Built to Break: Making a Circular Economy Calls for Repair Economics

Photo by Bulat369

When your toaster breaks, you probably go out to buy a new one. It’s easier, cheaper, and usually the only option. Replacing your toaster contributes 18 kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

When your jeans develop a hole, you go and buy a new pair. You probably are not patching them yourself. According to a lifecycle assessment by the United Nations Environmental Programme, this single pair of denim contributes 33.4 kilograms of carbon equivalent to the atmosphere. Making this new pair of jeans uses 3,718 litres of water. 

Emma Rahmani (Corelens)

Looking beyond toasters, Australia generated 511,000 tonnes of e-waste in 2019, of which the majority is not recovered. Including all waste types, Australia generated an estimated 75.6 million tonnes (Mt) of waste in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.. In 2018, the United States sent 37,410,000 tonnes of durable goods, products with a lifetime of three years or more, to the landfill. 

These numbers are not to shame the urge to remain stylish or guilt for wanting toasted bread, but to show how things are and raise the question of how things could be. Instead of tossing and replacing these toasters and jeans, a circular economy with a focus on repair and reuse offers us the opportunity to extend the lifecycle of our items.  

The habit of throwing away and replacing our stuff represents our present linear economy. This capitalist model rewards companies building items designed to fail, leading to companies favoring profit over people, planet, and progress. This is a concept called planned obsolescence. These products with a designed and predetermined lifespan include electronic devices, cellphones, appliances, toys, books, furniture, clothing, and nearly every manufactured product. No matter how well you take care of an item, it is built with a limited lifespan and designed to fail. 

Shorter buy-again windows mean companies are selling the same product more frequently to repeat customers, increasing yearly profits. When products are cheaper to replace than they are to repair, it is a no-brainer why people choose to simply buy the product again. 

Apple is an example of a company that sees record sales as a result of its planned obsolescence in its iPad, iPhone, and Mac products. As highlighted in multiple lawsuits and federal hearings in the United States, Apple has acknowledged that it builds devices with deteriorating battery lives, meaning consumers will have to either struggle with their old model or pay to upgrade after just a few years. 

Not limited to Apple or even cellphones, the furniture giant Ikea has committed to reforming its entire value chain following a long history of environmental and quality complaints around products that uphold the definition of planned obsolescence. This intentional design failure is embedded in nearly all products, and it is catastrophic for the Earth.

Source: Amadori, F. B., Felta, L., Fernandez, A. R., Simeoni, F., & Vehanen, T. (2020, September 28). Planned Obsolescence and the Lifespan of Electronics. Infragraphy. https://blogs.aalto.fi/mediainfrastructures/2020/09/28/planned-obsolescence-and-the-lifespan-of-electronics/

The solution to this model is to bend the line into a circle, creating a circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system in which materials never become waste, and there is a greater emphasis placed on regenerating nature. In this circular system, products and materials are not sent to landfill, and instead remain in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. 

The circular economy’s core pillars are circular design, reuse of materials, and regeneration. Focusing on circular design means that products are built for repair, reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing. Repair is the antidote to the waste crisis created by planned obsolescence. In challenging companies’ overproduction practices, we create better products, greatly reducing new manufacturing. In tandem, repair becomes cheaper, easier, and more accessible

Source: van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. (2023). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY. In An Introduction to Waste Management and Circular Economy (pp. 306–348). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.4350575.17

Repair is one of the most crucial aspects of the circular economy that receives the least amount of utilisation. A repair economy helps to bend the line by reducing new manufacturing and extending the lifespan of products. There is power in repurposing and repairing an item, and it also makes a consumer’s connection to their stuff more personal, further enhancing the desire to repair rather than replace. 

A focus on repair also means slower depletion of natural resources, less biodiversity loss, smaller quantities of pollution, and even the potential for natural areas to regenerate. When a landfill is filled, it contaminates nearby soil and water, leaches into the local environment, disrupts avian migration patterns, poses a significant threat to both physical and environmental health when toxic materials are not properly disposed of, and has a laundry list of other negative impacts. Slowing the rate of waste sent to landfills means fewer raw materials are taken from our natural world, and the negative impacts of landfills are reduced. 

