FABRIX Deliverable D2.1 "Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens" (Intermediate version)

FABRIX has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Programme, under grant agreement No. 101135638 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (intermediate version) Deliverable D2.1 30 June 2025 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 2 Project acronym: FABRIX Project full title: Fostering local, beautiful, and sustainably designed regenerative textile and clothing ecosystems Grant agreement no.: 101135638 Deliverable number and name D2.1 “Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sectors in Rotterdam and Athens” (intermediate) Distribution level: PU - Public Responsible author(s)/partner: EUR Contributing author(s) / partner(s): TUD / AUEB / OSMO / TCBL / RDAM / SOFF Reviewed by: Mariangela Lavanga, Younghyun Kim, Mina Rezikalla, Nefeli Lappa, Karel Van den Berghe, Jesse Burgess Marsh, Fiori Zafeiropoulou, Ioannis Kritikopoulos Total number of pages: 52 Revision history Number Date Description 0.1 04/2025 Draft 0.2 05/2025 Draft 0.3 05/2025 Draft 0.4 06/2025 Revision 0.5 06/2025 Revision 0.6 06/2025 Revision 0.7 06/2025 Final Statement of Originality This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation, or both. Copyright: This work is licensed by the FABRIX Consortium under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, 2024. The FABRIX Consortium consists of: Delft University of Technology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Athens University of Economics and Business, OSMOS network, AIDIMME, Roadmapper, SOFFA Fashion Factory, Municipality of Rotterdam, Cedecs-TCBL. Disclaimer All information included in this document is subject to change without notice. The Members of the FABRIX Consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this document, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Members of the Consortium shall not be held liable for errors contained herein or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages in connection with the use of this material. Funding Acknowledgement FABRIX has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Programme, under grant agreement No. 101135638 . Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or HaDEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 3 1. Executive summary This deliverable, D2.1 “Analysis of the Spatial and Ecosystem Characteristics of the Textile and Clothing Sectors in Rotterdam and Athens” (intermediate version), forms a core research foundation of the FABRIX project. Its main aim is to understand the spatial dynamics and network needs of the textile and clothing (T&C) sector in both cities, providing a baseline snapshot of current conditions and informing the future development of the FABRIX platform. The spatial analysis addresses the question of where textile and clothing activities take place, what we term the spaces of networks. Using detailed business-level data, the deliverable visualizes the location of businesses across the T&C value chain to identify key hotspots and emerging areas of activity. In Athens, spatial patterns remain concentrated in traditional commercial districts such as Omonia and Psiri, while more boutique or youth-driven activity is emerging in neighbourhoods such as Kolonaki and Kypseli. Distribution is shaped by affordability, historical land use, and access to labour. In Rotterdam, by contrast, textile activity has shifted significantly over time. Once concentrated in the city centre, activity has become more diffused, with new clusters forming in neighbourhoods such as Zwaanshals and Oude Noorden, particularly for design, education, and circular practices. This decentralization reflects broader urban transitions, policy efforts, and the growing role of circular economy initiatives. Beyond spatial patterns, FABRIX also examines the networks of spaces, or the relationships and dynamics that underpin ecosystem functioning. Through semi-structured interviews with businesses, facilitators, and government actors in both cities, the deliverable explores the operational realities, opportunities, and systemic barriers facing those driving circular and regenerative practices in the T&C sector. Across both cities, businesses are experimenting with upcycling, take-back schemes, local production, and circular design, often driven by founders with a strong personal motivation to reform the T&C system. However, support systems remain fragmented. Long-term partnerships are rare, sourcing materials is often informal, and impact measurement is still underdeveloped. Facilitators play a vital role in both ecosystems, acting as connectors across value chains. However, they face significant challenges related to maintaining networks, managing data, and scaling efforts, especially in the face of limited funding or short-term projects. In Rotterdam, a notable finding is that entrepreneurs themselves often adopt facilitation roles, blurring the boundaries between business and ecosystem support, which is a reality that the FABRIX platform must take into account in its user design. Policymakers in both cities recognize the potential of the circular T&C transition, but also the complexity involved. In Rotterdam, the Rotterdam Circulair program is particularly active in supporting behavioural change, waste management, and local production. However, challenges remain around data collection, spatial planning, and crossdepartmental coordination. Together, the quantitative spatial mapping and qualitative ecosystem analysis offer an integrated picture of where and how FABRIX can make a difference. With creativity, passion, and a shared vision for sustainable transformation present in both cities, the FABRIX D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 4 platform is well-positioned to respond to the spatial and relational needs identified in this study. If designed with flexibility, sensitivity to place-based contexts, and long-term custodianship in mind, FABRIX has the potential to support the transition from isolated initiatives to connected, resilient, and scalable circular ecosystems. The structure of the deliverable is as follows: Chapter 2 provides the introduction, outlining the deliverable’s objectives, scope, and connection to the broader FABRIX project. Chapter 3 presents the methodological approach, detailing the spatial analysis methods and qualitative interview design. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the two case study cities, Athens and Rotterdam, respectively, offering detailed accounts of the history of their urban industrial transitions, spatial patterns of T&C business activity, and insights from interviews with businesses, facilitators, and policymakers. Chapter 6 concludes the deliverable with a synthesis of key findings and final reflections. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 5 Table of Contents 1. Executive summary .................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ............................................................................. 9 3. Methods of data gathering and analysis .............................. 11 3.1 Spatial mapping .................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Data gathering ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Cartographic mapping process ............................................................................................ 11 3.1.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Interviews ............................................................................................. 13 4. Athens, Greece ....................................................................... 16 4.1 History / Background ............................................................................ 16 4.1.1 Late 20th Century (1980s–1990s) to early 2000s................................................................ 16 4.1.2 From 2010s to the present: Crisis, Resilience, and (Re)imagining the Sector .................... 17 4.2 Spatial mapping .................................................................................... 19 4.3 Businesses ............................................................................................ 20 4.3.1 Business context & motivation ............................................................................................ 20 4.3.2 Circular practices & supply chain partners .......................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Main challenges & needs ..................................................................................................... 21 4.3.4 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.4 Facilitators ............................................................................................ 21 4.4.1 Roles & archetypes .............................................................................................................. 21 4.4.2 Stakeholder reach & services ............................................................................................... 22 4.4.3 Main challenges & ideal collaborations ............................................................................... 22 4.4.4 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 22 4.5 Policymakers ......................................................................................... 23 4.5.1 Mandates & initiatives ......................................................................................................... 23 4.5.2 Main challenges & needs ..................................................................................................... 23 4.5.3 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 23 5. Rotterdam, the Netherlands ................................................. 25 5.1 History / Background ............................................................................ 25 5.2 Spatial mapping .................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Business data analysis .......................................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Cartographic hotspot analysis ............................................................................................. 28 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 6 5.3 Businesses ............................................................................................ 32 5.3.1 Business context & motivation ............................................................................................ 32 5.3.2 Circular practices & supply chain partners .......................................................................... 32 5.3.3 Main challenges & needs ..................................................................................................... 34 5.3.4 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 35 5.4 Facilitators ............................................................................................ 35 5.4.1 Roles & archetypes .............................................................................................................. 35 5.4.2 Stakeholder reach & services ............................................................................................... 36 5.4.3 Main challenges & ideal collaborations ............................................................................... 37 5.4.4 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 37 5.5 Policymakers ......................................................................................... 38 5.5.1 Mandates & initiatives ......................................................................................................... 38 5.5.2 Main challenges & needs ..................................................................................................... 