Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Exploring perceptions, practices and barriers towards
online sustainable fashion using social practice theory
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the
degree of Master of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and
Engineering
2019
Aleksandra Besevic
School of Materials
2
[Blank Page]
3
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 12
1.2 Research Context 13
1.3 Research Problem 17
1.4 Research Aim 18
1.5 Research Objectives 18
1.6 Contribution 19
Chapter 2: Sustainable Fashion 20
2.1 Introduction 20
2.2 Origins of Sustainable Fashion 20
2.3 Current Definitions of Sustainable Fashion 22
2.4 Understanding in Sustainable Fashion 24
2.5 Summary 27
Chapter 3: Sustainable Consumer Behaviour 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Current Methods of Understanding Sustainable Behaviour 29
3.3 The Attitude-Behaviour Gap in Sustainable Fashion 31
3.4 Knowledge and Lack of Awareness in Sustainable Fashion 35
3.5 Classifying Sustainable Fashion Consumers 36
3.6 Personal and Social Factors of Sustainable Fashion 38
3.7 Summary 43
Chapter 4: Online Shopping Behaviour 44
4.1 Introduction 44
4.2 Concept of Consumers Time Online 46
4.3 Social Communities Online 47
4.4 Summary 48
Chapter 5: Social Practice Theory 49
5.1 Introduction 49
5.2 Social Practice Theory as a Conceptual Framework 52
5.3 Prior to Proto-Practice 55
5.4 Larger Communities of Practice 57
5.5 Consumer Reference Groups 58
5.6 Social Practice Theory in a Fashion Context 59
5.7 Aesthetics in Sustainable Fashion 62
5.8 Time and Practice 71
5.9 Summary 72
4
5.10 Literature Summary and Framework 75
5.11 Summary 78
Chapter 6: Methodology 79
6.1 Introduction 79
6.2 Research Philosophy 79
6.3 Ontology 80
6.4 Epistemology Position 81
6.5 Inductive and Deductive Approaches 83
6.6 Qualitative Research Approach 83
6.7 Focus Group Interviews 85
6.8 Data Generation Focus Groups 87
6.9. Sampling 88
6.10 Topic guide 91
6.11 Location of Focus Group 94
6.12 Recording and Noting Data 97
6.13 Research Ethics 97
6.14 Data Analysis Process 98
Chapter 7. Focus Group Analysis 103
7.1 Knowledge and Meaning of Sustainable Fashion 103
7.1.1 Understanding and Confusion 103
7.1.2 Long and Short Term Issues 104
7.2 Barriers that Prevent Purchases in Sustainable Fashion 105
7.3 Time Structures 107
7.4 Practice 108
7.4.1 Day to Day practices 109
7.4.2 The Practice of Getting Dressed 110
7.4.3 Practice in Shopping 111
7.5 Practices in Online Shopping 113
7.6 Social Accessibility 115
7.7 Aesthetics in Sustainable Fashion 117
7.8 Summary of Data Analysis 120
7.9 Validity and Reliability 121
Chapter 8. Discussion 125
8.1 Understanding of Sustainable Fashion Products 125
8.2 Consumer Perceptions of Barriers in Sustainable Fashion 126
8.3 Consumer Practices in Online Sustainable Fashion 127
5
8.4 Using Social Practice Theory to Understand Consumers’ Responses to Sustainable
Fashion 129
Chapter 9. Conclusion 131
9.1 Managerial Implications 131
9.2 Limitations and Directions for Further Research 132
References 134
Final Word Count: 39,858
6
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1: Examples of online retailers of sustainable fashion ............................................. 16
Chapter 2
Table 2: Definitions of sustainable fashion, ethical fashion and the green consumer,
sustainability and the focus of definition ........................................................................... 26
Chapter 5
Table 3: Online fashion practice and procedures (Source: Salonen, Närvänen and
Saarijärvi, 2014) ................................................................................................................. 60
Table 4: A schematic map of differences from dominant accounts of action based upon
models of the sovereign or expressive individual (Warde, 2014). ..................................... 72
Chapter 6
Table 5: The ontological perspectives adapted from Hesse-Biber (2016) ......................... 80
Table 6: The advantages and disadvantages of a focus group ........................................... 86
Table 7: Themes and Corresponding Codes .................................................................... 100
Table 8: Example text transcribed from the focus group during the process of developing
and writing the research ................................................................................................... 101
Chapter 7
Table 9: Steps taken to ensure validity and reliability, adapted from: Maxwell, 1992;
Whittemore, Chase and Mandle, 2001; Noble, H. Smith, 2015....................................... 123
7
List of Figures
Chapter 3
Figure 1: Three-ring sector view of sustainability towards a ‘nested’ model (Giddings,
Hopwood and Geoff, 2002, p. 189).................................................................................... 30
Figure 2: Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) ................................. 33
Figure 3: Integrated model for sustainable consumption (Lin, 2017) ................................ 38
Figure 4: Decision-making model of sustainable consumption (Terlau and Hirsch, 2015)
............................................................................................................................................ 39
Chapter 4
Figure 5: Mainstream fashion consumers are adopting digital channels (Source:
(Euromonitor International, 2017) ..................................................................................... 44
Chapter 5
Figure 6: Context model of promoting sustainable consumption (Source: Brand, 2010) 50
Figure 7: Proto-practices, practices and ex-practices (Source: Pantzar and Shove, 2010) 52
Figure 8: Components of the Social Practice Simulation Model (Balke et al., 2014) ....... 54
Figure 9: Key elements in the understanding of practices by Gram-Hanssen (2010) ....... 56
Figure 10: Current gap in aesthetics and sustainable fashion, Authors Own (2018) ......... 63
Figure 11: Model of understanding the process of aesthetic mediation, Authors Own
(2018)
Figure 12: The cycle of time and online consumer practices, Authors Own (2018) ......... 71
Figure 13: The (social) practice of online shopping to illustrate the elements of a social
practice (Source: Adapted from Strengers and Maller, 2017). .......................................... 73
Figure 14: Content map of literature review, Author’s Own (2018) ................................. 75
Figure 15: Individual and Social Factors that determine online sustainable fashion
practices, Author’s Own (2018) ......................................................................................... 77
Figure 16: Steps in the design and running of a focus group by Gray (2014) ................... 88
Figure 17: The layout and location of the focus group at Beaumont Organic, 2018 ......... 94
Chapter 6
Figure 18: Layout of focus group and ages of participants ................................................ 95
Figure 19: Stages in the process of thematic analysis by King and Horrocks (2010) ....... 99
Figure 20: Process used to analyse data: Adapted from Creswell (2003)………………101
8
Chapter 7
Figure 21: Contemporary Synthesis of Validity Criteria in Qualitative Research by
Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001) ........................................................................... 122
9
Acknowledgements and Conference Presentations
I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Patsy Perry and Professor Liz Barnes for their
valuable and constructive suggestions throughout the development of this research. In
addition, I must express my profound gratitude to my parents and to my brother for
providing me with support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study.
This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.
Conference Presentations
Presented at 3rd International Colloquium on Design, Branding and Marketing:
Winner of best PhD abstract (2017)
Presented at Postgraduate Research Student Conference: University of Manchester
(2017)
Prepared poster and selected to attend specialist course ‘Eye tracking in Desktop,
Natural, and Virtual Environments’: Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (2017)
Presentation at the Global Brand Conference: Special interest group Academy of
Marketing (2018)
Invited to present poster at The 91st Textile Institute World Conference:
Integrating Design with Sustainable Technology (Poster) (2018)
Postgraduate Summer Showcase: University of Manchester 2018 (Poster) (2018)
Presented and Chaired at the 40th International Association for Time Use
Research Conference (2018)
10
Abstract
Sustainability has attracted considerable attention, both academically and in the fashion
industry. There is a need for the fashion industry to become more responsible due to the
detrimental effect that it causes on the environment and society. Sustainability in the
context of fashion industry involves many individuals from consumers to retailers.
Consumers are now faced with many purchase decisions on a daily basis and online
environments have enabled consumers to interact by sharing experiences.
However, consumer practices towards sustainable fashion products online have yet to be
fully explored. Often the focus is the act of purchase itself, which underplays the
significant role of everyday routine practices on purchase decisions of sustainable fashion
products. This research aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of sustainable
fashion practices in an ever expanding online environment and, ultimately, the impact on
consumer behaviour.
Social practice theory is applied to investigate consumer practices; from attitudes and
assumptions which influence behaviour to repeating and maintaining certain behaviours.
Consumers are open to constant change and flux as they have to negotiate different
lifestyle options. Purchasing online sustainable fashion is not always a solitary act and
there is a need to further understand the importance of social encounters with others,
especially in an online context.
The study consisted of a single focus group at a local sustainable retailer with seven
postgraduate females. The focus group revealed that the perceived sense of belonging to a
group of likeminded individuals was an important factor in the consumer decision-making
process and aided creating a perception of a sustainable consumer.
The data generated supports the view that there is still ambiguity amongst consumers
about what ‘sustainable fashion’ actually means and a reboot of the term sustainable may
be necessary to clarify the meaning for consumers. The participants described sustainable
fashion as a ‘complex landscape’.
Social practice theory applied to sustainable fashion in online environments indicates that
consumer practices can develop into behaviours or habits that promote sustainability.
Participants likened spending time online shopping to an escape or a reward. Therefore, it
is recommended that further research could be undertaken for retailers to identify means
of interacting with consumers to promote the development of sustainable fashion.
11
Declaration
The work presented in this thesis has been submitted as part of the MPhil Textile Design,
Fashion and Management at The University of Manchester. No portion of the work
referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another
degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.
Copyright Statement
1. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis)
owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and the author has given
The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
2. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy,
may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with
licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form
part of any such copies made.
3. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual
property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the
thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this
thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such
Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use
without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions.
4. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University’s Library
regulations.
12
Chapter 1: Introduction
There is an increasing interest in sustainable fashion industry. The UK Environmental
Audit Committee have begun to investigate the social and environmental impact of the
fashion ( Environmental Audit Committee, 2018). Indeed, Stella McCartney has recently
announced a new sustainability charter from the United Nations in the bid to encourage
fashion leaders to work in collaboration to make the industry more sustainable. However,
sustainability is inherently controversial and there is no simple or straightforward answer
to encouraging consumers to practice sustainable consumption. From an academic
perspective, there is the opportunity to address and explore the ways in which consumer
behaviour towards sustainable fashion is evolving. This research uses social practice
theory to understand consumers’ responses to sustainable fashion in online environments.
Online environments are challenging the traditional understanding of consumer behaviour
as they have an increasing presence in consumers’ daily practices and buying decisions.
Online environments have been chosen in this research because more consumers are
using online environments as part of their day to day routines (Mintel, 2018). While there
is a significant body of research into online shopping, there is a narrow focus on the
contextual lens on the overall process of purchase. A holistic understanding of all
potential practices and impacts that occur through the consumers’ consumption cycle of a
product online has received less attention (Lim, 2017). Little is known about the practices
and interactions that consumers have in online environments towards sustainable fashion.
This research provides a more complete understanding of the motivational forces driving
consumers’ practices, beliefs and behaviour. The impact of a consumer’s behaviour can
be evaluated more effectively and reliably with the information on consumers’ lifestyles
and whole value system, rather than a single reflection on a purchase. This approach
places emphasis on a holistic understanding of sustainable fashion practices. This is
important to retailers because consumers’ inclination to repurchase and develop a practice
can foster potential market demand (Joshi and Rahman, 2015; Biswas, 2017).
This research aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of sustainable fashion
practices in an ever expanding online environment and, ultimately, the impact on
consumer behaviour. In the context of this research, practices are defined as everyday
actions, such as shopping, which are regular (Reckwitz, 2002). Consumer practices are
not only based on individual needs and desires but social and external environments. For
example, shopping takes place in everyday routines alongside other practices and
13
commitments. Therefore, social practice theory has been applied in this research as,
historically, there has been a prioritisation of individual behaviour in addressing
environmental problems; however, there is a need for a greater convergence with social
life and practices to make solutions deemed to be necessary (Boyer et al., 2016).
1.2 Research Context
We are now in the ‘digital age’ and the online shopping environment is replacing and
merging with other consumption channels. Online shopping in the UK is growing
consistently; sales for fashion products reached £16.2 billion in 2017 (Mintel, 2017). In
addition, the online fashion market was forecast to increase by 17.2% in the UK alone by
2017 (Mintel, 2016). As a result, online shopping can be considered a popular way to
shop and has become important for market competition, which is increasingly
unpredictable in nature.
Concurrently, consumers are becoming dependent on many digital devices such as
laptops, smartphones and tablets. Due to the reliance on digital devices the patterns and
practices of consumers have resulted in the development of new cultures of consumption
(Cochoy et al., 2017). Many of these devices are intertwined the day-to-day activities of
the consumer and this has led to changes and enhancements practices towards purchasing
fashion and in the context of this research, sustainable fashion. The processes of how
consumers perform, stabilise and reform the way in which they approach purchasing
fashion are of particular interest. In the long term, consumers will develop collective
norms mediated through online environments which will influence their purchase
decisions (Ertz, 2016).
Cochoy et al (2017) argue that consumption cannot be understood by focusing on the
consumers only and that there is a need to examine marketing knowledge, devices and
consumer practices that shape behaviour. Digital tools and online environments which
enable mundane activities to be performed can also affect the way in which other services
and products are consumed (Cochoy et al., 2017). Online environments provide an
opportunity for consumers to find more products, and present information that can be
shared with others. For example, the online coordination of like-minded individuals and
consumers can facilitate interaction and cause retailers to change the way in which they
communicate and market their offers and services to ensure a successful journey. The
choice the consumer is presented with can be framed differently, which will encourage
certain behaviours.
14
The global projected value for the fashion industry for 2016, was $2.4 trillion and due to
the accelerated growth of the fashion industry the value is quoted by the recent report by
the Business of Fashion as ‘up to $3 trillion’ (Business of Fashion and Mckinsey and
Company, 2017). Alongside the growth of the UK global fashion industry, sustainable
fashion has also grown in popularity (McKinsey and Company, 2016). For example, it
has been reported that two in five UK women aged 16-24 would like to see more eco-
friendly fabrics used in clothes (Mintel, 2017). To continue a growth trajectory, further
investment into the sustainable fashion industry is necessary (Williams, Page and
Petrosky, 2014). However, the fashion industry as a whole is complex and can be highly
fragmented, making it challenging for both retailers and consumers to make noticeable
differences (Fletcher, 2014). In response, some retailers have created sustainability
programmes, such as conscious collections, to appeal to a changing appetite (Harris, Roby
and Dibb, 2016). Despite this, the Moral Brands Report, conducted by Mintel, found that
consumers often cannot afford sustainable clothing (Mintel, 2016). Consumers find it
difficult to search for sustainable products which affect purchase (Valor, 2008). This
situation is now beginning to change as high street brands incorporate ranges to
encompass sustainability. In the same vein, in 2017, C&A introduced a “Cradle-to-cradle
certified” T-shirt at a mass-market price. A more sustainable future depends on consumer
satisfaction, and therefore creating and promoting sustainable ranges that are appealing is
essential.
In recent years, sustainability concerns in the fashion and retail sector have led to a
number of non-governmental organisation and business-led initiatives towards more
sustainable production and consumption patterns. These concerns and initiatives have led
to a number of reports which have identified the need to change current practices in the
fashion industry, as there are significant tensions based on the current activity and
resources (WRAP, 2016; Business of Fashion and Mckinsey and Company, 2017). The
concept of sustainability and sustainable development was first mentioned in the United
Nations Brundtland Commission Report (1987) officially titled Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Sustainable
development was defined as ‘“meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). This definition has since
been one of the most quoted proposed definitions across sustainable literature
(International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2018). Due to the interest in this
report from political programmes, journalism and literature, this understanding of
sustainability is widespread (Schubert and Láng, 2005).
15
Sustainability is often considered from a supply chain perspective or as a business-level
concern. Similarly, in marketing literature the two units of analysis that have received the
most attention are the individual consumer and the firm (McDonald, Oates and Alevizou,
2016). Few reports consider a holistic approach from consumers, social groups and
business activities combined. All reports, however, make cogent arguments as to why
sustainability and sustainable fashion products must be considered within overall business
strategy, as, if this is ignored, the long term repercussions, are fatal to both the
environment and society.
Consumers want retail brands to take responsibility on their behalf and ensure that their
products are sustainable (Petersen and Brockhaus, 2017). Retailers have the opportunity
to profit from meeting the needs of consumer desire to purchase sustainable products.
Among millennials some 74% of consumers state that companies should act ethically and
43% say it is important for them to purchase on the basis of causes they support (Deloitte,
2018). However, research has shown that in terms of priorities for clothing products,
sustainability is not a key driver in a purchase, with only 8% of women selecting
‘sustainable clothing’ as a factor important to them (Mintel, 2016). Consumer preference
for sustainable products is increasingly growing within the UK fashion market, 65% of
emerging market consumers actively seek sustainable fashion compared to 32% or less in
mature markets (Business of Fashion and Mckinsey, 2017). This growing demand has
been referred to as ‘thoughtful commerce’. If there is an increased demand from
consumer shopping habits, retailers must respond in order to compete in the sustainable
market.
As consumers become more interested in sustainability, it is likely that they will want
more choice and retailers will need to become responsive to changing desires. Online
environments may be used by consumers as a way to engage with more retail brands and
access a broader range of fashion products. Some retailers have begun to promote and
encourage consumers to change their current purchasing behaviours. To give an overview
of current offers, examples of retailers in the online sustainable fashion market are listed
in Table 1.
16
Table 1: Examples of online retailers of sustainable fashion
Retailer Sustainable Statement/Offering Market
Thought Embraces the concept of ‘slow
fashion’ and crafts collections based
on sustainable sourcing and timeless
design referring to ‘thoughtful
design’
Mid-range market for both men
and women with prices ranging
from £5.95 to £140
People Tree To manufacture products which are
100% fair trade and support
producers in developing countries to
ultimately protect the environment
Mid-range market for women
with prices ranging from £6 to
£145
Beaumont Organic To design and create 'contemporary
conscious clothing' responsibly
using luxury fabrics for the modern
woman
Mid to high market for women
with prices ranging from £55 to
£85
Almasanta Retailer which offers sustainable
brands from all over the world,
offering the ‘ultimate ethical
wardrobe’ focusing on the quality of
the product
Mid to high market for women
and children with prices ranging
from £56 to £1,456
Matt and Nat Follow the motto, “Live
beautifully”. Living beautifully
means appreciating the humanity,
creativity and positivity found in all
of us. Experiment with different
sustainable materials
High range market for both men
and women predominantly
handbags ranging from £70 to
£125
Alongside current retailers who are dedicated to sustainable fashion, other fashion
retailers also are now introducing campaigns which encourage sustainable behaviour. For
example, Selfridges have introduced ‘better buying’ which aims to make choice easier for
consumers in regard to sustainable ethical clothing. The better buying scheme is both
instore and online and provides additional information on the damage of fashion and the
need to support local manufacturing. Another example is Unnamed, who have introduced
online technology which allows the consumer to co-design one-off pieces to minimise
waste. The aim of the customisation is to give more power to the consumer to consider
their actual needs and preferences.
Embedding the theme of sustainability to engage all individuals and practices involved is
a challenge for stakeholders including consumers and researchers. Reports related to
sustainability and sustainable fashion are critical of the supply chain in a business or
focussed on the lack of action from consumers (Levi Strauss and Co, 2010; Revolution
and Index, 2016; World Wide Fund For Nature, 2016; WRAP, 2016; Business of Fashion
and Mckinsey and Company, 2017). There is a need to consider wider factors which
17
influence or deter sustainable consumption. Fortunately, there is a steady increase in
sustainable fashion and a growing appetite from consumers which allows for online
retailers to develop their offering and gain a deeper understanding of the consumer.
Cervellon and Wernerfelt (2012) report that the UK is one of the strongest markets for
green fashion within Europe and that future growth is likely to be similar to that of green
food and cosmetics. Change needs to take place at all levels of society and often
investigation starts from the behaviours of individual consumers.
1.3 Research Problem
While much attention has been devoted to online consumer behaviour and sustainable
consumer behaviour in a broad sense, there is a scarcity of research on the practices of
consumers who purchase sustainable fashion online. Furthermore, literature in fashion
consumption is generally organised into three broad categories which can overlap; these
include individual, cultural and social (Murphy and Dweck, 2016). All categories are
relevant in driving consumption and have the potential to build a stronger brand, develop
relationships with consumers and influence purchase intentions. Understanding
consumers practices for sustainable fashion products is however complex and may begin
with a closer examination of social values, definitions and aesthetics more generally.
Currently, there is a discontinuity between social structure and individual motivation;
consumer choice can be reflected in the rules favoured by social and environmental
structures. Analysis of sustainable fashion online can begin from understanding shared
standards of practice and the internal differentiation and positions within it. Further, the
consequences for consumers being positioned to others while performing the practice
need to be appreciated. As stated by Eweje and Perry (2011) there is little argument that
the society, economy and environment are all intrinsic components of sustainability,
which is applicable to sustainable fashion online; however it is the way in which these are
understood and analysed in relation to one another that can produce various and divergent
outcomes. For example, merely engaging in sustainable education and the dissemination
of information may generate interest and raise awareness; however, ensuring sustainable
outcomes hinges on effectively bringing about widespread behaviour change and
therefore a holistic understanding is needed.
18
1.4 Research Aim
This research explores the practices of consumers towards the activity of shopping online
for sustainable fashion. Applying social practice theory to identify and evaluate practices
and barriers in shopping for sustainable fashion online allows the researcher to link both
macro and micro scale processes that affect the mechanisms of everyday life; such as
making sustainable fashion purchases.
1.5 Research Objectives
To answer this question, the research has been subdivided into the following objectives
that will be addressed by a critical review of the literature and analysis of qualitative data
gathered from a focus group.
To explore consumers understanding and meaning of sustainable fashion by
critically reviewing and providing a synthesis of the literature
To understand consumers’ perceptions of the barriers to purchasing
sustainable fashion products using a qualitative approach via a focus group
To explore and understand the ways in which consumers’ everyday practices
influence shopping online for sustainable fashion products and how these
practices are created and maintained
19
1.6 Contribution
Theory
The contribution of this research is that it will provide an alternative framework to
understanding the sustainable consumer online. The social and cultural elements that
together constitute an activity in which consumers frequently participate can contribute to
online consumer behaviour literature. In addition, the research will contribute to social
practice theory by developing a better understanding from a consumer perspective.
Practical
There are emerging retailing opportunities in e-commerce for sustainable fashion.
Through gaining a holistic understanding of consumers online, a practical challenge
would be how to encourage their development of sustainable practices in a measurable
way. The premise of the research is that by gaining a better understanding of the links
between consumers’ understanding, intentions and behaviour online with regard to
sustainable fashion, branding strategies can be better configured and targeted to enable
sustainable practices in online environments.
Managerial
There are important managerial contributions that can be derived from this research.
Managers need to consider day to day practices when exploring consumer behaviour, not
just practices at the point of purchase. The use of social practice theory can provide
managers with an enhanced understanding of the emerging practices of consumers. This
may be used in the development of products and in broader relationship marketing.
Retailers need to take the time to consider enhancing and sustaining practices which
develop a sense of community. This is because there are overlapping layers of meaning
that structure consumer practices while making purchase decisions.
20
Chapter 2: Sustainable Fashion
2.1 Introduction
The following chapter begins with an extended literature review, presenting and giving an
overview of different terminology and descriptions used for both sustainability generally
and sustainable fashion. Before addressing the issue of understanding consumer practices,
it is important to understand what sustainable fashion is. Often the way in which a word is
described at some level reflects how it has been experienced and practiced. This chapter
examines the various perspectives from consumers and retailers in order to provide a
holistic understanding of sustainable fashion and discusses the central challenges that are
faced when attempting to provide a universal definition. Finally, this chapter offers a
definition of sustainable fashion which will be used throughout the research based on
previous definitions and current understanding.
2.2 Origins of Sustainable Fashion
The term ‘sustainability’ has evolved from the science of ecology. The root of
‘sustainable’ in etymologies originates from ‘bearable’ and ‘defensible’, progressing to
the meaning of ‘capable of being continued at a certain level’ (Wu, 2013). These words
associated with the word sustainable convey a sense of enduring, as well as respecting
social and environmental responsibility. Santillo (2007) predicted that there are
approximately 300 definitions of sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Further, in
research there are different methods of understanding the term; for example, the concept
of ‘circles of sustainability’ is used to understand and assess sustainability for project
management in social enterprises (Sala, Ciuffo and Nijkamp, 2015). By appreciating and
analysing the various definitions and uses of the word ‘sustainable’, a more complete
perspective can be achieved.
The word ‘fashion’ originates from the Latin factionem "a making or doing, a preparing"
also "group of people acting together," from facere "to make" and c. 1300, fasoun,
"physical make-up or composition; form, shape, appearance. These descriptive terms are
more active and collaborative than those used to describe ‘sustainable’. Moreover, fashion
can be described in an abstract way as it can be conceptual, while clothing is material
(Kawamura, 2011). Traditionally, fashion is defined as a process and a product (Sproles
21
and Burns, 1994) or as a cultural industry that establishes the aesthetic and practical
dimensions of clothing habits (Craik, 2009).
Flugel, (1930) suggests that clothing can provide an extension of self; an individual’s
motive for choosing or feeling that they should dress a particular way is determined by
confidence and perception of power. Clothing can provide an illusory extension of the
individual’s personality. Consequently, some people may choose to dress in a particular
way as an act of distinction. Later, Davis (1992) highlighted that fashion, which is
commonly referred to as clothing and personal adornment, can be used as tool for
constructing a desired appearance.
As a result, it can be considered that any notion of sustainable fashion is not only
apparently contradictory, but is actually. Fashion endeavours to create novelty and
promote change and experimentation in personal style; by contrast, sustainability fosters
and savours materials for a longer duration. Some may argue that the circular economy is
now changing the way in which fashion businesses have the potential to operate. The
circular economy is defined as a business construct which involves a closed system of
economy-environment interactions (Murray, Skene and Haynes, 2017). Coupled with the
acceleration in the production and consumption of clothing in modern society, clothing
may be considered to be a disposable item, with little attention paid to quality and
craftsmanship. Clothing and fashion are tools to increase sales, deliver economic growth
and expand markets (Fletcher, 2012; Atik and Firat, 2013).
Thomas (2008) claims that the language used in fashion is not always ‘realistic’ and
consequently confusion and problems arise. During the period of time when Fair Trade
was increasing in popularity there was a more pronounced focus on language usage.
Despite these observations being made a decade ago the misconceived and confusing
language usage remains the same. Other researchers such as Charter and Tischner (2017)
and Blanchard (2007) consider the term sustainability as meaningless due to its overuse
and associations with greenwashing. Sustainable fashion is indeed an elusive concept,
which is “for such a familiar term, sustainability remains [a] surprisingly... inconsistent
concept” (Hosey, 2012, p. 19). As a result, sustainability has been criticised in relation to
its vagueness of meaning (Missimer, Robèrt and Broman, 2017).
22
2.3 Current Definitions of Sustainable Fashion
The majority of the literature highlights these factors associated with sustainable practices
(Joshi and Rahman, 2015; Lundblad and Davies, 2016).The definition used below
attempts to provide a holistic view of the process of creating a sustainable product, by
addressing social, economic and environmental factors.
Sustainable fashion has been defined 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.” (Joergens, 2006, p. 361)
This definition has evolved to embrace wider social elements. Joergens (2006) suggested
that the term “fashion with conscience” was useful in describing the efforts of retailers.
However, if this definition was used widely very few products would meet these criteria.
Fletcher (2012, p. 1) defines sustainable fashion as “fashion that fosters ecological
integrity and social equality through products, practices of use and relationships”. Fashion
and sustainability are sometimes viewed as separate concepts and experiences (Fletcher
and Tham, 2015; Rutter, Armstrong and Blazquez Cano, 2017). However, despite the
evolving definitions of sustainable fashion having much in common, to date there is no
industry standard definition for sustainable fashion (Lundblad and Davies, 2016).
The reason for this is the lack of consistent terminology used in journal articles. A recent
study by Reimers, Magnuson and Chao (2016), reviewing 67 journal articles, found that
frequently various terms were used in a single article. In addition, misappropriation has
led to general misunderstanding within the industry. This may be due to the fact that
sustainable consumption can be considered an oxymoron; to ‘consume’ means to take or
use while to sustain means to keep and hold. Also, academic definitions remain on an
abstract level as highlighted by Petersen and Brockhaus (2017) who provide the example
by Seuring and Müller (2008, p. 1705) defining sustainability in fashion as “all kinds of
products that have or aim at an improved environmental and social quality”.
From a business perspective, Kozlowski, Searcy and Bardecki, (2015) suggest that the
reason there is a lack of consistency at various levels of management regarding the
definition of sustainable fashion is due to the number of retail segments in the fashion
industry. These include leisure, luxury and mass market, among which there are
operational differences, consequently sustainability development is varied. Jia et al.
23
(2015) support the claim that inconsistency is due to the ‘fashion business operation,
being based on four levels: production of raw materials, production of fashion goods,
retail sales and advertising. The four levels must link together in understanding and
addressing concerns’. For example, currently there is disconnect between the selection of
suppliers in the industry and the overall business approach. Research shows that while
most companies perceive sustainability as an opportunity to generate new sources of
revenue, only a minority have good visibility of their customers' attitude towards
sustainability (Esty and Simmons, 2011).
Furthermore, most consumers find it hard to formulate a precise definition of
sustainability. Roy, Verplanken and Griffin (2015) found that consumers’ understanding
of sustainability in fashion and what that entailed (practices) was limited. Recycling was
often linked to sustainability, however, consumers found evaluating their actions
challenging. The clash over definitions is problematic as it can cause confusion among
consumers; research by Markkula and Moisander (2012) suggests that without a
definition consumer bewilderment can be expected; this in turn affects how far consumers
achieve raised conscious awareness and act responsibly. A study by Yang, Song and Tong
(2017) found that when participants were asked to define ‘sustainability’ in general terms
for the apparel industry, the responses could be grouped into two themes. Firstly,
participants considered durability and value as key indicators that not only benefit the
consumer but also the retailers’ sustainability processes. Secondly, a wider perspective of
caring for the environment and preservation for the future generation, which included
conservation and managing pollution. The results obtained demonstrate that participants
are able to consider immediate and wider elements of sustainability; however, definitions
are lacking in the relationship the participants have with current practices of purchasing
clothing or reflection on sustainability from a holistic perspective.
An earlier study by Papaoikonomou, Cascon-Pereira and Ryan (2016) argued that terms
such as ethical were inflexible as they did not allow for inconsistencies in everyday
consumer life which impacted on consumer understanding and use of terminology.
Research conducted by Hill and Lee (2012) described the importance of defining
sustainability among Generation Y consumers to improve and develop effective
marketing messages. By understanding the definitions proposed by the participants,
confusion and overlaps could be analysed and the knowledge of sustainability in the
apparel industry assessed. A set of 80 participants from a female sample between the ages
of 18-25 was asked to define sustainability in general, then to further describe its
24
application to retailing. Results showed that 58.75 percent of participants defined
sustainability as relating to creating durable products that are long lasting.
2.4 Understanding in Sustainable Fashion
The term ‘sustainable fashion’ is fraught with problems because within apparently simple
and widely used expressions there are hidden differences in understanding; according to
Yang, Song and Tong (2017), entering the vernacular of retailers at different stages has
resulted in the abuse of ‘green’ words such as ‘sustainability’, ‘eco’, ‘green’, ‘natural’ and
‘organic’ and has increased confusion amongst consumers. This is because promotional
messages by retailers often lack specific meaning and have questionable claims regarding
sustainability (Peirson-Smith and Evans, 2017). Evans and Peirson-Smith's (2018) recent
study based in Hong Kong found that retailers often used the terms ‘green’ or ‘eco’ to
promote sustainable fashion. A range of terms was developed to determine understanding
of sustainable terms and potential overlaps. Findings indicated that the most challenging
task for the participants was matching the term sustainability with a definition, with only
22% correctly matched. This was due to the word sustainability being perceived as ‘too
broad and abstract’. Indeed, Song and Ko (2017) state that sustainability is ‘abstract,
confusing, and vague’ which can lead to limitations in understanding consumer
behaviour. Overall, observations concluded that sustainability was an ambiguous and
confusing term which provided little guiding information to consumers. As a result, the
overall movement towards sustainable fashion is slow. Adding to the confusion, retailers
also struggle to practically use the term and implementing sustainability across the
business may cause challenges as tangible concepts are not always clear. On the other
hand, Rutter, Armstrong and Blazquez Cano (2017) suggest that increasing terminology
of ‘green fashion’ is indicative of increasing concern and interest in sustainability. It can
be argued that the increasing terminology is not related to interest, rather an example of
further confusion from consumers and retailers.
Interestingly, The Ethical Fashion Forum does not define sustainable or sustainable
practices but offers definitions for eco, fair and organic. Customers are also cautious of
retailers ‘greenwashing’ in which retailers mislead consumers about the environmental
performance and benefit of a product or service (Delmas and Burbano, 2011).
Greenwashing can have profound negative effects on consumer confidence in green
products which has been described as “green fatigue” (Guyader, Ottosson and Witell,
2017); this can ultimately erode the consumer market for green products.
