The devaluation of stockings

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 10. september 2023

Authors: Tone Rasch, Ingrid Haugsrud, Kirsi Laitala and Atle Wehn Hegnes

Abstract

Consumer practices related to how we use and take care of products have changed throughout history. Especially within clothing consumption, the changes have accelerated in the Twentieth Century. In this paper, we use thin nylon stockings for women as an example product to see how their value, use, care, and lifetimes have evolved. The material is based on a literature review on nylon stockings from 1940 to today, accompanied by an analysis of consumers’ written narratives from 1990 where people were asked to describe their use and memories of stockings and pantyhose. Our contemporary data is based on consumer focus groups on product lifetimes and plastic materials conducted in 2021 and 2022. The tight-fitting nylon stockings for women were launched around World War II by the American company DuPont. Cheap nylon substituted luxurious silk stockings and increased their popularity throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Around 1970, synthetic substances were devalued when fashion changed from elegance to more casual styles, and the political opposition to plastic as environmental damage and a symbol of the established society permeated the growing youth culture. Consequently, nylon stockings went out of fashion. Today, thin pantyhose is seen as disposable consumables with low value. Thin stockings represent a good example of how we value and take care of delicate items has a significant contribution to their lifetimes. Looking into the historical context is beneficial for learning about the points in time when changes occurred and how they contribute to consumer practices.

Click here to download and read the full article.

Click here to download and read the full conference proceedings (aalto.fi)

THE PLASTIC ELEPHANT: Overproduction and synthetic fibres in sustainable textile strategies

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 30. juni 2023

Forfattere: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson og Lea Gleisberg

Sammendrag

I denne rapporten undersøker vi nasjonale, internasjonale og bedriftsstrategier for bærekraftige tekstiler for å forstå om, og i så fall hvordan de inkluderer problemet med økte produksjonsvolumer basert på syntetiske materialer som kan bli omtalt som ‘plastelefanten i rommet’. Dette gjøres ved å stille fire spørsmål. Først ser vi etter om strategiene diskuterer vekst i produksjonsvolumer og mulige virkemidler for å stoppe denne veksten. Deretter undersøker vi om de adresserer plastifiseringen av tekstiler. Med plastifisering mener vi den økende andelen plastfibre som brukes i tekstilproduksjonen. For det tredje, om de diskuterer råmaterialene for plast, og for det fjerde, plastavfall. Resultatet viser at ingen av disse spørsmålene relatert til å få ned miljøbelastningene fra produksjon av klær står sentralt i strategiene.

Klikk her for å lese hele rapporten på engelsk.

Want Not, Waste Not: Preliminary findings

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 31. mars 2023

Author: Anna Schytte Sigaard

Summary

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

Click here to read the full project note.

Reducing Plastic in Consumer Goods: Opportunities for Coarser Wool

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 28. januar 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).

Natural and Sustainable? Consumers’ Textile Fiber Preferences

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 26. januar 2023

by Anna Schytte Sigaard  and Kirsi Laitala

Abstract

Textile fibers have become a major issue in the debate on sustainable fashion and clothing consumption. While consumers are encouraged to choose more sustainable and circular textile materials, studies have indicated that a reduction in production and consumption has the greatest potential to reduce the total environmental impact. This can be considered an ecocentric perspective with a focus on degrowth as opposed to a technocentric view where new technologies are expected to solve environmental problems while economic growth continues. Based on a survey in Norway (N = 1284), we investigate how the techno- and ecocentric perspectives impact Norwegian consumers’ fiber preferences and perceptions and the corresponding effects on their clothing consumption. We found that the majority of consumers preferred natural fibers compared to synthetic materials. This contradicts current market practices and the recommendations by material sustainability comparison tools such as the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), where many synthetics receive better ratings than natural fibers. We also found that perceptions of high sustainability regarding fibers were negatively correlated with reduced consumption. Our study suggests that a continued focus on material substitution and other technological measures for reducing climate change will impede the move toward sustainability in the textile sector.

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

Vi kaster klær med merkelappen på

tobiasson on 10. januar 2023

Vi kaster enorme mengder klær, og det meste inneholder polyester og annen plast. Vi trenger mer kunnskap for å kunne oppfylle kravet om tekstilinnsamling innen 2025, mener forskere.

