For decades, countries of the global North have cultivated an image of themselves as paragons of cleanliness, environmental responsibility and sustainability. Their cities are orderly, their waste management systems efficient, and their citizens are encouraged to consume ethically through recycling, donating and purchasing “green” products. Yet this carefully maintained image depends upon a profound geographical deception. Much of what disappears from Northern streets, wardrobes and homes does not cease to exist. Instead, it is exported, often under the language of charity or recycling, to countries in the global South, particularly across Africa. In this way, the North preserves its environmental cleanliness by externalising the social, ecological and economic costs of its overconsumption. The result is not simply a problem of waste management but a continuation of colonial relations in which Africa once again functions as Europe’s dumping ground.
The language surrounding second-hand clothing perfectly illustrates this contradiction. Consumers in Europe and North America are encouraged to clean out overflowing wardrobes and donate unwanted garments to thrift stores or charitable organisations. These acts are celebrated as environmentally conscious and socially responsible. Donors are reassured that their discarded clothes will help the poor while reducing landfill. Thrift stores, charities and clothing collection schemes reinforce the comforting belief that consumption can remain limitless because unwanted goods can simply be redirected towards those supposedly in need. Donation becomes a moral licence for continued excess.
Yet the sheer scale of fast fashion makes this promise impossible to fulfil. The global fashion industry now produces far more clothing than any population could reasonably wear. Charity shops cannot sell the overwhelming volume they receive. Instead, enormous quantities of donated clothing enter a vast international trade in second-hand textiles, with significant volumes shipped to African countries including Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and others. While some garments are reused, many arrive damaged, unsellable or of such poor quality that they quickly become waste. Markets become overwhelmed by imports that local traders cannot sell, leaving municipalities and communities to deal with mountains of textile waste.
In places such as Ghana’s Kantamanto Market, often celebrated as one of the world‘s largest second-hand clothing markets, traders shoulder enormous financial risks by purchasing bales of donated clothing without knowing their contents. A significant proportion proves worthless.
Unsellable garments accumulate in informal dumps, clog drainage systems, pollute beaches and waterways, or are burned, releasing toxic emissions into already vulnerable environments. The environmental burden is thus displaced rather than eliminated. Europe’s clean streets and North America’s tidy suburbs are achieved partly because the consequences of their consumption have been geographically relocated.
The irony is particularly striking because African countries are routinely blamed for pollution, poor waste management and environmental degradation. Images of overflowing dumpsites and polluted coastlines circulate globally as evidence of African dysfunction. Rarely acknowledged is that much of this waste originated thousands of kilometres away in the shopping malls and wardrobes of wealthy Northern consumers. Responsibility is transferred alongside the waste itself. The producer becomes the environmental hero through donation, while the recipient is cast as incapable of proper disposal.
This inversion mirrors long-standing colonial narratives in which European modernity is defined against supposedly disorderly African societies.
This dynamic extends far beyond clothing. Electronic waste, plastic waste, obsolete vehicles and countless other unwanted goods follow similar trajectories. Goods that have exhausted their economic usefulness in Europe or North America are routinely reclassified as recyclable materials, humanitarian assistance or affordable products before being exported southwards. Once they inevitably fail or become unusable, responsibility for disposal falls upon countries with fewer resources and weaker waste management infrastructure. What appears as generosity is actually the international redistribution of environmental burdens.
The linguist and communication scholar Chrispin Thurlow offers an illuminating framework for understanding these processes.
In his work on waste and coloniality, Thurlow argues that waste should not be understood merely as discarded material but as a political relationship through which societies determine whose spaces remain clean, whose labour becomes invisible and whose environments are deemed disposable. Waste does not simply disappear; it is moved. The movement of waste reflects global inequalities inherited from colonialism, in which affluent societies maintain order through the displacement of disorder onto racialised and economically marginalised populations. Coloniality survives not only through economic dependency or political domination but through the unequal organisation of material life itself.
Seen through Thurlow’s lens, the global trade in second-hand clothing reveals itself as more than an unfortunate by-product of globalisation. It represents the continuation of a colonial geography in which Europe defines itself as environmentally responsible precisely because it possesses the power to relocate the visible consequences of its own consumption. Africa functions as the hidden infrastructure of Northern sustainability. The North’s celebrated circular economy often depends upon a linear transfer of waste from wealthy societies to poorer ones.
This arrangement also carries significant economic consequences. The influx of inexpensive second-hand clothing has frequently undermined domestic textile industries across Africa,making it difficult for local manufacturers to compete against imported garments that arrive at prices domestic producers cannot match. While many consumers understandably rely on affordable second-hand clothing, the structural effect has often been deindustrialisation, job losses and increased dependence upon foreign supply chains.
Africa becomes simultaneously the market for Northern surplus and the landfill for Northern excess.
There is an uncomfortable moral contradiction at the heart of this system. Northern consumers are encouraged to feel virtuous for donating clothes, purchasing ever more sustainable fashion collections or participating in recycling campaigns. Yet these individual acts frequently obscure the structural conditions producing the waste in the first place. Fast fashion companies continue manufacturing billions of garments annually while shifting responsibility onto consumers to dispose of them ethically. Charitable donation becomes part of a consumption cycle that leaves production fundamentally unchanged. The burden of adjustment falls not upon corporations generating unprecedented volumes of surplus clothing but upon African traders, municipalities and ecosystems managing its aftermath.
Recognising these realities requires moving beyond simplistic narratives of charity. Not every donated garment is harmful, nor should reuse itself be dismissed.
Extending the lifespan of clothing can reduce environmental impacts when conducted within genuinely circular systems. The problem arises when charitable language conceals an international economy organised around overproduction, overconsumption and unequal disposal. Africa does not primarily need Europe’s unwanted clothes. It needs an economic order that ceases treating the continent as the endpoint of global consumption.
If climate justice is to mean anything, it must include waste justice. Environmental responsibility cannot be measured solely by how clean Northern cities appear or how many tonnes of material are exported under the banner of recycling. It must account for where those materials ultimately end up, who bears the environmental costs and whose lives are organised around managing the consequences of others’ abundance. Until then, the celebrated greenness of the global North will remain inseparable from the dirt it exports elsewhere.
The colonial project was never only about extracting re
It was equally about organising the world so that Europe could enjoy comfort, cleanliness and prosperity while the material and human costs were borne elsewhere. Today’s global waste economy demonstrates that this logic has not disappeared. It has merely become more environmentally conscious in its language, more charitable in its presentation and more sophisticated in its logistics.
Dr Jamil F. Khan is an award-winning author, critical diversity scholar, and research fellow at the Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study.
Get the whole picture 💡
Take a look at the topic timeline for all related articles.
Trending News
- 2 hours ago
- 2 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 5 hours ago
- 6 hours ago
- 6 hours ago
- 7 hours ago
- 8 hours ago
- 8 hours ago
- 9 hours ago
- 9 hours ago
- 10 hours ago
More in Opinion
ANALYSIS | There are no heroes coming to save South Africa from corruption
Jamil F. Khan | South Africa must reject imported politics of division before it’s too late
MALAIKA MAHLATSI | Warmongering Graham and the problem of post-mortem reputation laundering
- United States (US)
- Donald Trump
