Abstract
The fashion industry generates substantial environmental waste through overproduction, rapid consumption cycles, and inadequate end-of-life management. This dissertation synthesises current academic literature to evaluate which circular economy business models demonstrate the greatest potential for waste reduction at scale within the fashion sector. Through systematic literature review, four primary circular business model categories were identified: longevity and durability-focused design, collection and resale platforms, product-as-a-service arrangements, and demand-driven production systems. Findings indicate that durable design, resale and repair services, and on-demand production models exhibit the strongest waste reduction potential, but only when they successfully displace, rather than supplement, conventional fast fashion consumption. The analysis reveals that approximately 60% of reused clothing displaces new purchases, whilst demand-driven production directly addresses overproduction—a core waste driver generating billions of unsold garments annually. However, evidence consistently demonstrates that no single business model suffices for system-level waste reduction. Meaningful impact requires combining multiple circular strategies with supportive policy frameworks and fundamental cultural shifts away from high-throughput consumption patterns. Models that merely append recycling or take-back schemes onto growth-driven fast fashion operations demonstrate limited, and sometimes counterproductive, waste reduction outcomes.
Introduction
The global fashion industry stands as one of the most environmentally burdensome sectors worldwide, contributing significantly to resource depletion, pollution, and waste generation. Annual textile production exceeds 100 million tonnes, with the sector responsible for approximately 10% of global carbon emissions and 20% of industrial water pollution (United Nations Environment Programme, 2019). The prevailing linear economic model—characterised by the ‘take, make, waste’ paradigm—has proven fundamentally unsustainable, generating an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste annually, much of which enters landfills or incinerators within months of production (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
The rise of fast fashion over the past two decades has accelerated these environmental consequences dramatically. Contemporary fashion brands release numerous collections annually, compressing product lifecycles and encouraging disposable consumption patterns. This acceleration has resulted in garments being worn fewer times before disposal, with average utilisation declining by 36% compared to 15 years ago (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Consequently, the industry faces mounting pressure from regulators, consumers, and civil society organisations to transition towards more sustainable operating models.
The circular economy framework has emerged as a promising alternative paradigm, proposing systems designed to eliminate waste through intentional design, extended product use, and material recovery. Within fashion, circular business models seek to decouple economic activity from virgin resource consumption by maintaining garments and materials at their highest value for as long as possible. However, substantial debate persists regarding which circular approaches genuinely reduce waste at scale versus those representing incremental improvements or, potentially, sophisticated greenwashing mechanisms.
This dissertation addresses this critical knowledge gap by synthesising contemporary academic literature to evaluate the waste reduction effectiveness of leading circular fashion business models. The investigation carries significant academic importance, contributing to theoretical understanding of circular economy implementation within complex consumer goods industries. Practically, the findings inform strategic decision-making for fashion enterprises, policymakers, and sustainability practitioners seeking evidence-based approaches to industry transformation. Socially, the research responds to growing public concern regarding fashion’s environmental footprint and the authenticity of corporate sustainability claims.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate which circular economy business models demonstrate the greatest potential to reduce waste at scale within the fashion industry, based on current academic evidence.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the investigation:
1. To identify and categorise the principal circular business models currently operating or proposed within the fashion sector.
2. To evaluate the waste reduction mechanisms and demonstrated effectiveness of each business model category through systematic literature synthesis.
3. To analyse the scalability constraints and implementation challenges limiting wider adoption of effective circular fashion models.
4. To examine the conditions under which circular business models successfully displace, rather than supplement, conventional fashion consumption and waste generation.
5. To synthesise findings into actionable insights regarding the most promising pathways for achieving system-level waste reduction in fashion.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the research aim and objectives. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when seeking to consolidate, evaluate, and integrate findings from multiple existing studies to generate comprehensive understanding of a research domain (Snyder, 2019). Given the multidisciplinary nature of circular fashion research—spanning business studies, environmental science, supply chain management, and consumer behaviour—synthesis methodology enables integration of diverse perspectives whilst maintaining analytical rigour.
