News Archives - Clothing research

PLATE – Pleasant, but disappointing

tobiasson on 9. September 2025

The Product Lifetimes and the Environment (PLATE) conference aims to be a conference that brings together leading researchers trying to address ways for us to align our consumption more realistically within our planetary means. But despite this, there was little will to discuss how product lifetime is related to environmental issues during the three hot summer days in Ålborg.

From SIFO Irene, Ingun, Kirsi and Lisbeth took part in the conference, and our experience was very much influenced by the fact that the two papers on the limitations of durability newly had been published.

As Irene wrote on LinkedIn:

‘After the results of our recent publications, we decided it was time to put the discussion about production volumes or quantities at the center of the table in an academic community mainly dedicated to extending the lifetime of products. Production volumes mediate the relationship between product lifetimes AND the environment (the full name of the PLATE conference). This is because the main environmental advantages of extending the lifetime of products would be the reduction of new stuff made, and this applies to all consumer goods. However, believe it or not, this is seldomly mentioned in this community. There is a lot about “product lifetimes”, but very little on “the environment”. ‘

Ingun, Kirsi, and Irene together with other scholars that have been active in this space Harald Wieser and Eléonore Maitre-Ekern organized a session that we hoped would bring in more critical views and also linking environment to lifetime. The organizers renamed the session and put it together with “Rebound effects” – making it a rather imbalanced mix. With all respect, rebound is both important and the presentations on this topic were very good. BUT…. Rebound is an unwanted side effect. We, however, wanted to discuss the missing evidence for the effects. How, when, if and in what way more durable products reduces environmental impact. Citing from the overview of sessions on PLATE’s website: “it is taken for granted that product lifetime extension (PLE) and durability lead to environmental and social benefits in line with circular economy objectives.

These advantages are expected to materialize in lower demand for new products by consumers and reduced volumes of production by industry“. The critical sessions hosted by Irene and Ingun were well attended, though some of the papers missed the mark, e.g. ‘designing for reduced material usage in a value chain’ echoes the old eco-efficiency measures, rather than approaches sufficiency. This shows both some openness and interest in the topic and that there’s a long way to go for the PLATE community to take the issue of volumes seriously. In our experiences, the younger scholars were open for our views, but we did not manage to have the discussion we aimed for. Have we missed something? Is there a (researched) link between “more durable” and “less” that we have missed?

Besides this, the conference was pleasant and filled with interesting people and topics and a lot the presentations were about wardrobes. Some examples: Aniko Gal’s talk “Connecting transition design and everyday fashion practices: a case of body change and the wardrobe” showed a good example of how life-events impact clothing longevity: documenting the changing relationship with clothing of women in Hungary and Italy throughout pregnancy, The study showed a changing perception of self, and highlighted cultural norms, e.g. the Italian women often changed their clothing style post-partum to conform to clothing norms dictated by motherhood: “I don’t want to look like a little girl anymore”.

In the talk “Hyper-Local Recirculation of Second-hand Clothing Through Donation-Thrift Networks” by Anika Kozlowski, Rachel McQueen, Liam Roy, and Charlotte Little, we learned about the informal secondhand clothing systems in Canada that have formed due to geographical obstacles and how these are focused on serving their communities, as opposed to the centralized facilities, that are focused on meeting daily quotas of product rotation in stores.

In their presentation “Gendered threads: Policy barriers to sustainable textile lifecycles”, Tiziana Ferrero-Regis and Chamari N. N. Pushpamali asked “Is textile policy gendered?”, highlighting how policies that are not scrutinised through a gender lens could perpetuate existing inequalities and create further gender disparities.

A particularly enjoyable part of conferences is meeting people who have read our work, or who we have worked with online. We all particularly appreciated meeting Hester Vanacker, who Kirsi mentors for a PhD on the intersection of clothing sustainability and just transition at l’ENSAM Paris, exploring how local upcycling centers can provide solutions to the global textile waste crisis. Through the research process, she critically examines colonial legacies within the scientific field, prioritizing action research methods appropriate to the local conditions in which the work is carried out.

Another person it was very nice to meet was Veerle Vermeyen, who also attending the Degrowth conference. She has published on an impressive wardrobe study with 156 Belgian individuals (and a lot of clothes, but presented two papers at the conference, one about unused garments showing that in wardrobe audit of 30 individuals in Flanders (Belgium) it was revealed that participants owned, on average, 169 garments, of which 138 were used in the past year (81%), and 90 were considered essential (53%). Participants’ perceived essential clothing needs varied strongly, ranging from 36 to 275 garments, or alternatively, 28% to 98% of their current wardrobe. She also presented a paper on clothing swap events. A lot to learn!

Lisbeth hosted the workshop “Exploring product lifetimes from a product ecosystem perspective”, where the participants were guided through a mapping of a furniture or clothing product’s ecosystem, taking into account other products the item may interact with, as well as the user and their life events through gradually adding prompts and prompt questions. Although limited by the 45-minute timeslot, the exercise effectively demonstrated the complexities of product lifetimes, encouraging a deep dive into a single product that participants expressed an interest in pursuing in other contexts. There is potential for developing this work further, in particular, to better capture the influence of product(ion) volumes on product lifetimes.

We went with a mission, but did not succeed. Good then that our thoughts have been picked up by others, such as Apparel Insider.

A CHANGE of mind

tobiasson on 3. September 2025

Degrowth session on Policy summarized as an illustration.

Fashion and Policy discussions at the ISEE Degrowth Conference: As both CHANGE and Wasted Textiles projects are nearing their ends, and both projects focus on degrowing the textile sector (the latter more specifically the plastic part of textiles), what could be more fitting than organized two special sessions at the ISEE Degrowth conference in Oslo?