39 5.5.3 Future vision ........................................................................................................................ 39 6. Conclusion: Mapping opportunities and bottlenecks for a circular and regenerative T&C in Athens and Rotterdam..................... 40 References ................................................................................. 42 Annexes ...................................................................................... 45 Annex 1 – Table of the NACE codes used for business selection and categorization, with their source ............................................................... 45 Annex 2 – Interviews guidelines ................................................................. 47 Interview Guide – Business ........................................................................................................... 47 Interview Guide – Facilitators ....................................................................................................... 49 Interview Guide – Policy ............................................................................................................... 51 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 7 List of acronyms Acronyms Description D1.2 Deliverable 1.2 “Methodological framework” M9 (final version) D2.1 Deliverable 2.1 “Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sectors in Rotterdam and Athens” M18 (intermediate version) D2.2 Deliverable 2.2 “Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sectors in Rotterdam and Athens” M24 (final version) D2.3 Deliverable 2.3 “Identification and improvement of indicators for the circular and social system self-assessment tool” M14 (Intermediate version) D2.5 Deliverable 2.5 “Identification of what is needed to tailor the existing interactive platforms” M15 (Intermediate version) D2.6 Deliverable 2.6 “Identification of what is needed to tailor the existing interactive platforms” M36 (Final version) D2.7 Deliverable 2.7 “Framework for the functional aspects of the platform” M15 (Intermediate version) D2.8 Deliverable 2.8 “Framework for the functional aspects of the platform” M36 (Final version) T&C Textile and Clothing T2.1 Task 2.1 “Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sector in Rotterdam and Athens” T2.2 Task 2.2 “Identification and improvement of indicators for the circular and social system self-assessment tool” T2.3 Task 2.3 “Identification of what is needed to tailor the existing interactive platforms” T2.4 Task 2.4 “Development of the MANTEL feature list) and T3.1 (Digital platform architecture and front-end interface” WP2 Work Package 2 “Mapping the selected cities & their T&C sector & tailoring the existing platforms” WP3 Work Package 3 “MANTEL: process support tools for end-users" WP4 Work Package 4 “Platform implementation and enhancing the local ecosystems through FSTP and co-creation List of tables Table 1: Number of interviewees by category and city ....................................................................... 14 Table 2: The number of businesses active per sector in Rotterdam from 1996 to 2022. On a scale of blue – yellow – green, the increase or decrease in the number of businesses is indicated in relation to the total number of businesses in Rotterdam's T&C sector. .......................................................... 27 Table 3: The composition of Rotterdam's T&C sector per year of the different categories created. The percentages show how much of the T&C sector is occupied by each category of businesses. ... 27 List of figures Figure 1: The T&C (re)manufacturing chain, with the areas of expertise of the ecosystems in Rotterdam and Athens ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Map of archetypes ................................................................................................................. 13 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 8 Figure 3: The distribution of textile manufacturers (NACE 14) overlaid on the topographical map of Athens and its surrounding built environment. The extent of the Athens municipal boundaries is indicated through the shaded area. ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4: The change in the number and distribution of Manufacturing businesses (solid line) and jobs (dashed line) in Rotterdam between 1996 and 2022. .................................................................. 29 Figure 5: The change in number and distribution of Supply businesses (solid line) and jobs (dashed line) in Rotterdam between 1996 and 2022. ....................................................................................... 31 Figure 6: Dissecting the business categories and their prevalence in Rotterdam. The columns indicate their scale of presence across the urban fabric (local, city-wide, regional), and the rows indicate the intensity of their clustering. The business categories are coloured based on whether the number of businesses increased over time (green), decreased (red), or fluctuated (yellow). ..... 32 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 9 2. Introduction FABRIX emphasizes the interconnected nature of cross-border and cross-sectoral cocreation. The goal of FABRIX is to tackle the challenges embedded within these networkrelational systems in the context of local and regenerative urban manufacturing. For this goal to be reached, a thorough analysis of the existing Textile & Clothing (T&C) ecosystem is necessary. Deliverable 2.1 “Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sectors in Rotterdam and Athens” (intermediate version) aims at providing a first analysis of the T&C ecosystem in Athens, Greece, and Rotterdam, The Netherlands. D2.1 is part of Work Package 2 (WP2) “Mapping the selected cities & their T&C sector & tailoring the existing platforms” whose aim is fourfold: - Analyse the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sector in Rotterdam and Athens (Task 2.1), - Identify and improve the indicators for the circular and social system assessment tools (Task 2.2), - Identify what is needed to tailor the existing interactive platforms (Task 2.3), and - Develop the FABRIX platform feature list (Task 2.4). Each aim refers to one of the four tasks part of WP2. The deliverables linked to the four tasks are therefore highly interrelated. The intermediate deliverables D2.3, D2.5 and D2.7, respectively linked to T2.2, T2.3 and T2.4, have already been submitted between February and March 2025 (M14 and M15). Preliminary insights from T2.1 have therefore been fed into the three submitted deliverables. All deliverables will be then updated in M24 (D2.2) and M36 (D2.4, D2.6, D2.8). Furthermore, understanding the context of the two cities is key to further develop and tailor mechanisms and conditions for the FABRIX platform to succeed in fostering local and regenerative urban T&C manufacturing (WP3 and WP4). As such, the learnings through the process of investigation for D2.1 inform other deliverables and WPs as well. In Task 2.1 (WP2), with a focus on analysing the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the T&C sector in Rotterdam and Athens, the FABRIX team engages in a thorough analysis of local and inter-local T&C supply chains and mapping the bottlenecks and opportunities to the uptake of more circular, regenerative, and socially just practices (Bucci Ancapi et al., 2022; Bucci Ancapi et al., 2024; Pugh et al., 2024). By identifying specific challenges and opportunities for transition, we can gain insights into what frameworks, tools and functionalities might benefit the emergence of circular and just manufacturing ecosystems (Buchel et al., 2022). The analysis presented in D2.1 makes use of the (quantitative) data to understand the space of networks, providing the basis of the context and how it is composed, and we use (qualitative) interviews to understand the network of spaces, hereby being able to give meaning to the quantitative observations. As discussed in D1.2, FABRIX focuses on the analysis of the T&C sector in two case study cities: Athens (Greece) and Rotterdam (The Netherlands). Figure 1 visualises the areas of expertise of the two cities in the T&C (re)manufacturing chain. Rotterdam is a port-city that has increasingly shifted focus to services and technology. At the same time, Rotterdam is a major importer and exporter of post-consumer textiles following it is the largest European port. A significant part of the textiles sorters are located around the Port of Rotterdam. Although the textile sorters in the region collect approximately 126,000 tons of textile annually, 31% of it is no longer re-wearable, and 10% ends up in the incinerator. Given this high concentration of second-hand textiles in the Rotterdam region, several initiatives have emerged that engage in upcycling. Athens has a deeper manufacturing and bio-based thread making tradition, and a strong culture of craftsmanship linked to textile. Both cities, D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 16 4. Athens, Greece 4.1 History / Background 4.1.1 Late 20th Century (1980s–1990s) to early 2000s Until the mid-1980s, the textile and clothing sector constituted a central pillar of Greek manufacturing in terms of production, the number of firms, employment, and exports, according to Lyberaki (2010). Small and medium enterprises dominated this sector. In the clothing sector even since the 1950s the outsourcing of production to Balkan and Asian countries continued in the 1990s. The initial competitive advantage of the Greek market “in low salaries and proximity to the affluent markets of Europe” turned around when in Greece salaries raised. With this opening to the global market although, Greece managed to establish links to the globalized market and also gained technical knowledge. Remaining operations shifted toward low-cost options regarding manufacturing, production and wages. Greece as a previous producer in textile and clothing sector becomes gradually an ‘intermediate player’ in triangular forms of trade, as Lyberaki (2010) describes. Due to this delocalization, clothing production had significantly declined by 1995 compared to 1980 levels. The years 1995-2005 further declines in production are reported, as the production of clothing in Greece becomes more expensive due to the rise in wages, although at the same time the quality characteristics don’t follow the same growth. So, it seems preferable for producers to move to other high-end European countries famous in design or low-cost countries (Lyberaki, 2010). In the case of Greek manufacturing, there is a concentration of firms in Athens and the broader area of Attica. Since the 1990s, Greek cities, and especially Athens and the metropolitan area of Attica, have been experiencing the rise of post-industrial urban economic sectors and industries. In 2000s the annual turnover of culture and leisure (museums, galleries, theatres, arts and crafts, film and music production, advertising, design, libraries, fitness and athletics) amount to € 30,612 millions and €4,486.26 millions in Athens and the metropolitan area of Attica (Gospodini, 2009). Within the urban system of Greece, Athens as the capital is by far the most important city, where all economic sectors and activities are concentrated -especially high-level public administration, business headquarters and a broad variety of services (education, health). Particularly Metaxourgio (the name comes from the Greek work for silk, metaxi - μετάξι) and Psiri are areas where SMEs form clusters of creative industries, fashion, textile and clothing. As Gospidini records, first in Psiri and later in Metaxourgio we find mainly creative activities of design firms, handcraft