Behavioral Influence on Clothing Consumers

The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water (its secretary of Stientje van Veldhoven is also in charge of circular economy) commissioned a study to Bureau D&B in Nijmegen to assess possible actions to influence the sustainability in clothing consumption of Dutch Consumers. Although the consultant had to work with a tightrope budget, it is rich in conclusions. It has some surprises and some flaws, but that is excused in view of the limited budget. The study is to be found here: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2020/11/20/gedragsonderzoek-kleding

The most striking conclusion is that the consumers most conscious about sustainability are also the consumers buying most clothes and spending the highest budgets. That is a bit contradictory (although I personally do recognise it), but the third variable is probably income: consumers with spending power, buy a lot, and sustainable products are a show of symbolic distinction. Veblen: mutatis mutandis. However people with low incomes also buy a lot, but are very price conscious. D&B has little hope in influencing the consumer to buy less. Such a public campaign, I am afraid, would have little impact besides the tens of millions spend on advertising promoting to buy fashion. D&B estimates that a campaign would cost around 1 Million Euro. I am afraid that such a campaign has hardly an impact compared to advertising, fashion magazines and the retail presence in the high streets.

A general conclusion, that the study only makes implicitly, is that campaigns aiming at influencing consumers values and behaviour has limited impact and that other flanking policies have more impact. Those policies have impact on prices (e.g. through taxation), a regulation of sales, a compulsory sustainability label on clothing and better logistics for second hand clothing. The study often stresses that some behaviour is deeply engrained in people’s mind, such as laundry of clothing after one day wearing. In addition the study stresses that more sustainable behaviour is cumbersome to effectuate, such as selling/buying second hand clothing.

Informing the Consumer

Informing the consumer is seen as a complicated issue. The study rejects the scenario of inviting the consumer to ask critical questions to brands. As I said in an interview for the study: labels do not gave indications of sustainability, very few brands enable traceability through a EAN-Code or a QR-Code, store staff is poorly informed, there is a rarely a phone number on the garment (unlike in cosmetics), and in addition emails requests are often not answered. The study points to the importance of simplifying choices by a better label, but that requires EU regulation. The flanking policies are possibly more effective.

Buy/Sell Second Hand

The study considers the promotion of second hand clothing as a promising avenue. The result of their study that 37% of interviewees buys second hand clothing (!), and that a substantial part of that is substituting second hand for new is promising for the researchers. I personally doubt the validity of the 37% score, and the substitution effect. The study recommends a campaign to promote buying/selling second hand clothing. However the study highlights also rigidities in second hand clothing. The self-efficacy of buying second hand clothing is low: stores are not easily findable, the offer is often poorly presented, incomplete (sizes lacking) it is time consuming and their is an apprehension for poor hygiene. However the study does not address rigidities in the offer: most garments put on the market have no second value (fast fashion, unbranded). The study recommends flanking policies such as an obligation for retailers to take back worn clothing, a lower VAT for second hand clothing.

Wash Less

Somehow unrelated is the recommendation to promote less washing of clothing. This is proposed with two arguments: washing is in itself bad for the environment (water use, discharge of waste water, chemicals and microfibres), and washing reduces the quality of the clothing. It is certainly a valid avenue (I have shifted from washing a shirt after one day, to washing after two days wearing). But here the study is a bit shallow. First it does not address home laundry against external laundry. Industrial laundry leads to a far more substantial saving in water, energy and chemicals, and if well sorted supporting the longevity of clothing. Secondly it has not identified manufacturing of washing products as possible partners. It does not address care labels and the possibility to use the packaging of washing powder as an information tool. Thirdly it has not investigated the current trend of improving detergents to preserve fibre quality. The strategy of Unilever to enhance longevity of clothing through detergents is relevant and not examined.

Time for a Green Deal

The study gives some interesting insights, but as the Ministry has commissioned six studies: on textile composition labelling, fast fashion, on behaviour, on disposal of unused textiles, on extended producer responsibility and on monitoring the transition to sustainable textiles. It would have been better to have a more holistic approach, since recommendations of the five studies do partly overlap, do partly contradict and do certainly have missing links and do certainly do not enable a holistic approach. It is time for a holistic green deal! WUR is currently leading a consortium to submit a proposal end of January. Ideas are welcome.