The ability to affect sustainability outcomes is often culturally gendered. This article examines sustainability practices in fashion in the light of core themes in the gender and sustainability literature, drawing upon a re-analysis of a decade-old dataset of resourceful clothing use practices from the Local Wisdom project. In the dataset, evidence is found both of gendered practices and differentiated levels of involvement by gender. The article presents and examines these findings and then extends the discussion to the effects of gendered influence within the field of fashion sustainability more broadly, a field that may often be seen to be gender-blind. The article argues for a new attention to gender and for a re-imagining of the domain based on metabolism and relationship to overcome ideologies and practices based on separation of one group of people from another and of humans from nature.
This chapter explores the influence of gender on clothing consumption and the impact on differences in clothing volumes between men and women. Based on a qualitative and quantitative wardrobe study, we employ Schatzki’s (2002) social ontology of practice combined with Butler’s (1990) gender performance concept to examine the relationship between gender and clothing consumption in 15 households in Norway. The findings show that women had on average 497 items and the men had 258 items, and the main difference between male and female wardrobes was due to the number of items per occasion. These findings highlights the complexities and tensions faced by women in navigating clothing norms and maintaining a balance in the practice of dressing between appropriate dress, feminine expressions and having an ideal and more sustainable wardrobe. This chapter contributes to a better understanding of the interplay between occasions and gender dynamics that shape clothing consumption patterns. Moreover, it illustrates the potential of ‘occasion’ as an analytical concept and the implications of gender in clothing consumption, challenging the prevailing studies on clothing and fashion that often overlook the nuanced practices and actions that influence clothing volumes.
Friluftsliv (outdoor life) is not only a part of the solution, but also a part of the problem when it comes to misuse of nature (Aall et al., 2011). We will reflect around this dilemma in the following text, using synthetic (plastic) clothing as a starting point, additionally we will ask how plastic influences outdoor wear and with our experience of nature. The research question we will discuss is: How do the clothes and shoes we use in friluftsliv create feelings of closeness, control and distance to nature? We will ground our discussion by contrasting plastic and natural materials.
Method
A case study was used to gather data on the experience in nature with non-synthetic outdoor wear and shoes. Life Writing (Fletcher, 2022), photography and sensory ethnography (Vannini, 2024) were the methods. We used ourselves as informants, spending three autumn days in Vågå (Norway) in 2024. The methodologies are self-biographical and make use of feelings and bodily experiences that take place when out in nature wearing non-synthetic garments and shoes. The aim was to describe what we experienced, both positive and negative by not using plastic clothes while in nature. This fieldwork is only one part of a bigger initiative that we hope will result in a project where we can explore the theme of outerwear in friluftsliv in more depth.
Water, valleys, mountains, birds and much more under, over and around us played a part in our experiences. We also collaborated with other partners, most importantly a small leather tanning company ULU1, operated by Sofie and Roni. ULU tans leather and hides gathered in the area, in addition to reconstructions and guided nature tours. Reindeer is the most important resource, and they tan the hides using natural resources such as bark and brain mass from the reindeers (Klepp & Haugrønning, 2021). Accompanying us on one of the days was a film crew from Frys Film2. We wish to thank all our partners, from the reindeer and rain to Sofie and Roni and all their children.
Synthetic clothing in friluftsliv
Friluftsliv has the same environmental challenges as society at large, growing volumes of things. This challenge is driven by another important factor when it comes to clothes and textiles; plastification. These two growing aspects are connected because bigger volumes of textiles would not be possible without plastification (Changing Markets Foundation, 2021; Klepp et al., 2023). Plastification contributes to pollution during production, use and waste by the means of plastic and microplastics (Kounina et al., 2024).
There is no doubt that plastification and growing volumes of outerwear has had a lot of positive effects. We can pack lighter and be safer when outside. The road to the goal, not matter how high or far, is both shorter and faster be it sun or rain, with safer and more remarkable activities added to the mix. The consumption connected to friluftsliv is right for Norway and this growth meets little criticism (Klepp & Skuland, 2013). Few have asked what we lose with this development and little real alternatives to synthetics exists on the marked for many types of garments. Plastification has come such a long way that many consumers do not see it as a serious substitute to go on long trips without synthetic clothing.
