2016understanding Understanding Consumer Behavior in The Sustainable Clothing Market Model Development and Verification

Understanding Consumer Behavior
in the Sustainable Clothing Market:

Model Development and Verification
Malgorzata Koszewska
Abstract The main purpose of this study is to expand the knowledge of consumer
behavior in the market for sustainable clothing and to build a theoretical model
of this behavior based on the review of the relevant literature and the author’s
own research. The model is to provide a wider perspective on consumer behav-
ior with respect to textile and clothing products with ecological and social char-
acteristics, as well as describing the relationship between the consumer and the
manufacturer of textiles and clothing pursuing a strategy founded on the principles
of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The selected elements of the theoretical
model are verified empirically by means of structural equation modeling (SEM)
using a representative sample of 981 Polish customers. The research findings show
that consumers’ attitudes towards apparel shopping have a significant and posi-
tive influence on their willingness to pay a premium for sustainable products, on
the recognizability of ecological and social labels, and, finally, on the actual pur-
chase of sustainable clothing. These results give additional evidence pointing to a
prominent role of the recognizability of ecological and social labels in purchasing
sustainable apparel. The results of the study allow better understanding of factors
determining consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing and suggest practical
solutions to their producers.
Keywords Consumer behavior · Model · Sustainable consumption · Structural

equation modeling · Clothing · Green fashion
M. Koszewska (*)
Department of Materials and Commodity Sciences and Textile Metrology,
Team of Market Analyses of Product Innovations, Lodz University of Technology,
Ul. Zeromskiego 116, 90-924 Lodz, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 43

S.S. Muthu and M.A. Gardetti (eds.), Green Fashion,
Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0111-6_3
44 M. Koszewska
1 Introduction
Despite significant theoretical and empirical advancements of studies into con-

sumer behavior and growing interest in sustainable development and corporate
social responsibility (CSR; Ogrean and Herciu 2014), studies exploring the tex-
tile and clothing market are still few. In the last few years, though, the number
of studies focused on consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable textile and cloth-
ing products has clearly increased interest and new models of consumer behavior
in the market for these products have been developed. Yet, most of them address
only some selected aspects of consumer behavior rather than attempting to present
a comprehensive picture of the relationships between producers and buyers. This
chapter has been designed with a view to reducing this gap.
There are several reasons why consumer behavior in the sustainable clothing
market should deserve more attention from researchers.
First, gradual environmental degradation, shrinking of nonrenewable resources,
lower quality of life, and social and ethical problems are directly or indirectly
arising from snowballing consumption and in the case of textiles and cloth-
ing sector from the fast-fashion trend. These unfavorable processes will not stop
unless consumption patterns are modified. Manufacturers may use new designs
and technologies to minimize the impact of a product on the environment and
to make production more sustainable but their efforts are pointless if consumers
do not buy more sustainable goods and do not change their consumption habits.
Therefore analysis of immediate connections and influences of the demand side
of the market (consumers) and the supply side of the market (producers) is crutial
(Koszewska 2011b; Muthu et al. 2013).
Textile and clothing products accompany people “from cradle to grave,” giving
them comfort and protecting their health. Although many industries are faced with
the challenges of sustainable development, few of them are exposed to demands
from consumers, the media, and NGOs to act on the principles of sustainability
as much as the textile and clothing industry is. The author is of the opinion that
for the demands to be met consumer behavior and its determinants must be thor-
oughly analyzed.
Accordingly, this study has been designed to review factors determining con-
sumer behavior towards sustainable textiles and clothing1 and to develop and test a
model of this behavior.2
1In the chapter, sustainable textiles and clothing products are meant to be products that are:
• M anufactured in a socially responsible manner, that is, in a way satisfying the economic
requirements and addressing the environmental and social aspects. These innovative products
naturally contribute to sustainable development, and are
• Made to be used by individuals; this means that clothing represents the bulk of them but
home textiles such as carpets, curtains, bedclothes, tablecloths, towels, and the like are also
significant. For convenience, a collective term of sustainable clothing is used in this chapter.
2For the purposes of this study, customer behavior is understood as all actions and perceptions of
an individual causing his or her to want to buy a product, to choose a product, and finally to buy it.
Understanding Consumer Behavior in the Sustainable Clothing … 45
When a new model of consumer behavior is being created or one that already
exists is being adapted, the special characteristics of the analyzed market or of its
segment must be taken into consideration. This is important, because the socially
responsible behavior of consumers may differ significantly depending on the type
of goods (McDonald et al. 2009) and because fashion consumers differ from other
consumers in ethical consumption decision making (Niinimäki 2010). Last, mod-
els dedicated to particular markets are more likely to be used by firms for business
purposes.
The structure of this chapter is the following. Section 2 discusses the classifica-
tion of consumer behavior models and positions the model proposed by the author
among the existing ones. Section 3 presents a comprehensive theoretical model of
consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing based on a literature review. The
model describes relationships between consumers and the manufacturers of sus-
tainable products. The model has three theoretical dimensions, namely:
• The supply side: sustainable production systems and sustainable clothing they
deliver
• Barriers to the purchase of sustainable clothing
• The demand side: sustainable consumption models
They are discussed in Sects. 4–12, respectively.
Section 13 focuses on the empirical verification of the demand side of the
model and on the factors that significantly contribute to the purchase of sustain-
able clothing. The chapter ends with a discussion, final conclusions, and the limi-
tations of the research.
2 Consumer Behavior Models: Theoretical Background
Consumer behavior models are crucial to disentangling the complexity of relations

between consumers and the market, and to understanding how consumers make
decisions. They are designed as the simplified representations of consumers’ real
behaviors, so is it quite natural that they contain many assumptions and suffer
from many limitations (Kiezel 2010). The literature on this subject provides many
models explaining consumer behavior in the market, and consequently many clas-
sifications of the models created based on different criteria (Smyczek and Sowa
2005):
• Simple and complex models
• Structural, stochastic, and simulation models
• Descriptive, prognostic, and normative models
• Theoretical and empirical models
• Static and dynamic models
• One- and multifactor models
• Verbal, schematic, and mathematical models
46 M. Koszewska
The above list is not complete. The set of the classification criteria is substantial,
therefore the list of the types of consumer behavior models can be much longer
than the one above. At the same time, the lines between particular classifications
are blurred.
Bettman and Jones have divided consumer behavior models into four broad
categories:
• Information processing models of consumer choice
• Stochastics models
• Experimental and other linear models
• Large system models (Bettman and Jones 1972)
Considering the purpose of this chapter, particularly noteworthy are information-
processing models that are very frequently employed to analyze consumer behav-
ior towards sustainable products, and large system models. Bettman and Jones
have described the large system models as models with a broad general struc-
ture of postulated interrelationships, with a somewhat simplified formal model fit
within the framework (Bettman and Jones 1972).
The proposed model, too, presents a wide panorama of the relations between
producers and consumers. Considering their complexity, only selected elements of
decision-making processes performed by customers will undergo empirical verifi-
cation. The empirical verification is based on the wealth of theoretical and empiri-
cal knowledge of structural modeling with latent variables.3
A landmark model in the development of structural modeling with latent vari-
ables is the Howard–Sheth model. Its authors proposed a model containing latent
variables (i.e., theoretical, unobservable variables) and the rules for relating them
to their observable indicators. The Howard–Sheth model initiated a series of stud-
ies into the formation of relations between the amount of information available
and a buying decision that is crucial in analyzing consumer behavior towards sus-
tainable products.
The introduction of latent variables into consumer behavior models allowed
accounting for personal values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions (the
values–attitudes–behavior models), as well as for controlling various mediation
and moderation aspects (Sagan 2011).
Jeff Bray has named five major theoretical approaches used in consumer behav-
ior studies (Bray 2008):
• Economic man
• Psychodynamic
• Behaviorist
3Models with latent variables are one of the main types of models that have been used for more
than 30 years now in consumer behavior studies. They owe their popularity to the fact that they
allow for considering latent variables representing the unobservable characteristics of consumers
and for analyzing the regressive dependencies between them.
• Cognitive
• Humanistic
Each of them posits alternate models of consumer behavior and emphasizes the
need to examine quite different variables (Foxall 2004).
The majority of empirically validated models described in the literature on con-
sumer behavior and sustainable products refer to the cognitive orientation, which
is closely associated with the already mentioned information processing theory, a
basic system of reference for structural modeling in the study of consumer behav-
ior developed in the 1980s. The cognitive orientation encompasses, inter alia,
the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) and the theory
of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen 1991). These classic theories have been exten-
sively adopted to create models explaining consumer behavior towards sustainable
clothing. Many of the models have been verified empirically in the framework of
structural equation modeling (SEM), for example, the model of environmentally
sustainable textile and apparel consumption (Kang et al. 2013), the model of inten-
tion to purchase personalized fair trade apparel (Halepete et al. 2009b), the model
of consumer choice in sweatshop avoidance (Shaw et al. 2007), or the model of
green purchasing behaviors of urban residents in China (Liu et al. 2012).
The use of the cognitive orientation and the SEM technique for the empirical
testing of the models of consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing are dis-
cussed more specifically in the next section of this chapter.
The literature contains models that have been created to describe some aspects
of consumer behavior towards textile and clothing products (Eckman et al. 1990;
Shim and Kotsiopulos 1992; Lea Wickett et al. 1999; Visser and Du Preez 2001;
Du Preez 2003; Du Preez and Visser 2003; d e Klerk and Lubbe 2008). There
are also empirical studies investigating sustainable consumption behavior with
respect to textiles and clothing (Butler and Francis 1997; Kim and Damhorst 1998;
Blowfield 1999; Shaw et al. 2007; Brosdahl and Carpenter 2010; Ha-Brookshire
and Norum 2011; Kang et al. 2013; Hassan et al. 2013; Halepete et al. 2009a;
Chan and Wong 2012; Hyllegard et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2012; Han and Chung
2014). However, none of them addresses the ecological, social, or ethical aspects
of consumer behavior, nor does it comprehensively explain the extremely complex
relationships between producers and consumers. See Fig. 1.
The proposed model is an attempt to provide a more efficient explanation of
consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing and to give insight into the rela-
tionship between its producers and consumers.
48 M. Koszewska
PROPOSED MODEL
of consumer behavior
Trudel, 2011 in the sustainable
clothing market
Booi-Chen,
Thøgersen ,
2011 Osterhus, 1997
2000
Young et al.,
Paço et al.,
2010
2013
Bhattacharyav
& Sen, 2004
Kang et al., 2013
Brosdahl & Carpenter 2010
Butler & Francis 1997
(Ha-Brookshire
Hye-Shin & Ozcaglar-Toulouse et
&Norum, 2011)
Damhorst, 1998 al., 2006
Shaw, 2007
Hassan et al.,
Du Preez De Klerk &
2013
2003 Lubbe, 2008 Halepete et al., Balderjahn et al., 2013
Visser and 2009a1
Shim & Blowfield ,
Du Preez
Kotsiopulos, 1999
Wicket et
Kim et al., 2002
al., 1999
Du Preez and
Visser, 2003Eckman et al., 1990 Engelet al.., 1986
Fig. 1 The position of the proposed model among the existing models of consumer behavior.
AU Bold label should read “Textiles and Clothing” for consistency (no &). Source Developed by
the author
3 Theoretical Model of Consumer Behavior

in the Sustainable Clothing Market: Relationship
Between Consumer and Manufacturer
In this section, a theoretical model of consumer behavior towards sustainable

clothing derived from a literature review is presented. This holistic model offers
a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between the consumer and the
manufacturer of this type of clothing. The basic assumptions underpinning the
model have been formulated following an analysis of relationships included in
other theoretical models and using the conclusions from the verification of empiri-
cal models.
Table 1 presents an overview of the existing consumer behavior models, start-
ing with general models through models accounting for ecological or social
aspects of consumption and models of consumer behavior towards textile and
clothing products to models explaining consumer behavior towards sustainable
clothing.
Table 1 Overview of the evolution of consumer behavior models
Author Constructs Area\Product type Subject Empirical
verification
General consumer behavior models
Nicosia (1968) Company’s attributes (message exposure) General Structure of consumer behav- Partial
Consumer’s attributes, attitude ior; a summary flow chart
Search evaluation
Motivation
Decision (action), purchasing behavior
Consumption storage, experience
Feedback
Howard and Sheth (1969) Inputs—stimulus display (significative, General Structure of consumer behav- Partial
symbolic, social ior; a summary flow chart
Perceptual constructs (over search, stimulus
ambiguity, perceptual bias)
Learning constructs (confidence, attitude,
choice criteria, motives, intention, brand
comprehension, satisfaction)
Outputs (attention, brand comprehension,
attitude, intention, purchase)
Understanding Consumer Behavior in the Sustainable Clothing …
Engel et al. (1986) Input (stimuli from marketers) General Structure of consumer behav- Partial
Information processing (exposure, attention, ior, a summary flow chart
comprehension, acceptance, retention)
Memory
Decision-making process (problem recogni-
tion, search, alternative evaluation, choice,
purchase)
(continued)
49
Table 1 (continued)
50

