Textile waste Archives - Clothing research

WEIGTHING WEIGHT

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 13. May 2025

Author: Rita Dominici

Introduction

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	ANOVA P-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. 

Changing Markets Foundation. (2021) Fossil Fashion: The Hidden Reliance on Fossil Fuels; Utrecht, The Netherlands. Retrieved from: https://changingmarkets.org/report/fossil-fashion-the-hidden-reliance-of-fast-fashion-on-fossil-fuels/  

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. 

Appendices weighting weight Download

Urban transitions toward sufficiency-oriented circular post-consumer textile economies

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 25. October 2024

Authors: Katia Vladimirova, Yassie Samie, Irene Maldini, Samira Iran, Kirsi Laitala, Claudia E. Henninger, Sarah Ibrahim Alosaimi, Kelly Drennan, Hannah Lam, Ana-Luisa Teixeira, Iva Jestratijevic & Sabine Weber

Abstract

Wealthy cities are the primary hubs for excessive consumption and disposal of fashion and textiles. As such, cities have the power to support urban transitions toward more circular and sufficient consumption patterns. However, there is a lack of research and data around the topic of post-consumer textiles, which results in lagging policy and action at a city level. Here we aim to address this knowledge gap and offer a deeper understanding of what happens to clothes and textiles after consumers no longer want them, across nine Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development cities. Based on the analysis of policy documents, interviews and scientific and gray literature, the study finds similarities in terms of how the flows are managed across wealthy cities. The findings suggest that directing unwanted textiles toward exports makes the problem of growing post-consumer textile waste, a direct result of fashion overproduction and overconsumption, invisible to the public and to municipalities. This Article offers an important and timely analysis to inform action on post-consumer textiles and proposes a list of actionable policy recommendations for city governments to support the transition toward circular and sufficient urban textile systems.

Click here to read the full article (nature.com) or contact the authors for a copy.

Want Not, Waste Not: Preliminary findings

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 31. March 2023

Different clothing items with different ages and duration of ownership.

Author: Anna Schytte Sigaard

Summary

This project note presents preliminary findings from a PhD project looking into textile waste from Norwegian households. 28 households collected textiles that they would have otherwise discarded for a period of six months. The textiles were collected by the PhD candidate during visits to the households where qualitative interviews were carried out. Then, all textiles were registered along with information from the interviews. The findings indicate that most of the discarded textiles are clothes and shoes. However, when broken down into textile categories, household textiles represent the largest group of discarded textiles. In addition, findings show that about one third of the collected textiles were in a very good condition, either like new or with only minor changes. The fiber content of the textiles corresponded with the preliminary findings from work package 2 in Wasted Textiles, as there was an equal distribution between 100% synthetic textiles, 100% non-synthetic textiles and textiles containing a mix of these. It was also found that the largest group of users were adult women, especially when looking at number of textiles discarded. If weight was applied instead, the difference between the genders evened out more. As these findings are preliminary, it is too early to provide any hard conclusions. Instead, the project note is meant to grant insights into the kind of data that will eventually be available and shared with the project group.

Click here to read the full project note.

Reducing Plastic in Consumer Goods: Opportunities for Coarser Wool

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 28. January 2023

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Jan Broda, Monika Rom and Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek.

Abstract

Production and use of plastic products have drastically increased during the past decades and their environmental impacts are increasingly spotlighted. At the same time, coarse wool, a by-product of meat and dairy production, goes largely unexploited in the EU. This paper asks why more coarse wool is not used in consumer goods, such as acoustic and sound-absorbing products, garden products, and sanitary products. This is answered through a SWOT analysis of results from a desktop study and interviews with producers of these products made from wool, as well as policy documents relating to wool, waste, textiles, and plastic. Findings show that on a product level, the many inherent properties of wool create opportunities for product development and sustainability improvements and that using the coarser wool represents an opportunity for replacing plastics in many applications as well as for innovation. This is, however, dependent on local infrastructure and small-scale enterprises, but as such, it creates opportunities for local value chains, value creation, and safeguarding of local heritage. The shift to small-scale and local resource utilization requires systemic change on several levels: Here the findings show that policy can incentivize material usage transitions, but that these tools are little employed currently.