Tekst: Kjersti Lassen
Foto: Lea Gleisberg/Wasted Textiles

Etter en opprydding i klesskapet står du kanskje der med en bukse med et digert hull på kneet, en genser du sluttet å bruke for lenge siden eller en kjole du egentlig aldri fikk brukt. Hvor skal du gjøre av klærne du ønsker å bli kvitt?

Hele og fine plagg legger du kanskje i en konteiner for klesinnsamling til UFF eller Fretex, men hva med de ødelagte klærne?

– Det er få andre muligheter enn å kaste dem i restavfallet, sier SIFO-stipendiat Anna Schytte Sigaard.

Men det skal det trolig bli en slutt på om ikke lenge. Tekstiler er prioritert i EUs strategi for sirkulærøkonomi, og innen 2025 skal det innføres tekstilinnsamling, også i Norge.

– For å finne ut hvordan dette skal organiseres må vi vite hvilke typer tekstiler som blir levert inn, sier Sigaard.

Hun er med i forskningsprosjektet Wasted Textiles, som studerer hvor det blir av alle tekstilene som går ut av bruk. Hvorfor kaster vi klær, hva kaster vi, og hva velger vi å beholde? Hvilken tilstand er klærne som blir kastet i, og hvor mye består av syntetiske materialer, altså plast?

For hva skal skje med tekstilene som samles inn? Kan de resirkuleres på noen måte, slik at materialene kan brukes videre?

Les mer om forskningen og svar på spørsmålene over her.

Stemmer fibermerkingen?

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 14. november 2022

Vi sjekker merkelappen med Matoha FabriTell fiberskanner.

Forfattere: Anna Schytte Sigaard, Ingun Grimstad Klepp og Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

I prosjektet Wasted Textiles har en av utfordringene vært å identifisere hvilke fibre klær faktisk består av, både når klærne er merket – men spesielt når de ikke er det.

I november var Wasted Textiles så heldige å få tilgang på fiberskanneren FabriTell fra det engelske firmaet Matoha (matoha.com). FabriTell er en liten håndholdt maskin på bare 0,5 kg som bruker nær infrarød (NIR) analyseteknikk til å identifisere fibersammensettingen i tekstiler. Den kan kjenne igjen to-komponent blandinger av de mest vanlige fibrene, som bomull, polyester, viskose, ull, silke, elastan og akryl i alle typer konstruksjoner av tekstiler, altså både strikkede, vevde og nonwoven materialer.

Vi skal bruke skanneren til å sjekke fiberinnhold i klær og tekstiler innsamlet fra husholdninger i Oslo, Vestfold og Salten i løpet av det siste året. Vi har allerede registrert fiberinnhold som angitt på merkelappene, men mange av tekstilene har ikke merkelapp og i en stor del av klærne har lappen blitt klippet av eller er så slitt fra vask at den ikke kan avleses. Med FabriTell får vi nå mulighet for å registrere innholdet mer presist for disse tekstilene. Vi vil også få vite om våre antagelser om fiberinnhold stemmer. Undersøkelser i andre land har vist at mange klær er feilmerket og faktisk inneholder en større andel av syntetiske fibre enn det som er oppgitt på merkelappene. Vi skal sjekke om dette også gjelder for klær i Norge.

De siste dagene har vi skannet over 200 klesplagg og ser allerede nå at noen er feilmerket, mens andre utelater visse deler av plaggene i det oppgitte fiberinnholdet. På bildene under ses eksempler fra skanningene. På det første bildet skannes en bluse, som ut ifra fibermerkingen skulle bestå av 60% viskose, 20% bomull og 20% polyester, altså 80% plantebaserte fibre og 20% syntetiske fibre. Ifølge skanningen består denne blusen av ca. 80% polyester og 20% elastan, altså 100% syntetiske fibre.

På det andre bildet skannes en genser som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av 50% bomull og 50% viskose, men FabriTell gir et litt annet resultat. Når forside og bakside av t-skjorten skannes, viser den riktignok 100% plantebaserte fibre, men når kragen skannes, blir resultatet ca. 80% bomull og 20% polyester. Vi fant det samme for flere plagg som var angitt som 100% plantebaserte fibre. Når vi testet hoveddelene av plaggene, stemte fibermerkingen overens med resultatene fra skanneren, men når vi testet krage, ermekanter og bunnribben på gensere og t-skjorter, så målte vi opp imot 30% elastan, nylon eller polyester.

