Whether consciously or not, when we shop for clothes, we run a kind of cost-benefit analysis. We assess aesthetic value, comfort, fabric quality, and sustainability claims – then weigh them against the price to decide whether a garment feels “worth it.”

But how often do we factor in how many times we’ll actually wear the piece? That, I believe, is a much less common consideration.

What Cost per Wear Really Means

Cost per wear (CPW) is a simple yet powerful concept: it’s the price of a product divided by the number of times we use it. Within the sustainability conversation, it often serves to illustrate that higher-quality, responsibly made garments, though more expensive upfront, may be more affordable in the long run – thanks to their durability and longevity.

But is that always true? Does “more expensive” really mean “more durable”? And how does this framing influence how we shop?

Recent studies offer some insight – and also raise important questions.

(Disclaimer: I might sound a little sceptical here, but that’s intentional. I’m exploring CPW from the lens of regular consumers – not already-conscious shoppers who buy less but better. For them, CPW tends to work well. For the rest, it can get complicated.)

The Promise of Communicating Cost per Wear

Lisa Eckmann and Lucia A. Reisch, in their study “Shifting Towards Quality: How Communicating ‘Cost per Wear’ Influences Consumer Preference for Clothing,” explored how CPW messaging could shape consumer decisions. Their research was built on three key insights:

• Consumers underestimate durability and how often they’ll use a product.
• Products seem more affordable when their price is broken down into usage-based or recurring units.
• Self-benefits (“this saves you money”) resonate more strongly than sustainability appeals (“this helps the planet”).

In theory, communicating CPW helps shoppers recognise value in high-quality garments and justify higher prices – steering them toward more responsible choices.

In their experiment, CPW was displayed similarly to unit pricing on groceries (like “price per 100g”). When participants could compare garments by CPW, their interest indeed shifted to more durable options. Even when the CPW of premium items was slightly higher, participants still preferred them if they offered substantially greater longevity.

It sounds promising. But there’s a catch.

Currently, cost per wear data isn’t available to consumers – and likely won’t be anytime soon, since it requires rigorous testing to be credible. So, if we can’t see those numbers, should we simply assume that higher price equals higher quality? Unfortunately, that’s not a safe assumption.

Does Price Reflect Durability? Not Necessarily.

A study on garment durability conducted by the University of Leeds examined 47 different T-shirts, each washed and tumble-dried 50 times, then assessed for pilling, fading, surface disruption, and overall appearance.

The findings? Price was not an indicator of durability.

The most expensive T-shirt performed worse than the cheapest one, and garments at both ends of the ranking had similar prices.

Even fabric composition wasn’t a reliable guide. While heavier fabrics and synthetic blends tended to last longer, the performance among 100% cotton T-shirts varied widely.

In short: higher price tags don’t necessarily buy better wearability.

The Behavioural Trap

Beyond product quality, there’s a behavioural challenge. I often emphasise that the most sustainable way to shop is simply to buy less. But many consumers still want novelty – newness, variety, and expression.

So instead of wearing one top a hundred times, they’ll wear five tops twenty times each. Or twenty tops five times each.

And here’s the trap: with ultra-fast fashion, the math can make cheap garments seem competitive. A €10 top worn five times has a similar cost per wear as a €50 top worn twenty-five times. Viewed purely through the lens of affordability, low-quality fashion doesn’t seem to lose – and that’s a problem.

Of course, sustainability isn’t just about price or durability. It’s also about the environmental and social impact behind the product, and even the wearer’s health and comfort. That’s where another concept comes in: impact per wear.

Beyond Price: Thinking in Terms of Impact per Wear

If cost per wear tells us about money, impact per wear tells us about footprint.

The more we wear a garment, the lower its impact per use – because it delays the need for something new.

But for that to work, people must not only understand sustainability – they must also love and value their clothes enough to wear them often. Emotional durability matters just as much as physical strength.

Final Thoughts: A Useful Tool, but Not the Whole Story

To be clear, I’m not dismissing cost per wear – it can absolutely be a helpful reference, especially if backed by credible data. But it’s not a silver bullet.

CPW doesn’t account for consumer habits, emotional attachment, or product transparency, all of which shape how long we keep and wear our clothes.

If we want to move toward a truly sustainable fashion system, we need to consume and produce less, and value longevity beyond the price tag. Cost per wear can play a role – but only as part of a broader, more holistic approach to conscious consumption.