bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Sustainable clothing: challenges, barriers and interventions

for encouraging more sustainable consumer behaviour
Fiona Harris, Helen Roby and Sally Dibb
ISM-Open, The Open University Business School, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK

Keywords Abstract
Sustainability, clothing, consumers and
behaviour change. Research with consumers has revealed limited awareness of the sustainability impact of
clothing (Goworek et al., 2012). Semi-structured interviews conducted with a range of
Correspondence experts in sustainable clothing to increase understanding of the challenges for sustainable
Fiona Harris, ISM-Open, The Open University clothing revealed that a focus on sustainability alone will not drive the necessary changes
Business School, The Open University, Walton in consumers’ clothing purchase, care and disposal behaviour for three reasons: (i)
Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. clothing sustainability is too complex; (ii) consumers are too diverse in their ethical
E-mail: Fiona.Harris@open.ac.uk concerns and (iii) clothing is not an altruistic purchase. The findings identify the
challenges that need to be addressed and the associated barriers for sustainable clothing.
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12257 Interventions targeting consumers, suppliers, buyers and retailers are proposed that
encourage more sustainable clothing production, purchase, care and disposal behaviour.
These interventions range from normalizing the design of sustainable clothing and
increasing the ease of purchase, to shifting clothes washing norms and increasing
upcycling, recycling and repair.

Introduction Literature review

Sustainable clothing has been described as ‘clothing which Consumers can have a considerable impact in improving cloth-
incorporates one or more aspects of social and environmental ing sustainability (Claudio, 2007). Trends that involve more
sustainability, such as Fair Trade manufacturing or fabric con- sustainable purchase behaviour include: vintage shopping
taining organically-grown raw material’ (Goworek et al., 2012, among teenagers (Hardy, 2013), DIY fashion (i.e. self-sewn
p. 938), but how consumers subsequently care for and dispose fashion) (Walliker, 2006) and ‘trashion – fashion made out of
of clothing also contributes to its environmental impact. Up to trash’ (Claudio, cited in an interview with Aheam, 2011).
82% of the energy consumption associated with an item of Another trend is ‘slow fashion’ (a term reportedly coined by
clothing is attributable to its post-purchase laundering (Fletcher, the fashion writer Angela Murrills), which references local cul-
2008), £30 billion worth of UK consumers’ clothes are unworn tural traditions in the modern search for authenticity, provides
and a third of clothing goes to landfill in the UK (WRAP, greater transparency in production and engenders emotional as
2012). Yet even consumers committed to sustainable clothing well as economic investment (Clark, 2008). Cutting back on
lack awareness of the sustainability issues in clothing care, shopping has also been noted, as a response to disillusionment
with their interpretation of sustainable clothing limited to pur- with seeking happiness through consumption (McNay, 2010).
chasing (Bly et al., 2015). Finally, consumers who focus on stylishness (enduring but indi-
This article, in contrast to previous research with consumers, vidual style) rather than fashion are significantly more likely to
contributes to the literature by harnessing the experience of purchase environmental clothing and dispose of their clothing
expert researchers, consultants and practitioners from the cloth- sustainably (Cho et al., 2015).
ing industry to propose ways forward to encourage more sus- The care phase of the clothing lifecycle has the largest over-
tainable consumer clothing behaviour. The aims are: (i) to all negative impact on the environment (Fletcher, 2008). Con-
identify the challenges that need to be addressed and the asso- sumers can increase the sustainability of their clothing by:
ciated barriers for sustainable clothing; and (ii) to propose laundering less frequently; ensuring the washing machine is
interventions to encourage more sustainable consumer behav- fully loaded (WRAP, 2012); washing at lower temperatures
iour in the purchase, care and disposal of clothing. The article with appropriate detergents; extending the life of their clothes;
draws on ideas from both commercial and social marketing, buying fewer but longer-lasting clothes; and recycling clothing
applying marketing techniques for social as well as commercial (Claudio, 2007). Increasing consumers’ awareness of the cloth-
ends to achieve behaviour change (Hastings and Domegan, ing lifecycle and its impacts has been described as ‘the best
2014). hope for sustainability in the fashion industry’ (Claudio, 2007,

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318 309

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable clothing F. Harris et al.

