File 0204Updated 2026-07-26Owns textile EPR software
Textile EPR software that evidences the mass flow instead of estimating it.
Extended producer responsibility for textiles turns on numbers: what was collected, what was sorted into which fraction, what was recycled, and what a producer may therefore be charged. Today those numbers are reconstructed from weighbridge tickets and estimates. TexFile produces them from the material itself, one record at a time, with the evidence still attached.
§For producer responsibility schemesEco modulation needs evidence, not estimates
Directive (EU) 2025/1892 has been in force since 16 October 2025 and brings textiles into extended producer responsibility. The German implementation, the Textilgesetz, is due on 17 June 2027. Producers will finance collection, sorting and recycling, and the fees are eco modulated: they vary with how a product performs against defined criteria.
Modulation only works where the property being rewarded can be evidenced. A recycled share nobody can trace is a fee reduction nobody can grant, and a scheme that cannot show how a figure was produced has to defend it anyway. The compliance date is already fixed. The evidence base is what is missing.
Volume is not the constraint either. Separate collection of used textiles has been mandatory in Germany since 1 January 2025 under KrWG §20, so the material is arriving. What arrives with it is a weight, not a description.
Evidence that can be inspected downward
A reported total is an assertion until somebody can open it. A record based figure is the other way round: the fraction total is an aggregate of item records, each of which names the documents it was read from and the confidence of every value at the time of reading. The number is not defended by the party that reported it. It is defended by what is underneath it.
| When the scheme asks | A reconstructed aggregate | Per fraction evidence |
|---|---|---|
| What was in this fraction | A category label and a weight. | The composition profile of the items counted into it, with a confidence on every value. |
| How was the figure produced | From tickets and sampling assumptions, reassembled afterwards. | From the records written as the material was handled, each with its own provenance. |
| Can it be checked | By repeating the same calculation on the same inputs. | By opening any record in the aggregate and following a field to its source document. |
| Does it support eco modulation | Only as an average across a stream. | Down to the properties actually observed, per fraction and per period. |
What the reporting surface does
- Aggregates what was read
- Item records roll up per fraction and per period, so a report is a view over evidence rather than a separate document maintained beside it.
- Keeps the trail intact
- Every aggregate can be opened to the records inside it, and every record to the source documents and the confidence behind each field.
- Speaks the reporting standards
- Custody events in the EPCIS vocabulary, GS1 identifiers, and the EU Digital Product Passport data model, so a scheme receives what its systems already read.
- Separates the certain from the reviewed
- Values that cleared the operator's confidence threshold and values resolved in assisted review stay distinguishable in the report, with every correction written back with its provenance.
Who it is built for
Producer responsibility organisations
To modulate fees on properties that can be evidenced, and to answer for the figures they publish.
Per fraction evidence with provenance to the item, in the standards their reporting already uses.
Public waste authorities and municipalities
To account for separately collected volumes under KrWG §20 with numbers that survive an audit.
Composition evidence from the sorting line itself rather than an estimate reconstructed from tickets.
Sorting operators reporting into a scheme
To report what left the plant without maintaining a second set of books to do it.
Reports generated from the records the line already produces, per fraction and per period.
The consumer side of the same problem
EmpCo, Directive (EU) 2024/825, applies from 27 September 2026 and bars environmental claims that are not substantiated, with penalties reaching four percent of annual turnover in the member states concerned. A scheme evidencing a mass flow and a brand substantiating a claim are asking the same question of the same material: which sources support this value, and how well do they agree.
What the reports conform to
- EPCIS
- Custody events in the standard vocabulary, so a chain of custody reads the same to the scheme and to the operator.
- GS1 identifiers
- Stable references for items and fractions, resolvable outside the plant that produced them.
- EU Digital Product Passport
- The same records project into the passport format where a producer needs one.
- PROV-O
- Provenance carried as data, which is what makes an aggregate inspectable rather than merely repeatable.
- SHACL
- Records are shape validated before they are sealed, so a report is never assembled from malformed input.
Common questions
What is textile EPR software?
Software that produces and holds the evidence an extended producer responsibility scheme reports on: what was collected, what was sorted into which fraction, and what each fraction contained. TexFile builds those figures from item records originated at the sorting line, each one keeping the documents and the confidence behind every value.
How does evidence support eco modulated fees?
Eco modulation charges producers according to how their products perform against defined criteria, so every criterion has to be demonstrable. Per fraction evidence lets a scheme show which properties were actually observed in the material, with provenance from the aggregate down to the item and the document it was read from.
Do public waste authorities use the same records?
Yes. Separate collection under KrWG §20 has been mandatory in Germany since 1 January 2025, and the authorities answering for those volumes face the same question as the schemes: what was in them. The records are produced once at the sorting line and read by whoever has to account for the material.
Does this replace the reporting systems a scheme already runs?
No. It supplies the evidence layer underneath them. Reports leave in EPCIS custody events and the passport data model, which the existing systems already read, so the scheme keeps its process and gains a figure it can open rather than one it has to trust.
Sources
File 0104Published 2026-07-26≈ 7 min read
The EPR and ESPR timeline for textile sorters
Five EU and German instruments, their dates, and what each one actually changes for a sorter, a recycler or a producer responsibility scheme.
File 0106Published 2026-07-26≈ 6 min read
Chain of custody for recycled textiles
Segregation and mass balance both assume a producer at the top of the chain. Post consumer textiles do not have one. What replaces the certificate.
File 0102Published 2026-07-26≈ 7 min read
How recycled content claims are verified
Mass balance, certificates and audits are how recycled content in textiles is verified today. What each one proves, and where each one breaks.
Bring us a fraction you have to account for.
Tell us what you collect, how it is sorted and what you must report. We will show what per fraction evidence looks like when it can be opened to the item.
Start a partner inquiry