Click here to read the full paper (mdpi.com).

Review of clothing disposal reasons

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 19. October 2022

Authors: Kirsi Laitala and Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO

Abstract

Garment lifetimes and longer serviceable life play important roles in discussions about the sustainability of clothing consumption.

A compilation of the research on clothing disposal motivations shows that there are three main reasons for disposal:

Intrinsic quality (37%): Wear and tear-related issues such as shrinkage, tears and holes, fading of colour, broken zippers and loss of technical functions such as waterproofness.
Fit (28%): Garments that do not fit either because the user has changed size, or the garment did not fit well to start with (for example due to unsuitable grading, insufficient wear ease or wrong size).
Perceived value (35%): reasons where the consumer no longer wants the garment because it is outdated or out of fashion, or no longer is needed or wanted, or is not valued, for example when there is a lack of space in the wardrobe.

This shows that almost two-thirds of garments are discarded for reasons other than physical durability. Poor fit/design together with lack of perceived value by the owner are responsible for the majority of clothing disposals.

Physical strength is one of the several factors that are important if the lifetime of clothing is to be increased. However, it does not help to make clothes stronger if they are not going to be used longer anyway; this will just contribute to increased environmental impacts from the production and disposal phases. We do not need disposable products” that last for centuries. To work with reducing the environmental impacts of clothing consumption, it is important to optimize the match between strength, value and fit. This has the potential to reduce overproduction. Optimizing clothing lifespans will ensure the best possible utilization of the materials in line with the intentions of the circular economy.

Introduction

Garment lifetimes and longer serviceable life play important roles in discussions about the sustainability of clothing consumption.

Here we present the empirical findings summarized from the research that exists around clothing disposal. The review was originally conducted for the work with the development of durability criteria for Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for apparel and footwear. We believe this can be useful information for companies working to improve their products, and debate about clothing sustainability including the understanding of PEF.

We would like to thank Roy Kettlewell and Angus Ireland for their cooperation.

Method

The review includes empirical quantitative studies on clothing disposal reasons. The studies use varying methods, where online surveys are the most commonly used, but also two physical wardrobe studies are included. The way disposal reasons are studied varies as well. Many surveys ask for general, most common disposal reasons, while wardrobe studies and a few of the surveys focus on specific garments that the informants have disposed of. One of the online wardrobe surveys also asks for anticipated disposal reasons for specific garments instead of past behavior. All of the studies have been conducted between 1987 and 2020. The review excluded any studies that did not focus on disposal reasons or did not report results in a quantitative manner. In addition, it excludes a few lower-quality studies with methodological issues. In total 17 studies that fulfil the inclusion criteria were found.

Results

The review shows that clothing is discarded for many reasons. Table 1 summarizes the results and gives some information about the study sample such as where it was conducted and the number of respondents, as well as the main method that was used. Although there are differences between the surveys, they show a common feature. The results on disposal reasons could be placed in three main categories that were found in all reviewed studies: 1) intrinsic quality, 2) fit, and 3) perceived value, and an additional category for 4) other or unknown reasons. The categories include the following disposal reasons:

Intrinsic quality: Wear and tear-related issues such as shrinkage, tears and holes, fading of colour, broken zippers and loss of technical functions such as waterproofness.
Fit: Garments that do not fit either because the user has changed size, or the garment did not fit well to start with (for example due to unsuitable grading, insufficient wear ease or wrong size).
Perceived value: reasons where the consumer no longer wants the garment because it is outdated or out of fashion, or no longer is needed or wanted, or is not valued, for example when there is a lack of space in the wardrobe.