The environmental benefits of repair quickly stack. If one-fifteenth of American households were to extend the expected 15-year lifespan of their refrigerators by only one year with stronger repair infrastructure, some 2.95 million tonnes of CO2 would be spared from entering the atmosphere. This is the amount of emissions released by the entire New York City urban area, 790 square km and over eight million people, in just about 6 days. The environmental cost to manufacture one refrigeration unit is around 350 kg of CO2. Reducing emissions is not controlled by an on or off switch, but we create wins by tackling small victories at once. 

The biggest struggle of the repair movement is cost and convenience. Currently, LG Electronics’ Flat-Rate Repair Program for a refrigerator starts at USD 399, while a new 420L bottom freezer and fridge costs USD 891. When a product needs repair, consumers begin to see the end of its life. With the repair cost being just under half the cost of a new refrigerator unit, it often makes replacing more appealing or logical than repairing the unit. Additionally, it is simply easier and more convenient to replace a product than to find a qualified and available repairperson. 

Repair has monumental potential, but policy failure challenges its success. In many places, a personal or professional attempt at repair often voids a product's warranty, if it has one. In response to corporate hostility against repairs, the right to repair movement has emerged across the world, aiming to pass legislation that protects consumers as they seek out repairs and enforces cooperation from firms in making these repairs successful. 

Photo by KC Shum

Many nations, like the United States, do not have a nationwide right to repair law. The United Kingdom and Australia have selective right-to-repair legislation, largely limited to motor vehicles, failing to include household electronics or clothing. Australia’s restrictive right to repair legislation is limited to the automotive industry and requires vehicle service and repair information to be available for purchase at a fair market price. Although not progressive enough, if it can be done for automobiles, the same legislation can be used as a model in other repairable industries. 

In 2024, the European Union finally passed a largely encompassing Right to Repair legislation, providing increased protection and resources for consumers to opt to repair instead of being forced to replace. The legislation requires manufacturers to provide repair information, supply spare parts at reasonable cost, and repair products, even if a company’s warranty has lapsed for the product.

France was the first country to pass Extended Producer Responsibility legislation applicable to clothes and textiles. This legislation requires companies subject to the law to finance the management and prevention of the end-of-life of products that they put on the market. Made possible through an “eco-tax,” France’s partner in EPR uses this tax for collection, sorting, treatment management, eco-modulations, a repair fund, and a reuse fund. This tax and legislation limit the landfill impact of textiles and clothing. This repair fund sets aside €154 million between 2023 and 2028, allowing consumers who visit a participating repair shop to claim back between €6 and €25 towards the cost of their repairs. France’s progressive repair legislation sets the standard for other national repair laws and demonstrates that advocacy for repair legislation works.

With intensifying climate regulations coupled with right-to-repair movements, companies must take accountability for their role in creating waste while finding ways of making profits as they transition to circular business. By designing quality products with repair in mind, businesses can offer services for their products and diversify revenue streams. Additionally, companies can begin to design platforms and spaces where consumers can resell their products. 

In 2012, Patagonia began solving this repair puzzle through its Worn Wear program, and also powers iFixit to educate consumers on at-home repairs and product care. A commitment to repair and high-quality products has given Patagonia a committed consumer base who are willing to pay more for this service and their products.  

Photo by Luba Glazunova

Nudie Jeans is another company that wins consumers with a lifetime guarantee of free repairs. The denim company understands its products will not last forever, regardless of how well its jeans are made. They meet consumers' needs and offer free repairs, so the life of the garment is extended by years. 

It will take some time to create a system that’s more circular. It is challenging to know where to begin with such an enormous issue; however, we can start by supporting local craftspeople. Find a local seamstress to patch your jeans, discover a local repairsperson to take a crack at your toaster. Save the atmosphere from the carbon emissions and minimise waste to landfill by repairing products when possible instead of replacing them. 

Make circular actions a regular part of your lifestyle. Swap or trade items with your friends. When possible, purchase the variety of products you use from second-hand stores. Visit repair cafes, repair shops, join or host mending circles, and host and attend swaps. These choices are not just environmental: they are community and financial investments. Each of these solutions bring us a little closer to a more circular society. 

