• No results found

Sustainability Branding in the Fashion Industry : the Effect of a Sustainable Brand Image on Sustainable Purchase Intention

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Sustainability Branding in the Fashion Industry : the Effect of a Sustainable Brand Image on Sustainable Purchase Intention"

Copied!
40
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

MSc Communication Science

Corporate Communication

Master Thesis

________________________________________________________________

Sustainability Branding in the Fashion Industry

The Effect of a Sustainable Brand Image on Sustainable Purchase Intention

________________________________________________________________

by

Sarah Luib

ID: 11778628

Supervisor: Dr. Suzanne de Bakker

Submission Date: 29

th

June 2018

(2)

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the effect of a company’s sustainable brand image (SBI) on sustainable purchase intention (SPI) in the context of the fashion industry. This study also investigates the indirect effects moderated by environmental concern on the association between a SBI and SPI. The sample of this study consisted of 148 participants. To investigate the issue, participants were randomly allocated to two different stimuli versions, which were presented on the corporate website of AINA. AINA is a fashion company that was made up for the purpose of this paper. The study revealed that branding with a focus on sustainability did not have a significant effect on SPI. Further, environmental concern could not be

confirmed as a moderator. However, a significant relationship between environmental concern and SPI was found. Thus, environmental concern plays a significant role in sustainable purchase processes and should be involved in companies’ practices.

(3)

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Sustainability and the Fashion Industry 4

Environmental Concern 6

Theoretical Background 7

Context 7

The Concepts of Branding, Corporate Brand and Brand Image 8

The Concepts of Branding, Corporate Brand and Brand Image in the Context of Sustainability 9

Sustainability Branding on Websites 10

The Concept of Purchase Intention 11

The Decision Making Process of Sustainable Purchasing 12

Sustainability Branding as a Process to Overcome Barriers 12

The Concept Environmental Concern 14

The Effect of Environmental Concern on the Relationship between a SBI and SPI 14

Method 16

Participants 16

Design 17

Procedure 17

Materials 18

Measurements of the Concepts 21

Results 22 Hypothesis 1 22 Hypothesis 2 23 Discussion 23 Findings 23 Implications 27 Limitations 28 Conclusion 29 References 30 Appendix 38

(4)

Sustainability Branding in the Fashion Industry

The Effects of a Sustainable Brand Image on Sustainable Purchase Intention

Introduction Sustainability and the Fashion Industry

Major current environmental issues like global warming and natural resource usage (Joshi & Rahman, 2016) lead to increasing concern about the state of the environment and a growing interest in sustainable alternatives (Albino, Balice, & Dangelico, 2009; Shaw, Hogg, Wilson, Shiu, & Hassan, 2006). Those alternatives, such as more environmentally-friendly produced clothing, are crucial for minimizing the environmental footprint of industrial activities (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017).

When looking at the environmental footprint of industrial activities, the fashion industry takes an exceptional position. It is the second dirtiest industry in the world, just behind the oil industry (Szokan, 2016), and associated with the exploitation of resources as well as people (Beard, 2008). Compared with other industries such as the food or cosmetic one, the fashion industry largely avoids dealing with its impact on the environment and on the lives of workers in the supply chain (Fashion Revolution, 2017).

Nevertheless, due to the industry’s huge impact on the planet and raised concerns, the industry is a market with high potential for change (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Despite a call for sustainability, practice shows that market shares for related products are still low (Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, & Raghunathan, 2010; Sheth, Sethia, & Srinivas, 2011; Young, Hwang, Mcdonald, & Oates, 2010). Thus, gaining more knowledge about consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable brands and how to influence this intention is very important for

companies (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017).

When companies integrate sustainability in their business they often encounter various obstacles such as consumers’ limited willingness to pay higher prices. Branding as a driver

(5)

towards sustainable purchasing may overcome those barriers by demonstrating the value of sustainability (Kumar & Christodoulopoulou, 2014) and highlighting environmental benefits in comparison to conventional brands (Orsato, 2006). Moreover, branding is considered to be effective in influencing consumers’ green attitudes and intentions, due to its ability to shift preferences by adding new information (Pickett‐ Baker & Ozaki, 2008), raising awareness and imparting knowledge about advantages of sustainable brands (Wijaya, 2013).

Investigating to what extent companies are able to affect sustainable purchase decisions is not only relevant from a corporate perspective, but could also have far-reaching consequences for environment and society.

Given the importance of this issue and consumers increasing demand in sustainable alternatives, it is surprising that research about branding with a focus on sustainability is still limited (Chen, 2010; Cronin, Smith, Gleim, Ramirez, & Martinez, 2011), although it may favour pro-environmental behaviours (Huang, Yang, & Wang, 2014). Only few studies have actually addressed the relationship between sustainability branding and behaviour intention (Chen, 2010; Suki, 2013; Huang et al., 2014; Joshi & Rahman, 2016). To contribute to the research gap, a study by Joshi and Rahman (2016) investigated the influence of factors like social influence and attitude towards green purchase on consumers’ green purchase behaviour and the authors recommended considering further factors. A study by Huang et al. (2014) explored the effects of the factor green brand on green purchase intention using a sample of LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability). The authors suggest investigating green brand attributes in more heterogeneous groups as future research opportunity, since LOHAS already have a certain attitude. Additionally, the authors (Huang et al., 2014) suggested considering other brand categories. This is in line with Ahmad and Thyagaraj (2015), who studied consumer’s intention to purchase green brands in the electronics industry. A study by D’Souza, Gilmore, Hartmann, Apaolaza Ibáñez and Sullivan-Mort (2015) found that a sustainable brand image (SBI) weakens sustainable purchase intention (SPI). However, it

(6)

should be pointed out that the sample only incuded males and therefore, the results provide only limited insights in the association (D’Souza et al., 2015). Thus, investigating a more heterogeneous sample may diminish their results.

The current thesis therefore conducts further research to contribute to the existing scientific knowledge. It aims to investigate to what extent the factor SBI has influence on consumers’ SPI in the current context, where environmental issues are increasingly important. Hereby, it focuses on the fashion industry, since the industry has a major impact on the

environment and society and thus, getting deeper insights into a factor that may facilitate sustainable purchasing as well as overcome existing barriers could contribute to positive changes. This leads to the following research question: To what extent does a SBI in the fashion industry influence SPI?

