Defining Durability: Its tough

Durability can be a misunderstood topic. I understand this better than most after immersing myself in the subject over the last four years but I’m still unpicking it myself.

Beyond the dictionary 

Many definitions or terms have been associated with the word over the years. In the simplest terms, durability refers to a product that is strong and able to last a long time without exhibiting any degradation in comparison to similar products. 

This is the literal dictionary definition. 

However, this does not capture the range of meaning the word ‘durability’ has. What this standard dictionary definition fails to recognise is that durability is a multi-dimensional concept. Not only must a durable garment last physically, it must also remain relevant emotionally. So, already we have two terms where there was originally only one. 

Physical and emotional durability. Or, intrinsic and extrinsic durability. These mean the same and are truly interchangeable. There are, of course, branches of these terms such as fit and cultural durability that refer to specific parts of durability too. 

Emotional durability is a complex and incredibly individual concept. A garment can be emotionally durable from the moment the person acquires it, think of a family heirloom or wedding dress. Alternatively, it can develop over time. Many everyday garments aren’t emotionally durable at first but gradually they become a reliable choice in a person's wardrobe, like that comfy pair of jeans or a jacket that goes with every outfit. This is a typical sign of emotional durability.  

What is ‘quality’ clothing?

Then there is a list of words that I see used in lieu of durability, and this was the main motivation to write this post. The number of times I’ll be discussing the durability of clothing with someone and they will respond with ‘Yes, quality is super important’. 

Don’t misunderstand me, quality clothing is important, but quality and durability are not the same thing, and are far too often spoken of as if they are. 

Quality refers to the make of the garment. Has it been well-crafted? How precise is the stitching? Does the fabric have a high thread count? These are all questions associated with the quality of the garment. 

Although closely connected quality does not take into account the use of the garment, that is physical durability. The fabric might be of high quality and feel luxurious but this does not equate to a durable product. Silk is a perfect example of this. Silk is often used in delicate items that look and feel of high quality but are often not particularly physically durable, especially if they are not cared for appropriately. Many would argue that these items do hold high emotional durability.  

The Martindale

This can go the other way too. In my PhD, there was one product I tested, a formal shirt, which was nearly indestructible, lasting over 400,000+ revolutions on the Martindale (a piece of equipment used to test how quickly a hole forms), the usual requirement for abrasion testing ranges from 10,000 revs to 40,000 revs so this was an extreme amount.

However, the fabric was stiff and scratchy, likely due to the composition of polyamide/elastane. I'd be surprised if the word quality was the first word used to describe it despite it being the most durable garment in over 200 tested. This balance of quality and durability is essential, if a garment is not comfortable due to using low quality fabric then it won’t be worn much despite being able to last a long time.

Terms associated with durability

Other terms include: longevity, long lasting, resistant, resilience, reliable, sturdy, timeless, heavyweight, lifespan, and repairability. Many of these words are often seen in marketing, they are softer and more subjective but still associated with durability. This is likely where some of the confusion around terminology has stemmed from. 

So, what is the difference between them all? 

• Lifespan is the amount of time a garment is in actual use. High durability enables a long lifespan but the user dictates it. 
  

• Resistance is a fabric's ability to withstand a specific force. All durable garments possess resistance, but a garment that resists a single force is not necessarily durable overall.  
  

• Resilience refers to the ability the garment has to absorb stress and bounce back. This term is often used to describe garments with stretch properties and is an aspect of physical durability. 
  

• Heavyweight products often have the perception that they will be longer lasting. Although fabric weight is often used as an indicator of durability, depending on the product, it may not be accurate (more on this in later posts). 
  

• Repairability and durability are complementary. Durability is about preventing a failure, while repairability is about how easily you can fix a failure once it occurs. 

Durability & Policy 

Another word that has been making the rounds of late is Robustness. 

Robustness is a term that has recently been adopted by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) study on the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) as a proxy for durability. The study argues that as there is no existing methodology which correlates a laboratory test result to the lifetime of a garment, therefore, durability cannot be truly measured and in its place robustness must be used. 

The issue that arises here is that if we take the dictionary definition of robustness, the quality of being strong, and healthy or unlikely to break or fail it heavily implies that the strength of the garment is important. The robustness criteria actually only include wash tests, namely, visual assessment after wash, shrinkage, and spirality. It does not consider the strength of the fabric or garment as a whole. 

The worry with a reductionist version of durability, in this instance robustness, is that the pass mark is simply too low. I would argue the criteria set out is not one of robustness and, as we’ve already established, not one of durability but instead more of a sense check of quality.  

This is why untangling these definitions is so important. The words we use are shaping policy, design choices, and buying habits.

The distinction between these terms matters just as much commercially as it does academically. Brands that are genuinely investing in durable products, testing them properly, and having those results independently verified, are too often talked about in the same breath as brands making vague, unsubstantiated claims. If durability, robustness, and quality continue to be used interchangeably, there is no way to tell them apart, or to reward the ones doing the work. Getting the language right is what allows genuine durability to be recognised, and rewarded, within the commercial choices brands are already having to make. 

So where does that leave us? I do not believe there is a single ready made methodology, and technology is changing so quickly. Who knows what the landscape will look like in even 5 years time, but I know that robustness is too reductive. As a starting point, a more accurate representation of a durability protocol would be to build a per-category methodology as a collaborative industry, including strength and seam testing as well as the JRC’s wash based criteria. This would still be a realistic methodology but would provide a far more honest measure of durability and give the brands doing the work something real to be judged against. 

The introduction of the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo) in the EU will hopefully force brands to choose the terminology they use more carefully, as it requires verifiable proof when terms such as ‘long lasting’ or ‘durable’ are used. The ban on using vague terminology has the potential to propel us closer to a standardised, data backed way of discussing the durability of the products on the market. My hope is that this will also act as an educator. Terms will need to be clearly defined before use, therefore avoiding using quality as a proxy for durability and grounding every claim with measurable evidence.

Dr. Kate Baker is the author of The Pick. She is a globally leading expert in garment durability and the EPR Technical Manager at WEFT. 

WEFT works with brands, businesses and partners to lead data-driven EPR change in the global fashion and textiles industry. If you want to keep in touch sign up to our purposefully irregular newsletter.

Subscribe