sustainability

Secondhand fashion and overconsumption: Is thrifting the new fast fashion?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

A study in Scientific Reports finds that secondhand markets can encourage the same wasteful behaviours they were meant to replace


In This is Greenwashing, we argued that secondhand fashion is an important tool — but only after a dramatic reduction in overall consumption. A new nationally representative study of 1,009 U.S. consumers supports that cautionary message.

Published in October 2025 in Scientific Reports (a Nature Portfolio journal), the paper — titled “Secondhand fashion consumers exhibit fast fashion behaviours despite sustainability narratives” — finds that secondhand purchases frequently supplement, rather than replace, new clothing purchases. In many cases, they are also associated with short garment life spans and rapid turnover.

Core finding & central paradox


The big takeaway: Secondhand buying does not reliably displace new buying. The study found that people who spent more on used clothing also tended to spend significantly more on new clothing. This means the most engaged secondhand shoppers are often also the biggest buyers in the primary market.

The paradox: The secondary market sometimes reinforces the same high-turnover, short-lifespan behaviours associated with fast fashion — creating a rebound rather than a reduction in environmental impact. Resale, promoted as a sustainability fix, can reproduce fast-fashion dynamics (high volumes, short retention) unless overall consumption declines.

Key evidence 

  1. Correlation: new and used spending move together
    The study found that people who buy a lot of used clothing are also the biggest buyers of new clothing. Instead of replacing new purchases, secondhand shopping often adds to them.
  2. High-volume, short-lifespan behaviours:
    A cluster analysis identified a majority group (around 59%) that frequently purchases and retains garments for shorter periods. Within this group, 37.9% reported disposing of items within a year and 14.2% within one month. The study also found that 40% of respondents owned clothing they had never worn. These patterns point to high turnover rather than extended use.
  3. Younger consumers drive the trend:
    Younger consumers (Gen Z and Millennials) are the most active in both resale and primary markets, increasing the risk that secondhand and new purchases co-occur rather than one replacing the other.
  4. Knowledge–action gap:
    Knowledge alone did not produce sustainable action. The authors report that higher sustainability knowledge did not reliably predict lower consumption or longer garment retention.

Psychological drivers the authors highlight


The study suggests two key behavioural theories explain this paradox:

  • The rebound effect: The money saved or the “green” feeling from buying secondhand can psychologically or economically justify buying more things, offsetting the environmental benefit.
  • Moral licensing: The act of making a “virtuous” choice (buying used) gives people a sense of moral “credit,” which they then use to permit themselves less sustainable behaviours (buying more, discarding faster).

Bottom line


This paper does not discredit the idea of thrifting — it reveals its limits. Secondhand is part of the sustainability toolkit, but it is not a silver bullet. Without cultural and structural changes that reduce total acquisition (buy less, value sufficiency, design for durability and repair), resale markets risk becoming another channel for fast-fashion-style overconsumption. If sustainability is the goal, the emphasis must be on owning and buying less — whether items are new or used.

Final thoughts


This report clearly highlights the connection between the secondhand fashion market and overconsumption, as it increasingly mirrors the behaviours of fast fashion.

The findings directly challenge the simplistic narrative that “thrifting is always sustainable.” That is only a partial truth. The problem is not just where we shop, but how much we consume. The secondhand market, in its current form, is not slowing down the fast-fashion system — it is becoming another channel for overconsumption.

True sustainability will require a cultural shift from constant acquisition to sufficiency — buying and owning less overall, whether new or used.

However, one point struck us. We find the knowledge–action gap profoundly discouraging. If knowledge alone is not enough to serve as a catalyst for change, what else is needed to spur us into action?

Secondhand fashion and overconsumption: Is thrifting the new fast fashion? Read More »

The (Un)Sustainable Fashion Awards 2025: Greenwash event at Milano Fashion Week

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

A green carpet during Milano Fashion Week to celebrate fashion’s greatest paradox


On September 27, 2025, the Teatro Alla Scala hosted the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards, the official green carpet event for Milano Fashion Week SS26. Its mission: to celebrate the innovators and Italian fashion houses, ostensibly driving the industry toward a sustainable future.

