The CISUTAC Sustainability Forum’s new webinar series is designed to inspire dialogue and share practical knowledge for a more sustainable textile sector. Sessions will bring together experts, innovators, and changemakers to explore actionable strategies for closing the loop and promoting circularity across the textile value chain. Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp will participate in the first edition, taking place on 13 May and hosted by ACR+ (Association of Cities and Regions for Sustainable Resource Management). This session will focus on key findings related to textile waste collection. Also explored will be real-world case studies from across Europe and examining how citizen behaviour can directly impact waste prevention.
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.
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.
Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) and NICE Fashion have delivered feedback on the Preparatory study on textiles for product policy instruments: Ecodesign, EU Green Public, Procurement EU Ecolabel 2nd milestone. All in all 19 comments were prepared and submitted, after attending a two-day webinar in December 2024, where the 2nd milestone document was introduced.
The submission focuses on issues related to ‘durability’ and ‘repairability’, as these are key concepts from EU’s Joint Research Center, and according to them the main drivers for consumers to keep their apparel for longer. We do not agree with this, and have argued why in the feedback. The idea that Duration of Service can be predicted at the start of a product’s lifetime, is one of the things we argue against, and our recommendation is, as we have repeated often, to immediately start dating products, and use waste audits, or even better, SIFO’s new method to capture relationship between properties and use (more information on the method here clothingresearch.oslomet.no).
There are several other points we make, around issues such as PEFCRs, replacement, environmental impact, aggressive marketing, and volumes; and we hope this will be helpful in the work moving forward. We would wish that JRC took more of a consumer perspective, than an industry perspective in their future work on ESPR for textiles and apparel.
To read our feedback, you can download a pdf of our 19 comments here, each comment starts with where in the 2nd milestone the wording or issue we address is, as this was required in the feedback.
This chapter explores the influence of gender on clothing consumption and the impact on differences in clothing volumes between men and women. Based on a qualitative and quantitative wardrobe study, we employ Schatzki’s (2002) social ontology of practice combined with Butler’s (1990) gender performance concept to examine the relationship between gender and clothing consumption in 15 households in Norway. The findings show that women had on average 497 items and the men had 258 items, and the main difference between male and female wardrobes was due to the number of items per occasion. These findings highlights the complexities and tensions faced by women in navigating clothing norms and maintaining a balance in the practice of dressing between appropriate dress, feminine expressions and having an ideal and more sustainable wardrobe. This chapter contributes to a better understanding of the interplay between occasions and gender dynamics that shape clothing consumption patterns. Moreover, it illustrates the potential of ‘occasion’ as an analytical concept and the implications of gender in clothing consumption, challenging the prevailing studies on clothing and fashion that often overlook the nuanced practices and actions that influence clothing volumes.
Two portraits from the Local Wisdom project. Photo credits: Kerry Dean and Paige Green.
The second article from CHANGE with gender as a main focus has been published, authored by Kate Fletcher: Gender, Fashion, Sustainability in Clothing Cultures.
Text: Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Tone S. Tobiasson
Kate begins the article with a review of what is obvious to us who work in the field, most researchers, most informants are female. And her research question is How does gender affect clothing use practices in the Local Wisdom Project?
The way Kate places gender, clothing and sustainability together is an important point in the article, however it encompasses more: Kate has returned to her wealth of stories about clothes from the Local Wisdom project, which was carried out between 2009 and 2014, a total of 415 stories from a total of nine countries, of which 316 ‘practices of use’ ended up on the website and in the study, 20.6% of them are from men, 79% from women and also included one non-binary.
So, what are they saying? Kate does a simple analysis and finds the themes that women and men highlight. And believe it or not… men are interested in economics and technology, women in most other things. Researching gender and clothing is not easy, because much of what we can and will find are obvious truths. Thus it is important to remember that the claims of ‘truth’ also need to be documented, discussed and explained. We need systematic comparisons. We need to put into words the obvious and see the limitations in ourselves. We don’t need a sustainability discussion only for women. We need everyone to be involved and everyone to contribute. We cannot continue to leave out half of the population just because they, well… are men.
At the same time, there is another perspective: To the extent that men and women have very different approaches, this is also reflected in the policies that are developed. This is not discussed in Kate’s article, but her research gives us a clue as to why policy development today uses a ‘male language’ and a male approach with spreadsheets and data-sets as the basis; while women have a completely different language and approach. So ‘lost in translation’ is perhaps something that needs to be explored further, to make EU policy make sense for both genders.
Link to the first article Comparing Male and Female Wardrobes: Gender Dynamics in the Practice of Dressing, authored by Vilde Haugrønning and Ingrid Haugsrud, can be found here.
“And he don’t even care for clothes” sang Nina Simone in “My Baby Just Cares For Me” which is how the chapter “Clothing Care” opens in the new, impressive and comprehensive book “The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainability in Fashion”.
Clothing researchers in SIFO use the Nina Simone quote to discuss the connection between “care[ing] about clothes, people, and nature. There is a connection between care as something practical and mundane, such as washing and repairing clothes, and the more general feeling of wishing to preserve something. The chapter spans from presenting knowledge on techniques used to maintain (care for) clothing such as washing, repair and storage; to discussing the prerequisites for caring about this.”
