Fit-check. Is your favourite fashion brand size-inclusive?

Size inclusivity in fashion is a movement toward a more ethical, environmentally conscious, and a socially responsible place - where fashion transcends tokenism and becomes truly democratic

The beginning of standard sizing

The standard sizing system of small, medium, large, and extra-large was created in the 1800s to meet the demand for uniforms for soldiers fighting in the Civil War in the United States. Initially, soldiers' uniforms were custom-made but with the continuation of the Civil War demand for uniforms grew, manufacturers decided it would be more efficient to build factories to mass produce clothing. These uniforms obviously did not need to fit like a glove for any of the soldiers. In the early 19th century, tailors started publishing their methods and discovered there was a disarray of metric systems and a lack of sizing standards. By the end of the 19th century, the vast majority of the urban male population in Europe and North America was wearing mass-product, standardised clothing that stemmed from mass-producing soldiers’ uniforms based on chest size.

Women’s clothing continued to be custom-made by seamstresses, not just in the U.S. but worldwide.

Research shows evidence of the standardised sizing standards for women in the US originating in the 1940s during World War II. The government needed to provide uniforms for female factory workers, so they conducted a study known as the Women's Army Corps (WAC) survey to determine the most common body measurements among women. This survey collected data on over 15,000 women and created a standardised sizing system for women's clothing based on bust, waist, and hip measurements.

Over time, this sizing system was adopted by the fashion industry, and while it has evolved since then, it remains the basis for current sizing standards. However, research has shown that this system does not accurately reflect the diversity of women's body shapes and sizes, and many consumers struggle to find clothing that fits well.

The adoption of the U.S. standard

The size chart above is indicative of the Eurocentric fashion system in a grid - as this is tabulated with data collected strictly for average U.S. women. Sure, there are U.K. and China sizes corresponding to these sizes but even then this is not the correct depiction of sizes for all women.

Without going into detail about the trajectory of research on standard universal sizing, I’d point to the fact that the major reason why the U.S. sizes began getting adopted widely - is because they funded most of the research on the topic. Most studies show that the U.S. pioneered in funding institutions and organisations that worked to find a system that roughly worked for everyone. But before any one organisation to come to a conclusion, in 1970s-1980s came the new found awareness of body-image and the concept of vanity sizing - the labeling of clothes with sizes smaller than the actual cut of the items.

That was the first time when garment companies began downgrading their size labels and adding lower numbers like 2, 0 and later even 00. To lure customers into buying the garments, manufacturers began taking advantage of their consumer’s body image aspirations and started downgrading labels. A waist measurement that would have previously been categorised as a size 12 became an 8. ASTM International, a private organisation comes up with voluntary product standards, has, since 1995, published a table of body measurements for women’s sizing, using the basic nomenclature and system developed by the 1958 commercial standard.

Culture writer Julia Felsenthal in her article published in Slate states that women don’t want to know their real size, so manufacturers re-label bigger sizes with smaller numbers. In 1958, for example, a size 8 corresponded with a bust of 31 inches, a waist of 23.5 inches and a hip girth of 32.5 inches. In ASTM’s 2008 standards, a size 8 had increased by five to six inches in each of those three measurements, becoming the rough equivalent of a size 14 or 16 in 1958. We can see size inflation happening over shorter time spans as well; a size 2 in the 2011 ASTM standard falls between a 1995 standard size 4 and 6. (This may also explain why smaller sizes are constantly invented. The 1958 standard listed 8 as its smallest size. The 1995 ASTM standard listed a size 2. In 2011, ASTM lists a standard for size 00.) An extension of the same can be seen today with the advent of the - 000 size.

Today, fashion brands and retailers have to factor in all that the U.S. and U.K systems didn’t for years - they need to have inclusive sizes that cater to the diverse global demographic at their hands. The chaos created by e-commerce is unfathomable, as different brands owned by the same corporation may very well have inconsistent sizing standards depending upon it’s target group. At a macro level, add to that the different sizing systems between countries and other regional peculiarities, the resulting situation is one of no consensus. Finally, since all of this concerns mass production of clothing - our conversation obviously leads to fast fashion.

