What about Sustainability? An Empirical Analysis of Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior in Fashion Context

Abstract

In recent times, the concept of sustainability has gradually taken on a leading role, particularly because of its potential ability to influence consumers' view and, consequently, their buying choices. Based on this consideration, the work, by means of an empirical analysis, pursues two research questions: (i) is it possible to imagine a theoretical model in the fashion world able to show whether "importance", "expectations" and "social influence" effectively affect consumers' willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior? and (ii) how much are consumers willing to pay to get a sustainable item of clothing? In order to answer these two research questions, a Multiple Linear Regression Model is tested, which offers an interesting result: consumers attach little relevance to the importance accorded to a brand's sustainability, since they orient themselves on the basis of their expectations and their own group's thoughts. Another finding is that consumers state that they are willing to pay a price not higher than 20% to get a sustainable item of clothing. However, the paper presents two limitations, which are linked to the use of the questionnaire for the understanding of the respondents' opinions and to the small reference sample, composed of 271 people with a high level of education.

Full text

sustainability
Article
What about Sustainability? An Empirical Analysis of
Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior in Fashion Context
Maria Vincenza Ciasullo, Gennaro Maione * ID , Carlo Torre and Orlando Troisi
Department of Business Sciences, Management & Innovation Systems, University of Salerno,
Via Giovanni Paolo II, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy; mciasullo@unisa.it (M.V.C.); ctorre@unisa.it (C.T.);
otroisi@unisa.it (O.T.)
*Correspondence: gmaione@unisa.it; Tel.: +39-089-963-087
Received: 30 June 2017; Accepted: 31 August 2017; Published: 12 September 2017
Abstract:
In recent times, the concept of sustainability has gradually taken on a leading role,
particularly because of its potential ability to influence consumers’ view and, consequently, their
buying choices. Based on this consideration, the work, by means of an empirical analysis, pursues
two research questions: (i) is it possible to imagine a theoretical model in the fashion world able
to show whether “importance”, “expectations” and “social influence” effectively affect consumers’
willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior? and (ii) how much
are consumers willing to pay to get a sustainable item of clothing? In order to answer these two
research questions, a Multiple Linear Regression Model is tested, which offers an interesting result:
consumers attach little relevance to the importance accorded to a brand’s sustainability, since they
orient themselves on the basis of their expectations and their own group’s thoughts. Another finding
is that consumers state that they are willing to pay a price not higher than 20% to get a sustainable
item of clothing. However, the paper presents two limitations, which are linked to the use of the
questionnaire for the understanding of the respondents’ opinions and to the small reference sample,
composed of 271 people with a high level of education.
Keywords:
sustainability; fashion brand; purchasing behavior; purchasing choice; Multiple Linear
Regression; premium price
1. Introduction
The belief that socio-environmental dynamics play a decisive role in influencing individuals’
behavior is widely shared [
1
–
3
]. In this regard, the concept of sustainability has gradually taken on a
leading role, particularly because of its potential ability to influence consumers’ view and, consequently,
their buying choices [
4
–
7
]. This attitude towards sustainability seems to have captured the interest
of scholars and professionals belonging to several sectors [
8
–
11
]. Among these sectors, the fashion
industry has paid particular attention, with an increasingly heated debate around the economic impact
of “sustainable products” on fashion companies [12].
In fact, some authors [
13
] believe that in the current—increasingly unpredictable and
mutable—competitive environment, sustainability represents one of the most effective levers for
attracting fashion customers. Moreover, it is not only effective on customers who are particularly
active in environmental protection, but also those who simply prefer products realized through the
adoption sustainable practices, all other variables being equal [14–16].
This study, by means of an empirical analysis, pursues two research questions:
1.
Is it possible to imagine a theoretical model for the fashion world which is able to show whether
“importance”, “expectations”, and “social influence” effectively affect consumers’ willingness to
reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior?
Sustainability 2017,9, 1617; doi:10.3390/su9091617 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 2 of 18
2. How much are consumers willing to pay in order to get a sustainable item of clothing?
In order to answer these two research questions, this paper is structured into five parts. Initially,
the theoretical background of the work is presented in order to justify the construction of the conceptual
model hypothesized. Subsequently, after describing this construction and the assumptions underlying
it, we describe our methodology, present the results of our analysis, and discuss the emerging empirical
evidence. Conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the work, and ideas for
future research are then discussed.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Sustainability
In our current globalized culture, people pay great attention to claims of sustainability by products
and brands, which companies make in order to meet customer expectations [
17
]. Such attention is
increasingly shifting market demand toward goods and services capable of ensuring respect for
the environment and public health [
18
]. An increasing number of scholars [
19
–
23
] have focused
their studies on the existence of a possible gap between consumer attitudes to the adoption of
sustainable behaviors and the behaviors actually adopted by them, also emphasizing the mechanisms
necessary for reducing this gap. According to Biddle [
24
], every individual in society has a significant
role in explaining behaviors guided by respect for the environment. Solomon et al. [
25
] argue
that the role played by either an individual or a group of people in society, considering also their
various duties and responsibilities, represents an important stimulating factor for the adoption of
purchasing behaviors aimed at better preserving the environment. Stern and Hicks [
26
] believe
that pro-environmental purchasing behavior arises from a growing desire to promote the respect
of sociability. Consistent with these considerations, Mendez-Picazo et al. [
27
] identify sustainability
as a decisive driver for guaranteeing an adequate synthesis of economic and environmental needs.
That statement suggests that awareness about the benefits of adopting sustainable behaviors is in
itself an important encouragement for their adoption. In fact, consumers who tend to engage in
sustainable practices are generally better informed about the consequences of their pro-environmental
behavior [
28
]. Moreover, this consideration emphasizes that consumer buying behavior can no
longer be understood as conditioned by only individual wellbeing [
29
], but also by willingness to
achieve overall results—consistent with the market logic—attentive to the respect of public health and
environmental protection [
30
]. By assuming a significant role in consumers’ purchasing decisions in
this way, environmental and social factors also become decisive in defining business strategies [
31
].
Customers and companies, in fact, are even more aware that such high attention on sustainability
is capable of influencing market decisions and results: In choosing products to purchase, people
seem to select those which align with their needs and beliefs, especially in terms of sustainability [
32
].
Accordingly, companies are increasingly focusing on the development and communication of their
sustainable behaviors [
33
] and this especially depends on the belief that consumers [
1
] are willing to
pay a premium price [11] for preferring those products perceived as really sustainable.
2.2. Perceived Ethical Importance
Although some authors addressed issues related to “perceived ethical importance” in the
twentieth century [
34
], the last two decades have seen this topic take on a significance apparent
to consumers and companies, particularly in light of the hyper-competition that now characterizes
every business scenario [
35
]. This growing attention has gradually led to affirmation of the concept
of “ethical marketing” [
36
,
37
], aimed at inducing both consumers and companies to adopt behaviors
to facilitate the improvement of collective well-being and quality of life, by means of an appropriate
combination of moral and economic principles [
38
]. According to Kotler et al. [
39
], a more ethical vision
of marketing can help achieve a threefold objective: ensuring greater user satisfaction; promoting
more defensible business success; and, more generally, ensuring social welfare. Such a consideration

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 3 of 18
provides a plausible explanation for why ethical perceived importance has held an increasingly central
position in the definition of marketing strategies [
40
], with an increased focus on consumers and their
needs and preferences [
41
]. In this regard, Robin and Reidenbach [
42
] and Abratt and Sacks [
43
] state
that the level of business engagement toward the adoption of ethical behavior is quite complex and
varies according to several factors, including culture, education, experience, and deontological norms.
Several scholars [
44
–
46
] have focused their attention on the role played by perceived ethical importance
in effectively orienting behavioral choices of individuals. Haines et al. [
47
], for example, show that
the greater the perception of the importance attached to ethics, the higher the level of individual
involvement. Singhapakdi [
48
] defines perceived ethical importance as an individual state construct,
very close to the behavioral intention, and hence capable of predicting decisions by individuals. This
importance accorded to ethical issues shows that, in adopting behavioral choices, decision makers’
perceptions play an increasingly crucial role [
49
]. Vitell and Hidalgo [
50
] argue that the greater the
perceived importance of ethics, the higher the probability of adopting morally desirable practices.
Similarly, Karandakatiya and Qiang [
51
] point out that only those who attach a high importance to
ethics tend to implement certain behaviors, consistent with their beliefs, with regular occurrence.
Such statements suggest that perceived ethical importance should be considered as a variable capable
of directing individuals’ behavioral choices. On the other hand, Sciarelli [
52
,
53
] argues that despite the
growing interest shown by academics and professionals to perceived ethical importance, demonstrated
by the increasing use of terms such as “ethical consumer” [
54
–
56
] or “ethical company” [
57
–
59
], it is
rather unusual to see the adoption of “completely” ethical behavior on the part of consumers and
companies. In practice, these parties tend to consider other variables.
2.3. Expectations
In the managerial literature, the term “expectation” is generically interpreted as a set of forecasts
performed by economic operators on the basis of their own information and intuitions about the
trend of possible economic variables in the future. One of the first authors to highlight the role of
expectations in influencing the current behavior of economic operators was Keynes [
60
], although
without formulating an explicit theory of their training; instead, he compared them to irrational animal
spirits capable of guiding individuals’ actions and behaviors. Over time, many meanings have been
attributed to the term “expectation” and a large number of studies have been dedicated to the topic.
Vroom [
61
], for example, considers expectation as a temporary belief regarding the probability that a
given action is followed by a specific result. Georgescu-Roegen [
62
] instead defines it as an individual’s
state of mind related to an affirmation, a future event, or any other issue on which knowledge does not
necessarily exist. Olson and Dover [
63
] later elevated consumer expectations to “prepurchase beliefs
or evaluative beliefs about the product”. Other scholars [
64
–
70
], in the attempt to explain the concept
and—especially—the role played by expectations, define them as anticipations of future consequences
based on prior experience, current circumstances, or other sources of information capable of affecting
individuals’ behavior. For example, when choosing investments, any individual acts by taking into
account their future possible profitability. In this regard, Bridges [
71
] defines expectations as a possible
point of reference for consumers, able to orient their opinion and influence their choices. Consistently,
Atkinson [
72
], the proponent of Expectancy-Value Theory, believes that individuals’ choices could
be explained by their beliefs about how well they would have done on the activity. Bandura [
73
]
distinguishes expectations in two categories: efficacy expectations, considered as people’s belief about
their capability to accomplish a task; and outcome expectancies, defined as the belief that a given
action will lead to a given outcome. More specifically, the author points out that the former are more
predictive of performance and choice than the latter. Eccles et al. [
74
] proposed an extension of the
original expectancy–value model, stating that expectancies directly influence achievement choices,
performances, efforts, and persistence. Therefore, based on advanced argumentation, expectation is a
construct to take into account for studying the determinants of individuals’ behavior [75].

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 4 of 18
2.4. Social Influence
Social influence can be interpreted as the degree to which an individual values what others think
should be done [
76
,
77
]. Over the years, this concept has attracted the interest of several authors [
78
],
although early studies [
79
,
80
] tended to describe the mechanisms underlying it, without actually
highlighting the possible effects on individuals’ behavior. In the field of social psychology, it can be
defined as the pressure that a group exerts on individuals by altering their perceptions, opinions,
attitudes, and behaviors [
81
]. In other words, it can be expressed as the way through which people’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the presence of others, real or imaginary [
82
].
Social influence is a phenomenon that can occur in all situations where there are at least two “social
entities”: an influencer (“influence source”) and a “target” (influence recipient) [83].
In this regard, Fishbein [
84
] defined a model representative of the Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA), in which social influence (described through the concept of subjective norm) is considered as the
result of a set of pressures exerted by some individuals on others, which is able to affect the behavior
of the latter. Consistently, Ajzen [
85
] introduced and developed the Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB), highlighting the concept of the “subjective norm” to indicate the perceived social pressure
capable of influencing or not influencing people’s behavior. In more detail, both TRA and TPB models
stress how people’s actions and behaviors are constantly being affected by what others think and say.
In a business context, this idea can produce an evident impact on corporate decision-making and on
company conduct (manufacturers, contractors, sub-contractors, retailers, etc.), especially in terms of
marketing strategies [
86
]. In this perspective, in order to face the turbulence of the market, fashion
companies should rethink the way their business is run, adjusting, reconsidering and/or inventing
business models complying with consumers’ thoughts.
In this regard, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists, historians, and
literary critics have paid attention to the role played by the concept of identity, in an attempt to
understand “how people think they and others should behave; how society teaches them how to
behave; and how people are motivated by these views, sometimes to the point of being willing to
die for them” [
83
]. There are numerous studies highlighting the strong incidence of social influence
on individuals’ behavior, but other researchers have presented results which suggest the opposite.
Armitage and Conner [
83
], for example, argued that in many cases it is not possible to demonstrate a
causal connection between social influence perceived by individuals and the actions that they carry
out. In fact, in order to hypothesize an effective impact of social influence on an individual’s behavior,
the “target” should make a cognitive or sentimental behavioral adaptation because of the ideas and
thoughts expressed by the influencer [
82
]. Recent studies [
87
,
88
] have compromised by providing
a social influence conceptualization which is oriented to give evidence of its potential for affecting
human actions. Risselada et al. [
89
] define social influence as the set of external pressures able to
influence an individual’s perception and, consequently, their behavior. Similarly, Frink et al. [
90
]
argue that, in general, social influence plays a critical role in guiding people’s behavior in many
contexts. Likewise, Takács et al. [
91
], attach to social influence a double ascendancy—positive and
negative—on human behavior. According to this interpretation, every individual can be induced to
perform specific actions or avoid other ones. Based on these arguments, social influence appears as a
possible determinant of individuals’ actions and behavioral.
3. Research Model and Hypothesis Development
The paper, starting from the contribution of Creyer and Ross [
92
], tries to test the hypothesis
verified by the two authors in another context. It also proposes a possible extension, in order to present
a conceptual model able to describe the different variables influencing consumers’ willingness to
reward sustainable brands through their purchasing behavior. Note that, rather than considering
the concept of ethics, this paper focuses on sustainability, which, although strictly linked to the
former, has a somewhat different meaning. The variables originally considered in the aforementioned
paper are:

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 5 of 18
1. Importance of the ethicality of a firm’s behavior (importance).
2. Expectations regarding the ethicality of corporate behavior in today’s society (expectations).
3.
Willingness to reward or punish an ethical firm via purchasing behavior (willingness to reward
or punish).
Starting from these variables and adding another variable (represented by social influence on
fashion brand sustainability), the paper aims to identify the determinants of willingness to reward
a sustainable fashion brand. However, as noted above, the present paper also attempts to present
an extension, considering a further variable in the multiple linear regression. As the existing body
of studies aimed at empirically assessing the real determinants of consumers’ behavior is quite
poor and fragmentary, the proposed theoretical model tries to identify the factors able to influence
consumers’ purchasing choices, verifying in detail the extent to which willingness to reward is affected
by importance, expectations, and social expectations (defined as above).
