The Impact of Utilitarian and Hedonistic Shopping Values on Sustainable Fashion Consumption: The Moderating Role of Religiosity

Abstract

The present study aims to elaborate whether sustainable fashion consumption is characterized by emotions or rational thinking and how religiosity influences the motive for the consumers to get involved in sustainable consumption behaviour. A mall intercept survey sampling technique was employed in a large metropolitan area of Pakistan. All scales were adapted from extant literature. It was found out that sustainable fashion is more of a utilitarian aspect of clothing than a hedonistic aspect of clothing. Moreover, religiosity has a strong moderating influence on the relationship between utilitarian and hedonistic shopping values and sustainable fashion consumption. The present study has significant implications for fashion retailers in the developing countries as they need to incorporate sustainability aspects into their production processes more so because developing countries encounter severe mismanagement or scarcity of natural resources. The present study is one of the preliminary researches to investigate sustainable fashion consumption patterns of consumers with distinct disparity between the underlying motives of consumption either catering to utilitarian functions or gratifying hedonistic purposes. Another novelty is examining the moderating impact that religiosity would have on hedonic and utilitarian shopping values towards shaping sustainable behaviour.

Keywords

Sustainable fashion consumption Pakistan utilitarian shopping values hedonistic shopping values religiosity Islam

Introduction

A total of 170 per cent, Yes! By the year 2040, the ‘ecological footprint’ (how much destruction human consumption patterns have on the natural resources of the world) would increase to a whopping 170 per cent (WBCSD, 2008). To make it even more disturbing is the fact that every 1 million dollar spent on clothes by consumers would approximately affect 400 hectares of grasslands and forests in the world (WBCSD, 2008). Social and environmental sustainability are at a constant threat because of the advancing fashion industry all over the world, which is deemed as one of the most polluting industries, causing serious environmental impacts like the emission of greenhouse gases, excessive water utilization, synthetic dyes and harmful wastes from the factories (Copenhagen Fashion Summit, 2012). The fashion industry lures customers into developing a throw-away fashion attitude, which eventually shortens the life cycle of a clothing piece (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). Fashion companies have developed rapid business cycles: speedy prototyping, small consignments comprising huge assortment and proficient modes of transport and distribution (Skov, 2002). In order to indulge the customers to purchase on a frequent basis, fashion retailers constantly replenish their stock with attractive and trendy outfits (Tokatli & Kizilgun, 2009). Due to this customers are vulnerable to visiting clothing stores every three times a month in the quest of finding a variety of garments (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006). This has led to the mass production of clothing as consumption is increasing at a greater pace. At present, nearly 80 billion garments are being manufactured around the world (Deloitte, 2013). Due to this heavy mass production and consumption of garments, the environmental impacts are multiplying (Gam, 2011).

The two fundamental behavioural attitudes involved in the purchase process, which determine the general engagement levels of consumers with specific products or services, are hedonic and utilitarian values (Herabadi, Verplanken & Knippenberg, 2009). To the author’s best knowledge there has been no such enquiry as to which shopping value is more dominant in the case of sustainable fashion consumption. The theoretical association between these two shopping values and sustainable fashion consumption is still not clear, which necessitates further investigation. The reason is that sustainable fashion, an evolving phenomenon, comprises two remotely related words, not often used together. Sustainability in terms of clothes implies longevity and durability, largely utilitarian values, while fashion in the same context is affiliated with personal self-expression, predominantly a hedonistic trait.

With the passage of time and as the sense of social responsibility has prevailed in food and other relevant industries, there remains a scarcity of benefaction when this consumer behaviour is studied in the context of sustainable clothing (Hustvedt & Bernard, 2008). The setting of the present study is Pakistan, which makes an interesting case for the topic under discussion. Pakistan is the sixth largest consumer market in the world with a population in excess of 180 million people, of which more than 95 per cent of the population adhere to religion Islam (Yousaf & Huaibin, 2013). The present study aims to further consolidate the results of previous studies by extrapolating the scope to the sustainable fashion sector. Likewise, it is still ambiguous on whether religious consumers are involved in consuming clothes sustainably or not. So there exists a value attitude gap regarding which shopping value, that is, hedonic or utilitarian, leads to sustainable fashion consumption and the moderating impact that religiosity would have on hedonic and utilitarian shopping values towards shaping sustainable behaviour. Filling this gap is of extreme importance because without a clear understanding of sustainability, consumers will never come to know about the consequences of their consumption behaviour.