The literature search strategy targeted peer-reviewed academic publications from established databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search terms combined circular economy terminology (circular economy, circularity, closed-loop) with fashion-specific terms (fashion, textile, apparel, clothing) and business model concepts (business model, value proposition, value chain). Additional searches targeted specific circular strategies including resale, rental, repair, take-back, durability, longevity, on-demand production, and made-to-order manufacturing.
Inclusion criteria specified English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2025, ensuring contemporary relevance whilst capturing the substantial acceleration in circular fashion scholarship following the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s influential 2017 report. Grey literature from reputable international organisations, including the United Nations Environment Programme and European Environment Agency, supplemented academic sources where appropriate.
Quality assessment followed established criteria for evaluating academic literature, including methodological transparency, theoretical grounding, and empirical rigour. Studies employing diverse methodological approaches—including case studies, quantitative modelling, life cycle assessment, and qualitative interview research—were included to capture multiple evidence types regarding circular model effectiveness.
Analysis proceeded through thematic coding of identified literature, categorising findings according to business model type, waste reduction mechanism, scalability considerations, and implementation barriers. Cross-study comparison enabled identification of convergent findings regarding model effectiveness and divergent results requiring critical interpretation. The synthesis prioritised identification of causal mechanisms linking business model characteristics to waste outcomes, rather than merely cataloguing descriptive findings.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance on existing published research, potentially excluding emerging business model innovations not yet documented in academic literature. Additionally, heterogeneity in how different studies conceptualise and measure ‘waste reduction’ necessitates careful interpretive analysis rather than direct quantitative comparison across studies.
Literature review
### The linear fashion system and waste generation
Contemporary fashion operates predominantly within a linear economic model characterised by continuous extraction of virgin resources, rapid production cycles, and systematic disposal of products after brief use periods. This ‘take, make, waste’ system generates waste at multiple stages: during production through off-cuts and defective items; through systematic overproduction creating unsold stock; and post-consumer through discarded garments. Research consistently identifies overproduction as a particularly significant waste driver, with brands historically producing 30-40% more inventory than market demand to ensure product availability, resulting in billions of garments destroyed annually (Shirvanimoghaddam et al., 2020).
The environmental consequences extend beyond direct textile waste. Production processes consume substantial water and energy resources whilst generating chemical pollution and carbon emissions. End-of-life disposal predominantly involves landfilling or incineration, with less than 1% of clothing material being recycled into new garments due to technical challenges with fibre separation and quality degradation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). These systemic inefficiencies have motivated growing scholarly and practitioner interest in circular economy alternatives.
### Circular economy principles applied to fashion
The circular economy concept, whilst theoretically diverse, generally encompasses systems designed to maintain products and materials at their highest utility and value for as long as possible through cycles of use, recovery, and regeneration. Applied to fashion, circular principles manifest across product design, business model innovation, and supply chain reconfiguration (Papamichael et al., 2022).
Scholarly frameworks distinguish between different ‘loops’ of circularity with varying environmental implications. Inner loops—keeping products in use through extended wear, repair, and resale—generally offer greater environmental benefits than outer loops involving material recycling, which incurs energy costs and quality losses. This hierarchy has significant implications for evaluating business model effectiveness, suggesting that strategies maintaining garment integrity should be prioritised over those focused primarily on material recovery (Coscieme et al., 2022).
However, achieving genuine circularity in fashion faces fundamental tensions with prevailing business logics. Fashion enterprises have historically derived competitive advantage from rapid style turnover and volume-based revenue models. Circular approaches that reduce consumption volumes potentially threaten established revenue streams, creating strategic conflicts that help explain limited industry transformation despite widespread rhetorical commitment to sustainability (Brydges, 2021).