The four-day conference with 1200 delegates from 60 countries opened with a key note speech from a barefoot Director of the Colombian Environmental Authority, Irene Valez-Torres, telling European policy-makers to start using their own resources and stop extracting from the Global South in the name of Green Growth. The slight woman in a billowing yellow dress spoke forcefully about decolonizing the Eurocentric mind-set, the new Colombian government’s willingness to grow what sustains us – local communities – not corporations and businesses, and the roof virtually lifted with applause when she finished.

Director of the Colombian Environmental Authority, Irene Valez-Torres, telling European policy-makers to start using their own resources.

A performance by Sami activist and artist Ella Marie Hætta also mesmerized the room and also literally lifted the roof.

How refreshing and timely, as the latter of our two sessions was How to speak so policymakers listen? Sharing experiences of trying and failing to transform EU legislation in setting an upper production/import limit in rich countries – drawing on the case of clothing and textiles. Kate Fletcher chaired the session, which started with a presentation by Ingun Grimstad Klepp and yours truly’s efforts at the EU level, alongside our good helpers from both CHANGE and Wasted Textiles: Kate, Irene Maldini, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Kirsi Laitala, Kerli Kant Hvass and Jens Måge. We are also thankful for insights from a Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion Action Season event.

Our frustration: The head-banging of not getting the message across that the Textile Strategy and the policies coming out of this are – in sum – an on-coming train wreck. It seems policy is based on the assumption that more durable, more repairable and more recyclable apparel is going to reduce volumes produced; when it is more probable that it’s the opposite approach that is the way forward: reduction in volumes. We don’t need more of anything, we need less!

This can be achieved through hiking the prices substantially, which surfaced in the ensuing discussion. Katia Dayan Vladimirova talked about that local city level may be an easier place to start (her experience from Geneva) but also perseverance (just getting volume reduction into policy has been a major break-through as green growth is the mantra). Irene shared how the Netherlands are setting import limits, citing her research (!). France’s new anti-fast fashion policy tools were also mentioned, though the question remains if they are effective, and of course tariffs (Trump’s intervention in the global economy – a blessing in disguise?).

Irene: “It was impressive to see many young people trying to affect policy in this direction from several countries, also outside the EU. Our shared experience is that unfortunately, formal democratic participation channels do not work. Informal channels and key contacts with political actors including consultants are more efficient channels to affect policy change. Sadly, these channels are not equally available to all citizens or scientists, questioning the democratic nature of policy influence.”

Kate: “Individuals get this, institutions less so.” Once policy is set in ‘stone’, it is – literarily – set in stone.

Surprisingly, an EU politician from Hungary, attended the session, and bluntly said that “politicians want to be re-elected – use our self-interest in this regard, showing us that there is a large number of people’s votes to be won if we support this issue”. She specifically mentioned petitions. Coming into the discussion early, before they are “set in stone”, is another takeaway. Which is, of course tricky.

There were other insights: How language is key, how degrowth or post-growth are words that stop the conversations in their tracks, while a well-being economy resonances. How change is deemed scary, as opposed to status quo, the belief policy makers place in “rocket science” and innovation vs good old fashioned common sense and use of those old boring resources. Surprisingly, SoMe entered late into the room.

And then the tricky one: How much to dumb down without losing integrity. Sticking to one message, and repeating it over and over, beyond one’s own boredom with being stuck in a groove: vital. Also to have ready alternative solutions, not just criticizing what is on the table. So, when a crisis or massive realization hits home, one has a working alternative ready in place.

Making it personal, is also an effective approach. And the obvious: How much money can be saved and how many jobs safeguarded.

It still remains a paradox, as Ingun reiterated: “We’re asked for evidence, but when we deliver it is ignored or misconstrued.”

23 attended, in conflict with similar themed sessions, and hold your hats: 4 men.

The other session, Degrowth dialogues in fashion: cultivating the seeds of change, was initially planned for four presentations, but 30 submissions were received and thus Chairs Kate and Irene decided to extend it to a double session. As there were all in all 290 sessions and 900 presentations: kudos!

The engaged speakers in Kate and Irene’s double session.

The background for the session being that the fashion sector is perhaps the poster child of consumerist materialism and economic growth logic. And yet despite the seeming inevitability of growth and its myriad social and environmental costs; seeds of degrowth thinking and practice in fashion are increasingly present. Topics ranged from understandings of production and consumption dynamics in degrowth vs. the more mainstream sustainable development, to indigenous perspectives, and accounts of the daily life of garment workers. Irene: “We are grateful to all participants for their work in this space, and their efforts to share it with us in Oslo.”

There were powerful and passionate interventions, such as Unweaving Coloniality: Degrowth and Reparations as Tools for Dismantling Colonial Structures in Fashion presented by Lavinia Muth, Centering the ‘Garment Workers’ in the Degrowth Fashion Scholarship presented by Aksha Fernandez, Satiable versus insatiable: The ambiguity of anthropological assumptions in a movement against fashion overconsumption presented by Marie-Christine Roy, and Thought experiment in facilitating post growth conversations in fashion presented by Katia Dayan Vladimirova, who had co-authored with David Hachfeld. Looking forward to hearing more on their Fashion Fund idea.

Fashion as Kaitiaki: Indigeneity, Reciprocity, and Post-Growth Pathways – presented by Karishma Kelsey – and co-authored with Tukahia Ngataki – offered a thought-provoking Indigenous knowledge framework perspective from Mātauranga Māori, African Ubuntu, and Indian dharmic philosophies with pathways to degrowth rooted in reciprocity, sufficiency, and ecological balance. How teacher and student fluidity is key was an interesting take-away.

