Luxury as a Sustainable Service: A Push–Pull

Abstract

With the rapidly changing global landscape on sustainability, the luxury industry is now embracing circularity in consumption. Similarly, consumers are also evolving and changing the way they consume luxury by shifting from ownership-based models to access-based models. To uncover the underlying notions of sustainability in luxury, this conceptual article proposes the luxury as a sustainable service (LaSS) framework. It analyses consumers’ adoption of access-based, second-hand and co-ownership-based luxury models that are sustainable in their core. The study also attempts to advance the push–pull–mooring (PPM) theory by grounding the LaSS framework that further substantiates why consumers shift (or not) towards sustainable luxury. We identify push factors (voluntary conscious lifestyle, social norms, emotions of gratitude), pull factors (pro-environment behaviour, mindful consumption, warm glow) and mooring factors (materialism, social status, hedonic values, sunk cost) that play a key role in the transition of consumers towards adoption of LaSS. The LaSS framework has immense scope of being empirically tested and deeply fathom the fast-changing luxury consumer behaviour in a nuanced manner. Luxury practitioners can refer to the LaSS framework to formulate better strategies for consumers who are ready to adopt a sustainable luxury consumption regime.

Keywords

Luxury Sustainability Push–Pull–Mooring Theory Luxury Services Pro-environmental Behaviour

Executive Summary

Conspicuous consumption in the form of luxury products is widely reported for its detrimental effects on environmental sustainability. The term ‘luxury’ is derived from ‘luxus’ connoting ‘excess, extravagance’. The ratio of functional utility to the price, for luxury products, is low since they are perceived to be rare, unique, status-laden and offer hedonic value (HV) through customer experiences, thus satisfying the socio-psychological needs of consumers. The previous studies (Jain & Mishra, 2020) empirically posit that consumers from collectivist societies like India are more likely to indulge in luxury consumption, resulting in damage to the environment. Therefore, there is a need for an alternative form of consumption to mitigate the harmful effects of ownership-related consumption. The authors, by conceptualizing luxury as sustainable service (LaSS), are giving the option to the designers and marketers to position their luxury offerings in an environment-friendly manner.

The goal of the luxury business is to create a desire for things that no one really needs.

—Bernard Arnault, CEO LVMH (The Atlantic, 2011)

Introduction

The luxury industry is revolutionizing from historically being an abstract concept to presently being a US$327 billion global market (Business of Fashion, 2021). Bain and Company report that 2021 witnessed a massive growth for the global personal luxury goods and hospitality industry, despite the COVID-19 effect. Luxury brands are not restricted to a limited assortment of categories anymore. They comprise an eclectic spectrum of goods and services, for example, apparel, accessories like footwear, handbags, lifestyle sneakers, high-end watches and jewellery. A considerable shift is witnessed towards a holistic approach that embraces inclusivity and sustainability. In a seminal study, Hennings et al. (2013) introduced the paradigm shift in the luxury domain where sustainability took over as a priority for luxury brands. Literature also suggests that luxury research is no longer confined to traditional aspects pertaining to luxury or consumer conspicuousness economics. Instead, the discourse has shifted to more contemporary themes that care for the environment, like sustainability, eco-consciousness and circular economy. Besides, it has deepened and widened in its spectrum, covering a wide array of products such as fashion, automobiles, wines, spirits and services such as vacations, cruises and hotels (Wirtz et al., 2020). Only recently, luxury has deviated from mainstream business models and has started to embrace alternative consumption forms such as renting, sharing and pre-owned to promote circularity and contribute their share of sustainability (Christodoulides et al., 2021). Moreover, there is chatter around a new generation of luxury consumers who seek luxury brands with a sustainable reputation (Pencarelli et al., 2020).

The concept of luxury dates to 1899 when Veblen, in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class introduced the term ‘conspicuous consumption’ that explained why consumers indulge with luxury products (Veblen & Mills, 2017). A few of the distinct aspects of luxury products are high prices, superior quality, exclusivity, innovation, craftsman-ship, status signalling, materialistic tendencies, hedonism, product centricity and product performance (Ko et al., 2019). In addition to these attributes, which form the fulcrum of luxury products, the new-age luxury has accumulated more intricate nuances. Contemporary luxury is more customer-centric (Lam & Law, 2019) and witnessing a generational shift (Kapferer & Michaut, 2019). Today, more than generation X, younger generations like millennials and generation Z are drawn towards luxury, thereby driving 85% of luxury sales (Forbes.com, 2021). Hence, their choices, preferences and buying intentions are on the priority list of luxury brands.

Although luxury products are aesthetically pleasing, the luxury industry is long known for extravagance and wastefulness (Rathi et al., 2022). As luxury caters to psychological and emotional needs (Batat, 2019), luxury products serve the same purpose as any other standard product from a utilitarian perspective. Many even consider luxury to be a waste of money that evokes a feeling of guilt (Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2021). Luxury also widens the social and economic disparity, persuading consumers to abhor such consumption. But today, in the era where ‘sustainability’ is a buzzword, the luxury industry is regarded as the biggest culprit in environmental degrada-tion, pollution, animal cruelty, poor labour working conditions and a threat to our planet’s health (Rathi et al., 2022). A small example of about 39,000 tons of fashion ending up in the Chilean desert every year (NY Post, 2021) is sufficient to understand the magnitude of the problem.

But is this opulent industry really to blame? Another school of thought regards luxury as rooted in solid moral foundations (Geiger-Oneto & Minton, 2019). Luxury pays strong attention to environmental impact through ethical and sustainable responsibilities (Davies et al., 2012). This school emphasizes the fairness and equality promoted by luxury (Lee et al., 2018) and stresses durability and longer product life cycles. Luxury brands use supreme quality raw materials that make their products long-lasting without wear and tear. Even in fashion, luxury is known to be a torchbearer of the slow fashion movement, with brands like Burberry, Prada, Chanel, paying so much attention to creating best-in-class products as opposed to fast fashion brands where trends do not even last one season. Further, designers such as Stella McCartney and Versace have eliminated the use of fur in their creations, while Bally, Chloe and Gabriela Hearst are taking steps to bring annual sustainability profit and loss reports, replacing polyvinylchloride (PVC) with regenerated leather and improving processes to minimize water consumption besides others.

The above-mentioned discussion points towards a mixed standing of academic researchers on luxury concerning sustainability. However, it cannot be denied that even when luxury and sustainability are considered diametrically opposite, there are signs of convergence (Rathi et al., 2022), especially in this new-luxury era where both brands and consumers are open to experimenting with newer and more circular consumption forms such as renting, sharing and pre-owned. At one end, where pre-owned luxury involves buying and selling used luxury items, there is no transfer of ownership for models like sharing and renting. The utilization of products follows the rules of a service-based economy. These services are sustainable in their core (Wirtz et al., 2020) and promote luxury brands’ values beyond ostentation and extravagance. The Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) Group calculated its carbon footprint in 2020 as 4.8-million-ton carbon equivalent. The problem is that the apparels are not biodegradable due to chemical products. Therefore, they do not decay for years and decades, leading to soil and water pollution, spreading harmful microplastics, and affecting life cycles and the ecosystem.