The current article at first discusses sustainable fashion consumption in detail. Second, two shopping values, that is, hedonic and utilitarian, alongside religiosity, have been elaborated comprehensively. Third, the methodology and analysis of the results have been furnished by making use of appropriate statistical techniques. Fourth, the results have been discussed by elaborating the practical implications. At the end of the article, conclusion and limitations of the study have been mentioned.

Literature review

Sustainable Fashion Consumption

Defining sustainability in the context of fashion is complex, as terms like ethical consumption and green consumption are used interchangeably for sustainable consumption, which makes it a more multifaceted construct (Shen, Richards & Liu, 2013). Shen et al. (2013) and Fletcher (2008) extended the definition of sustainable fashion by enunciating that sustainable fashion is fashion that can be used for a longer period of time, manufactured with the ethical limitations by making use of eco-friendly and pro-environmental materials. Both environmental and social aspects of sustainability are encapsulated in this definition of sustainability which makes it more wholesome. Therefore, sustainable fashion is profoundly related to the environmental factors, involving the production of garments in a manner which is not only eco-friendly, but also epitomizes environmental safety and the preservation of natural resources (Cervellon & Wernerfelt, 2012).

Consumer preference for perpetual changes in fashion consumption has given headway to fast fashion products, which has consequently minimized the longevity of clothes. Fast fashion is a manufacturing response to fulfil the consumer’s insistence of novelty (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006). This is largely ascribable to the massive growth of fast fashion suppliers, who have developed a throw-away fashion attitude in the minds of customers, that is, disposing of the garments that are hardly worn twice (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). Moreover, it is ascertained that this throw-away attitude is even more common among the youth because they want to stay updated in accordance with the changing fashion trends (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007). This is where the present study holds special relevance as Pakistan is regarded as a ‘young nation’ and the median age of the country is 22, and more than 100 million people (that makes more than half of total Pakistan) are aged under 30 (Nizami, 2010), which also implies that by several means they may possibly be involved in the wasteful consumption of cloths.

Hedonic Shopping Value

In the literature, different terms are interchangeably used to elaborate hedonistic shopping values like enjoyment shopping, recreational shopping, leisure shopping and pleasurable shopping (Backstrom, 2011). Moreover, Arnold and Reynolds (2003), identified different types of hedonic shopping drives: shopping for the sake of adventure, gratification (indulgence), idea shopping (a way through which know-how is ascertained regarding emerging trends in the market), role (giving a sense of relief to the other), value (the delight of discovering discounts) and social (the means of mingling with others). Hedonism is conventionally discussed in a negative connotation by linking it with emotional aspects like instant gratification, pleasure, joy and wasteful consumption (Gabriel & Lang, 1995). Similarly, Mcneill and Moore (2015), establish that while purchasing clothes, consumers who are primarily driven by symbolic values like aspirations of embellishing their personal self-image and enhancing the perception of other people towards them are lesser likely to engage in sustainable consumption. Thus, consumers with predominantly hedonic values are least likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour or sustainable consumption (Empacher, Gotz & Schultz, 2002).

Utilitarian Shopping Value

Consumers buy products that have utilitarian values like functionality, durability, price and physical performance (Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991). Utilitarian consumers think before purchasing a product in terms of the careful judgemental valuation of benefits (Overby & Lee, 2006). During the purchase of clothes, consumers are looking for attributes like long-lasting life and premium quality; features like these play a very important role in cloth purchasing and they fall in the category of utilitarianism (Niinimäki, 2010).

Furthermore, Jägel, Keeling, Reppel and Gruber (2012) contrived an approach, slow fashion, which integrates utilitarian aspects of consumption like durability and endurance. This slow fashion approach is more proximate to sustainable fashion consumption. Another related concept by Bostman and Rogers (2011) is ‘collaborative consumption’ which implies sharing, exchanging and renting of goods and services. Binninger, Ourahmoune and Robert (2015) identified that consumers who have utilitarian values are involved in collaborative consumption behaviour as utilitarian consumers are inclined to base their fashion decisions on needs and avoid fast fashion (McNeill & Moore, 2015) and are more likely to indulge in collaborative consumption (Binninger et al., 2015).

