textiles Archives - Clothing research

Post growth (?) fashion webinars

tobiasson on 29. November 2024

Dec. 13^th 2024 15-16 CET (3-4 pm)
and
Jan. 16^th 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 13^th: 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.

There is a cap for 100 people to attend each webinar. To attend, RSVP through the associated link to get a calendar invite.

January 16^th. 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.

There is a cap for 100 people to attend each webinar. To attend, RSVP through the associated link to get the calendar invite.

TPR brought forward in What Fuels Fashion? Report

tobiasson on 5. August 2024

In the recently published report, What Fuels Fashion?, issued by Fashion Revolution, Consumption Research Norway SIFO’s suggestion for a Targeted Producer Responsibility method has received substantial attention alongside the Plastic Elephant report. In addition, the ruling by the Norwegian Consumer Authority against the Higg consumer-facing label also is brought forward.

All in all, What Fuels Fashion? gives much attention to the research from Oslo Metropolitan university, which is an important part of the Wasted Textiles project. What Fuels Fashion? is a single-issue, special edition of Fashion Revolution’s annual Fashion Transparency Index. They have reviewed 250 of the world’s largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to their level of disclosure on climate and energy-related data in their own operations but primarily in their supply chains.

A key finding is that there is hardly any transparency around over-production. “The fashion industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. Most big fashion brands (89%) do not disclose how many clothes they make annually. Alarmingly, nearly half (45%) fail to disclose neither how much they make nor the raw material emissions footprint of what is produced, signalling the industry prioritises resource exploitation whilst avoiding accountability for environmental harms linked to production.”

On page 36 in the report, we can read: “Governments are now cracking down on greenwashing. In addition to investigations into several brands’ environmental claims taking place in the UK and Australia, the Norwegian Consumer Authority ruled the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (Higg MSI) unlawful to support such claims from retailers. These actions, which have resulted in accountability, illustrate why transparency is crucial to enable change. Nonetheless, the need for robust evidence-backed claims remains a persistent issue.”

Furthermore, on page 38, we find this quote: “Already we are seeing that overestimating the importance of garment durability and underestimating the environmental impact of overproduction is shaping the policy landscape. Research by Oslo Met University reveals the “Plastic Elephant in the Room” – which critiques the EU’s Sustainable Textiles Strategy, particularly its focus on durability. The research argues that the most effective way to reduce the fashion industry’s environmental impact is to cut production volumes rather than merely extending product lifespans (and that focusing on durability unintentionally supports synthetic fossil fuel-derived fibres).” Let’s hope someone from DG ENVI and DG GROW actually read this report!

On page 39, the report has a full-fledged explanation of TPR as a viable alternative to EPR (see illustration). Which is good news for the on-going discussion on how we can make fast fashion actually ‘out of fashion’ with regulatory instruments, and halt business as usual. Being taken seriously in such an important report, will hopefully garner further attention to SIFO’s research.

New consultation on PEF: Feedback delivered

tobiasson on 30. April 2024

We have submitted feedback for the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules. A total of 355 responses have been submitted with a total of 5125 comments. You had to fill in an Excel form, which was a bit challenging to navigate. We have therefore extracted the answers from the Excel sheet and created a document that is easier to read, click here.

PEF is intended to be used for all products, but this consultation concerns clothing and footwear. The aim has been a label for everything put on the European market, but the plan has been scaled down to a tool that will “only” be used to document green claims. The calculation tool itself, however, is the same. Products put on the market can be compared with a “normal” product in the same category. 13 categories have been created to cover all types of clothing and shoes.

The only of these categories where fiber or material is mentioned are under sweaters, where wool is mentioned (but not alpaca) and jackets/coats, which include leather jackets. For each of these “phantom garments” what is measured and weighted is very different, and this makes it hard to understand what you are actually comparing against. For example, “land use” (how many kilograms of fiber you get per square meter) is the most important factor for sweaters and “midlayers”, not for any of the other product groups. What the logic is for this, is impossible to find out in the many and long background documents.