Ingun: “All things we do, we need to ask the question ‘will it decrease production or just mask the underlying problem?’

One other session also focused onIndigenous and local knowledge, the theme being protecting and restoring values of nature. However here only Ove Daniel Jakobsen from Nord University showed up.His talk, Reconnecting with the Earth: Integrating Indigenous Science and Deep Ecological Economics for a Sustainable Future sparkedan engaged discussion, and session participants agreed to reconvene in September to continue the discussion!

Smiling faces after Ove Daniel Jacobsen’s session introducing Indigenous economical thinking.

From the plenaries, Inge Røpke, Aalborg University, stood out, in a discussion that resonated with our policy session: What standard of living is compatible with just and safe planetary boundaries? How do limits intersect with justice? Is policy’s incremental process, civil disobedience or off-grid living the way forward?

Actually, aside from Ove’s presentation, it was the women who stood out as the most powerful voices. Lebohang Liepollo Pheko (Trade Collective; Wellbeing Economy Alliance; Global Tapestry of Alternatives) was a firework voice on work time reduction and care. Kate Raworth (Senior Teaching Fellow, Oxford University; Professor of Practice, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences) summed up in the last plenary the big elephant in the room: grassroots and top-down action. For systemic change to happen, it can be simply that communities say ‘no’ to the growth and go off-grid. But this will need to be bottom up, as the EU economy is mired in growth, competitiveness and colonized logic.

The Columbian, barefooted Minister’s opening key note speech made it abundantly clear: A CHANGE of mind is on its way. During the opening session we also heard: “We eat and WEAR the Earth”, wow for wear being included! And Ove’s Arne Næss citation ‘have revolutionary goals with evolutionary steps’ may just be a guidance.

Not all work, also some play, during the conference.

CHANGE is funded by Ground-breaking research (FRIPRO) from the Research Council of Norway, from July 2021-2025.

The proof ain’t in the pudding

tobiasson on 7. May 2025

It is common to hear and read about the environmental advantages of longer lasting products, it is everywhere from product advertisement to environmental policy and academic literature. But what is the empirical knowledge substantiating the “durability discourse” across consumer goods?

In the recently published literature review in Sustainable Production and Consumption, The environmental impact of product lifetime extension: a literature review and research agenda, written by Irene Maldini, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kirsi Laitala, the results show that even academic literature builds on assumptions about how the world works, rather than on the critical observation of the real world.

Conceptual and empirical studies (such as LCAs) on product longevity assume that there are savings in production associated to longer lasting products, but the field research that could confirm this assumption, mostly questions it.

Limited or no savings

In the review, the researchers analyzed 194 scientific texts. What is surprising, almost shocking, is that of these, only 8 studies were found that were actually based on empirical evidence. And they were far more modest in their conclusions: Contrary to the assumed savings in production resulting from PLE in LCAs, the results of these publications either question that such savings occur, or they highlight that the savings are limited.

We hope that this article opens a new, more realistic stream of research on product lifetimes, as it contains sobering insights, related to reductions in the volume of goods produced, which in theory would be a direct result from expected reductions in demand, due to delayed product replacement:

“If the two key assumptions about consumer and industry behaviour underlying the durability discourse do not hold, PLE [product life extension strategies] could contribute to accumulation and growing stocks rather than replacement avoidance. In this scenario, the savings expected in the literature do not materialise, and efforts towards PLE can result in increased environmental costs.”

As Kate Fletcher points out: “Simplified notions of product durability as inevitably leading to environmental benefits are now facing root and branch reform”.

Urgent research needed

Adds Irene Maldini: “What we call for is more research to substantiate or refute these assumptions in specific contexts and consumer goods. We expect that there is a stronger relation between longevity and volume in some consumer goods, locations, and kind of households (example: washing machines, less affluent regions) and a weaker relation in others (example: clothing, more affluent nations), but more research is needed.”

“We cannot remember ever publishing anything that is so revealing and that is so fundamentally on a collision course with everything from common sense, good research colleagues and unfortunately also parts of our previous work. We as other researchers should know what we are saying, and not write things just because it sounds like it is true. All credit to Irene for her courage and clear-sightedness,” writes Ingun Grimstad Klepp.

This is the second paper in the work around the limitations of durability, the first one being The EU Textile Strategy: How to Avoid Overproduction and Overconsumption Measures in Environmental Policy.

Read the paper here.

An Italian gaze on Oslo’s clothing habits

tobiasson on 29. April 2025

People-watching by-passers at Oslo's Aker Brygge.

From the eyes of an Italian guest who has just spent her first month in Oslo, I’ve noticed some clear differences in fashion habits and the general relationship people have with clothing here compared to larger Italian cities like Rome, Milan, or Florence.

By Rita Dominici

What hit me almost immediately, especially during my early morning commutes on Tram 17, squeezed in among others heading to work or university, was how people in Oslo tend to dress in a much more functional and comfortable way.

For instance, I frequently saw men probably headed to the office wearing suits but paired with sneakers. Another sign of this tendency is the use of backpacks instead of handbags or briefcases for work. I actually ended up switching from a handbag to a backpack myself! In Italy, though, that would be a more noticeable shift; many girls start using handbags instead of backpacks when starting university, more for style reasons than practicality.

This difference in the clothing choices made me think of a popular Italian saying roughly translated as “If you want to look good, you have to suffer a little” that I think perfectly captures the aesthetic mindset in most Italian cities, especially when it comes to clothing. Most people favor a more formal dress code, even if it means consciously sacrificing comfort, choosing style over ease.

Weather-resistant jackets and technical fabrics

Moreover, among older adults in Oslo, I’ve also noticed a strong preference for technical materials, especially when it comes to outerwear: I frequently see people dressed in weather-resistant jackets and technical fabrics. This is likely due to the climate, but it’s still notable.

Younger women, on the other hand, often wear trench coats and sweaters during this season, leaning slightly more towards aesthetic choices. Still, what all these choices seem to share is a sense of sobriety, particularly when it comes to colors: mostly greys, blacks, and beiges, which are easy to mix and match and very few bright tones.

In contrast, in many Italian cities, adults often embrace bolder colors: reds, electric blues, bright yellows both in clothing and accessories.

Another difference that stood out to me is the role of branding. In the way most Italian people dress, there’s often a visible “cult of the logo”, which seems far less present in Oslo. This doesn’t just influence adults, who may associate brands with status or quality, but also younger generations who use fashion and specific labels as a way to express their identity or social group.

Even children are affected: parents often dress their kids following current fashion trends and brand names, so the children end up dressed more like mini-adults. As a result, Italian children aren’t fully allowed to play and have fun outdoors, like in parks, for fear of getting their clothes dirty or ruining them.

Outdoor life regardless weather

In Oslo, the contrast couldn’t be clearer. You can tell just by looking at the way children are dressed that outdoor life is a big part of their daily routine, regardless of weather. I remember one morning after the rain when I saw a mother peacefully letting her 3- or 4-year-old kid play freely in the still wet ground of the park. I noticed that children here are usually dressed in bright colors and technical clothing with rain boots and full-body suits I had never even seen before.

These suits, which cover them from neck to ankle, are apparently worn when playing outside, letting them have fun without worrying about getting wet or dirty. I also saw many times groups of children accompanied by their teachers walking or playing in the park during school hours, all wearing bright yellow reflective vests: a further sign that practicality and safety are prioritized. In Italy, kids rarely leave school except for occasional field trips that take place during the warmer months.

Even then, they typically don’t wear any special clothing suited for the occasion. In fact, those were often the moments, especially for elementary school kids, when they would take off their classroom aprons, proudly showing the clothes they wore underneath.

Backpack, jeans, a neutral trench and sneakers – blending in.

To conclude, using my own eyes as the primary tool and taking an ethnographic approach, I’ve been able to connect what I’m experiencing here in Oslo with everything I’ve seen throughout my life as an Italian and as a visitor to Italy’s major cities, especially in terms of clothing habits.

What I’ve really noticed during this experience is that even the way I look at and observe the world around me—particularly people and how they dress—feels somewhat out of place in the Oslo context. For most Italians, observing and silently judging others and their way of dressing is much more common and socially accepted.

This difference in perception led me to ask myself: could it be that people in Italy tend to overdress because they know they’re more likely to be looked at and judged based on their appearance? Whereas in Oslo, since people don’t feel that same kind of gaze or social pressure, there’s simply no expectation to meet and as a result, most people just don’t really care what others are wearing?

EU’s fear of addressing overproduction uncovered in eye-opening research

tobiasson on 22. April 2025

OsloMet researchers in EU Parliament meeting with EcoAge.

A new research article in Journal of Sustainable Marketing address EU’s Textile Strategy’s blatant avoidance of the volumes issue, and raises the question of why.

In the Journal of Sustainable Marketing, a new article penned by Irene Maldini and Ingun Grimstad Klepp, The EU Textile Strategy: How to Avoid Overproduction and Overconsumption Measures in Environmental Policy, takes the bull by the horn.

The analysis, which was just published, shows how the focus on product durability avoided addressing production volume reductions measures, leading to the exclusion of marketing-oriented regulation (applied to price, frequency of new products put on the market, product placement with influencers, advertising including social media strategy, etc.), which could have actually significant effect in tackling overproduction and overconsumption.

No volume-related questions

Instead, in the open hearings, no questions were asked that were volume-related, only related to durability (with the exception of overconsumption being mentioned once). In the answers, however, volume-related wordings are common – however, in the summary of the feedback, everything about volumes again disappears.

The article is based on the analysis of public documents and interviews with participants of the policy making process, the study unpacks the factors that enabled such a decision, and how it was integrated in the final document.

In sum, the analysis suggests that measures aimed at reducing production and/or consumption volumes were out of the scope of the Textile Strategy already from early stages. The public consultation process was designed, conducted, and analyzed in a way that ensured this exclusion, despite the efforts of some stakeholders and many survey respondents in bringing this issue to the table. The final document does not propose any mechanisms to check and ensure that these have an effect in volume reduction or on the environmental impact for that matter.

Only three peer-reviewed scientific articles

The analysis rather shows that by focusing on product durability, an explicit aim to reduce the volume of clothing was avoided, leaving potentially impactful marketing-related measures out of the scope. The study also uncovers that of the 56 different publications cited to provide the data base for the Textile Strategy, only 3 are peer reviewed scientific articles.

And this is not because there is no knowledge available on textiles and the environment impact from researchers. However, in a marketing journal, we think our perspective from consumption research ploughs new ground.

Thematically, there is a lot of overlap between consumer research and marketing research on consumption. Yet there is little cross-citation and little collaboration. This is probably related to a certain mutual skepticism. Consumer research is about taking the consumer’s position, while marketing is the opposite – at least initially, with the desire to sell something and later change consumers in one way or another. Therefore, it is extra gratifying that we have managed to overcome this barrier by publishing in a marketing journal. With great help from Diego Rinallo, Doctorate in Business Administration & Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Marketing Department. His input has been invaluable.

