Most Women Wear the Wrong Shoe Size. Apparel Fit Has the Same Problem.
Most Australian women are not bad at buying shoes. The sizing system is bad at describing their feet. An RMIT University study of 107 women, published in the International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, found 72 per cent wore a different size under US sizing and 65 per cent under EU sizing than foot length indicated. The same failure mode sits inside apparel: length-only or one-width thinking, inconsistent size charts across brands, and returns that get filed as "customer preference" when they are a specification problem. StyleChain (3 Clicks) PLM is where fit strategy becomes graded measurements, tolerances, and a size story factories can repeat.
What the RMIT footwear study actually found
More participants sized up than down: 59 per cent under US sizing and 52 per cent under EU sizing wore a larger size than foot length implied. The researchers read that as compensation for width, not as vanity sizing. Women assigned the same shoe size by length still varied by up to 40 mm around the widest part of the foot under US sizing, and 37 mm under EU sizing. Sixty-eight per cent reported at least one recurring fit problem. Associate professor Saniyat Islam put it directly: women are often forced to choose between the right length and the right width because a single size does not capture foot shape.
Most shoes are still sold in one width. The study's variation implied about six or seven width options to accommodate women who share a length. Australia's multi-ethnic population made the gap sharper. Of participants who said shoes were often too narrow, 60 per cent were from North-East Asian, South-East Asian, or Southern Asian backgrounds. The sample was not built to prove differences between groups, and the authors asked for larger follow-up work. Associate professor Carol Tan noted that footwear sizing still largely reflects a narrow range of Western foot shapes, despite Australia having one of the world's more diverse populations. More than half of participants did not know their UK size, which is the everyday confusion of US, UK, and EU charts sitting on the same shelf.
Apparel already pays this bill in returns
Footwear makes the width problem visible because the customer can point to a number on a box. Apparel hides it in body length, bust, hip, and rise, then in how those measurements grade from an 8 to a 16, or across an inclusive curve. When two colourways of the same style fit differently, or when a carryover block was quietly altered, customers do not write "your grading table drifted". They send it back.
Inclusive Australian retailers already know this. Fit integrity is the promise; specification drift is the risk. Broader size ranges amplify tolerance sensitivity. A 10 mm error that a straight-size customer might tolerate becomes a return, a claim, and a social post when the customer has been underserved by the industry for years. The RMIT finding is useful far beyond shoes: if your system only stores a length, you will keep offering the wrong product to people who needed a different shape.
What belongs in PLM, not in a size-chart PDF
Graded measurements with explicit tolerances
A size chart on a website is a marketing summary. The factory needs a graded table, point-of-measure definitions, and tolerances that technical and production have both signed. StyleChain keeps those on the style and on the block family so a new colourway cannot quietly shed a centimetre of length.
Shape, not only size
Footwear width is the obvious analogue. In apparel it is cup and band, rise, thigh, calf, and torso length. You will not offer seven widths on every sandal or every jean on day one. You should know which categories have enough variation to justify a second fit, a petite or tall story, or a block split, and you should record that decision where merchandising can see the cost.
One conversion story across US, UK, EU, and AU
If half of shoe customers cannot name their UK size, assume apparel customers are equally lost when your AU 12, US 8, and EU 40 were mapped in three different spreadsheets. Publish from one conversion table attached to the product record, including the date it last changed.
Returns as product feedback
Tag returns and claims to measurement points and construction callouts, not to a generic "fit" bucket. When 68 per cent of a footwear sample already report recurring problems, anecdotal fit comments are not a strategy. Linked evidence (approved sample photos, graded specs, and the variant the customer bought) is how technical teams fix the next season instead of arguing with customer care.
Diversity as a design input
Australia's customer base is not a single last or a single dress form. If your block library was built on a narrow fit model and never re-measured, you are repeating the Western-last problem RMIT called out. PLM will not take the anthropometric study for you. It will stop the organisation forgetting the study after the presentation.
A practical sequence for Australian brands
- Inventory the size charts you actually publish versus the tables factories cut from.
- Pick one high-return category. Encode points of measure, tolerances, and grade rules on the block.
- Attach fit-session outcomes to the style so "approved" means a dated decision, not a hallway agreement.
- Align eCommerce size guidance and imagery to the approved sample, not to a leftover asset.
- Review return reasons monthly against those measurement points before you add another size to the curve.
Adding sizes without tightening the spec is how brands create more ways to be wrong. RMIT's recommendation for footwear (more width options, clearer charts, less faith in length alone) maps cleanly: more honest shape options, fewer decorative size labels.
Frequently asked questions
Does this only apply to footwear brands?
No. The study is about a sizing system that describes one dimension and ignores the rest. Jeans, tailoring, intimates, kidswear, and inclusive womenswear all fail the same way when grade rules are tribal knowledge.
Will more sizes fix fit?
Not by themselves. More sizes on a bad block multiply returns. Fix the block, the tolerances, and the conversion table first. Then decide whether a second width, a petite, or an extended curve earns its inventory.
How does StyleChain help compared with a shared Google Sheet?
A sheet can store numbers. It cannot stop last season's table being emailed to a factory while the website still shows a 2024 chart. Revision control, supplier acknowledgement, and linked sample evidence are the difference.
What should we tell customers who size up to get width?
Do not train them to buy the wrong length. If a category needs a second shape, name it, spec it, and stock it. If it does not, be honest in the size guide about what the garment will and will not do.
If your returns still say "fit" and your factory still cuts from a length chart, you are running the same system RMIT said is failing Australian women. Put graded truth on the style in StyleChain at https://www.stylechain.com.
