Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries: Consumerism and Fashion Sustainability [1st ed. 2020] 3030385310, 9783030385316, 9783030385323

Citation preview

Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry

Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Miguel Angel Gardetti Editors

Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries Consumerism and Fashion Sustainability

Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry

Series editor Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu, Head of Sustainability, SgT and API, Kowloon, Hong Kong

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16490

Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Miguel Angel Gardetti Editors

Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries Consumerism and Fashion Sustainability

Editors Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Head of Sustainability SgT and API Kowloon, Hong Kong

Miguel Angel Gardetti Centro de Estudios para el Lujo Sustentable Buenos Aires, Argentina

ISSN 2662-7108     ISSN 2662-7116 (electronic) Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry ISBN 978-3-030-38531-6    ISBN 978-3-030-38532-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Research confirms that for certain products, the consumer stage (care and disposal stage of life cycle) causes the most detrimental impacts to the environment. This volume deals with environmental issues from the textile care stage and how this can be made sustainable. It begins with the work titled “Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing Effects in the Clothing Industry” developed by Feray Adıgüzel, Carolina Linkowski, and Erik Olson. In this chapter, they analyze rebound and moral licensing effects and the potentially ineffective sustainable policies in the clothing industry, since sustainable fashion brands could lead to outrageous outcomes. The following chapter, “Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness,” written by Matteo De Angelis, Cesare Amatulli, and Giulia Pinato explores the appeal of sustainability in the fashion business, shedding light on how the role of sustainability may change depending on consumers’ approach to luxury and fashion, which essentially refers to whether consumers buy luxury goods mainly for status or mainly for personal style. Then, Marisa Gabriel, Miguel Angel Gardetti, and Ivan Cote-Maniére develop the chapter titled “Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely Disruptive?” It describes and analyzes consumers’ lifestyles and patterns of consumption, their needs and desires, the sustainable development goal 12 that aims at responsible consumption, and present cases of disruptive consumers to introduce the necessity of changing consumer behaviors and set a possible vision on the future of consumption. Subsequently, the purpose of Feray Adıgüzel’s work “Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product by a Luxury and Mainstream Brand” is to present advertising appeal types and the effects on branding, comparing mainstream brands with luxury, and consumers’ reactions toward new sustainable products in the fashion industry. Moving on to the next chapter, “Environmental and Social Sustainability in Fashion: A Case Study Analysis of Luxury and Mass-Market Brands,” Carmela Donato, Antonella Buonomo, and Matteo De Angelis present case studies of fashion

v

vi

Preface

brands operating in both the luxury and the mass-market sector that are increasingly making sustainability a core part of their mission and strategy. Later, R.  Rathinamoorthy, in the chapter titled “Clothing Disposal and Sustainability,” analyzes the consumer’s disposal of clothing and garments behavior and their impact on the environment and sustainability. In the next chapter, “Community, Local Practices and Cultural Sustainability: A Case Study of Sambalpuri Ikat Handloom” by Swikruti Pradhan and Asimananda Khandual, the authors explore the case of Sambalpuri Ikat Handloom as a symbol of the rich cultural heritage of the craft, the artisan communities, and the local artisanship that has been passed on from generations to generations and its potential contributions for sustainable production cultural sustainability. Finally, WenYing and Claire Shih in their chapter, “Sustainable Development in Urban Artisanal Luxury Fashion Networks,” explore the emergence of an alternative notion to luxury, away from the ubiquitous luxury conglomerates and their dominant luxury brands. Kowloon, Hong Kong  Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Buenos Aires, Argentina  Miguel Angel Gardetti

Contents

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing Effects in the Clothing Industry��������������������������������    1 Feray Adıgüzel, Carolina Linkowski, and Erik Olson Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   19 Matteo De Angelis, Cesare Amatulli, and Giulia Pinato Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely Disruptive? ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 Marisa Gabriel, Miguel Angel Gardetti, and Ivan Cote-Maniére Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product by a Luxury and Mainstream Brand��������������������������������   53 Feray Adıgüzel Environmental and Social Sustainability in Fashion: A Case Study Analysis of Luxury and Mass-Market Brands����������������������������������������������   71 Carmela Donato, Antonella Buonomo, and Matteo De Angelis Clothing Disposal and Sustainability ������������������������������������������������������������   89 R. Rathinamoorthy Community, Local Practices and Cultural Sustainability: A Case Study of Sambalpuri Ikat Handloom������������������������������������������������������������  121 Swikruti Pradhan and Asimananda Khandual Sustainable Development in Urban Artisanal Luxury Fashion Networks��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 WenYing Claire Shih and Konstantinos Agrafiotis Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  163

vii

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing Effects in the Clothing Industry Feray Adıgüzel, Carolina Linkowski, and Erik Olson

Abstract  Companies and consumers are more concerned about sustainability nowadays. The clothing industry is receiving more attention due to mass production and its significant impact on the planet. Fashion brands are introducing sustainable lines and circular economies in their business model to reduce their energy consumption, advocating for environmental protection and other activities. Yet, sustainable efforts suffer from indulgent and towering consumption. Do sustainability labels really promote moral behavior or are they leading to outrageous outcomes? Rebound and moral licensing effects can be classified as unwanted negative consequences of moral behavior. This research shows to what extent these two effects can be a potential source of an ineffective sustainable policy in the clothing industry. This study uses a conjoint study to measure consumers’ willingness to pay and quantity purchase for three attributes: brand, style, and sustainability label. Sustainability labels’ attribute levels were identified as “emphasizing recycled materials,” “emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution,” and “none.” Further, we segmented consumers based on their clothing shopping habit and compared them. Sustainability labels emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution increased the number of clothes consumers would consider buying and willingness to pay more than the ones emphasizing the presence of recycled fibers in the product. Individuals seem to purchase larger quantities of sustainable-efficient produced garments because of their good purpose, and pro-sustainable fashion consumers show consistent behavior on their sustainable preferences. Thus, rebound effect occurs in clothing industry, but we did not find any proof of moral licensing effect.

F. Adıgüzel (*) LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] C. Linkowski Huddly Inc, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] E. Olson BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. S. Muthu, M. A. Gardetti (eds.), Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries, Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_1

1

2

F. Adıgüzel et al.

Keywords  Sustainability labels · Moral licensing · Rebound effect · Signaling sustainability · Fashion brands · Clothing recyclers · Clothing wasters · Conjoint analysis

1  Introduction Fashion is important for consumers because it affects the way society perceives us. Apparel is essential to cultural and contemporary identity and has the ability to satisfy our needs for affection, participation, creation, leisure, and freedom by the way they are designed, made, and worn (McGarth 2012). However, in the last decades, this industry faced radical changes in the production processes in order to satisfy more demanding customers. Clothing companies are now in the center of sustainable disputes due to the significant environmental footprint of this industry on the planet. For instance, the 17–20% of estimated industrial water pollution comes from textile dyeing and treatment, and 4% of global landfills are filled with clothing and textiles.1 While 99% of used clothing can be recyclable, the average American discards 68 pounds of clothing each year and 85% of it ends up in landfills or incinerators.2 Growing cotton takes 2.6% of global water used (Chapagain et al. 2006). The fashion industry has been trying to be more sustainable. Producing sustainable products establishes a way to deliver higher value and to provide a mean to alleviate current pressure on social and environmental well-being (McNeill and Moore 2015). Efficiencies in production and distribution and green clothing lines constitute exciting moves for clothing companies for changing the game of environmental degradation and stay on track with their competitors. Nevertheless, it seems that those strategies are aimed to stimulate demand rather than solving the real problem. Consumers overrate sustainable information and might buy even more clothes, causing odds in what should give positive long-term outcomes for the planet. Recent literature on sustainability has focused on anomalies in sustainable behaviors that have resulted to offset sustainable efforts. These anomalies are called rebound and moral licensing effects. A rebound effect occurs when there is a demand increase caused by a price cut given by technological efficiency in the use of resources (Sanne 2000). This increase in the overall consumption will then offset the benefits in producing sustainable products. Because of the deleterious impact linked to water pollution, toxic chemicals discharge, cotton production, and textile disposal (Achabou and Dekhili 2013; Shen et  al. 2012), clothing companies are introducing technological efficiencies with the concept of circular economies. This concept engages with criteria changes on materials, energy, and carbon emissions. 1  https://consciouscompanymedia.com/the-new-economy/your-clothing-isnt-as-sustainable-asyou-think/ 2  https://scienceline.org/2018/06/the-troubled-second-life-of-donated-clothes/

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

3

But do these economic efficiencies alleviate negative environmental outcomes? Previous studies have shown empirical evidence of direct rebound effect in energy usage such as water heating, electronic devices, and some appliances (e.g., refrigerators and washers) (Lorna et al. 2000; Sanne 2000; Brännlund et al. 2007; Freire-­ González 2011). However, no early research has covered the existence of a rebound effect in the apparel industry. Moral licensing effect occurs when past good actions free individuals to engage with immoral and unethical behaviors that they would otherwise avoid because of the fear of being perceived as bad (Merritt et al. 2010). For example, consumers who like to show “the act of purchasing sustainable clothing” are prone to behave immorally because of their past engagement with something benevolent. Moral licensing has been observed in several domains such as food consumption, political correctness, pro-social behavior, and consumer choice for hedonic and utilitarian goods (Panzone et al. 2012; Merritt et al. 2010; Khan and Dhar 2006; Okada 2005). There is no previous proof of licensing behavior in the apparel industry. Relying on the presence of the rebound and moral licensing effect in the apparel industry domain, the research main question was formulated as: Does sustainability labeling on clothing lead to moral licensing or to rebound effects? The above question may be addressed with the following research sub-questions: what is the effectiveness of two different sustainability labels, namely, emphasizing “efficiency in production and distribution” versus “made with recycled materials”? This research explores sustainability labeling in the clothing industry. This research observes how the value from a sustainability label influences the utility of sustainable clothing consumption, in terms of expected price and amount of clothing purchased, and to what extent consumers think that buying sustainable clothes is a sacrifice and the related existence of a consequent increase in clothing consumption and license themselves to involve in further non-sustainable behavior. The first section encompasses a theoretical background of sustainability in the fashion industry, highlighting sustainability labeling, rebound and moral licensing effect. The second section focuses on hypotheses argumentation. The third and last section discusses methods and results. Finally, we discussed findings and provide implications for managers.

2  Fashion Industry and Sustainability Fashion has commonly been defined as an important aspect of personal and social relationships and as a powerful mean to shape how we get perceived by society. Today, it is a more complex concept due to “marketing factors such as low predictability, high impulse purchase, shorter life cycle, and high volatility of market demand” (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst 2010).

4

F. Adıgüzel et al.

In the last 25 years, clothing companies have focused on finding supply chain strategies to achieve mass production and speed to market and feed consumers with constant novelties in order to be on top of their competitors. Textile and manufacturing production have moved to locations, like the Far East, to reduce their costs and exploit economies of scale. However, this resulted in a fragmentation of the supply chain and reduced price and quality of the garment. Besides the impact on the final product, this fast-paced industry trend caused alarming outcomes in terms of water pollution, toxic chemicals discharge, and textile disposal (Achabou and Dekhili 2013; Shen et al. 2012) which put clothing companies in the spotlight. Authorities, corporate social responsibility (CSR) regulations, and changes in consumers’ demand are currently stressing on clothing industry’s sustainable restrictions and, therefore, brands are constantly finding new ways on how sustainability can add value to their business. Sustainable restrictions have flooded all fashion business models. It is important to define two opposite poles of the apparel market: slow and fast fashion. Slow fashion usually includes higher-priced and luxury clothing brands with a lower production volume. Slow fashion clothing is meant to last longer and have high standards of quality given from artisanal craft. Fast fashion is a clothing supply chain model aimed to a quick and cost-efficient production to respond to real-time consumers’ taste changes. It embodies low-cost collections that imitate trends in the luxury industry and traditionally has a 2-week turnover in the market (McGarth 2012). The “big deal” of fast fashion has been the power to curb consumers’ “cravings” for unreachable and highly desired luxury items. Nevertheless, it has opened the door to excessive waste because of its ability to stimulate the purchase of a significant number of low-quality garments and discard old ones away as quickly as possible (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst 2010). As a matter of fact, fast fashion has been one of the major causes of changes in strategies clothing companies have to commit to keep a profitable position in an increasingly demanding market. Even if fast and slow fashion are the biggest categories in the clothing industry, it is important to mention the presence of a category per se that can be defined as environmentally friendly brands. Sometimes known as eco-chic, this trend started in the 1990s. Stella McCartney’s eco-friendly fashion and Patagonia are two prominent examples in this category. Sustainability is mainly defined as an activity meant to “meet current generation’s needs without compromising those of future generations” (Imperatives 1987) and which goes beyond the relationship with the environment (Joy et al. 2012). As a matter of fact, sustainable clothing is meant to reduce unethical outcomes (e.g., human rights, labor conditions, animal well-being, and environment) and characterized by added value represented by its ecological and social characteristics (Pelsmacker et al. 2005; Koszewska 2016; Magnier et al. 2016). Environmentally friendly clothes provide a morally grounded aesthetics and engage with those consumers who are environmentally responsible. It is meant to position clothing materials as “good” and to include textile recycling and clothing reuse in the production philosophy (McGarth 2012).

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

5

Compared to other industries, the fashion market faces more inconsistencies in terms of matching the concept of sustainability with its products. These inconsistencies are given by several issues such as less transparency in the manufacturing process, how the clothing evaluation process is made, awareness of sustainable concerns, and the current fashion industry trends (Laitala and Klepp 2013; Zane et  al. 2016; Mai 2014; Bodur, Gao and Grohmmann 2014; McNeill and Moore 2015; Koszewska 2016). From the labor for manufacturing the garment, its factory to retail transportation, and garment’s aftercare and disposal, it is extremely difficult to evaluate to which extent clothing companies are being sustainable. Although there is an increasing environmental and ethical awareness, sustainable fashion can appear complex and full of paradoxes. Fashion designers and consumers are often confused by the language of sustainability and create barriers to sustainable behavior engagement. This is due to the strong self-representative and relational role clothes have compared to other goods such as food and personal care where individuals are more likely to engage in sustainable behavior. How sustainability information is delivered constitutes an additional issue clothing companies must consider when they launch sustainable lines.

3  Signaling Sustainability: Product Labels Consumer packaged goods provide more means to visually show sustainable purposes. Green packages, logos, and other visual cues represent a very important tool for businesses which want to display their sustainability commitment. Product categories, such as garments, which do not come with packaging should make more efforts to signal sustainability. Clothing companies use labels as a mean to educate consumers about the product’s attributes, to communicate the brand, and to inform about the company’s mission (Hyllegard et  al. 2012). Nowadays, almost all clothing sold have attached information presented in the form of labels, hang tags, or logos and all of them are crucial for signaling ethical attributes. Legislation about information on tags varies by country, but companies also have a lot of freedom to vary label content (Laitala and Klepp 2013) and are becoming very competitive on sustainability labeling (Mai 2014). When designing labels, companies need to consider that consumers may be confused or overwhelmed by the inclusion of too much information. Nevertheless, previous studies have proven the effectiveness of communicating sustainable information with labels (Dickinson 2001; Pelsmacker et al. 2005; Hyllegard et al. 2012; Laitala and Klepp 2013). Sustainability labeling is a practice that enables industries to inform consumers, instill socially responsible behavior, boost the product’s evaluation, and drive purchase intention. It is also a way advertisers provide important, accurate, and meaningful information to include in purchase decision issues such as human health and environmental considerations (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). Labels make

6

F. Adıgüzel et al.

s­ ustainability cues visible; they can represent an effective stimulator for immoral behavior and failure in clothing companies’ good actions. Consumers psychologically seek for opportunities to act morally (Merritt et al. 2010). Sustainable consumption makes us feel good whether linked to self-­ enhancement or concern towards the environment. However, this behavior might license people to engage in questionable moral actions related, or not, to sustainable issues (e.g., overconsumption and recycling). Sustainability labeling is one of the areas in which moral licensing has been observed due to its aim to make the environmental outcome more salient and to increase awareness around the topic. Labels incorporate visual cues of the final goal that customers will achieve with the purchase. Environmental priming from labels has a positive impact on an individual’s moral but can lead to moral licensing and to immoral future choices (Panzone et al. 2012). The presence of the licensing effect from labels in the sustainable food industry has been proved (Panzone et al. 2012).