A schematic depicting this analysis is shown in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1617 5 of 18
1. Importance of the ethicality of a firm’s behavior (importance).
2. Expectations regarding the ethicality of corporate behavior in today’s society (expectations).
3. Willingness to reward or punish an ethical firm via purchasing behavior (willingness to reward
or punish).
Starting from these variables and adding another variable (represented by social influence on
fashion brand sustainability), the paper aims to identify the determinants of willingness to reward a
sustainable fashion brand. However, as noted above, the present paper also attempts to present an
extension, considering a further variable in the multiple linear regression. As the existing body of
studies aimed at empirically assessing the real determinants of consumers’ behavior is quite poor
and fragmentary, the proposed theoretical model tries to identify the factors able to influence
consumers’ purchasing choices, verifying in detail the extent to which willingness to reward is
affected by importance, expectations, and social expectations (defined as above).
A schematic depicting this analysis is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
The roots of the proposed multiple linear regression model lie in theoretical studies concerning
the purchasing behavior of fashion consumers [93–100]. Each variable has been chosen for study on
the basis of a literature review.
Hypotheses Underlying The Model
The importance of perceived sustainability as a driver guiding consumers purchasing choices
represents a widely-debated issue in the literature [23,101]. Several scholars [20] have shown the
existence of a strong positive correlation between perceived ethical importance of sustainable
practices and consumers behavior. Accordingly, other studies [1] point out that in recent years, the
importance attached to sustainable practices on the part of consumers is conditioning the market
and marketing strategies [102], especially because companies seeking new sustainability practices
with which to gain competitive advantages over their current and potential competitors [103,104].
This trend seems to have fostered the development of an apparent virtuous circle: the increasing
importance addressed to sustainable products and brands has stimulated companies to focus more
attention on the adoption of sustainable practices, which have in turn attracted the interest of more
consumers [103]. This importance is proposed to stem from circumstances in which consumers are
not able to objectively assess desired products before purchasing. In such situations, they base their
purchasing choices on other variables, such as brand sustainability [105].
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
The roots of the proposed multiple linear regression model lie in theoretical studies concerning
the purchasing behavior of fashion consumers [
93
–
100
]. Each variable has been chosen for study on
the basis of a literature review.
Hypotheses Underlying the Model
The importance of perceived sustainability as a driver guiding consumers purchasing choices
represents a widely-debated issue in the literature [
23
,
101
]. Several scholars [
20
] have shown the
existence of a strong positive correlation between perceived ethical importance of sustainable practices
and consumers behavior. Accordingly, other studies [
1
] point out that in recent years, the importance
attached to sustainable practices on the part of consumers is conditioning the market and marketing
strategies [
102
], especially because companies seeking new sustainability practices with which to
gain competitive advantages over their current and potential competitors [
103
,
104
]. This trend
seems to have fostered the development of an apparent virtuous circle: the increasing importance
addressed to sustainable products and brands has stimulated companies to focus more attention on the
adoption of sustainable practices, which have in turn attracted the interest of more consumers [
103
].
This importance is proposed to stem from circumstances in which consumers are not able to objectively

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 6 of 18
assess desired products before purchasing. In such situations, they base their purchasing choices on
other variables, such as brand sustainability [105].
Other academics [
104
] demonstrate the exact opposite, highlighting that in most cases, although
consumers may claim to value sustainable behavior, this is not associated with consistent shopping
behavior. According to Weatherell et al. [
106
] and Carrigan et al. [
56
], this attitude is probably justifiable
by considering that, in addition to sustainability, there are many other elements which consumers tend
to take into account, such as, price, value for money, and comfort. Verbeke [
107
], instead, associates this
result with the fact that few consumers have a concrete understanding of the real benefits arising from
the adoption of sustainable practices, and instead receive their information via appropriate marketing
strategies. In the light of this vivid, this paper considers the following hypothesis (which we refer to
as H1): Perceived ethical importance of fashion brand sustainability positively influences people’s
willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior.
According to Kakeu and Byron [
108
], expectations are one of the factors that can predict
individuals’ behavior, playing a decisive role in guiding consumers’ purchasing choices. Likewise,
Chang and Sanfey [
109
] state that that this effect is explained by the fact that expectations act as
facilitators of people’s decision-making processes. Consistently, other studies [
110
–
112
] show that
expectations play a primary role in orienting consumers’ purchasing intent. With regard to fashion,
many scholars and practitioners believe that every consumer’s behavior is strongly oriented toward
products about which they have previously formulated high expectations [
113
]. In other words,
it seems that the higher the expectations about the intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of a fashion good,
the greater the likelihood that the product will be bought by the consumer. Accordingly, it is difficult
conceive of a consumer deciding to buy a garment concerning which they hold low expectations.
However, not all scholars agree with this conceptual approach. LaTour and Peat [
114
], for instance,
believe that a consumer might be induced to buy a certain good while considering its quality poor;
this may occur in a number of circumstances, for instance when little time is available for making a
purchase, when there is an urgent need to obtain a fashion product with certain functionalities, or
when one is curious to compare an item with another product with better perceived quality. Indeed,
according to the two authors, a consumer who buys a product for which they have low expectations
is more likely to be satisfied with the purchase, considering the low initial expectations. On this
basis, we make the following hypothesis (referred to as H2): Expectations about fashion brand
sustainability positively influence people’s willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand with
their purchasing behavior.
According to Hiller Connell and Kozar [
115
], there is a possibility that a consumer’s purchasing
decisions are influenced by other people with whom they usually interact. In this regard, Lee [
31
]
argues that consumers, and in particular young people, tend to be inclined to slightly modify or even
totally change their behavior because of pressures arising from their membership group. Bartels and
Hoogendam [
116
] show that social influence perceived by consumers attentive to environmental issues
triggers the adoption of sustainable purchasing behavior. Berns et al. [
117
] and Loureiro et al. [
118
]
state that individuals are strongly conditioned by society in choosing what to wear, insofar as it allows
them to assert their professional position or demonstrate their social status, classify or differentiate
themselves from others, or impress. Very often, buying and owning a socially-accepted product
helps make consumers an integral part of their membership group: individuals who adopt a similar
purchasing behavior by orienting themselves towards products bought by other people close to them
might feel they have elements in common and this sensation could increase the sense of identity and
belonging to a particular social group. Some authors [
118
,
119
] believe that social influence is capable of
affecting consumers in the purchase of hedonic or luxury products, while others [
81
,
97
,
98
] believe that
the pressure exercised by a social group on its members affects their purchasing behavior regardless of
the kind of product. Therefore, we propose the following third hypothesis (H3): Social influence on
fashion brand sustainability positively affects people’s willingness to reward a sustainable fashion
brand via their purchasing behavior.

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 7 of 18
In summary, we have the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
(
H1
)
.
Perceived ethical importance of fashion brand sustainability positively influences people’s
willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior.
Hypothesis 2
(
H2
)
.
Expectations about fashion brand sustainability positively influence people’s willingness
to reward a sustainable fashion brand with their purchasing behavior.
Hypothesis 3
(
H3
)
.
Social influence on fashion brand sustainability positively affects people’s willingness to
reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior.
4. Data Collection
4.1. Sample Description
To test the research hypotheses, data was collected through the administration of paper
questionnaires to a sample of students at the University of Salerno. The decision to engage students
was based on the consideration that they represent a quite homogeneous segment, which is useful in
studies aimed at understanding salient aspects in the fashion consumption context [120,121].
