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.
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 Vladimirovatalked 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 Nordic Council of Ministers’ Office in Latvia invites you to a webinar.
What is the status of textile circularity in the Nordic-Baltic region, and how could Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) help accelerate collection, sorting, reuse and recycling of post-consumer textiles?
What lessons can be drawn from early national efforts in Latvia and the Netherlands – and which pitfalls should be avoided?
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.
Chair of session Kate Fletcher
Organised as an interactive session of mutual learning and exchange about attempts to transform policy around setting upper limits to production/import of goods in rich countries, this session will invite dialogue between activists, community organisations, academics and more. The session will begin with a presentation about the experiences of clothing and textiles researchers and their dialogues with policy makers in the EU to limit production/import volumes. The session will then open to the floor, with discussion not limited to the case of clothing and textiles, to share the experiences of others’ policy dialogues in different contexts. Discussion may include: the type of language and terminology used, different ways of framing discussions, the channels that have proved effective, preferred approaches, among others.
This session links to the conference theme by sharing practices and actively linking degrowth theory and priorities to action for transformed futures.
Format of the session: Presentation: 25 minutes – Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO, OsloMet and Tone Tobiasson, reflecting on the work with policy as part of the research project CHANGE
Facilitated discussion open to all attendees: 45 minutes
Various textile management policies are under debate, with particular attention to the effectiveness of weight-based eco-modulation, a policy strategy aimed at minimizing the environmental impact of products (Lifset et al., 2023). To better understand this mechanism, it is important to first know that fashion is widely regarded as “one of the least regulated industries” (Bédat, 2022), in which efforts to achieve a sustainable approach to clothing production are primarily individual and voluntary. In fact, existing policies aim to encourage sustainability and limit environmental damage, but they do not constitute strict international obligations with shared parameters. Indeed, these should be seen more as guidelines that individual nations can modify according to their own norms and priorities. An example is the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): an environmental policy defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that makes producers responsible for the entire life cycle of their products, from design to waste management. Among its aims is to encourage producers to adopt sustainable production and design practices for durable, repairable, and recyclable products, making production more sustainable. Even though it was not created specifically for textile products, it has since begun to be applied to them as well (Bukhari, Carrasco-Gallego, Ponce-Cueto, 2018). The estimation of the fees for textile products usually depends on several factors, one of which can be weight. For example, in the Netherlands, the PRO UPV Textiles Foundation set a fee of 0.10 € per kg of textiles put into the market in 2024 (Simas and Arega, 2025).
This consideration of weight is particularly relevant given that although textile waste constitutes a relatively small percentage of overall waste by weight, its environmental impact is significant and continues to grow, especially during the last decades (Bukhari, Carrasco-Gallego, and Ponce-Cueto, 2018). This trend is closely linked to the substantial increase in textile production, which has been driven almost fully by synthetic fibers. These fibers now represent over two-thirds of all materials used in textiles, and more than half of all textiles contain synthetics (Changing Markets Foundation, 2023; Henry, Laitala; Klepp, 2019). For this reason, it is crucial to take into account the diversity of fibers used in clothing: some are natural, others synthetic, and each of them has a specific environmental impact, which is generally higher for synthetic fibers than for natural ones (Muthu et al., 2012). This difference in fiber type leads to varying densities, causing weight variations even when considering the same number of garments (Watson et al., 2014). Therefore, our main question is: “Do garments made of synthetic fibers weigh less than garments made of natural fibers?”
FIBER
DENSITY (g/cm3)
Cotton
1.55
Viscose
1.52
Polyester
1.39
Silk
1.34
Wool
1.30
Acrylic
1.19
Nylon
1.14
Polyethylene
0.95
Polypropylene
0.91
Fig. 1: Densities of some general-purpose textile fibers (Hearle and Morton, 2008).
Data and Methods
This analysis is based on quantitative data collected by PhD candidate Anna Schytte Sigaard for her doctoral project “Want Not, Waste Not”, which is part of a larger project entitled “Wasted Textiles: Reduced Synthetic Textile Waste Through the Development of a Resource-Efficient Value Chain”.
The data were originally gathered using wardrobe methods, involving 28 households in three Norwegian regions: Oslo, Vestfold, and Salten. Due to limitations in sample size, the 28 households cannot ensure representativeness of the Norwegian population. However, the dataset provides a substantial number of textile observations, offering valuable insights. The participating households were asked to collect all textiles that would have otherwise been thrown away, donated to charity, given away, or disposed of in any other way over a six-month period. These items were later registered along with information from the interviews. The first household began the collection in October 2021, and the last one completed it in October 2022.
