Table A1 Interviewee codes and... | Emerald Publishing

Table A1

Interviewee codes and illustrative quotations

Quote (Q) #	Descriptive quote
Q1	GB4: “Businesses need to realise they can’t keep churning out massive amounts of clothing every year. But for big fashion brands, scaling back feels like business suicide. The industry is still led by people who don’t truly believe in circularity. Everyone talks about sustainability and the CE, but at the end of the day, it’s all about keeping shareholders happy. You can see it in global sourcing, companies chase the lowest costs, and the moment a factory improves conditions and pays workers better, they move somewhere cheaper. Profit always comes first, even over people’s lives, which is primarily wrong”
Q2	GB1: “CSC impacts all industries, including fashion, as its fundamentally about resource efficiency, keeping materials in the value chain. Yet, F&T products still end up in landfills, with increasing consumption driven by declining durability. True circularity means extending product use, making circular materials essential. I believe, innovation in this area is crucial, but fashion brands focus more on selling than sustainability. With better-quality products, repairs and recovery would hold real value, proving profitability and circularity can go hand in hand”
Q3	GA6: “I don’t think the CE really exists in practice yet, it’s still in its early stages. Less than 1% of textiles are actually recycled, and CSC solutions aren’t keeping pace with new clothing production. There’s a huge disconnect between brands talking about circularity and ensuring their products can be recycled. Unless a brand has a system to take back its own products and repurpose them without a massive carbon footprint, it can't truly claim to be circular. Right now, the energy, water, and logistics needed to deal with textile waste are overwhelming, and innovation just isn’t keeping up. So, in reality, CSC doesn’t exist yet”
Q4	GB3: “When I think about circularity in fashion, it feels like there’s a battle over recyclables. Take a plastic bottle: it can be recycled multiple times into new bottles, creating a continuous loop. But once you turn that bottle into a garment, it’s done, it's either heading to the landfill or getting incinerated. So, why is the apparel industry competing for PET that could stay in the plastics loop? If the material quality is poor or if it’s blended with different fibres, there's no potential for reuse or redesign. It’s just waste. If we know this, why doesn’t the fashion industry take a step back and understand its impact instead of chasing big profits? This approach is misleading the future of the CE”
Q5	GA5: “Many businesses have take-back programs and spend a lot on storytelling, but they often just create a pile of waste. Let's be real: there’s no safe EoL solution for these products; we’re just delaying the issue. Sure, if we displace some virgin material demand, that's a positive step, but in my experience, this mush is becoming a bigger problem, leading to initiatives that were doomed from the start. It raises questions about the credibility of these efforts. For instance, the quality of circular materials isn't consistent enough to support the entire industry's supply chain, while credible innovations like Renewcell struggle due to a lack of demand from fashion brands. What happened to genuine circularity? It feels like a smoke screen covering up a much larger problem.”
Q6	GA5: “Some things fall out of the circular system, but if they can safely return to the ground, that’s still part of the process. Biological circularity is easier to understand; for example, high-quality cotton can have an extended life and compost at end-of-life, returning nutrients without wasting energy on short-lived recycling. Yet, no one discusses the importance of total quality management, like we did 30 years ago, making well-crafted products and producing less. Is that approach actually more impactful than all this talk about circularity? We seem clumsy in defining financial or CSC success, and these successes won’t always be reflected in GDP”
Q7	GA6: “The issue isn't a lack of solutions; it's scale. Many businesses won't switch from cheap viscose to circulose, which is currently more expensive, until prices are on par. Brands want to maintain their margins, and to make a profit on low-priced products, they need to produce millions. This creates a cyclical problem: brands must be willing to invest in these materials and possibly sell at higher prices to support the solution. Otherwise, the solution disappears, leaving us with no recycled materials to create new products, and we just continue down the same path. There's a significant disconnect; solutions exist, but brands aren't compelled to adopt them. Plus, investors are hesitant to invest substantial money to support these solutions, leading to a lack of interest from brands”
Q8	GB2: “… a brand mentioned that if they can trace products already in circulation and the materials are valuable enough, they’re willing to buy them back, reproduce them, and create new products. But first, they need to know where those products are! This approach allows them to recycle and reuse materials rather than relying on new resources. CE isn't just about landfilling or recycling; recycling is energy-intensive, and logistics have their own environmental footprint. You can't have a CSC while consuming resources, where does the energy come from? The fashion industry accounts for about 10% of global emissions”
Q9	GA5: “Australia has no real Product Safety laws for textiles imported, we do have laws for bringing chemicals in in a barrel, but not for a fabric dipped in chemicals, we kind of go, just declare it. It's like a sort of pamphlet of guidelines requiring voluntary actions. When everybody's pushing for margins and somebody subcontracts, it comes back to the whole traceability thing, right? Now the question becomes, if the declared information is true?”
