Abstract
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 via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Achabou MA, Dekhili S (2013) Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? J Bus Res 66(10):1896–1903
Antonetti P, Maklan S (2014) Exploring postconsumption guilt and pride in the context of sustainability. Psychol Mark 31(9):717–735
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):33–45
Bhardwaj V, Fairhurst A (2010) Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 20(1):165–173
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):167–177
Brännlund R, Ghalwash T, Nordström J (2007) Increase energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29(1):1–17
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):186–203
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 141:1515–1527
Dickinson MA (2001) Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and predicting their purchases. J Consum Aff 35(1):96–119
Freire-González J (2011) Methods to empirically estimate direct and indirect rebound effect of energy-saving technological changes in households. Ecol Model 223(1):32–40
Ha-Brookshire JE, Norum PS (2011) Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel. J Consum Mark 28(5):344–353
Herbst F, Burger C (2002) Attributes used by young consumers when assessing a fashion product: a conjoint analysis approach. J Consum Sci 30:40–45
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):51–66
Imperatives S (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future
Joy A, Sherry JF, Venkatesh JA et al (2012) Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash Theory 16(3):273–292
Khan U, Dhar R (2006) Licensing effect in consumer choice. J Mark Res 43(2):259–266
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 43–94
Laitala K, Klepp IG (2013) Environmental and ethical perceptions related to clothing labels among Norwegian consumers. Res J Text Appar 17(1):50–58
Lorna GA, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey. Energy Policy 28(6–7):389–401
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 53:132–142
Mai L (2014) Consumers’ willingness to pay for ethical attributes. Mark Intell Plan 32(6):706–721
Mazar N, Zhong C (2010) Do green products make us better people. Psychol Sci 21(4):494–498
McGarth AS (2012) Fashioning sustainability: how the clothes we wear can support environmental and human well-being. Paper presented at the environment sciences senior thesis symposium, 22 April 2012. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2012final/McGrathA_2012.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019
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):212–222
Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357
Okada EM (2005) Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 42(1):43–53
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 16–18
Pelsmacker PD, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J Consum Aff 39(2):363–385
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):487–495
Shen B, Wang Y, Lo KY et al (2012) The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior. J Fash Mark Manag 16(2):234–245
Wolford (2017) How to transform your lingerie into a salad. Available at: http://company.wolford.com/blog/avantex-wolford-presents-cradle-to-cradle-in-paris/. Accessed 19 July 2019
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):337–349
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adıgüzel, F., Linkowski, C., Olson, E. (2020). Do Sustainability Labels Make Us More Negligent? Rebound and Moral Licensing Effects in the Clothing Industry. In: Muthu, S., Gardetti, M. (eds) Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industries. Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38532-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38531-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38532-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)