Seminar 8th – 9th June 2026, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen
At the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences there is a strong research interest in perspectives on nature preservation, sustainability, circular economy, ecocriticism, the human – nature/environment and sensing relations, embodied knowledge and the role and consequences of consumption in outdoor life traditions. These are fields that often compete for influence.
At this seminar we will take a step back to basic questions about our future living conditions and take the concept of conviviality, our way of living together, as a starting point and steppingstone. This starting point critically reverses the individualistic search for wellbeing and increases the focus to solidarity and living together. Even if so called green spaces and time spent on outdoor activities are proved beneficial for health, using nature as a remedy and searching for wellbeing in nature have been criticized for being individualistic and related to overconsumption and the risk of destroying parts of the natural world.
Keynote speakers:
Thomas Fuchs, Professor at Heidelberg University, Germany
Helga Synnevåg, Professor at Volda University College, Norway
Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Professor at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
The production of polyester is increasing rapidly, and so is the disagreement about whether this is a problem. A new article and policy brief summarise the perspectives of textile companies that have taken a clear stand against “plastification”, offering recommendations to policymakers and businesses on how to halt this trend.
Authors: Irene Maldini, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kate Fletcher
With funding from the Norwegian Retailers’ Environment Fund, 15 textile companies that are actively trying to phase out synthetic textile fibres, or that do not use these types of fibres, have been interviewed. What do they consider essential for stopping plastification? We summarise their views in a new article and in a policy brief that can be downloaded here.
At the same time the article was published, the EU’s crucial Eco-design Directive was being hotly debated. Should the directive discourage the use of plastics in textiles? Or conversely, could it indirectly support plastification because synthetic fibres are favoured based on robustness and recycled content, and the environmental assessment methods chosen?
The most recent meeting organised by the EU’s Joint Research Centre brought together over 400 participants from industry, NGOs, and research. While some refer to the latest shocking articles regarding new findings on the correlation between plastic in the body and poor health, highlighting the urgent need to reduce plastic usage, others point out that all fibres can be dangerous and may contain undesirable chemicals. Natural fibres are not necessarily biodegradable when treated with synthetic chemicals such as dyes.
A glaring step back is the JRC’s proposal that “recycled” should also include rPET (recycled PET packaging) used in textiles, rather than just fibre-to-fibre recycling, which is clearly a better solution. This proposal seems particularly paradoxical, as it does not address textile waste problems and additionally leads to increased microplastic shedding, as demonstrated by the Changing Markets Foundation.
In other words, there is a compelling reason to respond to the JRC’s consultation regarding this directive, protesting that plastic as an issue is not taken seriously in the development of environmental policy. We have in a previous report shown how both businesses and authorities lack strategies to limit plastic use in textiles. Since that publication, we have learned much more about the harmful effects of plastic on the health of animals and humans, and recent findings have also raised concerns regarding plant health. We understand better how plastic leaks from the textile industry into nature, where landfills – not washing machines—are the major culprits.
On the political front, however, progress has stalled. There are several valid reasons for stopping plastification: 1. It drives the growth in quantity and decline in prices; 2. Plastic pollution of the sea, air, and soil is escalating, affecting all living organisms, with the consequences being partially alarming and largely unknown; and 3. Plastification continues to support China’s dominance in textile production and Russian oil. But how can plastification be stopped? You can read more about that here.
On 9 February, researcher at SIFO Anna Schytte Sigaard will defend her thesis “Want Not, Waste Not. A Practice-Theoretical Study of Textile Disposal in Everyday Life” for the PhD in Innovation for Sustainability!
The defence will take place at OsloMet and will also be available on Zoom.
Authors: Irene Maldini, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kate Fletcher
Abstract
Clothing and textiles are increasingly made of synthetic (fossils-based) fibres, enabling rapid growth in overall production volumes in this sector, with significant environmental impact. This research aims at understanding the strategies of companies that are actively working to confront this trend by trying to avoid or reduce synthetic content in their products. Fifteen companies are interviewed to gather their strategies in resisting synthetic fibres. These include four companies born with a plastic-free mindset, five companies that define themselves as a wool or cotton company despite using other materials, and six companies that aim at reducing synthetic use as part of a broader approach to sustainability and the quality of the products offered. The study analyses the barriers and enablers that affect their endeavours and proposes a series of policy recommendations to counter current developments. Barriers experienced by companies include synthetics’ low price, their physical characteristics enabling elasticity, durability and impermeability, the narrative of plastic recycling as a questionable sustainable solution, the bias of sustainability indicators and production technologies, and specific fashion trends calling for the material characteristics mentioned above. Some enablers mentioned are concerns from the company leadership about the growth of synthetics and associated microplastic release, the role of public policy and procurement in driving the change, resistance to synthetics by users in specific products (e.g. childrenswear), efforts to produce with the company’s own recycled materials, and to achieve a more intensive use of their products. The study concludes with policy recommendations such as stopping subsidizing petrochemicals, sanctioning overproduction practices, promoting true pricing and discriminating tax rates, improving sustainability metrics, targeted R&D support for natural and local materials and a fibre-to-fibre focus for recycling policy, so that the overall volume of textile production and the content of synthetics in it can be reduced.