The disconnect between luxury consumption and sustainable consumption is evident, and efforts to combine sustainability and luxury can result in consumer resistance and consequently less favourable evaluations of the luxury brands (Han et al., 2017). Hence, it is critical to reflect how luxury and sustainability can collate and collaborate to increase consumer acceptance (Septianto et al., 2021). Younger consumers demand indulging experiences along with sustainable practices rather than possessions. They are also conscious about their consumption habits and demand luxury brands to behave ethically and sustainably.

In this vein, we have conceptualized luxury as a sustainable service (LaSS). Primarily, LaSS makes luxury brands accessible to desirous consumers in an environment-friendly manner. This requires alternative consumption behaviour through a change in consumer mindset. The alternative behaviour(s) include but are not limited to renting, subscribing for short durations, sharing and purchasing pre-owned luxury brands. Through the push–pull–mooring (PPM) model, the present study focuses on the factors guiding, attracting and withholding the consumer from making a sustainable choice while making a purchase of the luxury product.

The broad objectives of this research are as follows: first, to introduce the LaSS concept in academic literature; second, to validate the PPM framework in the sustainable domain, especially in the context of luxury purchases; third, to identify the luxury purchase factors as drivers (push), enablers (pull) and barriers (mooring) towards sustainable consumption behaviour and, finally, to understand whether, in the context of luxury, consumers will give preference to alternative consumption patterns, promoting environment-friendly over the traditional forms of consumption.

The framework responds to the call by Athwal et al. (2019) for extensive research in the purchase behaviour of sustainable luxury consumers, presently a heterogeneous segment. Simultaneously, the conceptual framework is similar to the one suggested by Scott et al. (2014) where further research is required into a more conscious form of materialism, without compromising the desire for status and prestige. Our study seeks to combine the universe of luxury patrons with evolving socio-market conversations around environmental concerns. This study also seeks to comprehend and broadly explicate the factors accompany-ing substitute decision-making processes and their effects on luxury consumers’ switching behaviour from ownership-based consumption to more environment-friendly con-sumption behaviour, conceptualized as LaSS.

Literature Review

Luxury as a Sustainable Service

The authors have conceptualized LaSS, meaning luxury consumers indulge in responsible consumption behaviour that is eco-friendly. This conceptualization has three key components—luxury, sustainable and service. Multiple past studies have highlighted the sustainable luxury paradox, but none of them provide a precise definition of sustainable luxury. However, a grassroot level understand-ing of sustainable luxury can encompass more conscious and responsible way of consuming (Athwal et al., 2019), reflecting on the purchases, and adopting the ‘less is more’ philosophy (Cherrier et al., 2011). Further, to showcase these consumption values that are unconventional for luxury, studies have focused on explaining sustainable luxury service models like collaborative consumption (Toni et al., 2018). Similarly, for the scope of this study, we conceptualize sustainable luxury services as a concept that consumers are adopting to display their environmental concerns, namely collaborative consumption models in the sharing economy. This inclination of consumers towards a better environment by adopting alternative consumption forms beyond ownership is catching scholarly attention. In contrast to Belk’s (1988) research on the significance of possessions in modern-day consumption, which in the context of luxury relates to consumers’ feelings about possessions as a major contributor towards signalling wealth, achievement and success, the LaSS model postulates that the alternative forms of sustainable consumption will have a positive impact on the individual, society and natural environment. Further, since demonstrating that ostentatious, affluent belongings are not desired any longer (Cannon & Rucker, 2019; Lee et al., 2018), luxury patrons will accept and adopt LaSS.

LaSS has been conceptualized as an alternative form of luxury consumption combining ownership-related aspects (like second-hand luxury and co-ownership) and as non-ownership temporary possession-based aspects (like renting, on-demand, etc.; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Authors own.

The access-based or on-demand economy grants temporary access to the assets without a legal and permanent transfer of ownership (Lawson et al., 2016) for economic value (Eckhardt et al., 2019). This relationship can be dyadic, that is, peer-to-peer or triadic, that is, among the supplier, platform and the user. The latter is technology-mediated. The platforms connect providers and users of luxury asset resources to enable their exchange (Perren & Kozinets, 2018), allowing scaling of the model. The temporary peer-to-peer exchange is generally within a specific peer group in a dyadic relationship. A commercial or mass form of the access-based model has emerged in a product service economy. Herein, the assets are rented from a company (luxury brand directly like Ralph Lauren or a luxury retailer) rather than from peers. The company retains the legal ownership of the asset and provides the rental service for a fee while providing (temporary) access to the consumer. In this manner, the product can be used multiple times by different users, since after it is returned, the company makes it available again to another customer (Frenken & Schor, 2017).

Pre-loved or second-hand consumption refers to transferring used luxury resources to another consumer either by the previous owner or by a luxury retailer like Selfridges. This consumption activity allows the buyer to obtain permanent legal ownership of the resource (Cervellon et al., 2012).

Co-ownership refers to the form of consumption wherein two or more consumers share legal ownership of the same asset jointly, either in equal proportion or with one consumer owning the majority share. This allows both owners to benefit from ownership, simultaneously reducing the financial burden. Thus, the benefits and associated obligations of luxury assets are shared between the co-owners (Belk, 2010).

Sustainably consuming luxury allows for transmission of experiences among owners without adverse environ-mental effects. Such experiences can result in purchase attachment (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015) and endorse sustainability. The consumption patterns can be in various forms such as second-hand, renting luxury products, ascribing to slow fashion ethics and preferring the companies with a commitment towards the environment. Turunen and Leipämaa-Leskinen’s (2015) illustrated the burgeoning demand for second-hand, grandiosely termed as pre-loved, challenging the traditional luxury market. The later studies by Ryding et al. (2018) also validated a vibrant market for second-hand products. Catulli et al. (2017) suggested that promoting product service systems for alternative consumption, namely renting products, will lead to considerable environmental benefits due to the lower inventory requirement and better-managed product life cycle. Based on these studies, the authors posit that consumers can enjoy the luxury experience in an environment-friendly manner by adopting responsible consumption behaviour. Simultaneously, luxury brands can also overcome the allegations of being insensitive towards the environment and expanding their operations.

