The epitome of linear product development is “planned obsolescence”, which is naturally the opposite of making products last [15]. Current economic and industrial systems are based on the rapid replacement of products and therefore products are no longer designed for long-time use, nor it is worthwhile to repair them [3]. In the clothing industry, prevalent linear production starts from the production of fibers, which are then spun into yarns, after which they are made into knitted or woven fabrics, and then further assembled into garments which, after use-time, end up in landfills [16]. The textile industry relies on low-quality products that speed from on-trend to obsolete in short time spans. The “fast fashion” phenomenon driven by an efficient system of clothing production, often in low-cost countries, has enabled companies to offer fashionable clothing for relatively low prices. This, in turn, may encourage consumers to buy more clothing, and to use and discard them in faster cycles [12].

It is estimated that this industrial sector annually produces up to 10% of global CO₂ emissions (although estimations differ according to sources), and that it is the world’s second largest water consumer with 79 billion cubic meters of water consumed annually [17,18,19,20]. In addition, it is estimated to produce as much as 92 million tonnes of textile waste annually [18], which either ends up in landfills or is incinerated. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [12], at present, less than 1% of the textiles that are produced for clothing are subsequently recycled into new garments, and 87% of the materials used for the production of apparel is either landfilled or incinerated after its definitive use. This represents a lost opportunity of more than USD 100 billion (EUR 84 billion) annually, in addition to the negative impacts on the environment. Extending the use-time of clothes would be the most direct way of storing value and eliminating waste and pollution from the system [12].

As clothes are produced for the market at a constantly accelerating pace, their average quality is not what it used to be. The fast-fashion model has led to shortened, cheaper production processes and this affects garment quality [10]. For example, Benkirane et al. [21] examined the lifespan of 29 T-shirts of different brands through repeated washes. Based on a sensory evaluation by a non-trained panel, eight of those T-shirts reached a lifespan of 15 washes, six reached 30 washes, and only four reached the lifespan of (at least) 50 washes; here, lifespan was defined as the willingness to wear these garments under normal conditions [21].

Garments are not manufactured to last and are designed to endure possibly only 10 launders [22]. This seems to be the new “standard” in fast fashion [23]. According to Connor-Crabb and Rigby [9], in addition to the changes in the ways that clothes are produced, consumed, and used, expectations of the quality of garments have also changed: garments are no longer expected to last more than a few years or be passed down through generations. Consumers are more prone to buying ever-changing fashion and following rapidly changing trends. As well as the number of wash times, the duration of clothing use can also be expressed as years of use or the number of use-times the garment can withstand without showing signs of wear and tear [12,14,21]. There are different ways to calculate the average age of garments, which is currently somewhere between 3.3 years [24] and 5.4 years [13]; this includes both active and inactive lifetimes. These figures may differ depending on the types of garments or cultural contexts. For example, socks and underwear have short lifespans, whereas the lifespan of nightwear and outerwear is above average [13]. The results of a Dutch study in 2007 estimated that at the time clothes were in active use for only for 44 days during their lifespan, and only worn for 2.4 to 3.1 days between the times they were washed, although at the same time the study showed that different product types varied greatly [25]. However, an emphasis on the “active” life of products is important. The longer a garment is in a consumer’s active use, the more likely it is to offset the production of a new textile product and thus have less environmental impacts [14].

Worldwide, compared to 15 years ago, the clothing production rate has approximately doubled, while at the same time, clothing utilization measured by the number of times a garment is worn before it is discarded has decreased by 36% [12]. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [12], if a garment’s average use-time was doubled, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the clothing and textile industry, could decrease by 44%. These numbers highlight the significance of focusing not only on the environmental impacts of production but also on aiming to extend clothing lifespans and reducing the impacts of the use phase. In addition to this, the perspective of the CE underlines not only the extended use-time but also the importance of closing the material loop, which brings new attributes to quality.

The clothing and textile industry is a resource-intensive industry [26], and yet we seem to easily accept that all the efforts put into the creation of a product will be lost at the end of its use, when the product is discarded in a landfill. This does not only lead to great environmental damage but also to a significant economic loss. To avoid this loss, the recovery of products and their component materials should be clearly included in the design process of products [26].

According to Tischner and Charter, “80% of the environmental and social impacts of a product, incurred throughout its whole life-cycle” could be influenced at the point of the product’s design and development [27] (p. 120). These aspects create new challenges for design skills, because the products’ impacts have to be considered on a larger scope, and design needs to create a view further into the future, in order to construct and support the transformation into a circular system [2].

The CE approach, also referred to as “the new textile economy” [12] complements the ongoing efforts of making the textile system more sustainable through minimizing its negative impacts. The “Circular Economy Action Plan”, released in early 2020 by the European Commission [28], proposes a comprehensive “EU Strategy for Textiles”, which aims to strengthen innovation in the textile sector. It recommends increasing the reuse and recycling of garments and textiles. The CE is “an economic model, which aims to restore the value of resources, materials, and products as high as possible for the maximum amount of time, and then return the materials back to use in continuous cycles” [16] (p. 9). Its goal is to have products and materials circulating in a system of closed loops for as long as possible. Therefore, it aims to extend the use-time of garments instead of generating waste; waste prevention is prioritized in the waste management hierarchy [16]. It is a counter move to the dominant linear business model in which products end up in a landfill at the end of their lives, and lose their value. The emphasis of the current linear system of mass-manufacturing products in low-cost countries on cheap end-prices has led to products having weak intrinsic quality [3]. In addition, poor quality and cheap prices have contributed to shortened product lifespans (ibid.). This gives the circular product design a very important role and demands a change not only in the ways in which products are designed, made, and used but also in the ways they are treated at the end of their lifetimes [26].

