Welcome back to Part 3 of the fast fashion paradox series! This post brings you the last and final part of the fast fashion paradox (Check out Part 1 and Part 2 if you haven’t!) In Part 2, I shared three of five key themes covered in McNeill and Moore’s (2015) paper as they explored consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable and ethical consumption in an exploratory study. These themes can help us understand some of the factors contributing to the value-action gap, or the fast fashion paradox. Part 3 will share the remaining two themes, and some concluding thoughts.
Deep-diving into the paper
4. Perceived barriers to ethical consumption
The participants’ impression of ethical consumption was mostly confined to thrift stores and second-hand clothes, and there are many negative perceptions towards second-hand clothes relating to hygiene, perceived quality, and attractiveness of the clothes. The authors also revealed that participants were generally unaware of what it means for clothes to be sustainably and ethically produced. Another barrier was the price of ethical consumption – unlike fast fashion, participants reflect that sustainably and ethically produced clothes are often more expensive.
5. Motivations to change
Motivations to turn to more sustainable or ethical consumption is predicated by the consumers’ dominant ideologies and values. For example, three participants demonstrated awareness of sweatshop labor and other unethical practices in the fast fashion industry. In particular, the authors noted that this group did not mention any concern for personal benefit or sacrifice – they did not discuss saving costs with second-hand buys or the higher costs of sustainable fashion.
Concluding thoughts
While these do not necessarily fully excavate the fast fashion paradox, they do provide a comprehensive understanding of the broad factors that affect consumer choices – fast fashion? or its alternatives? These themes can also be used as a starting point to help businesses and policymakers better understand consumer behaviors in the context of the fast fashion industry. Besides these themes, three distinct profiles of consumers have also emerged from the study (McNeill and Moore, 2015).
- The “self” consumer – focus on the self, wants-oriented consumption, little or no concern for the wider environment and social issues associated with fast fashion
- The “social” consumer – conscious about others’ perception of themselves and social norms, unable to fully embrace more sustainable/ethical consumption but demonstrate some concern for the wider environment and social issues associated with fast fashion
- The “sacrifice” consumer – active consumers of sustainable/ethical fashion brands or clothing, show concern for the wider environment and social issues associated with fast fashion but value-action gaps may still persist.
From Parts 2 and 3, we can see how McNeill and Moore’s (2015) study on consumption attitudes and behaviors focuses on the consumers’ perspective. As another food for thought with some skepticism from me:
What are the producers’ motivations or intentions of selling sustainably or ethically produced clothes? Are they simply riding on the waves of green consciousness among consumers seeking to make “green” or “sustainable” purchases?
More will be covered in Chapter 3 but until then, keep running away from fast fashion!!!
Cheers,
Chermaine
References
McNeill, L., & 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), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169