The event, organised by the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana in collaboration with the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, promised to honour those distinguished by their “vision, innovation, commitment to craftsmanship, circular economy, human rights, environmental justice, and biodiversity.”

A symbolic green carpet welcomed guests like Anna Wintour and Naomi Campbell, who wore outfits made from sustainable materials, presenting a unified front for a greener fashion industry.

The celebration: Nine green awards 


The ceremony proceeded to distribute nine awards, each targeting a key pillar of sustainability:

  • The SFA Craft and Artisanship Award: Tod’s Group
  • The SFA Circular Economy Award: Regenesi
  • The SFA Biodiversity and Water Award: Ermenegildo Zegna Group
  • The SFA Climate Action Award: Schneider Group
  • The SFA Diversity and Inclusion Award: Willy Chavarria
  • The SFA Groundbreaker Award: Aura Blockchain Consortium
  • The SFA Education of Excellence Award: Kiton
  • The SFA Human Capital and Social Impact Award: Saheli Woman
  • The Bicester Collection Award for Emerging Designers: The Sake Project

The pinnacle of the evening saw Anna Wintour present the New Legacy Award to Giorgio Armani. 

However, by all official accounts, it was a night of triumph—a consolidation of brands’ sustainable missions, widely covered in the press as a positive step forward. 

Yet, according to Ansa, “Prosecutors request judicial administration for Tod’s. The Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested that high-end shoemaker Tod’s spa be put into judicial administration over alleged worker exploitation at factories run by Chinese people in its production chain, sources told ANSA on Wednesday, confirming a Reuters report.”

After all, it’s even ironic with all the brands put under investigation for labour exploitation. Tod’s is simply the last one added to the list. How does CNMI evaluate this particular aspect of “sustainability?”

Sustainable Fashion Awards: What do they even mean?


And so, for one night, all these people wore sustainable materials. The headlines celebrated a green vision. The brands were applauded.

But this is where we must pause and ask: What does any of this actually mean? Does anyone there have an idea of what “sustainable” means? 

Does a single award cancel out a brand’s vast linear production model? Does it justify the immense water and land use of a global supply chain? And does wearing one sustainable outfit on the red carpet make the entire attending house sustainable? Really, what are we talking about?

Sustainability: The uncomfortable truth


The uncomfortable truth is this: true sustainability in the fashion industry, as it currently operates, is a myth.

Celebrating “Sustainable Fashion” at a glitzy awards gala is the industry’s greatest paradox. These awards create the illusion of progress while the core system—built on overproduction, overconsumption, and globalised, opaque supply chains—remains fundamentally unchanged.

A few sustainable collections or material experiments are not enough to offset the environmental and social footprint of a multi-trillion dollar industry. 

In order to be truly sustainable, the fashion industry wouldn’t need awards; it would need to be redone from scratch. The very nature of these ceremonies exposes their inherent contradiction, a point perfectly illustrated by an excerpt including a telling anecdote from our book This is Greenwashing:

“While the name suggests recognition of progress towards circularity or sustainability, these awards rarely go to small, independent brands. Instead, they spotlight the same top fashion houses – the ones with the largest environmental footprints and marketing budgets.
At one edition of the Green Carpet Fashion Awards, designer Antonio Marras presented a dress crafted entirely from recycled fabric. Yet, because the fabrics weren’t sourced from certified sustainable labels, the jury asked him to remake the garment from scratch. The irony of this anecdote is striking—is it about promoting recycling, or ticking certification boxes? And really, is there anything more unsustainable than that?” 

Yet here we are, celebrating something that doesn’t even exist. This story encapsulates the entire paradox. It’s not about substance; it’s about spectacle. With the Sustainable Fashion Awards 25, we are not celebrating sustainability. We are celebrating its carefully branded illusion.

Want to learn how to spot the illusion?
Discover more in This is Greenwashing.

🌍 Buy the eBook (English Edition) on your favorite digital store: https://books2read.com/u/bpgxOX

The Italian Edition will be released in a few days!

