Should every garment be made to be durable?
A big question to dissect in today’s blog. This is a question that I've contemplated a lot. As someone in the fashion and textiles industry who is advocating for more measures to ensure more durable garments are being placed on the market, is it controversial to say that I don’t think every garment should be made to be durable.
Now, I suppose I should begin by defining what I mean by durable in this scenario. I use the word here to encompass the full range of durability, physical and emotional aspects. However, I think both have different roles in answering this. So let's break it down.
Is physical durability always necessary?
For the majority of products, yes, they do need to be somewhat physically durable. But perhaps there are different degrees of acceptable durability. There are a number of products that fall outside this category and I would question whether they need to last longer than a couple of wears.
A great example of this is the t-shirts made for a specific event - say a running event or a stag or hen do. These typically have the date, name, or even the location printed on them. They are great fun for the day and then what happens to them? They can’t be reused or go into the resale pile as the print is usually personal. I could take a guess that most end up at the bottom of the wardrobe drawer, never to see the light of day again.
This poses the question, should these types of products be made to be recyclable or even decomposable over durable? If they were fully recyclable, would people use this avenue? Although, in this example, these products aren’t especially reusable, perhaps only for lounging about at home, they can still hold deep emotional value to the owner. This may not lead to it being disposed of and kept purely for sentimental value. This leads me to think that simplicity over durability is key here, not overengineering the product and prioritising the use of as little resources as possible.
It is important to note that this perspective is not supporting the design of products for a short life as the default. Garments that are worn regularly, should be designed to last. The distinction I’m drawing is between garments that are single use by purpose of design versus those that are simply made with the intention that the user will wear it a few times and dispose of it.
Another example that is quite unique is a wedding dress. Typically only worn for one day, this is a garment that needs to be high quality but not highly physically durable.
Unlike a pair of trousers that will be subjected to repeated wear and washing, a wedding dress needs to survive time in storage. Many are preserved and stored for decades, due to being highly emotionally durable, and sometimes worn or reworked by the next generation. In this context, a wedding dress would need to be physically durable but perhaps not in the way we typically think about durability. It doesn’t need to withstand 50 washes and several mechanical tests, instead it needs to last decades in a box and still have the integrity to be modified and used again by multiple generations.
Where does physical durability really matter?
There are a number of products where a high level of physical durability is essential and completely outweighs the need for emotional durability. School uniforms are a prime case. Worn five days a week they need to hold up against the everyday adventures kids get up to. These should be designed to last and be handed down to younger siblings or be donated/sold to other parents. As a uniform, these pieces hold very low emotional value which is why re-use and eventually recyclability should be the primary design goal.
And there are other garment types where high physical durability is essential and this usually does come with a high emotional durability. Outdoor technical clothing is a good case. The purpose of a hiking jacket is to perform well in different weather conditions and protect the user. Its functionality is important and it needs to be able to withstand being used in harsh conditions. A well performing garment tends to indirectly become emotionally durable, through reliability but also through the adventures that the garment has seen. These types of garments are usually bought due to how durable they are but kept for their emotional significance to the user, often even past the point of normal acceptable physical durability. Repair can be seen as a major life extender here, and visible mending is becoming more popular too as seen on this Finisterre jacket, repaired at their workshop. It is almost worn as a badge of honour, displaying the many experiences the users have had in their trusted garment.
Maximum versus minimum durability
A concept that I have thought about a lot is having a maximum level of durability, not only a minimum requirement. What level of durability is needed and past this point, is it just a waste of resources or adding something into the mix that actually hinders its end of life options.
This is particularly relevant when you consider that durability and recyclability can often work against each other. Engineering a garment to last longer using a blend of fibres might extend its life but could affect how it can be disposed of or recovered at end of life. I think this point is particularly important for our example of a hen do t-shirt. Making it as durable as a t-shirt that is worn every day will potentially use more water, energy, carbon and raw materials than can be justified through use. Setting a maximum durability for products like this might in turn save resources which can be redirected. What it might look like in practice is a reduced amount of testing needed. Perhaps it only needs to be tested to three wash cycles as opposed to five or thirty, as the product won’t likely be used past this, even if it is kept. Reducing the testing load alone will have a positive impact.
So, does every garment need to be durable?
I hope this post has prompted you to think more about what durability means to you and whether you agree or disagree with the question proposed.
I personally think the answer is no, but that comes with a lot of caveats too. I posed this as a controversial question at the start of this blog, but now I’m not sure it should be or is. Not every garment needs to last forever, nor should they. But every garment should be made with intention, designed for what it will be used for and with an idea of what is going to happen to it at the end of life. That doesn’t feel controversial to me.
One lever that will aid in this type of thought process will be the introduction of textile Extended Producer Responsibility (tEPR). This places the financial responsibility for end of life back on the producer. Right now, many schemes use flat fees which don’t distinguish between a garment designed for single use and one designed to last. A variable fee which used durability and recyclability would encourage more intention and prioritisation when needed. If the garment doesn’t need to be durable (our hen do t-shirt) make it recyclable instead and still benefit from a lower EPR charge. This is the potential of a variable fee structure. This type of analysis work is exactly what WEFT are doing, so if this interests you, get in touch.
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.
