The 2026 Circular Fashion Index Raises the Bar for Evidence

Fashion’s circularity conversation got a new measuring stick this week. Kearney says its sixth annual Circular Fashion Index, released on 2 September 2026, now covers 241 brands in 21 countries and five product categories. The firm reports that the average score rose to 3.7 on a 1–10 scale, from 3.4 in 2025. The threshold for the top 20% moved from 5.8 to 6.0, while the bottom 80% averaged 3.1. Kearney also says 73–84% of brands show moderate activation across key dimensions, but only 3–7% reach what it calls extensive activation.

The numbers are news because they suggest movement. They are useful because the index spans more than a recycled-fiber claim: Kearney describes nine dimensions from materials and design through manufacturing, communication, care and repair, secondhand, rental, and post-use recovery. They are not, however, a substitute for a product bill of materials, a verified repair rate, or evidence that a take-back item actually found a second use.

The practical question for fashion teams is not whether a brand can point to a score. It is whether the score helps the team make a better decision about a specific style, service, or end-of-life route.

A benchmark can show direction without proving impact

Kearney’s release frames the index as a measure of how brands put circularity into practice across the product life cycle. That is a different object from a life-cycle assessment or an audited impact inventory. A benchmark can compare disclosed actions using a common framework; it cannot, by itself, tell a buyer how many wears a particular jacket achieved, how much waste a repair program avoided, or whether a resale offer displaced a new purchase.

That distinction matters when scores rise. An average moving from 3.4 to 3.7 may reflect more brands activating a practice, better disclosure, a change in the sample, a revised scoring rule, or a combination of those factors. The release gives the year-on-year figures but does not, in the public summary, provide a brand-by-brand audit trail for every point. Readers should therefore treat the result as a directional benchmark and inspect the underlying methodology before using it in a procurement gate or customer claim.

The threshold change tells a more nuanced story. A top-20% cut-off of 6.0 implies that the competitive bar is higher inside the sample. It does not mean the industry has crossed a universal “circular” threshold. Kearney’s own language separates moderate from extensive activation, and the very small extensive range—3–7%—is a warning against turning a broad adoption statement into a conclusion about system performance.

The index is broad; the evidence packet must be specific

For a product team, the nine dimensions are a useful checklist of questions. They are not the evidence itself. A designer deciding between two shell constructions needs fiber identity, finishing chemistry, seam and trim choices, care instructions, expected performance, and a plan for disassembly or repair. A sourcing manager needs the legal entity and site, a material lot, production records, and a clear chain from the supplier’s statement to the finished style. A resale operator needs intake criteria, inspection outcomes, condition language, image records, and a policy for items that fail review.

The European Environment Agency’s textile Circularity Metrics Lab shows why those details are difficult to assemble. Its current briefing reports that EU textile consumption reached 19 kilograms per person in 2022, while the household textile-waste capture rate was just under 15%. The agency also reports that 26% of separately collected textile waste was sent to incineration or landfill and that 1.4 million tonnes of used textiles were exported from the EU in 2025. The metrics are system-level signals, not a verdict on any one company, but they show how far the infrastructure sits from a closed loop.

The EEA also flags data gaps around product lifespans, repair, reuse, recycling performance, and waste-trade patterns. That is the uncomfortable counterpart to a rising benchmark: a brand can improve its documented practices while the wider system still cannot observe what happens to most garments. A credible internal scorecard should preserve the unknowns instead of filling them with a confident average.

Regulation turns “circular” into an operating question

Policy is making the evidence problem harder to postpone. The European Commission identifies textile apparel as a priority product group under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and describes a future Digital Product Passport intended to make product information comparable across a life cycle. Product-specific fields and timing depend on delegated measures, so teams should not treat a generic passport template as finished law. The Commission’s consumer guidance also says that from 27 September 2026 shoppers will see a harmonised notice about legal guarantees and a voluntary GARAN label for products with a commercial durability guarantee longer than two years.