The (Un)Sustainable Fashion Awards 2025: Greenwash event at Milano Fashion Week Read More »

SS26 London Fashion Week: The high-low fashion line collapses

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Is London still a bastion of creative rebellion, or a stage for fast fashion exploitation?


The SS26 London Fashion Week has concluded, with its expanded schedule seeking a renaissance yet exposing a contradiction within the industry. While houses such as Burberry, Simone Rocha, and Erdem reaffirmed their creative authority, the prominent platform given to H&M raised a pressing question: how does this align with London’s professed commitment to sustainability? The line between luxury and fast fashion has not just blurred—it has collapsed.

SS26 London Fashion Week: Creative highlights


At Burberry, Daniel Lee recomposed British heritage with a rockstar edge. The collection was a tribute to swinging London—Mod-inspired short hemlines, slim suits, and leather boots, all set to a Black Sabbath soundtrack. A tribute to Ozzy Osbourne that delighted us fans. (Watch the show here).
Lee commented, “Musicians have always had incredible style, and together with fashion they form a really strong culture.” That was certainly true in the past. Today, rock stars don’t have personal style but stylists. And they’re paid to wear branded clothes—but that’s a topic for another post.

Simone Rocha offered a breath of fresh air with a feminine, childlike, and whimsical collection where lightness and an ethereal mood prevailed. Her designs reminded us why London has long been a laboratory for creative experimentation. (See the looks here).
Meanwhile, Erdem explored “overlapping identities,” blurring the lines between history and imagination in a masterful display of narrative craftsmanship. (Watch the show here).

Yet, this creative reaffirmation was juxtaposed with the event’s strategic inclusion of H&M. The Swedish fast-fashion giant hosted an immersive showcase, leveraging the city’s youthful energy. Its presence was no anomaly but a calculated move that speaks volumes about the event’s current priorities.

The logic behind H&M’s platform


Laura Weir, the new CEO of the British Fashion Council and a former Vogue fashion editor, has described the task of restoring London’s fashion status as “herculean.” After Brexit, Covid, economic instability, and wars, her effort is understandable. But if the goal is to strengthen London’s global standing, is giving H&M such a prominent role really a meaningful long-term choice?

For H&M, a place on the LFW schedule is the ultimate PR coup. It borrows prestige and “cool factor” to reposition itself from a seller of cheap basics to a legitimate trend-maker, helping to justify its premium collaborations and designer partnerships.

From the organisers’ perspective, the logic is equally clear: LFW is, after all, a business. Burberry generates press, but the British Fashion Council needs revenue. H&M’s substantial investment helps subsidise smaller, emerging designers—the lifeblood of London’s reputation for innovation. Furthermore, an H&M presentation can attract celebrities and mega-influencers who might not attend a smaller, avant-garde show. (Sadness of contemporary fashion, as it sounds.) This generates massive social media buzz and media coverage that amplify the event’s visibility.

When blurring lines becomes a blurred vision


The lines between luxury fashion and fast fashion are no longer merely blurred—they are actively erasing each other.

Luxury has adopted the pace of fast fashion: pre-collections, cruise collections, and countless “drops.” They need to constantly feed the content and sales machine. They also court influencers and celebrities in a way that mirrors mass-market marketing.

Fast fashion seeks the cultural capital of luxury: H&M hires former luxury designers, produces “premium” lines, and runs high-production-value campaigns to emulate a luxury feel.

London Fashion Week has always celebrated eclecticism and experimentation. London has historically been the birthplace of street style co-opted by high fashion (punk, mod, etc.). It’s where Vivienne Westwood sold clothes in a shop called SEX. But there is a world of difference between elevating grassroots rebellion and platforming a corporate fast fashion giant. 

The critical question is: what is the cost of this “inclusive” curation? By including H&M, is LFW nurturing creativity or legitimising a business model built on overconsumption? This move directly challenges the halo of exclusivity and creativity—and most importantly, the ecological values London claims to champion. 

Final thoughts


The rock energy of Burberry and the H&M presentation are two sides of the same coin in today’s fashion industry. SS26 London Fashion Week is not merely observing the collapse of the high-low divide; it is actively curating and capitalising on it.

