Tell EU stories, develop your journalism skills, and make your voice heard!
Live

Let me ask you a question: How many articles and videos have you seen in recent years promoting sustainable fashion that encourages thrifting? But then you see videos featuring the title: ‘thrift hauls’ almost every day.

And this got me wondering: Does a person really need that many clothes? Or does it simply make them feel better because they think they’re saving the environment? It can also relieve fast fashion guilty.

Okay, I know these statements might sound harsh, but believe me, I am not here to dismiss thrifting entirely.

In fact, I occasionally thrift myself. But I think it’s time that we be honest with ourselves about whether second-hand shopping has just become another avenue for the same behaviour it claims to fight for.

When someone films themselves buying thirty items from a charity shop, do you really think they are being sustainable? The dopamine hit of buying new things remains the same whether those items came from a retail or a vintage shop, only now with a clearer conscience. They are overconsuming, just with better branding.

A 2025 study, surveying over 1,000 U.S. consumers, found that second-hand consumption is positively correlated with new clothing purchases.

In other words, people who buy more second-hand clothes also tend to buy more new clothes. 59% of respondents fell into a high-consumption cluster, characterised by frequent purchases in both markets. 40% admitted to owning clothes they had never worn, and nearly 38% disposed of items within a year of purchase.

What does this mean for the “thrift haul” trend? It suggests that for many, thrifting is not replacing consumption but just adding to it.

The issue is not where the clothes come from. The issue is the sheer amount of volume. For example: if I buy fifteen second-hand tops I do not need, I am still participating in a cycle of excess clothing. I have just simply shifted the source.

People who advocate on thrifted clothing argue that buying second-hand extends the life of the garment and reduces demand for new production.

In theory, this makes sense. In practice, I am not convinced, and here is why:

A 2025 mixed-methods study, surveying 290 consumers and conducting 21 interviews, framed second-hand shopping as “switching behaviour” rather than replacement behaviour. Crucially, respondents who thrifted still engaged with fast fashion and high-street retail, suggesting wardrobes expand rather than shrink.

Here is my concern. Many thrifters still buy new clothes alongside their charity shop finds. The second-hand purchases become additions rather than replacements. We give ourselves a pat on the back for being ethical consumers, whilst our wardrobes continue to grow.

The same study identified “treasure seeking” as a key driver of thrift shopping, where the thrill of discovery gives emotional satisfaction regardless of actual need. When asked what styles they sought, customers gave scattered responses, with some admitting they had no specific items in mind.

There is also an identity layer worth nothing here. The “sustainable shopper” label can become part of the appeal itself, a permission that it’s okay buying more. This ethical framing does not challenge the habit. The bottom line is its still fast fashion with a rebrand.

To be clear, thrifting can have a genuine impact when done intentionally. Replacing a worn-out jean with a second-hand alternative, repairing or altering pieces to extend their life, shopping with a specific list, setting a limit on clothing purchases, clothing swaps or renting for one-off events.

These examples above signal a lifestyle on how you purchase clothes, not an aesthetic.

Even if thrifting reduces some demand for new products. There is another aspect worth taking note of. This surge in thrifting popularity has driven up the prices in charity shops and made affordable clothing harder to find for those who genuinely need it.

In November 2025, Jack Croome documented this shift across Ireland and the UK. He found charity shops now charging €35 for a second-hand shirt, €50 for a worn blazer, and €25 for jeans that cost similar prices new. In one Dublin shop, a River Island knitted T-shirt was priced at €30 whilst the original retail tag read €35.

When he queried this, the volunteer replied: “Head office does the pricing now. We don’t set them locally.” Many chains now openly price “in line with market value,” checking Depop, eBay and Vinted before printing tags on items that were donated for free. The best pieces, branded trainers, designer bags, barely worn coats, never reach local shop floors. They are diverted to boutique branches or sold online.

I find this quite frankly uncomfortable. Second-hand shopping was once a necessity for people who could not afford to spend that much. Now it has become a trendy afternoon activity for middle-class consumers seeking unique, vintage pieces that are ethically sourced. Meanwhile, the people these shops were meant to cater for are facing rising prices.

So, does thrifting actually save the planet? I believe that the uncomfortable truth is this: no form of shopping, however ethical, will solve overconsumption. The real and simple solution is buying less.

A 2026 study on responsible consumption concluded that modifying consumption patterns is imperative for addressing environmental challenges. The researchers emphasised that “individual actions are both part of the cause and part of the solution.”

Critically, they found that consumption habits tend to continue by inertia, meaning simply switching where we shop does not break the cycle. The study identified genuine solutions as reducing unnecessary consumption, reusing what we already own, and only then recycling or buying second-hand when truly needed.

Ethical shopping without reducing the number of items purchased, they concluded, fails to deliver meaningful environmental impact.

Thrifting can be part of a sustainable lifestyle, but only if it replaces new purchases rather than supplements them. One second-hand coat bought to replace a worn-out item is sustainable. Ten charity shop dresses bought because they were cheap and cute is not.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article