As regards the CE in the garment sector, it is essential to focus on extending the use-time of products and to determine how business models can support this. High technical quality enables a garment to be used for a longer time and enables further userships through, for example, renting, leasing and second-hand markets. Garment repair as a DIY activity or as a service provided by a company is also one way in which to extend use-time [29]. Garments and their materials can also be used in other sectors when the garment’s first lifetime is over. Upcycling textile waste into new products or even recycling textile waste in another sector, e.g., as part of composite material in the automotive industry, is an important approach in a circular economy.

To extend the use-time of materials, redesigning new products from leftover or disposed garments could be encouraged more. This can be further supported by using technical, durable, and high-quality garments and materials, and therefore quality is essential for developing alternative ways in which to conduct the fashion business. Accordingly, quality enables alternative and more sustainable design and business models in the context of CE [2]. When the garment has begun to become waste at the end of its lifetime (or after several lifecycles), it can still be recycled as material in the industrial system. Therefore, closing the material loop is essential in the CE approach.

Accordingly, all products and materials are understood as valuable resources, which should be recollected and used more efficiently to create a circular system in the textile and fashion field. The aim is to reduce the use of virgin material, and therefore lower the environmental impacts of this industry.

Among researchers and consumers in the clothing and textiles field, there is a lack of consensus on how to identify quality [30]. Despite the broad spectrum of interpretations of quality, for most fashion businesses, quality seems to only include the very technical laboratory testing of intrinsic, physical characteristics, such as fabric strength, abrasion resistance, pilling, wrinkling, colorfastness, dimensional changes, and seam slippage. However, although this industry-based approach to quality might help standardize products, other views on quality, such as user experiences of the garment over the course of time, have not been identified [9].

Garment quality has an impact at the stage when the consumer decides to dispose of the product [31]. While aspects related to taste and aesthetics, such as no longer liking the style, color, or print, are common reasons for disposal, issues related to quality are a major reason for clothing disposal. Discussing clothing consumption and lifetimes, a study by Laitala et al. [32] registered 70 different reasons for disposal, such as defects in the garment, size, and fit issues, as well as changes in style and personal taste. Deficiencies in technical quality was the largest group of reasons for disposal, including defects such as holes or tears, worn appearance, fading of color, loss of elasticity, change of shape, and pilling [32]. Similar results were reported in a study of Chinese consumers: “wear and tear” was the most common reason to discard clothing [33].

Yet, the consumer’s view of garment quality and opinion of whether the garment is still in acceptable condition or if it needs to be discarded is based on very individual assessments and often related to the physical or aesthetic failure of a garment [34]. Even though technical quality is important for garment durability, quality is also tightly linked to user satisfaction with clothing over time, and therefore also to how long the product is used [9]. The individual, subjective assessment of garment quality affects how clothing is worn and cared for, which then further impacts the physical condition of the garment over the course of time [9]. If a consumer considers a product to be of good quality, they care for it, and its lifespan becomes longer. In contrast, if they consider the quality of the product to be poor, the lifespan might become shorter due to lack of attention or good maintenance. Consumer satisfaction with the quality of an apparel product can be measured in three phases: at the point of purchase, while using the item, and ultimately, when it is discarded [35]. As quality is generally first evaluated “pre-use” and then experienced “during use”, two classifications can be used: (1) objective quality, which is measurable and quantifiable, and observed before use, and (2) subjective quality, which is based on the garment quality, user behavior, and the experience of using the garment [9].

Quality experience is based on the usage phase of a product and can therefore also be referred to as “quality in use”. At this phase, the consumer compares their experiences during use to their pre-use presumptions of the product’s quality. Quality in use recognizes that it is everyday actions and experiences that reveal the quality of an apparel product, as it develops and is uncovered over time [9]. Quality experience is closely linked to consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product.

At the point at which the consumer makes their judgment about quality in use, the business’s quality assurance is put to the test and the consumer evaluates whether it meets their expectations. For most people, good quality is an almost universally accepted preference that reflects user satisfaction, whereas poor quality and the related failures of quality are seen as central reasons for user dissatisfaction [35]. This highlights the importance of understanding user expectations of quality so that companies can deliver quality that meets these expectations [9].

Insights into quality through use can offer new ideas for product design as well as for the design of systems (how products are sold, rented, maintained, disposed of, reused, recycled), at the same time stimulating pro-environmental practices. It is also important that decisions regarding design are based on research on quality in use, rather than solely on laboratory tests of the product’s technical and intrinsic properties. Viewing quality as a changeable product attribute that emerges through use can support the proposition of sustainability ascending from behavior and lifestyles instead of the design of the product itself [9].

Quality is a significant element for choosing certain wardrobe staples, such as coats, jumpers, jeans, socks, and underwear. As their style evolves slowly over time, many customers expect them to last, and often wear them until they have a noticeable defect [12]. Currently, information is insufficient for being able to judge the durability of the clothes on the market. Durability labelling could help customers evaluate the quality and recognize the value of buying longer-lasting items; potentially higher-priced items of higher quality. Such quality labelling should reflect objective criteria, be clearly defined and measurable, and ideally be consistent throughout the industry on a global scale. The label could be either voluntary or mandatory and have different minimum quality standards for different types of garments. For example, it could communicate minimum quality through the number of wash times the garment can withstand, or the number of times an item can be worn in general conditions without showing signs of wear and tear [12,14].