From the Sector

As the latest company to join TMAS – the Swedish Textile Machinery Association – ReSpin has this year established what is just the latest in a succession of Swedish innovations shaping the country into one of Europe’s most sophisticated ecosystems for circular textiles. 

In May this year, Holma Spinning Mill, located in Forsa just outside Hudiksvall, was granted SEK 77.3 million in funding through the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to establish Sweden’s first industrial spinning line for recycled textile fibres. Holma Spinning Mill is part of Holma Förvaltning, which is co-owned by ReSpin. Sister company Holma Helsingland brings more than a century of experience in spinning, twisting, dyeing and yarn production.

RespinJenny
ReSpin, headquartered in Undersåker, in northern Sweden’s Jämtland, has developed and patented a new mechanical recycling technology called RespinJenny which transforms textile waste into new fibres suitable for yarn production. 

ReSpin was founded in 2020 by Åsa Strandberg, who has more than 30 years of experience in the textile industry and for the past 15 years has been on a mission to make textiles circular. After 17 years at H&M, she chose to leave the company when growing concerns about the environmental impact of the fashion industry grew too big to  be ignored. In 2010 she launched Saiboo, a company which has a focus on the B2B production of garments, selling them and then taking them back for reuse. 

With full control over materials and design, the difficult sorting problem was solved for Saiboo from the start, and driven by the desire to push the industry further, Åsa began collaborating with Mid Sweden University in Östersund on how to design for recycling.
Soon, however, a more fundamental problem became clear – there were no viable recycling methods available on the market. Chemical initiatives were emerging and mechanical recycling existed, but only at very low level.

“While many believed chemistry was the solution, I saw untapped potential in mechanical methods and a remark from a machine researcher that anything which can be done by hand can be done mechanically became the spark that confirmed this direction,” she explains. “I then initiated several research projects together with industry and academia, including the Universities of Borås, Linköping and Luleå, to further explore this idea.”

“RespinJenny uses no water or chemicals, has low energy consumption and is based on preserving as much fibre quality as possible from waste textiles,” adds TMAS Secretary General Therese Premler-Andersson. “It is designed to enable local, small scale and resource efficient recycling closer to where textile waste is generated. The the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s funding is an important step in scaling fibre-to-fibre recycling industrially and demonstrating that circular textile materials can be produced on a larger scale with low climate impact.

“Mechanical recycling alone is not enough to achieve textile-to-textile recycling – without the ability to spin recycled fibres into yarn, it is impossible to weave or knit new fabrics, which is why Holma Spinning Mill represents a key part of building a complete circular textile value chain.” 

Rather than focusing on a single breakthrough technology, Swedish companies, including TMAS members, have developed expertise across the entire value chain – from collection and automated sorting through to fibre-to-fibre recycling, testing, product development and policy research.

Underpinning this, has been strong collaboration between Swedish industry and academia.

“The University of Borås – and particularly its Swedish School of Textiles –has become one of Europe’s leading centres for circular textile research and Borås is also home to a number of other TMAS members, such as the ACG Group and Eton Systems, who are driving innovation through advanced automation and involved in many cooperative projects between industry and academia in Sweden,” Therese Premler-Andersson observes.

In conclusion, Åsa Strandberg stresses the great value in now being part of a network where knowledge, innovation and collaboration are central.

“TMAS brings together many of Sweden’s leading companies and experts, all playing an important role in shaping the future of textile production technology,” she says. “As ReSpin moves towards industrialisation, we see great value in joining TMAS, because the transition to circular textile systems requires cooperation across the entire value chain, and the association provides an important platform for that dialogue.”

The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), spanning the entire spectrum of U.S. textiles from fiber to finished sewn products, issued a statement mourning the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and expressing sincere condolences to his family, staff, and the people of South Carolina.

“The U.S. textile industry is deeply saddened to learn of the passing of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a dear friend and tireless advocate for our industry and workforce. To say this is a profound loss is an understatement. He was a personal friend to so many in our industry – walked through our plants, engaged with our workers – and never forgot where he came from. He was dubbed by many in Congress as the ‘textile Senator’ and he wore that label so very proudly and he earned every bit of it.  Just last week, he pushed to try to advance two amendments to ensure that U.S. government uniforms are fully made in America. His advocacy on behalf of U.S. manufacturing and workers was a top priority, simply because it was a core belief of his. We want to extend our profound condolences to Senator Graham’s family and his incredible staff – who were his family – and to all those who knew and loved him. He will be greatly missed.”

The undersigned associations, representing several European industrial sectors, call on EU institutions to maintain the current legal text of the Single-Use Plastic Directive (SUPD), adopted in 2019. While the signatories recognise the importance of ensuring that the SUPD delivers measurable and meaningful environmental outcomes, reopening the Directive now will create legal uncertainty, add disproportionate burden for economic operators that are already navigating partial and often divergent national transpositions, and increase the risk of regulatory overlaps or contradictions with existing and upcoming legislation. Moreover, there is currently insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of the current SUPD to justify a revision, as described below: 

• Insufficient evidence to inform a revision of the SUPD. 
  An impact assessment of the SUPD cannot be carried out at a moment when several of its provisions are not yet in place. While a first report on the state of implementation of the SUPD was published in April 2026, it remains partial, and reporting is not harmonised, preventing meaningful comparison of data across countries. Taking the example of consumption reduction targets, Member States and other EEA countries only reported data on SUP products placed on the market in 2022 and, even for this report, did so using different indicators. Crucially, since the target on consumption reduction is set for 2026, no data are yet available on whether that target has been achieved. In summary, the partial application of the SUPD and the limited data available suggest that a revision of the SUPD would be premature at this time. 
• Preventing further fragmentation and gold-plating. 
  The transposition of the SUPD has produced significant regulatory fragmentation, uneven enforcement, and widespread instances of gold plating, creating persistent uncertainty for companies active across multiple Member States. The result is a patchwork of national rules that undermines the integrity of the Single Market, inflates compliance costs, and fails to deliver proportionate environmental benefits. These structural shortcomings must be fully recognised in the evaluation of the SUPD and effectively addressed prior to considering a reopening of the Directive. 
• Ensuring legal certainty for economic operators. 
  A revision of the SUPD would create legal uncertainty for companies and Member States that are still implementing several of its provisions. While the SUPD entered into force in mid-2021, the date of application for most of its provisions is at a later stage. Furthermore, the EU Commission has only recently adopted some of the implementing decisions and guidelines on the current SUPD. Any change to the SUPD at a moment when companies are still adapting to new obligations, and Member States are still in the process of implementing some key provisions, would create legal uncertainty for economic operators who do not know whether targets or the scope of the SUPD may change. Legal uncertainty carries significant economic costs for economic operators, notably in terms of investment delays likely to persist throughout the entire SUPD revision process (2–3 years). 
• Avoiding overlaps with other legislation. 
  Revising the SUPD while the Ecodesign and Packaging Regulations are still being implemented, and as negotiations on the Circular Economy Act (CEA) begin, increases the risk of regulatory overlaps and contradictions. These frameworks cover intersecting areas and a revision of the SUPD in parallel with the CEA would almost inevitably lead to duplicative or conflicting provisions. Even if the EU Commission ensured full coherence in its proposal, the co-legislators could still introduce provisions that diverge from or contradict the SUPD framework, further undermining legal certainty and the functioning of the Single Market. 

At a time when EU leaders have made regulatory simplifications and a fully integrated Single Market central to Europe’s competitiveness agenda, we urge EU policymakers to focus legislative efforts where they are most needed and avoid reopening a framework that has yet to deliver concrete results.