Environmental Concern

Nowadays, consumers notice that their buying habits influence the environment and adapt by considering their concern related to the environment when

shopping (Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro‐ Forleo, 2001). Concern regarding the environment is not only a very important issue of public interest and an increasing number of companies consider them in their business operations (Albino et al., 2009), they are also widely discussed in the academic research (Junior, da Silva, Gabriel, & Braga, 2015; Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). Companies’ reasons to recognize them vary between legitimacy,

competitiveness and social responsibility (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Although, the concern for the environment among consumers is a frequent topic in academic research, it is under-developed in the context of fashion (Shaw, Hogg, Wilson, Shiu, & Hassen, 2006). Numerous studies (Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2014; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Luchs et al., 2010; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006) investigated factors that may directly affect purchase intention and results showed that environmental concern (Joshi & Rahman, 2016) is important to consider, when investigating sustainable purchase behaviours.

(7)

However, a study by Newton et al. (2015) described the conceptualization of environmental concern as direct predictor of environmental purchasing as overly simplistic. Thus, due to their increasing importance and their close linkage with the topic sustainability, this thesis will regard the potential role of environmental concern as a moderator on the relationship between SBI and SPI and addresses the question: To what extent does environmental concern moderate the effect of a SBI on SPI in the fashion industry?

Theoretical Background

Initially, it must be noted that literature in the context of sustainability uses various terms to describe behaviours related to a more conscious dealing with environmental issues. Examples for a more conscious dealing are for example buying a fair fashion brand item instead of clothing from a fast fashion brand like Zara or choosing green personal care products instead of conventional ones. Frequently used terms in academic literature are sustainable, green, eco-friendly, ethical and fair (e.g., Albino et al., 2009; Cervellon & Wernerfelt, 2012; Thomas, 2008; Yang, Song, & Tong, 2017). All those terms have slightly different meanings (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017), but for the purpose of this thesis the focus was set on the term sustainable. However, literature that refers to the topic in a wider context, for example literature about green purchasing, also provided theoretical background.

Context

The current state of the fashion industry requires companies to face the question how to combine consumers desire to keep up with the latest trends (McNeill & Moore, 2015) and the growing interest in sustainability (Shaw et al., 2006). Nowadays, the fashion industry is full of contradictions. Being up to date in fashion is often more important for consumers’ than being sustainable in a way that involves considering the needs of others in the supply chain (Joergens, 2006), which can be partly explained by an existing lack of knowledge (McNeill & Moore, 2015). On one side, consumers express interest in sustainability, but at the same time

(8)

they do not transfer their concern into actual behaviour (Han, Seo, & Ko, 2017), which is referred to as attitude-behaviour gap (e.g. Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006; Young et al., 2010).

Companies’ reasons to move towards more sustainability are various and for example derived from concerns of stakeholder groups, supply chain imperatives (Stuart, 2011) or a perceived competitive advantage as result of sustainable practices (Lloret, 2016). The drivers for the implementation of sustainability can be categorized in external and internal ones (Stuart, 2011). Internal motives go beyond rhetoric changes and are deeply rooted in the self-conception of a company (Stuart, 2011), those strategies based on self-motivation are

regarded as more successful, because of a higher fit between a company’s culture and activities (Baumgartner, 2009).

Regardless of which motives a company is pursuing, when implementing

sustainability, the market shares for related brands are still small and therefore companies have to strengthen consumers’ willingness to purchase their brand. Thus, they have to trigger rethinking processes to achieve that consumers are perceiving sustainable clothing as a more environment-friendly purchasing alternative that enables them to meet the needs fashion satisfies and simultaneously act in a sustainable manner (McNeill & Moore, 2015). The Concepts of Branding, Corporate Brand and Brand Image

Only little agreement consists about the definition of the term branding in academic research and also the terms corporate brand and brand image are viewed differently (Theng So, Grant Parsons, & Yap, 2013). From a corporate perspective, branding is often regarded as a holistic brand management approach, whereby intangible values are added to a company, which may result in a competitive advantage (Theng So et al., 2013). In the branding process, a company is expressing their corporate values and beliefs and may establish a strong

corporate brand. A strong corporate brand can be defined as a corporate’s expression and the stakeholders’ image of an organization’s identity (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). Thus, a corporate brand depends on different factors and is a superordinate concept for various elements such as

(9)

the corporate expression, which is formed by visual identity, brand promise, brand personality and brand communication, as well as the stakeholders’ image of an organization’s identity, which goes beyond the direct control of a company, since it includes the stakeholder

perspective (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012), which is not directly controllable by companies (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). Stakeholders such as consumers participate in the branding process by

processing the companies’ expressions and developing brand images based on their

perceptions. Brand images are developed in the process in which stakeholders experience a brand, build brand relationships and brand communities (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). To sum up, a brand image is representing the overall perception of a brand based on information and

knowledge (Wijaya, 2013).

The Concepts of Branding, Corporate Brand and Brand Image in the Context of Sustainability

There is only little research that examines the presented elements in the context of sustainability. However, as stated earlier, a company develops strategic choices to express values and beliefs to stakeholders. Since this action is within a company’s scope of decision-making it is assumed that corporate branding can be adjusted to a novel environment, in which sustainability is determined as a core value. These days, an increasing number of companies include environmental concerns in their operations and their interactions with stakeholders (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). This development is in line, with a rising number of new companies that actively communicate their green position as well as with existing

companies, that develop rebranding strategies to be perceived as more eco-friendly (Sarkar, 2012). When regarding branding in the context of sustainability, the differentiation from competitors is for example based on environmental attributes (Orsato, 2006). In other words, the added intangible values to a company arise from the fact that sustainability is expressed as a core value.

(10)

Few authors already adapted the term corporate brand to the context of sustainability, as seen by Stuart (2011), who proposed a sustainable corporate brand as a brand that defines sustainability as a core value. In light of the previous considerations, this would mean that sustainability is reflected in the companies’ determined visual, verbal and behavioural expression. Huang, Yang and Wang (2014) define a green brand as “communicator that delivers the information about and environmentally friendly product’s unique brand attributes and benefits which particularly reducing its environmental impact, and representing

environment-friendly product attributes (p. 253).”

