Tensions and duality in developing a circular fashion economy in Kenya

Abstract

This paper critically considers the circular economy in the Kenyan fashion industry context, addressing structural and geographical hierarchies and inequalities in the conceptualisation of the circular economy and its associated practices in fashion. From the perspective of fashion designers, it highlights specific geopolitical and geo-economic tensions between local cultural foundations of ‘circular’ fashion and the impact of global market forces. Focusing on dynamics relating to second-hand clothing imports and Export Processing Zones (EPZs) for garment manufacturing, we present findings from qualitative research with Kenyan fashion designers (2019–2023) demonstrating how they both inhibit circular economy development in fashion and provide opportunities for innovations through creative adaptation practices.

Introduction

This paper critically considers the potential for a circular economy for fashion from the perspective of fashion designers in Kenya. The circular economy has gained prominence (and much publicity) in fashion and beyond as an alternative industrial system addressing challenges associated with linear economic systems such as ‘material scarcity, climate change, depletion of natural resources and waste generation’ (Dissanayake and Weerasinghe, 2021, 26). However, the global fashion industry currently still follows a linear ‘take, make, waste’ economy model, and is heavily implicated in environmental degradation and exploitation of communities (Brooks, 2019; Niinimäki et al., 2020).

The African perspective on the circular economy (Schröder et al., 2019) remains limited, especially in the context of fashion. This is despite the recognition of growing fashion and textile production and consumption on the continent (African Development Bank, 2019). African countries (Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania in particular) are also among the largest net importers of second-hand clothes (Cobbing et al., 2022). This sits alongside rising consumer demand for sustainable products, with a widening middle class and increased willingness to pay for ethical and environmentally conscious fashion (Hivos, 2016), making the continent a rich site for considering circular economy geographies in the context of fashion.

In this paper, we focus on geopolitical and geo-economic tensions (Barrie and Schröder, 2022) in circular economies for fashion. Specifically, the duality between local cultural foundations of sustainable, indeed ‘circular’, fashion practices and business models and the impact of global market forces on Kenya’s fashion market. We argue these both inhibit sustainable development and provide opportunities for circular economy innovations. The paper contributes to critical scholarship challenging the centrality and dominance of the Global North in the creative, innovation and knowledge economies (England et al., 2021; Ikpe et al., 2024; Khan, 2021). We aim to challenge structural and geographical hierarchies and inequalities in both the conceptualisation of the circular economy (Friant et al., 2020) and its associated practices of keeping materials/products (garments) ‘in the loop’ and highlight the importance of local specificity and capabilities, providing a more nuanced understanding of the geographies of the ‘circular’ fashion economy. This follows Khan’s (2021, p.839) call for ‘a more expansive form of localism in sustainable fashion that acknowledges both the particularity of the place and the problem of intercultural reciprocity’. In doing so, we reflect on the links that circular economy adoption and its local adaptions have with neocolonial dynamics (O’Hare, 2024; Schröder et al., 2019), as the (fast) fashion industry’s extractive growth model and the subsequent second-hand market produces and perpetuates inequality and poverty through unequal patterns of commodity exchange (Brooks, 2019).

The paper is structured as follows: we first introduce key circular economy issues in fashion and draw on academic literature and market data from Kenya to identify key tensions in circular economy fashion development relating to the country’s global market interactions. The data—14 interviews and three focus groups with fashion designers and industry experts in Kenya conducted between 2019 and 2023—and our approach to thematic analysis is then described. In the findings section, we first explore how fashion designers employed ‘circular’ practices associated with cultural and social traditions, and contemporary adaptations to uncertainty and resource scarcity. We then place these local foundations for sustainable fashion in tension with global market forces, focusing our critique on second-hand clothing exports to (East) Africa and the development of Export Processing Zones (EPZs), questioning where they sit in terms of circularity. The discussion section addresses duality within and between local African designer and global market perspectives of the opportunities and threats regarding the development of a fashion circular economy in Kenya. While key circular economy strategies—slowing down resource use, using fewer resources and closing the loop between post-use and production (Dissanayake and Weerasinghe, 2021)—are embedded in cultural practices and Africa’s fashion brands, local capacity is being hindered by global forces. The paper concludes with a call for further research on the role of geopolitics and geo-economics (Barrie and Schröder, 2022) in circular economy development. We suggest that Africa’s growing creative economies (Hracs et al., 2021) and fashion specifically (England et al., 2021) offer key opportunities for such exploration.