The sizing chaos and exclusion

Fast fashion typically thrives on limited size ranges, forcing many to squeeze into clothes that don't fit or feel good. As of 2012, it is estimated that 67% of American women are plus-size i.e. size 14 or larger. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) currently reports the average American woman’s measurements equate to a size 14 (though other studies put her between a 16 and 18). Yet, plus-size women account for, on average, 1 to 2% of the bodies represented in mainstream media. “Plus sized women”, as they are referred to, also report issues with finding clothes that fit them well. Sure this number has seen a rise over the years with racks of “plus sized clothing” in the fast fashion stores, but it is not nearly enough to tip the balance to make it a level playing field and is a more complex issue than it seems.

Closer to home, a recent India specific study conducted at NIFT, Delhi observes that synonymous to the worldwide researchers’ findings related to sizing chaos, sizing issues for the typical Indian curvy figure, revolved around unavailability of trendy clothes in appropriate sizes. Curvy women preferred classic silhouettes like straight Indian kurti, A-line dresses and regular-fit trousers. And found that most curvy women leaned towards clothes that hid body bulges and ended up purchasing loose-fitted garments while and fitted garments were preferred only if they suited their specific body proportions.

Exclusion is also not just a fast fashion problem. For one reason or the other it extends to all segments of the industry. According to Beyoncé her elaborate costumes made more than just a fashion statement—they made a statement about race and body image. She came to a point where she deliberately stood taller than any fashion brand, that had refused to see that they were excluding a whole group of people knowingly by leaving them out of their calculations of sizing charts.

“When we were starting out with Destiny’s Child, high-end labels, they didn’t really want to dress four black country curvy girls, and we couldn’t afford designer dresses or couture. My mother was rejected from every showroom in New York.. But like my grandmother, she used her talent, her creativity to give her children their dreams. My mother, and my Uncle Johnny, God bless his soul, designed all of our first costumes and made each piece by hand, individually sewing hundreds of crystals and pearls, putting so much passion and love into every small detail..When I wore these clothes on stage, I felt like Khaleesi. I had an extra suit of armour. It was so much deeper than any brand name.”   ---- Beyoncé        

The lack of size inclusivity in mainstream fashion excludes a large portion of the population, whether we would like to admit it or not. Media and societal expectations often limit beauty to one or two body types which excludes many segments of the populations and creates a narrow definition of what’s normal. The conversation then, must focus on sustainability and creating a positive impact through fashion, as it challenges the idea that fashion is about fleeting trends and unattainable beauty standards.

The negative environmental impact

Recent estimates show that the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of global wastewater and 10% of global carbon emissions. Limited size ranges contribute to this through overproduction. The pressure to fit into limited sizes fuels the fast fashion industry, which is an established major environmental polluter. Unnecessary garments are constantly manufactured in anticipation of demand for a narrow size range. This in turn creates the issue of unsold inventory, as fast fashion's reliance on cheap, disposable clothing creates mountains of textile waste. A huge amount of clothing that doesn't fit the majority of the population ends up in landfills, taking years to decompose while releasing methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. According to WRAP, a UK-based waste reduction charity, over ￡140 million worth of clothing goes to landfill in the UK alone each year due to poor fit. Limited sizing contributes to this by forcing people to buy clothes that are too small or ill-fitting, leading to quicker dissatisfaction and discarding.

The negative social and cultural impact

Beyond the environmental cost, size exclusion has a profound negative social and cultural impact. The first one being - body shaming. Limited size ranges perpetuates low self-esteem and the idea that only certain body types are worthy of fashionable clothing. Research on the subject has found that there is a definite correlation between male body dissatisfaction and anxiety and/or depression. One can imagine the impact it has on women, if this rings true for men - the severity would be much more for women.

As an extension, body image issues have a direct impact on one’s mental health. Size exclusion can exacerbate mental health issues and create complications for people who come to believe that their bodies don’t fall into the category of “normal”. This is not even about feeling beautiful in your body or about attractiveness, this is just about belonging, having the option to dress like everyone else, have access to the same things, not be singled out and feel represented adequately.

