The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption

Abstract

The growth in ethical consumption behaviour and greater interest in sustainable fashion from
a production side provides grounding for the emergence of a new consumer market for
sustainable fashion. To date however most studies in this field focus on the production end of
the emerging market, with little exploration of the consumers. Of the work there is on
sustainable fashion consumption, the majority discuss perceptions of sustainable fashion by
the general population, with little work sampling actual consumers of sustainable fashion.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the values and motivations underpinning
actual sustainable fashion consumption. 39 in-depth interviews were conducted with a sample
of frequent sustainable clothing consumers. The study follows a means-end theory approach
linking purchased products back to purchasing criteria and personal values. This study
therefore contributes to the overall understanding of sustainable fashion consumption and
gives insights into purchasing criteria and behavioural choices of sustainable fashion
consumers.

Full text

The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion
consumption
Abstract
The growth in ethical consumption behaviour and greater interest in sustainable fashion from
a production side provides grounding for the emergence of a new consumer market for
sustainable fashion. To date however most studies in this field focus on the production end of
the emerging market, with little exploration of the consumers. Of the work there is on
sustainable fashion consumption, the majority discuss perceptions of sustainable fashion by
the general population, with little work sampling actual consumers of sustainable fashion.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the values and motivations underpinning
actual sustainable fashion consumption. 39 in-depth interviews were conducted with a sample
of frequent sustainable clothing consumers. The study follows a means-end theory approach
linking purchased products back to purchasing criteria and personal values. This study
therefore contributes to the overall understanding of sustainable fashion consumption and
gives insights into purchasing criteria and behavioural choices of sustainable fashion
consumers.
Key Words: Sustainable Fashion, Ethical-Luxury, Sustainable Consumption, Ethical
Consumption

2
The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion
consumption
1. Introduction
At first glance, fashion and sustainability may seem like two inherently contradictory
concepts; the former is defined by hedonism and short product life cycles, especially in fast-
fashion (Ertekin & Atik 2015), while the latter implies ethics, durability and the reuse of
products (Cervellon et al. 2010). Nevertheless, the overlap of personal ethics and fashion is
certainly not a new idea. The first anti-fur campaigns appeared in the 1980’s and in the late
90’s numerous sweatshop scandals surfaced, putting significant social pressure on fashion
companies and retailers to implement better monitoring programs over their factories (BSR
2012). This has been followed by the emergence of a sustainable fashion consumer
movement (Guedes 2011) with Vogue, the American fashion and lifestyle magazine,
labelling the environment as new a trend in fashion.
The growing interest in sustainable fashion has been stimulating fashion houses and retailers
to take action. Stella McCartney, the British clothes designer who is known for refusing to
use leather or fur in any of her designs, launched her first clothing line in 2001. Edun was co-
founded by Alie Hewson and U2 singer Bono in 2005, with the mission to promote positive
change in Africa through fair-trade based relationships (Edun 2013). In 2004, the first Ethical
Fashion Show was held in Paris (Guedes 2011). Then in 2009, New York Fashion Week
launched its first Eco Fashion Week, and one year later the first official sustainable fashion
show took place at London Fashion Week 2010 (Streit and Davies, 2013). Even established
powerhouses, like Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy Group (LVMH), got involved by acquiring
a 49% stake in Edun. Further, the trend towards sustainable fashion has also reached high
street fashion brands, such as H&M with its organic Conscious Collection and MUJI’s fair
trade products (Shen et al. 2012). With the growth of online retailing, brands solely dedicated
to sustainable fashion such as Komodo and People Tree have also begun to emerge.
The sustainable fashion market has continued to grow even in times of economic downturn.
In 2011, the ethical market in the UK was worth £47.2 billion, with ethical personal products
including clothing and cosmetics being the fastest growing sectors. The sales of ethical

3
clothing peaked at £177 million in 2010 (up from only £5m in 2000) and second hand
clothing to £330 million in 2011 (Co-operative Bank Ethical Consumerism Report 2012).
Within the literature however, limited research investigates the motivations driving
consumers of sustainable fashion. The vast majority of literature in the field looks down the
supply chain (Carrigan et al. 2013; Fletcher 2013; Pederson & Gwozdz 2014) and of the
limited number of studies investigating consumer responses to sustainable fashion only Bly et
al. (2015) purposefully sample sustainable fashion consumers, focusing on how a 10 highly
vocal online activists define themselves as sustainable fashion consumers. Our understanding
of sustainable fashion consumption is therefore minimal. Research in the broader context of
ethical consumption suggests personal values play a pivotal role in ethical decision-making
(Connolly & Prothero 2008; Schaefer & Crane 2005). Values are therefore explored in this
paper by relating them to motivations to purchase and the consequences of purchasing actual
sustainable fashion for frequent consumers. Therefore, the research objective of this paper is
to explore the values and motivations underpinning frequent sustainable fashion
consumption.
2. Sustainable Fashion consumption
A single definition of sustainable fashion is difficult to pinpoint as there is no industry
standard. The concept of sustainable fashion encompasses a variety of terms such as organic,
green, fair trade, sustainable, slow, eco, etc (Cervellon et al 2010), each attempting to
highlight or correct a variety of perceived wrongs in the fashion industry including animal
cruelty; environmental damage and worker exploitation (Bianchi & Birtwistle 2010;
Blanchard 2013; Bray 2009). Within the literature terms get used interchangeably and often
for different purposes, for instance Joergens (2006:361) define “ethical fashion" as
“fashionable clothes that incorporate fair trade principles with sweatshop-free labour
conditions while not harming the environment or workers by using biodegradable and
organic cotton”, whereas Cervellon & Wernerfelt (2012) use "green fashion" to refer to much
the same set of issues. However both of these focus on the garment as the definitive article in
sustainable fashion, whereas use / consumption is suggested to be the aspect of clothing
which has the greatest impact upon the environment (Laitala et al., 2012; Allwood et al.,
2008). For instance Fletcher (2013) suggests 82% of the energy used during a garment’s

4
lifecycle comes from the laundering process, and textile waste increased by an average of
about 2 million tonnes per year between 2005 and 2010 in the UK (Niinimäki & Hassi
2011). Therefore aspects of consumption such as laundering, use, re-use and disposal can
have a substantial impact on the sustainability of a garment and should not be excluded from
a definition (Cervellon et al. 2010). For the purposes of this paper we use the broadest view
of sustainable fashion to encompass the myriad of issues of an ethical or environmental
nature in the production and consumption of fashion. However as a consumer study we must
accept there will be a certain level of self-definition by participants and accept that consumer
perceptions of what is sustainable are not necessarily those scientific studies suggest to be
most sustainable (Connell 2011).
In common with the Cervellon & Wernerfelt (2012) and Joergens (2006) definitions it is the
supply chain (see Fletcher 2013; Nagurney & Yu 2008), fashion brands (Pederson & Gwozdz
2014; Shaw et al 2006) and the retailing of garments (see Ertekin & Atik 2015; Goworek et al
2012) that have had the greatest level of exploration in the sustainable fashion literature.
Surprisingly little has been studied regarding the consumption of, and in particular the
purchasing decision process of actual sustainable fashion consumers (Carrigan et al 2013;
Bly et al 2015; Fletcher 2013).
Studies have suggested that consumers have been showing increasing levels of ethical
concerns in the context of fashion consumption (Niinimäki 2010). Dickson (2001) found
consumers were concerned about the social consequences of their purchases, especially when
human rights in factories are violated. Sweatshop labour in particular has been identified as
one of the most important ethical concern when making clothing decisions (Tomolillo &
Shaw 2004; Freestone & McGoldrick 2008) and Ha-Brookshire & Hodges (2009) found
more than half of respondents would pay $5 or more for organic, sustainable, and US-grown
cottons shirts. Yet most of this research is conducted with general population samples, the
majority of which have in all probability never made an active sustainable fashion
consumption decision. For instance both Shen et al. (2012) and Chan & Wong (2012) explore
consumer motivations to buy sustainable fashion items, but quota sample people shopping in
mainstream stores. Similarly Goworek et al (2012) sample low awareness consumers in their
study and Markkula & Moisander (2012: 111) snowball sample "well-educated adults who
had full-time jobs" as a fairly spurious proxy for "ecologically orientated consumers" (ibid:
111). The results of these studies therefore reproduce findings evident in similarly sampled

