Welcome back to Part 2 of “The Fast Fashion Paradox”. In Part 1 last week, we explored the fast fashion paradox and looked at existing theories to explain the value-action gap that consumers face. However, as mentioned in Part 1, some of these theories only explain behaviors in a general sense and may not necessarily apply to consumption behaviors. This week, we dive deeper into McNeill and Moore’s (2015) paper to understand some of the underlying factors contributing to the fashion paradox. These will be covered in two posts – Part 2 in this post and in Part 3.
Deep-diving into the paper
Five key themes emerged after the authors coded interview responses and these themes provide a starting point to understand consumers’ attitudes and the associated value-action gaps. This post elaborates on the first three themes:
1. Focus on the self
How important is the self in relation to consumption behaviors? Do consumers have a needs-oriented consumption or wants-oriented consumption? McNeill and Moore (2015) found that there are two ends of the spectrum. On one hand, clothing and fashion are essential in building self-image and identity for participants with a wants-oriented consumption. On the other hand, participants with a needs-oriented consumption only buy from thrift stores and avoid fast fashion brands. Essentially, the difference between the two spectrums is the focus on the self and the importance of consumption in relation to the development of their self-image and identity.
2. Importance of fashion
Most participants implied that the importance of fashion is built by social constructs and social norms where consumption habits are justified based on the desire to “fit in” with the rest. In the same vein, participants also suggested that one of the barriers to adopting sustainable fashion practices is how it deviates from social norms and may be perceived as unacceptable by their peers.
3. Concern for the environment and social welfare
Participants are cognisant of the idea of sustainable and ethical fashion, but they are only willing to make changes in their lifestyles if these changes benefit them. In the study, one participant maintained that she visited thrift stores only because the clothes were cheap and not because of her concerns for ethical or sustainable consumption. In other words, the focus is still on the self and the participants’ avoidance of any personal sacrifice contributes to the disparity between their pro-environmental values and actions. Furthermore, concern for the environment and social welfare on a more meta or broader level was visibly absent from the participants’ responses.
Part 2 ends with a food for thought –
Why do you buy second-hand clothes?
Because of environmental/social concerns, or because they are cheap?
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