Q10	GA3: “I don't see many brands focusing on circular fashion products. You can't be a circular business while engaging in mass production and promoting mass consumption; those concepts just don’t align with CSC. In the Australian fashion industry, there's limited activity, only a handful of businesses are truly committed to circularity. The infrastructure to support it is lacking, and resources are scarce. Additionally, how can customers verify that circular products are legitimate when ultra-fast fashion brands claim to be circular? Education and awareness are major challenges. How long will consumers be expected to seek out the truth? It would be more effective to have regulations to address misleading claims”
Q11	GB7: “Infrastructure is a major blockage, preventing us from progressing rapidly in the CE; it remains just a concept. Achieving circularity requires a cultural shift in attitudes. Much of the responsibility falls on technology providers to find solutions, but the guidelines are vague. From a CSC perspective, this relates to business operations, including consumption in Australia, where infrastructure is lacking. We need more sorting facilities and factories, and government support is crucial; otherwise, there’s little incentive for businesses to view this as a viable opportunity”
Q12	GA2: “I think we’re significantly lagging behind the EU, especially countries like the Netherlands and France, in terms of education and willingness to embrace the CE. While government support could help accelerate this process, there's still a lot more to be done regarding innovation and infrastructure. That’s why I'm working on creating a facility to enhance recycling and repurposing, aiming to push the envelope further. Collaboration is also essential; it’s a shared project between our brand and a few others in the country”
Q13	GA5: “We don't invest enough in practical applications for the CE. I envision a factory dedicated to circular production, bustling with scientists, researchers, and innovators working with cutting-edge machines. Circularity thrives where creativity and manufacturing coexist. If they aim for circularity by 2030, they need to develop a strong local manufacturing industry. I urge the government to prioritise the voices of manufacturers over finance professionals; you can't have remanufacturing without manufacturing. Ultimately, there can be no CSC without robust local manufacturing infrastructure”
Q14	GA1: “We know that the Australian government has strict regulations around importing products, so if technology can be embedded as part of those processes, it will be easier to get traceability across the chain. It is always hard to create new infrastructure, so we should use what we have and improve on it. Brands can save money on auditing and compliance checks, while the government will be able to have credible records too. Eventually, the data around waste and landfill can be collected and accessed easily, because the government is spending a lot of money on these initiatives already”
Q15	GB5: “The main challenge is the lack of local knowledge about product whereabouts, whether they’re still in use or heading to landfills. This is where blockchain technology comes into play for CSC. If governments mandate traceability, it can encourage brands to adopt technology that ultimately saves them money and time. Additionally, there needs to be better coordination among all stakeholders. CE initiatives require widespread change, and regulations can facilitate this. But will the fashion industry ever engage in traceability voluntarily? For instance, what standards exist for an organic t-shirt versus a regular one, especially in the face of greenwashing? While governments set standards for commodities, fashion is more complex. Can we even regulate fashion in the same way as commodities?”