verification
Decisional variables (beliefs, motives, atti-
tudes, lifestyle, intentions, evaluative criteria,
normative compliance)
Environmental influences (cultural norms,
social class, reference group, family, unex-
pected circumstances)
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) Beliefs about the consequences of behavior General Theory of reasoned Yes
and evaluations of the consequences action—TRA
Attitude towards behavior
Beliefs about perceptions of others and moti-
vation to comply
Subjective norms about the behavior
Behavioral intention
Behavior
Ajzen (1991) Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs General Theory of planned Yes
Attitude towards behavior behavior—TPB
Subjective norm
Perceived behavioral control
Behavior
(continued)
M. Koszewska
Table 1 (continued)
verification
Consumer behavior models accounting for ecological and/or social aspect of consumption
Osterhus (1997) Consequences Energy conservation Integrated model blending Yes
Responsibility behavior normative, economic, and
Social norm structural influences
Cost, reward
Personal norm
Thogersen (2000) Consumer motivation (motivational anteced- Eco-labeled Causal path model explaining Partial
ents: effectiveness, attitude, belief, trust) products consumers’
Consumer knowledge Propensity to pay attention to
Product availability ecolabels
Paying attention to ecolabels
Decision to buy
Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) Input: CSR activity (type, investment) General—CSR CSR framework—consumer- No
Internal outcomes activity centric conceptualization of
Company (awareness, attributions, attitude, CSR
attachment)
Consumer (well-being),
Issue/cause(awareness, attitude)
External outcomes
Company (purchase, price premium, loyalty,
resilience)
Consumer (behavior, modification)
Issue/cause (support)
(continued)
51
Table 1 (continued)
52

verification
Ozcaglar-Toulouse et al. Attitude Fair trade grocery Modified model of planned Yes
(2006) Subjective norm products behavior
Ethical obligation
Self-identity
Intention
Behavior
Young et al. (2010) General green values Green technology Green consumer purchasing No
Green criteria for purchase products mode
Barriers/facilities
Product purchase
Feedback
Trudel (2011) Company’s CSR actions Products with social Model of socially conscious No
Consumer attitudes or environmental consumerism
Consumer intentions attributes
Consumer actions (buy, pay more, punish)
Booi-Chen (2011) Personal values Green products Model to study green buying No
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) behavior extended from V-A-B
Environmental attitude (value attitude behavior)
Green buying attitude
Green buying behavior
(continued)
M. Koszewska
Table 1 (continued)
verification
Paço et al. (2013) Man–nature orientation Environmentally Green consumer behavior Yes
Generativity friendly products model
Attitudes
Conservation behavior
Environmental friendly buying behavior
Balderjahn et al. (2013) Consciousness for fair consumption (CFC) Fair-trade products Consciousness for fair Yes
Ecological concern (EC) consumption
Moral reasoning (MR)
Buying fair-trade products
Lavorata (2014) Retailers’ commitment to sustainable devel- Hypermarkets’ com- Influence of retailers’ commit- Yes
opment as perceived by consumers mitment to sustain- ment to sustainable develop-
Ethical consumption able development ment on consumer loyalty and
Perceived control boycotts, based on theory of
planned behavior
Subjective norms
Behavioral intention (boycott intention)
Behavior (boycott)
Retailers’ image
Loyalty
Consumer behavior models for textiles and clothing products
Du Preez (2003) Market-dominated variables (4P) Apparel A conceptual theoretical No
Consumer-dominated variables (demograph- model: a macro-perspective,
ics, socio-cultural influences, psychological variables influencing apparel
field) shopping behavior
Market and consumer interaction (shopping
orientation, previous experience, patronage
behavior)
53
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
54

verification
Du Preez and Visser (2003) Market-dominated variables (product, place) Apparel A theoretical model of No
Consumer-dominated variables (demograph- selected variables influenc-
ics, sociocultural influences, life style, culture) ing female apparel shopping
Market and consumer interaction (shopping behavior in a multicultural
orientation, patronage behavior) consumer society
Decision-making process
Female apparel shopping behavior
Tree clusters of female apparel shoppers
De Klerk and Lubbe (2008) Apparel consumer (senses, emotions, Apparel Conceptual framework for the No
cognitive) role of aesthetics in consumer
Apparel product (formal qualities) apparel behavior
Aesthetics (sensory, emotional, cognitive)
Perception of quality
Consumer behavior models for sustainable clothing*
Shaw et al. (2007) Intention Sweatshop apparel Empirically validated model of Yes
Attitude consumer choice in sweatshop
Subjective norm avoidance
Desire
Intention
Plan
Brosdahl and Carpenter (2010) Knowledge of environmental impacts Environmentally Model of environmentally Yes
Concern for the environment friendly textile and friendly consumption behavior
Environmentally friendly consumption apparel
behavior
M. Koszewska
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
verification
Ha-Brookshire and Norum Willingness to pay for socially responsible Organic cotton Research conceptual model Yes
(2011) products shirts
Product evaluative criteria sustainable cotton
Demographic characteristics US-grown cotton
shirts
Apparel product evaluative criteria
Chan and Wong (2012) Product-related attributes (PRA) Fashion clothing Model of consumer eco-fash- Yes
Store-related attributes (SRA) ion consumption
Price premium level of eco-fashion (PP)
Eco-fashion consumption decision (ECD)
Hassan et al. (2013) Antecedents (complexity ambiguity, conflict Ethical clothing Conceptual model of uncer- No
credibility source) tainties in decision-making
Uncertainty (knowledge, choice, evaluation) processes
Outcomes (delayed purchase, compromised
beliefs, negative emotions)
Kang et al. (2013) Consumer knowledge Environmentally Structural model of environ- Yes
sustainable textile mentally sustainable textile
Perceived consumer effectiveness

Perceived personal relevance and apparel and apparel consumption
Attitude
Subjective norm
Behavioral control
*More models for sustainable clothing are described in more detail in Sect. 3.3
Source Developed by the author
55
56 M. Koszewska
Field 1-from the source message to

the consumer attitude
Sub-field 2
Sub-field 1 Message Consumers’s
Firm’s Attitude
exposure attributes
attributes (predispositions) Field 2-from the
source message to
the consumer
attitude
Experience Search
evaluation
Field 4-the
Feedback
Consumption Motivation
Field 3-the act

Purchasing of purchase
behavior Decision
Fig. 2 Nicosia model. Source Nicosia (1968)
The starting point for the construction of the proposed theoretical model of
consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing was the Nicosia model (1966),
one of the first and most popular models created in this field.
There are several reasons for adopting Nicosia’s model. First, it focuses on the
relationship between the producer and potential customers (Fig. 2). Second, this
complex structural model is relatively simple and transparent and it has already
been used to analyze relations between consumers and the clothing company
(Vignali 1999).
The proposed theoretical model is similar to that developed by Nicosia in that
it, too, focuses on the producer, the customer, and the linkages between them. It is
different, though, in that it addresses elements that Nicosia has omitted and which,
according to the reviewed literature, are relevant to the analyzed type of product
(clothing) and its specific characteristics (ecological and social).
The proposed model centers on sustainable clothing, an innovative product con-
taining significant added value represented by its ecological and social characteris-
tics. The consumer evaluation of sustainable clothing versus conventional products
leading to its purchase or rejection depends on:
• Producer attributes: Reputation, business behavior and production systems
• Product attributes: Its emotional and use/functional value, price, availability, the
place and circumstances of the purchase
• Barriers discouraging a customer from making a purchase
• Consumer attributes and factors determining his or her behavior
All these sets of factors are important for the proposed model (Fig. 3). They are
discussed more in detail in the next sections (producer and product, 3.1; barriers,
3.2; consumer, 3.3).
Communication
*
signs and labels based barriers:
codes of conducts FACTORS
socially-involved marketing etc. influencing
*
sustainable communication consumer
behavior
added consumer
Ecology value assessment
SUSTAINABLE *
CSR CLOTHING
Clothing Eco/sustainable- Sustainable added Use/functional differentiation CONSUMER
COMPANY design Innovations value value
Life cycle approach emotional
Sustainable supply value distribution
chain management price channels
Slow-fashion – Social and added
slow production ethical value Product based Consumer
Factors issues
barriers: based
Influencing
barriers: *
company feedback
behavior
Satisfaction *
or experience Consumption Purchase
feedback disappointment
Non-
feedback purchase
* Areas of the model subjected to empirical verification
Fig. 3 Theoretical model of consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing: the relationship
between the consumer and the producer. Source Developed by the author
The producer can influence consumer purchase decisions by means of an inte-

grated CSR communication system, but consumers’ decisions depend also on
other factors (see Sect. 3.3), which may make them buy or abandon the purchase
of sustainable clothing. In both cases, the producer receives feedback and a con-
sumer deciding to buy and use a product gains experience that determines his
future decisions (Fig. 3).
4 Production of Sustainable Clothing: Supply Side

of the Model
The literature offers a wealth of studies dealing with sustainable production mod-
els. Among the methodologies used for developing sustainable products there is
integrated eco-design decision making (IEDM) presented by Romli et al. The
methodology has three stages (Romli et al. 2015):
• Life-cycle assessment
• An eco-design process composed of three modules (manufacturing, product
usage, and end-of-life strategy)
• An enhanced eco-design quality function deployment process
58 M. Koszewska
Staniskis et al. (2012) have added CSR communication tools to this list and indi-
cated a set of instruments that need to be used on a regular basis to achieve sus-
tainable industrial development:
• Cleaner production to improve production processes
• Eco-design to improve product characteristics
• Integrated management systems (environmental, quality, and occupational
health and safety) to improve management practices
• Sustainability reporting based on sustainability performance
• Evaluation to improve communication with internal and external stakeholders
Additionally, they have proposed a model of sustainable production and consump-
tion as a system. The critical elements of the system are:
• A life-cycle approach optimizing the production process to minimize energy
and material use as well as waste output, and to eliminate the ‘‘rebound’’ effect
• Eco-design referring to a systematic incorporation of environmental aspects into
product design and development aiming to minimize the environmental impacts
along the entire life cycle of a product
• CSR communication including environmental product declarations (eco-labels),
sustainability reporting
In the case of textile and clothing the eco-design must meet basic sustainable
design principles, such as sustainable fibers, low-impact materials, renewable
sources of energy, energy and water efficiency, biomimicry, biodegradable prod-
ucts, pollution prevention, 4R (reduce, recycle, reuse, rebuy), service substitution,
community culture, DIY (do-it-yourself) and patchwork, fair trade/ethical prac-
tices, and near-sourcing (Thilak and Saravanan 2015).
All these solutions were taken account of in developing the assumptions for
the proposed theoretical model of consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing
(Fig. 3).
The above list of solutions towards sustainable production systems lacks one
instrument that is crucial to the textile and clothing industry: sustainable manage-
ment of supply chains. The empirical model proposed by Gimenez Sierra points
out that supplier assessment and supplier collaboration improve the company’s
environmental performance (Gimenez and Sierra 2013). Moreover, companies
with active sustainability strategies for supply chains demonstrate higher levels
of implementation of supplier assessment and of collaboration with suppliers, and
therefore higher environmental performance.
Production of sustainable clothing is a very complex process, because the cloth-
ing industry has one of the longest, most complicated, dispersed, and geographi-
cally stretched supply chains. Compared with the food industry, its manufacturing
processes are also less transparent. As a result, understanding and defining the
sustainability of textiles and clothing is an ambiguous and relatively problematic
exercise. Sustainability is usually associated with the environment, albeit two
other aspects of it—economic and social—are as important. Considered in terms
of the social impacts of a product, sustainable clothing is a product made by adult
workers in good working conditions, and not by children, in line with fair trade
rules. However, an objective measurement of social impacts that make sustainable
products different from other goods in the clothing market poses some problems.
The sustainability of textiles and clothing is also inextricably linked to fash-
ion. The simple understanding of those two terms indicates a conflict between
them as fashion is about being trendy, up-to-date, and the latest whereas sustain-
ability is about long-lasting and durable, low impact, and eco-friendly (Thilak and
Saravanan 2015). This conflict is reflected in two opposing fashion trends:
• Fast fashion is connected with rapid production, short lead times, increasing
number of fashion seasons, lower cost materials and labor promoting overcon-
sumption of low price and low quality garments worn only a few times and dis-
carded quickly.
• Slow fashion is connected with slow production that does not exploit natu-
ral and human resources and promotes slow consumption of better quality and
durability garments bought less frequently but used longer.
In this context, a major challenge for sustainable production systems is to pro-
long the clothing’s life cycle and maximize its utility and functional properties, to
encourage slow consumption. Sojin Jung and Byoungho Jin also stress that in slow
and sustainable fashion systems quality includes not only the physical, but also
design aspects (Jung and Jin 2014). Therefore, sustainable apparel should be char-
acterized not only by durable, easily disposed of materials but also by designs less
influenced by fashion trends and multifunctional, which can be worn for a long
time, regardless of fashion seasons.
A vital aspect of sustainable production systems is also the eco-functional
assessment proposed by Muthu, Subramanian, Senthilkannan, et al. (Muthu et al.
2013). This aspect is especially important in the case of textile and clothing prod-
ucts, because according to the research most consumers still tend to apply simple
visual criteria to them, clearly focused on the product’s benefits for the consumer
and its functional properties. Aspects of products such as environmental perfor-
mance and the rights of workers who make them are verbally stated as important,
but daily buying decisions are rarely influenced by them. Only the better off and
more aware consumers take them into account. This observation does not apply to
aspects that bring immediate functional benefits (Koszewska and Treichel 2015).
The literature offers a whole range of indicators showing the degree of com-
pliance between a product and sustainability criteria (Krajnc and Glavič 2003).
They are practically useless for an average consumer, though, because a substan-
tial amount of specialist knowledge is necessary to understand, interpret, and use
them. For consumers, much more convenient and useful indicators of the ecologi-
cal and/or social impacts of clothing are ecological signs and labels (Koszewska
2010, 2011a, 2015). This means of communication between the producer and the
consumer has therefore been given a prominent place in the proposed theoretical
model. The significance of CSR communication and of its influence on consum-
ers’ intentions and buying decisions is covered in more detail and verified empiri-
cally in the last section of this chapter.
60 M. Koszewska
Areas for innovationin textile and clothing industry

mass customization
medical textiles
smart clothing
clothing for the elderly and sick or people with specific
requirements
sustainable raw materials
energy-and resource-saving technologies.
multi-functional clothing
biogegradable materials
Sustainable
Social and ethicalissues
clothing
Environmental issues
slow fashion as a natural environment
countermeasure to humanoecology
fast-fashion and its recycling
consequences
Fig. 4 Aspects of sustainable development and areas of innovation in the textile and clothing
industry. Source Developed by the author
A company with an integrated CSR communication system can influence cus-

tomers, their knowledge, and ecological awareness, as well as their perception of
its products. At the same time, the way the company behaves is determined by var-
ious external factors, such as NGOs, the policies of the state, consumer choices,
and the like (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004). It is worth noting here that although
all industries are being forced into compliance with the principles of sustainable
development, only few of them experience pressure from consumers, the media,
and NGOs as strong as the textile and clothing industry does. It is also important
to remember that the recent trends in consumption and consumer behavior clearly
respond to the challenges of sustainable development and show along which
lines the market for textile and clothing products should develop (Figs. 4 and 5)
(Koszewska 2012c).
The future of the textile and clothing industry apparently lies in sustainable
innovations such as mass customization (as a counterpoise to fast fashion); energy
and raw-material saving technologies; eco-textiles; smart textiles for the elderly,
sick persons, and persons with special needs; biodegradable textiles; and so on
(Fig. 5).
A sustainable clothing product, its characteristics, price, and the channels of
distribution and communication that are the main ingredients of the Kotler market-
ing mix described in classical decision-making theories link the left-hand side and
the right-hand side of the proposed model (supply and demand; Fig. 2).
Socio- Major technologies for Innovative textiles and

New types of
innovative textiles and clothing
demographic consumers / clothing
trends new needs
Medical textiles
Youthing society
Aging populations
Sick people Smart textiles/clothing
Textronics
Eco-consumers
Greening and
social dimensions E-textiles
Socially-responsible
of consumption consumers Nanotechnology
and production
Eco-and socially
Advancing responsible
Prosuments Biotechnology textiles/clothing
individualisation
Conscious, active
consumers, expecting
products to meet their Mass customization
individual needs IT
Urbanisation Multi-functional
Obese people clothing/textiles
processes and
civilisation
Disabled people Clothing addressed to
diseases
consumer-specific needs
and co-developed by
them
Fig. 5 Sociodemographic trends and directions for the development of textile and clothing inno-
vations. Source Koszewska (2012a)
5 Barriers, Perceived Risk, and Uncertainties
The relations between the producer and the consumer may be obstructed by differ-
ent barriers, causing the latter to delay or withdraw from the purchase of a sustain-
able product, to buy an unsustainable one, or to feel negative emotions (Hassan
et al. 2013). The barriers are one of the main reasons for a gap between consumer
attitudes and behaviors. Based on the literature review, three main types of barriers
have been identified:
1. Product-based barriers such as higher price of sustainable clothing, insufficient
availability, poor attractiveness, usefulness and unattractive design, and so on.
2. Communication-based barriers related to the lack of information or insufficient
information identifying sustainable clothing, which causes problems with dis-
tinguishing it from conventional products. These barriers arise from:
• The complexity of information: an overwhelming number of data pointing to
fair trade, organic cotton, use of animals, country of origin, and so on
• The ambiguity of information: lack of specific/definitive information
because of vague ethical policies, and the like
• The incredibility of information
• The distrust of the information source, poor reputation of clothing compa-
nies, and so on (Hassan et al. 2013)
62 M. Koszewska
Communication-
based barriers:
Textile & Complexity - overabundance
clothing of factors to consider
supply chains Ambiguity- lack of
long, specific/definitiveinformation
complicated, Credibility
information on clothing
globally
labels
dispersed
reputation of clothing Perceived
producers Outcomes
risk Delayed or
Uncertainty
abandoned
Product-based Performance in purchase of
barriers: risk product: sustainable
clothing
Higher price of sustainable
clothing Psychological Knowledge
risk The making of
Difficulties to distinguish
Evaluation unsustainable
between sustainable and
Financial risk purchase
unsustainable clothing
Differentiation
Insufficient availability
Physical risk Negative
greenwashing Unsatisfactory
Choice emotions
practices attractiveness Social risk
e.g.
frustration,
helplessness
Consumer-based
barriers:
Too little time to seek more
consumption sustainable options
patterns- Economic barriers
consumerism Limited involvement in the
buying process
Limited knowledge,
awareness and care about
social and ecological aspects
of the textile and clothing
sector
Fig. 6 Potential barriers discouraging the purchase of clothing. Source Developed by the author
based on Hassan et al. (2013)
3. Consumer-based barriers arising from the lack of time to find more sustainable
options, economic barriers, limited involvement in the buying process, limited
knowledge, awareness and care about social and ecological problems in the
textile and clothing sector, low receptiveness to communication.
All three categories of barriers make consumers feel exposed and uncertain. In
the studies investigating the perceived risk effect on the intention to buy sustain-
able clothing, the following types of risks have been considered (Kang and Kim
2013; Han and Chung 2014):
• Performance risk arising from concerns about the function of a product; in the
case of apparel the risk is higher because of insufficient information and confi-
dence in product characteristics such as wearability and the ease of care, among
others.
• Psychological risk related to concerns about a product being aesthetically
inconsistent with the buyer’s self-image. In the case of products made of
organic cotton, there is also the aspect of limited selection and their being per-
ceived as colorless and shapeless.
• Financial risk involved in the price of a product and the likelihood of finan-
cial loss. Sustainable clothing is usually priced higher than conventional items,
because of very strict environmental, social, and ethical criteria the clothing has
to meet. Additionally, its producers must supervise long supply chains. Most
consumers fail to perceive higher prices of sustainable clothing as measurable
benefits for their own and public health, and for the natural environment.
• Physical risk is related to sustainable clothing being potentially harmful to the
user’s health or being less appealing than the consumer expected. This risk may
be unrealized when the consumer has insufficient knowledge of health hazards
involved in unsustainable clothing products.
• Social risk related to the possibility of the product causing embarrassment or
disapproval from one’s family or peers.
The barriers to sustainable apparel consumption are presented in Fig. 6; they were
also included in the theoretical model (Fig. 3).
6 Consumer Behavior Towards Sustainable

Clothing—The Demand Side of the Model
This section is centered on customers and their behavior. Consumer behavior

towards sustainable clothing should be understood as all customer’s actions and
perceptions involved in choosing a sustainable product, in decision making, and in
finalizing the purchase.
In the first step, factors that significantly influence consumer behavior towards
sustainable clothing and finally lead to a sustainable product being purchased
are identified. Table 2 shows the results of earlier models investigating consumer
behavior towards sustainable clothing.
As the models show, consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing is a very
complex and multidimensional problem. The sections below provide a discussion
of factors that earlier studies have pointed to as having significant influence on the
purchase of sustainable clothing.
7 Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, and Concern
The first of the factors is consumer’s knowledge of ecological and social threats
involved in the production of clothing. This factor is given attention in many mod-
els (Kang et al. 2013; Moisander et al. 2010; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996; Thøgersen
2000; Young et al. 2010). Some authors argue, though, that knowledge alone is
not sufficient (Brosdahl and Carpenter 2010). Much importance is also attached
to the ecological and social awareness of the customer, understood as the ability
to rationally engage one’s knowledge resources in performing certain actions. One
64 M. Koszewska
Table 2 The main results yielded by models of consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing
Authors Model constructs Main outcomes
Shaw et al. (2007) Attitude Intention to avoid sweatshop
Subjective norm apparel fully mediates the effects of
Perceived behavioral control its antecedents (attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioral control,
Desire
and desire) on the plan to avoid
Intention sweatshop apparel
Plan
Halepete et al. (2009a) Need for self-uniqueness Attitude toward personalization of
Apparel involvement apparel is positively related to the
intention to purchase personalized
fair trade apparel
Perceived financial risk
toward buying apparel
Perceived social risk toward Consumers with greater need for
buying apparel self-uniqueness have positive
attitude toward personalization and
are unconcerned with social and
financial risks.
Body size—BMI Body size and one’s attitude toward
personalized apparel are positively
related to each other.
Attitude toward personaliza-
tion of apparel
Intention to purchase person-
alized fair trade apparel
Brosdahl and Carpenter Knowledge of environmental Knowledge of the environmental
(2010) impacts impacts of textile and apparel
Concern for the environment production leads to concern for the
Environmentally friendly environment, which translates into
consumption behavior environmentally friendly consump-
tion behavior
Ha-Brookshire and Product evaluative criteria Consumer attitudes toward socially
Norum (2011) responsible apparel, attitudes toward
environment, age, and gender are
significant factors for consumers’
willingness to pay a premium
Demographic characteristics Four apparel product evaluative
criteria, namely brand name, laun-
dering requirements, color, and fit
are also important for consumers’
willingness to pay a premium
Apparel product evaluative
criterion
Willingness to pay for
socially responsible products
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Chan and Wong (2012) Product-related attributes of Store-related attributes of eco-fash-
eco-fashion (design, quality, ion positively influence consumers’
price) eco-fashion consumption decision,
Store-related attributes but this relationship can be weak-
of eco-fashion (customer ened by the price premium level of
service, store design and eco-fashion.
environment, store’s environ-
mental practices, shopping
convenience
Price premium level of
eco-fashion
Eco-fashion consumption
decision
Hyllegard et al. (2012) Subjective norm Hang tags featuring highly explicit
messages and third-party SR logos
produce more favorable evaluations
than do hang tags featuring less
explicit messages and no logos.
Gender
Clothing involvement Consumers’ clothing involvement
as well as their past SR apparel
purchasing behaviors predict their
evaluations of apparel hang tags,
which positively predicts their atti-
tudes toward Good Clothes.
Socially responsible apparel Attitude, subjective norm, clothing
purchasing behaviors in the involvement, and past SR apparel
past purchasing behaviors predict patron-
age intention toward Good Clothes
Attitude toward beliefs about
“Good Clothes” engagement
in sustainable production
(SR) practices
Behavioral intention—intent
to patronize the apparel brand
“Good Clothes”
Lee et al. (2012) Perception of Green Product Perception of green product brands
Brand has positive impact on consumers’
green behavior.
Perception of Green Perception of green campaigns has
campaign a significant influence on consum-
ers’ green consciousness and an
indirect impact on consumers’ green
behavior.
(continued)
66 M. Koszewska
Table 2 (continued)
Communication involvement The relationship between consum-
ers’ perception of green campaign
and green consciousness is stronger
in the marketing communication
involvement group
Green consciousness
Green behavior intention
Hassan et al. (2013) Antecedents (complexity, The main antecedents influencing
ambiguity, conflict, credibil- uncertainties in decision-making
ity, source) processes about ethical clothing
and resulting in delayed ethical
purchase, the making of unethi-
cal purchase or negative emotions
include:
Uncertainty (knowledge, Complexity: overabundance of
choice, evaluation) factors to consider, for example,
fair trade, organic cotton, use of
animals, country of origin
Outcomes (delayed purchase, Ambiguity: lack of specific/defini-
compromised beliefs, negative Information, for example, vague
tive emotions) ethical policies
Conflict: trade-off between prod-
ucts, attributes, and beliefs, for
example, trade with poorer countries
versus home-grown retailers
Credibility: credibility of informa-
tion on clothing labels
Source: For example, the reputation
of clothing organizations
Kang et al. (2013) Consumer knowledge: The study extended the TPB model
consumers’ familiarity with a by incorporating significant deter-
product and product-specific minants of sustainable consumer
knowledge behavior:
Perceived consumer Consumer knowledge
effectiveness
Perceived personal relevance: Perceived consumer effectiveness
belief that the consumption of
sustainable product is associ-
ated with one’s personal
lifestyle, value and self-image
Attitude: positive attitude to Perceived personal relevance
purchasing
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Subjective norm: perceptions The results indicate that those
about social pressure three determinants significantly
affect young consumers’ attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control, thereby affecting
purchase intentions for environmen-
tally sustainable textiles and apparel
Behavioral control: percep-
tions about the difficulty of
the behavior
Kang and Kim (2013) Financial risk The results have revealed the nega-
tive effect of perceived risk on con-
sumers’ attitudes and consequently
on their intentions for buying
sustainable textiles and apparel
Performance risk The significance and influence of
perceived risks differ depending on
the risk
Psychological risk: consum- The greatest barrier keeping
er’s concern with self-image consumers from buying sustainable
textiles and clothing is financial risk
Social risk Psychological risk directly and sig-
nificantly shapes attitudes towards
environmentally sustainable textiles
and apparel consumption and indi-
rectly shapes intentions for buying
such products
Attitude The importance of social risk is
smaller than thatof other risks
Behavioral purchase inten- The effect of performance risk on
tions for environmentally sus- attitudes and behavioral intentions is
tainable textiles and apparel not significant
Han and Chung (2014) Perceived benefits of Perceived benefits, importance of
purchasing organic cotton individual expression through dress-
apparel (environmental and ing well, performance risk, financial
health-related) risk, and subjective norm signifi-
cantly influence the attitude toward
purchasing organic cotton apparel
products
Importance of individual Additionally, financial risk, attitude,
expression through dressing and subjective norms significantly
well: subcategory of fashion influence consumers’ purchase
orientation intention
(continued)
68 M. Koszewska
Table 2 (continued)
Performance risk: concerns Subjective norms have been found
about the expected function to play a critical role in the purchase
of a product process: subjective norms are one of
the strongest antecedents of attitude
among the six variables under
consideration and exert a similar
influence on purchase intention as
attitude does
Psychological risk: concern
that a purchased product
will clash with a consumer’s
self-image
Financial risk: concerns about
the price of the product and
possible financial loss
Attitude towards purchasing
organic cotton apparel
Subjective norm
Purchase intention
Source Developed by the author
of the main reasons why customers are not interested in sustainable clothing seems
to be unawareness of the problems and risks related to conventional products that
frequently contain carcinogenic substances, and so on, or of the social and/or eco-
logical implications of fast fashion (Pookulangara and Shephard 2013). For sus-
tainable products to be sought, knowledge, the awareness arising from it, and the
individual’s predisposition to be concerned must come together (Balderjahn et al.
2013; Brosdahl and Carpenter 2010; Butler and Francis 1997; Kim and Damhorst
1998; Pino et al. 2012). Concern is what determines consumer attitudes and moti-
vations, and makes them seek and acquire sustainable clothing (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 Influence of environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern on consumer behavior.

Source Based on Koszewska (2012b)
8 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE)
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) is believed to be crucial to the purchase

of products with ecological and/or social attributes. The concept of PCE was
described for the first time by Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed (Kinnear et al. 1974),
who presented it as a measure of a person’s belief in his ability to contribute to the
abatement of pollution effectively (Booi-Chen 2011). Roberts (1996) has defined
the PCE as a measure of an individual’s self-assessed ability to help solve envi-
ronmental resource problems, finding it to be one of the most salient factors in
explaining environmentally conscious consumer behavior. Mohr, Webb, and Harris
(Mohr et al. 2001) have confirmed PCE’s significant contribution to socially
responsible consumer behavior and have demonstrated that the more consum-
ers perceive their purchasing power as influencing company behavior, the more
inclined they are to practice socially responsible behavior. Another study (Paço
et al. 2013) has shown that consumers who have a low rating of their PCE are
reluctant to spend their time or effort to shift from buying conventional products
to Green products, regardless of whether they are environmentally concerned. All
the authors concluded that consumers needed to feel empowered to be personally
effective in combating environmental problems.
In the context of sustainable clothing, the PCE can be understood as the
strength of consumers’ belief that their decisions may induce clothing companies
into ecological and pro-social behavior. The PCE influence on the intention to buy
environmentally sustainable apparel has been analyzed in the Kang et al. model
(Kang et al. 2013). Their model has shown that consumers believing in being able
to improve the environment through careful consumption develop positive atti-
tudes towards environmentally sustainable apparel, which indirectly increases the
likelihood of such products being actually purchased.
9 Factors Indicated by the Theory of Attitude–Behavior

Relationships
Among the most popular models explaining the attitude–behavior relationship

there are the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) that links
attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral intentions, and behavior into a fixed causal
sequence, and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) that emerged
after the original theory of reasoned action was extended to perceived behavio-
ral control to account for behaviors that individuals cannot fully control (Shaw
et al. 2007). These classic theories have been extensively adopted with a view to
explaining consumer behavior towards sustainable products, including clothing.
By analyzing models that have developed from them, other key factors influencing
the purchase of sustainable clothing can be identified (Fig. 8).
70 M. Koszewska
Fig. 8 Theory of planned behavior. Source Bray (2008)
9.1 Intentions
The Fishbein and Ajzen models are built around intentions that encompass all
motivations guiding consumers and indicate the degree to which a consumer may
be willing to show some behavior. According to the main assumption of these
models, consumer behavior and consumer intentions are consistent unless special
circumstances arise.
The majority of models explaining consumer behavior towards sustainable
clothing treat intentions as an endogenous variable. The examples of such models
are the model of the intention to purchase personalized fair trade apparel (Halepete
et al. 2009a), the model of the behavioral intention to patronize the apparel brand
“Good Clothes” (Hyllegard et al. 2012), the model of the Green behavior intention
(Lee et al. 2012), the model of purchase intentions for environmentally sustainable
textiles and apparel (Kang et al. 2013), and the model of organic cotton apparel
purchase intention (Han and Chung 2014).
Among intentions, the willingness to pay more for sustainable clothing is very
important. This variable has been explained by Ha-Brookshir and Norum, who
have found the willingness to pay a premium for socially responsible apparel to
be influenced by consumer attitudes towards this type of apparel and their milieu,
age, and gender (Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011).
Similarly, in the study by Hustvedt and Bernard the consumers’ willingness to
pay for apparel products displaying labor-related information and brand was the
most strongly influenced by the sense of social responsibility and the attitude to
fair trade (Hustvedt and Bernard 2010). Consumers appreciating social responsi-
bility and fair trade were more inclined to pay a premium than those who were
not. On the other hand, concerns about the environmental impact of apparel
reduced the amount participants would bid for the labeled apparel. Hustvedt and
Bernard’s study has also showed that consumers would pay more for apparel with
information about its labor-related attributes if they had the economic incentive to
express their true value for the products. Another factor influencing the willing-
ness to pay a premium was ethnicity (Hispanic participants bid higher when the
information about labor conditions was attached to the products).
Because all these studies agree that the willingness to pay a premium is an
important intention leading to a purchase of sustainable clothing, this variable, too,
was included in the empirical submodel presented in Sect. 4.
9.2 Attitudes
Consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing is also significantly influenced

by the attitude towards this behavior. According to Ajzen’s theory, attitudes deter-
mined by person’s beliefs about the expected outcomes of some behavior are the
main component of each intention. The more positive attitude one has towards
some behavior, the stronger the intention is to show it. The analyzed models of
consumer behaviors towards sustainable clothing confirm that this relationship
does exist. The attitude toward sweatshop avoidance significantly impacts the
dependent construct, the intention to avoid sweatshop apparel (Shaw et al. 2007);
the attitude towards personalization of apparel is positively related to the intention
to purchase personalized fair trade apparel (Halepete et al. 2009a); a positive atti-
tude toward “Good Clothes” influences patronage intention (Hyllegard et al. 2012)
and, lastly, a positive attitude to purchasing environmentally sustainable textiles
and apparel has a positive effect on purchase intentions (Kang et al. 2013).
9.3 Subjective Norms
Another group of factors that determine intentions according to TRA is subjective

norms, which are closely related to the social pressure on showing some behav-
ior or abstaining therefrom. Subjective norms are based on the person’s conviction
that some behavior will or will not be accepted by individuals whose opinion is
valued by the person. Subjective norms are a particularly important determinant of
human behavior towards clothing, because social pressures are frequently decisive
for what people choose to buy. The influence of subjective norms on intentions
and/or on the purchase of sustainable clothing has been confirmed empirically.
The norms have been found to predict patronage intention toward “Good Clothes”
(Hyllegard et al. 2012), to affect purchase intentions for environmentally sustain-
able textiles and apparel (Kang et al. 2013), and to influence a plan to avoid sweat-
shop apparel (Shaw et al. 2007). Subjective norms also play a critical role in the
purchase of organic cotton apparel.
72 M. Koszewska
9.4 Perceived Behavioral Control
The last group of factors significantly affecting consumer intentions is the means
and possibilities enabling a person to behave in a certain manner, that is, to buy
sustainable clothing in our case.
This variable has already been used in the models of consumer behavior
towards sustainable clothing. The results of studies into the influence of perceived
behavioral control on buying intentions are inconsistent. Kang et al. (2013) have
not found perceived behavioral control to have a major effect on the intention to
buy environmentally sustainable textiles and apparel, but another study has dem-
onstrated that perceived behavioral control significantly determines the intention
to avoid sweatshop apparel (Shaw et al. 2007).
Consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing is also dependent on the indi-
vidual’s openness to communication.
10 Openness to Company’s CSR Communication—

Recognizability of Eco-Labels
Environmental labeling schemes are potentially effective and consumer-friendly

tools for communicating the attributes of sustainable clothing, but they are not
useful unless a consumer notices them in a shopping situation. Thogersen (2000)
argues that seeing an eco-label is not a goal in itself, but rather a step towards
buying a sustainable product. According to this author, an individual’s ability to
take note of an eco-label depends on his pro-environmental attitude and PCE. The
important questions that must be asked here concern factors making eco-labels
recognizable to consumers and the influence of the level of their recognizability
on consumer buying decisions. To answer these questions, the empirical submodel
proposed in Sect. 4 is provided with the variable “recognizability of eco-labels.”
Another variable that the empirical models of consumer behavior towards sus-
tainable clothing have not thoroughly analyzed thus far is shopping habits and
apparel selection criteria.
11 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria
The way consumers behave in the clothing market depends also on their shopping
habits and the criteria they use in choosing products. These factors frequently stem
from past experiences, the loyalty to a particular store or brand, store patronage,
interest in fashion, and shopping orientation, as well as from the attitude to quality
and aesthetics. All of them have been considered in the general models of con-
sumer behavior towards textiles and clothing (De Klerk and Lubbe 2008; Du Preez
2003; Du Preez and Visser 2003) and partly in the models of consumer behavior
towards sustainable apparel (Halepete et al. 2009b). The results of earlier stud-
ies show that consumers with greater apparel involvement (feeling a greater urge
to be unique) have a positive attitude towards purchasing personalized fair trade
apparel (Halepete et al. 2009b). Moreover, four apparel product evaluative crite-
ria, namely brand name, laundering requirements, color, and fit proved important
for the consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for socially responsible apparel
(Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011). This crucial importance of shopping habits and
apparel selection criteria for consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing has
been confirmed in earlier studies (Hustvedt and Bernard 2010; Koszewska 2013).
In Koszewska’s study, they determined consumers’ openness to CSR messages,
preference for sustainable innovative textiles and clothing, motivations for buying
a product, the willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing, as well as
actual purchases thereof.
Chan and Wong have investigated the influence of product-related attributes
and store-related attributes of eco-fashion on eco-fashion consumption decisions
(Chan and Wong 2012). They have found that the product-related attributes such
as design, quality, and price did not affect these decisions and that the only factor
encouraging consumers to choose eco-fashion was store-related attributes such as
customer service, store design and environment, store’s environmental practices,
and shopping convenience. All this points to shopping habits and apparel selec-
tion criteria as very important predictors of the purchase of sustainable apparel.
However, because of inconsistent findings of the existing studies further analysis
of these factors is necessary. For this reason, they were entered into the empirical
submodel in Sect. 4.
The last group of factors analyzed in the context of sustainable clothing is of
sociodemographic nature.
12 Sociodemographic Factors
The influence of the sociodemographic factors on sustainable product consump-

tion has been addressed in many studies (Arcury and Johnson 1987; Cottrell and
Graefe 1997; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Jain and Kaur 2006; Mohai and Twight
1987). Most of them focus on green consumer behavior, particularly on purchas-
ing and disposal. Their conclusions regarding the impacts of sociodemographic
factors are often divergent and contradictory (Auger et al. 2008; Jain and Kaur
2006; McDonald and Oates 2006).
74 M. Koszewska
12.1 Education
An individual’s education significantly contributes to the development of environ-

mental attitudes, because a substantial amount of environmental knowledge that
comes with education is required to properly understand environmental prob-
lems (Arcury 1990; Liu et al. 2012). Many studies point to a positive correlation
between education and environmental knowledge (Arbuthnot and Lingg 1975;
Arcury and Johnson 1987; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Maloney and Ward 1973;
Ostman and Parker 1987), environmental attitudes (Baker and Bagozzi 1982;
Leonard-Barton 1981; Roberts 1996; Tognacci et al. 1972; Dunlap and Van Liere
1981; Zimmer et al. 1994), and environmental behaviors (Arbuthnot 1977; Harry
et al. 1969; Jolibert and Baumgartner 1981; Ostman and Parker 1987; Scott and
Willits 1994, Webster Jr 1975). In some studies, however, the correlation between
education and environmental attitudes and/or behavior was found to be nega-
tive (Arbuthnot and Lingg 1975; Samdahl and Robertson 1989), or no significant
correlation between education and environmental knowledge, attitudes, or even
behavior was established (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Honnold 1981; Neuman
1986; Pickett et al. 1993; Ray 1975; Shrum et al. 1995). An interesting case is Jain
and Kaur’s study (Jain and Kaur 2006), where the level of respondents’ education
was significantly but negatively correlated with their willingness to seek out eco-
friendly products.
12.2 Income
In most empirical studies investigating the relationship between income and

the theoretical dimensions of the environmental consciousness domain such as
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, the factors were correlated significantly and
positively (Arbuthnot 1977; Chan 2000; Kinnear et al. 1974; Tai and Tam 1996;
Tucker and Dolich 1981; Webster Jr 1975; Zimmer et al. 1994). Several empiri-
cal studies have shown, though, that the relationship between income and envi-
ronmental behavior is not significant or even negative (Antil 1984; Buttel and
Flinn 1978; Kassarjian 1971; Pickett et al. 1993; Roberts 1996; Samdahl and
Robertson 1989; Dunlap and Van Liere 1981). It is, therefore, another area where
more research is necessary to establish whether a person’s financial capacity may
directly determine the purchase of sustainable clothing.
Figure 9 explains the demand side of the proposed theoretical model more in
detail, taking account of all factors that the literature considers to influence signifi-
cantly the purchase of sustainable clothing.
The empirical verification of all relationships between variables used in the
theoretical model is not straightforward, because the relationships are much more
complicated than the diagram shows. To make the process of verification easier
to follow, in the next section only selected variables determining the purchase of
COMMUNICATION-
BASED BARRIERS:
PCE
Complexity-too many factorsand labels
Ambiguity
Lack of specific/definitiveinformation Openess to CSR
Lack of Credibility communication Behavioral Subjective
Attitudes
Paying attention to control norms
ecolabels
COMPANY
’s CSR Eco and social labels
COMMUNICATION recognition
Intention to pay
Intentions
price premium
SUSTAINABLE Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

CLOTHING
PRODUCT Consumer assessment & -past purchase experience
differentiation FACTORS -loyalty to the store/ brand, store patronage
CONSUMER INFLUENCING -shopping orientation
Use value -fashionism or environmentalism:
distribution CONSUMER
Emotional fashion involvement and importance
BEHAVIOR perception of quality, price and aesthetics
value
CONSUMER-BASED importance of ecological and social criteria
Price
BARRIERS:
Lack of time,
PRODUCT - knowledge, awareness
BASED BARRIERS: , concern,
money,trust Demographics Knowledge
Higher price Age
Insufficient availability Weak PCE,
Low openess to comunication Gender
Unsatisfactory Awareness
Income
attractiveness/usefulness Education
Family size Concern
PURCHASE
Fig. 9 Factors in purchasing sustainable clothing: a closer look into the demand side of the theo-
retical model
sustainable clothing undergo empirical verification. The variable selection criteria

include the significance of a variable, few earlier studies, or inconsistent results of
earlier studies. In Fig. 9, the selected variables are highlighted in grey.
13 The Empirical Verification of the Demand Side

of the Model
The empirical submodel concentrates on several factors important for consumer

behavior towards sustainable clothing, namely:
• Shopping habits and apparel selection criteria understood as attitudes to apparel
shopping
• Willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing
• Openness to communication understood as the receptiveness of ecological and
social labels on clothes
• Purchase of sustainable clothing
A detailed discussion of the significance of the selected variables and their
theoretical background has been provided in the section above. Section 4 focuses
on their conceptualization and operationalization.
76 M. Koszewska
In the following sections, the conceptual framework of the research and

hypotheses, methods, and results is presented.
14 Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The majority of empirically validated models described in the literature on con-

sumer behavior and sustainable products relate to one of the most popular theoreti-
cal orientations, that is, cognitive orientation. As already mentioned, this approach
encompasses the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) and
the theory of planned behavior (TPB) that developed from it. These classic theo-
ries have been extensively adopted to explain how consumers behave towards sus-
tainable clothing.
Based on the TPB and conclusions from the discussed models, the following
hypotheses are formulated (Fig. 10).
H1: Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences their willingness to
pay a premium for sustainable clothing (Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011;
Hustvedt and Bernard 2010).
H2: Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences the purchase of
sustainable clothing (Halepete et al. 2009b; Hustvedt and Bernard 2010;
Koszewska 2013).
H3: Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences the recognizability
of ecological and social labels (Thøgersen 2000).
ATTITUDES INTENTIONS PURCHASE
ATTITUDES TOWARDS APPAREL WILLINGNESS TO PAY A PURCHASE

SHOPPING PREMIUM
Shopping Habits and Apparel H1 H4 of sustainable
Selection Criteria for sustainable textile textile and clothing
fashion involvement and and clothing products – products –
importance products with eco- products with eco -
Importance of environmental and or/and social label or/and social label
social criteria while shopping:
perception of quality, price. style H2
and brand
H6
H3 H5
Openness to CSR
communication
the ability to recognize eco-
and social labels
Fig. 10 The conceptual model

H4: Consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing is posi-

tively correlated with the purchase of sustainable clothing (see the theory of
planned behavior (TPB)).
An important variable that appears to determine the purchase of a sustain-
able product, but which has been insufficiently covered in the literature thus
far, is the ability to recognize ecological and social labels attached to sus-
tainable apparel. To verify empirically whether the recognizability of labels
significantly determines the purchase of such products as well as the willing-
ness to pay a premium for them, the following hypotheses are formulated in
this study.
H5: The recognizability of ecological and social labels positively influences the
purchase of sustainable clothing.
H6: The recognizability of ecological labels positively influences the willingness
to pay a premium for sustainable clothing.
15 Methods
15.1 Survey and Sample
A survey of a sample of 981 Polish adults drawn from the official population data-
base was conducted. To make sure that the sample was representative and the sur-
vey was reliable, the sampling procedure and the survey interviews were carried
out by the Public Opinion Research Centre (CBOS). The interviews were con-
ducted using the CAPI technique (computer-assisted personal interviewing). The
sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Sociodemographic structure of Polish respondents

Gender Male 47.6 %
Female 52.4 %
Age 18–24 years 13.6 %
25–34 17.4 %
35–44 14.6 %
45–54 18.1 %
55–64 18.1 %
65 years and older 18.3 %
Place of residence Rural areas 37.6 %
Town with population to 20,000 13.9 %
20,000–100,000 20.0 %
101,000–500,000 15.8 %
501,000 and more 12.7 %
(continued)
78 M. Koszewska
Table 3 (continued)
Education Elementary 25.3 %
Basic vocational 25.7 %
Secondary 33.7 %
Tertiary 15.3 %
Socio-occupational group Managers, specialists with tertiary education 17.4 %
Economically active Middle-level personnel, technicians 8.2 %
Office and administrative personnel 13.7 %
Personnel in the service sector 10.6 %
Skilled workers 23.2 %
Unskilled workers 11.2 %
Farmers 9.3 %
Self-employed 6.5 %
Economically inactive Disability pensioners 13.6 %
Old-age pensioners 44.1 %
School-children and students 14.0 %
Unemployed 17.4 %
Housewives and others 11.0 %
16 Methodology and Analytical Procedures
The theoretical model presented above was analyzed using the CFA (confirmatory
factor analysis) and SEM methods in three steps. First, the exploratory factor anal-
ysis (EFA) and the principal components method with varimax rotation were used
to establish the basic structure of the selected variables. In the second and third
steps the model was tested with, respectively, the CFA and the SEM (Davis and
Lang 2012).
17 Conceptualization and Operationalization

of the Empirical Submodel’s Variables
17.1 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria
The earlier models analyzed the following constructs relating to shopping habits
and apparel selection criteria.
• The need for self-uniqueness (to be different from others) that Halapete meas-
ured with an eight-item scale of uniqueness provided with a five-point Likert
scale (Halepete et al. 2009b)
• Involvement in shopping for apparel established by asking the respondents to
rate their general feelings while shopping for apparel on a five-point bipolar
scale (important/unimportant, boring/interesting, etc.; Halepete et al. 2009b)
• Apparel evaluative factors (fit, price, laundering (or care), style, color, brand)
ranked by respondents on a five-point scale (1: insignificant and 5: very impor-
tant; Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011)
• Product-related attributes product design, quality, price
• Shop-related attributes (customer service, store display and environment, store’s
ethical practices, and shopping convenience) ranked by respondents on a five-
point scale (1: very unimportant and 5: very important (Chan and Wong 2012)
Most of these models disregarded the ecological and social criteria that are crucial
to buying, or not buying, sustainable clothing. To make up for this deficiency, the
range of typical reasons for which consumers select and purchase apparel (fash-
ion, brand and style, price, quality, wearability, comfort of wear, fit, the shopping
location, etc.) was extended in this study to ecological and social criteria. In order
to establish consumers’ attitudes to buying clothing, a special seven-point bipolar
scale with 10 items such as attitude to fashion, brand, ecology, raw materials, and
social issues such as child labor and working conditions (Table 4) was developed
and tested in the empirical submodel.
The scale’s reliability and validity were determined with the Cronbach’s alpha
reliability test. Its results confirmed that the scale was reliable and valid for the
representative sample of Polish consumers used in the survey (Cronbach’s
alpha > 0.8).
Table 4 Measures of attitudes towards apparel shopping
Specify which statements are closest to your habits. To make the assessment, use the 1–7
scale, where 1 means you are closest to the statement on the left, and 7 means that you are
closest to the statement on the right
I’m not interested in fashion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I’m very much interested in
and new trends at all fashion and new trends
I don’t like original, unique, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like original, unique, designer
designer clothes at all clothes very much
The brand is completely unim- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The brand is very important
portant to me to me
I never buy clothes of global or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like to buy clothes of global or
European brands European brands very much
I never check for raw materials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I always check for raw materi-
composition als composition
I never check for the producer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I always check for the producer
country country
I never check if the clothes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I always check if the clothes
have eco-labels or eco-symbols have eco-labels or eco-symbols
I never think of whether the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I frequently think of whether
product involves child labor the product involves child labor
I never think of whether the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I frequently think of whether
rights of the workers making the rights of the workers mak-
the product were infringed ing the product were infringed
I do not pay any attention to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I only buy natural/organic
whether or not the clothes are clothes
natural/organic
80 M. Koszewska
18 Openness to Companies’ CSR Communication—

Recognizability of Ecological and Social Labels
Although consumers’ openness to messages coming from the producers is one of

the key factors driving the development of a sustainable clothing market, there are
few empirical studies that have investigated this area. Thogersen analyzed factors
influencing the variable “paying attention to ecolabels,” finding it to be a major
determinant of a buying decision. The variable was measured with the following
question, “When you are choosing a product, how often do you pay attention to
any environmental labelling before deciding to buy?” The possible answers were
“often”, “sometimes”, or “never” (Thogersen 2000).
Ecological and environmental labels attached to apparel are easy to see and
despite their shortcomings they are one of the best means of communicating a
company’s CSR. The recognizability of such labels was therefore introduced into
the model as a measure of consumer’s openness to CSR messages. The respondents
were shown seven ecological and social labels known in Poland (EU’s Eco label,
Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) and Oeko-Tex Standard, Fair trade, Fair
Wear Foundation (FWF), and two Polish labels (Infant Safe and Child Safe) and
were asked to mark their answers to the question: “Labels on textile products such
as clothing, bedclothes, towels and curtains are identified by different symbols.
Have you seen this label?” on the attached scale (yes = 1; no = 0). Therefore, the
variable “recognizability of ecological and social labels” could take values ranging
from 0 to 7, depending on how many labels and signs the respondent recognized.
Because of the dichotomously scored items, to evaluate the reliability of the scale
the Kuder–Richardson reliability coefficient (KR20) was employed. The Kuder–
Richardson statistics (KR20 = 0.75) pointed to high reliability of the scale.
19 Consumers’ Willingness to Pay a Premium

for Sustainable Clothing and to Buy Sustainable
Clothing
To establish consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing,

the respondents were asked to mark their answers to the question “What premium
would you pay for an article of clothing if you believed it had been made using a
process safe for human health and the environment and respecting the workers’
rights?” on 5-point scale (to 5 % more; between 6 and 10 % more; between 11 and
15 % more; between 16 and 20 % more; over 20 %; I would not pay a premium).
The variable representing the actual purchase of sustainable clothing4 was
measured with the question “Have you ever bought apparel carrying an ecological
4One of the best sources of information on apparel sustainability available to consumers is eco-
logical and social labels. In this study, sustainable apparel is meant as items with ecological and/
or social labels.
and/or ethical label?” and a 3-point scale (1 = no; 2 = I don’t remember;

3 = yes). A variable measured with such as a scale cannot be treated as a continu-
ous variable, but the scale was used notwithstanding because McEachern and
Carrigan (2012) recommend analyzing what consumers actually buy and not what
they plan or intend to buy when studying ethical consumption behavior in order to
reduce the attitude–behavior gap (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Auger et al. 2008).
To prevent the “purchase” variable from causing methodological errors, a poly-
choric correlation matrix was used (Olsson 1979; Plesniak 2006).
20 Results
20.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
A high value of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) indicator (0.81) and the result of
the Bartlett test supported the choice of a factor analysis model for data analysis.
The EFA results showed that a three-factor model would be appropriate. Ten
observable variables presented in Table 5 were aggregated into three factors (atti-
tudes) towards apparel shopping, namely “fashion”, “ecology”, and “ethics”. The
results of the EFA are shown in Table 5.
Factor 1 was made up of variables such as clothing brand names, originality,
fashion trends, and design and was called “a pro-fashion attitude”. Factor 2 was
compiled of variables such as raw material composition, country of production,
Table 5 The structure of the principal components (Factor Loadings) after rotation for apparel
selection criteria and shopping habits
Apparel selection criteria and shopping habits
Observable variables Factors (Principal Components)
Fashion Ecology Ethics
Buying clothes of global or European origin 0.842
Preference for original, unique, designer clothes 0.833
Brand importance 0.765
Interest in fashion and new trends 0.695
Assessment of raw material composition 0.807
Preference for clothes from natural 0.783
raw materials
Checking for producer country 0.779
Checking for eco-labels 0.607
Thinking of workers’ rights when buying clothes 0.904
Thinking of child labor when buying clothes 0.900
Percentage of variance explained 38.4 19.2 11.0
Cronbach’s alpha 0.82 0.8 0.86
Source Calculated by the author using IBM SPSS software
82 M. Koszewska
and ecological labeling. All these variables are related to ecology, so factor 2 was
named “a pro-ecological attitude”. Factor 3 was constructed using variables such
as possible violations of workers’ rights and the use of child labor. All of them
concern social and ethical issues, so factor 3 was called “a pro-social attitude”.
21 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Measurement

Model
To verify the validity of the three factors (attitudes), a confirmatory factor analy-
sis was conducted with SPSS/AMOS 20.0. Convergent validity was determined
by means of three different measures: factor loadings, average variance extracted
(AVE), and construct reliability (CR; Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996). The
CFA results suggested that two items should be removed (because of factor load-
ings <0.6). The final model had a satisfactory level of validity. The values of aver-
age variance extracted (AVE) were not below the threshold of 0.50 recommended
for each construct. All CFA loadings ranged from 0.74 to 0.89, and the reliability
of the construct used in testing internal consistency exceeded the recommended
threshold of 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2011). Table 6 presents the
relevant correlations, AVE values, covariances, and the construct reliability for all
latent variables in the model.
The goodness-of-fit indices obtained from the measurement model are
good. The model’s normed χ2 was 3.4, the root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA) = 0.05, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.99, adjusted
GFI (AGFI) = 0.97, and the comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98 (see Table 6).
Accordingly, the measurement model was accepted for analysis.
22 Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Results
After a reasonably well-fitting measurement model was identified, the structural

model was tested by means of structural equation modeling (SEM). Figure 11
shows the final version of the empirical submodel with standardized esti-
mates of structural paths and fit indices. The proposed structural model has a
very good fit, because the values of all fit indices exceed the recommended val-
ues: χ2 (df = 33) = 75.37, p = 0.00; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.98;
RMSEA = 0.043; and N Holter = 445.
The results of hypothesis testing are shown in Table 7.
The results yielded by the structural model support all hypotheses. Hypotheses
H1a, H1b, and H4b state that pro-fashion, pro-environmental, and pro-social atti-
tudes strengthen consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable apparel.
The results of statistical analysis show that all three of them are important, thus
hypothesis H1 is fully confirmed.
Table 6 The CFA results
Constructs—latent Indicator Measurement model reliability and validity
variables CFA loading* AVE** CR*** Cronbach’s Alpha
Pro-fashion attitudeBuying clothes with global or European 0.75 0.6 0.79 0.82
brands
Preference for original, unique, designer 0.75
clothes
Brand importance 0.84
Pro-ecology Checking for raw material composition 0.78 0.54 0.78 0.76
attitude Checking for producer country 0.74
Preference for clothes from natural raw 0.7
materials
Pro-social attitude Thinking of workers’ rights when buying 0.89 0.75 0.86 0.86
clothes
Thinking of child labor when buying 0.84
clothes
Measurement model fit RMSEA < 0.05–0.08 (Browne and Cudeck 1992)
χ2 = 57, (df 17) GFI > 0.90 (Bollen 1989; Marcoulides and Schumacker 1996)
χ2/df = 3.4 AGFI > 0.90 (Bollen 1989; Marcoulides and Schumacker 1996)
RMSEA = 0.05 CFI > 0.90 (Bollen 1989; Marcoulides and Schumacker 1996)
GFI = 0.99
AGFI = 0.97
CFI = 0.98
IFI = 0.98
N Holter = 462
*CFA loading: standardized estimate
**Average variance extracted (AVE) = ∑ (standardized loadings2)/∑ (standardized loadings2) + ∑error variance
83
***Construct reliability (CR) = ∑ (standardized loadings) 2/∑ (standardized loadings) 2 + ∑ error variance
Source Calculated by the author with the IBM SPSS/AMOS software
84 M. Koszewska
Fig. 11 The tested model and SEM results: the results of hypothesis testing. Note All are stand-
ardized estimates
Hypothesis H2 predicting that the consumers’ attitude towards apparel shop-

ping and sustainable clothing purchase are related to each other has been proven
too. According to statistical analysis, pro-fashion, pro-ecological, and pro-social
attitudes are significant predictors of purchasing sustainable clothing, which con-
firms hypotheses H2a, H2b, and H2c.
Hypothesis H3 states that the consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping
influences their ability to recognize ecological and social labels. Given that the
pro-ecological and pro-social attitudes were found to be positively correlated with
this ability, hypotheses H3a and H3b are proven true as well. However, for the
lack of significant relation between a pro-fashion attitude and the recognizabil-
ity of eco-labels H3a must be rejected. Hypothesis H3 is therefore only partially
confirmed.
According to the results of statistical analysis and the TPB-based predictions,
consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing is positively
related to the purchase of such products, therefore hypothesis H4 is true.
The analysis has also pointed out that customers with a greater ability to rec-
ognize ecological and social labels attached to apparel are more likely to pur-
chase sustainable clothing (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), which supports hypothesis H5.
Moreover, there is a significant path coefficient between the recognizability of
ecological labels and an individual’s willingness to pay a premium for such cloth-
ing (β = 0.11, p < 0.01). These consumers are more willing to pay a higher price
for sustainable clothing, thus hypothesis H6 is proven true.
Table 7 Regression results for the hypotheses

HP Path β p Outcome
H1 Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences their Fully supported
willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing
H1a Pro-fashion attitude → willingness to pay a 0.17 p < 0.001 Supported
premium
H1b Pro-ecological attitude → willingness to pay a 0.13 p < 0.05 Supported
premium
H1c Pro-social attitude → willingness to pay a 0.11 p < 0.05 Supported
premium
H2 Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences sustainable Fully supported
clothing purchase
H2a Pro-fashion attitude → purchase of sustainable 0.10 p < 0.01 Supported
clothing
H2b Pro-ecological attitude → purchase of 0.12 p < 0.01 Supported
sustainable clothing
H2c Pro-social attitude → purchase of sustainable 0.11 p < 0.001 Supported
clothing
H3 Consumers’ attitude towards apparel shopping influences the Partially
recognizability of ecological and social labels supported
H3a Pro-fashion attitude → labels’ recognizability 0.04 p = 0.34 Not supported
H3b Pro-ecological attitude → labels’ recognizability 0.17 p < 0.001 Supported
H3c Pro-social attitude → labels’ recognizability 0.21 p < 0.001 Supported
H4 Willingness to pay a premium → purchase of 0.17 p < 0.001 Supported
sustainable clothing
H5 Recognizability of ecological labels → purchase 0.40 p < 0.001 Supported
of sustainable clothing
H6 Recognizability of ecological labels → willing- 0.11 p < 0.01 Supported
ness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing
Note β = standardized regression weights
The squared multiple correlation of sustainable clothing purchase was 0.42,

meaning that 42 % of purchase variance is explained by the predictor variables.
Considering that the model was built with selected determinants of the purchase of
sustainable clothing, this value seems to be satisfying.
23 Discussion
The aim of this study was to expand the knowledge of consumer behavior in the
sustainable apparel market. In its empirical part, Polish consumers’ intentions and
attitudes to buying sustainable clothing were examined using the modified TPB
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) and the existing models of consumer behavior towards
sustainable apparel products.
86 M. Koszewska
In the course of analysis, three types of consumers’ attitudes were derived from
their shopping habits and apparel selection criteria: pro-fashion, pro-ecology, and
pro-social. The focus of the study was not only on the significance of these atti-
tudes, but also on the strength of their influence on the analyzed dimensions of
consumer behavior, that is, the willingness to pay a premium for sustainable cloth-
ing, the recognizability of labels, and actual purchases of sustainable clothing.
The earlier studies’ conclusions about pro-environmental and pro-social attitudes
positively influencing consumer’s willingness to pay a premium (Halepete et al.
2009b; Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011) and their ability to recognize an ecolabel
(Thogersen 2000) have been supported by this research.
All three studies suggest that fashion may significantly determine the decision
to buy sustainable apparel, but the relationship between these two variables has
not been explicitly confirmed. Therefore, establishing whether consumers’ atti-
tudes towards fashion positively influence the analyzed aspects of their behavior
seems as interesting as important.
The findings of this study imply that a pro-fashion attitude is the strongest pre-
dictor of one’s willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing (β = 0.17 at
p < 0.001 compared with 0.13 at p < 0.05 for a pro-ecological attitude and 0.11
at p < 0.05 for a pro-social attitude). This suggests that consumers whose shop-
ping decisions are guided by a pro-fashion attitude (i.e., giving priority to origi-
nal designer clothes, sensitive to brands, tending to choose clothes of global or
European brands) are also more willing to pay a premium for sustainable clothing,
probably because of the ease with which pro-fashion consumers join in the trend
for eco-fashion. Higher prices of sustainable clothing do not discourage them from
buying such items, because the brand and fashion are more important for them
than price. The study has also shown that a pro-fashion attitude does not signifi-
cantly contribute to the recognizability of ecological and social labels marking
sustainable apparel, unlike pro-ecological and pro-social attitudes. It is probably
due to the pro-fashion consumers’ relatively careless attitude to buying sustainable
clothing. They buy it because they tend to follow fashion and trends, whereas the
ability to recognize an eco-label requires some involvement, awareness, and sensi-
tivity. Consequently, the most important determinants of the consumer’s ability to
identify a label is a pro-social attitude (the standardized path coefficient value for
this relationship is the highest for this relationship).
Nevertheless, all three shopping attitudes similarly and directly contribute to
the purchase of sustainable clothing (β = 0.10, p < 0.01 for the pro-fashion atti-
tude, 0.12, p < 0.01 for the pro-ecological attitude, and 0.11, p < 0.001 for the
pro-social attitude). This result is consistent with the findings of earlier studies
(Koszewska 2013) pointing to shopping habits and apparel selection criteria as
the determinants of the purchase of sustainable clothing, but it is somewhat differ-
ent from that of Moon et al. (2014). They did not find any significant correlation
between fashion involvement and Green product consumption. However, one has
to be cautious comparing the results of the two studies for several reasons: first,
because of the size of the samples (327 vs. 981 respondents) and second, because
of cultural differences between people in Asia and Central and East Europe (Polish
vs. South Korea consumers), and third, because of different approaches to con-
ceptualizing and operationalizing the scale for measuring the pro-fashion attitude
(a 3-item scale focused on the preference for original designer clothes, global or
European brands, and brand sensitivity versus a 10-item scale measuring involve-
ment in fashion).
Earlier studies into consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable
apparel focused on its determinants, but omitted its influence on actual purchases.
This study addressed this gap. Its results indicate that the willingness to pay a
higher price for sustainable apparel is positively correlated with the purchase of
sustainable apparel, which is consistent with the TPB intention–purchase relation
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
The certification and labeling systems are thought to have a major role in driv-
ing the expansion of sustainable clothing markets (Dickson 2001; Hartlieb and
Jones 2009; Thøgersen 2000). Being one of the most effective and consumer-
friendly channels for communicating the properties of sustainable clothing
(Koszewska 2011a), the systems are not useful unless a consumer notices and rec-
ognizes a label or a symbol. In contrast with earlier studies that only dealt with
factors influencing consumer’s ability to recognize an eco-label, this study addi-
tionally sought to establish whether, and to what extent, the ability to recognize
an eco- and/or social label influences the willingness to pay more for sustainable
apparel and to purchase it. Its findings imply that the recognizability of ecological
and social labels is one of the most important predictors of purchasing sustainable
apparel (the standardized path coefficient value for this relationship is the highest
among all purchase predictors β = 0.40, p < 0.001). The findings are also empiri-
cal evidence that the recognizability of labels has a major effect on consumers’
willingness to pay more for sustainable apparel. All this confirms that labeling sys-
tems that are transparent and understandable to consumers play a key role in the
expansion of sustainable clothing markets.
24 Conclusions
The aim of the theoretical and experimental research presented in the chapter was
to expand the current knowledge of consumer behavior towards a specific group of
products, sustainable apparel.
Despite numerous publications on consumer behavior modeling, a comprehen-
sive model of consumer behavior with respect to sustainable clothing has not been
created yet. The model proposed in the chapter is an attempt at completing this
gap. The model reviews consumer behavior in the market for sustainable clothing
and demonstrates the complexity of the relations between the socially responsible
manufacturer of clothing and the consumer, as well as intermediate connections
and influences between the key elements of the model:
88 M. Koszewska
• The producer and sustainable production systems

• Sustainable clothing product
• Barriers to sustainable consumption
• The consumer and factors determining her behavior
As indicated by the model, the following instruments are crucial to implementing
sustainable production systems:
• Corporate social responsibility
• Eco/sustainable design as a means of improving product characteristics
• Life-cycle approach optimizing the production process
• Sustainable supply chain management
• Sustainability communication
• Slow fashion–slow production aiming to prolong the clothing’s life cycle and
maximize its utility and fuctionality, indicating slow consumption
• Eco-functional assessment
In the course of analysis, three causes of barriers to sustainable consumption
were identified:
• Sustainable clothing and its undesirable features such as higher price, limited
appeal, usefulness and design, and so on
• Ineffective communication: lack, complexity, and ambiguity of information, dis-
trust of the information source, and so on
• Consumer characteristics: lack of time, knowledge and awareness, carelessness,
limited receptiveness to communication, and so on
Complex theoretical models such as those proposed in the chapter are defined
in the literature as large-system models. They enable a comprehensive depiction
of the analyzed issue and help understand consumer behavior rather than predict-
ing it. However, the complexity of the relations they try to capture and explain
causes the empirical verification of these models to be very problematic (Bettman
and Jones 1972). For this reason, only selected elements of the theoretical model
proposed in this study, that is, consumers and the key determinants of their behav-
ior towards sustainable clothing, were verified empirically. The conclusions from
this part of research are the following.
1. Consumers’ attitudes towards apparel shopping have a significant and positive
influence on their willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing, the
recognizability of ecological and social labels, and, finally, on the actual pur-
chase of sustainable clothing. More specifically:
• They positively influence the pro-ecological and pro-social attitudes on con-
sumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable apparel and the recog-
nizability of apparel labels.
• A pro-fashion attitude may exert a relatively strong influence on the willing-
ness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing (unlike pro-ecological and
pro-social attitudes) but does not significantly affect the recognizability of
ecological and social labels attached to it.
2. The majority of earlier studies did not analyze the purchase of sustainable
apparel, but they focused on the intention to buy (which may not be realized).
Therefore, this research makes a unique contribution to the body of knowledge
on sustainable apparel consumption as it provides:
• Empirical evidence of the influence of consumers’ attitudes (pro-fashion,
pro-ecological, and pro-social) towards apparel shopping, of their willing-
ness to pay a premium, and of the recognizability of apparel labels on actual
purchases of sustainable apparel.
• Additional evidence pointing to a significant role of the recognizability of
ecological and social labels in purchasing sustainable apparel. This recogniz-
ability not only directly contributes to the decision to buy a sustainable prod-
uct, but also makes the consumer more willing to pay a premium for it.
The findings of this study are likely to be useful for both marketers and public
policy makers wishing to promote a wider use of sustainable apparel and foster the
expansion of markets for sustainable products. They show that different shopping
attitudes can motivate consumers to buy sustainable apparel. Consumers with pro-
ecological and pro-social attitudes, but also those with a pro-fashion attitude, may
appreciate the added value of sustainable clothing and buy it, even if they have
to pay a premium. However, different categories of consumers would do that for
different reasons. Companies should be aware of the different characteristics of
consumers when implementing long-term CSR strategies, as well as making mar-
keting decisions on a current basis.
This research also highlights the critical role of the recognizability of ecologi-
cal and social labels in purchasing sustainable clothing. Consumers must have all
necessary data to make informed decisions. Clothing companies should therefore
work on increasing their knowledge and awareness of products and labels used,
and make their CSR communication systems more transparent and friendly to
consumers.
25 Limitation and Future Research
The study has some limitations that may affect the general applicability of its
findings. Most of all, the sample used consists of Polish consumers, so research-
ers should be cautious in generalizing the findings of this study to other countries,
although comparing them with the results obtained for countries would be a very
interesting exercise (e.g., with new consumer countries with slowly developing
ethical consumer movements such as Poland and long-rich countries leading in
ecological and ethical consumer movements). Another limitation is that the scales
used for measuring the construct of pro-social attitude have two items instead of
the recommended three and that the empirical verification involved a limited num-
ber of variables. Future research should address more factors that are indicated as
having significant influence on the purchase of sustainable clothing.
90 M. Koszewska
This research focused on consumer behavior, but future investigations should

also consider the behavior of the producers of sustainable clothing and the factors
influencing it. The theoretical model that only addresses barriers to consumption
should be extended in the future to account for barriers to sustainable production.
Acknowledgements The research was partially supported by Scientific grant awarded by the
Rector of the Lodz University of Technology. I would like to thank Janusz Kwitecki for his work
on the translation and Agnieszka Pleśniak from the Warsaw School of Economics for providing
insight and expertise in the field of structural equation modeling. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Prof. Zofia Wysokińska and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an
earlier version of the manuscript which helped me improve the final version of the chapter
References
Ajzen I (1991) Theories of cognitive self-regulation. The theory of planned behavior. Organ
Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ
Antil JH (1984) Socially responsible consumers: profile and implications for public policy. J
Macromarketing 4:18–39
Arbuthnot J (1977) The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environ-
mental behavior and knowledge. Environ Behav 9:217–232
Arbuthnot J, Lingg S (1975) A comparison of French and American environmental behaviors,
knowledge, and attitudes. Int J Psychol 10:275–281
Arcury T (1990) Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ 49:300–304
Arcury TA, Johnson TP (1987) Public environmental knowledge: a statewide survey. J Environ
Educ 18:31–37
Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ, Burke PF (2008) Do social product features have value to
consumers? Int J Res Mark 25:183–191
Baker DA, Bagozzi RP (1982) Attitudes toward public policy alternatives to reduce air pollution.
J Public Policy Mark 1:85–94
Balderjahn I, Peyer M, Paulssen M (2013) Consciousness for fair consumption: conceptualiza-
tion, scale development and empirical validation. Int J Consum Stud 37:546–555
Baumgartner H, Homburg C (1996) Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing
and consumer research: a review. Int J Res Mark 13:139–161
Bettman JR, Jones JM (1972) Formal models of consumer behavior: a conceptual overview. J
Bus 45:544–562
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2004) Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers
respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif Manag Rev 47:9–24
Blowfield ME (1999) Ethical trade: a review of developments and issues. Third World Q
20:753–770
Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York
Booi-Chen T (2011) The role of perceived consumer effectiveness on value-attitude-behaviour
model in green buying behaviour context. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5:1766–1771
Bray J (2008) Consumer behaviour theory: approaches and models
Brosdahl DJC, Carpenter JM (2010) Consumer knowledge of the environmental impacts of tex-
tile and apparel production, concern for the environment, and environmentally friendly con-
sumption behavior. J Text Apparel Technol Manage 6:1–9
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res
21:230–258
Butler SM, Francis S (1997) The effects of environmental attitudes on apparel purchasing behav-
ior. Clothing Text Res J 15:76–85
Buttel FM, Flinn WL (1978) The politics of environmental concern: the impacts of party identifi-
cation and political ideology on environmental attitudes. Environ Behav 10:17–36
Carrigan M, Attalla A (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer—do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour? J Consum Mark 18:560–577
Chan K (2000) Market segmentation of green consumers in Hong Kong. J Int Consum Mark
12:7–24
Chan T-Y, Wong CWY (2012) The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain.
Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision. J Fashion Mark
Manage 16:193–215
Cottrell SP, Graefe AR (1997) Testing a conceptual framework of responsible environmental
behavior. J Environ Educ 29:17
Davis R, Lang B (2012) Modeling the effect of self-efficacy on game usage and purchase behav-
ior. J Retail Consum Serv 19:67–77
de Klerk HM, Lubbe S (2008) Female consumers’ evaluation of apparel quality: exploring the
importance of aesthetics. J Fashion Mark Manage 12:36–50
Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM (2003) Can socio-demograph-
ics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical
investigation. J Bus Res 56:465
Dickson MA (2001) Utility of no-sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and
predicting their purchases. J Consum Aff 35:96–119
Du Preez R (2003) Apparel shopping behaviour—Part 1: Towards the development of a concep-
tual theoretical model. SA J Ind Psychol 29
Du Preez R, Visser EM (2003) Apparel shopping behaviour—Part 2: Conceptual theoretical
model, market segments, profiles and implications. SA J Ind Psychol 29
Dunlap RE, van Liere KD (1981) Environmental concern: does it make a difference how it’s
measured? Environ Behav 13:651
Eckman M, Kadolph SJ, Damhorst ML (1990) Toward a model of the in-store purchase deci-
sion process: consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Clothing Text Res J
8:13–22
Engel JF, Blackwell RD, Miniard PW (1986) Consumer behaviour. The Dryden Press, New York
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50
Foxall G (2004). Psychology in Behavioural Perspective, Beard Books
Gimenez C, Sierra V (2013) Sustainable supply chains: governance mechanisms to greening sup-
pliers. J Bus Ethics 116:189–203
Ha-Brookshire JE, Norum PS (2011) Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case
of cotton apparel. J Consum Mark 28:344–353
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract
19:139–152
Halepete J, Littrell M, Park J (2009a) Personalization of fair trade apparel: consumer attitudes
and intentions. Clothing Text Res J 27:143–160
Halepete J, Littrell M, Park J (2009b) Personalization of fair trade apparel: consumer attitudes
and intentions. Clothing Text Res J 27:143–160
Han T-I, Chung J-E (2014) Korean consumers’ motivations and perceived risks toward the pur-
chase of organic cotton apparel. Clothing Text Res J 32:235–250
Harry J, Hendee J, Gale R (1969) Conservation: an upper-middle class social movement. J
Leisure Res 2:246–254
Hartlieb S, Jones B (2009) Humanising business through ethical labelling: progress and para-
doxes in the UK. J Bus Ethics 88:583–600
Hassan L, Shaw D, Shiu E, Walsh G, Parry S (2013) Uncertainty in ethical consumer choice: a
conceptual model. J Consum Behav 12:182–193
92 M. Koszewska
Howard JA, Sheth JN (1969) The theory of bayer behavior. Wiley, New York
Honnold JA (1981). Predictors of public environmental concern in the 1970s. In: Mann MD
(ed.) Environmental Policy Formation–the impacts of values, ideology and standards
68-Lexington. Lexington Books
Hustvedt G, Bernard JC (2010) Effects of social responsibility labelling and brand on willingness
to pay for apparel. Int J Consum Stud 34:619–626
Hyllegard KH, Yan R-N, Ogle JP, Lee K-H (2012) Socially responsible labeling: the impact
of hang tags on consumers’ attitudes and patronage intentions toward an apparel brand.
Clothing Text Res J 30:51–66
Jain SK, Kaur G (2006) Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green consum-
ers: an exploratory study of consumers in India. J Int Consum Mark 18:107–146
Jolibert AJP, Baumgartner G (1981) Toward a definition of the consumerist segment in France. J
Consum Res 8:114–117
Jung S, Jin B (2014) A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: sustainable future of the apparel
industry [electronic resource]. Int J Consum Stud 38:510–519
Kang J, Kim S-H (2013) What are consumers afraid of? understanding perceived risk toward the
consumption of environmentally sustainable apparel. Fam Consum Sci Res J 41:267–283
Kang J, Liu C, Kim S-H (2013) Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel consumption:
the role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and perceived personal
relevance. Int J Consum Stud 37:442–452
Kassarjian HH (1971) incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air pollution. J
Mark 35:61–65
Kiezel E (2010) Konsument i jego zachowania na rynku europejskim. Warszawa, PWE
Kim H-S, Damhorst ML (1998) Environmental concern and apparel consumption. Clothing Text
Res J 16:126–133
Kinnear TC, Taylor JR, Ahmed SA (1974) Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they? J
Mark 38:20–24
Koszewska M (2010) CSR standards as a significant factor differentiating textile and clothing
goods. Fibres Text Eastern Europe 18:14–19
Koszewska M (2011a) Social and eco-labelling of textile and clothing goods as means of com-
munication and product differentiation. Fibres Text Eastern Europe 19:20–26
Koszewska M (2011b) The ecological and ethical consumption development prospects in Poland
compared with the Western European countries. Comp Econ Res 14:101–123
Koszewska M (2012a) Global Global Consumer trends and textile and clothing innovations—
implications for polish enterprises. The Transformation of Consumption and Consumer
Behaviour. Institute for Market, Consumption and Business Cycles Research, Warsaw
Koszewska M (2012b) Impact of ecological and social sensitivity on the way of consumers’
behavior in the textiles and clothing market. Handel Wewne˛trzny 3
Koszewska M (2012c) Role of consumers’ input into the development of innovations. Innovative
trends in the textile and clothing industry and the needs of polish consumers. Fibres Text
Eastern Europe 20:9–15
Koszewska M (2013) A typology of Polish consumers and their behaviours in the market for sus-
tainable textiles and clothing. Int J Consum Stud 37:507–521
Koszewska M (2015) Life cycle assessment and the environmental and social labels in the textile
and clothing industry. In: Muthu SS (eds.) Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
textiles and clothing, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing
Koszewska M, Treichel A (2015) Ecological performance of selected fabrics as a factor in
the subjective evaluation of their comfort. In: 15th AUTEX World Textile Conference,
Bucharest, Romania
Krajnc D, Glavič P (2003) Indicators of sustainable production. Clean Technol Environ Policy
5:279–288
Lavorata L (2014) Influence of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development on store image,

consumer loyalty and consumer boycotts: proposal for a model using the theory of planned
behavior. J Retail Consum Serv 21:1021–1027
LEA Wickett J, Gaskill LR, Damhorst ML (1999) Apparel retail product development: model
testing and expansion. Clothing Text Res J 17:21–35
Lee N, Choi YJ, Youn C, Lee Y (2012) Does green fashion retailing make consumers more eco-
friendly?: the influence of green fashion products and campaigns on green consciousness
and behavior. Clothing Text Res J 30:67–82
Leonard-Barton D (1981) Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. J Consum Res
8:243–252
Liu X, Wang C, Shishime T, Fujitsuka T (2012) Sustainable consumption: green purchasing
behaviours of urban residents in China. Sustain Dev 20:293–308
Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Ecology: let’s hear from the people: an objective scale for the
measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 28:583–586
Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE (1996) Advanced structural equation modeling: issues and
techniques. Erlbaum, Mahwah
McDonald S, Oates C, Thyne M, Alevizou P, McMorland L-A (2009) Comparing sustainable
consumption patterns across product sectors. Int J Consum Stud 33:137–145
McDonald S, Oates CJ (2006) Sustainability: consumer perceptions and marketing strategies.
Bus Strategy Environ (Wiley) 15, 157–170
McEachern MG, Carrigan M (2012) Revisiting contemporary issues in green/ethical marketing:
an introduction to the special issue. J Mark Manage 28:189–194
Mohai P, Twight BW (1987) Age and environmentalism: an elaboration of the buttel model using
national survey evidence. Soc Sci Q (University of Texas Press) 68:798–815
Mohr LA, Webb DJ, Harris KE (2001) Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsi-
ble? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. J Consum Aff 35:45
Moisander J, Markkula A, Eräranta K (2010) Construction of consumer choice in the market:
challenges for environmental policy. Int J Consum Stud 34:73–79
Moon KK-L, Lai CS-Y, Lam EY-N, Chang JMT (2014) Popularization of sustainable fashion:
barriers and solutions. J Text Inst 106:939–952
Muthu SS, Li Y, Hu J-Y, Mok P-Y, Lin M (2013) Modelling and quantification of Eco-functional
Index: the concept and applications of eco-functional assessment. Ecol Ind 26:33–43
Nicosia FM (1966) Consumer decision process. Prentice Hall
Neuman K (1986) Personal values and commitment to energy conservation. Environ Behav 18:53
Nicosia FM (1968) Advertising management, consumer behavior, and simulation. J Advertising
Res 8:29–37
Niinimäki K (2010) Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustain Dev 18:150–162
Ogrean C, Herciu M (2014) arguments for CSR-based sustainable competitiveness of multina-
tionals in emerging markets (Part I). Stud Bus Econ 9:57–67
Olsson U (1979) Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient.
Psychometrika 44:443–460
Osterhus TL (1997) Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work? J
Mark 61:16
Ostman RE, Parker JL (1987) Impact of education, age, newspapers, and television on environ-
mental knowledge, concerns, and behaviors. J Environ Educ 19:3
Ozcaglar-Toulouse N, Shaw D, Shiu E (2006) In search of fair trade: ethical consumer decision
making in france [electronic resource]. Int J Consum Stud, 30:502–514
Paço A, Alves H, Shiel C, Filho WL (2013) Development of a green consumer behaviour model.
Int J Consum Stud 37:414–421
Pickett GM, Kangun N, Grove SJ (1993) is there a general conserving consumer? A public pol-
icy concern. J Public Policy Mark 12:234–243
Pino G, Peluso AM, Guido G (2012) Determinants of regular and occasional consumers’ inten-
tions to buy organic food. J Consum Aff 46:157–169
94 M. Koszewska
Plesniak A (2006) Identyfikacja zależności korelacyjnej w procedurze SEM. Ilościowe i

jakościowe metody badania rynku. Pomiar i jego skuteczność. Poznan, Zeszyty Naukowe
AE w Poznaniu
Pookulangara S, Shephard A (2013) Slow fashion movement: understanding consumer percep-
tions—an exploratory study. J Retail Consum Serv 20:200–206
Ray JJ (1975) Measuring environmentalist attitudes. Aust New Zealand J Sociol 11:70–71
Roberts JA (1996) Green Consumers in the 1990s: profile and Implications for advertising. J Bus
Res 36:217–231
Romli A, Prickett P, Setchi R, Soe S (2015) Integrated eco-design decision-making for sustain-
able product development. Int J Prod Res 53:549–571
Sagan A (2011) Modele strukturalne w analizie zachowań konsumenta– ewolucja podejść.
Konsumpcja i Rozwój 1
Samdahl DM, Robertson R (1989) Social determinants of environmental concern: specification
and testof the model. Environ Behav 21:57
Schlegelmilch BB, Bohlen GM, Diamantopoulos A (1996) The link between green purchasing
decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. Eur J Mark 30:35
Scott D, Willits FK (1994) Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania survey. Environ
Behav 26:239–260
Shaw D, Shiu E, Hassan L, Bekin C, Hogg G (2007) Intending to be ethical: an examination of
consumer choice in sweatshop avoidance. Adv Consum Res 34:31–38
Shim S, Kotsiopulos A (1992) Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: part II. testing a patron-
age model of consumer behavior. Clothing Text Res J 10:58–64
Shrum LJ, McCarty JA, Lowrey TM (1995) Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and
their implications for advertising strategy. J Advertising 24:71–82
Smyczek S, Sowa I (2005) Konsument na rynku. Zachowania, modele, aplikacje, Warszawa,
Difin
Staniškis J, Arbačiauskas V, Varžinskas V (2012) Sustainable consumption and production as a
system: experience in Lithuania. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:1095–1105
Tai SHC, Tam JLM (1996) A comparative study of Chinese consumers in asian markets-a lef-
estyle analysis. J Int Consum Mark 9:25–42
Thilak V, Saravanan D (2015) Eco-design/sustainable Design of textile products. Handbook of
sustainable apparel production. CRC Press
Thogersen J (2000) Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase
decisions: model development and multinational validationnn. J Consum Policy 23:285–313
Thøgersen J (2000) Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase
decisions: model development and multinational validation. J Consum Policy 23:285–313
Tognacci LN, Weigel RH, Wideen MF, Vernon DTA (1972) Environmental quality: how univer-
sal is public concern? Environ Behav 4:73–86
Trudel R (2011) Socially conscious consumerism. Network for Business Sustainability. [WWW
document]. Accessed on 10th July, 2013 URL http://www.nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/
NBS-Consumerism-Primer1.pdf
Tucker JLR, Dolich IJ (1981) Profiling environmentally responsible consumer-citizens. J Acad
Mark Sci 9:454
Vignali C (1999) Benetton’s brand position explored and developed through Nicosia’s consumer-
behaviour model. J Text Inst 90:48–59
Visser EM, Du preez R (2001) Apparel shopping orientation: two decades of research. J Fam
Ecol Consum Sci 2
Webster FE Jr (1975) Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. J
Consum Res 2 188–196
Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ (2010) Sustainable consumption: green consumer
behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain Dev 18:20–31
Zimmer MR, Stafford TF, Stafford MR (1994) Green issues: dimensions of environmental con-
cern. J Bus Res 30:63–74

2016understanding Understanding Consumer Behavior in The Sustainable Clothing Market Model Development and Verification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016understanding Understanding Consumer Behavior in The Sustainable Clothing Market Model Development and Verification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016understanding Understanding Consumer Behavior in The Sustainable Clothing Market Model Development and Verification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Consumer Behavior

in the Sustainable Clothing Market:

Keywords Consumer behavior · Model · Sustainable consumption · Structural

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 43

Despite significant theoretical and empirical advancements of studies into con-

2 Consumer Behavior Models: Theoretical Background

Consumer behavior models are crucial to disentangling the complexity of relations

3 Theoretical Model of Consumer Behavior

In this section, a theoretical model of consumer behavior towards sustainable

Author Constructs Area\Product type Subject Empirical

Author Constructs Area\Product type Subject Empirical

Author Constructs Area\Product type Subject Empirical

Perceived consumer effectiveness

Field 1-from the source message to

Field 3-the act

Fig. 2 Nicosia model. Source Nicosia (1968)

* Areas of the model subjected to empirical verification

The producer can influence consumer purchase decisions by means of an inte-

4 Production of Sustainable Clothing: Supply Side

Areas for innovationin textile and clothing industry

A company with an integrated CSR communication system can influence cus-

Socio- Major technologies for Innovative textiles and

5 Barriers, Perceived Risk, and Uncertainties

6 Consumer Behavior Towards Sustainable

This section is centered on customers and their behavior. Consumer behavior

7 Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, and Concern

Fig. 7 Influence of environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern on consumer behavior.

8 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE)

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) is believed to be crucial to the purchase

9 Factors Indicated by the Theory of Attitude–Behavior

Among the most popular models explaining the attitude–behavior relationship

Fig. 8 Theory of planned behavior. Source Bray (2008)

Consumer behavior towards sustainable clothing is also significantly influenced

Another group of factors that determine intentions according to TRA is subjective

9.4 Perceived Behavioral Control

10 Openness to Company’s CSR Communication—

Environmental labeling schemes are potentially effective and consumer-friendly

11 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

The influence of the sociodemographic factors on sustainable product consump-

An individual’s education significantly contributes to the development of environ-

In most empirical studies investigating the relationship between income and

SUSTAINABLE Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

sustainable clothing undergo empirical verification. The variable selection criteria

13 The Empirical Verification of the Demand Side

The empirical submodel concentrates on several factors important for consumer

In the following sections, the conceptual framework of the research and

14 Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

The majority of empirically validated models described in the literature on con-

ATTITUDES INTENTIONS PURCHASE

ATTITUDES TOWARDS APPAREL WILLINGNESS TO PAY A PURCHASE

Fig. 10 The conceptual model

H4: Consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing is posi-

15.1 Survey and Sample

Table 3 Sociodemographic structure of Polish respondents

16 Methodology and Analytical Procedures

17 Conceptualization and Operationalization

17.1 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

18 Openness to Companies’ CSR Communication—

2 Consumer Behavior Models: Theoretical Background

3 Theoretical Model of Consumer Behavior

4 Production of Sustainable Clothing: Supply Side

5 Barriers, Perceived Risk, and Uncertainties

6 Consumer Behavior Towards Sustainable

7 Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, and Concern

8 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE)

9 Factors Indicated by the Theory of Attitude–Behavior

9.4 Perceived Behavioral Control

10 Openness to Company’s CSR Communication—

11 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

13 The Empirical Verification of the Demand Side

14 Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

15.1 Survey and Sample

16 Methodology and Analytical Procedures

17 Conceptualization and Operationalization

17.1 Shopping Habits and Apparel Selection Criteria

18 Openness to Companies’ CSR Communication—

19 Consumers’ Willingness to Pay a Premium

20.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis

21 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Measurement

22 Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Results

25 Limitation and Future Research