With regard to the limited research about sustainability branding a study by Chen (2010) aimed to contribute to the research gap. Thus, the author proposed the new construct green brand image and defined it as “a set of perceptions of a brand in a consumer’s mind that is linked to environmental commitments and environmental concerns (p. 309)”. In other words, SBIs are developed in the process in which stakeholders experience a sustainable brand and build relationships and communities.

Sustainability Branding on Websites

At this point the question arises how consumers get in contact with companies’ expressions to develop brand images. Holt (2003) states that all companies have a corporate brand, and that is, irrespective of whether they communicate it to all stakeholder groups or not. However, only when stakeholders incorporate them in their perception, the value of the corporate brand can be realized. Therefore, incorporating a corporate brand is highly relevant for developing brand images. To achieve that consumers incorporate a corporate brand, companies have to enable them to form perceptions based on the corporate expression by providing information and knowledge. One way to do so is the internet as communication mechanism, which opens varying possibilities, such as the possibility to educate and inform consumers (Stuart, 2011). In general, websites are described as additional marketing channels, through which companies can present their products and services to a wider range of potential

(11)

stakeholders (Stuart, 2011). Many websites include, among other categories, a rubric about the philosophy, news and background information of a brand.

Branding on websites has already been examined in several studies (Ind & Riondino, 2001; Müller, Florès, Agrebi, & Chandon, 2008; Rowley, 2004) and is associated with purchase intention and opinion changes about a brand (Müller et al., 2008). Several website elements - such as graphics, text and colour - enable to communicate brand values and messages (Rowley, 2004). Thus, websites can be used to provide information that may raise awareness for negative impacts of the fashion industry on the environment, which is

especially necessary with the background knowledge that a lot of people aren’t aware of negative impacts caused by the fashion industry. Apart from creating awareness and

providing information websites are useful to express the look and feel of a brand, which for example includes the presentation of the personality of an organization and consistency regarding visual and content cues (Ind & Riondino, 2001). Therefore, a website is proposed as a suitable setting for sustainability branding.

The Concept of Purchase Intention

Purchase intention indicates the likelihood that consumers will plan or be willing to purchase a certain brand in the future. The construct of intention towards behaviour is built on the expectation that consumers’ intention to engage in a specific behaviour such as purchasing determines the actual related behaviour (Chan & Lau, 2001; Kumar, Manrai, & Manrai, 2017). In other words, beliefs constitute antecedents, which lead to attitudes. These attitudes subsequently result in intentions. Finally, intentions determine the actual buying behaviour (Young et al., 2010). An increase in purchase intention can therefore be interpreted as an increase in the possibility of an actual purchase action (Wu, Yeh, & Hsiao, 2011). Since it is not possible to measure actual purchases in the scope of this thesis, the intention to purchase is considered as a reasonable alternative.

(12)

The Decision Making Process of Sustainable Purchasing

This thesis aims to examine the question to what extent a SBI influences SPI in the fashion industry. Initially, the decision making process of purchasing will be examined more precisely. Young et al. (2010) developed a green consumer purchasing model, consisting of five elements. The first element is a consumer’s green values. It is influenced by the

consumer’s knowledge of relevant issues and previous purchase experiences. Thus, those values frame the second element, which are green criteria for purchase. Green criteria are for example a very strong sustainable lifestyle or the performance of a product. Those criteria are formed by actions like research about the manufacturer, talking to friends and looking for information on the Internet. Green criteria are usually unmovable during a purchase process, but barriers and facilitators as third element may diminish or confirm green criteria. Barriers and facilitators influence consumers during the whole purchase process. They are followed by element four, which is the actual purchase and element five, feedback, which refers to the next purchase. To sum up according to the authors Young et al. (2010), environmental values, green criteria, barriers and facilitators affect the purchase process.

Sustainability Branding as a Process to Overcome Barriers

Barriers influencing purchases have been investigated several times before (e.g. Stuart, 2011; Kumar et al., 2017; Lee, 2017) and one barrier that is often mentioned is price (Yin, Wu, Du, & Chen, 2010). Higher prices are often the logical consequence of

implementing environmental practices or dignified working conditions and may influence consumers’ willingness to purchase (Laroche et al., 2001). Moreover, they may diminish green criteria (Young et al., 2010). Those barriers cannot be generalised or simplified and are dependent on the individual consumer and the specific purchase process. A study by McNeill and Moore (2015) investigated this issue in detail and the authors categorized the three different consumer types: self, social and sacrifice. They assigned the following barriers to these categories: knowledge of sustainable production processes, unawareness, a perceived

(13)

lack of social acceptance for sustainable fashion, perceived high prices and skepticism of industry motives.

Thus, companies are exposed to various barriers and have to figure out how to respond to the upcoming challenges related to sustainability by developing suitable strategies and operations (Albino et al., 2009). In particular, companies must give thoughts on how to overcome the above-mentioned barriers. As discussed earlier, consumers need to incorporate a corporate brand so that its value can be realized. In regard to the green purchase model by Young et al. (2010) it is assumed that facilitators, knowledge of the relevant environmental issues and a strong green value among other factors influence the purchase process. This paper suggests sustainability as a potential driver towards sustainable purchasing and thus, as a tool to overcome occurring barriers. Particularly in the field of fashion it seems important to make consumers aware of the reasons why they should buy more sustainable products and pay higher prices for them, since there is a knowledge gap of the industries negative impacts (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007).

The assumption that sustainability branding is affecting purchase intention is based on knowledge gained in previous studies. Initially, research showed that a brand is of high value for a company and serves as an important criterion for purchase decision among consumers (Jin & Cedrola, 2017). Earlier, a sustainable brand was defined as a communicator delivering information about environmental-friendly brand attributes and benefits (Huang et al., 2014). Young et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of developing strong values in a purchasing process, which is, according to them, achieved by education. The idea of educating consumers to a more sustainable behaviour can be linked to the process of sustainability branding.

Drawing the attention on environmental effects of the fashion industry and thereby communicate the advantages of the sustainable alternatives could strengthen consumers values and facilitate purchase intention (Padel & Foster, 2005). Previous studies already showed a positive relationship between green brand image and green brand equity and

(14)

highlighted the importance of incorporating the environmental vision of a company into the corporate strategy (Chen, 2010). A study (Suki, 2013) investigating the relationship between consumers’ awareness of brand image and purchasing decisions found that the concepts are significantly related. Suki (2013) examined several factors and brand image was the strongest one positively influencing purchasing decisions. Other findings showed that green brand positioning and green brand knowledge influence green brand attitudes, which further influence green purchase intentions (Huang et al., 2014).