Det vi har sett så langt tilsier at mange klesplagg som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av plantebaserte fibre også inneholder syntetiske fibre i deler av plaggene og at andre plagg kan være fullstendig feilmerket. Merking av klær er en av de få kildene til informasjon vi som forbrukere har tilgang på om klærne vi kjøper. Feilmerking av denne typen bidrar derfor til at forbrukere får enda større problemer med å navigere i et allerede uoversiktlig marked og, i visse tilfeller, blir ført bak lyset av klesprodusentene. For oss i Wasted Textiles vil skanneren bidra til mer nøyaktige opplysninger om hvor mye av klærne som går ut av bruk i Norge er laget av syntetiske fiber.

I løpet av den neste måned skal vi skanne datamaterialet som er innsamlet til doktorgradsprosjektet i prosjektet bestående av kasserte klær og tekstiler fra 28 husholdninger. Resultatene vil gi et innblikk i feilmerking av klærne som i Norge ender opp i avfallsstrømmer eller går ut av bruk på andre måter. Dette er viktig informasjon hvis vi skal planlegge for hva vi skal gjøre med tekstilavfallet vårt fordi fiberblandinger vanskeliggjør resirkulering.

How to make sure Extended Producer Responsibility becomes a silver bullet

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 24. oktober 2022

This is a letter sent to commissioners and members of the European Commission in October 2022, from 4 participants in the Wasted Textiles project that explains their suggestions for a way of developing an EPR scheme that addresses volumes. They suggest an Eco-modulation based on volumes in the waste and therefore include the growing online trade.

How to make sure Extended Producer Responsibility becomes a silver bullet

We would firstly like to recognize the immense effort made by the EU Commission in launching the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles in the spring of 2022 and welcome the long-awaited focus on this sector. We would also like to express our appreciation of the strategy’s systemic approach to tackling the various challenges in the textile sector. We especially welcome that the strategy addresses fast fashion, the problem of synthetics and the need for EPR.

We are an applied research consortium under the umbrella of the project Wasted Textiles, which represents strong expertise on textiles, i.e., consumption and wardrobe studies (use, reuse, laundry, repair, disposal), end-of-life practices and waste analysis, fibres and measurement tools, greenwashing, marketing claims and consumer communication and, business models. We wish to offer our interdisciplinary expertise and in-depth knowledge of consumer research, waste and recycling management and policies from 30 years of research and recycling industry development. Wasted Textiles is led by Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), a non-profit, transdisciplinary research institute at the Oslo Metropolitan University.  SIFO has a history going back to the 1930s and the birth of home economics and has worked with clothing consumption from the start. Today the institute has extensive research on clothing, especially the use phase.

With this letter, we would like to express our support for the EU Commission’s work within textiles and at the same time highlight key areas of concern that need to be addressed for a much-needed systemic change within the industry. Specifically, this letter concerns the development of harmonised      EU Extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules for textiles with eco-modulation fees as part of the forthcoming revision of the Waste Framework Directive in 2023.

Norway was one of the first countries in Europe to implement Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging waste and electric electronic equipment (EE goods) and batteries during the early 1990s. The law from 2017 replaced the voluntary industry agreements from 1994. The National Waste Association of Norway (Avfall Norge, part of the Wasted Textiles consortium) has a history dating back to 1986. Norway also got its first Pollution Act in 1981.

We believe that harmonised EU EPR rules for textiles can be an important instrument to bring the needed systemic changes in the textile sector. In line with a recent report by Eunomia “Driving a Circular Economy for Textiles through EPR”, we believe the aim of the EPR scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts from the textile sector. This is in line with the original definition of EPR from the Swedish researcher Thomas Lindhqvist from 1992:

«Extended producer responsibility is an environmental protection strategy to achieve an environmental goal of reduced total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the return, recycling and final disposal of the product. The extended producer responsibility is implemented through administrative, financial and informative instruments. The composition of these instruments determines the exact form of the extended producer responsibility.”