Tensions in ‘circular’ fashion

From ‘linear’ to ‘circular’ fashion

The global fashion industry ‘has traditionally operated through the linear economy utilising a take-make-waste supply chain’ (Jansson and Sjöbohm, 2022, 1). Globally, fashion economies are characterised by high levels of consumption and waste, and dominated by high-street fast fashion brands. Fast fashion has particularly dramatic environmental costs (raw materials, chemicals, water usage and pollution and solid waste) in addition to social costs (worker exploitation and health) (Niinimäki et al., 2020).

In stark contrast, a circular fashion system is proposed as:

‘a fashion system that moves towards a regenerative model with an improved use of sustainable and renewable resources, reduction of non-renewable inputs, pollution and waste generation, while facilitating long product life and material circulation via sustainable fashion design strategies and effective reverse logistics processes’ (Dissanayake and Weerasinghe, 2021, 29)

These circular economy principles have been foregrounded in forthcoming regulation for textiles (waste management and responsibility) (European Commission n.d.) and in wider regional and national initiatives such as the African Circular Economy Alliance and Kenya’s Sustainable Waste Management Act (Andersen, 2022). Circular economy business models and practices are being developed by small and large industry players in the fashion industry around the world (Rathinamoorthy, 2019). However, Dissanayake and Weerasinghe (2021, 26) note that much integration remains early-stage and that ‘many efforts are still being made to accelerate the linear system’. Despite environmental concerns, the fast fashion industry continues to grow, subsequently generating growth in second-hand clothing markets (Brooks, 2019)¹.

Global tensions in ‘circular’ fashion

Internationally, the circular economy is positioned as the dominant model to aspire to (Friant et al., 2020; Jansson and Sjöbohm, 2022) and initiatives are being implemented in industries and policies around the world, including in Africa and Kenya specifically (Andersen, 2022). However, the concept is often conceptualised as a Global North innovation, overlooking historical origins and linkages with similar concepts already embedded in Global South practices (Friant et al., 2020). While the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) report on fashion and textiles and the circular economy in Africa acknowledges that ‘circular business models in the textile industry are by no means new in Africa’ (Kuch, n.d, 5) and recommends strategies centred on local adaptations, it very briefly notes these could potentially be supported by international policy and investment. While positively emphasising existing innovations and indigenous capacities, such an approach neglects local economic and infrastructural challenges (England et al., 2021) and broader geopolitical and geo-economic power dynamics (Barrie and Schröder, 2022) which may foster or hinder circular economy implementation. The dumping of second-hand clothes in Africa (see discussion below) is also only very briefly mentioned, and negative environmental consequences—from burning or landfill—bear no sense of international (Western and beyond) responsibility.

Furthermore, circular economy industry adaptations (in fashion) that focus on reusing and revaluing waste—through second-hand consumption and new product development—support the development of new markets for waste rather than tackling larger issues of unsustainable global production and consumption. New forms of waste colonialism (Rickets and Skinner, 2023) emerge in the re-valuing of waste (such as unwanted garments) generated by countries in more powerful positions in global production and value chains when exported to Africa. This waste results in environmental damage, with associated social and economic costs, while global market forces also suppress opportunities for domestic industrial development (Brooks, 2019; Cobbing et al., 2022). This suggests the prevalence of neocolonial dynamics. The historical dominance of parts of the Global North in the fashion industry has been built on the extraction of natural resources (that is, cotton and dye materials) and the exploitation of workers in various parts of the Global South, including African and Asian contexts, during periods of colonial rule and enduring into its aftermath (Brooks, 2019). China’s rise as a global powerhouse in production and consumption of fashion goods creates a new and more complex South–South dimension (Zheng, 2010), yet unequal exchange continues to impact Africa’s domestic markets and industrial capabilities (Brooks, 2019).

There is, however, a growing scholarly recognition of the need and potential for power shifts in the global fashion industry (Khan, 2021), which considers the significance of new markets in Africa and the innovation of African designers (Checinska, 2022). Moves towards scholarly decolonisation and non-Eurocentric approaches in fashion studies (Ikpe et al., 2024; Khan, 2021; Niessen 2020) ‘centring concerns and world views of non-Western individuals, and […] previously “Other(ed)” perspectives’ (Thambinathan and Kinsella, 2021,1-2) align with wider calls to deprovincialise knowledge and ideas from African contexts (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2018).

This article seeks to build on this critical scholarship. In considering the ways in which Kenyan fashion designers articulate their relationship with local cultural practices, global markets and policy frameworks, we draw on Khan’s (2021) notion of ‘more than local’. This approach considers relations of difference (and inequality), complex, asymmetrical and hierarchical international relationships and wider processes of intercultural exchange. This enables exploration of how the local and global reality of the circular economy are continuously renegotiated in place.