### Longevity and durability-focused design
Designing garments for extended lifespans through material durability, timeless aesthetic appeal, and repairability represents perhaps the most fundamental circular strategy. This approach, often termed ‘slow fashion’ or ‘eco-design’, reduces waste by decreasing the frequency of garment replacement and thus the volume of production required to satisfy consumer needs. Scholarly literature widely identifies longevity-focused design as the most directly waste-reducing model at scale (Brydges, 2021; Coscieme et al., 2022; Tunn et al., 2019).
Several design strategies support extended garment life. Technical durability through high-quality materials and construction techniques ensures garments withstand repeated wear and washing. Modular design enabling component replacement allows repair of worn elements without whole-garment disposal. Seasonless or ‘trans-seasonal’ collections reduce style obsolescence driving premature discard. Additionally, design for emotional durability—creating garments with personal meaning and attachment—addresses psychological rather than physical obsolescence (Colombi and D’Itria, 2023).
Empirical research supports the environmental benefits of longevity extension. Life cycle assessment studies demonstrate that doubling garment lifespan approximately halves environmental impact per wear, with the relationship being roughly linear for most impact categories (Abdelmeguid, Afy-Shararah and Salonitis, 2024). Repair services can reduce carbon emissions by approximately 30% if items are kept in use for nine additional months beyond their normal disposal point (Dominguez and Bhatti, 2022).
However, longevity-focused models face significant scalability constraints. Higher quality production typically increases unit costs, creating price points that compete poorly against low-cost fast fashion alternatives. Consumer behaviour research indicates persistent preferences for novelty and variety, which longevity models inherently constrain. Consequently, whilst slow fashion brands have established market presence, they have struggled to displace fast fashion volumes or fundamentally alter industry structure (Pal and Gander, 2018; Hultberg and Pal, 2021).
### Collection, resale, and repair platforms
Take-back schemes, second-hand marketplaces, and repair services extend garment lifetimes through enabling continued use by successive owners or restoring damaged items to functional condition. These models represent growing market segments, with the global second-hand apparel market valued at approximately $177 billion in 2022 and projected to reach $351 billion by 2027 (ThredUp, 2023).
The waste reduction mechanism operates through displacement—each reused garment potentially substituting for a new purchase that would otherwise have occurred. Research estimates that approximately 60% of reused clothing displaces new production, leading to net reductions in resource use and waste generation (Coscieme et al., 2022; Shirvanimoghaddam et al., 2020). This displacement rate, whilst substantial, indicates that 40% of second-hand purchases represent additional consumption rather than substitution, highlighting rebound effect concerns.
Take-back schemes, wherein brands collect used garments from consumers, serve multiple circular functions. Collected items may be resold, donated, recycled, or disposed of depending on condition. Retailer-operated schemes have proliferated, with major fast fashion brands including H&M, Zara, and Uniqlo offering in-store collection services. However, critical scholarship questions whether these schemes genuinely reduce waste or primarily function as marketing mechanisms that encourage continued consumption whilst externalising disposal responsibilities (Brydges, 2021).
Repair services face particular scalability challenges. The economics of garment repair are often unfavourable compared to replacement purchase, particularly for lower-priced fast fashion items where repair costs may exceed original purchase price. Skills shortages in garment repair further constrain service availability. Nevertheless, emerging business models integrating repair services with resale platforms show promise for creating economically viable circular offerings (Hultberg and Pal, 2021).
### Product-as-a-service, rental, and sharing
Rental, subscription, and sharing business models fundamentally reconfigure ownership relationships, enabling consumers to access garments without permanent acquisition. By increasing utilisation rates per item—the number of times each garment is worn before disposal—these models can theoretically deliver equivalent consumer utility from substantially fewer physical garments, reducing overall production volumes and associated waste.
Fashion rental has expanded beyond traditional formalwear hire into everyday and workwear categories, facilitated by digital platforms enabling efficient inventory management and customer matching. Subscription models provide rotating wardrobes, allowing consumers to refresh their clothing selection without purchase. Peer-to-peer sharing platforms enable direct garment exchange between consumers (Das et al., 2025).
