Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. International Journal of Sustainable Fashion & Textiles
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 2754-026X
  • E-ISSN: 2754-0278
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Extending product lifetimes through repair is a central strategy in sustainable consumption and circular economy initiatives. This article examines how consumers evaluate textile damages and potential to repair, drawing on wardrobe interviews with 28 Norwegian households. Over a six-month period, we tracked 3211 clothing and household textile items going out of use, of which only 107 (3.3 per cent) had been repaired or altered prior to disposal, almost exclusively as home repairs. Based on participant evaluations, we developed a three-level repair scale that reflects perceived repair complexity and feasibility. This scale, combined with item-level damage data, reveals both practical and conceptual challenges in promoting textile repair. Repairability in textiles is more complex than in other product groups, such as electronics, because many common damages fall outside the scope of conventional repair schemes. We argue for a practice-based understanding of repairability that accounts for the interaction between damage types, consumer competences, cultural meanings and systems of provision. Our policy recommendations highlight the need to go beyond product design and service provision to also support social learning, cultural normalization and the integration of repair into everyday life, recognizing its social and cultural significance as essential for effectively extending clothing lifespans.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Research Council of Norway and the Norwegian Retailers’ Environment Fund (Award 318862)
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Intellect Ltd.
This article is Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The CC BY licence permits commercial and noncommercial reuse. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/sft_00064_1
2025-12-23
2026-03-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/sft/4/2/sft.4.2.233_Sigaard.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/sft_00064_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ackermann, L., Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J. (2018), ‘Consumers’ perspective on product care: An exploratory study of motivators, ability factors, and triggers’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, pp. 380–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.099.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Almén, J., Dalhammar, C., Milios, L. and Luth Richter, J. (2021), ‘Repair in the circular economy: Towards a national Swedish strategy’, in H. Schnitzer and S. Braunegg (eds), 20th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Graz, Austria, 8–10 September, Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, pp. 21–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooper, T. and Claxton, S. (2022), ‘Garment failure causes and solutions: Slowing the cycles for circular fashion’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131394.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper, T. and Salvia, G. (2018), ‘Fix it: Barriers to repair and opportunities for change’, in R. Crocker and K. Chiveralls (eds), Subverting Consumerism: Reuse in an Accelerated World, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 147–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dangal, S., Faludi, J. and Balkenende, R. (2022), ‘Design aspects in repairability scoring systems: Comparing their objectivity and completeness’, Sustainability, 14:14, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148634.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Durrani, M. (2018a), ‘The becoming of repair: Understanding garment mending through a practice theory perspective’, in C. Becker-Leifhold and M. Heuer (eds), Eco-Friendly and Fair: Fast Fashion and Consumer Behaviour, London: Routledge, pp. 101–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Durrani, M. (2018b), ‘“People gather for stranger things, so why not this?”: Learning sustainable sensibilities through communal garment-mending practices’, Sustainability, 10:7, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072218.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. European Commission (2019), ‘Communication from the Commission: The European Green Deal’, European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1576150542719&uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN. Accessed 28 November 2023.
  9. European Commission (2020), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe, Brussels: European Commission.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission (2024), ‘Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC’, Official Journal of the European Union, 28 June, pp. 1–146, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1781/oj. Accessed 25 October 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, D. M. (2019), ‘What is consumption, where has it been going, and does it still matter?’, The Sociological Review, 67:3, pp. 499–517, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118764028.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fachbach, I., Lechner, G. and Reimann, M. (2022), ‘Drivers of the consumers’ intention to use repair services, repair networks and to self-repair’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130969.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fletcher, K. (2012), ‘Durability, fashion, sustainability: The processes and practices of use’, Fashion Practice, 4:2, pp. 221–38, https://doi.org/10.2752/175693812x13403765252389.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gwilt, A. (2021), ‘Caring for clothes: How and why people maintain garments in regular use’, Continuum, 35:6, pp. 870–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2021.1993572.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hargreaves, T. (2011), ‘Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 11:1, pp. 79–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390500.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Haugrønning, V. and Haugsrud, I. (2025), ‘Comparing male and female wardrobes: Gender dynamics in the practice of dressing’, in E. Jacobsen, P. Strandbakken, A. Dulsrud and S. E. Skuland (eds), Consumers and Consumption in Comparison, Comparative Social Research, vol. 37, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 139–65, https://doi.org/10.1108/S0195-631020240000037007.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Haugrønning, V., Laitala, K. and Klepp, I. G. (2021), ‘Consumer practices for extending the social lifetimes of sofas and clothing’, 4th PLATE Virtual Conference, Limerick, Ireland, 26–28 May, pp. 1–12, https://doi.org/10.34961/1691.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Klepp, I. G. and Bjerck, M. (2014), ‘A methodological approach to the materiality of clothing: Wardrobe studies’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17:4, pp. 373–86, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.737148.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Korsunova, A., Heiskanen, E. and Vainio, A. (2023), ‘Consumer decision-making on repair in a circular economy: A process model based on experiences among young adults and stakeholders in Finland’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137052.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kucher, I. (2024), ‘Designing engagements with mending: An exploration of amateur clothing repair practices in western and post-Soviet contexts’, Ph.D. thesis, Kolding: Kolding School of Design.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Laitala, K. and Klepp, I. G. (2018), ‘Care and production of clothing in Norwegian homes: Environmental implications of mending and making practices’, Sustainability, 10:8, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082899.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Laitala, K. and Klepp, I. G. (2022), ‘Review of clothing disposal reasons’, Clothing Research, OsloMet, 19 October, https://clothingresearch.oslomet.no/2022/10/19/review-of-clothing-disposal-reasons/. Accessed 25 October 2024.
