Companies and consumers are more concerned about sustainability nowadays. The clothing industry is receiving more attention due to mass production and its significant impact on the planet. Fashion brands are introducing sustainable lines and circular economies in their business model to reduce their energy consumption, advocating for environmental protection and other activities. Yet, sustainable efforts suffer from indulgent and towering consumption. Do sustainability labels really promote moral behavior or are they leading to outrageous outcomes?
Rebound and moral licensing effects can be classified as unwanted negative consequences of moral behavior. This research shows to what extent these two effects can be a potential source of an ineffective sustainable policy in the clothing industry. This study uses a conjoint study to measure consumers’ willingness to pay and quantity purchase for three attributes: brand, style, and sustainability label. Sustainability labels’ attribute levels were identified as “emphasizing recycled materials,” “emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution,” and “none.” Further, we segmented consumers based on their clothing shopping habit and compared them.
Sustainability labels emphasizing efficiency in production and distribution increased the number of clothes consumers would consider buying and willingness to pay more than the ones emphasizing the presence of recycled fibers in the product. Individuals seem to purchase larger quantities of sustainable-efficient produced garments because of their good purpose, and pro-sustainable fashion consumers show consistent behavior on their sustainable preferences. Thus, rebound effect occurs in clothing industry, but we did not find any proof of moral licensing effect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Achabou MA, Dekhili S (2013) Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? J Bus Res 66(10):1896–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonetti P, Maklan S (2014) Exploring postconsumption guilt and pride in the context of sustainability. Psychol Mark 31(9):717–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson L, Rosenthal S (2014) Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. J Advert 43(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj V, Fairhurst A (2010) Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 20(1):165–173Google Scholar
Bodur H, Gao T, Grohmann B (2014) The ethical attribute stigma: understanding when ethical attributes improve consumer responses to product evaluations. J Bus Ethics 122(1):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brännlund R, Ghalwash T, Nordström J (2007) Increase energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, Gautam R (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: an assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cot-ton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol Econ 60(1):186–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Angelis M, Adiguzel F, Amatulli C (2017) The role of design similarity in consumers’ evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion brands. J Clean Prod 141:1515–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson MA (2001) Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and predicting their purchases. J Consum Aff 35(1):96–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire-González J (2011) Methods to empirically estimate direct and indirect rebound effect of energy-saving technological changes in households. Ecol Model 223(1):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha-Brookshire JE, Norum PS (2011) Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel. J Consum Mark 28(5):344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst F, Burger C (2002) Attributes used by young consumers when assessing a fashion product: a conjoint analysis approach. J Consum Sci 30:40–45Google Scholar
Hyllegard KH, Yan R, Ogle JP et al (2012) Socially responsible labelling: the impact of hang tags on consumers’ attitudes and patronage intentions toward an apparel brand. Cloth Text Res J 30(1):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imperatives S (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common futureGoogle Scholar
Joy A, Sherry JF, Venkatesh JA et al (2012) Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash Theory 16(3):273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koszewska M (2016) Understanding consumer behavior in the sustainable clothing market: model development and verification. In: Muthu S, Gardetti M (eds) Green fashion. Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Springer, Singapore, pp 43–94Google Scholar
Laitala K, Klepp IG (2013) Environmental and ethical perceptions related to clothing labels among Norwegian consumers. Res J Text Appar 17(1):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorna GA, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey. Energy Policy 28(6–7):389–401Google Scholar
Magnier L, Schoormans J, Mugge R (2016) Judging a product by its cover: packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual Prefer 53:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mai L (2014) Consumers’ willingness to pay for ethical attributes. Mark Intell Plan 32(6):706–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazar N, Zhong C (2010) Do green products make us better people. Psychol Sci 21(4):494–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill L, Moore R (2015) Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. Int J Consum Stud 39(3):212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada EM (2005) Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 42(1):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panzone LA, Wossink A, Southerton D (2012) Environmental performance and offsetting behaviour: moral self-licensing in consumer choice. In: 86th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, 16–18 April 2012, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, pp 16–18Google Scholar
Pelsmacker PD, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J Consum Aff 39(2):363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanne C (2000) Dealing with environmental savings in a dynamical economy – how to stop chasing your tail in the pursuit of sustainability. Energy Policy 28(6–7):487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen B, Wang Y, Lo KY et al (2012) The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior. J Fash Mark Manag 16(2):234–245Google Scholar
Zane DM, Irwin JR, Reczek RW (2016) Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgements of others. J Consum Psychol 26(3):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar