Meanwhile, retailers are trying to convince customers to fork out to recycle their clothes. Last month, The Iconic launched a partnership with Rcycl, a scheme designed to make recycling more convenient for consumers – for a fee. Consumers can buy a “reuse” bag, which is for clothing suitable for charities, or a “recycle” bag, for damaged garments or ones that cannot be resold, such as underwear.

According to The Iconic’s chief executive, Jere Calmes, the scheme reduces the labour of sorting through the mountains of clothing sent to charities each year by asking the consumer to do the initial work. “It takes a lot of the onus off the charities and companies,” he says.

Indeed, charities should spend more time distributing items to people in need and less time sorting people’s rubbish. But in leaving the consumer to shoulder the cost of participation – which averages about $2 per garment, depending on the type of Rcycl bag – some worry this puts too much onus on the end user, and not enough on industry for its role in over-production and over-selling.

User-pays recycling schemes, while great, are yet to crack the mainstream. Despite a rise in sustainable attitudes, consumers are largely unwilling to pay for clothing recycling, as highlighted in a report from RMIT University. The researchers found that of 3000 respondents, 68 per cent of consumers disagreed with paying an external company to collect their worn-out clothing, compared to just 15 per cent who agreed.

Loading

This statistic, coupled with our world-leading appetite for new clothing, should give brands pause. As the RMIT paper stated: “This point also implicates brands and retailers who might be interested in co-ordinating a clothing take-back scheme, noting that at least half of consumers surveyed are unwilling to contribute to the cost of returning the item to store.”

Simpson adds: “The organisations that put new product on the market are responsible for the whole of life [of that product] … We know Australians do want to do the right thing … but we are in a cost-of-living crisis … individual organisations are doing things that are helping … [but] siloed approaches are not going to serve us.”

Indeed, producers and brands need to take greater responsibility for minimising poor consumption behaviours in the first place. Some have responded by boycotting Black Friday sales, but in the long term, this isn’t the answer; people who want a bargain will seek one out regardless.

Instead, if more brands, especially the discount chains Australians flock to in tight times, committed to pushing for a national textile recycling scheme, in time that $2 could become $1 and, eventually, free. Then buying that discounted T-shirt would at least come with slightly less guilt, knowing it can be disposed of responsibly, with everyone having done their bit – not just the person wearing it.

Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition with our Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.