Unsurprisingly, this kind of size exclusion has often translated in a negative impact on cultural representation in fashion. The lack of size diversity in fashion sends a message that certain body types are invisible - just as in Beyoncé’s case where designers refused to design for her. By embracing size inclusivity and leveraging technology, the industry can spearhead a larger positive ripple effect where unrealistic beauty standards are challenged and diversity is celebrated.

Of course, there have been movements by various brands and individual designers to correct some of these negative impacts, but unfortunately they have been too few and far in between. And not enough for it to percolate down to the bottom of the fashion industry pyramid.

There are no dearth of pictures of influencers/ celebrities who typically exhibit Eurocentric ideals of beauty coupled with captions such as “Body is tea” and “Body is body-ing” that can send a vulnerable person in a spiral of doubtful thoughts about their own bodies. That one photo on the screen of a “plus sized” “mid sized” “chubby” “voluptuous” “curvy” person is enough to throw them back many steps to feel like they aren’t “fit enough”, “hot enough”, “good enough” as their “body is not body-ing” enough. While the truth is that they are just not - included and represented enough. Whether it due to - i) the deep seated conditioning stemming from colonisation, ii) the biases at play in various geographical reasons that have historically led to discrimination against certain people, iii) pure unawareness and lack of empathy or due to all of these reasons and some more - the fact of the matter is that it exists and it’s high time we take cognisance of it and go beyond tokenism.

A Call to Action:

Making a departure from the previous editions (here, here, and here) where I think the government as a stakeholder needs to take the prerogative to bring about systemic change, for this topic I would place the other stakeholders’ responsibility above the governments’. Of course governments on their end must stay accountable for the part it must play in this equation but I think the work needed on the part of other stakeholders will be much more impactful.

The road to true sustainability requires consumer awareness and industry change which needs to come about with concerted efforts of - 1) Consumers 2) Entrepreneurs, designers and investors, and 3) Educational institutions.

• Consumers : They must start demanding size inclusivity and research their favourite brands' ethical practices. The key here is to become hyper aware about what one is supporting and which segment of fashion is one willing to put their dollar on. With information at one’s beck and call, it is not hard to delve deeper into the practices of various brands and study their policies. A truly aware consumer is the largest piece of the pie that has the potential to control market forces and drive up the demand for the right options. There is a shift required - from just including larger sizes to creating a truly inclusive and fashionable experience for all shoppers. One that can only happen when the aware consumer tips the demand in its favour, compelling the market forces to follow.
• Fashion Industry : Develop, design and invest in size-inclusive products and explore tech-driven solutions for on-demand production. The utilisation of technology to create garments based on individual measurements and offer more made-to-order or on-demand-production options to consumers, must increase manifolds. New entrants in the industry have an advantage of starting now, so they can maximise their efforts in innovation and have their investors invest heavily in R&D for tech that will enable such options. The existing entrepreneurs can course correct and meet this demand as it will certainly be a more profitable option because of its direct correlation with overproduction and subsequent waste reduction. The "plus-size", “mid-size” or "curvy" consumer is ready for high-quality, trendy clothes that fit well, and brands that cater to this by going beyond just adding sizes will be the winners. An entrepreneurs needs to understand the writing on the wall that - adding sizes isn't enough neither is having some plus-sized model walk the ramp for one’s new collection - it is still just tokenism. True inclusivity requires understanding the customer, offering quality products, and creating a space where everyone feels stylish and confident - and do it consistently. On this point, Sabina Weston in her Drapers article advices that - the market is still rife with opportunity, especially for brands targeting a fashion-forward consumer who in the past was limited to shopping at trend-averse, general clothing retailers. By combining learnings from first-hand experiences of shopping the category, coupled with premium fabrics and thought-out sizing strategies, the new wave of inclusive sizing brands is set to provide an innovative reimagining of an industry which was once disregarded by fashion.
• Educational institutions : Educational institutions are uniquely positioned to influence both these aspects. By educating students on environmental challenges and sustainable practices, design schools and universities can empower them to make informed decisions as consumers. This could involve understanding product lifecycles, recycling practices, and the environmental impact of different choices. Educating future professionals like engineers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers with a sustainability mindset is another way educational institutions can influence industry change. This can involve incorporating sustainability principles into curriculums, encouraging research on sustainable solutions, and fostering collaborations with various professionals working in this space to share their expertise on these issues. Having delivered key note addresses and associating for specific workshops for designers for the past few years, I can personally vouch for the crucial role educational institutions play in raising awareness and shaping the knowledge base that guide both - consumer choices and future industry practices towards a more sustainable future.