workshops, art galleries, avant-garde theatres. Secondarily, in Psiri exist also ethnic fashion shops, handicraft shops with small furniture, leather goods and decorative artefacts, but Metaxourgio is approached in this decade for housing for the new middle classes. Regarding urban morphology and landscape in both these areas 19th century buildings are preserved, mostly old houses and warehouses are found here. The formation of these clusters first in Psiri that later moves towards Metaxourgio was rather spontaneous, related to the areas’ spatial and socioeconomic characteristics, and not based on a well-structured plan or policy (Gospodini, 2009). Former working-class/industrial areas like Metaxourgeio, Kerameikos, Gazi, and parts of Psiri became gentrification hotspots. Between 2000 and 2004 in particular, the city centre of Athens (Psiri, Gazi) starts becoming an area for leisure and culture-related activities, rather than housing. Metaxourgio, which was a deteriorated neighbourhood, begins to grow and being culturally gentrified. Creative industries pop up, bringing economic growth D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 17 and social and spatial changes. New artists, galleries and designer ateliers erode, in order to give the region a new cool feeling (Papageorgiou, 2013). Athens entered the contemporary era with a T&C pedigree that stretched back to the “golden twenty years” of Greek manufacturing expansion (ca. 1975-1995). By the early 1990s more than 220,000 workers were employed nationwide in apparel and footwear plants and exports exceeded €2.5 billion, around one-quarter of all Greek merchandise sales (Manifava, 2021). While the mills and cut-and-sew halls were concentrated in Central Macedonia, buying offices, design studios and roughly half of national wholesale-retail turnover had already shifted to Athens–Attica, cementing the region’s role as the commercial core of the chain. The liberalisation of EU import quotas between 1996 and 2007 ushered in a structural break. Production first migrated to Bulgaria and Albania and later to China, prompting Attica firms to pivot from manufacturing to sourcing and brand management. The 2007-08 banking crisis and the ensuing domestic debt recession deepened the shift: workshops in Psyrri, Kerameikos and Kato Patisia closed, and thousands of square meters were converted into cafés or short-stay apartments. Even so, by 2014-2019 the leaner but modernised chain remained one of Greece’s three largest industrial groupings, with about 6,000 manufacturing firms and 30,000 trade entities. Direct employment totalled ca. 180,000 people; turnover exceeded €3 billion, exports recovered to €2.3 billion and domestic retail sales reached €4.2 billion. Central Macedonia still generated 80% of export value, but Attica hosted half of commercial establishments and continued as the main showroom and logistics node. Imports, which had dipped during the deepest recession years, began rising again after 2015 as consumer demand revived (Karabinis, 2022) 4.1.2 From 2010s to the present: Crisis, Resilience, and (Re)imagining the Sector The Greek debt crisis (2009–2018) accelerated bankruptcies of small textile enterprises. The onset of the Greek debt crisis in 2009 had a profound impact on the textile and clothing sector in Athens. The Regional Development Institute of Panteion University, funded by the Ministry of Culture and Sports in Greece, carried out a mapping of the Creative and Cultural Industry in Greece especially for the years of the financial recession. The financial crisis, which in Greece essentially began in 2009, had a strong impact on CCIs’ key figures. From 2008 up to 2014, added value decreased by 55.1%, the number of employees was reduced by 29.5% and enterprises decreased by 27.9%. In 2014 the cultural and creative sector in Greece shows the first signs of recovery after six years, and it employed 110,688 employees in 46,370 enterprises, with € 5.3 billion in sales of goods and services, with about € 2.1 billion added value for the Greek economy, and 1.4% contribution to the GDP. The crisis led to a significant reduction in domestic demand, increased unemployment, and a contraction of industrial activities. Many small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) in the textile industry faced closures or downsizing due to financial constraints and decreased consumer spending. The austerity measures implemented during this period further exacerbated the challenges faced by the sector, leading to a decline in production and employment. The biggest impact of the economic crisis is observed in the Region of Attica the time of the mapping, as it produces 75.5% of the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the CCIs in Greece, with 57.3% of creative enterprises, which employ 60.8% of employees as a whole. Regarding imports and exports, Greece exports goods amount to € 110 million (mainly books, knitted D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 18 goods, textiles, needlework, and audio recording media), in 2014. During the 2008-2014 period, exports decreased by 38% . The decline of industrial activities in previous years in central Athens led to the abandonment of numerous textile factories and workshops. Neighbourhoods like Metaxourgeio and Kerameikos underwent significant changes, with old factories being repurposed into art galleries, loft apartments, and creative hubs. Urban gentrification continues after the 2010s, and the 2020s bring renewed discussion on urban inequality, heritage, and climate resilience. At the same time, in this decade, social enterprises and initiatives promoting sustainable practices within the textile and clothing sector (Lavanga et al., 2020). COVID-19 delivered a fresh shock. Five months of retail lockdown in 2020 cut Attica appareland-footwear sales by 37%, mirroring a national turnover contraction of 32% and exportimport declines of ca. 20%. Yet the crisis also accelerated reshoring debates; commentators spoke of a “return of Made-in-Greece” as brands sought proximity production after Asian supply-chain disruptions (Manifava, 2021). The European Commission’s Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, adopted in March 2022, reinforced this momentum by signalling tougher eco-design and traceability rules. The metropolitan fabric is fragmenting into specialized micro-zones. Kerameikos, Metaxourgio and Tavros/Moschato still shelter artisanal cut-and-sew ateliers in repurposed ground-floor units, whereas Egaleo, Peristeri and parts of Piraeus attract small repair or recycling outfits thanks to lower rents—but these districts are increasingly squeezed by loft conversions that price out industrial tenants. In sum, Attica’s T&C ecosystem has evolved from a post-war assembly belt into a postindustrial service-and-design cluster now seeking to re-embed selective production under circular principles. Realising that ambition will depend on unlocking compliant workspace, stabilising regulatory signals—especially around Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and the Digital Product Passport—and financing the data backbone that local actors are already prototyping (Zafeiropoulou and Ioannou 2025; Zafeiropoulou et al., 2024). Although Athens is not traditionally recognized as a global fashion capital, it possesses a longstanding heritage of textile production and artisanal craftsmanship that has significantly shaped its contemporary creative industries, particularly in the context of postindustrial transformation. In the contemporary era, the city’s economic and touristic appeal is increasingly tied to its ability to intertwine its ancient historical identity with a dynamic and evolving creative economy. This shift is evident in the rise of independent designers and the influence of Greek culture on global fashion. Nowadays, a growing emphasis on upcycling and ethical fashion has eroded. Artists and designers focusing on environmentally friendly production methods and the reuse of materials. These initiatives not only addressed environmental concerns but also offered alternative economic opportunities in a struggling sector. The harsh consequences of the financial crisis and the climate crisis have led to conversations over climate justice, equality, and socio-environmental justice in urban development. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 19 4.2 Spatial mapping From the maps of Athens in Figure 3, we observe the highest concentration of textile and clothing (T&C) businesses in the city centre. The areas around Omonia and Psiri are marked by the darkest colour intensity, indicating dense activity, particularly along Panepistimiou and Stadiou Streets. This is the historic commercial heart of Athens, traditionally hosting a wide array of retail and wholesale businesses. Figure 3: The distribution of textile manufacturers (NACE 14) overlaid on the topographical map of Athens and its surrounding built environment. The extent of the Athens municipal boundaries is indicated through the shaded area. To the east of the city centre, another area with a slightly lighter yet notable concentration of T&C businesses is visible—Kolonaki. Situated on the slopes of Mount Lycabettus, Kolonaki is a bourgeois, upscale neighborhood known for its high-end boutiques. It is home to several renowned Greek haute couture designers as well as international luxury fashion brands. In contrast, the areas of Koukaki—located downhill from the Acropolis towards Petralona— and Pangrati show a noticeably lower concentration of T&C businesses, despite being popular tourist destinations. This suggests that tourist activity alone is not a determining factor in the spatial distribution of T&C enterprises. To the northwest of Omonia lies Metaxourgio, a neighbourhood with a historical connection to the T&C sector. From there, stretching towards Larissa Station and Victoria metro station, the concentration becomes lighter but remains present, extending into the district of Kypseli. Kypseli is a rapidly evolving area with a youthful and dnamic atmosphere. It has D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 20 become increasingly attractive to students, artists, and young entrepreneurs—especially following the gentrification of Exarchia—offering a multicultural environment and more affordable rents. Further north, along the axes of Liosion, Acharnon, and Patision Streets, several T&C businesses can also be identified. This may be attributed to lower rental costs in the area, which is densely populated by migrant and refugee communities who often form the core labor force in manual occupations, including the T&C sector. In Ano Patisia, a neighbourhood located near Athens’ main highway, we also note a small presence of such businesses—possibly due to easier logistics and transport connections facilitating the movement of goods. Finally, fewer T&C businesses are found in more peripheral areas such as Nea Filadelfeia and Perissos. 4.3 Businesses 4.3.1 Business context & motivation The Athenian textile-and-clothing cohort examined here consists of seventeen ownermanaged enterprises, sixteen of which were incorporated after 2012. Founders locate their decision to enter the sector at the intersection of three crises: the national sovereign-debt shock, the long refugee reception period (2013–20) and worldwide disquiet over supplychain disasters. As one interviewee reflected, “The crash exposed how much fabric we were literally throwing away; turning that waste into wages became our purpose” (I07). Labour forces remain lean—typically one-to-six full-time employees—yet two firms retain lowermedium head-counts (>100 FTE) owing to legacy production assets. Across the sample, profit is framed as subordinate to social repair and environmental regeneration; founders describe their firms as proof-of-concept laboratories rather than classical scale-ups. 4.3.2 Circular practices & supply chain partners Seventy-one per cent of respondents implement formal waste-minimisation routines— zero-waste pattern-cutting, 3-D seamless knitting or micro-repair lines. Twelve rely on secondary inputs sourced from municipal events, maritime canvases or a regional sorter; five record impacts with life-cycle spreadsheets, in-house eco-calculators or pilot productpassport modules. Digital experimentation is evident in AI “closet” engines that recombine garments to prolong wear and in recommerce credits that trace multi-owner life cycles. Production is embedded in relational, rather than vertically integrated, supply webs. Material donors include yacht clubs and festival contractors; subcontracting flows to microworkshops capable of sub-30-piece lots. Not-for-profit actors—design schools, activist networks—broker many of these links, while European research consortia have emerged as a meaningful source of seed capital. One owner summarised the arrangement thus: “We build the ecosystem one WhatsApp group at a time” (I03). D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 21 4.3.3 Main challenges & needs Four structural constraints recur. First, thirteen firms face persistent price resistance: “Upcycled one-offs sit in a luxury price band, but our customers do not” (I11). Second, twelve cite fragmented and volatile material flows that undermine batch repeatability. Third, nine highlight regulatory opacity around Extended Producer Responsibility, Digital Product Passports and urban zoning permits; this “moving target” deters capital investment. Finally, six report acute shortages of skilled machine technicians as older craftsmen retire. When asked what would unlock growth, respondents prioritise infrastructure over finance per se. Ten request a real-time digital marketplace displaying available feedstocks, machine hours and specialist services; eight call for shared logistics hubs on the Athenian freight belt; and a comparable number seek unequivocal guidance on forthcoming regulatory instruments. Pilot-scale finance and skills-transfer schemes—particularly those aimed at refugees and vocational graduates—complete the agenda. As one interlocutor put it, “Thirty thousand euros for a pilot line moves the needle more than three million for an accelerator we can’t even apply to” (I02). 4.3.4 Future vision Interviewees articulate a cautious, diversification-centred outlook for 2027-30. Rather than scaling single product lines, they anticipate micro-collections, multi-tenant hubs that integrate repair and education, and export growth rooted in Greek craft narratives. One recycler plans to commission the country’s first fibre-to-fibre facility by 2027; a recommerce operator envisages three EU redistribution hubs “so that second-hand becomes first choice.” In broad terms, entrepreneurs aspire to a metropolitan cluster where shared machinery, compliant workspace and stable regulatory signals allow their “islands of innovation” to consolidate into a globally visible circular-manufacturing archipelago. 4.4 Facilitators 4.4.1 Roles & archetypes Ten intermediary organisations active in Attica’s textile–clothing field fall into four functional archetypes. First are educational and research institutes—vocational fashion schools and university textile laboratories—that combine teaching with prototyping facilities and heritage-craft documentation. Second come innovation hubs and socialimpact networks that incubate early-stage ventures, run SDG-focused accelerators and curate thematic hackathons. A third category comprises sector and business associations whose mandates cover lobbying, policy dialogue and the production of market-intelligence reports for thousands of member firms. Finally, a cluster of cultural brokers and craft platforms matches traditional artisans with contemporary designers and organises pop-up exhibitions. Recent evidence points to a fifth, emergent actor type: bank-affiliated foundations that provide event space, mailing-list access and micro-sponsorship for circular fashion initiatives. Across all categories, interviewees occupy senior multi-hat positions— director, founder, programme lead—and toggle daily between project design, fundraising and hands-on mentoring. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 22 4.4.2 Stakeholder reach & services Facilitators engage a heterogeneous client base: start-ups in apparel, accessories and textile recycling; technology providers seeking sectoral pilots; municipalities experimenting with green-procurement schemes; and, increasingly, logistics operators and large retailers that micro-manufacturers wish to court for last-mile distribution or reverse-logistics partnerships. Support menus coalesce around three service bundles. Knowledge and skills provision ranges from formal VET curricula to short studios on zero-waste cutting, Clo3D, AI-based design and digital-heritage scanning. Network brokerage includes curated designer–maker pairings, themed markets, EU-project matchmaking and public-policy round-tables. Infrastructure access spans shared labs, machinery demonstrators and, in two cases, GIS dashboards that help firms choose retail locations. Sustainability content is not delivered as an add-on; seven of nine organisations weave circular economy principles into every workshop and mentoring cycle. Typical business queries cluster around material sourcing, pricing of up-cycled goods, navigation of grants and tax incentives, and practical access to industrial machinery on an hourly basis. One facilitator summarised the demand thus: “People don’t need another leaflet—they need to know who will lend them a forty-inch flat-bed printer for two hours next Thursday.” 4.4.3 Main challenges & ideal collaborations Structural fragmentation is the dominant constraint: no metropolitan cluster authority stitches together education, R-and-D, finance and planning, leaving facilitators to perform ad-hoc bridging work. Interviewees describe a funding treadmill in which EU or foundation projects sustain activity for two or three years before tools and datasets. Only two associations maintain longitudinal databases; most organisations rely on Excel lists or Slack channels. Talent pipelines are equally fragile: ageing craft tutors retire faster than replacements can be trained, while administrative hurdles delay university spin-offs. Digitalplatform enthusiasm is tempered by “platform fatigue”; portals financed by successive programmes have vanished for want of hosting budgets or moderation staff. Legal obstacles compound operational risk: light-industrial permits inside the Athens urban fabric remain difficult to secure, and micro-grants of €5 000 are deemed insufficient to unlock any serious machinery investment. Interviewees converge on an ideal collaborative solution: a multi-tenant circular hub in a vacant industrial building that would combine shared machines, a mini-sorting line, training rooms and pop-up commerce space. Operational expenditure, they argue, could be underwritten by bank foundations or property owners looking to demonstrate ESG credentials. Such a hub would also provide a physical anchor for the digital mapping and matchmaking services facilitators already envision. 4.4.4 Future vision Looking ahead, facilitators articulate a future in which digital infrastructure is inseparable from tangible assets. A directory that fails to secure a bookable loom or an approved permit, one director noted, “is just another map.” Consequently, organisations call for a GEMIsynchronised, time-series atlas that tracks firm births, closures and capacity shifts in real time and feeds automatically into a matchmaking engine. Algorithmic pairing, however, must be complemented by a “concierge layer” of human curators who vet matches and mediate trust. Long-run sustainability of any platform depends on clear governance and earmarked maintenance budgets; facilitators explicitly warn that they will disengage from digital tools that cannot guarantee financial continuity beyond the initial grant cycle. Coupled with zoning reform to simplify light-industrial permitting, these measures are D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 23 viewed as prerequisites for turning Attica’s dispersed support services into a cohesive, enabling infrastructure for circular and regenerative manufacturing. 4.5 Policymakers 4.5.1 Mandates & initiatives The public-sector interlocutors occupy hybrid spaces between cultural governance and economic development; both describe their mandate as that of “system orchestrator” rather than a classic regulator. Current policy work centres on three fronts. First, seedfunding programmes and short courses are being channelled to micro manufacturers through nineteen regional craft and applied arts schools—institutions that, while legally constituted, remain under-resourced in staff and curricula. Second, a draft Greek Craftsmanship Council is circulating for consultation; its proposed remit ranges from international representation in the World Craft Council to the standardisation of apprenticeship pathways. Third, mapping exercises are under way: officers manually crossreference the GEMI business register with Google-Maps geo-tags to visualise firm density and vacancy patterns across Attica. As one official admitted, “Our cartography is closer to the nineteenth century than the twenty-first.” Parallel digital pilots include two national craft platforms in beta and an exploratory link between the public employment agency’s (DYPA) wage-subsidy API. 4.5.2 Main challenges & needs Interviewees portray an uneven governance landscape in which legal competence for culture, zoning, labour and finance is split across municipal, regional and national layers. This multi-level fragmentation is exacerbated by a sizeable informal economy: “You cannot subsidise what you cannot even see,” observed one respondent when describing unregistered craft workshops. Data incompatibility compounds the problem; firms are scattered across dozens of NACE or CAD codes, making sectoral baselines impossible to establish. Curriculum gaps persist despite the existence of regional schools, and publicfunding cycles remain short: EU co-financing may cover two or three years, after which digital portals cease to function for lack of operational budgets. Spatial regulation emerges as a further bottleneck; zoning statutes treat small knitting machines as heavy industry, pushing workshops out of Athens’ urban core. Policymakers therefore express a dual need: comprehensive, interoperable datasets on establishments, flows and employment, and fitfor-purpose regulatory regimes that acknowledge mixed-use production in dense city fabric. 4.5.3 Future vision Both interviewees envisage a clustered craft-and-manufacturing hub under tri-sector governance—municipality, university and banking foundation—where shared machines, mini sorting lines and training facilities would co-locate. The hub is conceived as the physical twin of a digital “match-making and narrative engine” that would export a unified Greek craft brand to global buyers. Crucially, the data backbone of such a platform must be open, GEMI-synced and time-series capable; otherwise, as one policymaker cautioned, “policy will keep flying blind.” Embedding DYPA job-placement incentives, standardising craft-related NACE codes and instituting a ring-fenced maintenance budget for digital infrastructure are highlighted as immediate prerequisites. If these conditions are met, officials argue, Athens could reposition itself not merely as a design showroom but as a regenerative manufacturing anchor within the European Union’s emerging circular-textile architecture. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 24 D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 25 5. Rotterdam, the Netherlands 5.1 History / Background Rotterdam is the second city in The Netherlands with a population of over 663,900 inhabitants and over 170 nationalities. It is one of the most diverse and young cities in Europe with the largest migrant groups coming from Suriname, Turkey, Marocco and the Dutch Antilles. Rotterdam has the largest functioning port in Europe, and its urban development in recent years has been characterized by a focus on “urban port economy, social stratification, and water safety” (Custers & Willems, 2024, p. 10). Waterfront redevelopment and port transition have been significant developments in the city in recent decades (Lavanga, 2004; van den Borg et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2021). Most of the urban redevelopment follows the classic culture-led urban regeneration process, where first artists and creative entrepreneurs move to the fringes in search of cheaper working spaces, and then luxury residential developments arrive and gentrify the areas. Urban space, especially for creative entrepreneurs and businesses in the creative industries, and in the circular economy, is therefore becoming scarcer and scarcer. After Amsterdam and Utrecht, Rotterdam reports the third largest number of jobs in the creative and ICT industries in the Netherlands (Rutten et al., 2023). Therefore, the competition for space will only increase in the coming decades. Furthermore, creative entrepreneurs in Rotterdam view themselves as (somewhat incidental) placemakers and contributors to the enhancement of the attractiveness and vitality of city neighbourhoods, though in their experience the ‘cool’ image of Rotterdam is somewhat overrated, and its benefits only experienced by few (Nieuwland & Lavanga, 2020) with increasing issues linked to social exclusion and gentrification. Rotterdam is not a recognized fashion capital, or a place linked to textile production, however, it has slowly attracted and retained independent designers and entrepreneurs interested in innovative textile production (e.g. the fashion hub De Wasserij, the circular economy hub Blue City). The city has an open creative climate and an atmosphere where T&C professionals feel free to experiment and deviate from the beaten path. A new generation of designers in Rotterdam focuses not only on aesthetics, but also on how T&C can contribute to societal and sustainable issues. There is a growth of innovations with residual streams from forestry and agriculture that are used to produce sustainable and renewable fibres for fabrics. Examples include tomato stems, cane yarns, pine needles, and reintroducing a national chain for products made from local wool. However, there is lack of coordination and networking that make the sector rather fragmented. Design education in T&C is not well connected to the industry, most students aspire to launch their own brand but have little knowledge businesswise, in terms of sustainability, and on top of lacking interest and skills on the production side (Wubs et al., 2020). Furthermore, its young and diverse population poses interesting questions in relation to (re)skilling. In that respect, for example, The Talent Factory - one of the two selected FABRIX facilitators in Rotterdam - is playing a key role, connecting skilled refugees with students at local vocational training schools. The Netherlands has long lost its textile past with cities such as Leiden, Tilburg and Enschede recognised hubs in textile production and trade until the mid 1900s. As many other European countries, The Netherlands experienced a decline in the clothing industry from the 1960s onwards, and it was also one of the first to outsource its production abroad (Köppchen 2014; Levelt, 2010). Scheffer (1992) refers to a 71% decline in jobs in the sector between 1970 and 1980. Therefore, fashion and manufacturing in The Netherlands grew separated from the 1970s onwards, with Dutch fashion companies mostly focusing on design, while they outsource the manufacturing processes in low wages countries D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 32 Knowing the distribution of these business categories over time, conclusions can be drawn on their relationship to the cityscape of Rotterdam. This is summarised in the figure below: Figure 6: Dissecting the business categories and their prevalence in Rotterdam. The columns indicate their scale of presence across the urban fabric (local, city-wide, regional), and the rows indicate the intensity of their clustering. The business categories are coloured based on whether the number of businesses increased over time (green), decreased (red), or fluctuated (yellow). 5.3 Businesses 5.3.1 Business context & motivation The businesses interviewed in Rotterdam are engaged in circular practices in the T&C sector, sharing the common goal to transform the unsustainable and wasteful ways that the industry currently operates. Interviewees described their awareness of the environmental and social challenges embedded in the T&C system, and they positioned their own businesses as responses to these issues. Statements such as “I have some power to change the system”, “let’s make an impact in the textile world”, “I do not believe in this [T&C system], I can make a small difference,” and “I decided I should undertake action” reflect the entrepreneurial drive shared by many of the interviewees and highlight their motivation to challenge the status quo and take actions. Of the nine interviewed businesses, the founders came from a range of professional backgrounds, some with direct experience in fashion design or textile production, while others from education or public service backgrounds. This diversity of experience shapes how each business approaches circularity and sustainability. 5.3.2 Circular practices & supply chain partners Among the nine businesses interviewed, six businesses were engaged in upcycling textiles, with two focusing on local production, and one working with regenerative bio materials. For many of the interviewed businesses, Rotterdam serves as a place to experiment with their business models. Most began with some form of pilot or pop-up initiative to gauge public response and test their concepts. These included pop-up retail events, pilot collaborations with established brands, business model experiments hosted through events in the city center, and technology trials conducted in university labs. While these temporary formats allow for fast and flexible experimentation and market testing, interviewees emphasized that securing a permanent location is a critical next step for sustaining their business operations and allowing for long-term visibility. A fixed space improves business stability in several ways. Interviewees shared that it facilitates employee access, who are often those with distance to the labor market, makes it easier for customers D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 33 to find and return to the business, fosters a sense of community, and provides essential space for material storage or sorting activities. However, businesses shared that there is currently no systemic process of securing a permanent location. Most rely on personal networks to find available space, which can limit opportunities for those without established connections. Furthermore, spaces that are easily accessible or located near city centers tend to be expensive to maintain, creating further barriers for small or early-stage businesses. Several interviewees noted that municipal support could play a crucial role in addressing this challenge. One textile upcycling social enterprise from the Hague, for instance, shared that the local government assistance helped them secure a spot in a shared building with other social enterprises. Similar forms of support in Rotterdam could significantly strengthen the city’s circular T&C ecosystem by making space more accessible to mission-driven businesses. A common pattern emerged among the upcycling businesses interviewed. These businesses are often registered as a foundation or social enterprises (stichting) and employ individuals who have distance to the labor market. Their business model involves providing skills training for their employees on textile upcycling. As a result, these businesses often rely on government subsidies to support their operations and social missions. Their business model typically involves partnerships with large Dutch corporations through business-to-business (B2B) arrangements. In these partnerships, corporations provide the upcyclers with end-of-life materials, such as workwear or promotional materials, which are then upcycled into new products. These final products are returned to the corporations to be used as gifts for employees or other purposes, closing the material loop while advancing both environmental and social objectives. From the perspective of the corporations involved, these partnerships with upcycling businesses offer a way to manage their material waste responsibly. For the upcycling businesses, these partnerships allow them to source high quality materials, as many alluded to the challenge of sourcing materials through traditional channels such as textile sorting centers. Interviewees described the difficult process of visiting these centers in person, only to find poor quality materials at relatively high costs. Some also noted a power imbalance in which small-sized niche upcyclers (for instance, sourcing particular product lines such as sneakers or cotton materials) are often outcompeted by large-scale buyers of secondhand goods. Some businesses have also tried to launch their own take-back programs. However, these initiatives are often limited in scale and success, prompting upcycling businesses to seek closer collaboration with corporations as a more reliable source of materials. Another key attractive element of these B2B partnerships is that the upcycled products are returned to the corporate partners. Without this secured demand, the products risk becoming unsold inventory, placing additional burden for small businesses with limited storage and sales capacity. In fulfilling their orders, upcycling businesses rely on a self-assembled network of supply chain partners. Many referred to their existing personal or professional networks that help in building these supply chains. These include actors responsible for sorting and cleaning materials, fiberizing and spinning processes, product development, and distribution. These actors are also often social enterprises themselves, sharing similar missions. To establish partnerships and further grow their networks, businesses talked about participating in trade fairs, events, and award ceremonies. These avenues provide valuable opportunities to connect with potential collaborators, attract customers, and gain public D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 34 visibility. In some cases, partners or customers approach the businesses directly, often through word-of-mouth or existing professional networks. 