The use of synthetics has a very short history. Humans have existed for approximately 300 000 years on this earth. Clothes have been used for only one third of that time. Synthetic textiles, meaning fibers made of fossil fuels (plastic), were invented almost 100 years ago, but they did not explode in popularity until the 1980s. This period saw the invention of synthetic textiles such as polyester, fleece and Gore-Tex, which has since become staples of the outerwear industry3. Our dependency on synthetics in outerwear is, historically, a short one. Furthermore, these past decades humans have spent more time inside than ever before. Our wish to spend time outside without plastic is therefore grounded in many historical role models and references. The garments we used were a combination of copies of old garments (form the Iron and the Viking ages) and newly developed garments made with old techniques and principles.
Results
We both use a lot of clothing made from natural fibers, yet being clothed without any plastic felt different. We had chosen four examples form the empirical material and structured them around four senses; sight, touch, smell and hearing.
Sight
The sense of sight is important for friluftsliv. We enjoy the view and lose ourselves in the colors and details around us. Yet, we do not only see the nature. We also see each other not only while out in nature, but also on pictures from the trips afterwards.
In the presentation we showed Figure 1, a picture form the trip where Ronny, Sofie and Frys film crew were with us. The film crew documented as we walked up the path on Snaufjellet in the drizzle. The picture is of Ingun and Sofie in a grand scenery with the sky, mountains, fog and the mountain we walked on covered in low heather. The colors are muted, with warm rust-tones and cautious greys in the forefront, on our clothes and in the nature around us. The reindeer moss and a light grey hint of a clearing in the clouds bring most contrast to the picture. In the presentation we showed a close up of the two people on the right of the image. And then we panned out, showing the same photo but with a wider angle. Here the Frys film crew is also visible. In this angle the eye travels away from the greys and rustics and attaches itself to the strong synthetic colors of raincoats and backpacks. Yellowish greens, orange, turquoise and black appear in the foreground and catch the eye. These clothes and equipment are not derived from natural materials, not ‘belonging’ in the nature, but create a contrast to it, which is often the case in photos of the outdoors. Photos of nature with and without humans are inherently different this way. Synthetic clothing and clothing made of natural fibers with synthetic colors change the way we look and what we see.
Figure 1: the affect of outdoor wear colour palettes on the visual sense. Photo credit: Kate Fletcher
Touch
The sense of touch is understood as everything we feel through our skin. We experience heat, cold, wind, different surfaces and much more. We feel the clothes we have on our body. We use clothes and shoes to avoid feeling too much and perhaps avoid feeling every pinecone on the path and every needling wind gust.
A lot of synthetics in outerwear are used to avoid feeling different sensations, such as being wet or cold. Fig 2 shows Ingun in the rain , to reflect on what we lose when using plastic. Gore-tex and other technologies of the same sort are characterized by the use of microporous film containing the forever-chemical from the PFAS group. The aim of the film is to keep away moisture, while at the same time having so-called “breathable” qualities. This in turn means that the film is letting water vapor through. In theory, this film is keeping the wearer dry by letting out the vapor created by the body when moving (or even when sitting still or sleeping), while it simultaneously is supposed to keep rain or sea spray out. In reality, this does not always work.
Figure 2: alternative rain wear. Photo credit: Kate Fletcher
Other techniques to keep water out can be used. One such way is to lead the water away. The double coat which used to exist on sheep of older species, before being bred off in order to adapt the wool to modern spinning machines, comprises of long covering or guard hairs which lead water and moisture away from the soft underwool. We humans use this technique when hanging up a chain from gutters rather than installing a pipe to lead away the water. The water follows the chain down to the ground.
Ingun wore a short cape on the trip, which was made out of seal skin. The raindrops dripped from her hair and down the seal skin before being led away by the guard hairs on the collar. Ingun was warm beneath the hair and skin. The clothing she wore did not cover her entire body. Her knees and calves were uncovered. “I am particularly fond of water in all forms. Sea, rain, ice, snow and fog. Being able to feel water run down the skin is lovely” she explains. Taking off clothes is one way to keep them dry of course. Going out in nature without clothes or with some body parts uncovered allows for the feeling of rain against the skin. To be wet is not always synonymous with being cold. Our habit of wearing garments that keep the water out, robs us of the feeling of rain against the skin. This is further enforced when using tightly woven clothing which not only keeps the water away, but also keeps the wind and yes, even air out from our biggest sensory apparatus, our skin.
