The paper “The Circularity of Textile Waste: A Systematic Literature Review on Environmental Methodologies and Knowledge Gaps”, published in Waste Management (2026) by Gemma Morell-Delgado, Laura Talens Peiró, and Susana Toboso-Chavero, reviews the environmental assessment methods used to evaluate textile waste circularity. Analysing existing scientific literature, the authors examine how methodologies such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and Circularity Indicators (CIs) are being applied, while identifying key knowledge gaps that currently limit robust environmental evaluation of circular textile systems. The review provides recommendations to improve future research and support evidence-based decision making for a more sustainable textile sector.

Key Insights

• Life Cycle Assessment is the most widely used methodology
  The review found that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the dominant environmental methodology used to assess textile waste management strategies. It provides valuable insights into environmental impacts across a product’s lifecycle but is often applied using different assumptions and system boundaries, making comparisons between studies challenging.
• Environmental assessments vary considerably across studies
  The authors found significant differences in functional units, system boundaries, allocation methods, and impact categories. This lack of methodological consistency limits the comparability of results and makes it difficult to identify the most environmentally beneficial circular strategies.
• Recycling generally offers environmental benefits, but results depend on context
  Most studies indicate that textile recycling can reduce environmental impacts compared with landfill or incineration. However, the environmental performance of recycling depends on factors such as fibre composition, collection systems, recycling technologies, transport distances, and the quality of recovered materials.
• Several circular strategies remain under-researched
  While recycling has received considerable attention, the review identifies important research gaps relating to reuse, repair, remanufacturing, refurbishment, and other circular business models. More comprehensive assessments are needed to understand the environmental impacts of these strategies across the textile value chain.
• Better data and harmonised methodologies are needed
  The paper highlights the need for improved primary data, greater transparency in reporting assumptions, and more harmonised assessment frameworks. These improvements would strengthen the reliability of environmental studies and support better policy and industry decision-making.
• Multiple assessment methods should be combined
  The authors recommend combining Life Cycle Assessment with complementary approaches such as Material Flow Analysis, Circularity Indicators, and social and economic assessments. Integrating multiple methodologies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of textile circularity and its broader sustainability impacts.
• The review supports future circular textile policies and innovation
  By identifying methodological strengths and current knowledge gaps, the paper provides a foundation for future research, helping policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders develop more effective circular economy strategies for the textile sector.

The review demonstrates that although significant progress has been made in assessing textile circularity, further methodological harmonisation and broader evaluation of circular strategies are needed to support evidence-based policymaking and sustainable innovation.

For more detailed information, readers are encouraged to refer to the original paper on ScienceDirect.