To more fully bend the linear economy into a circle, we need systems change via policy and legislation. This means, for example, campaigning for laws that eliminate planned obsolescence, right-to-repair policies, product repair schemes and rebates. Similar legislation can be created for other circular solutions. We can bring this system into effect by contacting our local and federal representatives to push these issues forward and request change. Share information about these issues to your groups, communities and neighbourhoods while encouraging advocacy actions to support systems change. This way, we will have as many people as possible coming together to form a circle. 

Article by Tyler Branigan. Tyler is from Syracuse University and has a passion for sustainable solutions and circular economics.

The EU’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law that may force the fashion industry to become more sustainable

Image credit: Fernand De Canne

The European Union has struck textile companies with intensive laws dedicated to reducing the impact of fast fashion on the planet. The union has been at the forefront of rooting out the exploitative business practices of fast fashion giants such as Shein, H&M, and Inditex Group (which includes companies like Berksha, Zara, and Massimo Dutti). The EU is implementing laws that will reduce textile waste and promote recycling of fashion items. 

According to The Fashion Law, the EU has introduced an “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)” mandate on 9 September 2025 for textile producers, which ensures that fast fashion companies shoulder the responsibility of “collecting, sorting, and recycling the clothing and household textiles” instead of individual consumers. The EPR is an addition to the existing Waste Framework Directive which calls for the development of sustainable waste management practices. Fortunately, these rules are also applicable to traditional European labels, promoting sustainability in the textile industry regardless of their business model. The EU is adamant about each member state adopting the necessary technology and infrastructure and setting protracted policy goals for the future. 

In the Waste Framework Directive, the EU highlights the complex composition of municipal waste which makes efficient sorting and recycling difficult for existing waste management infrastructures. The active participation of citizens is also a major factor in waste management to ensure each category of waste is discarded and recycled correctly. The Waste Framework Directive also stated that in order to combat the level of municipal waste in the world, a sophisticated system and public awareness is necessary. However, EPR rightfully places the responsibility of recycling on one of the world’s largest polluters themselves, forcing these companies to comply with sustainable business practices moving forward. 

If fast fashion companies continue to operate within the non-stop, trend-focused business model, the fashion industry is projected to generate 26% of the world’s carbon emissions by 2050. The only beneficiaries of this horrible statistic are the companies that earn billions of dollars from exploiting human labor and destroying the planet. This huge achievement toward legislative change in fashion serves as a framework for the rest of the world to reject unnecessary textile waste. However, the issue has not been abolished completely. Unless the rest of the world creates similar programs for its fashion markets, fast fashion giants will continue to switch their marketing practices and entice you to buy that new shirt for your “first” events forever. 

Australia is a leading consumer of fast fashion, ahead of many EU nations and the US. In a 2024 research paper by Nina Gbor and Olivia Chollet from the Australia Institute emphasized that the sheer quantity of Australian textile waste is 200,000 tonnes, equivalent to a weight of four Sydney Harbor Bridges. The Australian government needs to establish concrete laws similar to the EU to curb its textile waste crisis. Nina Gbor, founder of Eco Styles, has launched a petition to revive the Australian textile industry with a focus on circular economy practices. Here is a brief summary of some of the policies this petition is advocating for: 

•  Reviving the Australian textile industry, which can help create a $38 billion industry for onshore production jobs for women 

• Significant industry reform under the Labor Government’s Progressive productivity agenda and its commitment to the net-zero agenda by 2050 as well as strengthen the economic resilience of the country

• Taxing ultra fast-fashion brands and investing the returns into the Australian fashion industry 

• Phasing out virgin plastics and synthetic materials as well as banning toxic chemicals in line with the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals foundation

• Public awareness about the health and environmental complications of buying fast fashion items

• Pushing for ethical business and fair trade practices under the Modern Slavery Act of 2018 to ensure there are no human rights violations within the industry. 

Sign the petition to create impactful change in legislation and consumer behavior in Australia. Self-expression through fashion should not have such a heavy cost. When you buy your next piece of clothing, think about the social and environmental impact of the item you are purchasing. Prioritize brands practice sustainability, quality, and fair trade. Opt for methods such as thrifting, mending, repairing, and swapping to elongate the lifecycle of clothing items and prevent their early demise into landfills already brimming to their maximum capacity. 