Religiosity and Sustainable Fashion Consumption

Religiosity is the commitment of an individual to follow the teachings of his or her religion and depicting this commitment by his attitudes and actions (Johnson, Jang, Larson & Li, 2001). Religiosity is living your life by bestowing to the guidelines that are set by God (Weaver & Agle, 2002). Religion is the single most important cultural phenomenon that has a profound effect on the lifestyles, beliefs, principles and attitudes of the individuals living in a society, both at a personal and at a societal level (Mokhlis, 2009). Since major religious scriptures advocate the significance of sustaining a harmonious relationship with the environment (Djupe & Gwiasda, 2010), the teachings of Islam also, likewise, stress on the importance of maintaining environmental balance and committing to the judicious use of resources (Akhtar, 1996). Religiosity has an influential role to play in shaping the purchase intention towards the sustainable consumption of Muslim consumers (Shaharudin, Pani, Mansor, Elias & Sadek, 2010).

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Religiosity

Interpersonal religiosity (behavioural) portrays religious engagement in relation to an individual or a specific group (Mokhlis, 2006). Individuals that score high on interpersonal religiosity are attached to the religion because of some peripheral inspirations, that is, public prestige, commercial perks and peer domination. Consumers who have high interpersonal religiosity are fashionable and in being fashionable they are in pursuit of quality purchase rather than quantity purchase (Wesley, LeHew & Woodside, 2006). However, on the other hand, intrapersonal religiosity (cognitive) depicts religious engagement in oneself or how much an individual adhered personally to the values and beliefs of his or her religion (Mokhlis, 2006). Thereby, a fashion business that supports the well-being of other members of the society and also the natural environment of the world will subsequently attract him more. On the basis of this the current study proposed that there will be a significant and positive association of religiosity with sustainable fashion consumption keeping in mind both its dimensions.

The fundamental religious beliefs that an individual holds play an important role in persuading consumers to purchase sustainably (Djupe & Gwiasda, 2010). Hedonic consumers are more involved in fashion consumption compelled by what other people think of them due to symbolic values attached to it, that is, lifestyle and social status (Mcneill & Moore, 2015). Such an act of conspicuous consumption at an exaggerated level is considered as ostentatious and pretentious by Islam and is discouraged (Rice, 1999). Therefore, we deduce that higher levels of religiosity would diminish the negative effect of hedonistic shopping values on sustainable fashion consumption but enhance the positive effect of utilitarian shopping values on the same. The theoretical framework of the studies is depicted in Figure 1. In hypothesis H4a and H4b, religiosity includes both intrapersonal and interpersonal religiosity.

Figure 1.

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Methodology

The product category selected for this study is the designer’s clothing. The sampling frame comprised all the potential shoppers of a major metropolitan city of Pakistan, that is, Multan (located in the south of Pakistan). The mall intercept survey technique was employed in one of the largest metropolitan areas of Pakistan. The mall intercept survey method is a reliable technique applied by marketers to collect data from people shopping in malls and is further utilized by numerous other researchers to gather responses from customers visiting shopping malls (Chaney & Gamble, 2008; Delong et al., 2004; Wu & Delong, 2006). The survey was conducted in the vicinity of the three largest shopping malls during the days of the week which attract the most number of shoppers, that is, Friday and Sunday. Respondents were intercepted, particularly those departing from stores focusing on cloths. A total of 350 shoppers were approached randomly to distribute questionnaires and 300 responses were returned to the interviewer. The overall response rate was 85.3 per cent. After eliminating 5 incomplete questionnaires, we achieved a sample size of 295 respondents.

The sustainable fashion consumption dimension was measured by adopting the measures from extant literature on sustainable consumption specifically relevant to clothing. Consequently, a seven-item scale was constructed to measure sustainable fashion consumption. The scale comprised the following items: SFC3, SFC5, SFC7 and SFC6, adapted from Balderjahn et al. (2013). Additional items, SFC1, SFC2 and SFC4, were adapted from scholarly works of Roberts and Bacon (1997) and Chan and Wong (2012). The utilitarian and hedonistic shopping values were gauged by employing the scale designed by Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994). They developed a two-dimensional scale to gauge personal shopping values comprising 11 items to measure the hedonistic shopping value and 4 items to measure the utilitarian shopping value; all 15 items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. In order to evaluate the religiosity dimension (Worthington et al., 2003), the religious commitment inventory scale (RCI-10) was utilized because as Yousaf and Malik (2013) recommended, RCI-10 has a relatively more neutral tone and avoids the sectarian elements and Pakistan being a country where religious sects are predominant, this approach is preferable. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 represents strongly agree and 5 symbolizes strongly disagree.

Analysis

A sample of 295 respondents from a large metropolitan area in Punjab, Pakistan, was gathered. The sample constitutes 184 male respondents (62.4%) and 111 female respondents (37.6%). The majority of the respondents, 135 in total, were aged between 18 and 23 (45.7%), and 60 respondents were aged between 24 and 29 (20.3%). While evaluating income brackets it was revealed that 52 respondents (17.6%) have their monthly average family income below 25,000 RS (238 USD), 104 (35.3%) have a monthly average family income between 25,001 and 50,000 RS (238 USD–477 USD), 54 (18.3%) have an average monthly family income between 50,001 and 75,000 RS (477 USD–715 USD) and 42 (14.2%) have an average monthly family income between 75,001 and 100,000 RS (715 USD–954 USD). However, only 43 (14.5%) respondents reported that their average monthly family income is above 100,000 RS (954 USD).

The data were tested for reliability and validity concerns. The standardized factor loadings for all the items are presented in the Table 2. All those items which had considerably lower factor loadings, the minimum cut-off criteria of 0.50, were removed from further consideration (Kline, 2015). Items H9, H10, H11 and SFC3 were deleted for further consideration as these measurement items do not correlate strongly with the theoretical construct in the model. These items were not insufficient in representing common variance for the construct. Besides, convergent validity is also established when all measurement items have factor loadings greater than 0.50 (Steenkamp & Trip, 1991). According to Bagozzi, Yi and Nassen (1998), data possess sufficient reliability if the composite reliability measure is greater than 0.60. Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt (2011) postulated that the measurement model has convergent validity if composite reliability is greater than average shared variance and the average shared variance is greater than the threshold of 0.50. On the other hand, the criteria for discriminant validity fulfil if average shared variance is greater than 0.50. Hu and Bentler (1999) further proposed that discriminant validity is established when square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than inter-item construct, as it is evident from Table 1. Discriminant validity is confirmed by making use of recommendations made by Fornell and Lacker (1981) as the square root of AVE for all the variables, represented by diagonal items in Table 2, is greater than the inter-construct correlation. The values in Table 1 manifest that data sufficiently meet the above-stipulated reliability and validity standards. In the last five columns of Table 2, the bold diagonal items represent the square root of AVE whereas the items beneath these diagonal items signify inter-factor correlations between the construct. As the table depicts, the lowest square root AVE as in case of inter-religiosity (0.714) surpasses the largest inter-construct correlation of sustainable fashion consumption (0.671).

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile

		Frequency	Per cent
Gender	Male Female	184 111	62.4 37.6
Age	18–23 24–29 30–34	135 60 50	45.7 20.3 17.0
Income	less than 25,000 25,001–50,000 50,001–75,000 75,001–1,00,000 1,00,001–1,25,000 1,25,001–1,50,000 above 1,50,000	52 104 54 42 26 6 11	17.6 35.3 18.3 14.2 8.8 2.0 3.7

Source: Prepared by the authors.

The measurement model was deemed adequately fit as the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom was 1.995, lower than the cut-off value of 2 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Moreover, the values of fit indices of the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the model was 0.057, lower than the cut-off value of 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The indicators of absolute and relative fit were adequate (GFI=0.869, NFI=0.881, CFI=0.938, IFI=0.929 and RFI=0.938).

Table 2.