Environmental benefits depend critically on operational factors. Logistics associated with garment distribution and return generate transport emissions. Professional cleaning between uses incurs energy, water, and chemical impacts. Life cycle assessment research indicates that rental models demonstrate net environmental benefits only when logistics and cleaning impacts remain below thresholds and, crucially, when rental replaces rather than supplements purchase behaviour (Abdelmeguid, Afy-Shararah and Salonitis, 2024; Coscieme et al., 2022).
Evidence on actual displacement effects at scale remains limited and mixed. Consumer research suggests that for some segments, rental represents additional consumption—enabling access to premium or occasion-specific garments beyond normal purchasing patterns—rather than substituting for purchases that would otherwise occur. This ‘additionality’ undermines waste reduction claims and may even increase overall consumption in certain use cases (Pal and Gander, 2018; Hultberg and Pal, 2021; Tunn et al., 2019).
### Demand-driven and on-demand production
Conventional fashion production operates on speculative ‘push’ models, wherein brands forecast demand months in advance and produce accordingly. Forecast inaccuracy inevitably generates overproduction, creating deadstock requiring disposal through discounting, donation, or destruction. Demand-driven or on-demand production models address this waste source directly by manufacturing garments only after customer orders are received, eliminating speculative production entirely.
Made-to-measure and custom manufacturing represent traditional forms of on-demand production, historically limited to premium market segments due to cost and complexity. However, digital technologies increasingly enable mass customisation—combining on-demand manufacturing with efficient production systems capable of serving broader markets. Digital design tools, automated cutting systems, and flexible manufacturing processes reduce the cost premium associated with small-batch and individual-item production (Abbate, Centobelli and Cerchione, 2023; Huynh, 2021).
Research highlights demand-driven production as crucial for circular transition, directly addressing one of fashion’s most significant waste drivers. Case studies and modelling work demonstrate that on-demand models can effectively align production volumes with actual market demand, substantially reducing unsold stock and associated waste streams (Ezhilarasan and Mishra, 2022; Hultberg and Pal, 2021; Huynh, 2021). Unlike downstream circular strategies that manage waste after generation, demand-driven production prevents waste creation at source.
Implementation challenges include supply chain complexity, requiring flexible manufacturing capabilities and potentially longer customer lead times. Consumer expectations for immediate product availability, cultivated by fast fashion convenience, may resist the extended delivery periods inherent in made-to-order approaches. Additionally, on-demand models address production-side waste but do not directly influence post-consumer waste generation from garment disposal (Abdelmeguid, Afy-Shararah and Salonitis, 2024).
### The critical role of absolute consumption reduction
A consistent finding across reviewed literature concerns the relationship between circular business models and overall consumption levels. Circular strategies demonstrate genuine waste reduction potential only when they reduce absolute consumption volumes rather than simply adding circular elements to existing consumption patterns. This conditionality fundamentally constrains which business model implementations deliver meaningful environmental outcomes.
The concern manifests as ‘rebound effects’ wherein efficiency improvements or circular offerings enable increased consumption that partially or fully offsets environmental gains. Resale platforms may encourage faster garment turnover if consumers view easy resale as reducing the environmental consequences of frequent purchasing. Rental access may supplement rather than substitute ownership, particularly for consumers seeking wardrobe expansion beyond normal purchasing budgets. Even longevity improvements could theoretically enable price increases allowing brands to maintain revenue whilst selling fewer units—potentially positive for environment but illustrating decoupling between business metrics and consumption volumes.
Scholarly analysis emphasises that bolting incremental recycling or take-back schemes onto growth-driven fast fashion business models rarely reduces waste at scale and can enable greenwashing—creating sustainability perception without substantive environmental improvement (Brydges, 2021; Burnstine and Ghattas, 2025; Pal and Gander, 2018; Hultberg and Pal, 2021). Genuinely circular fashion requires fundamental business model transformation rather than peripheral programme addition.
