End seminar for CHANGE and Wasted Textiles

In order to set a final punctuation for two major research projects that have run parallel over the last five years, Consumption Research Norway Clothing division invited partners and interested parties to an closing hybrid seminar.

The title ‘More and more and more’ – when both projects have been about lessening the environmental burden and deplastification of textiles – must have intrigued many, as 76 people participated online and the physical attendance at OsloMet saw a healthy turn-out.

The seminar was divided into three parts: Context, New Knowledge and Offspring. Ingun Klepp set the scene in the first part, describing the context and unanticipated developments during the projects’ five-year period: the pandemic and the launch of EU’s Textile strategy. These two events impacted how the projects needed to reorient themselves relating to some of the work.

Kate Fletcher and Jens Maage led us through the middle part of the seminar.

The main part was the presentation of new knowledge from the partners, which was led with warm humor by Kate Fletcher (Manchester Metropolitan University) and Jens Maage (SIRK Norge). Short snapshots from both projects were disseminated with graphs, key take-aways and publications. Relating to key take-aways, Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen from the Norwegian Folk Museum did a stellar job of presenting how the interaction between research and historic knowledge gave grounds for new knowledge, using museum artifacts and wardrobes to better understand how the use of apparel has changed relating to variety – and also to sustainable consumption patterns and discourse.

Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen on some key take-aways from history.

Other highlighted learnings were results presented by Kirsi Laitala on how there is a lack of correlation between more repair and reuse and less buying of new stuff, an assumption often misused in EU’s policy work. And that we must look much more at the constant and aggressive marketing that is bombarding consumers, ie the bigger picture of what pressures we are being exposed to. This also surfaced in Vilde Haugrønning’s PhD work with couples’ wardrobes, where it is clear that women do have much larger wardrobes than men, and men find it easier to actually find what they are looking for in the market to serve their clothing needs. More research on what societal pressures and expectations are underlying these dynamics begs exploring. Anna Schytte Sigaard’s PhD work – which is on the disposal drivers – also brought forward the societal acceptable mechanisms that encourage the flow-through of ever-increasing apparel. That 10 percent of what is discarded is as good as new, and only 20 percent is deemed as ‘used up’, shows the uselessness of the EU Textile strategy’s focus on more durable and repairable goods. The triangle of consumption, capitalism and care will be interesting to read more about!

Gisle Mariani Mardal from NF&TA on industry and education dilemmas.

We also learned through SINTEF’s Meron Assefa Arega’s presentation that the size of an EPR fee will decide how effective it is, which is in line with Ingun’s Targeted Producer Responsibility idea that we have been trying to sell to the EU as a much better idea than the current EPR set-up. Gisle Mardal from NF&TA did his best to deflect any radical ideas on how the sector could be curbed or capped, while Irene Maldini showcased how the EU doesn’t want to hear anything relating to degrowing the massive overproduction – so much in line with the industry’s wishes to keep on doing what they are doing. Irene’s presentation also showcased the desk-top research that has unearthed how the assumption that durability is going to save us and limit overproduction, has no solid foundation in research.

Kerli Kant Hvass spoke about the upcoming EPR legislation, our engagement with TPR (as mentioned above) and the market experiences from ‘circular business models’ like reuse, repair and recycling – and how they struggle in a capitalist, growth-driven economy.

In the last part of the program, Ingun presented examples of budding projects, both some that are operational and others that will hopefully come to fruition. To wrap it all up, both Kate and Ingun spoke about the newest ‘win’, the project Green Blood which will start off in 2026. More to follow shortly!

Kerli Kant Hvass joined online.

Back to the title of the seminar ‘More and more and more’ which is borrowed from a book title, and was used since all the tools and measures so far suggested or implemented are drivers for more, not for less. And if we are to actually reduce the environmental burden on the planetary boundaries, we need less of everything – not more. In Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’ book, he describes how energy innovation has not led to energy transitions, but rather the use of more and more and more energy. Very much the same dynamic we see in the textile and fashion sector.

Potential impacts of EPR in Norway: New study published

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.

Download the report here.