International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and

Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tfdt20

Drivers and barriers for sustainable fashion consumption

in Spain: a comparison between sustainable and non-
sustainable consumers

Silvia Blas Riesgo, Mariangela Lavanga & Mónica Codina

To cite this article: Silvia Blas Riesgo, Mariangela Lavanga & Mónica Codina (2023) Drivers and
barriers for sustainable fashion consumption in Spain: a comparison between sustainable
and non-sustainable consumers, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, 16:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2022.2089239

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2022.2089239

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as

Taylor & Francis Group

Published online: 21 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14819

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 28 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2022.2089239

Drivers and barriers for sustainable fashion consumption in Spain: a comparison

between sustainable and non-sustainable consumers
a b a
Silvia Blas Riesgo , Mariangela Lavanga and Mónica Codina
a
Faculty of Communication, Department of Public Opinion, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; bErasmus School of History, Culture and
Communication, Department of Arts and Culture Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research identifies and portrays the under-researched segment of sustainable fashion Received 15 September 2021
consumers, drawing a comparison with the average consumers in Spain, and defines the drivers Accepted 9 June 2022
and barriers for sustainable fashion consumption, further contributing to the attitude-behaviour
KEYWORDS
gap literature. Based on a sample of 1,063 respondents and 23 focus group participants, and Sustainable fashion
following the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the results indicate that lack of trust in fashion consumption; collaborative
companies and their sustainable statements is the main reason preventing consumers from fashion consumption; slow
buying sustainable products or doing it more often, followed by higher prices. It appears that fashion; price sensitivity;
the more sustainably conscious consumers are, the less they buy brand-new, preferring transparency
alternatives such as second-hand (mainly) and renting. Sustainable fashion consumers
demonstrate greater fashion consciousness, environmental concern, perceived consumer
effectiveness, and a higher subjective norm than average consumers. Conversely, price is still a
critical purchasing driver for the average consumer.

1. Introduction
For that purpose, this research opted for a mix-
The fashion industry has undergone several waves of method approach: three focus groups – one focalised
‘sustainability awareness’ since the 1960s. In 1996, on SF consumers and the other two dedicated to a
James A. Roberts profiled green consumers and high- broader range of consumers – to contrast the purchase
lighted that ‘Once again there is renewed sensitivity behaviour between both groups (sustainable vs. non-
toward the environment and social consciousness’ (p. sustainable consumers) and a survey with 1,063 respon-
217), and, since 2013, after the Rana Plaza disaster in dents to validate the results with a statistically relevant
Bangladesh in which over 1,130 fashion workers were sample. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen,
killed, it can be said again that the global concern 1991) was used as theoretical background to explore
about fashion and sustainability has re-emerged. Fur- the differences in Environmental Concern (EC), Subjec-
thermore, as Roberts (1996, p. 217) underlined that tive Norm (SN), Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
‘the current [ referring to the 1990s] sustainability sen- (PCE), and Future Purchase Intentions (FPI) of sustain-
sitivity focuses on consumer purchase behaviour (Wells, able consumers, drawing a comparison with the average
1990)’, in contrast to few decades before when political consumer through descriptive statistics. In addition,
solutions to the environmental and social issues gath- culture and the social environment play a crucial role
ered most of the attention. in a person’s decision-making. Bucic, Harris, and Arli
Nevertheless, within the literature, limited research (2012) conducted a cross-national study that showed
investigated the motivations driving consumers of sus- that country of residence shapes decision-making on
tainable fashion (SF) (Wiederhold & Martinez, 2018). sustainable products. Thus, this research focused on
Davies and Gutsche (2016) noted there was minimal the Spanish consumers and the Spanish fashion market,
research observing actual buying behaviour in sustain- which have their particular characteristics.
able consumption literature1 questioning how much it In summary, this research had the following objec-
is genuinely known about sustainable consumption tives: (1) To explore consumers’ perception and con-
practice. Hence, a better understanding of why and sumption of SF in Spain; (2) To explore the Spanish
how consumers engage in a particular behaviour is fashion market, considering its particular cultural and
needed. social nature; (3) To identify and portray the SF

CONTACT Silvia Blas Riesgo [email protected]; [email protected]; Mariangela Lavanga [email protected]