Theoretical Framework

The PPM (Moon, 1995) framework (Figure 2) has been derived from the human migration literature. The original PPM literature envisaged push as the factor driving people farther from their place of origin, pull as the factor making new destination attractive to the migrants and mooring as the status quo factor, keeping people at their place (Sun et al., 2017). However, the framework is silent on the PPM factors that lead to migration. Therefore, it has been utilized in various domains and contexts. Bansal et al. (2005) extrapolated the framework in consumer behaviour studies and concluded that the PPM framework could theoretically explain consumers’ switching intention. In the same vein, the framework has been adopted in marketing and organizational behaviour domains (Fu, 2011; Lin & Huang, 2014; Sun et al., 2017) to explain the consumer’s transition towards new behaviour from their previous well-established behavioural traits. A summary of the previous studies validating the PPM framework for researching consumer’s switching behaviour in various contexts has been provided in Table 1. These studies have focused on general consumer behaviour, but the PPM framework has not been validated in sustainability studies (Ye et al., 2020), specifically in the luxury domain.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors own.

Table 1.

Summary of PPM Studies

Sl. No.	Author Names (year)	Context
1	J. Y. Lai, S. Debbarma and K. R. Ulhas (2012)	Retail channels
2	T. C. Lin and S. L. Huang (2014)	Switching between smartphone operating systems
3	K. Wu, J. Vassileva and Y. Zhao (2017)	Cloud-based services
4	S. Kim, M. J. Choi and J. S. E. Choi (2020)	AR/VR content services
5	Qing Ye, Rongting Zhou, Muhammad Azfar Anwar, Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei and Fahad Asmi (2020)	Entrepreneurship
6	Cheolho Yoon and Dongsup Lim (2021)	Banking sector
7	Pi-Jung Hsieh (2021)	Digital payments
8	Nikita Dogra, Shuchita Bakshi and Anil Gupta (2022)	Health sector

Source: Authors own.

The Push Factors

The push factors direct customers to switch to an alternate service or product due to the negative impact of the present service or product. In the present study, push factors refer to drivers, which will make the luxury consumers transition to an alternative form of consumption from their present practice of owning the luxury products, thus resulting in environment-friendly behaviour. The proposed model consists of voluntary conscious lifestyle (VCL), social norms (SNs) and emotions of gratitude as the factors that will drive the consumers towards LaSS.

Voluntary conscious lifestyle: The need to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle is fast imbuing in our society. The pace at which consumers are adopting consciously crafted products, created with sustainable intentions in mind, is quickly growing. This voluntary shift in consumption patterns towards sustainable ones is a step towards a less materialistic world and a greener planet (Shaw & Newholm, 2002). The consumer behaviour research suggests that a lifestyle change in consumption habits has social, environmental and economic implications (Zsóka et al., 2013). To pursue a conscious lifestyle, it is crucial to understand that expenditure on wasteful and unnecessary products that are not sourced ethically or damage the environment in any way should be eliminated.

Instead, a criterion to practice VCL is to embrace slow fashion; circular models such as renting, sharing, swapping and pre-owned; and ethically sourced raw material with minimal damage to the planet. Together, these forms of consumption can be termed as sustainable service (elaborated in subsequent sections) as these rank high on servicescapes. This ideology rejects the desire for materialistic possessions, brings down unsustainable regimes and aggregates consciously chosen lifestyle products. Such consumers also broaden their perspectives on luxury and do not consider it wasteful and extravagant. Luxury, rather, becomes a symbol to showcase responsibility and environmental concern. Consciously making such lifestyle choices empowers consumers to act as sustainability ambassadors who concretize the contrasting concepts of luxury and sustaina-bility (Rathi et al., 2022). Thus, adopting a conscious lifestyle is the first step towards breaking the highly indulgent and wasteful cycle of luxury consumption, motivating the consumers to gravitate towards LaSS. Therefore, the authors posit that:

P1: VCL, as the push factor, will have a significant (positive) impact on the intention to switch to LaSS.

Social norms: Cialdini and Trost (1998; p. 152) defined SNs as ‘rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide and/or constrain social behavior without the force of laws’. SN has a profound impact on the consumption behaviour of an individual. They guide society members about the behaviours that are encouraged, accepted, obligatory or forbidden (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995). This creates a shared understanding among the members of the society. SN is derived from the shared understanding and compliance of social order. They act as guiding principles and influence consumption behaviour by propounding that ‘If everyone is doing it, it must be a sensible thing to do’ (Cialdini et al., 1990, p. 1015).

Previously, SN dictated the luxury purchases by signalling luxury as an epitome of social status (SS; Dubois, 2020); was affiliated with wealth and affluence; and identified the owner as an individual with economic resources and an exclusive clique. Yet, SN is evolving. Eckhardt et al. (2015) asserted that ‘inconspicuousness is the new conspicuousness’ (p. 812). The movement from ‘class to mass’ (Kapferer, 2015) in the form of accessibility of luxury and the spread of affordable luxury through democratization have diluted the wealth signal of luxury brands. Furthermore, consumers are ‘luxury shamed’ (e.g., for using fur) (Wang, 2021) and face social sanctions due to their extravagance and unsustainable consumption lifestyle patterns. However, if the same luxury products can be possessed and showcased in an environment-friendly manner, the individual may overcome social disapproval. Therefore, we posit that:

P2: SNs, as push factors, will have a significant (positive) impact on the intention to switch to LaSS.

Emotions of gratitude: Emotions are internal cues that trigger a particular behaviour by ascribing the fundamental motive and related psychological responses (Septianto et al., 2021). For example, the emotions of gratitude are activated in an individual when they recognize that they have profited from ‘the costly, intentional, voluntary action of another person’ (Stellar et al., 2017, p. 202). Thus, Algoe (2012) asserted that gratitude plays a leading role in fostering interpersonal relationships, leading to prosocial behaviour. Individuals engage in prosocial behaviour with the expectation of reciprocal behaviour from other community members in the future. In extant literature (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003), prosocial behaviour has been equated with environment-friendly behaviour.

In the context of luxury, the ownership of a brand is affiliated with status in the form of prestige seeking, exclusivity and extravagant behaviour, thereby being contrary to sustainable behaviour. The latter is associated with altruistic motives (Florea et al., 2013). Yet, as Trivers (1971) stated, the affiliation motives act as a system of reciprocal altruism. This tenet has been identified in sustainable behaviour studies too. Therein, the consumers are self-motivated to surrender their likely to be accrued benefits to assist the members of the society and the environment at large (McDonald & Oates, 2006). Thus, the emotion of gratitude, predicated on affiliation with luxury brands, can play an important role in accepting LaSS. Septianto et al. (2021) also concluded that the emotion of gratitude effectively increases the sharing intentions of luxury patrons. Thus, the authors posit that:

P3: The emotions of gratitude, as a push factor, will have a significant (positive) impact on the intention to switch to LaSS.

The Pull Factors

The pull factors attract customers to switch to an alternate service or product due to the positive impact of that alternative service or product. In the present study, pull factors refer to drivers, which will beckon the luxury consumers to transit to LaSS, an alternative form of sustainable consumption from their present practice of owning the luxury products. The proposed model consists of pro-environment behaviour (PEB), mindful consumption (MC) and warm glow (WG) as the factors, which will draw the consumers towards LaSS.

Pro-environment behaviour: PEB is described as ecology-friendly actions of individuals that can protect the environment from the negative impact of human activities. Previous studies have found that though buyers are thoughtful towards sustainability, their actions do not match their attitude (Bernardes et al., 2018). Achabou and Dekhili (2013) demonstrated that integrating recycled materials (an eco-friendly practice) into luxury goods harms consumer choice of luxury products. In the context of luxury specifically, there is an ethical paradox between the consumers’ sustainability-related values and beliefs and their needs or wants in luxury brands (Pencarelli et al., 2020).

Conversely, Amatulli et al. (2021) found that luxury consumers are evermore concerned about the sustainability aspects of their consumption. Furthermore, studies by Batat (2020) and Janssen et al. (2014) too showcase that consumers assess luxury goods manufactured in an ecologically friendly and/or socially sustainable manner. Therefore, if an individual’s value system is concerned about protecting the environment, they are more likely to accept LaSS. Therefore, we posit that:

P4: PEB, as a pull factor, will significantly (positively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Mindful consumption: In their seminal work on introducing MC as a customer-centric approach to sustainability, Sheth et al. (2011) defined MC as ‘temperance in acquisitive, repetitive and aspirational consumption at the behavior level, ensuing from and reinforced by a mindset that reflects a sense of caring toward self, community, and nature’. The authors further propose three forms of self-defeating consumption forms, namely acquisitive, repetitive and aspirational. MC is established to influence an individual’s bent towards sustainability, which is considered as a transformative behaviour. Bahl et al. (2016) demonstrated that an indulgence in MC behaviour reduces habitual consumption practices and paves the way for transformative consumption at three levels—individual, societal and environmental.

Sustainability research has vastly paid attention to MC as it changes consumption habits by differentiating between needs and wants (Milne et al., 2020). From a sustainable consumption perspective, MC is studied in opposition to mindlessness. Research in luxury is still developing when viewing consumption through the lens of mindfulness. However, researchers have welcomed the notion of a paradigm shift in luxury consumer attitudes who appreciate conscious luxury consumption instead of mindless overconsumption (Malek et al., 2016). Thus, the authors posit that:

P5: MC, as a pull factor, will significantly (positively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Warm glow: WG has been described as the ‘satisfaction that goes beyond the benefits derived from the aggregate provision of a public good through pro-environmental behavior’ (Clark et al., 2003, p. 239). Isen (1970) posited that individuals might experience emotional benefits by their willingness to help others, engaging in prosocial behaviour and displaying empathy and concern for other members of society. Andreoni (1990) demonstrated that WG is the driving factor towards prosocial behaviour because it can lead to experiencing affective satisfaction by individuals. The WG theory (Hartmann et al., 2017) specifies the environment-friendly behaviour, which results in the individuals basking in WG of social concern.

Through the tenets of signalling theory, Liao et al. (2020) indicated that by indulging in PEB, individuals could bask in WG reflected from such behaviour and demonstrate the same to their peer group. In the present study, the authors conceive that participation in the LaSS form of consumption will lead to customers adjusting their ‘WG thermostat’ (Giebelhausen et al., 2016). This will lead to ‘WG attachment’ (Habel et al., 2016) with the said luxury patrons, resulting in their symbolic communication of reducing conspicuous and ostentatious consumption, translating to their concern for the environment, thereby enjoying an elevated SS among the peer group. Thus, the authors posit that:

P6: WG, as a pull factor, will significantly (positively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Moorings Factors

Moon (1995) indicates that even though the push and pull factors in the PPM framework provide incentives to switch to alternative products, the individuals may prefer to maintain the status quo, that is, not transition to the alternatives on offer. Thus, the personal or social factors that keep customers with the present product or service and restrict their transition to the alternative(s) are called mooring factors. Presently, factors such as materialism, SS, HVs and sunk costs (SCs) are studied as the reason for luxury consumers resisting the switch to the LaSS form of sustainable consumption.

Materialism: Belk (1985) defined materialism as a human trait of placing material possessions at the focal point of existence. It is an eternal characteristic of human instinct and cannot be eliminated. However, its intensity can be high or low depending upon an individual’s value systems. Materialistic individuals commit to the consumption and possessions of worldly objects. Academic literature substantiates that materialism is less driven by intrinsic factors and more by extrinsic motivations (Audrin et al., 2017). More specifically, intrinsic aspirations include acceptance of the self, feeling close to a community, feelings of safety and health, hedonistic aspirations and spirituality at a higher level of self-realization.

On the other hand, extrinsic motivations are possession of wealth and riches, the desire to be popular and attractive in society, and a longing for social conformity (Sun et al., 2014). As compared to non-materialists, materialistic individuals are more drawn towards signalling a high status in society. For them, their life’s satisfaction and non-satisfaction are dependent on materialistic possessions. Moreover, they use the acquisition of objects to achieve a higher level of happiness and success in life (Sirgy et al., 2021). A vast body of knowledge considers materialism a key construct in studying luxury consumption. Materialism influences consumer values and comprises traits such as possessiveness, non-generosity and envy (Belk, 1985).

In the context of this study that promotes environmen-talism over materialism and embraces sustainability in luxury consumption, materialism acts as an anti-factor rather than an enabler of sustainable luxury consumption. The aforementioned traits make materialists selfish and self-centred (Lee & Ahn, 2016). They are less attracted by products that signal an environmental orientation and are less likely to show an intention to purchase eco-friendly goods. Furthermore, due to their ostentatious lifestyle, they are indifferent to environmental concerns and societal issues. Scott et al. (2014) have postulated that materialism in its traditional form is a blockade towards attaining sustainable consumption. Accordingly, the authors posit that:

P7: Materialism values, as a mooring factor, will significantly (negatively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Social status: The desire to attain SS is a critical driver for human behaviour. As SS is not explicitly visible in a social setting, individuals rely on signals like status products to secure a place in society (Balabanis & Sthathopoulou, 2021). SS is enhanced by status consumption, which is defined as a behaviour in which ‘individuals strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding significant others’ (Eastman et al., 1999, p. 41). Consump-tion of luxury is undeniably linked to prestige, and luxury consumers use their purchases to signal a social standing (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). These consumers buy luxury to find affiliation in an aspirational social circle by climbing the social ladder while dissociating themselves with the less desirable section of society. Research states that enhancing SS is a crucial consumption motivation, and consuming luxury acts as a channel for displaying conspicuous consumption.