Circular economies and sustainable fashion in Africa: global forces in action

While the prominence and potential for sustainable fashion from/in Africa is evident (Kuch, n.d; Checinska, 2022; Nimo, 2022), it can be hindered by local infrastructural challenges and global dynamics often intertwined with political and economic developments beyond the control of local fashion producers and consumers (England et al., 2021). Focusing primarily on East Africa and Kenya specifically, in this section we focus on the impact of the influx of second-hand clothing (3.27% of global total in 2021) (OEC, 2022) and EPZs servicing global fast fashion retailers (Tyce, 2019). Here, we emphasise the complex, asymmetrical and hierarchical relationships in the fashion industry (Khan, 2021) associated with domestic and international trade policies and local market developments.

Questioning hierarchies and circularity in second-hand clothing

Second-hand clothing trade and the resulting waste (Cobbing et al., 2022) is heavily influenced by longstanding extractive trade patterns and relations. It is now reinforced by neoliberal trade policies (Brooks, 2019) set in the context of global economic power hierarchies, such as the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA)². In the context of the global clothing trade, sub-Saharan Africa ranks high among importers in terms of value and volume; in 2021, Kenya was the second largest African (after Ghana) and the fifth largest global importer at 169m USD (OEC 2022). Historically, the highest proportion of used garments came from the USA, the UK and a few European countries (Hansen, 2014). However, in recent years, there has been a rapid shift towards China as the largest contributor (WITS, 2021).

Framing the second-hand market positively, and tentatively within the framework of the circular economy, thrifting (reuse) and potential innovation in sustainable textile production (recycle/remanufacture) constitute a ‘creative place’ (Hansen, 2014; Pool 2016) for imported second-hand garments. These are also known as mitumba (a Swahili term, literally meaning “bundles”) in Kenya. As we explore further in this paper, the second-hand market can, therefore, be seen as both an inhibitor and an enabler of sustainable fashion, due to the innovative practices of local creatives. Historically, the influence (cultural and economic) of past colonial presence, including bans on local dress, has influenced the way local fashions have developed in Kenya (and Africa more widely) after the end of colonialism (Hansen, 2014), while also generating demand for Western second-hand clothes in the long term (Brooks, 2019; Pool, 2016). The contemporary ‘popularity’ of mitumba in Africa is also associated with its affordability and availability for low-income consumers (relative to domestically produced garments).

The second-hand market is perpetually fed by the global flows of fast fashion, and the circulation of new and used clothing, structured by knowledge flows and political agreements stemming from the colonial period (Brooks, 2019), undermines local fashion and textile production. Circular economy dynamics are, therefore, affected by contemporary unequal and extractive trade patterns, with parts of the Global North, and increasingly China (Zheng, 2010), underscoring the compulsion for many East African countries to accept second-hand clothing imports as a condition for trade or economic agreements (Wolff, 2021). This connects to the established interactions between unequal exchange (including in culture and fashion) and arguments of neocolonialism and hierarchical extraction across colonial and post-colonial periods (Chan and Patten, 2023).

Placing EPZs within a circular economy framework

EPZs do not typically feature within circular economy debates and can be associated with further waste production and unsustainable consumption. However, the prominence of textiles and apparel manufacturing in supporting economic development and opportunities for circular economy interventions are acknowledged (Kuch, n.d.). As we explore further in this paper, due to the innovation of fashion producers, manufacturing capacity and infrastructure (EPZs) can be found at the heart of the fashion circular economy conversation in Africa.

Since 1990, local textile and garment manufacturing has received government investment in Africa, including in Kenya; textiles and garment factories in EPZs have been established, often through partnership and collaboration with international investors, with a focus on servicing global mass-manufacturing companies (Tyce, 2019). Facilitated by trade liberalisation, large, global fashion companies have moved production to Africa ‘in search of low input costs, tax breaks, tariff-free locations, and proximity to European markets’ (Kuch n.d, 6). In Kenya, this includes H&M, Levi’s, Calvin Klein and Cherokee (and others) since the mid-2010s (Yarns and Fibres, 2017). While domestic production capacity in Kenya has been reignited (Hivos, 2016), there is a privileging of basic skills development and lower-value activities such as Cut Make and Trim (CMT) in the EPZ (Tyce, 2019) over higher-value fashion design production, education and training (England et al., 2021). Clothing exports from Kenya to the US, mainly supporting foreign lead firms (Tyce, 2019), increased 130-fold from 1990 to 2017 from 2.5m USD to 340m USD (Kelley, 2018).

