A new academic study suggests that secondhand fashion is not replacing fast fashion but sitting alongside it, creating a self-reinforcing loop of overconsumption that retailers can no longer ignore. For brands, this raises hard questions about how “circular” resale programs are designed, marketed, and measured.
What the new study actually found
Researchers from Yale University and Bar Ilan University analysed a nationally representative sample of 1,009 U.S. adults and found a strong positive link between money spent on secondhand clothes and money spent on new clothes. In other words, the heaviest resale shoppers were also heavy fast-fashion shoppers, rather than replacing new buys with pre-loved pieces.
More than 69% of respondents said they had bought secondhand at least once, and a cluster of 59% reported high consumption in both primary and resale markets, with frequent returns and short garment lifespans. Younger consumers stood out: 79% of those aged 18 to 24 purchased secondhand clothing compared with 57% of those 65 and older, and 84% of students reported buying secondhand.
Resale, rebound and “moral license”
The study links this pattern to the rebound effect: because resale feels cheaper and “greener,” consumers buy more overall and churn through wardrobes faster. Buying used can also create a kind of moral licence, where shoppers feel entitled to pick up extra new pieces because they already did something that feels sustainable.
Researchers said this dynamic means secondary markets often complement, rather than displace, fast fashion production. Instead of shrinking fashion’s footprint, booming resale can keep high-volume models intact by offering shoppers a low-guilt outlet for constant trend cycling.
Fast fashion’s footprint keeps growing
That matters because fast fashion’s environmental cost is already huge: the sector is estimated to account for between 2% and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, driven by rapid production cycles and rising clothing consumption. Over the past 20 years, fast fashion has nearly doubled global garment production and driven an estimated 400% increase in clothing consumption, generating billions of surplus garments every year.
Resale is often framed as a fix, and the secondhand market itself is forecast to reach about $350 billion in annual sales by 2027, making it one of fashion’s fastest-growing channels. But without a cap on volumes, resale risks become just another growth engine plugged into the same linear system.
How brands are using resale today
Major fast-fashion and high-street players, including H&M, Zara, and other household names, have launched branded resale, take-back, or “pre-loved” platforms pitched as circularity moves. Separate analysis of brand activity shows a 275% increase in brand-related resale platforms as labels race to monetise secondhand demand and align with younger shoppers’ stated sustainability values.
Critics argue that when these programs sit on top of unchanged production models, they risk becoming greenwashing—especially for Gen Z consumers who already face pressure to constantly refresh looks while also trying to shop responsibly. The new study’s findings strengthen calls for brands to match resale initiatives with absolute reductions in new product volumes and clearer impact reporting.
What more credible circularity could look like
For brands building or scaling resale, this research points to several shifts:
- Tie resale to degrowth in new production, for example, committing to produce lower volumes of new styles over time as resale and repair scale up.
- Design for longevity and re-wear, prioritising quality, timelessness, and repairability so each garment can move through multiple owners without rapid degradation.
- Report on net impact, not just resale growth, including changes in total units produced, average garment lifespan, and end-of-life outcomes.
- Use marketing that encourages fewer, better purchases instead of “haul” culture transplanted into secondhand channels.
For resale and rental platforms, the message is similar: growth stories now need to sit alongside evidence that their models are actually displacing new purchases, not simply fuelling a faster cycle of disposability.