Our point of departure is that the biggest challenge in the textile sector is overproduction. The amount of clothes produced and sold has increased drastically in the past 20 years. This means that each individual garment is used less and less. In order to reduce environmental burdens, measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design but above all the quantity of products. It is those who produce the clothes that are used the least – or never even used at all – who emit the most. At the same time, it is the clothes that are worn the longest that burden the environment and waste systems the least. In other words, we want to take the waste hierarchy seriously by showing how EPR can prevent waste and not just stimulate increased reuse and recycling.

As a starting point, and in line with the beforementioned Eunomia report, we believe the aim of the scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts. This is achieved most quickly and efficiently by reducing the EU’s production and import of new apparel and other textile products. But, for EPR to move towards a circular economy for textiles and not simply be an exercise in transferring costs, as the report formulates it, EPR must be designed smartly. One of the challenges with EPR, that the report points to, is precisely taking the waste hierarchy seriously, e.g., by not favouring recycling over reuse, ensuring that the environmental fee is high enough to have an effect on production volumes, and that the scheme includes the growing online shopping with direct imports.

The biggest challenge is overproduction: EPR must be designed accordingly

We are concerned that the measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF, the Eco-design Directive and EPR) focus primarily on the product and its design together with end-of-life strategies (recycling), and thus not on the possible systemic changes that are pressing. In order to reduce the environmental impact of large volumes of textiles (fast fashion), measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design and strategies for prolonged- and end-of-life textiles, but also the number of products produced. If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at factors that make fast fashion unprofitable. In extreme cases, we are talking about disposable products, in addition to the destruction of products that have never been used at all. It is not the design of each individual product that distinguishes fast fashion, which means that eco-design criteria will therefore not have the desired effect standing alone. A weakness of most of the EPR systems that have been implemented so far is that they do not take the issue of quantity seriously.

If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at what makes fast fashion profitable: large volumes and rapid changes. The commission has been discussing a ban on greenwashing and planned obsolescence. In fact, fast fashion is planned obsolescence by definition. The clothes are not meant to last. Not because of bad quality or bad design, but because there is a new trend coming ever more often and faster.

The work on the development of PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) for clothing has also shown that it is extremely difficult to develop eco-design criteria for clothing, as the criteria for what constitutes good clothing are so varied and person-specific. Focusing on the product’s design does not capture the most important: whether there is an actual use for the product.

We believe that EPR can be designed so that quantity and speed are taken into account. This must be done by studying the use and disposal phases, and possibly also the quantity and speed of production. Those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to reuse/recycle will be the most expensive to put on the market.

If this is done and combined with sufficiently high fees, we ensure that one of the instruments in the textile strategy actually works, i.e., brings systemic change and is thus a true silver bullet.    

The importance of the use phase

By the use phase we mean the time the product is in use. The longer this is, the less waste is created. Currently, textile use is an area with limited knowledge and data, however, in order for the EPR rules to have an impact on fast fashion and the related overconsumption, it is highly important, that we make sure that an EPR scheme considers use-related aspects. The use phase for clothing can be measured in the number of times something is used, or how long it is used. The latter is far easier than the former to measure. Instead of trying to guess which products will be used for a long time and modulating the fee on design parameters, it is possible to measure how long products from different (larger) retailers remain in use. Using “picking analysis” (a type of waste audit, an established method for analysing waste streams), sample analyses of textile waste and textiles donated for reuse, an average usage phase can be estimated.

The system will be far more accurate when the year of production is included in the mandatory labelling of clothing, a long overdue requirement. The time-lapse from when the product is put on the market until it goes out of use will give the manufacturers a score which is then multiplied by the volumes of the various brands or collections that suppliers put on the market. The modulation of the fee should take into account the producers’/brands’ average usage phase.

The brands that are not found in the waste streams will be exempt from paying a fee. This may be because the products are perceived as so valuable by consumers that they remain in their possession. Differentiations based on clothing categories should, however, be included as some garment types are expected to have longer use phases than others, e.g, a coat versus a T-shirt.