Extending product lifetimes through repair is a central strategy in sustainable consumption and circular economy initiatives. This article examines how consumers evaluate textile damages and potential to repair, drawing on wardrobe interviews with 28 Norwegian households. Over a six-month period, we tracked 3211 clothing and household textile items going out of use, of which only 107 (3.3 per cent) had been repaired or altered prior to disposal, almost exclusively as home repairs. Based on participant evaluations, we developed a three-level repair scale that reflects perceived repair complexity and feasibility. This scale, combined with item-level damage data, reveals both practical and conceptual challenges in promoting textile repair. Repairability in textiles is more complex than in other product groups, such as electronics, because many common damages fall outside the scope of conventional repair schemes. We argue for a practice-based understanding of repairability that accounts for the interaction between damage types, consumer competences, cultural meanings and systems of provision. Our policy recommendations highlight the need to go beyond product design and service provision to also support social learning, cultural normalization and the integration of repair into everyday life, recognizing its social and cultural significance as essential for effectively extending clothing lifespans.
In order to set a final punctuation for two major research projects that have run parallel over the last five years, Consumption Research Norway Clothing division invited partners and interested parties to an closing hybrid seminar.
The title ‘More and more and more’ – when both projects have been about lessening the environmental burden and deplastification of textiles – must have intrigued many, as 76 people participated online and the physical attendance at OsloMet saw a healthy turn-out.
The seminar was divided into three parts: Context, New Knowledge and Offspring. Ingun Klepp set the scene in the first part, describing the context and unanticipated developments during the projects’ five-year period: the pandemic and the launch of EU’s Textile strategy. These two events impacted how the projects needed to reorient themselves relating to some of the work.
Kate Fletcher and Jens Maage led us through the middle part of the seminar.
The main part was the presentation of new knowledge from the partners, which was led with warm humor by Kate Fletcher (Manchester Metropolitan University) and Jens Maage (SIRK Norge). Short snapshots from both projects were disseminated with graphs, key take-aways and publications. Relating to key take-aways, Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen from the Norwegian Folk Museum did a stellar job of presenting how the interaction between research and historic knowledge gave grounds for new knowledge, using museum artifacts and wardrobes to better understand how the use of apparel has changed relating to variety – and also to sustainable consumption patterns and discourse.
Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen on some key take-aways from history.
Other highlighted learnings were results presented by Kirsi Laitala on how there is a lack of correlation between more repair and reuse and less buying of new stuff, an assumption often misused in EU’s policy work. And that we must look much more at the constant and aggressive marketing that is bombarding consumers, ie the bigger picture of what pressures we are being exposed to. This also surfaced in Vilde Haugrønning’s PhD work with couples’ wardrobes, where it is clear that women do have much larger wardrobes than men, and men find it easier to actually find what they are looking for in the market to serve their clothing needs. More research on what societal pressures and expectations are underlying these dynamics begs exploring. Anna Schytte Sigaard’s PhD work – which is on the disposal drivers – also brought forward the societal acceptable mechanisms that encourage the flow-through of ever-increasing apparel. That 10 percent of what is discarded is as good as new, and only 20 percent is deemed as ‘used up’, shows the uselessness of the EU Textile strategy’s focus on more durable and repairable goods. The triangle of consumption, capitalism and care will be interesting to read more about!
Gisle Mariani Mardal from NF&TA on industry and education dilemmas.
We also learned through SINTEF’s Meron Assefa Arega’s presentation that the size of an EPR fee will decide how effective it is, which is in line with Ingun’s Targeted Producer Responsibility idea that we have been trying to sell to the EU as a much better idea than the current EPR set-up. Gisle Mardal from NF&TA did his best to deflect any radical ideas on how the sector could be curbed or capped, while Irene Maldini showcased how the EU doesn’t want to hear anything relating to degrowing the massive overproduction – so much in line with the industry’s wishes to keep on doing what they are doing. Irene’s presentation also showcased the desk-top research that has unearthed how the assumption that durability is going to save us and limit overproduction, has no solid foundation in research.
