If you are on the sustainability track, chances are you are curbing your consumerism. However for 27% of UK clothing shoppers, over consumption is becoming a chronic problem. A survey commissioned by WEFT identifies ‘high intensity shoppers’ (defined as shoppers who buy at least two items of clothing/shoes per month): this cohort makes up 27% of UK shoppers and they are responsible for half of all clothing purchases. The average number of purchases per month for this cohort is 5.5 (and 7 items for luxury customers).
What’s more, these shoppers have become problematic for brands and retailers, particularly in the luxury segment. High intensity shoppers are known to frequently engage in “free rental” by wearing and returning items: a third of high-intensity shoppers surveyed admitted to purchasing, wearing once, and returning clothing for a full refund; this behavior is twice as high among luxury brand customers.
The ability to resell items efficiently through preloved platforms may also be part of the reason why over-consumptive behaviour is on the rise: the WEFT research found a fall in repair and rental use in line with a rise in second hand sales. The gamification of shopping, either through advertising that encourages purchasing behaviour (‘get it before it goes’, ‘one time only discounts’, countdown timers) or through the addictive nature of resale apps, is creating a form of shopping addiction. In February, the European Union opened an investigation into fast fashion giants Shein and Temu over concerns about their allegedly addictive design. Recently, a jury found Meta and Google liable for harm caused by the addictive qualities of their platforms’ social media platforms. It’s not hard to imagine the same logic applying to retailers. “I know I should just stop, but I can’t,” says Amy, 31. “I worry if I don’t buy it I will regret it later.” Amy admits to buying up to 25 items per month, but sees rental and resale platforms as a way to excuse her behaviour, “even though I know it’s all got a bit out of control.”
While Amy says she is not one of the shoppers who engage in ‘free rental’, there is anecdotal evidence that luxury consumers, tired of high prices and labouring under the assumption that big brands can afford it, see buying, wearing without removing the tags, and then returning product under the premise of ‘it didn’t fit’ as fair game. One multi-brand shopping site admitted the behaviour has been on the rise for several years now. For customers looking to create fashion content, this ruse has become increasingly popular. Net-a-Porter have taken to publishing the following statement as a form of discouragement: “We monitor the number of returns made by customers in order to check whether the purchase of products is pursued for consumer purposes and is not, on the contrary, pursued for commercial, entrepreneurial or professional purposes, and/or is otherwise related to fraudulent intent.”
The rise in online shopping has made the returns problem more acute, as shoppers resort to ‘bracketing’ – buying clothes in multiple sizes, with the intention of returning what does not fit. A report from the British Fashion Council in 2023 which surveyed a wide range of retailers from Jimmy Choo to John Lewis, found 30 per cent of online purchases are returned, versus 10 per cent of those bought in physical stores. Fashion’s returns challenge has been exacerbated by the rise of the Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) model, which has enabled consumers to purchase items without the immediate payment – streamlining the ability to purchase, wear and return without ever having to pay a penny.
Returns are estimated to have cost the UK fashion industry at least £7 billion in 2022, generating approximately 750,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. Processing returns is costly, as the brand has to pay for reverse shipping (often subsidized), inspection & repackaging, restocking or liquidation, customer service and lost resale value (especially for seasonal fashion). Many brands have shortened the window for returns from a month to 14 days, and begun charging for the process. Two years ago ASOS launched a £3.95 returns fee after it admitted the behaviour of 6% of high intensity shoppers was in part responsible for a £100m hit to profits: shoppers who were frequently ordering, then returning ‘a high proportion’.
So what happens to all these returned items? The BFC report found that half of all returns are resold at an average discount of 40 per cent; three per cent of returns remain unsold, of which half are sent to landfill, a quarter are recycled and a further quarter incinerated. The EU has now banned the incineration of unsold clothing, but it is still allowed in the UK. For high street brands, the cost of processing returns can be a barrier. “One Spanish retailer is well known for sending returns to a UK warehouse for donation or destruction – the cost of sending it back to Spain to be repackaged and reprocessed is not worth the time and money,” revealed one operations insider.
Over 30% of manufactured clothing is never actually sold for wear and needs a circular solution. Separate research by WEFT (undertaken to prepare the UK government for Extended Producer Responsibility regulation) has indicated that a significant number of clothes shoppers would be happy to pay a 50p tax per item on clothing to contribute to circularity initiatives – and some happy to pay up to £5. “We went to nearly 3,000 shoppers and our analysis showed that up to 50p, it makes almost no difference in their choice of what they buy, both with higher and lower priced items,” says Gerrard Fisher. “Once you get over 50p, the purchase level goes down and they start swapping to items that are cheaper or are more expensive but have a lower fee.”
If the fee is introduced, it would only be charged to the customer the first time that product is placed on the market. “If it’s a reused item the fee isn’t charged, so it will be interesting to see what happens with returns,” says Fisher. “As brands are trying to reprocess [returned] products, we might see a choice for a brand new product, or one that’s been returned that’s cheaper because there’s no fee.”
If this regulation goes ahead in the UK, and the hope amongst circularity advocates is that it will, the cost will be driven by the high intensity shopping cohort, but born by all of us.
Tiffanie is an author, activist and founder of the Rule of Five campaign and the sustainable luxury concept @agora-ibiza. You can read more of her work on Substack at It’s Not Sustainable