WRAP’s 2025–26 Report Puts Clothing Durability and Reuse in Focus

Clothing repair photograph published in WRAP’s Impact Report 2025–26. It illustrates repair and continued use, not the report’s laboratory testing. Image source: WRAP. View source

WRAP’s 2025–26 impact report, published online in October 2026, identifies clothing durability, reuse and circular business models as priorities in its textiles work. The report connects product design with the systems needed to keep clothing in use, including collection and business support [1].

What the report says

WRAP describes research with the University of Leeds and UK Textiles Pact signatories on garment failure points, performance measures and design features. It also reports extending this approach through its Durability Accelerator Initiative to support businesses in the EU and North America. The report links this work with repair, resale, rental and reuse [1].

The update also revisits the UK Textiles Pact Roadmap 2026–2030, launched in 2025. Its eight indicators cover circular design, circular business models, post-consumer collections and supply-chain decarbonisation [1]. These are WRAP’s reported activities, rather than an independent assessment by SUSFUTURE.

Why the distinction matters for designers

The following is editorial interpretation. Durability becomes more actionable when a team asks which part of a garment fails and how that failure affects use. A vague ambition to make a product last longer gives a pattern cutter, material developer or buyer little guidance.

A more useful brief identifies the intended function, expected care conditions and a method for comparing prototypes. Seam performance, appearance after washing and the accessibility of replaceable components may require different observations. A fabric result alone should not be treated as a complete assessment of the finished garment.

A shopper examining a denim jacket at a second-hand clothing market, as illustrated in WRAP’s report. Image source: WRAP, Impact Report 2025–26. View source

A direction to follow, not a universal label

The report does not by itself establish that every participating brand or product meets a universal durability standard. Readers should distinguish programme participation, testing methods and verified product performance. Similarly, an organisation’s progress report describes its work; it is not a legal compliance certificate.

For design education, this update suggests a useful change in assessment: ask students to explain how a proposed garment could retain its function, how they would test that proposal and what evidence would remain missing. These questions can sit alongside the visual and conceptual evaluation of a collection.

As further methods and results become available, the important task will be to examine their scope: which garment types were assessed, under what conditions, and how laboratory performance connects with actual use. Those details will determine how evidence can inform design decisions.

Sources and further reading

[1] WRAP — Impact Report 2025–26, textiles section

Editorial note: Industry update with a separately identified editorial interpretation. Information checked on 30 October 2026.