Hopp til innholdet

A Note from the Editors of Fashion Practice

The general editors of Fashion Practice, Sandy Black and Marilyn Delong, would like to thank our guest editors Kate Fletcher and Ingun Grimstad Klepp for their work in developing this Special Issue on Localism and Fashion. With its focus on localism as a movement concerned with generating knowledge for change, we see an emerging concept for fashion. This reaches beyond a more familiar territory, where the notion of localism may be concentrated on marketing a place, country or region through the fiber and garments made there—for example, see the previous special issue “Fashion Made in Italy” (2014, Volume 6 Issue 2). We view this current edition as the beginning of a stimulating debate on the topic of localism.

Kartlegging av ekstrautgifter

På oppdrag fra Arbeids-og sosialdepartementet har SIFO gjennomført en kartlegging av ekstrautgifter knyttet til grunnstønadsordningen. Prosjektet består av to delprosjekter. Formålet med det første delprosjektet er å undersøke hvorvidt matutgiftene ved et kosthold for personer med cøliaki eller andre diagnosegrupper som fordrer at de lever på en glutenfri diett er høyere enn utgiftene til mat-og drikkevarer i SIFOs referansebudsjett, og eventuelt hvor mye høyere.
Formålet med det andre delprosjektet er å undersøke hvorvidt utgiftene knyttet til klær, sko og sengetøy for personer med spesifikke varige sykdommer eller lidelser er høyere enn utgiftene til klær, sko og sengetøy i SIFOs referansebudsjett, og eventuelt hvor mye høyere. Beregningene for delprosjekt 1 viser at ekstrautgifter ved diett som følge av cøliaki og andre diagnosegrupperutgjør ca. 655 kr i snitt for kvinner og menn i aldersgruppen 18-30 år per måned.

Motivations for and against second-hand clothing acquisition

One of the possibilities consumers have for more sustainable clothing acquisition is to select pre-owned products. This article explores consumers’ motivations for clothing reuse: why they choose or do not choose to acquire second-hand clothing. First, a taxonomy of motivation categories based on previous studies is presented. This demonstrates that similar properties can be used as arguments both for and against acquisition of second-hand clothing. An analysis of a representative sample of Norwegian consumers shows that both environmental and economic reasons are important for those who take part in informal clothing circulation. Uniqueness and style are more important for those who buy second-hand clothing.

Those who do not take part in any of the forms of acquisition of used clothing, use vague and open justifications, as well as contextual aspects; hygiene, health and intimacy. Previous studies have mostly been based on how clothing is reused as part of a market exchange, and therefore the motives have been embedded with a rational choice understanding of consumption. Studies of the private exchange of clothing should also address additional reasons such as routinized practices and established rituals, family ties, feelings, friendship and love. The article concludes with an invitation for further research to explore several possible motivations that are more relevant for private circulation of clothes.

Shared use and owning of clothes: borrow, steal or inherit

This chapter takes a close look at the different forms of sharing based on empirical material on leisure clothing in Norwegian families. We ask what forms of sharing are practiced, which terms are used, and how consumers draw distinctions between them. We find that the forms are numerous and have an established place in Norwegian clothing culture. Sharing within the household, outside the pecuniary market, appears still to be the most important and also the most understudied form of sharing.

The literature about clothing consumption is increasingly about sharing, but limited to the new forms. However, sharing is a common form of human interaction, often misunderstood or overlooked. In order to understand the role of collaborative consumption in contemporary society, it is necessary to study both new and old forms of sharing. For a more systematic mapping of these forms a good place to start might be the study of relationships between access and ownership, and between different temporalities.

Use phase of apparel: A Literature review for Life Cycle Assessment with focus on wool.

  • av

This report presents a literature review of clothing use phase. The purpose is to support improved methodological development for accounting for the use phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of apparel. All relevant textile fibres are included in the review. However, the main focus is on wool. We ask whether the use of wool has different environmental impacts than clothes in other fibres. The report builds on a review of literature from the past 20 years. The review showed that clothing made from different materials are used, and reused in different ways. Wool is washed differently as it has about ten degrees lower washing temperature than the average laundry in Europe. Wool is also more likely to be either dry-cleaned or washed by hand than other textiles. Moreover, when dried, it is less likely to be tumble-dried.