### Policy and cultural dimensions
Literature consistently identifies policy frameworks and cultural change as essential complements to business model innovation. Regulatory interventions including extended producer responsibility schemes, mandatory design-for-durability standards, and restrictions on textile waste disposal can create market conditions favouring circular business models. The European Union’s Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles represents the most comprehensive policy framework currently under development, proposing binding requirements for textile durability, repairability, and recyclability (European Commission, 2022).
Cultural transformation addressing consumption norms presents perhaps the most challenging dimension. Fashion’s cultural significance extends beyond functional clothing provision to encompass identity expression, social signalling, and creative engagement. Achieving substantial consumption reduction requires navigating these cultural dimensions whilst promoting sufficiency-oriented values and reduced consumption as socially desirable. Research suggests that such cultural shifts, whilst difficult to engineer, may be emerging among younger consumer cohorts with heightened environmental consciousness (Papamichael et al., 2022; De Ponte, Liscio and Sospiro, 2023).
Discussion
The synthesised evidence enables critical evaluation of circular fashion business models against the stated research objectives, revealing both promising pathways and significant implementation challenges for achieving waste reduction at scale.
### Comparative effectiveness of business model categories
Analysis across reviewed literature indicates that longevity-focused design, resale and repair platforms, and demand-driven production demonstrate the strongest evidence for waste reduction potential. These models address waste through fundamentally different mechanisms—reducing replacement frequency, extending use through successive owners, and eliminating overproduction respectively—suggesting potential complementarity in comprehensive circular strategies.
Longevity and durability approaches offer perhaps the most direct waste reduction pathway by decreasing the total number of garments required to satisfy consumer needs over time. The waste reduction mechanism is straightforward: more durable garments need replacing less frequently. However, this apparent simplicity masks substantial implementation complexity, particularly regarding competition with low-cost fast fashion and consumer preferences for variety and novelty. The persistence of fast fashion’s market dominance despite decades of slow fashion advocacy suggests that durability-focused models alone are insufficient to transform industry structure.
Resale and repair models demonstrate meaningful displacement effects, with evidence suggesting approximately 60% of reused garments substitute for new purchases. This partial displacement represents genuine waste reduction whilst highlighting that significant proportions of second-hand consumption are additional rather than substitutional. The finding underscores the importance of understanding actual consumer behaviour rather than assuming ideal substitution patterns. Repair services show strong environmental benefits on a per-item basis but face economic viability challenges limiting scalability.
Demand-driven production directly addresses overproduction—a waste source generating billions of garments annually—by aligning manufacturing with actual rather than forecast demand. This upstream intervention prevents waste creation rather than managing it post-generation, representing a fundamentally different strategic approach. Digital technologies are increasingly enabling economically viable on-demand production at broader scales, though consumer acceptance of extended delivery times remains uncertain.
Product-as-a-service and rental models present more ambiguous evidence. Theoretical benefits from increased utilisation rates are clear, but empirical evidence regarding actual displacement effects remains limited and mixed. Operational impacts from logistics and cleaning can erode environmental benefits, and concerns persist that rental access supplements rather than substitutes for ownership in certain use cases. These models appear most promising for specific product categories—formalwear, occasion-specific garments, infant clothing—where utilisation rates are inherently low under ownership models.
### The centrality of displacement and sufficiency
A critical insight emerging from this synthesis concerns the necessary but insufficient nature of circular business model innovation. All evaluated models demonstrate waste reduction potential conditional on actually displacing conventional consumption rather than supplementing it. This conditionality has profound implications for how circular fashion initiatives should be designed, implemented, and evaluated.
The distinction between substitution and addition fundamentally determines environmental outcomes. A resale platform that enables consumers to sell garments they would otherwise have donated whilst purchasing second-hand items they would otherwise have bought new generates genuine environmental benefits. Conversely, a platform that encourages faster wardrobe turnover—with easy resale reducing perceived waste guilt—may increase overall consumption despite appearing superficially circular. Similarly, rental services providing access to premium garments beyond normal purchasing budgets represent market expansion rather than consumption displacement.