Due to the cost-cutting/low-cost model that underpins this production model, building local intersectoral linkages to textile production is a lower priority for achieving competitiveness within buyer-led value chains. The influence of foreign lead firms (prioritising low cost, surplus extraction and global expansion goals) over EPZ development and associated industrial policy (Tyce, 2019) also has significant implications for the adoption of circular economy policies and regulation of garment manufacturers. It remains to be seen what impact the Sustainable Waste Management Act (Republic of Kenya, 2022) will have on EPZs and where/on whom the responsibility for waste management will fall. While EPZ development aligns with the linear economy model, in this paper we explore how EPZs also exhibit circular economy connections to smaller-scale domestic fashion producers serving domestic markets through the use of their textile offcuts/waste, highlighting ‘more than local’ (Khan, 2021) dimensions of circular economy development in the fashion industry.

Methodology

Kenya, and specifically the city of Nairobi, is taken as the research site. Nairobi, noted as a fashion hub (Pool, 2016), has a high concentration of fashion designers and tailors and is home to a number of key sector organisations such as the Association of Fashion Designers of Kenya and the Kenya Fashion Council (Hivos, 2016). This creates capacity not only for outsourced manufacturing, but domestic creative production.

The paper draws on extensive data collected across two funded small research projects connected with African fashion and creative economies conducted between 2019 and 2023—Africa Fashion Futures (AFF) (2020-2021) and the African Hub for Sustainable Creative Economies (AHSCE) (2022-23). Table 1 provides an overview of all the data collected across the period. The primary data source for this paper are 14 interviews with fashion designers in Kenya (predominantly in Nairobi) in 2020-2021 (Table 1A) (see Table 2 for details), and three online group discussions with Kenyan fashion designers and industry stakeholders on sustainable creative economy development in 2022 (Table 1B). The focus on fashion designers was informed by the need to investigate the circular economy through the experience and practice of key players able to comment both on their everyday work and connections with local culture and traditional practices but also aware of higher-level policy and market dynamics affecting their work. Fashion designers interact with local infrastructure and are impacted by national and regional/continental policies—including import/export tariffs, bans on second-hand clothing, industrial/economic development and creative economy agendas. We, therefore, position the work of fashion designers as a key lens through which to address the geographies that shape these relationships. All interviews were conducted in English, recorded and transcribed for a verbatim account. All participants were granted anonymity; interviewees are labelled by a category descriptor and number (AFF Designer 1); focus group participants are labelled by event, category descriptor and letter (AHSCE 1—Designer A).

The data was analysed thematically, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) iterative six-step process, from becoming familiar with the data and creating codes through generating, reviewing and defining themes, and finally locating exemplars. The qualitative data was organised through a manual process of first deductive and then inductive coding guided by dimensions of Khan’s (2021) ‘more than local’ concept. Initial deductive codes included: sustainability; second-hand; garment imports; textiles manufacturing; sourcing of materials; local/global markets. Inductive codes specific to the study of sustainable/circular fashion and following Khan’s (2021) ‘more than local’ concept were: local cultures (of sustainability); local relationships and resources; local politics; local population; local markets; global markets; local/global relationships; relational inequality; local/global hierarchies; international policy; role of place. Notably, the term ‘circular economy’ was not regularly employed by the designers involved in our research, so it was not explicitly coded for. From these codes, themes of duality and tensions emerged.

Unpacking circular and linear dynamics in Kenyan Fashion

In presenting our empirical findings we first explore local ‘circular’ practices employed by Kenyan fashion designers, considering their associations with cultural and social traditions but also contemporary adaptations to uncertainty and resource scarcity. This is followed by the analysis of connections and tensions with two key global market features: second-hand clothing exports to (East) Africa, and the development of EPZs. Our analysis focuses on critically considering their advantages and disadvantages in relation to circular fashion economy development in Kenya.

Understanding ‘circular’ fashion practices in Kenya: traditions and contemporary adaptations

The fashion designers in our research adopted multiple strategies of ‘circularity’ and waste reduction (Rathinamoorthy, 2019) that were integral to their creative and business practices, articulated using the terminology of ‘slow’, ‘ethical’, or ‘sustainable’ fashion. As summarised in Table 3, the majority of designers were more explicitly committed to sustainability or ‘slow’ fashion, and multiple strategies emerged from the analysis. These practices were strongly connected with cultural traditions - “In Africa […] your cloth tears you stitch it onto something, as you fix you stitch on to something, even the worst t-shirt in an African home becomes a rag. So for me, there’s a direct sustainability of culture.” (AFF Designer 12).