The feet are the body part that has been affected by plastification the most. This is not a theme that will be explored further as being barefoot or nude, meaning without shoes or clothes, changes the way we exist in the world. We hope to be able to return to this subject and many others at a later date.
Smell
Clothes smell. In actuality, we do a lot in order to control the smell of clothing, such as washing them (Klepp et al., 2022; Laitala et al., 2022; McQueen et al., 2022). The sense of smell has a fascinating history, being perceived as animalistic and subjugated to sight as a less intellectual and less human sense (Classen et al., 1994) Klepp et al., 2022).
Textiles, as well as leather and fur have a distinct odor. Different fabrics are also affected differently by sweat and other bodily functions. Sweat lends most odor to synthetics and least to wool (Klepp et al., 2016; Rathinamoorthy & Thilagavathi, 2014). Synthetic fibers are therefor put through different chemical process to supress the development of smells. Materials also have a distinct smell, which we can like or dislike. The following is a quote from Kate’s dairy about the experience of smell when it comes to clothing:
I am wearing a skin jacket made from reindeer hide and tanned with bark. It is light on my body, my shoulders, my arms, and it fills my nose with the scent of animal. The smell is full, strong and heavy. In a culture obsessed by cleanliness and fragrance, it is an odour of significance. It is a jacket marked in a way that synthetic ones never are – directly by a life, by a body that gave us its skin, by a heart of blood, the flex and taint of muscle. Does Friluftsliv have a smell?
Hearing
Both silence and noise are important aspects of friluftslivet (Faarlund 1992). When it comes to clothing this topic is most discussed in relation to hunting. Silent clothing is what differentiates hunting attire from other outdoor wear. But the sound clothes make is important for not only potential hunting prey.
Woven fabrics make more noise than their knitted counterparts, and the sound is often an important and appreciated part of the fabric’s aesthetic. The rustling of a silk underskirt is well described in novels. Woven synthetic textiles such as Gore-tex jackets and trousers make a lot of noise. They rustle when movement makes the fabrics rub against each other. This became obvious on the trip where the film crew joined us. Instead of the birds surrounding us, all we could hear was their clothing. making it almost impossible to hear anything other than our own selves. Environmental philosophers might say that this is the root of the problem. We always put ourselves in focus. What is necessary for us to start dressing in a way that allows us to listen to the world around us and less to ourselves? The big portion of outdoor wear comprising of synthetics with water- and wind resistant properties contributes to putting ourselves in focus.
Conclusion
We have shown that friluftsliv does not gain a lot by the use of synthetics and on the other hand loses something by looking at how plastic effects out senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell) when out in nature. Outdoor wear contains more plastic (synthetic fibres) than other types of clothing. Synthetics fibres and the laminates that come with, create a literal barrier between us and nature. Sometimes this is what we want, other times not. Plastic is closely related to overproduction and waste generation due to low cost and easy production. The fibres are so strong that they outlast the wearer and keep polluting even when breaking down back to earth. The garments that we use to be safe and comfortable in nature also keep the nature away from us, raise a barrier between us and the world and do not fit into earth’s natural cycle.
Environmental philosophers have long argued that the root of the environmental challenges we face is connected to our willingness to see ourselves as separate from nature (e.g. Plumwood, 1998). Therefore, it is possible to say that the synthetic fibres in clothing are the embodiment of techniques used to dominate and control nature, despite us being very much dependent on it and wishing to unite with it by the ways of friluftsliv. This paradox is at the heart of our work.
References
Aall, C., Klepp, I. G., Støa, E., Engeset, A. B., & Skuland, S. (2011). Leisure and sustainable development in Norway: part of the solution and the problem. Leisure Studies, 30(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.589863
Changing Markets Foundation. (2021). Fossil Fashion: The hidden reliance on fossil fuels. C. M. Foundation. http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FOSSIL-FASHION_Web-compressed.pdf
Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma: the cultural history of smell. Routledge.
Klepp, Ingun Grimstad: syntetiske fibre i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 29. desember 2024.
