Sizing is a deeply flawed yet unavoidable component of clothing. This intricate process is anything but simple. Shrouded in social, economic and environmental influences, the impact of unstandardised sizing goes far beyond the shop floor. 

Sizing

Throughout history the systems of fit have drastically changed. 

Bespoke tailoring dominated the fashion scene until industrialisation took off in the 1800s. In the dawn of mass production, regulated fit for ready-to-wear became the new norm. Still, change was underway. This custom slowly became obsolete when society recognised that bodies were not all in fact, ‘one-size-fits-all’ – shock. 

Today, measurements have evolved into something nuanced. 

Garments no longer follow universal standardised sizing, varying between countries, labels, and even within brands. Though progressive at face value – supporting ever evolving body representation – widespread inconsistencies leave our current approach open to error.

A prime example is size guides, more ambiguous than they look. Not just indicating fit, they are shaped by a myriad of internal mistakes, marketing tactics, beauty standards and target demographics – to name a few. 

One key shaping force is vanity sizing. Intended to flatter customers into purchasing, by relabelling existing sizes with a smaller size, this outdated strategy has only complicated fit. Along with perpetuating toxic standards of shape equaling worth, it has created a system that is both inaccurate and untrustworthy. 

Indeed, one size can vary up to as much as four inches between brands, according to Tellar, the online fitting tool. This is particularly true for cheaper or fast fashion brands.

Adding another layer of complexity, globalisation further challenges measurement consistency. Each region of the world has distinct definitions of the same size. For instance, a UK 12 is both a US 10 and a Japanese L. Therefore, this – should be – straightforward system is far from it.

Historically, such inconsistencies wouldn’t have mattered. However, in the light of worldwide online shopping, central to modern consumption, the opportunity to ‘try for size’ is slimming. Even with the option, the convenience of trying on at home makes in store now require additional effort – which we all know is not the human default. 

Though seemingly inconsequential, fit is more than a mere inconvenience. Sizing issues are the cause for as much as 60% of online returns. A pattern seen all over the globe. 

Returns

‘Bracketing’ accounts for a large portion of these returns. This is the custom of buying multiple sizes of the same garment with the intention of sending back the items that don’t fit. Despite Gen Z leading the second hand market, this practice is most common amongst younger populations. 

Around half of this cohort engage in bracketing regularly. This is a direct result of unreliable sizing, further incentivised by widespread free returns and discounts for multiple purchases. All of which endorses mindless consumption, relaxed return attitudes, and leads to 3.5 billion items being sent back every year in the US. 

The detrimental impact of overconsumption is well reported. At first glance, sizing disparities and excess returns seem a hassle, unethical at most. However, the ecological damage as a result is much less casual than our habits.

Environmental Impact

Returns are a logistical and environmental nightmare. 

Once recollected by the courier service and transported all over the world, sent-back goods are quality checked, cleaned, and repackaged – more often than not in plastic. In fact, online returns use 4.8 times more packaging than in store returns. They’re also returned at three times the rate.

The sending-back process, known as reverse logistics, creates 24 million metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. Also adding 30% more greenhouse gas to the original delivery, according to Optoro (2022), return logistic experts – and that is only if parcels make it that far.

The logistical cost of returning an order is so high it often exceeds the value of the garment itself. Therefore, for many brands it is economically ineffective to ship returns back – and the impact is vast. 

This phenomenon causes fewer than 50% of items to end up back with the supplier. Some companies sell returned items discounted to other distributors. However, in the marketing-obsessed world we live in, reselling garments at cheaper prices can massively damage a brand's name. The ‘only’ cost-effective alternative – landfill or incineration.

Often these clothes, worn or not, are sent straight to landfill. Optoro reported that the number of returned items in 2022 amounted to 9.5 billion pounds. Most of which are made from polyester, never fully decomposing, continually releasing CO2 and shedding microplastics.

In other words, the inconsistent fit of garments has a much wider impact than meets the eye.

Conclusion

Sizing issues resulting in returns, perpetuating mindless purchases, over-consumption, landfill waste and environmental devastation – all leading causes in the fashion industry’s destruction.

It is apparent sizing’s issues need to be addressed. Universally re-standardising measurements has been suggested. Still, along with this approach being heavily flawed, it would cause a surge in production – both of which we haven't the time or resources for. 

As things stand, consumers are left to navigate the inconsistent size charts. So, as well as online sizing resources, here are some practical ways you can make more reliable decisions in an unpredictable sizing landscape: 

1. Know your exact measurements – keep them written on your phone for easy access.

2. Always consult size guides and reviews – as mentioned, guides are open to distortion, human feedback will help inform your choice. 

3. Buy fewer, high quality garments that you're willing to tailor.

4. Consider the fibre content – look for fibres or construction that allow leeway or stretch i.e., Elastane or Weft Knit.