In EU's meeting room. — Irene and Ingun attending EcoAge’s round table on A fair phase-out of fossil fuels from the fashion industry.

The more we have seen the limitations of product perspectives (such as making products “repairable” and the ideas of “educating” consumers to act “sustainably”), the clearer it becomes that marketing must also be included in policy. We need knowledge about how it works and how it can be limited.

The EU, like Norway, is proud of its democracy. In the mapping of why policies develop as they do, and how and by whom decisions are made, it has been surprisingly difficult to gain insight. As the article shows, there was a lack of written documentation about the processes, a reluctance to be interviewed (although no personal questions or questions about opinions were included) and anonymity was ensured.

Sensitive stuff?

How are decisions made and are they really this sensitive to scrutiny? This begs a bigger question perhaps media should ask.

This raises questions not only about why transparency is not valued more highly in democratic countries/regions, but also about the relationship between the research community and policy.

The article sheds light on this relationship directly, and an analysis of what the EU strategy refers to, i.e. what kind of knowledge is used as a basis.

As first author, Irene Maldini reflects: “It has been an adventurous journey to develop my work into this area, and to experience the double role of trying to influence policy building on scientific knowledge (advocacy) and at the same time analyzing the processes of policymaking as an outsider (research). The former has also enabled the latter, because resistance to acknowledge the limits of the planet and economic interests in policy making processes become so clear when you are trying to bring the sufficiency agenda forward.”

To access the open access article, click here.

Clothing Research scores at SCORAI 2025

tobiasson on 17. April 2025

The 2025 SCORAI Europe Conference took place at Lund University in Sweden on April 8-10. SCORAI (Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative) is an international network of researchers and practitioners focused on sustainable consumption. This year’s theme, Mainstreaming Sustainable Consumption, brought together a community of thinkers and doers – including several researchers from SIFO.

By Anna Schytte Sigaard

Kirsi Laitala presented a paper from the CHANGE project, co-authored with Irene Maldini, titled “Access to Clothing in a Context of Material Abundance: The Role of Income.” The presentation was part of the session on “Consumption Corridors: Guaranteeing Human Wellbeing Through Upper and Lower Limits to Consumption.” Based on consumer surveys conducted in Norway, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA, the study highlighted the need to reduce clothing consumption in affluent societies to achieve social justice and environmental sustainability, noting that clothing consumption continues to grow despite its significant environmental impact

By examining the relationship between household income and clothing consumption, the research reveals that income does not significantly affect the total number of clothing acquisitions, likely due to decreases in the relative price of clothing and access to second-hand clothing. However, higher income does correlate with increased expenditure, purchases of new clothing, and product prices. The findings suggest that future policies aimed at reducing consumption volume in affluent nations should be combined with others that preserve equitable consumption levels in different income groups, involving stakeholders such as clothing companies, resellers, and municipalities.

PhD Research Contributions

SIFO researchers Vilde Haugrønning and Anna Schytte Sigaard also took stage in the “Practice Theory & Sociology” session. Vilde presented her work titled “The feminization of clothing consumption: Exploring drivers behind garment accumulation from a practice-oriented perspective”. Drawing on fieldwork with 15 Norwegian couples, her research allowed for a gendered comparison between couples that take part in many of the same practices and share the everyday life. Findings showed that acquisition is driven by everyday occasions, emphasizing the habitual nature of clothing consumption. In addition, women’s wardrobes were typically larger and growing faster, particularly among younger participants. While many participants, especially women, expressed a desire to reduce their clothing consumption, structural barriers made this difficult. The findings highlight that clothing acquisition is not simply a matter of personal choice or need, but rather a complex process influenced by gendered expectations around appearance, dress, and social practices.

Vilde talked about *“The feminization of clothing consumption: Exploring drivers behind garment accumulation from a practice-oriented perspective”.*

Anna’s presentation, “Cultural Conventions and the Contradictions of Sustainable Clothing Consumption”, shared early findings from in-depth interviews with 28 Norwegian households about textile disposal. Combining theories of social practice with convention theory, the analysis identified a variety of underlying justification people draw on, ranging from market to civic to environmental reasoning. Interestingly, while many participants referenced sustainability, these justifications often clashed with other cultural norms that still promote acquisition and disposal. The study highlights the tension consumers face when navigating the ideals and realities of sustainable consumption.

Anna’s theme was *“Cultural Conventions and the Contradictions of Sustainable Clothing Consumption”*.

SIFO researchers Kirsi Laitala, Harald Throne-Holst, and Ingrid Haugsrud were co-authors in two presentations from the Horizon Europe project CARE. Harald presented “Sustainable Interventions in Clothing Consumption and Food Waste: A Systematic Literature Review,” which was part of the “Interventions Toward Circular Consumption” session. Nina Mesiranta from Tampere University presented “Circular Consumption Behaviour Change from a Practice Theoretical Lens: A Systematic Literature Review,” in the session on “Practice Theory & Sociology.” Both presentations were based on a systematic literature review conducted in the CARE project.

The reviews focused on interventions and their effectiveness in shifting consumer behavior toward more circular and sustainable practices, particularly in food waste and clothing consumption. From a theoretical standpoint, our research aimed to assess the extent to which interventions with practice theory or practice theory-based elements have been applied. We found that the most effective interventions combined multiple strategies or adopted a systems approach. The results of these studies are crucial for guiding future efforts to shift consumer behavior and practices toward greater sustainability, as they highlight effective intervention strategies and provide valuable empirical evidence to inform policy development, helping to design more impactful programs and initiatives.

SIFO also presented two posters:

“The Impact of Shopping Practices on Reusable Bag Consumption: A Nationally Representative Study from Norway” by Hanna Seglem Tangen and Live Bøyum, and
“Invasive Products – The Case of Disposable Gloves in Norwegian Everyday Life” by Atle Wehn Hegnes, Kirsi Laitala, and Nina Heidenstrøm.

Both poster presentations aimed to reduce plastics consumption by examining single products such as plastic bags and disposable gloves, to better understand the conditions of their use practices.

Other Conference Contributions on Clothing and Textiles

Two dedicated sessions focused on clothing and textile research.

“Sufficiency business models: Fashion sector case studies” highlighted production-side strategies for a more sustainable fashion industry. Topic included reuse and recycling, marketing approaches to reduced consumption, circular strategies among designers, circular fashion business models, and the “Wellbeing Wardrobe” as a tool for just transitions in the industry.

“Fashion and Textiles”, chaired by Lars Fogh Mortensen (European Environmental Agency), opened with findings from the EEA’s latest report “Circularity of the EU textiles value chain in numbers[1]”.

Arjan de Koning (Leiden University) presented findings based on an examination of the post-consumer textile management chain in the Netherlands including a mapping of stakeholders. They found that tension existed between actors in this network when interests became competing. In addition, they discussed the problems with the legal definition of textile waste as “intention to dispose” as this creates heterogenous perspectives on what waste is and is not.
Frida Eggert (Lund University) presented findings from her PhD project about secondhand shopping on digital platforms. She has explored the Swedish platform Sellpy enables different modes of shopping. Findings showed that the platform made slow and fast shopping, two opposed models of secondhand clothes shopping, possible at the same time.
Nicole Berggren (Lund University) explored the repair intention-behavior gap through a case study of Nudie Jeans.
Mariko Takedomi Karlsson (Lund University) initiated her presentation with a reference to the SIFO publication “The Plastic Elephant”[2]. They carried out a policy document analysis on plastic and textiles investigating the coherence across and between relevant European Commission’s strategies anchored in the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) as well as subsidiary instruments such as directives and regulations. Tentative results indicated a limited coherence between the plastic and textile strategies regarding problem definition and scope, e.g. plastics are mainly discussed in the textiles strategy in relation to microplastic pollution, but not in relation to how integrated plastics and textiles truly are regarding issues of (eco)toxicological risks, fossil fuel use, and climate impacts of production. In addition, the textile strategy differed from other strategies which largely focused on protecting the consumer (for example from hazardous chemicals) whereas the textile strategy focused on consumer responsibility.
Jason Graham-Nye (University of Technology Sydney) presented their project on sustainable nappy alternatives. They carried out a qualitative field trial of compostable nappies with a collection system in Sydney and presented findings related to the complexities of implementing this sustainable alternative. Among other things, they found that the busy everyday life of parents allowed little room for adoption of new practices. However, their efforts had eventually been successful in Samoa where different systems of waste management had allowed for implementation.

[1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/circularity-of-the-eu-textiles-value-chain-in-numbers

[2] https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/handle/11250/3086387

Changes for CHANGE

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 31. March 2025

The Clothing Research Group warmly welcomes Rita Dominici who has come to SIFO for an internship.

Rita Dominici is a second-year student in the master’s program in “Sociology and Social Research” at the University of Trento. She earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology at the University of Bologna with a thesis titled “Fashion as a Social Phenomenon and Consumption Field: The Rise of Fast Fashion and New Paths Towards Sustainability” for which she researched trends in clothing consumption, focusing on current phenomena within production and consumption in the textile industry. She will be working in the CHANGE project during her internship.

Kinga, who has been with us since September, is now moving on and will start a new job as a product developer at Tufte Wear. We wish her all the best!

Potential impacts of EPR in Norway: New study published

tobiasson on 7. March 2025

A recent report by SINTEF for the Wasted Textiles project looks into the value chains of consumer textiles in Norway and calculates the impacts of different scenarios of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the Norwegian economy, based on recommendations for a Norwegian EPR scheme.

The main question asked was: what are the impacts of an EPR scheme for Norway based on different fees? The authors further ask: What could be the reduction in the consumption of textile products by households when they become more expensive? And with reduced consumption of textile products, what would be the impacts to the economy, jobs, and carbon emissions?

The authors of the report use SUMS-Norway, a trajectory macroeconomic model, to quantify how the changes in household demand will affect the Norwegian economy. SUMS-Norway is based on the Norwegian ‘supply and use’ table, and represents the interlinkages between industries in the economy, the use of products from all other industries, and how the changes in demand for different products will generate spillovers in the rest of the economy.

Different scenarios with different results

In the report, the authors compare different scenarios that are based on suggestions for the implementation of a Norwegian EPR scheme, with the suggestion of an eco-modulation based on principles suggested by the Wasted Textiles project for a Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR) scheme. They show that eco-fees that use number of items instead of weight, lead to a higher decrease of synthetic textile products compared to those made of predominantly natural fibres. Scenarios that increase the eco-fee based on predominantly synthetic fibres also lead to significantly higher reduction in the consumption of synthetic textile products and can have important effects on other impacts, such as microplastic pollution and plastic waste in landfills in developing countries.