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

consumers and their purchasing process, drawing a disposable. People nowadays tend to dispose of worn
comparison with the average consumer; and (4) To and torn items because buying new ones is more con-
define the barriers and drivers for sustainable consump- venient than repairing them (Cooper, 2005; Goworek,
tion, further contributing to the attitude-behaviour gap Hiller, Fisher, Cooper, & Woodward, 2013; Laitala,
literature and providing guidance for practitioners and 2014).
decision-makers.
2.2. Sustainable fashion consumption
2. Literature review
In contrast, sustainable products can be defined as pro-
The mass production of fashion garments has existed ducts that yield environmental, societal, and economic
since the mid-nineteen century; however, the advent benefits while protecting public health, welfare, and
of fast fashion in the 1970s and the globalisation and lib- the environment over their entire commercial cycle
eralisation of markets have disrupted the pace of both (from the extraction of raw materials to final disposi-
fashion production and consumption (Niinimäki et al., tion), providing for the needs of future generations
2020). Thus, the fashion industry can be considered (Pencarelli, Ali Taha, Skerhákova, Valentiny, &
responsible for reinforcing some of the consumers’ Fedorko, 2020). Accordingly, Mohr, Webb, and Harris
most damaging consumption practices by promoting, (2001) defined responsible consumption as the pattern
through its business models, overconsumption and of purchasing and consuming products that maximise
waste (Buchel, Hebinck, Lavanga, & Loorbach, 2022). long-term benefits and minimise hazardous effects on
consumers and societies.
Growing consumer concern about sustainability
2.1. Overconsumption and waste
issues has been reflected in a willingness to pay higher
Between 1996 and 2018, clothing prices in the EU prices for products and services provided by companies
dropped by over 30%, relative to inflation, which pro- involved in social and environmental activities (John-
moted increased consumption and reduced clothing stone & Tan, 2015; Szmigin, Carrigan, & McEachern,
life spans (European Environment Agency, 2019). 2009). However, despite increased awareness and con-
According to a report of the European Environmental cern about SF, there has not been an evident correlation
Agency (2015), between 1996 and 2015, the price of with sustainable consumption (Hassan, Shiu, & Shaw,
clothing increased by 3%, but consumer prices in gen- 2016; Reimers, Magnuson, & Chao, 2016).
eral rose by about 60%. This meant that, relative to Thus, consumers have a positive attitude and increas-
the EU consumer consumption basket of goods (as ingly care about unethical behaviour but, frequently,
defined by the Consumer Price Index), clothing prices this attitude does not translate into action, which is
fell by 36%. Thus, since 2000, Europeans have increas- known as the attitude-behaviour gap (Bianchi & Gonza-
ingly purchased more clothing items but spent less lez, 2021; Blazquez, Henniger, Alexander, & Franquesa,
money in doing so (European Environment Agency, 2020; Jacobs, Petersen, Horisch, & Battenfeld, 2018;
2019). As an example, despite an increase in the number McNeill & Moore, 2015; Riesgo, 2019; Wiederhold &
of items owned, the average per person expenditure on Martinez, 2018). In the fashion context, researchers
clothing and footwear in the EU has decreased from have termed this conundrum the Fashion Paradox
30% in the 1950s to 12% in 2009, and 5% in 2020 (Jack- (Black, 2008; Jacobs et al., 2018; McNeill & Moore,
son & Shaw, 2008; Sajn, 2019). In 2017, European con- 2015).
sumers bought 26 kg of textiles per person while The attitude-behaviour gap has been approached
discarding about 11 kg per person per year (European mainly through behavioural models, particularly,
Environment Agency, 2019). Globally, trends are simi- Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein,
lar: Peters, Sandin, and Spark (2019) calculated that glo- 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1985) and the Theory of
bal per-capita textile production has increased from Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). These models,
5.9 kg to 13 kg per year over the period 1975–2018. which served as the theoretical base for this research,
Low costs of production and low prices facilitated the argue that a person’s behaviour can be explained
culture of buying more and more frequently and through his/her intentions, the effect of social norms
wearing items for less time (Anguelov, 2015; Jackson (perception of social pressure), and his/her perceived
& Shaw, 2008). In that sense, fast-fashion businesses behavioural control.
stimulated a ‘throw-away culture’ (Cooper, 2005), Caught between their desire to behave ethically and
devaluing the garments’ worth. Variety and quantity their need to pursue belonging and self-esteem and
prepend quality, making garments increasingly achieve social acceptance, consumers are exposed to a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 3

variety of influencing factors, all of which contribute to Pezzetti, and Grechi (2020), Pencarelli et al. (2020),
the buying decision (Lundblad & Davies, 2016). Most and Kanchanapibul, Lacka, Wang, and Chan (2014)
research has pointed out that fashion price, or the bino- pointed out that younger consumers are paying growing
mial price-quality and/or price-style, are the leading attention to SF. Similarly, leading industry reports such
variables guiding consumers’ behaviour. For instance, as The Pulse of the Fashion Industry (Global Fashion
Bianchi and Gonzalez (2021), Brandão and Costa Agenda, Boston Consulting Group & Sustainable Appa-
(2021), Munir (2020), Diddi, Yan, Bloodhart, Bajtelsmit, rel Coalition, 2019) or The State of Fashion (The
and McShane (2019), Lundblad and Davies (2016), Kar- Business of Fashion and McKinsey & Company, 2019)
aosman, Alonso, Grijalvo, and Brun (2015) stressed that profile younger consumers as the most engaged in SF
the perception (or reality) of high prices associated with consumption.
SF products is the main deterrent against SF consump- However, due to their lack of purchasing power, it is
tion. Furthermore, consumers claimed that SF products unclear to what extent young consumers are actually
were less fashionable (e.g. Blazquez et al., 2020; Diddi involved in SF consumption. Park and Lin (2020)
et al., 2019). explored the attitude-behaviour gap towards recycled
Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, and Chan (2012) and upcycled fashion products. They found that
found that while consumers expressed concern about young respondents expressed the highest interest in
the environmental and social impact of their non- ethical fashion but were the ones actually buying less
fashion purchasing decisions, they did not apply such of it. Similarly, Dhir, Sadiq, Talwar, Sakashita, and
principles to their fashion consumption. Consumers Kaur (2021) analysed the attitude-behaviour gap
talked about saving the environment in general terms, among Japanese consumers and found that women
yet they routinely availed themselves of trend-led fash- and older consumers displayed higher interest in SF.
ionable clothing that was cheap. Connell (2011) con- Nonetheless, the consensus among researchers is that
cluded that consumers considered SF as less stylish sociodemographics alone are weak predictors of SF con-
and less well-fitted than mainstream fashion. Likewise, sumption and inaccurate indicators to identify who SF
Kang and Kim (2013) pointed to consumers’ perception consumers are. Thus, a further understanding of consu-
of SF not being stylish enough to enhance their personal mers’ attitudinal attributes and purchasing decision-
image as a disabler of SF acquisition practices. making is needed to profile this market segment.
In summary, it seems that the majority of consumers
make fashion purchase decisions based primarily on
2.4. The Spanish case
appearance/style, functionality, quality and price (e.g.
Bianchi & Gonzalez, 2021; Connell, 2011; Goworek Lastly, our research focused on the Spanish consumers
et al., 2013; Lundblad & Davies, 2016). Thus, consumers and the Spanish fashion market, which have their par-
require SF to meet aesthetic and style requirements, and, ticular characteristics. According to the 2019 Economic
in general, sustainability attributes are not considered Report of the Fashion Sector in Spain, the fashion indus-
and, if so, are not the leading factors. try contributes 2.8% of the Spanish GDP. It accounts for
4.1% of the Spanish labour market and 8.7% of its
exports (Modaes.es et al., 2020). International fashion
2.3. Profiling the sustainable fashion consumers
groups such as Inditex, Mango and Tendam have
Several studies have tried to identify the ‘responsible’ their headquarters and logistics facilities in the country;
consumers in terms of sociodemographic character- thus, fast-fashion brands dominate the Spanish fashion
istics. Thus, past studies have shown that, in general, market. According to the Eurostat Index of Prices for
women are found to be more involved in sustainability Clothing and Footwear (2019), the Spanish market has
issues (Kopplin & Rösch, 2021; Niinimäki & Hassi, one of the lowest prices’ indexes in Europe (8.6%
2011; Roberts, 1996). Others have pointed out that the cheaper than the EU27 average, and only above UK,
ethical consumer can be characterised by a relatively Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria). The combination of
high income, education, and social status (Carrigan & these factors may have contributed to a consumer cul-
Attalla, 2001; Roberts, 1996). ture of low prices and highly price-sensitive consumers.
Within academia and industry nowadays, it is Conversely, an IPSOS (2020) survey for the World
believed that the younger generations are the most Economic Forum highlighted that 76% of Spanish con-
engaged in sustainable issues. Researchers such as sumers had changed their everyday lives to fight against
Kovacs (2021), Musova, Musa, Drugdova, Lazaroiu, climate change. According to a survey conducted by
and Alayasa (2021), Vatamanescu, Dabija, Gazzola, IBM in 2020 in Spain, 81% of respondents claimed to
Cegarro-Navarro, and Buzzi (2021), Gazzola, Pavione, be worried about textile waste, 68% considered SF as
4 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