PEB research has found that green consumption is also a medium to signify higher status (Berger, 2017). Moreover, sustainable consumption not only enhances SS but also improves social relations. Tascioglu et al. (2017) point towards eco-friendly consumption acting as a signal status for consumers who place high value in SS. Consumers increase their reputation in society by indulging in sustainable consumption. Based on this evidence, we posit that:

P8: SS, as a mooring factor, will significantly (positively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Hedonic values: Solomon (2006, p. 113) described values as a ‘belief about some desirable end-state that transcends specific situations and guides the selection of behavior’. Chen and Dubinsky (2003) indicated that values could provide psychological components of the customer’s consumption-related behaviour. It refers to the emotions and experiences that an individual desires and derives from the usage of the product. Previous studies (Brown, 1993; Gardiner et al., 2013) have proved that emotions along with experiences and novelty factors constitute a dimension of HV and are important determinants of the consumption behaviours of a prospective consumer.

Luxurious products are an experience (Carrington et al., 2016). In the luxury segment, consumers’ HV is more important in determining behavioural intentions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999) against utilitarian values. To create the desired experience, luxury brands bestow respect to satisfy their owner’s hedonic needs (Jain & Mishra, 2020). The sense of supremacy and prestige attached to the luxury products (Liu et al., 2013) motivate the consumers to acquire the products to satisfy their intrinsic hedonic needs. Davies et al. (2012) illustrated that luxury consumers would be inclined to purchase an unsustainable luxury good over an environment-friendly product since it gives them a feeling of achievement, uniqueness and success. Thus, the authors posit that:

P9: HV, as a mooring factor, will significantly (negatively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Sunk costs: Min et al. (2018) describe SC as an individual’s previously made investments in the form of money, efforts and time spent on the incumbent product or service. These commitments lead to an unwillingness by the individual to transition to an alternative product or service (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009). In their decision-making journey, the consumers invest resources in the form of time, effort and money to gain information, search, evaluate and purchase the product. Chang et al. (2014) positioned SC as a mooring factor in the PPM framework to predict the impact of the consumer’s lost efforts due to their switching intention towards a new alternative.

Erickson and Johansson (1985) asserted that price is a symbol of quality and luxury for luxury consumers. Affluent consumers’ primary reason to buy luxury is to exhibit their wealth and SS (Jain & Khan, 2017). For this purpose, they incur time, effort and monetary costs while making a purchase decision. These monetary and non-monetary costs, after being incurred, cannot be revised or varied. These are the fixed costs and are deemed irrecoverable. Therefore, it is highly likely that the luxury brand consumers will consider their investments in the previously purchased products and decide to maintain the status quo. Therefore, the authors posit that:

P10: SC, as a mooring factor, will significantly (negatively) impact the intention to switch to LaSS.

Discussion

The study proposes a new persuasive theoretical model based on the PPM framework to analyse the enabling and status quo factors for an alternative form of luxury consumption, which is deemed planet-friendly. The conceptual framework throws light on the supposed paradox whereby customers may be unconvinced about the relationship between luxury and sustainability.

Theoretical Contribution

This conceptual research has specific and direct contribu-tions to academic literature. First, very few luxury studies have theoretically grounded in the PPM theory (Lai et al., 2012), making this study unique in the way it furthers luxury research with a sparsely used yet impactful theory. Second, this research meaningfully adds to sustainable luxury research by proposing factors from extant literature that allows luxury patrons to either switch or hinder their transition to LaSS. The study contributes to the literature by collating these factors in a single sustainability domain study. Third, the study is in response for call for extensive research of applicability of PPM model in sustainability studies (Ye et al., 2020).

Practical Implications

As explained in the preceding sections, LaSS denotes the acceptance of varied business models, ranging from renting, owning pre-owned luxury and ascribing to slow fashion philosophy. Weiss and Johar (2013) postulated that many consumers think of owned products as an extension of self. They may derive this sense of ownership due to either legal ownership or psychological ownership (Pierce & Peck, 2018) of the product (Spears & Yazdanparast, 2014). This sense of ownership subsequently affects an individual’s usage of the resource, its maintenance and utility.

The foundational elements shaping and hindering unsustainable luxury consumption decisions (influence and power of designers, retailers and brands) embody substantial challenges (Carrington et al., 2016). Nevertheless, luxury buyers are better placed than most to take charge of their decisions (Carrigan et al., 2013) and appreciate the societal and environmental impressions of those decisions. In this context, an individual’s internal paradox of pro-self versus prosocial can be overcome by adhering to an eco-friendly environment. Furthermore, suppose the notion of sustainability is efficaciously incorporated into luxury consumption. In that case, it possibly will be an impactful tool in normalizing sustainable luxury consumption, as customers seek social recognition and standing, thereby meeting their need for SS.

In their seminal studies, Glazer and Konrad (1996) stated that due to the presence of counterfeit products, ownership of luxury brands may be difficult to validate. As a result, the unscrupulous individuals, desirous of signalling their SS by possessing luxury goods but lacking the economic resources, may prefer to purchase imitation products, thus ruining the use of ostentatious products as signals of wealth and status symbol. The authors propose that acceptance of LaSS will reduce the counterfeiting and consequent for the brands, simultaneously allowing the desirous but less affluent patrons to enjoy the benefits accorded by the possession of luxury brands.

Luxury consumers see consumption of conspicuous products as a way to enhance self-image. Sustainable luxury research also finds an intersection of these constructs. While engaging with sustainable luxury, peer influence shapes the purchase, use and disposal, making a strong case for collaborative models like renting and sharing. To maintain their desirable social image, these consumers engage with sustainable luxury and avoid buying from unsustainable sources. Therefore, their attitude towards sustainable luxury models is positive.

The recent ‘massification’ of luxury in the form of co-branding with ‘street brands’, for example, Louis Vuitton × Supreme, Nike × Dior, easy accessibility due to online channels, development of ‘masstige’ (mass and prestige) brands and their profusion in developing countries, has created a sub-segment of entry-level products and services (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003). In the process, they are driving luxury providers away from environmental concerns. This is evident in how luxury brands such as Hermès, Gucci and Balenciaga purchase farms that rear Merino sheep, exotic alligators, crocodiles and python, among other animals, for their commercial exploitation. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) regularly showcases the inhuman treatment the animals are subjected to in these farms. In addition, there were concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain of fur, animal skins and other parts due to the unexpected rise in demand.

The operations of luxury brands affected the pandemic, but excess demand post-COVID in the form of revenge shopping balanced the effects. Instances like Guangzhou (China) Hermès boutique flagship selling US$ 2.7 million worth of merchandise on the first day of reopening post the pandemic-induced lockdown might be few. Still, the overall demand and consequent sales have reached unprecedented levels. This is the primary reason for disrupting supply chains for luxury products based on animal skins and body parts. The Animal Welfare in Fashion report (released on 6 December 2021) by the Four Paws organization has highlighted this aspect of the luxury brands’ operations. Polonsky et al. (2003) have referred to this supply chain as ‘harm chain’ wherein the eco-unfriendly behaviours across the supply chain, that is, pre-production, production, consumption and post-consumption activities, are analysed.