Although the project primarily used qualitative methods, the data were extracted and transformed into quantitative form.
In total, 3556 individual pieces, amounting to 554.5 kg of textiles, were originally registered. Since this analysis only focuses on adult clothing, 1306 individual garments, amounting to 221.34 kg of textiles, were taken into consideration. Moreover, from the 91 original variables, the ones used for the analysis were: Clothing Type, Merged Clothing Type, Weight, Fiber Content, Synthetic Fiber, and Non-synthetic Fiber, Cotton and Polyester.
The variable “Clothing Type” includes 1306 observations and comprises 23 categories: Blazer, Blouse, Cardigan, Dress, Sweatshirt, Jeans, Jumpsuit, Maternity Wear, Outerwear, Pants, Pantyhose, Pyjamas, Shirt, Shorts, Skirt, Socks, Sweater, T-shirt, Tights, Top, Underwear, Vest, and Workout Clothes. From this variable, the “Merged Clothing Type” variable was created by merging some of the original categories by creating 10 final ones: Heavy Lower wear (including “Pants”, “Pantyhose”, “Jeans”), Activewear, Heavy Upper wear (including “Sweater”, “Sweatshirt”, “Cardigan”), Light Lower wear (with “Skirt”, “Shorts”), Light Upper wear (including “T-shirt”, “Top”, “Blouse”, “Shirt”, “Vest”), Jacket (with “Outerwear” and “Blazer”), Maternity wear, One-Piece (including “Dress” and “Jumpsuit”), Pyjamas and Underwear.
The variable “Weight” provides information on the weight in grams of each of the 1306 garments.
As clothing fibers, they can be classified into two main categories: synthetic and non-synthetic. Natural (non-synthetic) fibers occur in nature and include materials like cotton, wool and silk, while synthetic fibers are man-made, such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic (Chen et al., 2021). In this analysis, the variables “Synthetic Fiber” and “Non-synthetic Fiber” indicate the amount of each fiber type present in the 1306 garments examined. Using this information the variable “Fiber Content” was created, which includes 3 categories: “Mostly Synthetic” (over 70% of fibre content non-synthetic), “Mixed Material” (between 31-69% of both synthetic and non-synthetic) and “Mostly Natural” (over 70% of fibers are synthetic).
The variables “Cotton”, and “Polyester” include information regarding the quantity of the respective material used in the production of each individual garment.
Therefore, the analytical sample is composed of 1306 observations.
After the operationalization of all relevant variables, the analysis will consist of descriptive statistics produced using the statistical program R. In particular, stacked bar charts will be used to visually represent the composition of garments by clothing type, fiber composition and weight. Moreover, to answer the research question, a Welch T-test was employed to compare the average weight of garments made of synthetic versus natural fibers in specific categories, such as dresses and pants. Afterwards, a one-way ANOVA was performed to test for significant differences in the weight of garments based on fiber composition across clothing categories. This was followed by post-hoc Tukey tests to identify pairwise differences. Lastly, a hierarchy regression was run to evaluate the explanatory power of synthetic fiber content in predicting garment weight.
Results
In order to answer the research question, this section presents the findings of the study, detailing the composition of synthetic and non-synthetic fibers across various clothing categories
Fig.2: Average fiber composition by clothing category
Fig. 2 shows how different clothing categories, ordered by their average synthetic fiber content, vary in terms of fiber composition. It emerges how synthetic fibers are not equally distributed across all clothing types, for example, on average, some garments, such as “Activewear” and “Pantyhose”, contain a higher percentage of synthetic fibers, while others, like “T-Shirt” or “Jeans”, tend to have higher content of natural fibers.
Fig. 3: Average weight for each type of clothing and material
After better understanding the average fiber composition in the different clothing categories, Fig. 3 also takes into consideration the average weight of the garments and the amount of synthetic and natural fibers they contain. This analysis multiplies the percentage of each fiber type by the weight of the garment to estimate the fiber-specific contribution to weight. From the results it emerges that, although not weighing more in absolute terms across all the clothing categories, natural fibers may contribute significantly to garment weight, especially in categories like “Blazer” and “Jeans”. This may be because natural fibers (such as cotton or wool) are generally heavier than synthetic ones. It is also important to note one limitation of this graph: the calculation considers the percentage composition of the garment along with its weight, without considering that different materials have different specific weights. This means that the same quantity of a certain material may weigh more or less than another. Nevertheless, even if the varying densities of the materials were considered, it is ultimately the way these materials are processed that determines how much they affect the final weight of the garment.