5
generic ethical consumption literatures that suggest consumers are disempowered (Markkula
& Moisander 2012), have limited awareness (Goworek et al. 2012; Connell 2010), feel
unable to make sustainable choices with clothing (Iwanow et al. 2005; Joergens 2006; Radin
& Calkins 2006) and require more information and better consumer education (Chan &
Wong 2012; Hill & Lee 2012; Shaw et al. 2006; Shen et al 2012). As such the emerging
literature shows we have the attitude-behaviour gap in the sustainable fashion field as much
as we do in any other ethical consumption spaces (Davies, et al. 2012; Niinimäki 2010).
Many of the barriers to the growth of mainstream sustainable fashion can therefore probably
be assumed from those found in existing ethical consumption literature. In fact Joergens
(2006) notes that consumers have limited choice in sustainable clothing, as the prices are not
comparable to the low-cost fashion available to them. She found that consumers consider the
appearance and style of sustainable fashion unattractive and don’t suit their wardrobe needs.
Consumers also comment that product features such as price, quality, and appearance of
clothing would trump ethics in making clothing decisions; clothing can't just be sustainable
but must also be appealing to the consumer’s aesthetic needs (Beard 2008). This is all
identical to issues raised previously in mainstream ethical consumption literature (see Belz
and Peattie 2009 for example).
For mainstream consumers groups we therefore understand many of the barriers to the
growth of sustainable fashion consumption from the extant ethical consumption literature.
Yet we know virtually nothing about why active sustainable fashion consumers purchase
sustainable fashion (Carrigan et al 2013). In fact Davies et al. (2012) notes there is minimal
research observing actual buying behaviour in sustainable consumption research generally,
questioning how much we genuine know about sustainable consumption practice.
Jägel et al. (2012) is a rare example of motivation driven research into sustainable fashion (or
even ethical consumption generally). They explore hypothetical and future purchases
covering a range of “sustainability” issues on consumers who self-report having done at least
one of: recycling clothing, boycotting a company and buying eco or fair trade clothing. They
report a relatively high incidence of ethical values such as social justice, equality and
supporting the environment as underpinning their hypothetical consumption behaviours.
They also report surprisingly low incidences of self-identity, product quality and style as
motivators for consumption. This goes against the dominant discourse on fashion

6
consumption, which dictates that individuals purchase fashion to fulfil their need for
belonging, self-esteem, to demonstrate social standing and gain acceptance from others (Belk
1985; Easey 2002; Gabriel & Lang 1995; Richins 1994). This mismatch of ethics over style
in the Jägel et al. (2012) study is particularly noteworthy because they identify the sample as
of low frequency sustainable fashion consumers. So although Jägel et al. (2012) make a
positive contribution to exposing the field of sustainable consumption behaviours to
motivation based study, the use of hypothetical rather than actual consumption behaviours
does lead to some scepticism of the social desirability inherent in the ultimate results.
Contrastingly Bly et al. (2015: 126) identifies itself as the first paper to explore "sustainable
fashion consumption pioneers" by interviewing 10 frequent sustainable consumption
bloggers. Our review would similarly suggest this paper is amongst the first to link
motivational research to actual behaviours (in this case blogging) about sustainable fashion
consumption. What makes this paper particularly stand out is that it highlights the total
opposite to the earlier studies on sustainable fashion consumption. These consumers are
knowledgeable, curious about distant markets, feel the social pressure to consume as a
negative pressure and view consumption is the antithesis of sustainability. What's more, in
complete contrast to the mainstream samples used in Achabou & Dekhili (2013), Joergens
(2006) and Markkula and Moisander (2012) amongst others, these pioneers view
sustainability as facilitating better style and quality and, counter to Jägel et al. (2012) and
Joergens (2006), see sustainability as driving well-being and pleasure rather than being
competing attributes. What we start to identify by looking at actual sustainable fashion
consumers, rather than asking questions about sustainable fashion to none or marginal
consumers, is that motivation to consume more sustainably can be cast in a positive light.
Rather than highlighting barriers to changing engrained habits, we can highlight the means
through which sustainable fashion consumption could be a habituated norm.
As a sustainable consumer, one is faced with a wide range of motives influencing decision-
making and creating motivational complexities (Szmigin, Carrigan & McEachern 2009).
Consumers of sustainable fashion are most likely driven by “multiple end goals including
self-expression, aesthetic satisfaction and group conformity” (Kim & Damhorst 1998:132), as
well as ethical obligations (Shaw et al. 2006) and/or avoiding feelings of guilt (Ha-
Brookshire & Hodges 2009). However values and motivations underpinning actual
sustainable consumption behaviour still remains a vastly under-researched area (Bly et al.

7
2015; Jägel et al., 2012). Hence, the aim of this paper is to explore the values and motivations
behind actual sustainable fashion purchase decisions by frequent consumers. This aims to
understand the myriad of motivations for sustainable fashion consumption and highlight the
probable space for developing the market as a habituated form of consumption.
3. Methodology
The research follows the means-end approach, which proposes that consumers use means
(products) to achieve ends (states of being) (Gutman 1982). The theory proposes that
consumers use their preferences towards products (attributes) based on the functional and
psychological benefits or risks they will acquire (consequences and motivations), in order to
achieve underlying values (Reynolds & Gutman 1988). The theory also assumes that
consumer decision-making is a form of problem solving (rather than cognitive
rationalization), in the sense that they will solve their problems engaging in various actions to
enhance benefits and avoid negative outcomes (Olsen & Reynolds 2001).
[Insert figure 1 here]
The approach relies on understanding the hierarchical structure of consumers problem
solving by investigating attributes of products, which lead to consequences for the self, which
are underpinned by fundamental values (Reynolds & Gutman 1988) (see figure 1). Attributes
can consist of both concrete and abstract features while consequences represent
psychological, emotional and social motivations (Olsen & Reynolds 2001). The framework
that the means-end theory presents is suitable for the context of this study as it clearly
outlines how the purchase of sustainable fashion is linked to an individual’s values. However
it is limited by the assumption that respondents can post-hoc recalled a cognitive process of
decision-making (much of which may be habitual), making it essential to collect data at or
near the point of the decision.
The means-end chain theory is therefore closely related to the laddering interview technique.
This refers to “an in-depth one-on-one interviewing technique used to develop an
understanding of how consumers translate the attributes of products into meaningful
associations with respect to self” (Reynolds & Gutman 1988:12). Soft laddering is used in
this study so that the flow of speech is restricted as little as possible and the participants have

8
more freedom of expression as with other forms of interpretivist interview (Veludo-de-
Oliviera et al. 2006). This is opposed to hard-laddering which refers to questionnaires with
multiple choice and open-ended questions but with predefined structure which has a more
objectivist epistemology (as used by Jägel et al. 2012). Soft ladder is most suited to
exploratory studies but requires greater skill and time commitment on behalf of the researcher
than hard laddering – which should be used when phenomena are already reasonably well
understood and the structure of a decision process is established.
The interviews in this study are semi-structured, which allows for flexibility and ability of
asking questions outside of the interview guide (Bryman & Bell 2011), while still being able
to hold focus of the discussion. This is appropriate for the exploratory nature of the study, in
the event of an interesting topic that is worth pursuing. The semi-structured interview guide
also allows for the setup of defining different product attributes, from which the ladders of
consequences and values can then be built. This is done by using broad questions to identify
product attributes (e.g. "Why did you chose to shop here today?", "Why did you choose that
product?") to deeper questions about motivation (e.g. "Why did you chose to buy [this brand]
over a high-street brand", "What is it about [insert brand] that you like / dislike?") to deeper
still questions about values ("Why is that [attribute / motivation] important to you?", What
does sustainable fashion mean to you?"). Through this process interviewers can gain a deeper
insight into the underlying motivations and values behind consumer perceptions of a product
(Reynolds & Gutman 1988). The interview questions were structured in a progressive manner
starting from questions about specific purchases of sustainable fashion, into questions about
why they purchase sustainable fashion, and then to their general understanding of
sustainability in fashion including post consumption activities.
3.1 Sampling
The aim of this study is to understand actual sustainable fashion consumption decisions.
Therefore it was essential to tie respondent to known specific consumption events. We focus
only on those known to have undertaken sustainable consumption behaviour through
researcher observation in sustainable fashion outlets, or as regular customers known to store
keepers of those outlets. Reynolds and Gutman (1988) suggest that at least 20 people be
included in one soft laddering sample and for this study a 39 frequent sustainable fashion
consumers were interviewed all of whom self identify as regular customers of the chosen
outlets. The individuals were either approached in stores or via email following

