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?