Luxury consumers increasingly seek ‘convincing answers to questions of environmental and social responsibility’ (Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007, p. 8), possibly resulting from the trends set in the past two decades, namely the accessibility of luxury goods for the ‘happy many’ rather than the ‘privileged few’ (Dubois & Laurent, 1996; Moraes et al., 2017). Similarly, the emergence of experiential platforms like Luxury Closet, Uber Lux and Rent the Runway have led conventional luxury brands to rethink and rework their approach and consumer engagement (Agrawal et al., 2021). Accordingly, Ralph Lauren launched a rental scheme, while the renowned luxury retailer Selfridges has started a section for reselling second-hand luxury brands. In spite of the escalating customer base of these platforms and preliminary indication of an increase in the market share, for example, the estimated market for second-hand luxury, one of the alternative forms of luxury consumption is worth US$21 billion and increasing at 8% per annum (Willesdorf et al., 2020); yet, there is partial understanding of the factors motivating the consumers to switch to the new forms of consumption and how they will challenge the traditional forms of luxury consumption (Christodoulides et al., 2021).

Luxury conglomerates like LVMH and Kering promote their sustainability-oriented initiatives to be environment-friendly as a key strategic priority. Yet, their sustainable, eco-friendly product lines are often peripheral to their core merchandise. The reasoning for the same can be found in Griskevicius et al. (2010) and Torelli et al. (2012). According to these studies, luxury brands seldom make sustainability the central theme of their commercial operations. Their eco-friendly behaviour reduces luxury goods’ perceived quality and, accordingly, destabilizes the probability of purchase. Therefore, the companies prefer to communicate the values (e.g., prestige, high quality, status and style) that indicate product excellence and appeal to the HVs of their customers.

This study accentuates the advent of a positive sight of sustainable luxury among the patrons of luxury brands. The study postulates that sustainability elements in the form of PEB can bring aids to luxury products in the form of consumer assessment and their subsequent consumption intentions. The constructs—materialism, voluntary, conscious lifestyle, normative influence, hedonic motivation and social status—have been accepted as antecedents of purchase intentions in the luxury context. Yet, a negative view of treating luxury as anathema to sustainability prevails among consumers (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013; Torelli et al., 2012). The downside of luxury consumption is based on the cliché that luxury is conspicuous consumption and a consequence of excess wealth, self-pleasure over societal benefits, ostentation and resistance to external normative influence. This negative psychological barrier can be overcome by the PEB values of the consumers.

Conclusion

The study constructs a new psychological framework based on PPM model to analyse the switching intentions of luxury consumers towards PEB by adopting LaSS. The study being a conceptual model needs to be empirically tested to validate the findings. The study meets its stated research objectives and expands PPM into luxury and sustainability domains.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Achabou

M. A.

, & Dekhili

(2013). Luxury and sustainable development: Is there a match? Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1896–1903.

Agrawal

, Rathi

, Garg

, & Chhikara

(2021). Abundantly rare: Changing consumer trends in the luxury market. In Mohapatra

A. K.

(Ed.), New paradigms in management (pp. 54–68). Bloomsbury Publishers.

Algoe

S. B.

(2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469.

Amatulli

, De Angelis

, & Donato

(2021). The atypicality of sustainable luxury products. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 1990–2005.

Andreoni

(1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.

Athwal

, Wells

V. K.

, Carrigan

, & Henninger

C. E.

(2019). Sustainable luxury marketing: A synthesis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(4), 405–426.

Audrin

, Brosch

, Chanal

, & Sander

(2017). When symbolism overtakes quality: Materialists consumers disregard product quality when faced with luxury brands. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 115–123.

Bahl

, Milne

G. R.

, Ross

S. M.

, Mick

D. G.

, Grier

S. A.

, Chugani

S. K.

, Chan

S. S.

, Gould

, Cho

Y.-N.

, Dorsey

J. D.

, Schindler

R. M.

, Murdock

M. R.

, & Boesen-Mariani

(2016). Mindfulness: Its transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 198–210.

Balabanis

, & Stathopoulou

(2021). The price of social status desire and public self-consciousness in luxury consumption. Journal of Business Research, 123, 463–475.

10.

Bansal

H. S.

, Taylor

S. F.

, & St. James

(2005). ‘Migrating’ to new service providers: Toward a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96–115.

11.

Batat

(2019). The new luxury experience. Springer International Publishing.

12.

Batat

(2020). Pillars of sustainable food experiences in the luxury gastronomy sector: A qualitative exploration of Michelin-starred chefs’ motivations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102255.

13.

Belk

R. W.

(1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280.

14.

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

15.

Belk

(2010). Possessions and self. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem03037

16.

Bendell

, & Kleanthous

(2007). Deeper luxury. WWF-UK. https://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/luxury_report.pdf

17.

Berger

(2017). Are luxury brand labels and ‘green’ labels costly signals of social status? An extended replication. PloS One, 12(2), e0170216.

18.

Bernardes

J. P.

, Ferreira

, Marques

A. D.

, & Nogueira

(2018, December). ‘Do as I say, not as I do’—A systematic literature review on the attitude-behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 459(1), 012089.

19.

Brown

(1993). Postmodern marketing? European Journal of Marketing, 27(4), 19–34.

20.

Business of Fashion. (2021). How 2021 reshaped the luxury market. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/luxury/how-2021-reshaped-the-luxury-market/

21.

Cannon

, & Rucker

D. D.

(2019). The dark side of luxury: Social costs of luxury consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 767–779.

22.

Carrigan

, Moraes

, & McEachern

(2013). From conspicuous to considered fashion: A harm-chain approach to the responsibilities of luxury-fashion businesses. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(11–12), 1277–1307.

23.

Carrington

M. J.

, Zwick

, & Neville

(2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory, 16(1), 21–38.

24.

Catulli

, Cook

, & Potter

(2017). Consuming use orientated product service systems: A consumer culture theory perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 1186–1193.

25.

Cervellon

M. C.

, Carey

, & Harms

(2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956–974.

26.

Chang

I. C.

, Liu

C. C.

, & Chen

(2014). The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking sites. Information Systems Journal, 24(4), 323–346.

27.

Chen

, & Dubinsky

A. J.

(2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 323–347.

28.

Cherrier

, Black

I. R.

, & Lee

(2011). Intentional non-consumption for sustainability: Consumer resistance and/or anti-consumption? European Journal of Marketing, 45(11–12), 1757–1767.

29.

Christodoulides

, Athwal

, Boukis

, & Semaan

R. W.

(2021). New forms of luxury consumption in the sharing economy. Journal of Business Research, 137, 89–99.

30.

Cialdini

R. B.

, & Trost

M. R.

(1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In Gilbert

D. T.

, Fiske

S. T.

, & Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.

31.

Cialdini

R. B.

, Reno

R. R.

, & Kallgren

C. A.

(1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.