This analysis suggests that business model design should explicitly incorporate mechanisms promoting substitution over addition. Subscription services that require existing garment donation as a condition of participation, resale platforms with integrated purchase reduction commitments, and rental offerings explicitly marketed as purchase alternatives rather than supplements represent design approaches aligned with genuine waste reduction. Without such intentional design, circular business models risk becoming sophisticated marketing mechanisms that maintain or increase consumption whilst creating sustainability perception.
### Scalability constraints and systemic barriers
Achievement of system-level waste reduction requires circular business models to operate at scales sufficient to meaningfully displace fast fashion’s market dominance. Current evidence suggests significant scalability constraints across all evaluated model categories, though the specific limiting factors vary.
Longevity-focused models face fundamental economic barriers. Higher production quality increases unit costs, creating price points that compete poorly against fast fashion alternatives in price-sensitive market segments representing the majority of global apparel consumption. Whilst premium market segments can support slow fashion business models, these segments are insufficient for industry-level transformation. Achieving scale would require either dramatic production cost reductions for high-quality garments or substantial consumer willingness-to-pay increases—neither of which current trends suggest is imminent.
Resale and repair face infrastructure and logistics constraints. Efficient collection, sorting, quality assessment, and redistribution of used garments requires substantial physical infrastructure and operational capabilities. Whilst digital platforms have reduced transaction costs, the physical handling of garments remains labour-intensive. Geographic density effects concentrate viable resale operations in urban areas, limiting accessibility for broader populations. Repair services face persistent skills shortages and economic viability challenges that constrain scaling.
Demand-driven production faces supply chain complexity barriers. On-demand manufacturing requires flexible production capabilities that differ significantly from conventional batch production optimised for efficiency at scale. Lead time expectations cultivated by fast fashion convenience create consumer acceptance challenges. Additionally, demand-driven models primarily address production-side waste, requiring complementary strategies to address post-consumer waste streams.
### The inadequacy of incremental approaches
Perhaps the most consequential finding concerns the inadequacy of incremental circular initiatives appended to fundamentally linear business models. Evidence consistently indicates that recycling programmes, take-back schemes, and sustainability collections added to growth-driven fast fashion operations rarely reduce waste at scale and may facilitate greenwashing.
This finding challenges prevalent industry approaches wherein major fast fashion brands have introduced circular initiatives whilst maintaining or expanding conventional operations. Such approaches may improve corporate sustainability metrics and consumer perception without delivering proportionate environmental benefits. The fundamental tension between volume-based revenue models and consumption reduction has not been resolved through incremental programme addition.
Genuine transformation requires more fundamental business model restructuring, potentially including revenue models decoupled from unit sales, growth strategies based on value intensification rather than volume expansion, and explicit organizational commitments to absolute consumption reduction targets. Such transformation implies strategic risks and short-term financial consequences that help explain limited industry movement despite widespread rhetorical commitment to sustainability.
### Policy and cultural imperatives
The analysis reinforces that business model innovation alone is insufficient for system-level waste reduction. Supportive policy frameworks and cultural shifts away from high-throughput consumption patterns emerge as essential complements. Policy interventions can address market failures, create level competitive conditions, and establish minimum standards that foreclose the most environmentally harmful business practices. Cultural transformation can shift consumer preferences and social norms in ways that increase demand for circular offerings whilst reducing overall consumption.
The European Union’s comprehensive textile strategy represents an emerging policy model, though implementation and enforcement remain to be demonstrated. Extended producer responsibility schemes that internalise end-of-life costs could improve circular model competitiveness. Mandatory durability standards could foreclose the lowest-quality fast fashion products. Restrictions on textile waste disposal could create incentives for circular design and material recovery.
Cultural change presents greater challenges given fashion’s deep integration with identity, social signalling, and creative expression. However, evidence of shifting values among younger cohorts, growing environmental consciousness, and emerging aesthetic appreciation for second-hand and repaired garments suggests potential pathways. Fashion’s cultural influence could potentially be redirected toward sufficiency-oriented consumption patterns, though achieving such redirection requires sustained effort across education, media, and social institutions.