9
recommendation from store managers of two London based stores solely dedicated to
sustainable fashion: Gudrun Sjöden and Braintree Clothing. Both companies could be termed
social enterprises because sustainability is at the core of their business mission. Both would
fit in the definitions of slow fashion because they focus on high quality, durable, natural
fibre, timeless design and managing the environmental impacts of their production (Ertekin &
Atik 2015). However both also take environmental and social issues very seriously from
forestry management projects, sustainable sourcing and fairtrade supply at Gudrun Sjöden to
organic certification, long-term supply contracts, paying above living wages and enforcing
high standards on working conditions and working hours at Braintree. Therefore in the truest
and broadest definition both brands are sustainable fashion brands first and foremost. Visit
both brand's website and you are left in no doubt about their intentions to trade on their
sustainability.
Although both brands do sell limited male product lines, for this study we focus on all female
respondents with an age range between 16 and 64 years old. Parker (2002), Niinimäki and
Hassi (2011) and Zelezny et al. (2000) all show that women are the group most concerned by
environmental and ethical issues in clothing and market research supports this with the
majority of sustainable fashion consumers being female (Ethical Fashion Forum 2008).
Demographic characteristics such as age, religion or nationality were not collected in this
study due to the cultural angst this line of questioning can cause. However the age of
respondents tended towards the lower quartile of the range with at least 30 respondents under
~40 and the nationality and racial mix of respondents was very varied as one would expect in
a global city such as London, but favoured UK and Northern European consumers. 15
respondents were in full time employment, 8 in full-time education, 12 part-time employed
and 4 homemakers.
3.2 Data analysis procedure
Reynolds and Gutman (1988) outlined three main steps to analyse laddering data. The first
task is to perform analysis of the elements of the ladders produced in the interviews. This was
achieved through initial qualitative open and coaxial coding approaches familiar to
interpretivist data analysis (Spiggle 1994). A unit of data was a statement, defined as a
sentence or a group of sentences which is distinguished from other statements by a change of
topic/subject matter, a pause, or a change in speakers (e.g. Grégoire, Barr, & Shepherd, 2010;
Hall & Hofer, 1993). In the second stage a set of summary codes is produced, summarizing

10
and reflecting everything that was mentioned. The importance is to create categories that are
broad enough to include more than one respondent, yet representative enough so that
meaning is not lost. The codes are thirdly categorized into product attributes (A),
consequences for-self and motivations (C) and values (V). Product attributes are defined as
perceived qualities or features of product-services. Considering that the research objective is
to explore underlying motivations for consuming sustainable fashion including social,
cultural, emotional and cognitive motivations, this study incorporates not only tangible
attributes, but intangible attributes. The identification of such social attributes is necessary to
outline the relative importance of physical versus abstract characteristics (Auger et al. 2010;
Reynolds & Olsen 2001). Consequences for-self and motivations derive from product
attributes and are developed through past experience or association and linking product
attributes to personal benefit (Veludo-de-Oliveira et al. 2006). Values, representing the ends
of the ladder, are beliefs individuals hold about the self and influence motivation (Reynolds
2006). The finalized codes are then assigned numbers. These numbers are used to construct
the Implications Matrix and the Hierarchical Value Map (HVM).
The Implications Matrix (figure 3 in this study) aims to show ‘the number of times each
elements lead to each other element’ (Reynolds & Gutman 1988). In the Matrix, there are two
types of relationships: direct and indirect. Take for example a ladder of A-B-C-D elements.
Direct relationships are between A-B, B-C and C-D. Indirect relations are between A-C, A-D,
and B-D. It is important to examine both types of relationships so that significant connections
are not missed. This stage is what makes the laddering technique unique as the qualitative
nature of the research crosses over to a quantitative way of presenting the information
(Reynolds & Gutman 1988).
In the next step the HVM (Figure 2 in this study) is constructed, made up of chains derived
from the aggregate data, showing the dominant perceptual patterns (Reynolds & Gutman
1988). Adjacent relations are first considered (A-B, B-C, C-D) to form an A-B-C-D chain. It
is important to note that there does not necessarily need to be a single individual with an A-
B-C-D ladder for an A-B-C-D chain to become apparent.

11
4. Findings
This section outlines the findings of the study in the form the HVM (see Figure 2), the
Implications Matrix1 (see Figure 3) and direct quotes from the respondents.
From the interviews, 10 attributes, 13 consequences, and 6 values are identified (see Table 1).
Where possible we have used the same terms as Jägel et al. (2012) to allow for building on
the knowledge in the field. However the lack of descriptive detail in Jägel et al. (2012) (most
terms in that paper are only given a 1 line description and no data presentation) means we had
to make some assumptions about what their terms mean.
[Insert Table 1 here]
[Insert figure 2 here]
[Insert figure 3 here]
In the HVM (figure 2) the attributes, illustrated in white shapes, are on the lowest level of the
HVM. Attributes include generic product attributes such as price and quality as well as
environmental aspects like natural materials, environmentally friendly production techniques
and being recycled. The next level on the HVM shows the consequences, represented by the
lightly shaded ovals. They include a mix of functional, emotional and psychological
perceived consumer benefits gained from purchasing sustainable clothing; including value for
money, individuality, reduce waste, and guilt-free conscience. Furthermore, sustainable
clothing buyers’ consumption behaviour is driven by six overarching values: self-expression,
self-esteem, responsibility, protecting the planet and sense of accomplishment, shown on the
HVM by the darker shaded ovals. To most effectively discuss the findings, the HVM has
been constructed to demonstrate six motivational patterns. In a reverse of the data analysis
process we will discuss each of these patterns in turn, exposing the values, motivations and
attributes which underpin them.
4.1 Pattern 1: Less buying
Consumers perceive sustainable clothing to be priced higher than average high street clothing
(premium price). However consumers also perceive that the purchased product is of a
1 The numbers in the Matrix are displayed in fractional form with the left of the decimal representing
direct relations and the right of the decimal showing indirect relations.

12
sufficiently higher quality that this more than compensates for the extra cost. As such they
see sustainable clothing as a net positive value alternative:
“Yeah the clothes are a bit more expensive and sometimes it gets hard.
But then you have to think about what you’re paying for. Someone has
put more time and effort into it and just the quality, its better”
“I mean I’ve really only bought a lot of more expensive stuff anyways,
but I do think you really do get what you pay for with [sustainable
fashion]”
In turn, quality is strongly linked to the product attribute long lasting with [9] direct relations
(see Figure 3). The consumers assert that one of the most important features they require
from clothing is for them to be durable. They have a need to be able to rely on the clothes to
last for frequent usage without losing shape.
“When I buy something I have to really like it and know I’ll wear it. And
when I find something I often wear it again and again. So I need clothes
to be good quality to last longer and [sustainable fashion] does that”
“In my experience my purchases has lasted well and kept its shape after
washing. I even think I still wear clothes that I’ve had for 3-4 years.
More than that.”
Buying clothes that last longer and are of better quality, consumers express more positive
links to personal finance. Being able to keep clothes longer makes consumers feel they get
value for money (see Figure 2). As a result, consumers are also driven by the benefit of
buying less in the long run.
“I like to keep wearing clothes over and over again and not have to buy
new ones all the time […] It does save you money in the long run even
though in the beginning it is a bit more expensive”
“It’s not important for me to always have new clothes. I’d rather have
some favourite pieces and be able to wear them all the time. That way it
is also easier for me financially.”
Therefore what we find is that regular consumers of sustainable fashion see long lasting
benefits of switching to sustainable brands. Although products cost more, the quality,
durability and wear-ability is higher than for high street brands. Therefore it is vital for
sustainable brands to maintain these quality dimensions of products to maintain a strong
market offering.
A second dimension of the importance of longer lasting garments shows sustainable fashion
consumers want their clothes to be able to last over more than one fashion season, which