Article by Samya Dawadi for Eco Styles. Samya’s focus is on environmental and sustainability consulting in business and art. 

Italy fines Shein €1 million for greenwashing

Ultra-fast fashion conglomerate Shein, is being fined for the second time in two months. Italy’s antitrust agency, AGCM recently issued a €1M fine (approximately $1.7 million AUD / $1.15M USD) for greenwashing practices i.e. “misleading customers about the environmental impact of its products.”

Similarly, the first fine for Shein came from France in July this year through the country’s antitrust agency responsible for consumer protection and competition. They hit Shein with the first greenwashing fine to the tune of €40 million (approx. $72 million AUD) for fake discounts and misleading environmental claims.

The brand allegedly used “vague, generic, and/or overly emphatic,” claims that were considered “misleading or omissive” in connection to its “evoluSHEIN by design” collection. It promoted sustainable practices, with claims like using “fabrics left over by other fashion brands that were destined for landfill or incineration.”

The company’s touts of a circular system design and product recyclability "were found to be false or at the very least confusing", and the green credentials of its 'evoluSHEIN by design' collection were overstated, the regulator said.

Italy has fined the Chinese fast fashion online retailer Shien over $1.7 million for greenwashing. Nina Gbor from the Australia Institute says the e-commerce giant was giving “false and misleading” information to customers that they were doing something good for the environment.

The agency said the recyclability claims “were found to be either false or at least confusing,” warning consumers might think Shein products are fully recyclable and made only from sustainable materials which “does not reflect reality.” It’s also "a fact that, considering the fibres used and currently existing recycling systems, is untrue".

Italy’s AGCM also accused the brand of using a “misleading communication strategy” about its environmental impact, like Shein’s commitments to cut greenhouse emissions by 25% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, noting that Shein's emissions increased in 2023 and 2024.

Shein responded by saying they have “strengthened internal review processes” and cleaned up its website to make sure all environmental claims are now “clear, verifiable, and compliant with regulations.”

Shein’s Impact

Shein made $32.5 billion sales in 2023. Their sales were forecasted to reach $50 billion in 2024. The average price of an item from Shein is between $10 - $20. It ships ultra-cheap clothing from thousands of suppliers to tens of millions of customer mailboxes in around 150 countries. 

These are factors that make Shein one of the biggest polluters of fast fashion. It has about 600,000 items for sale on average on its website and adds around 10,000 items each day. The company was shipping about one million products a day as of last year. In 2024, the company made over one billion dollars in revenue in Australia.  

There were concerns were from Shein’s third annual sustainability report published in 2023 which showed the company nearly doubled its carbon dioxide emissions between 2022 and 2023. Shein emitted 16.7 million total metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023 which falls far below its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validated reduction targets to reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 42% by 2030.

Can fining fast fashion companies be effective in Australia and other countries?

There’s nothing that corporations and most businesses hate more than losing profits in any way. So, the answer to whether fining greenwashing can work in my opinion is yes. Provided the fines are substantial amounts and not just a slap on the wrist. I think each time a company fails to comply with environmental regulations they should be fined. And the fines can potentially increase each time the offence is committed again. And if the fines are proving ineffective in general, it might be a sign that the amounts are too small to have an impact, therefore they should be increased.  

Isn’t it the consumers’ responsibility not to purchase fast fashion?

Every individual is responsible for their actions, including their own consumption and overconsumption habits. However, I believe the onus lies more on the brands/corporations to do the right thing by being honest and transparent with their claims. Clothing companies with access to multi-million- or billion-dollar funds have the resources and power to run operations and access materials that are genuinely better for the environment while still being profitable in many cases. Whereas, some consumers are experiencing cost-of-living crises, are time-poor because of life commitments and experience other issues that make it challenging for them to patronise non-fast fashion items.

 What can consumers people do instead of fast fashion?

Instead of buying fast fashion, consumers can:

• purchase secondhand items

• host or attend clothes swaps

• rent / hire and borrow clothing

• repair, mend or repurpose existing garments

• use free clothing services such as Thread Together who get left over clothes from retail brands and give to people who need them.