Klepp, I. G., Berg, L. L., Sigaard, A. S., Tobiasson, T. S., Hvass, K. K., & Gleisberg, L. (2023). THE PLASTIC ELEPHANT: overproduction and synthetic fibres in sustainable textiles strategies (SIFO-Project report 5-2023, Issue. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3086387
Klepp, I. G., Buck, M., Laitala, K., & Kjeldsberg, M. (2016). What’s the problem? Odor-control and the smell of sweat in sportswear. Fashion Practice: The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry, 8(2), 296-317. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17569370.2016.1215117
Klepp, I. G., & Haugrønning, V. (2021). Naturgarvet skinn i et miljøperspektiv. In: Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet.
Klepp, I. G., Laitala, K., & Rathinamoorthy, R. (2022). The Consumer Perception of Odour. In G. Thilagavathi & R. Rathinamoorthy (Eds.), Odour in Textiles: Generation and Control (pp. 1-13). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003141426-1
Klepp, I. G., & Skuland, S. (2013). The Rationalisation of Consumption Reasons for Purchasing Outdoor Recreational Outfits. In M. Vaccarella & J. L. Foltyn (Eds.), Fashion Wise (pp. 43-52). Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Kounina, A., Daystar, J., Chalumeau, S., Devine, J., Geyer, R., Pires, S. T., Sonar, S. U., Venditti, R. A., & Boucher, J. (2024). The global apparel industry is a significant yet overlooked source of plastic leakage. Nature Communications, 15(1), 5022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49441-4
Laitala, K., Klepp, I. G., & Haugrønning, V. (2022). Textile Cleaning and Odour Removal. In G. Thilagavathi & R. Rathinamoorthy (Eds.), Odour in Textiles: Generation and Control (pp. 197-222). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003141426-10
McQueen, R. H., Kowton, J. E., & Degenstein, L. M. (2022). More than Just Appearance: Management of Clothing-Related Odor in Everyday Life. Fashion Practice, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2022.2062830
Rathinamoorthy, R., & Thilagavathi, G. (2014). Effect of Antimicrobial Finish on Odor Control Properties of Apparel Fabric. Journal of Textile & Apparel Technology & Management (JTATM), 9(1).
This case study of the Amsterdam Doughnut highlights how barriers for “strong” sustainable consumption policy pinpointed in the literature were to some extent overcome in the city policy of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in the period of 2018–23. The study builds on interviews conducted in 2020 and 2023 with key stakeholders participating in the policymaking process, and on the analysis of relevant policy documents. It identifies a few factors that played a role as levers of the barriers mentioned in the literature. These factors facilitated the inclusion of upper consumption limits in a few policy areas at a conceptual and strategic level. However, resistance to “strong” sustainable consumption measures hindered their translation into concrete actions, targets, and implementation. Lastly, a change of emphasis in the city strategy towards the “social foundation” of the Doughnut Economy framework during the period under study led to a stronger focus on the lower levels of sufficiency, leaving the emphasis on the upper levels behind.
Durability is widely recognized as a key feature of materially resource-ful, lower-carbon clothing lives. Yet most of what is known about long-lasting garments is rooted in Euro-American ways of thinking, andreproduces its structures, priorities, values and resulting actions. Thispaper brings a decolonial concern to understandings of clothing durabil-ity to enlarge the conceptual boundaries around it, including those thatbreak apart dominant ideas and approaches to clothing durability inorder to show difference. It presents both the “workings” and the“findings” of a small research project, ‘Decentering Durability’, examin-ing both how research is conducted as well as what is uncovered at the intersection of decolonizing and resource-efficient, decarbonizing agen-das for fashion.
Authors: Irene Maldini, Vilde Haugrønning and Lucrecia de León
Abstract
This paper introduces the relevance of volume-centric research in studies of clothing use. The global production of garments has grown dramatically in recent decades, bringing along significant environmental challenges. However, knowledge is lacking about why people deal with clothing quantities in such varied ways, and what leads some of them to overconsumption. A review of wardrobe research methods shows that there are various approaches to studying garments going in, around, and out of wardrobes. Gathering qualitative insights about specific garments, such as favorite garments, has been quite common. However, in order to advance knowledge about clothing consumption volumes, it is important to look at the wardrobe as a whole and include quantitative aspects. This paper reflects on what approaches and techniques can be used to that end. The reflections are combined with lessons learned from a pilot wardrobe study conducted in Uruguay, Portugal and Norway in 2022 with 20 respondents, concluding with recommendations for volume-centric methods in future wardrobe studies. Rigorous accounts of all garments owned should be combined with registration of items going in and out of the wardrobe over time in order to link accumulation to production and waste volumes. Methods connecting garment quantities with practices of daily use are particularly valuable. One example that has proven successful is piling exercises, a technique where participants are invited to categorize garments in groups according to specific criteria.