13
brings in the product attribute of timeless cuts into the chain, inferring the importance of
simple and classic shapes and emphasizing a garment’s usability.
“It’s not just about durability but the general life span of the garment. It
has to be able to survive through many seasons. If people don’t buy
garments that do, they just end up in the dump.”
“I want timeless. I want classic. It just makes it more usable and
reliable. I don’t usually buy things that are ‘fashionable’. I buy things
that I know I can keep wearing”
The timeless cut also enables them to live an easier life in the sense that they do not have to
always shop to the current trends.
“It’s is just so much easier. You pull it over your head and there you go.”
“I won’t have to spend hours in stores, which just has clothes matching
the current trend and I can’t wear anything because they don’t suit my
body shape. […] I don’t have to replace my clothes all the time.”
These timeless cuts are therefore also of vital importance to delivering a sustainable / slow
fashion revolution. Clothing which is perceived to be sustainable by consumers must last
multiple seasons in both durability and style.
Furthermore, the HVM shows that natural materials have an effect on perceived quality of
the product. Consumers perceived sustainable fashion to be linked to natural material (which
in fact may be scientifically inaccurate on a lifecycle assessment scale, Laitala& Boks 2012)
and feel that natural materials may be more difficult to work with, but appreciate the work
that has gone into them.
“I like bamboo. As a designer I know that this material is of great quality
and I would be lucky to be able to afford to work with it”
“I guess natural also means less pesticides, which means that it is harder
to take care of. I think I appreciate that more than some mass produced
piece”
To summarize this chain, people are motivated to buy sustainable fashion due to value-in-use
benefits such as less buying and value for money in the long run. Consumers, therefore
purchase sustainable fashion due to attributes such as higher quality and longer lasting, both
of which evidently meet the consumers' desired ends of consuming less showing the links
between Bly et al.'s (2015) identification of consumption being the anti-thesis of
sustainability. Therefore buying less is definitely perceived as the best alternative for regular
sustainable fashion consumers.

14
4.2 Pattern 2: The self
Self-esteem and self-expression are strong anchors with [16.37] total relations leading to
them. While the consumers do not place great importance on looking good for others, more
concern was placed on how their clothing enabled them to be comfortable in their own skin
and be able to express their opinions and values.
Self-esteem has a total of [8.19] relations leading to it, making it the third most influential
value. Participants want to have confidence in who they are, with the main judge being
themselves. The need for self-esteem is fulfilled through two chains; comfort and looking
good.
Comfort relates to both the comfort and the feeling of confidence and happiness when
wearing the clothing.
“I have a busy life style. I need to be able to be comfortable in what I’m
wearing. I don’t want to feel like changing after just a couple hours of
wearing something in an 8 hour work day”
“If you’re wearing something you feel comfortable in you also act more
comfortable and you are more confident. That’s why I buy clothes. To
make myself feel good about myself and to make myself feel happy”
In turn, comfort is supported by the good feel of the material, which customers believe is due
to the use of natural materials. By being comfortable, they express that they have less
worries, also contributing to their self-esteem. However, a few customers also noted that the
material’s good feel might simply be psychological.
“I never liked wearing synthetics. It just stuck to you and it didn’t feel
nice. You also had to worry about silly things like sweat marks”
“Maybe it feels better because you know that someone in the world hasn’t
suffered making the product that you’re carrying”.
Value-in-use in sustainable fashion therefore has both physical and psychological benefits
which help the consumers feel better about themselves. However even when talking about the
physical benefit of looking good, consumers express that although they do care about their
appearance, it is not based on the perception of others, but of themselves.
“I value my appearance and I want to look nice. You buy clothes
because you like them and you like yourself in them”
“My job requires me to look presentable. My friends are all models so
that puts even more pressure on me to look good. But that isn’t what it’s
all about. I want to just go out of my house and feel like I look good”

15
Although self-expression is discussed below, this internal evaluation of self through fashion
runs counter to the dominance of belonging and gaining social acceptance often associated
with fashion consumption (Easey 2002). Self-esteem is normally associated with fashion
consumption; but usually from a social acceptance perspective. What we find in these
sustainable fashion consumers is a more ready acceptance of "self" being internally - not
externally driven. This may suggest these consumers are either not particularly representative
of the usual fashion consumer, or that disenchantment with the neo-liberal consumption
driven self is passing, with these consumers at the forefront of this movement (Cova et al.
2013).
Looking good is thereby related to the consumers’ desire to be themselves. They express
strong feelings of wanting to be able to be an individual because they believe the fashion and
the people surrounding them have become too homogenous.
“Everyone wears the same dress they’ve seen in the magazines or copy
the models. Sort of like Kate and William. She’s wearing a blue dress so
everyone has to buy the blue dress. Why? Why can’t she have her style
and you have your own style?”
“People tend to style things the same way so they automatically look like
clones. Like that Urban Outfitters hipster look where you’re putting so
much effort into trying to be different, but if everyone is also doing it,
how different are you really?”
Here we see echoes of the product attribute that allows for consumers to meet their end
needs: the unique style [08.01] sustainable fashion offers.
“There are some lovely colours and patterns used in eco-fashion. The
colours are in a way unique. The prints and patterns are interesting and
definitely not used anywhere else”
“Sustainable clothing brands are usually quite small which means that
you’re more likely to be able to find styles that won’t be worn by
everyone else”
The chain of unique styles and sense of individuality is also driven by a second value, namely
that of self-expression, which has a total of [7.14] relations leading to it. The participants
refer to self-expression as being able to voice their personality, values and opinions through
their clothing.
“I dress certain ways because I want to show a part of who I am. I think
that’s important to make yourself stand out in that way. […] Dress with
a purpose”

16
“I want my clothes to reflect my personality, my values. It should reflect
who I feel I am as a person. It’s just my personal style, something which
is very important to me”
Although this chain reflects the self-identity base of traditional consumption literatures, here
it is to use individualised consumption as a means to demonstrate bucking the trend. It
reflects the politicised consumption discussed by Gabriel and Lang (1995), but is born from a
feeling of liberation from the market space, a freeing of the self from social acceptance and a
desire to engender personal happiness.
To summarize, sustainable fashion consumption is driven by values closely related to the self.
Consumers place importance on self-expression and self-esteem, which motivates them to
purchase sustainable fashion with attributes like unique styles and materials to obtain ends
such as a sense of individuality and comfort. However in a departure from the extant fashion
literature this self-expression and self-esteem is less part of gaining social acceptance than
standing outside the social norm. We see strong linkage between the desired heterogeneity of
our respondents here and those in Chatzidakis et al. (2012), where their community of
dystopian consumers seek solace, not in self-identity led consumption, but politicised and
individualised action. Leading to a broadening of a person's self-esteem and self-confidence
through non-conformity, rather than conformity.
4.3 Pattern 3: Health
Similar to pattern 1, this pattern does not reach higher-level abstractions or multiple ends.
The individuals consider the use of natural materials in these sustainable fashion brands as
leading to less health problems. They specifically put emphasis on the wellbeing of their skin
due to the use of less pesticides and chemicals throughout production of the garments
purchased.
“I used to have really bad cases of eczema and I think it became less and
less of a problem when I started to wear clothes that were made from
natural materials”
“I know that less pesticides and fertilizers are used during organic
cotton cultivation. You don’t have worry about reactions from these
chemicals or about more serious problems like skin cancer”
Although this only accounted for a minimal number of respondents (4), it does show a core
market potential for the marketing of sustainable fashion to particular groups in society.
Beyond these however, when dealing with natural materials over the whole sample

17
individuals indicate materials and fabrics made out of bamboo, hemp, and organic cotton as
specific forms of "sustainable material" which delineates sustainable clothing from non-
sustainable. Whether or not the lifecycle assessments would suggest these are indeed more
sustainable could easily be questioned. However there is a strong definitional perception
amongst these consumer groups that certain materials dictate sustainable, even though neither
of the brands selected makes clothing exclusively from these materials.
4.4 Pattern 4: The environment
A significant motivational pattern in the HVM concerns the consumer’s will to address
environmental concerns. The values that drive this chain are responsibility and protect the
planet with [7.18] and [13.22] total relations leading to them respectively.
Our consumers place great importance on taking responsibility for the way they consume,
and feel a responsibility to change others consumption habits as well.
“We have to care about the world we live in and do what we can. If we
don’t then it’ll lead to complete disaster. We’re all connected”
“I want to be part of the change. I want to motivate people. I want to
educate people through my blog about the little things they can do
without drastically changing something in their life”.
The respondents voiced the importance of protecting the planet, in terms of saving resources
and keeping the planet healthy. This was especially evident when future family was
considered.
“If I have children one day, I don’t want them to live in a world without
nature, without animals, without nothing. The good thing being alive
today is that we have a beautiful planet.”
“I love nature. I love the outdoors and I want future others to be able to
enjoy that as well. If we don’t do anything we’d end up with a world like
in Wall-E2”
Responsibility and protect the planet are the drivers of consumer’s will to support the
environment, which as a consequence has an aggregate [26.18] relations leading to and from
it. The attributes that directly contribute to making people feel like they are making a
difference include purchasing products that use natural materials, environmentally friendly
production techniques, and recycling.
2 Wall-E is a Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animations Studios film about a robot designed to clean
up a waste-covered Earth far in the future.