Reliability and Validity Statistics for the Data

	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted	Maximum Shared Variance	Average Shared Variance	Inter Religiosity	Hedonistic shopping values	Utilitarian shopping values	Sustainable fashion consumption	Intra Religiosity
Inter Religiosity	0.805	0.509	0.217	0.125	0.714
Hedonistic shopping values	0.928	0.620	0.278	0.122	−0.070	0.787
Utilitarian shopping values	0.816	0.526	0.450	0.228	0.353	−0.527	0.725
Sustainable fashion consumption	0.882	0.554	0.450	0.244	0.394	−0.443	0.671	0.745
Intra Religiosity	0.907	0.620	0.217	0.115	0.466	−0.095	0.244	0.418	0.788

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Hypothesis 1 and 2 were confirmed, and as evident in Table 3, it was found out that there is a negative statistically significant relationship between hedonistic shopping values and sustainable fashion consumption (β = −0.194, p < 0.005), while utilitarian shopping values have a positive statistically significant relationship with sustainable fashion consumption (β = 0.472, p < 0.001). The testing of hypothesis 3a and 3b as evident in Table 3 confirmed that interpersonal religiosity and intrapersonal religiosity both have positive significantly statistical relationships with sustainable fashion consumption, respectively (β = 0.181, p < 0.005 and β = 0.310, p < 0.001).

As depicted in the Table 4, a hierarchical moderation analysis was run to test the moderating effect of religiosity on the relationship between hedonistic and utilitarian shopping values and sustainable fashion consumption. There was a statistically significant direct moderation effect found as the value of R² increased from 0.419 in the second regression equation to 0.454 in the third regression equation (F = 24.571, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 4a was partially supported, evident in Figure 2, as only interpersonal religiosity diminished the negative impact of hedonistic shopping value on sustainable fashion consumption (β = 0.576, p < 0.05), while no moderation effect was found for intrapersonal religiosity as manifested in Figure 3. Hypothesis 4b was also partially accepted as only intrapersonal religiosity enhanced the positive impact of utilitarian shopping value on sustainable fashion consumption (β = 0.649, p < 0.05), while no moderation effect was found for interpersonal religiosity on the relationship between the utilitarian shopping value and sustainable fashion consumption. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the interaction effect of both religiosity dimensions.

Table 3.

Standardized Factor Loadings on Loaded Items

	Statements	Standardized Factor Loadings
H1	This shopping trip was truly a joy.	0.839
H2	This shopping trip truly felt like an escape.	0.811
H3	Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable.	0.790
H4	I enjoyed this shopping trip for its own sake, not just for the items I may have purchased.	0.791
H5	During the trip, I felt the excitement of the hunt.	0.823
H6	While shopping, I was able to forget my problems.	0.813
H7	While shopping, I felt a sense of adventure.	0.693
H8	This shopping trip was not a very nice time out.	0.726
H9	I continued to shop, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.	Item did not load
H10	I had a good time because I was able to act on ‘the spur-of-the-moment’.	Item did not load
H11	I enjoyed being emerged in exciting new products.	Item did not load
U1	I accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping trip.	0.705
U2	I couldn’t buy what I really needed.	0.763
U3	While shopping, I found just the items(s) I was looking for.	0.678
U4	I was disappointed because I had to go to another store(s) to complete my shopping trip	0.752
InterRel1	I actively participate in the activities of my local religious institute (Mosque of your colony) or privately arranged religious activities (e.g. Milad)	0.740
InterRel2	I enjoy more, spending time with people of my religion, as compared to people of other religions.	0.761
InterRel3	I keep well informed about my local religious group and have some influence in its decisions	0.679
InterRel4	I regularly make financial contributions to my religious organization (For example Mosques)	0.670
IntraRel1	My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life	0.809
IntraRel2	I often spend time trying to increase understanding of my faith	0.776
IntraRel3	It is very important for me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and reflection	0.752
IntraRel4	My religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life	0.825
IntraRel5	My religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life	0.861
IntraRel6	I often read books and magazines about my faith.	0.692
SFC1	I will buy clothing that is durable	0.680
SFC2	I will buy clothing that is made with recycled content	0.749
SFC3	I will buy clothing which can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner	Item did not load
SFC4	I will buy clothing that is safe to the environment	0.734
SFC5	I will limit my use of that clothing which is made of or use scarce resources	0.755
SFC6	I will not buy new clothing items, if I already have previous dresses in usable state	0.809
SFC7	I will buy clothing which is produced in an environmentally friendly manner	0.735

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Table 4.

