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

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

Consider a scenario where a man intends to purchase a new shirt for work that he anticipates wearing weekly for at least the next five years. During his search, he encounters a shirt priced at £20 from a lower-quality brand and another shirt priced at £50 from a high-quality brand. Which option should he select?

Based on his experience with the brands, he knows that if he wears the shirt once a week (approximately 50 times annually), the lower-quality shirt is likely to last him only a year. Conversely, the high-quality shirt is expected to serve him well for a minimum of four years. Although the high-quality shirt has a higher initial cost, he recognizes its superior durability.

Our hypothetical shopper might conclude that purchasing the high-quality shirt is the more sensible financial decision. Calculating the cost per wear, it would amount to only 25 pence for each usage of the high-quality shirt, in contrast to 40 pence for the lower-quality option.

This concept is referred to as "cost per wear." Increasingly, some fashion blogs and independent businesses have begun advocating for this principle to support the purchase of high-quality clothing. The underlying idea is straightforward: higher-quality garments tend to have longer lifespans, thus justifying a greater upfront expenditure over time. Cost per wear is determined by dividing the price of the garment by the anticipated number of wears.

Cost per wear functions similarly to unit pricing in grocery stores. These pricing strategies assist consumers in evaluating costs such as price per 100 grams, per item in a multipack, or per laundry load. However, this method has yet to be widely adopted in clothing retail.

The fashion sector is a significant contributor to environmental degradation, responsible for up to 8% of global carbon emissions, extensive water pollution from textile treatments such as dyeing, and the production of millions of tonnes of textile waste each year.

Incorporating cost per wear metrics in retail environments—both physical and online—could mitigate the ecological footprint of fashion. The greater the frequency with which a garment is worn, the more efficiently resources are consumed. Additionally, extending the lifespan of a garment reduces the need for frequent replacements.

A notable challenge is that many consumers are unaware of how long a garment is expected to last. Without informative prompts in retail settings, shoppers often overlook the longevity of clothing during their purchasing decisions.

Notably, standardized fabric-testing methods are already in existence. These assess the durability of materials based on the number of abrasion cycles they can withstand before exhibiting wear. This testing could be easily applied to garments, enabling retailers to provide cost per wear labels alongside the item prices.

Research conducted in collaboration with Lucia Reisch at Cambridge Judge Business School explored this notion. Through several experiments, participants from online panels were shown both a lower-quality, less expensive sweater and a higher-quality, pricier version. They were then asked to indicate their preferences.

When we presented the cost per wear information for both garments—or even for just the higher-quality option (which demonstrated a lower cost per wear than the inferior option or a reference point)—participants showed a marked inclination toward selecting the more expensive, high-quality garment.

The influence was particularly potent when participants were shopping for everyday items rather than special occasion clothing, when they could clearly compare the cost per wear between alternatives, and when cost per wear information was certified by an independent third party. This enhanced trust in the information led to a preference for high-quality options over durability claims made by brands.

Our findings indicated that cost per wear can make inexpensive fashion appear more costly to consumers, with the superior options regarded as sound financial investments. By selecting the more economical, high-quality option, participants inadvertently opted for the more sustainable choice as well.

However, it is essential to recognize that many consumers may still find the higher initial costs prohibitive, despite understanding the long-term economic advantages. Moreover, cost per wear solely reflects the durability aspect of sustainability. It does not encompass other ethical considerations, such as worker conditions during production or ecological factors related to the use of natural versus synthetic fibers.

Retail brands must also be willing to adopt and display cost per wear labels independently, without regulatory oversight. While high-quality brands may have more motivation to embrace this approach than fast fashion brands, promoting cost per wear remains a valuable pursuit. It encourages consumers to contemplate a garment's longevity and potential frequency of wear at the point of purchase. Ultimately, it has the potential to shift consumer preferences away from fast fashion, leading to more eco-friendly choices—even if the primary motivation is cost savings in the long run.