important (especially women under 50 years old with Three FGs were held in Madrid (Spain) in July 2019.
high household income), and 37% of the Spanish consu- The FGs were structured as follows: group one (eight
mers declared to be willing to pay between 1% and 5% participants) and group two (nine participants)
more for SF products. A SF market has also been flour- included fashion consumers who had never bought
ishing in the latest years, with brands, such as Ecoalf, SF. The first and second groups were further divided
achieving international recognition, and a Sustainable by age: <30 years old and ≥ 30 years old. The third FG
Fashion Week being held annually in Madrid since Feb- included consumers who usually buy SF. Specifically,
ruary 2020. six participants, ranging from 21 to 38 years old, were
Few academic studies looked at the attitude-behav- recruited via Fashion Revolution Spain, Slow Fashion
iour gap among fashion consumers in Spain. In particu- Next, Humana NGO Spain, and the Spanish Association
lar, Karaosman et al. (2015) and Blazquez et al. (2020) of Sustainable Fashion (AMSE). The data gathered from
focused on fast fashion consumers’ behaviour, high- the FGs was transcribed and coded using NVivo 1.0
lighting in their results that there seems to be a general software. A content analysis was conducted following
sentiment that the sustainable market is still underdeve- an inductive approach based on the model proposed
loped in Spain. Thus, perceived lack of availability of SF by Mayring (2010), identifying themes, categories and
seemed to be a contributing factor to the attitude-behav- subcategories, thus, giving structure to the data.
iour gap among Spanish consumers. The other two The quantitativef data collection took place in Febru-
main contributing attributes were lack of interest and ary 2020 through an online survey in Google Forms. The
price. Consumers perceived SF as more expensive and, research sample consisted of Spanish consumers from
since the price is one (if not the one) of the most impor- 16 years old, from all Spanish regions in a balanced pro-
tant criteria in purchasing decision-making, they would portion, to ensure the research sample’s relevance and
opt for cheaper options. representativeness. The final sample size was 1,063
respondents (see Table 1).
The survey questionnaire consisted of four sections:
3. Methodology (1) Fashion Shopping habits; (2) Interests and involve-
ment with SF; (3) Attitude-behaviour scales: Environ-
Our research has followed a mixed-method approach:
mental Concern (EC), Subjective Norm (SN),
firstly, qualitative data was gathered through three
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE), and Future
focus groups (FGs) and then triangulated with a survey
Purchase Intentions (FPI) (to answer in a five-point
as a quantitative data collection method.
Likert scale); (4) Sociodemographic data. Survey results
were analysed through descriptive statistics. In addition,
a Univariate Analysis of Variance was undertaken to
Table 1. Description of the sample. evaluate to what extent sociodemographic variables –
Sample size (N = Sample
Characteristics 1063) % age, gender, education level, and income – influence
Gender each of the attitude-behaviour scales. The analysis was
Male 199 19 performed with the Full Factorial Model of the Univari-
Female 864 81
Age
ate ANOVA using R.
16–18 163 15
19–24 373 35
25–34 228 21 4. Results
35–44 111 11
45–54 112 11 The survey’s main results will be presented through
> 54 76 7
Income (monthly household income) descriptive statistics blending data from the focus
< 1000€ 196 18 groups when appropriate. The data will be shown con-
1000–1499€ 252 24
1500–1999€ 204 19 trasting the Average Consumer (AC) results with Sus-
2000–2999€ 229 22 tainable Fashion Consumers (SFC).
3000–4999€ 133 12
> 5000€ 49 5
Education
No studies or incomplete primary 2 0 4.1. Spanish consumers consumption habits and
education purchasing process
Primary education 86 8
Highschool 316 30 This section will examine how Spanish consumers pon-
Professional education 157 15
Bachelor’s degree 341 32 der different attributes while purchasing fashion, in
Master’s degree 140 13 which stores they shop more often, and their degree of
Ph.D. 21 2
fashion consciousness, comparing the results between
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 5

