Circular Economy

Report:
Apparel Circularity Schemes Not Quite Meeting the Moment

While more consumers are embracing circular initiatives that enable them to extend the life of their clothing, brands must make them more accessible to meet the scale of the environmental problems caused by clothing waste.

Published 3 months ago | About a 5 minute read

Image: Veja

The efficacy of circular initiatives by apparel companies is limited by where they and their customers are located.

According to recent research, consumer awareness of the fashion industry's environmental and social damage is increasing — as is a corresponding trend in more conscious consumption and purchasing habits. Yet, even as more shoppers express interest in extending the life of their clothing — such as through recycling, repair and return schemes — their ability to follow through can be hampered by their location, which is having a major impact on the effectiveness of such schemes, according to a new study.

The clothing industry is one of the world’s biggest polluters — as cheap, fast-fashion clothing that gets thrown away after one or two uses and ends up in landfills. According to 2020 European Parliament data, less than half of used clothes are collected for reuse or recycling, and only 1 percent of used clothes are recycled into new clothes.

In an effort to eliminate some of their environmental impacts, more and more apparel brands are implementing circular-economy policies — including initiatives intended to extend the life of clothing (repairs and resale) and for customers to give back or trade in old purchases to be up/recycled, resold or donated — to reduce waste.

The new research — published in the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society by the UK’s University of Birmingham and University of Bristol, and the University of Georgia and Buffalo State University in the US — explored these post-consumer policies of 17 apparel and activewear brands to see how geography impacts their effectiveness.

Professor John Bryson, Chair in Enterprise and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School, said: “For our study, we examined 17 ‘eco-friendly’ [apparel] companies based in Europe and the US that had a post-consumer circular economy policy — such as returning clothing for mending, store credit, recycling or donation. We wanted to see how geography impacted these ‘waste-reduction networks’ [which] might be configured locally, regionally, nationally or internationally.”

The researchers found that brands are using a variety of waste-reduction networks to keep their products out of landfills. For example, US firms éclipse and Girlfriend Collective have a program where customers return old clothing for store credit or money off their next purchase.

However, the study found that, for firms with take-back schemes for reuse or upcycling —including Filippa K, Girlfriend Collective, Globe Hope, Mate the Label, Pact, Vaude and Veja), the shopper’s physical location plays an important role — despite many of them selling globally online and through brick-and-mortar retailers. Swedish brands Filippa K and Houdini have joined a growing number of brands that resell used garments via a secondhand marketplace — but only for shoppers within Sweden.

“éclipse, Filippa K and Girlfriend Collective’s return initiatives align with their sustainability principles; but for companies that ship globally, these schemes will be limited to domestic customers,” said Buffalo State University Professor Vida Vanchan. “éclipse requires customers to return clothing to its headquarters in Colorado, and Filippa K’s preowned market is restricted to those in Sweden. Girlfriend Collective’s initiative is only available in the US even though it ships to Canada, the UK, and Australia, among other global markets.

“It is not practical to think that a customer in the UK is going to pay for something to be sent all the way to Colorado, which would have an environmental impact. These waste-reduction networks are only effective for those who can easily access them.”

The case is the same, if not worse, for apparel brands that offer mending services — which are often only available in certain locations. For instance, French footwear brand Veja only has cobblers available in two French stores — but it sells its sustainable shoes through 3,000 retailers in 50 countries.

The study highlights other kinds of waste-reduction initiatives that can be implemented internationally, such as providing repair guidance on websites.

“All the companies we looked at have taken steps to improve their environmental impacts and reduce waste, and that is to be applauded,” Bryson pointed out. “However, we have found that the consumer waste-reduction networks offered by these companies are very limited by geography. Despite the fact that a lot of these companies sell their products internationally, the waste-reduction networks only operate on a local, regional or at most national level.”

The researchers said one way to help with eco-conscious consumers bridge this gap could be to work with online resellers such as Depop, eBay, ThredUp or Vinted. But the onus is on brands to invest the necessary resources into expanding availability of circular services, to ensure broader swathes of consumers can extend the life of their garments and help brands achieve their waste-reduction goals.

“Company-led post-consumer product initiatives need to be supplemented by investments in waste-management systems that ensure that most of the clothing is recycled rather than landfilled, which will likely need support from government,” Bryson concluded. “These initiatives are to be welcomed, but they need to be more accessible to meet the scale of the environmental problem caused by waste clothing.”

The study echoes the conclusions of a recent report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which puts forth a model for global, external producer responsibility (EPR) ecosystem for textiles that provides sufficient funding for separate collection, sorting, recycling and/or reuse of all discarded textiles — not just the current focus on the fraction of those with a high market value — in which “businesses contribute to supporting infrastructure in proportion to what they place on the market."