What it doesn’t directly address is that US companies are often at fault for this exploitation, as they push suppliers to lower their prices in order to increase their own profits.
The idea is to offer an alternative for US companies to manufacture locally so there’s no excuse to continue seeking labour in countries with looser labour regulations, says Kibbe. “Right now, [US companies] can say they don’t have great alternatives and it’s true in the Western Hemisphere, so we want to provide that option to manufacture closer to home,” she says.
Success will also rely on US consumers changing their habits, voting with their dollar rather than continuing to support brands that exploit workers in the supply chain. “Real impact requires consumers and popular culture to lead a massive rallying cry, making overconsumption out of style and shifting focus to spending on fewer, sustainable items the norm,” says Kibbe.
The bill will deliver 15 per cent net income tax exclusion for circular businesses (including resale, repair, rental, fibre recycling, sorting and reuse); $10 billion in preferential loans and $3 billion in grants for textile reuse and recycling, manufacturing support programmes and components, and machinery to aid with product transportation and processing; $1 billion in innovation program research and development related to textile use and recycling; and $100 million for a public education program.
The focus on recycling comes at a pivotal time. Textile-to-textile recycling company Renewcell filed for bankruptcy last week, highlighting the difficulties faced by startups that are trying to change an industry while still operating within it. Experts say the question is not why Renewcell filed for bankruptcy, but rather why the industry let it happen.
With this in mind, building better infrastructure and access to low cost capital for circular textile businesses is a priority, says Kibbe. “Early adoption is very challenging. There are failures at the beginning and that is an inevitable part of the process. But there are missing links to create efficiencies in the circular supply chain that can bring costs down. By providing capital with low or no time horizon on returns, like [lower] interest on loans and grants, we can support cost effective circular textile systems. We’re justifying what we’re asking for [by proposing the Americas Act], because these are things that would help level the playing field for businesses in our industry.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
How J Crew is recycling swimwear into new textile fibres
London’s comeback brand: Why Marques Almeida returned to LFW