At the end of the administration phase, 310 questionnaires were returned, with 20 incomplete
(6.45% non-response rate) and 19 with response-set problems (6.13% response bias). The elimination
of these 39 left 271 suitable questionnaires remaining (87.42% response rate), with 124 completed by
males and 147 by females. The overall average age of the sample was 21.97 years (22.49 years for males
and 21.62 years for females).
4.2. Procedure and Instruments
The study, by means of a multiple linear regression, aimed to investigate the relationship between
the variables of the model shown above. In particular, as previously noted, the purpose was to
investigate whether and to what extent importance, expectations, and social influence affect consumers’
willingness to reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior.
The questionnaire was developed with both multiple choice and open-response questions. In order
to ensure the questions were clear, the questionnaire was administered to a small sample of students at
the University of Salerno before the final administration.
After the pre-test, necessary amendments were made, and the final administration was realized
between April and May 2016 with students attending degree courses run by the Department
of Business Management at the University of Salerno. After the objective of the survey was
explained, each student’s willingness to participate in research was verified and the questionnaire
was administered.
All constructs involved in the model were measured using multiple indicators adapted from
previous studies, with particular regard to the work of Creyer and Ross [
92
], which contains the initial
model to which this extension was proposed. In particular, for the construct “importance”, the 5 items
scale used by Creyer and Ross [
92
] was reproduced, with minor adaptions reflecting the research
goals. Also from Creyer and Ross, 7 items were adapted for the construct “expectations”. 3 items were
adapted from Venkatesh et al. [
76
] to measure the construct “social influence”, while a 4 items scale,
originally proposed by Creyer and Ross [
92
], was employed to measure the willingness to reward
sustainable fashion brands. As suggested by Bastian et al. (2005), all variables were measured using a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 8 of 18
5. Results
The findings emerging from the administration of questionnaires were processed with the program
IBM SPSS Statistics 23, by means of which, in accordance with the suggestions described in the study
conducted by Rieke et al. [
122
], the authors have firstly identified the factors best able to explain the
selected constructs by carrying out, as suggested by Churchill [
123
], a Principal Component Analysis
(PCA). Subsequently, as recommended by Jolliffe [
124
], the reliability of each measurement scale
resulting after realizing PCA has been verified.
The checking of the scales validity and reliability was performed by means of an iterative process,
which finally provided all values higher than the minimum acceptance threshold, with particular
regard to the KMO test (>.5 [
125
]), Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Sign. < .005 [
126
]), the explained
variance of the phenomenon (>.50 [125,127]) and Cronbach’s Alpha (>.70 [125]) (Table 1):
Table 1. Sampling.
Administrated Questionnaires Response Rate Non-Response Rate Response Bias
310 271 (87, 42%) 20 (6, 45%) 19 (6, 13%)
Subsequently, in order to examine the explanatory power of the model, a multiple linear regression
analysis was conducted. With few exceptions, which will be discussed, below, in line with the
argumentations proposed by Hu et al. [
128
], the regression analysis presents acceptable values with
reference to both the Adjusted R-square and coefficients, such as the standardized Beta and the
collinearity statistics (VIF and Tolerance), as shown in Tables 2–4:
Table 2. Validity and reliability of the measurement scales.
Variables
Scales Validity Scales Reliability
KMO Test Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity (Sign.)
Total Explained
Variance Cronbach’s Alpha
Importance .500 .000 90.469 .895
Expectation .781 .000 55.429 .794
Social influence .716 .000 83.548 .901
Willingness to reward .716 .000 75.513 .819
Table 3. Model summary.
Model R R-Square Adjusted R-Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
1
.812
.660 .656 .721 1.802
Table 4. Coefficients.
Variables Standardized Beta Sign. Collinearity Statistics
VIF Tolerance
Importance .050 .281 .602 1.660
Expectation .392 .000 .486 2.057
Social influence .491 .000 .674 1.484
Table 3, in fact, shows that the independent variables of the model (expectations, importance
and social influence) are cumulatively able to explain more than 65% of the dependent variables
(customers’ willingness to reward the adoption of sustainable practices through their purchasing
behavior), in consistency with the results emerging from other studies aimed at responding to a similar
research question [47,129].

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 9 of 18
However, Table 4deserves further examination, since not all of the variables exhibit suitable values.
In fact, while expectations and social influence satisfy the acceptance thresholds, importance, on the
contrary, presents positive values only for the collinearity statistics and not also for the standardized
Beta nor for significance, indicating that it may not be a particularly decisive predictor of customers’
willingness to reward sustainability through purchasing behavior.
6. Discussion
In this multiple linear regression (see Figure 2), importance seems to exert a totally negligible
influence on consumers’ willingness to reward sustainable fashion brands, contrary to the initial model
proposed by Creyer and Ross [
92
]. This result, though not fully generalizable, suggests that consumers
are often unable to prioritize to their own thoughts in adopting a specific purchasing behavior [
130
,
131
].
In other words, hypothesis H1 was rejected by our analysis.
Moreover, the analysis appears to confirm the hypothesis H2, highlighting the significant influence
exercised by consumers’ expectations about sustainability on their willingness to reward brands that
adopt friendly environmental practices. This result is perfectly in line with the arguments raised by
Kakeu and Byron [
108
], who argue that expectations play a decisive role in influencing consumers
towards more conscious and deliberate purchasing decisions (see also Umbach [110]).
The hypothesis H3 is also confirmed. In fact, social influence appears to be the variable with the
greatest impact on consumers’ purchasing choices. In line with the viewpoint presented by Bartels and
Hoogendam [
116
], consumer buying decisions appear to be significantly influenced by the opinions
of people with whom they maintain relations. This was previously foreseen byBerns et al. [
117
]:
“in particular, a consumer’s tendency to purchase a product is influenced by the choices made by his
associative reference group”. More specifically, the authors believe that young people’s behavior is
affected by perceptions of popularity in their group of reference. Likewise, Lee [
31
] highlights that in
some cases, a consumer can be so concerned with what people think about a specific topic that they
can neglect their own personal taste by making purchases on the basis of the interest shown towards
that product by the community.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1617 9 of 18
consumers are often unable to prioritize to their own thoughts in adopting a specific purchasing
behavior [130,131]. In other words, hypothesis H1 was rejected by our analysis.
Moreover, the analysis appears to confirm the hypothesis H2, highlighting the significant
influence exercised by consumers’ expectations about sustainability on their willingness to reward
brands that adopt friendly environmental practices. This result is perfectly in line with the
arguments raised by Kakeu and Byron [108], who argue that expectations play a decisive role in
influencing consumers towards more conscious and deliberate purchasing decisions (see also
Umbach [110]).
The hypothesis H3 is also confirmed. In fact, social influence appears to be the variable with the
greatest impact on consumers’ purchasing choices. In line with the viewpoint presented by Bartels
and Hoogendam [116], consumer buying decisions appear to be significantly influenced by the
opinions of people with whom they maintain relations. This was previously foreseen byBerns et al.
[117]: “in particular, a consumer’s tendency to purchase a product is influenced by the choices made
by his associative reference group”. More specifically, the authors believe that young people’s
behavior is affected by perceptions of popularity in their group of reference. Likewise, Lee [31]
highlights that in some cases, a consumer can be so concerned with what people think about a
specific topic that they can neglect their own personal taste by making purchases on the basis of the
interest shown towards that product by the community.
Figure 2. The multiple linear regression model.
Besides multiple-choice questions and those related to gender (masculine or feminine), the
questionnaire also included some open-ended questions, as previously mentioned, which were
aimed at allowing for a better understanding of the perception of sustainability with reference to
fashion brands.
