Sizing, 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, even more ambiguous than they look. Not merely 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 Intended to flatter customers into purchasing, by relabelling existing sizes with a smaller size, this outdated strategy has only complicated finding the perfect fit.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, an 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, UK 12 is both a US 10 and a Japanese L. 

Historically, such inconsistencies wouldn’t have mattered. However, in the light of worldwide online shopping – underpinning modern consumption – the opportunity to ‘try for size’ is slimming. Whilst it is still possible, the convenience of trying on at home means a trip in store is only becoming less attractive. 

Though seemingly inconsequential, unreliable fit is more than a hindrance. 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 – and is more commonly seen in younger populations.

Around half of Gen Z engage in bracketing regularly, a direct result of unreliable sizing. This practice is 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 documented. 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.

Environment.

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 – ordinarily 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’s 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 suppliers. Though some companies sell returned items discounted to other distributors, 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 eternally shedding micro-plastics. 

In short, the impact of inconsistently fitting of garments is much broader than meets the eye. It is a disaster not just stylistically, but environmentally.

Takeaway.

Sizing issues resulting in returns, perpetuates mindless purchasing, 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 its former flaws, this could cause a major surge in production – an outcome we haven't the time or resources for. 

As things stand, consumers are left to navigate inconsistent sizing alone, no matter the cost. However, hope is not all lost. 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.