Based on those findings and the discussed opportunities of a SBI, the following Hypothesis 1 is proposed: Consumers sustainable purchase intention (SPI) will be higher

towards a company with a sustainable brand image (SBI), than towards a company with a corporate brand image.

The Concept Environmental Concern

The term environmental concern is in a broad understanding used to “refer to the whole range of environmentally related perceptions, emotions, knowledge, attitudes, values and behaviors (Bamberg, 2003, p. 21)”. Suki (2013) describes environmental concern as “the interest towards the biophysical environment and its problems related to the consumer and the surroundings (p. 52)”. Pagiaslis and Krontalis (2014) understand the term as a general belief construct that predetermines more specific constructs like environmental knowledge or beliefs toward green products. In view of the presented definitions, environmental concern is

regarded as consumers’ general belief toward the environment. For clarity, it can be highlighted that environmental concern is not only defined in various ways, but can also include several environmental protection issues such as waste problems (Moisander, 2007). The Effect of Environmental Concern on the Relationship between a SBI and SPI

Environmental concerns are seen as antecedents of consumer’s decision making (Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2015) and thus, may have influence on environmental-friendly consumption behaviours (Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014). Numerous studies have attempted to

(15)

conceptualize environmental concern as a direct predictor on purchase intention, whereby outcomes differed and empirical findings in support of the relationship are quite inconsistent (Junior et al., 2015; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Newton, Tsarenko, Ferraro, & Sands, 2015; Suki, 2013). Previous studies showed for example a significant relationship between

environmental concern and purchase intention (Junior et al., 2015), a positive direct impact on behaviour intention (Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014), an insignificant relationship between environmental concern and purchasing decisions (Suki, 2013), a weak effect between

consumers’ concern for environmental protection on purchase intention (Yin et al., 2010), and findings even criticized the conceptualization as a direct predictor (Newton et al., 2015). The varying results could be partly explained by a phenomenon, which is often mentioned in the literature and called attitude-behavior gap (e.g., Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2014).

Adapted to this framework, this would imply that consumers process sustainability branding and are generally concerned about the state of the environment, but still struggle to transfer their attitude into actual behaviour. According to Young, Hwang, McDonald and Oates (2010) this attitude behavior gap refers to 30% of consumers when looking at

environmental concern. The observed gap should therefor be kept in mind, while examing the relationship. Derived from the literature about the relationship between environmental

concern and purchase intention, that is quite contradicting, but reveals a tendency towards environmental concern as a predictor for susatinable purchase intention. This thesis proposes that consumers level of environmental concern affects the strength of the relationship between a SBI and SPI.

Moreover, a study by Bathmanathan and Hironaka (2016) focussing on the relationship between branding and environmental concerned customers showed that

(16)

are concerned about the environment. This would mean that people who are concerned about the environment respond positively to sustainability branding.

In view of all that has been mentioned so far, the following second hypothesis is proposed: Consumers sustainable purchase intention (SPI) will be higher towards a company

with a sustainable brand image (SBI), than towards a company with a corporate brand image; this effect will be more pronounced for consumers with higher environmental concern than for consumers with lower environmental concern.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework and hypotheses.

Method Participants

One-hundred-ninety-three participants took part in the study and agreed with the informed consent. 41 participants did not respond to all items and four were not able to respond correctly to the exposure check, as a result their data was not included in the analyses. Thus, a total of 45 people were excluded from the study, which led to a sample consisting of 148 participants.

The average age of the participants was 27.43 years (SD = 10.19). Overall the participants were between 19 and 27 years old. The sample was mainly female with 75% women as participants, 25 % male participant and no non-binary participants (M = 1.75, SD = 0.43). The majority of participants lived predominantly in Germany with 46.6%. The second largest group of participants lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

(17)

Ireland for the longest period in their life with 8.1% and the third largest one in the Netherlands with 6.1%. The participants had varying education levels, but the majority completed a Bachelor’s degree, more precisely 52.7% (M = 2.93, SD = 0.78). Moreover, 69.9% of the participants are currently students (M = 4.89, SD = 2.12).

Design

The 2 x 2 experimental design consisted of two factors: one between-subject factor (sustainable brand image vs. corporate brand image) and one quasi-experimental factor (higher vs. lower environmental concern). The two levels of branding type are nominal, namely corporate brand image and sustainable brand image. The quasi-experimental factor environmental concern was a continuous variable.

Procedure

A self-administered questionnaire was designed by using Qualtrics to collect empirical data. For the recruitment, the survey was sent out via private messages (WhatsApp and

Facebook), spread through public Facebook posts and participants were asked to spread the link leading to the online experiment. Before distributing the questionnaire, a small pre-test was conducted to check whether the participants recognize the differences in the stimuli material.

The experiment consisted of the following parts: Initially, participants were asked to respond demographic questions regarding their age, gender, country, education and

employment. Secondly, environmental concern was measured. Afterwards the participants were instructed to carefully look at the presented stimuli. In part 4, participants responded a manipulation check as well as an exposure check. Finally, Part 5 measured the SPI.

(18)

Materials

Stimuli. To manipulate the independent variable branding type with the two levels sustainable brand image (sustainability condition), see Appendix A, and corporate brand image (branding condition), see Appendix B, two versions of stimuli were created.

The stimulus material was developed based on knowledge gained from the literature. Additionally, corporate websites of fair fashion brands such as Matt&Nat and fast fashion brands such as Stradivarius were viewed and used as inspiration. For creating the material, the graphic-design website Canva and the photography website Unsplash were used.

The stimuli material combined visual and textual content and was placed in the setting of a corporate website; more precisely in the category “THE BRAND”. For clarification, the examples below give deeper insights:

Textual content. The structure and wording remained the same in both versions

besides subtle differences, that should either frame a sustainable feeling or not. The sustainability condition started with the sentence: “Summer, 2012. That’s when the idea

behind (SUST)AINA(BLE) originally came to life, in beautiful Amsterdam. We’re passionate about the planet and people that surround us.” It highlighted planet and people, which refers

to the importance of environment and society for the company. Moreover, by explaining the naming of the brand a linkage between AINA and sustainability was established.

In contrast, the branding condition was introduced with the sentence: “ Summer, 2012.

