Labeling clothes with cost per wear could curb fast fashion, research shows

A new study reveals that labeling clothes with a breakdown of the cost of an item per wear (CPW) can shift consumers away from fast fashion towards higher quality, longer lasting clothing.

Cost per wear, calculated by dividing the price by how long the item is likely to last, can help consumers recognize the long-term value of durable garments and discourage overconsumption of fast fashion—low quality, poorly made, trend-led clothes.

Published in Psychology & Marketing, by the University of Bath and Cambridge Judge Business School, the study tested how CPW influences purchasing decisions across six online experiments.

The research showed that CPW increased preference for high-quality clothing, even when the upfront price was higher. The effect was strongest when study participants could compare items’ CPW to one another, and when they were shopping for everyday wear, over occasion wear.

“Cost per wear reframes sustainability as smart spending,” said Dr. Lisa Eckmann, from the University of Bath’s School of Management and Bath Retail Lab. “Cheap fast fashion suddenly appears more expensive due to its higher cost per wear and quality pieces are viewed as better financial investments—not just greener choices.”

The researchers argue that clothing is a consumable good that wears out over time and therefore can be evaluated in terms of unit price. The longevity of a garment on which CPW is based can be determined via material durability tests, already conducted by textile testing services.

The research showed that communicating CPW can be more effective than making general durability claims, if brands provide relevant reference information to enable comparison making—for instance, the market average for the CPW for the relevant product category—and independent third-party certification to alleviate potential customer skepticism about claims.

The concept is common in fashion and sustainable consumer circles to signal durability and quality but isn’t yet in use on the high street.

Dr. Eckmann said, “Cost per wear could be used much like unit pricing in supermarkets, and could be a low cost, high impact tool for retailers and policymakers to reduce textile waste and the environmental and social impacts of fast fashion.”

Although CPW can increase affordability perceptions of more expensive, high‐quality clothing, the researchers recognize that many consumers will still choose lower quality options with higher CPW because they cannot afford the higher upfront purchase price.

The researchers hope their study will spark interest among retailers and consumers and that future work could take the proposal instore to measure consumer behavior, extending the study beyond the online measure of preferences and intentions.

They hope more research could address how consumers respond to the trade-offs between durability and wider sustainability issues.

“Cost per wear only reflects durability as one sustainability measure. It doesn’t reflect ethical considerations, such as worker conditions, or ecological aspects, such as the use of natural fibers over synthetic fibers,” said Dr. Eckmann.