sustainable fashion consumers (SFC) and the average subscales: (1) Overall interest for fashion, (2) Average
consumer (AC). monthly spending on fashion items, and (3) Frequency
of buying.
4.1.1. Preferred attributes and stores SFC scored higher in all the four items Likert scale
In the decision-making process, both groups’ most (see Figure 2), with an average of 3.4 against 3.0 for
valued factors were fit (SFC: 4.53; AC: 4.57) and design AC. Sustainable consumers liked fashion more,
(SFC: 4.20; AC: 4.05), as depicted in Figure 1. After fit searched for fashion information and talked about it
and design, for the AC came price (4.04), quality with family and friends. Regarding the monthly spend-
(3.87), durability (3.53), easy to wash (3.07), and Made ing, SFC spent on average 38.5€ monthly, while AC
in Spain (2.69), being the least important factor ‘pro- spent 30.4€. It can be highlighted that 11% of SFC
duced with sustainable materials’ (2.35). In contrast, declared to spend more than 150€ per month. Finally,
for SFC, the list of priorities continued as follows: qual- both groups of consumers preferred buying in-store
ity (4.18), durability (4.12), produced with sustainable rather than buying online and AC seemed to buy
materials (4.00), price (3.80), easy to wash (3.50), and slightly more often than SFC.
Made in Spain (3.43); being the least important attribute In conclusion, SFC had a more significant fashion
‘from a prestigious brand’ (2.09). Sustainable consumers consciousness than AC. They were more likely to
valued high the composition of their garments: quality, spend higher amounts of money while fashion buying
durability, and made with sustainable materials, and researching fashion brands and products. SFC
whereas for the average consumer, price stood out as were less price-sensitive, preferred style over trends,
a more important attribute in the decision-making and were prone to do extensive research before buying.
process. Their higher interest in fashion may explain why they
When asked ’Where do you buy more often?’, for were more aware of the fashion industry’s current sus-
both groups, the preferred store was Zara. It can be tainability issues.
highlighted that as a second option, SFC privileged
local businesses in their neighbourhood, and they also
4.2. Understanding the Spanish sustainable
bought vintage or second-hand. They did not mention
fashion market
any SF brand. In contrast, the average Spanish consu-
mer predilected fast-fashion brands, those belonging Firstly, the awareness of Spanish consumers of SF was
to the Inditex group (Zara, Pull&Bear, Stradivarius, examined: 90.03% of the sample declared had heard of
Bershka), Mango, and H&M. Another of their preferred SF; 73% claimed to be able to define with their own
options was the department store El Corte Inglés, the words what SF is; 74.32% professed to be interested in
low-cost Primark, and finally, the sports-brand Nike. SF; 39.51% claimed to have bought at least once a SF
It is not surprising that Zara was the preferred option item. When questioned about why they did not buy
for both groups because it has become an emblem of SF or why they did not do it more often, the most
Spanish fashion. Both Zara (and its holding group Indi- repeated answer was (see Figure 3): ‘because I cannot
tex) and Mango have their headquarters and logistics discern when a brand is really sustainable or when it
facilities in Spain. Thus, fast fashion exerts a strong just claims to be it in order to improve its image’
influence in the country. (47.60%), followed by ‘because it is too expensive’
(42.62%), and ‘because it is not available where I live’
4.1.2. Fashion consciousness (30.57%). Only 92 consumers, 8.65% of the sample,
Nam et al. (2007, p. 103) explained fashion conscious- declared to buy SF regularly. Previous studies had
ness as ‘a person’s degree of involvement with the styles pointed out price, lack of availability, and unappealing
or fashion of clothing’. An individual does not have to designs as barriers to buying SF; however, it seems
be either a fashion opinion leader or a fashion innovator that lack of credibility/trust in fashion brands is the
to be considered fashion conscious. Fashion conscious- main barrier for the Spanish consumers.
ness can be related to the interest an individual has in From the previous question about why they did not
clothing and fashion and by their appearance (Gutman buy SF or why they did not do it more often, the consu-
& Mills, 1982). The questions relate to fashion’s cogni- mers who answered ‘I often buy sustainable fashion’
tive, conative, and behavioural aspects, i.e. whether were taken apart. This group was considered as the Sus-
respondents perceive themselves to be fashionable, tainable Fashion Consumers (SFC), and their behaviour
whether they are aware of/interested in fashion, and was analysed separately. Hence, for the already sustain-
whether they are motivated to consume fashion. The able consumers (see Figure 4), the main reasons not to
fashion consciousness scale is divided into three buy from SF brands were: because they prefer to buy
6 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

Figure 1. Comparison between sustainable and average consumers on the importance of a list of attributes while in process of buying
clothes or accessories.

second-hand (14.1%), because they think it is too population2); they were highly educated (67% com-
expensive (10.9%) and because they do not trust compa- pleted a bachelor’s degree or higher education), and
nies’ sustainability claims (9.8%). It seems that the more mostly above 35 years old.
aware consumers are of sustainability, the less they want Regarding collaborative fashion consumption: 85.9%
to buy brand new items, i.e. more sustainable consu- of SFC declared having bought second-hand apparel
mers tend to prefer buying second-hand than buying and 62% stated having sold clothes or accessories,
from sustainable brands. Mainly because when buying whereas, among the AC, 63.1% had bought in the
second-hand, they can overcome all of the other barriers second-hand market and 43.8% had sold clothes or
they claim not to buy from SF brands: it is less expens- accessories. Renting was the least preferred option for
ive, there is a wide variety of styles – especially working both groups. Only 6.5% of respondents had at least
appropriate attires – and qualities, and they can find once rented clothes or accessories. Thus, SFC were
clothes in their size. more willing to engage in collaborative fashion con-
Demographically, men and women within the group sumption, both by buying and selling, but it seems
were balanced (when normalised to the overall sample that they were not yet ready to renounce the products’

Figure 2. Fashion consciousness scale comparison between sustainable and average consumers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 7

Figure 3. Frequency break-down of the answers from the question ‘Why haven’t you bought sustainable fashion, or you do not buy it
more often?’ for the overall dataset.

ownership. It can be because renting is still a fledgling 4.3.2. Subjective norm

business model, and it seems more convenient for A broad definition of subjective norm is ‘the perceived
special events than daily life. social pressure to perform or not to perform the behav-
iour’ in question (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). However, subjec-
tive norm is usually defined more precisely as an
4.3. Environmental concern, subjective norm, individual’s perception or ‘opinion about what impor-
perceived consumer effectiveness, and future tant others believe the individual should do’ (Finlay,
purchase intention Trafimow, & Jones, 1997, p. 2015), i.e. perform or not
In this section, under the parameters of Theory of perform the behaviour in a specific situation. The sub-
Planned Behaviour, it will be explored to what extent jective norm scale includes three items.
Spanish consumers are concerned about the environ- Sustainable consumers have a stronger perception of
mental crisis (Environmental Concern Scale), to what pressure to behave sustainably; however, this ‘pressure’
extent they perceived social pressure to act sustainably comes more from within (moral obligation; 4.24) than
(Subjective Norm), to what extent they believe that from their close circle (family and friends; 2.78) or
their individual actions can have an impact (Perceived society (2.96). These results reflect that probably Spain
Consumer Effectiveness), and, finally, if they are willing still lacks a culture of sustainability since consumers
or not to buy SF in the future (Future Purchase Inten- do not feel that others – friends, family, or society in
tions Scale). Results are presented (see Table 2) compar- general – exert pressure on them to behave more
ing sustainable consumers (SFC) with the average sustainably.
consumer (AC).
4.3.3. Perceived consumer effectiveness
4.3.1. Environmental concern Perceived Consumer Effectiveness is the degree to
Environmental concern is generally conceptualised as which consumers believe their behaviour effectively
the degree to which an individual is troubled about mitigates environmental impact and affects environ-
environmental vulnerability, the ecological repercus- mental problems. It is one of the attitudinal factors
sions, and the inadequate nature of actions taken to influencing consumers’ commitment to pro-environ-
ensure environmental protection (Dunlap & Jones, mental behaviours (Roberts, 1996). Balderjahn’s
2002). The environmental concern scale comprises six (1988) study determined that the more a consumer
items (Table 2). Sustainable consumers had a slightly believes in individual consumers’ power to affect
more significant concern for the environment (SFC: environmental issues, the more she/he will engage in
4.57; AC: 4.21) and were more willing to make sacrifices non-polluting consumer behaviour such as energy con-
to protect it (SFC: 4.67; AC: 4.09). Overall, both groups servation and environmentally responsible purchasing
seemed to have a high environmental concern, resulting and use of products.
from the increased coverage of environmental issues in Both sustainable consumers and the average consu-
recent years by mass media outlets. mer, as seen in Table 2, believed that their actions do
8 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