That’s when the idea behind AINA originally came to life, in beautiful Amsterdam. We’re passionate about fashion and people that surround us.” Consequently, planet was replaced by

fashion and the linkage between AINA and the term sustainable was excluded.

Further, in accordance with the literature mentioning the possibility of websites to educate and inform consumers (Stuart, 2011), the following paragraph was included in the sustainability condition: “Nothing to wear? Well here’s something to think about: Every piece

(19)

the third most polluting industry in the world, and one of the largest consumers of water. Making fabric uses water, energy, chemicals, and other resources that most people don’t think about, or ever see. We think knowledge is power, so we want to talk about resource use, climate change, and other impacts of fashion.” As McNeill and Moore (2015) mentioned,

there is a lack of knowledge by consumers about the negative impacts of the fashion industry. This aspect was appraised in the sustainability condition by naming negative impacts and providing participants with information about the connection between for example climate change and clothing, which refers to the educational objective.

In comparison, the branding condition contained the sentence: “Nothing to wear? Well

here’s Aina: We design thousands of clothing items and accessories in Spain for exclusive distribution to our stores in four countries and our online shop. We are fully aware that what makes our customers happy today may not be what they want tomorrow, which is why we are constantly hunting down the latest trends to come up with the perfect looks for every

occasion.” As can be seen, the informing and educating part is superseded by the desire to be

up to date in fashion, which is according to McNeill and Moore (2015) often more important for consumers than sustainability and described as a contradiction.

Visual content. In addition to the textual content, visual elements were used to

strengthen the look and feel a website provides. In the sustainability condition two pictures were presented: one showing a piece of clothing with a cornfield in the background and another one with a plant. As predominantly used colour green was chosen, which is said to positively correlate to a company’s level of greenness (Kärnä, Juslin, Ahonen, & Hansen, 2001). The branding condition used grey as main colour and presented a picture of a piece of clothing with a light grey background and one with grey fabric.

Manipulation check. To check whether the planned manipulation was successful, participants responded to the statement: I perceive AINA as a company that defines sustainability as a core value. As response they could either chose “Yes.” or “No.”.

(20)

To compare the two conditions an independent-samples t-test was conducted. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the scores of the branding condition (M = 0.47, SD = 0.50) and the sustainability condition (M = 0.04, SD = 0.20), t (146) = 6.652,

p < .001, 95% CI [0.30, 0.55]. All in all, 73.6% of the participants stated that they perceive

AINA as a company that defines sustainability as a core value. In the condition branding, 53.2% of the participants perceived AINA as sustainable and 95.8% in the sustainability condition. It can be noted, that the results demonstrated a significant difference between the branding types. However, it has to be mentioned that 53.2% of the participants in the branding condition indicated that sustainability is a core value for AINA, even though they were not allocated to the corporate website stimuli with a focus on sustainability. It can therefore be concluded that the Manipulation check was not successful, since more than 50% of the participants in the branding condition answered “Yes.”.

Randomization check. To check whether the participants were evenly distributed on the key characteristics two tests were conducted. Initially, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to test the randomization of the groups over the variable age. The results showed that participants’ average age in the branding group (M = 25.21, SD = 6.92) was significantly different from participants’ average age in the sustainability group (M = 29.85, SD = 12.43); t (107.67) = -2.77, p = .007, 95% CI [1.64, -7.95]. Thus, age was included as a Covariate in the following analyses to remove a related bias.

In order to check if participants’ gender was comparable over the experimental

condition, a Chi square test was conducted. Participants’ gender in the branding condition was not significantly different from participants’ gender in the sustainability condition, χ2

(1) = .081, p = .776. 26% of the participants in the branding condition were men and 74% women. In the sustainability condition 23.9% of the participants were male and 76.1% were female. Therefore, it can be assumed that participants were evenly distributed regarding gender.

(21)

Measurements of the Concepts (see Appendix C for an overview)

SPI. In terms of purchase intention, Lee’s (2017) four-item measure was adapted. The authors GPI (Green Purchase Intention) construct used the wording pro-environmental

product in each of the four items. For the purpose of this work, pro-environmental product was replaced by sustainable brand.

Responses were given on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly

disagree). The four items were reversed to a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Initially, the factorability of the four items was examined. A principal components factor analysis was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .84, which is meritorious .80 according to Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999). Bartlett’s test of Sphericity, testing the overall significance of all

correlations within the correlation matrix, was significant χ2 (6) = 363,38 p < .001. The items formed a single uni-dimensional scale: only one factor had an eigenvalue over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 (eigenvalue: 3.09), explaining 77.26% of the variance, and there was a point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All factors loaded on one factor, and the 4-item scaled proved reliable as indicated by Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.901, which means that there is a high level of internal consistency for the scale (Field, 2013). The new variable measuring purchase intention had values ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree) with an average SPI of 3.18 (SD = 1.01), which is between “neither agree nor disagree” and “somewhat agree”.

Environmental concern. The moderator variable, was measured by combining two existing scales by Suki (2013) and D’Souza et al. (2015). All in all seven items were included, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A principal components factor analysis was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure revealed sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .85. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was significant χ2 (21) = 380.47, p <

(22)

.001. All items formed a single uni-dimensional scale, with only one factor with an

eigenvalue over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 (eigenvalue 3.71), explaining 52.96 % of the variance. A point of inflexion could be observed after this component in the scree plot. No item was eliminated and the 7-item scaled proved reliable as indicated by Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.846, stating a high level of internal consistency for the scale (Field, 2013). The new variable measuring environmental concern had values ranging from 1.14 to 5 with an average of 4.15 (SD = 0.63). Therefore it can be concluded that environmental concern was in general high, since 4 corresponds to “somewhat agree”.

Results Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 stated that consumers’ SPI will be higher towards a company with a SBI, than towards a company with a corporate brand image. As mentioned earlier, age was

included as a covariate in the analysis. Thus, a one-way Ancova was conducted to determine a statistically significant difference between a corporate brand image and a SBI on SPI under controlling for age.