In many respects, materials are circulated across the economy and society without the need to promote the circular economy. It could also be argued that there is less waste to start with, as circularity is embedded in local practices without needing to be structured as a specific approach or ‘future strategy’ with economic potential. The reuse of materials is also embedded in processes and a zero-waste model adopted where materials are upcycled, but also off-cuts are passed on to others. A small number of designers not explicitly adopting ‘circular’ fashion strategies nevertheless demonstrated a commitment to more sustainable or ‘slow’ fashion production through their use of small-batch production (Table 2) and use of locally sourced materials (where possible). A number of designers expressed a desire and ambition to produce more sustainably but often felt limited or even hindered by infrastructural and resource availability (see further discussion below).

Designers also reflected on their local market conditions, consumer base and purchasing power. Here, their desire to source and produce sustainably was positioned in tension with the desire to ensure affordability for the local market. This was also a key feature in designers’ relationship with second-hand markets, as discussed later on. Some designers were, however, seeking to reframe associations between sustainability and (un)affordability, drawing on ‘circular’ practices of designing and manufacturing for durability, offering repair services and engaging customers through added-value proposition of clothes made to last, thereby positioning themselves as ‘slow fashion’/non-fast fashion brands.

In critically considering the geographies of fashion in Kenya, a designer summarises how the local dynamics of sustainability reflected the specificity of the African/Kenyan context regarding materials sourcing but also historical legacies, the contemporary political context and geo-political relations:

“what we are suffering from is a product of the first world dumping their fast fashion in our country. And as African people, you know, we pass down our things, hardly do we throw out clothes in a bin […] fast fashion is not really a problem for us. But we are suffering the consequences of the fast-paced world.” (AFF Designer 14)

This places the local cultural foundations for sustainable/circular fashion in direct tension with global market forces. We discuss this phenomenon further in the next section in relation to second-hand clothing and EPZ manufacturing.

Second-hand clothing imports: hindering or facilitating circular fashion

Designers acknowledged how large volumes of second-hand imports end up in landfills and, in many ways, represent a cost (environmentally and economically) for African countries to dispose of waste from major global fashion producers and their consumers. However, they also become a resource—connected with the previously described circular practices embedded in cultural and material practices (see Table 3). This included sourcing elements for new designs, upcycling and new materials development from textile waste destined for landfill. In Table 4, we analyse the advantages (SHA) and disadvantages (SHD) of the second-hand clothing market in relation to the CE in Kenya. Our discussion nuances tensions and duality within and between these positions.

Designers acknowledged the cultural embeddedness and economic necessity of thrifting in Kenya (SHA1). While some designers viewed mitumba as direct competition for domestic fashion brands (SHD4), many expressed that they coexisted with second-hand markets (SHA4). This stance was partly formed in consideration of the inherent inability to compete on price (impacted by costs of local production identified earlier) (SHD4), but it largely reflected the different demographics/ socio-economic status of designers’ primary consumers (often targeting more luxury/high-end production). This is particularly relevant for designers of ‘sustainable fashion’ who are more likely to be targeting a higher-value market. Designers coming from this perspective also questioned whether banning second-hand imports would have a positive impact on the market for local designers.

In considering the longer-term development of the second-hand market in Kenya, designers reflected on issues of both increased volume and reduced quality, and subsequently reduced durability, of second-hand clothing coming into the country (SHD1). This was associated both with the expansion of the fast fashion system and related second-hand clothing exports, but also with the rise of the circular economy and sustainability agendas in the second-hand exporting countries; connected with increased domestic vintage/second-hand retail and consumption. This highlights the global interconnectivity of the circular economy through fashion and potential reinforcement of unequal exchange/geographical hierarchies (O’Hare, 2024). Furthermore, it was noted that there has been a shift in where mitumba are coming from. Trade data marks a rise in China as a major exporter of second-hand garments to East Africa (WITS, 2021). Designers also noted the outsourcing of the packaging of Global North second-hand garments to other Global South economies as a key factor (SHD2). The increase in ‘Chinese mitumba’ in the African market is positioned as being particularly problematic in relation to further waste creation due to (small) sizing, exacerbating pre-existing issues in the lack of fit of second-hand imports (Cobbing et al., 2022).