Q16	GB6: “For a real business opportunity, consider an application that gathers data from various actors in the value chain and incentivises them for sharing that information. As a business, you might wonder if this data can be monetised to cover the costs of integrating the technology into your operations. The key is establishing an infrastructure that allows for trusted data sharing among distributed parties. While this approach can help achieve CE goals, it also opens the door to fulfilling other objectives. By leveraging the collected data, you can uncover insights that benefit multiple stakeholders and create additional value beyond just circularity”
Q17	GB4: “So, with CSC, visibility of products is crucial. Without knowing the journey of a T-shirt; from production through its lifecycle to recycling; it's impossible to determine if it has achieved circularity. Implementing traceability solutions is essential for this. For instance, using technologies that imprint a luminescent pigment onto the yarn could allow scanning during the recycling process to track the material's origin and identify recycling methods. However, this requires implementing such traceability measures right at the raw material stage. It's challenging to assess materials and collect data at every product stage without this level of traceability. So, I believe traceability is vital for the successful existence of CSC”

Quote (Q) #	Descriptive quote
Q1	GB4: “Businesses need to realise they can’t keep churning out massive amounts of clothing every year. But for big fashion brands, scaling back feels like business suicide. The industry is still led by people who don’t truly believe in circularity. Everyone talks about sustainability and the CE, but at the end of the day, it’s all about keeping shareholders happy. You can see it in global sourcing, companies chase the lowest costs, and the moment a factory improves conditions and pays workers better, they move somewhere cheaper. Profit always comes first, even over people’s lives, which is primarily wrong”
Q2	GB1: “CSC impacts all industries, including fashion, as its fundamentally about resource efficiency, keeping materials in the value chain. Yet, F&T products still end up in landfills, with increasing consumption driven by declining durability. True circularity means extending product use, making circular materials essential. I believe, innovation in this area is crucial, but fashion brands focus more on selling than sustainability. With better-quality products, repairs and recovery would hold real value, proving profitability and circularity can go hand in hand”
Q3	GA6: “I don’t think the CE really exists in practice yet, it’s still in its early stages. Less than 1% of textiles are actually recycled, and CSC solutions aren’t keeping pace with new clothing production. There’s a huge disconnect between brands talking about circularity and ensuring their products can be recycled. Unless a brand has a system to take back its own products and repurpose them without a massive carbon footprint, it can't truly claim to be circular. Right now, the energy, water, and logistics needed to deal with textile waste are overwhelming, and innovation just isn’t keeping up. So, in reality, CSC doesn’t exist yet”
Q4	GB3: “When I think about circularity in fashion, it feels like there’s a battle over recyclables. Take a plastic bottle: it can be recycled multiple times into new bottles, creating a continuous loop. But once you turn that bottle into a garment, it’s done, it's either heading to the landfill or getting incinerated. So, why is the apparel industry competing for PET that could stay in the plastics loop? If the material quality is poor or if it’s blended with different fibres, there's no potential for reuse or redesign. It’s just waste. If we know this, why doesn’t the fashion industry take a step back and understand its impact instead of chasing big profits? This approach is misleading the future of the CE”
Q5	GA5: “Many businesses have take-back programs and spend a lot on storytelling, but they often just create a pile of waste. Let's be real: there’s no safe EoL solution for these products; we’re just delaying the issue. Sure, if we displace some virgin material demand, that's a positive step, but in my experience, this mush is becoming a bigger problem, leading to initiatives that were doomed from the start. It raises questions about the credibility of these efforts. For instance, the quality of circular materials isn't consistent enough to support the entire industry's supply chain, while credible innovations like Renewcell struggle due to a lack of demand from fashion brands. What happened to genuine circularity? It feels like a smoke screen covering up a much larger problem.”
Q6	GA5: “Some things fall out of the circular system, but if they can safely return to the ground, that’s still part of the process. Biological circularity is easier to understand; for example, high-quality cotton can have an extended life and compost at end-of-life, returning nutrients without wasting energy on short-lived recycling. Yet, no one discusses the importance of total quality management, like we did 30 years ago, making well-crafted products and producing less. Is that approach actually more impactful than all this talk about circularity? We seem clumsy in defining financial or CSC success, and these successes won’t always be reflected in GDP”
Q7	GA6: “The issue isn't a lack of solutions; it's scale. Many businesses won't switch from cheap viscose to circulose, which is currently more expensive, until prices are on par. Brands want to maintain their margins, and to make a profit on low-priced products, they need to produce millions. This creates a cyclical problem: brands must be willing to invest in these materials and possibly sell at higher prices to support the solution. Otherwise, the solution disappears, leaving us with no recycled materials to create new products, and we just continue down the same path. There's a significant disconnect; solutions exist, but brands aren't compelled to adopt them. Plus, investors are hesitant to invest substantial money to support these solutions, leading to a lack of interest from brands”
Q8	GB2: “… a brand mentioned that if they can trace products already in circulation and the materials are valuable enough, they’re willing to buy them back, reproduce them, and create new products. But first, they need to know where those products are! This approach allows them to recycle and reuse materials rather than relying on new resources. CE isn't just about landfilling or recycling; recycling is energy-intensive, and logistics have their own environmental footprint. You can't have a CSC while consuming resources, where does the energy come from? The fashion industry accounts for about 10% of global emissions”
Q9	GA5: “Australia has no real Product Safety laws for textiles imported, we do have laws for bringing chemicals in in a barrel, but not for a fabric dipped in chemicals, we kind of go, just declare it. It's like a sort of pamphlet of guidelines requiring voluntary actions. When everybody's pushing for margins and somebody subcontracts, it comes back to the whole traceability thing, right? Now the question becomes, if the declared information is true?”