The independent variable branding type with the levels sustainable brand image and corporate brand image was a categorical variable. The dependent variable sustainable purchase intention and the covariate age were continuous variables measured on an interval scale. Regarding the independent variable, it can be stated that the sample was randomly selected and the sizes were roughly equal. The dependent variable was measured at a scale level. Further, no outliers were included in the sample. In regard to the normality, it is required that the dependent variable data is normally distributed. Since the sample size is above 30, this can be assumed (Field, 2013). To check whether data showed homogeneity of variance, a Levene’s test (p = 0.945) was carried out and thus, equal variances can be

(23)

Findings showed that there was no significant effect of branding type on SPI after controlling for age, F(1,145) = 2.139, p = .146. However, the SPI in the sustainability

condition (M = 3.31, SD = 1.04) was on average higher than the one in the branding condition (M = 3.06, SD = 0.98). Therefore hypothesis 1 was not confirmed, but a tendency towards higher purchase intention in the sustainability condition can be observed.

Hypothesis 2

To investigate whether the relationship between a SBI and SPI changes under the influence of environmental concern, in such a way that higher environmental concern

strengthens the relationship, a regression analysis was conducted. The overall model with SPI as dependent variable and age, SBI, and environmental concern as independent variable was significant, F(4, 143) = 3.06, p = .019. The regression model could therefore be used to predict SPI, but the strength of the prediction was small (Field, 2013): 7.9 % of the variation in purchase intention was explained by age, SBI, and environmental concern (R2 = .079). SBI,

b* = 0.10, t (143) = 0.59, p = .557, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.44] and age, b* = 0.01, t (143) = 0.11, p

= 0.914, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.02] did not have a significant association with SPI. However, environmental concern was significantly related to SPI, b* = 0.48, t (143) = 3.13, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.18, 0.78].

The interaction effect was not significant, b* = 0.43, t (143) = 1.36, p = 0.177, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.05]. Thus, there was no evidence for a moderation and hypothesis 2 was also

rejected.

Discussion Findings

Hypothesis 1. The main objective of this study was to explore the relationship between a SBI and SPI. Findings suggest that participants in the sustainability condition did not significantly differ from participants in the branding condition in regard to their intention

(24)

to purchase a sustainable fashion brand. This is not in line with the presumption that SPI will be higher towards a company with a SBI, than towards a company with a corporate brand image. Previous studies led to the presumption that sustainability branding could enhance sustainable purchasing. Therefore, sustainability branding was conceptualized as a driver for sustainable purchasing and as a possibility for overcoming barriers such as prize (Yin et al., 2010).

Although the hypothesis has to be rejected, it is important to note that a tendency towards higher SPI was observed, which is in congruence with previous research and supports the assumption that companies should be aware of the potentials sustainability branding could offer. Based on the results, the question arises why the hypothesis could not be confirmed. Initially, it has to be mentioned, that the manipulation check was not successful and thus, the stimuli material was perhaps not sufficiently strong to either communicate sustainability as a core value or not, since participants in the branding condition still perceived AINA as a company that defines sustainability as an important value. However, since they were exposed to the website without sustainability branding and in regard to the sample size, they were remained in the sample for the analysis. To check whether this affects the significance of the results, a control analysis was conducted including only people, who passed the manipulation check. Still, there were no significant effects and therefore it was concluded that in favour of the sample size all 148 participants were included in the analysis. Thus, it can be assumed that the differences between the sustainability and the branding condition were not clear enough to confirm the hypothesis.

Moreover, the question is also whether the influence of a company’s SBI on

consumers’ purchase decisions was overestimated in the framework of this paper. Previously, branding was described as an opportunity to shift preferences by adding new information (Pickett‐ Baker & Ozaki, 2008), raising awareness and imparting knowledge about

(25)

stimuli material allocated to the participants in the sustainability condition, which was presented in the frame of a corporate website. In the theoretical framework, it was stated that a sustainable brand is reflected in a company’s determined visual, verbal and behavioural expression, all focussing on sustainability. And further, a SBI develops based on consumers’ perceptions. Thus, the question may be asked if the presentation on a website is sufficient to develop a SBI in consumers’ minds or if the idea of developing a SBI by looking at a

corporate website is too simplified. In light of this, considerations must be made in respect of how consumers access a corporate website and to what extent this setting can be transferred into reality. In the present setting participants were exposed to a corporate website and more precisely to the category “THE BRAND”. In reality, consumers only reach this information when they are actively searching for it. Thus, it would be interesting to further investigate if consumers who are not interested in the sustainable practices of a company or don’t know about the sustainable practices in the first place would even get into the situation where they may develop a sustainable brand image based on sustainability branding presented on a corporate website. Earlier, it was stated that brand images are developed in the process in which stakeholders experience a brand, build brand relationships and brand communities (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012), all those aspects require that consumers are exposed to the branded content. Therefore, including other communication means such as press releases or social media could be more suitable to reach consumers, since expressing the look and feel of a brand is only successful when consumers access the website, where it is presented.

Further, the rejection of the hypothesis could be explained by the fact that they were based on previous research, which was barely conducted in the context of the fashion industry. Interestingly, an approach by Joergens (2006) states that consumers care to a

different agree about ethical issues, which is especially relevant when it comes to fashion. It is pointed out that there are differences within unethical behaviours in regard to how they

(26)

with unethical work practices, which consumers do not perceive as affecting their health. Since it doesn’t affect them directly consumers care less about sustainable consumption in the context of clothing, since they associate the impact of clothing with issues that doesn’t

directly affect them and thus, have lower priorities for them. In this line of thought, it would be further interesting to compare sustainability branding activities that are focussing on either egoistic or altruistic aspects. Thus, sustainability branding in the fashion industry may have significant effects on SPI if the communicated information points out egoistic aspects for example that in sustainable fashion less harmful chemicals are used in the production in comparison to the fast fashion production, which is healthier for consumers wearing the clothing.

Hypothesis 2. Further, it was proposed that the effect of a SBI on SPI will be more pronounced for consumers who have higher environmental concern than for those with lower environmental concern. The findings showed, that environmental concern could not be confirmed as a moderator of the effect of a SBI on SPI. It has to be highlighted that only six people in a sample of 148 participants were below 3 “neither agree nor disagree”, on the 5-point Likert scale, which refers to low environmental concern. Since only a small amount of people indicated low environmental concern, the results have to be treated with caution. Interestingly, the findings revealed a significant effect of environmental concern on SPI. This relationship between environmental concern and purchasing was frequently discussed in former research (e.g. Junior et al., 2015; Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). The results of the present study support the findings, that environmental concern constitutes a direct predictor on purchase intention, which was observed in earlier studies (e.g. Junior et al., 2015; Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014). Again, it must be kept in mind that a high level of environmental concern was measured, which is further discussed in the limitations and leads to the fact that the results have to be treated with caution.