5.3.3 Main challenges & needs While businesses in Rotterdam are highly entrepreneurial in building their partnerships and supply chains, these networks are often built independently, relying on founders’ preexisting contacts. This reflects the resourcefulness of these businesses, but simultaneously, the lack of systemic support. An upcycling entrepreneur described the experience as “having to reinvent the wheel all the time,” noting that even basic processes such as fulfilment present challenges, as existing service providers are often unprepared to handle the specific needs of upcycled products. Relatedly, the local circular textile and clothing ecosystem is often perceived as fragmented and isolated. Some interviewees expressed that collaboration remains limited, even as many businesses actively mobilize their own networks. An upcycling designer remarked that the Rotterdam scene can feel “closed” and give a sense of “do everything by yourself.” As another business observed, networking events in Rotterdam are “always the same people, so in the end I don’t feel like anything new is happening.” This perception suggests the need for more intentional and coordinated networking opportunities that can bridge gaps between different actors and communities. Production capacity also presents a challenge. Local manufacturers, and designers that aim to work with local producers, emphasize the high cost of producing textile and clothing in the Netherlands, and the lack of infrastructure and skills. On the other hand, nearby cities in France, Germany, and Belgium were described as having more advanced technologies and infrastructure for production, especially for working with natural fibers. As such, ecosystem building efforts could also consider cross-border partnerships that extend the supply chain without compromising geographic proximity, enabling better alignment between technological capabilities and production needs. Another key challenge lies in B2B partnerships in upcycling. While many upcycling businesses have developed mutually beneficial B2B collaborations with Dutch corporations, these relationships risk being limited to one-off transactions. Interviewees stressed the importance of establishing long-term, stable partnerships with corporations to ensure financial viability and business continuity. One upcycling business founder noted that such continuity may be more feasible with Netherlands-based companies, whereas partnerships with multinational firms, especially those headquartered abroad, are often slower and more complex to develop. In this context, data communication becomes increasingly important for engaging corporate partners by demonstrating environmental and social impact. As an interviewee stated, “we want to have all the data and show, you have great impact if you work with us.” Several interviewees mentioned that improved impact measurement would also help align with corporate sustainability goals, such as those related to the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSDR). However, current methods for measuring and communicating impact remain underdeveloped and in need of further refinement. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 35 5.3.4 Future vision The interviewed businesses all actively think about the next phase of their development. Those involved in B2B upcycling, in particular, expressed a desire to create their own product lines, with emphasis on high-quality design. For this shift, they hope to collaborate more closely with designers and develop internal training programs or curricula that build design skills among their employees. Many interviewees also envision expanding their roles beyond their business. Drawing on the networks they have built, they see themselves evolving into facilitators by offering training, consulting, or advisory services on sustainability and circular economy to other businesses in the T&C sector. To support this transition, tools and platforms that enable such service development and help maintain or expand networks would be highly valuable. Businesses also articulated a shared vision of a future where circular practices are more deeply embedded in the mainstream fashion system. Some hoped for a future in which, “for every Zara in the city, I would love to see a secondhand store,” or where fashion reuse becomes more mainstreamed, “if all the fashion stores have a swap desk.” Many businesses emphasized the importance of support from larger brands in realizing this future. Many see the potential for Rotterdam to position itself as a leading hub for T&C upcycling. 5.4 Facilitators 5.4.1 Roles & archetypes Among the 6 facilitators interviewed, their organizational types varied, with two operating digital platforms, one being a producer responsibility organization, two supporting designer networks, and one focusing on research. Similar to the case of businesses, facilitators entered the space of circular T&C after recognizing the structural problems of the industry and wanting to drive change. Several interviewees described initially working on circular T&C solutions in earlier business or industry experience, such as recycling or upcycling, only to find that demand for the final circular products was low or entirely absent. In response, many shifted toward taking on the role of a facilitator by providing information on the value of circular strategies and helping designers and producers understand how to integrate used materials into production cycles and, importantly, who to work with. As such, many facilitators described themselves as “value chain builders,” “coordinators,” or “a bridge,” commonly emphasizing their role as connecting members of their networks to others across and beyond the T&C value chain. These connections are often tailored depending on the focus of their facilitation. For instance, some facilitators work closely with industrial textile producers to support the development of textile-to-textile recycling supply chains, while others support small and independent designers by fostering peer networks and enhancing their visibility and representation in broader industry conversations. While the concept “scale” can be contentious in sustainability and circular economy discourse, several facilitators stressed its importance. Without scale, solutions remain in pilot phase and impact remains limited. As such, facilitators emphasized the importance of collaboration, as acting in isolation does not create the critical mass necessary to drive systemic change. Hence, their role was crucial in establishing the grounds for the momentum to emerge and drive the transition forward. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 36 5.4.2 Stakeholder reach & services As previously mentioned, facilitators often focus on specific groups in the T&C sector as their network participants. In the case of the interviewees, these groups included industrial laundry services, textile producers, and small independent fashion designers and brands. This targeted approach reflects the complexity of T&C waste streams, which vary by material composition, end-use options, and disassembly requirements. Therefore, different types of facilitators address different segments of the system. For instance, coordinating the reuse of deadstock fabric in fashion design involves a different set of actors, infrastructures, and forms of support than organizing the sorting, disassembly, and recycling of used workwear. As such, the stakeholder reach of the facilitator is closely linked to the specific waste stream and value chain context in which they operate. By focusing on a particular group, facilitators are better positioned to tailor their services to the distinct needs and challenges of their networks. As a result, facilitators emphasize the importance of cross-sector collaboration. When they are unable to provide a direct solution for a member in their network, they refer them to other facilitators who may be better equipped to address those needs. In this way, they act as a bridge between otherwise disconnected networks. As one facilitator noted, trade fairs also tend to cater to specific industry segments. For example, mattress recycling companies often attend only mattress-focused trade fairs. However, non-mattress textile recyclers, sorters, and other related actors also could be potential collaborators. Facilitators help “bridge the separate islands” as an interviewee described, by fostering links across industry silos and encouraging more integrated cross-sector engagement. In addition to supporting cross sector collaboration, facilitators also act as connectors within their own networks. They foster continuous interaction among their network members by organizing events, workshops, and partnering with digital platform providers to facilitate communication and exchanges. In this approach, a strong emphasis is placed on learning through peer sharing and exposure to new ideas. Facilitators highlight best practices in the field, invite guest speakers, and create opportunities for mutual learning, which also tailor to their network members. For instance, facilitators working with fashion designers also develop sessions on marketing, media engagement, and sustainability storytelling, which are valuable skills for small and independent brands looking to grow their market reach and impact. Facilitators also take on the responsibility of addressing conflicts or concerns that may arise in their networks. For instance, when a partnership is facilitated, it may require follow-ups to ensure that both parties are engaging in good faith. One facilitator noted the need to intervene when a partner was perceived as extracting information without collaborating in return. Hence, facilitators also put efforts into establishing shared values among network participants, particularly on transparency and openness. These values are communicated during onboarding processes or developed as charters or codes of conduct that guide participants. As such, facilitators not only create partnerships, but they also need to maintain and monitor the quality of these connections. Facilitators also work with larger networks at the European level. Some have joined associations such as Zero Waste Europe or the European Textile Services Association. Through these broader associations, facilitators seek not only to stay informed but also to shape institutional developments by contributing their expertise on T&C sector segments they serve and representing the needs and perspectives of their network members. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 37 5.4.3 Main challenges & ideal collaborations One of the challenges that facilitators identified is the significant amount of time and effort required to grow and maintain their networks. The dual role of facilitating both internal collaboration among members and external connections with other actors often relies on manual processes. While three facilitators interviewed have incorporated digital platforms to support interactions among participants, much of the matchmaking work still requires direct involvement through in-person meetings, emails, or phone calls. Many businesses continue to prefer this personalized approach, raising questions about whether, and to what extent, full automation of matchmaking is either possible or desirable. Although platforms are designed to streamline the facilitation process and ease facilitators’ burden, their development and adoption will likely require a hybrid approach that combines online and offline interactions, at least for the foreseeable future. Another challenge facilitators identified is the persistent disconnection between the fashion sector and the more industrial segments of the textile industry. Several interviewees spoke about the complexities of working with fashion brands, noting that waste streams in fashion are often more difficult to manage compared to those in industrial textiles. Additionally, decision-making processes tend to be slower with fashion brands, particularly when compared to smaller, upstream suppliers that are family-owned manufacturing businesses, where communication and implementation can happen more directly and quickly. While cross-sector collaborations have much to offer for mutual learning and development of more integrated circular value chains, much of this potential remains unrealized. Lastly, facilitators highlighted a broader challenge, which is that sustainability and circular economy principles are still not at the core of T&C sector businesses. Economic considerations continue to dominate decision-making, and many businesses engage with sustainability only when there is a clear return on investment. While regulations such as the Extended Producer Responsibility law of the Netherlands incentivize change, legal obligations lie in the future and come with uncertain implementation plans. Hence, businesses are often hesitant to invest in sustainability or collaborate with facilitators. To address such scepticism, facilitators put additional efforts into creating learning opportunities for their network participants and clearly communicating the value and relevance of working with facilitators. 