It was noted that the Kenyan government had increased tariffs on second-hand imports, in a bid to contain the problem. However, mass-produced virgin garments imported from China now present a cheap(er) alternative to both second-hand and locally-produced garments and are becoming more prevalent in Kenya (SHD3). It was noted that “Mitumba curators are now actually getting new products for resale from China” (AFF Designer 8), suggesting that these new garments are filtering into the main second-hand markets, reducing their overall circular economy dimension. While Chinese imports may eventually be resold in the second-hand market, this is problematic as the quality (and durability) of Chinese-made products exported directly to Africa can be lower than what is made for American and European consumers (and later sent to Africa), due to a lack of material specification and quality control (Brooks, 2019). Designers in Kenya raised these issues regarding the low quality and limited durability of these mass-produced garments, limiting their potential to form part of a sustainable fashion economy (SHD1). Geopolitical tensions were also highlighted, particularly regarding international trade agreements such as AGOA. It was noted that the ongoing importing of second-hand clothing was a key dimension of AGOA participation, and that suggested that a fear of exclusion (as experienced by Rwanda) prevented more direct government intervention in Kenya: “we’re using this [AGOA] as an excuse to never further our industry […] We’re scared of sanctions” (AHSCE 1—Designer D). We discuss these political dimensions further in the conclusions and policy implications of the paper.

Global forces at play: EPZs and sustainability

In this section, we address another significant dimension highlighted by designers in the establishment of a sustainable fashion system in Kenya—EPZ manufacturing. As with second-hand clothes, in Table 5 we analyse the advantages (EPZA) and disadvantages (EPZD) of the second-hand clothing market in relation to the circular economy in Kenya and discuss nuances, tensions and duality within and between these positions below.

While EPZs are in some ways the antithesis to the circular economy—as part of perpetual growth models and unsustainable fashion consumption that feed landfills (EPZD1)—there is scope for circular economy principles to be built into manufacturing on the continent (Kuch, n.d). Furthermore, the Kenyan fashion designer perspective (summarised in Table 5) opens up other angles on how EPZs can be part of localised ‘loops’ (EPZA1). This is an example of contemporary adaptation to resource scarcity, particularly uncertainty in the supply of textiles, and limited access to affordable materials. Designers reflected on the lack of availability and/or affordability of certain materials such as 100% cotton (sustainably and ethically produced) but also locally produced fabrics, despite investment in EPZs and local textile/garment manufacturing in Kenya. In contrast, recycled materials, specifically EPZ ‘waste’ was positioned as a readily available and affordable resource offering creative opportunities for unique production (EPZA2). They also referenced the reliability of a steady source of textile inputs (EPZA2) and noted a preference for using deadstock³ and fabric waste from EPZs as a commitment to sustainable fashion practices that lead to the production of beautiful, innovative finished outputs (EPZA1).

Fashion designers in Kenya expressed a desire to see affordable domestic production increase through EPZs and to have policies to regulate this space in order to support domestic retail and consumption, and, subsequently, value retention. It was noted that previous policies put in place to support local designers in relation to EPZs—such as subsidised local designer/manufacturer access to EPZ production facilities—were no longer operational (EPZD1). The loss of this access (a temporary advantage of EPZs) was seen to increase barriers to local sourcing and manufacturing for designers, creating a greater reliance on imported inputs.

Overall, designers expressed divided feelings towards EPZs. On the one hand, EPZs represented the hope that Kenyan fashion designers might take advantage of this opportunity to produce more competitively on a larger scale and at lower costs than previously. However, on the other hand, EPZs were viewed as potential precursors of future threats of cheap production by largely foreign firms that might undermine local production by domestic fashion producers (independent designers and firms working at larger scale) (EPZD1). This builds on critical literature on EPZ and foreign investment and upgrading in the garment sector in Africa (Calabrese and Balchin, 2022, 35) that recommends that if policy wants to support upgrading in the domestic garment sector, they should be selective as to what foreign investment is prioritised and support the type of investments that are or can be ‘more “embedded” in their domestic production network’. Designers also had concerns regarding the environmental and social impacts of mass-produced garments (EPZD2). They expressed a desire for sustainable and ethical manufacturing to be embedded in Kenya’s development strategy, and for this to be central to education to support current and future generations of designers. This was seen as an opportunity for Kenya (and other African nations) to take an alternative approach to existing unsustainable models.