Stumbling blocks

The consultation process itself has been anything but democratic, with stumbling blocks on all levels. Just getting into the EU database to deliver a response has been difficult without a black belt in passwords and apps, and as mentioned, you had to read hundreds of pages of background material and refer to exactly which document, which chapter and which line was being addressed. But perhaps the worst thing is that the documents don’t really say what the result of all the various data-inputs will actually be. Before we submitted the response, everyone could participate in a webinar where we were told that, for example, complaining about microplastics not being included would fall on deaf ears because the very tool underpinning PEF (LCAs) do not allow any new parameters to be added.

So even though the EU Commission had instructed the working group working with PEF for clothing and shoes to include the problems surrounding microplastics, we were told that there was no point in pointing out the obvious weakness that this has not been done. The fact that one can voluntarily say something in the product information about microfibres (not microplasics specifically) does not solve this major problem.

Understanding the functional unit

Another problem is the weak understanding of the functional unity. This is the very foundation of LCAs, for them to provide meaningful information. This means that the thick, warm Devold sweater that you wear all winter in Norwegian wool will be a true environmental disaster (Norwegian sheep take up an incredible amount of space when they graze) compared to the thin acrylic sweater that you bought on sale and are considering throwing away having discovered that you get an electric shock every time you pull it over your head. How long and how much clothing is worn is important for the environmental impacts in an LCA, but here too PEF falls short. This is particularly where we at SIFO have contributed to bring out knowledge and methods that can be used to correct this. Read more here.

Biodiversity does not count either, which the sheep contribute to in the grazed rangelands. Nor that they contribute to carbon storage in the soil. All that counts are the negatives, even when in the case of land use, the wide space is actually a positive! In connection with the consultation, there are many small producers of wool and other natural fibers who have responded, because they are scared that their livelihood will be evaluated as “red”, not “green”. The question then is whether the EU will listen, or whether they plan to override common sense and the need to reduce actual environmental impacts, and still introduce PEF for clothing and footwear to show action and justify all the time and resources that have been spent to develop the system.

SIFO has delivered a response. Let’s hope it helps.

Slovool webinar: A full day of sharing knowledge

tobiasson on 24. April 2024

The Slovool project, a cooperation between Norway and Slovakia, enabled cultural exchange around the use of wool, and especially in national dress traditions. It was funded by the Bilateral Relations Fund for the Culture Program, through the Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatization of the Slovak Republic from grants from the EEA and Norway.

The exchange was manifested in a full day of lectures and discussions online; and a recording is available on Amazing Grazing’s YouTube channel (available at the bottom of the page). Speakers from academia and the value chain for wool in the two countries shared insights based on historical developments, cultural practices and how the use of local fibers – mainly wool – had emerged and changed over time.

The main focus of the webinar: A Slovak sheep and its wool

110 people had registered online for the event, while 64 participated, many had said they wanted the recording, in order to watch later as they knew they would either be travelling or needed to watch the proceedings in their own time, due to language issues. Participants joined us from the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Italy, Romania, Spain, Portugal and of course the two hosting countries of Norway and Slovakia.

The event had been heavily marketed on social media, and therefore had in a short time gathered a lot of attention. The full-day sessions started with a welcome by Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Professor Clothing and Sustainability, Consumption Research Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University, followed by co-hosts Lubica Kováčiková and Alena Niňajová from OZ Naša Vlna, who wished everyone welcome in Slovakian.

Wool embroideries typical of Norwegian folk dress (or bunad). Photo: Kari-Anne Pedersen

The presentations were fast and furious, covering themes such as How the change from local spæl wool to merino in embroidery yarns impacted the bunad by Kari-Anne Pedersen, Norwegian Folk Museum to Wool in traditional Slovak folk costumes by Mgr.art Radoslava Janáčová and also The challenges of sourcing material for Slovakian folk costumes in a local value chain perspective by Mgr. Zuzana Kolcunová, both from ÚĽUV (The Center for Folk Art production). Embroidery yarns in wool had been important in both Norway and Slovakia, but changes in both the raw materials for the yarns and in the use of the folk dress, had many interesting differences that were explored.

Part of the exchange was also centered around the words used in the two languages, such as “bunad” for the Norwegian folk dress, and “sukno” for the Slovakian loden-like materials that are actually very common in both countries, called “vadmel” in Norwegian. There was also a surprising discovery when a “guba” material was shown, very common in Eastern Slovakia, worn mainly by men, which has sheep wool woven into the material itself. This is similar to the Nordic “varafell”, which became very popular during Viking times, as covers in the open boats, and still used today as boat rugs. In Slovakia, one of the companies working with local wool uses this technique in modern clothing, which one can see here.

