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!
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.
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.
The ability to affect sustainability outcomes is often culturally gendered. This article examines sustainability practices in fashion in the light of core themes in the gender and sustainability literature, drawing upon a re-analysis of a decade-old dataset of resourceful clothing use practices from the Local Wisdom project. In the dataset, evidence is found both of gendered practices and differentiated levels of involvement by gender. The article presents and examines these findings and then extends the discussion to the effects of gendered influence within the field of fashion sustainability more broadly, a field that may often be seen to be gender-blind. The article argues for a new attention to gender and for a re-imagining of the domain based on metabolism and relationship to overcome ideologies and practices based on separation of one group of people from another and of humans from nature.
