Does Africa Need Its Own Clothing and Footwear Sizing Framework?

Image Credit: Essence

Generally, clothing and footwear sizing can be quite subjective. A size 8 in one market may not mean the same thing as a size 8 in another. Consumers buying clothing globally are already familiar with this. The United States, the United Kingdom and European markets use different sizing conventions, and brands can apply sizing differently even within the same market. The existence of different systems is not unusual. In fact, sizing has long been the subject of technical standardisation work internationally.

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has a dedicated technical committee, ISO/TC 133, Clothing sizing systems – size designation, size measurement methods and digital fittings, which works on questions including how bodies are measured and how those measurements are translated into clothing size designations.

This provides an important context for a question now being considered within Africa's textile standards conversation: What would an African clothing and footwear sizing framework look like?

The question came into focus at the Workshop on Textiles and Leather, held during the 32nd African Organisation for Standardisation (ARSO) General Assembly in Mombasa, Kenya. One of the session highlights was the “benefits of Africa's body measurements, clothing and footwear for intra-African trade under the AfCFTA and the AGOA.”

Markets around the world have developed their own approaches to sizing, while international standards have sought to make the underlying measurement and designation systems more consistent. For Africa, the question is whether a framework informed by African body measurements could similarly support the development, manufacture and movement of clothing and footwear across African markets.

A Size Is More Than a Letter or Number

It is easy to think of clothing sizes as labels. In practice, a sizing system involves several different concepts.

• Body measurement refers to the dimensions of the person the garment is intended to fit.

• Size designation is the system used to communicate that information to the consumer.

• Garment measurement refers to the dimensions of the finished garment.

These concepts are not the same thing. A garment labelled “M” does not have to have identical measurements to every other garment labelled “M”. The final dimensions of a garment depend on its design, cut, intended fit, fabric and construction. International standards recognise this distinction. ISO 8559-2 is designed around a size designation system that communicates the body dimensions of the person the garment is intended to fit, rather than simply specifying the dimensions of the finished garment. The standard explains that garment measurements remain matters for designers and manufacturers, who take account of style, cut and other characteristics of the product.

When discussing an African sizing framework. The objective would not necessarily be to make every African garment identical. It would be to create greater consistency in the measurement and communication of size.

Different Markets Already Use Different Approaches

The idea of a regional sizing framework therefore does not mean Africa would be doing something unprecedented. The United States has its own extensive body-measurement and apparel-sizing standards work through ASTM, including standards covering terminology and tables of body measurements for different population and garment categories. European standardisation has also addressed clothing size designation through standards such as EN 13402, which uses body dimensions and the metric system to communicate clothing sizes. European standardisation work has also recognised that developing a common approach to how sizes are communicated is not straightforward.

The point is not that the United States or Europe has eliminated every sizing difference. It has not.

Rather, these examples demonstrate that body measurement and size designation are legitimate areas for standards development. Africa can therefore ask a similar question for its own markets:

What measurement and sizing framework best serves African consumers, manufacturers and retailers?

Africa Is Not Starting From Zero

There is already an African standards infrastructure for textiles. ARSO's Technical Committee 53, Textiles, Textile Products and Accessories, covers standardisation in the textile sector and identifies ISO/TC 133, the international committee responsible for clothing sizing systems, among its equivalent committees.

ARSO's standards catalogue also contains African Regional Standards relating to clothing measurement and sizing. For example, ARS 27:1986, Size designation of clothes – Definitions and body measurement procedure, addresses the designation of clothing sizes and procedures for measuring the body. ARSO also lists ARS 1552:2017, Standard methods of garment measurement – Code of practice, which addresses methods for measuring garments.

This means the starting point is not necessarily an absence of standards. The more useful question might be: How can existing standards, current body-measurement data and industry practice be brought together into a sizing framework that works for contemporary African markets?

The Body Measurement Question

A meaningful sizing framework begins with data. Before determining what a particular size should represent, manufacturers and standards bodies need to understand the population for which garments are being designed. That can involve measurements such as:

• height;

• chest or bust;

• waist;

• hip;

• shoulder dimensions; and

• leg length.

For footwear, relevant measurements include the dimensions of the foot. ISO 8559-1 provides an international framework for defining anthropometric measurements that can be used to create physical and digital anthropometric databases and to develop size and shape profiles for clothing. It is intended to help practitioners select population market segments and compare anthropometric datasets. ISO 8559-3 goes further, setting out a methodology for creating body-measurement tables and intervals for ready-to-wear garments. It uses statistical analysis of body-dimension data and recognises that body shape and proportions can differ between targeted population groups.

This is particularly relevant to Africa. There is no single body type that can simply be labelled “African”. African markets encompass diverse populations with differences in body size and proportions.

A continental sizing framework would therefore have to answer a difficult methodological question:

How can a common system be developed while still reflecting differences between African populations?

That may mean that the objective is not one rigid table covering every consumer. It could instead be a common framework for measuring bodies, defining size ranges and communicating those measurements, with appropriate data and size ranges for different population groups and product categories.

One African Framework Does Not Mean One African Fit

This is where the difference between standardisation and uniformity becomes important. A common sizing framework would not mean that every African designer must produce the same fit. A designer can still choose a fitted, relaxed or oversized silhouette. A manufacturer can still account for fabric properties. Brands can continue to develop different cuts and aesthetics.

The standardisation would sit underneath those choices. The purpose would be to provide a common reference for the body the garment is intended to fit. This is consistent with the international approach. ISO 8559-2 bases size designation on body measurements while leaving garment dimensions to designers and manufacturers, who make allowances for style, cut and other product characteristics.

The goal, therefore, would not be to make African fashion uniform. It would be to make size information more consistent and meaningful.

Why Does This Matter for Intra-African Trade?

A fashion brand that sells only in one market can develop its products around the measurements and sizing conventions familiar to its customers. A brand selling across several African markets has a different challenge. It needs to communicate to consumers in different markets what its products are designed to fit.

For manufacturers, retailers and brands, a more coherent sizing framework could potentially support:

• Product development: Manufacturers could work from common body-measurement references when developing products for different African markets.

• Labelling: Consumers could receive clearer information about the body measurements associated with a particular size.

• Cross-border retail: Brands operating across several markets could communicate sizing using a more consistent reference.

• E-commerce: Measurement-based size information could be particularly useful when consumers cannot physically try a garment before purchase.

• Manufacturing for multiple markets: A common framework could make it easier to develop products intended for more than one African market.

These are potential benefits, not a guarantee that a sizing framework would remove trade barriers. A common sizing system would not eliminate customs requirements, taxes, logistics, product standards, labelling rules or other regulatory requirements. It would address one technical aspect of a much larger trading system.

What About Footwear?

The ARSO workshop referred to both clothing and footwear, but the two should not be treated as the same standardisation question. ARSO has a separate technical committee for Footwear and Accessories, ARSO/TC 55, covering areas including footwear terminology, classification, specifications, testing and related standards. Footwear brings its own questions about foot measurements, size designation and marking. This means that an African clothing and footwear sizing framework could involve related but distinct components:

• Clothing: How should African body measurements inform ready-to-wear sizing?

• Footwear: How should African foot measurements inform footwear sizing and size designation?

The underlying objective is similar: providing manufacturers, retailers and consumers with clearer and more consistent information.

The Legal and Regulatory Question

For lawyers, there are several important questions. For example, how would such a framework become part of the market? A technical standard does not automatically become a mandatory legal requirement merely because it exists. Other questions include:

Who develops the standard?

ARSO's technical committees provide a continental mechanism for developing and harmonising African standards. ARSO/TC 53 is already responsible for textile standardisation and connects its work to the international sizing systems framework.

Would the framework be voluntary or mandatory?

Its legal effect would depend on how it is adopted or incorporated into national standards and regulatory systems.

Would national standards bodies adopt it?

For a regional framework to have practical impact, national systems and industry would need to recognise and use it.

What would compliance look like?

That could raise questions about product information, conformity assessment, market surveillance and enforcement.

Could recognition across markets be improved?

This is where the idea connects with the broader AfCFTA agenda around standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment.

The legal issue, therefore, is not simply the creation of a size chart. It is the movement from regional standard → national implementation → industry adoption → consumer use.

What Would an African Sizing Framework Need?

If such a framework were to be developed or strengthened, several building blocks would be important.

1. Reliable data: A sizing system needs current and sufficiently representative anthropometric data.

2. Common measurement methods: The measurements need to be defined and taken consistently so that data from different sources can be compared.

3. Appropriate size ranges: The data would need to be translated into useful body-measurement intervals for different population groups and product categories.

4. Standards and technical guidance: The framework would need clear rules for how measurements translate into size designations and consumer information.

5. National implementation: African countries and their standards bodies would need to determine how regional standards are adopted and applied.

6. Industry adoption: Manufacturers, designers, retailers and digital platforms would need to actually use the framework.

7. Consumer communication: The final system would need to be understandable to the person buying the garment or footwear.

So, Does Africa Need an African Clothing and Footwear Sizing Framework?

Other markets already demonstrate that different sizing conventions can exist alongside international efforts to make body measurements and size designation more systematic. The relevant question is whether African markets can develop a framework that reflects African body-measurement data, supports African manufacturers and provides consumers with clearer information about the products they buy.

There is already a foundation for that conversation. ARSO has a technical committee covering textiles and identifies clothing sizing systems within its standards work. International standards provide methodologies for defining body measurements and creating body-measurement tables for ready-to-wear garments.

The ARSO Workshop on Textiles and Leather placed these issues within a broader discussion of the role of textiles, clothing, footwear and standards in intra-African trade. The opportunity is therefore to make the systems supporting African fashion more interoperable.