The overproduction of garments, often of low quality, contributes significantly to environmental degradation, especially in the Global South. Therefore, assessing the durability of garments has attracted the attention of industry organizations and legislators. Recent research has identified both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of durability and their links to a circular transition. This study aims to deepen the understanding of garment durability by incorporating the local perspectives of five different global communities. Using a participatory action research methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders across value chains in France, Ghana, Indonesia, Norway, and South Africa. The key findings of this study have been grouped into 8 trends that characterize garment durability: (1) quality is preferred over durability, (2) garment durability is dynamic, (3) price and brand are related to perceived durability, (4) local refers to geographical proximity, (5) local involves value creation, (6) local touches tradition, (7) traditional garments and textiles are more durable, and (8) local contexts influence garment durability. These trends indicate that local factors significantly influence the definition and practice of durability, suggesting that global legislation must consider such nuances when describing and quantifying durability in the context of garments and textiles.
Vanacker, H., Lemieux, A.-A., Laitala, K., Dindi, M., Bonnier, S., & Lamouri, S. (2025). Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 34962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19087-3
A new open-access article in Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio) explores how communities across the globe define and practice garment durability. The study, titled “Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe”, was led by PhD candidate Hester Vanacker and co-authored with an international team of researchers: Andrée-Anne Lemieux, Kirsi Laitala, Michelle Dindi, Sophie Bonnier and Samir Lamouri. Kirsi Laitala is one of Hester’s supervisors and contributed to this article through Lasting project.
Addressing global challenges in fashion and sustainability
The fashion and textile sector is highly resource-intensive industry. The overproduction of low-quality garments contributes significantly to environmental degradation, particularly in the Global South. As policymakers and industry actors work toward more sustainable and circular systems, garment durability – how long clothes last and why they are kept or discarded—has become a key issue.
While durability is often understood in technical terms such as fabric strength or wear resistance, this study broadens the concept to include social, cultural, and local dimensions. It asks how people in different parts of the world define, value, and maintain the longevity of their clothing.
A participatory global study
The research team employed Participatory Action Research (PAR), conducting semi-structured interviews with 73 participants across the garment value chain in France, Ghana, Indonesia, Norway, and South Africa. The participants represented a diverse range of roles, including artisans, designers, second-hand sellers, educators, activists, and members of NGOs.
This inclusive approach allowed the researchers to capture perspectives from both the Global North and the Global South, offering insight into how local conditions, such as climate, culture, and available materials, influence the meaning and practice of garment durability.
Eight trends shaping the understanding of durability
The study identified eight interconnected trends that illustrate how notions of “durability” and “local” intersect:
Quality is preferred over durability – Many equate durability with quality and craftsmanship.
Garment durability is dynamic – Clothing gains and changes value through care, repair, and reuse.
Price and brand influence perceptions of durability – Branded or expensive garments are often assumed to last longer.
Local refers to geographical proximity – Locally produced and used garments carry added meaning and value.
Local involves value creation – Garments that support local livelihoods and skills strengthen communities.
Local touches tradition – Traditional garments reflect heritage and collective identity.
Traditional garments and textiles are more durable – Cultural significance often encourages better care and longevity.
Local contexts influence durability – Climate, culture, and social practices affect how long garments stay in use.
A framework for more inclusive policies
Based on these findings, the authors propose a revised framework for garment durability that integrates local contexts alongside technical and environmental considerations. The framework emphasizes the need for context-sensitive approaches in emerging sustainability regulations and industry standards.
“Policies developed in the Global North often have unintended consequences elsewhere,” says Hester Vanacker, “Our findings show that a meaningful understanding of durability must include the perspectives and practices of local communities worldwide.”
Garment durability and resilience framework (a) Original and (b) revised version including the local context
Towards a locally grounded circular transition
By highlighting the connections between global trends and local experiences, the study contributes to a more holistic understanding of durability in the context of circular economy and sustainable fashion. It calls for legislation and industry practices that respect cultural diversity and the lived realities of garment users and producers around the world.
The research also demonstrates how participatory methodologies can bridge academic and community-based knowledge, ensuring that sustainability transitions are both equitable and grounded in real-world contexts.
Vanacker, H., Lemieux, A.-A., Laitala, K., Dindi, M., Bonnier, S., & Lamouri, S. (2025). Understanding garment durability through local lenses: a participatory study with communities across the globe. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 34962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19087-3
Hybrid seminar Thursday, 6th of November 2025, 13:00-17:00 CET. OsloMet, Pilestredet 35 / Online.
We cordially invite you to the combined end seminar of the CHANGE and Wasted Textiles projects.
The title and the illustration of the seminar are inspired by the book «More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy» by Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, which describes how energy innovation has not led to energy transitions, but rather the use of more and more and more energy. We found this to be a suitable title also for a seminar that concludes two projects, which have studied the drivers of the increasing volumes of clothing from two different angles.
The seminar will be chaired by Prof. Kate Fletcher, MMU, and Jens Måge, SirkNorge and present central findings from both projects, ranging from historical knowledge to contemporary consumption and political implications of the research, through to following and future research.
While the final programme is still in the making, we invite you to save the date.
Exhibition and seminar, 17th of Octobre 16:00-19:30, 18th of Octobrer 2025, 12:00 – 17:30 Deichman Library, Bjørvika, Oslo
A powerful art project that stitches together stories of fashion, environment and colonial structures.
re-(t)exHile is an international artistic research project that investigates the consequences of the global textile waste crisis. The project started in Lagos and has since grown through collective sewing and textile installations in Slovakia, Chile – and now Oslo.
In October, the project will come to Deichman Bjørvika in collaboration with KORO, with an installation and an international seminar. Here, the audience is invited to reflect on fast fashion, overproduction and Europe’s role in the global flow of used clothing. The artwork is expanded through collaboration with students from KHiO and volunteers from diverse backgrounds. The project concludes with a performative intervention in Oslo City Hall, where textiles from all the project chapters are gathered – as a visual and symbolic gesture against the recurring colonial patterns in the fashion industry.
A project by Maria Alejandra Gatti, Martinka Bobrikova, Oscar de Carmen and Anto Lloverasre-(t)exHile is an international artistic research project that investigates the consequences of the global textile waste crisis. The project started in Lagos and has since grown through collective sewing and textile installations in Slovakia, Chile – and now Oslo.
In October, the project will come to Deichman Bjørvika in collaboration with KORO, with an installation and an international seminar. Here, the audience is invited to reflect on fast fashion, overproduction and Europe’s role in the global flow of used clothing. The artwork is expanded through collaboration with students from KHiO and volunteers from diverse backgrounds.
The project concludes with a performative intervention in Oslo City Hall, where textiles from all the project chapters are gathered – as a visual and symbolic gesture against the recurring colonial patterns in the fashion industry.
A project by Maria Alejandra Gatti, Martinka Bobrikova, Oscar de Carmen and Anto Lloveras.
Organisert av KORO.
Program
Friday 17th of Octobre
16:00 Welcome by KORO and Erik Kaspartu
16:10 Introduction to re-(t)exHile and round table conversation
17:00 Lecture: Making fast fashion out of fashion – Ingun Grimstad Klepp
17:50 Lecture and documentary: Sowing imagination – Andrei Fernandez
18:40 Lecture: The violence of donated clothing – Sunny Dolat
19:00 Film screeing: Delivery Details – The Nest Collective
19:20 End
Saturday 18th of Octobre
12:00 Welcome
12:05 Lecture: Responsible Consumers and the Environmental Impact of Fashion – Outi Pyy
13:10 Workshop: Broken No More: The Art and Joy of Repair – Marium Durrani
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.
