If Europe wants to stop the fast fashion juggernaut dead in its tracks, it needs not just to clamp down on production/collections, as the EU Textiles Strategy has outlined, bringing down clothing consumption would need a gameplan of its own.
Professor for Clothing and Sustainability at the Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at the Oslo Metropolitan University, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, believes the subject is significant.
Klepp contends, “Consumers and the issue of consumption are in general overlooked when policy is shaped, and consumers’ interest are generally overlooked in policy instruments, and we see that the knowledge we have built up seldom is considered or deemed relevant. We especially see this in relation to the product environmental footprint (PEF) process. One generally sees that consumers, when being addressed in policy strategies, are seen as someone who need ‘enlightenment’, and who do not have a voice. When that is said, it is positive that consumers’ rights are being strengthened. So, that is absolutely a step in the right direction! Differentiating guarantees related to what a product is and should deliver would be a good start. And making the guarantees work in praxis—not just in theory—would be a big step in the right direction.”
What needs to be addressed, in the context, is that environmental impacts are not about the product, but how the product is used. “Otherwise, single-use products will be equated with products that are used over and over—maybe for generations—as with our Norwegian national dress, which is inherited by one generation from the earlier. If it is all about producing ‘more durable products’, and not reducing production, we will end up with too many and our wardrobes and landfills will continually be stuffed and filled. If you want to, you can read Veronica Bates Kassatly’s evaluation of how SIFO’s research should be taken more seriously and used in sustainability evaluation.”
Klepp continues, “Local production and community co-consumption is not addressed at all (the whole aspect of reuse, repair, recycling is too diffuse on how local/global this is), and this could be a very exciting alternative, as value of the products for the consumers gets a whole new dimension.
“But in the ‘big picture’, the efficiency of clothes needs to be included. The industry talks about clothes used on average 8–10 times, but what about turning this around and saying something about how often clothes should be used to deliver on efficiency? This will be vital for differentiating when doing calculations on eco-credentials. The overriding issue is that use counts, but doesn’t ‘count’ in the systems that evaluate impact—from LCAs to HIGG MSI to to PEF, etc.”