New research challenges the EU’s durability-focused textile policy, and suggests tougher clothes won’t cut consumption without curbing overproduction and marketing-driven demand
By International Wool Textile Organisation
BRUSSELS – The European Union is launching a far‑reaching package of regulations for apparel and footwear, from the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) to the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The stated goal is to cut the sector’s environmental impact, and it’s a laudable one.
Yet the current framing, which leans heavily on physical durability tests, rests on questionable scientific ground and risks locking policy‑makers into a single, insufficient metric.
A growing body of research suggests there is no empirical evidence to support the case that simply making garments tougher leads to lower consumption or production volumes. Despite this, the EU’s own Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles avoided any explicit commitment to curb overproduction precisely because it relied on durability as a proxy for sustainability.
Why the ‘durability‑equals‑sustainability’ assumption fails
- Consumer behaviour is not replacement‑driven. Wardrobe studies show most clothing is discarded while still wearable, and replacement is a minor purchase motive. Extending lifespan therefore does not automatically suppress demand
- Production decisions are not purely demand‑led. Brands often over‑produce to secure shelf space, drive growth, or strengthen supplier relationships, independent of durability or consumer need
- Accumulation and rebound effects grow environmental loads. Longer‑lasting garments can simply pile up alongside new purchases, increasing in‑home textile stocks and shifting waste downstream. UK data shows that gains from a nine‑month life‑extension strategy were wiped out by rising sales volumes within five years
The policy evidence gap
By focusing on tensile‑strength tests and a fixed ‘number of wears’, the PEFCR treats durability as both necessary and sufficient. Yet this metric:
- Ignores emotional and stylistic drivers. For instance, poor fit, fashion cycles, and perceived value are the real triggers of disposal
- It rewards fibre types on lab scores, not real‑life use. Synthetic fabrics excel in tenacity tests but are often worn fewer times than natural‑fibre garments
- Finally, it overlooks systemic drivers of volume such as low unit prices, ultra‑fast collection rhythms, influencer marketing, free returns, and buy‑now‑pay‑later schemes
Evidence-based policy should start by tackling marketing intensity and product churn. Legislators could, for instance, set binding limits on how many new styles a brand may release each year or apply an EU-wide levy that rises with collection frequency.
Pricing must also convey the true environmental cost of clothing. A graduated VAT or eco-modulated fee that climbs in line with production volume would send a clear signal to curb over-production.
At the retail level, rules should rein in practices that fuel impulsive buying. Tightening free-return schemes, restricting aggressive discount mechanics, and regulating “buy now, pay later” adverts would all help dampen surplus demand.
Transparent production caps offer a further lever. Quotas akin to the Dutch proposal to limit import volumes could place a direct, enforceable brake on material throughput.
Finally, robust knowledge standards are essential. Any indicator admitted into frameworks such as the ESPR or PEFCR should rest on peer-reviewed science rather than anecdotal industry claims.
Conclusion
Durability matters, but on its own it is not a reliable proxy for sustainability. Peer reviewed research has shown that without parallel measures on marketing and volume, tougher garments merely coexist with ever‑growing piles of clothes.
We therefore urge EU institutions to realign forthcoming textile legislation with the scientific consensus. It’s time to tackle the evidence gap, curb the drivers of overproduction, and treat durability as one tool among many, not the cornerstone of policy.
Further Reading: https://clothingresearch.oslomet.no/2025/04/26/the-environmental-impact-of-product-lifetime-extension-a-literature-review-and-research-agenda/