Fig. 4: Dresses’ weight composition (Grams per Fiber type)
In Fig. 4, it is possible to observe how the weight of dresses varies considering their textile composition. It is worth noting that, on average, dresses made mostly from synthetic fibers, especially polyester, are located on the right side of the graph as their weight is lower (around 200 grams) compared to dresses made mostly from natural fibers like cotton, wool, and viscose, which tend to cluster on the left side of the graph because their weight is greater. This emerged also when running a T-Test: the average weight of natural fibers in “Dress” is 1.01 (p< 0.001) grams higher than the average weight of synthetic fibers.
By looking at the composition of one garment category, it is also interesting to observe the behavior of the fiber types. It emerges that there are some heavier observations where polyester, or other synthetic fibers, constitute most of the garment’s weight. This shows how weighing a garment is not only about a fabric’s absolute density, but it depends also on their processing, they can be thicker or thinner, impacting the final weight of the garment.
Fig. 5: Pants’ weight composition (Grams per Fiber type)
The same trend is observable in Fig. 5, where the “Pants” clothing category is taken into consideration. From this graph, it can also be observed that, on average, pants made mostly from synthetic fibers, particularly polyester (represented in the graph by the pink color), are lighter and occupy the area on the far right of the graph, with an average weight of around 300 grams. On the other hand, pants whose composition is mostly made of natural fabrics, especially cotton, but also other natural fibers, are located on the far-left side of the graph, having a greater weight (with some observations exceeding 500 grams). In this case as well, the T-test also suggests that: the average weight of natural fibers in “Pants” is 1.10 (p < 0.001) grams higher than the average weight of synthetic fibers. Again, it is important to remember the importance of the processing of a specific material, which can lead to the production of fabrics that are either thicker or thinner, resulting in different final weights.
Table 1: ANOVA and Post-hoc Tukey Test Results by Clothing Category and Fiber Composition
Post-hoc Tukey Test
Clothing Category
ANOVAP-Value
Mostly Natural/Mixed Material
Mostly Synthetic/Mixed Material
Mostly Synthetic/Mostly Natural
Jackets
0***
-4.074
29.502***
33.576***
Heavy Lower wear
0***
153.118***
-195.682***
-348.801***
Pyjamas
0.0033**
-9.978
-48.152**
-38.173**
Underwear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
Light Upper wear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
Maternity Wear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
Light Lower wear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
Activewear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
One-Piece
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
Heavy Upper wear
Not Significant
Not Performed
Not Performed
Not Performed
All
0***
-94.34265***
-54.10098*
40.24167*
Note: ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
Furthermore, to assess differences in garment weight across fiber categories a variable a one-way ANOVA followed by a post-hoc Tukey test was conducted considering the “Merged Clothing Type” variable. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences for “Jackets”, “Heavy Lower wear”, “Pyjamas”, and the overall sample (All), while other clothing categories did not show significant variation in their weight considering their fiber composition.
For “Jackets” garments made of mostly synthetic fibers were significantly heavier than those made of mixed material and mostly natural fibers. No significant difference was found between mixed material and mostly non-synthetic fibers.
In the case of “Heavy Lower wear” mostly natural-fibers items were significantly heavier than garments with mixed material and significantly lighter than mostly synthetic items. Moreover, mostly synthetic garments were also significantly heavier than mixed material counterparts.
For “Pyjamas”, mostly synthetic items were significantly lighter than those with mixed material and mostly non-synthetic. The difference between mixed material and mostly non-synthetic was not statistically significant.
For categories such as “Underwear”, “Light Upper wear”, “Maternity Wear”, “Light Lower wear”, “Activewear”, “One-Piece”, and “Heavy Upper wear”, no statistically significant differences were found between fiber categories, and thus post-hoc comparisons were not performed.
Finally, when aggregating across all clothing categories (All), significant differences emerged between all fiber categories: mostly non-synthetic garments were heavier than mixed material, and mostly synthetic garments were heavier than those composed mostly of natural fibers and lighter than mixed material items.
Lastly, to examine the contribution of fiber content to garment weight, a hierarchical regression model was employed (See Appendix Table 3). In the first step (Model 1), only the variable “Merged Clothing Type” was included, resulting in an adjusted R² of 0.619. In the second step (Model 2), “Synthetic Fiber” was added to the model, increasing the adjusted R² to 0.648. This indicates that the inclusion of “Synthetic Fiber” explains approximately 3% additional variance in garment weight. An ANOVA comparison between the two models confirmed that this increase in explained variance was statistically significant, showing that synthetic fiber content contributes significantly to predicting garment weight beyond the effect of textile category alone.