25
As a result, consumers’ expectations and perceptions of a sustainable fashion product may
not be realistic. In 1994, a working definition was proposed by the Oslo Symposium of
Sustainable Consumption which enforced the concept and definition of sustainable
development; to consume goods and services that meet basic needs and bring a better
quality of life without jeopardising future generations, as defined in the Brundtland
Report (1987). Researchers and academics may start by proposing the definition given in
the Brundtland Report (1987) and adding their own viewpoint. The Brundtland Report
defines sustainable development as a model that meets present needs, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, which is similar
to the previous definition given. The central themes of the broad definition used are the
concepts of meeting ‘needs’. Over 25 years it remains one of the most quoted definitions
(Gardetti and Torres, 2013).
Despite the various definitions, some researchers and retailers often misuse and neutralise
the term sustainability (Peirson-Smith and Evans, 2017); this is because of the variety of
interpretations, whilst others avoid providing or adding their own definition. This is
evidenced by the work of Peattie and Collins (2009, p. 108), who stated that when
referees requested contributing authors for a definition of sustainable consumption, there
was little uptake on the basis that adding further definitions to further elucidate the word
sustainability did not help the reader. Henninger, Alevizou and Oates (2016) research
offers some insight into consumer definitions of sustainable fashion and common themes.
For example, consumers’ understanding of the production process while overlooking
social aspects of sustainability and the difficulties consumers have in defining and acting
upon sustainable fashion. However, the research paper does not explicitly state a
definition that could or should be used in defining sustainable fashion, claiming that due
to the subjective nature of the sustainability it is challenging, a matrix for companies to
utilise to communicate to consumers is more appropriate. A table of definitions is set out
below, which shows key definitions in sustainable fashion (Table 2).
26
Table 2: Definitions of sustainable fashion, ethical fashion and the green consumer,
sustainability and the focus of definition
Clearly, research is needed to more precisely define sustainable fashion as examining the
definitions of the word has the potential to provide a richer and more complete
understanding for both consumers and retailers alike. An analysis of the most commonly
advanced definitions in literature and in markets directly addressed to consumers shows
that sustainable fashion products are commonly defined as products manufactured with
durability in mind, which can be worn for more than one season and where due
consideration and care for the materials and workers was involved in the manufacturing
Author Definitions Focus of Definition
Geiger,
Fischer
and
Schrader,
(2018, p. 3)
“Individual acts of . . . acquiring, using and disposing of
[clothes] that do not compromise the ecological and socio-
economic conditions of all people [currently living or in the
future] to satisfy their . . . needs”
Consumer focussed
Lundblad
and Davies
(2016, p.
150)
“Sustainable fashion to encompass the myriad of issues of
an ethical or environmental nature in the production and
consumption of fashion”
Consumer focussed
Field and
Tunna,
(2011,
p.242)
“Living within the Earth’s carrying capacity,
understanding and working to the complexity and
interconnectedness of the economy, society and the
environment, and finally, the equitable distribution of
resources and opportunities on a national and global
scale.”
All encompassing
Joergens,
(2006,
p.361)
“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’
Garment focussed
Webster
(1975,
p.188)
“The socially conscious consumer can be defined as a
consumer who takes into account the public consequences
of his or her private consumption or who attempts to use
his or her purchasing power to bring about social change”
Consumer focussed
27
process. Definitions of sustainable fashion are likely to constantly evolve and become
increasingly diverse as research becomes ever more interdisciplinary. By viewing the
term 'sustainability' as an umbrella concept, there are several considerations which can be
applied to this research. Within all the definitions used there is negligence in the long
term post purchase phase of the product. Often definitions are related to production and
use, indicating a need to develop a definition which encompasses the sustainable fashion
life cycle.
2.5 Summary
Overall, there are many definitions and understandings of sustainability in the fashion
industry. On one end of the spectrum is found various definitions that focus on a
company’s actions and at the other extreme appear definitions which focus on
individualist tendencies. No clear attempt has been made to ascertain whether the
languages used by consumers reflect or match the languages used by sustainable retailers
online. Sustainability can apply to many different aspects of the fashion products cycle,
from the raw fibre to the use and disposal of a product.
This research will use the following definition which is based from the discussion in this
chapter. The definition will be used as it encompasses the core factors associated with the
development of a sustainable future:
Sustainable fashion is an item in the value chain with minimal harm done to the
planet or people involved in both the long and short term of a product. The aim of
the fashion product is to maximise positive impacts and minimise negative impacts
on the environment, society and economy.
The definition used can be applied to everyday fashion consumption behaviour which can
refer to different practices. To overcome the ‘confusion’ surrounding the term the
research uses the definition stated above. Firstly, it is important to be clear in the
understanding of the term from the initial stages of the research as it enables the
development of thoughts and analysis. Secondly, taking into account that the research is
consumer-based there is also a need to understand that consumers’ perception of
‘sustainable’ fashion may be different to what has already been suggested or proposed by
academics. Finally, while the definitions used by academics are useful and have been
implemented across various studies there is an opportunity to develop a definition which
may enable a different line of understanding.
28
It is important to note that with any definition proposed there may be misalignment and
disagreement; however, effort has been made to encapsulate previous definitions and
meanings to both consumers and retailers. Currently, understandings differ and this
research can potentially contribute to understanding between what is expected, what is
actually perceived and the desirability to create a clearer definition. Consumers’
behaviour can hinge on multiple factors from initial understanding to desires. The ways in
which consumer behaviour has been contextualised will be explored in the following
chapter.
29
Chapter 3: Sustainable Consumer Behaviour
3.1 Introduction
As the United Nations Global Compact principles state there is a need to protect the
environment and human rights, which in a developing global society is increasingly vital.
Problems related to sustainability have been referred to as ‘wicked problems’ due to the
complex nature of sustainability and the required involvement of many actors (Lee and
Sung, 2016). Conflict arises when consumer desires and attributes do not match with
socially desirable behaviours such as being sustainable. In literature, there are three
common barriers identified in consumers’ lack of sustainable behaviour and indeed
interest. These include: cost of the environmental benefit, negative thoughts of
sustainability (greenwashing), and lack of clear communication about sustainability
which leads to confusion and changing of day-to-day practices and knowledge of
sustainability (Polonsky, 2011; Carrete et al., 2012). This section will consider the current
methods of understanding sustainable behaviour from a wider perspective in addition to
fashion consumption specifically and the gaps in the literature. In addition, the attitude
behaviour gap will be analysed and consumer purchasing behaviours which are related to
their values and attitudes towards sustainable fashion will be considered.
3.2 Current Methods of Understanding Sustainable Behaviour
In response to increased awareness and understanding, research in sustainable fashion is
rapidly growing and emerging as an academic discipline (Yang, Song and Tong, 2017).
This is evidenced by the increase in research articles concerning sustainable fashion.
Before 2006 there were very few articles in sustainable fashion. However, from 2011
onwards there has been accelerated publishing (Yang, Song and Tong, 2017). Indeed, the
McKinsey and Business of Fashion Report (2018) highlights sustainability as a key
innovation which is an integral part of retailers’ operations. This is due to increasing
awareness of a broad range of issues which receive mixed reactions from both consumers
and experts. The allocation of responsibility in sustainable fashion, alongside the use of
raw material, to the disposal of the product, collectively cause issues within the industry;
these issues will be discussed in further detail in later paragraphs.
The challenges for the sustainable fashion industry are twofold. Firstly, the assumptions
that consumers should act in a certain way despite a wide range of evidence that indicates
30
that they do not (Carrington et al., 2010; Rettie, Barnham and Burchell, 2011; Lundblad
and Davies, 2016). Secondly, the increasingly complex retail environment, especially
online, in which unpredictability and competition is rife (Riquelme and Román, 2014). As
a result, there is a need to re-evaluate and improve understanding of consumer practices
online, specifically towards sustainable fashion products. Achieving sustainable fashion
consumption requires long term transformation in attitude, behaviour and models used by
businesses (Nordic Fashion Association, 2012). Determining the impacts on consumer
practices towards sustainable fashion provides an important contribution for the future
narrative of fashion retailing online.
Collectively, there is a broad spectrum of issues surrounding sustainability in the growing
global economy. In the fashion industry there is an urgent need to change sustainable
practices, at both social and individual levels (Lettice et al., 2010; Soron, 2010).
Traditionally, sustainability was viewed from three broad areas; environment, society and
economy (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Three-ring sector view of sustainability towards a ‘nested’ model (Giddings,
Hopwood and Geoff, 2002, p. 189)
The three-ring sector view of sustainability, also referred to as the triple bottom line, was
proposed by Elkington (1994) to measure performance in businesses. The three
dimensions which are assessed are environmental, economic, and social. The significance
of the model was that it provided points to measure which not only considered
profitability but also social and human values. The three-ring sector view has been
criticised by Giddings, Hopwood and Geoff (2002) who suggests that there is an
31
intersection of economic, environmental, and social factors which influence
sustainability. However, these sectors may be fractured or multi-layered depending on the
context; for example, a consumer may have different levels of concern for the
environment at various points in their life. Consequently, Giddings, Hopwood and Geoff
(2002) propose a ‘nested’ model, rather than rings, which encourages a holistic and
integrated system. This suggests that most individuals experience all areas in the sectors
without definite distinctions in thought or practice. While the nested model is a very
‘broad brush’ approach, it encourages further integration.
Changes are taking place, for example, Mintel (2017) identified ethics, sustainability,
trust and transparency as four of the key themes set to impact consumer trends in the year
ahead. In addition, Fashion Revolution (2016) which is one of the largest sustainable
campaign groups had a record attendance of 66,000 individuals across 1000 events
throughout 2017, predominantly in the UK, and a 250% increase from 2016 on hashtag
and social media impressions. This suggests that sustainability is a growing and important
topic for the fashion community. In addition, Euromonitor (2016) has identified 20
megatrends which will shape the global environment until 2030, which include: smart
homes, circular economy, healthier living, connected consumers, sharing economy,
striving for authenticity and seeking for simplicity, all of which imply some form of
sustainability. With increasing interest from both a consumer and retailer perspective the
sustainability market is highly likely to grow and develop in the coming years. On the
other hand, it is important to acknowledge that changing consumer practices and
increasing interest in sustainability is not straight forward. For example, some consumers
may have a lack of concern for the environment and no immediate interest in changing
this. Sustainability is not a primary decision motivation and there may also be
miscomprehension about the environmental issues which leads to inaction.
3.3 The Attitude-Behaviour Gap in Sustainable Fashion
The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable fashion consumption has received a great deal
of attention from both academics and retailers (Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016; Carrington,
Zwick and Neville, 2016). Links between the rationale for purchasing and sustainable
consumption are often contested, as consumer uptake of sustainable fashion does not keep
up with consumer opinions and concern for the environment (Johnstone and Tan, 2015).
There is no guarantee that a consumer who expresses interest in sustainable fashion will
act upon the interest and maintain the practice despite the consumer possessing the
32
capability to prevent wasteful purchases (Berger and Corbin, 1992; Roberts, 1996;
Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Kilbourne, Beckmann and Thelen, 2002). The discrepancy
between attitudes and behaviour is commonly referred to as the attitude-behaviour gap or
green purchasing inconstancy (Joshi and Rahman, 2015)
Early research by Roberts (1996) identified that while there were ‘socially responsible’
consumers, a gap in behaviour existed due to factors such as convenience, price of
products and misconceptions of sustainable retailers. Previous research has not been able
to clearly recognise why positive attitude fails to convert into sustainable practices. This
is still the case; a recent study by Bly, Gwozdz and Reisch (2015) suggested that while
retailers and consumers recognise the sustainability issues, there are common mismatches
between behaviours considered sustainable and those which are not. Consumers may infer
that because they buy or express interest in a certain type of product that they possess a
sustainable lifestyle. Joergens’ (2006) research found that price and styling were the key
purchase drivers for consumers and that ethical issues played a minor role. Findings by
Eze and Ndubisi (2013) also suggest that price outweighs green claims. If the price is too
high for the product it can deter consumers’ values and cause the attitude-behaviour gap.
Further, Joergens’ (2006) research also found that participants consider sustainable and
ethical considerations to be corporate and government responsibility rather than the
consumers’ responsibility. Consequently, environmental concern does not necessarily
translate into sustainable purchase behaviours. As Carrington et al. (2010) note, it is
apparent that many consumers do not always ‘‘walk their talk”.
While theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain the attitude-behaviour gap,
no definite explanation has been found. Notably, both the theory of reasoned action and
planned behaviour have been widely used and adapted by researchers (Joshi and Rahman,
2015) (Figure 2).
33
Figure 2: Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991)
Studies have found that there are weak links between attitude and behaviour (Soron,
2010; Young et al., 2010; Bray, Johns and Kilburn, 2011; Ulf and Nilsson, 2013).
Extensive research and reports find that while sustainability is positively favoured by
consumers, the inconvenience of changing patterns of purchase outweigh the practice of
changing behaviour (Joshi and Rahman, 2015). Many different internal and external
factors can influence a consumer to behave in a particular manner. Factors are often
interconnected, and there are emerging factors which can influence consumers’
behaviours in online environments. The TPB is now considered unsuitable for explaining
sustainable behaviour for several reasons. Firstly, the model does not consider factors
such as accounting for habitual behaviours, consumer affective responses and external
situational factors which could be misunderstood for attitudes (Joshi and Rahman, 2015).
Secondly, the injunctive subjective norm perceptions of what others may think may not
capture the social influence on behaviour (Araujo-Soares et al., 2013). Therefore, TPB
fails to explain consumer decision-making during the practice and likelihood of
repurchase.
Moving away from the presumption that consumer behaviour is mediated through
intention and perceived behavioural control can lead to greater insights into actual
behaviours and viewpoints. For example, evidence suggests that habits and practices are
often stronger predictors than TPB measures (Gardner, de Bruijn and Lally, 2011;
Sniehotta, Presseau and Araújo-Soares, 2014). A study by Johnstone and Tan (2015)
highlighted that there are green perceptions that can be used to explain the gap. The most
noteworthy factor found that it was too hard to be green, which led to inaction from
consumers. The convenience of accessing sustainable fashion is a recurring theme in the
literature. The financial cost, knowledge and self-discipline can be beyond consumers’
reach due to their lifestyles. The study also highlighted that some participants differentiate
between themselves and a green consumer. A mind-set of ‘them’ and ‘us’ gives the notion
that only certain individuals can access sustainable fashion and be involved in set
consumption practices.
Ritch's (2015) research investigated whether consumers interpreting sustainably are
transitioning from food to fashion. The findings suggest that commonly, there is
scepticism surrounding claims made by retailers, especially for organic cotton. While
34
consumers are increasingly conscious of sustainability regarding initiatives that are used
in the food industry, this concern does not always translate into fashion products. This
may be due to several factors. Firstly, the food industry has successfully addressed the
benefits of healthy eating from both individual and social perspectives; secondly,
concerns such as those touching on fair trade and manufacturing have led supermarkets to
become more transparent in the foods journey from the start of supermarkets’ supply
chain in negotiations to the food miles. Finally, sustainability is becoming a way in which
food retailers can gain a competitive advantage in a very saturated market.
Further, firms in the fashion industry, according the Ritch, (2015), have been slow to
make changes to improve their sustainability and environmental degradation. Seemingly,
the fashion industry promotes the need for innovation and change with new seasons closer
than ever before. While some larger retailers have campaigns and initiatives in place there
is little regard overall for sustainability. This presents an opportunity to position
sustainability in a way that addresses both individual and social concerns. Fashion is
concerned with personal appearance, social status and identity. These factors can create
barriers for more sustainable clothing practices. The unique Joyner Armstrong et al.
(2016) study on abstinence of purchasing clothing during a ten-week period showed that
participants found clothing to be addictive, playing a role in creating comfort similar to
food and other purchases which display individual and social drivers. McGrath (2012)
adduces that consumers are increasingly passive and disappointed with their clothing
which often leads to practices that are unsustainable. Consumers will purchases on the
basis of identity, leisure or affection to feel satisfaction through a product.
Overall, these studies suggest that consumers are often recorded as expressing particular
desires or opinions without the ability or will to enact their intentions. This may be due to
several factors such as information overload, social pressure, market conditions and
systematic contradictions (Ethical and Initiative, 2017). The phenomenon of consumers
choosing sustainable products is not determined by the characteristics of the consumer
alone. Indeed, Moraes, Carrigan and Szmigin (2012, p.124) state, “if we are to succeed in
promoting sustainability, we need to recognise that sustainable development is a social
proposition”. This does not negate that price, quality and conveniences are important to
consumers.
Currently, there is still an incomplete understanding of the gap between consumers’ green
rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. The attitude behaviour-gap in the research may cause
researchers to enter a ‘thinking trap’ (Fletcher and Pine, 2012), and have a tendency to
35
overestimate the power of thinking and underestimate the power of actions of consumers.
Reimers, Magnuson and Chao' (2016) study suggests that when the attitude-behaviour
gap is applied to ethical clothing, academics define the gap differently from the way in
which consumers define it. A direct follow-up to the research by Magnuson, Reimers and
Chao, (2017) found that often in research two dimensions of the gap are overlooked by
academics. Notably, the concept of the price or cost of the ethical item; the research
suggests that a broader conceptualisation is required to gain an understanding from the
consumers. This includes considering not only price but also time and effort which
interlinks with the overall behaviour of the consumer, whereas Hiller and Woodall (2018)
observe ethical consumption is often discussed in terms of failures such as the attitude
behaviour gap and the ‘mystical’ sustainable consumer. Discussing the topic of
sustainable consumers from a negative viewpoint affects the way in which assumptions
are made and the perceptions of the consumer themselves. Hiller and Woodall (2018)
draws our attention to distinctive categories of ethical consumption often observed in the
literature which are individual or socio-cultural, highlighting that more recent research
has taken a ‘middle ground’ approach to include both categories.
3.4 Knowledge and Lack of Awareness in Sustainable Fashion
Knowledge in sustainable fashion is a common factor and variously investigated in
sustainable research. In addition, further lack of awareness has been highlighted as a
barrier preventing sustainable fashion purchases. Specifically, Bhaduri and Ha-
Brookshire (2011) state that generation Y consumers (born between 1980s-1990s) have a
desire to make informed decisions but are unwilling to research product options. Due to
the lack of action of consumers there is a perception that is also a lack of knowledge.
In a practical manner, fashion retailers often rely on labelling to inform the consumer and
communicate technical information. Cerri, Testa and Rizzi's (2018) recent research into
ecolabels in an Italian context found that the labelling used can play a significant role in
the formation of consumers’ attitudes and concern for the environment. Despite labelling,
consumers are likely to receive mixed communication from various sources and are not
engaged with content which is intended for them, especially online. Kang, Liu and Kim,
(2013) noted that sustainable knowledge is commonly conceptualised as a broad term
which can include environmental and ecological information and is related to renewable
and recycling initiatives. In addition, there is the presumption that the consumer
comprehends the impact of fashion products and has factual knowledge such as
36
definitions and the causes and consequences, which is not always the case (Kong et al.,
2016).
The lack of consumer knowledge can be related to communication and consumers
distinguishing sustainable products from other products. These barriers arise from:
● Lack of explicit information in promotional sustainable messages (Yan, Hyllegard
and Blaesi, 2012)
● Understanding the actual impact clothing consumption has on the environment
(Harris, Roby and Dibb, 2016)
● Out of sight is out of existence (McNeill and Moore, 2015)
If a retailer provides too much information in an attempt to improve consumers
knowledge, it can complicate and negatively affect a consumer’s behaviour (Longo,
Shankar and Nuttall, 2017). A distinction between knowledge and information must be
considered. Knowledge is multifaceted and requires the ability to connect different pieces
of information together. Over time knowledge can grow, influence decisions and provide
a sense of accomplishment in tasks. Caution is required to deliver the correct balance of
information to the consumer which is easily accessible; also, to understand the difference
between a consumer’s belief in their own knowledge and the actual knowledge the
consumer possesses. This is important because consumers’ higher environmental
knowledge is likely to develop attitudes and patterns that are reflective of concern for the
environment. On the other hand, it can be suggested that education and awareness arising
around a particular sustainability issue, are highly unlikely to induce behavioural change
over a period of time. Consumers may have a narrow view on sustainable fashion and fail
to consider the wider complexity such as environmental and social concerns.
3.5 Classifying Sustainable Fashion Consumers
Some studies suggest that there has been too much focus on the attitude-behaviour gap
and not on the ways in which to nudge consumer behaviour (Warde, 2005; Hargreaves,
2011; McMeekin and Southerton, 2012; Moraes et al., 2015). Another approach to
understanding consumer behaviour towards sustainability is the classification of
consumers.
37
It is important to note that there is no ‘typical’ sustainable fashion consumer. The various
consumers may have different motivations for and attitudes towards purchasing. For
example, taking into account the role of ‘active’ consumers who purchase sustainable
fashion and contribute to the process and the consumers who demonstrate interest in
purchasing (Bray, Johns and Kilburn, 2011; Jin Gam, 2011), Defra (2008) classified
consumers into the following categories following responses from a poll from positive
greens who were likely to avoid waste and feel guilty about the environment, to honestly
disengage those who had no interest in the environment. More recently, in marketing
literature references to ‘good’ consumers can be found (Carrigan and Attala, 2001). Those
consumers who are portrayed as good usually consider ethics and social values in their
purchasing decisions. From a wider perspective what is regarded as good or right is
embedded into moral philosophies accepted by global citizens ( United Nations
Sustainable Development, 2018).
The New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future report (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017) suggests that there is a range of non-exhaustive motives for a
consumer when purchasing clothing. Indeed, the consumer can be categorised in many
ways which can be from an individual or social context to the different needs they require
from their clothing. For example, from the ‘celebrity’ consumer type who is attracted to
clothing that enables them to look like a celebrity and is interested in special collections
or collaborations with retailers, to the ‘environment’ consumer who likes smaller brands
and tries to buy ethical and re-uses clothing items. However, categorising consumers in
such a way can be detrimental as the consumers relationship with clothing may change
over time and therefore categorising the consumer potentially limits understanding of
wider factors that could influence them.
A recent international study by Gwozdz, Nielsen and Müller (2017) of environmental
perspectives of clothing consumption between 18 – 65 year olds found that profiling and
classifying the consumer by purchase behaviours rather than demographics such as age
was a useful method of enquiry. The study explicitly highlighted the need for
comprehensive and up to date assessments of the consumer. The findings suggest that
approaches to consuming differently and less should be targeted to high volume and high
spending consumers. However, while concerns could be alleviated by making changes in
purchase behaviours by specific targeting, this study does not take into account the
transitions a consumer may go through in their lifestyle which would modify their
38
decision making. Therefore, although profiling a consumer on purchase behaviour may be
fruitful it still has to be understood in a wider context.
Lim, (2017) considers that there are two streams of consumption, one tangible (consumer
behaviour engaging with consumption) and one intangible (consumers’ mind-sets which
include values and beliefs). By investigating the core concerns of consumers the practices
can be determined and examined. Further, Lin (2017) suggests that heightening
consumers’ awareness towards self and the ecosystem can serve to change unsustainable
practices and lead to sustainable outcomes. Lim (2017) examine three components to
sustainable fashion consumption, these include mindful consumption, anti-consumption
and responsible consumption (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Integrated model for sustainable consumption (Lin, 2017)
Of particular interest is the mindful consumption because of the premise of consumers
taking time to consider and reflect on the wider environmental implications of a purchase,
making the consumer ‘good’. The integrated model highlights a link between sustainable
mind-sets and sustainable practices has resulted in responsible consumption. The model
aims to provide a different approach to understanding sustainable consumption and a way
in which to overcome the attitude-behaviour gap. The model can be used as an alternative
way in which to approach sustainable consumption.
3.6 Personal and Social Factors of Sustainable Fashion
Consumers are not always rational or connected to particular values when purchasing
sustainable fashion products (Joshi and Rahman, 2015). In a broad sense, consumers’
behaviour can be stimulated by the desire for benefits which are both individual and
social. The individual and social benefits are not mutually exclusive; research has shown
that conforming to social norms is a common self-enhancement technique (Fiske and
39
Taylor, 2013). Further, the overall consumer experience is complex as it is reflective of
both direct and indirect encounters with a retailer, which can be online or offline (Gentile,
Spiller and Noci, 2007). The decision-making model of sustainable consumption
proposed by Terlau and Hirsch, (2015) will be used to frame the structure of this section
(Figure 4).
Figure 4: Decision-making model of sustainable consumption (Terlau and Hirsch, 2015)
The motivation for individuals to purchase eco-clothing has been studied widely
(Niinimaki, 2010). Typically, the ‘sustainable’ consumer has been profiled to a specific
value-base in which ethical awareness is high and the consumer decision-making is based
on individual intuitive feelings. It is important to understand both individual and social
factors as “understanding ourselves as people who consume may explain much of what
we are about as human beings, since [..], consumption is much of our life” (Firat and
Dholakia, 1998 p. 2) (Papaoikonomou, Cascon-Pereira and Ryan, 2016).
Individual Factors
Harrison, Newholm and Shaw (2005) defined the “ethical consumer” as one who may
“have political, religious, spiritual, environmental, social or other motives for choosing
one product over another” (Manchiraju and Sadachar, 2014, p.2). Consumers have a
complex sense of themselves, relationships with others and things that have been
evidenced in consumption and material culture studies (Slater and Miller, 2007; Schau,
Muñiz and Arnould, 2009). Personal appearance is important for consumers. Clothing can
be seen as an extension of self, aid in the construction of identity and provide social
40
signals to others. It is not surprising that the intrinsic drivers to be fashionable can
outweigh the need to be socially responsible (McNeill and Moore, 2015). While
shopping, Kaiser (1998) reports that consumers go through the process of a silent
dialogue of ‘I’ and ‘Me’ (Niinimäki, 2010).
According to Bray, Johns and Kilburn (2011) more attention is needed on the individual
purchasing factors for sustainable consumption. Research suggests there are factors which
are unknown or not fully developed. Arguing that there is a deficiency using models from
Ajzen and Fishbein because it “posits behaviour as a direct consequence of attitudes and
intentions, is a notion that does not fit with the ‘ethical consumption gap” (p.599). A
consumer can have multiple personal factors which underlie the choice criteria when
selecting a fashion product. These factors are not fully understood (Niinimäki, 2010).
Hedonistic factors such as pleasure for oneself, power, recognition and achievement
encompasses self-enhancement principles and may influence a consumer. Self-
enhancement can be considered as fashion products which also stimulate self-care and
happiness. For example, status-seeking consumption may determine what a consumer will
purchase, especially if there is a strong brand image. Moisander and Pesonen (2002)
argue that sustainable consumers have a desire to represent a certain lifestyle or type of
person.
Consumers have a perceived ‘locus of control’ and depending on the locus of control the
consumer will act ethically or not at all (Forte, 2004). Those with an external locus will
believe that being ethical is beyond their control whereas those with an internal locus will
make ethical decisions in defiance of social pressures (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991).
This suggests that the consumer must have some confidence in themselves to make
ethical decisions and that change can come from within rather than from changes in the
external environment. Consumers may also be classified as concerned with oneself or
pro- self and other-orientated or pro-social. Indeed, Kohlberg (1969) found six stages of
moral maturity which influence consumption behaviour; suggesting that an understanding
of consumers’ personal values and locus is paramount to the overall practice of shopping.
Moreover, Hunt and Vitell’s (2006) model (1986-1993) of ethical decision-making shows
that consumer perception is followed by an assessment based on various perspectives.
Decisions are complex to make and involve consideration from various aspects of ‘self’
and openness to engage with experiences which can enhance personal values (Barnett et
al., 2005). While Cho, Gupta and Kim (2015) make a valid observation that while there is
importance in identifying ways in which to ‘prime’ consumers to be sustainable, more
41
attention is needed to identifying what increases the likelihood of the consumer to
practice sustainable behaviour.
Consumers may feel that being fashionable and sustainable are in direct conflict and it is
not possible for these to coexist within a product. Earlier research by Frings (2008)
considered four major elements in purchase decisions: style, taste, acceptance and change.
The extent to which a consumer uses an item of clothing to express and communicate
about themselves in the form of status, taste, personality and preference will influence the
perceived fashionability of the product (Bly, Gwozdz and Reisch, 2015). In the context of
sustainable fashion, consumers may not necessarily have negative views of the
fashionability of sustainability, rather, in the fashion market this is not as popular as other
types of fashion (Harris, Roby and Dibb, 2016).
Social Factors
Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) argue that social motivators are stronger levers for
ethical behaviour than personal ones. However, consumers may have conflicting
emotions and actions towards sustainable consumption dependent on the ‘cultural or
political feasibility’ (Shaw. and Riach, 2011, p. 1063) (McNeill and Moore, 2015). In a
wider context, Roach and Eicher (1973) suggest that the climate and overall concept of
beauty influences consumers’ choices. The consumer will select items which are
approximate to the beauty ideals of the society, this is still the case today (Manchiraju and
Damhorst, 2016). In addition, consumers may feel marginalised because they can be
portrayed as socially deviant and radical if they consume particular products. Social
beliefs and how these translate to the community can be subjective based on various
factors. These include the predetermined beliefs of members in the community and how
information is shared. There is a mixture of complex ‘multiple end goals such as self-
expression, aesthetic satisfaction and group conformity’ (Kim and Damhorst, 1998, p.
132).
For example, rules on dress impact the consumers’ ability to choose particular items, such
as those for the workplace. As a result there are limitations already in place which
influence the consumer. Predefined limitations can create difficulty in determining which
factors translate into consumers’ decision. In a micro-context, consumers have been
reported to demonstrate ‘herd’ behaviour, consumers who knew if their peers were
shopping more ‘greenly’ were more inclined to follow suit (Aagerup, Nilsson and
42
Nilsson, 2016). Those consumers who are ‘socially’ oriented are deterred by lack of
awareness and a perceived lack of social acceptability (McNeill and Moore, 2015).
Fitting in with social norms and the unconscious tendency to match the behaviours of
others in the individual’s group can be referred to as affiliation. An online context is the
research conducted by Demarque et al. (2015) in which participants were asked to browse
an online supermarket selection. The online store had 84 products in which 24 had
ecological labels; the following information was given “For your information, 70% of
previous participants purchased at least one ecological product.” In this receipt of
information, participants spent 38.3% more on green products than those in the control
group. Schultz et al. (2007) suggest that flow theory can be used to explain social norms,
in which if two types of social norms are salient in an individual, they are likely to behave
similarly.
The complex practices of consumers must be distinguished before we can have better
understanding of the consumption of online sustainable fashion products. A consumer is
likely to want to connect, belong and form social networks (structures) in which common
bonds and interests can be developed and maintained (Niinimäki, 2013). Social norms and
reference groups are drivers of green purchasing behaviour. There have been several
studies which have suggested positive relationships between social norms on green
purchase behaviour (Eze and Ndubisi, 2013). Moving away from the notion that
behaviour is grounded in self-interest and making rational choices (Harrison, Newholm
and Shaw, 2005), Warde (2005) argues that to understand contemporary consumption,
earlier and weaker models of consumer sovereign choice have to be disregarded.
The environments in which interactions are taking place for the consumer are changing all
the time. Consequently, the techniques used to nudge consumer behaviour have changed
over the years. There is an underlying premise that sustainable behaviour is a desirable
end goal for the future. In sustainability literature there is reference to ‘green nudges’
which are understood as ‘purposeful changes of people's actions that steer their behaviour
in certain directions without significantly changing their monetary incentives or coercing
them’ (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009; Sunstein, 2014). Nudges can take the form of
providing further factual information, warnings, and reminders, increase ease of
convenience and use of social norms.
43
3.7 Summary
Substantial consumption behaviour and lifestyle changes are needed from consumers to
achieve sustainable living. Evidence indicates that consumers are not always rational
when making sustainable purchasing decisions, research should consider their social
contexts to gain a more holistic and complete understanding (Papaoikonomou, Ryan and
Ginieis, 2011; Shaw, McMaster and Newholm, 2016). Making a transition to becoming
more sustainable requires interventions from both an individual and at a social level. In
the same respect, to understand individual behaviour effectively, personal and collective
consumption practices need to be utilised. The fashion industry tends to focus on the
process of the supply chain towards making changes (Fletcher and Tham, 2015).
However the consumers’ experience and social practices should also be considered by
retailers as an opportunity to reconnect and understand demand from a consumer
perspective. Many models explain the causes of well-known phenomena such as the
attitude–behaviour gap but do not acknowledge the various social practices and therefore
there is an opportunity to consider consumer behaviour from a different lens (LaPiere,
1934; Blake, 1999). In the following chapter, online environments and the ways in which
purchases are made will be discussed.
44
Chapter 4: Online Shopping Behaviour
4.1 Introduction
The global fashion industry is increasingly adopting online platforms and as a result the
‘path to purchase’ in the traditional shopping context has evolved significantly (Vecchi,
Alessandra and Buckley, 2016). Consequently, there has been a shift in the use of the
internet for purchasing fashion clothing. Technological advances have enabled retailers
and consumers to become more personalised and communicative (Nisar and Prabhakar,
2017). Further, there has been an increase in consumer satisfaction in spending online,
which has been revealed in the study by Nisar and Prabhakar (2017) who suggest that
consumer spending online will increase and further studies are required in an online
context.