Moreover, some fast fashion items are have been found to have toxic chemicals from the materials used and dyes. Secondhand clothes might have less toxic chemicals than brand new ones. In addition to this, about 85% of clothes end up in landfill or incinerated each year. Reusing garments diverts clothes from landfill and it’s healthier for the environment in several ways.

*Article by Nina Gbor

Policies and initiatives to help save the Australian fashion industry for future generations

We recently had Joanna visit our office. Joanna received the Young Creator of the Year Award for demonstrating strong creativity and leadership through her self-initiated school club, Passion for Fashion Fridays. She mentors younger students in upcycling textiles into functional and stylish art pieces. Her commitment to sustainability and community engagement underpins her long-term goal of opening a business that teaches others to repurpose clothing into meaningful, eco-friendly creations.

Joanna brought an terrific upcycled art piece she made with fishes made from a mix of discarded textiles. It’s inspiring to see Joanna’s hard work, talent and her dreams for the future. She could potentially make a real impact in textiles circularity. She is currently deciding which tertiary institution to further develop her skills in hope of a successful career in her future.

I had to caution her about the lack of sufficient jobs in Australian textiles industry. Every week I mentor a couple of people who is either a young person or adult wanting to have a career in the sustainable fashion space. Fashion is one of the top career choices for teenagers and young people in general. Sadly, the lack of sufficient and varied career opportunities is a real bug bear.

Many Australian clothing brands have had to close their doors in the last few years. I’m still in the process of ascertaining a more precise number but it’s a lot. Ultra-fast fashion and conventional fast fashion have played a big role in some of this but they’re not the only reason. We need This is one of the reasons I’ve been strongly advocating for reform in the industry. It’s the protection of Australian textiles businesses and also incubating the talent and dreams of young people.

The industry is currently worth $28 billion to the national economy and can potentially escalate to $38 billion dollars within a decade with the right reform and support from the federal government. This progress would mean not only more jobs but a broader array in the nature of jobs in the industry to accommodate young people like Joanna and others.

With over 300,000 tonnes of textiles discarded each year, we can invest in scaling reuse, repairs, mending, upcycling, repurposing, renting and recycling. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, an investment into research and development towards recycling textiles could see all existing and innovations and scaling of all textile recycling capabilities in Australia. This would be a boost to the economy, even more jobs and keeping all the materials in the circularity loop which is important for the environment. Ultimately this will be a triple win for us.

Here are some of the existing government programs that can boost the textiles industry:

• The $900 million investment of the Albanese Labor Government into the new National Productivity Fund is part of an initial step towards “delivering broader ‘right to repair’ reforms – driving down repair costs, increasing business opportunities and reducing wastage by removing barriers to competition for repairs….”

• With Australia being one of the biggest consumers of clothing in the world per capita and one of the most wasteful, it’s fortunate that we also have the Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF). This is a $200 million national initiative for the expansion of Australia’s capacity to sort, process and remanufacture glass, plastic, tyres, paper and cardboard. Textiles can be added to the RMF. The Albanese government is looking towards new and upgraded recycling infrastructure through the RMF.

• Other government programs that can support a textiles industry include the Future Made in Australia, which has $22.7 billion private sector investment over a 10-year period to help Australia build a stronger and more resilient economy.

• There’s also an Advanced Manufacturing program which is a $1.6 billion accelerator fund for to enable development of more complex domestic manufacturing industries using cutting-edge technologies and innovative processes to improve existing manufacturing operations and create new products. This could potentially suit 3-D printing initiatives, blockchain, textile software operations, chemical textile recycling and other areas.

• A new program designed to cater to the development of an Australian textiles industry with necessary investments and nuanced support can also be created by the government. However, we need to advocate for it, loudly and persistently. Think of all the young people like Joanna whose dreams depend on it.

Article by Nina Gbor

The Vintage Wave: How second-hand clothing is paving the way for sustainable fashion in East Asia

Vintage shop in Shimokitazawa. Image credit: Stella Lee

In recent years, the global fashion industry has faced increasing pressure to adopt sustainable methods. Some impactful ways include cutting down consumption, buying second-hand clothing, and upcycling. The importance of such practices rise day by day as we witness the negative impacts that come with the rise of fast fashion brands.

East Asia, popular for its fast-paced and trend-driven fashion industries, is not a commonly discussed region in the scope of sustainable fashion. The area, consisting of countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Mongolia, is home to various fashion scenes difficult to generalize into a monolithic category. However, with Japan beginning to accept second hand clothing in the 1950s, many people across the area have started to embrace the act of secondhand items, unlocking the possibility for a new force of sustainable fashion in the region. 

Purchasing secondhand clothing is one of the main ways to practice sustainable fashion by purchasing second-hand clothing instead of new ones. This allows one to prolong the life of clothing items from old t-shirts to old boots and fight against the dominant cycles of mass production as well. 

This article will dive into four main cities—Seoul, Tokyo, Shanghai, and Taipei—to analyze their thrifting cultures and moreover give an insight into how such activity has the potential to influence East Asia’s sustainable fashion landscape.

Seoul, South Korea

Although thrifting culture is not as prominent as in Western countries, the ‘vintage’ breeze has carried similar parts of it to South Korea. South Korean people, especially the youth population, are known for their sharpness to trends and sensitivity to “staying in fashion”. Some examples of this would be the obsession in luxury brand items, such as Chanel or Gucci. They also tend to focus on getting the latest ‘limited edition’, and influencers regularly boast on their hard work in obtaining a limited edition piece as content. The key points here are that such items have a value of scarcity, they are irreplaceable and hard to find.

This phenomenon reached a different curve with the recent “retro” and “Y2K” trend, which generated buzz around the term ‘vintage’. Although vintage, by definition meaning something from the past of high quality, is not a new word, it has become a major keyword coupled with the recent trends in fashion. Nowadays the term is used to indicate second-hand clothing in general, and “vintage” pieces refer to ones that someone else has worn in the past. The biggest selling point for vintage items is that they are no longer widely available, making them rare and unique. Now, popular influencers and K-pop idols, which have worldwide influence, are featuring themselves on vintage shopping tours, reinforcing these trends.

Despite the fact that a lot of neighborhoods in Seoul are developing their own “vintage” culture, a main area would be Hongdae. Located near 4 major university campuses (Ehwa, Hongik, Sogang, and Yonsei), Hongdae is comprised of bustling streets full of tourists and young consumers. In these alleys, one can find various vintage shops often tucked away but impossible to miss for active seekers. These shops tend to be curated meticulously, meaning that the owners carefully inspect each piece and go through a separate process of manufacturing to ensure quality control. Another notable factor is that they often ‘reform’ or upcycle clothes—by cutting out patches of intact fabric from a no longer sellable piece of clothing and attaching it to another piece, cropping branded shirts, basically recreating a third piece from scattered, used garments. 

Online platforms are also playing a key part, with reselling platforms such as ‘Karrot’ and ‘BUNJANG’ increasing in terms of downloaders and overall revenue. These applications create a marketplace for users to sell and buy used items (including clothes) for cheaper prices, blurring the lines between the consumer and the seller. According to a BUNJANG resale report, the Korean resale market saw accelerated growth in the last decade, a key characteristic being that shoppers gravitate toward buying secondhand goods online.

Tokyo, Japan

Tokyo’s thrifting culture has deep historical roots, stretching back to the Edo period) (1603-1968). The initial rise of second-hand clothing was linked to the high cost and difficulty of repairing kimonos, which led people to valuing garment repair and resale. As second-hand clothing transactions developed, this culture began to take root in Japanese society. After WWII, Japan faced a severe shortage of goods and imported a large number of garments from the United States, which further popularized vintage culture, especially in areas like Ueno and Asakusa. Ueno, a key trade and transportation hub, saw an influx of second-hand American clothing, while Asakusa, with its strong artistic and entertainment background, embraced these styles as part of its creative expression. Both areas, known for their vibrant, youthful, and fashion-driven populations, became centers for the early adoption of vintage fashion.

The modern rise of vintage culture began in the 1980s during the bubble economy era, when people in Tokyo were eager to buy antique luxury goods from abroad. This trend elevated the value of vintage items. Following the collapse of the bubble economy, vintage culture underwent a transformation—from being a niche interest among a few collectors to becoming accessible to the general public. This shift allowed areas such as Shimokitazawa and Koenji to emerge as hubs for vintage fashion.