Q10	GA3: “I don't see many brands focusing on circular fashion products. You can't be a circular business while engaging in mass production and promoting mass consumption; those concepts just don’t align with CSC. In the Australian fashion industry, there's limited activity, only a handful of businesses are truly committed to circularity. The infrastructure to support it is lacking, and resources are scarce. Additionally, how can customers verify that circular products are legitimate when ultra-fast fashion brands claim to be circular? Education and awareness are major challenges. How long will consumers be expected to seek out the truth? It would be more effective to have regulations to address misleading claims”
Q11	GB7: “Infrastructure is a major blockage, preventing us from progressing rapidly in the CE; it remains just a concept. Achieving circularity requires a cultural shift in attitudes. Much of the responsibility falls on technology providers to find solutions, but the guidelines are vague. From a CSC perspective, this relates to business operations, including consumption in Australia, where infrastructure is lacking. We need more sorting facilities and factories, and government support is crucial; otherwise, there’s little incentive for businesses to view this as a viable opportunity”
Q12	GA2: “I think we’re significantly lagging behind the EU, especially countries like the Netherlands and France, in terms of education and willingness to embrace the CE. While government support could help accelerate this process, there's still a lot more to be done regarding innovation and infrastructure. That’s why I'm working on creating a facility to enhance recycling and repurposing, aiming to push the envelope further. Collaboration is also essential; it’s a shared project between our brand and a few others in the country”
Q13	GA5: “We don't invest enough in practical applications for the CE. I envision a factory dedicated to circular production, bustling with scientists, researchers, and innovators working with cutting-edge machines. Circularity thrives where creativity and manufacturing coexist. If they aim for circularity by 2030, they need to develop a strong local manufacturing industry. I urge the government to prioritise the voices of manufacturers over finance professionals; you can't have remanufacturing without manufacturing. Ultimately, there can be no CSC without robust local manufacturing infrastructure”
Q14	GA1: “We know that the Australian government has strict regulations around importing products, so if technology can be embedded as part of those processes, it will be easier to get traceability across the chain. It is always hard to create new infrastructure, so we should use what we have and improve on it. Brands can save money on auditing and compliance checks, while the government will be able to have credible records too. Eventually, the data around waste and landfill can be collected and accessed easily, because the government is spending a lot of money on these initiatives already”
Q15	GB5: “The main challenge is the lack of local knowledge about product whereabouts, whether they’re still in use or heading to landfills. This is where blockchain technology comes into play for CSC. If governments mandate traceability, it can encourage brands to adopt technology that ultimately saves them money and time. Additionally, there needs to be better coordination among all stakeholders. CE initiatives require widespread change, and regulations can facilitate this. But will the fashion industry ever engage in traceability voluntarily? For instance, what standards exist for an organic t-shirt versus a regular one, especially in the face of greenwashing? While governments set standards for commodities, fashion is more complex. Can we even regulate fashion in the same way as commodities?”
Q16	GB6: “For a real business opportunity, consider an application that gathers data from various actors in the value chain and incentivises them for sharing that information. As a business, you might wonder if this data can be monetised to cover the costs of integrating the technology into your operations. The key is establishing an infrastructure that allows for trusted data sharing among distributed parties. While this approach can help achieve CE goals, it also opens the door to fulfilling other objectives. By leveraging the collected data, you can uncover insights that benefit multiple stakeholders and create additional value beyond just circularity”
Q17	GB4: “So, with CSC, visibility of products is crucial. Without knowing the journey of a T-shirt; from production through its lifecycle to recycling; it's impossible to determine if it has achieved circularity. Implementing traceability solutions is essential for this. For instance, using technologies that imprint a luminescent pigment onto the yarn could allow scanning during the recycling process to track the material's origin and identify recycling methods. However, this requires implementing such traceability measures right at the raw material stage. It's challenging to assess materials and collect data at every product stage without this level of traceability. So, I believe traceability is vital for the successful existence of CSC”