The danger is that the marketing power of fast-fashion players may drown out emerging voices, turning what should be a celebration of creativity into a marketing convention. True London “street” DNA is anti-establishment and authentic. Aligning with corporate fast fashion is the opposite—it’s the ultimate embrace of the establishment.

By giving H&M a platform, London Fashion Week may not just be selling tickets — it may be selling its soul.

SS26 London Fashion Week: The high-low fashion line collapses Read More »

EU adopts new rules targeting textile and food waste

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The move tackles the millions of tonnes of waste generated each year in the EU, aiming to create a more circular economy


In a major step towards a circular economy, the European Parliament has officially adopted new rules to tackle the millions of tonnes of waste generated by the textile and food industries.

The legislation, which received its final green light yesterday, takes direct aim at a massive environmental problem. Every year, the EU generates a staggering 60 million tonnes of food waste (equivalent to 132 kg per person) and 12.6 million tonnes of textile waste. Clothing and footwear alone account for 5.2 million tonnes of waste. The equivalent of 12 kg of waste per person every year. Currently, less than 1% of all textiles worldwide are recycled into new products.

Textile and food waste: key measures


Key measures of the new law include:

Food waste

EU member states must meet binding 2030 target to reduce food waste by 10% in processing/manufacturing and by 30% per capita in retail, food service, and households. They must also facilitate the donation of unsold food safe for human consumption.

Textile waste

“Polluter pays” for fashion. All producers selling textiles in the EU must cover the costs of managing their waste through new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, a system designed to make brands financially accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This means:

  • Who it affects: All producers (brands, retailers, importers) who make textiles available on the EU market. Rgardless of their size or whether they are based inside or outside the EU. This explicitly includes e-commerce sellers.
  • Financial obligation: Producers will be financially responsible for the full net costs of the collection, sorting, transport, preparation for re-use, and recycling of their end-of-life products.
  • Timeline: Member states have 30 months from the directive’s entry into force to establish these EPR schemes. Micro-enterprises are granted an additional year to comply.
  • Product scope: Broad coverage including clothing, accessories, headwear, footwear, blankets, bed and kitchen linen, and curtains.
  • Targeting fast fashion: Member states can modulate EPR fees based on the sustainability of products (e.g., durability, recyclability). Crucially, they are encouraged to use this tool to address the environmental impact of ultra-fast and fast fashion business models, making them pay more for their disproportionate waste.

This framework fundamentally shifts the financial and operational burden of textile waste from municipalities and taxpayers onto the producers. So it creates a powerful economic incentive for the industry to design longer-lasting, more recyclable clothing and to support circular business models. Notably, the legislation also empowers countries to target ultra-fast fashion by adjusting financial contributions to make these practices less profitable.

The law will be formally signed and published. EU nations then have 20 months to transpose these groundbreaking rules into their national legislation, setting the stage for a more sustainable future.

Potential challenges and criticisms: The fast fashion loophole


Burden on SMEs, micro-enterprises, and compliance costs.
Micro-enterprises get an extra year to comply. But the costs of setting up monitoring, reporting, and paying into EPR schemes can be disproportionately high for small designers and brands compared to giant corporations.

Focus on end-of-life vs design: recycling vs. reducing.
The legislation heavily focuses on managing waste after it is created. And so: collecting, sorting, recycling. While crucial, this doesn’t directly force a radical reduction in production volume—the root cause of the problem. The fast fashion business model, based on ever-faster turnover, can continue as long as producers pay the recycling fee. The fee must be high enough to truly incentivize designing durable, repairable, and recyclable clothing from the outset.

Final thoughts


The EU’s new waste law is strong in intent, ambitious, and necessary. But the weak spots are primarily in the execution:

  • The use of non-binding language for critical issues like fast fashion.
  • The historic difficulty of harmonizing enforcement across 27 different countries.
  • The economic and practical challenges of building a circular economy from the ground up.

The success of this directive won’t be judged by its passage, but by how these challenges are navigated by the European Commission and member states over the next decade. 

