Welcome To
The Vestiaire Collective
Impact Report

Long Live Fashion!



Report 2022

The inside track on
our methodology


To ensure that we are really making a difference

We don’t just want to report on what we’re doing. We want to understand what’s changing in the world as a result of Vestiaire existing. This is called impact reporting.

So instead of just tracking our activity or emissions, this report analyses and measures the impact of our business on society, giving us the data and insights we need to keep transforming the fashion system.


Consumer Behaviour: Methodology and data sources

To investigate the behaviour of our community of buyers and sellers (and beyond), we conducted a survey in December 2021. Its aim was to refine our calculations around avoided impact data, investigate overconsumption, and to situate Vestiaire’s approach within the second-hand fashion industry, and indeed the industry as a whole. These are the questions and key answers that we used to calculate our displacement rate, investigate what sellers would have done without Vestiaire (to calculate our value-added), and to understand the motivations for selling on Vestiaire.

Buyer Behaviour: Displacement (70% of items purchased on Vestiaire preventing a first-hand purchase)

Which of the following statements best applies to this item [purchased on Vestiaire]?

Buying this second-hand/vintage purchase prevented a first-hand purchase (62.3%)
Buying this second-hand/vintage purchase did not prevent a first-hand purchase (16.8%)
I’m uncertain/it’s difficult to say if buying this second-hand/vintage prevented a first-hand purchase (21%)

You said it was difficult to say if buying this second-hand/vintage item prevented the purchase of a new item. Which of the following best applies to this item?

It probably prevented the purchase of a new item, for example I didn’t buy a similar item new for quite a while afterwards (76%) - half of these responses were counted to calculate the displacement rate
The second-hand/vintage purchase probably did not prevent the purchase of a new item, because I purchased something similar around the same time or quite soon afterwards (24%)

Seller Behaviour: Additionality (50% of our sellers said they would not have used another second life route for their items)

What would you have done with the items you sold [on Vestiaire] if you had not sold them?

I would have donated them to a charity (11.4%)
I would have given them to family/friends (18.5%)
I would have thrown them away (0.4%)
I would have kept them in my closet (without wearing them) (49.2%)
I would have worn them more (11.3%)
Other - written responses included selling elsewhere (9.1%)

Seller Behaviour (Only 10% of our sellers surveyed use the proceeds of their sale to directly fund new first-hand purchases)

Why did you decide to sell second-hand fashion items on Vestiaire Collective? Please choose the main reason.

It’s a full-time/part-time job for me (3.8%)
To earn some money (14.7%)
To have money available to buy other second-hand items (35.8%)
To have money available to buy new first-hand items (10.2%)
To have a sustainable behaviour (don’t keep items I don’t wear in my wardrobe and give them a second life) (35.6%)

The survey was emailed to 46,000 Vestiaire Collective consumers, including both buyers and sellers, with different levels of engagement (from occasional to regular, and new to old users). 17% of respondents were both buyers and sellers, 56% were buyers only, and 27% were sellers only.
The survey had a response rate of 5.1% with 2,363 responses in total.

Assumptions and considerations:

The assumption behind the positivity of our displacement rate is that from a sustainability perspective, preventing a first-hand purchase is seen as desirable in order to avoid the large environmental impacts that are derived from the production of new fashion items. We recognise that more research may be needed to shape and quantify the link between reducing demand for first-hand items and reducing production.
When calculating additionality, the idea of the item being given a second life or not was based on first-order effects in the near future. That is, if the item would have otherwise been donated to charity, the assumption was that it would have been bought by someone who would wear it or donated to someone in need. If the item would have otherwise been given to a friend/family, the assumption was that those people would have worn it and not left it unworn in their wardrobes, or thrown it away. For those who answered ‘other’, the option was available to provide a written explanation of what they would have done. The majority of these people said that they would have sold the item on a different online platform. For people who said that they would have kept the item in their wardrobe without wearing it, the assumption was that it would be kept there indefinitely and not given a second life whilst in their ownership for the near-term.


Methodology and data sources

How we determined environmental costs

In 2020, Coopérative Mu carried out an assessment of the environmental footprint of our operations.(19) This assessment followed a life cycle analysis (LCA) methodology, covering all the stages of a sale: online deposit and purchase, the shipping of the package, warehouse and packaging processes.