Reuse and disposal phase

When more textiles are to be collected for reuse and recycling, and more is to be done in Europe rather than in the Global South, the costs of these processes will increase. If more is to be utilised at a higher level in the waste hierarchy, it will also cost more. Much of what is not reused today could be reused if the clothes were renewed, i.e. repaired, washed or stains were removed, which in turn captures the reuse value of these products but at the same time carries a cost. These activities and related business models are currently underfinanced, and they lack profitability due to the associated high costs of manual labour and the overload of big volumes of low-priced and low-quality fast fashion items with no or limited reuse value.  At the same time, certain textiles have a high value and can ensure a profit for collectors (e.g., resell business models where ca 5-10% of high-quality garments are sold on online platforms). It is important that all reusable textiles are given the opportunity to have longer lifespans, so if the EU is to aim to increase the reuse of textiles, preparation for reuse and repair activities must be financially supported by the EPR.

The same will apply to various forms of recycling: different products have different recycling costs. Some can be easily recycled; other textiles will not be recyclable at all or only if cost-intensive measures are first taken. As for the use phase, we, therefore, propose an average per brand based on how much the waste management costs. Those with a high reuse value and low cost of recycling will receive a lower fee, possibly an exemption in the end.

The modulation of the fee will thus consist of a combination of how long clothing from the brand is used on average and how costly better waste treatment is. Both evaluations can be made based on picking analyses that are repeated at regular intervals so that new brands, or improvements by already existing brands, can be captured. These analyses will also ensure increased knowledge about textile consumption and textile waste and will be important for statistics, research and regulation in the textile area. We have called this way of modulating the fee in an EPR system Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR), which is described in ScienceNorway.no.

Production and marketing

The way EPR is usually conceived, the total tonnage of products placed on the market by an individual producer forms the starting point for the fee. But the quantities can also be used in the modulation of the environmental fee. It is possible to let those manufacturers who have many collections, a short timespan in-store for each individual product and also sell large volumes, incur a higher fee, which is then multiplied by the weight of what they place on the market. Proposals for such a fee modulation have been made by several Norwegian environmental organisations and can easily be combined with a TPR. It is also possible to use other parameters in the modulation, such as the proportion sold with reduced prices (the percentage that goes on sale), the proportion of returned goods, unsold goods, etc.

To summarise our proposal:

  • The EU has a golden opportunity to ensure a systemic change for the better of its citizens and the environment.
  • If we are to achieve the goal of reducing environmental impacts from textile production the quantities must be reduced. Less clothing is the prerequisite for each garment to be used longer, in line with the principles of the waste hierarchy and circular economy.
  • The measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF; the Eco-design Directive and EPR) all focus on the product and its design, and thus not on the systemic changes. EPR on textiles can, if desired, be designed so that it changes the business models of fast fashion by making it less profitable, and those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to be reused and recycled also become unprofitable to put on the market.

The above concerns and suggestions were a selection of many, and we are aware that a successful EPR agenda in the EU will include many more elements and key areas for coherent consideration.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Ingun Grimstad Klepp

Professor of Clothing and Sustainability, SIFO, OsloMet

Jens Måge

Technical Advisor, National Waste Association of Norway

Kerli Kant Hvass

Assistant Professor in Circular Economy, Aalborg University

Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

Author, journalist, founder NICE Fashion and Board member Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion 

Review of clothing disposal reasons

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 19. oktober 2022

Authors: Kirsi Laitala and Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Method

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

Results

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

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

StudyResearch design and sample sizeIntrinsic qualityFitPerceived valueOther / unknown
AC Nielsen (Laitala & Klepp, 2020)Survey in five countries, 1111 adults aged 18-64, anticipated disposal reason of 40,356 garments4413359
WRAP (2017)Survey in the UK, 2058 adults, 16,895 garments, disposal reasons per clothing category past year1842337
Laitala, Boks, and Klepp (2015)Wardrobe study in Norway, 25 adults (9 men and 16 women), 396 discarded garments50162410
Klepp (2001)Wardrobe study in Norway, 24 women aged 34- 46. 329 discarded garments31153321
Collett, Cluver, and Chen (2013)Interviews in the USA, 13 female students (aged 18 – 28). Each participant brought five fast fashion items that they no longer wear413821–
Chun (1987)Survey in the USA, 89 female students (aged 18 – 30). Most recent garment disposal reason.629569
Lang, Armstrong, and Brannon (2013)Survey in the USA, 555 adults. General garment disposal reasons.303139–
Koch and Domina (1997)Survey in the USA, 277 students (82% female). General disposal reasons and methods.293833–
Koch and Domina (1999) and Domina and Koch (1999)Survey in the USA, 396 adults (88% female). General disposal reasons and methods.213742–
Zhang et al. (2020)Survey in China, 507 adults (53% female). General disposal reasons.43192216
Ungerth and Carlsson (2011)Survey in Sweden, 1014 adults (age 16 – 74). The most common disposal reason.608219
YouGov (Stevanin, 2019)Survey in Italy, 992 adults, general disposal reasons.31242025
YouGov (2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e)Surveys in Australia, Philippine, Malaysia, Hong Kong & Singapore, in total 12,434 adults. General disposal reasons.3925297
MeanApprox. 20,000 adults34.125.831.412.6
Table 1. Summary of clothing disposal reasons in 17 consumer studies.