Today, areas like Shimokitazawa and Koenji still act as hotspots for vintage shopping, boasting over 137 vintage shops in Shimokitazawa alone. Other areas, such as Harajuku's Cat Street, also contribute to Tokyo's vibrant second-hand culture, with popular stores like ‘Chicago’ known for its vintage kimonos, and ‘Kinji Used Clothing’ offering a wide selection of affordable items.

The modern thrifting culture trend in Tokyo emphasizes both individuality and environmental consciousness. Younger generations value fashion as a sustainable choice, and celebrities like Masaki Suda and Nana Komatsu have contributed to this trend by proudly wearing second-hand clothes. Shops have adapted to the growing focus on “cleanliness” to improve the shopping experience, making vintage more appealing to a broader audience. In addition, chain stores like ‘Second Street’ have expanded across Japan, further integrating vintage fashion into mainstream culture and supporting a move towards sustainability.

Shanghai, China

Shanghai's second-hand clothing market has recently experienced significant growth, driven by increasing consumer awareness of sustainability and the influence of vintage trends from cities like Tokyo. However, unlike Japan, China lacks a historical tradition of second-hand clothing culture, largely due to the stigma associated with wearing used clothes, often seen as a sign of poverty and a threat to one's "mianzi,” or social standing.

Despite these challenges, younger generations, particularly Gen Z, are embracing the concept of recycled fashion. Neighborhoods such as Julu Road have become well-known for boutique vintage shops that cater to this growing demand for unique styles. Offline markets, like the "Savvy Exchanger" monthly market, have become popular events where people can swap clothes while enjoying music and local beer, creating a trendy and social experience. In Shanghai, popular offline vintage stores like "Duozhuayu" are gaining traction, offering pre-owned books and vintage clothing, and frequently featured on platforms like ‘Red’.

The second-hand market in China is also largely driven by online platforms, such as Xianyu (https://www.goofish.com/), an offshoot of Alibaba, has become particularly popular due to its user-friendly experience and credibility in addressing concerns about counterfeit goods. These platforms contribute to a significant portion of the market, which was valued at approximately 10.4 trillion RMB (around 1.63 trillion USD) by 2020.

Notably, Shanghai’s second-hand luxury market has seen a surge in popularity, although it still remains smaller in scale compared to more developed markets such as Japan and the United States. Younger consumers are leading this growth, viewing second-hand luxury as a way to access high-end brands at more affordable prices while also supporting sustainability. Nonetheless, Shanghai's emerging second-hand fashion scene represents a blend of practicality, sustainability, and social trends, positioning it as a developing hub for vintage culture in China.

Taipei, Taiwan

Taipei has carved out its own niche in the East Asian thrifting culture, offering a unique blend of sustainability and style. 

Popular areas like Chifeng Street are home to well-known vintage stores such as “R Vintage”, “Deer Horn”, and “Booday”, which cater to diverse tastes ranging from classic retro pieces to high-end designer items. The rise of vintage fashion in Taipei is fueled by both a love for the aesthetic and growing awareness of the importance of sustainable consumption.

Vintage fashion is popular among young people for its individuality, while older generations appreciate the environmental benefits. Sustainability is central to Taiwan’ vintage trend, with increased awareness of reducing waste and supporting the circular economy. Events like Clothing swaps and vintage markets further promote a culture of reuse, helping position Taipei as a center of sustainable fashion.

Conclusion

The ‘vintage boom’ was a binding factor for culturally diverse countries of East Asia, shaping unique attitudes towards the world of second-hand fashion. From the busy streets of Seoul to the culturally rich neighborhoods of Tokyo, the appeal of second-hand clothing is growing to be more than just a trend. However, this relatively new culture must maintain its force, which calls for approaches rooted in demands for sustainability rather than consumerism and desires to follow micro trends. By combining its tradition, culture, and innovative nature, East Asia has the potential to lead a new wave of eco-conscious style across the region.

*Article written by Stella Lee and Bo-Han Zhang.

Stella Lee - Located in South Korea, Stella Lee is a journalist passionate about social issues, with a focus on covering stories from around the world.

Bo-Han Zhang - Located in Japan, Bo-Han Zhang specializes in business strategy and community development, with experience in consulting and a focus on sustainable fashion in East Asia.