Discussion: tensions and duality between global and local ‘circular’ fashion

The data presents clear areas of tension and duality in circular economy fashion practices in Africa, and Kenya specifically, that need to be unpacked and contextualised regarding their geo-economic and geopolitical relationships (Barrie and Schröder, 2022). This contributes to calls for plurality in understanding circular economy systems, narratives and practices (Friant et al., 2020; O’Hare, 2024; Schröder et al., 2019). Key areas of tension and duality identified from our data and connected with literature are summarised in Figure 1 from the perspective of the Global Market (read figure top-down) and African Designers (read figure bottom-up). Here the Global Market Perspective represents the positioning of the circular economy (Figure 1A), second-hand clothing (Figure 1B) and EPZs (Figure 1C) in relation to international fashion market development, as identified from industry and academic sources discussed above; the African Designer perspective is based on our empirical work. The figure highlights where there is some correlation between these two perspectives–that is, with regards to the negative dynamics of second-hand clothing (Figure 1B) and EPZ mass manufacturing (Figure 1C)–but also where there are divergences in position and nuanced perspectives to be drawn from local designers. This emphasises the value of specifically considering African perspectives on the circular economy (Schröder et al., 2019) to achieve ‘more than local’ (Khan, 2021) understandings that challenge structural and geographical hierarchies and inequalities in both the conceptualisation and practices of the circular economy (Friant et al., 2020).

First of all, we notice a very different understanding of what the circular economy is and how it is approached (Figure 1A). In some countries, circular economy initiatives have transformed clothing waste into new economic resources which can be rebranded and repackaged as ‘circular’ or ‘sustainable’. This has historically manifested as a Global North-to-South (i.e. USA/UK exporting to Kenya) linear flow of waste. Despite the rise of China as an exporter to Africa (Zheng, 2010), this North-South flow also persists through trade agreements such as AGOA. Tensions therefore emerge in the dual presence of a market ‘loop’—the site of production reemerges as the secondary market for waste—and a closed consumption ‘loop’ in the reuse of second-hand garments (Figure 1B). While the latter sits within a circular economy framework, the former does not, but they are inextricably connected. In such cases, the circular economy is approached as policies, innovations and new markets that often build on maintaining our wasteful economies and societies to extract further economic value from them. Here, a lack of consideration of unequal exchange weakens the premise of the circular economy as a ‘solution’ to both environmental and economic challenges and risks the concept becoming a ‘refurbished form of greenwashing’ (Friant et al., 2020, 15).While EPZ factories (Figure 1C) would not typically be considered within circular economy frameworks—given their export mandate and servicing of global mass production/fast fashion—we note that EPZs did however create a local supply of waste stream textiles in the form of deadstock fabric which could be purchased at low cost and utilised by designers to support sustainable design/production practices (Jansson and Sjöbohm, 2022). However, beyond their fundamental emphasis on mass production and fast fashion, we note additional EPZ limitations (not promoting local skills and textile manufacturing) that hinder their potential for developing a sustainable fashion system in Kenya.

In many ways, the approach of Kenyan fashion designers (Figure 1A) presents the circular economy as an embedded range of cultural practices, and creative and entrepreneurial strategies (see Table 3). This perspective, therefore, almost denies the need for a distinct circular economy framework: care in production, consumption and waste reduction are already built within the fabric of society. In fact, the creative engagement with second-hand clothing imports (Figure 1B) and waste or deadstock from EPZs (Figure 1C) appears to be fundamentally driven by this embedded practice of sustainability. ‘Newer’ circular economy practices in Kenya can be seen as a response to waste generated by market dynamics and global and local players and we propose that African knowledge and practice shows dynamism and agency by subjugating (albeit in a limited way) the harmful, waste-generating, market-driven mass production model. While operating at a fairly small scale, this work is increasingly gaining international recognition. Here we contribute to new, plural understandings of circular economy systems and practices from the Global South (Friant et al., 2020; O’Hare, 2024; Schröder et al., 2019), adopting a ‘more than local’ (Khan 2021) perspective to consider relations of difference (and inequality), complex, asymmetrical and hierarchical international relationships and wider processes of intercultural exchange. In particular, we highlight that our understanding of circular economy fashion needs to take neocolonial dynamics into account, including established and emerging forms and geographies of waste colonialism (Ricketts and Skinner, 2023) in which Africa is tasked with dealing with the environmental and economic implications of waste from other countries.

Conclusions and policy implications

In this paper, we have sought to highlight duality in the circular economy. Specifically, we highlight tensions between local cultural foundations for sustainable fashion and the impact of global market forces–second-hand clothing and EPZ development. We argue that these coexisting–and in some instances competing–industrial and political dynamics both inhibit sustainable development and provide opportunities for circular economy innovations in Kenya. In this paper, we have taken the work of fashion designers as a key starting point from which to address the geographies that shape both market relationships and cultural practices. Methodologically, focusing on the designers’ perspective allowed us to establish important connections across the scales at which circular economy fashion operates. On one side, we have reflected on the place-based cultural values and inputs that characterise their everyday working practices; on the other, we have critically engaged with the global production and market decisions affecting their business models and operations. The paper argues that to fully understand sustainable fashion and circular economy development it is important to explore these two dimensions together.