Global laundering practices: Alternatives to machine washing

  • av

This article discusses laundering practices around the world including alternative methods such as washing by hand, airing, steaming, and dry-cleaning. These methods, which have received little attention in research, are often more suited toproducts made of wool, silk or other materials able to be cleaned using gentler techniques than more commonly used fibers such as cotton and synthetics. The material is based on extensive literature review from the past 20 years and reanalysis of previously unpublished survey data.The results show that washing by hand is common and that is the main laundering method in most rural areas of developing countries, but also significant for smaller portion of laundry in developed countries. Dry cleaning is less common, and mainly used for specific clothing items. Simple method such as airing can reduce the washing frequency, and thus reduce the environmental impacts resulting from the cleaning of clothes.

Billige og dårlige klær – få klager

I Norge har prisene på klær falt betydelig de siste tiårene. Forbrukerne har fått økt kjøpekraft og antallet klær vi kjøper har økt betraktelig (Klepp & Laitala, 2016, s. 67). I dag er den vanligste måten å skaffe klær på gjennom innkjøp av fast fashion, som kjennetegnes av store internasjonale selskap, vekt på markedsføring fremfor saklig informasjon, og vekt på raske endringer fremfor gode råvarer og kvalitet i produksjon. Omsetningen foregår i kjedebutikker med fokus på salg og salgsvarer og ikke på fagkunnskap. I denne rapporten vil vi se på hvordan denne utviklingen har påvirket vår tilfredshet med klærne. Billigere klær gjør at det er lettere for forbrukerne å kjøpe klær spontant, eller kjøpe klær som ikke er helt slik de ønsker (Greenpeace, 2016). Er det mange som angrer på kjøp de har gjort? Og hva gjør de dersom de angrer? Før vi analyserer spørsmålene vi stilte i SIFO survey 2017 om disse temaene, vil vi legge fram hvilke rettigheter forbrukerne har.

Opprinnelsesmerking av norsk ull

  • av

Hensikten med denne rapporten er å undersøke mulighetene for en opprinnelsesmerking av norsk ull. Et slikt merke kan bidra til økt bevissthet og oppmerksomhet om norsk ull både blant produsenter og forbrukere, og dermed styrke produksjon og salg av lokal ull. Rapporten diskuterer en rekke argumenter for en merkeordning. Blant annet at et offisielt merke kan være et hjelpemiddel mot en til dels uryddig markedsføring av ull som vi ser i dag. Dessuten kan det fremme ulike kvaliteter ved norsk ull.
Rapporten bygger på ulike data inkludert intervjuer med aktører i verdikjeden og forbrukerundersøkelser. Erfaringer med merkeordninger fra andre land samt ulike mat-og miljømerkeordninger er også diskutert. Rapporten kan fungere som et kunnskapsgrunnlag for en eventuell etablering av en merkeordning, og den utreder ulike alternative ordninger, men uten å ta stilling til hvordan en merkeordning faktisk bør organiseres.

Clothing Reuse: The Potential in Informal Exchange

Reuse organised by non-profit and commercial actors is a strategy that recently received a lot of attention. This article discusses the question: what do we know about the amount of clothes that circulate outside the pecuniary markets? And is this amount increasing or declining? The questions are answered based on quantitative material from Norway. Almost twice as many had received used clothing as those who had bought used clothing, and our material do not indicate that this are declining. At the same time 59 per cent of Norwegian adults had neither received nor bought used clothing for themselves during the past two years. For children, inheritance is very common and the younger the children are, the more they inherit. The amount of the private clothing exchange is greater than the formal market in Norway. Therefore, when the goal is a more sustainable clothing consumption we need to include the parts of consumption that are not only related to money.

What’s the Problem? Odor-control and the Smell of Sweat in Sportswear

  • av

Sport and fitness are increasing in popularity, and so is awareness of body odor. Both are aspects people wish to gain control over, as promised by the marketing of sportswear with odor-controlling properties. This article discusses how the heightened awareness of body odor has developed, and how unpleasant odor varies between textiles made of different materials. A sensory analysis by a consumer panel was used to evaluate the odor intensity of 13 different fabric samples taken mainly from sportswear.

The so-called odor-control textiles smelled less intense than similar polyester samples without such treatment. Wool and cotton smelled significantly less intense than both odor-control and polyester when the samples were sweaty or aired. After washing, the odor-control textiles had a level of odor intensity that was in between that of the cotton and woolen samples. The odor-control treatment reduced the smell, but not enough to make a difference on laundering frequency, and the textiles smelled still more strongly than wool.