Some of the most important results highlighted in the report:

Textile consumption would decrease. Eco-fees would be typically integrated in product prices, indirectly transferring waste management costs to consumers and increasing the prices of textile products. Higher fees would potentially lead to higher decrease of textile purchase by households.
Money saved by households from a lower textile consumption would be spent elsewhere.
There will be shifts in the economy due to change in household spendings. This will lead to job losses in the textile industry, but gains in other industries as consumers spend money on other goods and services.
By shifting consumption from textiles to other goods and services, carbon emissions in Norway would increase. This is because of higher economic activity in other industries, while the carbon emissions decrease linked to textile demand, would occur in other countries.
Most of the impacts associated with Norwegian purchase of textile products are felt elsewhere: 88% of the economic value added, 98% of the employment, and 97% of the carbon emissions in the value chain of textiles consumed in Norway happens in other countries, mostly in Asia.

Distribution of impacts on value added creation, employment, and carbon emissions of Norwegian consumption of textile products across global value chains

The authors further show that the impacts on the Norwegian economy are heavily dependent on three factors:

Firstly, the size of the fee. In a situation where the fees are similar to those practiced in France or in the Netherlands, two countries with established EPR schemes, the fees would average 0.61 NOK per item. This would result in a reduction of consumption of 0.6% to 1% in the number of items purchased per year, mostly felt for products made up of mainly synthetic fibres. By 2035, this would lead to households spending 3.6% less in textile products than in a baseline scenario with no eco-fees, corresponding to 1.6 billion NOK, or 0.1% of total household expenditure. This would lead to a loss of 750 million NOK of value added and over 700 jobs disappearing in the Norwegian textile value chain. Most of the economic and job losses would be in the retail industry.
The second factor is where the eco-fees are invested. In 2035, eco-fees collected would amount to 192 million NOK. The investment of 75% of these eco-fees in textile waste management would lead to an increase of 74 million NOK in value added and 61 new jobs in the waste management industry.
The third and most important factor is where households would spend the money they saved by purchasing less textile products. If households spend more money on products and services according to the same distribution as they used in 2022, this would result in additional 2 billion NOK in gross domestic products (GDP) across the entire Norwegian economy in 2035, and over 1,500 additional jobs, including the losses from the textile value chain. If households spend the money on services only, job gains could increase to over 2,000. This is because most of textile products are imported, and changes in their demand mostly affect the textile retail industry, while services have a highly integrated value chain, generating spillover effects across multiple Norwegian industries.

Download the report here.

Artefacta conference

Kinga Zablocka on 20. February 2025

For the fourth time, University of Helsinki arranged the Artefacta conference. It brings together researchers and professionals interested in objects, material culture and our relationship to them (click here for full program helsinki.fi).

I had the great honor of opening the event with the talk “Product attachment in politics and wardrobes”. I described the development of the product-related research methods that Kirsi and I, and our colleagues at SIFO have worked with for close to 20 years. I also showed how the knowledge produced by such methods has become more relevant in the wake of emerging regulation aimed at apparel. It is a sad fact that as much as the EU quotes clothing research coming from SIFO in the knowledge summaries underpinning their policies, it is clear that they lack an actual understanding of our work. With that the potential for the polices to enact positive change (lower the environmental impact) is also greatly reduced.

The talk was well received. However, it would have been more fitting if I had based the talk on my cultural history knowledge and shown how this context had been important in my own research. Furthermore, I could have reflected around how a lot of what is talked and written about clothing and the environment, sadly, does not touch upon cultural history at all.

There is not enough time to do everything. The conference itself went more into depth on relationships and feelings than on the environment, climate, war, crises, with some exceptions. This gave a feeling of freedom. Many beautiful, empirical, thorough and thought-provoking presentations were presented. Being housed in the newly renovated main building of the university dating back to 1828-1832, our material surroundings could not have been more fitting, both spacious and stately. We moved between Greek statues and pillars with a view of the impressive view of the Storkyrkan standing right outside, built around the same time. Helsinki is a capital city, no doubt about it.

At the core of the Artefacta Conferences are objects and artefacts, as well as the materiality and material culture related to them. The Organising Committee, led by Riikka Räisänenin expressed that they welcomed “abstract proposals from all over the world and from interdisciplinary perspectives, including the fields of material culture studies, history, archaeology, anthropology, heritage science, conservation, craft science, art history, museology, ethnology, design and beyond”. Something they certainly succeeded in. Both the US and Australia made themselves known, and indeed the whole specter of artefact-adjacent disciplines were represented. From music historians who studied the chronology of different pieces starting with original sheets of music to art disseminators for an American museum specializing in aviation and space travel.

Thousand-year-old objects and perspectives on the future were presented. The latter was a great presentation by the only other Norwegian contribution to the program, by Georgina McDowal form Museums of Song og Fjordane. By positioning herself several hundred years in the future and describing how the archaeologist would have reported on the objects found at the bottom of the sea where Sogn og Fjordane is situated. The plastic life vest was perceived as a dangerous object and a symbol of the unrestrained use of plastic which has so prevalent in society in an unknown and uncomprehensible past.

The talk on “Is it Always Only Green” with Aarti Latkar and Neelakantan Poomangalath represented another reflection of plastic. They showed how in India, grass lawns are a symbol of the colonial times, with their sports and aesthetics, which is different from the associations in the western world. The meaning asides, it is interesting how grass spreads, most notably in the areas between inside and outside. It climbs on walls in the form of mats and can cover entire surfaces. “Plastification” was also a theme in her talk, and it was extensively covered.