Authors: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson and Lea Gleisberg
Summary
In this report, we examine national, international and corporate strategies for sustainable textiles to understand if and how they embrace the increased production volumes based on synthetic materials, which can be referred to as the ‘plastic elephant in the room’. This is done through a lens of four questions. First, we look at whether the strategies discuss growth in production volumes and possible measures to stop this growth. Second, we examine whether they address the plastification of textiles. By plastification, we mean the increasing share of plastic fibres used for textile production. Third, whether they discuss the raw material for plastics, and fourth, plastic waste. The results show that none of these questions that can reduce the environmental impacts of clothing production are given a central role in the strategies.
Textile fibers have become a major issue in the debate on sustainable fashion and clothing consumption. While consumers are encouraged to choose more sustainable and circular textile materials, studies have indicated that a reduction in production and consumption has the greatest potential to reduce the total environmental impact. This can be considered an ecocentric perspective with a focus on degrowth as opposed to a technocentric view where new technologies are expected to solve environmental problems while economic growth continues. Based on a survey in Norway (N = 1284), we investigate how the techno- and ecocentric perspectives impact Norwegian consumers’ fiber preferences and perceptions and the corresponding effects on their clothing consumption. We found that the majority of consumers preferred natural fibers compared to synthetic materials. This contradicts current market practices and the recommendations by material sustainability comparison tools such as the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), where many synthetics receive better ratings than natural fibers. We also found that perceptions of high sustainability regarding fibers were negatively correlated with reduced consumption. Our study suggests that a continued focus on material substitution and other technological measures for reducing climate change will impede the move toward sustainability in the textile sector.
What is the ‘functional unit’ of a winter coat, or a pair of boots? The ‘functional unit’ is a central concept for lifecyle assessment (LCA) based tools. In the ongoing work on the European Union’s (EU) PEFCR (Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules), this is based on the number of days of ‘usability’.
Let’s explore what this means. A ‘functional unit’ is perhaps most easily explained in terms of paint, in terms of how long a certain paint will keep the walls protected and good looking, but how does that translate to apparel?
The EU has decided that the functional unit for a winter coat – or a pair of boots – is 100 days of use. This is the expected usability (functional unit) you can expect to gain from a product before it needs replacing or repairing. So far, so good.
This is a letter sent to commissioners and members of the European Commission in October 2022, from 4 participants in the Wasted Textiles project that explains their suggestions for a way of developing an EPR scheme that addresses volumes. They suggest an Eco-modulation based on volumes in the waste and therefore include the growing online trade.
How to make sure Extended Producer Responsibility becomes a silver bullet
We would firstly like to recognize the immense effort made by the EU Commission in launching the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles in the spring of 2022 and welcome the long-awaited focus on this sector. We would also like to express our appreciation of the strategy’s systemic approach to tackling the various challenges in the textile sector. We especially welcome that the strategy addresses fast fashion, the problem of synthetics and the need for EPR.
We are an applied research consortium under the umbrella of the project Wasted Textiles, which represents strong expertise on textiles, i.e., consumption and wardrobe studies (use, reuse, laundry, repair, disposal), end-of-life practices and waste analysis, fibres and measurement tools, greenwashing, marketing claims and consumer communication and, business models. We wish to offer our interdisciplinary expertise and in-depth knowledge of consumer research, waste and recycling management and policies from 30 years of research and recycling industry development. Wasted Textiles is led by Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), a non-profit, transdisciplinary research institute at the Oslo Metropolitan University. SIFO has a history going back to the 1930s and the birth of home economics and has worked with clothing consumption from the start. Today the institute has extensive research on clothing, especially the use phase.