Study	Research design and sample size	Intrinsic quality	Fit	Perceived value	Other / unknown
AC Nielsen (Laitala & Klepp, 2020)	Survey in five countries, 1111 adults aged 18-64, anticipated disposal reason of 40,356 garments	44	13	35	9
WRAP (2017)	Survey in the UK, 2058 adults, 16,895 garments, disposal reasons per clothing category past year	18	42	33	7
Laitala, Boks, and Klepp (2015)	Wardrobe study in Norway, 25 adults (9 men and 16 women), 396 discarded garments	50	16	24	10
Klepp (2001)	Wardrobe study in Norway, 24 women aged 34- 46. 329 discarded garments	31	15	33	21
Collett, Cluver, and Chen (2013)	Interviews in the USA, 13 female students (aged 18 – 28). Each participant brought five fast fashion items that they no longer wear	41	38	21	–
Chun (1987)	Survey in the USA, 89 female students (aged 18 – 30). Most recent garment disposal reason.	6	29	56	9
Lang, Armstrong, and Brannon (2013)	Survey in the USA, 555 adults. General garment disposal reasons.	30	31	39	–
Koch and Domina (1997)	Survey in the USA, 277 students (82% female). General disposal reasons and methods.	29	38	33	–
Koch and Domina (1999) and Domina and Koch (1999)	Survey in the USA, 396 adults (88% female). General disposal reasons and methods.	21	37	42	–
Zhang et al. (2020)	Survey in China, 507 adults (53% female). General disposal reasons.	43	19	22	16
Ungerth and Carlsson (2011)	Survey in Sweden, 1014 adults (age 16 – 74). The most common disposal reason.	60	8	21	9
YouGov (Stevanin, 2019)	Survey in Italy, 992 adults, general disposal reasons.	31	24	20	25
YouGov (2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e)	Surveys in Australia, Philippine, Malaysia, Hong Kong & Singapore, in total 12,434 adults. General disposal reasons.	39	25	29	7
Mean	Approx. 20,000 adults	34.1	25.8	31.4	12.6

Table 1. Summary of clothing disposal reasons in 17 consumer studies.

When the category of other/unknown reasons is excluded, the division between the three main disposal reason categories is quite similar, with intrinsic quality constituting about 37% of disposal reasons, followed by lack of perceived value (35%) and poor fit (28%) (Figure 1).

Conclusion

A compilation of the research on clothing disposal motivations shows that there are three main reasons for disposal. Intrinsic quality, that is wear and tear and other physical changes of garments is the dominating disposal reason (37%), followed by lack of perceived value (35%) and poor fit (28%). This shows that almost two-thirds of garments are discarded for reasons other than physical durability. Poor fit/design together with lack of perceived value by the owner are responsible for the majority of clothing disposals.

Physical strength is one of the several factors that are important if the lifetime of clothing is to be increased. However, it does not help to make clothes stronger if they are not going to be used longer anyways, this will just contribute to increased environmental impacts from the production and disposal phases. We do not need “disposable products” that last for centuries. To work with reducing the environmental impacts of clothing consumption, it is important to optimize the match between strength, value and fit. Optimizing clothing lifespans will ensure the best possible utilization of the materials in line with the intentions of the circular economy.

References

Chun, H.-K. (1987). Differences between fashion innovators and non-fashion innovators in their clothing disposal practices. (Master’s thesis). Oregon State University, Corvallis. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/v118rk195

Collett, M., Cluver, B., & Chen, H.-L. (2013). Consumer Perceptions the Limited Lifespan of Fast Fashion Apparel. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 17(2), 61-68. doi:10.1108/RJTA-17-02-2013-B009

Domina, T., & Koch, K. (1999). Consumer reuse and recycling of post-consumer textile waste. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(4), 346 – 359. doi:10.1108/eb022571