There were many beautiful presentations, and a lot of work went in to the visual aspects, as mentioned previously. What is most striking in hindsight is how the presentation that I, and many other who I spoke with, will remember best was one without a single picture in it (including pictures of text). Julie Gorks was the speaker and she had conducted a wardrobe study on blind individuals’ wardrobes. “Blind touch: Feeling clothes as a material intimacy of blindness” omitted visuals completely out of the respect for the non-seeing members of society. She talked about how her participants experienced their clothes through smell and touch and how the sense of touched was used to “see” the garments, but also to get a feel of the garment. Colours had smells because of the pigments. The senses were present tenfold. Even the visual aspects had to be taken into account because the participants would be looked at by others. Their notion of colours, for instance, would be confronted with another way “to see”. This presentation was in the same session as Timo Rissanen’s talk on Australian leather title sashes and queer objects in museums’ collections.

This way, two marginalized groups and their material cultures were highlighted, showing the importance of research focused on smaller and specific phenomenon rather than the “normal” and “average”. The knowledge that comes out of this type of studies is valuable and can shed a light on aspects that can get lost in our daily lives. Doing research with differently abled individuals is one of many ways that could further clarify what it means to get and/or to be dressed. It was especially good to meet Timo again after approx. 20 years. The last we saw each other was at a conference which I helped arrange at OsloMet, long before we got that name. There is no digital evidence of the conference, but it is well remembered nonetheless.

Speaking of digital evidence (or lack thereof): The conference was brought to an end with the other key note speaker, Daniel Miller. Everybody was looking forward to this, ironically there was a material object that stood in his way; a lost passport (almost hard to believe in our digital age). Luckily Daniel was able to join us on the big screen and everybody did their best to make a note of what books he had in his shelfs.

The opinions on his talk were split. Daniel argued that he always had studied material culture and that there was not much difference between his studies on food in “Making love in the supermarket” and clothing in “The sari” and later his interest in information and communication technology. The conferencegoers did not necessarily agree on that point. The digital world is of course material, in the form of objects such as phones and tablets, and as such it also produces a lot of waste.

But pictures on the internet are not the same as on paper. Furthermore, the digital world has a lot of other characteristics. Spirited discussions followed over wine and dinner hosted by the university. Maybe this was his aim? Or maybe, as others pointed out, this lack of critique of digitalization pays off economically. Nobody was bored, truth be told, and it may be that the critique is connected to the high expectations ahead of his talk. It was a different experience for me and my talk. I am not only less known, but also mostly recognizable for my work with more culturally historical works with wool, washing clothes, bed linens and other kinds of unimportant objects.

With three sessions running simultaneously for two days from morning till evening, it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to see everything. In actuality, I could have been everywhere as everything was of interest. What’s more important than objects (and our relationship to them) is of course our relationship to each other. There was no lack in warm greetings and interesting exchanges, but for me one stands out, and that is my reunion with Mae Colburn.

She contributed with a poster presenting her and her mom’s collection of 600 wool skirts – believe it or not – which was inherited from her grandmother. The skirts did not stay on the poster, but showed up in different places in the form of small square pictures with different related motifs. Mae had also brought a postcard that showed a weave of a skirt made of the skirt fabric, melting the motif and the material together. Mae lives in New York and works as an artist in the crossroads between practicing weaving and academia. Since working at SIFO 15 years ago, she has developed into an artist and kept her fascination for wool (click here to check out the project’s webside woolskirts.cargo).

One of the many things Mae did all those years ago was compiling a bibliography on wool, of course it is still readable but maybe used too sparingly? (link here (clothingresearch.oslomet.no)) What it certain is that her time at SIFO has changed her and us, and what is often forgotten is how important such meeting are and how lucky we are to be able to work together.

– Ingun

When gender comes into play

tobiasson on 8. February 2025

Two portraits from the Local Wisdom project. Photo credits: Kerry Dean and Paige Green.

The second article from CHANGE with gender as a main focus has been published, authored by Kate Fletcher: Gender, Fashion, Sustainability in Clothing Cultures.

Text: Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Tone S. Tobiasson

Kate begins the article with a review of what is obvious to us who work in the field, most researchers, most informants are female. And her research question is How does gender affect clothing use practices in the Local Wisdom Project?

The way Kate places gender, clothing and sustainability together is an important point in the article, however it encompasses more: Kate has returned to her wealth of stories about clothes from the Local Wisdom project, which was carried out between 2009 and 2014, a total of 415 stories from a total of nine countries, of which 316 ‘practices of use’ ended up on the website and in the study, 20.6% of them are from men, 79% from women and also included one non-binary.

So, what are they saying? Kate does a simple analysis and finds the themes that women and men highlight. And believe it or not… men are interested in economics and technology, women in most other things. Researching gender and clothing is not easy, because much of what we can and will find are obvious truths. Thus it is important to remember that the claims of ‘truth’ also need to be documented, discussed and explained. We need systematic comparisons. We need to put into words the obvious and see the limitations in ourselves. We don’t need a sustainability discussion only for women. We need everyone to be involved and everyone to contribute. We cannot continue to leave out half of the population just because they, well… are men.

At the same time, there is another perspective: To the extent that men and women have very different approaches, this is also reflected in the policies that are developed. This is not discussed in Kate’s article, but her research gives us a clue as to why policy development today uses a ‘male language’ and a male approach with spreadsheets and data-sets as the basis; while women have a completely different language and approach. So ‘lost in translation’ is perhaps something that needs to be explored further, to make EU policy make sense for both genders.

Link to article, click here (intellectdiscover.com).

Link to the first article Comparing Male and Female Wardrobes: Gender Dynamics in the Practice of Dressing, authored by Vilde Haugrønning and Ingrid Haugsrud, can be found here.