4  Hypotheses Development Price is one of the main drivers in garment purchase decision. As a matter of fact, most of the previous studies regarding clothing evaluation (Table  1) have price among all considered constructs. McNeill and Moore (2015) distinguished two specific behaviors consumers hold towards garments: (1) consumers who see clothing

Table 1  Studies about clothing and sustainability Author/year Achabou and Dekhili (2013) Antonetti and Maklan (2014) De Angelis et al. (2017) Ha-Brookshire and Norum (2011)

Product Luxury clothes

Herbst and Burger (2002) Koszewska (2016)

Denim jeans

Laitala and Klepp (2013) Zane et al. (2016)

Clothes

Fair trade products Luxury green products Clothes

Clothes

Denim jeans

Constructs Fabric recycling, cotton type, price, brand reputation, product quality, and brand’s environmental commitment Guilt, pride, intentionality, responsibility and purchase intentions Design similarity, brand evaluation, (design) fit, brand knowledge, product ephemerality and purchase intention Attitudes towards socially responsible cotton apparel, demographics, apparel product evaluative criterion, willingness to pay Brand, style, place of purchase and price Producer attributes (reputation, business behavior, production systems), product attributes (emotional value, functional value, price, availability, context), barriers in purchase decision and consumer attributes Fiber content, care labeling, fit, country of origin and perceptions Style, wash, price, ethical attribute vs. attribute not related to ethicality

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

7

as purely functional and (2) those who view clothing as self-representational. Herbst and Burger (2002) used a conjoint analysis approach to determine salient attributes for young consumers in purchasing denim jeans. The study revealed four attributes concerning clothing purchase decision: brand, style, place of purchase, and price. Again, Koszewska (2016) identified bulk of attributes characterizing apparel choice – producer attributes, product attributes, barriers in purchase decision, and consumer attributes – in which the set regarding product attributes included emotional value, functional value, price, availability, and context. We focus on the following attributes which are strictly linked to a general garment: sustainability label, brand, and style. Brands are one of the most important means of communication and intangible attributes in the clothing industry. The clothing market presents two distinguished categories of brands depending on the way garments are produced, their reputation, and target market: luxury and fast fashion. Koszewska (2016) identified a group of pro-fashion consumers who give a significant weight on brand name in purchase decision. Moreover, there are specific age segments which are brand driven, such as young consumers (Herbst and Burger 2002). Therefore, the environmentally friendly fashion brands are also considered in this study such as Stella McCartney. We expect that garments of a luxury brand will be assessed superior quality and therefore are going to be evaluated superior compared to fast fashion or sustainable fashion brand. Luxury products are associated with high-quality production, making them highly priced by definition. Companies in the luxury clothing market may achieve a relevant position in a sustainability oriented market due to their focus on “handmade” quality which allows them to market “timeless.” Style will be assessed as timeless, trendy, and basic environmentally friendly. This variable is important since it assesses the life span of garments given the current inclination of society to shop more and more frequently. While timeless style aims to be worn for long terms and less affected by temporary fashion trends, trendy style follows fashion and has short-life. The third level for style reflects the image of sustainable clothing companies. Because of the higher attention to details and waste reduction in production, apparel from environmental brands tends to be reduced to the bone with a very basic style. Sustainability labels can include text, symbolic messages, figures, and/or third-­ party logos. They can be visible or not visible. Companies use labels as a mean to educate consumers about the product’s attributes, to communicate the brand, and to inform about the company’s mission (Hyllegard et al. 2012). Sustainability labels emphasize the company’s commitment towards social and environmental causes (e.g., recycling behavior, fair trade labor, NGO partnership, and so on) and it can be used as a way to leverage consumers’ attitudes towards sustainability. Sustainability labels have three levels: emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution, emphasizing recycled materials, and no sustainability label. About sustainability labels, Hyllegard et al. (2012) found that labels on clothes containing explicit messages and third-party sustainable responsibility logos were evaluated more positively than the opposite case. Explicit messages benefit a wide range of products, especially eco fashion. The reason is due to their ability to encourage consumers to

8

F. Adıgüzel et al.

have positive reactions to sustainable behavior. However, consumers will less likely to buy clothes indicated as made with recycled materials because of worries about durability and quality. Since consumers evaluate positively sustainability labels, we test if adding a visible sustainability label on luxury and timeless garments rises their price. We expect that consumers’ willingness to pay increases if the clothing product is a luxury brand with timeless style and contains a sustainability label. H1:  Luxury, timeless, and sustainability labeled clothes lead to higher willingness to pay. Common expectations about overconsumption in the clothing industry would be linked to the previously discussed concept of fast fashion. This trend allows consumers to frequently change their style without feeling the guilt of a financial sacrifice. McGarth (2012) showed that low-priced clothing gives consumers greater purchasing power, allowing them to continuously buy into a fashion system that feeds their addiction and reinforces their dependence on material consumption. Greater amounts of garments are also stimulated through novelty and the ability of consumers to follow the latest fashion trends. “Humans supposedly sense that more is better” (Sanne 2000). As already discussed in the theoretical background, a sustainability label emphasizing efficiency will create an increased demand. We expect that consumers state to buy more quantity for fast fashion, trendy, and sustainable (emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution) items. H2:  Fast fashion, trendy, and sustainability labeled clothes (emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution) lead to a greater amount purchased.

4.1  Rebound Effect The rebound or take-back effect can erase partially or completely the benefits coming from industry progress and it is “usually discussed in connection with new energy-saving technology” (Brännlund et al. 2007). More specifically, the effect is observable from scenarios in which there is an increase in efficiency given by technological development and a subsequent increase in the demand for consumption. There is some empirical evidence of direct rebound effect for water heating, electronic devices, and some appliances (e.g., refrigerators and washers) (Brännlund et al. 2007). Industries strive for efficiency in production and technological advancement. From an economic perspective, technological efficiency in the use of energy and other inputs normally corresponds to lower prices; firms can aim to the same amount of work while reducing the bill. From a sustainability perspective, when the amount of resources used in production decreases, it brings industries to move towards a less-energy consuming and a more environmentally friendly direction. Clothing industries are redesigning all their product chains to decrease the amount of raw materials. Complex bottom-up production processes enable brands to produce

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

9

clothes made by recycled fibers and to an overall reduction of emissions. The concept of circular economies has been one main actor in most of brands’ green strategies. H&M Group is one of the biggest examples of the fast fashion scene. The company is following the mission to create sustainable clothing pieces which are good for people, communities, and the planet with the 100% circular and renewable strategy. The company uses discounts as rewards for those consumers who dispose old clothes whose fibers will be recycled creating new pieces. This strategy touches the way products are made and used and it is addressed to exploit recycled materials and renewable energy in the production. On the slow fashion end, Wolford introduced “Cradle to Cradle,” the first prototypes of lingerie that are safe for the biological cycle. For the creation of this line, Wolford renounced to a faster production and friendlier prices to create a whole line of products which will not create waste in order to work towards a real sustainable economy (Wolford 2017). Previous conclusions proved that lower energy costs increase real income which brings an increase in consumption of other goods. This is what offsets the benefits from the initial energy saving. Additionally, the rebound effect may also lead to structural change in the economy and changes in relative prices. However, the apparel industry does not face the same behavior of the technology and energy industry. Instead of creating an income effect, clothing companies rarely cut their prices for sustainable lines. H&M sets higher prices for its “Conscious” line and Wolford, already characterized by higher price ranges, marks up its green efforts. As a matter of fact, price represents one of the barriers consumers face when purchasing a sustainable garment. This aspect needs to be considered when observing the value individuals are likely to assign to sustainable clothing. Previous studies highlighted the difficulty in the estimate of rebound effects, especially when those dealt with the increase in consumption of other goods and services (Freire-González 2011). We expect to see if clothing has a sustainability label emphasizing energy efficiency, people will more likely increase quantity purchased. H3:  Sustainability labeled clothing (emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution) leads to a greater amount purchased and, thus, to a rebound effect.

4.2  Licensing Effect Moral self-licensing occurs when past moral behavior makes people more likely to do potentially immoral things without worrying about feeling or appearing immoral (Merritt et al. 2010). Literature suggests that preferences among alternatives can be affected by consumers’ previous actions via the activation of goals that guide future choices (Khan and Dhar 2006). The mere exposure to green products and their purchase is likely to affect subsequent behaviors by activating norms of social responsibility and ethical conduct (Mazar and Zhong 2010). For example, those who have  environmental concerns should make choices that consistently consider

10

F. Adıgüzel et al.

p­ ro-­environmental effects such as purchasing a product with an environmental label to signal an interest for the environment to themselves and to others (Panzone et al. 2012). This leads to the individual’s fulfillment of his/her goal, making his/her choices perfectly aligned with the outcome of one’s actions. On the other hand, reality shows that one’s choices hardly fit with the individual self-representation. The reason is because consumers also account for other individuals’ perceptions. In fact, they may make choices because of the positive outcome they get from them. For instance, one could purchase sustainable goods so that the others would have a positive perception of him/her. However, even if the consumer engages with the positive feedback from his/her positive behavior, he/she will engage with compensatory behavior to “recover” from the sacrifice. Previous research indicated that purchasing green products licenses indulgence in self-interested and unethical behaviors (Mazar and Zhong 2010) and that moral self-licensing can disinhibit selfish behavior (Merritt et al. 2010). The effect reduces the effectiveness of environmental policies by stimulating the consumption of environmentally unfriendly options, even with the possibility of a backfire (Panzone et al. 2012). Licensing effect proves inconsistencies in human choice behavior and explains why there is no linearity among one’s choices. It also finds an explanation on why in different domains, consumers make immoral actions with or without feeling guilty. The basic assumption of the licensing effect is that people prefer to have a positive moral self, but reaching it often comes at a cost because of the conflicts between social and ethical dilemmas. Clothing companies use sustainability labels to “emphasize their identities such as socially responsible businesses, referencing their commitment to the environment” (Hyllegard et al. 2012). Consumer behavior is influenced by the individual openness to communication: seeing an ecolabel is not a goal itself, but rather a step towards buying a sustainable product (Koszewska 2016). Individuals who notice the label tend to have a pro-environmental attitude and the recognizability of the ecological and social labels is one of the most important predictors of purchasing sustainable apparel (Koszewska 2016). Communicating sustainable benefits in a concrete and product-specific way can help consumers in their decision process and increase choice likelihood (Bodur et al. 2014). Because Panzone et al. (2012) found that consumers use sustainability labels to gain license for future pro-social choices, we considered labels as a reliable input to drive consumer behavior towards moral choices. Environmental priming is known to have a positive impact on the moral sphere of individuals, but the purchase of products with environmental labeling has shown to lead to licensing effect. We investigate whether there are inconsistencies with the amount of sustainable clothing purchased on morally behaving consumers in terms of sustainable behavior. H4:  Respondents with moral behavior license themselves to buy a greater amount of clothes for clothing shopping.

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

11

5  Methods Conjoint analysis will be used to evaluate consumers’ preferences, measured as willingness to pay and quantity purchased, for a clothing line with varying attributes. The identified list of central product-related attributes and levels is indicated in Table 2. The orthogonal design used in this conjoint study and nine visual cards were assessed by each respondent (Table 3). Each card was defined by visual labels followed by descriptions; respondents were able to express expected price and quantity purchased through two questions that came after each card given below: • How much respondents would expect to pay relative to a “normal” price of 100 (an answer of 100 means respondents would expect to pay the same price as they normally pay, a number lower than 100 means less expensive and a higher number means higher price) • How much respondents would expect to buy based on buying up to 10 items from the described clothing line. Respondents can choose any number between 0 and 10 where 0 equals to none from this line and 10 equals to all from this line. The remaining survey contains questions for an evaluation of the respondents’ shopping behavior and demographics.

Table 2  Clothing attributes and levels

Attributes A – Brand

Levels 1 – Luxury 2 – Fast fashion 3 – Environmentally friendly fashion B – Style 1 – Timeless 2 – Trendy 3 – Basic environmentally friendly C – Sustainable label 1 – None 2 – Emphasizing recycled materials 3 – Emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution

Table 3  Conjoint design Attribute

Card

A B C

Level 2 1 2 1

1 2 3 2

3 2 2 3

1 1 1 4

2 3 3 5

3 1 3 6

2 2 1 7

1 3 2 8

3 3 1 9

12

F. Adıgüzel et al.

6  Results From a sample of 174 Italian respondents, 107 complete surveys were considered. Participants were 48 men (44.9%) and 59 women (55.1%). The sample was mainly composed of students between 18 and 24 years old (47%), 25–34 was 29%, 35–49 was 9%, under 18 was 1%, and finally 50–64 was 14%. Around 52% of respondents were represented by students, followed by 33% of full-time employees. Respondents rated brand (M = 5.08), price (M = 5.06), durability (M = 5.45), and style (M  =  5.49) as the most important features (Table  4). On the other hand, ­respondents seemed to be reluctant towards fast fashion brands (M  =  3.57) and second-­hand clothes (M = 2.86). The majority of the sample was sometimes enjoying buying clothes (61.7%), so they are not heavy clothing shoppers and with average knowledge about the latest trends (71%). About 66.4% of respondents stated to buy an amount of clothes that is the same as the other people. And 52.3% of respondents wear their garments until they are worn out and a 72% give clothes to charity. Only a very small percentage of respondents would buy sustainable garments as much as possible: 5.6% for clothing made from recycled materials and 1.9% for second-hand garments. Additionally, there was a gap between the perception of clothing made with recycled materials and second-hand ones. Around 87.9% of respondents would consider buying products made by recycled fibers only if it looks and feels okay compared to 51.4% for second-hand garments. About labels, most of respondents briefly look at tags, but it is seldom important (61.7), those not checking labels were 24.3%, and 14% said they are greatly influenced by information in labels (14%).

Table 4  Attractiveness of features when customers shop for clothing The clothing has a well-respected brand The clothing offers a low price The clothing has a classic style that can be worn a long time The clothing has labeling that tells how it is made The clothing is made from durable materials that will last a long time The clothing is produced in an environmentally friendly way The clothing design follows the latest fashion trend The clothing is made from recycled materials The clothing has a fast fashion brand The clothing is second-hand, but in very good condition

Mean 5.08 5.06 5.49 4.41 5.45 4.78 4.21 4.05 3.57 2.86

Note: Items were measured with seven-point Likert scale: 1 = less attractive and 7 = more attractive

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

13

6.1  Segmentation on Clothing Habits We run a K-means nonhierarchical cluster analysis to identify common behavioral patterns of clothing habits and obtained two segments. These clusters further will be used to test licensing and rebound effect. The variables used in clusters are as follows: “The clothing is produced in an environmentally friendly way”, “The clothing is made from recycled materials”, “The clothing is second-hand, but in very good condition”, “In terms of wearing an item of clothing, I typically wear it…”, “In terms of disposing of old clothes, I typically…”, “In terms of buying second-hand clothing, I typically …” “In terms of buying clothing made from recycled materials, I typically…” • Clothing recyclers: This cluster includes 41 subjects, 15 men (36.6%) and 26 women (63.4%), which expressed an interest in clothing that are produced in an environmentally friendly way and are made from recycled material. They would consider buying second-hand and recycled material clothes if they feel and look okay and, in terms of disposing clothes, they give them to charity. • Clothing wasters: This cluster includes 66 subjects, equal number of men and women, not interested in buying garments environmentally produced. They are more interested in selling clothes to others rather than give them to charity, but they would never consider buying second-hand clothes.