Current competitors within the sustainable fashion market have to utilise online platforms
to engage with consumers. Modern consumers are progressively more comfortable using
technology and having both online and offline touchpoints with retailers creating
borderless shopping (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Mainstream fashion consumers are adopting digital channels (Source:
(Euromonitor International, 2017)
Consequently, consumers are often using online platforms as the first point of search for a
product and are becoming ‘digital natives’ (Solomon, 2010). From a retailer’s perspective
online environments can provide a way in which to drive sales and build brand image.
Due to the increase in the use of digital channels, there are growing changes in consumer
behaviour towards online shopping. The McKinsey and Business of Fashion Report
45
(2018) suggests that cultural and behavioural changes are the most important barriers to
overcome in digital advancements and technology. In the sustainable fashion market
consumers now have an increased number of options and as a result, increased power to
switch between brands (Ottman, 2011). The changes in consumer expectations have
resulted in the demand for a streamlined brand experience and immediate communication
(Smith, Stavros and Westberg, 2017). Furthermore, consumers have become habituated to
convenience (quick delivery), a wide range of options (newness and trend) and collective
sharing of reviews. Some consumers may be ‘pushed’ online by the inconveniences of
travelling to a shop, being in a crowd, or standing in a checkout line (Lee et al., 2018).
This can be problematic for encouraging sustainable behaviour. For example, considering
sustainability from a wider perspective, the expectations of constant deliveries causes
congestion, damage to infrastructures such as roads and increased carbon emissions
(Chapman, 2007; Grant, Trautrims and Wong, 2017). Combined with the unpredictability
of consumer orders, multiple trips may be required by delivery vehicles. Consumers can
control delivery options and therefore consider sustainability from the point of the
product choice rather than the complete journey thus opportunities may be missed to
encourage more sustainable behaviour. A consumer could avoid expedited delivery,
simply buy less or buy in one purchase rather than several smaller purchases. Currently,
online consumers have learnt to expect instant delivery and have judged retailers on the
ability to get fashion products as soon as possible (Gabriel and Lang, 2015). As a result
retailers create competitive advantage and reputation by offering express services.
Further, challenges can occur if a consumer considers making a sustainable fashion
product purchase a luxury. This is because if the purchase is episodic rather than routine
there is less expectation for the purchase to make a social and environmental impact
(Deloitte, 2017). Consumers who may consider purchasing sustainable fashion as routine
may have higher expectations from both the product and retailer. Taking into
consideration the various factors, sustainability is not always at the ‘front of mind’ when
making a purchase. Consequently this is a challenge for sustainable retailers both online
and offline.
Consumers’ views of a retailer can create boundaries to the fashion products that are
deemed desirable and sought after. The connotations are similar to those of Barthes'
(2002) who observes that the reader makes the text not the author themselves. In an
online environment the way in which information or a product is framed can influence
consumer behaviour and decision-making. Thaler and Sunstein (2009) in psychology and
46
economic studies show that individuals often make decision which can be considered bad
for them, however, these decisions are influenced by framing. Framing factors as
described by Baldwin (2014) are the ways in which options are presented to the consumer
to make a choice that is deemed ‘beneficial’ for them. It is important to understand the
dynamics behind the selection process of purchase and the various factors which can alter
a consumer’s perspective. The behaviour manifestations of the consumer are ever
changing. Technology has triggered a change in consumers’ perceptions and increasingly
consumers may prefer to shop and browse online rather than visit the store due to several
factors such as choice and offers (Darley, Blankson and Luethge, 2010).
4.2 Concept of Consumers Time Online
Consumers’ daily lives are changing at an increasing speed. Time taken to complete tasks
has changed due to technological advancements. There has been a steady increase in
consumers preferring to shop online rather than go in store. Shifts in consumer patterns
can be aligned with changing online environments including sophisticated methods of
researching product features and price comparisons. Further, the consumer is likely to use
the internet before, during and after a purchase. Changes in consumers’ everyday lives
can cause changes in purchase decisions and ‘trigger’ online shopping preferences and
usage (Seyfang, 2005). Not surprisingly, research has indicated that online shopping has
‘cycles’ which are daily, weekly and otherwise periodic (Kooti et al, 2015). Consumers
fit their online shopping routines to everyday life and other practices. Consequently, retail
internet shopping pursuits have become ingrained formats for evolving shopping and
related practices (Elms, de Kervenoael and Hallsworth, 2016).
The shift in consumer patterns can also be aligned with the increasing desire for the ease
and convenience of consumers, coupled with the contemporary increased time pressures
and felt need for quick results. The search for information usually begins with the internal
search for any sort of information, memory, or experience with a product or service. For
example, Ofcom (2014) report that individuals spend a total of one day a week online
with nine in ten individuals having access to the internet in their own homes. In addition,
Workarea (2017) reported that online stores are visited at the start of the week and often
in the evening. The diurnal pattern of shopping suggests that consumers want to maximise
their time during the day rather than allocate additional time in the evening to shop. Time
is a scarce resource and retailers must offer an environment in which a consumer wants to
47
make time to be involved. The changing allocation of time can affect the consumers’
daily life and change the way in which purchases are considered and processed.
4.3 Social Communities Online
The internet and online retailing platforms provide an arena in which consumers can have
greater power to demand more sustainable fashion products by increased engagement and
interactivity within shopping communities.
Shopping communities such as forums have the potential to trigger wider consumer
participation and can shape and alter the behaviour of the online consumer (Cheung, Liu
and Lee, 2015). Shopping communities are also known as virtual communities, which are
digital spaces that facilitate group interaction (Schau, Muñiz and Arnould, 2009; Shen,
2014). Communities in online environments can provide unique insight into the changing
practices of consumers and the enabling factors which nudge a purchase decision.
Making a connection in a community can be achieved by sharing opinions and expressing
loyalty to the product or brand (Tsai and Pai, 2013). In an online context, consumers can
experience some uncertainty due to the physical separation from retailers and rely on
other consumers’ reviews and comments.
By using social mechanisms such as community identification, retailers can create
environments which can foster bonds with the consumer. The creation and maintenance
of these bonds can be integrated into marketing activities and potentially make consumers
more proactive in sustainability; for example by fostering learning. Retailers can achieve
this by having dialogue and encouraging wide interaction. Marketing literature indicates
that community-based interaction is a tool which can enable retailers to respond to
consumers more efficiently and build trust, especially if incorporated with personal gain
such as rewards (Hajli, 2015; Melewar et al., 2017; Islam and Rahman, 2017). Research
by Kooti et al. (2015) suggests that consumers who are socially connected are likely to
purchase similar products and tend to have similar interests. The socially connected
consumers’ desire to be similar to one another is termed homophily. This is the
organisation of social networks and the associated bond with one another, essentially to
be ‘together’. Consumers are able to interact with one another if they are in a similar
socio-economic class or share interests (Kooti et al., 2015; Shavitt, Jiang and Cho, 2016) .
In a different vein, a new approach recently emerged to examine consumers’ perceptions
of environmental issues through analysis of discussions in online communities
(Woermann and Rokka, 2015). The benefit of online environments is the increased
48
availability of information which can encourage consumers to increase their knowledge in
a particular area. Consumers online may also use peer reviews and comments to develop
viewpoints.
4.4 Summary
The online environment will continue to evolve and consumers increasingly use the
internet to drive and facilitate their shopping activities. There is little research on the
changing consumer experience and practices online towards sustainable fashion. As the
increase in online shopping continues there is a need to research further the practices,
social connections and enablers that drive consumers’ behaviour and purchase decisions.
Consumers and consumer cultures as referenced by Cochoy et al. (2017) can be defined
as “made up of human bodies but also prostheses, tools, equipment, technical devices,
algorithms etc.” (Callon, 2005, p.4). In digital environments, rules or ways in which to
practice are not pre-defined or constructed but emerge from connections and negotiations
with other individuals. The effect of online environments has influenced the occurrence
and cross-overs of practice such as connecting socially and making a purchase.
49
Chapter 5: Social Practice Theory
5.1 Introduction
The chapter provides an overview of social practice theory and the various practices
which can determine consumers’ decisions are explored. It explains the ways in which
this research uses the theory to understand consumer practices towards online sustainable
fashion. In addition, the chapter explains the central components of social practice theory
and current gaps in understanding.
Social practice theory is a means of understanding everyday practices and capturing what
might lie behind those practices (Reckwitz, 2002a; Pan et al., 2015). It derives from the
field of sociology (e.g. Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1990; Schatzki, 1996) placing equal
emphasis on the structures of society together with the agency of individuals (Giddens,
1984). Practices are behaviours that make sense to people in everyday life and can be
approached in the form of understanding, procedure, and engagement (Warde, 2005).
Daily consumer life is fully open to constant change and established patterns of
consumption, taste and social status for example are no longer as rigid. As a result, the
consumer is increasingly open to different lifestyle options. The principle of social
practice theory is that changes in behaviour and motivations are dependent on the practice
itself (Warde, 2005; Shove and Walker, 2010; Shove and Pantzar, 2013). The framework
developed by Brand (2010) provides an overview of the dimensions of social practice
theory and the various fields which influence consumers’ behaviour, namely the everyday
life of consumers and systems of provision (Figure 6).
50
Figure 6: Context model of promoting sustainable consumption (Source: Brand, 2010)
Instead of asking which variables predict a sustainable fashion purchase, which is
common in academic literature (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Ogle, Hyllegard and Dunbar,
2004; Gam, 2011), social practice theory encourages inquiry into how sustainable fashion
purchases (practice) emerge and are maintained (Pantzar and Shove, 2010); Taking into
consideration which day to day practices such as getting dressed in the morning link and
connect to sustainable fashion purchases. Di Salvo, Redstrom, and Watson (2013) noted
that sustainability is a lived endeavour and the everyday habits of consumers can
highlight valuable insights into online behaviour.
By using a social practice theory as a framework for the purchase of sustainable fashion
products, the practices of the purchase of sustainable fashion products and the drivers
which influence these purchases can be considered holistically to understand the day-to-
day reasoning of consumers. This research will move away from the attitude-behaviour
gap, which considers whether the behaviour of consumers is consistent with their attitudes
and actual purchases of products. This is because there is an assumption that consumers
have attitudes that are already ‘locked’ in their mind-sets. The limitation of the attitude-
51
behaviour gap is that ‘attitudes themselves are stances of matters of controversy’ (Billig,
1991) and therefore expressing attitudes is a form of behaviour and needs to be
considered in a wider perspective. Shove and Pantzar (2013) maintain that people are ‘the
carriers of practice’ and advocate their relevance for understanding change. This is
supported by Warde (2017) who states that social practice theory engages both the
individual and the collective, with focus on the societal influences. Social structures are
used to “highlight those patterns of social life that are not reducible to individuals and that
are durable enough to withstand the whims of individuals who would change them”
(Hays, 1994, p. 60). Further, in a fashion context, if the consumer interaction is often
focussed solely on the act of purchase, there is subsequently a danger that underplayed
practices which are routinised, unreflective and embedded in infrastructures of everyday
life are overlooked. For example, changes to socio-technical infrastructures have led to
consumers spending more time interacting online with individuals and path towards
purchase is more varied than ever before. (Warde, 2005, p.137) states, ‘consumption is
not itself a practice but is, rather, a moment in almost every practice’. Therefore,
McMeekin and Southerton (2012) propose that a consumer’s pattern of consumption is
the ‘sum total’ of practices they engage with.
Consumers can be framed and mobilised by retailers in many diverse and variable ways.
The chain of activity which makes sustainable purchases a possibility for a consumer is
related to providing and understanding the infrastructures that support particular practices.
To understand one practice, such as the purchase of sustainable fashion products, it is
necessary to understand the other practices that exist in relation to original practice. For
example, by examining patterns of time devoted to a practice, indications can be found of
variations of commitment to the multiplication, diversification or decline of a practice
(McMeekin and Southerton, 2012). Further, there can be investigation of the emergent
practices that are both directly (e.g. personal values and aspirations) and indirectly (e.g.
time pressures in daily life) related to the performance of shopping for sustainable fashion
online; or the consequences of performing practices differently, such as shopping online
and the impact on social organisations and daily life.
Social practice theory has been used to provide an account of how processes can be
analysed and a way in which the formation, reproduction and deformation of practices
can be considered. Schatzki (1996, p.89) maintained that “the doings and sayings forming
a practice constitute a nexus is to say that they are linked in certain ways”. However,
Warde (2017) states that a social practice theory approach does not remove the individual
52
from the enquiry. It does, however, centre the individual (consumer) at the intersection of
practices, with the patterns and habits totalling the level of engagement to the practice
itself (Figure 2). Moreover, Warde (2017) maintains that exploring the volume or time
devoted to the practice provides an indication of commitment and consequence of
changing practice. In an online context for example, research has shown that time spent
communicating in a private sphere such as a website or webpages changes the level of
engagement in a public sphere because of the resources and return the individual expects
to gain from the interaction (Blanchard and Horan, 1998).
5.2 Social Practice Theory as a Conceptual Framework
Social practice theory has been applied by Pantzar and Shove (2010) in their study related
to walking. The authors acknowledge they are not unique in developing ways to
understand routines and construction of patterns (Schatzki, 2005; Pantzar and Shove,
2010). However, links need to be explored and the relations between practices, that
simply suggesting a before and after view of practice, needs to be incorporated and
understood as the cycles of practice (Shove and Pantzar, 2013). They used proto-
practices, practices and ex-practices in their analysis of walking, as shown in Figure 7
below.
Figure 7: Proto-practices, practices and ex-practices (Source: Pantzar and Shove, 2010)
53
Proto-practices (practices which have not been connected yet), practices (active
interconnection) and ex-practices (sustaining links) framework found that for practices to
be sustainable, a practice must be continually reproduced by consumers. Reckwitz (2002)
used an example of football to explain the understanding of practice and materials; this
can be related to a context of fashion following the same premise. In order to shop online,
a laptop or computer is needed as an ‘indispensable resource’. The laptop or computer
alone does not make a purchase; consumers need to demonstrate competence and
knowledge (skill) such as searching for the product or retailers and going through the
purchase process and having an understanding of sustainable fashion. If these sustainable
fashion practices are interlinked as suggested by Pantzar and Shove (2010) all three
elements need to be taken into consideration. However they may not be interlinked, there
may be a dominant practice or different practice which has emerged.
Practice theory has also been applied to food consumption. Most notably research by
Warde et al. (2007) who investigated the changes in the practice of eating across the
globe, later published a book in 2016 called the Practice of Eating. The analysis of food
using practice theory included the rationale for using the theory. Firstly, the recognition
that social groups differ in what they consider valuable and that taste is distinguishable;
there are variations in what may be desired in particular groups. In addition, decisions are
not independent of one another and are culminations of past performance and preference.
Finally, repetition can be explained by physical and mental reassurance in situations that
may be uncertain.
In sustainable energy research, social practice has been adopted to explain dominant
rational choice perspectives of users. A conceptual model that has not been implemented
has been proposed by (Balke et al., 2014) (Figure 8).
54
Figure 8: Components of the Social Practice Simulation Model (Balke et al., 2014)
This model is similar to the proto-practices, practices and ex-practices adopted by Pantzar
and Shove (2010). Balke et al. (2014) observe that currently there is no ‘unified’
approach to practice theory, however there are core components of practice which include
material, competence and meaning. Practices in consumers’ daily lives continually evolve
and consumers themselves actively negotiate and perform practice which can be complex.
Using practice theory to transform daily practice can be argued to be a more effective
approach than simply persuading individuals to make different decisions.
55
5.3 Prior to Proto-Practice
Prior to the proto-practice in which the consumer has not connected to a purchase,
research suggests that teloaffective structures are present. Teloaffective structures are
those which consist of purposes, beliefs and emotions which impact on individual’s social
life (Schatzki, 1996). For example, the prefiguration of a consumer practice can consist of
motivational knowledge. The behaviour of the consumer makes the teloaffective
structures (mental states) visible (Schatski, 1996). This is significant as Holttinen (2010)
suggests that practices can be embedded into brand value creation and identifies the
various consumer practices. These include practices that are personal, collective or
institutional. Within these practices there are dispersed or complex integrative practices
that require further investigation. Questions that Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012) state
are useful to explore are the following:
● How do practices emerge, exist and die?
● What are the elements of which practices are made?
● How elements, practices and links between them are generated, renewed and
reproduced?
Research in sustainable purchases often highlight that financial barriers prevent purchases
and engagement; while this may be the case there may be other more routine barriers that
prevent purchase. A research case study in Bristol about general sustainable practices
found that finance is the ‘surface’ barrier while commitment to family desires was the
actual reason behind purchasing or not sustainable goods (Rosen, Barnett and Kim, 2011).
As stated, understanding practices also requires the consideration for the consumer as an
individual. This is to gain an understanding of the recursive and reflective relationships
between habitual practices and capacities through which practices occur (Barnett et al,
2011). Warde (2014) recognises that individuals often consume without registering or
reflecting on what it is that they are doing, similarly McMeekin and Southerton (2012)
state that there are ‘widespread barriers in the adoption of sustainable fashion products,
especially in the context of overcoming habitual consumer behaviour’ (Dolan et al.,
2010). For instance, unsustainable behaviours can be due to lack of thinking and
consumers not being fully conscious of their own purchase drivers (Roy, Verplanken and
Griffin, 2015; Verplanken, 2017). Taking into account that the consumer has particular
commitments, identities and ways of life the rationale behind purchases is not always
obvious (Niinimäki and Hassi, 2011).
56
Consumers cannot always ‘see’ their own practices and this is especially intriguing
because there may be links among practices which inform actions that could provide
guidance to sustainable retailers. Soron (2010) challenges the current models of consumer
behaviour as they do not fully consider everyday consumption choices and how choices
are enmeshed with one another. To overcome this challenge there is the possibility to
investigate ‘reflective’ practices which is a way of understanding knowledge that the
consumer already has. Lay normativity can also be considered as a way in which practices
can be explored. Sayer (2005) describes lay normativity as everyday motives, norms and
values that shape people’s conduct and behaviour. Lay normativity provides a line of
enquiry which can explore social theoretical commitment to justify particular purchases
such as sustainable fashion through each of social coordination, human and cultural
relations (Rosen, Barnett and Kim, 2011).
Research that has focussed on the provision of energy and household consumption have
used practices as a way in which to recommend sustainable direction. Practices rather
than single actions or moments in time can be used to gain a deeper understating of social
factors. The key elements in the understanding of practices are highlighted below (Gram-
Hanssen, 2010) (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Key elements in the understanding of practices by Gram-Hanssen (2010)
By applying practice theory to the understating of consumption from an early age the
understanding of ‘ways’ of doing things is embedded into the individual and plays an
57
important contribution to later decision making factors. The descriptions of everyday
practices and routines are developed through mind, knowledge, structure, and agency. In
which technologies play a prominent role in changing and formation of practices. As
mentioned earlier teleoaffective structures can bind practices together and provide the
motivation to orientate to a particular way of behaving. There can be substantial meaning
for someone in the way in which the practice is framed. Gram-Hanssen (2010) used four
elements of practice theory to study energy consumption which were know-how and
embodied habits, institutionalised knowledge, engagements, and technologies.
5.4 Larger Communities of Practice
Social practice theory considers larger communities of practice a useful measure of
consumer practices. This is because when practices are adopted by a large number of
consumers they can impact on wider society. Indeed, McDonald, Oates and Alevizou
(2016) suggest that analysis of a larger unit, such as a community or household, could be
beneficial in determining consumer practices. This is important because the behaviour of
individuals and social groups, such as households, has major cumulative impacts on
environmental sustainability and development (Peattie, 2010). This is especially
important as in sustainable fashion purchases the consumer is often faced with immediate
self-interest and longer term collective interests (Verplanken, 2017).
Consumers who engage with certain environments both online and offline, often create a
sense of belonging, find connections and build social networks (Brodie et al., 2011). The
maintenance of social identity is linked to consumption practices and indeed consumer
identity constitution. These interactions can be referred to as structural capital (Wellman
et al., 1996). Bourdieu (1990) lays emphasis on understanding social spheres as fields of
consumer practices, being shaped by symbolic power struggles between different
consumers each aiming to improve their position. Our own digital footprint is under
constant observation by ourselves and by others online. In the digital economy our online
reputations follow us everywhere, as individuals or in a collaborative group. Appreciating
the ways in which consumption is embedded into practices of sociability, generosity and
care can help us recognise that shopping is directed towards others. Further, research has
indicated that the behaviour of individuals is highly influenced through conversations and
social learning, moving away from campaigns which heavily focus on individual
‘behaviour change’ (Behavioural Insights Team in partnership with the Cabinet Office,
2014)
58
In addition, theoretical contributions from Bourdieu in Distinction (1984) can be used to
interpret how the social status can influence the desire to be a sustainable consumer. The
practice of being a sustainable consumer can be an expression of taste. According to
Bourdieu (1984) good taste can be used as a marker of social status and consumers may
be included or excluded by the virtue of their sense of self socially.
In a more recent article Elliott (2013), based on a American sample which considered
green behaviour across a range of products, the findings indicated sustainable
consumption can be used as a way in which to signal to others social status. As the
growing literature encourages and reports pro-environmental behaviour there is an
opportunity to explore the larger role of social influences such as status. Elliott (2013)
reports that traditionally consumer segments were determined by surveys. The acts of
sustainable consumption can provide ‘self-interested’ status gain especially if it is visible
to others. Moving away from attempting to cultivate a category of consumers who can be
targeted and influenced into consuming sustainable products, the purpose of consumption
has a complexity of motivators some of which are more obvious than others. In this way,
class position is an important determinant of how social structures are reshaped in the
physical surroundings through the things a person possesses (Bourdieu 1984). In relation
to online sustainable fashion a way in which to consider practices may be through
considering how consumers ‘share’ or ‘inform’ others of their purchases.
5.5 Consumer Reference Groups
Consumer behaviour is strongly influenced by other people, either by what they do or
what we think they want us to do. Especially for certain practices, Bond (2015) claims
that emotions can be spread through a community and the effect of social rituals such as
eating and shopping. The significance is that if consumers in a fashion community mimic
each other there can be an opportunity to change certain practices which influence
emotions, for example, shopping sustainably. Both consumers and retailers may be an
opportunity to change consumerist lifestyles that affect personal and collective wellbeing.
Patagonia, an outdoor clothing retailer, has amplified promoting a collective wellbeing for
their consumers. This has been achieved by creating a digital hub to connect customers
with the grassroots organisations the company supports in local areas called Patagonia
Action Works. The initiative is effective as consumers can search their local area to find
events related to supporting and caring for the environment. Consumers can potentially
59
create new networks with like-minded individuals and engage with issues that support
sustainability.
Bauman (2007) claimed that we now live in a ‘liquid modern’ society of consumers. This
suggests that consumption is no longer a collective activity in a group, rather a solitary
activity in which consumers may swarm together for particular products. This is not
without challenges as often consumer practices are socially embedded and constrained in
the nature of consumption. There can be a mismatch between the consumers requiring
consuming for themselves such as purchasing a t-shirt for functional needs versus
purchasing an item of clothing with the intention to influence a group of individuals.
Euromonitor (2018) reported that prior to a physical store visit the eco-conscious
consumers have low social concerns. However, it is expected that consumers will
experience a cultural orientation in other aspects of their lives in ways that affirms and
creates favourable predispositions towards a sustainable lifestyle and values. Gabriel and
Lang (2015) support that consumers do not purchase products for the function but
because of what it means to the consumers and what the products will say about them.
Therefore, the inclusion of sustainability in fashion can be complex due to consumers’
evaluative criteria including aesthetic and social preference (Hiller Connell and Kozar,
2017).
5.6 Social Practice Theory in a Fashion Context
It can be argued that commonly used theories in fashion marketing adopt an
individualistic view of behaviour, thereby overemphasising the role of attitude and
behaviour of individuals, thereby neglecting the social and cultural underpinnings (Prager
and Hutton Institute, 2012). Chatterton (2011) states there should be increased emphasis
on the context and structures that determine the way in which individuals behave. There is
a tendency to assume that consumption = individual (Maniates, 2014). This assumption
may be due to the individual being the most visible and easily identified part of the
consumption pattern.
The use of a social practice framework can contribute to deepening consumer
understanding (Salonen, Närvänen and Saarijärvi, 2014). Salonen, Närvänen and
Saarijärvi (2014) identified four specific practices of consumers in fashion as: dreaming,
expertise, information search and being part of a community. The research focussed on
online fashion in a broad context, however there is an opportunity to determine whether
these practices are relevant for consumers who shop for particular sustainable fashion
60
products online. Practices which were linked to procedures and findings of the study
indicated a diverse range of consumer behavioural drivers (Table 3).
Table 3: Online fashion practice and procedures (Source: Salonen, Närvänen and
Saarijärvi, 2014)
Practice Procedure
Dreaming
- Building identity and a desirable lifestyle
- Browsing images
- Imitating
- Fantasising
Expertise
- Developing a feeling of expertise through
knowledge and competence
- Upgrading status
- Familiarity with information source
- DIY projects
- Aspiring to be more professional
Information Search
- Looking for and generating the most
reliable information
- Recommending
- Looking for usage tips
- Product reviews
Being Part of a Community
- Achieving a sense of belonging
- Getting to know the information source
personally
- Creating companionship and community
However, in this study one male was selected in the second focus group and therefore
applying the same technique in a similar context would require a degree of caution as it
may change the views and expressions of other participants (Hollander, 2004).
In a fashion context, Moraes et al. (2015) used a practice theory approach in the ethical
jewellery sector. However, it is important to bear in mind that this research concerning
jewellery was undertaken in a physical rather than online environment and therefore it is
possible that the results are a reflection of that particular environment of shopping for
jewellery. Nonetheless, the results from the study support the idea of adopting a practice
theory approach. Consumers’ practices were shown to be interconnected and placed
emphasis on the relationship between object, doing and representation.
Another context of using practice theory was research conducted among young academic
Danish women in respect to clothing practices (Jørgensen and Jensen, 2012). Practices
which shaped participants’ consumption of clothing included:
61
● Getting bored with clothes
Dressing differently is closely related to having fun and having the same dress for
example can get boring
● Low price motivation
Consider purchasing clothing in a sale because it would be ‘stupid’ to miss a
deal despite not wearing the item – how much they like the clothing plays a
smaller role than the price
● Inactive clothes in wardrobe
Inactive clothing in a wardrobe is due to an incomplete overview of what they
currently have. The feeling of having inactive clothing such as jeans but still
‘needing’ to have more because of the lack of visibility. Or keeping clothing for a
sentimental value.
Building from these practices there are also expectations within the social network, the
way in which others perceived the women influenced how they dressed. Firstly, the
women interviewed do not like to wear the same clothing more than once during the week
if they will be seen by the same people, however they would not mind if they saw
different people. The reason for this is that there is a perception that wearing clothes
repeatedly is unhygienic. Therefore, it could be considered the social practice is linked to
hygiene. Similar research has found maintenance practices such as wearing an item
several times to work is linked to social norms. For example, in Sweden the average
number of wears before washing is reported at three times for t-shirts and four or more for
jeans (Gwozdz, Nielsen and Müller, 2017). High levels of hygiene and cleanliness are
expected and adherence to these norms affects the practices of consumers. Secondly, the
women felt ‘stagnated’ if they did not refresh their look, especially for social events such
as parties. Finally, the fashion industry setting trends to follow and having expectations to
dress a certain way which is socially acceptable, social expectations impacted on
everyday practices especially if they were dress coded. Overall, findings indicate that
women require fashion items to be expressional but also practical. Striking a balance can
be challenging and practices may be performed in different ways to cater for the meaning
behind the purchase. By using an ethnographic approach, the study indicated that the
combination of rapid development of low price strategies used by retailers had led to a
62
change in consumers’ consumption practice, which included buying for a cheap price and
getting bored with clothing.
An alternative approach, closely linked to social practice theory, is advocated by Rettie,
Burchell and Riley (2012) who explore social normalisation as a way in which to
encourage sustainability. The premise is that consumers are likely to adopt practices of
behaviour if they think what they are doing is the same as other consumers around them.
When practices are considered different from or novel to a routine there may be some
resistance by consumers to adopt such practices (Shove and Pantzar, 2013). However,
when the practice is mainstream and acceptable it is ‘socially normalised’. These
practices determine how a consumer behaves. However, a possible limitation of social
practice theory is that it assumes that consumers are fully aware of what others do; as a
result what is normal is relative (Gabriel and Lang, 2015). Social normalisation can be
linked to lay normativity as mentioned previously. By exploring social commitment to
justify purchases consumers may connect certain values to fashion purchases.
Spontaneous or routine practices without explicit consideration may be explained using
both social and lay normativity. Indeed, Warde and Shove (1998) critique ‘glamorous
aspects of consumption’ which take focus away from the ‘routine, symbolically neutral,
socially determined and jointly experienced elements. Therefore if the focus is reframed
other key forces in sustainable consumption may be identified.
5.7 Aesthetics in Sustainable Fashion
Fashion is a visual industry where aesthetics is at the core. More so then ever before,
there is a need to understand modern consumer aesthetics which is fused with individual
and social contexts (Pierce, 2014). Conceptualising sustainability and aesthetics is a
critical task because it requires understanding and managing several needs across a
network of individuals. Sustainable fashion is a challenge for both marketers and
consumer due to the complexity and cynicism in the industry (Goworek et al., 2012;
Rinaldi, Testa and Rinaldi, 2015; Robinson and Chelekis, 2016). Aesthetic inquiry
permits the researcher to consider what consumers perceive as beautiful which can be
translated and incorporated into the retail process. Despite the complexity, few tools have
been developed for retailers that use aesthetic mediation in a model (Figure 10).
63
Figure 10: Current gap in aesthetics and sustainable fashion, Authors Own (2018)
Furthermore, existing tools are either too complex or fall short in supporting sustainable
practices (Petersen and Brockhaus, 2017). Aesthetics is related to activities, processes and
capabilities of expressing beauty (Hagman, 2002). The expression can be generated from
a consumer through clothing, attitudes and values. The creation of an entirely new
expression can be a challenging transition for an individual in everyday practices
(Niinimaki, 2010). Consumers may feel accomplished in their need to express their
identity, role and status in a social group (Schectman et al., 2013). The aesthetic of the
product can be critical for how the consumer evaluates themselves in terms of self-
enhancement, the products and the retailers (Leder et al., 2004; Reed, 2004). Falling short
on the aesthetic dimension can result in consumers ignoring or creating unsustainable
preferences.
Stemming from philosophy, aesthetics which is commonly referenced in design is
concerned with beauty and the connection to human experience (Herwitz, 2008). First
mentioned by philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten in 1735 to mean ‘the science
of how things are known via the senses’ (Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004; Jiang and Wang,
2016). Nowadays the definition is broader and used in an array of disciplines, with
aesthetic terms, important features of daily life, and is used to elicit responses from an
individual (Todd, 2004).
A consumer has increased exposure to a variety of experiences which stimulate aesthetic
senses. In the context of online fashion, consumers are exposed not only to products but
also to various branding messages (banners, blogs and posts) which carry aesthetic value
and calls for attention. Commonly, sustainable fashion purchases are reported to be
mainly influenced by price, quality and style (Ritch, 2015; Harris, Roby and Dibb, 2016).
The majority of studies in sustainable fashion concentrate on these factors at a general
level to categorise consumers rather than achieve holistic understanding (Yang, Song and
Aesthetics
Online Environments - Sustainable Fashion
Consumers
Lack of
research
(black hole)
64
Tong, 2017). Recent literature has reported that creativity and human connections can be
the nudge to enable organisations and societies to thrive from sustainability, yet aesthetics
has received little attention so far (Poldner, Dentoni and Ivanova, 2016).
The shift in modern consumer aesthetics in online environments occurred for several
reasons. Firstly, taking into account the growth of online environments has enabled
consumers to have a wider range of choice and they are able to express themselves to a
larger audience (Bilgihan, 2016). For sustainable fashion this is significant, as
sustainability is emotionally charged and arguably value driven in nature; the online
environment widens the opportunity to share for both retailers and consumers, thus online
environments provide effective tools for spreading sustainable awareness (Shen et al.,
2014). In an era of abundance there are many ways in which a consumer can research and
choose a fashion product online. Kant (1892) conceives that aesthetics is linked to
imagination and to think of an experience as beautiful is within itself a judgement
(Dutton, 1994; Daniels, 2008). Considering the link of aesthetic beauty and judgement, a
consumer potentially has the cognitive ability to choose and develop positive experiences
with sustainable fashion online. To think of this experience as beautiful is based on
contemplation and reflection by the consumer; it can be difficult for a retailer to evaluate
at a given moment (Venkatesh and Meamber, 2008). Further, in reality there are no rules
on how any given individual experiences an object or fashion product, and while
consumers may possess divergent thoughts as to why a particular choice is made, these
may not always be clear to the retailer (Venkatesh and Meamber, 2008).
In online environments the aesthetic phases which can impact on consumer judgments are
the way in which retailers arrange websites in purposeful patterns to evoke emotional
responses (Achar et al., 2016). The importance of communication online in sustainable
consumption is stated by Oates, Alevizou, & McDonald (2016), with the contact points of
advertising and use of media as ways in which brands can reflect their ideals. This is
important because consumers construct meanings and definitions through shopping and
their clothing, using that clothing as a way in which to negotiate their relationships with
others (Compeau et al., 2016). Retailers can therefore use communication tools to
increase the values of their brand and articulate benefits of sustainability.
Overconsumption of clothing is driven by social pressure which the fashion industry
encourages, such as seasonal wardrobe updating to not being seen in the same outfit twice
(Bly, Gwozdz and Reisch, 2015). This can be overcome by using communication tools to
65
address social problems concerning overconsumption, rather than to meet commercial
profits.
Further, often retailers reserve a ‘place’ and/or ‘experience’ in their online environment to
communicate sustainable fashion which is distinguishable from other products. Rather
than adopting a holistic approach incorporating sustainability throughout the online
environment the judgement from the consumer can become separated from the brand
overall. Retailers may choose to communicate sustainability through a differentiated
design approach, in which certain design features may signal sustainability. This is
significant as it contributes to consumers’ identity formation (Pan et al., 2015). As online
environments change to cater to consumers changing preferences, the retailers are
responsible for both the functionality of the website but also the visual appeal and
aesthetics in order to attract a wide population (Labrecque et al., 2013). This can be
achieved by using novelty through a new layout or presentation of personalised interfaces
(Jiang et al., 2016).
Secondly, ideas of beauty have changed in modern society, especially for women
(Goodwin et al., 2008). This has been communicated by retailers in the change of fashion
trends which emerge, exist and eventually die. Historically, consumers have faced a trade-
off between desirable, fashionable wear, and timeless, sustainable clothes. There can be
the misconception that sustainable clothing is ugly, ill-fitting or unfashionable (McNeill
and Moore, 2015). Joergens (2006) well known research showed that some consumers
avoid sustainable clothing when it does not align with their aesthetic needs. The consumer
is the carrier of aesthetic judgment and they have the ability to create and maintain certain
meanings which are conveyed to retailers with immediate effect; this is because shopping
is a form of human expression (Clark, 2012).
For a consumer to be committed to a judgment, for example, preferring sustainable
fashion versus other types of fashion, is to be committed to the claim that others in their
social arrangement should find the same interest. The binding together of self and society
can carry both benefits and disadvantages to the consumer and retailer equally. McNeill
and Moore (2015) identified that consumers differ in their commitment to sustainability
in fashion; some are solely concerned with personal desires for purchasing, such as
looking good; while other consumers are motivated by the need to ‘fit in’ to societal
norms and not look out of place. Those consumers who consider fashion as vital to self
indentity and fiting in are less likely to adopt sustainable products (Kang, Liu and Kim,
2013). It is possible that as society evolves to embrace more styles, then consumers may
66
be open to changes. Postrel (2003) refers to the twenty-first century as the “new age of
aesthetics” because of the “coexistence of many different styles.” (Reiley and DeLong,
2011). While Moon, Costello and Koo (2016) suggest that consumers who have an
interest in the style and fashion of clothing are the social drivers for change. Consumers
will invest resources in the pursuit of fashion which is linked to their own taste.
Aesthetics and taste are interlinked and this is important as ‘our own personal taste guides
our decisions’, affecting choices consumers regularly face in their immediate
consumption environments, especially online (D’Souza, 2015). From a retailer’s
perspective, in online environments there is increasing pressure to fulfil the expectations
of modern consumers (Grewal, Roggeveen and Nordfält, 2017). For example, new styles
of clothing are available and accessible to the average consumer every week.
Davies (2015) exploratory research on the concept that luxury fashion and sustainability
isn’t sexy, reported that participants often associated sustainable clothing with hemp
grocery bags and organic materials , making them think of soil and dirt which they would
not want associated with the clothes they wear. Further, sustainability was not considered
‘edgy’ enough to be designer compatible or achieved with a movement in mind. The
research implies that there is a divide in consumers’ perception about the aesthetics of
sustainable fashion and a separation from retailers which are considered ‘on trend’ or
‘edgy’. This is similar to the research conducted with generation y consumers who stated
that ‘if it was more trendy I would buy more of these types of clothing’ (Hill and Lee,
2012).
Overall, the online environment offers new freedoms and possibilities to consumers for
self-indulgence, for example, the online environment can be used to explore personal
taste and construct aesthetic preferences. Traditional boundaries of communication can be
superseded by retailers in online environments and the consumer can become attracted to
sustainable fashion products.
Aesthetic mediation is the ability to see beauty, develop taste and communicate these
attributes to others (Villeneuve, Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1993; Waddock, 2010).
It is used frequently in the art community, however, to the present writer’s knowledge
few studies have applied aesthetic mediation to the domain of online sustainable fashion
retailers. Aesthetic mediation allows the researcher to join interrelated subject areas.
Online shopping can allow consumers to mediate relationships between the self, others
and the wider world (Kwon, Ha and Kowal, 2017). Compeau et al (2016) state that
shopping is an expressive act of communication which discloses the self to others and
67
provides for reflection. Pink (2006, p.34) claims that a product must be “pleasing to the
eye or compelling to the soul” in order to catch the attention of consumers. Between the
consumers’ expression and retailers developing appealing products lies aesthetic
mediation.
A significant analysis and discussion on the subject was reported by Poldner, Dentoni and
Ivanova (2016) in which aesthetic mediation can be used by organisations to develop and
communicate sustainability messages. This was achieved by suggesting a four-step
mediating process in which aesthetics acts as an engine, linking both creativity and
communicating sustainability within the organisation. However, there is an uncertainty
about consumers’ ability to change their practices as a result of relevant organisational
changes. By including the potential consumer impact into the process, the steps can be
expanded, supporting the notion that what a consumer finds beautiful will become
culturally ingrained and likely to be preserved.
Currently, consumers are frequently given messages that they are responsible for
sustainability (Markkula and Moisander, 2012). The heavy expectations placed on the
consumer can lead to incapacity to understand and engage. The majority of the literature
which suggests behavioural changes in consumers to purchase products often focuses on
the barriers and challenges of sustainability, rather than mediation and solutions in a
holistic manner (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). From the consumer perspective there is
the desire to fit in and a particular standard of beauty which is morally acceptable, from a
sustainability standpoint. The reason why fashion shopping is essential to consumers’
daily lives is that it provides tangible evidence of relationships with the self, loved ones,
and the lived world (Carrington, Zwick and Neville, 2015; Compeau et al., 2016).
Markkula and Moisander (2012) suggest better education and empowerment to develop
meaningful roles for consumers can improve sustainable fashion consumption.
Consumers may have the perspective that the online environment can be considered a
prime mediator that facilitates the exploration of sustainable fashion products and
possible purchase. Fashion retailers could use such perception to their advantage and
more actively include consumers in their online presence.
Sustainability and aesthetics are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals for a retailer.
The consumer should not have to face the dilemma of choosing between aesthetically
pleasing but unsustainable clothing and the reverse. While some would claim that new
styles alone can assure consumer happiness, this narrow approach can ignore wider
consumer concerns relating to sustainability. Approaches which have emerged from
68
Markkula and Moisander (2012) indicate that retailers can develop ‘stronger’ links to the
consumer than merely suggesting sustainable products by establishing a satisfying
aesthetic style and rejecting the logic of unattractive sustainable clothing. Such exposure
to aesthetic mediation can generate improved understanding of consumers and the way in
which they choose sustainable fashion. By emphasising links to personal style, social
style and retailer aesthetic (Southerton, Warde and Hand, 2004), mediation can be
achieved by the following:
Providing more information and sharing knowledge to the consumer about what
sustainability means to the retailer and what is understood as “normal”
Fulfilling the core roles that clothing plays in consumer desires such as renewal by
sharing and developing a community of like-minded individuals by reducing the
distance from consumer to retailer
Asking consumers to share creativity and ideas of what they would like from the
retailer from both an aesthetic and organisational prospective.
Online retailers are endlessly renewing temptations for consumers; for example,
suggesting consumers ‘treat’ themselves or offering a discount to a product which they
have saved in their basket. From a sustainability perspective it is necessary to consider
whether the retailer used the concept of renewal to improve the relationship with the
consumer via aesthetics, which could provide ‘periods of contemplation or harmonious
enjoyment’ (Pelowski et al., 2016). It is important to develop a strong relationship with
the consumer through time, since early judgments can affect later aesthetic development.
If there are constant negative judgments towards sustainable fashion, they are likely to
become embedded (Connelly, Ketchen and Slater, 2011; Sheth, Sethia and Srinivas,
2011).
Currently, there is a complicated network of relationships overlapping from the consumer
to the retailer (Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Gummesson, 2017). A balance needs to be
maintained by retailers to avoid lack of interest by the consumer. Aesthetic pleasure
depends on how easily relevant information can be processed by the consumer, by
eliciting positive effects (Chau, 2016). Everyday consumer aesthetics have been
suggested as a way in which ‘something of a catch-all, a default third basket for what is
not comfortably categorized as fine art or natural beauty’ can be considered favourably by
an individual (Patrick, 2016). Hegel’s work holds a ‘highbrow’ opinion on aesthetic
relationships and would likely consider that online environments do not require proper
examination (Hegel, 1998; Hanquinet, Roose and Savage, 2014).
69
What can be used by retailers however is ‘the art-infusion effect’ (Hagtvedt and Patrick,
2008). By infusing a sense of luxury this can lead to a positive perception by consumers.
This could be beneficial as Locher et al (2016, p.73) note that “individuals are capable of
rapidly detecting and categorizing learned properties of a stimulus”(Pelowski et al., 2016.
p. 1). Caution is required not to diminish luxury sense by overuse but rather to use
strategically. This implies that consumers’ aesthetic sophistication requires consideration.
Pelowski et al (2016) suggest that aesthetics derives from the “natural extrapolation of the
cognitive mastery process” and that consumers can develop aesthetic preferences.
In an increasingly fluid and dynamic relationship online, consumer research into
understanding online consumer behaviour is vast. The normalisation of the online
environment is likely to change the relationship between consumer and retailer. For
example, in a society which is dominated by consumption there is the need to maintain
and improve strong relationships with sustainable retailers (Bobbitt and Dabholkar,
2001); aesthetics can build new differentiating competitive factors by:
A violation of norms requiring to demonstrate to consumers that the norm they
perceive is in fact what they practice daily, in spite of what we believe or think
about ourselves
Both the retailer and consumer
Considering using art and infusing a sense of luxury to emphasise the importance
of the relationship.
Aesthetic mediation and sustainable fashion can be incorporated in various fields of
knowledge. Sustainability in the fashion industry, especially online, is multifaceted and
complex and therefore by only considering a few factors can result in inaccurate
conclusions of the consumers who are interested in such products (Jabareen, 2012). The
model proposed integrates social, cultural, consumer, spatial and online dimensions into a
unified flow. To illustrate (Figure 11)
70
Aesthetic mediation through online environments
Figure 11: Model of understanding the process of aesthetic mediation, Authors Own
(2018)
There are important considerations to recognise in the model proposed. The first segment
considers the society; this is because marketing relationships, especially in fashion can be
considered largely social experiences (McCallum and Harrison, 1985). The social
signalling in society can flow to the consumers and influence the experience they have in
an online environment. The benefits of developing acceptance in a society in twofold,
firstly, a shared identity can be created that accepts sustainable fashion as a positive
manner. Secondly, willingness to accept various definitions of beauty will allow
consumer to more freely express themselves and place sustainability as an investment in
community structure.
Consumers have enduring individual traits that shape interaction with others, including
retailers. By developing appreciation for sustainable fashion at an individual level this can
then be shared with others in the community. Establishing positive relationships with
sustainable retailers can embed sustainable tendencies and retain interest, coupled with
creating novelty can operate as a key variable in the likelihood of the consumer mediating
a long term commitment to sustainability. Sustainable fashion retailers need to convey
positive messages through both the practice of purchasing sustainable fashion product but
emphasising the beauty and fashion ability of sustainable fashion. Consumers have
personal objectives when purchasing clothing which should not be criticised but
•Social signalling
•Acceptance
•Defining beauty standard and quality to sustainability
Society
•Awareness of sustainable practices
•Appreciation and perception of beauty in sustainable fashion
•Sharing with social communities
Consumers •Novelty in beauty
•Transformation and creativity
• Improve offering and sharing with consumers
Sustainable Fashion Online Retailers
71
understood and aligned to the product offering. Mediation through exchanging values and
sentiments can be beneficial for both parties.
5.8 Time and Practice
Time is a function of shopping which provides the consumer with the structure to
purchase goods. Shopping can be considered a leisurely activity unless there is an urgent
need. Online environments in particular have time-use implications, for example,
interweaving purchases into working environments. Time perception and use “shape and
reflect the relationship between human society and physical environment, affecting
sustainability transitions” (Lavelle, Rau and Fahy, 2015, p.369). The time spent
purchasing products can contribute the consumers value perception of the brand.
Consequently, the time and environment in which a consumer spends is an important
consideration to this research. Time use research can provide a bridging concept and
analysis with social practice theory. Time scarcity in particular can be a determining
factor in consumers’ decision making. Questions of leisure time and shopping activities
are important to address (Figure 12).
Figure 12: The cycle of time and online consumer practices, Authors Own (2018)
Currently, consumer accounts and feelings on time to practice shopping for sustainable
fashion online is limited. Social and technological changes over the past decade have
transformed the temporal patterns of everyday life and led to desynchronisation of natural
cycles.
Digitalisation and online
environment
Time use and perception
Consumer practice towards
sustainable fashion
72
5.9 Summary
In summary, by applying social practice theory towards sustainable fashion purchases,
analytical attention can be used on sites of action to comprehend how moments of
patterns and practice are reproduced over time and across various online environments.
There is capacity to demonstrate links between everyday practices, consumer identity and
the range of social issues which impact on sustainable fashion purchases. Lasting changes
in consumer behaviour are made possible when practices are understood and structures
are designed by retailers that support change. However, there are difficulties in disrupting
(unsustainable) practices (Røpke, 2009). The internet has changed the way in which
consumers interact, creating a new nexus of practices and ways in which to consume
sustainable fashion. More research on this topic needs to be undertaken before the
association between practice theory and manipulating consumer preference towards
specific products such as sustainable fashion in an online environment can be better
proposed. A practice can be considered a combination of images, meanings and symbols,
skills, forms of competence and procedures through materials and technology that are
“dynamically integrated” (Hargreaves, 2011, p.83). To change a consumer’s behaviour
requires targeting practices to make them more sustainable, rather than targeting a
consumer’s individual characteristics per se (Southerton, Warde and Hand, 2004). Using
social practice theory to understand the consumer requires balancing the different actions
which coordinate practices (Table 4).
Table 4: A schematic map of differences from dominant accounts of action based upon
models of the sovereign or expressive individual (Warde, 2014).
Practice Theories Models of the sovereign and expressive individual
Performance Acts
Doing (Praxis) Thinking
Knowing how Knowing that
Practical competence Reasoning
Habit and routine Action
Practical consciousness Discursive consciousness
Embodied sense Mental deliberation
Collectively (other people) Private mental states
Shared understanding Motivation
Regulation Individually
Flow/ sequence Unit acts
73
Practices of online
consumers
Common Understandings:
what to buy, when, with whom and
where
Practical, Knowledge and Skills: how to buy,
store and keep clothes
Material
Infrastructures: clothing, online
or physical shops
Dispositions Decisions
The material The symbolic
So, to coordinate practices, which are either habitual or temporal, requires understating
ways of doing (Warde, 2005, 2014). In the design of the research participants will be
asked how they organise their online shopping in their daily life, use and interaction with
particular social frameworks (rather than asking why) and attention will be drawn to
actions (practices) of participants instead of exclusive focus motivations and language.
This research will address varied drivers of practices and the role of the consumer’s
contemporary life (Soron, 2010).
By using practice theory, this research provides an important contribution to social theory
in fashion and draws attention to practices and activities in consumers’ daily lives and
how these practices are woven together and aggregated with sustainability concerns
(Figure 13).
Figure 13: The (social) practice of online shopping to illustrate the elements of a social
practice (Source: Adapted from Strengers and Maller, 2017).
74
What is currently known is that engaging consumers in sustainable behaviour is complex
and can be embedded into consumers’ daily practices. Practices can change due to factors
such as changing social circles and consequently consumers may not always participate in
sustainable practices. Taken together, these studies demonstrate a gradual response from
consumers in sustainable fashion to the social impacts of the fashion industry (Salonen,
Närvänen and Saarijärvi, 2014; Moraes et al., 2015). While there is a range of approaches
to exploring sustainable fashion and consumers’ behaviour there is a need for a more
holistic contemporary understanding of consumers’ practices day to day. Online
environments provide the infrastructures that support and facilitate consumer practices
towards purchasing sustainable fashion. As consumers become more accustomed to
shopping online their expectations from the retailer and the products offered are changing.
Social practice theory provides a way in which interrelationships between consumer
practices and purchasing sustainable fashion online can be explored.
75
5.10 Literature Summary and Framework
The literature review focused on perceptions of sustainable fashion, consumer behaviour
towards sustainability, online environments and social practice theory (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Content map of literature review, Author’s Own (2018)
The review of the literature covers the key impeding factors and practice which influence
consumers’ behaviour. Factors such as awareness, understanding and social norms
maintain consumer practices online and result into various type of consumption are
discussed. All areas of the literature link together to provide a holistic overview of the
current challenges and opportunities for sustainable fashion and consumers.
The literature reviewed carries three main implications for the research approach. Firstly,
the definitions used in sustainable fashion can shape consumers’ practices which are
socially and culturally significant. This is supported by Di Benedetto (2017) who states
76
the ‘voice of the customer’ could identify the biggest gaps in consumer knowledge.
Regarding the definitions that are currently used in sustainable fashion and the consumer
perceptions it is noted that there is complexity in achieving a definition which is
universal. In addition, a number of different perspectives that were reviewed highlighted
that meanings varying according to the changing nature of the fashion industry.
Therefore, a gap has been identified;
A need to gain contemporary perceptions and definitions from consumers.
Sustainable fashion is multidimensional and there can be different perspectives.
The way in which sustainability is defined can impact on the consumers’
perceptions. It is therefore useful to begin asking how sustainability is defined and
look for factors which are influential, especially in ever changing online
environments (Lundblad and Davies, 2016)
Second, the literature review explored various factors such as time, social communities
and current influencing factors. The emerging online environments are changing the way
in which consumers’ purchase products and interact with both each other and retailers.
Consumers are becoming increasingly interactive and have ever changing expectations of
retailers which adds a layer of complexity to understating their behaviour. In addition, the
literature highlighted a way in which to study consumers in the context of practices and
day-to-day activities, such as getting dressed in the morning, which lend themselves to
revealing and unravelling the practices, performance and skills of consumers. Social
practice theory provides a different avenue through which to investigate consumer
behaviour towards sustainable fashion. Social practice theory provides various
interpretations that can be made offering a ‘framework’ for understanding. As Reckwitz
(2002) suggests it is a certain way of seeing and analysing social phenomena. There is a
tendency to understand consumers’ actions from an individualistic point of view rather
than how their social practices are embedded into the decisions they make. In this
research there is an opportunity to;
View consumer behaviour towards online sustainable fashion in practices which
draws on social process relating to sets of ‘doings’ in everyday life and how
certain behaviours are routinely performed and shared in the various networks of
social practice influence the complex path to purchase
While the perceptions of who the sustainable fashion consumer is remains unclear,
literature suggests that there may be various conflicts for consumers ranging from
77
motivational factors, individual objectives such as self-image and collective concerns.
Taken together, this body of literature suggests that interventions are needed at not only
the level of individual consumers but also at the social and cultural levels in the fashion
industry. Finally, to understand the changing linkages with online environments which
can alter the way in which a consumer behaves. Social norms are not the same in all
situations at all times and there is currently little information on how online environments
may impact on consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable fashion.
The analysis and interpretation of the literature review led to the development of a
conceptual framework which illustrates the various factors which can influence consumer
practices. The framework is divided into individual and social factors which can influence
and alter consumer practice towards sustainable fashion. The sections are interlinked and
there can be a cross over in consumer practice. For example, the level of knowledge and
understanding of sustainable fashion can generate different levels of community influence
(Figure 15).
Figure 15: Individual and Social Factors that determine online sustainable fashion
practices, Author’s Own (2018)
Koszewska (2016) acknowledges that the increasing interest in sustainable fashion has led
to more frameworks and models being developed and tested. However, the frameworks
developed usually only focus on selected aspects of the consumer behaviour rather than
Individual Factors
(Consumer)
Knowledge and
Understanding of
Sustainable Fashion
Misconceptions of
Sustainable Fashion
Practical skills (Time,
accessibility, research)
Consumer Practice
Formation and
regeneration of daily
practices
Social Factors
(Society)
Community Influence
Recommendations
Perceived Aesthetic
Social status of
purchase
78
presenting a comprehensive picture of the various relationships. Frameworks in
sustainable fashion can consist of three key elements, which are: the supply side, barriers
to purchase sustainable fashion and the demand side from consumers (Koszewska, 2016).
The purpose of a framework is to present simplified representations of consumers’
practices which can provide a base for understanding. Many frameworks contain
assumptions and limitations due to the complexity of relationships (Eberly et al, 2013).
There have been multiple attempts to understand consumers’ behaviour toward
sustainable fashion, this is because sustainability is a fluid and unresolved research area
which can be contradictory. Consequently, the framework developed will be used to
describe and understand the complex consumer practices in online environments. By
addressing individual, social and wider structural influences, the framework provides a
holistic overview of the research. The framework will be applied to the research design
and used to guide and aid in the development of the focus group. For example, the
framework will be used to develop the topic guide and questions for participants.
5.11 Summary
The review of the literature in sustainable fashion, consumer behaviour and social
practice theory are essential. The literature highlights that defining, understanding and
changes in the online environment are intertwined and complimentary to consumer
practices. From this literature review the main attributes of sustainable fashion have been
identified revealing that consumer practices are multi-faceted and diverse. The knowledge
acquired allowed for the synthesis and development of a conceptual framework. Using the
information gathered the next chapter will develop the appropriate research design in
order to satisfy the research aim and objectives.
79
Chapter 6: Methodology
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the methodology and methods used in this
research. The research philosophy will outline the philosophical and theoretical positions
informing the research process. The ontological and epistemological perspectives are
interwoven and guides the method used. While there is no inherently right or wrong
perspective to take Clarke and Braun (2013) suggest that there are differences in the way
in which knowledge is generated in theoretical and methodological frameworks. This
research takes an interpretivist stance and reasons and justifications will be discussed.
Following, the use of a focus group for collecting and analysing data will be addressed.
6.2 Research Philosophy
Research philosophy can be defined as “an overarching term that relates to the
development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge” (Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2009). The type of research philosophy adopted will inform the methodology.
Crotty (1998) states that there can be difficulty in the range of theoretical perspectives
and methodologies as the terminology applied in research is often inconsistent. This is
supported by Gray (2014) who suggests that the terminology used can be contradictory
however offers various approaches to overcome initial confusion. Denzin and Lincoln
(2011) propose that in qualitative research philosophies and standpoints are a field of
investigation in its own right.
Fashion can be considered either a product or a social phenomenon, sustainable fashion
adds another layer of complexity to interpretation, as discussed in Chapter 2. The
distinction between product and a social phenomenon can enable a clearer view on the
interpretation of knowledge however it does not clarify methodological stances. To
achieve clarification of consumer behaviour Mossinkoff and Kent (2016) propose to
expand the boundaries to the general realm of consumption and culture. Sustainable
consumer behaviour as mentioned can be approached from multiple perspectives – the
consumer interest, marketing, ethics and policy makers (Antonides, 2017). Consequently,
there are different methodologies that are referenced in literature, each providing a
contribution to sustainability at both macro and micro level.
80
6.3 Ontology
Ontology is the study of being. There are many different ontological perspectives that the
‘social world’ and ‘reality’ might be made of (Crotty, 1998, p.10). There are three main
ontological perspectives in qualitative research which are positivist, interpretive and
critical (Hesse-Biber, 2016). Each perspective offers ways of constructing reality of ‘how
things really work’ and ‘how things really are’ (Scotland, 2012). An overview of the key
difference can be seen in (Table 5) below.
Table 5: The ontological perspectives adapted from Hesse-Biber (2016)
Between the perspectives there can be crossovers and each reality affects the other
(Easton, 2010). For example, Hammond and Wellington (2013) highlight that an
interpretive approach can take inspiration from various references because as individuals
we mediate our own world through concepts and ideas. To understand consumer practices
and the various aspects requires accounts of interaction, thoughts, feelings and values
from the consumer. Consequently to gain these deeper accounts an interpretive approach
is taken in this research.
The knowledge acquired in this research is socially constructed by participants and the
researcher rather than objectively determined (Carson et al , 2001, p.5). Consumer
behaviour and, more specifically consumer responses and practices towards sustainable
fashion are influenced by outside forces such as society and where the consumer is placed
in an environment (Symon and Cassell, 2012). Following the term used by McDonald,
Oates and Alevizou (2016) sustainable practices is an inclusive term as practices, link
with a sociological framing that allows for understanding of behaviour in wider contexts
Perspectives Ontology – What is reality?
Positivist A ‘reality’ exists independent from the research problem. The social world is
knowable and predictable. The focus is on scientific objectivity through reliability
and verification.
Interpretive There is no single ‘reality’. Meaning and reality is socially constructed from
interaction between others and objects. The focus is on subjective experience
through seeking to understand.
Critical The ‘reality’ is under constant social influence and determined by power relations
in society. The focus is on power laden environments through dominant discourse
and categories.
81
as well as immediate contexts the individuals need for an immediate purchase and the
social backgrounds which encourages such behaviour. Consumers are themselves socially
produced in a variety of circumstances. There can be abstract functions between knowing
and doing. Social practice theory provides a ‘big tent’ of accommodating a wide range of
ontological stances in the field (Bueger and Gadinger, 2015).
Consistent with an interpretivist perspective it is important to understand motives,
meaning and reason experiences of consumer. Reality is multiple and relative (Hudson
and Ozanne, 1988). Social reality is locally and specifically constructed (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985) “by humans through their action and interaction” (Orlikowski and Baroudi,
1991, p. 14). By avoiding structural frameworks which may be used in a positivist
approach, this research will adopt a flexible research structure which is required to
capture consumer interactions and meanings (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). For example,
Bly, Gwozdz and Reisch (2015) use an interpretivist approach to explore under-
researched consumer groups in sustainable fashion (pioneers). This approach allowed for
flexibility in questions and exploring subjective meanings. Similarly, Moraes et al (2015)
adopted an interpretivist approach to allow for greater understanding of social practice
theory in a fashion context. Mason (2010) describes that often there can be porous
boundaries between approaches to the way in which the world is understood and
consequently multiple possibilities.
Social practice theory allows for actions and meaning to be studied in greater detail.
Another example of a study which adopted an interpretivist perspective alongside practice
theory was implemented to gain insight into complex narratives of green
environmentalists (Perera, Auger and Klein, 2016). This was achieved through the
approach of interviews and observations. To collective the narratives and the subjective
meanings in which the practice was part of their consumption was considered essential.
Therefore, an interpretivist perspective is considered to be a useful way in which to gain
valuable insights from individuals.
6.4 Epistemology Position
This research takes an interpretivists stance and advocates reality is socially constructed
and, therefore, the “dynamic interaction between researcher and participant is central to
the research” (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 131). Epistemological inferences are concerned with
how knowledge can be created, acquired and communicated. Guba and Lincoln (1994
p.108) states that “epistemology is the question of the nature of the relationship between
82
the researcher and what can be known”. Epistemological issues arise when considering
ones capability to actually perceive, describe and even explain a more or less real, reality.
Interpretive research commonly generated narratives which are not considered scientific
because stories, descriptions, accounts are more adaptable and malleable. However, this
does not remove the value of interpretive research because the level of analysis is
different, and these different views can happily coexist (Scotland, 2012). “The
interpretive epistemology is one of subjectivism which is based on real world
phenomena” (Scotland, 2012, p.11). The research is directed at understanding from
“interaction between individuals as well the historical, social and cultural contexts which
people inhabit” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8)
However, caution is required when a researcher focusses too heavily on the academic lens
and makes assumptions which are not actually consumers’ behaviour or understanding.
For example, Oates, Alevizou and McDonald (2016) highlight that some issues may not
be understood or treated as separate issues for the consumer, such as defining sustainable
fashion and purchasing. Furthermore, reporting on inconsistencies with consumer
behaviour are met with the assumption that it is bad (McDonald, Oates and Alevizou,
2016). This is not case as the researcher has to be open to the possibilities that what can
be known, can be different to both themselves and the consumer. In addition, there is no
“privileged epistemological platform which can be used to compare and assess knowledge
claims, relative judgements and competing programmes on the basis of social and
cognitive aims, metaphysical beliefs”(Anderson, 1986, p. 156).
This research considers individuals’ acts of consumption and larger processes which a
consumer is part of. When a consumer purchases a product they are participating in a
larger series of processes, from waiting or wishing for the product to finally making a
decision. There is nothing ‘natural’ or ‘inevitable’ about everyday life (Gardiner, 2000
cited in Paterson, 2005). Everyday life consists of a vast number of conscious and
unconscious processes in what can be initially considered a routine or banal activity.
Consequently, there can be multiple understandings and associations of these activities
which have developed over a period of time. As a researcher, these unique activities and
practices aid in providing insights into the complexities of consumer behaviour.
83
6.5 Inductive and Deductive Approaches
There are two ways in which knowledge can be acquired; inductive reasoning and
deductive reasoning (Hyde, 2000). Inductive reasoning is based on a generation of ideas
and building theory which can take form in the observations of specific events. For
example, inductive reasoning can be used in grounded theory research. Strauss and
Corbin describe inductive reasoning as “the researcher begins with an area of study and
allows the theory to emerge from the data” (1998, p. 12) whereas deductive reasoning is
based on established ideas or data to confirm on negate a hypothesis, which seeks to
apply theory in specific instances (Holloway, 1997; Thorne, 2000). Cook and Reichardt
(1979, p. 9-10) state that the “qualitative paradigm is said to subscribe to a
phenomenological, inductive, holistic, subjective, process-oriented, and social
anthropological world view" (Deshpande, 1983). Perera, Auger, & Klein (2016) adopted
an inductive approach to investigate the experiences of young environmentalists using
practice theory. The approach focused on the meanings that environmentalists held to
gain insights into motivations and actions of groups. The inductive approach may have
been taken as a way in which to gain increased understanding of the situation and the
overall nature of the problem. The participants were considered holistically in the analysis
in both the research context and the meanings attached. During analysis of data, both
inductive and deductive reasoning can be used. This research is based on an integrative
deductive (literature based) and inductive (data based) approach. This allows for
emergent data to be generated and discussed.
6.6 Qualitative Research Approach
Qualitative research is described as a great way to address ‘how’ questions rather than
‘how many’ (Pratt, 2009). The term qualitative research encompasses a variety of
research methods to obtain and generate data. The umbrella term is used in a wide
range of traditions and on the basis of different scientific ideas which leads to a mixture
of approaches (Polkinghorne, 2005). Qualitative research is aimed at clarifying human
experience and describing an experience as it appears to an individual.
Qualitative research methods have applications within diverse disciplines, ranging from
fashion, anthropology, sociology, psychology, history and geography (Goulding, 2005).
In addition, in qualitative research academics may use multiple methods for data
generation such as interviews, case studies, survey, focus groups and data mining, which
84
can vary considerably (Bryman and Bell, 2015). However, irrespective of the focus of
research, the qualitative aspect should be concerned with the interpretation of subjective
meaning (Fossey et al., 2002). “Qualitative inquiry serves a transformative function for
“thinking with” or “re-thinking” beings and things, including the researcher, the data, and
the participant” (Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2015 p. 613). The interest in a qualitative study
lies in ‘process rather than outcomes’ (Merriam, 1998). The key factors identified by
Fossey et al (2002) in qualitative research are as follows:
The use of language as a means of communication
Patterns of interaction in social groups
Description and interpretation of subjective meanings
Discovery of patterns attributes to situations and actions
The generation of data seeks to understand the reported experiences from consumers,
judgements about experiences, reveal beliefs, ideas, and practices with regard to
sustainable fashion. A qualitative approach allows for developing understanding and
meaning in individuals lives and social worlds (Fossey et al., 2002). Indeed, the central
motif for qualitative research is understanding and interpreting social realities and
characteristically, it should be exploratory, flexible, data driven and context sensitive
(Bryman, 1988; Mason, 2010). Qualitative research is recommended for researchers in
areas that has been underexplored in the past (Creswell, 2013). Previously, consumers
have been considered to be rational and predictable and there have been attempts to
measure their behaviour (Evans, McMeekin and Southerton, 2012). This research uses
social practice theory as a way to understand the changing and fluid practices of
consumers. By having a broad understanding of consumers’ practices including intentions
or any activity which can be encompassed in the participants’ perspectives opens to their
practices and the examination of reality (Maxwell, 2013).
One of the critical factors of qualitative research is the use of language, as it is the
primary way to access an individual’s experience. Language is required from participants
to express their experiences and provide evidence for their actions, even if it not perfectly
transparent (Yilmaz, 2013). An ‘experience’ is complex to describe and often richness of
an account from an individual derives from the figurative expressions used
(Polkinghorne, 2005). As the focus of qualitative research is describing, understanding,
and clarifying a human experience, understanding and taking time to appreciate the
language used is critical to evaluate. Often intense, full, saturated descriptions and
85
accounts from participants are generated and the language used requires investigation and
in some cases further elaboration (Polkinghorne, 2005; Hesse-Biber, 2016). Language
produced in interviews can be different from the language used in a focus group because
there is an audience.
6.7 Focus Group Interviews
Focus groups have been chosen for this research. The use of a focus group is
advantageous because given the literature on the attitude behaviour gap and the ongoing
challenges in consumer action to purchase sustainable fashion; there are few accounts of
the bigger picture in conceptualising sustainable fashion and the application of consumer
practice. The focus group is an appropriate choice of method for the following reasons;
Individual practices and thoughts can be enhanced in a group setting with both
opinion formation and revision
Complex reasoning and experiences can be elicited with boundaries of social
acceptance
The structure and dynamics of practices can illuminated with the language used to
reveal day to day experiences (Tadajewski, 2016).
Other methods such as individual interviews are not as suitable due to the lack of
diversity in responses since there is no capacity to adapt to issues developed by others.
Consequently, multiple viewpoints cannot be generated and detailed insight may be
missed.
Focus groups developed from the 1940s and have been used for a variety of purposes in
both academic and industrial research (Hollander, 2004). Historically, market researchers
have used focus groups as they allow for a broad and large range of views to be gathered
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Unlike other research methods focus groups occur in a
facilitated group setting. Behaviour in groups can differ from the interaction with an
individual as physical, social and environmental influences can impact on the dynamic
(Tajfel, 2010; Stewart and Shamdasani, 2014). In the literature, many factors which can
influence an individual’s ‘comfort zone’ in a focus group are cited. These factors can be
broadly categorised under; individual differences, interpersonal and environmental factors
(Hesse-Biber, 2016). Attitudes, feeling and beliefs may be individual and independent of
the focus group however during the focus groups these factors are likely to be revealed
and provide cues for interaction (Dovidio et al., 1995). Focus groups provides a live
86
encounter with groups of people that yield incremental answers to behavioural questions
that go beyond the level of surface explanation. This is supported by Bristol and Fern
(1996, p.186) who state that focus groups are well suited to “generate, develop and screen
ideas and concepts”. The benefits and disadvantages of a focus group were carefully
considered for this research (Table 6)
Table 6: The advantages and disadvantages of a focus group
Benefits Disadvantages
Synergism: good for exploring peoples thoughts,
feeling and behaviours (Lederman, 1990)
Researcher has less control over the data
produced (Morgan, 1997) especially if there is a
dominant member in the group
Stimulation: Focus groups allow for clarification
and provide opportunities for further probing
(Ritchie and Lewis, 2014)
Individuals are speaking in a specific context at
that point in time and may not be reflective of a
wider sample (Silverman, 2004)
Snowballing: focus groups allow for participants
to react to and build on other responses in the
group (Bryman, 2017)
Too many question can make the experience
more of a group survey (Silverman, 2004)
Spontaneity: a flexible approach can be taken to
examine a range of topics with a range of
individuals (Gill et al., 2008)
The moderator may have biases which
unknowingly provide cues for certain answers
(Stewart and Shamdasani, 2014)
The data generated from the focus group would be a unique form of data as the process of
the focus group is dynamic and based on the interaction between multiple people; this is
especially useful as by exploring attitudes, group members can provide explanations of
normative behaviours that are mundane to them but may prompt another member of the
group. Focus groups allow idea generation and how understanding is developed, operates
and performs in a given social context. For example, Salonen, Närvänen and Saarijärvi
(2014) used a focus group to encourage different perspectives and opinions in a relaxed
atmosphere. Similarly, Morgan and Birtwistle (2009) used focus groups to identity main
themes relating to fashion consumption alongside interviews and surveys. In addition,
Joergens (2006) used two focus group sessions to encourage participants to share views in
an unstructured manner. Overall, focus groups are part of a range of tools which are
useful for developing understanding (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000)
87
6.8 Data Generation Focus Groups
The purpose of the focus group is to take advantage of the interaction among the
participants which allows for reciprocation, exploration and elaboration of viewpoints
which may not be possible to achieve in a one to one interview (Tadajewski, 2016). The
interaction can be referred to as ‘sparking off’ between group members. Some of the
associated challenges with focus groups are stated as the participants can be shy to
express themselves in a group situation and confidentiality (Ritchie and Lewis, 2014).
There is also the risk of conformity pressures which can lead to some members not
voicing honest opinions (Stewart and Shamdasani, 2014). These challenges can be
overcome by taking steps to ensure the participant is comfortable and feels safe in the
environment they are in. The moderator can reassure participants there are no ‘correct’
answers and provide the opportunity for participants to ask questions. Agar and
MacDonald (1995, p, 80) states that a focus group discussion is “somewhere between a
meeting and a conversation”. Heidegger (1962) argues that even when an individual acts
deliberately, such as having a plan or beliefs, that their minds cannot be directed towards
something other than the background of shared social practices (Gupta, 2015; Feldman
and Orlikowski, 2011). Using social practice theory allows for the consideration of the
ways in which understanding, knowing and how a feeling can be linked to other shared
practices.
By considering the basic functions of qualitative research proposed by Ritchie and Lewis
(2003) the research questions proposed contribute to each of the functions:
Contextual (describing the form or nature of what exists)
How do consumers define sustainable fashion products?
Explanatory (examining the reason for, association between what exists)
What are the different practices that consumers are engaged in shopping
online for sustainable fashion products?
What are the elements of social practice that influence consumer adoption
of online shopping for sustainable fashion products?
Evaluative (appraising the effectiveness of what exists)
What are consumers’ perceptions of the barriers to purchasing sustainable
fashion products?
Generative (aiding the development of theory, strategy and action)
88
Can social practice theory provide information which can be used by
retailers to identify and keep pace with consumer preferences in
sustainable fashion?
Qualitatively-driven techniques are used because of the interaction needed from
consumers to express intentions, feelings or observations which numerical data cannot
obtain or record (Kawamura, 2011). As Stewart and Shamdasani (2014) identify a focus
group is related to explore meanings and process for depth and insight rather than
producing useful numerical data. For example, semi-structured interviews and focus
groups allow for participants to ‘reflect on issues and practices that they perceive as
relevant to the research topic’ (Moraes et al., 2015). Furthermore, individuals’ viewpoints
can be stimulated through talking, by promoting everyday conversation and inaccessible
communicative contexts can be observed. The focus group, from initial formulation of
research questions to analysis and interpretation of data was designed as shown (Figure
16).
Figure 16: Steps in the design and running of a focus group by Gray (2014)
By following clear steps as highlighted allowed for efficient scheduling and planning of
the focus group.
6.9. Sampling
The sample approach is an essential feature of the research (Aurini, Heath and Howells,
2016). Attention to design can make a difference to the data quality and analysis. In
Identify problem / formulate
research question
Identify sampling frame/ recruit
participants
Identify moderator
Book and prepare facilities
Generate topic guide and questions
Conduct the focus group
Record dataAnalyse and
interpret data
89
qualitative research the focus is on “quality” rather than “quantity” (Brewer, 2003, p.
239). The main concern is the process of interpretation, meaning and understanding of the
narratives given. Qualitative samples are usually small and ‘nested’ in the context of the
research (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
In line with this research and the four research objectives, the criteria for selecting
participants was those who are interested or purchased sustainable fashion and shop on
online environments. This research uses purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is
common in qualitative research as it enables a clear rationale (Collingridge and Gantt,
2008). This is because the participants should be able to generate dense and focused
information which will allow the researcher to provide and account of a phenomenon
(Palinkas et al, 2015). The rationale for using purposive sampling approach is to
specifically seek individuals who can provide the relevant descriptions and personal
experiences linked to this research in online sustainable fashion. As mentioned, one of the
key strengths of qualitative research is the ability to explore a topic in depth, the root of
data generation is at the participant selection. Consequently, the participants were chosen
to provide reflections, share and compare practices and ideas. When using purposive
sampling a sampling eligibility criteria is required to ensure that the most suitable
participants are selected.
Focus groups can be segmented into many categories such a gender; the sample for this
research will be all female to ensure group homogeneity. As stated by Aurini, Heath and
Howells (2016) the composition of the focus group can alter the way in which
participants share information and express opinions. Further, as suggested by Krueger and
Casey (2000) from a practical perspective a homogeneous group can aid in the focus
group interactions and create a comfortable environment which is conducive to sharing
information. In addition, there are differences in the way in which men and women
approach online shopping. Men have different motives, perspectives, rationales, and
considerations (Hasan, 2010; Kotzé et al., 2012; Meyers-Levy and Loken, 2014). Females
are often the focus in academic research when examining sustainable fashion and this
research contributes to the literature. Moreover, females are reported to be more
conscientious than males in practicing environmental friendly habits (Mintel, 2018a).
While the women’s clothing market in the UK was predicted to grow by between 14% to
reach £33.5 billion in 2022 (Mintel, 2018b) there is an opportunity to explore the way in
which online sustainable fashion influences females’ practices in shopping.
To meet the research aim and objectives the sampling criteria used was as follows:
90
Have an interest or have purchased an item of sustainable fashion
To be an online fashion shopper
To be located in Manchester, UK, as this is the location of the focus group
To be female
The first stage in recruiting the participants was to ensure the sample eligibility. The
sample was purposive due to the research aim and the resources available. Having
identified the participants they were contacted. In addition, making use of natural social
networks the participants were asked if they had connections who fitted the sample
criteria. Overall, three participants were acquaintances from personal networks, the
additional four participants were snowballed from information provided by the
acquaintances. There are several benefits of the snowballed sample in which participants
are sampled from a known network (Hesse-Biber, 2016). Firstly, the overall sample is
diverse to the researcher and of the specific target group. Secondly, it was an efficient
way in which to recruit participants in the research timeframe. Finally, by seeking
multiple perspectives from individuals who are not familiar with each other can enhance
the quality of interaction and shared opinions. The overall purpose of the research was
explained and what was involved in the focus group. Once the participants agreed to be
part of the focus group an email confirmation was sent outlining the research agenda and
consent documentation. In addition, the date and location of the focus group was given.
The age range of participants was between 22 -29 with one participant who was 50. The
emphasis was on the interaction between the participants in the focus group rather than
the age gap between them, as a result age was not in the sampling criteria. Overall there is
growing interest in sustainable fashion among consumers. For example, Business of
Fashion and Mckinsey and Company (2017) reported that “66% of millennials (23 to 38)
are willing to spend more on brands that are sustainable”. Indeed, the younger customers
are the future and the next generation to make changes in purchase behaviours. On the
other hand, The Nielsen Global Survey (2015) found that 51% of boomers (50-64)
surveyed are willing to pay extra for sustainable products. Therefore both age ranges are
and will likely remain substantial and viable for the sustainable fashion industry.
All the participants were educated to a high degree. They were postgraduate students at
University of Manchester. Research has indicated that if an individual has a higher
education level they are considered to be more knowledgeable about sustainability
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). This allowed for practices to be discussed in detail and in
context. As noted the participants were all females.
91
The sample size for this research was seven. The recommended sample size in a focus
group can range from 6-12 (Gray, 2014; Fusch and Ness, 2015; Patel, 2015). This allows
for all participants to have the opportunity to share thoughts and large enough to create
diversity of opinions in the group. In addition, if the focus group is too small it can be
challenging to engage in discussion whereas if the focus group is too large it may become
difficult to manage (King and Horrocks, 2010). Roper et al (2013) justified a smaller
sample size (eight) by focusing on the orientation of the researcher to gain depth on the
topic rather than breadth of analysis. In consumer marketing research and social practice
theory research the sample size can vary depending on factors such as the scale of the
study or the scope. However, according to research by Carlsen and Glenton (2011) review
of 220 focus group research publications discovered that approximately half did not state
the minimum and maximum number of participants.
6.10 Topic guide
The topic guide was developed to facilitate an interactive group discussion. Based on the
gaps identified, the questions were designed to cover key areas of interest. The
development of the framework allowed for important factors to be identified and
highlighted areas which were incorporated into the question used for participants. For
example, asking the participants how they define and understand sustainable fashion
which interconnects with consumer practices.
The design of the topic guide ensured flexibility in the questions which would allow for
topics to emerge and the exploration of different perspectives. The topic guide allowed
the focus group to engage in collectively in considering and developing a narrative around
sustainability. In addition, by using open ended questions it allowed for a natural
unfolding of sub questions and other data relevant to the topic. Caution was taken to
develop the topic guide to allow time for participants to discuss and reflect on the
question prompted. The topic guide provided direction during the focus group, adding
structure and guiding the discussion. The topic guide was revised and reviewed carefully
linking to the framework developed at the end of the literature review.
At the beginning of the focus group the research was explained, the participants
completed consent forms and administrative tasks were dealt with. Participants were
reminded of their right to leave and the need for open, honest and polite dialogue among
each other. The introductory remarks were a fundamental part of the process at it created
a sense of ease. The first stage of the topic guide covered opening questions about the
92
term and definition of sustainable fashion. As the moderator, it was important to probe
the respondents for complete answers and encourage interaction. Questions which could
be more challenging to answer such as the perceived barriers of sustainable fashion and
intentions for purchasing a fashion product were asked. The second stage of the topic
guide covered the practice of the participants and online shopping activities. These
questions led to reflection and active discussion since consumer practices can vary and
relate to wider social norms. In the closing remarks an overview of what was discussed
was provided and key points were summarised ensuring these had been accurately
reflected. Participants were asked if there was anything else that they would like to add to
the discussion. They were thanked for their participation.
93
Stages
(20 minutes
approximately)
What How Assumptions Questions to be asked
1st Stage Getting to know views on sustainable
fashion and online shopping
Definitions of sustainable fashion
Barriers – labelling, knowledge
Changing practices online shopping
Asking prompt questions –
vertical positioning
Assessment of concepts
from literature
Definitions are varied and
can be confused with other
terms such as eco and
organic
Online shopping allows for
more information to be
gathered and comparisons
to be made than the high
street
Social dynamics are
different from offline to
online and purchases may
not be ‘shared’ in the same
way
What does everyone think of the idea of
having a sustainable wardrobe / does
anyone have inactive clothing in their
wardrobe
Would you say the most important thing
for you when you choose your clothes
online it that you are looking at the price
(price opens into a series of domestic and
personal commitments)
Tell me about your online shopping
practices – do you have specific motives
for visiting a retailer on a given day?
Does newness, exclusivity, originality or
the anticipation of something better
motivate your fashion purchases
2nd Stage Identifying practices for online
shopping especially sustainable fashion
Methods of online shopping
Mass consumerisation – what is
considered normal
Capture and translate in
stages – observation using
laptops
Sustainable fashion is not
on trend and often has
negative associations with
trend
Likely to wear clothing that
is a ‘safe’ option for social
dress code
Process for purchasing
online involves various
practices and habitual
actions
Where have you seen sustainable fashion
before online?
How does your online shopping practice
emerge, exist and die?
What routines do you have when online
shopping – do you research beforehand,
alone or with others, have a coffee?
Which certain styles and colours are
associated with sustainable fashion?
Wardrobe dynamics- size of current
wardrobe and turnover of clothing
What is your practice for getting dressed
in the morning?
Does having a ‘dress code’ influence
everyday practices
94
6.11 Location of Focus Group
Focus groups can take palace in a variety of locations. Currently there is relatively little
attention paid to the importance of location when conducting a focus group. However,
literature surrounding interviews and the location suggest that the location can be critical in
constructing reality and cultural product (Gubrium, 2012). The choice of the location is a
balance between technicality and comfort as discussed in section 6.7. The participant
should feel safe and secure in the location, Gubrium and Holstein (2002) suggest that the
subject of the interview should determine the location. The location for the focus group
was at a local ethical business called Beaumont Organic which is located near the centre of
Manchester, Northern Quarter (Figure 17).
Figure 17: The layout and location of the focus group at Beaumont Organic, 2018
The location was decided as it offered a space which is stimulating and comfortable. The
location was easy to get to and in a familiar area for the group of participants In addition, it
provided a backdrop to the type of questions and discussions prompted. Elwood and
Martin (2000) discussed the dilemmas of interview locations and concluded that an
engaging location will allow for rich participant observation and conversation. Ultimately
the space and location matters and affects both the moderator and participants. It was
ensured that there was privacy and the space was available for slightly longer than
95
anticipated to avoid any interruption. In addition, background noise was reduced by closing
the doors and turning appliances off to avoid issues with recording equipment.
It was also important to consider the physical arrangement of the group in the location.
Krueger and Casey (2000) suggest placing the less talkative individuals across from the
moderator to create balance in the group. Most participants are most comfortable around a
table as it can provide a barrier and is less invasive of personal space. Indeed, Stewart and
Shamdasani, (2014) suggest that participants are most comfortable around a table. Group
members should be seated for maximum optimisation for eye contact with both the
moderator and other members of the group. The layout of the focus group was carefully
considered to ensure that there was a balance (Figure 18).
Figure 18: Layout of focus group and ages of participants
Focus groups can be considered a social event and process. The range of personalities and
perspectives involved causes a dynamic rhythm that develops under the direction of the
moderator (Guest et al., 2017). Indeed, Belzile and Öberg (2012) state that ‘participant
interactions are the hallmark of the focus group method’. The focus group brought together
a group of individuals to discuss sustainable practice online in a relaxed and informal
P6
Age:
27
Moderator
(Aleksandra)
P1
Age: 29
P4
Age:
50
P2
Age:
22
P7
Age: 26
P5
Age: 24
24
P3
Age: 26
96
setting. All seven participants were encouraged to express their opinions individually and
collectively reflect upon their practices. There was one focus group conducted on the 30th
of April 2018.
Determining the quantity of focus groups can vary on the topic and the type of community
on which the research focuses on. Advice to researchers on the quantity of focus groups is
often based on data saturation (Carlsen and Glenton, 2011). Morgan (1997) and Fern
(2001) suggests that the optimal amount of focus groups range from two to eight, which is
dependent on the complexity and depth of the research. The social interaction in the focus
group distinguishes the method from others. The benefit of having multiple focus groups is
that an understanding from different ‘like-minded’ individuals can be generated. However,
Fern (2001) emphasis that having more focus groups does not automatically mean that
more unique data will be generated, but increasing the length of a focus group might help.
Indeed, there is no ‘magic number’ as to how many focus groups should be conducted and
more is not always better (Barbour, 2008).
In addition, it is important to consider the organisation and logistics related to running a
focus group, which can be fixed by the circumstances of the specific research. For
example, McLafferty (2004) cited a study which conducted a single focus group due to the
logistics and convenient timing. When conducting a focus group there has to be realistic
expectations in terms of organisation. From booking the location, agreeing a suitable time
and date for all involved and any costs related to running the focus group. These ‘outside
determinants’ have been found to play a central role in the quantity of qualitative research
(Baker, 2007).
In relation to this research, a single focus group was conducted. The purpose of the focus
group was to explore and understand consumer practices with the focus pf providing new
insights and perspectives in online sustainable fashion. As discussed, from an interpretivist
perspective it is to seek out meaning and insight rather than confirming facts or a
determining ‘fixed’ opinion. Understanding rather than quantifying is the main objective.
Due to logistics of the organisation of the focus group, one was conducted. However, the
focus group conducted serves as a starting point for future research and opportunities to
develop understanding.
97
6.12 Recording and Noting Data
The recording equipment was checked prior to the focus group for functionality, acoustics
and the ideal location to place the recorder on the table (King and Horrocks, 2010). Before
the focus group began, participants were reminded that the focus group was being recorded
and how the recording would be stored and used. The recorder was then switched on while
the procedure was introduced and explained the procedure to maximise comfort to the
group.
The focus group was audio recorded and handwritten notes were taken. This was one in
order to capture any non-verbal actions such facial expressions which could be interpreted
alongside comments. Facial expressions such as nodding in agreement can suggest strong
emotions towards the point of discussion and or convey a meaning. Notes also captured
any key themes that were emerging and to sum up any points. In addition, note taking also
provided reminders to check that comments raised from the participant were understood
clearly and to ask for more information without causing interruption mid-flow (King and
Horrocks, 2010).There can be difficulty moderating a focus group. For example, a
participant might dominate the discussion and the moderator must be aware of the
dynamics and flow of conversation.
6.13 Research Ethics
Research ethics refers to the moral principles guiding the research through each stage of
the process; the research followed basic ethical principles. Diener and Crandall (1978)
identified four key ethical principles to consider which are as follows: harm to participants,
lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy and deception. This was expanded further by
Bryman and Bell (2015) which includes dignity and conflicts of interest. By respecting the
dignity of the participants the rights of the participant are being protected (Ulman, Cakar
and Yildiz, 2015; Nordenfeldt, 2009). To achieve good practice a number of steps were be
taken:
Confidentiality: anonymising and keeping data in one location with password
protection. This was be achieved by using a unique identification number or
pseudonyms in the data collection i.e. Participant 1 (P1)
Voluntary participants: participants signed a consent form agreeing to be
involved which was be sent in advance of the data collection. This was on a
98
participant information sheet which will clearly illustrated and explained the
purpose of the study. The consent form was included any potential risks and outline
of how participants contribute to the research aims. At any point the participant
could withdraw from the process.
Reducing risk to participants: this was achieved by having an ethics plan and
ensuring health and safety protocol was followed in location of the focus group.
Beaumont Organic has in place a Health and Safety code which was followed. Prior
to the focus group a risk assessment was undertaken.
Informed consent: participants were fully aware of the project aim and objectives
and had signed a consent form. The amount of information given to the participant
should reflect the degree of risk involved, the focus group was considered low risk
as no sensitive topics are covered (Sudman, 1998)
Protection of data: data was be kept securely and anonymously to respect the
privacy of participants. Data was only be shared on scientific grounds. Data was
not be released or sold to third parties. A clear outline of how the data will be used
and the degree of confidentially to the extent that it is possible in a focus group was
provided in the participant information sheet.
An ethical review was carried out before any primary data collection took place and was
reviewed through the data generation process.
6.14 Data Analysis Process
Focus groups generate large amounts of data and there are a number of approaches of
performing qualitative data analysis and often a combination is used (Rabiee, 2004). As
stated by Krueger and Casey (2000) ‘analysis begins by going back to the intention of the
study’ and should be systematic, sequential, verifiable, and continuous. Further,
understanding that dilemmas in interpretation and contradictions are a common expectation
of qualitative research (Myers and Newman, 2007). The basic system of thematic coding
was followed by King and Horrocks (2010) which enables themes to be discovered and a
complete narrative of the discussion to aid in depiction, mapping and interpreting (Figure
19).
99
Figure 19: Stages in the process of thematic analysis by King and Horrocks (2010)
Thematic analysis is based on grouping themes together in a code and then summarised
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). The audio recording was transcribed and manually
coded in which related or synonymous problems were combined into a single code. This
was useful because “a code draws attention to a commonality within a dataset” (Gibson
and Brown, 2009; Harding, 2013, p.52). Examples of initial codes used in the research
study relating to sustainability included “understanding”, “experience with practices”,
“decision-making”, “price”, “accessibility” and “convenience”. The analysis was
purposively incorporated into core themes derived from the literature which link to the
research objective of the study and social practice theory. These themes were knowledge
and meaning (defining sustainable fashion), barriers that prevent purchases in sustainable
fashion, online and daily practices and social accessibility (Table 7).
100
Table 7: Themes and Corresponding Codes
Theme Code
1. Knowledge and meaning (defining
sustainable fashion)
Understanding
Confusion
Short term issues
Long term issues
2. Barriers that prevent purchases in
sustainable fashion
Price
Lack of convenience
Mixed emotions and indifference
Time
3. Online Practices Impulses
Structure/ Routine
Online Atmosphere
Search for fashion products
Experiences
4. Daily Practices Link to other practices
Consistency
Decision-making
Wardrobe Building
Schedules
5. Social Accessibility Investment
Social Influence
Friendship
Fitting in
6. Aesthetics Trend
Style
Fashion
Image
Classic
During the process of thematic analysis, data reduction was undertaken by comparing and
contrasting and placing similar quotations together. The process included close reading of
the transcription, which is referred to as immersion in the data and the consideration of the
multiple meanings (Green et al., 2007). An example of the transcript and coding in this
research can be seen below (Table 8)
101
Table 8: Example text transcribed from the focus group during the process of developing
and writing the research
*Code relates to highlighted text
Another way in which to compare and contrast data is by cutting, pasting, sorting,
arranging either manually or on a computer (Rabiee, 2004). Associations, links, and
implications were all noted down. The overall process used to analyse focus group
transcript was shown as (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Process used to analyse data: Adapted from Creswell (2003)
Denzin and Lincoln (2008) state that knowledge can be seen as partial and the aim to
achieve ‘richer, thicker, and more complex levels of understanding’. Care was taken in the
analysis of the focus group to understand both the individual comments and also to
appreciate the relationship between quotations and links with the data as a whole. This was
to ensure recognising the need to revisit the themes and interpret the meaning in relation to
the full data set was recognised. Throughout the process of the focus group, it was essential
to actively listen and remain focused on understanding the experience of others. Belzile
and Öberg (2012) argue that very few focus group studies discuss the conversation
between participants despite stating the benefit of the interaction. This research took into
the account how participants interacted with each other and added to others practices and
experiences, for example, whether participants challenged each other and the way in which
they justified their remarks.
The role of the moderator is ‘facilitating’ and not ‘controlling’ the group (Bloor et al,
2001). It is important for the moderator to be attuned to the dynamics of focus group
interactions and have awareness of the potential issues that could arise (Gibbs, 1997).
There can be participants who can make the focus groups more challenging, from being
overly dominant, shy or restless (Smithson, 2000). The aim is created ‘synergy’ between
participants and ensure equal contribution. The advantage of conducting of moderating the
Initial reading of the data
Identify specific text
Code segments of
text
Reduce overlap and
refine categories
Create a model
incorporating all aspects
102
focus group as the researcher is the opportunity to understand participants’ points of view
first hand and be able to elicit further details and encourage articulations (Tadajewski,
2016).
103
Chapter 7. Focus Group Analysis
The results are presented thematically and participants view in relation to each other. The
choice of extracts and narratives highlight the themes discussed in the previous chapter.
The participants were receptive towards the topics being discussed and shared their
opinions. The main advantage of having interaction between participants was that it
encouraged a variety of communication. As a result a wide range and form of
understanding, helped identify norms in the group and facilitated expression of ideas and
experiences which may not have been uncovered in an underdeveloped interview (King
and Horrocks, 2010). In the analysis some words have been omitted as they did not
contribute to the text; this is where “…” are used.
7.1 Knowledge and Meaning of Sustainable Fashion
7.1.1 Understanding and Confusion
Learning the vocabulary and terms used by the participants to describe sustainable fashion
was a key discussion in the focus group. Understanding and creating a definition for a
complex word such as sustainable seemed challenging for participants. The definitions and
perceptions of sustainable fashion from the focus group tended to revolve around
confusion about the word, environmental linkages and holistic balances related to the
product itself:
P2: We are all puzzling about what sustainability actually means and people are
quite articulate and able here, and I suspect we are struggling a little bit with that.
Another participant then stated:
P3: Sustainable clothing per se, is a complex landscape
Another participant expressed that is was a ‘difficult landscape’ and there is a disconnect
between understanding and going out to make a purchase:
P1: When you asked us what sustainability was, I was very quiet, thinking what
does it mean in terms of fashion? What do I understand it to mean? I think that the
whole landscape is difficult to actually comprehend and get a grip of. I don’t go out
and go, “I am going to a buy sustainable jacket.”
As discussed earlier in Chapter one the definition to sustainable fashion is unclear to the
consumer. The confusion can be caused by the myriad of uses and layers of descriptions
that are available to sustainable fashion. Similarly another participant stated that:
104
P2: I think conceptually it is quite a problem to understand that (sustainable
fashion)
P1: There are so many elements to this, criss-crossing in my head
And more explicitly:
P4: Because even the term sustainable, for everybody they will have a different
meaning
P5: Whereas sustainable clothing, I don’t think it’s sure of itself and its location in
the market.
P6: There is disconnect between the product and the meaning. A reboot of
sustainability in terms of its meaning is needed
The suggestion of a ‘reboot’ presents implications for sustainable fashion retailers, but also
highlights difficulties in creating a link between product and meaning. A ‘reboot’ of the
term sustainable could change the way in which consumers understand issues behind their
consumption choices. A more explicit definition could aid in consumers making more
informed choices and thus increasing awareness and interest in online sustainable fashion.
7.1.2 Long and Short Term Issues
Despite the lack of a clear definition there was some awareness of what sustainable fashion
included and various perceptions. Participants expressed that a longer lasting fashion
product was related to sustainability and that owning a product for a longer period of time
was an expectation. The word ‘future’ and ‘lasting’ were commonly used and agreed upon
by the focus group:
P4: Probably just that they are going to last a bit longer. Things are not going to
have to be replaced quickly.
P5: Can be sustainably produced in the future, so the supply is also sustainable as
well as you actually personally owning it and that sustaining you for a longer
period of time.
Participants mentioned that quality and use of natural materials was an important factor in
order to define a product as sustainable. Participant five also expressed that the durability
of the product was linked to sustainable fashion. Connecting quality to sustainable fashion
was expressed in the discussion with agreeable nodding across the table to one another:
105
P3: In my brain sustainability means that it’s made of something natural.
When revisiting the way in which sustainability can be defined later in the focus group
participant two (P2) drew on the topics that had been covered to formulate a way in which
a definition could be created;
P2: Bring in these different strands that we have been talking about, so about
ethical, about materials that it is made from, and where they are sourced and the
links along the production chain, and also the quality and durability of the product.
The participants felt that sustainable fashion could be better understood if it was
incorporated into not only the product itself by quality and natural materials but also the
their process of purchasing. An individual’s knowledge of sustainability can potentially
impact consumption decisions and influences. Understanding definitions both in a fashion
and wider context is important because it can frame consumers’ practices and connections
to retailers.
7.2 Barriers that Prevent Purchases in Sustainable Fashion
The opinions regarding the definition of sustainable fashion led into the discussion of the
different perceptions and barriers of sustainable fashion, with focus on online
environments. The main factors stated by the focus group as to why online sustainable
fashion is not a regular and skilful practice are the following:
Price
Lack of convenience in sourcing and purchasing
Mixed emotions and indifference towards sustainable fashion
Social accessibility and opinion towards sustainable fashion
Time the consumer allocates to shopping activities
The conversation on price in the focus group opened to other purchasing practices. Online
environments are rife with offers, discounts and incentives to purchase products.
Consumers are receptive to discounts and sales in which they believe they are getting value
for money. The price point is a driving factor to visit an online page and research a
product.
106
P6: I can get 70%, 60% off online and I really like that.
P5: I think if there’s a sale on, that will always get me online
The focus group were aware of the particular techniques used by retailers to encourage
purchases. For example, the use of blogs and lists which aid in the information gathering
for the consumer by providing quick and accessible information. Despite being aware of
these tactics they were still receptive and engaged with the content:
P6: In the promotions, there will be like, “Come check my new collection.” So, you
are scrolling on the title, they are also good in putting interesting title subjects that
I will just click and then suddenly I plan for 10 minutes, it can be 30 minutes or 60
minutes…
While the participant plans for 10 minutes they actually spend much more time browsing
the website. The amount of time that the consumer spends online in ever changing,
however engaging the content can be a factor which determines additional time. If the
consumer is engaged in the online environment they are more likely to lose track of time.
Participants perceived sustainable fashion products to be more expensive than high street
clothing.
P7: Sustainable, in terms of clothing perhaps, is by definition more expensive, so
your purchasing decisions are very key.
P3: To me that [price] is always going to be a really strong mitigator of being able
to make those decisions, even though I know I should.
Sustainable fashion can be more expensive than other high street offers and consequently it
is considered more of an ‘investment’ than a single use item. There is a link between the
price of the product and the perception of quality and value. As a result the consumer is
someone with more disposable income:
P3: Probably someone who is, I wouldn’t say affluent, but someone who can afford
to pay the prices for the quality product and what it’s made of.
Price is likely to remain as a determining factor in the purchase of sustainable fashion. The
focus group recognised and acknowledged that sustainable fashion can be more expensive
and as a result their budgets as postgraduate students did not necessarily allow for such
purchases on a regular basis.
107
7.3 Time Structures
The ease of purchasing products online has led to changes in consumers’ behaviour toward
time taken to shop. The focus group overall expressed that time pressures in their daily life
resulted in changes in the way they shopped and browsed online. Consumers may expend
time browsing web pages, socialising and gathering information prior or post purchase.
P6: The good thing about online shopping I think is because I can do some
research before I actually buy it, like I can compare.
The way in which time is spent online can be referred to as ‘staged’ browsing and a variety
of factors can influences this process. Relevant to this research is the change in the amount
of time spent online (time distortion), which suggests that time goes quickly while online.
This is important because time can be determined by your feelings and psychological
conditions not by clocks. The focus group discussed the time pressures of their lifestyle
and determined that often online shopping was a moment reward or relief:
P6: I will just click and then suddenly I plan for 10 minutes, it can be 30 minutes or
60 minutes, depending on the deadlines, as a way to procrastinate really.
P4: When I have a deadline for my supervisor and I need to get away. Before
deadlines… when you’re the busiest, I’m like, “Right, I need to take some time.”
Participants reported that they felt like they were ‘juggling time’ and felt like they had to
utilise their time which resulted in shopping as a practice of reward to oneself, in a sense
the participant allotted time for leisure activities such as shopping.
P5: It’s a sense of a reward, you’ve been good on your deadline or whatever it may
be, that’s a sense of treating yourself
There can be both macro and micro explanations to changes and practice of consumers
with time use. As technology online accelerates and offers consumers instant ability to
complete tasks and make purchases, consumers expectations change. If there is a sense of
time pressure the perception of a consumer’s ability to make a purchase can change.
Feeling rushed could be linked to the lack of knowledge in sustainable fashion, essentially
leaking over into consumers’ ability to make decisions. The online environment is
essentially imbedded into daily life, participants mentioned that shopping online is now a
part of a routine:
108
P3: I usually just scroll through it and it’s quite a nice thing sometimes, to start my
day.
One participant spoke about moving location to shop which is indicative of a more relaxing
environment, however this was not common amongst the other participants. More time can
be spent on the sofa to browsing the online environment.
P5: Actually, I probably move, I relocate myself from the desk to the sofa. Slob on
the sofa and do it that way
Another topic of conversation which emerged was the amount of time clothing is kept in
the wardrobe and holding onto items. The focus group commented on various articles they
had read on decluttering their wardrobe and creating rules.
P4: I had a six months rule, that if I hadn’t worn it in six months, I just got rid of it,
because I haven’t got the room.
The focus group participants suggested that hanging on to clothing was due to factors such
as sentimental value, unable to visibly see everything they owned and waiting for the item
to become fashionable again. Participants would only clear out their wardrobe if there was
an issue with capacity or making a transition such as moving home.
7.4 Practice
The way in which a consumer perform, repeats and renews a practice can determine
consumption behaviour. Giddens (1990) argues that individuals are part of the wider
environment and factors such as everyday routines can aid in a more holistic understating
of the consumer. Consumer practices ‘highlight the connections that exist between parts of
individuals’ lives and allows a holistic view to be grasped and the significance of certain
practices to be explored’ (Fay, 2014). To gain insight into actions and the underlying
reasons for behaviour the practices are important to consider. By omitting practices as an
area of interest the underlying actions may go undiscovered. The use of an interpretative
approach allows for ‘action practices’ to be explored. The way in which actions can be
performed involves a myriad of ways and countless meanings which have been performed
before the practice itself. Comments from the focus group have been divided into three
sections. Firstly, an overview of practices day to day, secondly, the practice of getting
ready in the morning and finally the practices of online environments.
109
7.4.1 Day to Day practices
Day-to-day practices quickly emerged as a way in which participants could start to talk
about sustainability and fashion. There is a steady rise in household activities which are
sustainable, which have led to consumers being more aware of their daily practices such as
recycling plastics. This is due to several factors such as policy regulations, word of mouth
and improved understanding.
P7: A lot of it is word of mouth, who you associate yourself with, what kind of
conversations you would have that might lead to some people being more informed
about.
The focus group were explicit in stating that in some parts of their life sustainability
practices were active.
P2: Sustainability…I am doing that in my kitchen, but not necessarily in my
wardrobe.
At this stage the practices in the kitchen have not reached to the wardrobe and clothing
choices of consumers. In addition, participants discussed various changes in practice in
which you can receive a discount when using a reusable cup. The sequence of discussion
also led to the changes in law with food origins and plastic waste and the ways in which
information is communicated to consumers in advertising were discussed. It was evident
that the participants were better informed of these changes in practice than of sustainable
fashion. The transition to practice sustainability in more parts of life can be challenging.
However some participants stated that;
P4: I find that with making these transitions sometimes just being really strict with
yourself is really good.
Other life transitions such as moving home caused the participant to review their clothing
in relation to their new space and compare their clothing to their significant other;
P3: My boyfriend has more clothes than me. We just moved into a new place, it has
got this really cool walk in wardrobe, like a whole corridor thing and he takes up
over half of it. Whereas mine is like on a little bit outside.
But he’s really good. Because I said to him I was going to this today, he was like,
and “I’ve had this jumper for 15 years.” But he has just got loads of stuff he won’t
throw away, that has lasted and is good. Whereas my wardrobe is smaller, but I
110
think it changes more often. Just in case anyone was wondering. (Laughter in
group)
A turning point such as moving home can steer consumers into revisiting and reviewing
their clothing. The laughter in the focus group created a sense of ease in the atmosphere
when discussing their clothing and amount of belongings. This may be because of the link
to self-image and balancing what the group might be interested in.
7.4.2 The Practice of Getting Dressed
Everyday there is a stream of choices and decisions made by the consumer, starting with
getting ready in the morning. The practice of getting ready could be an indicator of the
consumers’ behaviour toward purchasing particular items. An observation that was made
during the focus group was the lack of consideration for the multiple practices that take
place to get ready in the morning and the wardrobe considerations. This may be because
these practices seem mundane to the participant themselves or they are ‘locked into’ a
routine. In addition, the choice for particular items was based on the social factors in which
the participant would be. The social practices such as being around others in both an
informal and formal way contributed to the choice of clothing.
P7: Might wear something a bit more interesting, if you don’t really know the
people where you are going, because it gives other people something to hook onto
easily.
P4: I think partly it’s because I don’t want people to think I’m dirty. But I will wear
a skirt two or three times before I wash it.
The social pressure to dress in a certain way and the wider social practices of wearing
clothes multiple times contributes to participants’ practices. The focus group allowed for
reasoning and rational to be shared with others. The participant below was expressing that
she would not wear the same item of clothing twice because of her previous professional
role.
P2: I never wore the same item of clothing when I was working properly as a
professional, I never ever. Because I had 600 people looking on.
Only two members of the focus group stated their choices were made on the basis of
individual needs such as functionality (weather) and comfort.
111
P3: “I want to wear a dress today.” Then I will open the curtains and be like, “I’m
not wearing a dress.” It is also to do with how I’m feeling, am I feeling cold?
P5: I do think about definitely what I wear. Socially at home, I slob about in a
tracksuit.
Another revelation was that during the focus group was that one participant felt they had to
dress a certain way for the focus group itself, stating that they wanted to look fashionable.
In the morning when they were getting ready the social activity and place determined their
clothing options, for example, if they were giving a presentation at work or staying a home
where they encountered fewer individuals.
7.4.3 Practice in Shopping
The focus group identified various reasons for using the online environment as a platform
to fulfil a range of activities. Accessibility and convenience were common factors which
were discussed.
P4: It’s the accessibility, isn’t it? It takes an effort, I guess, to find sustainable
clothing for running or a pair of trainers or something
P1: I would say that I think the most important factor is how easy it is for people to
access the alternatives to the mainstream or the high street. If I think about trying
to change my younger sisters’ ideas about buying clothes. If they were already in a
shop [online], the kind of shop that they already go to, and they see that they’ve got
a whole new section. I think H&M have got special sustainable cotton clothing and
stuff, then they would be able to make that kind of option.
To conclude:
P4: Are we lazy? Yes, we are. Are we wanting convenience? Yes, we do.
These comments suggest that if a consumer had better access to a product they would be
more likely to be interested in the purchase. However, for products which are freely and
easily accessible, such as t-shirts, a participant reports that they will visit the high street.
This is mainly to avoid returns and concerns over the fit. The accessibility of a product can
be linked to time; participants will factor in the effort to perform the practice and will act
accordingly.
P6: But for things that are very accessible, like just t- shirts, I wouldn’t buy online
for a t-shirt, because it is not worth the effort to get it, and sometimes they don’t fit.
112
In addition, factors such as the ability to explore more options and avoid social interaction
were described as a reason to go online for shopping practices.
P1: I’m more adventurous when I shop online
P3: Being able to avoid human contact
The rise of social media platforms and accessibility to people and product across the world
has changed the way in which individuals behave. The focus group discussed the various
platforms they belonged to, which included Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. The group
noticed that often they will look at products which are inserted and embedded strategically
into their ‘feed’ especially on Facebook;
P5: Inserted between, you want to look at what your friends are saying or doing,
and you’re just like, “Oh yes.” You’re more relaxed, more receptive kind of mood
than you are when you go necessarily out to the high street.
By positioning a fashion product between social media posts made by friends there is a
sense of familiarity and the participant is more receptive to looking and considering the
product. As suggested by several participants it is:
P1: About integrating it into your pre-existing circles.
P7: Yes, I think it’s more about the context. Rather than other people are doing it,
it’s more like, this is integrated with my social life, so it almost feels like friendlier.
I don’t know, it’s just it’s like it’s not alien. It’s next to things all that I’m very
comfortable with or very familiar with. It’s just like, “Oh this is just another thing
that I’m also comfortable or familiar with.”
In addition, the social practice of sharing and belonging to a group is a factor in making a
purchase decision; especially if the product is unique both in the functionality or the
message of the brand. This is an important consideration for sustainable fashion products
which are not currently mass market.
P3: By buying into that I think you subconsciously think, “Oh yes, I’m part of this
now, and maybe I’m a bit edgier or cooler, or whatever.”
The quest to fit in social groups and to enhance self-image was apparent. There can be a
broad spectrum of fashion involvement, for example, one participant expressed the
following:
113
P2: Obviously, I think about what I’m wearing to that. Like with the wearing stuff
that has slogans on it, not all the time, but for example you might wear something a
bit more interesting, if you don’t really know the people where you are going,
because it gives other people something to hook onto easily. Or I don’t know, it’s
kind of like, it gives a point of stimulus for social interaction.
While the participant is aware of clothing giving a ‘point of stimulus’ clothing can be have
multiple functions form of self-expression to a way of facing unknown situations. For the
participant to be consciously aware of creating ‘stimulus’ for a social interaction
demonstrates that fashion is more than functional it can create social bonds with others.
This led into the conversation about products holding symbolic value and fitting into a
group.
P5: Stuff can be symbolic, can’t it? It can have multiple layers to it.
There was a sense that the choices made could express social standing and shared
viewpoints. When asked to expand on the symbolism and multiple layers in their clothing
choices the participant gave an example:
P5: I like that it means that people know that I’m a feminist. Do you know what I
mean? It’s that interaction between I like it, so I am going to wear it anyway. But
it’s also I’m also promoting and attracting people who are of a similar political
viewpoint to me.
The item of clothing was worn as a means of actual social interaction and stimulation of
sociability. This was in contrast to another participant who expressed:
P6: I am totally opposite I would never conceive of putting on any form of social
media, “I’ve just bought a new dress from a sustainable…” It would be totally
alien to me. I’m too embarrassed, I’m just functional I suppose.
The comment highlights that there can be differences in the way in which consumers want
to share and create a sense of belonging through clothing, some may refrain from using
social media to share new purchases because it is not something they practice frequently
and is ‘alien’. The participant may be shy or uncomfortable in sharing in comparison to
others and therefore prefer to remain functional.
7.5 Practices in Online Shopping
114
The notion of adding products to a basket and the way in which online shopping is
conducted was explored. Participants seemed to be excited to discuss adding items to the
basket and were laughing while they realised that their practices were common with others.
The majority of participants reported that they quickly and spontaneously added items to
their basket and then took time to contemplate their decision. The basket was considered a
safe place to put products that were of interest and part of the process was complete.
P5: I think I’m a hoarder with my shopping basket. Because I do a lot of online
shopping, but I am a hesitant buyer, so I will click, put it in a basket, leave it for a
week and then come back to it.
Another participant reported similar behaviour:
P3: Then I can’t stop thinking about it usually, then a week later I cave, and I buy it
all.
Further, one participant described the layout on her computer as a split screen. She never
closes a shopping browser and if she cannot stop thinking about an item she will revisit
multiple times until she can no longer resist purchase.
P4: I don’t close browsers ever… Then there are always one or two of things I
thought I might buy that, because they’re right next to the thing on the tab, I’m like,
“I could click on…”
It is noteworthy that leaving a product for a week is unique to an online environment which
can facilitate that particular behaviour. A consumer is unable to leave a product for a week
in without the risk of another consumer purchasing the product as store are unable to hold
products for that amount of time.
There was consideration of resisting a purchase but adding a product to the basket provided
a sense of relief.
P1: So, I can just put it in my basket and then close the browser quickly, before I
can buy it.
Only one participant stated that they were somewhat impulsive in their purchasing
practices online which often led to them regret. They felt as if the online environment
facilitated quick and easy purchases whereas shopping on the high street was more
considered due to the time it takes to make a purchase. In essence, there is more time to
think about the action and practice and this can link to the individual making the purchase.
115
P6: Many times, if I just follow my instinct, I will just click and buy it, and I will
regret it and return the item.
While for sustainable fashion products participants suggested that more care is taken in the
creation of the fashion products and therefore feeling of guilt in returning the product:
P1: I think I’m more nervous about the prospect of returning it when somebody has
put a lot of time and effort into sourcing something or making it for you
The participant could be more cautious and reluctant in making a purchase due to guilt.
The feelings the participant reports highlights is that there may be more sensitivity
surrounding the practice of purchasing a sustainable fashion product.
7.6 Social Accessibility
A wide range of social influence impacts consumers’ lifestyles. Identity and social status
can be anchored through the online environment via social media and blogs. By promoting
a particular lifestyle the brand can curate the ‘ideal’ consumer and what their day would
look like. Nevertheless, the fashion product itself plays an important role in creating
boundaries of distinction. A common feature across the focus group was the extent to
which conversation surrounding daily practices online involved relationships with others
and social situations. Referencing their own behaviour with others demonstrates the way in
which social structures are embedded into daily routines. These social structures result the
participants into consuming in particular ways.
For example:
P4: “Oh, I’m a good person, I’m doing this, I can walk around with a smile on my
face for the rest of the day.”
A rich narrative was provided by a participant who had noticed a change in the way in
which social class is signalled to others.
P1: Grayson Perry did a project a few years ago, talking about class and how
people distinguish themselves from the lower classes. He was talking about the
middle class and upper middle class and how there is something about being
middle class and trying to signal that you are a good person, that you do good
things. Nowadays, people signal it in other ways, in terms of, “I am the kind of
person that does recycling, I buy sustainably.”
116
When this example was given the rest of the participants in the group nodded in agreement.
The location of the focus group was then discussed as it was described as for ‘certain
people’; despite the participants identifying themselves as interested in sustainable fashion
they did not feel as they belonged to an ‘exclusive group’. The location of the focus group
was a sustainable fashion retailer which sells clothing and accessories aimed for a range of
consumers. The adoption and practice of sustainable fashion may be viewed as a way to
express refinement and good taste:
P3: I don’t think that everyone would necessarily feel comfortable walking into a
place like this. It feels like it’s for certain people.
P5: I almost think that they are more fashionable and harder to get hold of. They
come in less sizes, so there are reasons for that, but I don’t think it’s necessarily
particularly accessible for everyone.
In certain social groups, clothing can be defined as an expression of identity and a marker
of social differentiation, aesthetic and distinctiveness. Other social classes are more
sensitive to factors such as price and necessity which influence the adoption of certain
fashion products. The focus on the class and moral status of behavioural motivations that
underpin sustainable fashion consumption are limited. However they could provide novel
insights. Consistent with the literature, this research found that some participants reported a
sense of guilt with regard to sustainable fashion. The moral dilemma the consumer faces
goes beyond the product and in wider societal contexts.
This led to a discussion:
P3: Sometimes I feel also because there are certain ideas that I want to build
around myself, as a person, like an environmentalist advocator, things like that. If I
buy something that shows that I don’t follow my own image or values, I feel like
people will judge me. “You always say go green and do this and that, but you
bought this?”
Sometimes it’s a combination of my own guilt feeling of not following my values,
but also afraid of what people think of me, because I am advocating this and
obviously there is a conflict there.
This prompted other members of the focus group to discuss guilt on sustainability in a
broader viewpoint;
117
P4: I still don’t know what the problem is. I know that’s weird, I feel guilty about it,
just like I feel guilty about plastic. But I know why I feel guilty about plastic….
that’s what it is in my head and that’s still not as tangible.
P7: Ignorance is bliss.
P6: Whereas if I’m just looking at a t-shirt, I don’t necessarily think, “Where’s that
come from?” I’m more like, “I like that t-shirt, I’ll get the t-shirt, I’m poor, I’m
happy.”
Participants’ sense of guilt is not uncommon due to the complexity of sustainability and the
unclear expectations of a consumer. A consumer may want to avoid the sense of guilt and
consequently avoid the action or thought that produces the feeling as a way of self-
regulation. The sense of guilt in making the decision to purchase a product are important
considerations as it could align with how the consumer behaves responsibly towards
fashion products in the future. On the other hand, ignorance and uncertainty towards
sustainable fashion can override practices such as researching a product and the focus is on
factors such as price and immediate happiness.
7.7 Aesthetics in Sustainable Fashion
The aesthetics of a sustainable fashion product can be an important factor for a consumer.
The current discourse in sustainable fashion is that it is often portrayed as less fashionable
than ‘fast fashion’ products and not always on trend. There is an aesthetic dilemma which
occurs for consumers. Certain consumers may feel as though they cannot be both
fashionable and sustainable. As a result their appearance is prioritised over other factors as
consumption involves multiple rationalities and logic. As discussed in the literature there
are various factors which are related to the product which influence consumers decisions,
these include price, product options, aesthetic and quality. There is often the association
that sustainable fashion is ‘loose fitting’ and neutral. Indeed the topic of ‘loose fitting’
products came into discussion almost immediately:
P3: I see no reason for it to be loose fitting, but for some reason online it definitely
is.
P1: Neutral. Lots of neutrals, and also stuff like khaki.
While others in the group suggested that they understood the classic styles offered in
sustainable fashion.
118
P2: I like sustainable clothing because it’s a lot more thoughtful. They tend to do
classic pieces, which I fully understand
P5: But I do feel like, in that way, it is fairly universal, just because they do tend to
do just a lot more classics
This topic of classic piece was then reaffirmed by the other members of the focus group
who stated;
P4: Classic pieces that can last, but you are not going to get bored of.
P1: Exactly.
P4: You can always put with something else.
P1: Exactly.
This sequence of reiteration of ‘exactly’ demonstrates that there is a sense of agreement in
the focus group.
On the other hand, one participant thought that sustainable fashion was not any less
fashionable than other fashion products.
P4: I don’t think sustainable fashion is, by definition, any less fashionable
This comment led to others in the group suggesting that on occasion you want an item
which is on trend irrespective of whether it is sustainable or not.
P3: Sometimes I just want, like when you see all these pictures of people wearing
new lovely things, I just also want the lovely thing.
I’m such a terrible person. Like there’s pressures from different ends right. There’s
pressure to look nice and you have the treat yourself like, “What else am I
supposed to wear”
These comments suggest that there a certain pressures to wear items from an individual
and wider perspective. Taste is a sense of distinction which steers them into a particular
lifestyle. Fashion items can provide a sense of identity which can be used to signal to wider
social groups. Indeed the participants discussed the way in which fashion connects to their
and others’ identity;
P6: For me fashion is quite a lot of how you present yourself to the world. It is your
own personal identity. Then by wearing sustainable clothes and by doing
sustainable things, like recycling. That is something that you definitely want to
119
plough into the world, and whether it’s for yourself or whether it’s for other
people’s benefit, that’s something that many people do
Indeed, one participant stated they wanted to wear certain clothing to create positive
associations with other brands. Participants felt that social identities were important to
them and influenced their behaviour. The theme of fitting into a group or connecting with a
brand was suggested:
P2: I guess it depends on what the brand is selling, like what their aesthetic is, and
what people think of you when you wear that. Or your perception of what people
think of you when you wear those clothes and that comes into it. So take Urban
Outfitters, they have a very particular style that they advertise and they have a very
particular type of person they advertise to. By buying into that I think you
subconsciously think, “Oh yes, I’m part of this now, and maybe I’m a bit edgier or
cooler, or whatever.”
These comments indicate that there is a connection between aesthetics, consumers and
wider social statuses. Gaining social acceptance can be associated with the choices that
consumers make. A participant then provided a spontaneous comment on the area they
would be willing to purchase sustainable because of the lack of influence in fashion trends
which could be indicative to durability and longer lasting style;
P1: I just had a thought actually. One of the areas I might be more willing to buy
sustainable stuff, because it’s less influenced by trends, I think, is sports stuff.
Because I am quite into running, I do spend about 50% of my life in it.
But I’ve also only had that thought because I’m sat here. (Laughter) I never would
have thought about it.
Driven by the need to be fashionable and trendy a topic which organically emerged was the
disposal of clothing which is ‘inactive’ in the wardrobe. For example, clothing which is
infrequently worn and placed in storage. Clothing which is considered no longer
fashionable was also discussed. Sustainable fashion is also related to the disposal of
clothing.
Participant seven said that they got ‘bored’ of clothing and subsequently passed the item on
to a family member while another passed the clothing onto friends;
P7: I also sometimes think, if I get bored of the style or whatever, I can pass it to
somebody else, like my cousin
120
P6: I give it to my friends. Then you get this weird reassurance that you can
borrow it back.
The reassurance that the item can be returned gives a sense of attachment. By giving the
item away there is a sense of accomplishment. Getting ‘bored’ with clothing is indicative
of the changing relationships individuals have with clothing. An individual may get
‘bored’ of with their clothing for several reasons which may be recurring. Indeed, there
could be the perception that if you are ‘bored’ with your clothes other may perceive you in
that way. Another reason might to be linked to familiarity with the clothing. Initially when
purchasing new clothing it can be exciting and inspiring however over a period of time the
clothing then becomes normal and not as interesting.
7.8 Summary of Data Analysis
As outlined in Chapter one, the conditions and characteristics of sustainable consumption
are investigated through a social practice theory perspective. That is, conditions for the
consumption of sustainable fashion are explored principally through literature evaluation
followed by a focus group. Processes are examined principally through analysis of the
focus group and by literature. This research is intended to be a contribution to consumer
marketing research and social practice theory. The focus group highlighted that individuals
are concerned about their current state of consumption. This is echoed by Johnstone and
Lindh (2018) who suggest that sustainable consumption is beginning to penetrate into
society.
Using social practice theory in the research allows for a novel picture of both social and
human agency towards sustainable fashion. The ‘everyday’ practices of consumers’
experiences are influenced by the interpretation of social and cultural factors. The purpose
of this research was to provide a more holistic understanding of sustainable fashion online
and the ways in which consumer practice. A host of explanations can be put forward to
account for the current confusion that surrounds sustainable fashion online.
Observation 1: There is no singular, uncontested or essential understanding of
‘sustainable fashion’ which is the first barrier to consumer practice
Observation 2: Components of sustainable fashion discourse are assembled differently
through individuals and social groups in online environments. Participants are yet to see
themselves as ‘someone who purchases sustainable fashion’ and this lack of identity may
guide subsequent behaviour.
121
Observation 3: Practices offer valuable insights into the behaviours of consumers whose
casual practices and routines can influence shopping decisions.
Social practice theory provides a means of understanding the practices which are
underlying behaviour related to sustainable consumption. Consumers are not merely
responding to online environments they actively practice and contribute to its creation. In
modern society there are more options to consume than ever before and the order of daily
practices continues to change as a result. Ethically, there is a question of whether it is the
responsibility of society (as in the case of plastics) or whether the duty of making positive
practices is at a community and individual level.
7.9 Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability have been developed within the quantitative or scientific tradition
and consequently the qualitative research community adopted various new terms and
criteria (Seale, 1999). Validity in research can be described as “the precision in which the
findings accurately reflect the data” (Noble and Smith, 2015 p.2). Qualitative research is
considered to have an element of uncertainty and fluidity (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). As a
result the validity criteria used must take into account flexibility. The validity criteria can
be challenging to use at it poses theoretical and technical problems (Whittemore, Chase
and Mandle, 2001). Indeed, challenges stem from lack of adequate descriptions in
qualitative research reports, in which there is little description of assumptions and methods
used in data analysis (Mays and Pope, 1995).
Maxwell (1992) stated that there are five components in validity which are; descriptive
validity which is concerned with the factual accuracy of the researchers account,
interpretative validity which is the quality of the portrayal of participants perspective,
theoretical validity which involves how well the theories used are explained,
generalisability which is whether the research could apply to other communities or
institutions and evaluative validity in which the researcher evaluates the area of study and
how judgments are assigned and reflective of the question itself. Through an analysis of
validity criteria Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001) propose a contemporary synthesis
(Figure 21).
122
Figure 21: Contemporary Synthesis of Validity Criteria in Qualitative Research by
Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001)
The figure shows that there is a primary and secondary criteria which are considered to be
benchmarks of quality. The primary criteria are considered to be essential to all qualitative
inquiry, whereas the secondary provide further support. The primary criteria requires the
researcher to ensure an ‘accurate interpretation of the meaning’ and reflect the experience
of the participants (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Whittemore, Chase and Mandle, 2001). This
is important for interpretive perspectives as the research provides a reflection of meanings
and experiences. In essence, validity reduces and eliminates the threat of distortion and
bias of the issue addressed. Indeed, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that credibility is an
overriding goal of qualitative research. Therefore, throughout the process of research it is
important to engage in the process of reflection and reflexivity as it allows validity of the
method to be demonstrated (Fox, Morris and Rumsey, 2007). For each stage of the
research process primary and secondary criteria are considered carefully.
Reliability in research can be understood in terms of ‘stability, equivalence, and internal
consistency’ (Kidd and Parshall, 2000). Often used in testing and evaluating quantitative
research, it allows the researcher to determine the various tests required and provide the
researcher with confidence that the correct method is selected to achieve scientific ‘truth’
(Golafshani, 2003; Straub, Boudreau and Gefen, 2004). The key component to validity and
reliability is the idea of ‘error’ and ‘measurement’ (Morse, 1990). Kirk and Miller (1986,
p.69) define reliability in field work as ‘expecting to obtain the finding again in the same
way’. However, replication is not easy to achieve in qualitative research but there are
123
checks of sub- processes, for example, in coding or logistics which can aid in reliability
(Dornyei, 2007). This research conducted a single focus group at one point in time. The
likelihood of the focus group reconvening is impractical and the group dynamics would
have changed. However, the questions and process used to arrange the focus group could
be utilised again.
In qualitative research the aim is to provide a better understanding to an otherwise
confusing area or topic (Golafshani, 2003). Therefore the validity and reliability of the
study should be judged accordingly. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) there are four
aspects ‘consistency, transferability, dependability and confirmability’ which are the
criteria required to assess reliability and validity. While some researchers have suggested
that the validity and reliability of qualitative research is not easily obtainable, there are
steps can be taken to ensure quality (Dörnyei, 2007). Tracy (2010, p.8) propose a criterion
with eight features that ensure the research is of quality. The features include; worth topic,
rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethical and meaningful
coherence, while, Morse et al (2002) suggest that validity in qualitative research should be
obtained by techniques of verification. These techniques include methodological
coherence, appropriate sample, collecting and analysing data concurrently and thinking
theoretically. Considering the various features and criteria which are important to ensure
validity and reliability in qualitative research the following steps were taken (Table 9).
Table 9: Steps taken to ensure validity and reliability, adapted from: Maxwell, 1992;
Whittemore, Chase and Mandle, 2001; Noble, H. Smith, 2015
Type of Technique Examples of Techniques
Design Consideration Sampling decisions (i.e. sampling adequacy)
Giving voice to the consumer
Data Generating Articulating data collection decisions
Demonstrating prolonged engagement
Demonstrating persistent observation
Providing verbatim transcription
Analytic Exploring rival explanations
Performing a literature review
Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings
Presentation Providing evidence that support interpretations
Acknowledging the researcher perspective
Providing thick descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings
124
There are multiple way in which to achieve good practice and deem whether the research
undertaken is ‘good’ (Stiles, 1993). Research is considered good if it ‘provided rich
evidence, offers credible accounts and can be made use of by someone in another situation’
(Scotland, 2012, p.12 ). This research fills the criteria discussed and steps have been taken
to ensure validity and reliability. For example, the personal stance and researcher
perspective can affect the research. Becker (1996) argues that research is always conducted
from someone’s point of view. “We [the researcher] cannot separate self from those
activities in which we are intimately involved” (Sword,1999, p. 277). The researcher
(myself) should be engaged with understanding biases, consider research positionality and
reflexivity (Savin-Baden and Major,2012). For example, during the focus group time was
taken to focus fully on listening to the participants and capturing non-verbal cues
(O.Nyumba et al., 2018). I acknowledge that my actions and decisions throughout the
research process will impact on the meaning and context of the research aim. To the extent
that my background working in and studying fashion can affect the way in which I use
language, ask questions, analyse information and make meaning of the focus group. In
addition, my own experiences as an online shopper can affect the way in which
understanding is interpreted.
125
Chapter 8. Discussion
Social practice theory can be used with online sustainable fashion and a different
understanding of consumer behaviour can be obtained. While on the surface, the common
issues such as price remain there are more complex factors which can impact on
consumers’ decisions toward sustainable fashion. Prior research has often portrayed
sustainable consumption as a single isolated behaviour associated with an independent
event (Shove, 2010; Hargreaves, 2011). The first step to address the research objectives
was to examine the literature. The literature was structured to define, explore and analyse
the sustainable fashion industry and consumer behaviour. Across the literature review,
three main implications for the research approach emerged and were further developed in
the focus group discussion. For example, by incorporating the literature on social practice
theory and taking into account both online and offline environments provided a holistic
understanding of the consumer. As Reckwitz (2002) suggests there is a need to embed
social practices in analysing social phenomena which can reveal consumers decision
process. This research extends understanding in practices which are related to social
networks, time and aesthetics.
In this research there was a concerted movement away from focusing on the consumer at
the end of the purchase decision to exploring the consumer practices and the infrastructures
which can shape the overall behaviour and decisions a consumer makes, allowing for a
more holistic understanding. Participants were able to discuss freely sustainable fashion
practices and other factors which are linked to their lifestyle and choices.
8.1 Understanding of Sustainable Fashion Products
As examined in the literature review, the definition of sustainable fashion remains
contested. Sustainable fashion is an interdisciplinary and cross-functional concept. The
focus group was unable to formulate a definition which encompassed all views and factors,
highlighting the complexity of the area. The realisation that a definition cannot be easily
made echoes prior research whereby consumers and retailers have views but often these
are not shared and are widely debated. It is likely that understanding of sustainable fashion
will change overtime; building on prior research the focus group offers an insight into
current perspectives. This is important because new perspectives are needed as
sustainability could be clearer and a ‘umbrella term’ to identify proactive practices
(Thomas, 2008).
126
In regard to social practice theory the knowledge and understanding the consumer has
towards sustainable fashion it is essential to everyday practices. Indeed, Giddens (1984, p.
4) is explicit in defining knowledge as “inherent within the ability to ‘go on’ within the
routines of social life,” as Bourdieu (1990, p. 52) supports the notion that knowledge as
constructed within practice (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011). As the focus group expressed
confusion and uncertainty in what sustainable fashion is and found it challenging to
practice sustainable behaviours.
8.2 Consumer Perceptions of Barriers in Sustainable Fashion
The rapid proliferation of online environments, information and communication
technologies have led to consumers changing their daily practices. The online environment
serves as a mechanism which shapes consumer practices and lifestyles. There is a maze of
motivational behaviours which are mixed with competing barriers to sustainable fashion. It
was evident from the focus group that the importance of price, lack of convenience, mixed
emotions towards sustainable fashion, social accessibility and time structures were a strong
influence on practices.
Price is a reoccurring theme in the sustainable literature as one of the barriers to consumers
purchasing items; the data from the focus group confirmed that this is the case. While the
majority of the focus group expressed concern about sustainability, especially the fashion
industry these concerns were abandoned when circumstances which allowed them to get a
cheaper price online or a sale was offered. Han et al. (2017) state that price can be
considered a ‘major determinant’ in the consumers’ process of purchasing. In the focus
group participants thought that sustainable fashion is more expensive due to the product
itself (materials, details and quantity) and consequently reserved for consumers who are
more affluent. As a result, it is likely that price will continue to be a factor as it is closely
tied to the actual fashion product itself (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017).While some
literature suggest that consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable fashion
products, in practice this is not the case (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). Together these
accounts of the focus group provide important insights into the consumers’ willingness to
spend on sustainable fashion and the financial position they believe they have to be in to be
able to purchase online sustainable fashion.
Online environments provide a means by which consumers can engage and access
sustainable fashion products. In accordance with the present findings, previous studies have
demonstrated that there are greater demands for convenience and accessibility to fashion
127
products. From the focus group it would appear that consumers do not wish to be
inconvenienced. This confirms prior literature which suggests that consumers do not
necessarily want to put in extra effort into shopping practices (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001).
This also accords with the earlier observations, which showed that time structures in daily
life influence consumers’ practices. The focus group discussed the changing demands in
their day and how shopping is sandwiched between important tasks such as deadline or as
a way to relax after meetings. This can suggest that consumers are feeling more pressured
to fulfil day to day practices and that shopping for sustainable fashion is considered more
time intensive. On a larger scale, Jones (2014) suggests that the non-stop society forces
consumers to adopt lifestyles and practices which are unstainable.
A consumer will make justifications to particular behaviours such as purchasing
sustainable fashion because of the sense of obligation or guilt. Obligation and choice do
not necessarily go well together and this can be an issue as choice is an important part of
daily life and guides the decisions that are made. There are similarities between the
attitudes expressed by the focus group in this study and those described by Johnstone and
Tan (2015) in which participants had reservations regarding sustainability and to some
extent distanced themselves from sustainability to avoid further guilt or confusion. Firstly,
this may be due to the fact that the consequences of unsustainable actions are not directly
in their practices or day to day life and therefore they cannot ‘see’ the negative effects.
Secondly, it may be due to the different assumption of how consumers process information
and experiences which are linked to sustainability which forms narratives in discussions.
Overall, consumers’ negative feelings towards sustainable fashion can be from many
factors which have developed over time (Bray, Jones and Kilburn, 2011).
8.3 Consumer Practices in Online Sustainable Fashion
Perhaps one of the most striking findings is that social accessibility and the perception of
being in a group was a key factor in consumers’ practices. Consumers have increasing
opportunities to express themselves and display a social status within a community. This
finding aligns with Bourdieu, Accardo and Ferguson (1999) in which there is symbolic
significance in specific forms of consumption. Specifically, fashion is a nonverbal form of
communication and extremely visual. The status of an individual can be determined before
they have the opportunity to speak. Consumer practices have adapted to the changing
digital landscape and forms of communication between each other and retailers. The
participants reported that they are influenced from more indirect sources which are
128
integrated into their social feeds and media which goes beyond their immediate day to day
practice. As consumers’ touchpoints with a retailer is ever increasing the scope of social
engagement is impacted. Consumers have the choice to display and share an ideal or
desired state with one another and develop an ‘optimal goal’ to achieve a certain look.
Furthermore, in the focus group there was an ‘image’ suggested for a sustainable fashion
consumer which the participants did not feel as they belonged to. By creating an image of a
sustainable consumer certain perceptions can be made which may not be realistic. In
addition, by creating an image of a consumer, the practice of sustainable fashion is seen as
an exception rather than a norm.
Consumers are adamant they want to be stylish and signal positive characterises to their
peer group. This can be considered a form of self enhancement as it is intended to create
positive reactions from others and be socially desirable (Reiley and DeLong, 2011). It is
important to appreciate that it is not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives, but
what we do consistently. The aesthetics attitudes formulated by consumers online also are
responsive to time and the interests of the marketplace. This changes frequently and
therefore aesthetics can act as the bridge between retailer and consumer with the
opportunity to challenge pre-set notions of sustainable fashion. Within society there is
growing awareness of the increasing consumption patterns coinciding with consumer
interest in sustainable fashion (McNeill and Moore, 2015).
While sustainable practices in relation to fashion products are the focus of this research, it
is important to take into account that the sustainable behaviours exhibited in the kitchen
can spill over into other practices and vice a versa. The focus group reported that
sustainable practices were taking place in other places in the household such as the kitchen.
Further, the type of food and cutlery which they use has changed, for example, the
transition from using plastic cups to reusable ones. As stated by Johnstone and Lindh
(2018) “sustainable behaviour constitutes a long‐term, incremental lifestyle change, not as
the result of discrete product fads and fashions” (p.129). Therefore, the sustainable
practices performed elsewhere in the household is evidence that the consumer is able to
change their day to day activities to incorporate sustainability, with the potential to extend
to the wardrobe and their fashion practice. It is therefore important to consider that rather
than focusing on the trade-offs and the arguments as to why consumers do not behave in
‘desirable’ ways but to explore the merits of what they are doing and the changing
practices.
129
Regarding the barriers to sustainable fashion purchases, this research advances the
understanding of consumer daily practices, time structures and social accessibility which
can inform the likelihood of a sustainable fashion purchase. These are important factors to
consider as ‘consumption is woven into everyday life’ (Ropke, 1999 p.403) and ‘‘are
constantly involved in a process of mutual co-sharing and co-evolution’’ (Magaudda,
2011, p. 31). Specifically, consumers’ social positioning and perceptions can facilitate and
shape the practices towards online sustainable fashion. It is important understand current
challenges and opportunities (Pedersen and Andersen, 2015). As the fashion industry is a
contributor to issues surrounding social and environmental sustainability which can span
across society.
8.4 Using Social Practice Theory to Understand Consumers’ Responses
to Sustainable Fashion
While many researchers investigate the topic of sustainable fashion consumers, the role of
social practice theory in the research process is rarely considered. The future of online
sustainable fashion depends on the cumulative consequences of consumers’ daily practices.
Gaps between attitudes and behaviours can be considered signs of practices which are not
fully understood. As a result, it is not necessary to ‘close’ the gap but to examine the daily
life of a consumer. By highlighting the practices that consumers are currently engaged in
and the perceptions of sustainability in daily life calls for a re-thinking of current
understating in models and frameworks.
Two themes which recur in the focus group discussion of this research shed further light on
the ways in which consumer choice linked to practices is the social accessibility and time
structures. Moreover, the findings enrich the consumer behaviour literature by showing
that social practice theory allows for a different positioning of the consumer and ways in
which understanding can be achieved. As discussed in the literature, online environments
should be able to support consumers practices to facilitate sustainable behaviours
(Salonen, Närvänen and Saarijärvi, 2014). Indeed, the practices identified by Salonen,
Närvänen and Saarijärvi (2014) such as dreaming, expertise, information search and being
part of a community are important considerations and useful for linking practices to
consumer purchases. The practices identified highlight the changing and diverse online
influence on fashion practices.
By exploring different practices and adjusting theories and frameworks accordingly to an
online environment context there is focus on the growing technological shift for the
130
modern consumer. As presented in the framework earlier, the changes in practice which
are sustainable often derive from the communities and individual themselves and cannot be
easily imposed from the outside. Consumers’ practices, dispositions and lifestyle can be
transformed by the social communities around them at any given time. Therefore, social
practice theory can be used to consider consumers responses and stimulate a different line
of thinking (Holttinen, 2010). While there may be disagreement over ways in which the
consumer is responsible in being sustainable and purchasing sustainable fashion there is an
opportunity to explore the complexities and socially framed practices which can determine
behaviour.
131
Chapter 9. Conclusion
This research has applied social practice theory to identify and evaluate practices and
barriers in shopping for sustainable fashion online. The online environment has changed
the way in which consumers approach making purchases and shop, from the time a
consumer takes to make a purchase to how they share amongst their social groups. The
findings suggest that there are various factors which can impede the purchase of a
sustainable fashion product online. These factors include understanding and defining
sustainable fashion, price, time constraints and aesthetics. Consumers do not function in
isolation. Their day to day practices have an important role in purchasing online
sustainable fashion. The research contributes to consumer marketing by demonstrating that
social practice theory can uncover consumer behaviours which are influential in the
practice of purchasing sustainable fashion online.
9.1 Managerial Implications
The consumer is framed by their day to day practices which allow them to be part of a
community and create a sense of belonging. Social factors play an important role in the
acceptance and adaptation of sustainable practices. Retailers could consider enhancing
engagement by badging and documenting practices which support sustainable initiatives
and supporting the ways in which sustainable practices can be developed. The process of
providing a badge, document and milestone to sustainable practices should be intrinsic to
both the retailers and consumers in their activities as it can lead to a stronger brand
community. Specifically, as the highly competitive fashion industry continues to evolve
online it is a worthwhile endeavour to retain likeminded customers. Managers can also
play a role in ‘seeding’ practices. For example, a retailer may want to develop an online
social community that informs sustainable practices and the retailer therefore needs to
foster or sponsor social networking practices to build and sustain the network. In addition,
it can provide consumers with a way to increase ‘social capital’ among peers and other
social networks.
132
9.2 Limitations and Directions for Further Research
The area of research into sustainable fashion online is emerging and a qualitative approach
is deemed to be an effective and suitable way in which to undercover consumer practices.
However, this research is a ‘snap shot’ in time and is not representative of a wide
demographic. Future research could also expand the demographic of the focus group to
different genders to explore comparative differences.
The research was based on one focus group with the intention to conduct further focus
groups, however logistically this was not possible. In future research more focus groups
could be conducted to gain a wider range of insights. The focus group allowed for practices
and thoughts to be collectively shared and actual experiences to be discussed. Based on the
sample criteria, this research has provided insights into practices which can guide future
action and research. Future research would benefit from using different methods and data
from a range of disciplines. For example, quantitative data can be utilised to support and
expand qualitative data and add to the description and taking into account that the aim of
qualitative research is not to necessarily to be generalised to all populations.
Further demographic information which can be collected in future studies include income,
social class, and political viewpoint. This information could provide additional insight into
the interconnection between practices and social groups in which individuals actively
contribute and practice. While there is no consensus on the demographic of a ‘sustainable
consumer’ practices and attitudes which influence sustainable behaviour can be explored.
For example, a higher income may allow for greater range of choices and ability to access
sustainable fashion which meets the aesthetic qualities desired by the consumer.
There is likely to be continued growth in the sustainable fashion sector and as noted in the
literature there is increasing global attention towards creating a sustainable future. This
research suggests that contemporary and holistic frameworks are required and future
projects can utilise this research as a starting point to explore the areas of sustainable
fashion online to gain a wider perspective. There is room for further progress in
determining sustainable fashion practices. Several questions arise out of the research which
could be suitable for future investigation.
A comparative study could enhance our understanding of the differences in
consumer practices to sustainable fashion across different countries, for example, in
Europe.
133
Another area that requires greater attention concerns the post purchase practices
which can determine how long a fashion product is kept and in use by the consumer
and considerations to repurchase. Practices such as reselling online and disposal of
products was not fully explored in the focus group.
Time can be considered a factor in future studies and can be combined with wider
studies in time use research. Collect data on shopping in practice, to understand the
relationship between actual and perceived time use online. By using time data there
is also the opportunity to collaborate directly with industry and test practical
applications to the online environment.
There is considerable scope to utilise social practice theory in fashion retailing and expand
current knowledge.
134
References
Aagerup, U. and Nilsson, J. (2016) ‘Green consumer behavior: being good or seeming
good?’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(3), pp. 274–284.
Achar, C., So, J., Agrawal, N. and Duhachek, A. (2016) ‘What we feel and why we buy :
the influence of emotions on consumer decision-making’, Current Opinion in Psychology,
10. pp. 166–170.
Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995) ‘Focus Groups and Ethnography’, Human
Organization. Society for Applied Anthropology , 54(1), pp. 78–86.
Ajzen, I. (1985). 'From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour', In Action
control (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179–211.
Anderson, P. F. (1986) ‘On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist
Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), p. 155.
Antonides, G. (2017) ‘Sustainable consumer behaviour: A collection of empirical studies’,
Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10).
Araujo-Soares, V., Rodrigues, A., Presseau, J. and Sniehotta, F. F. (2013) ‘Adolescent
sunscreen use in springtime: A prospective predictive study informed by a belief elicitation
investigation’, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 36(2), pp. 109–123.
Atik, D. and Firat, A. F. (2013) ‘Fashion creation and diffusion: The institution of
marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management, 29(7–8), pp. 836–860.
Aurini, J.D., Heath, M. and Howells, S. (2016). The how to of qualitative research:
Strategies for executing high quality projects. Sage.
Baldwin, R. (2014). ‘From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third
Degree’, Modern Law Review, 77(6), pp. 831–857.
Balke, T., Roberts, T., Xenitidou, M. and Gilbert, N., (2014). Modelling energy-consuming
social practices as agents. In Social Simulation Conference.
Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P. and Malpass, A., (2005). The political ethics of
consumerism. Consumer Policy Review, 15(2), pp.45-51.
135
Barthes, R., (2002). The death of the author. The book history reader, 2, pp.277-280.
Bauman, Z., (2007). Consuming life. John Wiley & Sons.
Becker, H.S., (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. Ethnography and human
development: Context and meaning in social inquiry, 27, pp.53-71.
Belzile, J. A. and Öberg, G. (2012) ‘Where to begin? Grappling with how to use
participant interaction in focus group design’, Qualitative Research, 12(4), pp. 459–472.
Benedetto, C. A. (2017) ‘Corporate social responsibility as an emerging business model in
fashion marketing’, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. Routledge, 8(4), pp. 251–265.
Berger, I. E. and Corbin, R. M. (1992) ‘Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Faith in
Others as Moderators of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors’, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 11(2), pp. 79–89.
Bhaduri, G. and Ha-Brookshire, J. E. (2011) ‘Do Transparent Business Practices Pay?
Exploration of Transparency and Consumer Purchase Intention’, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal. pp. 135–149.
Bilgihan, A. (2016) ‘Gen y customer loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model of
trust, user experience and branding’, Computers in Human Behavior. 61, pp. 103–113.
Billig, M. (1991) Ideology and opinions : studies in rhetorical psychology. Sage
Publications.
Biswas, A. (2017) ‘A consumption value-gap analysis for sustainable consumption’,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 24(8), pp. 7714–7725.
Biswas, A. and Roy, M. (2015) ‘Green products: An exploratory study on the consumer
behaviour in emerging economies of the East’, Journal of Cleaner Production. 87(1), pp.
463–468.
Blake, J. (1999) ‘Overcoming the “value‐action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience’, Local Environment, 4(3), pp. 257–278.
Blanchard, A. and Horan, T. (1998) ‘Virtual Communities and Social Capital’, Social
Science Computer Review, 16(3), pp. 293–307.
Blanchard, T. (2007). Green is the new black. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Bloor, M. ed., (2001). Focus groups in social research. Sage.
136
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, 39(2), pp. 125–135.
Bobbitt, L.M. and Dabholkar, P.A., (2001). Integrating attitudinal theories to understand
and predict use of technology-based self-service: the internet as an
illustration. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(5), pp.423-450.
Bourdieu, P., (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice,
Trans.).
Bourdieu, P., (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., Accardo, A. and Ferguson, P. P. (1999) The weight of the world : social
suffering in contemporary society. Stanford University Press.
Boyer, R. H. W., Peterson, N. D., Arora, P. and Caldwell, K. (2016) ‘Five approaches to
social sustainability and an integratedway forward’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(9).
Brand, K. . (2010) ‘Social practices and sustainable consumption: Benefits and limitations
of a new theoretical approach’, Environmental sociology, pp. 217–235.
Bray, J., Johns, N. and Kilburn, D. (2011) ‘An Exploratory Study into the Factors
Impeding Ethical Consumption’, Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), pp. 597–608.
Bristol, T. and Fern, E. F. (1996) ‘Exploring the Atmosphere Created by Focus Group
Interviews: Comparing Consumers’ Feelings across Qualitative Techniques’, Market
Research Society. Journal. 38(2), pp. 1–9.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B. and Ilić, A. (2011) ‘Customer Engagement’,
Journal of Service Research, 14(3), pp. 252–271.
Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2017) ‘Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their
integration’. Routledge, pp. 57–78.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015) Research methodology : business and management
contexts. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Bueger, C. and Gadinger, F. (2015) ‘The Play of International Practice’, International
Studies Quarterly, 59(3), pp. 449–460.
Burningham, K. and Venn, S., (2017). Are lifecourse transitions opportunities for moving
137
to more sustainable consumption?. Journal of Consumer Culture, p.1469540517729010.
Business of Fashion and Mckinsey & Company (2017) The State of Fashion 2017, Market
Research Report. Available at:
https://www.businessoffashion.com/site/uploads/2016/11/The_State_of_Fashion_2017.pdf
(Accessed: 12 February 2017).
Callon, M. (2005) ‘Why virtualism paves the way to political impotence: A reply to Daniel
Miller’s critique of" The laws of the market"’, Economic sociology: European electronic
newsletter, 6(2), pp. 3–20.
Carlsen, B. and Glenton, C. (2011) ‘What about N? A methodological study of sample-size
reporting in focus group studies’, BMC Medical Research Methodology. BioMed Central,
11(1), p. 26.
Carrete, L., Castaño, R., Felix, R., Centeno, E. and González, E. (2012) ‘Green consumer
behavior in an emerging economy: confusion, credibility, and compatibility’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 29(04), pp. 470–481.
Carrigan, M. and Attala, A. (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour?, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), pp.560-578.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. a, Whitwell, G. J., Carrington, M., Neville, A. and Whitwell,
J. (2010) ‘Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework the Gap
Between Understanding and Actual the Ethical Purchase Intentions Minded Buying
Behaviour of Ethically Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), pp. 139–158.
Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D. and Neville, B. (2015) ‘The ideology of the ethical
consumption gap’, Marketing Theory, pp. 1–18.
Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D. and Neville, B. (2016) ‘The ideology of the ethical
consumption gap’, Marketing Theory, 16(1), pp. 21–38.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K., 2001. Qualitative marketing
research. Sage.
Cerri, J., Testa, F. and Rizzi, F. (2018) ‘The more I care, the less I will listen to you: How
information, environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers’ attitudes
and the purchasing of sustainable products’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd,
175, pp. 343–353.
Cervellon, M.C. and Wernerfelt, A.-S. (2012) ‘Knowledge sharing among green fashion
138
communities onlineLessons for the sustainable supply chain’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing & Management, 16(2), pp. 176–192.
Chapman, L. (2007) ‘Transport and climate change: a review’, Journal of Transport
Geography,15(5), pp. 354–367.
Charter, M. and Tischner, U. (2017) Sustainable solutions: developing products and
services for the future. Routledge.
Chatterton, T. (2011) ‘An introduction to thinking about `energy behaviour’: A multi-
model approach’, Department for Energy and Climate Change, (December). Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/economics-social-research/3887-intro-
thinking-energy-behaviours.pdf.
Cheung, C. M. K., Liu, I. L. B. and Lee, M. K. (2015) ‘How online social interactions
influence customer information contribution behavior in online social shopping
communities: A social learning theory perspective’, Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 66(12), pp. 2511–2521.
Cho, E., Gupta, S. and Kim, Y. K. (2015) ‘Style consumption: Its drivers and role in
sustainable apparel consumption’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), pp.
661–669.
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2013) Successful qualitative research : a practical guide for
beginners. Sage.
Cochoy, F., Hagberg, J., McIntyre, M. P. and Sorum, N. (2017) Digitalizing consumption :
how devices shape consumer culture. Taylor & Francis.
Collingridge, D. S. and Gantt, E. E. (2008) ‘The Quality of Qualitative Research’,
American Journal of Medical Quality. 23(5), pp. 389–395.
Compeau, L. D., Monroe, K. B., Grewal, D. and Reynolds, K. (2016) ‘Expressing and
defining self and relationships through everyday shopping experiences’, Journal of
Business Research. 69(3), pp. 1035–1042.
Connell, K. Y. H. (2010) ‘Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel
acquisition’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), pp. 279–286.
Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J. and Slater, S. F. (2011) ‘Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for
sustainability research in marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1),
pp. 86–100.
139
Cook, T. D. and Reichardt, C. S. (1979) ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in
Evaluation’. Sage Publications.
Craik, J. (2009) Fashion : the key concepts. Berg.
Creswell, J. W. (2003) ‘Research design qualitative quantitative and mixed methods
approaches’, Research design Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches, pp.
3–26.
Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry & research design :
choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, California. Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998) The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage Publications.
D’Souza, C. (2015) ‘Marketing challenges for an eco-fashion brand: A case study’,
Fashion Theory - Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 19(1), pp. 67–82.
Dangelico, R. M. and Vocalelli, D. (2017) ‘“Green Marketing”: An analysis of definitions,
strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature’, Journal of Cleaner
Production.165, pp. 1263–1279.
Daniels, P. (2008) ‘Kant on the Beautiful: The Interest in Disinterestedness’, Colloquy,
16(2008), pp. 198–209.
Darley, W. K., Blankson, C. and Luethge, D. J. (2010) ‘Toward an integrated framework
for online consumer behavior and decision making process: A review’, Psychology and
Marketing, 27(2), pp. 94–116.
Davis, F. (1992) Fashion, culture, and identity. University of Chicago Press.
Defra, A., 2008. Framework for pro-environmental behaviours. Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Delmas, M.A. and Burbano, V.C. (2011) The drivers of greenwashing. California
Management Review, 54(1), pp.64-87.
Deloitte (2017) Bling it on What makes a millennial spend more? Available at:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html (Accessed: 6
January 2019).
140
Deloitte (2018) The Deloitte Millennial Survey 2018. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html
(Accessed: 16 December 2018).
Demarque, C., Charalambides, L., Hilton, D. J. and Waroquier, L. (2015) ‘Nudging
sustainable consumption: The use of descriptive norms to promote a minority behavior in a
realistic online shopping environment’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, pp.
166–174.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2008) The landscape of qualitative research. Sage
Publications.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. eds., (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Sage.
Deshpande, R. (1983) ‘On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, 47(4), pp. 101–110.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M., (2003) Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the
evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), pp.465-480.
Diener, E. and Crandall, R. (1978) Ethics in social and behavioral research. University of
Chicago Press.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D. and Vlaev, I. (2010) ‘Mindspace:
influencing behaviour for public policy’. Institute of Government. Available at:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35792/ (Accessed: 16 December 2018).
Dornyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics : quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M. and Lowrance, R. (1995) ‘Group
Representations and Intergroup Bias: Positive Affect, Similarity, and Group Size’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), pp. 856–865.
Dutton, D. (1994) ‘Kant and the conditions of artistic beauty’, The British Journal of
Aesthetics, 34(3), pp. 226–239.
Easton, G. (2010) ‘Critical realism in case study research’, Industrial Marketing
Management, 39(1), pp. 118–128.
Eberly, B., Pasnak, R., Renshaw, K. and Chrosniak, L. (2013) ‘A Comparison of
141
Relationship Behaviors’, Psychology, 4(11), pp. 850–857.
Elkington, J. (1994) ‘Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business
Strategies for Sustainable Development’, California Management Review, 36, pp. 90–100.
Elliott, R. (2013) ‘The taste for green: The possibilities and dynamics of status
differentiation through “green” consumption’, Poetics, 41(3), pp. 294–322.
Elms, J., de Kervenoael, R. and Hallsworth, A. (2016) ‘Internet or store? An ethnographic
study of consumers’ internet and store-based grocery shopping practices’, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, pp. 234–243.
Elwood, S.A. and Martin, D.G., (2000) “Placing” interviews: location and scales of power
in qualitative research. The professional geographer, 52(4), pp.649-657.
Environmental Audit Committee (2018) Sustainability of the fashion industry inquiry
launched, Commons Select Committee. Available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-
select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2017/sustainability-of-the-fashion-
industry-inquiry-launch-17-19/.(Accessed: 1 January 2019).
Ertz, M. (2016) ‘An Improved Framework for Predicting Socially Responsible
Consumption Behavior: The Development of a Processual Approach’, International
Business Research, 9(4), p. 88.
Esty, D. C. and Simmons, P. J. (2011) The green to gold business playbook : how to
implement sustainability practices for bottom-line results in every business function.
Wiley.
Ethical and Initiative, T. (2017) ETI Annual review 2017-18, Annual Review. Available at:
https://www.ethicaltrade.org/resources/eti-annual-review-2017-18 (Accessed: 16
December 2018).
Euromonitor (2016) Fast Fashion in 2016: Industry Disruption and Geographic
Dominance Part I, Euromonitor. Available at: http://www.euromonitor.com/fast-fashion-
in-2016-industry-disruption-and-geographic-dominance-part-i/report (Accessed: 16
December 2018).
Euromonitor International (2017) ‘Experience More Across the Customer’ Available
at:https://www.euromonitor.com/experience-more-across-the-customer journey/report
(Accessed: 16 December 2018).
142
Evans, D., McMeekin, A. and Southerton, D. (2012) ‘Sustainable Consumption, Behaviour
Change Policies and Theories of Practice’, The Habits of Consumption, pp. 113–129.
Evans, S. and Peirson-Smith, A. (2018) ‘The sustainability word challenge’, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 22(2), pp. 252–269.
Eweje, G. and Perry, M. eds., (2011). Business and sustainability: Concepts, strategies and
changes (Vol. 3). Emerald Group Publishing.
Eze, U. C. and Ndubisi, N. O. (2013) ‘Green Buyer Behavior: Evidence from Asia
Consumers’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 48(4), pp. 413–426.
Fashion Revolution (2016) Fashion Transparency Index. Available at:
http://fashionrevolution.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/FR_FashionTransparencyIndex.pdf. (Accessed: 16 December
2018).
Fay, B. (2014) Social Theory and Political Practice (RLE Social Theory). Routledge.
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) ‘Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory’,
Organization Science, 22(5), pp. 1240–1253.
Field, M. and Tunna, J., (2011). Chapter 11 Sustainability–Driving Behavioural Change: Is
it as Easy as we Believe?. In Business and Sustainability: Concepts, Strategies and
Changes (pp. 241-259). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E.(2013) Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.
Fletcher, B. and Pine, K. J. (2012) Flex : do something different : how to use the other
9/10ths of your personality. University of Hertfordshire Press.
Fletcher, K. (2012) ‘Durability, Fashion, Sustainability: The Processes and Practices of
Use.’, Fashion Practice, 4(2), pp. 221–238.
Fletcher, K. (2014) Sustainable fashion and textiles: design journeys. 2nd edn. Routledge.
Fletcher, K. and Tham, M. (2015) Routledge handbook of sustainability and fashion.
London: Routledge.
Flugel, J. (1930) The psychology of clothes. London: Hogarth Press.
Ford, R. C. and Richardson, W. D. (1994) ‘Ethical decision making: A review of the
empirical literature’, Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), pp. 205–221.
Forte, A. (2004) ‘Business Ethics: A Study of the Moral Reasoning of Selected Business
143
Managers and the Influence of Organizational Ethical Climate’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 51(2), pp. 167–173.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F. and Davidson, L., (2002). Understanding and
evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 36(6),
pp.717-732.
Foundation, E. M. (2017) The New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s future.
Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-
New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report.pdf (Accessed: 23 December 2018).
Fox, F. E., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2007) ‘Doing Synchronous Online Focus Groups
With Young People : Methodological Reflections’, Qual Health Research, 17(4), pp.539-
547.
Freestone, O. M. and McGoldrick, P. J. (2008) ‘Motivations of the Ethical Consumer’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), pp. 445–467.
Frings, G. S. (2008) Fashion : from concept to consumer. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Fusch, P. I. and Ness, L. R. (2015) ‘Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative
research’, The Qualitative Report, 20(9), pp. 1408–1416.
Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (2015) The unmanageable consumer. Sage Publications.
Gam, H. J. (2011) ‘Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly
clothing?’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, 15(2), pp.178-193.
Gardetti, M. A. and Torres, A. L. (2013) Sustainability in fashion and textiles : values,
design, production and consumption, Routledge.
Gardner, B., de Bruijn, G.-J. and Lally, P. (2011) ‘A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
of Applications of the Self-Report Habit Index to Nutrition and Physical Activity
Behaviours’, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(2), pp. 174–187.
Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D. and Schrader, U. (2018) ‘Measuring What Matters in
Sustainable Consumption: An Integrative Framework for the Selection of Relevant
Behaviors’, Sustainable Development, 26(1), pp. 18–33.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P. and Hultink, E. J. (2017) ‘The Circular
Economy – A new sustainability paradigm?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, pp.
757–768.
144
Gentile, C., Spiller, N. and Noci, G. (2007) ‘How to Sustain the Customer Experience:: An
Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value With the Customer’, European
Management Journal, 25(5), pp. 395–410.
Gibson, W. J. and Brown, A. (Andrew J. (2009) Working with qualitative data. Sage.
Gibbs, A, (1997) “Focus Groups,” Social Research Update Issue 19, Guilford, Available
at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html (Accessed 01 January 2019).
Giddens, A. (1984) ‘The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration’,
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12(4), p. 448.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity : self and society in the late modern age.
Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. and Geoff, O. (2002) ‘Environment, economy and society:
fitting them together into sustainable development’, Sustainable development, 10(4), p.
187-.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. and Chadwick, B. (2008) ‘Methods of data collection in
qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups’, British Dental Journal, 204(6), pp.
291–295.
Golafshani, N. (2003) ‘Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’,
The Qualitative Report 8:4, 8(4), pp. 597–607.
Goldsmith, E. B. (2015) International Series on Consumer Science Social Influence and
Sustainable Consumption. Springer.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Clark, R.A., (2012). Materialistic, brand engaged and
status consuming consumers and clothing behaviors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, 16(1), pp.102-119.
Goodwin, N., Nelson, J. A., Ackerman, F. and Weisskopf, T. (2008) ‘Consumption and the
Consumer Society’, Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), pp. 32–54.
Goulding, C. (2005) ‘Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A comparative
analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research’, European Journal of
Marketing, 39, pp. 294–308.
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), pp. 935–955.
145
Gram-Hanssen, K. (2010) ‘Standby consumption in households analyzed with a practice
theory approach’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), pp. 150–165.
Grant, D.B., Trautrims, A. and Wong, C.Y., (2017). Sustainable logistics and supply chain
management: principles and practices for sustainable operations and management. Kogan
Page Publishers.
Gray, D. E. (2014) ‘Doing Research in the Real World’, Sage Publications.
Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., Gibbs, L. and Daly, J. (2007)
‘Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis’, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), pp. 545–550.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L. and Nordfält, J. (2017) ‘The Future of Retailing’, Journal of
Retailing, pp. 8–13.
Guba, E. G. E. and Lincoln, Y. S. Y. (1994) ‘Competing Paradigms in Qualitative
Research’, Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 105–117.
Gubrium, J. F. (2012) The Sage handbook of interview research : the complexity of the
craft. Sage.
Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (2002) Handbook of interview research : context &
method. Sage Publications.
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N. and McKenna, K. (2017) ‘Comparing focus
groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study’, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), pp. 693–708.
Gummesson, E. (2017) ‘From relationship marketing to total relationship marketing and
beyond’, Journal of Services Marketing, 31(1), pp. 16–19.
Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010) ‘Marketing as Value Co-creation Through Network
Interaction and Resource Integration’, Journal of Business Market Management., 4(4), pp.
181–198.
Gupta, K. (2015) ‘Language and Communication : Husserl and Heidegger’ Philosophical
Writings Vol. 44, No .1, 44, pp. 20–35.
Guyader, H., Ottosson, M. and Witell, L. (2017) ‘You can’t buy what you can’t see:
Retailer practices to increase the green premium’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 34, pp. 319–325.
146
Gwozdz, W., Nielsen, K. S. and Müller, T. (2017) ‘An Environmental Perspective on
Clothing Consumption: Consumer Segments and Their Behavioral Patterns’,
Sustainability, 9(5), p. 762.
Hagman, G. (2002) ‘The sense of beauty’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 83(3),
pp. 661–674.
Hagtvedt, H. and Patrick, V. M. (2008) ‘Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the
Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products’, Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3),
pp. 379–389.
Hajli, N. (2015) ‘Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy’,
International Journal of Information Management, 35, pp. 183–191.
Hale, L. A. (2018) ‘At home with sustainability: From green default rules to sustainable
consumption’, Sustainability, 10(1).
Hammond, M. and Wellington, J. J.(2013) Research methods : the key concepts.
Routledge.
Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J., Goworek, H. and Ryding, D. eds., (2017). Sustainability
in Fashion: A Cradle to Upcycle Approach. Springer.
Hanquinet, L., Roose, H. and Savage, M. (2014) ‘The Eyes of the Beholder: Aesthetic
Preferences and the Remaking of Cultural Capital’, Sociology, 48(1), pp. 111–132.
Hansen, P. G. (2016) ‘The Definition of Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the
Hand Fit the Glove?’, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(01), pp. 155–174.
Harding, J. (2013) Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage Publications.
Hargreaves, T. (2011) ‘Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to
pro-environmental behaviour change’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), pp. 79–99.
Harris, F., Roby, H. and Dibb, S. (2016) ‘Sustainable clothing: Challenges, barriers and
interventions for encouraging more sustainable consumer behaviour’, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), pp. 309–318.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (Deirdre S. (2005) The ethical consumer. Sage
Hasan, B. (2010) ‘Exploring gender differences in online shopping attitude’, Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(4), pp. 597–601.
Hays, S. (1994) ‘Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture’, American
147
Sociological Association, 12(1), pp. 57–72.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1998) ‘Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, Vol. I’, I, p. 640.
Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J. and Oates, C.J., (2016). What is sustainable
fashion?. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, 20(4), pp.400-416.
Herwitz, D. A. (2008) Aesthetics : key concepts in philosophy. Continuum.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2016) The practice of qualitative research : engaging students in the
research process. Sage Publications.
Hill, J. and Lee, H. (2012) ‘Young Generation Y consumers’ perceptions of sustainability
in the apparel industry’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, 16(4), pp. 477–491.
Hiller, A. and Woodall, T. (2018) ‘Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-
Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption’, Journal of Business Ethics, 0(0), pp. 1–20.
Hiller Connell, K. Y. and Kozar, J. M. (2017) ‘Introduction to special issue on
sustainability and the triple bottom line within the global clothing and textiles industry’,
Fashion and Textiles, 4(1), p. 16.
Hollander, J. A. (2004) The social contexts of focus groups, Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 33(5), pp.602-637.
Holttinen, H. (2010) ‘Social practices as units of value creation: theoretical underpinnings
and implications’, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.,2(1), pp. 95–112.
Hosey, L. (2012) The shape of green : aesthetics, ecology, and design. Island Press.
Hudson, L. A. and Ozanne, J. L. (1988) ‘Alternative Ways of Seeking Knowledge in
Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Research,14(4), p. 508.
Hunt, S. D. and Vitell, S. J. (2006) ‘The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and
three questions’, Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), pp. 143–153.
Hyde, K. F. (2000) ‘Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research’, Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), pp. 82–90.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, (2018). Available at:
https://www.iisd.org/ (Accessed: 16 December 2018).
Jabareen, Y. (2012) ‘Towards a sustainability education framework: Challenges, concepts
148
and strategies-the contribution from urban planning perspectives’, Sustainability, 4(9), pp.
2247–2269.
Jia, P., Govindan, K., Choi, T. M. and Rajendran, S. (2015) ‘Supplier selection problems in
fashion business operations with sustainability considerations’, 7(2), pp. 1603–1619.
Jiang, Z. (Jack), Wang, W., Tan, B. C. Y. and Yu, J. (2016) ‘The Determinants and
Impacts of Aesthetics in Users’ First Interaction with Websites’, Journal of Management
Information Systems, 33(1), pp. 229–259.
Jiang, Z. J. and Wang, W. (2016) ‘The Determinants and Impacts of Aesthetics in Users ’
First Interaction with Websites’, 33(1), pp. 229–259.
Jin Gam, H. (2011) ‘Are fashion‐conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco‐friendly
clothing?’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
15(2), pp. 178–193.
Joergens, C. (2006a) ‘Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 10(3), pp. 360–371.
Joergens, C. (2006b) ‘Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal. Edited by L. Barnes, 10(3), pp.
360–371.
Johnstone, L. and Lindh, C. (2018) ‘The sustainability-age dilemma: A theory of
(un)planned behaviour via influencers’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(1), pp. e127–
e139.
Johnstone, M. L. and Tan, L. P. (2015) ‘Exploring the Gap Between Consumers Green
Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour’, Journal of Business Ethics. 132(2), pp.311-328.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D., 2014. Sustainable consumption and the UK’s
leading retailers. Social responsibility journal, 10(4), pp.702-715.
Jørgensen, M. S. and Jensen, C. L. (2012) ‘The shaping of environmental impacts from
Danish production and consumption of clothing’, Ecological Economics, 83, pp. 164–173.
Joshi, Y. and Rahman, Z. (2015) Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future
Research Directions, International Strategic Management Review.3(1-2), pp.128-143.
Joyner Armstrong, C. M., Connell, K. Y. H., Lang, C., Ruppert-Stroescu, M. and LeHew,
M. L. A. (2016) ‘Educating for Sustainable Fashion: Using Clothing Acquisition
Abstinence to Explore Sustainable Consumption and Life Beyond Growth’, Journal of
149
Consumer Policy, 39(4), pp. 417–439.
Kaiser, S. B. (1998) The social psychology of clothing : symbolic appearances in context.
Fairchild Publications.
Kang, J., Liu, C. and Kim, S. H. (2013) ‘Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel
consumption: The role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and
perceived personal relevance’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), pp. 442–
Kawamura, Y. (2011) Doing research in fashion and dress : an introduction to qualitative
methods. Berg.
Kidd, P. and Parshall, M. (2000) ‘Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytic
rigor in focus group research’, Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), pp. 293–308.
Kilbourne, W. E., Beckmann, S. C. and Thelen, E. (2002) ‘The role of the dominant social
paradigm in environmental attitudes: A multinational examination’, Journal of Business
Research, 55(3), pp. 193–204.
Kim, H.-S. and Damhorst, M. L. (1998) ‘Environmental Concern and Apparel
Consumption’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(3), pp. 126–133.
Kim, H. J., Ahn, S. K. and Forney, J. A. (2014) ‘Shifting paradigms for fashion: from total
to global to smart consumer experience’, Fashion and Textiles, 1(1), pp. 1–16.
King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M. L. (1986) Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage
Publications.
Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to
Socialization. Rand McNally.
Kong, H. M., Ko, E., Chae, H. and Mattila, P. (2016) ‘Understanding fashion consumers’
attitude and behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products: Focus on sustainable
knowledge sources and knowledge types’,7(2), pp. 103–119.
Kooti, F., Lerman, K., Aiello, L.M., Grbovic, M., Djuric, N. and Radosavljevic, V., (2015),
February. Portrait of an online shopper: Understanding and predicting consumer behavior.
In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data
Mining (pp. 205-214). ACM.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., Carlson, D., Tesar, M. and Anderson, K. (2015) ‘Methodology brut:
150
Philosophy, Ecstatic Thinking, and Some Other (Unfinished) Things’, Qualitative Inquiry,
21(7), pp. 612–619.
Koszewska, M.,(2016). Understanding consumer behavior in the sustainable clothing
market: Model development and verification. In Green Fashion (pp. 43-94). Springer,
Singapore.
Kotzé, T., North, E., Stols, M. and Venter, L. (2012) ‘Gender differences in sources of
shopping enjoyment’, International Journal of Consumer Studies. 36(4), pp.416-424.
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C. and Bardecki, M. (2015) ‘Corporate sustainability reporting in
the apparel industry’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
64(3), pp. 377–397.
Krueger, R. and Casey, M.A., (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research 3rd edition Sage Publications London.
Kwon, S., Ha, S. and Kowal, C. (2017) ‘How online self-customization creates
identification: Antecedents and consequences of consumer-customized product
identification and the role of product involvement’, Computers in Human Behavior, 75, pp.
1–13.
Labrecque, L. I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T. P. and Hofacker, C. F. (2013)
‘Consumer power: Evolution in the digital age’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4),
pp. 257–269.
LaPiere, R. . (1934) ‘Attitudes vs. Actions’, Social forces, 13(2), pp. 230–237.
Lavelle, M. J., Rau, H. and Fahy, F. (2015) ‘Different shades of green? Unpacking habitual
and occasional pro-environmental behavior’, Global Environmental Change, pp. 368–378.
Lavie, T. and Tractinsky, N. (2004) ‘Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics
of web sites’, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 60(3), pp. 269–298.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. and Augustin, D. (2004) ‘A model of aesthetic
appreciation and aesthetic judgments.’, British Journal of Psychology, 95, pp. 489–508.
Lederman, L. C. (1990) ‘Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as
a technique for data collection 1’, Communication Education, pp. 117–127.
Lee, L., Inman, J.J., Argo, J.J., Böttger, T., Dholakia, U., Gilbride, T., van Ittersum, K.,
Kahn, B., Kalra, A., Lehmann, D.R. and McAlister, L.M., (2018). From Browsing to
Buying and Beyond: The Needs-Adaptive Shopper Journey Model. Journal of the
151
Association for Consumer Research, 3(3), pp.000-000.
Lettice, F., Parekh, M., Lettice, F. and Parekh, M. (2010) ‘The social innovation process:
themes, challenges and implications for practice’, International. Journal of Technology
Management, 51(1), pp. 139–158.
Levi Strauss & Co (2010) ‘Fashion Futures 2025 Global Scenarios for a sustainable
fashion industry’, Forum for the Future, p. 61. Available at:
https://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/project/downloads/fashionfutures202
5finalsml.pdf.
Lim, W. M. (2017) ‘Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical
concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing’, Journal of Business Research,
78, pp. 69–80.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. [6th ed.]. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Locher, P., Overbeeke, K. and Wensveen, S., (2010). Aesthetic interaction: A
framework. Design Issues, 26(2), pp.70-79.
Longo, C., Shankar, A. and Nuttall, P. (2017) ‘“It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable
Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis’, Journal
of Business Ethics. pp.1-21.
Lüders, M., Andreassen, T.W., Clatworthy, S. and Hillestad, T. eds., (2017). Innovating for
Trust. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lundblad, L. and Davies, I. A. (2016) ‘The values and motivations behind sustainable
fashion consumption’, 162, pp. 149–162.
Magaudda, P. (2011) ‘When materiality “bites back”: Digital music consumption practices
in the age of dematerialization’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), pp. 15–36.
Magnuson, B., Reimers, V. and Chao, F. (2017) ‘Re-visiting an old topic with a new
approach: the case of ethical clothing’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal, 21(3), pp. 400–418.
Manchiraju, S. and Damhorst, M. L. (2016) ‘“ I Want to Be Beautiful and Rich:”
Consumer Culture Ideals Internalization and their Influence on Fashion Consumption’, pp.
0–2.
Manchiraju, S. and Sadachar, A. (2014) ‘Personal values and ethical fashion consumption’,
152
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 18(3), pp. 357–
374.
Maniates, M. (2014) ‘Sustainable consumption - Three paradoxes’, Gaia Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society, 23, pp. 201–208.
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), pp. 105–125.
Mason, M. (2010) ‘Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative
Interviews’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
11(3), p. 8.
Maxwell, J. (1992) ‘Understanding and validity in qualitative research’, Harvard
educational review, 62(3), pp. 279–300.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013) Qualitative research design : an interactive approach. Sage
Publications.
Mays, N. and Pope, C. (1995) ‘Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care
settings.’, BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 311(6998), pp. 182–184.
McCallum, J.R. and Harrison, W. (1985) ‘Interdependence in the service encounter’, The
service encounter: Managing employee/customer interaction in service businesses, 18(4),
pp. 35–48.
McDonald, S., Oates, C. J. and Alevizou, P. (2016) ‘No through road: A critical
examination of researcher assumptions and approaches to researching sustainability’,
Review of Marketing Research, pp. 136–168.
McGrath, A. S. (2012) ‘Fashioning Sustainability: How the Clothes we wear can support
Environmental and Human Well-being’, Sustainable Fashion, pp. 1–24.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000) ‘Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing’, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), pp. 543–554.
McLafferty, I. (2004) Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of
advanced nursing, 48(2), pp.187-194.
McKinsey & Company (2016) Style that’s sustainable: A new fast fashion formula.
Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-
productivity/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula, (Accessed: 12
153
February 2017).
McMeekin, A. and Southerton, D. (2012) ‘Sustainability transitions and final consumption:
practices and socio-technical systems’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
24(4), pp. 345–361.
McNeill, L. and Moore, R. (2015) ‘Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion
conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), pp. 212–222.
Melewar, T. C., Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Kitchen, P. J. and Foroudi, M. M. (2017)
‘Integrating identity, strategy and communications for trust, loyalty and commitment’,
European Journal of Marketing , 51(3), pp. 572–604.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Loken, B. (2014) ‘Revisiting gender differences: What we know and
what lies ahead’. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), pp.129-149.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis : an expanded
sourcebook. 2nd edn. SAGE Publications.
Mintel (2016) ‘Fashion: Technology and Innovation - UK’. Available at:
http://academic.mintel.com/display/748743/(Accessed: 16 December 2018).
Mintel (2017) UK Online sales of clothing, fashion accessories and footwear grow by 17%
in 2017 | Mintel.com. Available at: http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/fashion/uk-online-
sales-of-clothing-fashion-accessories-and-footwear-grow-by-17-in-2017 (Accessed: 16
December 2018).
Mintel (2018a) UK women try to live more ethically than men | Mintel.com. Available at:
http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/social-and-lifestyle/the-eco-gender-gap-71-of-women-
try-to-live-more-ethically-compared-to-59-of-men (Accessed: 29 December 2018).
Mintel (2018b) UK Womenswear Industry Report (Updated 2018) | Mintel.com. Available
at: https://store.mintel.com/uk-womenswear-market-report (Accessed: 1 January 2019).
Mintel (2016) Fashion: Technology and Innovation - UK - September 2016. Available at:
http://academic.mintel.com/display/748743/ (Accessed: 12 February 2017).
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K. H. and Broman, G. (2017) ‘A strategic approach to social
sustainability - Part 1: exploring the social system’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140,
pp. 32–41.
Moisander, J. and Pesonen, S. (2002) ‘Narratives of sustainable ways of living:
154
constructing the self and the other as a green consumer’, Management Decision, 40(4), pp.
329–342.
Moon, S., Costello, J. P. and Koo, D. (2016) ‘The impact of consumer confusion from eco-
labels on negative WOM , distrust , and dissatisfaction’, International Journal of
Advertising, pp. 246–271.
Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., Bosangit, C., Ferreira, C. and McGrath, M. (2015)
‘Understanding Ethical Luxury Consumption Through Practice Theories: A Study of Fine
Jewellery Purchases’ Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), pp.525-543.
Moraes, C., Carrigan, M. and Szmigin, I. (2012) ‘The coherence of inconsistencies:
Attitude-behaviour gaps and new consumption communities’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 28(1–2), pp. 103–128.
Morgan, D. (1997) ‘Focus Groups as Qualitative Research’, Sage Publications.
Morgan, L. R. and Birtwistle, G. (2009) ‘An investigation of young fashion consumers’
disposal habits’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, pp. 190–198.
Morse, J. (1990) Qualitative Nursing Research : a Contemporary Dialogue. Sage
Publications.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K. and Spiers, J. (2002) ‘Verification
Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’, International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp. 13–22.
Mossinkoff, M. and Kent, A. (2016) ‘towards a common space for research in fashion’, pp.
92–97. In This Place: Cumulus Association Biannual International Conference:
conference proceedings, School of Art & Design, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, 27 April - 1 May 2016. Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University:, ISBN
9780992887810.
Murphy, M. C. and Dweck, C. S. (2016) ‘Mindsets shape consumer behavior’, Journal of
Consumer Psychology. Society for Consumer Psychology, 26(1), pp. 127–136.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017) ‘The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary
Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 140(3), pp. 369–380.
Myers, M. D. and Newman, M. (2007) ‘The qualitative interview in IS research:
Examining the craft’, Information and Organization, 17(1), pp. 2–26.
155
Nations, U. (2018) Sustainable Development Goals, About the Sustainable Development
Goals. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-
goals/ (Accessed: 16 December 2018).
Niinimaki, K. (2010) ‘Eco-Clothing, consumer identity and ideology’, Sustainable
Development, 18(3), pp. 150–162.
Niinimäki, K. (2010) ‘Eco-Clothing, consumer identity and ideology’, Sustainable
Development, 18(3), pp. 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), pp.
1876–1883.
Nisar, T. M. and Prabhakar, G. (2017) ‘What factors determine e-satisfaction and
consumer spending in e-commerce retailing?’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 39, pp. 135–144.
Noble, H. Smith, J. (2015) ‘Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research.’,
Evidence Based Nursing, pp. 34–35.
Noble, H. and Smith, J. (2015) ‘Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research.’,
Evidence-based nursing. Royal College of Nursing, 18(2), pp. 34–5. d
Nordic Fashion Association (2012) ‘The Nice Consumer: Framework for Achieving
Sustainable Fashion Consumption through Collaboration’, pp. 1–12. Available at:
http://www.bsr.org/reports/nice-consumer-framework.pdf.
O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J. and Mukherjee, N. (2018) ‘The use of focus
group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation’,
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), pp. 20–32.
Oates, C., Alevizou, P. and McDonald, S. (2016) ‘Challenges for marketers in sustainable
production and consumption’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(1), pp. 1–4. d
Ofcom (2014) ‘Communications Market Report (August) Available at:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/multi-sector-research/cmr/cmr15/uk
(Accessed: 1 January 2019).
Ogle, J. P., Hyllegard, K. H. and Dunbar, B. H. (2004) ‘Predicting Patronage Behaviors in
a Sustainable Retail Environment’, Environment and Behavior, 36(5), pp. 717–741.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J. J. (1991) ‘Studying Information Technology in
156
Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions’, Information Systems Research,
2(1), pp. 1–28.
Ottman, J. a. (2011) ‘The New Rules of Green Marketing’, New York. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K.
(2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health
Services Research, 42(5), pp.533-544.
Pan, Y., Roedl, D., Blevis, E. and Thomas, J. C. (2015) ‘Fashion thinking: Fashion
practices and sustainable interaction design’, International Journal of Design, 9(1), pp. 53–
66.
Pantzar, M. and Shove, E. (2010) ‘Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of
the production and re-production of Nordic Walking’, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 22(4), pp. 447–461.
Papaoikonomou, E., Cascon-Pereira, R. and Ryan, G. (2016) ‘Constructing and
communicating an ethical consumer identity: A Social Identity Approach’, Journal of
Consumer Culture, 16(1), pp. 209–231.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G. and Ginieis, M. (2011) ‘Towards a Holistic Approach of the
Attitude Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumer Behaviours: Empirical Evidence from
Spain’, International Advances in Economic Research, 17(1), pp. 77–88.
Patel (2015) The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology –
explained in simple language. Available at: http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-
paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explained-in-simple-language
(Accessed: 28 May 2017).
Patrick, V. M. (2016) ‘Everyday consumer aesthetics’, Current Opinion in Psychology.
Elsevier Ltd, 10, pp. 60–64.
Peattie, K. (2010) ‘Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms’, Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 35(1), pp. 195–228.
Peattie, K. and Collins, A. (2009) ‘Guest editorial: perspectives on sustainable
consumption’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), pp. 107–112.
Pedersen, E. R. G. and Andersen, K. R. (2015) ‘Sustainability innovators and anchor
157
draggers: a global expert study on sustainable fashion’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 19(3), pp. 315–327.
Peirson-Smith, A. and Evans, S. (2017) ‘Fashioning Green Words and Eco Language: An
Examination of the User Perception Gap for Fashion Brands Promoting Sustainable
Practices’, Fashion Practice, 9(3), pp. 373–397.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Lauring, J. O. and Leder, H. (2016) ‘Visualizing the Impact
of Art: An Update and Comparison of Current Psychological Models of Art Experience’,
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, p. 160.
Perera, C., Auger, P. and Klein, J. (2016) ‘Green Consumption Practices Among Young
Environmentalists: A Practice Theory Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics. Springer
Netherlands, pp. 1–22.
Petersen, M. and Brockhaus, S. (2017) ‘Dancing in the dark: Challenges for product
developers to improve and communicate product sustainability’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 161, pp. 345–354.
Pierce, A. J. (2014) ‘Aesthetic Mediation and the Politics of Technology’, Critical
Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy & Social Theory, 15(1), pp. 69–81.
Poldner, K., Dentoni, D. and Ivanova, O. (2016) ‘Aesthetic mediation of creativity ,
sustainability and the organization’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 140, pp.
1–12.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005) ‘Language and meaning: Data Collection in qualitative
research’, Journal of Counceling Psychology, 52(2), pp. 137–145.
Polonsky, M. J. (2011) ‘Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities’,
Journal of Business Research. Elsevier Inc., 64(12), pp. 1311–1319.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005) ‘Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on
research paradigms and philosophy of science’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2),
pp. 126–136.
Prager, K. and Hutton Institute, J. (2012) ‘Understanding behaviour change How to apply
theories of behaviour change to SEWeb and related public engagement activities How to
apply theories of behaviour change to SEWeb and related public engagement activities’.
Available at: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk//media/16539/Understanding-
Behaviour-Change.pdf (Accessed: 11 July 2017).
158
Pratt, M. G. (2009) ‘From the Editors for the Lack of a Boilerplate : Tips on Writing Up (
and Reviewing ) Qualitative Research’, 52(5), pp. 856–862.
Rabiee, F. (2004) ‘Focus-group interview and data analysis’, Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 63(04), pp. 655–660.
Reckwitz, A. (2002a) ‘The status of the “material” in theories of culture: From “social
structure” to “artefacts”’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(2), p. 195–127.
Reckwitz, A. (2002b) ‘Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist
theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp. 243–263.
Reed, A. (2004) ‘Activating the Self-Importance of Consumer Selves: Exploring Identity
Salience Effects on Judgments’, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), pp. 286–295.
Reiley, K. and DeLong, M. (2011) ‘A consumer vision for sustainable fashion practice’,
Fashion Practice, 3(1), pp. 63–84.
Reimers, V., Magnuson, B. and Chao, F. (2016) ‘The academic conceptualisation of
ethical clothing Could it account for the attitude behaviour gap?’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 20(4), pp. 383–399.
Rettie, R., Barnham, C. and Burchell, K. (2011) ‘Social normalisation and consumer
behaviour : using marketing to make green normal’, Kingston University, (8), pp. 1–19.
Rettie, R., Burchell, K. and Riley, D. (2012) ‘Normalising green behaviours: A new
approach to sustainability marketing.’, Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3/4), pp.
420–444.
Rinaldi, F. R., Testa, S. and Rinaldi, L. M. (2015) The responsible fashion company :
integrating ethics and aesthetics in the value chain. Routledge.
Riquelme, I. P. and Román, S. (2014) ‘The Influence of Consumers’ Cognitive and
Psychographic Traits on Perceived Deception: A Comparison Between Online and Offline
Retailing Contexts’, Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), pp. 405–422.
Ritch, E. L. (2015) ‘Consumers interpreting sustainability: moving beyond food to
fashion’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(12), pp. 1162–
1181.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative research practice : a guide for social science
students and researchers. Sage Publications.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2014) ‘Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
159
Students and Researchers’, Qualitative Research, p. 356.
Roach, M.E. and Eicher, J.B., (1973). The visible self: Perspectives on dress. Prentice Hall.
Roberts, J. A. (1996) ‘Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for
advertising’, Journal of Business Research, 36(3), pp. 217–231.
Robinson, T. D. and Chelekis, J. A. (2016) ‘Dying to Consume: Marketing and the
Existentialization of Sustainability’, pp. 193–216.
Roper, S., Caruana, R., Medway, D. and Murphy, P. (2013) ‘Constructing luxury brands:
Exploring the role of consumer discourse’, European Journal of Marketing, 47(3), pp.
375–400.
Røpke, I. (2009) ‘Theories of practice - New inspiration for ecological economic studies
on consumption’, Ecological Economics, 68(10), pp. 2490–2497. d
Rosen, D., Barnett, G. A. and Kim, J. H. (2011) ‘Social networks and online environments:
when science and practice co-evolve’, Social Network Analysis and Mining. pp. 27–42.
Roy, D., Verplanken, B. and Griffin, C. (2015) ‘Making Sense of Sustainability: Exploring
the Subjective Meaning of Sustainable Consumption’, Applied Environmental Education &
Communication, 14(3), pp. 187–195.
Rutter, C., Armstrong, K. and Blazquez Cano, M. (2017) ‘The Epiphanic Sustainable Fast
Fashion Epoch’, in Sustainability in Fashion, pp. 11–30.
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B. and Nijkamp, P. (2015) ‘A systemic framework for sustainability
assessment’, Ecological Economics, 119, pp. 314–325.
Salonen, S., Närvänen, E. and Saarijärvi, H. (2014) ‘How Do Consumers Consume
Fashion Online? A Practice-Theoretical Inquiry’, International Journal of Marketing
Studies, 6(3), pp. 87–96.
Di Salvo, C., Redstrom, J., and Watson, M. (2013) ‘Commentaries on the Special Issue on
Practice-Oriented Approaches to Sustainable HCI Commentary I : One Practice Among
Many : An Ecology of Practices in Sustainable HCI’, 20(4), pp. 1–15.
Santillo, D. (2007) ‘Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability (7 pp)’, Environmental
Science and Pollution Research - International, 14(1), pp. 60–66.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research methods for business
students. Prentice Hall.
160
Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C. H. (2012) Qualitative research : the essential guide to
theory and practice. Routledge.
Sayer, R. A. (2005) The moral significance of class. Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (1996a) Social practices : a Wittgensteinian approach to human activity
and the social. Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (1996b) Social practices : a Wittgensteinian approach to human activity
and the social. Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2005) ‘Peripheral Vision: The Sites of Organizations’, Organization
Studies, 26(3), pp. 465–484.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M. and Arnould, E. J. (2009) ‘(electronic) How Brand Community
Practices Create Value’, Journal of Marketing, 73(September), pp. 30–51.
Schectman, F., Trebeck, K., Davydd, T., Jenkins, J., Pidgeon, N., Juliet, S. and Soper, K.
(2013) ‘Consumption and identity’, (December), pp. 1–67.
Schubert, A. and Láng, I. (2005) ‘The literature aftermath of the brundtland report “our
common future”. A scientometric study based on citations in science and social science
journals’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), pp. 1–8.
Schubert, C. (2017) ‘Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?’, Ecological
Economics. Elsevier B.V., 132, pp. 329–342.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007)
‘The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms’,
Psychological Science, 18(5), p. 429.
Scotland, J. (2012) ‘Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating
ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive,
and critical research paradigms’, English Language Teaching, 5(9), pp. 9–16.
Seale, C. (1999) ‘Quality in qualitative research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), pp. 465–478.
Serazio, M. (2015) ‘Selling (Digital) Millennials’, Television and New Media, 16(7), pp.
599–615.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008) ‘From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), pp. 1699–
1710.
161
Seyfang, G. (2005) ‘Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote
Ecological Citizenship?’, Environmental Politics, 14(2), pp. 290–306.
Shavitt, S., Jiang, D. and Cho, H. (2016) ‘Stratification and segmentation: Social class in
consumer behavior’. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), pp.583-593.
Shaw, D. and Riach, K., (2011). Embracing ethical fields: constructing consumption in the
margins. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), pp.1051-1067.
Shaw, D., McMaster, R. and Newholm, T. (2016) ‘Care and Commitment in Ethical
Consumption: An Exploration of the “Attitude–Behaviour Gap”’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 136(2), pp. 251–265.
Shen, B. (2014) ‘Sustainable fashion supply chain: Lessons from H&M’, Sustainability
(Switzerland), 6(9), pp. 6236–6249.
Shen, B., Zheng, J.-H., Chow, P.-S. and Chow, K.-Y. (2014) ‘Perception of fashion
sustainability in online community’, The Journal of The Textile Institute, 105(9), pp. 971–
979.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S., (2011). Mindful consumption: a customer-
centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1),
pp.21-39.
Shove, E. (2010) ‘Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change’,
Environment and Planning A, 42(6), pp. 1273–1285.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012) The dynamics of social practice : everyday
life and how it changes. Sage.
Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2010) ‘Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday
life’, Research Policy, 39(4), pp. 471–476.
Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative research : theory, method and practice. Sage
Publications.
Singhapakdi, A. and Vitell, S. J. (1991) ‘Research note: Selected factors influencing
marketers’ deontological norms’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), pp.
37–42.
Slater, D. and Miller, D. (2007) ‘Moments and Movements in the Study of Consumer
Culture’, Journal of Consumer Culture, pp. 5–23.
162
Smith, A. C. T., Stavros, C. and Westberg, K. (2017) ‘Dynamic Data: Branding the Digital
Drive’, in Brand Fans,pp. 161–189.
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J. and Araújo-Soares, V. (2014) ‘Time to retire the theory of
planned behaviour’, Health Psychology Review, pp. 1–7.
Solomon, M.R., (2010). Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. Pearson
Education.
Song, S. and Ko, E. (2017) ‘Perceptions , attitudes , and behaviors toward sustainable
fashion : Application of Q and Q-R methodologies’, (August 2016), pp. 1–33.
Soron, D. (2010) ‘Sustainability, self-identity and the sociology of consumption’,
Sustainable Development, 18(3), pp. 172–181.
Southerton, D., Warde, A. and Hand, M. (2004) ‘The limited autonomy of the consumer:
implications for sustainable consumption’, Sustainable Consumption: the Implications of
Changing Infrastructures of Provision, pp. 32–48.
Sproles, G. B. and Burns, L. D. (1994) Changing appearances : understanding dress in
contemporary society. Fairchild Publications.
Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N., (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol.
20). Sage publications.
Stiles, B. (1993) ‘Quality Control in Qualitative Research’, 13(July 1991), pp. 593–618.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C. and Gefen, D. (2004) ‘Validation Guidelines for Is Positivist’,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(24), pp. 380–427.
Strengers, Y. and Maller, C. (2017) ‘Integrating health , housing and energy policies :
social practices’, Building Research & Information, 39(2), pp.154-168.
Sudman, S. (1998) ‘Survey Research and Ethics’, ACR North American Advances, NA-25.
Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8127/volumes/v25/NA-25 (Accessed: 30
May 2017).
Streit, C.M. and Davies, I.A., 2017. ‘Sustainability isn’t sexy’: An exploratory study into
luxury fashion. In Sustainability in Fashion and Textiles (pp. 207-222). Routledge.
Sunstein, C. R. (2014) Why nudge? : the politics of libertarian paternalism.Yale
University Press.
Sword, W. (1999) ‘Accounting for Presence of Self: Reflections on Doing Qualitative
163
Research’, Qualitative Health Research, pp. 270–278.
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012) Qualitative Organizational Research : Core Methods
and Current Challenges. Sage.
T-Y Chan and W.Y. Wong (2012) ‘The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply
chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision’, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), pp. 193–215.
Tadajewski, M. (2016) ‘Focus groups: history, epistemology and non-individualistic
consumer research’, Consumption Markets and Culture, 19(4), pp. 319–345.
Tajfel, H. (2010) Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
Terlau, W. and Hirsch, D. (2015) ‘Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-
Gap Phenomenon - Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development’,
International on Food System Food System Dynamics, 6(3), pp. 199–214.
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2009) Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth
and happiness. Penguin Books.
The Nielsen Global Survey (2015) The sustainability imperative: New insights on
consumer expectations. Available at:
https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-sustainability-report-
oct-2015.pdf (Accessed: 29 May 2019).
Thomas, S. (2008) ‘From “green blur” to ecofashion: Fashioning an eco-lexicon’, Fashion
Theory - Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 12(4), pp. 525–540.
Thorne, S. (2000) ‘Data analysis in qualitative research’, Evidence Based Nursing, 3(3), p.
68 LP-70.
Todd, A. M. (2004) ‘The Aesthetic Turn in Green Marketing: Environmental Consumer
Ethics of Natural Personal Care Products’, Ethics and the Environment, 9(2), pp. 86–102.
Tracy, S. J. (2010) ‘Qualitative quality: Eight a"big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative
research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), pp. 837–851.
Tsai, H.-T. and Pai, P. (2013) ‘Explaining members’ proactive participation in virtual
communities’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(4), pp. 475–491.
Ul Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2017) ‘The Impact of Online Brand Community
Characteristics on Customer Engagement: A Solicitation of Stimulus-Organism-Response
164
Theory’, Telematics and Informatics. Elsevier Ltd, 34(4), pp. 96–109.
Ulf, A. and Nilsson, J. (2013) ‘Green consumer behavior: being good or seeming good?’,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(3). pp.274-284.
Ulman, Y. I., Cakar, T. and Yildiz, G. (2015) ‘Ethical Issues in Neuromarketing: ???I
Consume, Therefore I am!???’, Science and Engineering Ethics, pp. 1271–1284.
Valor, C. (2008) ‘Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions for market
failures’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 31(3), pp. 315–326.
Vecchi, Alessandra and Buckley, C. (2016) ‘The Blending of Luxury Fashion Brands and
Contemporary Art’, (January), pp. 50–76.
Venkatesh, A. and Meamber, L. A. (2008) ‘The aesthetics of consumption and the
consumer as an aesthetic subject’, Consumption Markets & Culture, 11(1), pp. 45–70.
Verplanken, B. (2017) ‘Promoting Sustainability: Towards a Segmentation Model of
Individual and Household Behaviour and Behaviour Change’, Sustainable
Development.26(3), pp.193-205.
Villeneuve, P., Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Robinson, R. E. (1993) The Art of Seeing: An
Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter, Journal of Aesthetic Education.
Waddock, S. (2010) ‘Finding Wisdom Within — The Role of Seeing and Reflective
Practice in Developing Moral Imagination , Aesthetic Sensibility , and Systems
Understanding’, Journal of Business Ethics Education, 7, pp. 177–196.
Wang, M., Li, X. and Chau, P.Y., 2016, December. The impact of photo aesthetics on
online consumer shopping behavior: An image-processing-enabled empirical study.
In 2016 International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2016. Association for
Information Systems.
Warde, A & Shove, E. (1998) ‘Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption,
lifestyles and the environment’, Sociological Theory and the Environment: Part 2: cultural
and social contructivism, 2.
Warde, A. (2005) ‘Consumption and Theories of Practice’, Journal of Consumer Culture,
5(2), pp. 131–153.
Warde, A. (2014) ‘After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice Introduction:
Consumption and the role of theory’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), pp. 279–303.
165
Warde, A. (2017) Consumption. A sociological analysis. Springer.
Warde, A., Cheng, S. L., Olsen, W. and Southerton, D. (2007) ‘Changes in the practice of
eating: A comparative analysis of time-use’, Acta Sociologica, 50(4), pp. 363–385.
Webster, F. E. J. (1975) ‘Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious
Consumer’, Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), pp. 188–196.
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M. and Haythornthwaite, C.
(1996) ‘Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and
Virtual Community’, Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), pp. 213–238.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K. and Mandle, C. L. (2001) ‘Validity in qualitative research’,
Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), pp. 522–537.
Williams, K. C., Page, R. a and Petrosky, A. R. (2014) ‘Green Sustainability and New
Social Media’, Journal of Strategic Innovation & Sustainability, pp. 11–34.
Woermann, N. and Rokka, J. (2015) ‘Timeflow: How Consumption Practices Shape
Consumers’ Temporal Experiences’, Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), pp. 1486–
1508.
Workarea (2017) Trends: When Do People Shop Online? Available at:
https://blog.workarea.com/trends-when-do-people-shop-online (Accessed: 7 January
2019).
World Wide Fund For Nature (2016) Living Planet Report 2016. Available at:
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf. (Accessed: 7
January 2019).
WRAP (2016) Valuing Our Clothes. Available at:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/VoC%25, (Accessed: 12 February 2017).
Wu, J. (2013) ‘Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-
being in changing landscapes’, Landscape Ecology, 28(6), pp. 999–1023.
Yan, R.-N., Hyllegard, K. H. and Blaesi, L. F. (2012) ‘Marketing eco-fashion: The
influence of brand name and message explicitness’, Journal of Marketing
Communications, 18(2), p. 19.
Yang, S., Song, Y. and Tong, S. (2017) ‘Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion Industry: A
Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing
Institute, 9(7), p. 1266.
166
Yilmaz, K.. (2013) Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:
Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2), pp.311-325.
Young, W., Hwang, K., Mcdonald, S. and Oates, C. J. (2010) ‘Sustainable Consumption:
Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products’, 31(March 2009), pp. 20–31.
Sustainable development, 18(1), pp.20-31.
