In a world of ever-changing trends and constantly updated styles, it’s no surprise that people are buying more clothes to keep their look fresh and current. According to the World Economic Forum, clothing purchases increased by 60% from 2000 to 2014, representing a doubling of clothing production since 2000. Although fashion has been a part of human society since ancient times, recycling clothing is more difficult than expected, and unfortunately, this challenge results in the fashion industry being highly polluting. Approximately every second, a garbage truck full of clothing ends up in a landfill or garbage pile.

To understand the challenges of recycling clothing, researchers from the universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Georgia and Buffalo State University collaborated to study various activewear (a type of fashion) companies around the world to find out whether their location influences how easy or difficult it is to recycle clothing. Their findings were published in the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society.

“Sportswear is an area of ​​the fashion market that is growing dramatically as consumers become more aware of healthy lifestyles,” said Professor John Bryson, Chair of Business and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School and a researcher involved in the study, in a press release. “Often these products and brands associate themselves with a wider environmental ethic – for example, by encouraging consumers to develop a closer relationship with nature, which can be reflected in product advertising.”

Why is fashion so harmful to the environment?

According to experts, the fashion industry is responsible for about 8 to 10 percent of global emissions, as the operation of clothing factories consumes large amounts of energy and releases numerous gases during production.

One reason for these high emissions is “fast fashion,” a term that describes the rapid change of fashion trends and the pressure on consumers to buy cheap, mass-produced clothing. Brands like Shein or Temu, both China-based companies, are prime examples of fast-fashion companies because their factories produce hundreds of items in a very short time that can be shipped abroad to cater to the “instant gratification” consumer culture, especially in the US. Temu specifically caters to the “fast fashion” culture because its slogan: “Shop like a billionaire” suggests to online shoppers high-quality, but in reality cheaply manufactured products.

Unfortunately, in order to be able to constantly produce new items, the fashion industry requires a lot of raw materials. These include around 2.5% of the world’s agricultural land, around 342 million barrels of oil per year and around 43 million tons of chemicals needed to dye the clothes.

Due to the fast fashion trend, people often buy more clothes than they need, causing many to throw away old clothes or keep collecting new items until their closet is overflowing.

Some companies have tried to reduce their fashion footprint by producing recycled clothing or offering consumer recycling programs. However, as the researchers in the aforementioned study noted, not all of these programs were the same.

When it comes to recycling, location matters

“For our study, we examined 17 ‘eco-friendly’ sportswear companies based in Europe and the US that had post-consumer circular economy policies, such as returning clothing for repair, credits, recycling or donations,” Bryson explained in the press release. “We wanted to see how geography impacts these ‘waste reduction networks.’ These networks can be local, regional, national or international.”

In their analysis, the researchers found that there were large differences in companies’ waste reduction networks: for example, customers received credits for recycling clothing, and companies made new clothing from recycled items.

However, since customers could only recycle their clothes, personal at a store near them, this limited the scalability of these recycling networks and offset the companies’ carbon footprint, as many of the companies studied also shipped domestically and internationally.

“It’s unrealistic to think that a customer in the UK would pay to have something sent all the way to Colorado, which would have an environmental impact,” added Professor Vida Vanchan, one of the study’s researchers. “These waste reduction networks are only really effective for those who can easily access them.”

Developing fashion sustainably

The researchers suggested that in addition to implementing local recycling networks, companies could circumvent international restrictions by offering consumers instructions on how to mend or repair their own products.

“One way to bridge this gap could be to work with intermediaries such as eBay, Vinted or Depop, which are very popular with environmentally conscious consumers,” said Bryson. “Corporate-led old clothing initiatives need to be complemented by investment in waste management systems that ensure the majority of clothing is recycled rather than sent to landfill. This will likely require government support. These initiatives are welcome, but they need to be more accessible to reflect the scale of the environmental problem posed by old clothing.”

Ultimately, change must come from the consumer, who can drive a move away from the fast fashion trend. Instead of buying the latest styles, consumers can make more environmentally friendly choices by purchasing used clothing from thrift stores or recycled clothing.

While this may not have a major environmental impact for each individual, consumers can collectively use their purchasing power for the better and thus help protect our environment and our future.

Kenna Hughes-Castleberry is a science communicator at JILA (a world-leading physics research institute) and a science writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with her on X or contact her by email at [email protected]