France is taking a different but related route. A government order that entered into force on 1 September 2026 creates an eco-contribution malus for products classified as ultra-fast fashion. The ministry says the malus can reach 50% of the product price, capped at €12 in 2026 and €19.50 in 2030. The rule is an incentive mechanism, not a circularity score. Its existence does make product durability, repairability, and assortment behavior more consequential for teams selling into France.

Together, these policies change what a benchmark is for. A high-level score can help a board see that materials, repair, resale, and recovery deserve ownership. It cannot answer which operator updates the passport, who retains the repair record, or what happens when a returned item contains a safety issue or a restricted graphic. Those are workflow questions.

A usable scorecard has three layers

FashionMember’s recommended implementation is to keep three layers separate.

Layer one is the public benchmark. Record the Kearney edition, sample description, dimensions, score, and any methodology change. Cite the source and date. Do not present the score as a product footprint, a compliance certificate, or proof of avoided emissions.

Layer two is the product evidence. Link a style identifier to fiber composition, supplier and site, material certificates, relevant test reports, care and repair instructions, and a dated review. If a material claim is modeled, keep the functional unit, boundary, assumptions, and reviewer information with it. A recycled-content certificate and a repair outcome are different records even when they support the same sustainability narrative.

Layer three is the outcome record. Track what happened after sale: repair requests received and completed, returns by condition, items accepted for resale, items routed to reuse or recycling, and unresolved cases. Define each denominator. “Repair rate” can mean completed repairs divided by requests, eligible products, or all units sold; those tell different stories. “Take-back volume” says nothing about the fate of what was collected unless custody and disposition are recorded.

This separation makes a benchmark more useful, not less. It lets a team explain that its public index signal is improving while a particular product field remains unknown. It also makes a correction possible without rewriting every claim in a campaign.

What the next two years could prove

FashionMember’s base scenario for 2026–2028 is that more brands will publish circularity benchmarks as European product and consumer rules move from framework to implementation. Public scores will rise faster than independently comparable outcome data. The assumption is that Kearney continues the annual series, the Commission continues work on textile product requirements, and retailers keep asking suppliers for structured evidence.

An upside case would see benchmark publishers disclose scoring changes, samples, and evidence requirements in a machine-readable format, while brands connect those signals to style-level records and verified service outcomes. In a downside case, scores become a new form of green shorthand: a number appears in a presentation, but no one can identify the product, denominator, or end-of-life result behind it.

The forecast is falsifiable. Look for the next index methodology release, public examples that tie scores to repair or reuse outcomes, and EU delegated-act or technical-specification documents that define required data fields. Also watch language. “We scored six on a benchmark that covers nine practice dimensions” is bounded. “Our products are circular” is a much larger claim.

Kearney’s 2026 release is valuable precisely because it gives the industry a current signal and a reason to ask harder questions. A rising average is a starting point for governance, not a finish line. The brands that gain operating advantage will be the ones that can move from a scorecard to a traceable product record, and from a promise of a second life to evidence of what happened next.

Sources and verification

• Kearney: Circular Fashion Index 2026 — official index page and edition context, checked 3 September 2026.
• Kearney press release via PR Newswire — 2 September 2026 release; 241 brands, 21 countries, five categories, nine dimensions, score movement, top-20% threshold, and moderate/extensive activation ranges.
• European Environment Agency: Circularity of the EU textiles value chain in numbers — system-level consumption, collection, waste, exports, and data-gap context.
• EEA Circularity Metrics Lab: Textiles — current textile indicators including recycled content, reuse, waste treatment, and repair metrics.
• European Commission: Sustainable consumption — legal-guarantee notice and voluntary GARAN durability label effective from 27 September 2026, plus circular-economy policy context.
• European Commission: Ecodesign and Digital Product Passport for textile apparel — textile priority status, possible product data fields, and indicative implementation context.
• French Ministry for Ecological Transition: ultra-fast-fashion malus — 1 September 2026 eco-contribution mechanism and stated caps.

This article separates Kearney’s reported benchmark figures, public policy and environmental indicators, and FashionMember analysis. It does not rank a brand, infer customer demand, or treat the synthetic cover as evidence of a real product, company, or circularity outcome. It is not legal, environmental, or investment advice.