(27)

Implications

As mentioned above, a significant relationship between environmental concern and SPI was demonstrated, which indicates that consumers’ level of environmental concern affects their willingness to make sustainable purchase decisions. For practice, this suggests, that companies should fulfil their environmental obligations and adapt to the trend towards more sustainable lifestyles. The empirical findings showed that there is a high level of environmental concern and thus, those fears should be taken seriously. Earlier, knowledge of sustainable production processes, unawareness, a perceived lack of social acceptance for sustainable fashion, perceived very high prices and skepticism of industry motives were named as barriers in the sustainable purchase process in the fashion industry (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Kumar & Christodoulopoulou (2014) highlighted the importance of marketing when promoting sustainable practices and thus, that this marketing can be supported by brands. Although results for hypothesis 1 were not significant, at this stage of understanding, it can be highlighted that concerns about the environment significantly matter for consumers and companies should be aware of them and incorporate them in their operations. Especially in the fashion sector, companies face the question how to keep up with combining

sustainability and the latest trends at the same time and in a conscious manner (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Thus, in the longer term the aim should be that through innovative ways of promoting sustainable brands, such as through creative sustainability branding, rethinking processes can be triggered to achieve positive changes and standards in the fashion industry. This is strongly connected to the idea of attracting attention and thus increasing the social acceptance for sustainable fashion. In accordance with Joergens (2006), it can also be suggested to focus on the risks of for example chemicals in the clothing production, that directly effect consumers health, within the branding process, since those are apparently more important for consumers as aspects like working conditions. Additionally, in accordance with the assumption that in reality people are more likely to actively search information about the

(28)

sustainability of a company and thus, access a corporate website of a company that defines sustainability as a core value, when they are already interested in the topic; it is recommended to communicate the sustainable practices on various platforms and include press releases and social media, where the chance is higher that consumers are exposed to the information without actively searching for it.

Limitations

The presents study has some notable limitations. The first one refers to the

experimental conditions. In this study participants were either exposed to a corporate website with sustainability branding or one without a focus on sustainability. It was intended that, through processing the content presented on the website, participants would develop their own image of the brand, which consequently was either a SBI of AINA or a corporate brand image of AINA. As mentioned when describing the manipulation check, more than 50% of the participants in the branding condition did perceive AINA as sustainable. Therefore, results have to be treated with caution. To address this issue, it is suggested for further research to create stimuli material that incites stronger development of a SBI. This could be achieved by combining further elements of the branding process, instead of solely concentrating on the development of a SBI by looking at a website as a trigger for sustainable purchasing.

The next limitation addresses the gender distribution and overall environmental concern level in the sample. The sample included 75% female participants, which is a proportion. Previous studies investigating sustainability topics highlighted that women on average have higher intention to behave sustainable and higher levels of environmental concern. As seen by Namkung and Jang (2017), who mentioned a higher likelihood for women to pay more for green practices, or Laroche et al. (2001), who identified women with children as the most environmentally-friendly segment or Suki (2013), who stated that women were more concerned about the environment. Therefore, it should be paid attention to the fact that the percentage of women participating in this study was high. This leads to the next

(29)

limitation, which refers to an above average level of environmental concern within the

samples. The average environmental concern was 4.15, and corresponds to somewhat agree to the pro-environmental statements. This could be favoured by several aspects such as the high percentage of women within the sample, the high level of education (Tvinnereim, Fløttum, Gjerstad, Johannesson, & Nordø, 2017) and social desirability, which affects the validity of the experimental research findings.

Conclusion

Finding ways towards a more sustainable future should be within the responsibility of companies towards society and environment due to the great impact they have on the world around them (Kozlowski, Bardecki, & Searcy, 2012). In recent years, many companies consider integrating sustainability as a core value in their practices, either out of their own firm belief or due to external factors. Demonstrating that environmental concern was significantly related to SPI, this thesis supports the idea of including consumers’

environmental concerns in companies’ operations. When companies take peoples’ concerns seriously by increasing the importance of sustainability in their business operations, the communication of their values should go beyond a presentation on the corporate website of a company and include ways, were people are exposed to the information without actively seeking for it. The question of companies’ possibilities to influence sustainable purchases is vital. Especially the fashion industry would offer plenty of room for improvements regarding sustainable practices, because of the prevalent fast fashion approach, that prioritises keeping up with the latest trends over acting more sustainably. Overall, it is desirable, to intensify the understanding of sustainability branding to improve companies sustainable brand positioning.

(30)

References

Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1048–1063.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230197

Ahmad, A., & Thyagaraj, K. S. (2015). Consumer’s intention to purchase green brands: The roles of environmental concern, environmental knowledge and self-expressive benefits.

Current World Environment, 10(3), 879–889.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.10.3.18

Albino, V., Balice, A., & Dangelico, R. M. (2009). Environmental strategies and green product development: An overview on sustainability-driven companies. Business

Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.638

Bamberg S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556363

Bathmanathan, V., & Hironaka, C. (2016). Sustainability and business: What is green corporate image? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/32/1/012049

Baumgartner, R. J. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.405

Beard, N. D. (2008). The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: A luxury niche or mass-market reality? Fashion Theory - Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 12(4), 447– 468. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174108X346931

(31)

Birtwistle, G., & Moore, C. M. (2007). Fashion clothing – where does it all end up?

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(3), 210–216.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550710735068

Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate

responsibility? Highlighting the attitude - behaviour gap. Journal of Communication

Management, 4(4), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb023532

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention-behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759– 2767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022

Cervellon, M., & Wernerfelt, A. (2012). Knowledge sharing among green fashion

communities online. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International

Journal, 16(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021211222860

Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2001). Explaining green purchasing behavior : A cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers. Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, 14(2/3), 9–40. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v14n02

Chen, Y. S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9 Cronin, J. J., Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., Ramirez, E., & Martinez, J. D. (2011). Green

marketing strategies: An examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 158–174.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0227-0

D’Souza, C., Gilmore, A. J., Hartmann, P., Apaolaza Ibáñez, V., & Sullivan-Mort, G. (2015). Male eco-fashion: A market reality. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12148

Dangelico, R. M., & Vocalelli, D. (2017). “Green Marketing”: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner

(32)

Production, 165, 1263–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.184

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Han, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, E. (2017). Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research, 74, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.029

Hatch, M. J, & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding.