The outputs of this work included life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment data that were leveraged for this impact report. PwC valuation coefficients were applied to these datasets across the impact areas of greenhouse gases (GHGs), air pollution, water pollution, water consumption and land use.

The valuation coefficients convert the measurable environmental outcomes of our operations, expressed in kgCO²e or m3 of water consumed, into monetary terms, expressed in Euros. These monetary values represent the cost to society of the environmental impacts.

The valuation coefficients have been developed by PwC over the last decade and incorporate science-based estimations of the changes in the natural environment that result from the environmental outcomes, as well as the subsequent impact on people’s wellbeing. Quantifying the change in people’s wellbeing typically relies on non-market economic valuation techniques that look to understand people’s preferences and experiences. For example, asking people directly or indirectly for their willingness to pay to reduce risks to their wellbeing.

The PwC approaches (20) have been extensively peer reviewed and are recognised as market leading. These were the only monetary valuation methods recommended to be considered for the development of the Natural Capital Protocol by its Methodological Review Panel.

The analysis of our environmental impacts also included a comparison of our business model with that of linear fashion. Considerable attention is required when selecting a counterfactual to ensure that the comparison is fair. For this report we have chosen to compare our monetized impact against the cradle-to-gate product impacts of the Kering EP&L, as reported in their use and product end of life study (20) (noting that we have not included any use phase or end of life impacts in our comparison). The Kering EP&L also focuses on the environmental impact of luxury fashion and uses the same valuation methods across the same impact areas.

Assumptions and considerations:

The disposal of waste can drive a number of impacts including the release of GHGs and other air pollutants, leachate of pollution into water bodies and soils, and disamenity around disposal sites. In the Kering EP&L these impacts are given their own impact category and presented separately from the impacts of other GHGs, air pollution, water pollution, water consumption and land use. It was not possible to separate out the effect of waste disposal in the Coopérative Mu data and, therefore, waste disposal is not presented separately in Vestiaire Collective’s operational impacts.

This study of the environmental costs of fashion has a focus on luxury. The impacts of fast fashion may look different, reflecting significant differences in fast fashion value chains and consumer behaviour. As a further point of comparison, this would be an important area for future investigation.


Special thank you to PwC UK’s Sustainability & Climate Change team for their work using impact valuation methods and their help structuring this report.

We also want to thank some of our key partners who also contributed to this report:

  • The Boston Consulting Group, for coleading with us some consumer insights

  • Coopérative Mu, for conducting our very first Life Cycle Assessment

  • Deloitte Sustainability France, for helping us structure our climate ambition

  • The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, for bringing us valuable insights on the impact of circular business models

  • Generation IM, for challenging us on our vision and opening their network

  • Goodkids, for bringing this report to life

  • Kering, for encouraging us to look into monetisation methodologies

The sources

Our sources

Institute of Positive Fashion (2021), The Circular Fashion Ecosystem, A Blueprint for the Future

Institute of Positive Fashion (2021), The Circular Fashion Ecosystem, A Blueprint for the Future

World Economic Forum (2021), Net-Zero Challenge: The supply chain opportunity

Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group (2017), Pulse of the Fashion Industry

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s future

World Economic Forum (2020), These fact show how unsustainable the fashion industry is

FarFetch (2019), Understanding the Environmental Savings of Pre-owned Fashion
QSA (2020) - https://mailchi.mp/c3fbc95cb043/qsa-partners-research-report

WRAP (2012), Study into consumer second-hand shopping behaviour to identify the re-use displacement affect

Barclays (2022), Fashion Resale: See beyond the green

Boston Consulting Group (2020), The Consumers Behind Fashion’s Growing Secondhand Market

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Circular Business Models - Redefining growth for a thriving fashion industry (2021)


PwC UK (2015 - 2022), Natural Capital: risks and opportunities

Kering (2020), Capturing the impacts of consumer use and product end of life in luxury




Based on displacing 9% of 120bn items with savings per item equivalent to that estimated for the Vestiaire Collective platform.

Coopérative Mu (2020) Assessment of the environmental benefits of second-hand items

PwC UK (2015 - 2022), Natural Capital: risks and opportunities
https://www.pwc.co.uk/naturalcapital (Accessed 2022)

Kering (2022), What is an Environmental P&L?



Press Office: [email protected]