The Guba is a woven material with wool woven in, we find the same in the Nordics, with the varafell.

In the afternoon session, juxtaposing the talk from Ingvild Svorkmo Espelien, founder of Selbu spinning mill (How local sheep breeds have contributed to rediscovering cultural expression in modern design) with the one from Martina Vozárová, founder and owner of Vlnárska Manufaktúra (The challenges of building up a wool value chain based on local Slovak wool, challenges of first Slovak mini-mill) gave a good snapshot of the differences between the two countries’ industrial opportunities for wool. Rounded off with the story of non-profit OZ Naša Vlna and the local Slovak wool brand MOKOŠA by the founders Ľubica Kováčiková and Alena Niňajová, this lead in to an engaged discussion.

Especially the theme of the ‘woolen circle’, where connections are the key element, a concept introduced by Ľubica and Alena – which ties nicely to for example Fibershed, a grassroot organization spreading quickly in Europe (though the idea comes from California, USA). Here, learnings from the Woolume project, another bilateral EEA grants project between Norway and Poland, were interesting for the listeners. We can actually thank this project for meeting with our Slovakian new friends!

A modern “guba” and products from MOKOŠA using Slovakian wool.

Questions from the audience came in both via the chat and by raising hands and asking directly, and these related to many different themes during the day: Is Norway self-sufficient when it comes to wool, how do the government subsidies work, what kind of rules apply for legal environmental standards from scouring in Slovakia, are Norwegian sheep herded in order to collect their milk, does Slovakia cooperate with other former Soviet states around wool, and many more questions.

One of the participants also shared this resource, that many downloaded, and it is accessible here.

Having organized the event in record-time, we are happy that it was such a success and that so many attended and engaged. We hope to continue our cooperation with Slovakia in the future, and hope the bilateral funding will continue to offer such fruitful exchanges!

To see the whole webinar, you can access the recording here.

TPR gets some serious airplay

tobiasson on 1. April 2024

Volumes, policy measures and Targeted Producer Responsibility all fitted into discussions the week before Easter, where some of us jumped back and forth between Webex, Zoom and Teams, recordings and live webinars. The take-aways are that several policy tools are mired in antiquated ideas that seriously need updating from research, and that the conversations around volumes and sufficiency are what actually can drive change.

STICA’s Climate Action Week coincided with intense webinars from EU’s Joint Research Center on ESPR’s stakeholder review and also PEFCR for apparel and footwear’s open hearing, presented by the Technical Secretariate’s lead. Yes, it was dizzying, but most importantly, Targeted Producer Responsibility and questions surrounding how EU actually plans to address the issue of volumes and degrowing the sector did got airplay.

Kerli Kant Hvass, who is one of our Wasted Textiles partners, presented Targeted Producer Responsibility during the session on the obstacles facing new circular business models during STICA’s Climate Action Week, hosted by Michael Schragger from Sustainable Fashion Academy and lead for Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action (STICA). In the session Circular Business Models Are Critical for Climate Action – So What Is Preventing Them from Becoming Mainstream? she explained the concept, and continued her argument during the panel discussion towards the end:

“Focusing on the product and assuming this will result in sustainability has serious limitations. Instead, collecting data in the waste streams, and establishing if a product has been used for half a year or for ten years, actually establishing its duration of service (DoS), can give the database for modulating fees.”

TPR got nods

We noticed that Maria Rincon-Lievana, from the EU Commission and DG ENV nodded a lot when Kerli repeated this. Sarah Gray from UK’s WRAP, who is wrapping up a PhD on to what degree circular business models actually have climate and environmental impact, wholeheartedly backed Kerli’s call for dating products in order to gain data on the actual DoS of products for comprehensive LCAs.

Sadly Paola Migliorini, also from DG ENV, did not hear when Luca Boniolo from Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) said the following in the session on The Legislative Race Is On: Legislation & Regulation in the European Union (we can only hope she reheard the entire session later):

“Labelling regulation presents an opportunity (…) for instance introducing the production date on the label (…) we can know how long the product has been circulated at the end of life. If we do waste audits, we can estimate the DoS to understand was it used to 10 years or was it used for two weeks and then it was discarded and it can also support consumers in knowing that they have the right of a legal guarantee from the purchase date of two years during which if the product fails under normal circumstances, they have the right of it being repaired for free.”

