The stewardship test for 2026

Ambition isn’t the issue. Outcomes are, writes Kylie Roberts-Frost, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Bedding Stewardship Council.

We’re not short on ambition. We’re short on actual results.

Across Australia, the good intentions are there. Governments are talking circular economy. Brands are talking responsibility. Consumers are asking better questions when they buy products.

But ambition alone doesn’t deliver investment or outcomes. If we can’t show what happens after a product is recovered, consistently and with evidence, we’ll keep cycling through the same debates, the same funding gaps, and the same trust issues.

Product stewardship starts upstream – at design and procurement – long before a product becomes waste. But once products do reach end-of-life, we need collection that’s practical, processing that’s fit-for-purpose, and materials that can move into the circular economy with confidence.

We also need to be honest about resourcing. Voluntary stewardship schemes aim to solve increasingly complex problems, but without stable funding and broad participation, delivery is fragile. Collection is only the entry ticket. The real cost, and the real value, sits in what happens next: processing, proof, and end-markets.

Mattresses are a useful lens because they are bulky, multi-material, and logistically difficult. They also reflect design decisions made years earlier – what’s inside the product largely determines whether recovery is efficient, safe and worthwhile. They also test whether extended producer responsibility (EPR) can move beyond good intentions into outcomes that stand up in practice.

A stewardship scheme, at its best, aligns funding, standards, data and accountability across a value chain so services can be delivered consistently, and results can be demonstrated.

Here is the reality of product recovery we need to design for in 2026.

Get it back

Collection is where recovery starts, not where it ends. Take-back is essential, but on its own it does not deliver circular outcomes. For bulky products like mattresses, reliable collection underpins everything downstream: safe handling, processing quality, and whether recovered material can move into strong end-markets.

ABSC — Waste mattresses are put through a shredder at GDP Industries. Image: Australian Bedding Stewardship Council

If we want outcomes beyond metro Australia, we must plan for the economics of distance: fewer drop-off points, longer runs, lower volumes, and more variable product condition.

We also need to meet councils where the problem is showing up most visibly– at landfill and transfer stations – and support them with practical take-back and recovery options.

In 2026, I want fewer “one-size-fits-all” approaches and more fit-for-purpose regional models: consolidation points, backhaul partnerships, predictable service schedules, and shared infrastructure across different industries where it makes sense. Without reliable access into the system, nothing downstream can be stable.

Break it down

Once a product is collected, the real work begins – sorting, triage, safe handling, dismantling or processing, quality control, and consolidation. This is where recovery succeeds or fails, because it determines whether materials are usable, not just “processed”.

This is also where voluntary schemes either stand up or stall. If schemes want to do more than support collection – to set standards, prove pathways, invest beyond metro areas, and report outcomes credibly – they need sustainable funding and a participation base that reflects the market. Grants and goodwill are not substitutes for durable infrastructure. In 2026, industry and government need to take the middle of the system seriously: infrastructure sized for actual volumes, contracts that reward quality outcomes (not just throughput), and reporting that is consistent and credible across Australia.

Move it into the market

This is the credibility test: where does the material go, what does it become, and how do we know?

It is not enough to say we “diverted from landfill” if the material is downgraded, stockpiled indefinitely, exported without transparency, or sent into pathways that don’t stand up to scrutiny. The test is straightforward: did recovered material move into end-markets we can stand behind, consistently and at scale?

For mattresses, that means stable pathways for steel, foam and textiles supported by clear specifications, quality controls and buyer requirements – plus a healthy dose of realism about what is viable now and what still needs work. Stewardship schemes can help build markets through better data, clearer specifications, transparent reporting, and stronger pull from procurement and product design.

The path forward in 2026

If we are serious about outcomes, three moves will help:

Government: back outcomes with procurement and consistent settings. Procurement can stabilise end-markets by favouring products with recycled content and credible recovery pathways. Ask for reuse and repair, not replacement. More consistent settings across jurisdictions will also help schemes and operators invest with confidence.
Manufacturers and retailers: fund the full pathway, and design for recovery EPR can’t stop at take-back. It must support regional logistics, processing, quality control and reporting, and it must drive design choices that reduce cost and improve recoverability (including disassembly-friendly construction and material transparency).
Operators and schemes: lift verification and reporting, without drowning in paperwork .
We need reporting that is clear and credible, not for bureaucracy, but to protect sector integrity and enable investment. If we can’t show where materials went and what they became, doubt will fill the gap and doubt is expensive.

In 2026, end markets must be treated as core infrastructure. Without them, we’re simply moving material around.

At the Australian Bedding Stewardship Council, our work is anchored in four pillars: Rethink, Redesign, Reuse, Recycle. In 2026, the challenge is to hold those pillars together as one system.

Ambition matters. But our results must be what counts.