Inclusive or performative? What the AW26 season says about fashion’s diversity problem

Beyond the spectacle of the recent fashion weeks, the industry once again sits somewhere between progress and performance.

For an industry that so often claims inclusivity, fashion still overwhelmingly caters to a single body type. Across the many runways and shows in key fashion capitals, the presence of a few plus-size or mid-size models can create the illusion of progress. However, there is a clear difference between spotting one or two varied bodies on a runway and examining the broader reality of how inclusive these shows actually are.

The glitz and spectacle remain undeniable, and this season in particular carried added anticipation. With several new creative directors making their debuts and returns, expectations were high and attention even higher. However, even with close attention to every show, the dominance of slimmer body types felt unmistakably familiar.

The season revealed more of the same patterns than any real evolution. Fashion continues to gesture toward inclusivity without fully committing to it, raising the question of when, or if, the industry will embrace diversity as a standard.

Read also: Is there true inclusivity or just a marketing strategy? International plus-size model reflects on her journey in the fashion industry

 

The diversity facade

Across New York Fashion Week, London Fashion Week, Milan Fashion Week and Paris Fashion Week, over 100 shows took place, with more than 7,000 looks sent down the runway. Despite the scale, the overall size diversity saw a decline compared to the previous Spring/Summer 2026 season.

Figures from a recent renowned runway diversity report tell a sobering story. The stark majority of castings remained within straight sizes (US 0–4), accounting for 97.6% of all looks. Mid-size representation (US 6–12) stood at 2.1%, while plus-size models (US 14 and above) made up just 0.3%. Although mid-size representation saw a marginal increase from 2% last season, plus-size visibility dropped significantly from 0.9% to just 0.3%, highlighting a notable step backwards in broader inclusivity.

A closer look across the fashion capitals only reinforces the pattern. According to data compiled by fashion industry analysts, New York remained largely unchanged, with straight-size looks dominating at 97.7%. Paris, however, emerged as the least inclusive, with only a handful of brands casting beyond straight sizes and a staggering 99.5% of looks falling within that range. 

London presented slightly more variation, with 92.7% straight-size, 6.5% mid-size, and 0.8% plus-size representation. Meanwhile, Milan remained largely aligned with the broader trend, with 97.3% straight-sized.

Taken together, these figures offer a clearer picture of where the industry truly stands — one where the language of range continues to outpace the reality on the runway.

Read also: Marie Claire Nigeria Inclusivity Report: Lagos Fashion Week Spring/Summer 2026

The issues trickling down to the shopper

The numbers alone are enough to shift perception. At this point, inclusivity in fashion begins to feel more like an idea. While a handful of mid-size and plus-size bodies may appear on the runway, the gesture often ends there. 

It creates the impression that these consumers are being considered, yet a visit to the stores tells a very different story. Rails remain dominated by straight sizes, leaving many to question whether what they saw on the runway was ever meant for them. .

Fashion’s relationship with inclusivity often feels reactive. Brands are quick to align themselves with the language of representation, yet far slower to interrogate what it actually means to design for different bodies. More often than not, collections are created within pre-existing size frameworks, instead of clothes being designed to fit a wider range of people. As long as that approach remains unchanged, progress will continue to stall.

Read also: I’m a UK size 10, but finding clothes that actually fit feels like guesswork — here’s why sizing is far more complicated than the number on the tag

Tiny beginnings, big gaps

At a time marked by the return of ultra-thin body ideals from the resurgence of heroin chic to the revival of early 2000s skinniness, genuine inclusion feels increasingly out of reach. Even trends positioned as fluid or for everyone, like sheer dressing and relaxed tailoring, are often confined to standard runway sample sizes.

These samples, typically produced in the smallest measurements (around a US size 2–4), serve as the foundation for collections before they reach production. In other words, the baseline itself is already limited. When fashion begins from such a narrow point of reference, variety is already compromised at its foundation.

Read also: The first time I felt pretty

The “trend gap” problem

The gap is even clearer when considering the realities faced by plus-size shoppers. Creator, stylist, and body-positive advocate Alessia Golfetto recently highlighted the growing trend gap in plus-size fashion. The widening distance between what is seen on the runway, in retail stores and what is actually available to wear.

She explains that the desire is not absent; plus-size consumers want the same experimental, expressive pieces as anyone else. Even so, by the time collections reach retail and extended sizes, much of that creativity has been diluted or removed entirely, leaving behind safer, more limited options. What remains is not a reflection of personal style, but a compromise.

Read also: For plus-size people, they don’t tend to understand our body – Ufa Dania

Extended sizing isn’t enough

At the centre of this issue is the misunderstanding of what extended sizing truly means. Often, it is treated as a simple extension. Rather than designing with larger bodies in mind, many brands simply scale up existing patterns. But unlike true plus-size clothing — which accounts for different proportions and fit — extended sizes are often just enlarged versions of smaller garments.  The result is clothing that technically exists, but doesn’t genuinely serve the people it is meant for.

This is where the gap begins. In attempting to appear broad-ranging, brands often overlook the deeper work required to understand different body types and their needs. Inclusion is not achieved through addition alone; it requires intention, research, and a willingness to rethink long-standing design processes.

Fashion still has a long way to go. Creating for a broader range of bodies demands time, effort, and consistency, especially in an area the industry has long-standingly neglected. However, it is not impossible. After all, clothing, at its core, is about fit, construction, and understanding form. The same level of care applied to bespoke or made-to-measure pieces can, and should, be extended to ready-to-wear fashion.

Read also: How body diversity is gradually fading from fashion as the era of “quick thin” returns

Where the runway ends and reality begins

Despite the promises each season brings, fashion’s inclusivity remains more like a figure of speech. The runways may nod to diversity, but the foundation, production practices, and ready-to-wear rails still favour the thin ideal. As welcome as the diversity seen on the runways is, it needs to extend beyond that. 

The key is to design, produce, and deliver clothes that genuinely fit and celebrate all bodies. Until that happens, the industry is simply repackaging thinness as neutral,  leaving many consumers unseen and underserved. Inclusivity cannot exist as a trend; it must be built into every pattern and piece from the start. Only then can fashion move beyond performance and finally become a space where all bodies feel welcome.

Read more: It’s time to dismantle the beauty standards we never asked for

The post Inclusive or performative? What the AW26 season says about fashion’s diversity problem appeared first on Marie Claire Nigeria.