He said much of the same during the session on Sufficiency, To Green-growth, Overconsumption & Degrowth: Can Sufficient Emissions Reductions Be Achieved in the Current Paradigm?

“EPR can for instance be based on how long the product was on the market based on waste audits and the date of production, and thus we can modulate who will have to pay a higher fee. We need to incentivize the reduction of the volumes placed on the market.”

This is the whole idea behind TPR, and even if Luca did not specifically mention TPR, he was voicing the principles behind it.

Old-fashioned or not fit for purpose, or both?

So, what is old-fashioned about the approach the policy-makers are taking? What are the tools that are not fit for purpose?

As it was ESPR and PEFCR we were lectured on the same week, the following thoughts arise.

ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation) clearly is based on the faulty assumption that 80% of a product’s environmental impact is decided in the design phase. So, it is intertwined with predicting for example durability, repairability, recyclability and thereby assuming DoS. The problem is, as SIFO research shows, only one-third of textile products or apparel go out of use because they are used up, so if ESPR is going to eco-modulate EPR fees (which seems to be the idea) this will be based on pure guess-work, or what could be more diplomatically called predictions.

TPR suggests the opposite, building the eco-modulation on what becomes waste prematurely and modulated ‘against’ what captures value in the new business models, as Kerli so well described in her presentation.

The hen or the egg?

For PEFCR (Product Environmental Category Rules) the problem is that they are meant to underpin ESPR, but JRC have actually not decided if they are fit for purpose, they said as much in their presentation. So, currently PEF seems to be in limbo, perhaps only fit for Green Claims (Baptiste Carriere-Pradal said as much in his presentation, but also hinting that ESPR would have to use PEF).

PEF is not aiming to be a consumer-facing label, only a set of 16 “frankenproducts” (12 for apparel, four for footwear) which you as a company can compare your product to, and say if your product is “greener” than the “frankenproduct” based on very strict LCA parameters. The data-base that these parameters are resting on, have serious data issue, and may be why France when presenting their “amost-PEF-compatible” label, have taken out one of them (physical durability), In addition, France also is not making GHG emissions the most important parameter – counting for 1/4^th of the ‘score’, which PEF currently does.

The main problem, though, is understanding. Consumers understanding what and why.

Simply: In ESPR there is a demand for recycled content, and this is heavily stressed. During the sessions, I asked simply “why?” and presented the latest IVL report with a 1.3% climate reduction for large-scale recycling in the EU. What also surfaced during the week was that only 11% of EU’s population want recycled content. So, win-win or lose-lose to demand recycled content?

Apparel for real life or for bureaucratic purposes?

The issue then feeds into PEF, and how the scores of the “frankenproducts” actually have meaning when talking about real life. Why are stockings, socks and leggings the same “frankenproduct”? What are sweaters actually – when we all know they differ enormously and also their function. It seems, in the end, that everything is a desktop solution for real life actualities.

Having good clothes that are fit for purpose, not apparel that fit policy purposes, should be the goal. They will be used the longest and deliver on DoS. Using ESPR, with PEF as the underpinning logic, will not at all help either the environment, climate change or Europe’s consumers.

So, all in all, listening to the STICA webinar, so well organized by Michael Schragger, gives better insight on where we need to go, than both the JRC organized webinar (which sadly is not publicly available even if it was recorded) and the PEFCR webinar (which can actually be accessed), put together. EU still needs to get their heads around that it’s not at the product level, but at the systems level, that change needs to happen. Let’s hope STICA gave them food for thought.

Fashion and the City

tobiasson on 23. January 2024

Panel discussion on the role of municipalities in promoting circularity and more sustainable consumption patterns in the fashion sector.

