fashion industry

African organisations accuse UNEP’s Textile Circularity Project of unreliable data and a tainted process

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

African coaltion warns that proposed global guidelines, built on flawed foundations, threaten millions of livelihoods and the future of textile reuse


A coalition of African organisations, supported by experts from Europe, Asia, and America, has sent a formal letter to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). The letter raises concerns about the reliability of the data underpinning UNEP’s projects for global textile circularity and protests against the credibility granted to entities described as “beholden” to fast fashion giants.

The open letter directly challenges UNEP’s Circularity and Trade of Used Textiles project. This project aims to create global guidelines distinguishing reusable second-hand clothing from waste. The signatories, representing the livelihoods of millions in the sorting, repair, and resale trades, argue that the entire effort is compromised from its foundation. (Fashion Magazine).

African organisations: the letter of accusation


Their core accusations are threefold:

  1. Unreliable data:
    The project relies on unverified figures, such as the frequently cited claim that 95% of textile waste is reusable. A figure that contradicts established industry knowledge and lacks transparent collection methods.
  2. A tainted process: 
    The coalition describes the consultations as rushed and exclusionary, sidelining the very experts who understand the complex realities of the trade.
  3. Corporate influence: 
    In Ghana, an NGO funded by the ultra-fast fashion industry led the research. The very entities whose overproduction is the root of the waste crisis — creating an unacceptable conflict of interest.

“What we have observed does not match the objectivity expected from a UN programme,” said Jeffren Boakye Abrokwah, President of the Ghanaian Used Clothing Dealers Association. “In Ghana, UNEP’s research partner is an NGO that already runs a waste campaign. It is funded by the fast fashion industry. This compromises the neutrality of the data.”

However, this sentiment found an international echo. Alan Wheeler, Director General of the UK’s Textile Recycling Association, stated, “UNEP’s willingness to adopt unverified conclusions contradicts its stated commitment to impartiality and undermines public trust.”

But this dispute erupts as the second-hand clothing market faces unprecedented strain. New, low-quality garments flood African markets. While in Europe, collectors are on strike and countries like Sweden are authorising the destruction of unsold clothing. Against this backdrop, the call for credible and impartial solutions has never been more urgent.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, the core conflict is no longer just about data or methodology. It is about who gets to define circularity. The African organisations’ letter exposes a disturbing reality. In essence, the industry itself may shape a UN process meant to regulate the fashion industry’s waste.

So this is not merely a failure of process; it is a hijacking of the solution. Letting fast-fashion entities set the rules, the UNEP project legitimises greenwashing and undermines the circular economy it aims to protect. In other words, the system is not simply being poorly designed. It is being designed to fail, preserving a linear model of overproduction and waste under the guise of sustainability.

The credibility of global environmental governance now hangs in the balance.

African organisations accuse UNEP’s Textile Circularity Project of unreliable data and a tainted process Read More »

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 »

Dupe culture: Inside Gen Z’s aspirational shift 

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Is Gen Z’s hunt for the perfect knock-off a form of smart consumerism or a creative dead end?


The word dupe is everywhere—Gen Z seems to love it. Short for duplicate, it describes a copy, a replica, and, in essence, a fake. It implies a certain deception, a product that masquerades as the real thing. Yet, there is a crucial nuance: these are often “inspired” copies at a much lower price point.

Among younger generations, this has evolved into a full-blown “culture of the dupe”. The hunt for the super fake is also a form of resistance. Generation Z is clearly reacting against the social exclusion that luxury has long represented. They want to adopt the codes of high fashion without paying its symbolic price.

The spectrum of imitation


This trend exists on a spectrum. On one end, there is outright counterfeit—fake handbags, shirts, smartphones, and perfumes that violate trade rules and copyrights. This is a vast, illicit market that continues to thrive; in 2024 alone, EU authorities seized over 112 million counterfeit items, with an estimated retail value of €3.8 billion.

On the other end, however, are the perfectly legal ‘dupes’. These are low-cost versions of iconic products that promise similar effects without breaking the law. They are not brazen copies but inspirations, marketed as democratic shortcuts to luxury.

The allure of the dupe: Rebellion and savviness


For Gen Z, heavily influenced by social media platforms like TikTok, where the hashtag #dupe has amassed over 6 billion views, this is more than just shopping. It is a social activity. Young consumers proudly showcase their low-cost alternatives to iconic products.