With this letter, we would like to express our support for the EU Commission’s work within textiles and at the same time highlight key areas of concern that need to be addressed for a much-needed systemic change within the industry. Specifically, this letter concerns the development of harmonised EU Extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules for textiles with eco-modulation fees as part of the forthcoming revision of the Waste Framework Directive in 2023.
Norway was one of the first countries in Europe to implement Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging waste and electric electronic equipment (EE goods) and batteries during the early 1990s. The law from 2017 replaced the voluntary industry agreements from 1994. The National Waste Association of Norway (Avfall Norge, part of the Wasted Textiles consortium) has a history dating back to 1986. Norway also got its first Pollution Act in 1981.
We believe that harmonised EU EPR rules for textiles can be an important instrument to bring the needed systemic changes in the textile sector. In line with a recent report by Eunomia “Driving a Circular Economy for Textiles through EPR”, we believe the aim of the EPR scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts from the textile sector. This is in line with the original definition of EPR from the Swedish researcher Thomas Lindhqvist from 1992:
“Extended producer responsibility is an environmental protection strategy to achieve an environmental goal of reduced total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the return, recycling and final disposal of the product. The extended producer responsibility is implemented through administrative, financial and informative instruments. The composition of these instruments determines the exact form of the extended producer responsibility.”
Our point of departure is that the biggest challenge in the textile sector is overproduction. The amount of clothes produced and sold has increased drastically in the past 20 years. This means that each individual garment is used less and less. In order to reduce environmental burdens, measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design but above all the quantity of products. It is those who produce the clothes that are used the least – or never even used at all – who emit the most. At the same time, it is the clothes that are worn the longest that burden the environment and waste systems the least. In other words, we want to take the waste hierarchy seriously by showing how EPR can prevent waste and not just stimulate increased reuse and recycling.
As a starting point, and in line with the beforementioned Eunomia report, we believe the aim of the scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts. This is achieved most quickly and efficiently by reducing the EU’s production and import of new apparel and other textile products. But, for EPR to move towards a circular economy for textiles and not simply be an exercise in transferring costs, as the report formulates it, EPR must be designed smartly. One of the challenges with EPR, that the report points to, is precisely taking the waste hierarchy seriously, e.g., by not favouring recycling over reuse, ensuring that the environmental fee is high enough to have an effect on production volumes, and that the scheme includes the growing online shopping with direct imports.
The biggest challenge is overproduction: EPR must be designed accordingly
We are concerned that the measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF, the Eco-design Directive and EPR) focus primarily on the product and its design together with end-of-life strategies (recycling), and thus not on the possible systemic changes that are pressing. In order to reduce the environmental impact of large volumes of textiles (fast fashion), measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design and strategies for prolonged- and end-of-life textiles, but also the number of products produced. If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at factors that make fast fashion unprofitable. In extreme cases, we are talking about disposable products, in addition to the destruction of products that have never been used at all. It is not the design of each individual product that distinguishes fast fashion, which means that eco-design criteria will therefore not have the desired effect standing alone. A weakness of most of the EPR systems that have been implemented so far is that they do not take the issue of quantity seriously.
If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at what makes fast fashion profitable: large volumes and rapid changes. The commission has been discussing a ban on greenwashing and planned obsolescence. In fact, fast fashion is planned obsolescence by definition. The clothes are not meant to last. Not because of bad quality or bad design, but because there is a new trend coming ever more often and faster.
The work on the development of PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) for clothing has also shown that it is extremely difficult to develop eco-design criteria for clothing, as the criteria for what constitutes good clothing are so varied and person-specific. Focusing on the product’s design does not capture the most important: whether there is an actual use for the product.
We believe that EPR can be designed so that quantity and speed are taken into account. This must be done by studying the use and disposal phases, and possibly also the quantity and speed of production. Those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to reuse/recycle will be the most expensive to put on the market.
If this is done and combined with sufficiently high fees, we ensure that one of the instruments in the textile strategy actually works, i.e., brings systemic change and is thus a true silver bullet.
The importance of the use phase
By the use phase we mean the time the product is in use. The longer this is, the less waste is created. Currently, textile use is an area with limited knowledge and data, however, in order for the EPR rules to have an impact on fast fashion and the related overconsumption, it is highly important, that we make sure that an EPR scheme considers use-related aspects. The use phase for clothing can be measured in the number of times something is used, or how long it is used. The latter is far easier than the former to measure. Instead of trying to guess which products will be used for a long time and modulating the fee on design parameters, it is possible to measure how long products from different (larger) retailers remain in use. Using “picking analysis” (a type of waste audit, an established method for analysing waste streams), sample analyses of textile waste and textiles donated for reuse, an average usage phase can be estimated.