Sustainable fashion is often regarded as an issue of international trade and global issues, disregarding the role of local municipalities in the phenomena of overproduction and overconsumption and their trickle-down effects. Yet many cities around the world have started to think of this challenge and develop innovative mechanisms to reduce the volume of production and overconsumption and support their city’s fashion sector’s transition to sustainability. How can municipalities reduce waste, induce sustainable consumption behaviours in their citizens and promote sustainable choices, and circular business services? Do municipalities that are at the receiving end of fast fashion initiate policies and initiatives to re-address the phenomenon? Can cities impact the fashion industry by changing consumption patterns of their citizens?

UN ALLIANCE WEBINAR February 5th, 2024 14:00 – 17:00 CET

Here in the link to register to the event.

Programme and speakers

Opening remarks Simone Cipriani, Chairperson, UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion & Chief Technical Advisor, Ethical Fashion Initiative (EFI/ITC)

Introduction Katia Dayan Vladimirova, PhD, Senior lecturer and researcher, University of Geneva

City Cases (10 min each) AMSTERDAM: Dieuwertje de Wagenaar, Senior Policy Officer Circular Textiles, City of Amsterdam. Fashion and textiles in the “Amsterdam Doughnut”: How policy can boost local circular ecosystems. OSLO: Kirsi Laitala, Senior researcher, Oslo Metropolitan University. Key challenges of textile waste and city-level solutions: Case of Oslo. ACCRA: Elizabeth Rickett, Co-founder, The Or Foundation. Textile overwhelm: How Accra City is managing the growing volumes of imported second hand garments and the resulting textile waste through circular practices. GENEVA: Katia Dayan Vladimirova, PhD, Senior lecturer and researcher, University of Geneva. Opportunities to support responsible local fashion consumption: Case of the City of Geneva. CAPE TOWN: Alison Evans, Head: Waste Markets, City of Cape Town. Moving towards circular textiles through Cape Town partnerships. The case of the city of NEW YORK will also be featured.

Discussants (5 min each) Felicity Lammas, Sustainability Manager, Global Fashion Agenda Mohammad Awale, Founder, Rummage Josephine Philips, Founder and CEO, Sojo Matt Dwyer, Product Impact and Innovation Leader, Patagonia Enrica Arena, CEO, Orange Fiber Åsa Degerman, Manager, Once More Q&A

Conclusions ● Gulnara Roll, Head of the Cities Unit, UNEP
Moderation ● Paola Deda, Director, Forests, Land and Housing Division, UNECE

This is an event of the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion; organized by ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative, UNECE, UNEP, ICLEI and the University of Geneva.

Removing the silk gloves and pulling a (historic) punch

tobiasson on 16. November 2023

Wardrobe and Climate was the over-arching theme for a CHANGE event at the Norwegian Folk Museum in Oslo: how we can convey historical knowledge about resource thinking, crafts and wardrobe joy in the museum’s costume collections. An academic hybrid conference morphed into a hands-on evening.

“How did they do it?” was the big question posed during the hybrid seminar during the day, where around 25 attended in person and the same number joined us virtually; and where Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, both from Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at Oslo Metropolitan University, spoke about two forthcoming papers. These are: Variety in dress: Norwegian and Swedish clothing 1780-1880, co-authored by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng, Pernilla Rasmussen, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, and Towards a closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear: Wardrobe planning regimes in women’s weekly magazines 1908-2023.Here the authors are Ingrid Haugsrud, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Vilde Haugrønning.

Ingrid Haugsrud presented findings from Norway’s oldest women’s magazine.

The headline was “Unused resources for CHANGE: Fashion, history and sustainability”, and the question was why does history matter? Why do we need to talk about historical practices in the discussion around the environmental impact of textiles and clothing? asked Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp, before she then went into how dress-practices from Norway and Sweden during the 100-year period spanning from 1780 till 1880, could offer clues to variety without excessive wastefulness. The red thread being that when we have less clothes, we take much better care of them and assign them high value.

This was followed by Ingrid Haugsrud speaking about “A closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear. Wardrobe planning in Norwegian weekly magazines 1908-2023”, where her analysis of three time-periods in the history of Norway’s oldest surviving women’s magazine which is KK (Kvinner og klær), that started out as Nordisk Mønstertidning. The three main themes that emerged for early 1900s, 1970s and 2020s were: Making do with what one had and at the same time creating variety, mix and match wardrobes (creating an illusion of having more than one actually does) and finally “the capsule wardrobe” and cleaning out/ridding oneself of unused things. The latter having led to a waste colonialism issue in the global south as an unforeseen problem.

