EPR Insights 1
Conclusion after 170 years of shoe production? Recyclability is often a utopia.
I have been working on sustainable shoe design for many years, and honestly: much of what has been or is being promoted under the labels “recycling” and “retake” does not work in practice the way we would like it to.
Take a classic sneaker, for example. It often consists of more than 20 materials—glued, stitched, fused together. Even if, as a brand, I offer a take-back system, we ultimately face a problem: the product is hardly dismantlable. The materials cannot be thoroughly separated. The result is not true recycling, but downcycling—or, in the worst case, just waste with a clear conscience.
We have conducted our own attempts to take back shoes and return them to the cycle. The reality: high logistical effort, low return rates, and ultimately, materials that can hardly be reused for anything of real value. The conclusion: virtually no impact, followed by disillusionment.
The problem does not begin with recycling - it begins with design. Many products are still developed as if there were no “afterlife”. Complex material mixes, strong adhesives, lack of transparency. Recycling is then added afterwards instead of being considered from the start.
On top of that, recycled materials are often more expensive and not always consistent in quality. At the same time, virgin raw materials are readily available and cheaper. Without clear regulations, sustainability quickly becomes a voluntary choice—and that only works in the marketplace to a limited extent.
What would need to change?
Radically simple products. Fewer materials, better separability, true mono-material approaches. A shoe that cannot be dismantled is not a circular product in the end. No matter how sustainably its story has been told. And dismantling must also be economically viable for recyclers.
Equally important is honest communication. Not every product is recyclable—and that should be stated clearly. Is durability and robustness often more sustainable than circularity? Most certainly. Will end consumers at least cover the return postage so that the product can re-enter the value chain? Unfortunately, almost certainly not.
Therefore, take-back systems must be simple and accommodate the natural laziness of human behaviour, perhaps even be designed to function automatically. At the same time, political guardrails are needed to reward circular design and make linear systems less attractive.
A circular economy is possible. But we must stop pretending that we are already there. Less marketing, more reality, more action for its own sake.
Written by Sebastian Thies
>> See further insights on design and upcoming regulations at Normina