Regression Analysis of Shopping Values and Religiosity on Sustainable Fashion Consumption

	Coefficients	Standard Error	T value	F	R²
Shopping values				62.805	0.342
Hedonistic	−0.194	0.050	−3.332**
Utilitarian	0.472	0.056	8.107***
Religiosity				24.774	0.170
Interpersonal religiosity	0.181	0.064	2.869**
Intrapersonal religiosity	0.310	0.060	4.928***

Source: Authors’ own.

Note: **p < 0.005, *** p < 0.001

Table 5.

Moderation of Religiosity on the Relationship between Hedonistic and Utilitarian Shopping Values and Sustainable Fashion Consumption

	Sustainable Fashion Consumption	Sustainable Fashion Consumption	Sustainable Fashion Consumption
R²	0.342	0.419	0.454
Adj R²	0.336	0.410	0.436
F	62.805***	43.320***	24.571***
Shopping Values
Hedonistic Shopping Value	−0.194***	−0.194***	−0.557***
Utilitarian Shopping Value	0.472***	0.398***	0.075
Moderating Variable
Interpersonal Religiosity		0.121**	−0.210
Intrapersonal Religiosity		0.221***	−0.163
Interaction
Interpersonal Religiosity * Hedonistic			0.576**
Intrapersonal Religiosity * Hedonistic			−0.005
Interpersonal Religiosity * Utilitarian			−0.175
Intrapersonal Religiosity * Utilitarian			0.649**

Source: Authors’ own.

Discussion

The findings furnished by the present study offer significant theoretical contributions to the literature of sustainable fashion consumption. An important theoretical underpinning of this study is that hedonistic shopping values are negatively associated with sustainable fashion consumption. A possible justification for these results is that hedonist characteristics like fun and excitement impede a customer’s indulgence in sustainable behaviours (Francis & Davis, 2015). Further, this study determined that utilitarian shopping values are positively related to sustainable fashion consumption. These results were not surprising as utilitarian consumers have a predilection towards attributes like durability, premium quality and value for their money while making purchasing decisions (Niinimäki, 2010). Similar findings have been reported by Overby and Lee (2006). Lastly, as stipulated, higher levels of interpersonal religiosity and intrapersonal religiosity were found to have positive relationships with sustainable fashion consumption, the reason being the proximity of the sustainable fashion consumption concept to the Islamic principle of value maximization (Saeed, Ahmed, & Mukhtar, 2001).

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ own.

Figure 3.

Source: Authors’ own.

Figure 4.

Source: Authors’ own.

Figure 5.

Source: Authors’ own.

A new theoretical direction discovered by the present study is that the negative impact of the hedonistic shopping value on sustainable fashion consumption is significantly decreased by the moderating influence of interpersonal religiosity. While intrapersonal religiosity did not cause moderation between hedonism and sustainable fashion consumption, it significantly enhanced the positive impact of utilitarianism on sustainable fashion consumption. Thus, interpersonal religiosity complements hedonistic shopping values in adopting sustainable fashion consumption while intrapersonal augments utilitarian shopping values in embracing sustainable fashion consumption. Previous studies on Muslim consumers suggested that religiosity has a significant role to play in forming purchase intentions towards sustainable consumption (Shaharudin et al., 2010). But the contrasting role of both religiosity dimensions, explored in this study, in moderating the relationship between the two shopping values and the sustainable fashion consumption is a significant contribution to the literature. Luring customers into buying sustainable clothing is a complex task but the work done by Punyatoya (2014) identified that if manufacturers succeed in creating an eco-friendly image about their products, it leads towards generating customer trust which then results in higher purchase intentions.