SINTEF’s Meron Assefa Arega
Kerli Kant Hvass spoke about the upcoming EPR legislation, our engagement with TPR (as mentioned above) and the market experiences from ‘circular business models’ like reuse, repair and recycling – and how they struggle in a capitalist, growth-driven economy.
In the last part of the program, Ingun presented examples of budding projects, both some that are operational and others that will hopefully come to fruition. To wrap it all up, both Kate and Ingun spoke about the newest ‘win’, the project Green Blood which will start off in 2026. More to follow shortly!
Kerli Kant Hvass joined online.
Back to the title of the seminar ‘More and more and more’ which is borrowed from a book title, and was used since all the tools and measures so far suggested or implemented are drivers for more, not for less. And if we are to actually reduce the environmental burden on the planetary boundaries, we need less of everything – not more. In Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’ book, he describes how energy innovation has not led to energy transitions, but rather the use of more and more and more energy. Very much the same dynamic we see in the textile and fashion sector.
Authors: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng, Pernilla Rasmussen, Ingrid Haugsrud
This study explores how ideas of variety were created and practised among women and men of different social strata in Norway and Sweden before the big changes in the second half of the nineteenth century. Three researchers with in-depth knowledge of clothing during that period look at their material through questions they developed based on current clothing and sustainability discourse. The material consists of both written (diaries, inventories, etc.) and oral sources and clothes. We look at acquisition and use of clothes in the period of 1780–1850 to understand how variety was achieved to discuss whether historical research can inform today’s debate on clothing and the environment. Despite strong limitations in terms of regulations for trade, strict dressing codes, expensive textiles and a restricted economy, variety was achieved. An important prerequisite was that the fabrics themselves were seen as valuable and durable, while the shape, trimmings, accessories and the like could be varied. Buying new ready-made clothes was not yet an option. Access to clothes and accessories was an intricate web involving both caring, sharing (lending, renting, inheritance and shared access) and alterations done by amateurs and professionals. The wardrobe was a well-planned system with movement between occasions and over time, consisting of clothes with different functions and temporalities. The present debate with an emphasis on circular economy solutions and the industry as the main stakeholder overlook clothing as a complex cultural and historical phenomenon. Variety in clothes can be achieved in much less resource-intensive ways by focusing on more valuable fabrics.
Reference
Klepp, Ingun Grimstad ; Haugen, Bjørn Sverre Hol; Ulväng, Marie; Rasmussen, Pernilla; Haugsrud, Ingrid (2024). ‘Creating’ variety without waste: Pre-industrial dress practices as inspiration for updating the sustainability discourse. Clothing Cultures. Vol. 11. https://doi.org/10.1386/cc_00088_1
The paper looks at the acquisition and use of clothes in the period of 1780–1850 to understand how variety was achieved and to discuss whether historical research can inform today’s debate on clothing and the environment. Three researchers from Norway and Sweden with in-depth knowledge of clothing during that period look at their material through questions based on current clothing and sustainability discourse, provided by the last two authors. The paper explores how ideas of variety were created and practised before the big changes in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Despite strong limitations in terms of regulations for trade, strict dress codes, expensive textiles and a restricted economy, variety was achieved among women and men of different social strata in the two countries. An important prerequisite was that the fabrics themselves were seen as valuable and durable, while the shape, trimmings, accessories and the like could be varied. Buying new, ready-made clothes was not yet an option. Access to clothes and accessories was an intricate web involving both caring, sharing (lending, renting, inheritance and shared access) and alterations done by amateurs and professionals. The wardrobe was a well-planned system with movement between occasions and over time, consisting of clothes with different functions and temporalities.
Scene from an auction. Drawing by Carl Johan Ljunggren, c. 1810–1825, Uppsala University Library
The present debate, with an emphasis on circular economy solutions and the industry as the main stakeholder, overlooks clothing as a complex cultural and historical phenomenon and the importance of the crucial informal economy around clothing. Variety in clothes can be achieved in much less resource-intensive ways by focusing on more valuable fabrics.
Anon, Kvinnor från Embriks i Härjedalen d 4/6 1869, 1306. Drawing in colours. Courtesy of Mandelgrenska samlingen, Folkminnesarkivet i Lund.
The work on the article was an attempt to explore new ways of collaboration between researchers with deep historical knowledge and researchers working on contemporary clothing habits and the environmental debate. We need to explore such methods of working to better activate the wealth of possibilities the past can offer in a time when more and more resources are being spent on clothing, while we are becoming increasingly similarly dressed. We thank our co-authors Marie, Bjørn Sverre, and Pernilla for the trust they showed in believing in our proposal to use their knowledge in new ways.