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

Figure 1: Clothing disposal reasons

Conclusion

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreløpige resultater fra plukkanalyse av kasserte tekstiler

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 12. oktober 2022

Forfattere: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg og Kristiane Rabben

Innen 2025 skal tekstiler ut av restavfallet i Norge, som i resten av EU og EØS-området. Derfor haster det med kunnskap om hva tekstilavfallet består av og hvor det i dag havner. I prosjektet Wasted Textile har Mepex AS og SIFO gjennomført plukkanalyser av kasserte og donerte tekstiler. Rapport om dette kommer først i 2023, men foreløpige resultater viser at plukkanalyser er egnet for å gi kunnskaper om tekstilene og kan være nyttige i det viktige arbeidet som må gjøres for å redusere miljøbelastninger fra tekstilforbruket.

Kasserte tekstiler

Høsten 2021 og våren 2022 ble det gjennomført plukkanalyser i Vestfold, Viken, Romerike og Oslo fra tre strømmer med innhold av kasserte tekstiler: restavfall fra husholdningen, det de fleste kaller søppel eller boss, restavfall levert til kontainer for brennbart restavfall på gjenvinningsstasjon og donerte tekstiler til UFF og Fretex. Tekstilene ble sortert etter type, fiberinnhold og tilstand, og deretter veid og telt.

Wasted Textiles, er finansiert av Norges Forskningsråd og Handelens Miljøfond og handler om å redusere mengden fossile tekstiler og utnytte tekstilavfall bedre. Fordi vi i dag vet lite om hvor mye og hva slags tekstiler som blir kastet både i Norge og i andre land, har vi utviklet nye metoder. Bedre oversikt er nødvendig for å planlegge både for gjenbruk og gjenvinning av tekstilene. Metoden kan brukes i utvikling av virkemidler slik som utvidet produsentansvar (EPR), slik vi tidligere har vist i denne  kronikken (forskersonen.no).

Gode forslag til produsentansvar er viktige nå som regjeringen har satt ned en arbeidsgruppe for å få på plass dette for tekstil i Norge (regjeringen.no).

Tekstilene omfatter både avfall og det som på ulike måter gis til gjenbruk og derfor kaller vi det «kasserte tekstiler».

Vi sorterte totalt 3745 kg kasserte tekstiler fordelt slikt: 2181 kg hentet ut av restavfallskontainer ved tre ulike gjenvinningsstasjoner, 1182 kg donerte tekstiler og 382 kg husholdningsavfall (søppel). Tekstiler fra husholdningsavfallet er kraftig underrepresentert i analysene så langt. Derfor er tallene vi legger frem her vektet. Det er planlagt flere plukkanalyser av husholdningsavfall høsten 2022. Størstedelen av de utsorterte tekstilene var “Klær og tilbehør”. Den neststørste kategorien var “Tekstil – ikke klær”, som består av bæreprodukter, tekstiler til hjem og interiør, leker, hygienetekstiler, oppbevaring/emballasje og utstyr.