Conclusions
This dissertation set out to evaluate which circular economy business models demonstrate the greatest potential to reduce waste at scale within the fashion industry. Through systematic literature synthesis, the investigation has addressed each stated objective whilst generating insights with significant implications for academic understanding, industry practice, and policy development.
The first objective—identifying and categorising principal circular business models—was achieved through comprehensive literature mapping. Four primary categories emerge: longevity and durability-focused design (slow fashion, eco-design), collection, resale and repair platforms, product-as-a-service arrangements (rental, subscription, sharing), and demand-driven production (on-demand, made-to-measure). These categories address different waste sources and operate through distinct mechanisms, suggesting complementary rather than competing roles in comprehensive circular strategies.
The second objective—evaluating waste reduction mechanisms and effectiveness—reveals differentiated performance across model categories. Longevity-focused design directly reduces replacement frequency, demonstrating clear waste reduction logic but facing significant market competition challenges. Resale and repair platforms extend garment lifetimes with evidence suggesting approximately 60% displacement of new purchases, representing meaningful but partial substitution. Demand-driven production directly addresses overproduction—a major waste driver—by aligning manufacturing with actual demand. Product-as-a-service models show theoretical potential but mixed empirical evidence regarding actual displacement effects.
The third objective—analysing scalability constraints—identifies category-specific barriers. Longevity models face price competition from fast fashion. Resale and repair face infrastructure and economic viability challenges. Demand-driven production requires supply chain transformation and consumer acceptance of extended lead times. Rental models face operational impact concerns and additionality risks. Collectively, these constraints help explain limited transformation despite proliferating circular initiatives.
The fourth objective—examining conditions for successful displacement rather than supplementation—emerges as perhaps the most critical finding. All evaluated business models demonstrate waste reduction potential only when they actually reduce overall consumption rather than adding circular elements to existing consumption patterns. This conditionality fundamentally constrains which implementations deliver genuine environmental benefits versus those representing sophisticated greenwashing.
The fifth objective—synthesising findings into actionable insights—yields clear conclusions. Business models prioritising fewer, longer-lived garments, minimising overproduction, and supporting high-quality reuse and repair show the strongest evidence for waste reduction at scale. However, no single business model suffices for system-level transformation. Meaningful waste reduction requires combining multiple circular strategies with supportive policy frameworks and fundamental cultural shifts away from high-throughput consumption patterns. Models that simply append recycling or resale onto growth-driven fast fashion operations demonstrate limited and sometimes counterproductive waste impacts.
The significance of these findings extends across multiple domains. Academically, the synthesis advances understanding of circular economy implementation within complex consumer goods industries, highlighting the critical importance of displacement effects and consumption reduction conditions. For industry practitioners, the findings suggest that genuine sustainability leadership requires fundamental business model transformation rather than incremental programme addition—a more challenging but ultimately more impactful strategic direction. For policymakers, the analysis supports comprehensive regulatory approaches addressing production standards, end-of-life management, and consumption norms rather than relying solely on voluntary industry initiatives.
Future research should prioritise several areas identified through this synthesis. Longitudinal studies tracking actual displacement effects of circular business models at scale would strengthen the evidence base regarding real-world effectiveness. Investigation of business model designs explicitly incorporating substitution-promoting mechanisms could inform more effective circular strategy development. Comparative analysis of emerging policy frameworks would support evidence-based regulatory approaches. Finally, research on cultural change processes affecting fashion consumption norms could illuminate pathways for the sufficiency-oriented cultural transformation that business model innovation alone cannot achieve.
The fashion industry’s environmental challenges are substantial, but the evidence synthesised here suggests that effective pathways exist. Circular business models demonstrating genuine waste reduction potential have been identified and their mechanisms understood. The remaining challenge is implementation at scale—a challenge requiring coordinated action across business strategy, policy frameworks, and cultural change. The evidence base now exists to guide such action; the imperative is to translate knowledge into transformation.