European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041-1064.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477654

Holt, D. B. (2003). Brands and branding. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Huang, Y. C., Yang, M., & Wang, Y.-C. (2014). Effects of green brand on green purchase intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(3), 250–268.

https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2012-0105

Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory

statistics using generalized linear models. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Ind, N., & Riondino, M. C. (2001). Branding on the web: A real revolution? Journal of Brand

Management, 9(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540048

Jin, By., & Cedrola, E. (Eds.). (2017). Fashion Branding and Communication: Core

Strategies of European Luxury Brands. New York, NY: Springer Nature.

Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: Myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 10(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679321

Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Predictors of young consumer’s green purchase behaviour.

Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 27(4), 452–472.

(33)

Junior, S. S. B., da Silva, D., Gabriel, M. L. D. S., & Braga, W. R. de O. (2015). The effects of environmental concern on purchase of green products in retail. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 170, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.019

Kärnä, J., Juslin, H., Ahonen, V., & Hansen, E. (2001). Green advertising. Greenwash or a true reflection of marketing strategies? Greener Management International, 33, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046760102100502

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people behave environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education

Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540

Kozlowski, A., Bardecki, M., & Searcy, C. (2012). Environmental impacts in the fashion industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 45, 16–36.

https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2012.sp.00004

Kumar, B., Manrai, A. K., & Manrai, L. A. (2017). Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and empirical study. Journal of Retailing

and Consumer Services, 34, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.004

Kumar, V., & Christodoulopoulou, A. (2014). Sustainability and branding: An integrated perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 6–15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.06.008

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro‐ Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155

Lee, Y. K. (2017). A comparative study of green purchase intention between Korean and Chinese consumers: The moderating role of collectivism. Sustainability, 9(11), 1930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101930

Lloret, A. (2016). Modeling corporate sustainability strategy. Journal of Business Research,

(34)

Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of pthicality on product preference. Journal of

Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18

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

Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal

of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x

Müller, B., Florès, L., Agrebi, M., & Chandon, J. L. (2008). The branding impact of brand websites: Do newsletters and consumer magazines have a moderating role? Journal of

Advertising Research, 48(3), 465-472. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849908080471

Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2017). Are consumers willing to pay more for green practices at restaurants? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 41(3), 329–356.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348014525632

Newton, J. D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., & Sands, S. (2015). Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of

Business Research, 68(9), 1974–1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.007

Orsato, R. J. (2006). Competitive environmental strategies: When does it pay to be green?

California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166341

Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour. British

Food Journal, 107(8), 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002

Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents:

Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335– 348. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20698

(35)

consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810890516

Rahbar, E., & Wahid, N. A. (2011). Investigation of green marketing tools ’ effect on consumers ’ purchase behavior. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631111114877 Fashion Revolution. (2017). Fashion Revolution Transparency Index. Retrieved from

https://issuu.com/fashionrevolution/docs/fr_fashiontransparencyindex2017 Rowley, J. (2004). Online branding. Online Information Review, 28(2), 131–138.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520410531637

Sarkar, A. N. (2012). Green branding and eco-innovations for evolving a sustainable green marketing strategy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X1200800106

Shaw, D., Hogg, G., Wilson, E., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. (2006). Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 427-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540600956426

Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0216-3

Stuart, H. J. (2011). An identity‐ based approach to the sustainable corporate brand.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(2), 139–149.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111141660

Suki, N. M. (2013). Green awareness effects on consumers’ purchasing decision: Some insights from Malaysia. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 9(1), 49-63. http://ijaps.usm.my/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Art3.pdf

Szokan, N. (2016, June 30). The fashion industry tries to take responsibility for its pollution.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com.

(36)

and brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding. Journal of Fashion Marketing

and Management: An International Journal.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0032

Thomas, S. (2008). From “green blur” to ecofashion: Fashioning an eco-lexicon. Fashion

Theory - Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 12(4), 525–540.

https://doi.org/10.2752/175174108X346977

Tvinnereim, E., Fløttum, K., Gjerstad, Ø., Johannesson, M. P., & Nordø, Å. D. (2017). Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Global Environmental Change, 46, 34–41.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.005

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

Wijaya, B. S. (2013). Dimensions of brand image: A conceptual review from the perspective of brand communication. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(31), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.13140/ejbm.2013.55.65

Wu, P. C. S., Yeh, G. Y. Y., & Hsiao, C. R. (2011). The effect of store image and service quality on brand image and purchase intention for private label brands. Australasian

Marketing Journal, 19(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.001

Yang, S., Song, Y., & Tong, S. (2017). Sustainable retailing in the fashion industry: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(7), 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071266

Yin, S., Wu, L., Du, L., & Chen, M. (2010). Consumers’ purchase intention of organic food in China. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90(8), 1361–1367.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3936

(37)

consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.394

(38)

Appendix A

(39)

Appendix B

(40)

Appendix C Measurement Items

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Child and Adolescent Mental Health care. However, the strongest increase in the use of antipsychotics in youth predates the current period under study and unfolded in the

de Mos Enza Enza Enza Uitslag afgewezen afgewezen naar 2e beoor- deling afgewezen naar 2e beoor- deling afgewezen afgewezen afgewezen in 1986 weer ver gelijkingsras

Bij veel calcium in de voedingsoplossing (behandeling 4 en 6) blijkt het calciumgehalte in blad en steel wel hoger te zijn en het kaliumgehalte lager ten opzichte van de

Intussen moeten we ons niet achter de Europese wet- en regelgeving verschuilen, want “Brussel” biedt wel degelijk veel ruimte voor een eigen beleid om natuur en landschap

In order to calibrate the roughness coefficient, the actual exposed areas of the gravel bar are first computed using the pattern recognition algorithm, and then compared to the

1.3.2 Example of using micro-electrode recordings within computational models We used a thalamic relay cell model to investigate the effect of DBS parameters on thalamocortical relay

thin films and Si device layers, are controlled by many parameters: the growth technique, the thicknesses of the PZT thin-film and Si device layer, the membrane diameter and

The research question we will try to answer is: In what way do international experience in host country and institutional strength of host country influence the relationship