Else Skjold led the panel, engaging both the physical and the digital audience.

After the two talks speakers were done, they were joined in a panel by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng and Pernilla Rasmussen, monitored by Else Skjold. Here Marie Ulväng pointed out that in the 19^th century, a household-budget for apparel was as much as 1/4^th of the total. Which is a far cry from today’s share.

Later the same day, many of the participants joined others for a hands-on behind-the-scenes deep-diving into old wardrobes and textile know-how. Participants guessed what materials were hidden in jars based only on how they felt to touch, and also the weight of two garments, an old wool skirt which had belonged to Åse Roe from Tinn in Norway and a silk dress woven in the 1750s, with several reincarnations in the 1800 and 1900s.

Hands-on research: Is it silk, viscose or…?

The audience was also invited to talk about their own wardrobes and clothes with Ingun and Ingrid in what evolved as a deep-dive in a theme that was brought forward during the hybrid seminar: a need for a better language about our wardrobes and what makes them sustainable. Watch and listen to the hybrid webinar by clicking here

Engaged participants discussing with Ingun and Ingrid.

EU wants data on textile waste, and we have the answer

tobiasson on 13. September 2023

Text by Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

The proposal for the Waste Framework Directive, which is currently being read and analyzed by a myriad of companies, NGOs, researchers, policy-makers and interested citizens throughout Europe, handles two major consumer ‘goods’: Textiles and food. We are mainly concerned with the former, however, we have found that food offers us two good guiding principles.

The first one is to eat up what is on your plate. The second is waste audits as a means to gain meaningful knowledge on what gets “eaten up” and what doesn’t. In three separate documents, we ask the EU to heed these two guiding principles and apply them to apparel and other textiles.

One of the documents is our feedback on the textile part of the Waste Framework Directive (read the document here), where the authors have concrete recommendations for ensuring that the policy measures in the WFD can actually contribute to the EU’s ambition of putting fast fashion out of fashion. Currently, the Duration of Service is what is lacking in the available data (how long apparel has been in use and to what level the apparel and textile waste is ‘used up’ ), but even if the background document (#4) states “There is currently no sound method of estimating textile waste (collected and discarded in mixed municipal waste)”, this is just not true. And the two other papers elaborate on exactly this point. Waste audits/waste composition studies – which are very much used when gaining data on food waste – and wardrobe studies – are well-developed methods.

The document Status for developing methods for using waste as a resource for knowledge about the use phase of clothing (read the document here), offers an overview of exactly the current status for these methods, while the document USED, BUT NOT USED UP: Using textile waste to inform textile rating schemes (read the document here) explores how the data-collection methodology using waste audits can underpin several policy measures, such as the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), Labelling and Digital Product Passport (DPP), the Green claims directive, as well as EPR and the WFD. We have called the ongoing waste audit method for Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR), as we originally saw it as a more effective means for levelling a EPR fee, using the Duration of Service as the measuring stick. However, we also now have realized that taking the waste as the point of departure, has many other ramifications that can be leveraged.

The cut-off point for feedback to the WFD keeps being postponed, but we encourage everyone to respond, as a functioning EPR scheme which actually takes the waste hierarchy seriously, can be reality, if we use waste audits as the basis for eco-modulating the fee. What we urgently need is for companies to add the date of production or when the product goes to market to the brand label. Then we can look both upstream, and downstream, from the time apparel and other textiles enter the different waste streams.

A conversation with Kate Fletcher

tobiasson on 21. March 2023

Kate Fletcher outside OsloMet entrance photo by Sonja Balci

First of all, we would like to welcome you as a colleague! This is a very happy development for Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) and our clothing research group, alongside of course, the work in the projects you have the lead of work packages. So firstly: welcome!

For such a long time, we have associated you with London College of Fashion, and now you are affiliated with three Scandinavian institutions. Is there a special affinity to this region that has resulted in this tripling of your affiliation?

Well, it is a very beautiful region! Seriously, there has been a steady – and growing – presence in sustainability, design, fashion and textiles work in the Nordic countries over the last twenty-five years and I am now honoured to be able to connect with this work in three different institutions.

Are the other two positions very different from your role at SIFO?