18
Buying clothes made from natural materials is considered as one of the smallest things that
they can do to help the environment. The connection has [26.23] relations leading from it,
underlining the importance of natural materials as a product attribute of immense importance
to consumers.
“I think buying sustainable where you know that they’ve used natural
materials that do the least damage to the environment is important. It’s
the least thing you can do”
“I think it is hard to be completely eco-friendly in everything that you
do. But if we can do something and there are options why not take them?
Like simple things like buying clothes from natural materials. It’s not so
hard”
Participants also relate to clothes that have been made using environmentally friendly
production techniques. Also shown to be a significant attribute with [26.18] relations leading
from it.
“Maybe you can’t stop using certain ways to travel like flying. But with
clothing you do have a choice now. I chose eco because I know that the
clothes have been produced with the least negative impact on the
environment as possible”
“I know about how harmful pesticides and fertilizers and water wastage
is on the environment. […] So I want to know how my clothes are made
and where they come from so I’m not being part of all those bad things”
However the production techniques and materials of clothing being sustainable is moderated
by a clear understand on the part of consumers that this is just a part of a garments life cycle.
Individuals express they are doing good for the environment when they buy recycled clothes.
This is especially true for individuals who choose to buy second-hand or create their own
clothes, as a way to contribute to the support of the environment.
“I can’t afford the branded eco stuff so to do my bit I buy all of my
clothes second hand. […] Old stuff is just as good as new stuff.”
“Part of my ethos is that nothing should go to waste. If I have an item I
don’t particularly wear anymore it is not that difficult to make it into
something new.”
By purchasing recycled clothes, the participants also express the benefit they experience in
reducing waste.

19
“I feel like I’m almost saving the planet by not filling the planet with
stuff that isn’t biodegradable. Think about all the landfills with all that
stuff. It’s terrible.”
“I give all my throw outs to charity shops to encourage recycling. I feel
it’s so wasteful to buy new when there is so much high quality second
hand stuff out there.”
This support of the environment spreads into post-purchase decisions as well with consumers
identifying the long lasting nature of clothes, wash-ability, use of sustainable washing
detergent and mending of clothing as important facets of in-use sustainability activities that
help their sustainable clothes remain sustainable.
“Buying the right clothes is only part of the process. I look after my
clothes and wear them to death. Wash cold, no harsh chemicals, dry flat,
avoid ironing. These not only make the clothes last longer but help the
environment too."
"It doesn't stop with the clothes. I'm not an expert but what I do with
them is probably just as important to protecting the environment."
The second quote here reflects a large proportion of the respondents' views on protecting the
environment. None of the respondents expressed knowledge of the scientific research into
clothing but nearly all associated their actions as relevant to the ultimate sustainability of
clothing. It does not take the expert level of knowledge repeatedly asked for in the non-
consumer research into sustainable fashion to understand this issue. The probability that
Connell's (2011) suggestion that consumer perceptions of what is sustainable may not reflect
scientific evidence is held up in this study, in particular use of some natural materials such as
cotton. However these consumers intuitively know that sustainable fashion is a co-created
activity between producers and consumers, and not the sole responsibility of either party to
address. Making strides in doing so therefore leads to an immense sense of accomplishment.
4.5 Pattern 5: Accomplishments
At the top is the life value of sense of accomplishment, which has [10.27] relations leading to
it. The importance of this chain is evident in the HVM as there are five different cognitive
and emotional paths where this value acts as a motivation for gaining benefits and avoiding
risks when buying sustainable fashion.

20
Participants reveal enjoying the feeling of doing the ‘right thing’ and express the need for
confirmation of having made the correct decisions. Additionally, they show pride in their
actions although several individuals were hesitant to explicitly express this.
“I want to feel like I am part of something bigger. That I’m doing
something right. That my decisions and past sacrifices will be worth it. I
want to think that I am doing something that is good for the world and
that I’m not just one of those people who say I don’t care because none
of this stuff will happen in my lifetime or in my own children’s lifetime.”
“I don’t know if this is the right thing to say. Is it bad to say that I feel
proud of myself?”
Two consequences of achieving a sense of accomplishment are a guilt free conscience and a
good feeling. Participants mention that buying sustainable fashion is a benefit in the sense
that they are able to do so without being burdened by a sense of guilt after their purchase.
This was often insinuated by explaining situations of how they would feel if they did not buy
sustainably.
“I never used to really buy a lot of clothes then one time I spent over
£100 at a People Tree sample sale. At the till I felt shocked by the
amount it came to, but the cashier reminded me that I can do it with a
guilt-free conscience because I’m helping the environment”
“I used to buy a significant amount of non-eco clothing. The more I
learned about the damages, the more guilty I felt after purchasing it. I
would be lying if I said I went as far as saying that I immediately
returned the clothes because of it, but I remember it was definitely a
feeling I wanted to avoid.”
The second consequence is that of good feeling, which has a total of [22.19] relations.
Consumers emphasize how much better they feel about their purchases and with themselves
as sustainable fashion consumers.
“I feel so much better about myself and my purchase. I mean I feel it on
a conscious level. Then when you wear your clothes you wear it with a
sense of pride. Like I’ve done something good”
“I think it just makes me feel happier. I feel better when I buy it, so I also
feel better when I wear it. Again I think it just makes me feel good.”
These two benefits are strongly related to two different product attributes: availability and
support the environment.

21
Consumers have commented that sustainable fashion is not widely available and it has been
difficult to find good brands with appealing designs. But the participants have revealed it is
becoming easier to be a consumer with online retailing. However, they comment that they
still put a lot of time into doing research, as they want a high level of transparency.
“I spend a lot of time researching online for eco brands to find things
that suit my own personal style. Nowadays the choice you have is
slightly greater choice so it’s become easier and there are really great
things out there. But even now when I find a new brand I like I am so
pleased and it’s something I always share on my blog to let other people
know as well”
“I just feel so happy that I have found some really good sustainable
brands. Sometimes you buy it and you don’t even know. But then what’s
the point in that? If it said on the label or something I’m sure more
people would choose to buy it as well. If I find something that seems
ethical but I’m unsure of trust, why should I support that brand?”
Similarly support the environment (which was also outlined in Pattern 4) infers consumers
benefit by searching out information on their purchases.
“I can go home thinking that I’ve done something. And you know, I think
positively. Maybe one day my actions will save the planet!”
“I always think if I’m missing out on fashion that my friends wear. But
then I look back and think that I have made the right choice. It’s kind of
like if you’ve given some money to charity. I just support the
environment.”
These two attributes suggest some of our respondents are more willing to seek out
information than is currently portrayed in the sustainable fashion literature. Indeed our
respondents may also reflect the pioneers highlighted in Bly et al. (2015); in particular four of
our respondents also blogged about sustainability as shown in the above quote. Nevertheless
this search cost for product / brand information was linked directly and indirectly to feeling
good and a sense of accomplishment for making the "right" choice. Fundamentally the effort
put into researching the fabrics, brands, companies and lifecycles of products becomes part of
the value consumers imbue their purchases with. It provides an emotional attachment and
psychological benefits to the purchase that would otherwise have been missing from a
frivolous purchase.
Even though consumers show the importance of reaching a sense of accomplishment through
buying sustainably, they also note that they do not have the need / want to push it onto others.