The tech-led shift

In line with the Tech for Good movement, cutting edge technology can be developed to create a more sustainable and inclusive fashion industry through size inclusivity and made-to-order production.

Three areas in which brands can use tech to create a positive impact are :

• Overproduction and unsold inventory : Traditional fashion often struggles with inaccurate demand forecasting, leading to excess production. This creates a huge environmental burden – wasted resources like water, energy, and raw materials used in manufacturing clothes that end up in landfills. Tech such as demand forecasting with AI can analyses sales data and consumer trends to predict demand more accurately, reducing overproduction. And made-to-order platforms that use body scanning to create custom garments, can help in minimising waste from pre-made unsold sizes.
• Ill-fitting clothes : Tech-driven customisation allows for perfectly fitted garments that flatter the wearer's body type. This can boost confidence and create a more positive body image. Imagine a custom-made dress that drapes beautifully and accentuates your curves, as opposed to an ill-fitting, off-the-rack option.
• Limited size ranges: By offering a wider range of sizes through made-to-order and size-inclusive design, the fashion industry can celebrate diversity and cater to a broader audience. People of all shapes and sizes can find clothes that make them feel good and represent their unique style.

The lack of policy and legislation on the point

While I did put the onus of size inclusivity largely on other stakeholders there is one aspect of the puzzle that still stays the responsibility of the state. And that is of under-representation of women.

From national governments to local community groups, women are vastly underrepresented in decision making, states a report from International Union for Conservation of Nature. They quote that women make up?less than 25%?of all national parliamentarians around the world. This underrepresentation also extends to national environmental decision making, where?women hold only 12%?of top ministerial positions in environment-related sectors worldwide, as well as in district or community level committees, where women are generally underrepresented. A wider range of voices remain unheard which ultimately stand in the way of holistic policy formulation.

The lack of women in leadership positions directly impacts the policies and laws that are created. This is particularly relevant when it comes to size inclusivity.

Firstly, women understand the issue firsthand. Since women's clothing sizes tend to be more diverse than men's, they are more likely to have personal experience with the limitations of non-inclusive sizing. A woman in a top position, familiar with the frustrations of ill-fitting clothing, is more likely to champion policies that require a wider range of sizes in clothing lines.

Secondly, women represent a significant portion of the consumer base. Studies show that a majority of women wear clothing outside of the "average" size range. Having women in leadership positions ensures that the needs of this vast consumer group are considered. Imagine a clothing company executive board entirely made up of men. They might prioritise trends or profit margins over the reality that most women need clothes that fit comfortably.

In essence, the lack of women in leadership positions creates a blind spot when it comes to policies affecting a significant portion of the population. By having women in top positions, size inclusivity becomes not just a policy consideration, but a lived experience reflected in the decisions being made. When women have a seat at the decision-making table, their firsthand experiences and understanding of the consumer base can be leveraged to create fair and size-inclusive policies.

It is imperative that we do all that we can in our professional as well as personal sphere - to be mindful of our choices.

___

As a lawyer, I advocate loudly and vehemently for these choices when I develop IP strategies and negotiate supply chain agreements. And as someone caring deeply about art in all its forms and craftsmanship, when it comes to fashion - I choose timeless style over temporary trends, any day. Here is one my favourite pieces of clothing - timeless, culturally significant, handed down as a precious heirloom with its unique story AND an outfit that cares two hoots about the adorner’s size — the quintessential saree.