6.2  Conjoint Analysis Results Willingness to Pay The average importance scores were 57.849 for brand, 24.668 for label, and 17.483 for style. The most valued attribute levels (Table  5) were slow fashion brand (692.260), timeless style (5.351), and labels emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution (7.147). More specifically, a luxury garment with a timeless style with a label that emphasizes efficiency in production and distribution was the combination with the highest expected utility, confirming H1. Because the attribute “brand” has the highest importance value, respondents place a significant higher value when they are facing a high-end brand. Durability also has an important space in consumers’ evaluations; a timeless style gives a longer garment life span, and thus, it increases the assigned value of the product. A garment made by a fast fashion brand with a trendy style, meant to have a low life span, and with no sustainability label would have the lowest expected willingness to pay. Overall, these results show that garments with an environmental image are expected to be of a greater value than the “normal” price. Clothing lines with a label emphasizing the presence of recycled materials are priced lower (−4.095) than the ones with labels emphasizing efficiency in the production and distribution process (7.147). Traditionally, when putting together

14

F. Adıgüzel et al.

Table 5  Conjoint results Willingness to pay (price) Utility estimate Slow fashion brand 692.260 Fast fashion brand −357.089 Environmentally friendly fashion brand −335.171 Timeless style 5.351 Trendy style −2.882 Basic environmentally friendly style −2.470 Label: none −3.051 Label: emphasizing recycled materials −4.095 Label: emphasizing efficiency in production 7.147 and distribution (Constant) 444.303

Quantity purchase Utility estimate −0.959 1.038 −0.079 0.099 −0.071 −0.028 −0.313 0.019 0.294 3.443

c­ oncepts such as price and sustainability, there is a likelihood of financial loss. The reason is because sustainable clothing is usually priced higher than conventional clothing pieces. However, this difference can be explained by the image the presence of recycled materials attached to the product. Negative associations to recycled material, such as low quality, resulted in a negative expected utility for those labels emphasizing the presence of recycled fibers in the garment. Quantity Purchase The attribute with the highest importance score was again brand (54.674). Label has the average importance of 25.084 and style has 20.242. Utility estimates for attribute levels gave different results from the previous conjoint analysis for expected price. The most valued attribute levels were the following: fast fashion brand (1.038), timeless style (0.099), and no label presence (−0.313). More specifically, a timeless style and a fast fashion brand resulted to increase the number of garments purchased. On the other hand, the lack of sustainability labeling leads to lower the quantity purchased. The highest positive quantity purchased profile was a timeless clothing, piece of a fast fashion brand, and a label emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution. On the other hand, a garment with a trendy style from a slow fashion brand and with no sustainable label is less desirable and thus purchased in a lower quantity. A fast fashion brand (1.038), a timeless style (0.099), and a sustainable label emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution (0.294) had higher utility estimates. Therefore, H2 is partially confirmed. A timeless clothing style had a higher expected utility as in the first conjoint results. Durability for apparel appears to be an important factor for individuals. Surprisingly, labels emphasizing usage of recycled materials were assessed positively for quantity purchased (0.0196); it was

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

15

n­ egative for willingness to pay (−4.095). Consumers perhaps expect to pay less for clothes made with recycled materials, and they indicate higher amount of purchase. The label emphasizing efficiency (0.294) increased the amount of clothes they would consider buying, more than the label showing the presence of recycled fibers in the product (0.019). No label decreased expected purchase quantity (−0.313). So, we can confirm H3 meaning that label with “emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution” leads to a greater amount purchased and thus indicates a rebound effect.

6.3  Testing Rebound and Licensing Effect To test the existence of this effect, we compare conjoint results of morally behaving cluster (labeled as clothing recyclers) and not morally behaving consumers (labeled as clothing wasters). We inspect whether there are inconsistencies in their stated preferences in Table 6. Clothing recyclers value positively the environmentally friendly fashion brand (0.178), but not the clothing wasters (−0.234). In terms of style, clothing recyclers value positively basic environmental style (0.028), whereas clothing wasters did not (−0.062). Clothing recyclers value positively if the label emphasizing efficient in production and distribution (0.286) and recycled materials (0.169); however, clothing wasters value negatively if the label emphasizing recycled material (−0.072) and value positively if the label emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution (0.299). All environmentally friendly options have positive  attribute levels among clothing recyclers as expected. Thus, since they behave morally in real life, they did not feel to behave irresponsible for their clothing preferences. Thus, moral licensing did not occur in our conjoint analyses. So, H4 is rejected.

Table 6  Utilities for two segments

Slow fashion brand Fast fashion brand Environmentally friendly fashion brand Timeless style Trendy style Basic environmentally friendly style None “no label” Label: emphasizing recycled materials Label: emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution

Clothing recyclers Utility Std. deviation −1.5472 1.53226 1.3694 1.34407 0.1778 1.34487 0.1861 0.82359 −0.2139 0.76128 0.0278 0.52464 −0.4556 1.02418 0.1694 0.65129 0.2861 0.68303

Clothing wasters Utility Std. deviation −0.6027 1.44373 0.8367 1.31847 −0.2340 1.11880 0.0463 0.58678 0.0160 0.68214 −0.0623 0.65085 −0.2264 1.11496 −0.0724 0.95988 0.2988 0.82205

16

F. Adıgüzel et al.

7  Conclusions This research explored how sustainability labels in garments can function as a cue for rebound and moral licensing effects. This study had the purpose to fill previous literature gaps about the possible negative sustainable actions when clothing companies try to go eco-friendly. The most important attributes for both willingness to pay and quantity purchase were brand, label, and finally style. This result is in line with the conjoint study for denim jeans conducted by Herbst and Burger (2002) among young consumers and for those pro-fashion consumers (Koszewska 2016). Labels with sustainability overall were assessed more positively by consumers. Specifically, label emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution was valued the highest. Consumers were not willing to pay for clothes made from recycled materials. Consumers did not express willingness to pay and purchase quantity for environmentally friendly fashion brands. Consumers value timeless style the highest, but not the basic environmentally friendly or fast fashion style. While consumers are willing to pay for slow fashion clothing brands, their stated purchase quantity is the highest for fast fashion brands as expected. Visible sustainability characteristics in garments seemed to stimulate consumers to buy more across all brand levels: slow fashion, fast fashion, and basic environmentally friendly. This means that the perception of “being good” while “looking good” appeals individuals and clothing companies may face benefits by producing virtuously and efficiently in terms of revenue growth. Respondents had higher price expectations and expressed higher purchased quantities for clothing lines signaling efficiencies in production and distribution. Overall, our results showed the presence of a direct rebound effect in the clothing domain. When respondents had been observed in terms of their recycling behavior, results confirmed previous studies about eco clothing customers showing more interest and caring towards sustainability (Joy et al. 2012) and emphasizing labels when purchasing sustainable apparel (Koszewska 2016). As a matter of fact, these consumers are more likely to have pro recycling behavior and positive preferences towards sustainable garments. Results showed that those consumers who are careless towards sustainability were not licensing themselves to buy more sustainable clothes. Thus, we did not observe the moral licensing for clothing industry. Sustainability labels are one of the most important predictors of purchasing apparel after brand based on our findings. Some retailers and manufacturers are taking advantage of the sustainable image and use it for marketing purposes as a new trend to keep up with and to add value to their products. Stimulated by marketing actions, consumers are motivated to increase the amount of clothes purchased, i.e., rebound effect. It is crucial for clothing companies to align their marketing strategies with their sustainable ones. Sustainable marketing actions should make environmental clothing appealing; however, it is important not to encourage indulgent and meaningless clothing purchases, even if they are sustainable. For future, companies should focus on how to convince consumers to buy clothing made with

Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing…

17

r­ ecycled material and encourage consumers to recycle their clothes similar to initiatives of H&M. We investigated the moral licensing effect only for immoral actions under the fashion domain. It could be interesting to see if individuals are likely to license themselves to purchase sustainable clothing after previous bad actions in other domains (e.g., food disposal or household energy overuse). Future research could further explore rebound and licensing effects across different domains.

References Achabou MA, Dekhili S (2013) Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? J Bus Res 66(10):1896–1903 Antonetti P, Maklan S (2014) Exploring postconsumption guilt and pride in the context of sustainability. Psychol Mark 31(9):717–735 Atkinson L, Rosenthal S (2014) Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. J Advert 43(1):33–45 Bhardwaj V, Fairhurst A (2010) Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 20(1):165–173 Bodur H, Gao T, Grohmann B (2014) The ethical attribute stigma: understanding when ethical attributes improve consumer responses to product evaluations. J Bus Ethics 122(1):167–177 Brännlund R, Ghalwash T, Nordström J (2007) Increase energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29(1):1–17 Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, Gautam R (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: an assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cot-ton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol Econ 60(1):186–203 De Angelis M, Adiguzel F, Amatulli C (2017) The role of design similarity in consumers’ evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion brands. J Clean Prod 141:1515–1527 Dickinson MA (2001) Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and predicting their purchases. J Consum Aff 35(1):96–119 Freire-González J (2011) Methods to empirically estimate direct and indirect rebound effect of energy-saving technological changes in households. Ecol Model 223(1):32–40 Ha-Brookshire JE, Norum PS (2011) Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel. J Consum Mark 28(5):344–353 Herbst F, Burger C (2002) Attributes used by young consumers when assessing a fashion product: a conjoint analysis approach. J Consum Sci 30:40–45 Hyllegard KH, Yan R, Ogle JP et al (2012) Socially responsible labelling: the impact of hang tags on consumers’ attitudes and patronage intentions toward an apparel brand. Cloth Text Res J 30(1):51–66 Imperatives S (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future Joy A, Sherry JF, Venkatesh JA et al (2012) Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash Theory 16(3):273–292 Khan U, Dhar R (2006) Licensing effect in consumer choice. J Mark Res 43(2):259–266 Koszewska M (2016) Understanding consumer behavior in the sustainable clothing market: model development and verification. In: Muthu S, Gardetti M (eds) Green fashion. Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Springer, Singapore, pp 43–94 Laitala K, Klepp IG (2013) Environmental and ethical perceptions related to clothing labels among Norwegian consumers. Res J Text Appar 17(1):50–58

18

F. Adıgüzel et al.

Lorna GA, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption  – the rebound effect – a survey. Energy Policy 28(6–7):389–401 Magnier L, Schoormans J, Mugge R (2016) Judging a product by its cover: packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual Prefer 53:132–142 Mai L (2014) Consumers’ willingness to pay for ethical attributes. Mark Intell Plan 32(6):706–721 Mazar N, Zhong C (2010) Do green products make us better people. Psychol Sci 21(4):494–498 McGarth AS (2012) Fashioning sustainability: how the clothes we wear can support environmental and human well-being. Paper presented at the environment sciences senior thesis symposium, 22 April 2012. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://nature.berkeley.edu/ classes/es196/projects/2012final/McGrathA_2012.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019 McNeill L, Moore R (2015) Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. Int J Consum Stud 39(3):212–222 Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357 Okada EM (2005) Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 42(1):43–53 Panzone LA, Wossink A, Southerton D (2012) Environmental performance and offsetting behaviour: moral self-licensing in consumer choice. In: 86th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, 16–18 April 2012, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, pp 16–18 Pelsmacker PD, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J Consum Aff 39(2):363–385 Sanne C (2000) Dealing with environmental savings in a dynamical economy  – how to stop chasing your tail in the pursuit of sustainability. Energy Policy 28(6–7):487–495 Shen B, Wang Y, Lo KY et al (2012) The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior. J Fash Mark Manag 16(2):234–245 Wolford (2017) How to transform your lingerie into a salad. Available at: http://company.wolford. com/blog/avantex-wolford-presents-cradle-to-cradle-in-paris/. Accessed 19 July 2019 Zane DM, Irwin JR, Reczek RW (2016) Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgements of others. J Consum Psychol 26(3):337–349

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness Matteo De Angelis, Cesare Amatulli, and Giulia Pinato

Abstract  Sustainability represents a central issue for the fashion industry. Indeed, if on the one hand, this sector is facing a growing demand on a global basis, on the other hand, it receives growing pressures to be more environmentally friendly and socially responsible. The worldwide textile production has more than doubled in the last decades, but the UN Framework Convention about the climate change claims that the industry generates more greenhouse gas emissions than those generated by the international maritime shipping and the aviation sectors together. Importantly, fashion consumers, in particular millennials and those belonging to the Z-Generation, are increasingly more interested in sustainability and thus increasingly expect apparel brands to sell products produced in a responsible way. In this study we investigate the appeal of sustainability in the fashion business. In particular, we shed light on how the role of sustainability may change depending on consumers’ approach to luxury, which essentially refers to whether consumers buy luxury goods mainly for status or mainly for personal style. We propose that consumers’ willingness to buy sustainable apparel products is affected by the type of fashion brand, that is, fast fashion versus luxury fashion. Results of our empirical analysis conducted using the experimental design method show that, in the apparel context, sustainability is more appealing to consumers who buy luxury mainly for personal style when it is associated with a luxury brand, while it is more appealing to consumers who buy luxury mainly for status when sustainability is associated with a fast-fashion brand. Implications of our work for theory and practice are also discussed.

M. De Angelis (*) · G. Pinato LUISS University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] C. Amatulli University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Taranto, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. S. Muthu, M. A. Gardetti (eds.), Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries, Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_2

19

20

M. De Angelis et al.

Keywords  Sustainability · Fast fashion brands · Luxury fashion brands · Apparel industry · Luxury consumption approach · Purchase intention

1  Introduction While the fashion sector is facing a rapidly growing demand all over the world, many fashion companies are devoting an increasing attention to environmentally and socially responsible practices. According to recent reports by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,1 global textile production has more than doubled in the last 15 years. Surprisingly, over 85% of clothes thrown away in the United States end up in landfills and such production-use-waste cycle bears considerable costs. Importantly, the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change states that the fashion industry generates more greenhouse gas emissions than maritime and international air transport generate together (Tramuta 2018). In this respect, the Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) has pointed out that if the sector continues with its current growth, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 60% until 2030. Indeed, by that time the clothing/footwear sector will represent 8% of global emissions with 1.2 billion tons per year (Guinebault 2019). It appears clear, therefore, that in such a context, adopting strategies and initiatives aimed at fostering sustainable development is no longer an option but a requirement for fashion companies (belonging to either the luxury or the mass-market segment) to be competitive in the global scenario. On the other hand, it is worth highlighting that if consumption of clothing accounts for about 10% of the environmental impact generated by consumption of goods in Europe (EPRS 2019), thus being among the most polluting sectors in the world, according to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and GFA, the outlook is fairly positive. In fact, the number of companies that have not yet taken any action in the sustainable development direction has been decreasing, while the number of companies that have undertaken such actions has been growing over the last years, with major fashion companies taking the lead in the sector in terms of commitment to sustainability. The GFA, moreover, lists seven pillars companies should work on to improve their sustainability-oriented efforts: while three are short-term objectives (i.e., securing supply chain traceability; reducing the consumption of water, energy, and chemicals; and employing ethical working condition standards) and four are long-term objectives (i.e., adopting eco-friendly design, implementing a circular approach, improving workers’ compensation, and considering the opportunities offered by the technological and digital revolution). In the next section of this chapter, we will illustrate the theoretical framework we build on to investigate the role of sustainability in the fashion sector.  https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/ceo-talk/dame-ellen-macarthur-on-buildingmomentum-for-sustainability-in-fashion

1

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

21

2  Theoretical Background 2.1  Sustainability and the Fashion Industry Sustainability can be defined as companies’ ability to consider the needs of the current generation without compromising those of future generations (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Langenwalter (2009), for example, has listed some key pillars that a sustainability-oriented strategy pursued by a company should have: respect for people, for the community, and for the supply chain, respect for the planet, and efficient use of natural resources. The International Institute for the Environment (Jackson and Michaelis 2003) states that the focus on sustainable consumption needs to be understood as the set of activities that can bring a social and environmental benefit to the planet. Indeed, Seidman (2007) notes that sustainability has to do with our relationship with the environment, with ourselves, with the community in which we live and the institutions that regulate our behaviors. Sustainability concerns have certainly increased in their perceived importance in fairly recent times. Fashion sector is no exception in this respect. Indeed, the fashion industry produces 10% of the world’s carbon emissions, and during their typical production process, fashion companies consume 70–150 L of water to dye a kilo of fabric (Chakraborty et  al. 2005). Furthermore, the sector is heavily affected by trends and seasonality (Gam 2011). Perhaps in response to such concerns, fashion companies, including suppliers and retailers, are increasing their commitment toward the development and promotion of sustainable consumption of fashion products (Fletcher 2008; Joergens 2006; Wong et al. 2011). Indeed, there are many environmental and ethical concerns in the global clothing industry, such as the exploitation of labor, the natural resource waste produced, the excessive consumption of water, and the use of pesticides. According to Niinimäki (2010), there is a gap between the stated interest of consumers regarding environmental protection and the real ethical consumption behaviors. In fact, he argues that fashion consumers differ from consumers in other sectors when it comes to ethical consumption decisions. For example, when buying food, consumers typically show higher commitment to ethical choices because food impacts directly on their health (Joergens 2006; Ochoa 2011). In contrast, consumers who buy fashion products and accessories typically show lower commitment to ethical consumption because an unethical choice is not perceived as directly affecting their health and well-being (Joergens 2006). Sustainable fashion is a quite broad concept that includes many aspects of the production and consumption processes. Eco-fashion can be defined as clothing designed for prolonged use over time, produced according to an ethical system that has little or no environmental impact and uses ecological or recycled materials (Joergens 2006; Fletcher 2008). The first Ethical Fashion Show was held in Paris in 2004 (Guedes 2011), while in 2009 the Eco Fashion Show was launched at New York Fashion Week for the first time, followed 1 year later by the official sustainable fashion show held at the 2010 London Fashion Week (Streit and Davies 2013).

22

M. De Angelis et al.

As Beard (2008) pointed out, however, it is not enough that clothes are produced only ethically, as they must also be fashionable and meet the consumer’s aesthetic needs. Environmental aspects, in other words, must be combined with good design and the latest trends to produce appealing garments (Niinimäki 2010).