22
While showing enthusiasm for sharing information, they comment that pushing feelings such
as guilt onto non-sustainable clothing buyers is not in their life goals.
“I want to share with the world about sustainability. I don’t mind being
like a walking, talking communication tools for [sustainable] clothing
brands. I want to share on Twitter, Facebook, on my blog and
everywhere!”
“Of course I would bring the environment part in if someone asked me
where something was from. […] I would never shove it into someone’s
face though… make them feel guilty for not buying… It would just seem
like I think I’m above someone for doing good, which I’m not. Yes I
made that choice, but I’m not going to push someone to do it if they
don’t want to.”
It is evident that our consumers are driven by egoistic needs such as sense of
accomplishment. However a sense of accomplishment comes from the effort input into the
process, not simply buying great fashion. Consumers want to feel pleased with their
purchases and with themselves, and this comes at the cost of becoming informed. They also
want to share that knowledge with others. However there is no strong consensus towards
evangelising in a broader sense. One part of Gabriel and Lang's (1995) politicised
consumption is that it is people trying to change others. There is certainly no strong sense of
that in this respondent group. They gain self-fulfilment through their sustainable fashion
consumption and enjoy acting as a database for interested parties. But they are far from
activists trying to dictate behaviour to others. It is a very quiet revolution!
4.6 Pattern 6: Social Justice
The final value that drives sustainable fashion consumption is found to be that of social
justice. This refers to the importance of equality and human rights of the workers in the
factories used by clothing companies. While the value has [7.18] relations to it, the elements
building up to it are of great importance among consumers.
“I care how people are treated. I guess it makes me angry to see people
coming out of Primark with 20 bags. The people who made them are not
treated as humans should be treated”
“I am disgusted by some of the conditions that these people work in. You
hear stories about them being chained to their sewing machines. You
hear about children working like slaves. And you hear about people
dying from handling all those dangerous chemicals all day. What
happened to human rights?”

23
Similar to extant research, the main product attribute consumers mentioned is the use of no
sweatshops in sustainable fashion, with [17.26] relations leading from it. This attribute
combines aspects such as workers in factories gaining fair wages and working in fair
conditions.
“I don’t like the idea wearing something knowing that some poor child,
woman or man has worked so hard on a piece of item that ultimately
doesn’t mean anything and not gotten anything back from it.”
“You just want to know that they are getting enough to live a life that is
good for them and that what is happening in the factories like out in
Bangladesh is not what is happening in ones from these eco brands.”
A risk that consumers believe is avoided by purchasing sustainable fashion is that of less
exploitation. The strength of this connection is high with [9.01] relations. This consequence
also makes up for [21.12] total relations (see Figure 3). This is related to the consumers’ wish
for workers and producers of the garments to be getting a fair amount of the profits and that
they are not being taken advantage of.
“I went to Hungary once and met a woman who worked at one of the
Primark factories. You could see that she wasn’t happy… You could tell
that she hadn’t been treated well and the effect that had on her life. It
isn’t right or fair and it shouldn’t have to be this way.”
“You don’t know the story behind it. These workers are paid nothing
and get treated badly. They [fashion companies] say they don’t do child
labour but a lot of them do. And that is not okay. At least with Gudrun
Sjöden you know that the workers are getting something and not being
exploited.”
In turn, the participants believe that by supporting workers they are also able to support their
communities. The individuals expressed this by emphasizing helping independent sellers and
backing brands that work with women in communities around the world. The participants
also uncover a feeling of being very connected to the world and the people in it.
“Working with People Tree you see how much every single employee
cares about the women making these garments. So by buying you’re
giving back and supporting a whole community, which is so rewarding.
“I bought cushions that were actually just re-sewn cushions. They were
made by a single mother, I don’t remember exactly where. I actually got
to speak with her… it’s quite emotional. These cushions became
priceless. It’s like it’s your grandmas… you’ll never throw it away
because you have valuable memories attached to it.”

24
Therefore in line with a considerable amount of literature we find sweatshops to be
particularly top of mind for sustainable fashion consumers. The environmental credentials of
a product needs to be backed up by a comparable concern for workers rights and welfare.
This does support viewing sustainable fashion as sustainable (as opposed to green or eco-
fashion), because a failure to maintain human rights would heavily disincentives
consumption by our core market for sustainable fashion.
5. Discussion
The HVM (see Figure 2) presents six motivational patterns identified from the interviews.
The six higher order values fall into categories defined by Stern et al. (1993) as altruistic
values, biospheric values and egoistic values. Ethical values like altruistic (social justice) and
biospheric (protect planet and responsibility) are shown to be important (see figure 3) for this
group of consumers, however, as argued by Kim and Damhorst (1988) the egoistic values
(sense of accomplishment, self-expression, and self-esteem) should not be ignored when
understanding sustainable fashion consumption. Benefits for the self in terms of sense of
accomplishment, better health, self-esteem and value for money still add up to more ladders
than responsibility, protecting the planet and social justice combined.
Counter to much of the extant literature on sustainable fashion where less frequent
consumers, or potential consumers of sustainable fashion found a trade-off or even dualism
between sustainability and fashion (Achabou & Dekhili 2013; Jägel et al. 2012; Joergens
2006; Markkula & Moisander 2012), our regular consumers were able to find holism in
sustainable consumption. The nature of the altruistic or biospheric fed into the egoistic,
similar to Bly et al. (2015). This is supportive of Dickson and Littrell’s (1996) finding that
dual pathways often lead to purchases of sustainable goods.
To simplify the vast complexities of our model consider these motivations from a transaction
cost economics perspective (example drawn Spulber 2009, p xiv-xv). A consumer has a
willingness to pay V and a supplier has an opportunity cost C for supplying a particular
product. However for a transaction to occur a series of ex ante and ex post activities must also
occur (such as search time, bargaining and transaction costs, post purchase costs etc.), the
sum total of which amounts to T. Therefore for a rational consumer: V - C - T > 0, or no
transaction will occur. Setting aside ideas of irrational consumers and imperfect information

25
and treating these transaction costs and benefits as imperfect and perceptual, what appears to
happen in our sustainable fashion environment is that consumers load much of their fairly
substantial transaction costs (T) such as search time and gaining information, plus the
suppliers extra opportunity costs for supplying more sustainable clothing (C), into
meaningful forms of perceived value (V). Costs such as a narrow choice of natural materials,
premium prices, lack of availability, search time on environmental or social justice topics and
limited product ranges become perceived product benefits of healthier, longer lasting, unique
designs, timeless cuts and higher quality textiles, and psychological benefits of
accomplishment, individuality, feeling good and improved self-esteem. For instance the lack
of availability, natural materials and “unfashionability” of the notion of sustainable fashion
leads to unique designs and individuality. There is a clear matching of the associated costs of
sustainable fashion with increased perceptions of value.
The HVM does reveal that consumers are driven partially by ethical obligations (Shaw et al.
2006). For example, consumers want to reduce waste and support the environment. Similarly,
they are motivated by the knowledge that they are reducing risks for others members in
society through buying products that have not exploited workers and supporting
communities. Yet, the consumers may simultaneously seek individual benefits such as
comfort, individuality, looking good, and various aspects of design in sustainable fashion, all
of which are related to hedonic consumption (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). This is evident
in pattern 5 (see figure 2) where consumers seek a guilt-free conscience and good feelings.
Without sustainable fashion suppliers providing core product and meaningful psychological
benefits it is doubtful many of or consumers would continue to consume for purely altruistic
reasons. As such the market for sustainable fashion will likely stick to the high quality and
premium clothing end of the spectrum for some years to come. Entering the market with
lower quality and cheaper clothing may have the impact of undermining the strong
associations frequent consumers have with the use of high quality, durable, natural materials.
Ultimately however this does create a glass floor, below which sustainable suppliers may be
unable to compete with altruistic or biospheric marketing communications. It could also
undermine the use of non-natural materials - even if lifecycle studies suggest these may have
lower environmental footprints long term. We therefore find a matching between what
consumers perceive to be sustainable and suppliers' development of more sustainable
products. This does open up the potential for a market that can only ever satisfy and not
optimise environmental benefits.