Conclusion

The findings of this study have two significant implications for fashion retailers. First, sustainability concerns are relevant in the fashion sector as well and more so in developing countries like Pakistan, where the creation of sustainable production processes and supply chains has not been a priority, in spite of the fact that per hectare production has remained comparatively lower and natural resources are either unmanaged or limited, like fresh water resources in Pakistan are highly under stress (Ahmed, Iftikhar, & Chaudhry, 2007). Moreover, low per capita income implies that sustainable consumption may be an economic need for the consumers, attributable not only to ecological benefits it offers but also the cost–benefits it provides to the consumers and the industry as a whole. Thus, ecological concerns alone do not motivate consumers to indulge in sustainable fashion consumption. They may be primarily driven by the cost–effectiveness of sustainable fashion, if longevity and durability factors are taken into consideration, and also because clothes pass along from one family member to another one or from the upper strata to the lower strata in a closely knitted society like Pakistan. In order to create long-term effects, fashion industry, brands and retailers need to shape their activities in altering the traditional cloth-making process from ginning, spinning, weaving, dying and printing to finally cloth manufacturing. Additionally, the role of religion cannot be overlooked. Religiosity has a very strong impact in influencing consumers’ predispositions towards sustainable fashion consumption. Consumers are more likely to perceive a fashion brand sustainable, if it is positioned on religious denominations.

Limitations

The results furnished by this study are qualified by certain limitations. The findings of this study may not be extrapolated to other settings where religion is not an instrumental cultural and social phenomenon. Therefore, future researchers should be careful in generalizing the findings of the study. Moreover, only the environmental dimension items were utilized from (Balderjahn et al., 2013) consciousness for sustainable consumption scale (CSC). Future studies can incorporate all the three dimensions of sustainability. Correspondingly (Kumar, Rahman, & Kazmi, 2015) also emphasized on the importance of including social and economic factors in textile and various other sectors while implementing sustainable marketing strategy (SMS).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Arindam Banik, Editor, GBR, and other referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article.

References

Ahmed

Iftikhar

& Chaudhry

G. M.

(2007). Water resources and conservation strategy of Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 46(4), 997–1009.

Akhtar

M. R.

(1996). Towards an Islamic approach for environmental balance. Islamic Economic Studies, 3(2), 57–77.

Arnold

M. J.

& Reynolds

K. E.

(2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 77–95.

Babin

B. J.

Darden

W. R.

& Griffin

(1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.

Bäckström

(2011). Shopping as leisure: An exploration of manifoldness and dynamics in consumers shopping experiences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(3), 200–209.

Bagozzi

R. P.

& Nassen

K. D.

(1998). Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: Review of approaches and extension to three-facet designs. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1), 393–421.

Balderjahn

Buerke

Kirchgeorg

Peyer

Seegebarth

& Wiedmann

K. P.

(2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192.

Barnes

& Lea-Greenwood

(2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: Shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 259–271.

Binninger

A. S.

Ourahmoune

& Robert

(2015). Collaborative consumption and sustainability: A discursive analysis of consumer representations and collaborative website narratives. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(3), 969.

10.

Birtwistle

& Moore

C. M.

(2007). Fashion clothing—Where does it all end up? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(3), 210–216.

11.

Bostman

& Rogers

(2011). What’s mine is yours. How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London, UK: Ed Collins.

12.

Cervellon

M. C.

& Wernerfelt

A. S.

(2012). Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 176–192.

13.

Chan

T. Y.

& Wong

C. W.

(2012). The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(2), 193–215.

14.

Chaney

& Gamble

(2008). Retail store ownership influences on Chinese consumers. International Business Review, 17(2), 170–183.

15.

Copenhagen Fashion Summit (2012). Retrieved from http://nordicfashionassociation.com/sites/default/files/copenhagen_fashion_summit_2012_programme.pdf

16.

Deloitte (2013). Fashioning sustainability 2013. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/dk/Documents/strategy/Deloitte-Fashioning-Sustainability-2013.pdf

17.

Delong

Bao

Chao

& Li

(2004). Perception of US branded apparel in Shanghai. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 8(2), 141–153.

18.

Djupe

P. A.

& Gwiasda

G. W.

(2010). Evangelizing the environment: Decision process effects in political persuasion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 73–86.

19.

Empacher

Gotz

& Schultz

(2002). Target group analysis of the institute for social-ecological research. In Models of sustainable consumption: A new eco political sphere of action as a challenge to environmental communication (pp. 87–181).

20.

Fletcher

(2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles. London, UK: Earthscan.

21.

Fornell

& Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

22.

Francis

J. E.

& Davis

(2015). Adolescents’ sustainability concerns and reasons for not consuming sustainably. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(1), 43–50.

23.

Gabriel

& Lang

(1995). The unmanageable consumer: Contemporary consumption and its fragments. London, UK: SAGE.