2.2  The Luxury Fashion Sector In economics, luxury goods are defined as “those goods whose elasticity of demand is greater than one” (Kemp 1998) or, in other words, goods for which the demand increases as income increases. However, this definition does not provide a fully satisfactory answer regarding the fundamental attributes of luxury goods. Allérès (1997) defined luxury through a three-level hierarchical model. The first level is represented by the “inaccessible luxury,” corresponding to exclusive models (e.g., those in the haute couture fashion); the second level is represented by the “intermediate luxury,” corresponding to expensive replicas of individual models (e.g., tailored suits that are complete or partial duplicates of haute couture models); and the third level is represented by the “affordable luxury,” corresponding to products made in larger series (e.g., the ready to wear collections of high fashion brands). Sombart (1913) emphasized the idea that luxury is “an expense that goes beyond what is necessary.” Unlike other markets, luxury can offer a unique opportunity for creating sustainable business environments due to its two key characteristics that distinguish it from other market segments or sectors. First, luxury is (often) characterized by craftsmanship based on unique artisanal skills. This allows luxury brands to offer high-­ quality products. Second, luxury is characterized by its peculiar relationship with time, as its value does not typically decrease over time. The relationship between luxury and fashion is rather ambiguous, since fashion does not belong completely to the world of luxury but overlaps with luxury in its most expensive and exclusive segments. Luxury and fashion share the common need for social differentiation, but they differ in two main aspects: first, while luxury is timeless, fashion is ephemeral; second, while luxury is for self-reward, fashion is not. Thus, luxury fashion seems to be a contradiction when considering that luxury is associated with durability, while fashion is associated with frequent change (Godart and Seong 2014). Researchers use the term “luxury” to describe the superior category of prestigious brands. Luxury goods are considered as goods that provide owners with superior functional and symbolic value, stemming from the abovementioned features characterizing luxury goods. Importantly, those same peculiar features of luxury goods, namely, limited production, craftsmanship, and durability, make it possible to argue that luxury goods might be inherently sustainable (see Amatulli et al. 2017; Kapferer 2010). Along this line, Joy et al. (2012) have ­suggested that a luxury brand can be both green and gold, and Davies et al. (2012) have argued that luxury brands have the opportunity and the responsibility to promote respon-

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

23

sible consumption. According to the AFP report (2008), moreover, luxury companies have important financial resources to be able to take on a leadership role in terms of sustainability. Moreover, Kim et  al. (2012) advanced the idea that sustainable development represents an opportunity to improve brand differentiation and corporate image, especially in light of the fact that consumers of luxury products are increasingly aware of social and environmental issues (AFP 2008). Ageorges (2010) and Kim and Ko (2012) have suggested that luxury product manufacturers should no longer rely only on their brand and the intrinsic quality of their products; rather, they must transmit human and environmental values to ​​ establish a long-­lasting relationship with consumers. In fact, consumers of luxury products have recently increased their expectations regarding social and environmental sustainability (Lochard and Murat 2011). The production of luxury clothing, however, does not require an excessive use of resources (Achabou and Dekhili 2013). Indeed, the typical scarcity associated with luxury goods (Catry 2003), the idea of “slow fashion,” and the typical level of personalization characterizing many luxury items make it possible to state that luxury fashion products might be less dangerous for the planet and the society than mass-market fashion products (Achabou and Dekhili 2013). Therefore, there is evidence in support of the idea that luxury and sustainability might be compatible concepts. Widloecher (2010), on the other hand, stated that the two concepts are not compatible because luxury is typically associated with personal pleasure, superficiality, and ostentation, while sustainability typically evokes altruism, sobriety, and moderation. However, generally speaking, the evolution of scientific and managerial research in the luxury (and particularly in the luxury fashion) in the last few decades shows that while for many years luxury and sustainability have been almost unanimously considered as two opposing concepts, in more recent years such two concepts have been considered as much less incompatible. More specifically, brands operating in the luxury fashion sector have been increasingly promoting sustainable production practices by setting high ethical standards in all their supply chain activities (Grail Research 2010).

2.3  The Fast Fashion Sector The term “fast fashion” refers to low-cost clothing collections that mimic current luxury fashion trends. Fast fashion mainly helps satisfy young consumers’ desires. Trends in fashion typically rise and fade away very quickly. Fast fashion has certainly contributed to change the way people buy and use clothes. By selling large quantities of clothing at affordable prices, fast fashion has emerged as a dominant business model, dramatically increasing clothing consumption. Although this transition is sometimes framed as the “democratization” of fashion in which current trends are available to all classes of consumers, the risks in terms of social and environmental health issues associated with the production of inexpensive clothing are very serious. Indeed, typical ethical issues associated with fast

24

M. De Angelis et al.

f­ ashion production are the use of water-intensive cotton, the release of untreated dyes in local water sources, the low workers’ wages, and the poor working conditions (Bick et al. 2018). The fast fashion phenomenon has revolutionized the clothing sector over the last decade. The change in consumer attitudes about clothing consumption, linked to low-cost production and procurement of materials from foreign markets, has produced an increase in consumers’ impulse buying tendency in the fashion sector. Previous studies suggest that this phenomenon is particularly relevant among young female consumers – who have a relatively little awareness of the social impact of their consumption (Morgan and Birtwistle 2009). Retailers, on the other hand, recognize the importance of fast fashion consumers, with the main chain stores offering garments designed to be worn less than 10 times (McAfee et al. 2004). In the study of Morgan and Birtwistle (2009) on clothing purchase behavior, one out of five young female consumers reported buying a new piece of clothing every week. Indeed, fast fashion satisfies the consumers’ insatiable demand for novelties (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006) and thus foster consumers’ search for “speed” rather than sustainability. Fast fashion companies nurture consumers’ dream to own a product that might look like a luxury one, as they copy the style of the big names in luxury fashion. They are therefore formally able to emulate luxury clothing, but this comes at the cost of losing quality, lowering ethical standards in the supply chain, and using the raw materials inefficiently, with a consequent negative impact on the environment in terms of manufacturing and distribution activities. Indeed, fast fashion companies consider obsolescence a core pillar of their strategy. That said, a growing number of fashion companies have been increasingly adopting eco-sustainable practices and policies.

3  E  xamples of the Role of Sustainable Development in the Fashion Industry 3.1  MilanoUnica Sustainability in the fashion industry has been a key pillar of the 28th edition of the international MilanoUnica 2019, held in February 2019 in the spaces of Rho Fieramilano in Milan. MilanoUnica 2019 is a trade fair dedicated to textile and accessories for spring/summer 2020, mainly targeted to professionals, suppliers, and buyers looking for new materials for their new collections. MilanoUnica 2019 has chosen sustainability as a keyword and as the guiding principle for the development and growth of the textile-clothing industry. Indeed, the “Sustainability Project” was designed and introduced. In particular, “Save the Planet” has been the theme underpinning the spring/summer 2019 trends introduced at MilanoUnica 2019.

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

25

The new paradigm of fashion based on sustainability finds confirmation in the growing tendency to the use of natural materials produced with low-impact cultivation, in the use of green chemical materials, in the introduction of innovative biopolymers, and in the introduction of sustainable textile and chemical-textile processes. The elimination of chemicals that put citizens’ health at risk has been the main area of ​​sustainable innovation for the textile and accessories sector in recent years. The commitment to have a supply chain free from hazardous chemicals is among the most important issues that emerged from the fair. About two-thirds of the sample products presented at the fair were indeed made through processes that comply with the most credited certifications, standards, or protocols concerning the absence of dangerous chemical substances. The companies’ commitment to circular production models is also tangible, at least as regards the use of recycled materials, used in about one-third of the sample products presented, while one-fourth of them was made using materials drawn from biological agriculture. Importantly, there was high number of companies employing integrated energy-saving or watersaving systems. In sum, the MilanoUnica 2019 fair represents a very important example of how sustainability is becoming central in the fashion sector and will represent the core issue for fashion brand managers in the next future.

3.2  Cases from the Luxury and Fast Fashion Sectors Certainly, an increasing number of companies operating in the fashion business is nowadays investing in sustainability. In this section, we will present and discuss some relevant cases that well represent this phenomenon. As a starting point, it might be worth highlighting that major luxury fashion brands such as Burberry and Stella McCartney are founders of the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, which was formally launched at the UN Cop24 Climate Change Conference, held in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland. By joining the UN Charter, chief executives and presidents of the main global fashion players have confirmed their commitment to tackle the problem of climate change and their willingness to promote collaboration within and beyond the fashion industry for a cleaner future. For instance, traditional denim generates a significant environmental impact, caused by the cultivation and the production of the raw material and the huge use of water, energy, and chemicals during the finishing of the fabric and during treatments. This is why the brand Dondup embarked on the path of eco-sustainability starting with jeans but aiming to extend its D/zero project to all its production. To face this challenge, the Candiani Denim, a world leader in the development of sustainable denim fabrics, has been chosen as partner. Special components were used for the D/zero collection, such as Kitotex, a derivative of shellfish shells that is transformed into chitosan, used in the dyeing phases. Being a natural element, it is biodegradable, replaces a series of harmful chemical elements, and allows to reduce energy costs because it requires lower processing temperatures and water costs. As reported by Guyot on the fashion network website, in its Spring 2019 collection, Tommy

26

M. De Angelis et al.

Hilfiger turned its denim green. Indeed, this brand introduced for the first time in its assortment of jeans a collection made up of 100% recycled denim. The brand claims to have used a thread made of recovered plastic, unused past seasons’ buttons, and labels made from recycled paper. As far as luxury brands are concerned, one of the most recent news regards the luxury group Kering, which, in mid-January 2019, was named as the most sustainable actor in the luxury apparel and accessories sector. Additionally, the global brand Chanel has chosen to significantly increase its commitment to sustainability by announcing that it will no longer use exotic leathers in its collections and by acquiring, through its company Chanel Parfums Beauté, a share of the Finnish start­up Sulapac, which is focused on developing new materials that are recyclable and totally biodegradable (Muret 2019). Fast fashion brands are actively engaged in the shift to sustainability as well. Bestseller, for example, has recently launched a new ambitious sustainability strategy, called Fashion FWD. The Fashion FWD strategy underlines the urgent need for inclusive and holistic sustainability actions across the entire value chain. This strategy implies becoming as sustainable as possible, as soon as possible, through five areas of interest that cover the Bestseller value chain. These areas are using sustainable materials, working with innovative fibers, improving the environmental footprint to have a positive impact on the environment, increasing the attention to human rights in the sector, and focusing on a circular business model. Each of these areas of interest includes specific and measurable objectives for the 2019–2025 period; when such goals will be achieved, Bestseller will set new ones to continue its sustainability journey. Additionally, the Swedish H&M group is concentrating its efforts toward a circular model, in which resource waste is minimized. The highlights of the 2017 Sustainability Report of the H&M group can be summarized as follows: (a) use of recycled polyester equivalent to 100 million PET bottles; (b) launch of the first item made with recycled waste, Bionic®, in its exclusive annual collection of H&M Conscious; (c) collection of approximately 18,000 tons of fabrics through its garment collection initiative, the equivalent of 89 million shirts (61,000 tons of fabrics have been collected since 2013); (d) 96% of the group’s electricity coming from renewable sources and the goal being to become positive for the climate throughout the entire value chain by 2040.

4  F  ashion Consumption: Research Hypotheses About the Role of Consumers’ Approach to Luxury The literature on luxury consumption suggests that the motives that might drive people to buy luxuries can be external or internal (Eastman and Eastman 2015). Some customers may buy luxury goods mainly to demonstrate their status and

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

27

prestige, which qualifies as an externalized approach. Other customers may purchase luxury products to satisfy their personal taste and style, which qualifies as an internalized approach (Amatulli et al. 2015; Han et al. 2010). Indeed, as reported by Amatulli and Guido (2011), there is no single motivation that leads to the consumption of luxury products, as the consumption of luxury products can be driven by either “external” and “interpersonal” motives (Shukla 2011) or by “internal” and “personal” motives (Corneo and Jeanne 1997; Dubois and Laurent 1996; Tsai 2005; Vigneron and Johnson 2004; Wiedmann et al. 2009). More specifically, in the first case, the purchase of luxury products is stimulated by consumers’ desire for social approval, linked to constructs such as ostentation, materialism, and superfluity, and it is therefore based on “social factors”. Differently, in the latter case, the purchase of luxury stems from emotions, mood, and personal feelings, being thus influenced by one’s own culture, tastes, and lifestyle (Vigneron and Johnson 2004). In other words, such two kinds of approaches to luxury consumption differ in terms of consumers’ status consumption orientation, which can be defined as “the behavioral tendency to value status and acquire and consume products that provide status to the individual” (O’Cass and McEwen 2004, p. 34). Indeed, as emphasized by Eastman and Eastman (2015), externally motivated luxury consumption may lead to more public consumption of status products and more conspicuous-style consumption. Based on such theories, in this study we investigate the appeal of sustainability in the clothing sector by shedding light on the role that such a differential approach to luxury (internalized vs. externalized) may have on the effectiveness of sustainable development for fast fashion versus luxury fashion brands. Specifically, we predict that the consumers’ attitude toward sustainable clothing products is influenced by the type of sustainable fashion brand (fast fashion vs. luxury) and by consumers’ approach to luxury (internalized vs. externalized). Formally, we hypothesize that: H1a: Sustainability associated with a luxury fashion brand activates a higher purchase intention than sustainability associated with a fast-fashion brand. H1b: The effect of the type of sustainable fashion brand (luxury vs. fast fashion) on purchase intention is moderated by the type of consumer approach to luxury consumption, whereby for consumers with an externalized approach to luxury consumption, sustainability associated with a fast-fashion brand increases purchase intention compared to sustainability associated with a luxury fashion brand. The conceptual model we test in this study is summarized in Fig. 1. Importantly, this chapter aims at contributing to the literature on fashion and sustainability by investigating the role of the type of sustainable fashion brand (i.e., fast fashion vs. luxury) and the type of consumer (i.e., characterized by mainly an internalized or externalized luxury consumption orientation). The study also offers insights from a managerial point of view, as discussed in the final section of the chapter.

28

M. De Angelis et al.

Luxury consumption approach Type of sustainable fashion brand

Purchase intention

Fig. 1  Conceptual model

5  Empirical Study and Results 5.1  Study Design and Data Collection An online questionnaire was implemented in which two different scenarios were randomly presented to participants, according to whether participants were assigned to the sustainable fast fashion brand condition or to the sustainable luxury fashion brand condition. Therefore, in both cases we described a (fictitious) brand as engaged in sustainability, but while in one case the brand was described as being a fast-fashion brand, in the other case it was described as being a luxury fashion brand. The names used to describe the brands were fictitious in order to avoid potential confounds due to consumers’ familiarity with the brand. Before reading the scenario, respondents were asked to indicate their prevailing motivations for purchasing luxury goods by selecting one the following two options: “mainly for an ‘internal’ motivation, related to my individual style and my taste,” or “mainly for an ‘external’ motivation, related to my economic and social status.” This measure, drawn from the previous literature (Amatulli et al. 2015; Eastman and Eastman 2015; Han et  al. 2010; O’Cass and McEwen 2004; Vigneron and Johnson 2004), was aimed at assessing if the respondents were characterized mainly by an internalized or by an externalized approach to luxury; this measure was, therefore, considered as our moderating variable in the conceptual model (see Fig. 1). After reading the scenario, respondents were asked to rate their intention to purchase a product from the brand described in the scenario by answering to a 3-item 7-point Likert scale drawn from Dodds et al. (1991) (“I would purchase a product from this brand”; “I would consider buying a product from this brand”; “The probability that I would consider buying a product from this brand is high”; 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). For the present research, the data collected were analyzed using the SPSS (which is a widely used statistical software) Macro PROCESS (Hayes 2013), which is a statistical application that allows to estimate relationships between variables in mediation and moderation models. Specifically, we tested a moderation model, in which a moderating variable (consumers’ approach to luxury in our case) influences the relationship between an independent variable (type of

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

29

brand in our case) and the dependent variable (purchase intention in our case). Practically, the moderation occurs whenever the intensity and/or direction of the relationship between the ­independent and the dependent variable changes depending on the values ​​of the moderating variable. The analysis of data implied the use of a multiple linear regression model in which the dependent variable is a function of three variables, (i) the independent variable, (ii) the moderating variable, and (iii) a third variable, called interaction obtained from the product of the independent and the moderating variable. What distinguishes the Macro Process of SPSS (Hayes 2013) from a simple regression analysis conducted with SPSS is that the SPSS Macro PROCESS allows you to take a further step, that is, an analysis that shows how the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable varies in correspondence of the different values of the moderating variable. This additional analysis is generally known as analysis of conditional effects and consists in an estimate of the intensity of the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable in correspondence of the different values of the moderating variable.

5.2  Results The study was carried out with a sample of 188 respondents who were asked to answer an online questionnaire, published on different social networks. Of the total questionnaires collected, 7 were excluded from the final sample because they gave results clearly filled in randomly. Out of 181 participants, 117 were women (Mage = 32) and 64 were men (Mage = 31). The average annual income of the sample examined is €19,000. In order to test H1a and H1b, we used the Macro Process of SPSS (Hayes 2013) and in particular the moderation model (Model 1), where the independent variable was the type of sustainable fashion brand (coded as = −1 fast fashion and 1 = luxury fashion), the moderator was the respondents’ luxury consumption approach (internalized vs. externalized), and the dependent variable was respondents’ intention to purchase a product of the brand. The results showed a significant effect of the type of sustainable fashion brand on the WTB (b = 0.89; t  =  1.98; p  =  0.49), highlighting that the sustainability associated with a luxury fashion brand activates a higher propensity to purchase than the sustainability associated with a fast-fashion brand, thus confirming hypothesis 1a. Furthermore, the results revealed the existence of a significant effect of the interaction (“type of sustainable fashion brand” × “luxury consumption approach”) on the dependent variable (b = −0.80; t = −2.08; p = 0.04). To investigate this interaction more in detail, we carried out the conditional effects analysis, whereby we analyzed the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable at two different levels luxury consumption approach. The results, in line with hypothesis 1b, showed that when respondents had an internalized approach to luxury, sustainability linked to the luxury brand positively influenced (even if not significantly) their purchase

30

M. De Angelis et al.

Luxury consumption approach (1 = intern; 2 = estern) Interaction effect = -.80; p = .04

Type of sustainable fashion brand (- 1 = fast fashion; 1 = luxury fashion)

Purchase intention

Indirect effect of X to Y (internalized) = .51 (CI = -.17, .34) Indirect effect of X to Y (externalized) = .49 (CI = -1.44, -.01)

Fig. 2  Conceptual model and results

Table 1  Summary of results N = 181 Variables Independent variable (IV): type of sustainable fashion brand (−1 = fast fashion, 1 = luxury fashion) Moderator: luxury consumption approach

Direct effects Direct effect of the IV on the DV: b = 0.89, p > 0.01

Direct effect of the interaction (IV × luxury approach) on the DV: b = −0.80, p  0.01 Conditional direct effect of the IV on the DV at external luxury approach: b = −0.72, p > 0.01

Dependent variable (DV): purchase intention (continuous variable)

intention (b = 0.80; t = 0.64; p = 0.51), whereas when respondents had an externalized approach to luxury, sustainability linked to the fast fashion brand positively and significantly influenced their purchase intention (b  =  −0.72; t  =  −1.97; p = 0.49). Figure 2 and Table 1 summarize our results. Overall, these results show that the sustainability associated with a luxury fashion brand activates a higher intention to purchase than sustainability associated with a fast-fashion brand. This can be explained by the intrinsic characteristics of the luxury product, namely, the highest quality, the longest life cycle of the product, and the limited quantities produced, all characteristics that are fully consistent with the idea of sustainability. In addition, the results demonstrate a significant effect of the interaction (type of sustainable fashion brand × luxury consumption approach) on the dependent variable. Indeed, results show that when respondents have an internalized approach to luxury, sustainability linked to the luxury brand positively (but not significantly) influences purchase intention, while when respondents have an externalized approach to luxury, sustainability linked to the fast fashion brand positively and significantly affects the purchase intention.

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

31

6  Conclusions This chapter speaks to the growing importance of sustainability in the fashion industry. In particular, we described the evolution of the fashion industry in terms of its commitment to sustainable development, focusing on the analysis of the luxury versus mass-market segment. We complemented a qualitative analysis based on case studies with an empirical, quantitative analysis based on an experimental study. In our experiment we investigated whether and how luxury versus mass-market brands’ focus on sustainability may affect consumer responses in terms of their intention to purchase products from those brands, by analyzing the moderating role played by fashion consumers’ approach to luxury consumption. Our results make a contribution to the literature on fashion, sustainability, and their relationship and also offer interesting ideas to managers operating in the luxury and mass-market fashion industry as how to effectively leverage sustainability in their relationship with customers.

References Achabou MA, Dekhili SS (2013) Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? J Bus Res 66(10):1896–1903 AFP (2008) WWF épingle l’industrie du luxe sur l’environnement. Agence France Presse, Paris Ageorges D (2010) Luxe Et Développement Durable Au Palais De Tokyo Pour Parler Avenir. Agence France Presse, Paris Allérès D (1997) Luxe. Stratégies, marketing. Economica, Paris Amatulli C, Guido G (2011) Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods in the Italian market: a laddering approach. J Fash Mark Manag 15(1):123–136 Amatulli C, Guido G, Nataraajan R (2015) Luxury purchasing among older consumers: exploring inferences about cognitive age, status, and style motivations. J Bus Res 68:1945–1952 Amatulli C, De Angelis M, Costabile M, Guido G (2017) Sustainable luxury brands: Evidence from research and implications for managers. Springer Barnes L, Lea-Greenwood G (2006) Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda. J Fash Mark Manag 10:259–271 Beard N (2008) The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: A luxury niche or a mass market reality? Fash Theory 12(4):447–468 Bick R, Halsey E, Ekenga CC (2018) The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environ Health 17:92 Catry B (2003) The great pretenders: the magic of luxury goods. Bus Strateg Rev 14:10–17 Chakraborty S, De S, DasGupta S, Basu JK (2005) Adsorption study for the removal of a basic dye: experimental and modeling. Chemosphere 18:1079–1086 Corneo G, Jeanne O (1997) Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. J Public Econ 66:55–71 Davies IA, Lee Z, Ahonkhai I (2012) Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? J Bus Ethics 106(1):37–51 Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D (1991) Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J Mark Res 28:307–319 Dubois B, Laurent G (1996) The functions of luxury: A situational approach to excursionism. ACR North American Advances

32

M. De Angelis et al.

Eastman JK, Eastman KL (2015) Conceptualizing a model of status consumption theory: an exploration of the antecedents and consequences of the motivation to consume for status. Mark Manag J 25:1–15 EPRS  – European Parliamentary Research Service (2019) Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/633143/ EPRS_BRI(2019)633143_EN.pdf. Accessed 7 Oct 2019 Fletcher K (2008) Sustainable fashion & textiles. Design journeys. Earthscan, Oxford Gam HJ (2011) Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? J Fash Mark Manag Int J 15:178–193 Godart F, Seong S (2014) Is sustainable luxury possible? In: Sustainable luxury managing social and environmental performance in iconic brands. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield Grail Research (2010) Green – the new color of luxury: moving to a sustainable future Guedes M (2011) Ethical fashion brands: promotion or a real value? International conference fashion and communication, CECL, Lisbon Guinebault M (2019) Davos Global Fashion Agenda si concentra sul riscaldamento globale. https:// it.fashionnetwork.com/news/Davos-Global-Fashion-Agenda-si-concentra-sul-riscaldamentoglobale,1060327.html#.XP0H3Kdabv1. Accessed 2 Mar 2019 Han YJ, Nunes JC, Drèze X (2010) Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J Mark 74:15–30 Hayes AF (2013) Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York Jackson T, Michaelis L (2003) Policies for sustainable consumption. Sustainable Development Commission, London Joergens C (2006) Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? J Fash Mark Manag 10(3):360–371 Joy A, Sherry J, Venkatesh A, Wang JJ (2012) Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash Theory 16:273–286 Kapferer JN (2010) All that glitters is not green: the challenge of sustainable luxury. Available at: https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=2869. Accessed 20 Apr 2019 Kemp S (1998) Perceiving luxury and necessity. J Econ Psychol 19:591–606 Kim AJ, Ko E (2012) Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J Bus Res 65:1480–1486 Kim KH, Ko E, Xu B, Han Y (2012) Increasing customer equity of luxury fashion brands through nurturing consumer attitude. J Bus Res 65:1495–1499 Langenwalter G (2009) Planet first. Ind Manag 51:10–12 Lochard C, Murat A (2011) Luxe et développement durable: La nouvelle alliance. Eyrolles, Paris McAfee A, Dessain V, Sjoman A (2004) Zara: IT for fast fashion. Harvard Business School, Boston Morgan LR, Birtwistle G (2009) An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits. Division of Fashion, Marketing and Retailing, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow Muret D (2019) Chanel investe nel produttore di materiali biodegradabili Sulapac. https:// it.fashionnetwork.com/news/Chanel-investe-nel-produttore-di-materiali-biodegradabiliSulapac,1045284.html#.XP0Esadabv1. Accessed 2 Mar 2019 Niinimäki K (2010) Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustain Dev 18:150–162 O’Cass A, McEwen H (2004) Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. J Consum Behav 4:25–39 Ochoa LMC (2011) Will “Eco-Fashion” take off? A survey of potential customers of organic cotton clothes in London. AD-Minister. Fondo Editorial Universidad EAFIT, Medellín Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. The Brundtland Commission to the United Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford Seidman D (2007) How we do anything means everything. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ Shukla P (2011) Impact of interpersonal influences, brand origin and brand image on luxury purchase intentions: measuring interfunctional interactions and a cross-national comparison. J World Bus 46:242–252 Sombart W (1913) Der Burgeois. Duncker & Humblot, Munchen

Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: The Role of Consumers’ Fashion Consciousness

33

Streit CM, Davies IA (2013) Sustainability isn’t sexy: an exploratory study into luxury fashion. In: Sustainability in fashion and textiles: values, design, production and consumption. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield Tramuta L (2018) Why these fashion companies are taking sustainability seriously. http://fortune. com/2018/12/19/fashion-sustainability-green-environment/. Accessed 2 Mar 2019 Tsai S (2005) Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value: an international investigation. Int J Mark Res 47:427–452 Vigneron F, Johnson LW (2004) Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. J Brand Manag 11:484–508 Widloecher P (2010) Luxe Et Développement Durable: Je T’aime, Moi Non Plus? Luxefrancais Wiedmann KP, Hennigs N, Siebels A (2009) Value‐based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychol Mark 26(7):625–651 Wong CWY, Lai KH, Shang KC, Lu CS (2011) Green operations and the moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 140:283–294

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely Disruptive? Marisa Gabriel, Miguel Angel Gardetti, and Ivan Cote-Maniére

Abstract  There are some disruptive individuals trying to change consumption patterns, but their behaviors are seen as extreme measures, opposed to modern consumption. Said patterns must change in order to achieve sustainable development goal 12, but how should we forge the path for responsible consumption? Human behavior can be really disruptive and capable of radical changes when it is being threatened. Social and environmental issues – the already declared 1.5 °C war – are now redefining both parts of the consumption equation: business and consumers. Is decreasing consumption the key to survival? The fashion system has convinced us about what our emotional needs are and how they can be silenced by purchasing products. It makes consumers believe, and they believe, that happiness depends on their ability to consume. Consumers hide their true emotions, trying to satisfy themselves through the purchase of goods. Which is the implicit message that the fashion system sells and proposes? How are consumers changing? How can the fashion system change to satisfy future consumers? This chapter describes and analyzes consumers’ lifestyles and patterns of consumption, their needs and desires, and the sustainable development goal 12 that aims at responsible consumption and presents cases of disruptive consumers. Are not buying anything for a year, having only 33 items in our closet including shoes and accessories, and the case of No Impact Man, among others extreme cases or are they part of the new responsible consumer models that are going to rule? How should companies prepare for this type of consumers? M. Gabriel (*) Sustainable Textile Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina e-mail: [email protected] M. A. Gardetti Center for Studies on Sustainable Luxury, Buenos Aires, Argentina e-mail: [email protected] I. Cote-Maniére SKEMA Business School, SKEMA Paris – La Défense Campus, Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci (PULV), Courbevoie, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. S. Muthu, M. A. Gardetti (eds.), Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries, Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_3

35

36

M. Gabriel et al.

Keywords  Consumption patterns · Consumers · Needs · Fashion system · Disruption · Sustainable development

1  Introduction: Brief History of Consumption At the beginning of the twentieth century, during the transition from rural to industrial society, greater demand implied greater production, generating jobs. It seemed to be an infallible equation toward “growth” in times of slavery and feudal work. This model emerged with promises of freedom, proposing the exchange of capital for work, encouraging citizens to spend and consume with no restrictions. However, it should be considered if this system makes everyone a slave of consumption. It is sustained by and for consumption under promises of equity and justice. It forgets not only the ecosystem and the limited resources but also people. It was then when society began to measure itself in economic terms, being consumption the engine that has driven the economy. Under this logic, companies began to think about how to make less-lasting products, limiting their shelf life, so people consume more. This was known as planned obsolescence, set by promises of infinite consumption, never taking into consideration human wealth, working conditions, resources scarcity, and the problem of disposal. Capitalism, as an ideological model, drags consumption to its ultimate expression: widening the gap between rich and poor people and destroying the planet. Evidence shows that, nowadays, creating jobs within this framework will be digging our own graves. Planned obsolescence and consumption have taken the Earth to its limits. Excessive consumption and mass production are aspects of an expansive model that encourages overspending and generates fictitious needs on people. In words of Berman, “The masses have no ego’s, no ids, their souls are devoid of inner tension or dynamism: their ideas, their needs, even their dreams, are ‘not their own’; their inner lives are ‘totally administered,’ programmed to produce exactly those desires that the social system can satisfy, and no more” (Berman 1981: 29). In this way, consumerism leads people to the loss of values, the loss of cultural diversity, and the loss of personal qualities that make a difference and make people special. According to Lipovetsky and Serroy (2015), by building chaotic and asphyxiating megalopolises, by endangering the ecosystem, by decaffeinating the sensations, and by condemning people to live as standardized herds in an insipid world, the capitalist model of production is stigmatized as modern barbarism that impoverishes the sensibility. This model, responsible for the devastation of the world, disfigures the entire Earth, making it uninhabitable from all points of view. People seek to buy goods and stuff in order to satisfy different needs, but they should start by questioning if they need all that stuff. We live under a system based on excess and desire that is leading us into scarcity and a demolishing society. It is an endless race for consumption, trying to fill in gaps that will never be satisfied by the purchase of goods. As mentioned in the sustainable development website, the result of this system is, “The reduction of consumption focused on goods and

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

37

Fig. 1  Population increase over history. (Source: Prepared by the authors)

services, as people are induced to purchase them and there is not a real need to get them, generating in turns harms the health and ecological stress.”1 Last but not least, we face another big issue: overpopulation. We are facing not only overconsumption but also an extreme population growth. The Earth lodges many people beyond its capacity. At the same time, population is mostly concentrated in urban areas, and the impact result is alarming. This should be considered along with increasing life expectancy and people living longer. The capability of the Earth to take care of us is being threatened. The Earth, as we know it, will no longer support us if there are more of us, if we consume more and live longer – at least in current patterns of consumption and production. The world population was estimated to be 7.7 billion people in April 2019, and it is expected to reach 9.6 billion people in 2050,2 but the problem is we have one planet, and we may need almost three planets to keep the current lifestyles and consumption patterns and sustain them. As Fig.  1 shows, humanity took 1950  years approximately to be 2000 people, but this number has tripled in the last 70 years. Gandhi said, “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” Maybe, it is time to start thinking if we are not consuming even our lives under this system. Natural resources scarcity, the 1.5 °C war, and social and economic crisis are the reverse of the consumption and production system and 1  For more information please visit: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/653 4116_Guercio_Sustainability%20and%20economic%20degrowth.pdf 2  Extracted from UN.ORG.

38

M. Gabriel et al.

will turn into a war for survival. If we live longer, it will be to enjoy life, but instead, in postmodern society, happiness and enjoyment have a lot to do with consumption. A shrink of consumption patterns is needed in order to live in a sustainable Earth and stop consuming our future and future generations’. From this perspective, this chapter describes and analyzes the fashion system and its impacts, human needs and desires, consumers’ lifestyles and patterns of consumption, and the sustainable development goal 12 that aims at responsible consumption and presents cases of disruptive consumers who are drastically changing their attitude toward consumption.

2  The Fashion System As mentioned above, this consumerist society is ruled by perpetual change when nothing really changes. Therefore, the fashion system presents shorter cycles of production and consumption, generating fictitious wants and needs, encouraging irrational consumption of goods. The increasing fast fashion refers to reducing the shelf-time production and consumption of garments while reducing costs. By affording low prices, it encourages excessive consumption of products that will soon be discarded. However, these low-cost goods are far from being low cost. These products are not only harmful for employees, who face poor, unsafe working conditions and may be paying with their lives for these products, but this kind of products never take into consideration the environmental damage. We shop for clothes addictively and are trapped by record levels of credit card debt. The pressure to constantly reformulate identity instigated by changing fashion trends feeds insecurity and rising levels of psychological illness. The products themselves exploit workers, fuel resources use, increase environmental impact and generate waste. Fashion cycle and trends contribute to very high levels of individual material consumption that are supported by the apparent insatiability of consumers wants. (Fletcher 2008: 117)

In order to understand the fashion system, as a whole, it is necessary to look at the entire production cycle: from raw materials to the consumer up to the discard of products. In the words of Entwistle: “Fashion involves moving from production to distribution and consumption: without the countless seamstresses and tailors there would be no clothes to consume, without the promotion of fashion by cultural intermediaries, like fashion journalists, fashion as the latest style would not be transmitted very far; and without the acceptance of consumers, fashionable dress would lie unworn in factories, shops, wardrobes” (Entwistle 2002: 14). We can see that the fashion system includes us all as individuals. While brands, designers, employees, suppliers, retailers, and journalists are directly working on the fashion system, we, as consumers, are all involved and sometimes even more than we can imagine. As mentioned by Gardetti and Torres (2012), “the textile industry uses large quantities of water and energy (two of the resources subject to major concern worldwide), as well as generating waste, effluents and pollution. Both manufacture and consumption of textile products are significant sources of

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

39

environmental damage. As for social aspects, non qualified jobs has been lost in regions that mostly rely on this industries” (Gardetti and Torres 2012: 8). In terms of consumers, Saulquin suggests (2014) that it is necessary to generate awareness among users that the greatest environmental impact of textiles and garments occurs with the amount of electricity used in ironing and the amount of wasted water used during the washing and drying processes. At the same time, “When participation in fashion is directed by commercially imposed trend specially designed to exploit desires and increase sales, fashion becomes an external goal to chase that can drive insecurity, self-doubt and shame. The ultimate goal when designing for needs is to leave no such poverties anywhere in the system” (Fletcher and Grose 2012: 133). The economic system, overconsumption, personal individualism, fast fashion, illegal factories, unreal and unhealthy beauty models, aesthetic obsolescence, and the insecurity that this generates in people are some of the factors that have impoverished the relationship between fashion and society. Resuming, “Fashion in its worst forms, fuels consumerism, leading to over-consumption, and fosters banal values to reach success and happiness, as well as generating stress and insecurity in the consumer and harmful effects on health such as bulimia and anorexia” (Gardetti and Torres 2012: 8). The current use of clothing is unsustainable not only in terms of waste production and the use of resources but also in terms of human damage, fragility, injustice, inequality, working conditions, and slavery. From a different perspective, fashion is a way of expressing ourselves and it could be used to transform and inspire other people by communicating values. In this way, consumers become an unaccountable agent of change, having the power and potential to redirect and even reinvent the market. As mentioned by Soemmers, “As consumers, we too must realize that we are not just buying a garment or an accessory, but a whole chain of value and relationships” (Soemmers 2015: x). Fashion, together with social media and communications in the era of technology, would be an ideal tool to promote cultural diversity, moving away from global homogenized styles and products. Saulquin suggests (2014) it should be essential to promote all those actions that seek to strengthen ties of collective action aimed at the common good. A growing attention is being paid to environmental problems, something unthinkable a decade ago. A new vision that steps away from consumption of fashion and that has made waste a constant is being installed. As we will see below, there are disruptive consumers trying to shrink the market.

3  Disruptive Consumption To understand disruptive consumers and behaviors, we should explain disruption. We face many different problems and we cannot solve them by our current thinking. As mentioned by Gardetti, “changing the course” requires new thoughts and ­guidelines for the design of institutions and technology. However, these guides cannot be found in our present “rationality.” Rationality is the personal and cultural

40

M. Gabriel et al.

cognitive repository for all ideas that have worked for us in the past and should not be ignored. It is a common denominator that we rely more and more on short-term solutions that only treat the symptoms, while overlooking the main causes of the problems. Thus, the lack of sustainability arises, in part, from the same rationality (Gardetti 2017). Attali (2012) mentioned that the upcoming word is a world impossible to live in, so we have to dare to dream it very differently. Individuals are the ones who may dream it differently and promote changes by changing their own habits and practices. As responsible individuals, we should be committed to responsible consumption and demand for ethical production. We should set the future in other bases, believing and promoting values and social changes, transforming creatively the system we are part of, and reeducating ourselves, with our ability to always continue learning, researching, discovering, and creating. According to Lipovetsky (1992), the technological civilization needs a sense of ethics of the future to face the threats of the destruction of the Earth. A new categorical imperative must reign, not to compromise the conditions for the indefinite future survival of humanity on the Earth. Despite some individuals and businesses started to take measures in order to clean the relationship between fashion industry and people, they seem to be shallow and do not show real changes in the industry. “Since many activists and apparel businesses are deadlocked on whether minimum or living wages should be set as standards for social responsibility, some organizations are looking for alternative methods for ensuring wages for apparel workers are improved over time” (Littrell and Dickson 2010: 35). Sustainable development goal 12 refers to responsible production and consumption. Therefore, in order to achieve responsible consumption, we should first recognize which needs we are satisfying with our purchase, or if it is a fictitious need. And only afterwards, if we really need this object, understand the importance of the impact, working conditions behind, the carbon footprint, and energy and materials used in production, among other issues. As consumers, there are two ways of helping: the first one is to reduce waste and the second one being thoughtful about what we buy. Is there any chance, for example, for buying second-hand goods? Do we need what we buy? How harmful are our decisions? “Sustainability rests on a shift in our consciousness about who we are and a consequent realization that wealth is not the be-all and end-all. What matters is who we are as human beings. We don’t need all the trappings of modernity to recover our humanness. A shift in our fundamental way of thinking about the world; how we govern, respect, and become a part of it is distinctly possible, as is any mind-set shift” (Erhenfeld 2013: 127). As this whole system relies on consumption, in the end, it depends on people. Through the capability of buying and consciously deciding which brands and products to buy, people could absolutely shrink the market leaving behind the frivolous crossroads of consumption. How should we abandon consumption patterns? In the last 10  years, some cases of individuals having ­different behaviors toward consumption appeared trying to inspire other people and balance negative impacts. They started by questioning their own consumption patterns and find out that they don’t need even half of the goods they used to buy.

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

41

3.1  Case Studies To analyze disruptive consumption patterns, we will focus on cases of individuals who had made extreme changes and broke social established patterns of consumption. Judith Levine, was the first known woman that decided not to consume anything but food for a year. During Christmas time, in 2002, Levine saw herself trapped in over-compulsive shopping, rushing to purchase presents, goods, and stuff that she didn’t want to. This irrational rush to consume made her realize that it was nonsense and overconsumption was destroying the planet and the people. Throughout 2003, this issue was in her mind and she did not know how to personally work on it, but after seeking possible solutions, she got to the conclusion that she should not buy anything for a year in order to understand this pattern. So, it was in 2004 that she and her partner start the project of only consuming what they considered necessary. These basic needs include natural, not processed, food, toilet paper, and medicines. For Levine, taking extremist measures and behaving very differently were ways to understand her ordinary attitude as consumer, because only by getting away from the irrational compulsive system could she observe it and try to break off this system. By taking distance, she tried to understand the difference between need and desire and the relationship between security and scarcity and also compare consumerism with citizenship. Consumed Desire or “Deseo consumido” In Argentina, we can find the case of two journalists from a very well-known newspaper that noticed that whenever they feel they need something, the most direct and rapid reaction was to buy it. The same when they want to make a present or when they just want to feel happier. This cased is based on the book they wrote as part of the experience (Himitian and Vallejos 2017). It was in April 2016 when they got engaged in not buying anything but essential stuff. They wondered what would happen if they did not consume anything but food for a year. Maria Soledad Vallejos and Evangelina Himitian are both mothers and responsible for their families. During this year trying to figure out what is behind consumption and the almost compulsive act of buying things, they wrote a blog that was kind of a personal diary and also interviewed other people about this issue. They not only tried to unravel what is behind consumption but also enrich ­themselves by living authentically and challenging themselves to a path of personal enlightenment. The goal was not to buy anything whose final destination would be accumulation. Do we need sales, or are sales making us buy undesired goods? Can we get over a year of detox from consumption? They said that they did not want to enrich themselves in terms of money, but by having the possibility of sharing, giving away, and surviving remote from consumption.

42

M. Gabriel et al.

From the beginning, they started noticing that while some people criticized them and told them it was impossible to stop consumption, some other people supported them and have already noticed that this buying-discarding-buying system was harmful. They were facing consumption, and they stood across the “engine of the economy.” It was clear, and it is clear still today, that most of the people will try to discard this “attitude” toward consumption. During the months without buying, they have realized that consumption inertia does not have a rational process and we need stuff we really don’t. They have discovered that desire becomes erratic, and buying satisfaction is most of the time a distorted perception. We buy even if we do not really need anything, just for the ephemeral pleasure of purchasing something and having or showing it. With this perspective, they found themselves trapped in the consumption system. For example, in Argentina, in order to get over crisis, and continue speeding consumption, you have the option in many shops to pay in 12 installments without charging interest. Vallejos and Himitian were not only leaving consumption behind but also wanted to discard those items that did not represent them. They donated all the stuff they did not use. In terms of apparel, as mentioned before, the system sells us the idea to keep continuously buying clothes that may do not fit with your body or style, but brands, society, and our own system of beliefs make us believe that we need to have them. They started by cleaning their wardrobes and finding some clothes they bought themselves and never wore, some others someone had given them as presents and still had the tag on them. They noticed that they always wore the same clothes and it was because they were comfortable, the felt represented or had some emotional value. Giving away all those clothes make them feel lighter and happier. The increase of fashion consumption during the last decades has had a direct relationship with the increase in illegal fabrics and low production costs. Linking both reasons to analyze production and consumption helps us to dimension the impacts of our own actions. In a survey conducted in the frame of this research, the authors of the book reveal that people associate consumption to pleasure and euphoria. Therefore, it is far from being rational. As they mentioned (Himitian and Vallejos 2017), Jorge Dotto, a Harvard specialist in genetics and author of the DNA of pleasure, affirms that consuming makes us feel pleasure and pleasure generates happiness. However, the constant purchase of things we do not need but acquire only because we believe they are an opportunity speaks volumes about our low ability to handle our emotions, our anxiety, our fear for the future, and may also be associated with our low self-esteem. “Having” has become more important than “being” in its truest sense. We cherish the illusion that the more we consume and the more we have, the happier we are. Instead, consumption has become just a form of immediate (false) gratification, a source of instant happiness but not long-lasting happiness. We have to return to the consumption wheel to feel the same again until we just do not feel it, but keep on moving by the inertia of the market. Both journalists suggest that we should move toward an ethical, responsible buyer or user (we should not be called consumers) who cares about the process before getting the product and about what to do after using it.

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

43

They have concluded that we ourselves are the cause of the chaos that we have unleashed without even realizing and we are unconscious of the big issue this means. At the same time, they have concluded that sharing experiences and moments with other people have a more lasting positive effect than consuming. Shared moments leave traces that reinforce our identity and strengthen the bond with others and our planet. As individuals, we cannot force others to think like us, but we can inspire others by being loyal to ourselves. 333 Project This project, or be more with less, is a fashion challenge that invites people to use and wear only 33 items for 3 months.3 This should include clothes and accessories. All the other items in the wardrobe should go to a box. The project focuses on time we lose in front of our wardrobes to choose what to wear, and this time and stress is reduced by rationalizing our outfits, knowing what and where we have them and also how to combine them, starting with the simple question of whether you love and feel represented by that item and keeping all the items you love that should not be more than 33 and putting all the rest in a box. If in 3 months you can leave without them, you may decide to donate or give them away to someone who really needs them. This project started in 2010, and since then it has become increasingly popular. After the first 3 months, people may decide to continue and go further with different initiatives proposed by the platform “be more with less,” or to take clothes from the box and continue with their daily use. It seems to be easy compared to not buying anything. However, what happens with the patterns of use and consumption of clothes that these projects arise and rapidly become increasingly popular? How should brands be prepared for these consumers? How should brands be prepared for these consumers who only want 33 garments and will have them until they are exhausted? No Impact Man Another really disruptive consumer to take into consideration is the case of No Impact Man. Colin Beavan is an activist with strong commitment to people and the environment who, in November 2006, encouraged a project called No Impact Man. Living in New York and willing to produce zero environmental impact seems to be paradoxical. Beavan felt that people’s lifestyles were excessively harmful for the environment and decided to stop consuming even toilet paper. It would not be easy, but almost 10 years later, we can see that this state of his life was decisive. Through this experience he reeducated himself about what was necessary, essential, or even truly desired – and now, No Impact Man became a life project.  Information obtained from their website: www.bemorewithless.com/project-333

3

44

M. Gabriel et al.

In his book, Beavan presents his wife Michelle and their 2-year daughter Isabella and reflects all different stages of this year of nonconsumption. This year of no impact also included no electricity in their case. It was not about stuff but about impact, what are we taking off and leaving to the Earth? He mentioned, “My objective in the non-consumption phase wasn’t bare survival. My objective, when it came down to it, was not to waste. That is what the whole No Impact experiment is about, really. It’s about not wasting resources and not wasting life. How can we live good lives without harming the planet?” (Beavan 2009: 62). During this time, he and Michelle have gone through different instances, but they have stayed together and always find the way out. Beavan always mentioned that Michelle was very dubious about the whole project. She did not believe in living environmentally, and even though she knew consumption patterns should change, this extremist attitude was kind of impossible at the beginning. As the story goes on, you see that she takes it a step forward and this project unites them as a family even more. She opens her mind and understands that living in community is the only way to start solving problems, and by abandoning consumption she has opened herself to other real feelings, relationships, and stories. Beavan has Michelle as an example of being on one side and going to the other side. She is the living proof that changing our habits of consumption, even if it has never been in our plans, is possible. Once Michelle’s boss told them he knew that consumption and its impacts were serious. He said, “Honestly, I love this project, but my first reaction to it was irritation, too. I like to think I have the self-awareness to probe the irritation a little further and see what’s underneath it.” He added: “We’re all in a fragile state of denial. We all know at some point that people elsewhere are starving to death and don’t know where dinner is coming from. Meanwhile, we spend ten dollars on a CD that we will listen to maybe only three times. The ten dollars could have saved someone’s life. We all know this and we don’t know what to do about it and then this dumb No Impact project comes along and shakes us up and makes us remember, and then our fragile denial comes tumbling down. We feel guilty and our first reaction is to feel angry and irritated with the person who has made us feel that way” (Beavan 2009: 234). However, this was the mission of the no impact project. They wanted not only to change their own consumption patterns but also to inspire other people on the way to a healthier and fairer lifestyle. Their decisions, attitudes, and practices now were really considering the Earth as a whole, minding people, community, and environmental issues and really considering real needs. Achieving a year of nonconsumption and no electricity made them change their way of life and showed other people that it is something possible to achieve. Although they did not look for others to imitate them, maybe others could be inspired and help with at least taking some of their good practices. This project differs from the case we have just mentioned about the two Argentine journalists in the sense that it implies leaving aside technology and electricity. From the very beginning, they gave up television and only took the elevator in cases of emergency, for example, once Isabella got ill. At the beginning, they

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

45

thought that television was the most difficult thing to abandon, but instead, they found themselves hearing and speaking to each other, enjoying time with Isabella and sharing stories of their childhood they had never done before. Furthermore, Beavan considers doing no harm is a way of leaving things as they are, and humans have the potential for doing good. In his words, “There is a limit to how much less harm I can do. But my potential for good is unlimited. All of our potentials for good are unlimited. The question becomes not whether we use resources, but what we use them for. Do we use them to improve lives? Or do we waste them? My life itself is a resource. How shall I use it?” (Beavan 2009: 219). No Impact Man is a book, a documentary, and a website, and above all, it is a perfect disruptive case that shows how corrupted the system is. Getting over this extreme, taking measures that are excessive just to understand and challenge consumption patterns should not be necessary because as humans, we must protect other humans and our environment. Was just Beavan trying to be heard? He knew that the consumption of three people over the world would not change the situation, but he also knew that as much as he could oppose to the system, but still leave in it, it will cause controversy and attract other people, at least to criticize him and his family. Is it necessary to get to this extreme to put in the agenda certain topics that in ordinary conditions we miss or try not to see? At the end, he mentions: “For most of my forty-five years I haven’t tried hard enough. I got too paralyzed by this question of whether I was the type of person who could make a difference. Finally, during the year of the project, I realized that’s the wrong question. The real question is whether I’m the type of person who wants to try. Through this book, I’ve tried to show how saving the world is up to me. I’ve tried hard not to lecture. Yes, it’s up to me. After living for a year without toilet paper, I’ve earned the right to say one thing: It’s also up to you. So, what are you going to do?” (Beavan 2009: 238). All these issues should be binding for us. In the development agenda, these issues are already being considered, and as time goes by, they get deeper and urgent. We should feel ashamed to consider these attitudes and practices just as extremes. Are our lifestyles and patterns of consumption logic nowadays? We will try to set this issue under a topic: degrowth. Is the degrowth the framework for disruptive consumers and the way out of this crisis of consumption?

4  The Urgent Need to Change Consumption Patterns 4.1  Basis of Degrowth Model As we mentioned before, development, as we know it, is based on economic growth, and the Earth ecosystem is already imposing limits to economic growth. Andre Gorz suggests this idea under the concept of ecological rationalization, meaning that it’s a goal to build a society in which we can live better lives while working less

46

M. Gabriel et al.

and consuming less (1994). We should say that when we refer to consuming and working less, we refer to developed countries. Consumption is now challenging us, because we cannot continue as we used to, and the cases mentioned before are cases where individuals questioned growth and tend to set degrowth models. Society is organized in economic terms instead of placing humanity and the environment in the first place. In the last 10  years, innovative design and design for social innovation have become popular, and they are focused on placing people at the center of the design and production process. Latouche explains the importance and significance of degrowth, “We must abandon the goal of exponential growth, as that goal is promoted by nothing else but a quest for profits on the parts of the owners of capital and has disastrous implications for the environment, and therefore, for humanity. It is not just that society is reduced to being nothing more than an instrument or a means to be used by the productive mechanism; human beings themselves are becoming the waste products of a system that would like to make them useless and do without them” (Latouche 2009: 8). As mentioned above, consumerism is a failure of a system that was once sustained and promoted toward growth. Individuals, instead of consuming for living, are living for consumption, turning consumption into a way of life. They consume the Earth’s natural resources and their own time instead of enjoying being alive. As Samuel Alexander said, “Consumerism is a gross failure of imagination, a debilitating addiction that degrades nature and doesn’t even satisfy the universal human craving for meaning.”4 The current system of production and consumption involves long-distance logistics of resources, materials, and end products between different countries. While companies try to fix low production costs, consumers look for low prices; none of them measure carbon footprint of logistics or consider social aspects. We live under a system that fosters inequality, sustaining underdevelopment in countries where the society cannot afford growing. This system promotes the benefit of a few over the common wealth. Cornelius Castoriadis said, “Ecology is subversive in that it calls into question the capitalist imaginary that prevails everywhere. It rejects the central leitmotif according to which we are fated to constantly increase production and consumption. It shows the catastrophic impact of the capitalist logic on the natural environment and on people’s lives” Castoriadis (2010: 194). In a degrowth society instead, localized economies prevail over globalized. They set changes in materials, education, techniques, and social innovation looking forward to reducing the carbon footprint of trading. Degrowth stands in home local production. It empowers and promotes communities to fulfill their needs. People not only gain from the training they receive but also start being independent. Local independent supply and production will be very important in a future of scarcity and crisis. As the name suggests, degrowth is based on consuming less,  Extracted descent

4

from:

www.simplicitycollective.com/what-is-degrowth-envisioning-a-prosperous-

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

47

meaning less demand, therefore less work. This could be alarming as a growth in population is expected. So, how does this system expect to tackle recession and unemployment? One of the keys of degrowth is time and the other is quality. The solution to having less employment is to work fewer hours. For example, if someone in the current system works 8 hours, degrowth suggests having only 4 working hours, so other people can be employed to complete the rest working hours. People would have more leisure time and could grow personally and take healthier practices, grow spiritually, and be happier. “… spiritual development of individuals reduces their material desire, rivalry and demands, improving their fellowship and empathy” (Ulluwishewa 2014: 121). People under a degrowth model would have time to enjoy, produce at home, learn, and develop different skills empowering themselves. Degrowth groups and individuals who support this model are increasing around the globe. We can see in developed and developing countries different people trying to shrink the prevailing global economic system. The struggle for climate change and the interest for sustainable development are issues affecting different latitudes, cultures, and social or economic standards. Self-inflicted people from different ages and different social classes and places work together trying to improve environmental and social conditions and ensuring an inhabitable world for future generations. Networking empowers these individuals. It gives them visibility and the possibility of sharing experiences and knowledge. As we have seen before, there are some individuals starting to pursue ideals of degrowth, taking drastic actions in terms of consumption. As we have just analyzed, not consuming anything for a year and consuming only what is necessary for a family trying not to cause any negative impact are different initiatives that might inspire other people and at least question actual patterns of consumption. Degrowth is necessary, as mentioned above, to fulfill the SDG 12. “At Present, in the professional literature on consumption, there is a tendency to suppose that people buy goods for two or three restricted purposes: material welfare, psychic welfare, and display. The first two are needs of the individual person: the need to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, and for peace of mind and recreation. The last is a blanket term that covers all the demands of society” (Douglas and Isherwood 2002: vii). Display shows the cultural desire of purchasing different goods and services, in different situations. To difference needs from desire, and support disruptive models, we should analyze the whole need system, to understand how we should rationalize needs, wants, and responsible consumption. It is necessary to clarify what our needs are when it comes to rethinking how we want to live. The desire for infinite progress empties and destroys us. According to Max-Neef, needs should be understood in a broader sense, not limited to mere subsistence, needs reflect the constant tension between lack and power of individuals. We should be able to see in needs a potential, a motivation. The urgency to abandon old models of consumption that recreate a universe of fictitious needs is increasingly evident.

48

M. Gabriel et al.

4.2  Redefining the System of Needs As we mentioned above, responsible consumption means choosing the more sustainable option to buy what we really need. We should ask ourselves if we really need to buy something in the first place. Therefore, we will try to understand the theory of Manfred Max-Neef, a Chilean philosopher and economist, who restates the origin of needs, their human nature, and their cultural aspect. In his book, development at human scale (1991), he points out the importance and urgency of individual development, making strong emphasis on personal and human virtues to face and enhance the economic and social crisis. He is concerned about resources availability and unconventional human resources such as sensitivity, social awareness, culture, solidarity, imagination, dedication, and commitment, all human qualities or faculties, which should be considered primarily in order to remake development. He focuses on moving away from the economic terms of development and, as the name of his book implies, approaching the human. He refers to the importance of personal development and values and of getting together to set our gifts and talents toward social innovation. Needs are specific to human beings, they are part of our nature. But, the means to satisfy those needs depends on cultural aspects, while needs remain the same. This is why Max-Neef divides the needs system into three subsystems, needs, satisfiers, and goods, being satisfiers and goods those which define the culture of a community. “We could say, perhaps, that fundamental human needs are essential attributes that are related to evolution; satisfiers are ways of being, having, and doing that are related to structures; and economic goods are objects that are related to conjunctures” (Max-Neef 1991: 62). The fundamental needs throughout history have not changed; they remain still and they will remain the same. We can find nine categories of needs, of equal importance, and close relationship among them. They are the need for subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, creation, participation, leisure, identity, and freedom. Each culture may order or prioritize them culturally, but they don’t have a real order. Keeping them satisfied releases happiness. The problem comes when we have already achieved them and we want more, always desiring more and comparing to others instead of collaborating with others. As mentioned by Montesquieu, we keep on willing to be happier than others, but it is not possible because we imagine others happier than they are. In order to start the process of going back and analyzing future consumption patterns in fashion, we should question what needs we seek to satisfy with fashion. As mentioned above, as a consumer, it is important to focus on needs in order to assume responsible consumption and, from the point of view of producers, maybe rethink the process and see if the product we are selling is necessary, or if, instead, they could change our business. People get dress with clothes, but will tomorrow be necessary for them to own the products? In any case, at least the industry should try to set up other norms and ways of production.

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

49

4.3  Ethics and Consumption Cortina suggests (2013) you can criticize what you want, but if consumption is the engine of production, and if citizens have to assume a consumerist character for society to work, we will not be able to fix this system. Happiness is reduced to wealth and identified with the possibilities of consumption. However, happiness does not consist of consuming indefinitely; it is necessary to change this system and our habits of consumption. In analyzed cases, there was a clear common objective: change those installed patterns that are affecting our society and the environment. Our character, personality, and attitude toward life are under construction, transforming and evolving, and we must drive habits through ethics, considering and respecting other people and the environment if we want to promote life on the Earth. In order to fix consumption patterns, approach consumption to sustainable development goal 12, and try to anticipate future consumption patterns; we should rebuild the basis of our society, our ethics. Ethics has to do with human action, with morality; it is important to fix society, reconsidering our values and promoting social conscience. As mentioned by Gardetti and Delgado (2018), people should be ethic, because being ethical is a human condition. Human performance should be on the basis of ethics, not just because of it. Ethics helps to choose those actions that contribute to our natural development. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we are being ethical or if just ethics, in this era, is relative to each other without a sense of belonging. Should we develop our ethics and compassion in order to stop being consumers and start living while we guarantee life on the Earth for future generations? “In addition to a lack of information mentioned earlier, it is likely that there are many other reasons that allow consumers not to behave ethically. Both quantitative and qualitative findings support the notion that some consumers are more interested in their own needs than the needs of others. Similarly, the qualitative data suggest that some consumers view ethics to be the responsibility of business and government rather than their own responsibility” (Dickson 2005: 170). It is common for people and individuals to rest responsibility on others. Zátonyi (1990) suggests that we do many things by a reproduced imposition, which once upon a time perhaps was functional and had a reason to be, but now it does not. To what extent does the inertia of unbridled consumption threaten life itself? How can we demand commitment, policies, and norms if, as consumers, we still sustain overconsumption? Zátonyi continues that humans with all their attitudes, gestures, choices, and decisions can be constructive or destructive, generating or degenerating part of this world. How consumption will look like in the future is something we cannot even imagine, but as we have seen, changing consumption patterns is a must in order to proceed with life on the Earth for future generations. Both consumers and industries are different sides of the same equation and the engine of this consumption system, so, if consumption should degrow, business should be sufficiently adaptive to maintain profitable.

50

M. Gabriel et al.

The solution to existing problems would not come from outside; pursuing economic growth and development brought us where we are, so we – producers and consumers – are the ones who should be rebuilding the system. We have to stop waiting for others to solve the problems we are facing. Some may say that the solution will come as long as technology advances, but this is the same as saying that it is a question of government policies. In the end, we, individuals have the power and are the ones who manipulate technology. If people decide it, “Technologies could be catalysts for change, could help make the value chain of the product transparent, bring consumers and companies closer, make the shopping experience very special or at least make it more efficient … and more sustainable” (Lavergne 2015: 164). As consumers, we are the engine of the system, so we should be conscious and responsible for the damage we are causing. Will we be able to encourage solutions to the threats we got today? “Increasingly, much of the power of the environmental change has come from concerned individuals and from local community groups taking action on issues close to home” (Elkington and Hailes 1990: 255). These individuals acting as agents of change, as both journalists, Colin Beavan, and other disruptive cases that we can mention are the core of the future social movements. Either we move or we will remain in the crisis. We know we have to change the system, but we must also remember that the system is only a collection of individuals. What the system does is just the aggregation of all of our individual actions as citizens, as shareholders, as CEOs, as product designers, as customers, as friends, as family members, and as voters. We have to stop waiting for the system to change and remember that every decision we make in our homes and in our workplaces amounts to “the system.” (Beavan 2009: 235)

We as human beings must change our priorities and start questioning and denaturalizing our decisions. “Your values ​​should be reflected in the clothes you choose, in your purchases, and so the companies will follow you. Power is in our hands, not as consumers, since those are only economic units of consumption, but as individuals seeking to connect with people, communities, and materials, which are part of our garments” (Lavergne 2015: 10).

At the end, the responsibility lies with the individuals... If people begin to rethink and to be aware of their power, demand, and above all to become aware that the current lifestyle is really unsustainable, brands would have no choice. At the same time, millennials and coming generations are setting different rules to the market. New consumers are trying to get rid of this system. We are entering a period in which ownership is replaced by access. Millennials are willing to give up ownership. They value more experiences, time to enjoy life, and dedicate themselves to the expression of creativity. We don’t need so much stuff; we can lend, exchange, and collaborate with others. Access becomes more important than ownership and it is a less impactful way of consuming, based, for example, on sharing.

Consumption: Will Tomorrow’s Consumption Be Completely and Absolutely…

51

Innovation and creativity will be the core, the heart of this movement. Individuals trying to set new basis will be agents of change. Public opinion in the consumer society can help individuals to expand their message. We have the case of Greta Thunberg and her fight for climate change; in less than a year, she has been heard by the world economic forum, the Paris climate change, and many individuals in the social media. This can be really transforming. On the other hand, for business, it can mean a lot of social pressure. Jaques Attali mentioned in 2012 that power will increasingly be in the hands of the market. He said that contrary to what is too often believed, the world, in effect, will be less and less under the control of an empire and increasingly under the control of the market. People, individuals, consumers, and producers might think really differently. We cannot imagine the consumption patterns of the future; maybe we cannot speak about consumers because they might no longer exist, but it is no longer a question of willing to change. It is a question of having to change in order to succeed through generations and ensure life on the Earth. Will we make the effort? Or will we just try to survive adapting to an already obsolete system? “Action and change are of central importance to sustainability, as long-term environmental and social quality requires that we develop a new model of individual and social action that is different to the one we have today” (Fletcher 2008: 185). Himitian, Vallejos, Beavan, and Lavigne are some of the individuals who are trying to get rid of this system and are showing disruptive – as seen today – patterns of consumption that really ensure life on the Earth for generations coming. They might seem extremists, but for being so different, they are also inspiring and awakening many others, who do not believe in this system, but do not know how to change it. Their activist behavior and attitude empower individuals and bring hope.

Bibliography Attali J (2012) Mañana, ¿quién gobernará el mundo? Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid Beavan C (2009) No impact man. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York Berman M (1981) Todo lo sólido se desvanece en el aire. La experiencia de la modernidad. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires Castoriadis C (2010) A society adrift. Interviews and debates 1974–1997. Translated by Helen Arnold. Fordham University Press, New York Cortina A (2013) ¿Para qué sirve realmente la ética? Paidós, Barcelona Dickson MA (2005) Identifying and profiling apparel label users. In: Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D (eds) The ethical consumer. SAGE, London Douglas M, Isherwood B (2002) The world of goods: towards an anthropology of consumption. Routledge, London Elkington J, Hailes J (1990) The green consumer. Penguin Books, London Entwistle J (2002) El cuerpo y la moda: una visión sociológica. Paidós, Buenos Aires Erhenfeld JR (2013) Flourishing, a frank conversation about sustainability. Stanford University Press, California Fletcher K (2008) Sustainable fashion and textiles, design journeys. Earthscan, London Fletcher K, Grose L (2012) Fashion and sustainability: design for change. Laurence King, London Gardetti MA (2017) Textiles y moda ¿Qué es ser sustentable? LID, Buenos Aires

52

M. Gabriel et al.

Gardetti MA, Delgado ML (2018) Vestir un mundo sostenible: la moda de ser humanos en una industria polémica. LID, Buenos Aires Gardetti MA, Torres AL (2012) Introduction. The journal of corporate citizenship. Springer 2012, Special issue 45, Textiles, Fashion and Sustainability: 5–15 Gardetti MA, Torres AL (2015) Introduction. In: Sustainable luxury, managing social and environmental performance in iconic brands. Greenleash Publishing Limited, Sheffield Gorz A (1994) Capitalism, socialism, and ecology (radical thinkers). Verso, London Himitian E, Vallejos MS (2017) Deseo Consumido: ¿y si pasarás un año sin comprar? Una investigación sobre por qué el consumo nos consume. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, Buenos Aires Latouche S (2009) Farewell to growth. Polity Press, Cambridge Lavergne M (2015) Fixing fashion: rethinking the way we make, market and buy our clothes. New Society Publishers, Graviola Island Lipovetsky G (1992) El imperio de lo efímero: la moda y su destino en las sociedades modernas. Anagrama, Barcelona Lipovetsky G, Serroy J (2015) La estetización del mundo. Anagrama, Barcelona Littrell MA, Dickson MA (2010) Artisans and fair trade, crafting development. Kumarian Press, Sterling Max-Neef M (1991) Human scale development. The Apex Press, New York Saulquin S (2014) Política de las apariencias: Nueva significación del vestir en el contexto contemporáneo. Paidós, Buenos Aires Soemmers C (2015) Foreword. In: Lavergne M (ed) Fixing fashion: rethinking the way we make, market and buy our clothes. New Society Publishers, Graviola Island Ulluwishewa R (2014) Spirituality and sustainable development. Palgrave Macmillan, London Zátonyi M (1990) Una Estética: del arte y el diseño de imagen y sonido. Nobuko, Buenos Aires

Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product by a Luxury and Mainstream Brand Feray Adıgüzel

Abstract  Sustainability is not only at the forefront of the mainstream brands’ agenda. Luxury brands have also already engaged in sustainability actions, either launching sustainable versions of their products or develop “responsible luxury” strategies and policies. This chapter explores two types of advertising appeals for sustainable new products communications: those that deliver consumer benefit (i.e., self-benefit) and those that deliver societal benefit (i.e., others-benefit). Furthermore, this research investigates whether the advertising appeal types moderate the effect of brand types, namely, mainstream versus luxury, on consumers’ reactions toward new sustainable products. The results of the experiment indicate that consumers’ purchase intention increases when a new sustainable product is produced by a mainstream brand rather than a luxury one when advertising communicates self-benefits. When the message is focused on “others-benefit” instead of “self-benefit,” consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product increases for a luxury brand. On the other hand, consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product decreases when the message is “others-benefit” for a mainstream brand. Keywords  Sustainable new product · Luxury brand · Mainstream brand · Self-­ benefit · Others-benefit · Sustainable consumption · Responsible luxury

1  Introduction Both mainstream and luxury brands are increasingly producing and promoting sustainable products (i.e., products that have a positive social and/or environmental impact). For instance, Westwood recently launched a collection of upcycled bags and iPad cases in partnership with the UN and the World Trade Organization. Gucci F. Adıgüzel (*) LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. S. Muthu, M. A. Gardetti (eds.), Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries, Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_4

53

54

F. Adıgüzel

launched the world’s first bags certified as zero deforestation. We see similar initiatives by mainstream brands as well. H&M as the world’s second largest apparel company vows to become “climate positive” by 2040. H&M has conscious Exclusive Collection—a line that uses 100% regenerated nylon fiber and recycled silver. Mango’s “Committed” collection uses environmentally friendly dyes, recycled polyester, and organic and recycled cotton. Zara uses eco-label “Join Life” which is made with eco-friendly materials such as organic cotton, recycled wool, and forest-­friendly wood fiber for its sustainable collection. With consumers becoming increasingly aware of fashion’s impact on the planet, almost every brand in clothing industry tries to incorporate environmental or social awareness into their DNA and they launch sustainable products lines. A key challenge in articulating the value of green innovation to consumers is determining the most effective structure of communication (Olsen et al. 2014). To reach consumers and influence their attitudes, the framing of the communication plays a crucial role for only through it, specific interpretations can be promoted. So, fashion brands want to know how to communicate their sustainability practices and policies efficiently to their consumers. Many marketing studies are devoted to the examination of methods to enhance advertising effectiveness. How a message is presented to consumers is indeed a crucial part of these researches. In fact, the way information is labeled or framed may significantly influence consumers’ choice of the product and the subsequent purchase (Smith and Petty 1996). This chapter explores consumers’ reactions toward new sustainable fashion products in terms of purchase intention and attitude toward a sustainable new product considering the influence of brand type (luxury versus mainstream) and appeal type (self- versus others-benefit). “Self-benefit” appeal originates from an egotistical push and focuses on the idea that the main beneficiary of the purchase is the consumer. On the other hand, “others-­benefit” appeal concentrates on the idea of being useful for the community or society as a whole (Kronrod et al. 2012). While consumers might be typically motivated by one of two benefits, marketers regularly employ communication strategies that emphasize one benefit or the other. This research contributes to the literature by comparing the efficacy of appeal types for luxury and mainstream brands related to a sustainable new product. Previous research investigated these effects only in the context of environmentally friendly consumption behavior and more importantly their findings were conflicting. While Hutton and Markley (1991) found that self-benefit communications were more effective, Davis (1994) encouraged for others-benefit message communications to increase environmentally friendly consumption behavior. The intervening and boundary conditions were also investigated to compare the efficacy of self- versus others-benefit appeal types. For instance, Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) observed that less environmental-conscious consumers responded more favorably to a self-benefit appeal and more environmental-­conscious ones responded equally to both appeal types. Green and Peloza (2014) proved that consumers were more responsive to others-benefit appeals in public settings due to impression-management concerns and to self-benefit appeals in private setting. Previous research also discussed that luxury brands

Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product…

55

h­ esitate to communicate their corporate sustainability practices due to negative effects of “greenwashing perceptions” and brand meaning inconsistency issues (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2014). Thus, finding the most successful ways to advertise a sustainable new product is crucial for luxury and fast-fashion managers, ad-copy producers, and advertising agencies. The objective of this research is to offer a different perspective on how to promote and advertise the benefits for a sustainable new product. The second section discusses sustainable consumption. The third section discusses how brand type, namely, luxury versus mainstream, might make a difference for sustainable new products. The fourth section presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses. The fifth section focuses on methods and results. Finally, findings were discussed in conclusions and implications were provided for managers.

2  Sustainable Consumption Sustainable consumption has become an interest of academics, especially in  last decade (Bodur et al. 2014; Luchs et al. 2012; Luchs and Kumar 2017; Peloza et al. 2013). Particularly, fashion industry has been criticized as being non-sustainable due to the significant negative environmental footprint of this industry on the planet. Therefore, fashion companies employ sustainable practices in fashion production. For instance, they are now utilizing sustainable fibers (e.g., hemp, organic cotton, bamboo, post-consumer recycled fabrics), encouraging second-hand clothing channels, and supporting ethical labor practices. Consumers, however, are hesitant to purchase sustainably produced products (McNeill and Moore 2015). Since the fashion industry has short product life cycles and hedonistic consumers (Lundblad and Davies 2016), sustainable fashion consumption will be successful only if consumers purchase those instead of just stating positive attitudes. Consumers usually have positive attitude toward sustainable products; however, they seldom make purchasing decisions exclusively based on ethicality. This “green attitude-behavior gap” is very present in the clothing industry where consumers are likely to prioritize attributes such as style, aesthetic appeal, and latest fashion fads on other important product characteristics. Based on previous studies, sustainable purchase consumption inconsistency can be explained with these factors: 1. Relatively high price perceptions of sustainable products: Consumers feel frustrated to pay the premium usually charged for sustainable goods. The Green Gauge Global research project specifies that 6 of 10 consumers believe environmentally friendly product alternatives are too expensive (Ayadi and Lapeyre 2016). 2. Reluctance in breaking habits and changing routines: Especially for people having low environmental concern, routine is a key driver of their buying decisions, mainly to be attributed to unconscious and past purchasing behavior (Joshi and Rahman 2016).

56

F. Adıgüzel

3. A credibility issue (greenwashing perceptions): Consumers tend to be skeptical about the actual implementation of green practices by companies believing that the real goal of the firm is a mere enhancement of the brand reputation achieved through the implementation of “greenwashing” practices (Dahl 2010). 4. Low-quality/low-performance/low-durability perceptions of sustainable products: Consumers believe that sustainable products have lower performance compared to nongreen alternative ones. For instance, a sustainable piece of clothing is usually perceived as less comfortable and of lower quality than its regular alternative (Achabou and Dekhili 2013; De Angelis et al. 2017). In the textile and apparel industries, there is one additional barrier for sustainable consumption: consumers purchase many product categories to communicate meanings about oneself and to create an identity. This is even stronger for clothing and apparel consumption because clothes are continuously on display. Consumers use fashion to create their identity and reinforce their identity (Belk 1988). Since identity construction is very important for many consumers, being fashionable becomes more important than being ethical or sustainable.

3  L  uxury Versus Mainstream Brand and Sustainable Products Consumers’ skepticism is the main issue that firms in the mainstream market must deal with; according to Anamma Joy, marketing professor at the University of British Columbia, consumers see these companies as representation of a sort of “throw-away culture,” making it even harder for such firms to make their efforts toward sustainability credible.1 Nevertheless, according to many authors, making consumers aware of the brand engagement in green practices is a crucial tool to solve this credibility problem. While for luxury brands, this very explicit communication might “pollute the dream dimension of luxury” (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2014), for mainstream brands transparency and explicit advocacy of green practices might be the only way to successfully market new sustainable products. A firm operating in the fast-­fashion industry, for example, will most probably benefit from explicitly stating to its customers that the company has been committing to sustainability; not only this can (and has to) be done through regular marketing campaigns but also and, most importantly, through the appearance of the product itself, so through design. The opposite holds for luxury brands (Adıgüzel et al. 2018). Indeed, consumers often buy luxury products to display a status, for this reason they feel reluctant to buy something which is distant from what the company is most famous for. An easily recognizable product design would be particularly important for certain categories of luxury consumers such as Parvenues and Poseurs (Han et  al. 2010): these buyers strongly  https://www.worldfinancialreview.com/fast-fashion-luxury-brands-sustainability/

1

Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product…

57

p­ refer louder luxury product designs, in that they allow them to associate or dissociate themselves from the social class of interest. It seems clear then that such consumers will refrain from buying an atypical looking high-end product, since it would have lower status signaling power. Sustainable versions of a luxury product might be perceived as an atypical and decrease purchase intention for those.

4  Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Previous literature indicates a widespread belief that green products have a lower overall performance than conventional alternatives (Olson 2013). This belief is magnified in the luxury context. Luxury consumers are highly skeptical about the quality of green items introduced by luxury brands, especially, but not exclusively, in relation to the usage of recycled material (Achabou and Dekhili 2013); indeed, such items are perceived as lower quality compared to the luxury brand’s other products (Griskevicius et  al. 2010; Magnoni and Roux 2012; Achabou and Dekhili 2013). Furthermore, several other findings demonstrate that luxury buyers have an ambivalent attitude when it comes to the purchase of luxury sustainable products because they consider luxury and sustainability to be somewhat contradictory concepts, especially with regard to the social and economic harmony facet of sustainable development (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2014). In fact, the research indicated while investors nowadays are demanding greater disclosure of a firm’s investments in greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy, and energy efficiencies, luxury brands are reluctant to become more transparent about their corporate social responsibility (CSR) performances (Janssen et al. 2017). The reason is the existing conflict between corporate social responsibility activities and the archetypal brand concepts found among the marketing of luxury brands (Torelli et  al. 2012). Brand concepts can automatically activate their related motivations and goals without consumers’ conscious knowledge (Chartrand et  al. 2008). Torelli et al. (2012) suggest that luxury brands employ concepts of self-enhancement over people and resources, whereas prototypical CSR activities focus more on self-­ transcendence concepts, leading consumers to feel motivational conflict and the accompanying subjective experiences of disfluency. CSR cues of a luxury brand lead to the devaluation of these brands on account of the disfluency between the self-enhancement of the luxury brand and the self-transcendence values of CSR information. The overall effect of consumers’ skepticism and deeply rooted set of instantaneous associations with the concept of “luxury” leads the consumer to be less inclined to the purchase of sustainable luxury products, rather than sustainable mainstream ones due to their inability to overlap the concepts of sustainability and luxury. Based on this contradiction of concepts (sustainability and brand values) which is far less marked in sustainable mainstream brands, we infer that the consumer is less skeptical in the (green) claims of mainstream brands rather than in

58

F. Adıgüzel

those of luxury brands and is therefore more willing to buy sustainable mainstream products, as opposed to sustainable luxury products. Therefore, we hypothesize that consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product and purchase intention is higher when that product is produced by a mainstream brand. H1:  a) Consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product and b) purchase intention is higher when that product is produced by a mainstream brand compared to a luxury brand. According Holmes et al. (2002), consumers are more willing to engage in sustainable purchases when this action is followed by some benefit to the self. This statement is especially true when applied to Western societies, where individualistic consumer traits (e.g., narcissism and self-esteem) are increasing and where, therefore, conflicts arise ever more often between consumers’ pursuit of individual, short-term, self-directed goals and their support for collective, long-term, and socially oriented interests (Naderi and Strutton 2015). Naderi and Strutton (2015) in their paper portray American society as an utterly un-idealistic place in which high percentages of consumers routinely behave narcissistically (Twenge 2006) and relatively few routinely make choices that support sustainable outcomes (Bonini and Oppenheim 2008a, b; Scarborough Research 2010) out of goodness of their heart. In further support of this thesis, a generalized attitude toward self-appeals is also confirmed in the European context by an exploratory research (Cervellon and Shammas 2013) that shows how in Southern Europe (Italy, France), the purchase of “green” products is centered around individual incentives. Moreover, according to the study on the relationship between self-concept and advertising effectiveness, self-benefit appeals can be expected to play a central role in influencing green advertising effectiveness (Sirgy 1986) because they’re often better tailored to match consumers’ self-concept (a mental, subjective picture representing oneself). Indeed, the paper states that advertising appeals congruent with viewers’ self-concept are superior in terms of enhancing advertising effectiveness to incongruent ones, independently from how morally impactful or symbolic the advertising should otherwise be. The three researchers, in fact, ascertain that if the symbol of a product (a subjective meaning assigned to an object) does not tie in closely with one’s self image, it may have little influence on purchasing behavior, irrespective of its potential symbolic richness. It is also argued that selfishness may be crucial to successful purchasing behavior and may produce greater economic welfare than pervasive collectivism (Palmer 2002). In conclusion, consumers might be more willing to engage in sustainable purchases when this action is followed by some benefit to the self, that is, when the advertising message is self-benefit oriented rather than others-benefit oriented. H2:  a) Consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product b) purchase intention is higher when the advertising message is focused on a “self-benefit,” rather than “others-benefit.” In general, the framing of a claim or message influences attitude (Green and Peloza 2014). Consumers’ reactions to green products vary by product type (Bezawada and Pauwels 2013; Van Doorn and Verhoef 2011).

Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product…

59

Rothschild (1979) suggests a self-benefit appeal is often necessary for enacting change among consumers to behave in situations where a social or environmental good is generated. In addition, Peattie (2001) argues environmentally friendly products that save consumers’ money succeed with relative ease even if their environmental benefits are marginal. Further to this point, Allen (1982) suggests that, in the case of consumer conservation, “saving money represents a strong alternative motive for efficient consumption that has nothing to do with social conscience.” Due to the fact that consumers want to save their money even when they are engaged in green consumption, without considering factors as social status and quality, they are more willing to buy products from mainstream brands in contrast with luxury brands. In addition, there’s a widespread belief that green products have a lower overall performance than conventional alternatives (Lin and Chang 2012). This belief is magnified in the luxury context, with luxury consumers expressing skepticism about the quality of green items introduced by luxury brands, especially, but not exclusively, in relation to the usage of recycled material (Achabou and Dekhili 2013); indeed, such items might be perceived as lower quality compared to the luxury brand’s other products (e.g., Achabou and Dekhili 2013; Griskevicius et al. 2010; Magnoni and Roux 2012). Building on this statement and on the previously mentioned papers that reported how effective the usage of self-benefit appeals is on enhancing the attitude of consumers toward making a purchase, we hypothesize that the message framing also plays a moderating effect between consumers’ reactions to a sustainable new product and brand type. H3:  Message appeal type is a moderating effect between brand type and a) attitude toward a new sustainable product b) purchase intention. When the message is “self-­ benefit” focus, consumers’ reactions toward a sustainable new product increase for a mainstream brand. When the message is “others-benefit” focus, consumers’ reactions toward a sustainable new product increase for a luxury brand. The conceptual model was indicated in Fig. 1.

Message Appeal Type: Self- vs Others-benefit

Brand Type: Luxury vs Mainstream

Fig. 1  Conceptual model

a) Attitude towards a sustainable new product b) Purchase intention of a sustainable new product

60

F. Adıgüzel

5  Method The primary goal of this paper was to determine what is the right shade of advertising messages for a sustainable new product. In our study we test purchase intention of a sustainable new product, and we hypothesized that consumers will more positively evaluate sustainable new product by a mainstream brand compared to a luxury brand. In addition, self-benefit appeal will be more effective than others-benefit appeal. Finally, more importantly, we want to examine whether appeal type makes any difference in effectiveness of sustainable product advertising when the brand type changes.

5.1  Pretest A pretest was conducted in Italy to select the brands and message content to use in the main test scenarios. The sample consists of total 46 subjects, 30 females and 16 males, with an average age of 27.43 (SD = 11.63). The manipulation of appeal message type was measured on a self- versus others-benefit scale used in White and Peloza (2009). The respondents assessed the message of scenarios as a self- versus others-­ benefit oriented. A reliability test was conducted on multi-item scales before statistical tests of manipulation checks and they found to be reliable (αself-benefit = 0.63 and αothers-benefit = 0.73). The statistical test of manipulation check was successful: means were significantly different (Mothers-benefit  =  4.17, Mself-benefit  =  3.14, t (44)  =  2.25, p