Theoretically, the paper highlights the value of a ‘more than local’ (Khan 2021) perspective which considers local specificity and capabilities, providing more nuanced understandings of the circular economy (Friant et al., 2020) and the geographies of the fashion economy. Our paper advances the application of the ‘more than local’ (Khan, 2021) concept through the extended consideration of global market forces behind garment/textile trade (new production via EPZs and second-hand) and the local adaptations in the Kenyan context specifically. Here, we identify some aspects of intercultural/international reciprocity, but place greater emphasis on identifying practices of unequal exchange. As such, this paper contributes to a growing body of critical, decolonial scholarship–on fashion, the circular economy and beyond (Ikpe et al., 2024; Niessen, 2020; O’Hare, 2024; Schröder et al., 2019; Thambinathan and Kinsella, 2021)–through our consideration of indigenous cultural (fashion) practices in the context of the circular economy. While emphasising local specificity, the work of designers in Kenya is very much seen as more than local (culturally, geographically and economically in potential scale/scope), with strong connections to both industry and tradition (Khan, 2021).

In our discussion on the second-hand market, we present a narrative that affords greater agency to African cultural producers (designers) than is observed in previous critical cultural geography literature (Brooks, 2019). By focusing on designers’ innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship, we aim to highlight a degree of co-existence and adaptation, reflecting on their incorporation and remaking of second-hand clothing and EPZ waste in sustainable, productive ways (Tables 3–5). However, we also acknowledge the significant social, economic and ecological damage caused by the influx of second-hand clothes and waste into Kenya (and other African nations) and the challenges posed by insufficient domestic infrastructure, skills and training to meet market needs, despite investment in EPZs (Tables 4 and 5). Both second-hand markets and EPZ development are, therefore, embedded in complex geopolitical debates and implicated in the preservation/reformation of extractive, unequal relations. Second-hand markets enact this through the establishment of market/economic dependency on waste (fast fashion garments) of increasingly poor quality and higher volume. Meanwhile, EPZs (and associated industrial development policy) are heavily influenced by the foreign fashion firms they service with low-value CMT activities, and a reliance on trade to USA and EU markets (Tyce, 2019) inhibits higher-value domestic production and access to inputs for local designers. We argue this narrative, told from the perspective of fashion designers, provides a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of the socio-economic and geographic tensions that inform domestic fashion production and circular economy fashion development in Kenya.

We support the African fashion industry as a site of opportunity and leadership potential in developing sustainable creative economies (Hracs et al., 2021; Ikpe et al., 2024; Nimo, 2022). However, this will require significant investment and policy intervention, with engagement and collaboration between national, regional and international actors. This is particularly pertinent in the consideration of garment import policies and connected trade agreements such as AGOA. We note that this should not be considered as a binary or isolated policy approach; our data suggests that banning second-hand imports would not necessarily boost domestic design industries without significant additional investment in local production capacity, education and training. This could potentially be facilitated in relation to EPZ development if environmental design and production principles were to be adopted more extensively and regulated effectively through policies such as the Sustainable Waste Management Act (Republic of Kenya, 2022).

In conclusion, our research highlights the need for further contextualised discussions on the circular economy and its geography. There is a particular need to explore African and other Global South perspectives (Schröder et al., 2019) to highlight ongoing geo-economic and geopolitical tensions (Barrie and Schröder, 2022) in circular economy development. We suggest that Africa’s growing creative economies (Hracs et al., 2021) and fashion specifically (England et al., 2021; Ikpe et al., 2024) offer key opportunities for such exploration given the industry’s interaction with both local and global value chains and production networks.

Acknowledgements

Some of the data used in the paper was collected as part of an AHRC funded project. We acknowledge the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) financial support (AH/W00688X/1) and would like to thank Dr Brian Hracs for contributing to the AHRC data collection. Further financial support was provided by a King’s College London ‘King’s Together’ fund. We would like to thank all the project participants for sharing valuable knowledge and experiences with the research team. We acknowledge research assistance in data collection from Angela Wanjiku Murigi and Waithira Kibuchi at the University of Nairobi. We also would like to thank Ms Ogake Mosomi and Prof. Lilac Adhiambo Osanjo at the University of Nairobi for introductions and research support. Finally, we would like to thank Mr David Ilkw and Ms Fiona Uwamahoro for their research assistance in preparing the data and bibliography.

References

Footnotes