Ingrid Haugsrud is the first author. The text is based on data from her MA thesis in Fashion and Society from OsloMet. In 2016, she performed a wardrobe study with six informants in their 20s, and 63 favorite garments that the informants valued especially were registered. These were the garments that their wearers cared for both in emotional and practical terms. The other authors, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kirsi Laitala, use these specific examples to paint a picture. Together, they have extensive experience with scientific publications about different care techniques such as washing, repair and clothing use, as well as repurposing of clothing in the wardrobe. As such the text summarizes a lot of knowledge in addition to relating it back to topical discussions today; what can lead to change and the relationship between technical lifespan and longer use time.
The chapter is a product of the CHANGE-project. It uses wardrobe studies, empirical data and discusses a variety of topics such as how one environmental challenge, the volumes of clothing that are being produced, can be reduced. It points out that helping consumers to better take care of their clothes is not a vailable solution, as consumers would only take better care of their if they owned fewer pieces. For Ingrid, this work is not only important because it brings forth the important work she did on her MA thesis, but also because it is an early preview of what she will work on in her PhD, which is fittingly a part of the larger CARE-project. She hit the ground running by acquiring a publication in the field at the very start of her PhD journey.
We have not read the book in its entirety thus far, yet we have to prize its wide subject matter. It does not only include the environmental side of sustainability, but also the cultural and social aspects. We were able to find much more information in this book compared to most books on topics such as clothing consumption and production of clothing and shoes in and outside of Western Europe and USA.
Time to celebrate! Traditional costumes, the craftmanship and social practice from Norway, and summer farming (seter and fäbod) in both Norway and Sweden are now on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list!
This gives an unexpected boost to the Amazing Grazing project and puts some recent and older publications in a new light.
First and foremost a big congratulations to years and years of hard work from Norwegian and Swedish organizations to put these two intangible cultural heritage traditions on the radar of the global work with protecting the many disappearing or vulnerable cultural practices.
For summer farming at fäbod and seter: knowledge, traditions and practices related to the grazing of outlying lands and artisan food production, this is more related to cows and goats, and milking in Norway, however, the Cultural Ministry, when announcing the win on their web-page, chose a picture of (amazing) grazing sheep as their illustration! Traditionally, sheep in Norway were also integral in this practice. (As I can attest to, my father spent the summers of his youth at the family farm mountain seter, shepherding both sheep and cows.) It was the Swedish government, not the Norwegian, who fronted this application.
The Norwegian government, on the other hand, fronted the application of traditional costumes (bunad) in Norway, their craftsmanship and social practice.
The point is, for Clothing Research, that we need to understand ‘local’ dress better, and that the bunad is one of possibly many (or a few) dress practices where local is important, being very concrete and related to the material aspects (the textiles, the embroidery yarns, the sewing), but also the understanding of being ‘from a place’. This is part of a concrete use of clothing that enables being a part of a geographic community, a fibershed. This is described in this paper on Local clothing: What is that and how an environmental policy concept is understood.
The under-pinning idea that clothing is culture, is important here, and a big win, and exactly what is missing in the EU textile strategy.
We also notice the rise of other similar inscribes into the UNESCO list:
The women’s ceremonial costume in the Eastern region of Algeria: knowledge and skills associated with the making and adornment of the ‘Gandoura’ and the ‘Melehfa’
Custom of Korean costume: traditional knowledge, skills and social practices in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Craftsmanship of traditional woven textile Kente
The result of these two inscriptions will be a renewed interest in the cultural heritage, is assumed, but the organizations behind the applications have big plans for recruiting the younger generations and leveraging more interest both nationally and globally. 150 years ago, there were 100 000 summer seter or fäbo locations in Norway and Sweden, today there are 750 in active use in Norway, and somewhere between 200 or 250 in Sweden.
On the bunad side, the situation is brighter: there are 450 different traditional costumes in Norway, and an estimated 80% of Norwegian women own a traditional costume, and 20% of all men, this number is however, on the rise.
So what happens in the years to come, will be very interesting to follow!
Dec. 13th 2024 15-16 CET (3-4 pm) and Jan. 16th 2025 15-16 CET (3-4 pm)
Two consecutive talks by Consumption Research Norway SIFO at OsloMet First one with Prof. Ingun Klepp and Tone Tobiasson and in January Kate Fletcher.
December 13th: Prof. Ingun Klepp, Professor at the National Institute for Consumer Research, and Tone Tobiasson, Author and journalist, from Oslo, Norway. One of the most passionate and influential tandems in the textile research / policy space, with a long track record of pioneering research projects that changed our understanding of the use phase of garments, post consumer textile flows and plastification of fashion.
January 16th. Kate Fletcher is one of the most renown sustainable fashion researchers. Her work, including that on systems change, post-growth fashion, fashion localism, decentering durability, Earth Logic and nature relations both defines and challenges the field of fashion, textiles and sustainability. She has written and/or edited 13 books available in eight languages, and in 2022 she was identified by author Margaret Atwood as a visionary. Kate is a co-founder of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion. Her most recent work is about design, clothing and nature.