32.

Clark

C. F.

, Kotchen

M. J.

, & Moore

M. R.

(2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237–246.

33.

Crawford

S. E.

, & Ostrom

(1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.

34.

Davies

I. A.

, Lee

, & Ahonkhai

(2012). Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37–51.

35.

Dogra

, Bakshi

, & Gupta

(2022). Exploring the switching intention of patients to e-health consultations platforms: Blending inertia with push–pull–mooring framework. Journal of Asia Business Studies. 10.1108/JABS-02-2021-0066

36.

Dubois

(2020). Fulfilling social needs through luxury consumption. In Morhart

, Wilcox

, and Czellar

(Eds.), Research handbook on luxury branding (pp. 75–91). Edward Elgar Publishing.

37.

Dubois

, & Laurent

(1996). The functions of luxury: A situational approach to excursionism. In Corfman

K. P.

& Lynch

J. G.

Jr. (Eds.), ACR North American advances (Vol. 23, pp. 470)–477). Association for Consumer Research.

38.

Eastman

J. K.

, Goldsmith

R. E.

, & Flynn

L. R.

(1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 41–52.

39.

Eckhardt

G. M.

, Belk

R. W.

, & Wilson

J. A.

(2015). The rise of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(7–8), 807–826.

40.

Eckhardt

G. M.

, Houston

M. B.

, Jiang

, Lamberton

, Rindfleisch

, & Zervas

(2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27.

41.

Erickson

G. M.

, & Johansson

J. K.

(1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195–199.

42.

Florea

, Cheung

Y. H.

, & Herndon

N. C.

(2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393–408.

43.

ForbesIndia. (2022, January 28). Millennials and gen Z are now more likely to embrace luxury than their elders. Forbes India. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/lifes/millennials-and-gen-z-are-now-more-likely-to-embrace-luxury-than-their-elders/73231/1

44.

Frenken

, and Schor

(2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10.

45.

J. R.

(2011). Understanding career commitment of IT professionals: Perspectives of push–pull–mooring framework and investment model. International Journal of Information Management, 31(3), 279–293.

46.

Gardiner

, King

, & Grace

(2013). Travel decision making: An empirical examination of generational values, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 52(3), 310–324.

47.

Geiger-Oneto

, & Minton

E. A.

(2019). How religiosity influences the consumption of luxury goods: Exploration of the moral halo effect. European Journal of Marketing, 53(12), 2530–2555.

48.

Giebelhausen

, Chun

H. H.

, Cronin

J. J.

Jr. , & Hult

G. T. M.

(2016). Adjusting the warm-glow thermostat: How incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs moderates their impact on service satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 56–71.

49.

Glazer

, & Konrad

K. A.

(1996). A signaling explanation for charity. The American Economic Review, 86(4), 1019–1028.

50.

Griskevicius

, Tybur

J. M.

, & Van den Bergh

(2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392.

51.

Habel

, Schons

L. M.

, Alavi

, & Wieseke

(2016). Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of corporate social responsibility activities on customers’ perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 84–105.

52.

Han

, Seo

, & Ko

(2017). Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research, 74, 162–167.

53.

Hartmann

, Eisend

, Apaolaza

, & D’Souza

(2017). Warm glow vs. altruistic values: How important is intrinsic emotional reward in pro environmental behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 43–55.

54.

Hennings

, Wiedmann

K.P.

, Klarmann

, & Behrens

(2013). Sustainability as part of the luxury essence: Delivering value through social and environmental excellence. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 52, 25–35.

55.

Hsieh

P. J.

(2021). Understanding medical consumers’ intentions to switch from cash payment to medical mobile payment: A perspective of technology migration. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121074.

56.

Isen

A. M.

(1970). Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(4), 294.

57.

Jain

, & Khan

M. N.

(2017). Measuring the impact of beliefs on luxury buying behavior in an emerging market: Empirical evidence from India. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 21(3), 341–360.

58.

Jain

, & Mishra

(2020). Luxury fashion consumption in sharing economy: A study of Indian millennials. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 11(2), 171–189.

59.

Janssen

, Vanhamme

, Lindgreen

, & Lefebvre

(2014). The Catch-22 of responsible luxury: Effects of luxury product characteristics on consumers’ perception of fit with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 45–57.

60.

Kapferer

J. N.

(2015). Kapferer on luxury: How luxury brands can grow yet remain rare. Kogan Page Publishers.

61.

Kapferer

J. N.

, & Michaut

(2019). Are millennials really redefining luxury? A cross-generational analysis of perceptions of luxury from six countries. Journal of Brand Strategy, 8(3), 250–264.

62.

Kapferer

J. N.

, & Valette-Florence

(2021). Assessing levers of guilt in luxury consumption: An international perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(3), 351–367.

63.

Kim

H. W.

, & Kankanhalli

(2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567–582.

64.

Kim

, Choi

M. J.

, & Choi

J. S.

(2020). Empirical study on the factors affecting individuals’ switching intention to augmented/virtual reality content services based on push-pull-mooring theory. Information, 11(1), 25.

65.

, Costello

J. P.

, & Taylor

C. R.

(2019). What is a luxury brand? A new definition and review of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 99, 405–413.

66.

Lai

J. Y.

, Debbarma

, & Ulhas

K. R.

(2012). An empirical study of consumer switching behaviour towards mobile shopping: A Push–Pull–Mooring model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 10(4), 386–404.

67.

Lam

, & Law

(2019). Readiness of upscale and luxury-branded hotels for digital transformation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 79, 60–69.

68.

Lawson

S. J.

, Gleim

M. R.

, Perren

, & Hwang

(2016). Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2615–2623.

69.

Lee

M. S.

, & Ahn

C. S. Y.

(2016). Anti-consumption, materialism, and consumer well-being. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 18–47.

70.

Lee

, Baumgartner

, & Winterich

K. P.

(2018). Did they earn it? Observing unearned luxury consumption decreases brand attitude when observers value fairness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 412–436.

71.

Liao

Y. K.

, Wu

W. Y.

, & Pham

T. T.

(2020). Examining the moderating effects of green marketing and green psychological benefits on customers’ green attitude, value and purchase intention. Sustainability, 12(18), 7461.

72.

Lin

T. C.

, & Huang

S. L.

(2014). Understanding the determinants of consumers’ switching intentions in a standards war. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(1), 163–189.

73.

Liu

, Burns

A. C.

, & Hou

(2013). Comparing online and in-store shopping behavior towards luxury goods. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(11/12), 885–900.

74.

Malek

A. B. A.

, Alwi

S. F. S.

, Muda

, & Mohamad

(2016). Impact of mindful consumption (MC) on investment decision: A study within Malaysian individual investors. In Pyeman

, Rashid

W. E. W.

, Hanif

, Mohamad

S. J. A. N. S.

, and Tan

P. L.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st AAGBS International Conference on Business Management 2014 (AiCoBM 2014) (pp. 269–281). Springer, Singapore.

