4.6 Article

Environmental assessment of the rental business model: a case study for formal wear

Journal

ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 7625-7643

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02363-x

Keywords

Rental business model; Life cycle assessment; Product-service system; Apparel industry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzed the environmental impacts of the rental and online purchase models in the apparel industry, and found that extending the lifespan of clothing can reduce environmental impacts.
The apparel industry and above all the business model on which it relies (fast fashion) are recognized as the source of marked environmental impacts. An alternative business model such as one of those promoted by the circular economy could be the solution to improve resource productivity and value creation, without damaging the environment. The rental model, or more in general the product-as-a-service, is often linked to multiple benefits such as reduction in environmental impact, increase in competitiveness and user value. However, to be sure of the environmental sustainability of this model, it is necessary to conduct an objective assessment of its application to the context of the apparel industry. The goal of this work was to carry out an analysis of the environmental impacts related to the life cycle of formal dresses. In detail, the analysis focused on the comparison between a business model based on rental of garments and an online purchase model. The results show that by extending the life of a product, in terms of the number of uses, it is possible to limit the environmental impacts associated with the fashion sector. In fact for the case under consideration, the rental business model makes it possible to extend the number of uses of a single dress, with a consequent reduction in the environmental impacts associated with its entire life cycle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available