24.

Gam

H. J.

(2011). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(2), 178–193.

25.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

& Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

26.

Herabadi

A. G.

Verplanken

& Van Knippenberg

(2009). Consumption experience of impulse buying in Indonesia: Emotional arousal and hedonistic considerations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 20–31.

27.

L. T.

& Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

28.

Hustvedt

& Bernard

J. C.

(2008). Consumer willingness to pay for sustainable apparel: The influence of labeling for fiber origin and production methods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 491–498.

29.

Jägel

Keeling

Reppel

& Gruber

(2012). Individual values and motivational complexities in ethical clothing consumption: A means-end approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 373–396.

30.

Johnson

B. R.

Jang

S. J.

Larson

D. B.

& Li

S. D.

(2001). Does adolescent religious commitment matter? A re-examination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 22–43.

31.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY and London, UK: Guilford Publications.

32.

Kumar

Rahman

& Kazmi

A. A.

(2013). Sustainability marketing strategy: An analysis of recent literature. Global Business Review, 14(4), 601–625.

33.

McNeill

& Moore

(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.

34.

Mokhlis

(2006). The effect of religiosity on shopping orientation: an exploratory study in Malaysia. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(1), 64–74.

35.

Mokhlis

(2009). Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behavior research. International Business Research, 2(3), 75.

36.

Morgan

L. R.

& Birtwistle

(2009). An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 190–198.

37.

Niinimäki

(2010). Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 150–162.

38.

Nizami

N. S.

(2010). Population, labour force and employment. In Pakistan economic survey 2009q–10.

39.

Overby

J. W.

& Lee

E. J.

(2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1160–1166.

40.

Punyatoya

(2014). Linking environmental awareness and perceived brand eco-friendliness to brand trust and purchase intention. Global Business Review, 15(2), 279–289.

41.

Rice

(1999). Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(4), 345–358.

42.

Roberts

J. A.

& Bacon

D. R.

(1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89.

43.

Saeed

Ahmed

Z. U.

& Mukhtar

S. M.

(2001). International marketing ethics from an Islamic perspective: a value-maximization approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 127–142.

44.

Shaharudin

M. R.

Pani

J. J.

Mansor

S. W.

Elias

S. J.

& Sadek

D. M.

(2010). Purchase intention of organic food in Kedah, Malaysia: A religious overview. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 96.

45.

Shen

D. O. N. G.

Richards

& Liu

F. E. N. G.

(2013). Consumer’s awareness of sustainable fashion. Marketing Management Journal, 23(2), 134–147.

46.

Steenkamp

J. B. E.

& Van Trijp

H. C.

(1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299.

47.

Sheth

J. N.

Newman

B. I.

& Gross

B. L.

(1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.

48.

Skov

(2002). Hong Kong fashion designers as cultural intermediaries: Out of global garment production. Cultural Studies, 16(4), 553–569.

49.

Tabachnick

B. G.

& Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.

50.

Tokatli

& Kızılgün

Ö.

(2009). From manufacturing garments for ready-to-wear to designing collections for fast fashion: Evidence from Turkey. Environment and Planning A, 41(1), 146–162.

51.

WBCSD (2008). Sustainable consumption facts and trends from a business perspective. Word Business Council for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Modules/Library/WBCSD_Sustainable_Consumption_web.pdf

52.

Weaver

G. R.

& Agle

B. R.

(2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97.

53.

Wesley

LeHew

& Woodside

A. G.

(2006). Consumer decision making styles and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 535–548.

54.

Worthington Jr

E. L.

Wade

N. G.

Hight

T. L.

Ripley

J. S.

McCullough

M. E.

Berry

J. W.

… O’Connor

(2003). The religious commitment inventory—10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96.

55.

& Delong

(2006). Chinese perceptions of western-branded denim jeans: A Shanghai case study. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 238–250.

56.

Yousaf

& Huaibin

(2013). Profiling consumer behavior in the context of involvement level and demographic factors: Evidence of within-country differences from a developing economy. Journal of Global Marketing, 26(1), 1–17.

57.

Yousaf

& Shaukat Malik

(2013). Evaluating the influences of religiosity and product involvement level on the consumers. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(2), 163–186.