You can find the article here (intellectdiscover.com).
The overproduction of garments, often of low quality, contributes significantly to environmental degradation, especially in the Global South. Therefore, assessing the durability of garments has attracted the attention of industry organizations and legislators. Recent research has identified both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of durability and their links to a circular transition. This study aims to deepen the understanding of garment durability by incorporating the local perspectives of five different global communities. Using a participatory action research methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders across value chains in France, Ghana, Indonesia, Norway, and South Africa. The key findings of this study have been grouped into 8 trends that characterize garment durability: (1) quality is preferred over durability, (2) garment durability is dynamic, (3) price and brand are related to perceived durability, (4) local refers to geographical proximity, (5) local involves value creation, (6) local touches tradition, (7) traditional garments and textiles are more durable, and (8) local contexts influence garment durability. These trends indicate that local factors significantly influence the definition and practice of durability, suggesting that global legislation must consider such nuances when describing and quantifying durability in the context of garments and textiles.
Vanacker, H., Lemieux, A.-A., Laitala, K., Dindi, M., Bonnier, S., & Lamouri, S. (2025). Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 34962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19087-3
A new open-access article in Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio) explores how communities across the globe define and practice garment durability. The study, titled “Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe”, was led by PhD candidate Hester Vanacker and co-authored with an international team of researchers: Andrée-Anne Lemieux, Kirsi Laitala, Michelle Dindi, Sophie Bonnier and Samir Lamouri. Kirsi Laitala is one of Hester’s supervisors and contributed to this article through Lasting project.
Addressing global challenges in fashion and sustainability
The fashion and textile sector is highly resource-intensive industry. The overproduction of low-quality garments contributes significantly to environmental degradation, particularly in the Global South. As policymakers and industry actors work toward more sustainable and circular systems, garment durability – how long clothes last and why they are kept or discarded—has become a key issue.
While durability is often understood in technical terms such as fabric strength or wear resistance, this study broadens the concept to include social, cultural, and local dimensions. It asks how people in different parts of the world define, value, and maintain the longevity of their clothing.
A participatory global study
The research team employed Participatory Action Research (PAR), conducting semi-structured interviews with 73 participants across the garment value chain in France, Ghana, Indonesia, Norway, and South Africa. The participants represented a diverse range of roles, including artisans, designers, second-hand sellers, educators, activists, and members of NGOs.
This inclusive approach allowed the researchers to capture perspectives from both the Global North and the Global South, offering insight into how local conditions, such as climate, culture, and available materials, influence the meaning and practice of garment durability.
Eight trends shaping the understanding of durability
The study identified eight interconnected trends that illustrate how notions of “durability” and “local” intersect:
Quality is preferred over durability – Many equate durability with quality and craftsmanship.
Garment durability is dynamic – Clothing gains and changes value through care, repair, and reuse.
Price and brand influence perceptions of durability – Branded or expensive garments are often assumed to last longer.
Local refers to geographical proximity – Locally produced and used garments carry added meaning and value.
Local involves value creation – Garments that support local livelihoods and skills strengthen communities.
Local touches tradition – Traditional garments reflect heritage and collective identity.
Traditional garments and textiles are more durable – Cultural significance often encourages better care and longevity.
Local contexts influence durability – Climate, culture, and social practices affect how long garments stay in use.
A framework for more inclusive policies
Based on these findings, the authors propose a revised framework for garment durability that integrates local contexts alongside technical and environmental considerations. The framework emphasizes the need for context-sensitive approaches in emerging sustainability regulations and industry standards.
“Policies developed in the Global North often have unintended consequences elsewhere,” says Hester Vanacker, “Our findings show that a meaningful understanding of durability must include the perspectives and practices of local communities worldwide.”
Garment durability and resilience framework (a) Original and (b) revised version including the local context
Towards a locally grounded circular transition
By highlighting the connections between global trends and local experiences, the study contributes to a more holistic understanding of durability in the context of circular economy and sustainable fashion. It calls for legislation and industry practices that respect cultural diversity and the lived realities of garment users and producers around the world.
The research also demonstrates how participatory methodologies can bridge academic and community-based knowledge, ensuring that sustainability transitions are both equitable and grounded in real-world contexts.
Vanacker, H., Lemieux, A.-A., Laitala, K., Dindi, M., Bonnier, S., & Lamouri, S. (2025). Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 34962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19087-3