The system will be far more accurate when the year of production is included in the mandatory labelling of clothing, a long overdue requirement. The time-lapse from when the product is put on the market until it goes out of use will give the manufacturers a score which is then multiplied by the volumes of the various brands or collections that suppliers put on the market. The modulation of the fee should take into account the producers’/brands’ average usage phase.
The brands that are not found in the waste streams will be exempt from paying a fee. This may be because the products are perceived as so valuable by consumers that they remain in their possession. Differentiations based on clothing categories should, however, be included as some garment types are expected to have longer use phases than others, e.g, a coat versus a T-shirt.
Reuse and disposal phase
When more textiles are to be collected for reuse and recycling, and more is to be done in Europe rather than in the Global South, the costs of these processes will increase. If more is to be utilised at a higher level in the waste hierarchy, it will also cost more. Much of what is not reused today could be reused if the clothes were renewed, i.e. repaired, washed or stains were removed, which in turn captures the reuse value of these products but at the same time carries a cost. These activities and related business models are currently underfinanced, and they lack profitability due to the associated high costs of manual labour and the overload of big volumes of low-priced and low-quality fast fashion items with no or limited reuse value. At the same time, certain textiles have a high value and can ensure a profit for collectors (e.g., resell business models where ca 5-10% of high-quality garments are sold on online platforms). It is important that all reusable textiles are given the opportunity to have longer lifespans, so if the EU is to aim to increase the reuse of textiles, preparation for reuse and repair activities must be financially supported by the EPR.
The same will apply to various forms of recycling: different products have different recycling costs. Some can be easily recycled; other textiles will not be recyclable at all or only if cost-intensive measures are first taken. As for the use phase, we, therefore, propose an average per brand based on how much the waste management costs. Those with a high reuse value and low cost of recycling will receive a lower fee, possibly an exemption in the end.
The modulation of the fee will thus consist of a combination of how long clothing from the brand is used on average and how costly better waste treatment is. Both evaluations can be made based on picking analyses that are repeated at regular intervals so that new brands, or improvements by already existing brands, can be captured. These analyses will also ensure increased knowledge about textile consumption and textile waste and will be important for statistics, research and regulation in the textile area. We have called this way of modulating the fee in an EPR system Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR), which is described in ScienceNorway.no.
Production and marketing
The way EPR is usually conceived, the total tonnage of products placed on the market by an individual producer forms the starting point for the fee. But the quantities can also be used in the modulation of the environmental fee. It is possible to let those manufacturers who have many collections, a short timespan in-store for each individual product and also sell large volumes, incur a higher fee, which is then multiplied by the weight of what they place on the market. Proposals for such a fee modulation have been made by several Norwegian environmental organisations and can easily be combined with a TPR. It is also possible to use other parameters in the modulation, such as the proportion sold with reduced prices (the percentage that goes on sale), the proportion of returned goods, unsold goods, etc.
To summarise our proposal:
The EU has a golden opportunity to ensure a systemic change for the better of its citizens and the environment.
If we are to achieve the goal of reducing environmental impacts from textile production the quantities must be reduced. Less clothing is the prerequisite for each garment to be used longer, in line with the principles of the waste hierarchy and circular economy.
The measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF; the Eco-design Directive and EPR) all focus on the product and its design, and thus not on the systemic changes. EPR on textiles can, if desired, be designed so that it changes the business models of fast fashion by making it less profitable, and those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to be reused and recycled also become unprofitable to put on the market.
The above concerns and suggestions were a selection of many, and we are aware that a successful EPR agenda in the EU will include many more elements and key areas for coherent consideration.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ingun Grimstad Klepp
Professor of Clothing and Sustainability, SIFO, OsloMet
Jens Måge
Technical Advisor, National Waste Association of Norway
Kerli Kant Hvass
Assistant Professor in Circular Economy, Aalborg University
Tone Skårdal Tobiasson
Author, journalist, founder NICE Fashion and Board member Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion
