The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0955-6222.htm

IJCST
33,3 Investigating consumer behaviour
for environmental, sustainable and
social apparel
336 Kerri Byrd and Jin Su
Consumer, Apparel, and Retail Studies, University of North Carolina,
Received 28 March 2020
Revised 28 July 2020
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Accepted 18 September 2020
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate consumers’ perceptions of and consumer behaviour
towards apparel labels and environmental, sustainable and social apparel.
Design/methodology/approach – Quantitative research was conducted, and empirical data were collected
from 399 US consumers.
Findings – Findings indicate that consumers expressed positive sentiments towards apparel sustainability,
yet they lacked knowledge about socially and environmental practices within the apparel industry. Overall, it is
apparent that the respondents have an interest in environmental and social labelling; but they are not aware of
brands that sell these types of garments nor their validity. It was also found that consumers may not have much
knowledge regarding environmental, sustainable and social apparel or their meanings.
Originality/value – By surveying the consumers about their perspectives on apparel labels and
environmental, sustainable and social apparel, valuable market information was obtained. Sustainably and
ethically produced garments are of demand as transparency in the apparel industry grows. Brands looking to
become more transparent about their production methods will need to find new ways to reach their target
market by accurately labelling products and educating their consumers about these label claims.
Keywords Apparel industry, Apparel label, Eco-label, Sustainability, Sustainable apparel, US consumers
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The fashion industry alone is one of the world’s worst global polluters following the oil and
gas industry (Conca, 2015, December 3). There has been an increasing number of apparel
brands producing fast-fashion apparel items. These brands tend to focus on quick supply
chains to bring the newest fashions to the consumers as fast as possible. This leads to
garments that are only designed to last through a season and are typically made of lesser
quality. These designs with speed to market business models are harmful to the environment
as the amount of waste produced during the manufacturing process is increased. Recently,
ethical and sustainable initiatives are growing more common within the apparel market,
along with an increase in consumer interest in purchasing from companies that are
transparent and uphold sustainable and ethical practices. Apparel labelling is one of the main
ways that a consumer can learn about the products they are interested in purchasing. Many
companies are recognizing the opportunity to connect with consumers through social media
platforms such as Instagram and YouTube to educate consumers about apparel labelling and
strengthen brand loyalty. Brands looking to be successful in sustainable apparel production

The authors are grateful for valuable comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers and
Professor George Stylios (the Editor). The authors would also like to thank Dr. Kittichai (Tu)
International Journal of Clothing Watchravesringkan and Dr. Trish Kemerly for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Science and Technology Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
Vol. 33 No. 3, 2021
pp. 336-352 of this article.
© Emerald Publishing Limited Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
0955-6222
DOI 10.1108/IJCST-03-2020-0040 to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
will need to both educate consumers about their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) values Investigating
and market their products appropriately with the justified value of being made ethically and consumer
sustainably.
According to McKinsey and Company’s report entitled “The State of Fashion 2020” (Amed
behaviour
et al., 2019), sustainability and transparency are the topics that consumers have rising
concerns about and are pressuring apparel brands to make a change. Apparel brands are
responding to consumer interest in transparency on issues such as product origin, production
methods and environmental impacts (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2008). This has led to an 337
increasing amount of sustainable and ethical fashion being designed and produced.
Eco-labels allow consumers to learn more about the origins and production methods of a
garment of clothing. It can be confusing and difficult to make environmentally responsible
purchase decisions by simply looking at a textile product. Consumers looking to purchase
these types of garments should consider the fibre production, product manufacturing process
and what will happen to the garment during and after its useful life (Chen and Burns, 2006).
Eco-labels are being introduced into the market, which requires manufacturers to meet
specific requirements before they can call their products “green” or ethically produced
(Bocken and Allwood, 2012). Eco-labels may include claims such as made in the USA, 100%
cotton, organic, ethically sourced, recycled, environmentally friendly, recycled materials,
locally produced, good working conditions and/or fair trade.
There is a lack of relevant research on consumers’ perspective of apparel labelling
regarding sustainability and ethical production. The purpose of this study is to explore how
consumers, including different age groups, are shaping the current and future sustainable
apparel marketplace. This study focuses on consumer consciousness about the information
on apparel labels (Goswami, 2008). Findings from this study will provide vital information for
the industry in that the data collected express consumers’ behaviour and beliefs regarding
environmental and social garment labelling. In the following section, the relevant literature
review and the research questions are presented. Subsequently, the research method is
described, followed by data analysis and results. Finally, the paper discusses the results,
implications and future study directions.

Literature review
The State of sustainable and ethical fashion
The current state of the apparel industry is quickly changing as brands aim to keep up with the
demands of the consumer marketplace. John Anderson, President and CEO of Levi Strauss and
C.O., states that “For the fashion industry to be sustainable economically, it must be sustainable
socially and environmentally too” (Forum for the Future, 2019). Companies have many
opportunities to keep up with the fast-paced market; this can be done by listening to consumer
desires and acting upon them through transparency. They will need to focus on consumer wants,
such as taking an active stance on social issues, sustainability and demands for transparency.
The apparel and textile industries are among the top leaders in social and environmental
issues, which have led to increased attention and concern surrounding the sustainability
topic. Consumers need to have a base knowledge of these issues in order to make prepared
and informed purchase decisions. With this knowledge, they can change their attitudes
regarding sustainable apparel and, therefore, their purchase behaviour (Su et al., 2019).
Younger generations specifically are becoming more aware of environmental issues along
with the impact that apparel consumption has due to their connection and usage of the
Internet and various social media.
Apparel production not only causes environmental issues such as pollution and energy
consumption but also lends itself to several social issues that must be addressed when
discussing the impact of the industry. These issues include but are not limited to working
IJCST conditions, working hours, child labour and exploitation. Many of these issues have been
33,3 brought to light through Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh which killed more than 1,100
people (Amed et al., 2018). Due to the surrounding news and broadcasting of the event,
consumers are increasingly demanding to know where and how their products are being
made (Amed et al., 2018).
CSR is the practice of companies addressing and reporting sustainability-related issues.
Factors that affect US consumer’s intentions to patronize retail apparel brands engaged in
338 CSR practices were studied by Diddi and Niehm (2017). Their findings suggested that moral
norms, subjective norms and attitudes were all important predictors of the US consumer’s
intention to patronize retail apparel brands engaged in CSR. They also proposed that for retail
apparel brands to increase consumer awareness of their socially responsible business
practices, they should integrate CSR-related information in their strategic marketing
activities (Diddi and Niehm, 2017). This indicates that consumers are willing to patronize
retailers that are engaged in socially responsible business practices. However, the literature
indicates that generation Y or the millennial generation are more sceptical about apparel
labels and promotional CSR messages than other previous generations (Bhaduri and Ha-
Brookshire, 2011).

Apparel labelling
Labelling is only one step in the entire process of producing and consumption of a garment;
however, such labelling has the ability to inform consumers of the products origins and also
provide information about how to care for the garment in order for it to have less impact on
the environment throughout the garment’s lifetime (Thomas, 2018). The International
Association of Textile Care Labelling has developed a series of label instructions entitled
Clevercare™. This labelling system advises consumers on ways that they can care for their
garments in a more environmentally conscious manner (Ginetex, 2019; Thomas, 2018).
Labelling systems such as the one outlined above are beneficial in reducing the negative
environmental impacts that come along with apparel consumption. This further provides
information to consumers regarding how to care for their garments to create a more
sustainable future.
While many brands are changing their production methods to become more transparent
regarding their sustainable practices, not all companies are doing the right thing. Research
has found that consumers may form negative attributions about the motives of the company
when they see discrepant green advertising and corporate performance (Nyilasy et al., 2014).
This indicates further the importance of brand transparency to increase consumer trust in a
firm’s initiatives. Sustainable apparel labels, including environmental and social labels, will
need to be accurate and trustworthy to add value to customers during the purchase decision.

Eco-labelling programs
With the emergence of consumer demand for transparency concerning where their clothes
are coming from and how they are being produced, many eco-label programs were created
internationally to provide meaningful information to the consumers regarding the social and
environmental aspects of the product. The purpose of eco-labelling is to make it easier to
identify less harmful and more sustainably preferable alternatives to purchasers. Eco-terms
frequently used in the current marketplace include: environmentally friendly, eco-conscious,
eco-friendly, nature-friendly, ethical, organic, sustainable, green, responsible, ecologically
clean, envirosafe and ecologically innocuous (Hahn-Petersen, 2018). These terms are used to
describe products that claim to cause reduced or no harm to the environment. There is a
concern that this creates confusion for the consumers due to a lack of specificity and
credibility. However, there are multiple labelling programs that are credible and provide Investigating
accurate information, such as those discussed below. consumer
The Eco-label Index is a global directory of eco-labels that provides reliable and accessible
information to help buyers and sellers use labels more effectively. There are currently over
behaviour
450 eco-labels in 199 countries and covering 25 industry sectors according to the eco-label
index (Ecolabel Index, 2019). This provides clarity and direction for consumers to learn more
about labelling programs that are trustworthy within a multitude of programs offering
unclear and unregulated labels. It is common for environmental labelling used on products 339
with the intention of providing information on their environmental characteristics to include
different categories (D’Souza et al., 2007). For example, in Australia, there are different
classifications of environmental labels, Type I, Type II and Type III developed by the
Strategic Advisory Group (D’Souza et al., 2007). Type I labelling deals with third party
assessments of the firm’s environmental standards. Stakeholders are responsible for setting
the criteria using a process that involves the industry and consumers. Once the product
reaches the threshold it then qualifies for the label. This is more reliable to consumers due to
the party using an independent verification process beyond that of the manufactures’ claims.
Type II labelling refers to labels which include general claims in written or symbolic form,
such as “recyclable” and/or “ozone friendly”. This type of labels is often seen on product
labels for marketing communication. Type III environmental labelling is a more in-depth
version of Type I labelling in that it requires testing by an independent third party who
collects life cycle inventory data and assesses it against natural indicators such as air
emissions and energy usage (D’Souza et al., 2007).
Although labelling programs such as the one described above provide credible labelling
within the marketplace, it has been found that consumers have poor knowledge of eco-
labelling and are only aware of generic labelling using terms such as “biodegradable” and
“recyclable” (D’Souza et al., 2007). Promoting eco-labelling programs and standards are key to
creating further transparency and upholding sustainable and ethical practices within the
apparel industry. The below programs are leaders in the apparel industry. Not only do they
focus on providing labelling systems, but they also support and promote sustainable and
ethical manufacturing beginning at the farm where the fibres are produced and ending at the
end consumers.
The Better Cotton Initiative. The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) is a not-for-profit
organization that aims to make global cotton production better for the individuals who
produce it and better for the environment in which it grows. They are the largest cotton
sustainability program in the world and partner with over two million cotton farmers in 21
countries (Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), 2019). The BCI works with a diverse range of
stakeholders across the world and throughout the supply chain to promote measurable
improvements for the environment and economies of cotton-producing areas (Better Cotton
Initiative (BCI), 2019).
Fairtrade. Fairtrade is a program that strives to alleviate poverty and provide sustainable
development for farmers. Fairtrade takes a holistic approach to create long-term partnerships
that lead to sustainable and decent livelihoods for the workers and farmers that produce
many popular products (Fair Trade USA, 2019). Fairtrade works to set standards to raise the
bar on social, economic and environmental standards. The Fairtrade mark is one of the most
widely recognized ethical certification labels worldwide (GlobeScan, 2019).
The Oeko-Tex Standard 100. Standard 100 by Oeko-tex is one of the world’s best-known
labels for textiles tested for harmful substances. (OEKO-TEX, 2019). If a textile carries this
label, it signifies that every component has been tested for harmful substances and is
harmless in human ecological terms. Every part of an article must comply with the test
criteria to gain this label’s approval from the coating and outer material to the stitching and
IJCST zipper (OEKO-TEX, 2019). Their tests are globally standardized and updated at least once a
33,3 year to stay current with new scientific information (OEKO-TEX, 2019).
The Global Organic Textile Standard. The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is a
leading textile processing standard worldwide for organic fibres and is backed up by
independent certification of the entire textile supply chain (The Global Organic Textile
Standard (GOTS), 2020). The aim of this standard is to define requirements that ensure
textiles are organic from harvesting to socially and environmental manufacturing and then
340 labelled accurately to provide credibility to the end consumers. This standard covers all
stages of the supply chain to ensure that textiles are made from at least 70% certified organic
natural fibres (The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), 2020).
The Global Recycled Standard. The Global Recycle Standard (GRS) was developed by
Control Union Certification in 2008 and turned over to the Textile Exchange in 2011 (Control
Union Certifications, 2019). The GRS is an international standard that sets requirements for
third-party certification of recycled content, social and environmental practices and chemical
restrictions. Their objectives include defining requirements to ensure accurate content claims
and good working conditions and that harmful environmental and chemical impacts are
minimized throughout the manufacturing process (Control Union Certifications, 2019).

Consumer perceptions of and knowledge about sustainable apparel products

Consumer knowledge of apparel sustainability and related issues such as sustainable fibres
and ethical working conditions is associated with their attitude towards sustainable apparel
products and brands (Su et al., 2019). Park and Kim (2016) state that it is impossible for the
average consumer to differentiate apparel firms’ authentic efforts to enhance sustainability
and greenwashed messages for marketable solutions. Knowledgeable consumers are more
likely to better understand the environmental and social problems created by the business of
fast fashion (Park and Kim, 2016).
Transparency has become an increasingly important issue for consumers who want to
support brands that are doing good in the world. It was found that 42% of millennials say that
they want to know what goes into products and how they are made before they make a
purchase decision (Amed et al., 2018). Consumers are becoming more aware of how and where
their clothing is being produced and therefore are in search of this information from apparel
brands. However, there is still a lack of consumer knowledge regarding socially responsible
practices in the apparel industry, yet consumers expressed positive sentiments towards
sustainability (Hwang et al., 2015; Su et al., 2019).
Apparel firms use varied forms of socially responsible marketing and promotion to
communicate empathy for others, concern for the rights and welfare of others and actions
that benefit others (Hyllegard et al., 2014). This includes hang tags and sewn in labels that are
typically used to show legally required information such as the fibre content, care
instructions and country of origin. The other use of labels and hang tags is to share
information such as the brand name, product attributes and brand missions or philosophies.
It has been found previously that retail brands can benefit from stressing social
responsibility-related attributes of products through the use of labelling as it influences the
purchase decision and willingness to pay for the item (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2010). However,
it has also been found that consumers are not willing to sacrifice price and style for
responsible apparel items (Gam et al., 2014). Pricing of apparel products has been found to be
one of the largest decision factors impacting the consumer’s perception of the product and
their purchase intention (Tong and Su, 2018). Brands are attempting to combat this by
increasing transparency throughout their supply chain to increase the perceived value of a
garment (Amed et al., 2018).
 Aspers (2008) discussed how ethical and environmental labelling systems could be Investigating
implemented in fashion garment markets. His research found that consumers are consumer
overwhelmed with the amount of information that is provided to them; the addition of
environmental or social labelling only further complicates the decision-making process
behaviour
(Aspers, 2008). His proposal is to create a system in which consumers have the choice to pay
an additional price for a garment to promote ethical and sustainable initiatives.
Value-based labelling was further studied by Hustvedt and Bernard (2008). They focused
on understanding consumer willingness to pay for a garment that was produced in a 341
sustainable and socially responsible manner. Their findings suggest that consumers are
interested in knowing about the origins and fibre attributes of products before making a
purchase decision. Key findings indicate that consumers are willing to pay more for garments
labelled as organic and locally produced (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2008). This suggests that
consumers are overall interested in the claims found on apparel items and are willing to pay
more for certain attributes outlined on the labelling of the product.

Research questions
This study aims to investigate US consumers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards sustainable
apparel and apparel labelling from a holistic view. This study offers potential contributions to
the literature of sustainable apparel and apparel labelling by empirically addressing the
following research questions (RQs):
RQ1. What is the level of consumers’ apparel sustainability knowledge?
RQ2. What are consumers’ attitudes towards apparel production?
RQ3. What are consumers’ perceptions of apparel labelling?
RQ4. What are consumers’ perceptions of environmental and/or social labels on apparel
products?
RQ5. What are consumers’ purchase intentions towards environmentally and/or socially
responsible apparel products?
RQ6. What are the effects of social norms in the consumer’s decision to purchase apparel
from environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing brands?
RQ7. What are consumers’ beliefs in their relationship with nature (man-nature orientation)?
RQ8. Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and
consumers in the 35 and older age group regarding their attitudes towards the
importance of environmental and/or social information on apparel labels?
RQ9. Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and
consumers in the 35 and older age group regarding their perceptions of apparel
labelling?
RQ10. Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and
consumers in the 35 and older age group regarding their perceptions of
environmental and/or social labels on apparel products?

Method
A national consumer survey was conducted in the United States to collect quantitative data
for this study. The survey consisted of a series of questions aiming to understand consumer
experiences and perceptions of apparel labelling, as well as environmentally and ethically
IJCST produced apparel products. In addition, the demographic questions inquired about the
33,3 participants’ age, gender, race, education level, marital status, income and occupation. Five-
point Likert scale was used in the survey questions (1 5 Strongly Disagree; 5 5 Strongly
Agree). Questions used for this survey were adapted from the previous research (Chan, 2001;
D’Souza et al., 2007; Dickson, 2001; Diddi and Niehm, 2017; Goswami, 2008; Hustvedt and
Bernard, 2010; Hwang et al., 2015; Ma and Lee, 2012; Park and Kim, 2016). The survey was
created using Qualtrics and distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a
342 crowdsourcing website where participants can perform anonymous tasks for researchers.
Five hundred data were collected; however, there was a total of 399 useable responses
collected from this survey.

Results and discussion

Respondent profile
Table 1 shows the profile of the sample respondents. Participants aged 18–24, 25–34, 35–44
and 45 and older accounted for 13.8%, 51.6%, 19.8% and 14.8% of survey takers. 55.6% of
the respondents are male and 43.6% are female. In terms of racial or ethnic background,
50.1% of the respondents are Asian, 35.1% Caucasian and 6% Black or African American.
Educational levels varied among the respondents, with 38.6% having a 4-year degree, 17.8%
having a master’s degree and 15% having some college. Slightly over half of the respondents
are married at 50.9%, followed by those never married at 37.6%. Most respondents answered
that for the previous year, their total household income was from $25,000 to $49,999 at 27.8%,
followed by $50,000 to $74,999 at 26.1%. The respondents had a wide range of occupations, as
shown in Table 1.
The results of the survey were analysed for overall responses and by age groups to
answer the research questions outlined above. Each of these questions aims to understand
the current state of consumers within the apparel industry and their consumer experience
regarding sustainable, environmental and social apparel and apparel labelling. It was found
that 78.2% of the respondents have purchased environmentally and/or socially responsible
apparel in the last five years and 18.5% have not (Table 2).

RQ1: What is the level of consumers’ apparel sustainability knowledge?

This research question aims to understand the participants’ level of knowledge regarding
sustainable apparel products and the environmental and social impacts of the industry.
Descriptive analysis indicates that overall, participants agreed that they were knowledgeable
about sustainability within the apparel industry (Table 3). Consumers are more
knowledgeable about social equity issues than environmental issues in the fashion apparel
industry. However, consumers know more about eco-friendly apparel brands than socially
responsible apparel brands. Table 3 indicates that consumers are aware of sustainability
issues within the industry yet are less aware of brands or businesses that are engaged in
sustainable and ethical practices.

RQ2: What are consumers’ attitudes towards apparel production?

This research question is to understand consumers’ overall attitudes towards apparel
production (Table 4). Most respondents felt that factory workers who produce apparel
products should be paid a fair wage (M 5 4.23, SD 5 0.872). Consumers felt neutral when
asked if they feel that they can do something about sweatshops with the mean at 3.11. The
results indicate that consumers do not feel strongly that they have an ability to make an
impact on where or how their garments are being produced, such as sweatshops in apparel
Characteristics Frequency Percent
Investigating
consumer
Age behaviour
18–24 55 13.8
25–34 206 51.6
35–44 79 19.8
45–54 43 10.8
55–64 15 3.8 343
65–74 1 0.3
Gender
Female 174 43.6
Male 222 55.6
Gender variant/Non-conforming 1 0.3
Prefer not to answer 2 0.5
Race
American Indian or Alaska native 9 2.3
Asian 200 50.1
Black or African American 24 6
Caucasian 140 35.1
Hispanic 15 3.8
Other 11 2.8
Education
Less than high school 1 0.3
High school graduate 39 9.8
Some college 60 15.0
2-year degree 27 6.8
4-year degree 154 38.6
Master’s degree 71 17.8
Professional degree 42 10.5
Doctorate 5 1.3
Marital status
Married 203 50.9
Widowed 6 1.5
Divorced 16 4
Separated 17 4.3
Never married 150 37.6
Other 7 1.8
Income
Less than $25,00 90 22.6
$25,000 to $49,999 112 28.1
$50,000 to $74,999 104 26.1
$75,000 to $99,999 59 14.8
$100,000 to $149,999 25 6.3
$150,000 and over 9 2.3
Occupation
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 14 3.5
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 24 6.0
Computer, electronics, telecommunications related 52 13.0
Construction 17 4.3
Education 32 8.0
Finance and Insurance 30 7.5
Government and Public Administration 7 1.8
Table 1.
(continued ) Sample profile
IJCST Characteristics Frequency Percent
33,3
Health Care and Social Assistance 31 7.8
Homemaker 17 4.3
Hotel and Food Service 13 3.3
Information Services and Data Processing 53 13.3
Legal Service 5 1.3
344 Manufacturing 26 6.5
Retail and Wholesale 20 5.0
Scientific or Technical Services 9 2.3
Software 17 4.3
Transportation and Warehousing 6 1.5
Others 26 6.5
Table 1. Total 399 100

Percentage
Purchase experience Yes No

Table 2. Have you ever purchased environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing product(s) 78.2 18.5
Purchase experience during the last 5 years?

Standard
Apparel sustainability knowledge Mean deviation

I am knowledgeable about social equity issues (e.g. working conditions of factory 3.73 1.05
workers, fair wage for factory workers) in the fashion apparel business
I understand the environmental impact of apparel products across the supply 3.61 1.118
chain
I am informed about environmental issues (e.g. eco-fashion, environmental impact 3.59 1.088
of clothing manufacturing) in the fashion apparel manufacturing business
Table 3. I am informed about child labour/sweat shop issues in the fashion apparel 3.58 1.051
Consumer’s apparel manufacturing business
sustainability I am knowledgeable about apparel brands that sell environmentally-friendly 3.57 1.129
knowledge; mean and products
standard deviation I know more about socially-responsible apparel business than the average person 3.34 1.161

Standard
Attitudes towards apparel production Mean deviation

Factory workers who make apparel products should get paid a fair wage 4.23 0.872
I am concerned about issues affecting workers in clothing manufacturing 3.94 0.912
Table 4. business
Consumer’s attitudes I believe there is a lot that individual apparel consumers can do to improve the 3.84 0.981
towards apparel environment
production; mean and I am concerned about the impact of clothing production on the environment 3.78 1.056
standard deviation There is nothing I can do about sweatshops 3.11 1.228
production. However, respondents feel that individual apparel consumers can improve the Investigating
environment and are concerned about the impact of clothing production. consumer
behaviour
RQ3: What are consumers’ perceptions of apparel labelling?
Apparel labelling is important to consider when understanding the consumers’ purchase
intention. Labels are used to provide information about a product to consumers. The results
(Table 5) are interesting as the majority of respondents are satisfied with apparel labels 345
(M 5 3.73, SD 5 0.872), yet they still feel instructions for use need to be included on labels
(M 5 3.88, SD 5 0.978). This may indicate that the respondents are unsure if the labels found
on apparel items are trustworthy. In addition to this, data also indicate that many consumers
do not spend much time thinking about where their clothes come from or they are likely not to
read apparel labels. These behaviours further lead to the idea that consumers are not
knowledgeable or informed about environmental and/or social issues within the apparel
industry.

RQ4: What are consumers’ perceptions of environmental and/or social labels on apparel
products?
Consumers’ perceptions of apparel labelling are discussed in RQ3; RQ4 seeks to further
analyse these perceptions in regards to their perceptions of environmental and/or social
labelling of apparel products (Table 6). The largest standard deviation in this set of items is
SD 5 1.272 (with M 5 3.08), indicating that respondents have varying knowledge and
understanding of the concepts on environmental and/or social labels of apparel products.
This implies that consumers are not knowledgeable about the information provided on
sustainable labels. Many respondents also indicated that such labels are hard to understand

Standard
Consumer behaviour towards apparel labels Mean deviation

Instructions for use need to be included on labels 3.88 0.978

I am satisfied with apparel labels 3.73 0.872
I rely on past experience in purchasing instead of reading the labels 3.66 1.085
Labels on apparel products are accurate 3.62 0.986 Table 5.
I always read labels when I purchase apparel 3.57 1.204 Consumer behaviour
I do not spend much time thinking about where my clothes come from 3.47 1.188 towards apparel labels;
Labels on apparel products are hard to understand 3.27 1.184 mean and standard
I do not really have time to read labels when I am shopping for apparel products 3.15 1.271 deviation

Standard
Consumer behaviour towards environmental and/or social labels Mean deviation

I generally believe in the environmental and/or social information on apparel 3.78 0.869
product labels
I believe that the information on environmental and/or social labels of apparel 3.56 0.932 Table 6.
products is accurate Consumer behaviour
I am satisfied with the environmental and/or social labels on apparel products 3.56 0.983 towards environmental
Environmental and/or social labels on apparel products are hard to understand 3.38 1.185 and/or social labels;
I do not understand the concepts on environmental and/or social labels of apparel 3.08 1.272 mean and standard
products deviation
IJCST as the mean is 3.38 for this question item. Consumers generally believe in the sustainability
33,3 information on apparel labels, but they may not understand the information displayed in
environmental or social labels.

RQ5: What are consumers’ purchase intentions towards environmentally and/or socially
responsible apparel products?
346 The question items in Table 7 aim to understand consumers’ purchase intentions towards
environmentally and/or socially responsible apparel products along with which terms
influence the purchase decision (Table 7). The results imply that consumers would make an
extra effort to purchase clothing from environmentally and/or socially responsible brands.
Consumers intend to purchase sustainable clothing, but their willingness to pay more for
environmentally and/or socially responsible apparel products is not high (M 5 3.65,
SD 5 1.176). There is a gap between consumer’s intention to purchase and their willingness to
pay more for sustainable apparel products.
The second part of this research question focuses on terms in which consumers are more
likely to purchase such apparel items. The terms “Environmentally Friendly”, “100%
Cotton” and “Ethically-Sourced” had the highest mean scores (4.0, 3.96 and 3.87
respectively). Terms such as “Recycled”, “Made in the USA” and “Organic” had mean
scores of 3.78, 3.77 and 3.77 respectively. This indicated that apparel labels that include the
terms “Environmentally Friendly”, “100% Cotton” and “Ethically-Sourced” would possibly
be of higher interest to consumers. This is partially in contrast to a previous study by
Cotton Incorporated’s 2013 survey (Cotton Incorporated, 2013) in which the terms “100%
Cotton” and “Made in the USA” are most likely to influence their apparel purchase decisions
had the highest consumer interest, while “Ethically-sourced” and “Recycled” had the lower
consumer interest.

RQ6: What are the effects of social norms in the consumer’s decision to purchase apparel
from environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing brands?
Social norms are an important factor in consumers’ decision-making process and, therefore,
must be considered. This is equally true when it comes to their decisions to purchase apparel
products that are environmentally and/or socially responsible. Table 8 reports the results
associated with consumer perceptions of the impact of social influences. Overall, the effects of
social norms on consumer’s decision to purchase sustainable clothing are low-medium. The

Standard
Purchase intention Mean deviation

I will purchase environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing products 3.90 0.955
I will make an extra effort to purchase clothing from environmentally and/or 3.84 1.039
socially responsible clothing brands
Before making a purchase, I will read the clothing label to see if it is 3.88 1.108
environmentally and/or socially responsible
I will pay more for clothing from environmentally and/or socially responsible 3.65 1.176
clothing brands
I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “Environmentally Friendly” 4.0 0.982
I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “100% Cotton” 3.96 0.962
Table 7. I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “Ethically-Sourced” 3.87 1.035
Purchase intention; I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “Recycled” 3.78 1.038
mean and standard I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “Made in the USA” 3.77 1.029
deviation I am more likely to purchase clothing that is labelled “Organic” 3.77 1.088
 Standard
Investigating
Social norms Mean deviation consumer
behaviour
Social media platforms influence my decision to purchase apparel from 3.25 1.338
environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing brands
My family members influence my decision to purchase apparel from 3.12 1.333
environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing brands
My friends influence my decision to purchase apparel from environmentally and/ 3.02 1.325 347
or socially responsible clothing brands
My co-workers influence my decision to purchase apparel from environmentally 2.98 1.408
and/or socially responsible clothing brands Table 8.
Celebrities influence my decision to purchase apparel from environmentally and/ 2.95 1.415 Social norms; mean
or socially responsible clothing brands and standard deviation

question items show the largest standard deviations, meaning that participants had a wider
range of responses and further indicating that social norms vary from person to person. The
social factors studied in this section include friends, co-workers, family, social media
platforms and celebrities. Social media platforms and family members are more likely to have
an effect on consumers than celebrities or co-workers. Celebrities show to have a varying
impact on consumers’ purchase decisions with SD 5 1.415, the highest out of this group of
questions. This indicates that while celebrities play a role in the decision-making process of
purchasing apparel from environmentally and/or socially responsible clothing brands for
some individuals, some other consumers may be turned away by marketing that includes
public figures.

RQ7: What are consumers’ beliefs in their relationship with nature (man-nature orientation)?
Four question items were asked to understand consumers’ beliefs in their relationship with
nature – man-nature orientation (Table 9). These results indicate that consumers place
emphasis on living in harmony with nature and feel a need to understand environmental
issues and act upon them. This is positive as respondents feel that they are part of nature
rather than detached from it, indicating a desire to make purchase decisions for apparel
products that are produced in sustainable methods for the environment.

RQ8: Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and consumers
in the 35 and older age group regarding their attitudes towards the importance of
environmental and/or social information on apparel labels?
To examine whether there are any differences between two different age groups (consumers
in the 18–34 age group and consumers in the 35 and older age group) regarding their attitudes
towards the importance of environmental and/or social information on apparel products, four
t-tests were conducted (Table 10). Although consumers in both age groups think label
information such as environmental, social, locally grown/produced and “Make in the USA” is
important, the t-test results indicate that there is a significant difference between the two age

Standard
The man-nature orientation Mean deviation

We should maintain harmony with nature 4.23 0.896

Human beings need to understand the ways of nature and act accordingly 4.11 0.84 Table 9.
Human beings are only part of nature 4.09 1.044 The man-nature
Being the master of the world, human beings are entitled to deploy any of the 3.2 1.389 orientation; mean and
natural resources as they like standard deviation
IJCST groups regarding the importance of environmental information (e.g. organic cotton logo,
33,3 organic certificate, eco-label, recycled material) on apparel product labels. Compared with
millennials (ages 18–34), consumers aged 35 and older place even greater importance on
environmental information on apparel labels. Consumers in the two age groups have a similar
attitude towards the importance of information concerning social, locally grown/produced
and Made-in-the-USA on apparel product labels.
348
RQ9: Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and consumers
in the 35 and older age group regarding their perceptions of apparel labelling?
To examine whether there are any differences between two different age groups (consumers
in the 18–34 age group and consumers in the 35 and older age group) regarding their
perceptions of apparel labelling, eight t-tests were performed (Table 11). The results indicate
statistically significant differences between the two age groups regarding the following
statements “I am satisfied with apparel labels” (t (394) 5 2.868, p < 0.01), “Labels on apparel
products are hard to understand” (t (394) 5 3.353, p < 0.001), “Labels on apparel products are
accurate” (t (394) 5 3.562, p < 0.001) and “I do not really have time to read labels when I am

18–34 35 and older

(n 5 260) (n 5 136)
Std. Std.
Attitudes towards the importance of sustainable information Mean dev Mean dev t-value

I believe that environmental information on apparel product 3.98 0.85 4.18 0.97 2.069*
labels (e.g. organic cotton logo, organic certificate, eco-labels,
recycled materials) is important
Table 10. I believe that social information on apparel product labels (e.g. 4.03 0.89 4.20 1.01 1.662
Differences in the “fair trade”, “fair labour condition”, “good working condition”,
attitudes towards the “ethically sourced”) is important
importance of
I believe that the information like “locally grown”, “locally 3.91 0.94 4.07 0.97 1.534
sustainable
information on apparel produced”, “US grown” on apparel product label is important
labels between I believe that the information “Made in the USA” on apparel 4.01 0.99 4.09 1.03 0.762
consumers in two age product label is important
groups Note(s): Valid sample size N 5 396. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

35 and older
18–34 (n 5 260) (n 5 136)
Std. Std.
Consumer behaviour towards apparel labels Mean dev Mean dev t-value

I always read labels when I purchase apparel 3.60 1.16 3.51 1.29 0.675
I rely on past experience in purchasing instead of reading 3.72 1.07 3.54 1.12 1.571
the labels
I am satisfied with apparel labels 3.82 0.86 3.55 0.87 2.868**
Labels on apparel products are hard to understand 3.42 1.15 3.00 1.21 3.353***
Labels on apparel products are accurate 3.74 0.99 3.37 0.94 3.562***
Instructions for use need to be included on labels 3.90 0.93 3.86 1.07 0.385
Table 11.
Differences in I do not spend much time thinking about where my clothes 3.55 1.15 3.33 1.26 1.760
consumer behaviour come from
towards apparel I do not really have time to read labels when I am shopping 3.38 1.20 2.69 1.29 5.252***
labelling between two for apparel products
age groups Note(s): Valid sample size N 5 396. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
shopping for apparel products (t (394) 5 5.252, p < 0.001). Compared with consumers aged 35 Investigating
and older, younger consumers (age 18–34) are more satisfied with apparel labels and more consumer
likely to think apparel labels are accurate; however, they are more likely to feel labels are hard
to understand and are more likely not to read labels when they are shopping for apparel
behaviour
products (Table 11).

RQ10: Are there any differences between consumers in the 18–34 age group and consumers 349
in the 35 and older age group regarding their perceptions of environmental and/or social
labels on apparel products?
To examine whether there is any difference between two different age groups (consumers in
the 18–34 age group and consumers in the 35 and older age group) regarding their
perceptions of environmental and social labels, five t-tests were performed (Table 12). The
results indicate significant differences between the two age groups regarding the following
statements: “Environmental and/or social labels on apparel products are hard to understand”
(t (394) 5 4.602, p < 0.001), “I believe that the information on environmental and/or social
labels of apparel products is accurate” (t (394) 5 2.839, p < 0.01), “I do not understand the
concepts on environmental and/or social labels of apparel products” (t (394) 5 4.762,
p < 0.001) and “I generally believe in the environmental and/or social information on apparel
product labels” (t (394) 5 2.236, p < 0.05). Consumers in the younger age group are more likely
to feel environmental and/or social labels are hard to understand than consumers 35 and older
(Table 12).

Conclusion
This study investigates US consumers’ perceptions of and attitude towards sustainable apparel
and apparel labelling from a holistic view. The study profiles consumers’ understanding of
apparel labelling, environmental and social labels and their knowledge of apparel sustainability.
Overall, it is apparent that respondents have an interest in environmental and social labelling yet
are not aware of brands that sell these types of garments nor their validity. It was also found that
consumers may not have much knowledge regarding sustainable apparel labels or their
meanings. This will require brands to educate consumers about their practices and how they label
their apparel garments. This is in line with previous research stated in the industry review that
consumers have a hard time understanding eco-labels but feel that they can make a difference on
the impact of the industry (D’Souza et al., 2007; Hahn-Petersen, 2018). Sustainably and ethically
produced garments are of demand as transparency in the industry grows. Brands looking to

18–34 35 and older

(n 5 260) (n 5 136)
Consumer behaviour towards environmental and/or social Std. Std.
labels Mean dev Mean dev t-value

I am satisfied with the environmental and/or social labels on 3.61 0.96 3.47 1.03 1.329
apparel products
Environmental and/or social labels on apparel products are 3.57 1.16 3.01 1.15 4.602***
hard to understand
I believe that the information on environmental and/or social 3.66 0.88 3.38 0.96 2.839** Table 12.
labels of apparel products is accurate Differences in
consumer behaviour
I do not understand the concepts on environmental and/or 3.29 1.22 2.66 1.27 4.762*** towards environmental
social labels of apparel products and/or social labels on
I generally believe in the environmental and/or social 3.86 0.82 3.65 0.95 2.236* apparel products
information on apparel product labels between two age
Note(s): Valid sample size N 5 396. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 groups
IJCST become moretransparentabout their production methods willneedto find newwaysto reach their
33,3 target market by accurately labelling products and educating their consumers about these claims.
The growing use of environmental, sustainable and social labels suggests consumers
have valued more and more on transparency issues regarding apparel product’s origin,
production methods and environmental impacts (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2008, 2010). The
results of this study relate to previous research (Hwang et al., 2015; Su et al., 2019) as
consumers expressed positive sentiments towards sustainability, yet they lacked knowledge
350 about social and environmental practices within the apparel industry. The literature argues
that to promote environmental and ethical products in contemporary market societies, it is
often assumed that consumers should know about the products and their production
conditions (Aspers, 2008). The present study extends previous literature by providing an
updated profile of consumers regarding their perspective of environmental, sustainable and
social apparel. Previous research studies on apparel labelling and sustainable apparel labels
focused more on consumer markets in European countries or Australia. Using data collected
from US consumers, the study confirms previous literature that customers are uncertain not
only about the actual conditions of production but also the different labelling systems
(Aspers, 2008; D’Souza et al., 2007). Moreover, each additional label used increases the
complexity of product information, making it more difficult for consumers to make well-
informed choices.
The data were additionally analysed from an age group perspective. It shows that
consumers in the younger age group (18–34) are more satisfied with apparel labelling, which is
consistent with what D’Souza et al. (2007) found in their study – “label dissatisfaction is higher in
the older and middle age groups” (p. 375). However, the present study demonstrates that
consumers in the younger age group are also more likely to feel that apparel labels are hard to
understand and are more likely not to read labels when they are shopping for apparel products.
Regarding environmental, sustainable and social labels, the study results conclude that there
are minimal differences in consumers’ attitudes towards the importance of environmental and/
or social information listed on apparel labels. However, it was found that younger consumers
(age 18–34) are more likely to feel that environmental and/or social labels are hard to understand
than consumers age 35 and older. This indicates that apparel brands should invest in marketing
towards younger consumers regarding their sustainable business practices. Additionally, this
may indicate that brands will need to market their sustainability practices through other means
than apparel labels. Further marketing, promotion and education efforts are needed in the
industry to better communicate sustainable labels with young generations.
While the results of this study provide insights into the development of marketing
strategies that could positively influence consumer behaviour towards environmental,
sustainable and social apparel, limitations should be addressed. First, there was an uneven
age distribution in the data; thus, we only compared two broad age groups (consumers 18–34
and consumers 35 and older). Future research should investigate the differences across more
specific generational cohort groups to accurately compare the generational differences in
attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and purchase behaviour. Second, there is a limited
representation of multiple racial backgrounds as the majority of the respondents identified as
Asian or Caucasian. Third, the survey used Likert type questions which allowed respondents
to choose “Neither Agree nor Disagree” as a response. This makes it difficult to understand
the true representation of the respondents’ answers. Future research could include photos of
eco-labels or social labels to identify the respondent’s knowledge of such labels.

References
Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M., Berg, A., Hedrich, S. and R€olkens, F. (2018), “The state of
fashion 2019: a year of awakening”, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/
our-insights/the-state-of-fashion-2019-a-year-of-awakening (accessed 11 November 2019).
Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Berg, A., Hedrich, S., Poojara, S. and R€olkens, F. (2019), “The state of Investigating
fashion 2020: navigating uncertainty”, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/
retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion-2020-navigating-uncertainty. consumer
Aspers, P. (2008), “Labelling fashion markets”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32
behaviour
No. 6, pp. 633-638.
Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) (2019), “About BCI”, available at: https://bettercotton.org/about-bci/
(accessed 22 November 2019).
351
Bhaduri, G. and Ha-Brookshire, J.E. (2011), “Do transparent business practices pay? Exploration of
transparency and consumer purchase intention”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Bocken, N.M.P. and Allwood, J.M. (2012), “Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods
by influencing stakeholders”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 35, pp. 118-129.
Chan, R.Y.K. (2001), “Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 389-413.
Chen, H.L. and Burns, L.D. (2006), “Environmental analysis of textile products”, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 248-261.
Conca, J. (2015), “Making climate change fashionable - the garment industry takes on global
warming”, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-
change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#1ced22f179e4 (accessed 22
November 2019).
Control Union Certifications (2019), “GRS - global recycle standard”, available at: https://certifications.
controlunion.com/en/certification-programs/certification-programs/grs-global-recycle-standard
(accessed 22 November 2019).
Cotton Incorporated (2013), “Consumer perspectives on ‘green’ apparel”, available at: https://
lifestylemonitor.cottoninc.com/consumer-perspectives-on-green-apparel/ (accessed 11
November 2019).
Dickson, M.A. (2001), “Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and
predicting their purchases”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 96-119.
Diddi, S. and Niehm, L.S. (2017), “Exploring the role of values and norms towards consumers’
intentions to patronize retail apparel brands engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR)”,
Fashion and Textiles, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 5.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. and Peretiatko, R. (2007), “Green decisions: demographics and
consumer understanding of environmental labels”, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 371-376.
Ecolabel Index (2019), “Ecolabel index”, available at: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (accessed 11
November 2019).
Fair Trade USA (2019), “Why fair trade”, available at: https://www.fairtradecertified.org/why-fair-
trade (accessed 22 November 2019).
Forum for the Future (2019), “Fashion futures 2025”, available at: https://www.forumforthefuture.org/
fashion-futures-2025 (accessed 22 November 2019).
Gam, H.J., Ma, Y.J. and Banning, J. (2014), “Socially responsible apparel labels: effects on fashionable
shoppers”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 292-305.
Ginetex (2019), “Sustainable textile care”, available at: https://www.ginetex.net/GB/clevercare-info/
clevercare-info.asp (accessed 22 November 2019).
GlobeScan (2019), “Consumers see Fairtrade as reflection of their personal values, based on fair prices,
living income and improving farmer livelihoods”, available at: https://globescan.com/fairtrade-
reflection-consumers-personal-values/ (accessed 22 November 2019).
Goswami, P. (2008), “Is the urban Indian consumer ready for clothing with eco-labels?”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 438-446.
IJCST Hahn-Petersen, L.A. (2018), “Think tank: welcome to fashion’s eco-label jungle”, available at: https://
wwd.com/business-news/business-features/eco-label-guide-think-tank-1202689227/ (accessed 11
33,3 November 2019).
Hustvedt, G. and Bernard, J.C. (2008), “Consumer willingness to pay for sustainable apparel: the
influence of labelling for fibre origin and production methods”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 491-498.
Hustvedt, G. and Bernard, J.C. (2010), “Effects of social responsibility labelling and brand on
352 willingness to pay for apparel”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 619-626.
Hwang, C.G., Lee, Y.A. and Diddi, S. (2015), “Generation Y’s moral obligation and purchase intentions
for organic, fair-trade, and recycled apparel products”, International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 97-107.
Hyllegard, K.H., Paff Ogle, J. and Yan, R.-N. (2014), “College students’ responses to prosocial
marketing claims on apparel hang tags”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-283.
Ma, Y.J. and Lee, H.H. (2012), “Understanding consumption behaviours for fair trade non-food
products: focusing on self-transcendence and openness to change values”, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 622-634.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H. and Paladino, A. (2014), “Perceived greenwashing: the interactive
effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 693-707.
OEKO-TEX (2019), “OEKO-TEX®: our standards”, available at: https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/our-
standards (accessed 22 November 2019).
Park, H. and Kim, Y.K. (2016), “Proactive versus reactive apparel brands in sustainability: influences
on brand loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 29, pp. 114-122.
Su, J., Watchravesringkan, K., Zhou, J. and Gil, M. (2019), “Sustainable clothing: perspectives from US
and Chinese young millennials”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 47 No. 11, pp. 1141-1162.
The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) (2020), “General description”, available at: https://www.
global-standard.org/the-standard/general-description.html (accessed 19 July 2020).
Thomas, S. (2018), Fashion Ethics, Routledge, London.
Tong, X. and Su, J. (2018), “Exploring young consumers’ trust and purchase intention of organic
cotton apparel”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 522-532.

Further reading
Thread Channel (2015), “Sustainability in fashion”, available at: https://sustainabilityx.co/
sustainability-in-fashion-d8bc7321f1f8 (accessed 11 November 2019).

Corresponding author
Jin Su can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]