Mye klær og mest til barn

I den største kategorien «Klær og tilbehør» fant vi mest barneklær – hele 332 kg, nesten 18% av klærne. Det meste kom fra tekstiltårnene og var donert til UFF og Fretex med tanke på gjenbruk, men hele 126 kg var kastet i restavfallet enten i hjemmet eller på gjenvinningsstasjon. De andre store kategoriene var underdeler (bukser, shorts, skjørt), tynne overdeler (t-skjorter, topper) og tykke overdeler (gensere, cardigans). Igjen var mesteparten donert til UFF og Fretex, men nesten halvparten av de tynne overdelene og en tredjedel av de tykke overdelene og underdelene var blitt kastet og ville i dag endt opp i forbrenning. Andelen sko var størst i tekstilstrømmen fra restavfall på gjenvinningsstasjon. Hele 75% av alle skoene kom derifra.

65% av de kasserte tekstilene er helt eller delvis plast

Disse tallen er basert på merkingen av tekstilene. Senere vil vi undersøke om merkingen stemmer ved å bruke en fiberskanner. Det er mulig at tallene da blir noe oppjustert fordi tidligere studier av fibermerking har vist systematisk feilmerking med mer naturfiber enn plaggene har (circle-economy.com).

Det var ikke store forskjeller i fiberinnhold mellom klær og andre tekstiler. Litt under halvparten av alle fibrene var syntetiske, rundt 5% var ull og ca. halvparten var andre, naturlige fibre. I dagens globale tekstilproduksjon er to tredjedeler (69%) av alle materialer som brukes til tekstiler syntetiske og under 1% ull. (se Changing Markets Foundation). Vi vet ikke nøyaktig hvordan norsk klesforbruk ser ut, men forventer mer ull enn globale gjennomsnitt. De kasserte tekstilene viser ikke sammensettingen av forbruket i dag, fordi mye av tekstilene er produsert for flere år siden da andelen av syntetiske materialer var mindre. Derfor er det sannsynlig at det syntetiske innholdet på tekstiler som går ut av bruk øke raskt de neste årene. I våre analyser var det bare 35% av tekstilene som ikke delvis var laget av plast (syntetiske tekstiler).

Mye bruksverdi igjen i klærne som kastes

Tekstilene fra gjenvinningsstasjon og tekstiltårn ble vurdert etter tilstand ut ifra om tekstilene var ødelagte eller ikke før de ble kastet. Mest brukbart er det i tekstiltårnene, men likevel ble bare rundt en tredjedel fra gjenvinningsstasjonene og litt over en femtedel fra tekstiltårnene ble vurdert som ødelagt. Det betyr ikke nødvendigvis at tekstilene har en gjenbruksverdi. Det må finnes noen som har ønsker om å bruke tekstilene for at de kan komme i bruk på nytt. For eksempel kan en jakke være hel og fin, men hvis den har påtrykt logo fra en bedrift, sportsklubb eller navn på tidligere eier så kan det være vanskeligere å finne noen som ønsker å bruke den. Vi vurderte ikke om de ødelagte tekstilene kunne fikses. Hvis for eksempel en glidelås var ødelagt i en bukse så ble buksen vurdert som ødelagt. Hvis en genser hadde en stor flekk så ble den også vurdert som ødelagt. Dermed kan flere av tekstilene som ble vurdert som ødelagte potensielt være fortsatt brukbare med enkel reparasjon eller vask og flekkfjerning.

Klær og tilbehør er mindre ødelagt enn andre tekstiler. I kategorien med tekstiler som ikke er klær er det ganske jevnt blant underkategoriene, litt over en tredjedel er ødelagt. Blant Klærne derimot er det større forskjeller. Sokker er oftest ødelagte mens “Tilbehør og Sport, fritid og arbeid” ligger på rundt en tredjedel ødelagt og resten har under en fjerdedel ødelagt. Dette har sammenheng med hvordan klær anskaffes. Sokker kjøpes oftere når det er tomt i skuffen, mens mye annet anskaffes fordi man har lyst på noe nytt og ikke fordi noe er slitt eller mangler.

Disse resultatene er foreløpige. Flere detaljer og sikrere tall vil komme i 2023. Vi ønsker også å gjennomføre flere analyser for å fange opp geografiske og sesongavhengige variasjoner bedre, samt sjekke fibermerkingen mot fiberinnhold.  Vi mener plukkanalyser av kasserte tekstiler er viktige i oppbygging av kunnskap og politikk rund klær og andre tekstiler for å få ned miljøbelastninger og ønsker samarbeid med alle som kan bidra til at flere analyser kan gjennomføres.