Klepp, I. G. (2001). Hvorfor går klær ut av bruk? Avhending sett i forhold til kvinners klesvaner [Why are clothes no longer used? Clothes disposal in relationship to women’s clothing habits]. Retrieved from Oslo: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12199/5390

Koch, K., & Domina, T. (1997). The effects of environmental attitude and fashion opinion leadership on textile recycling in the US. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 21(1), 1-17. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.1997.tb00265.x

Koch, K., & Domina, T. (1999). Consumer Textile Recycling as a Means of Solid Waste Reduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(1), 3-17. doi:10.1177/1077727×99281001

Laitala, K., Boks, C., & Klepp, I. G. (2015). Making Clothing Last: A Design Approach for Reducing the Environmental Impacts. International Journal of Design, 9(2), 93-107.

Laitala, K., & Klepp, I. G. (2020). What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Sustainability, 12(21), 9151. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9151

Lang, C., Armstrong, C. M., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: An exploration of the role of personal attributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 706-714. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12060

Stevanin, E. (2019). Fast fashion: il continuo rinnovo del guardaroba. Retrieved from https://it.yougov.com/news/2019/05/27/fast-fashion-il-rinnovo-del-guardaroba/

Ungerth, L., & Carlsson, A. (2011). Vad händer sen med våra kläder? Enkätundersökning. Stockholm: http://www.konsumentforeningenstockholm.se/Global/Konsument%20och%20Milj%c3%b6/Rapporter/KfS%20rapport_april11_Vad%20h%c3%a4nder%20sen%20med%20v%c3%a5ra%20kl%c3%a4der.pdf

WRAP. (2017). Valuing Our Clothes: the cost of UK fashion. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/valuing-our-clothes-the-cost-of-uk-fashion_WRAP.pdf

YouGov. (2017a). Fast fashion: 27% of Malaysians have thrown away clothing after wearing it just once. Retrieved from https://my.yougov.com/en-my/news/2017/12/06/fast-fashion/

YouGov. (2017b). Fast fashion: 39% of Hong Kongers have thrown away clothing after wearing it just once. Retrieved from https://hk.yougov.com/en-hk/news/2017/12/06/fast-fashion/

YouGov. (2017c). Fast fashion: a third of Filipinos have thrown away clothing after wearing it just once. Retrieved from https://ph.yougov.com/en-ph/news/2017/12/06/fast-fashion/

YouGov. (2017d). Fast fashion: a third of Singaporeans have thrown away clothing after wearing it just once. Retrieved from https://sg.yougov.com/en-sg/news/2017/12/06/fast-fashion/

YouGov. (2017e). Fast fashion: Three in ten Aussies have thrown away clothing after wearing it just once. Retrieved from www.au.yougov.com/news/2017/12/06/fast-fashion/

Zhang, L., Wu, T., Liu, S., Jiang, S., Wu, H., & Yang, J. (2020). Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviors in Nanjing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123184.

Mapping sustainable textiles initiatives: And a potential roadmap for a Nordic actionplan

ingridha on 9. September 2015

Ingun Grimstad Klepp (project leader)
Kirsi Laitala, Michael Schragger, Andreas Follér, Elin Paulander,
Tone Skårdal Tobiasson, Jonas Eder-Hansen, David Palm, Maria
Elander, Tomas Rydberg, David Watson and Nikola Kiørboe.

Summary

This report aims to chart a plan for a coordinated Nordic effort towards sustainable development in textiles and identify ongoing initiatives in the area. The aim was an ambitious plan with a potential for significant reductions in environmental pressures, but also green growth. To reach these goals, we staked out four regions a Nordic plan should include.

