Strengthening approach to household recycling collection services: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Scottish Government held a public consultation seeking views on a proposal to introduce a mandatory kerbside textile collection and revise the rural food waste collection exemption. It ran from 25 March 2025 until 17 June 2025. The aim of the consultation was to guide the co-design of a new statutory Code of Practice for household waste and recycling services in support of Scotland’s circular economy objectives.

The consultation included 14 closed questions and 17 open questions. Open questions often asked respondents to explain their answer to the corresponding closed question. The final section, comprised entirely of open questions, asked respondents to consider the proposals' impacts on specific groups. In total, 60 consultation responses were received from 26 individuals and 34 organisations.

Household collection of textiles

Respondents were divided on the efficiency and accessibility of current textile recycling provisions, with 42% believing the existing system is efficient and 44% believing it is not. In terms of accessibility, 50% felt existing options were accessible, while 42% did not. Local authorities and waste management organisations were more likely to consider the current systems efficient and accessible, while individuals and reuse/resale organisations were more critical of the current system.

Respondents who provided feedback at the open question indicated a desire for more textile banks, improved maintenance of drop-off points, and enhanced public awareness about recycling options. Some respondents also suggested clearer information on what textiles can be recycled and the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Some respondents, predominantly organisations, reaffirmed their closed question response, suggesting that the current systems for textile recycling were working effectively.

A majority of respondents (61%) believed that a household collection of textiles would be beneficial, with stronger support among individuals (69%) than organisations (54%). All waste management organisations believed that the household collection of textiles would be a benefit. At the open question, respondents mentioned positive effects of such a change, such as anticipated increases in recycling participation and environmental benefits, such as reduced landfill use and lower emissions. However, respondents also identified concerns and barriers, such as the increased cost for local authorities, potential adverse effects on charity and reuse shops due to people recycling textiles rather than donating, and the risk of contamination or downgrading of textile quality.

There was less support for providing kerbside textile collection as a statutory service. Only 37% of respondents supported the idea, whereas 53% were opposed or strongly opposed. Individuals were more likely to be in favour (62%) than organisations (14%). Respondents raised concerns over the financial implications for local authorities, space constraints for households to store additional bins, and operational challenges, especially for rural and island communities. Other suggestions mentioned by smaller numbers of respondents included a desire to prioritise reuse over recycling, ensuring consistent practices across Scotland and initiating schemes like EPR or third-sector partnerships.

There was broad support (83%) for requiring local authorities to provide textile recycling facilities at Household Waste Recycling Centres as an alternative to kerbside collection. Respondents emphasised the importance of accessibility and highlighted the role of clear public communication and education campaigns to maximise the effectiveness of any changes to services. An alternative suggestion proposed by a few throughout the consultation was for increase in textile collection banks in communal space, such as supermarket carparks.

Almost all respondents (92%) anticipated barriers to implementing statutory kerbside textile collection, a concern shared by all organisations that answered. Many respondents reiterated concerns mentioned in earlier questions, such as increased costs for local authorities, potential negative impacts on charity and reuse shops, risks of contamination and downgrading of textile quality, and limited infrastructure, particularly in rural and island locations.

Rural Food Waste Exemption

Half of those who responded to the consultation were based in areas with a rural food waste exemption. Respondents were split on whether to keep the exemption (32%), remove it (34%), or pursue alternative approaches (34%). Of those answering, 69% indicated a likelihood to opt-in to a local authority kerbside food waste collection were it to be offered. When asked what practices respondents currently use, 14% use at-home composting to handle their food waste, no respondents take it to a local recycling centre, and 86% use another method, including using the general waste.

Those who provided further detail at the open questions raised concerns about the costs, both financial and in terms of resources, of removing the exemption. Others raised questions about the efficiency concerns that prompted the food waste exemption and asked for further information about whether removing the exemption would justify the carbon and energy costs of collecting it. Other reasons mentioned for keeping the exemption included concerns that removing it would overly burden communities in remote and rural areas, as there is limited access to waste and recycling resources. Those in favour of removing the exemption felt that it could benefit the environment, drive infrastructure and technological development, and provide rural communities with other ways to dispose of food waste.

Respondents also suggested updating the existing rural classification. Reasons for this included concerns that some larger towns were still classed as rural and included in the exemption, and that advances in technology could make it easier to collect food waste from areas that had previously been more challenging. Other ideas included investing in home composting, offering flexible collection frequencies, and expanding community-based food redistribution.

Assessing the impact of the proposal

Respondents highlighted the following impacts on the different groups prompted in the consultation:

• Most respondents anticipated no specific impact on equalities, though positive impacts on accessibility of kerbside collection for disabled or older people were noted.
• Business and regulation concerns were centred on increased operational and financial burdens for local authorities and concerns around the business models of charity and reuse shops.
• The anticipated impact on children’s rights and wellbeing was minimal, though some suggested possible environmental benefits or negative effects on access to affordable clothing and toys.
• For island communities, high haulage costs and limited local infrastructure could make new requirements disproportionately challenging, though some suggested it could provide an opportunity for investment in local solutions.
• Views on environmental impacts were mixed, with some respondents anticipating increased benefits from recycling while others were concerned that increased vehicle emissions, infrastructure shortfalls, and the undermining of reuse could have a negative overall impact.

Conclusions

Support for the proposals was mixed. While some respondents felt that the proposals could enhance accessibility and benefit the environment, others raised concerns about the cost, resource allocation, practicality, and unintended negative impacts. Clear communication and investment in infrastructure were mentioned by respondents as considerations alongside the policy proposals.

The responses provide valuable evidence and insight that the Scottish Government can use when undertaking any next steps to develop the proposals. Based on the responses, this could include further engagement with stakeholders, collecting additional information about the practical and financial implications of the proposed changes and updating impact assessments with relevant evidence provided by respondents.