26
Production issues aside; we also contribute an alternative perspective in this paper to what
sustainable fashion means to its consumers. The dominant paradigm in fashion consumption
is that people consume fashion to fulfil their need of belonging, self-esteem and gain
acceptance from others (Belk 1985; Easey 2002; Gabriel & Lang 1995; Richins 1994). Our
research suggests a considerably more nuanced interpretation of the role of self-esteem, self-
accomplishment and self-expression in sustainable fashion consumption. Although, in
contrast to the findings of Jägel et al. (2012) we find these egotistic values more dominant
than the biospheric and altruistic values, we similarly find the egotistic values to be in
contrast to the dominant fashion consumption paradigm. Our consumers are mostly internally
driven from an egotistical perspective- not externally driven. In this sense we perhaps view
'sustainable fashion' more as 'sustainable style'. Mikkonen et al. (2014) distinguish between
'style' and 'fashion' suggesting fashion is externally dictated and short lived, whereas style is
internally dictated and timeless. The desirable product attributes of timeless cuts, unique style
and long lasting garments talk to the timelessness aspect of style. Similarly the nuanced
interpretation of consumption for internal self-acceptance and rewards such as
accomplishment and individuality similarly talks to an internally dictated perception of style.
As such perhaps we should refer to sustainable fashion as sustainable style. This may also
overcome much of the disjuncture between viewing sustainability from a production rather
than lifecycle perspective.
Beyond the semantics however there is a deep seated difference in our sustainable fashion
consumers to both existing portrayals of staunchly ethical consumers and regular fashion
consumers. Although our consumers are egotistically motivated (which is often ignored in
ethical consumption studies), the internalisation of this was quite stark in interviews.
Respondents reflected issues such as looking good, self-expression and self-esteem to an
introspective reflection of self. Fashion and consumption literatures extol the social
generation of self-identity through consumption (Arnould and Thompson 2005; Belk 1985),
whereas we see more self-reflection being embodied in consumption. None of our
respondents directed their sustainable consumption to peer pressure or sense of belonging.
Indeed the opposite was true. They wanted to stand out by not following the herd and being
very individual in their choices. This does potentially raise the issue of what would happen
should slow fashion become the industry norm. There is no huge appetite by these consumers
to change the market. They are not really acting as activists and demonstrate a reticence

27
about the idea of changing others. They also see their consumption choice as keeping them
out of the fashion social norms and like the individuality that creates. Our interpretation is
that should their style become the new fashion, many of these consumers would actively
resent the mainstream consumers that follow in their wake.
5.1 Managerial implications
The practical implications of this research for the future development of sustainable fashion
revolve around how sustainable fashion brands can engage and retain sustainable fashion
consumers. Despite sustainable fashion products costing more, the quality, durability and
wear-ability is perceived as better than for high street brands. Maintenance of these high
quality aspects of products are therefore vital to the success of the brands. This is however a
double edge sword. These frequent consumers do demonstrate a predisposition to reduce
consumption. They actively want to buy less frequently. This does therefore mean that
sustainable brands are unlikely to ever compete on high turnover of products. Alternative
means of business growth may therefore be of potential interest: repair services, recycling
garments, clothing with interchangeable accessories to elongate the usability and life-cycle of
products.
There is also an issue regarding how brands communicate sustainability. There has been a
much larger rise in the use of terms such as eco-fashion or fair trade fashion in brand
communication. However our research strongly suggests that the core consumer market
wants both, not either or. This would therefore dictate to the market a need for a movement to
the term sustainable fashion (as a term that covers both areas) as necessary to coalesce the
market and build a stronger united social revolution. The term slow fashion similarly doesn't
really engage with this holistic view of sustainability as it stands as oppositional to the
industry and marketing led fast-fashion, rather than as a consumer-producer co-dependent
movement, even though it has aspirations of doing so.
In terms of attracting new customers, key selling features of sustainable fashion revolve
around timeless cuts, unique cuts, durability, natural materials and perceived health benefits.
These are all selling points which could entice less altruistic consumers to buy brands as well.
They speak to egotistical needs and promote value to consumers which in turn would be

28
reflected in the premium prices. By reducing the consumers need to source information or
become educated about fashion through carefully selected PR and marketing campaigns,
sustainable fashion brands could focus on the egotistical benefits of their products to attract
an increasing number of consumers.
5.2 Limitations
Although this research provides insight into a very under-researched space, it does so with
many limitations. First and foremost is the reliance on means-end theory. Means-end theory
is reviewed at an aggregated level (i.e. all consumers are treated collectively). It therefore
means that no single consumer was motivated by all the above factors. Using this model to
try to predict any specific action is therefore inappropriate. It does however broaden and
expand the range of issues future researchers may chose to investigate in predictive
modelling.
Means-end theory also assumes consumers can post-hoc reflect on their consumption
activity. This limitation is reflected in any interview based method of data collection, but in
means-end theory approaches is particularly salient as we are trying to link cognitive ladders.
It is obviously impossible to get someone to reflect on sub-conscious activity, but the method
encourages respondents to create cognitive structures which may not have been consciously
explored during a decision process. Respondents are therefore likely to over-rationalise their
purchase choices when subjected to this method.
The final major limitation is the choice of sampling technique. We wanted to ensure we could
tie respondents to particular purchases to guarantee the behaviour we were wishing to
explore. To do so we chose to identify respondents through shopping observation. This does
limit the research to consumers of two brands in this study. The brand identities and
marketing of those companies may therefore be reflected in some of the statements made by
consumers about their fashion choices. Unfortunately we could think of no other means of
guaranteeing respondents were active consumers. Self-response in any ethics related research
is so heavily affected by social desirability bias (SDB) that is must be treated with some
scepticism (Auger and Devinney 2007). However it was gratifying that in our study the
respondents clearly expanded well beyond the ethics of their purchases, suggesting taking an

29
interpretivist approach to questioning did indeed reduce SDB as suggested by Auger and
Devinney (2007).
6. References
Achabou, M.A., and Dekhili, S. 2013. Luxury and sustainable development: Is there a
match?. Journal of Business Research, 66(10): 1896-1903.
Allwood, J.M., Laursen, S.E., Russell, S.N., de Rodríguez, C.M., and Bocken, N.M.P. 2008.
An approach to scenario analysis of the sustainability of an industrial sector applied to
clothing and textiles in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(12): 1234-1246.
Arnould E.J., and Thompson C.J. 2005. Consumer culture theory: twenty years of research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3): 868-82.
Auger P, Burke P, Devinney TM, and Louviere, JJ. 2003. What will consumers pay for social
product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3): 281-304.
Auger, P., & Devinney, T.M.2007. Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of
preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4): 361-383.
Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Louviere, J.J., & Burke, P.F. 2010. The importance of social
product attributes in consumer purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study.
International Business Review, 19(2): 140-159.
Beard N. 2008. The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: a luxury niche or mass-
market reality? Fashion Theory, 12(4): 447–468.
Belk R. 1985. Materialism: trait aspects of living in a material world. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12: 265-80.
Belz, F.M., & Peattie, K. 2009. Sustainability marketing: A global perspective. Chichester:
Wiley.
Bianchi, C., and Birtwistle, G. 2010. Sell, give away, or donate: an exploratory study of
fashion clothing disposal behaviour in two countries. The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(3): 353-368.
Bianchi, C., and Birtwistle, G. 2012. Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: a comparative
study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3): 335-341.
Blanchard, T. 2013. Green is the New Black: How to Save the World in Style. Hachette UK.
Bly, S., Gwozdz, W., and Reisch, L. A. 2015. Exit from the high street: an exploratory study
of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, In
Press.
Bray J, Johns N, and Kilbrun D. 2010. An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical
consumption. Journal of Business Ethics. 98(4): 597-608

30
Bray, J. P. 2009. Ethical dimensions in clothing purchase. First Annual Ethics in Everyday
Life Conference, 17-19 March, Salzburg.
Bryman A, Bell E. 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
BSR, 2012. Sustainable Fashion Design: Oxymoron No More? [online] Available at:
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Sustainable_Fashion_Design.pdf [Accessed July 2013].
Carrigan M, Attalla A. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase
behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7): 560-577.
Carrigan M, Szmigin I, and Wright J. 2004. Shopping for a better world? An interpretive
study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 21(6): 401-417
Carrigan, M., Moraes, C., and McEachern, M. 2013. From conspicuous to considered
fashion: A harm-chain approach to the responsibilities of luxury-fashion businesses. Journal
of Marketing Management, 29(11-12): 1277-1307.
Cervellon M, Hjerth H, and Ricard S. 2010. Green in fashion? An exploratory study of
national differences in consumers concern for eco-fashion, Proceedings of 9th International
Marketing Trends Conference, Venice, January 20-21.
Cervellon, M.C., and Wernerfelt, A.S. 2012. Knowledge sharing among green fashion
communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 16(2): 176-192.
Chan, T.Y., & Wong, C.W. 2012. The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain:
Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 16(2), 193-215.
Chatzidakis, A., Maclaran, P., and Bradshaw, A. 2012. Heterotopian space and the utopics of
ethical and green consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4): 494-515.
Connell, K. Y. H. 2010. Internal and external barriers to eco‐conscious apparel acquisition.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), 279-286.
Connell, K.Y.H 2011. Exploring consumers' perceptions of eco-conscious apparel acquisition
behaviors. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(1): 61-73.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. 2008. Green consumption life-politics, risk and contradictions.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1): 117-145.
Co-operative Bank Ethical Consumerism Report 2012. [online] Available at:
www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethicalconsumerismreport [Accessed August 2013]
Cova, B., Maclaran, P., and Bradshaw, A. 2013. Rethinking consumer culture theory from
the postmodern to the communist horizon. Marketing Theory, 13(2): 213-225.
Davies I, Lee Z, and Ahonkhai I. 2012. Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? Journal of
Business Ethics, 106: 37-51.

