draft explicitly mentions modulation: « The amount of the financial contribution shall be modulated according to the eco-design requirements adopted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 […] and the corresponding measurement methodology for those criteria adopted in accordance with this Regulation ». It additionally adds that the contribution « shall also be modulated taking into account those fast and ultra-fast fashion business practices that lead to the over-generation of waste ». However, the operational gap lies in the unconditional referral to the future Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 and to the Community delegated acts pending approval.

Unlike the French framework, which imposes in its Annex III physical and chemical criteria that are auditable today, the Spanish draft lacks an equivalent annex that activates modulation autonomously from the moment of its entry into force. Annex VII of the Spanish draft Royal Decree, which details the « Criteria for calculating the financing of management costs », concentrates exhaustively on the amortisation of containers, fuel expenses, collection personnel, and net incineration costs. This parametric breakdown does not include the table of bonuses or penalties for eco-design.

Consequently, the scheme proposed by MITECO is configured, in immediate practice, as a flat or declarative fee system per product category and kilogram of weight introduced onto the national market. The absence of an active technical modulator in the articles means that the mandate of Article 8a of Directive 2018/851 is deferred until the European Commission issues the specific implementing acts.

The effect on industrial design

The economic formulation of EPR determines the response of product engineering. When the financial contribution is structured as a flat fee based on tonnage, the impact on the profit and loss account is perceived as an unavoidable tax on business volume. The producer internalises the logistics cost, passes the margin on to the final sale price and continues operating under the same obsolescence parameters. By contrast, when the eco-contribution is designed as a modulated and asymmetric fee, it acts as a Pigouvian fiscal lever that alters the relative profitability of materials and confection decisions.

A modulating framework pushes development teams to replace virgin fibre with recycled, or to reinforce confection to pass durability tests, because those decisions translate directly into a lower contribution. Where the fee is flat, that economic incentive does not exist: the cost is internalised as a tax on volume and does not reward redesign.

As long as modulation remains deferred to the ESPR acts, the Spanish scenario approaches that risk: the stabilisation of the EPR-as-tax model. In a scheme where an ultra-fast product made of non-recyclable synthetic fibres pays the same quota per kilogram as a high-durability certified mono-material garment, the industrial incentive for redesign disappears. Brands operating exclusively in the Spanish jurisdiction will find no economic justification on their balance sheet to invest in materials R&D, since the SCRAP does not financially reward the effort.

What Directive 2025/1892 says about modulation

The recently consolidated Directive (EU) 2025/1892 intervenes surgically in the Community legal framework to close the ambiguity around textile eco-modulation. The text imposes the inescapable requirement that Member States ensure that financial contributions « are modulated on the basis of the eco-design requirements adopted pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 that are most relevant to the prevention of waste generated from these products […] ». This formulation expressly subordinates the fee metric to the ESPR Regulation, guaranteeing future homogenisation in the internal market.

However, the European legislator recognises the urgency of tackling the overproduction model and grants immediate powers to national jurisdictions. Article 22c(6) rules: « Where appropriate to address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices and the resulting excessive waste generation […], Member States may require the competent producer responsibility organisations to modulate the financial contribution on the basis of producers’ practices ».

The governing verb used is « may require ». The use of this verb form in Community legislative technique does not impose a categorical obligation of immediate transposition of fast-fashion penalising parameters, but it evidences the clear intention of the legislator to give incontestable legal cover to Member States that decide to execute it. The transition from « may » to « shall » constitutes a national political decision. MITECO, in its current wording of the draft Royal Decree, assumes the possibility of penalising fast fashion, but makes the effectiveness of the rule contingent on the publication of the implementing acts by the European Commission, delaying the punitive impact on the volume of references.

The two trajectories 2027-2030

The difference between modulation already operational in France and modulation still deferred in Spain configures two divergent trajectories for the textile ecosystem in the 2027-2030 horizon. The implementation of Directive (EU) 2025/1892 requires the establishment of extended producer responsibility regimes by 17 April 2028 at the latest.

Trajectory A projects a Spanish market where modulation remains deferred until the adoption of the ESPR eco-design criteria. In this scenario, extended producer responsibility would operate under a model of downward convergence, harmonising with those Member States least advanced in environmental taxation. The risk of this path lies in Community intervention: the directive itself incorporates a review clause whereby the Commission will assess the effectiveness of the financial and organisational responsibility of EPR regimes. If the Commission were to rule that the Spanish scheme does not cover the real externalised costs, a subsequent legislative correction would retroactively destabilise established brands.

Trajectory B requires the activation of Spain’s own modulation criteria before the maximum Community deadlines, promoting an organic convergence with the French model. The integration of severe penalties for ultra-fast fashion would force a rationalisation of inventories. Transnational textile corporations, already scrutinised by the taxonomy of the AGEC Law and the Climate Law in the French market, would find a unified regulatory framework.

The long-term financial viability of the sector will depend on the transition executed. Lax modulation in Spain will protect ephemeral commercial margins, but will widen the regulatory compliance gap with respect to the circularity standard required by the European legislator.