Figure 4. Frequency break-down of the answers from the question ‘Why haven’t you bought sustainable fashion, or you do not buy it
more often?’ for the sustainable consumers.

Table 2. Environmental Concern (EC), Subjective Norm (SN), have an impact (SFC: 4.45; AC: 4.04); thus, they have
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE), and Future Purchase high perceived consumer effectiveness. However, in
Intentions (FPI): mean (std). the two product-specific sentences: ‘I believe that I can
Sustainable Average
consumers consumers positively impact the environment if I consume pro-
Environmental concern EC (Cronbach 4.57 (0.93) 4.21 (1.00) ducts that are sustainable’ and ‘I believe that buying sus-
α = 0.795) tainable clothing can help combat environmental
I am worried about the environment 4.65 (0.73) 4.13 (0.91)
The conditions of the environment 4.65 (0.72) 4.05 (1.06)
problems’, AC scored 0.63 and 0.68 less than SFC.
influence the quality of my life The high conviction of sustainable consumers may
I am willing to make sacrifices to 4.67 (0.70) 4.09 (0.95) explain why they were indeed sustainable consumers.
protect the environment
I think it is important to protect and 4.80 (0.62) 4.50 (0.85) In contrast, the less perceived consumer effectiveness
preserve the Earth for future of the average consumers of buying sustainable apparel
generations
I think that the environmental crisis is 3.88 (1.52) 4.06 (1.22) to solve environmental problems may explain why they
being exaggerated* do not buy SF or do not do it more often.
I believe sustainability is important 4.74 (0.68) 4.41 (0.86)
Subjective norm SN (Cronbach α = 3.33 (1.39) 2.51 (1.30)
0.695)
I think I have a moral obligation to buy 4.24 (1.03) 3.04 (1.23)
4.3.4. Future purchase intentions scale
clothes/accessories made sustainably The Future Purchase Intentions Scale measured consu-
My family and friends expect me to buy 2.78 (1.36) 1.89 (1.10) mers’ intentions to purchase sustainable apparel
more sustainable products
Society expects me to buy more 2.96 (1.28) 2.59 (1.30) through a two-item scale adapted from Hyllegard,
sustainable products Yan, Ogle, and Lee (2012) survey. SFC clearly stated
Perceive Consumer Effectiveness 4.45 (1.01) 4.04 (1.13)
PCE (Cronbach α = 0.756) that they would continue to buy sustainable apparel
Unless everyone starts to change their 4.35 (1.15) 4.07 (1.07) and recommend it to their family and friends (4.43),
consumption habits, it does not make
sense for me to change mine* whereas AC did not show the same level of commitment
The individual consumer can do 4.33 (1.16) 3.99 (1.22) (3.53).
nothing to reduce pollution*
Given that what a simple person does is 4.29 (1.22) 4.15 (1.10)
not going to have any effect on
pollution levels or natural resource 4.4. Influence of sociodemographic variables on
scarcity problems, what I do will
make no difference*
environmental concern, subjective norm,
Each consumer’s behaviour can have a 4.62 (0.75) 4.21 (1.05) perceived consumer effectiveness, and future
positive impact on society purchase intention
I believe that I can have a positive 4.58 (0.76) 3.95 (1,12)
impact on the environment if I
consume products that are
Univariate Analysis of Variance is used to understand to
sustainable what extent sociodemographic variables – age, gender,
I believe that buying sustainable
clothing can help combat
4.53 (0.90) 3.85 (1.15) education level, and income – influenced the attitude-
environmental problems behaviour gap scales. Results are presented in Table 3.
Future purchase intentions FPI 4.43 (0.91) 3.53 (1.21) The results show that education and gender had the
(Cronbach α = 0.873)
In the future, I will try to buy clothes 4.55 (0.78) 3.65 (1.15) greater impact on Environmental Concern and Per-
produced sustainably ceived Consumer Effectiveness, since p values were
In the future, I will try to convince my 4.30 (1.01) 3.41 (1.25)
family and friends to buy clothes under the threshold of 0.05. For Fashion Consciousness,
produced sustainably gender had the greatest impact, followed by age and
*Reverse-coded items. income, with education being not statistically
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 9

Table 3. Results of the full factorial model of univariate analysis of variance on the attitude-behaviour gap scales (N = 1,063).
Environmental concern
Variables Type III Sum of Squares Df F-value Sig.
GENDER 3.82 1 7.223 .007**
AGE 5.22 5 1.973 .080.
EDUCATION 15.21 6 4.791 .000***
INCOME 2.10 5 0.793 .555
Residuals 553.09 1045
Fashion consciousness
Variables Type III Sum of Squares df F-value Sig.
GENDER 35.78 1 27.326 .000***
AGE 21.79 5 3.329 .005**
EDUCATION 8.68 6 1.105 .357
INCOME 15.04 5 2.297 .043*
Residuals 1368.37 1045
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Variables Type III Sum of Squares df F-value Sig.
GENDER 15.55 1 21.261 .000***
AGE 7.69 5 2.104 .063.
EDUCATION 16.71 6 3.808 .000***
INCOME 2.39 5 0.653 .659
Residuals 764.28 1045
Subjective norm
Variables Type III Sum of Squares df F-value Sig.
GENDER 0.00 1 0.004 .947
AGE 36.91 5 6.767 .000***
EDUCATION 7.00 6 1.069 .379
INCOME 5.42 5 0.994 .420
Residuals 1139.90 1045
Future purchase intention
Variables Type III Sum of Squares df F-value Sig.
GENDER 26.23 1 20.125 .000***
AGE 15.54 5 2.386 .037*
EDUCATION 14.71 6 1.882 .081.
INCOME 7.50 5 1.150 .332
Residuals 1361.76 1045
Signif. Codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘’ 1.

significant. Subjective Norm was instead only impacted declared to buy SF often. Hence, currently, it seems
by age. Lastly, gender and age played the most signifi- that consumers like the idea of sustainability, but not
cant role in Future Purchase Intention, followed by edu- the market reality of it.
cation and with income being not statistically relevant. Sustainability seems to be the key purchasing driver
for a relatively small portion of the sample (8.65% of
consumers). SFC expressed a higher fashion conscious-
5. Discussion
ness, environmental concern, perceived subjective norm
Our research aimed to make four key contributions to pressure, perceived consumer effectiveness, and future
the sustainable consumption literature: (1) Exploring intention to buy and recommend SF than the average
consumers’ perception and consumption of SF; (2) consumers.
Exploring the Spanish market, considering its particular Demographically, men and women within the group
cultural and social nature; (3) Bettering the understand- were balanced; they were highly educated and mostly
ing of the already SF consumers and their purchasing above 35 years old. Whereas a number of research and
process, and (4) Defining drivers and barriers for SF reports (Gazzola et al., 2020; Kovacs, 2021; The Business
consumption. of Fashion and McKinsey & Company, 2019 ; Musova
Cowe and Williams (2000), in a UK study, showed et al., 2021; Pencarelli et al., 2020; Vatamanescu et al.,
that 30% of consumers intended to buy sustainable pro- 2021) tend to point out that the younger generations
ducts, whereas only a small fraction of 3% actually pur- are the most interested in SF, it seems that, in the case
chased them. Similarly, Park and Lin (2020) in South of Spain, the middle-age/older generations are the
Korea found that 35% of consumers had high purchas- ones actually buying it. Companies need to attract and
ing intention but failed to translate it into actual behav- retain their current customers and, at the same time,
iour. In the present research, 74.32% of respondents appeal to the next generations. It seems that the more
professed to be interested in SF; 39.51% claimed to sustainably aware consumers are, the less they tend to
have bought a SF item at least once, and only 8.65% buy brand-new items. Sustainable consumers indicated
10 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

neighbourhood stores and second-hand/vintage stores 6. Conclusions, limitations, and future

among their preferred shopping outlets, but non-sus- research
tainable brands were mentioned. Thus, it looks like
Due to the increasing trend of SF, it becomes crucial for
the second-hand market and collaborative fashion, in
businesses to understand consumers’ purchasing behav-
general, are direct competitors to SF brands.
iour. This research has found that there is a market for
On the other hand, the average consumers prioritise
SF; however, it is still a relatively small segment of the
fast-fashion brands when fashion buying. Essential attri-
Spanish fashion market (8.65%). Sustainable consumers
butes are fit, design, and then price. In fact, ‘because it is
demonstrate greater fashion consciousness, environ-
expensive’ was the second most selected barrier to buy
mental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, and
SF. The average consumer appears to be very price-sen-
a higher subjective norm. However, the perception of
sitive. Consumers who already buy SF are more aware of
‘pressure’ to buy sustainably comes more from their
the real price clothing should have and perceive their
moral values than from their inner circle or society
fashion purchases as an investment. Older consumers
overall, which may indicate that Spain still lacks a strong
recall saving money for several months over two dec-
‘sustainable culture’. Therefore, individual moral values
ades ago to purchase a good quality garment, primarily
can be seen as an instrument of change.
due to its high price. That made the garment a valuable
It also appears that the more sustainably conscious
item for them, and they would have tried to repair it and
consumers are, the less they buy brand-new, preferring
preserve it for as long as possible. It appears that the low
alternatives such as second-hand (mainly) and renting.
prices of fast fashion and its most recent evolution – the
For the average consumer, price is still a critical pur-
ultra-fast fashion – have contributed to devaluing the
chasing driver. Respondents indicate that lack of trust
value of fashion garments and fashion itself for
in companies and their sustainable statements is the
consumers.
main reason preventing them from buying sustainable
The question then remains for companies on how to
products or doing it more often. Thus, businesses
circumvent the price obstacle. More transparency and
should invest in palpable actions in order to be per-
information on the product journey from raw materials
ceived as more transparent and trust-worthy.
to the final product are needed. This would probably
Even though the present study provides valuable
help consumers appreciate more all the work that lies
insights into understanding the determinants of the atti-
behind their clothes, thus, giving more value to their
tude-behaviour gap in SF, these findings should be
garments and probably increasing their willingness to
interpreted in light of the following limitations. Since
pay for SF. Moreover, companies can invite consumers
participation was voluntary, both the focus group and
to think about prices in terms of Price Per Wear, turning
the survey sample were skewed towards women and
their acquisitions into investments that, in the long
younger participants; thus, the results should be inter-
term, could be cheaper than throw-away clothes.
preted with this in mind, and future research could inte-
Companies are increasingly reporting their sustain-
grate a more significant sample.
ability actions; however, how they are disseminating
Future research could perform a similar analysis
their sustainability efforts seems to confuse consu-
within other countries to determine to what extent cul-
mers. ‘I cannot discern when a brand is really sustain-
ture influences SF consumption. The apparent lack of a
able or when it just claims to be it in order to improve
‘strong sustainability culture’ in Spain could be studied
its image’ was the main reason respondents declared
through the agenda-setting and framing theories, that is,
not to buy SF or not do it more often. There seems
a research of the volume of contents about SF displayed
to be an increasing scepticism and cynicism towards
by (social) media and the framing of those contents.
sustainability claims. Unfortunately, practices like
greenwashing (see Henninger, Alevizou, & Oates,
2016; Niinimäki, 2015), known as a marketing tech- Notes
nique that uses sustainable credentials intending to 1. In our research, clothing consumption refers to an indi-
improve a company’s image and, therefore, increasing vidual’s clothing acquisition decisions, use, and end of
sales, but lacking actual sustainable actions, have con- life. It encompasses acquiring, storing, using, maintain-
tributed to consumer’s lack of trust. Moreover, scan- ing, and discarding clothing products (Winakor, 1969).
dals, such as Boohoo’s most recent allegations about 2. The quantitative study sample was skewed towards
women and younger respondents; therefore, each cate-
worker exploitation by a supplier in the English
gory’s data was normalised. For example, there were
town of Leicester (Cernansky, 2020), might have 199 male respondents, and 16 of them declared to
affected consumers’ trust in brands and companies’ buy sustainable fashion; hence, 8% of men buy sustain-
sustainable claims. able fashion. Whereas there were 864 female
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 11