31
Dickson MA 2005. Identifying and profiling apparel able users, in Harrison R, Newholm T,
and Shaw D. (eds), The Ethical Consumer, London: SAGE, pp. 11-24.
Dickson MA, 2000. Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to intentions
to purchase apparel from socially responsible business. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 18(1), pp. 19-30.
Dickson MA, 2001. Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users
and predicting their purchases. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1): 96-120.
Dickson MA, Littrell MA. 1996. Socially responsible behavior: Values and attitudes of the
alternative trading organization consumer. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
1(1): 50-69.
Easey M. 2002. Fashion Marketing. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Edun. [online] Available at: <www.edun.com> [Accessed May 2013].
Ertekin Z.O. and Atik D. 2015. Sustainable markets: motivating factors, barriers, and
remedies for mobilization of slow fashion. Journal of Macromarketing, 35: 53-69,
Ethical Fashion Forum 2011. The Market for Ethical and Sustainable Fashion Products
Briefing Report.
Fletcher, K. 2013. Sustainable fashion and textiles: design journeys. London: Routledge.
Freestone OM, McGoldrick PJ. 2008. Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of
Business Ethics, 79, pp. 445-467.
Gabriel Y, Lang T. 1995. The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption and its
Fragmentations. London: SAGE publications.
Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., and Hiller, A. 2012. The sustainable
clothing market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12): 935-955.
Grégoire, D.A., Barr, P.S., and Shepherd, D.A. 2010. Cognitive processes of opportunity
recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2): 413-431.
Grunert KG, Grunert SC. 1995. Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering
method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 12(3): 209-225.
Guedes M. 2011. Ethical fashion brands: promotion or a real value? International Conference
Fashion and Communication, CECL, Lisbon, March 21-April 2.
Gutman J. 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes.
Journal of Marketing, 46(Spring): 60-72.
Ha-Brookshire J, Hodges N. 2009. Socially responsible consumer behavior?: exploring used
clothing donation behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27: 179-196.

32
Hall, J., & Hofer, C.W. 1993. Venture capitalists' decision criteria in new venture evaluation.
Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1): 25-42.
Hill, J., and Lee, H.H. 2012. Young Generation Y consumers' perceptions of sustainability in
the apparel industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Managementl, 16(4): 477-491.
Hirschman EC, and Holbrook MB. 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3): 92-101.
Iwanow H, McEachern MG, and Jeffrey A. 2005. The influence of ethical trading policies on
consumer apparel purchase decisions. A Focus on The Gap Inc. International Journal of
Retailing & Distribution Management, 33(5): 371-387.
Jägel T, Kathy K, Alexander R. and Thorsten G. 2012. Individual values and motivational
complexities in ethical clothing consumption: A means-end approach. Journal of Marketing
Management, 28 (3/4): 373-396.
Joergens C. 2006. Ethical fashion: Myth of future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 10(3): 360-371.
Kim HE, Damhorst ML. 1998. Environmental Concern and Apparel Consumption. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 16: 126-133.
Laitala, K., and Boks, C. 2012. Sustainable clothing design: use matters. Journal of Design
Research, 10(1): 121-139.
Markkula, A., and Moisander, J. 2012. Discursive confusion over sustainable consumption: a
discursive perspective on the perplexity of marketplace knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 35(1): 105-125.
Mikkonen, I., Vicdan, H., and Markkula, A. 2014. What not to wear? Oppositional ideology,
fashion, and governmentality in wardrobe self-help. Consumption Markets & Culture, 17(3):
254-273.
Nagurney, A., and Yu, M. 2012. Sustainable fashion supply chain management under
oligopolistic competition and brand differentiation. International Journal of Production
Economics, 135(2): 532-540.
Niinimäki K. 2010. Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development.,
18: 150-162.
Niinimäki, K., and Hassi, L. 2011. Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and
consumption of textiles and clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16): 1876-1883.
Olson, J.C., and Reynolds, T.J. 2001. The means-end approach to understanding consumer
decision making. Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to
marketing and advertising strategy, 3-20.
Parker S. 2002. Ethical shopping. [online] Available at:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/retail-week-ethical-shopping.htm

33
Pedersen, E. R. G., and Gwozdz, W. 2014. From resistance to opportunity-seeking: Strategic
responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility in the Nordic fashion
industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2): 245-264.
Radin, T.J., and Calkins, M. 2006. The struggle against sweatshops: Moving toward
responsible global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2-3): 261-272.
Rest JR. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory, New York: Praeger.
Reynolds TJ, Gutman J. 1988. Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. Journal
of Advertising Research, 22(Feb/March): 11-32).
Reynolds, T. J. 2006. Methodological and strategy development implications of decision
segmentation. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4): 445-461.
Reynolds, T. J., and Olson, J. C. (Eds.). 2001. Understanding consumer decision making: the
means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Psychology Press.
Reynolds, T.J. & Gutman, J. 1988. Laddering theory-analysis and interpretation. Journal of
Advertising Research, 28(1): 11-31
Richins M. 1994. Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21: 522-33.
Schaefer, A., and Crane, A. 2005. Addressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of
Macromarketing, 25(1): 76-92.
Shaw D, Hogg G, Wilson E, Shiu E, and Hassan L. 2006. Fashion victim: the impact of fair
trade concerns on clothing choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14: 427-440.
Shen B, Wang Y, Lo CKY, and Shum M. 2012. The impact of ethical fashion on consumer
purchase behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2): 234-245.
Shim S. 1995. Environmentalism and consumer’s clothing disposal patterns – An exploratory
study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13: 38-38.
Smigin I, Carrrigan M, and McEachern MG. 2009. The conscious consumer taking a flexible
approach to ethical behavior. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 224-231.
Spiggle, S. 1994. Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 491-503.
Spulber, D.F. 2009. The theory of the firm: Microeconomics with endogenous entrepreneurs,
firms, markets, and organizations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Stern P, Dietz T, and Kalof L. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.
Environmental Behavior, 25: 322-348.
Striet, C-M. and Davies, I.A. 2012. Sustainability isn't sexy: An exploratory study into luxury
fashion, in Ana Laura Torres and Miguel Angel Gardetti Eds. Sustainable Fashion and
Textiles, Greenleaf Publishing.

34
Tomolillo D, and Shaw D. 2004. Undressing the ethical issues in fashion: a consumer
perspective, in International Retail Marketing; A Case Study Approach, Bruce M, Moore C,
and Birtwistle G. (Eds). Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 141-152.
Veludo-de Oliveira TM, Ikeda AA, and Campomar MC. 2006. Laddering in the practice of
marketing research: barriers and solutions. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 9(3): 297-306.
Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P., & Aldrich, C. 2000. New ways of thinking about
environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social
Issues, 56(3): 443-457.

35
Attributes Consequences Values
Figure 1. The means-end chain (Olsen and Reynolds 2001:13)

36
Table 1. Master content codes and assigned numbers
Attributes
(1) Unique styles
(2) Timeless cuts
(3) Quality
(4) Premium price
(5) Long lasting
(6) Availability
(7) Natural materials
(8) Recycled
(9) No sweatshops
(10) Environmentally friendly production
techniques
Consequences
(11) Material feels good
(12) Look good
(13) Less health problems
(14) Value for money
(15) Less exploitation
(16) Comfort
(17) Reduce waste
(18) Support environment
(19) Support communities
(20) Individuality
(21) Less buying
(22) Good feeling
(23) Guilt-free conscience
Values
(24) Self-expression
(25) Responsibility
(26) Social justice
(27) Protect the planet
(29) Self-esteem
(29) Sense of accomplishment

37
Figure 2. The Hierarchical Value Map for eco clothing consumption
Values
Product
Attributes
Consequ-
ences
Key
Weak links <3 Strong links > 10

38
Figure3. The Implications Matrix - There are no relations between attributes 1 and 6-11