75.

McDonald

, & Oates

C. J.

(2006). Sustainability: Consumer perceptions and marketing strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 157–170.

76.

Milne

G. R.

, Villarroel Ordenes

, & Kaplan

(2020). Mindful consumption: Three consumer segment views. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(1), 3–10.

77.

Min

, Wang

, Liu

, & Jikun

(2018). The asymmetric response of farmers to the expected change of rubber price: The roles of sunk cost and path dependency. Land Use Policy, 79, 585–594.

78.

Moon

(1995). Paradigms in migration research: Exploring ‘moorings’ as a schema. Progress in Human Geography, 19(4), 504–524.

79.

Moraes

, Carrigan

, Bosangit

, Ferreira

, & McGrath

(2017). Understanding ethical luxury consumption through practice theories: A study of fine jewellery purchases. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 525–543.

80.

NY Post. (2021). Chilean desert site of 39000 pounds of scrapped clothing. https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/chilean-desert-site-of-39000-pounds-of-scrapped-clothing/

81.

Pencarelli

, Ali Taha

, Škerháková

, Valentiny

, & Fedorko

(2020). Luxury products and sustainability issues from the perspective of young Italian consumers. Sustainability, 12(1), 245.

82.

Perren

, & Kozinets

R. V.

(2018). Lateral exchange markets: How social platforms operate in a networked economy. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 20–36.

83.

Pierce

J. L.

, & Peck

(2018). The history of psychological ownership and its emergence in consumer psychology. In Peck

& Shu

S. B.

(Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behaviour (pp. 1–18). Springer.

84.

Polonsky

M. J.

, Carlson

, & Fry

M. L.

(2003). The harm chain: A public policy development and stakeholder perspective. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 345–364.

85.

Rathi

, Garg

, Kataria

, & Chhikara

(2022). Evolution of luxury marketing landscape: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. Journal of Brand Management, 29, 241–257.

86.

Ryding

, Henninger

C. E.

, & Blazquez Cano

(2018). Introduction to vintage luxury fashion—Exploring the rise of the secondhand clothing trade. In Ryding

, Henninger

C. E.

, & Cano

M. B.

(Eds.), Vintage luxury fashion (pp. 1–10). Palgrave Macmillan.

87.

Scott

, Martin

D. M.

, & Schouten

J. W.

(2014). Marketing and the new materialism. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(3), 282–290.

88.

Septianto

, Seo

, & Errmann

A. C.

(2021). Distinct effects of pride and gratitude appeals on sustainable luxury brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 211–224.

89.

Shaw

, & Newholm

(2002). Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 167–185.

90.

Sheth

J. N.

, Sethia

N. K.

, & Srinivas

(2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

91.

Silverstein

M. J.

, & Fiske

(2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 48–59.

92.

Sirgy

M. J.

, Yu

G. B.

, Lee

D. J.

, Joshanloo

, Bosnjak

, Jiao

, Ekici

, Atay

E. G.

, & Grzeskowiak

(2021). The dual model of materialism: Success versus happiness materialism on present and future life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(1), 201–220.

93.

Solomon

(2006). Norms of epistemic diversity. Episteme, 3(1–2), 23–36.

94.

Spears

, & Yazdanparast

(2014). Revealing obstacles to the consumer imagination. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 363–372.

95.

Stellar

J. E.

, Gordon

A. M.

, Piff

P. K.

, Cordaro

, Anderson

C. L.

, Bai

, Marusin

L. A.

, & Keltner

(2017). Self-transcendent emotions and their social functions: Compassion, gratitude, and awe bind us to others through prosociality. Emotion Review, 9(3), 200–207.

96.

Sun

, D’Alessandro

, & Johnson

(2014). Traditional culture, political ideologies, materialism and luxury consumption in China. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 578–585.

97.

Sun

, Liu

, Chen

, Wu

, Shen

X. L.

, & Zhang

(2017). Understanding users’ switching behavior of mobile instant messaging applications: An empirical study from the perspective of push-pull-mooring framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 727–738.

98.

Tascioglu

, Eastman

J. K.

, & Iyer

(2017). The impact of the motivation for status on consumers’ perceptions of retailer sustainability: The moderating impact of collectivism and materialism. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(4), 292–305.

99.

The Atlantic. (2011). How Bernard Arnault shapes our sense of luxury. https://news.yahoo.com/bernard-arnault-shapes-sense-luxury-20110307-134708-898.html

100.

Thøgersen

, & Ölander

(2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225–236.

101.

Toni

, Renzi

M. F.

, & Mattia

(2018). Understanding the link between collaborative economy and sustainable behaviour: An empirical investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4467–4477.

102.

Torelli

C. J.

, Monga

A. B.

, & Kaikati

A. M.

(2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948–963.

103.

Trivers

R. L.

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.

104.

Turunen

L. L. M.

, & Leipämaa-Leskinen

(2015). Pre-loved luxury: Identifying the meanings of second-hand luxury possessions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 57–65.

105.

Veblen

, & Mills

C. W.

(2017). The theory of the leisure class. Routledge.

106.

Vigneron

, & Johnson

L. W.

(2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 11(6), 484–506.

107.

Wakefield

K. L.

, & Blodgett

J. G.

(1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51–68.

108.

Wang

(2021). A conceptual framework of contemporary luxury consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0167811621000914

109.

Weiss

, & Johar

G. V.

(2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t). Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 185–201.

110.

Willesdorf

, Krueger

, Estripeau

, Gasc

, & Mardon

(2020). (rep.). The consumers behind fashion’s growing secondhand market. BCG. https://www.bcg.com/en-in/publications/2020/consumer-segments-behind-growing-secondhand-fashion-market

111.

Wirtz

, Holmqvist

, & Fritze

M. P.

(2020). Luxury services. Journal of Service Management, 31(4), 665–691.

112.

, Vassileva

, & Zhao

(2017). Understanding users’ intention to switch personal cloud storage services: Evidence from the Chinese market. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 300–314.

113.

, Zhou

, Anwar

M. A.

, Siddiquei

A. N.

, & Asmi

(2020). Entrepreneurs and environmental sustainability in the digital era: Regional and institutional perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1355.

114.

Yoon

, & Lim

(2021). Customers’ intentions to switch to internet-only banks: Perspective of the Push-Pull-Mooring model. Sustainability, 13(14), 8062.

115.

Zsóka

Á.

, Szerényi

Z. M.

, Széchy

, & Kocsis

(2013). Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 126–138.

Luxury as a Sustainable Service: A Push–Pull–Mooring Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Executive Summary

Introduction

Literature Review

Luxury as a Sustainable Service

Theoretical Framework

The Push Factors

The Pull Factors

Moorings Factors

Discussion

Theoretical Contribution

Practical Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References