  23. Laitala, K., Boks, C. and Klepp, I. G. (2015), ‘Making clothing last: A design approach for reducing the environmental impacts’, International Journal of Design, 9:2, pp. 93–107, https://ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1613. Accessed 14 October 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Laitala, K., Klepp, I. G., Haugrønning, V., Throne-Holst, H. and Strandbakken, P. (2021), ‘Increasing repair of household appliances, mobile phones and clothing: Experiences from consumers and the repair industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125349.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Løvbak Berg, L. and Laitala, K. (2023), Professional and Private Clothing Repair in Norway: Scale and Price Examples, SIFO Project Note 6-2023, Oslo: Oslo Metropolitan University, https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3103741. Accessed 25 October 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lundberg, P., Vainio, A., Viholainen, N. and Korsunova, A. (2024), ‘Consumers and self-repair: What do they repair, what skills do they have and what are they willing to learn?’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107647.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Maguire, H. and Fahy, F. (2023), ‘Sew what for sustainability? Exploring intergenerational attitudes and practices to clothing repair in Ireland’, Irish Geography, 55:1, pp. 1–20, https://doi.org/10.55650/igj.v55i1.1469.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McQueen, R. H., McNeill, L. S., Huang, Q. and Potdar, B. (2022), ‘Unpicking the gender gap: Examining socio-demographic factors and repair resources in clothing repair practice’, Recycling, 7:4, https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling7040053.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ministère De La Transition Écologique (2023), Indice de réparabilité, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite. Accessed 28 November 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nørup, N., Pihl, K., Damgaard, A. and Scheutz, C. (2018), ‘Development and testing of a sorting and quality assessment method for textile waste’, Waste Management, 79:11, pp. 8–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.008.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Norwegian Consumer Council (2019), Forbrukertrender Del 2: Sirkulær økonomi, rådgivningsroboter og Consumer Market Scoreboard, Oslo: Forbrukerrådet.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Payne, A. (2024), Keeping Clothes Out of Landfill: A Landscape Survey of Australian Consumer Practices, Melbourne: RMIT University.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Quantis (2025), ‘Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules: Apparel and footwear, version 3.1’ (ed. Technical Secretariat), Renens: Quantis.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Richardson, C., Boardman, R. and Gill, S. (2024), ‘Exploring clothing fit as a motivator for lifetime extension and circular disposal’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107494.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rinkinen, J. and Shove, E. (2023), ‘Material culture and the circular economy’, Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1158079.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rinkinen, J., Shove, E. and Marsden, G. (2020), Conceptualising Demand: A Distinctive Approach to Consumption and Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Russell, J. D., Svensson‐Hoglund, S., Richter, J. L., Dalhammar, C. and Milios, L. (2023), ‘A matter of timing: System requirements for repair and their temporal dimensions’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27:3, pp. 845–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13280.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sahakian, M. and Wilhite, H. (2014), ‘Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 14:1, pp. 25–44, https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540513505607.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Salvia, G., Cooper, T., Fisher, T., Harmer, L. and Barr, C. (2015), ‘What is broken? Expected lifetime, perception of brokenness and attitude towards maintenance and repair’, in T. Cooper, N. Braithwaite, M. Moreno and G. Salvia (eds), Product Lifetimes and the Environment (PLATE) Conference Proceedings, 17–19 June, CADBE, Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University, pp. 342–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Shove, E. (2010), ‘Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42:6, pp. 1273–85, https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, London, Sage Publications Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Svensson-Hoglund, S., Russell, J. D. and Richter, J. L. (2022), ‘A process approach to product repair from the perspective of the individual’, Circular Economy and Sustainability, 3:3, pp. 1327–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00226-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tjora, A. (2018), Qualitative Research as Stepwise-Deductive Induction, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, R. and Xiao, Q. (2020), ‘Study on pilling performance of polyester-cotton blended woven fabrics’, Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics, 15:2, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1177/1558925020966665.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Warde, A. (2005), ‘Consumption and theories of practice’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 5:2, pp. 131–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Welch, D. and Southerton, D. (2019), ‘After Paris: Transitions for sustainable consumption’, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 15:1, pp. 31–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2018.1560861.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wilhite, H. (2012), ‘The energy dilemma’, in K. Bjørkdahl and K. B. Nielsen (eds), Development and Environment: Practices, Theories, Policies, Oslo: Akademika, pp. 81–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Woodward, S. (2007), Why Women Wear What They Wear, New York: Berg.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. WRAP (2017), ‘Valuing our clothes: The cost of UK fashion’, 17 July, https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/valuing-our-clothes-cost-uk-fashion. Accessed 12 March 2025.
  51. WRAP (2022), ‘Citizen insights: Clothing longevity and circular business models receptivity in the UK’ (eds R. Gray, C. Sabaiduc, C. Salvidge and P. Downing), Banbury: WRAP.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. WRAP (2023), Citizen Insights: Estimating the Longevity of Home Textiles in the UK, Banbury: WRAP.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang, L. and Hale, J. (2022), ‘Extending the lifetime of clothing through repair and repurpose: An investigation of barriers and enablers in UK Citizens’, Sustainability, 14:17, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710821.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, L., Wu, T., Liu, S., Jiang, S., Wu, H. and Yang, J. (2020), ‘Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviors in Nanjing, China’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 276:2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123184.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/sft_00064_1
Loading
Repairability of clothing and textiles: Consumer practices and policy implications
International Journal of Sustainable Fashion & Textiles 4, 233 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1386/sft_00064_1
/content/journals/10.1386/sft_00064_1
/content/journals/10.1386/sft_00064_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): circular economy; clothing consumption; disposal; fashion; maintenance; mending; social practice theory; wardrobe studies

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test