All the roles are fairly distinct, drawing on different parts of my knowledge and skills. Some are more design-based, others more strategic, while the work at SIFO is more specifically linked to research projects.

Your research project, Craft of Use, brought in a new perspective on how we use our clothes in a myriad of ways; that has inspired many to rethink their relationship with clothes. How did this research lead to for example Earth Logic and your input to new research? Can you give us a ‘thread’ that weaves through your research?

The Craft of Use project started out in 2008 as a way to glimpse what ‘fashion’ might look like ‘post growth’. The idea was that in a world beyond consumerism when clothes are no longer bought mindlessly, the skills of using garments well, with dedication and care, take on new significance. These skills would become the currencies of post growth fashion, they also emphasise practices not just products and users, not just garments. Through a hybrid ethnographic-design research project the Craft of Use project connected the everyday (the lifeworld of the user), systemic questions about taken-for-granted economic and social structures, and relational potential of design to act and connect differently. Earth Logic is, I guess, an obvious continuation of this approach. It also uses a similar action research methodology and is similarly radical.

From left to right: Else Skjold, Trine Skødt, Mette Dalgaard Nielsen and Kate Fletcher. From the launch of the Klothing Research Center.

In the two projects Lasting and CHANGE, where you lead two work packages, you are looking outside the Global North concept of consumption and fashion/clothing practices with a new lens or kaleidoscope. Is this challenging to you personally and also research in general?

It is both personally challenging, and challenging to research, and necessarily so. For too long the dominant ideas in fields like fashion and sustainability have been assumed to be universal, with the assumption that no one sits outside of these ideas, beyond this epistemic territory. But with this assumption comes erasure, and denial of other perspectives, realities, possibilities etc. Looking to more plural perspectives tackle some of the biggest subjects like Western hegemony, human exceptionalism, patriarchy, but it also asks about small practical things like how writing items in a list introduces a hierarchy, which in turn introduces an inadvertent priority or power relation.

Some of the focus in Mathilda Tham’s and your Earth Logic, is about a more localized and diverse approach to clothing and fashion. I personally find this fascinating, and it resonates with so much of what needs to be in place in order “repair” our current system, if we can even repair it. Do you have any thoughts at all that you are willing to share, on systemic change within the current economic system?

Community based action is seen, time and again, as the radical basis of sustainability change. For it is in local places that lives are lived. One of the strands of work that is ongoing within Earth Logic is an exploratory project around a local fashion government. In Earth Logic, when we talk about government and governance people often think about big government, like what happens at national or pan-national levels, but what Earth Logic is interested in is at a different level. Our interest is the small sets of individual, household, community and regional decisions around organising and regulating clothing provision and expression. To be clear, this is not about what can be produced in a region, but more about how to meet needs with the clothing that we already have. This for me is systemic change. I’ll let you be the judge if it sits within the current system or not.

What do you feel should be further explored at SIFO, what themes do you see as unaddressed?

One of the critical challenges for fashion and sustainability is to tackle rising consumption volumes. I would like to get straight to heart of this challenge and to explore consuming less, and to do that with colleagues with expertise from across the SIFO family.

Kate with the CHANGE team at Finnskogen, flanked by Ingun Klepp (left), Ingrid Haugsrud, Else Skjold and Lea Gleisberg, Vilde Haugrønning in front.

Do you feel research councils understand what the actual problems are? Do you have a wish for a call you haven’t seen?

In general terms it seems research councils prefer funding projects that are similar to existing ones, that use related thinking, and aligned with established economic priorities. What I hope for is that bolder, riskier, farsighted projects will also be funded. Such projects generally create the compost that other projects then go on to sow the seeds of change in. And without the compost, other seeds of future projects will not germinate. So, this is ultimately an investment in the future.

Consumption, as a word and a concept; what do you find the most problematic and what do you find to be valuable?

Etymologically, I find the term consumption problematic, meaning, as it does, “to use up”. And in the fashion context, its strong association with the culture of consumption is antithetical to ecological balance. Yet inspired by the words of the poet and farmer Wendell Berry, I am also seeing consumption, as about husbandry. That is, the name of all practices that sustain life by connecting us conservingly to our places and our world. It is the art of keeping tied all the strands in the living network that sustains us.

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).