p. A454). Indeed, raising consumers’ awareness about clothing replace traditional dress and clothes shopping increasingly is
sustainability issues can subsequently alter their behaviour, seen as a pleasurable activity and an ingredient of self-identity
with laundering behaviour more amenable to change than pur- (Rajput et al., 2012). The media also stimulates the desire for
chasing behaviour (Goworek et al., 2012). new fashions (Claudio, 2007). Alongside celebrities fashion
The manner of clothing disposal also impacts on its sustain- media heavily influence the fashion purchasing behaviour of
ability. A substantial amount of ‘latent waste’ results from con- fashion innovator consumers, who buy impulsively and seek
sumers hoarding clothes that they do not wear (e.g. Morley self-gratification through shopping (Birtwistle and Moore,
et al., 2006). While cheap fashionable clothes are not kept long 2006).
(either because they are low quality, become unfashionable or Clothing purchases are mainly influenced by price, quality
were bought for a one-off occasion), more expensive items and style, with price being considered more important than eth-
tend to be kept longer, even if they are not worn (Birtwistle ical issues by 30% of shoppers despite awareness of child
and Moore, 2007). A study of young female consumers labour (Iwanow et al., 2005). Among American consumers,
revealed that most disposed of wearable items through charity intentions to purchase environmentally friendly apparel are
shops, with the rest consigned to landfill (Birtwistle and Moore, strongly influenced by social pressure and concern for the envi-
2007; Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009); they lacked awareness of ronment and moderately influenced by guilt and knowledge
clothing recycling options and raising awareness to encourage about environmentally friendly apparel (Cowan and Kinley,
recycling was recommended. However, in a study of female 2014). Even among environmentally aware consumers, clothing
textile and apparel students in the US, Joung and Park-Poaps purchases are largely determined by economic and personal
(2013) found that even when aware of clothing recycling considerations, while disposal behaviours are driven primarily
options, young consumers might still choose to discard their by habits and routines (Goworek et al., 2012). In another study,
unwanted clothes. They concluded that recycling behaviour Bly et al. (2015) reported that sustainable fashion adherents’
needed to be established as family norms during early child- behaviour was motivated by both positive desires such as Szmi-
hood. However, reuse is preferable to recycling in terms of car- gin and Carrigan’s (2005) notion of ‘ethical hedonism’ and
bon dioxide impacts, partly because the application of negative emotions like the mistrust and scepticism of large cor-
treatments to the base textiles and decorative embellishments porate brands reported by Kozinets and Handelman (2004).
can make recycling difficult (Morely et al., 2006).
In the sections that follow the factors affecting sustainable Barriers
clothing behaviour and barriers to more sustainable consumer
Hiller Connell (2010) reported a scarcity of research about the
behaviour identified in previous research are reviewed, conclud-
barriers to sustainable clothing consumption, categorizing pre-
ing with some interventions suggested in the literature for
viously identified barriers in her review as either internal or
addressing these.
external. Internal barriers – those relating to consumers them-
selves – included a lack of concern for the environment among
Factors affecting sustainable clothing behaviour
consumers (based on Stephens, 1985; Shim, 1995; Hustvedt
While clothing has been classified as a basic human need (Mas- and Dickson, 2009); limited knowledge about clothing con-
low, 1943), for many people clothing choices are motivated by sumption’s impact on the environment (Stephens, 1985; Kim
their need for identity (Max-Neef, 1992) and esteem (Maslow, and Damhorst, 1998); negative attitudes towards sustainable
1943). Consumers construct their social definition through the clothing (based on Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009) and demo-
meanings encoded in their clothing choices (Dodd et al., 2000). graphic characteristics, such as age and education (based on
This has been reported across different age groups. For teen- Stephens, 1985). Other barriers she noted, which might also be
agers, clothing is ‘an essential social tool’ that provides a categorized as internal were motivation (based on Lipsey,
means of self-expression, source of confidence and a key to 1977), values (based on Axelrod, 1994; Grunert and Juhl,
judging other people they encounter (Piacentini and Mailer, 1995; Blake, 2001), locus of control (based on Tanner, 1999)
2004, p. 251). Among a broader age spectrum of consumers, and perceived time and effort (based on Lipsey, 1977; Ellen,
clothing plays a key role in self-expression and is an important 1994). External barriers – those independent of consumers –
lifestyle product (Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006). Changes in included the price of sustainable clothing (based on Hines and
technology have fuelled ‘fast fashion’ – the feeding of trend Swinker, 1996; Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009) and also a lack of
data into production to enable rapid and frequent turnover of infrastructure (based on Lipsey, 1977). Other barriers identified
affordable fashion, with refreshed styles and shelf-life reduced in Hiller Connell’s (2010) review were social and cultural
in some cases to only a few weeks (Sull and Turconi, 2008). norms (based on Hines et al., 1986–1987). Taken together, this
The short availability of clothing items elicits a loss aversion body of literature suggests that interventions are needed at not
reaction in consumers and stimulates buying (Byun and Stern- only the level of individual consumers but also at the social
quist, 2012). Fast fashion has also shifted the ‘quality vs. quan- and cultural level and within the clothing industry.
tity’ trade-off. Young consumers prefer making multiple Hiller Connell’s (2010) own research with male and female
cheaper purchases to buying one more expensive item (Morgan consumers identified the following internal barriers: a lack of
and Birtwistle, 2009). knowledge and/or miscomprehension about the environmental
Rising affluence and lower prices have also fuelled clothing effects of production and different fibres; and negative percep-
consumption (Morley et al., 2006), including in emerging tions of sustainable clothing as less stylish, less well-fitting and
economies like India, where global fashions are beginning to less comfortable. The external barriers she identified included:

310 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
F. Harris et al. Sustainable clothing

limited availability of sustainable clothing outlets; restricted styles to encourage sustainability through a combination of interven-
(in particular a lack of business wear and footwear); limited tions is likely to be needed.
availability of desired sizes and fit; lack of financial resources to In summary, factors that affect sustainable clothing behav-
buy more expensive sustainable clothing; poor presentation of iour include the role of clothing in self-expression, changes in
clothing in second-hand shops; and social expectations regarding technology, rising affluence and lower prices, while barriers
conventions of dress for different professions (Hiller Connell, include competing consumer motivations, lack of information,
2010). This is consistent with the view of sustainable clothing or consumption and obsolescence pressures created by the cloth-
ethical fashion consisting almost exclusively of casual wear such ing industry and the limited range of sustainable clothing on
as T-shirts and not reflecting broader choices for other lifestyles, offer. Barriers were revealed at an individual level, at a social
such as formal wear (Beard, 2009). and cultural level and within the clothing industry. Stimulating
More recent research supports Hiller Connell’s analysis. Similar environmentally responsible behaviour may, therefore, require
findings were reported by McNeill and Moore (2015), with ‘self’- changes in the dominant social paradigm (Kilbourne et al.,
oriented consumers being preoccupied with price and time-limited 2002), defined as ‘the values, metaphysical beliefs, institutions,
availability of items, ‘social’-oriented consumers deterred by lack of habits, etc. that collectively provide social lenses through which
awareness, a perceived lack of social acceptability and high price individuals and groups interpret their social world’ (Milbrath,
and ‘sacrifice’-oriented consumers being sceptical of industry 1984, p. 7). While small segments of consumers may rebel
motives. Others have also found that sustainability has to compete
against the dominant social paradigm, the majority may feel
against other powerful motivations, which influence disposal behav-
constrained in their clothing behaviours and need interventions
iour. Examples include concern for saving money motivating the
to help them improve the sustainability of their behaviours. Our
resale or reuse of clothing and convenience motivating discarding of
research acknowledges the necessity of tackling this paradigm
clothing (Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013).
and shows the potential for using behaviour change techniques
Consumer uncertainty about knowledge, evaluation and
such as social marketing. Drawing on interviews conducted
choice has been found to contribute to ethical compromises
with a range of experts in sustainable clothing, we identify the
among ethical consumers when purchasing clothing (Hassan
et al., 2012). While information is widely available online challenges1 of what needs to be done and the associated bar-
about how to extend the life of clothing, it is arguably more riers to doing it and propose potential interventions to help
difficult for consumers to assess the quality and durability of encourage more sustainable purchase, care and disposal
clothing at the point of purchase. Goworek et al. (2012) behaviour.
reported that consumers tended to gauge clothing quality by its
feel and the brand. Method
Fast fashion poses two forms of barriers to the longevity of Ten semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted
clothing. First, obsolescence is built into fast fashion clothing with a variety of experts in the field to reflect a range of stake-
(Claudio, cited in an interview by Ahearn, 2011), limiting its holder perspectives and integrated with previous research to
usable life. Second, fast fashion as well as generating less dura- derive interventions, adding to the internal validity of the study.
ble clothes, diminishes the viability of the second-hand clothing
An accepted and flexible exploratory research method was used
market, by reducing the price gap between new and old gar-
(Silverman, 2009), allowing access to the experiences and
ments (Morley et al., 2006). Limited choice and fashionability
insights of individuals who could describe their perspective on
have also been implicated in the low association between the
particular issues. A purposive sampling approach (Neuman,
Ethical Consumer magazine subscribers’ intention and behav-
2000) was used to identify the key informants. These consisted
iour for sweatshop-free clothing purchase (Hassan et al., in
of five academics, two specialist consultants and three retailers.
press). Clothing needs to be fit for use; for consumers to not
All had sustainable fashion expertise, either from involvement
only choose but also wear clothing items, sustainable offerings
must meet their needs for different types of clothes, fulfil vari- in seminal research or publications, or because their retailing or
ous uses and offer appropriate features. manufacturing activities involved innovative approaches to
A number of suggestions have been put forward for over- improve social and environmental sustainability. Although the
coming such barriers, including: better information about the sample size is small, it is comparable to other research in this
sustainable clothing and their availability (Markkula and niche area (see for example, Bly et al., 2015; McNeill and
Moisander, 2012), compulsory eco-labelling and improved Moore, 2015) and complements the existing literature con-
design and marketing to meet consumers’ needs (Hiller Con- ducted with consumers. Characteristics of the key informants
nell, 2010). However, the evidence suggests that labelling may are indicated in Table 1.
offer a supplementary, rather than leading communication The interview topic guide addressed key challenges and pri-
mechanism for sustainability information. In Scotland, 39% of orities in relation to sustainable clothing, industry awareness,
shoppers did not look at the label at all when buying clothes the interests and power of different stakeholders and consumer
and a further 50% looked only infrequently (Iwanow et al., awareness and attitudes. Current measures to increase sustain-
2005). In Finland, mature female consumers examined the care ability, including the use of materials, manufacturing processes,
labels carefully, but primarily to avoid garments that required labelling, packaging and disposal were also considered, as was
dry-cleaning, although they were also occasionally influenced
by the country of origin, as Finnish brands were considered 1
We use the term ‘challenge’ to denote ‘a demanding or difficult task’
safer and more ethical (Holmlund et al., 2011). Clearly, action (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2007).

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318 311

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable clothing F. Harris et al.

Table 1 Key informant characteristics

Interviewee type Expertise Organisation type

Academic Sustainability and design University

Academic Ethics and social sustainability University
Academic Materiality of clothes University
Academic Sustainability and design University
Academic Ethics and design University
Consultant Sustainability impacts on the clothing industry Research Consultancy
Consultant Sustainability and consumer behaviour Research Consultancy
Retailer Ethics and sustainability manager High Street Chain
Retailer Ethics and sustainability manager Supermarket chain
Retailer Ethics and sustainability manager High Street fashion retailer

the role of policy, regulation and legislation. The interview Second, consumers are diverse in their concerns. It would be
guide is tabulated in the Appendix. impracticable to try to engage all consumers in the wide range
Interview transcripts and notes were content-analysed and of sustainability issues involved in the clothing production and
coded (Miles and Huberman, 1994) in order to identify themes supply chain, owing to their differing preoccupations:
in the data. The initial coding was carried out by one ‘Consumers will come at these things from different angles.
researcher then checked by two other members of the team. Some will be very concerned about animal welfare and
The analytic strategy involved an iterative approach (Corbin whether or not they’ll use clothes that have leather or
and Strauss, 2008), reflecting on each interview as it was whatever. Others will be more into knowing that their
undertaken through a process of gradual explanation building clothes are sweatshop-free or child labour free, and others
(Yin, 2009). are concerned about the environment’. (Consultant 2).
The reliability of qualitative research concerns whether the Third, clothing is not an altruistic purchase. Sustainability was
data are plausible, and the extent to which findings are consist- low down in consumers’ purchase decision criteria. As a
ent with ‘divergent’ sources of information (Neuman, 1997, retailer remarked: ‘You’re going to have to do a lot of work on
p. 368). Interviewing a range of informants with different per- the consumer to change their mindset for that [sustainability]
spectives helped such convergence to be achieved (Yin, 2009). to come to the fore’ (Retailer 1). Instead, it seems that: ‘The
Complementing the interview data with documentary evidence decision hierarchy in terms of purchasing and clothing is still
that included research project reports, press coverage and gov- about basically do I look good in it, not has it been produced
ernment publications (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998) allowed a in a good way or what’s it made of.’ (Retailer 2).
rich picture to be developed and enabled triangulation and veri- These findings underpin the challenges for sustainable cloth-
fication of the results. The quotations used to illustrate the find- ing. They also complement previous literature, which indicates
ings are anonymized and categorized by type of key informant, that ethical purchases are primarily influenced by information
with a number assigned to each participant type to signify sepa- about a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) posi-
rate contributions. tion and a customer’s personal concern for CSR (Oberseder€
et al., 2011), consumers downplay the negative effects of their
Findings and discussion consumption behaviour (Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008) and that
Although there are segments of consumers who are concerned clothing purchasing behaviour is driven by economic and per-
about the social and environmental impact of their consumption sonal considerations and disposal behaviour by habits and rou-
practices, the interviews suggest that providing sustainable tines (Goworek et al., 2012).
clothing options alone would not drive the necessary changes To encourage more sustainable clothing behaviour, both
in consumers’ clothing purchase, care and disposal behaviour. consumer-focused marketing and behaviour change approaches
There are several reasons for this finding. are needed. The first involves commercial marketing that exhib-
First, clothing sustainability is very complex and consumers its ‘a sound understanding of customer needs, buying behaviour
lack knowledge and understanding: and the issues influencing the purchasing choices of customers’
‘If we wait for consumers to start raising issues about cotton (Dibb et al., 2012, p. 7). The second involves social marketing,
or about polyester or about working conditions in a dye which as noted previously, applies marketing techniques to
house, we could be waiting a very long time because they social problems rather than commercial ends. Sustainable cloth-
don’t have a clear understanding of the textile industry’ ing needs additionally to fulfil the core roles that clothing plays
(Retailer 2). A consultant explained: ‘It’s very hard for the and satisfy consumers’ clothing needs. In doing so, some
consumer to think what is it that I’m purchasing, what does reshaping of consumer behaviour and social norms may be
that mean, if I’m purchasing something that is cheaper, does required to protect the environment and the well-being of those
that mean that then the farmer that collected the cotton is used in the supply chain. Drawing on the insights from our
less well off, I’m actually harming him rather than anything expert informants, we advance the field by identifying both the
else’ (Consultant 1). challenges of what needs to be done, the associated barriers to

312 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
F. Harris et al. Sustainable clothing

Table 2 Sustainable clothing: challenges, barriers and interventions

Challenges Barriers Interventions

Clothing purchasing
Reducing the focus on cost Rewards based on cost Align buyers’ and suppliers’ remuneration with
Very cheap clothing sustainability objectives
Accentuate benefits other than price to consum-
ers to increase the value of their clothes
Mainstreaming sustainable Stigma and stereotypes of sustainable clothing Normalize designs of sustainable clothing
clothing Misconceptions of sustainable clothing Make it easy for consumers to buy sustainable
clothing
Involve designers in sustainability strategy
Engaging with consumers Complexity of sustainability and lack of Improve transparency of supply chain
effectively transparency in the supply chain Gain and maintain consumers’ trust

Clothing purchasing, care and disposal

Changing consumers’ mindsets Lack of consideration of durability Social marketing campaigns
Fast fashion Provide tools and assistance to help consumers
Social pressure not to be seen rewearing clothes understand their preferred style and cuts that
Over-consumption suit their body shapes
Clothing seen as disposable Include textile skills in the school curriculum
Retailers provide repair and recycle services
Leasing/hiring clothes
Changing consumers’ habits Social norms relating: consumption and affluence, Communicating time, money and labour savings
cleanliness and freshness from reduced frequency & temperature of
washing clothes
Upcycling
Legislate clothing recycling

doing it and suggest interventions for achieving it. A summary sector-wide ethics and sustainability action and reduce the bar-
of our findings and proposals is provided in Table 2 and dis- rier of cost. Trying to act alone could put individual retailers at
cussed in the subsequent subsections. a disadvantage, as a consultant explained: ‘There’s only so
much one brand, working on its own can do if nobody else
Challenges, barriers and proposed interventions does the same and sells their T-shirts at a fraction of the price
because they’re not paying their workers very well’ (Consultant
Consistent with Table 2, the sections that follow are organized
2). Downstream, cheaper clothes mean they are not valued and
by clothing stage (purchase, care and disposal). Within these
are seen as disposable.
stages, the challenges are subheaded and then discussed with
Interventions are needed to reduce consumers’ focus on cost,
reference to the associated barriers identified and each subsec- accentuating other benefits that increase the value of clothes,
tion concludes by discussing the interventions proposed to such as with branded clothing. A brand-focused mindset might
address the challenges and barriers. encourage consumers to value clothing that embeds sustainabil-
ity within its branding and values. Previous research has found
Clothing purchasing that clothing purchases are determined primarily by price, qual-
ity and style (Iwanow et al., 2005). Increasing the quality and
Reducing the focus on cost style aspects may compensate for higher price. Additional
Clothing has become cheaper and more readily available with research would need to be conducted to establish the effects of
both upstream and downstream consequences. Upstream, such interventions. Conversely, research could focus on under-
retailers strive to reduce costs and improve margins. The result standing why consumers are prepared to pay higher prices for
is that buyers will change suppliers ‘. . .just purely because of brands and value these items more, even though they are made
price. . .’ (Retailer 1), without necessarily considering the envi- in the same places as high street fashion.
ronmental or ethical implications. These practices are perhaps
not surprizing when research with consumers highlights their Mainstreaming sustainable clothing
unwillingness to pay more for ethical or sustainable options Another key challenge is mainstreaming sustainable clothing:
and the reward packages for buyers are based on finding the moving it out of its niche and on to the high street, what one
cheapest rather than the most ethical or sustainable option. A academic described as ‘The bigger prize for me is the larger
suggested intervention is to align rewards with ethical and sus- market on the high street rather than the niche ethical fashion’
tainability objectives. All three types of expert informants sug- (Academic 2). However, key barriers to the mainstreaming of
gested that legislation might also be required to implement sustainable clothing are the stigma and stereotypes associated

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318 313

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable clothing F. Harris et al.

with its design. Unfortunately, ‘people still have the perception they had not ‘made that connection with the consumer’
of ethical clothing as not looking like normal fashion’ or look- (Retailer 2). The key barriers were identified as: the complexity
ing ‘hippyish’ (Academic 3), and ‘There’s still this hemp sack of sustainability in clothing, the lack of transparency in the
kind of fashion being ethical. . .’ (Academic 1). Just being envi- supply chain and consumer scepticism.
ronmentally friendly will not make people buy sustainable As a retailer explained, ‘you can’t just say in one sentence
clothing, because ‘that’s not a primary purchasing motivation’ what sustainability is’ (Retailer 2). ‘Carbon footprint, embed-
(Consultant 1). Motivations focus on the consumer wanting to ded water, embedded energy, all of those things, social projects
‘feel good in the product’ (Retailer 1), the product being the and how much time does the consumer have to actually deal
right fit, hand feel and colour, not that it is green: with these things’ (Retailer 2). Explaining these issues to con-
‘People are going to buy a product because they want it, sumers is complex, particularly determining how to describe
they’re not going to buy a product because it’s got a green the multifaceted sustainability benefits of the purchase and
message. If you’ve got a shirt that isn’t the right colour or isn’t identifying which communication media to use.
the right fit or hasn’t got the right hand feel, people aren’t going A second barrier is a lack of transparency and the complex-
to buy it, no matter how green it is.’ (Retailer 2). ity in the supply chain. Retailers will know the supplier or the
Normalizing the design of sustainable clothing and making it primary cutting and sewing factory, but they are unlikely to
easier for consumers to buy it would help to mainstream sus- know every aspect of the supply chain, for example where
tainable clothing and tackle the stigma and stereotypes that accessories, such as buttons or motifs are made or sewn on.
hinder its uptake. This is consistent with reported negative per- Even with all the checks that are put in place, the complexity
ceptions and limitations of sustainable clothing in the literature of the supply chain makes it hard for retailers to be completely
(Beard, 2009; Hiller Connell, 2010) and the role of clothing as confident that every stage of the production process is ‘squeaky
a means of self-expression among both the young and more clean’: ‘you cannot put your hand on heart, be absolutely cast
mature consumers (Piacentini and Mailer, 2004; Michaelidou iron guaranteed that it’s squeaky clean because somebody may
and Dibb, 2006; Holmlund et al., 2011). The prevalence of be sub-contracting’ (Retailer 1).
high street fashion (Woodwood, 2009) underlines the need to A third barrier is scepticism about retailers’ sustainability
normalize sustainable clothing design. claims, with consumers doubting both the veracity of these
These findings reinforce the need for eco-fashion to include claims and the motives of those making them, some regarding
formal wear, rather than being almost exclusively casual wear them as ‘just another way of selling us stuff’ (Academic 5).
in nature (Beard, 2009). Designers’ and buyers’ misconceptions Both academics and retailers highlight the importance of trust,
about sustainable clothing also need to be addressed, because it which has implications for the way in which interventions
is not just consumers who have stereotypes about sustainable emphasize this issue. As one academic explained: ‘I think that
clothing. Although buyers ultimately make the decisions, ultimately you put your trust, you’ve got to put your trust in
designers can marginalize organic or fair trade clothing through the retailer to have done all that for you [taken care of the
the designs, such as ‘putting trees on it’ (Retailer 3), making it ethics]’ (Academic 2).
hard to mainstream organic or fair trade clothes. Improving the transparency of the supply chain and earning
Involving designers and buyers in sustainable strategy is consumers’ trust were seen as ways of engaging effectively
needed to fire consumers’ imagination and overcome both with consumers to address the barrier of complexity in sustain-
designers’ and consumers’ misconceptions about sustainable ability and clothing supply. This resonates with one of the ten-
clothing. While high profile designers such as Katherine Ham- ets of slow fashion: greater transparency in production (Clark,
nett, Stella McCartney and Vivienne Westwood are known for 2008).
their ethical stances, our research revealed that more typically
designers are constrained by the demands placed on them and Clothing purchasing, care and disposal
are susceptible to the same stereotypes as consumers. Interven-
tions based on ethical sourcing across a retailer’s range would Changing consumers’ mindsets
encourage designers and buyers to normalize sustainable cloth-
Improving sustainable behaviour involves changing consumers’
ing design and manufacture and edit the choices available to
mindsets away from following fashion and buying lots of new
consumers. Such initiatives are widely used in food, with
clothes, to investing in clothes that will suit them and will last.
Marks and Spencer only using free range eggs in all of their
Academics and consultants recognized that reducing consump-
products and Sainsbury only selling Fair Trade bananas. Inter-
tion was necessary; ‘The overarching priority is around con-
ventions in clothing could take the form of making all cotton
sumption: the fact that we buy a lot of clothes.’ (Consultant 2).
either Fair Trade or from the Better Cotton Initiative. The
A retailer explained the challenge: ‘As societies develop and
Swedish clothing retailer H&M has already made a pledge to
people get more disposable income, they do want to buy more
use only sustainably grown cotton by 2020 (Thomasson, 2014).
products which ultimately do become disposable’ (Retailer 1).
This mindset of over consumption and disposability has led
Engaging with consumers effectively
to a more transitory relationship with clothing, with perfectly
Engaging with consumers effectively is another challenge. good clothes disposed of before they are worn out, because
Even where retailers had successfully improved the sustainabil- clothes can be more easily and conveniently replaced than
ity of their clothing, they were struggling to communicate these repaired or modified. The skills for repairing clothes are also
improvements to the customers. One retailer described how disappearing, and even when consumers have these skills, there

314 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
F. Harris et al. Sustainable clothing

was a sense that ‘we don’t have to do that anymore’ (Academic the frequency, temperature and size of washing loads. Although
5). Pockets of resistance to these attitudes and decline in sew- ‘companies are beginning to realise that influencing their con-
ing skills were acknowledged but described as ‘sub-cultures’. sumers on how they wash their clothes can have a big impact
However, for some consumers, there is a desire to be able to on the energy use’ (Consultant 2), a retailer acknowledged that
form a longer term relationship with their clothing, but clothes consumers were unlikely to wash at lower temperatures just
nowadays are of lower quality making it difficult to acquire because they were told to by the retailer.
items that will last. Social norms represent a major barrier to changing behav-
‘. . . even more so with things like fast fashion, you can’t iour. A prevailing norm is the belief clothes have to be washed
have the same long-term relationship you have to clothing frequently at high temperatures. Some retailers such as Levi
because things fall apart; you wash them, you spend £5 for a discourage frequent washing in heated water to preserve the
top from [a budget retailer] and it falls apart within a colour and fit (Levi, 2014). Nevertheless, one retailer accepted
couple of washes . . . a lot of people say, well I wish I could that even though the washing machine and detergent technolo-
have had that for longer, and they’re annoyed almost that it gies existed to wash clothes in cold water, persuading consum-
. . . it is a kind of paradox. . .’ (Academic 3). ers of this was not easy. A retailer observed: ‘those things are
This suggests that some consumers may be prepared to invest never going to change until you have to pay for the amount of
in more expensive clothes, for which ‘effort is made to take water that you use and the cost of energy goes up to the point
care of the product, and repairs are considered as well’ (Con- where it has a real impact’ (Retailer 2). While increasing util-
sultant 1), but attempting to extend the life of everyday clothes ity bills may not be a viable intervention, emphasising the
and fashionable items is much less likely. time, money and labour savings of reduced frequency and tem-
Overconsumption is also driven by social pressures perpetu- perature of washing clothes might be. Smart meters might also
ated by the fashion industry and in the media for consumers to increase consumers’ awareness of the energy used by house-
update and vary their wardrobe and not be seen rewearing the hold items.
same clothes. An intervention to change consumers’ clothing disposal hab-
‘And the thing that we see in the press where such and such its that was proposed was upcycling to prolong the life of
was wearing the same dress that she was wearing last week clothes:
is terrible, it’s that approach and . . . social pressures that ‘The idea upcycling, so changing clothes that you have into
are floating around . . . that just makes it really difficult for something else. . . . I think the idea of giving clothes a
consumers to say, I did wear these trousers yesterday and modern twist and making them updated rather than getting
the day before but I really like them. They fit me and I’m rid of them and replacing them could be something that
quite happy with that’ (Retailer 2). could be a way in to change habits.’ (Consultant 1).
The implications of these barriers are that ways of making Interventions to increase recycling are needed upstream as
rewearing and repairing clothes socially acceptable and achieva- well; going beyond the consumer level to deliver sector-wide
ble are needed. Potential interventions include social marketing action requires government intervention. This could be
campaigns designed to challenge and shift social norms (e.g. by achieved, for example, through legislation to drive clothing and
involving opinion formers or highlighting the value of investing textile recycling in the same ways as in other areas, such as
in clothes) and including textile skills and recycling in the school paper, glass and plastics. One retailer accepted that it has
curriculum. The former would be consistent with the role of the ‘taken years and years to get to where we’ve got to’ (Retailer
media and celebrities in shaping attitudes towards socially and 2) in other areas of recycling, but with the right incentives
environmentally sustainable clothing (cf. Birtwistle and Moore, from government and markets for the recycled products, textile
2006) and in providing ethical information (Carrigan and Attala, recycling could also become part of normal recycling
2001). Building on Cho et al.’s (2015) reported association behaviour.
between a focus on style, sustainable purchase and disposal Communicating the savings (of time, money and labour) of
reducing the frequency and temperature of washing clothes and
behaviour, consumers could also be provided with tools and assis-
upcycling were proposed as ways of addressing the challenge
tance to help them understand their preferred style and cuts that
of changing consumers’ habits and overcoming social norms
would suit their body shapes, so that they feel confident in their
relating to consumption, affluence and cleanliness. For exam-
clothes and value them as a result. This might persuade consum-
ple, more prominent washing care swing labels advising that
ers to invest in better quality clothes and to wear, care and keep
clothes can be washed at 30 degrees or recommended washing
them longer and balance out the perceived financial, social and
policies such as that all clothes may be washed at 30 degrees
psychological risks of clothing purchase. Where consumers lack
unless otherwise stated would help to bring care issues to con-
textile skills themselves, interventions might include repairing
sumers’ attention and normalize more sustainable practices.
and recycling clothes, leasing or hiring clothes ‘if somebody came
Consumers themselves have a big impact on the sustainability
up – like a major brand or a new emerging brand, came up with a
of their clothing post-purchase (Fletcher, 2008) and previous
way of making acceptable for British consumers to lease and hire
research suggests that disposal behaviour is motivated by con-
clothing rather than to buy it.’ (Consultant 2).
cern for saving money (by reselling saleable items), conven-
ience and charity consideration (Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013).
Changing consumers’ habits
Government intervention might also be needed to drive cloth-
There are challenges in changing consumers’ habits as well as ing recycling, especially as research in the US found no rela-
their mindsets. Consumers need to alter their habits to reduce tionship between the awareness of other disposal options and

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318 315

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable clothing F. Harris et al.

clothing discarding behaviour (Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013). Byun, S.E. & Sternquist, B. (2012) Here today, gone tomorrow: con-
Local authorities might encourage textile recycling by provid- sumer reactions to perceived limited availability. Journal of Marketing
ing monthly doorstep textile collections, which would also help Theory and Practice, 20, 223–234.
them to reduce the landfill tax they pay. Carrigan, M. & Attala, A. (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer – do
ethics mater in purhcase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing,
18, 560–577.
Conclusions Cho, E., Gupta, S. & Kim, Y.K. (2015) Style consumption: its drivers and
In this article, we have looked at consumer behaviour from the role in sustainable apparel consumption. International Journal of Con-
perspective of experts in the field: retailers, academics and con- sumer Studies, 39, 661–669.
sultants. This was to understand the key challenges and barriers Clark, H. (2008) SLOW 1 FASHION – an oxymoron – or a promise for
to changing consumer behaviour and to suggest some interven- the future . . .? Fashion Theory, 12, 427–446.
Claudio, L. (2007) Waste couture. Environmental impact of the clothing
tions to help overcome these and shift the dominant social
industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, A448–A454.
paradigm towards greater sustainability. In spite of the encour- Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research 3e. Sage
aging developments in sustainable clothing, our research makes Publications, London, UK.
it clear that a focus on sustainability alone will not drive the Cowan, K. & Kinley, T. (2014) Green spirit: consumer empathies for green
necessary changes in consumers’ clothing purchase, care and apparel. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 493–499.
disposal behaviour. Markkula and Moisander (2012) called for Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1998) Entering the field of qualitative
policymakers to move from focusing on informing and educat- research. In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (ed. by
ing consumers to actions that address not only individual con- N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln). Sage Publications, London.
sumer perceptions, knowledge and attitudes but also the wider Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W.M. & Ferrell, O.C. (2012) Marketing Con-
cultural and social contexts of consumers’ lives. Drawing on cepts & Strategies, 6th edn. Cengage Learning, Andover, UK.
Dodd, C.A., Clarke, I., Baron, S. & Houston, V. (2000) ‘Looking the part’:
the combined expertise and experience of a variety of experts
identity, meaning and culture in clothing purchasing – theoretical consid-
in the field and integrating previous research, the range of
erations. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 4, 41–48.
potential interventions proposed in this article answers this call Ellen, P.S. (1994) Do we know what we need to know? Objective and
for action and offers ways for sustainable clothing to move for- subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of
ward. There is no one simple answer to improving the sustain- Business Research, 30, 43–52. Cited in Hiller Connell (2010).
ability of clothing, but what this article has highlighted is that Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys.
one of the key challenges is to improve the longevity of cloth- Earthscan, London and Sterling.
ing. The suggested interventions require action from all parties Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Woodward, S. & Hiller, A. (2012) The
in the clothing sector, including retailers, designers, policy- sustainable clothing market: an evaluation of potential strategies for
makers and of course consumers. Although the proposed inter- UK retailers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ventions will require testing, they provide opportunities and an ment, 40, 935–955.
Grunert, S. & Juhl, H.J. (1995) Values, environmental attitudes, and buy-
agenda for future research.
ing of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39–62.
Cited in Hiller Connell (2010).
Acknowledgements Hardy, E. (2013) Old is new with vintage shopping. The State Journal-
The authors would like to thank the expert informants who par- Register (Springfield, IL), 12, 11–13.
ticipated in the study and the anonymous reviewers who pro- Hassan, L.M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (in press) A review and empirical
case study of the intention-behaviour gap in ethical consumption:
vided feedback on the manuscript.
exploring the contribution of the theories of reasoned action and
planned behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics.
References Hassan, L., Shaw, D., Shiu, E., Walsh, G. & Parry, S. (2012) Uncertainty
Ahearn, A. (2011) The legacy of waste couture, with Luz Claudio. in ethical consumer choice: a conceptual model. Journal of Consumer
[WWW document]. URL http://www.eoearth.org/article/Legacy_of_ Behaviour, 12, 182–193.
Waste_Couture?topic549500 (accessed on 15 May 2013). Hastings, G. & Domegan, C. (2014). Social Marketing. From Tunes to
Axelrod, L.J. (1994) Balancing personal needs with environmental pres- Symphonies. Routledge, London.
ervation: identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2010) Internal and external barriers to eco-
dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 85–104. Cited in Hiller Con- conscious apparel acquisition. International Journal of Consumer
nell (2010). Studies, 34, 279–286.
Beard, N.D. (2009) The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: a Hines, J.D. & Swinker, M.E. (1996) Consumers’ willingness to
luxury niche or mass-market reality? Fashion Theory, 12, 447–468. purchase apparel produced from recycled fibers. Journal of Family and
Birtwistle, G. & Moore, C.M. (2006) Fashion Adoption in the UK: A Consumer Sciences, 88, 41–44. Cited in Hiller Connell (2010).
Replication Study. Paper presented at Anzmac Conference, Brisbane. Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986–1987) ‘Analysis
Birtwistle, G. & Moore, C.M. (2007) Fashion clothing – where does it all and synthesis of research on proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analy-
end up? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, sis’. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.
35, 210–216. Holmlund, M., Hagman, A. & Polsa, P. (2011) An exploration of how
Blake, D.E. (2001) Contextual effects of environmental attitudes and mature women buy clothing: empirical insights and a model. Journal
behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 33, 708–725. Cited in Hiller of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15, 108–122.
Connell (2010). Hustvedt, G. & Dickson, M.A. (2009) Consumer likelihood of purchasing
Bly, S., Gwozdz, W. & Reisch, L.A. (2015) Exit from the high street: an organic cotton apparel: influence of attitudes and self-identity. Journal
exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. Inter- of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13, 49–65. Cited in Hiller
national Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 125–136. Connell (2010).

316 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
F. Harris et al. Sustainable clothing

Iwanow, H., McEachern, M.G. & Jeffrey, A. (2005) The influence of eth- www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/pdf/defr01_058_low_grade_clothing-pub-
ical trading policies on consumer apparel purchase decisions. Interna- lic_v2.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2013).
tional Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33, 371–387. Morgan, L.R. & Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion
Joung, H.M. & Park-Poaps, H. (2013) Factors motivating and influencing consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Stud-
clothing disposal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Stud- ies, 33, 190–198.
ies, 37, 105–111. Neuman, W. (2000) Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon,
Kilbourne, W.E., Beckmann, S.C. & Thelen, E. (2002) The role of the London.
dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes. A multinational Neuman, W. (1997) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantita-
examination. Journal of Business Research, 55, 193–204. tive Approaches, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Kilbourne, W. & Pickett, G. (2008) How materialism affects environmen- €
Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Gruber, V. (2011) Why don’t con-
tal beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal sumers care about CSR? – A qualitative study exploring the role of CSR
of Business Research, 61, 885–893. in consumption decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 449–460.
Kim, H.-S. & Damhorst, M.L. (1998) Environmental concern and apparel Piacentini, M. & Mailer, G. (2004) Symbolic consumption in teeenages’
consumption. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16, 126–133. clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 251–262.
Cited in Hiller Connell (2010). Rajput, N., Kesharwani, S. & Khanna, A. (2012) Dynamics of female
Kozinets, R.V. & Handelman, J.M. (2004) Adversaries of consumption: buying behaviour: a study of branded apparels in India. International
consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Journal of Marketing Studies, 4, 121–129.
Research, 31, 691–704. Shim, S. (1995) Environmentalism and consumers’ clothing disposal pat-
Levi (2014) Our Products: Garment Care. [WWW document]. URL terns: an exploratory study. Clothing Textiles Research Journal, 13,
http://www.levi.com/GB/en_GB/about/garment-care (accessed on 15 38–49. Cited in Hiller Connell (2010).
May 2014). Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2007) 6th edn. Oxford University
Lipsey, M.W. (1977) The personal antecedents and consequences of eco- Press, Oxford.
logically responsible behavior: a review. JSAS Catalog of Selected Silverman, D. (2009) Doing Qualitative Research. Sage, London, UK.
Documents in Psychology, 7, 70–71. Cited in Hill Connell (2010). Stephens, S.H. (1985) Attitudes Toward Socially Responsible Consump-
Markkula, A. & Moisander, J. (2012) Discursive confusion over sustaina- tion: Development and Validation of a Scale and Investigation of Rela-
blae consumption: a discursive perspective on the perplexity of mar- tionships to Clothing Acquisition and Discard Beahviors. Unpublished
ketplace knowledge. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 105–125. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Maslow, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, Blacksburg, VA. Cited in Hiller Connell (2010).
50, 370–396. Szmigin, I. & Carrigan, M. (2005) Exploring the dimensions of ethical
Max-Neef, M. (1992) Development and human needs. In Real Life Eco- consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 608–613.
nomics (ed. by P. Ekins & M. Max-Neef), pp. 197–213. Routledge, Sull, D. & Turconi, S. (2008) Fast fashion lessons. Business Strategy
London. Review, 19, 5–11.
McNay, D. (2010) Americans finding happiness by cutting back. January Tanner, C. (1999) Constraints on environmental behavior. Journal of
26, 2010. [WWW document]. URL http://alliednews.com/community/ Environmental Psychology, 19, 145–157. Cited in Hiller Connell
x1621217577/Americans-finding-happiness-by-cutting-back (accessed (2010).
on 26 April 2013). Thomasson, E. (2014) H&M says fashion can be cheap and ethical. Reu-
McNeill, L. & Moore, R. (2015) Sustainable fashion consumption and ters, Wednesday 29 January 2014. [WWW document]. URL http://
the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-hm-sustainability-idUS-
sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer BREA0T00C20140130 (accessed on 10 June 2014).
Studies, 39, 212–222. Walliker, A. (2006) Sew Stylish. Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia.
Michaelidou, N. & Dibb, S. (2006) Product involvement: an application Woodward, S. (2009) The myth of street style. Fashion Theory, 13,
in clothing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 442–453. 83–102.
Milbrath, L. (1984) Environmentalists: Vanguards for a New Society. WRAP (2012) Valuing our clothes. The true cost of how we design, use
University of New York Press, Albany, NY. and dispose of clothing in the UK. [WWW document]. URL http://
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An www.wrap.org.uk/content/valuing-our-clothes (accessed on 9 June
Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London, UK. 2014).
Morely, N., Slater, S., Russell, S., Tipper, M. & Ward, G.D. (2006) Recy- Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th edn.
ling of low grade clothing waste. [WWW document]. URL http:// Sage Publications, London.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318 317

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable clothing F. Harris et al.

Appendix

Main interview topic Questions

Progress and priorities • What do you consider the main priorities to be?
in sustainable clothing • What have been the key successes?
• What are the biggest challenges?
• What do you see as the main barriers?

Key players • Who have been the key players at the

institutional level in driving the issue forward?
• Who have been the key retailers/brands
driving the issue forward?
• Is interest among manufacturers/retailers
increasing?
• Who are the key players within the
manufacturers/retailers?

Awareness • How aware are the different stakeholders

industry of sustainability issues?
• Is the new intake straight out of college
more aware than previous generations?
• How well defined is the distinction between ethical and sustainable
clothing in the industry?
• To what extent does the industry perceive there is a need to improve
the sustainability of clothing?
• How aware are retailers/manufacturers of methods to make clothing more sustainable?

Awareness • How are consumer attitudes to fashion changing and are they likely to change in the future?
consumers • How well defined is the distinction between ethical and sustainable clothing in consumers’ minds?
• What ethical issues concern them?
• What sustainability issues concern them?
• Which customers (segments) are most interested?
• To what extent will consumers pay more for ethical/sustainable items?
• Would eco-labelling affect their buying habits?
• Are there any obvious barriers for consumers to buy sustainable fashion?
• Is there any evidence of the life cycle of clothing changing? E.g. more recycling, less washing.

What options are considered • Materials? Transport? Local production? Packaging? Production? Finishing/chemical
when trying to treatment? Retailing? Design quality? End of life?
increase sustainability

What are the main • Regulation? Consumer pressure? Reputation/CSR? Cost savings? CDP?
motivations to develop
sustainable/ethical
clothing?

Public policy • What role do you think public policy could play in increasing sustainability?
• Would you welcome legislation/fiscal incentives?

318 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 309–318

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V