5.4.4 Future vision Looking ahead, facilitators aim to expand their networks and deepen collaborations, both with other facilitators and across different segments of the T&C sector. Facilitators see value in strengthening the connection between industrial textile sector and the fashion industry. As the segment closest to end consumers, fashion brands have the potential to shape demand for circular products, causing ripple effects across upstream businesses. Fashion brands’ strengths in marketing and storytelling can help raise awareness and mainstream circular practices. On the other hand, actors in the industrial textile sector often operate with simpler product categories and more agile family-owned business structures. Many of these businesses have already established circular textile supply chains that could serve as foundation for broader industry collaboration. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 38 5.5 Policymakers 5.5.1 Mandates & initiatives Rotterdam Circulair, a program of Rotterdam municipality, plays an active role in supporting the city’s transition to a circular economy. Textiles are one of the waste streams that the program focuses on, and its efforts address sustainability challenges in the T&C sector from multiple angles, encompassing the entire value chain. One key area of intervention is behavioural change among Rotterdam residents. This approach aims to make it easier for people to extend the life of their clothing by encouraging repairs, promoting longer use, and building skills that help residents better care for and value their clothes. To support this, Rotterdam Circulair emphasizes the importance of neighbourhood-level initiatives. Municipal officers highlight that actions at the neighbourhood scale are especially effective in fostering behavioural change. A second area of focus is textile waste management. The municipality supports the collection of post-consumer textile waste by maintaining textile collection bins throughout the city. Sorting activities are outsourced to specialized sorting companies. Recognizing the importance of scaling textile sorting and recycling, Rotterdam Circulair also seeks to support collaboration among sorting companies and encourage innovation in sorting technologies. A municipal officer noted ongoing involvement with the Dutch Association for Textile Recovery, which brings together 20 companies in textile sorting and recycling, 11 of which are located in the southern region of the Netherlands, including Rotterdam. In this way, the municipality engages not only at the city level but also across regional and national governance structures to strengthen textile waste management systems. A third angle of support focuses on strengthening local production. Rotterdam Circulair officers highlight that upcycling as a business model is gaining momentum in Rotterdam, particularly in areas such as Feijenoord, where many startups and social enterprises are emerging. One way the municipality supports these new circular businesses is through subsidies. Several interviewed businesses also mentioned that they had applied and received municipal funding to support their activities. Another key area of support involves facilitating connections, both among businesses and between businesses and local residents. In this context, municipal officers describe their role as that of a “facilitator” and someone who “creates an atmosphere” and “stimulates change” by bringing actors together. In terms of creating connections among businesses, officers noted that many entrepreneurs in Rotterdam work without drawing much attention to their work. This anonymity allows them to experiment, innovate, and pursue business models that align with their values, often in contrast to the dominant practices of the T&C sector that they have previously experienced. As an officer explained, “there is not such a spotlight on the things they are doing, so they can experiment.” This observation aligns with what businesses themselves shared during interviews, as many described their piloting initiatives and organizing pop-up events in Rotterdam as a way to test their circular business models before formalizing operations. However, municipal officers note that this culture of trying out novelty independently and behind closed doors makes the role of connection-building even more important. For instance, upcycling entrepreneurs often need support in identifying partners for sourcing or sorting materials. Officers observed that many entrepreneurs in Rotterdam are eager to grow their networks, a point echoed in interviews with businesses, who characterize the circular textile scene in Rotterdam as feeling fragmented or isolated in terms of networking opportunities. As an officer described, “they [businesses] see each other but they really miss this network, and that is our focus, we really want to stimulate connection within the city.” D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 39 Facilitating connections between businesses and residents is also a crucial part of Rotterdam Circulair’s strategy. Businesses want a deeper engagement with local communities, while increased exposure to circular initiatives can also help raise public awareness and encourage behavioural change among residents. One way the municipality supports this is by backing public events that bring circular businesses and residents together. Examples include the Dutch Sustainability Fashion Week hosted annually and the Bring it Back talk series hosted by WEAR, a sneaker upcycling brand based in Rotterdam. By supporting these types of educational and networking events, Rotterdam Circulair aims to offer valuable spaces for discussions, learning, and visibility, helping to connect circular businesses and the wider public. 5.5.2 Main challenges & needs One of the main challenges identified by municipal officers is the need for better data collection and impact measurement. Officers expressed a desire to communicate the outcomes of their initiatives not only for internal monitoring but also to engage and inform citizens. This is especially relevant for neighbourhood-level initiatives, which take time to show results of behavioural change and even quantify. To address these data challenges, Rotterdam Circulair collects annual survey data from residents about their consumption behaviour and collaborates with external research institutes for in-depth research. However, more systematic data collection and operationalization are needed to capture the full impact of the municipality’s multidimensional support initiatives. Relatedly, the topic of spatial distribution also emerged as an area requiring more insight. Officers noted a lack of comprehensive data on where circular activities are happening across the city and which areas need additional support to foster local value chains. As the issue of space cuts across multiple sectors, it requires collaboration between different municipal departments, such as Rotterdam Circulair, urban planning, and economic development. While efforts have been made to improve this coordination, further progress is needed, particularly in terms of data sharing and establishing integrated knowledge systems. 5.5.3 Future vision Municipal officers shared a vision of enhancing entrepreneurial and circular activities throughout the city by supporting the full T&C value chain, including small-scale entrepreneurs, waste management actors, and local residents. Key focus areas touch upon strengthening craftsmanship, improving access to space, offering economic support, facilitating knowledge sharing, and raising public awareness around circular practices. Interviewees also expressed a broader goal of contributing to a wider transition toward circularity in the Southern region of the Netherlands. However, they acknowledge that realizing this vision will require additional resources and coordination. As noted in the previous section, ongoing work is needed to improve impact measurement and to address cross-cutting issues, particularly on spatial needs of circular businesses to grow and operate sustainably. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 40 6. Conclusion: Mapping opportunities and bottlenecks for a circular and regenerative T&C in Athens and Rotterdam Athens’ T&C ecosystem is an archipelago of micro-enterprises, incubators and cultural actors floating in a sea of deregulated retail and post-industrial real estate. Seventeen founder-led firms prove that circularity is already a business logic, not a CSR add-on: upcycled sails become backpacks, AI “digital closets” extend garment life, and sensor-fitted bins feed TexCycle’s automated sorter. Yet every innovation story is shadowed by structural discontinuity—erratic material inflows, project-style finance, disappearing workshops, ageing technicians. Facilitators—fashion schools, hubs, associations—act as the connective tissue, brokering skills, grants and markets. Their impact, however, is throttled by the same precarious funding that props them up; when an EU call ends, so does the portal or dataset it financed. Policy actors acknowledge the gaps: Greece still lacks dedicated NACE codes for craft, craft schools run without curricula, and GEMI registers are mined manually for spatial analysis. Spatially, Athens offers two contradictory forces: affordable “fringe” neighbourhoods where makers can still find 100-m² shops, and gentrification waves that re-speculate exgarment districts into Airbnb’s. Zoning and light-industrial permits emerge as the silent killers of circular hardware: firms can source waste cotton but cannot legally install a small spinner without a license labyrinth. Digital readiness is likewise ambiguous. Five businesses already deploy IoT or LCA dashboards, but a mid-sized brand runs its supply chain spreadsheets. Facilitators crave a living map of actors and assets, yet voice “platform fatigue” from EU pilots that evaporate after review. Across stakeholders, a convergent vision surfaces: a multi-tenant circular hub coupling shared machinery, mini-sorting line, training rooms and data studio, underwritten by a trisector alliance of banks, academia and municipality. The FABRIX digital platform is seen as its digital twin—mapping flows, matchmaking partners, and logging impact—provided long-term governance is baked in. Athens does not lack creativity, passion or proof-of-concept pilots; it lacks connective infrastructure—both physical and digital—and the governance to maintain it. FABRIX can become the missing backbone if it treats data and space as equally tangible resources, embeds long-term custodianship, and channels human trust rather than displacing it. The recommendations above translate field evidence into a coherent roadmap. Delivered effectively, they will shift circularity in Athens from scattered islands to a navigable archipelago—ready for scaling across the Mediterranean T&C landscape. Rotterdam’s T&C sector, as in Athens, also displays a landscape of experimentation, social enterprise, and independently driven innovation in upcycling. Entrepreneurs use the city as a testing ground for launching pop-ups, piloting upcycling models, and reimagining B2B partnerships with larger brands and corporations. These efforts aim to prove that social and environmental value can co-exist with viable business models by turning discarded corporate materials into upcycled products and training workers with barriers to the labour market. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 41 Yet, beneath this energy lies a persistent fragility and fragmentation, as reflected in Athens’ case as well. In Rotterdam, businesses often operate in isolation, relying on personal networks to find materials, partners, or even space. The absence of systemic support means supply chains must be self-built, impact must be self-measured (or often not measured at all), and every new business model or project is a new wheel to reinvent. Affordable and accessible space remains scarce. Long-term partnerships with corporations are rare, increasing the risk that circular products become inventories, or that short-term collaborations simply serve to sustain existing system of overproduction. Facilitators have stepped into this gap, acting as connectors, educators, and “value chain builders.” Similar to facilitators in Athens, they act as the connective tissue. They work across value chains and waste streams, tailoring their coordination and stakeholder reach that reflects the complexity of textile flows. Facilitators also foster learning and trust within their own networks. However, the work is labour-intensive and largely offline. Businesses still prefer relationships built through personal interaction, leaving digital platforms underutilized and facilitators overstretched. The divide between fashion and industrial textiles further fragments collaboration, while the dominant logic of short-term returns continues to overshadow long-term sustainability goals, prompting facilitators to place greater emphasis on learning and education as they work to expand and sustain their networks. Government actors, through Rotterdam Circulair, are increasingly aware of their role as enablers of the T&C circularity. They support behavioural change through neighbourhood initiatives, maintain textile waste infrastructure, and subsidize circular startups, especially in areas like Feijenoord where social enterprise clusters are growing. They also host public events to bridge business and citizen engagement. Yet they too face challenges in measuring impact, tracking spatial needs, and coordinating across departments. Across stakeholders, a shared vision is that Rotterdam can become a hub for circular fashion and upcycling in the Netherlands. Businesses want to scale, not just in terms of their own operations, but their influence on the way the current T&C sector operates. Facilitators envision stronger cross-sector collaborations and solving problems together. Government officers imagine a regional circular economy with Rotterdam at its core. All agree that building this future requires more stable forms of collaboration, better data, and clearer mechanisms for accessing space, knowledge, and visibility. FABRIX platform can serve as the digital tool to anchor their relational, experimental, and place-based dynamics that define Rotterdam’s T&C ecosystem. In particular, what Rotterdam’s experience showed is that business entrepreneurs often envision taking on facilitation roles themselves, suggesting that the rigid boundaries between “business” and “facilitator” may no longer reflect the hybrid roles emerging on the ground. This evolution could inform FABRIX’s design, which currently treats the two user types as distinct. By responding to place-specific needs and fluid actor roles, FABRIX has the potential to help Rotterdam move from isolated pilots to a more connected circular T&C system, offering insights for other cities as well. D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 48 · What are the main benefits and challenges of operating in your current location, Rotterdam (NL) /Athens (GR)? (E.g.: from general overview to specific aspects such as on space, neighborhoods, buildings etc.) Digital Tools and Platforms · Which digital tools or technologies are most important for managing your business, such as for supply chain management, communication, networking, design etc.? · How open is your team to adopting new digital tools? What administrative steps or challenges do you anticipate in the adoption process? · What types of data would your business be comfortable sharing with other users on a platform? · List existing platforms in T2.4 briefing document on Benchmarking: o Have you tried using any of these platforms (why and how)? o Are you familiar with any of these platforms? Future · Where does the business see itself within 5 years? · What are the main steps or hurdles to achieving this? · If you could create any ideal collaboration or partnership to enhance the circular practices of your business, what would it involve? D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 49 Interview Guide – Facilitators The purpose of this interview is twofold: (1) to understand who facilitators work with and the types of support they provide to encourage circular practices, and (2) to identify the challenges facilitators face and explore the potential need for digital platforms, such as MANTEL, to enhance their facilitation efforts. Introduction · What is your background? · Describe briefly what an average day looks like? · Could you briefly describe your primary roles and responsibilities at the organization? · Who sits on your board of directors? · (Double check background information if needed, following desktop research on founding year, number of employees, location, mission) Facilitation and Challenges · Could you provide an overview of the stakeholders (businesses) your organization collaborates with, including the sectors they operate in (also location)? · How much knowledge do you have of the businesses that you work with? Do you know their suppliers? The number of employees? Their turnover? What they produce? · What types of support or service do you provide the businesses you work with (such as in-person meetings, match-making, collective purchasing, knowledge dissemination etc.)? o Do you provide specific support to encourage sustainability and/or circular practices? o What questions (or challenges) do the stakeholders you work with often raise in terms of becoming more circular? · What are the main challenges your organization has encountered in providing these support services? · What types of data or information do you collect to better understand the businesses you work with? · Does your organisation have any specific targets or KPIs that need to be met? · Do you also help facilitate collaborations between businesses and government agencies, research organizations, or other facilitators (if so, can you please elaborate)? · How is your organisation financed? o Is any of your organisation financed through local businesses? If so, how much? Digital tools and platforms · Which digital tools or technologies are most important for the organization’s operation, such as for communicating with businesses, facilitating collaborations, etc.? · How do you keep track of your relationships with businesses? Do you have a CRM (Customer Relationship Management)? · When was the last time that your organisation adopted a new digitial tool? What was the tool? D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 50 · How open is your team to adopting new digital tools? What administrative steps or challenges do you anticipate in the adoption process? o Would there be enough willingness and capacity to continuously manage such digital tool or platform? o Would these questions be better addressed by another team? · [List existing platforms in T2.4 briefing document on Benchmarking] o Have you tried using any of these platforms? (why and how) o Are you familiar with any of these platforms? Future · If you could create an ideal collaboration or partnership to facilitate circular practices, what would it look like? D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 51 Interview Guide – Policy The main goal of this interview is twofold: (1) to identify the initiatives and approach that stakeholders in the policy and research sectors develop to promote local manufacturing and circular economy practices in their cities, and (2) to understand their data collection and data management practices to enhance local production and resource flows. These insights will help us determine the data and features that MANTEL should incorporate to be valuable for users in government and research sectors. Introduction · Could you briefly describe your primary roles and responsibilities at the organization? · Could you explain how your public authority is structured? Explain specifically where responsibilities such as urbanism, finance, economics, business development and employment are located. o Are any sections of the organisation under and independent structure? If so, why? · (Double check background information if needed, following desktop research on founding year, number of employees, location, mission) Initiatives and Challenges · Could you share any recent initiatives or policy objectives your organization has been pursuing to support local manufacturing businesses? Or to advance their circular economy practices? (such as subsidies, spatial support, rental support, expansion support, tax incentives, zoning, education, etc.) o Do these initiatives have a sectoral focus, such as in the textile and fashion sectors? · What type of indicators or information does your organization currently track to monitor local industrial activities (such as number of establishments, location, employment, profits etc.)? o For monitoring circular practices (material flows, waste flows, carbon emissions etc.)? o For mapping and identifying spatial areas of circular opportunities (such as areas for resource recovery, production hubs, or waste collection, sorting)? · How does your organization collect and manage these datasets or information? Does it also share and disseminate these datasets? (if so, to whom, how) · Have you encountered any challenges in reading or interpreting these datasets? · Have you faced any challenges or barriers in collaborating with local manufacturing businesses? With residents (potentially affected by manufacturing activities)? · Are there any additional indicators or targets that you hope to track for improving circularity in your city? Digital tools and platforms · Which digital tools or technologies are most important for your organization in overseeing local economies, such as monitoring resource flows, industrial activities, and communication? · How open is your team to adopting new digital tools? What administrative steps or challenges do you anticipate in the adoption process? D2.1 Analysis of the spatial and ecosystem characteristics of the textile and clothing sectors in Rotterdam and Athens (Intermediate Version) 52 o Would there be enough willingness and capacity to continuously manage such digital tool or platform? o Would these questions be better addressed by another team? · [List existing platforms] o Have you tried using any of these platforms? (why and how?) o Are you familiar with any of these platforms? Future · If you could create any ideal collaboration or partnership to increase circularity in your city, what would it look like?