respondents and 76 bought sustainable fashion often, Connell, K. Y. H. (2011). Exploring consumers’ perceptions of
therefore, 8.8% of women were sustainable fashion con- eco-conscious apparel acquisition behaviors. Social
sumers. The exact process was followed with all the Responsibility Journal, 7, 61–73.
other demographic attributes. Cooper, T. (2005). Slower consumption reflections on product
life spans and the “throwaway society”. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 9(1-2), 51–67. doi:10.1162/1088198054084671
Disclosure statement Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Who are the ethical consu-
mers? London, UK: Cooperative Bank.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Davies, I. A., & Gutsche, S. (2016). Consumer motivations for
mainstream “ethical” consumption. European Journal of
Marketing, 50, 1326–1347. doi:10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0795
ORCID Dhir, A., Sadiq, M., Talwar, S., Sakashita, M., & Kaur, P.
Silvia Blas Riesgo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149-9088 (2021). Why do retail consumers buy green apparel? A
Mariangela Lavanga http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-9509 knowledge-attitude-behaviour-context perspective.
Mónica Codina http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3378-7308 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102398.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102398
Diddi, S., Yan, R. N., Bloodhart, B., Bajtelsmit, V., & McShane,
K. (2019). Exploring young adult consumers’ sustainable
References
clothing consumption intention-behavior gap: A behav-
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. ioral reasoning theory perspective. Sustainable Production
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Consumption, 18, 200–209.
50, 179–211. Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern:
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap, & W.
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology
Hall. (pp. 482–524). Westport, UK: Greenwood Press.
Anguelov, N. (2015). The dirty side of the garment industry: European Environment Agency. (2015). Environmental indi-
Fast fashion and its negative impact on the environment cator report 2014. Environmental impacts of production-
and society. New York, NY: CRC Press. consumption systems in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental eu/publications/environmental-indicator-report-2014
attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consump- European Environment Agency. (2019). Textiles in Europe’s
tion patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17(1), 51–56. circular economy. https://www.eea.europa.eu/downloads/
Bianchi, C., & Gonzalez, M. (2021). Exploring sustainable e27564dbf0f7462ea5c52e4c9aaf2775/1615301143/textiles-
fashion consumption among eco-conscious women in in-europe-s-circular-economy.pdf
Chile. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Eurostat. (2019). Clothing and footwear price levels in the EU.
Consumer Research, 31(4), 375–392. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/pricelevels/
Black, S. (2008). Eco chic: The fashion paradox. London, UK: pricelevels_2019/
Black Dog Publishing. ISBN: 978-1906155094. Finlay, K A, Trafimow, D, & Jones, D. (1997). Predicting
Blazquez, M., Henniger, C. E., Alexander, B., & Franquesa, C. health behaviors from attitudes and subjective norms:
(2020). Consumers’ knowledge and intentions towards sus- Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Journal of
tainability: A Spanish fashion perspective. Fashion Practice, Applied Social Psychology, 27(22), 2015–2031.
12(1), 34–54. doi:10.1080/175569370.2019.1669326 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Belief, attitude, intention, and
Brandão, A., & Costa, A. G. (2021). Extending the theory of behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,
planned behaviour to understand the effects of barriers MA: Addison-Wesley.
towards sustainable fashion consumption. European Gazzola, P., Pavione, E., Pezzetti, R., & Grechi, D. (2020).
Business Review, 33(5), 742–774. doi:10.1108/EBR-11- Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustain-
2020-0306 ability and circular economy: A gender/generation quanti-
Buchel, S., Hebinck, A., Lavanga, M., & Loorbach, D.. (2022). tative approach. Sustainability, 12(7), 2809.
Disrupting the status quo: a sustainability transitions analy- Global Fashion Agenda, Boston Consulting Group, &
sis of the fashion system. Sustainability: Science, Practice Sustainable Apparel Coalition. (2019). Pulse of the fashion
and Policy, 18(1), 231–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ industry. http://media-publications.bcg.com/france/Pulse-
15487733.2022.2040231 of-the-Fashion-Industry2019.pdf
Bucic, T., Harris, J., & Arli, D. (2012). Ethical consumers Goworek, H., Hiller, A., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., & Woodward,
among the millennials: A cross-national study. Journal of S. (2013). Consumers’ attitudes toward sustainable fashion:
Business Ethics, 110(1), 113–131. doi:10.1007/s10551-011- Clothing usage and disposal. In Sustainability in fashion
1151-z and textiles: Values, design, production, and consumption.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.978-
consumer: Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? 1-909493-61-2_25
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578. Gutman, J, & Mills, M K. (1982). Fashion life cycle, self-con-
Cernansky, R. (2020). After Boohoo: Tackling fashion’s sys- cept, shopping orientation, and store patronage: An inte-
temic problems. https://www.voguebusiness.com/ grative analysis. Journal of Retailing, 58, 64–87.
sustainability/after-boohoo-tackling-fashions-systemic- Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2016). Who says there is
problems an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical
12 S. BLAS RIESGO ET AL.

evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical con- Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen
sumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 219–236. und Techniken. Weinheim, DE: Beltz Verlag.
doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0 McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion con-
Henninger, C. E., Alevizou, P. J., & Oates, C. J. (2016). What is sumption and the fast-fashion conundrum: Fashionable
sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing
Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 400–416. choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3),
doi:10.1108/JFMM-07-2015-0052 212–222. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12169t
Hyllegard, K. H., Yan, R. N., Ogle, J. P., & Lee, K. H. (2012). Modaes.es, Centro de Información Textil y de la Confección,
Socially responsible labeling: The impact of hang tags on & Moddo. (2020). Informe económico de la moda en España
consumers’ attitudes and patronage intentions toward an 2019. https://www.modaes.es/files/000_2016/
apparel brand. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30 0001publicaciones/pdfs/informe_economico_2019.pdf
(1), 51–66. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consu-
IBM. (2020). El 81% de los españoles se preocupa por el desper- mers expect companies to be socially responsible? The
dicio textil. https://es.newsroom.ibm.com/announcements? impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behav-
item=122600 ior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.
IPSOS. (2020). El 76% de los españoles han cambiado sus Munir, S. (2020). Eco-fashion adoption in the UAE:
hábitos para luchar contra el cambio climático. https:// Understanding consumer barriers and motivational fac-
www.ipsos.com/es-es/el-76-de-los-espanoles-han- tors. Fashion Practice, 12(3), 371–393.
cambiado-sus-habitos-para-luchar-contra-el-cambio- Musova, Z., Musa, H., Drugdova, J., Lazaroiu, G., & Alayasa, J.
climatico (2021). Consumer attitudes towards new circular models in
Jackson, T., & Shaw, D. (2008). Mastering fashion marketing. the fashion industry. Journal of Competitiveness, 13(3),
London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 111–128.
Jacobs, K., Petersen, L., Horisch, J., & Battenfeld, D. (2018). Nam, J., Hamlin, R., Gam, H. J., Kang, J. H., Kim, J., Kumphai,
Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical P., … Richards, L. (2007). The fashion-conscious behaviors
extension of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy in sus- of mature female consumers. International Journal of
tainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, Consumer Studies, 31(1), 102–108.
1155–1169. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320 Niinimäki, K. (2015). Ethical foundations in sustainable
Johnstone, M. L., & Tan, L. (2015). Exploring the gap between fashion. Textiles & Clothing Sustainability, 1(1), 1–11.
consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. doi:10.1186/s40689-015-0002-1
Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 311–328. doi:10.1007/ Niinimäki, K., & Hassi, L. (2011). Emerging design strategies
s10551-014-2316-3 in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1876–1883.
(2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., &
of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273–295. doi:10. Gwilt, A. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion.
2752/175174112X13340749707123 Nature Reviews, 1, 189–200. doi:10.1038/s43017-020-
Kanchanapibul, M., Lacka, E., Wang, X., & Chan, H. K. 0039-9
(2014). An empirical investigation of green purchase Park, H. J., & Lin, L. M. (2020). Exploring attitude-behavior
behavior among the young generation. Journal of Cleaner gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled
Production, 66, 528–536. doi:10.1016/j.clepro.2013.10.062 and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business
Kang, J., & Kim, S. H. (2013). What are consumers afraid of? Research, 117, 623–628.
Understanding perceived risk toward the consumption of Pencarelli, T., Ali Taha, V., Skerhákova, V., Valentiny, T., &
environmentally sustainable apparel. Family and Fedorko, R. (2020). Luxury products and sustainability
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 41(3), 267–283. issues from the perspective of young Italian consumers.
Karaosman, H., Alonso, G. M., Grijalvo, M., & Brun, A. Sustainability, 12, 245. doi:10.3390/su12010245
(2015). The impact of ethical fashion on Spanish consu- Peters, G. M., Sandin, G., & Spark, B. (2019). Environmental
mers. Dirección y Organización, 57, 63–73. prospects for mixed textile recycling in Sweden. ACS
Kopplin, C. S., & Rösch, S. F. (2021). Equifinal causes of sus- Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 7, 11682–11690.
tainable clothing purchase behavior: An fsQCA analysis doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b01742
among generation Y. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Reimers, V., Magnuson, B., & Chao, F. (2016). The academic
Services, 63, 102692. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102692 conceptualisation of ethical clothing could it account for
Kovacs, I. (2021). Perceptions and attitudes of generation z the attitude behaviour gap? Journal of Fashion Marketing
consumers towards sustainable clothing: Managerial impli- and Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 383–
cations based on a summative content analysis. Polish 399. doi:10.1108/JFMM-12-2015-0097
Journal of Management Studies, 23(1), 257–276. doi:10. Riesgo, S. B. (2019). The consumption side of sustainable
17512/PJMS.2021.23.1.16 fashion: Understanding the attitude-behavior gap among
Laitala, K. (2014). Consumers’ clothing disposal behavior – A the Spanish consumers. In N. Kalbaska, T. Sádaba, F.
synthesis of research results. International Journal of Cominelli, & L. Cantoni (Eds.), Fashion communication
Consumer Studies, 38(5), 444–457. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12088 in the digital age (pp. 111–117). Springer International.
Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2016). The values and motiv- doi:10.10007/978-3-030-15436-3_10
ations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile
of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162. doi:10.1002/cb. and implications for advertising. Journal of Business
1559 Research, 36, 217–231. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 13

Sajn, N. (2019). Environmental impact of the textile and cloth- Vatamanescu, E. M., Dabija, D. C., Gazzola, P., Cegarro-
ing industry: What consumers need to know. http://www. Navarro, J. G., & Buzzi, T. (2021). Before and after the out-
europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html? break of Covid-19: Linking fashion companies’ corporate
reference=EPRS_BRI%282019%29633143 social responsibility approach to consumers’ demand for
Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M., & McEachern, M. G. (2009). The sustainable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 321,
conscious consumer: Taking a flexible approach to ethical 128945. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128945
behavior. International IJC, 33(2), 224–231. doi:10.1111/j. Wiederhold, M., & Martinez, L. F. (2018). Ethical consumer
1470-6431.2009.00750.x behavior in Germany: The attitude-behavior gap in the
The Business of Fashion and McKinsey and Company. (2019). green apparel industry. International Journal of
The state of fashion 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/ Consumer Studies, 42(4), 419–429. doi:10.1111/ijcs.
~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/the% 12435
20state%20of%20fashion%202020%20navigating%20uncer- Winakor, G. (1969). The process of clothing consumption.
tainty/the-state-of-fashion-2020-final.ashx. Journal of Home Economics, 61, 629–634.