Showing shoppers the ‘cost per wear’ of their clothing choices could make fashion greener

Imagine a man wants to buy a new shirt for work that he plans to wear once a week for at least the next five years. When browsing for options, he finds one shirt from a lower-quality brand priced at £20 and one shirt from a high-quality brand for £50. Which one should he buy?

From his previous experience with the two brands, he knows that if he plans to wear the shirt once a week (so roughly 50 times per year) the lower-quality shirt will last him about a year. After that, he will need to replace it. The high-quality shirt will be good for at least four years. But clearly, the high-quality shirt is also more expensive^[1].

Our theoretical shopper would probably conclude that the high-quality shirt makes more economic sense. Taking into account the purchase price relative to how many times he can wear the shirt, it would cost him only 25 pence for each time he would wear it, compared to the lower-quality shirt at 40 pence.

This is the logic of “cost per wear”. Some fashion blogs^[2] and small businesses have started using this concept to make the case for high-quality clothing. The rationale is simple – higher-quality clothing should last longer, making a higher purchase price worthwhile in the long run. Cost per wear is calculated by dividing the garment price by the number of times the consumer expects to wear it.

Essentially, cost per wear works much like unit pricing in supermarkets. These measures already help consumers compare things like the price of a product per 100g, per chocolate bar in a multipack, or per laundry load. But this same logic isn’t yet applied to clothes in a retail setting.

The fashion industry is one of the largest contributors^[3] to environmental harm, accounting for up to 8%^[4] of the world’s carbon emissions, causing immense water pollution due to textile treatments such as dyeing, and producing millions of tonnes of textile waste^[5] annually.

Using cost per wear in shops or online retail spaces could reduce the environmental impact of fashion – the more frequently a garment can be worn, the more efficiently the consumed resources are used. And of course the longer that garment remains in use, the less often it needs to be replaced.

The problem is that most shoppers don’t know how long a garment will last. Without a prompt in stores or online, many consumers do not even consider clothing longevity when buying.

But standardised fabric-testing methods exist already. These methods assess the durability of fabric according to the number of abrasion cycles (that is, the number of rubs against an abrasive surface) it can tolerate before showing signs of wear. This could easily be applied to clothing, allowing retailers to include cost per wear labels alongside the purchase price.

In research^[7] I carried out with Lucia Reisch from Cambridge Judge Business School, we tested this idea. In a number of experiments, we showed participants from online panels a lower-quality, cheaper garment (a sweater, for example) and a higher-quality, more expensive version. We then asked which they would prefer.

When we included information on the cost per wear for both options – or even just the high-quality option (showing a lower cost per wear compared to a poorer-quality option, or a reference value), participants were more likely to choose the more expensive, high-quality option.

The effect was stronger when participants were shopping for everyday wear over occasion wear, when they could compare the cost per wear between options, and when the cost per wear information was said to be certified by an independent third party. Participants then trusted the information more, and we found that this could outperform a general durability claim made by a brand.

Our studies showed that cost per wear can make cheap fashion suddenly appear more expensive to shoppers – the high-quality options were viewed as better financial investments. And by choosing the more economical, high-quality option, participants were also choosing the greener option.

Cost per wear can increase the perception of affordability for more expensive, high‐quality clothing. But of course many shoppers will still not be able to afford the higher purchase price even though they know it would make more long-term economic sense.

And cost per wear only reflects the durability of an item as one dimension of sustainability. It does not reflect ethical considerations, such as the conditions workers face in the production process, or ecological aspects such as the use of natural or synthetic fibres.

Brands and retailers must also be willing to display cost per wear labels without regulation. High-quality brands may arguably have a greater incentive to do so than fast fashion brands.

However, the concept of cost per wear is still worth pursuing. It can prompt shoppers at the point of purchase to consider a garment’s durability and how often they might wear it. And ideally, it would motivate them to ditch fast fashion and choose greener options – even if just to save money in the long run.

References

1. ^{^} more expensive (theconversation.com)
2. ^{^} fashion blogs (robertastylelee.co.uk)
3. ^{^} largest contributors (theconversation.com)
4. ^{^} up to 8% (www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org)
5. ^{^} textile waste (www.nature.com)
6. ^{^} Sasha Ostapiuk/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
7. ^{^} research (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)