Replace fast fashion
The key to achieving an environmentally significant effect is to
reduce the amount of textiles in circulation. This will reduce the
production of waste and the use of chemicals.
Reduce resource input
The perspective is all about reducing inputs in textiles value chain. This includes various forms of circulatory thinking, material efficiency, as well as commercial forms of recycling and waste management.
Redirect global vs local
Locally produced textiles, with emphasis on ingredients, traditions, uniqueness and innovation, is a new and positive measure that can easily get attention outside environmentally conscious circles. A greater appreciation for good ingredients, and why quality costs, are required to compete with “fast fashion” and shift towards lasting value. Local production has the potential to create green growth and jobs in the region.
Rethink for whom
Nordic countries are at their best an example of inclusive and
democratic societies. The fashion industry however, has marketed itself towards the young and thin. An ethical approach to fashion encompasses not only how clothing is produced, but also who they are produced for and how clothing affects the ability for selfexpression and participation in an open society.

Ongoing initiatives

The mapping showed that there were many ongoing initiatives in the Nordic. The work has mainly focused on the perspective of so-called “reducing resource use”. The more established an initiative is, the more likely it is to be low on innovation. An important dilemma surfaces when attention is on better utilization of waste, as this may indirectly contribute to increased growth in volume.

Knowledge and further research

We lack most knowledge in areas with the greatest opportunity for reduction in environmental impact. The knowledge follows an inverted waste pyramid, where prevention, longevity, etc. are very important, but with a low knowledge-level. Another important distinction is between the market understood as an exchange of money and what goes on outside these formal markets, and there is in general little knowledge about the latter parts of the value chain. The report contains a list of knowledge gaps and suggestions for further research.

Nordic positions of strength

Consumers have little knowledge about textiles in general and the products do not contain information about basic characteristics (durability, quality, etc.) enabling them to make informed choices.
The Nordic region’s main strength is an ease of dressing for movement and the outdoor elements.
Handicraft traditions are strong, however they may be disappearing.
There is some renewal of interest in more local sourcing.
Reuse and recycling are the main focus, in spite of lack of a recycling industry and limited market.
High standing as ethically and environmentally concerned region.
Tradition of cooperating in spite of language and cultural differences.
Social networks and electronic tools could be used even more.
Inclusion, democracy and participation are important values.
There is a lack of common statistics on the sector.

Policy and regulation

The textile industry is international with few global policy regulations. There is a great opportunity for the Nordic region to make a difference.

Suggestions for a Nordic roadmap

Avoid symbolic issues and cases, and focus on making a substantial difference environmentally.
Contribute to a discussion of the relationship between the global and the local in textiles.
Collectively engage the sector in thinking positive and offensively, being inspiring and visionary.
The roadmap must work with the whole sector, not just the commercial industry.
Engage all the Nordic countries and exploit the strength in our differences.
Ensure knowledge exchange through building on the current state of know-how and the enthusiasm nationally and internationally.
Acquiring new knowledge where there are obvious blind spots.
Set specific, ambitious, and achievable (political) goals.
Support the public debate on central themes.

Click here to read the full report (norden.org).

Leisure and sustainable development in Norway: part of the solution and the problem

ingridha on 24. October 2014

Carlo Aall, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Agnes Brudvik Engeset, Silje Elisabeth Skuland and Eli Støa

Abstract

The article presents the results of two succeeding Norwegian studies on the environmental impacts of leisure consumption. The first study presents data on the total consumption of leisure products and services by Norwegians, showing that leisure consumption increases more than everyday consumption, the most energy-intensive leisure activities increase the most, leisure activities have become more dependent on transportation and that leisure activities are to an increasing extent based on more material consumption. The second study consists of case studies from four leisure activities in Norway that have experienced the greatest increases in consumption over the last two decades: outdoor recreation clothing, cabins, leisure boating and leisure transportation.

The case studies show that the problems connected with reducing the environmental impacts of leisure consumption are numerous and complex, and cannot be solved alone by technological improvements in leisure products and services. We conclude that new policies have to be developed which can on a short-term basis promote changes of leisure consumer habits in a more environmentally friendly direction, and on a long-term basis alter the existing strong links between economic growth and leisure consumption.

Click here to read the full article (tandfonline.com).