Bad news for proponents of circular fashion (CF) as a new study probes its very basis warning that CF in its current form is built on unrealistic projections and industry rhetoric and fails to address the key issue—overproduction.
- The study pokes holes in the prevalent CF narratives stating that it prioritises corporate interests and while maintaining the status quo, it risks creating new problems instead of solving existing ones, warning that it is imperative that the industry invests in research, development and testing of new ideas now.
- Circular fashion seems to rely on the same ideals of image-oriented high-frequency consumption that create the problems we observe now. Social media hashtags, as recommended in the EU's sustainable textile strategy, cannot solve these problems.
DISCONNECTED FROM ACADEMIC ECONOMIC THEORY: The CF concepts, as outlined in 20 key reports from grey literature – non-academic industry publications – such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s A New Textiles Economy (2017), are poorly defined, disconnected from academic economic theory, and ultimately serve the interests of dominant fashion brands rather than consumers or workers.
- The vision of the circular fashion marketplace is one both radically different and remarkably similar to the existing fashion marketplace, in which the practices and culture of consumption remain unchanged.
- Despite widespread claims that CF can recover over $500 billion in lost value annually through resale, rental, and recycling, the research reveals a $460 billion miscalculation that casts doubt on these projections.
- By prioritising corporate interests and maintaining the status quo, CF risks creating new problems instead of solving existing ones.
- The study urges academics, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to critically reassess CF narratives and explore alternative approaches that prioritize systemic change over profitability.
- Future sustainability efforts must be grounded in robust empirical research rather than unexamined advocacy.
KEY FINDINGS from the paper that calls on the industry to explore alternative approaches that prioritise systemic change over profitability:
- Flawed economic assumptions: Circular business models (CBMs) such as resale and rental generate lower profit margins than new product sales. If CBMs successfully reduce new production, fashion revenues will shrink, contradicting CF’s economic promises. If they merely supplement new production, environmental benefits will be negligible.
- Overproduction ignored: CF literature focuses on consumer behaviour but overlooks the fashion industry's routine disposal of unsold stock. This omission weakens CF’s ability to address the root causes of waste.
- Misguided policy recommendations: Reports rely on business jargon and inconsistent definitions of ‘value chain,’ leading to superficial policy prescriptions that fail to address systemic issues.
- Labour concerns overlooked: The shift to lower-margin circular models is unlikely to improve wages or working conditions for garment workers. Instead, it may lead to even more precarious employment in second-hand clothing sorting and recycling.
- Industry-controlled sustainability discourse: Consulting firms like McKinsey & Co and global leadership (GL) organizations shape CF policy without rigorous scrutiny, reinforcing the power of dominant fashion brands while sidelining alternative models such as degrowth and sufficiency.