In particular, respondents were asked how much they would have been willing to pay to have
an item of clothing made through the adoption of sustainable practices by companies operating in
the fashion sector. The responses highlighted the customers’ tendency to consider aspects that go
beyond the mere use of a product, looking toward a more sustainable dimension of socio-economic
development, as depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 2. The multiple linear regression model.
Besides multiple-choice questions and those related to gender (masculine or feminine), the
questionnaire also included some open-ended questions, as previously mentioned, which were

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 10 of 18
aimed at allowing for a better understanding of the perception of sustainability with reference to
fashion brands.
In particular, respondents were asked how much they would have been willing to pay to have
an item of clothing made through the adoption of sustainable practices by companies operating in
the fashion sector. The responses highlighted the customers’ tendency to consider aspects that go
beyond the mere use of a product, looking toward a more sustainable dimension of socio-economic
development, as depicted in Figure 3.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1617 10 of 18
Figure 3. Respondents’ willingness to pay a premium price for a sustainable fashion product.
In more detail, the responses were as follows (see Table 5). 10 people (about 4% of the sample)
pointed out that they would not be willing to pay any premium price to get a sustainable item of
clothing, since they care about other features of products. Another 10 people (about 4% of the
sample) declared that they pay enough attention to sustainability to be willing to support a 50%
increase in price. Nineteen people (about 7% of the sample) said they would be willing to pay 40%
more for apparel with a sustainable brand, while 22 (about 8% of the sample) revealed that the
highest price increase they would support for a sustainable item of clothing is 30% on the base price.
Forty-three people (about 16% of the sample) stated their willingness to pay a 10% increased price
for a sustainable fashion product. One-hundred and sixty-five people (about 61% of the sample)
pointed out that they would pay no more than 20% than the basic price to get a sustainable item of
clothing. No one declared a willingness to support a premium price increase of more than 50% for
buying a fashion good produced though sustainable practices.
Table 5. Respondents’ willingness to pay a premium price for a sustainable fashion product.
People (% of the Sample) Maximum Premium Price Willing to Pay
10 (4%) 0%
43 (16%) 10%
165 (61%) 20%
22 (8%) 30%
19 (7%) 40%
10 (4%) 50%
0 (0%) 60%
0 (0%) 70%
0 (0%) 80%
0 (0%) 90%
0 (0%) 100%
Figure 3. Respondents’ willingness to pay a premium price for a sustainable fashion product.
In more detail, the responses were as follows (see Table 5). 10 people (about 4% of the sample)
pointed out that they would not be willing to pay any premium price to get a sustainable item of
clothing, since they care about other features of products. Another 10 people (about 4% of the sample)
declared that they pay enough attention to sustainability to be willing to support a 50% increase in
price. Nineteen people (about 7% of the sample) said they would be willing to pay 40% more for
apparel with a sustainable brand, while 22 (about 8% of the sample) revealed that the highest price
increase they would support for a sustainable item of clothing is 30% on the base price. Forty-three
people (about 16% of the sample) stated their willingness to pay a 10% increased price for a sustainable
fashion product. One-hundred and sixty-five people (about 61% of the sample) pointed out that
they would pay no more than 20% than the basic price to get a sustainable item of clothing. No one
declared a willingness to support a premium price increase of more than 50% for buying a fashion
good produced though sustainable practices.

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 11 of 18
Table 5. Respondents’ willingness to pay a premium price for a sustainable fashion product.
People (% of the Sample) Maximum Premium Price Willing to Pay
10 (4%) 0%
43 (16%) 10%
165 (61%) 20%
22 (8%) 30%
19 (7%) 40%
10 (4%) 50%
0 (0%) 60%
0 (0%) 70%
0 (0%) 80%
0 (0%) 90%
0 (0%) 100%
7. Theoretical and Practical Implications
In the light of the considerations so far expressed, which highlight the relevance of social and
environmental aspects for consumers’ purchasing behavior, this study could be considered a useful
instrument for both scholars and managers interested and/or engaged in fashion sector.
In fact, the paper offers both theoretical and practical implications, emphasizing that, on one hand,
expectations [
113
] and social influence [
115
] seem to play a significant role in influencing consumers’
willingness to buy sustainable items of clothing, while, on the other, the selling price continues to
represent a significant factor, at least up to a certain threshold, beyond which, in fact, an adverse effect
on brand appeal could occur.
This statement should lead, concerning theoretical implications, marketing scholars to investigate
new scenarios in the fashion industry, potentially capable of driving consumers’ interest toward aspects
different from the “classic” ones (such as product quality, image, value for money, etc.). In this regard,
this work could contribute to giving an impulse to the development of the scientific debate about a
particularly salient topic in the social and politic context.
In particular, the results emerging from the analysis stress the need to deepen the various aspects
leading to the growing interest in the theme of enterprise sustainability and, consequently, to the
constant increase in dedicated investments. Among them, the sensitivity of businesses, the need
for adaptation to regulatory developments (which have been more and more strict in recent years),
the need to enhance the quality of products, and the simultaneous reduction of costs needed for their
production, the improvement of image and reputation in the eyes of consumers (increasingly sensitive
to environmental evolution and new market opportunities), etc.
To this end, greater attention of scholars in every sector (especially business management) seems
indispensable to showing companies the future evolution of the global and local agenda with regard
to sustainability issues.
A significant challenge for scholars interested in the theme of sustainability is the pursuit of
three specific medium- and long-term objectives: intercepting new market trends; exploring and,
possibly, predicting how sustainable practices can turn into effective purchasing behavior; and,
ultimately, making the concept of sustainability a concrete resource for companies.
In other words, future research could be directed to the qualitative and quantitative identification
of the competitive advantage that a company would be able to get if it started undertaking actions and
carrying out sustainable interventions.
regarding practical implications, this work invites managers of fashion companies to reflect
on the fact that, in order to maximize business volume, it is necessary to focus both on current
issues (such as environmental sustainability) and on the maximum increase capable of attracting and
retaining customers attentive to certain aspects, since the variable “price” seems to keep on playing a
not insignificant role in consumers’ purchasing choices.

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 12 of 18
This means that the consideration of the results emerging from the present analysis allows us to
more quickly and effectively understand the social variables (such as sustainability, social influence,
price, etc.) in order to facilitate better business management and improve the economic and financial
performances of companies.
Business managers should be well aware that most companies that have undertaken sustainable
initiatives have greatly benefited in terms of regulatory compliance, brand reputation enhancement,
customer relationship betterment, improvement and/or consolidation of the market position, etc.
In this regard, corporate ownership (especially with reference to medium-sized companies,
but not only) could assess the idea of introducing, in addition to the traditional managerial figures,
a Chief Sustainability Officer, investing in this position the responsibility of taking advantage of the
adoption of sustainable practices.
This choice could be justified by the fact that, in the main industrialized countries, the concept of
sustainability is progressively gaining importance for consumers and, consequently, for companies.
In fact, many business realities are increasingly aware of the existence of a causal link between business
sustainability and performance: to date, many managers do not wonder whether it is advantageous to
define and implement sustainable market policies but, rather, they attempt to identify, among different
available alternatives, the best ways to direct consumers’ attention to sustainability with real benefits
for company.
A business oriented towards or, at least, focused on the theme of sustainability can ensure a
competitive position with stable returns over time, although some actions do not bring direct benefits
in terms of profitability but contribute, in the medium and long term, to the formation of intangible
capital, especially in terms of expertise and image. However, this approach requires a lot of time,
so it will be possible to see the first fruits and avoid the strategic and operational risks that could
compromise the relationship with the various categories of stakeholders (customers, employees,
distributors, suppliers, local communities, environment, etc.).
8. Conclusions: Final Remarks, Limits and Future Research
As previously indicated, this study attempted to respond to two distinct but related
research questions:
1.
Is it possible to imagine a theoretical model for the fashion world that is able to show whether
“importance”, “expectations”, and “social influence” effectively affect consumers’ willingness to
reward a sustainable fashion brand via their purchasing behavior?
2. How much are consumers willing to pay in order to get a sustainable item of clothing?
To achieve the research objectives, paper questionnaires were administered to 271 students
enrolled in Master’s degree courses at the Department of Business Management at the University of
Salerno. The data from the questionnaires was analyzed using the program IBM SPSS Statistics 23,
which allowed for the construction of a multiple linear regression model based on four constructs:
Importance, expectation, social influence, and willingness to reward.
With regard to the first research question, the analysis showed that consumers attach little
relevance to the importance accorded to brand sustainability, orientating themselves most on the basis
of their expectations and, above all, on the opinions of society or, more specifically, of their own group
(relatives, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and so on).
As for the second research question, the analysis found that consumers claim to be absolutely
committed to promoting environmental protection by means of purchasing choices more focused
on the adoption of sustainable practices. The majority of the questionnaire respondents expressed a
willingness to pay a 20% increase in price in order to buy a product made and offered on the market
by a sustainable fashion brand.
However, the findings emerging from this analysis were subject to two limitations. The first
concerned the use of the questionnaire for the understanding of the respondents’ opinions. Indeed,

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 13 of 18
although the questionnaire offered several advantages (such as the efficient dispersal of poor economic
and temporal resources for its administration), it did not allow for responses of great depth, as the
questions only asked the respondents to provide numbers representative of their general agreement
level with various statements. The second limitation was related to the use of a small reference sample,
composed of 271 people with a relatively high level of education. For future research, it could be
appropriate to repeat the analysis by using a different technique (for instance, an economic experiment)
and including more people, with various levels of education.
Author Contributions:
The work is the result of all the authors’ synergistic contribution. However each author
has dealt with some paragraphs more than others. More in detail: Maria Vincenza Ciasullo has written Sections 2.2,
5and 7; Gennaro Maione has realized Sections 1,2.4 and 3; Carlo Torre has elaborated Sections 2.3,3,4.1 and 4.2;
Orlando Troisi has dealt with Sections 2.1,6and 8.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainability: Consumer perceptions and marketing strategies. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2006,15, 157–170. [CrossRef]
2.
Follows, S.B.; Jobber, D. Environmentally responsible purchase behavior: A test of a consumer model.
Eur. J. Mark. 2000,34, 723–746. [CrossRef]
3. kerlof, G.A.; Kranton, R. Identity economics. Econ. Voice 2010,7, 1–16. [CrossRef]
4.
Ramirez, E.; Jiménez, F.R.; Gau, R. Concrete and abstract goals associated with the consumption of
environmentally sustainable products. Eur. J. Mark. 2015,49, 1645–1665. [CrossRef]
5.
Pedersen, E.R.G.; Andersen, K.R. Sustainability innovators and anchor draggers: A global expert study on
sustainable fashion. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2015,19, 315–327. [CrossRef]
6.
Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. Int. J. Consum. Stud.
2007,31, 237–247. [CrossRef]
7.
Ottman, J.A.; Stafford, E.R.; Hartman, C.L. Avoiding green marketing myopia: Ways to improve consumer
appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environ. Sci. Pol. Sustain. Dev. 2006,48, 22–36. [CrossRef]
8.
Ciasullo, M.V.; Troisi, O. The creation of sustainable value in SMES. A case study. In Proceedings of 14th
Toulon-Verona Conference Organizational Excellence in Services, Alicante, Spain, 1–3 September 2011.
9.
Polese, F. Local government and networking trends supporting sustainable tourism: Some empirical
evidences. In Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Local Development; Girard, L.F., Nijkamp, P., Eds.; Ashgate:
Farnham, UK, 2009; Volume 1, pp. 131–148, ISBN 978-0754673910.
10.
Barile, S.; Saviano, M.; Polese, F.; Caputo, F. T-Shaped people for addressing the global challenge of
sustainability. In Service Dominant Logic, Network and Systems Theory and Service Science: Integrating Three
Perspectives for a New Service Agenda; Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Eds.; Giannini: Napoli, Italy, 2013;
Volume 1, pp. 1–23, ISBN 9788874316847.
11.
Barile, S.; Saviano, M.; Polese, F.; Di Nauta, P. Il rapporto impresa-territorio tra efficienza locale, efficacia di
contesto e sostenibilitàambientale. Sinerg. Ital. J. Manag. 2013,90, 25–49.
12.
Lee, M.Y.; Sung, J. Sustainability and management in fashion, design and culture. J. Glob. Fash. Mark.
2016
,7,
73–75. [CrossRef]
13.
Shen, B.; Wang, Y.; Lo, C.K.; Shum, M. The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behaviour. J. Fash.
Mark. Manag. 2012,16, 234–245. [CrossRef]
14.
Sun, Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, J. Examining relationships among sustainable orientation, perceived sustainable
marketing performance, and customer equity in fast fashion industry. J. Glob. Fash. Mark.
2014
,5, 74–86.
[CrossRef]
15.
McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J.; Alevizou, P.J.; Young, C.W.; Hwang, K. Individual strategies for sustainable
consumption. J. Mark. Manag. 2012,28, 445–468. [CrossRef]
16.
McDonald, S.; Oates, C.; Thyne, M.; Alevizou, P.; McMorland, L.A. Comparing sustainable consumption
patterns across product sectors. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009,33, 137–145. [CrossRef]
17.
Cherrier, H.; Black, I.R.; Lee, M. Intentional non-consumption for sustainability: Consumer resistance and/or
anti-consumption? Eur. J. Mark. 2011,45, 1757–1767. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 14 of 18
18.
Han, F.; Qu, S.; Lv, X. Chinese Local Government Innovation Sustainability Research. J. Public Adm.
2009
,2,
1–12.
19.
Kronrod, A.; Grinstein, A.; Wathieu, L. Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? J. Mark.
2012,76, 95–102. [CrossRef]
20.
Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behavior when
purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2010,18, 20–31. [CrossRef]
21.
Lilley, D. Design for sustainable behaviour: Strategies and perceptions. Des. Stud.
2009
,30, 704–720.
[CrossRef]
22.
Wever, R.; Van Kuijk, J.; Boks, C. User-centred design for sustainable behaviour. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.
2008
,1,
9–20. [CrossRef]
23.
Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioral
intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006,19, 169–194. [CrossRef]
24. Biddle, B.J. Recent developments in role theory. Ann. Rev. Soc. 1986,12, 67–92. [CrossRef]
25.
Solomon, M.R.; Surprenant, C.; Czepiel, J.A.; Gutman, E.G. A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions:
The service encounter. J. Mark. 1985,49, 99–111. [CrossRef]
26.
Stern, A.J.; Hicks, T. The Process of Business/Environmental Collaborations: Partnering for Sustainability, 1st ed.;
Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 2000.
27.
Méndez-Picazo, M.T.; Galindo-Martín, M.Á.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Governance, entrepreneurship and
economic growth. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2012,24, 865–877. [CrossRef]
28.
Ohtomo, S.; Hirose, Y. The dual-process of reactive and intentional decision-making involved in eco-friendly
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007,27, 117–125. [CrossRef]
29.
Kuckertz, A.; Wagner, M. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—
Investigating the role of business experience. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010,25, 524–539. [CrossRef]
30.
Cherian, J.; Jacob, J. Green marketing: A study of consumers’ attitude towards environment friendly products.
Asían Soc. Sci. 2010,8, 117–126. [CrossRef]
31.
Lee, K. Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mark. Int. Plan.
2008
,26, 573–586. [CrossRef]
32.
Da Giau, A.; Macchion, L.; Caniato, F.; Caridi, M.; Danese, P.; Rinaldi, R.; Vinelli, A. Sustainability practices
and web-based communication: An analysis of the Italian fashion industry. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.
2016
,20,
72–88. [CrossRef]
33.
Pui-Yan Ho, H.; Choi, T.M. A Five-R analysis for sustainable fashion supply chain management in Hong Kong:
A case analysis. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2012,16, 161–175. [CrossRef]
34.
Barclay, H.B. The Protestant Ethic versus the Spirit of Capitalism? Rev. Relig. Res.
1969
,10, 151–158.
[CrossRef]
35.
Chahal, H.; Sharma, R.D. Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance:
A conceptual framework. J. Serv. Res. 2006,6, 205–216.
36. Laczniak, G.R.; Murphy, P.E. Ethical marketing decisions: The higher road. J. Bus. Ethics 1994,13, 858–886.
37.
Laczniak, G.R.; Murphy, P.E. Fostering ethical marketing decisions. J. Bus. Ethics
1991
,10, 259–271. [CrossRef]
38.
Murphy, P.E.; Laczniak, G.R.; Bowie, N.E.; Klein, T.A. Ethical Marketing, 1st ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 0131848143.
39.
Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L.; Manceau, D.; Hémonnet-Goujot, A. Marketing Management, 14th ed.; Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 0-13-145757-8.
40.
Crane, A.; Matten, D. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of
Globalization, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-0-19-969731-1.
41.
Ford, R.C.; Richardson, W.D. Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation
Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics, 1st ed.; Michalos, A.C., Poff, D.C., Eds.; Springer: Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 3, pp. 19–44, ISBN 978-94-007-4125-6.
42.
Robin, D.P.; Reidenbach, R.E. Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: Closing the gap between
concept and application. J. Mark. 1987,51, 44–58. [CrossRef]
43.
Abratt, R.; Sacks, D. The marketing challenge: Towards being profitable and socially responsible. J. Bus. Ethics
1988,7, 497–507. [CrossRef]
44.
Guffey, D.M.; Mccartney, M.W. The perceived importance of an ethical issue as a determinant of ethical
decision-making for accounting students in an academic setting. Account. Educ.
2008
,17, 327–348. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 15 of 18
45.
Robin, D.P.; Reidenbach, R.E.; Forrest, P.J. The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on
the ethical decision-making of ad managers. J. Bus. Res. 1996,35, 17–28. [CrossRef]
46.
Jones, T.M. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991,16, 366–395.
47.
Haines, R.; Street, M.D.; Haines, D. The influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral
judgment, moral obligation, and moral intent. J. Bus. Ethics 2008,81, 387–399. [CrossRef]
48.
Singhapakdi, A. Perceived importance of ethics and ethical decisions in marketing. J. Bus. Res.
1999
,45,
89–99. [CrossRef]
49.
Leonard, L.N.; Cronan, T.P.; Kreie, J. What influences IT ethical behavior intentions planned behavior,
reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual characteristics? Inf. Manag.
2004
,42, 143–158.
[CrossRef]
50.
Vitell, S.J.; Hidalgo, E.R. The impact of corporate ethical values and enforcement of ethical codes on the
perceived importance of ethics in business: A comparison of US and Spanish managers. J. Bus. Ethics
2006
,
64, 31–43. [CrossRef]
51.
Karandakatiya, T.K.; Qiang, G.Y. The relationship between the ethical corporate culture and the perceived
importance of ethics and social responsibility: Evidence from sri lankan government banking sector. Int. J.
Multidiscip. Res. 2014,4, 290–303.
52. Sciarelli, S. Business quality and business ethics. Total Q. Manag. 2002,13, 1141–1149. [CrossRef]
53.
Sciarelli, S. Corporate ethics and the entrepreneurial theory of “social success”. Bus. Ethics Q.
1999
,9, 639–649.
[CrossRef]
54.
Newholm, T.; Shaw, D. Studying the ethical consumer: A review of research. J. Consum. Behav.
2007
,6,
253–270. [CrossRef]
55. Harrison, R.; Newholm, T.; Shaw, D. The Ethical Consumer, 1st ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2005.
56.
Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer-do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum.
Mark. 2001,18, 560–578. [CrossRef]
57.
Brunk, K.H. Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: Conceptualising and operationalising consumer
meanings. J. Bus. Ethics 2012,111, 551–565. [CrossRef]
58.
Brunk, K.H. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—A consumer perspective of corporate
ethics. J. Bus. Res. 2010,63, 255–262. [CrossRef]
59. Fandray, D. The ethical company. Work. 2000,79, 74–77.
60.
Keynes, J.M. The state of long-term expectation. In Essential Readings in Economics; Macmillan Education UK:
London, UK, 1936; pp. 147–164.
61. Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation; Robert, E., Ed.; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, India, 1982.
62.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. The nature of expectation and uncertainty. In Expectations, Uncertainty and Business
Behavior; Social Science Research Council: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 1958.
63.
Olson, J.C.; Dover, P.A. Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. J. Appl. Psychol.
1979,64, 179–189. [CrossRef]
64.
Summerfield, C.; de Lange, F.P. Expectation in perceptual decision making: Neural and computational
mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2014,15, 745–756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Brown, S.A.; Venkatesh, V.; Goyal, S. Expectation confirmation in technology use. Inf. Syst. Res.
2012
,23,
474–487. [CrossRef]
66. Shackle, G.L.S. Expectation in Economics; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2012.
67.
Kok, P.; Jehee, J.F.; de Lange, F.P. Less is more: Expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual
cortex. Neuron 2012,75, 265–270. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model.
MIS Q. 2001,25, 351–370. [CrossRef]
69. Moon, T.K. The expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Signal Proc. Mag. 1996,13, 47–60. [CrossRef]
70.
Cardozo, R.N. An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. J. Mark. Res.
1965
,
244–249. [CrossRef]
71. Bridges, E. Service attributes: Expectations and judgments. Psychol. Mark. 1993,10, 185–197. [CrossRef]
72. Atkinson, J.W. Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychol. Rev. 1957,64, 1–359. [CrossRef]
73.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev.
1977
,84, 191.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 16 of 18
74.
Eccles, J. Female achievement patterns: Attributions, expectancies, values, and choice. J. Soc. Issues
1983
,1,
1–22.
75.
Feather, N.T. Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology; Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc.:
Abingdon, UK, 1982.
76.
Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Q. 3003,27, 425–478.
77.
Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012,36, 157–178.
78.
Dholakia, U.M.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Pearo, L.K. A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and
small-group-based virtual communities. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2004,21, 241–263. [CrossRef]
79. French, T. Construction and Behavior Characteristics of Tyres. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 1959,13, 157–191.
80.
Raven, B.H.; French, J.R. Group support, legitimate power, and social influence. J. Personal.
1958
,26, 400–409.
[CrossRef]
81.
Turner, J.C. Social Influence, 16th ed.; Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.: Pacific Grove, CA USA, 1991;
pp. 1–206.
82.
White, K.M.; Smith, J.R.; Terry, D.J.; Greenslade, J.H.; McKimmie, B.M. Social influence in the theory of
planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol.
2009
,48,
135–158. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83.
Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2004
,55,
591–621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84.
Fishbein, M. A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In Proceedings of the
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, NE, USA, 8–11 June 1979.
85.
Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J.
Soc. Psychol. 2001,40, 471–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86.
Ferris, G.R.; Perrewé, P.L.; Daniels, S.R.; Lawong, D.; Holmes, J.J. Social Influence and Politics in
Organizational Research. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2016,24, 5–19. [CrossRef]
87. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 1991,50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
88.
Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002,32, 665–683. [CrossRef]
89.
Risselada, H.; Verhoef, P.C.; Bijmolt, T.H. Dynamic effects of social influence and direct marketing on the
adoption of high-technology products. J. Mark. 2014,78, 52–68. [CrossRef]
90.
Frink, D.D.; Treadway, D.C.; Ferris, G.R. Social influence in the performance evaluation process. Blackwell
Encycl. Dict. Hum. Res. Manag. 2005,5, 346–349.
91.
Takács, K.; Flache, A.; Mäs, M. Is there negative social influence? Disentangling effects of dissimilarity and
disliking on opinion shifts. PLoS ONE 2014,11, e0157948. [CrossRef]
92.
Creyer, E.H. The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business
ethics? J. Consum. Mark. 1997,14, 421–432. [CrossRef]
93.
Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z. Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer engagement:
An empirical study of fashion apparel brands. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016,7, 45–59. [CrossRef]
94.
Li, N.; Robson, A.; Coates, N. Chinese consumers’ purchasing: Impact of value and affect. J. Fash.
Mark. Manag. 2013,17, 486–508. [CrossRef]
95.
Rahman, O.; Chen, X.; Au, R. Consumer behavior of pre-teen and teenage youth in China. J. Glob. Fash. Mark.
2013,4, 247–265. [CrossRef]
96.
Hume, M.; Mills, M. Uncovering Victoria’s Secret: Exploring women’s luxury perceptions of intimate apparel
and purchasing behavior. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2013,17, 460–485. [CrossRef]
97.
Rahman, O.; Zhu, X.; Liu, W.S. A study of the pyjamas purchasing behavior of Chinese consumers in
Hangzhou. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2008,12, 217–231. [CrossRef]
98.
Park, H.J.; Rabolt, N.J.; Sook Jeon, K. Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean consumers.
J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2008,12, 244–259. [CrossRef]
99. Bruce, M.; Daly, L. Buyer behavior for fast fashion. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2006,10, 329–344. [CrossRef]
100.
Grant, I.J.; Stephen, G.R. Buying behavior of “tweenage” girls and key societal communicating factors
influencing their purchasing of fashion clothing. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2005,9, 450–467. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 17 of 18
101.
Collins, C.M.; Steg, L.; Koning, M.A. Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and
buying behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2007,24, 555–577. [CrossRef]
102.
Vlek, C.; Steg, L. Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces, and Research
Topics. J. Soc. Issues 2007,63, 1–19. [CrossRef]
103.
Kumar, V.; Rahman, Z.; Kazmi, A.A.; Goyal, P. Evolution of sustainability as marketing strategy: Beginning
of new era. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012,37, 482–489. [CrossRef]
104.
Belz, F.M.; Peattie, K. Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2008;
ISBN 9780470519226.
105.
Verbeke, W.; Vanhonacker, F.; Sioen, I.; Van Camp, J.; De Henauw, S. Perceived importance of sustainability
and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior perspective. AMBIO 2007,36, 580–585. [CrossRef]
106.
Jones, P.; Clarke-Hill, C.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D. Marketing and sustainability. Mark. Intell. Plan.
2008
,26,
123–130. [CrossRef]
107.
Weatherell, C.; Tregear, A.; Allinson, J. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food,
farming and buying local. J. Rural Stud. 2003,19, 233–244. [CrossRef]
108.
Verbeke, W. Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.
2005
,32,
347–368. [CrossRef]
109.
Kakeu, J.; Byron, S. Optimistic about the future? How uncertainty and expectations about future consumption
prospects affect optimal consumer behavior. BE J. Macroecon. 2016,16, 171–192. [CrossRef]
110.
Chang, L.J.; Sanfey, A.G. Great expectations: Neural computations underlying the use of social norms in
decision-making. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2013,8, 277–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111.
Umbach, V. The Power of Prediction: Subjective Expectation Enables Efficient Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 17 December 2013.
112.
Fei, L.I. On Role Expectation and Behavior Guiding in College Students. A Role Play-based Sociological
Analysis. Soc. Sci. Beijing 2013,4, 99–115.
113.
Li, W.; Wang, Y. Consumer Behavior, Expectation and Retail Sales in Service Economy: Based on Household
Survey Analysis. In Proceedings of the Management and Service Science (MASS), Piscataway, NJ, USA,
12–14 August 2011.
114.
Qin, M. Consumer behavior towards continued use of online shopping: An extend expectation
disconfirmation model. In Integration and Innovation Orient to E-Society; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007;
Volume 1, pp. 400–407, ISBN 978-0-387-75466-6.
115.
LaTour, S.A.; Peat, N.C. Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction research. N. Am. Adv.
1979,6, 431–437.
116.
Hiller Connell, K.Y.; Kozar, J.M. Social normative influence: An exploratory study investigating its
effectiveness in increasing engagement in sustainable apparel-purchasing behaviors. J. Glob. Fash. Mark.
2012,3, 172–179. [CrossRef]
117.
Berns, G.S.; Capra, C.M.; Moore, S.; Noussair, C. Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on
adolescent ratings of music. Neuroimage 2010,49, 2687–2696. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
118.
Loureiro, S.M.C.; Costa, I.; Panchapakesan, P. A passion for fashion: The impact of social influence, vanity
and exhibitionism on consumer behaviour. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2017,45, 468–484. [CrossRef]
119.
Wakefield, K.L.; Stone, G.W. Social influence on post purchase brand attitudes. NA-Adv. Consum. Res.
2004
,
31, 740–746.
120.
Childers, T.L.; Rao, A.R. The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions.
J. Consum. Res. 1992,19, 198–211. [CrossRef]
121.
Goldsmith, R.E.; Clark, R.A. Materialism, status consumption, and consumer independence. J. Soc. Psychol.
2012,152, 43–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122.
Rieke, S.E.; Fowler, D.C.; Chang, H.J.; Velikova, N. Exploration of factors influencing body image satisfaction
and purchase intent: Millennial females. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2016,20, 208–229. [CrossRef]
123.
Churchill, G.A., Jr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res.
1979
,
64–73. [CrossRef]
124.
Jolliffe, I. Principal Component Analysis; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2002;
ISBN 0-471-41889-7.
125.
Cappelli, P.; Singh, H.; Singh, J.; Useem, M. The India Way: How India’s Top Business Leaders are
Revolutionizing Management. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010,24, 6–24. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017,9, 1617 18 of 18
126. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Experimental Designs Using Anova; Thompsone: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007.
127.
Pett, M.A.; Lackey, N.R.; Sullivan, J.J. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument
Development in Health Care Research; Sage: London, UK, 2003.
128.
Hu, J.; Odom, T.W.; Lieber, C.M. Chemistry and physics in one dimension: Synthesis and properties of
nanowires and nanotubes. Account. Chem. Res. 1999,32, 435–445. [CrossRef]
129.
Oliver, R.A.C.; Butcher, H.J. Teachers’ attitudes to education. Br. J. Clin. Psychol.
1968
,38, 38–44. [CrossRef]
130.
O’Cass, A. An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and consumption
involvement in fashion clothing. J. Econ. Psychol. 2000,21, 545–576. [CrossRef]
131.
Hosta, M.; Žabkar, V. Consumer sustainability and responsibility: Beyond green and ethical consumption.
Trziste/Market 2016,28, 143–157.
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).