The Second-Hand Paradox: When Circular Fashion Leads to Overconsumption

Sometimes academic research touches a nerve no one knew was exposed. That is what happened to a study I recently published with Dr. Ori Sharon of Bar-Ilan University in Scientific Reports. Within a month of publication it had been covered in more than fifteen languages and in outlets including Vogue UK, Vogue Germany, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, Yale News, Slate and Grist, and had set off heated debate on social media. The attention was gratifying, but the more interesting question, to my mind, was why the findings provoked such a strong reaction. Probably because they unsettle an assumption most of us have come to take for granted: that if we buy second-hand, we are consuming more sustainably.

From a Polluting Industry to a Circular Economy

Fashion carries a heavy environmental price. The industry accounts for an estimated 8–12% of global greenhouse gas emissions, consumes vast quantities of water, and its dyeing and finishing processes are a significant source of water pollution. Added to this is a sharp rise in production and consumption that multiplies those effects: global garment production has nearly doubled over the past two decades, and clothing consumption has risen by an estimated 400%. The problem, of course, is not only how much we produce, but how quickly we stop using what we buy.

Against this backdrop, the second-hand market came to look like the perfect sustainability story. The logic is simple and persuasive: pass a garment on instead of discarding it and you extend its life; buy something that already exists and you reduce the need to produce something new. Gradually, buying second-hand stopped being merely a cheaper alternative and became a choice with moral weight — a way for consumers to be part of the environmental solution through their wallets.

And then something strange happened. As the second-hand market grew, the market for new clothing did not shrink. In fact, both continued to grow in parallel. Even fast and ultra-fast fashion companies such as H&M and SHEIN began folding resale platforms and take-back programs into their sustainability strategies. At the same time, criticism of a different kind began to be heard: in African countries receiving enormous volumes of used clothing from the Global North, leaders, researchers and activists pointed out that the flow is not necessarily an environmental solution, and may shift a significant share of the burden of wealthy countries' excess consumption onto poorer ones. Within the second-hand market itself, something else was shifting. What had once been associated with reuse had become, in many cases, simply another place to shop: digital, cheap, trend-driven and above all fast.

That contradiction led us to a fairly simple question: does buying second-hand actually reduce the purchase of new clothing, or have we merely created a new form of overconsumption?

What Is in the American Consumer's Closet?

To answer it, we ran a national survey of 1,009 consumers across all fifty US states, asking not only what they think about sustainability but how many clothes they buy, how often, how much they spend, where they shop, how long they keep their garments, and when and why they part with them.

The central finding was sharp. More second-hand was not associated with reduced consumption, but with precisely the opposite. We found a strong positive relationship between second-hand clothing consumption and the purchase of new clothing: people who bought more used garments also tended to buy more new ones. For many consumers, the second-hand market does not replace the market for new clothing but joins it, as an additional purchasing category.

The rate of turnover in the closet was troubling as well. The analysis identified two distinct consumer groups. The larger — 59% of respondents — consumed heavily in both markets, bought more frequently, and kept garments for shorter periods. Within this group, 37.9% disposed of clothing less than a year after buying it, and 14.2% did so within a single month. Members of the second group, characterized by lower consumption levels and higher spending per item, tended to keep their clothes longer. Across the sample as a whole, roughly a quarter of respondents reported discarding clothing that was still in good condition, and 19% said explicitly that they had done so to make room for something new. The desire for novelty, in other words, outweighed the desire to keep using what was already there.

And there was one further finding, perhaps the most troubling of all: environmental knowledge did not necessarily lead to more environmentally sound behavior. Participants who knew more about the environmental consequences of the fashion industry did not necessarily consume less. In fact, we found a small but statistically significant negative relationship between sustainability knowledge and some sustainable behaviors.

The Rebound Effect: When the Solution Lets Us Consume More

How can this paradox be explained? One concept that helps is the rebound effect: a situation in which an improvement meant to reduce the environmental impact of an activity produces a behavioral change that offsets part of the saving, and sometimes cancels it entirely. If I perceive second-hand shopping as cheaper and greener, I may buy more items than I would have if every purchase were new, or more expensive. The impact per item may be smaller, but the total quantity grows.

To this we can add a psychological mechanism known as moral licensing. When we do something we perceive as "good," it can grant us a kind of moral credit that makes it easier to justify less sustainable behavior later. Having shopped "green" at a second-hand store, it becomes easier to tell ourselves that one more shirt does no real harm. Our study does not prove that moral licensing caused the behavior we observed, but the consumption patterns we found are consistent with it, and with the rebound effect.

The combination matters especially in fashion. Unlike goods we replace only when they break, clothing is bound up with identity, novelty, trends and pleasure. When the second-hand market offers near-infinite stock, low prices, the thrill of a find and an environmental promise all at once, it may remove some of the constraints that ordinarily moderate consumption.

So Should We Stop Buying Second-Hand?

Not at all. Second-hand can extend the life of garments, reduce waste and offer a genuine alternative to buying new. The problem begins when we assume that moving to a secondary market makes consumption sustainable in itself, without asking whether it actually reduces the number of new clothes we buy, and the overall rate of turnover.

From the consumer's point of view, this means that more "sustainable" shopping cannot be measured only by which product we buy, or in which market it is sold. It matters just as much how much we consume, how long we use what we buy, and above all whether a second-hand purchase genuinely replaces a new one, or simply adds to it.

For companies and policymakers, the conclusion is somewhat different. From an ESG perspective, the mere existence of a resale market, or the adoption of a circular model, does not make a business sustainable. Companies need to examine the consumption patterns their business models actually produce and encourage. Resale platforms are not necessarily sustainable by virtue of being circular: if they adopt the same mechanisms as fast fashion — relentless promotions, a sense of urgency, impulse buying and rapid turnover — they may reproduce precisely the patterns the circular economy was meant to change. For regulators, the findings point to the need for policy that does not focus solely on managing waste once it has been created, but also on durability, reuse, extending garment life, and reducing the incentives for overconsumption.

Ultimately, our study is not an argument against second-hand. It is an argument against magic solutions.

The circular economy can be an important part of the transition to a more sustainable fashion industry. But if circularity only allows us to buy more, replace faster and feel better while doing it, it misses the point. Even in an era of resale, digital platforms and the circular economy, one fairly simple truth remains: the most sustainable garment is still the one already hanging in our closet.

---

Dr. Meital Peleg Mizrachi is a research fellow and lecturer at Stanford Law School, and a former postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Economics at Yale University.

לקריאת המאמר המלא, מוזמנים לבקר באתר שלנו בעברית.