This phenomenon is supported by academic research into the paradoxical relationship between counterfeits and luxury goods. Studies, including work from MIT Sloan, have suggested that widespread imitation does not diminish luxury brands but can, in fact, make them more desirable by serving as a form of free, ubiquitous advertising that reinforces their aspirational status. The dupe acts as a form of unofficial advertising, a common language that everyone learns to speak. Furthermore, buying a dupe carries another powerful appeal: it makes one feel clever. It is a shortcut that allows one to display a certain affiliation without paying the full price—a subtle deception that hints at belonging to a world that remains, in reality, financially out of reach.

This sentiment is captured by many in Gen Z, like Louana, a 24-year-old Parisian student (via Luxury Tribune). She explains that for her generation, dupes are a normalised response to a combination of factors: a perpetual hunt for a good deal, a perception of declining quality from established brands, and concerns over unethical production practices. For her, vintage is a first choice, but a good-quality, fairly-priced dupe is a completely satisfactory alternative. 

The educational gap and the way forward


Louana’s perspective points to a deeper issue: a breakdown in trust and education. When luxury brands are perceived to sell poor quality at ridiculous markups or engage in questionable production methods, they fuel the justification for the dupe market. This dynamic has left a vacuum. Young generations see luxury as an aspiration but often lack the foundational knowledge to discern intrinsic quality—the ability to distinguish superior wool from polyester, or to identify craftsmanship made to last.

This leads to a profound question: is the hunt for a dupe the only form of resistance?

Final thoughts: A resistance that raises questions


In conclusion, it is true that for young people, the dupe can represent a form of resistance, a way to react against the social exclusion perpetuated by luxury. It is a symptom of economic pragmatism and a rejection of elitism. And, above all, the refusal to be tricked by luxury brands.

However, this leads to a more profound question: why are young people not educating themselves towards something better? Rather than choosing between an unaffordable original or a dubious copy, why not champion brands that offer quality and good design, made to last, at more reasonable prices? These may not be as cheap as a dupe, but they represent a more sustainable and ethically conscious middle ground.

The culture of the dupe is a complex rebellion, but the ultimate act of resistance would be to educate one’s taste towards genuine value—investing in quality and enduring design over the fleeting thrill of a clever imitation.

Dupe culture: Inside Gen Z’s aspirational shift  Read More »

Deloitte: Brand Connection – The age of meaningful brands

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Beyond selling — how true relevance is built through authenticity and culture


According to Deloitte’s study, Brand Connection – The Age of Meaningful Brands, a global survey of over 7,000 consumers reveals a significant shift: trust is growing in local businesses (43.1%) and niche brands (39%), while confidence in large brands lags behind (36.9%).

This trend is particularly strong in Italy, where 45.7% of respondents say they feel no strong attachment to any brand — highlighting a high propensity for brand switching.

Andrea Laurenza, Consumer Industry Leader at Deloitte Central Mediterranean, contextualises the data: “In recent years, brands have consolidated their position, but loyalty can no longer be taken for granted. Companies with clear identities, authentic narratives, and direct relationships are rewarded by consumers.”

In an era of consumer volatility, the ultimate challenge is clear: a brand must move beyond mere existence and achieve true relevance.

From visibility to meaning: What brand relevance actually looks like


So, what does this relevance look like when the campaign launches and the social media posts go live? It’s a practice far more nuanced than just being seen.

As Laurenza puts it, “Being relevant for a brand means occupying an authentic space in people’s lives. True relevance is achieved when a brand doesn’t just sell, but takes part in the cultural conversation, remaining faithful to its identity even as the context evolves.”

This means:

  • Resonance over noise. It’s not about shouting the loudest, but speaking with a voice that aligns with your audience’s values and your own core identity.
  • Action over announcement. It’s the difference between a brand making a statement on a complex geopolitical or social issue, and one that aligns its operations with its values. The latter overhauls its supply chain for genuine sustainability. It ensures equitable labour practices from the ground up. Or contributes to humanitarian efforts in ways that feel authentic to its identity. The question is no longer if a brand should take a stand, but how it can do so with coherence, substance, and integrity — rather than merely jumping on a trending topic.
  • Consistency in the conversation. It’s about maintaining a steady voice and set of principles even as trends and algorithms shift.

The Deloitte data confirms it: today, the bond with a brand is built on usefulness, authenticity, and quality. Loyalty is earned, not given.

Brand connection: meaning?


But what do they really mean by meaning?
Have you noticed how some brands use their platform to show solidarity with Palestine or Ukraine?
Have you heard others speak out against social injustice?
Or commit to climate action in ways that go beyond mere greenwashing?
And is simply being on social media enough?

Our search for authentic space


In conclusion, the findings of the Deloitte report resonate deeply with us.
At suite123, we believe in brand connection because we champion meaningful garments — which can only come from meaningful brands.

Naturally, this leads us to reflect on our own path.
How does a small, independent brand like ours — one that chooses depth over noise and purpose over volume — occupy an authentic space?

For us, relevance has never been just a metric for sales. If it were, the journey would be easier, but far less fulfilling.

Our sense of relevance lies in contributing to the cultural conversation with consistency and integrity.
It’s about proving that a brand can be small in scale yet significant in meaning.
It’s about staying real in a world of curated feeds.

And in that space — the space of authenticity, depth, and connection — is exactly where we intend to be.

Deloitte: Brand Connection – The age of meaningful brands Read More »

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The government’s paradoxical solution: a magic trick that makes accountability disappear down the supply chain


Fashion subcontracting is a hot-button issue, posing significant reputational risks for luxury brands. In response to recent sweatshop scandals, Minister for Made in Italy, Urso, has proposed a controversial solution: exempting client companies from responsibility.

This approach was crystallised in an amendment—nicknamed the “Save Tod’s” clause—following a request for special administration of the Tod’s Group by the Milan prosecutor’s office. Approved last Tuesday as part of the annual law for SMEs, the amendment allows fashion companies to obtain a “supply chain legality” certification. In practice, it absolves top brands from accountability for labour conditions at the bottom of their supply chain.

The legislation, recently approved by the Senate Industry Committee, states that fashion groups are not liable if they had pre-existing “organisational models” designed to prevent crimes, overseen by an internal body with autonomous control powers. The consequence is clear: major fashion houses could soon be completely relieved of responsibility for exploitation within their own production networks.

Confindustria Moda & reputational advantage


Confindustria Moda, which helped draft the legislation, defends the measure: “The enormous pressure on brands creates sector-wide difficulties,” they state. “While it’s right that each leader organises work correctly, we can’t ask for more. Ongoing investigations send the wrong message to workers.”

For fashion brands under recent scrutiny, this voluntary supply chain certification offers a clear exit strategy. Companies can choose to undergo external audits with their suppliers. Once an implementing decree defines the parameters, compliant brands can display a “certified supply chain” mark.

This provides a reputational advantage and, crucially, legal protection. If a certified supplier is later found to have irregularities, the lead company would be shielded from judicial administration.

Fashion subcontracting — critical voices: “A shield for exploiters”


The government’s move has drawn sharp criticism from unions and opposition parties, who accuse it of effectively legalising labour exploitation.

Alessandro Genovesi of the CGIL union called the amendment “a very serious precedent.” He stated, “Faced with judicial allegations of criminal exploitation, the government is erasing the crime. From a tax shield for evaders, we have moved to a criminal shield for those who exploit.”

The CGIL, excluded from government talks with industry representatives, is demanding stricter measures, including verification of worker-to-production ratios, application of collective labour agreements, and limits on subcontracting.

Echoing this outrage, Democratic Party Labour Representative Maria Cecilia Guerra denounced the policy as “a coup that weakens the fight against labour exploitation.” She explained the practical effect: “A company can sell €500 shoes from a contractor paying workers €2.50 an hour, yet face no audit. The client’s responsibility is swept away by a certificate.” She and colleague Arturo Scotto condemned it as “a step backwards by a right-wing party with no interest in protecting job quality or ethical businesses.”

Final thoughts


In conclusion, we must ask: who seeks subcontracting to get the lowest possible production prices? And in that pursuit, what do luxury company owners expect? Can the cheapest labour cost ever correspond to the highest labour standards?

Fashion subcontracting and sweatshop conditions are a critical yet systemic issue. The fundamental paradox of the government’s new measures is that they legalise the very conditions that lead to labour exploitation. The complex subcontracting chains, driven by the luxury sector’s pursuit of the lowest costs, are now being fortified with a legal shield. The proposed “solution” does not raise labour standards, verify fair wages, or limit outsourcing. Instead, it offers brands a path to waive liability, ensuring that the highest standards of luxury can continue to rest on the lowest standards for workers’ rights.

Italy is not solving the crisis; it is guaranteeing impunity for the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

In short, the Italian government is offering a false solution. Protection for brands—not for people.

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy Read More »