References
Abbate, S., Centobelli, P. and Cerchione, R. (2023) ‘From fast to slow: An exploratory analysis of circular business models in the Italian apparel industry’, *International Journal of Production Economics*, 260, pp. 108824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108824
Abdelmeguid, A., Afy-Shararah, M. and Salonitis, K. (2024) ‘Towards circular fashion: Management strategies promoting circular behaviour along the value chain’, *Sustainable Production and Consumption*, 47, pp. 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.010
Brydges, T. (2021) ‘Closing the loop on take, make, waste: Investigating circular economy practices in the Swedish fashion industry’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 293, pp. 126245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126245
Burnstine, A. and Ghattas, R. (2025) ‘Assessing the Sustainable Circular Fashion Supply Chain as a Model for Achieving Economic Growth in the Global Market’, *Sustainability*, 17(19), pp. 8558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198558
Colombi, C. and D’Itria, E. (2023) ‘Fashion Digital Transformation: Innovating Business Models toward Circular Economy and Sustainability’, *Sustainability*, 15(6), pp. 4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064942
Coscieme, L., Manshoven, S., Gillabel, J., Grossi, F. and Mortensen, L. (2022) ‘A framework of circular business models for fashion and textiles: the role of business-model, technical, and social innovation’, *Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy*, 18(1), pp. 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2083792
Das, A., Hossain, M., Khan, B., Rahman, M., Asad, M. and Akter, M. (2025) ‘Circular economy: A sustainable model for waste reduction and wealth creation in the textile supply chain’, *SPE Polymers*, 6(1), pp. e10171. https://doi.org/10.1002/pls2.10171
De Ponte, C., Liscio, M. and Sospiro, P. (2023) ‘State of the art on the Nexus between sustainability, fashion industry and sustainable business model’, *Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy*, 32, pp. 100968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.100968
Dominguez, M. and Bhatti, Y. (2022) ‘From Waste to Luxury Fashion at Elvis & Kresse: A Business Model for Sustainable and Social Innovation in the Circular Economy’, *Sustainability*, 14(18), pp. 11805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911805
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) *A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future*. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
European Commission (2022) *EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles*. Brussels: European Commission.
Ezhilarasan, P. and Mishra, U. (2022) ‘A sustainable three-layer circular economic model with controllable waste, emission, and wastewater from the textile and fashion industry’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 381, pp. 135642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135642
Hultberg, E. and Pal, R. (2021) ‘Lessons on business model scalability for circular economy in the fashion retail value chain: Towards a conceptual model’, *Sustainable Production and Consumption*, 28, pp. 686-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.033
Huynh, P. (2021) ‘Enabling circular business models in the fashion industry: the role of digital innovation’, *International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management*, 71(3), pp. 870-895. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-12-2020-0683
Pal, R. and Gander, J. (2018) ‘Modelling environmental value: an examination of sustainable business models within the fashion industry’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 184, pp. 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.001
Papamichael, I., Chatziparaskeva, G., Pedreño, J., Voukkali, I., Candel, M. and Zorpas, A. (2022) ‘Building a new mind set in tomorrow fashion development through circular strategy models in the framework of waste management’, *Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry*, 36, pp. 100638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2022.100638
Shirvanimoghaddam, K., Motamed, B., Ramakrishna, S. and Naebe, M. (2020) ‘Death by waste: Fashion and textile circular economy case’, *The Science of the Total Environment*, 718, pp. 137317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137317
Snyder, H. (2019) ‘Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines’, *Journal of Business Research*, 104, pp. 333-339.
ThredUp (2023) *2023 Resale Report*. Oakland, CA: ThredUp Inc.
Tunn, V., Bocken, N., van den Hende, E. and Schoormans, J. (2019) ‘Business models for sustainable consumption in the circular economy: An expert study’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 212, pp. 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.290
United Nations Environment Programme (2019) *Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want*. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
—