It’s a powerful first step, but the journey ahead is complex.

EU adopts new rules targeting textile and food waste Read More »

Plastic pollution: Global plastic treaty talks collapse after 11 Days

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Nations fail to agree on production caps and chemical controls, delaying a critical solution to the plastic crisis


The world’s first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution has been delayed after 11 days of intense negotiations concluded without an agreement. In fact, delegates from 184 countries, meeting in Geneva until August 15, 2025, failed to bridge their differences on core measures, including a global cap on new plastic production and binding rules for toxic chemicals. While talks are scheduled to resume, the plastic crisis is left without a coordinated global solution for the foreseeable future.

Plastic pollution: Key points of disagreement 


The most divisive issues that led to the deadlock were:

  • Plastic production caps: A major rift emerged between nations pushing for legally binding limits on plastic production and those opposing it.
  • Toxic chemicals: Talks stalled over whether to impose global, legally binding controls on the hazardous chemicals used in plastic manufacturing.
  • Financing: There was no consensus on how to fund the implementation of the treaty, particularly to support developing nations.
Plastic pollution in a natural costal area. Photo credit: Antoine GIRET
Photo credit: Antoine GIRET

Frustration and blame


The failure to reach an agreement sparked strong reactions from delegates. French ecology minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher told the closing session she was “enraged because despite genuine efforts by many, and real progress in discussions, no tangible results have been obtained.”

She underscored the urgency, stating, “Every year, millions of tonnes of plastic end up in nature, breaking down into invisible particles that enter our food, water and air. The scientific and medical evidence is clear: plastic kills. It poisons our oceans, soils and ultimately our bodies.”

In an apparent reference to oil-producing nations, Colombia’s delegate, Haendel Rodriguez, stated that a deal had been “blocked by a small number of states who simply did not want an agreement.” This aligns with reports that countries like Saudi Arabia insisted the talks focus solely on recycling and waste management, rather than addressing the root causes: cutting plastic production and regulating its toxic ingredients.

This opposition was anticipated. Diplomats and climate advocates had previously warned that efforts led by the European Union and small island states to cap virgin plastic production—a product of the fossil fuel industry—faced strong resistance from petrochemical-producing nations and the U.S.
(Source: Reuters & The Guardian)

Plastic pollution: What’s next?


The talks were adjourned, not ended, with the expectation of resuming at a future date. However, the collapse raises a critical question: is a meaningful agreement even possible amid global instability and competing economic interests?

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) will continue to explore avenues for future discussions, potentially including a report on the talks at the UN Environment Assembly in Kenya this December. For now, delegates are left with widespread disappointment that a breakthrough on this significant environmental issue remains out of reach.

Why this matters


These negotiations were hailed as among the most consequential environmental talks since the Paris Climate Accord. Experts have continuously emphasised the urgent need for a treaty, highlighting the profound dangers of plastic pollution to human and planetary health. (Read more here).

Plastic pollution & the inevitable link to fashion


Do we need to know if there’s any correlation with fashion? Of course, there is.

Polyester is plastic. Derived from petroleum, this cheap synthetic fiber is the most profusely used material by fast fashion brands. The same toxic chemicals and production processes debated in Geneva are inherent to the creation of countless garments that flood the market each season. The failure of the treaty directly impacts the fashion industry‘s accountability for its environmental footprint.

A call to action: What can we do now?


Without a binding multilateral agreement, the responsibility shifts. While we continue to push our leaders for a global solution, we cannot wait. And so, we must:

  • Support brands committed to change: Choose companies that are transparent about their supply chains and use recycled, circular, and natural materials.
  • Demand legislation: Advocate for strong national and local laws that ban single-use plastics and hold producers responsible for their waste.
  • Change our habits: Embrace the principles of “reduce, reuse, and recycle” in our wardrobes. Buy less, choose well, and extend the life of our clothing.

The collapse of the talks is a setback, but it cannot be an excuse for inaction. The power to demand change has never been more critical.

Plastic pollution: Global plastic treaty talks collapse after 11 Days Read More »