Conclusions
The aim of this analysis was to try to understand whether garments made predominantly from synthetic fibers generally weigh less than those made from natural fibers. The motivation behind this research question lies in the fact that the issue of weight-based eco-modulation in textile policies, especially in relation to natural fibers, is an important yet underexplored topic, with practical implications for the fashion industry. From the results it emerges that, on average, especially for some clothing categories, garments made mostly of natural fibers tend to weigh more than those made of synthetic fibers, suggesting that it is important for weight-based policies regulating production in the textile industry to also consider the different types of materials used in garment production in order to achieve better effectiveness. Although it is important to keep in mind a limitation of this analysis: this study does not consider the density differences between the materials since the identity itself is not a proper indicator of the fiber weight of every particular garment. Indeed, the textile final weight would depend also on the physical and chemical processes through which the fibers are processed. This work, however, aims to serve as a starting point for exploring a topic that is still little discussed and that could be further investigated in the future. Additionally, other related themes could be explored, such as the relationship between garment weight, fiber composition, and gender, or how the composition of different fabrics affects the durability of garments.
References
Bédat, M. (2022). As quoted in Friedman, V. (2022, October 14). New York could make history with a fashion sustainability act. The New York Times.
Bukhari, M. A., Carrasco-Gallego, R., & Ponce-Cueto, E. (2018). Developing a national programme for textiles and clothing recovery. Waste Management & Research, 36(4), 321-331.
Chen, X., Memon, H.A., Wang, Y. et al. Circular Economy and Sustainability of the Clothing and Textile Industry. Mater Circ Econ 3, 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-021-00026-2
Hearle, J. W., & Morton, W. E. (2008). Physical properties of textile fibres. Elsevier.
Henry, B., Laitala, K., & Klepp, I. G. (2019). Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: Prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment. Science of the total environment, 652, 483-494.
Lifset, R., Kalimo, H., Jukka, A., Kautto, P., & Miettinen, M. (2023). Restoring the incentives for eco-design in extended producer responsibility: The challenges for eco-modulation. Waste Management, 168, 189-201.
Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J. Y., & Mok, P. Y. (2012). Quantification of environmental impact and ecological sustainability for textile fibres. Ecological Indicators, 13(1), 66-74.
Sigaard, A. S. (2023). Want Not, Waste Not: Preliminary findings. Consumption Research Norway (SIFO).
Simas, M. S., & Arega, M. A. (2025). From local strategies to global sustainability: A macroeconomic analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility scenarios for the Norwegian consumer textiles sector.
Watson, D., Kiørboe, N., Palm, D., Tekie, H., Harris, S., Ekvall, T., Lindhqvist T. & Lyng, K. A. (2014). EPR systems and new business models: reuse and recycling of textiles in the Nordic region. Nordisk Ministerråd.
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.
Consumer goods environmental policy is increasingly focusing on product durability and product lifetime extension (PLE) to reduce their impact. Given the growing societal relevance of PLE, this review investigates the discourse about its environmental effects, and the empirical knowledge that substantiates this discourse. One hundred and nine relevant articles were selected from 388 distinctive records identified in two databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The statements about the environmental effects of PLE in these publications were extracted and analysed, and a detailed process of backward citation tracking was followed to identify the empirical base substantiating these statements, leading to 85 additional publications that were included in further analyses.
The findings show that the main environmental benefits expected from PLE are related to reductions in the volume of goods produced, which result from expected reductions in demand due to delayed product replacement. However, this reasoning is based on two under-researched assumptions about consumer and industry behaviours: that the demand for new products is driven by replacement, and that decisions on production volumes in the industry are driven by consumer demand. The empirical base in the field is dominated by quantitative assessments that reproduce these assumptions rather than studying them. The findings from a handful of field studies that investigate the presumed behaviour, question that it applies. Therefore, a research agenda is proposed to better understand the relations between product lifetimes and material flows and the influence of consumer and industry behaviour over them. Moreover, given the current gap between the durability discourse and the empirical knowledge that would be needed to substantiate it, recommendations are made for academics, policy makers, advocacy groups, and businesses environmental strategists to moderate their expectations from product longevity measures.
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 andOverconsumption 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.
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.”
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.
Harald on stage.
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.
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!
