sustainability

Article
Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and Nudge Theory: Examining the
Effects of Choice Architecture on Consumption of Sustainable
Fashion over Fast Fashion
Meital Peleg Mizrachi 1 and Alon Tal 2, *

1 Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA; [Link]@[Link]

2 School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
* Correspondence: alontal@[Link]; Tel.: +1-(475)-3310240

Abstract: This study considers ways to increase the consumption of sustainable fashion given the
significant environmental and social damages associated with the industry. A series of experiments
were conducted examining the impacts of choice architecture (nudges) under field conditions in
collaboration with one of Israel’s largest shopping centers. This study sought to identify which
interventions at the retail level successfully motivate sustainable fashion behavioral change regarding
purchases and willingness to pay more, along with agreement with several statements regarding
the climate crisis and sustainable fashion. Among the types of nudges examined in this field study
were providing information, increasing accessibility to sustainable alternatives and appealing to
social identity in relation to demographics and green self-image. This study found that offering
alternatives to consumers constituted the most effective way to “nudge” consumers toward more
sustainable purchasing behavior. Nonetheless, this does not negate the contribution of providing
information and strengthening social norms regarding sustainable fashion. Additionally, in all groups,
most participants reported that they did not know how to distinguish between sustainable and non-
sustainable fashion, nor did they believe that the clothes they purchased were actually sustainable.
The findings emphasize the need for policies that will increase the accessibility of sustainable fashion.

Citation: Peleg Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A.

Keywords: sustainable fashion; nudge; purchasing behavior; consumption; alternatives; providing
Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and
information; green self-image; quasi-experiment; shopping mall
Nudge Theory: Examining the Effects
of Choice Architecture on
Consumption of Sustainable Fashion
over Fast Fashion. Sustainability 2024,
16, 8586. [Link]
1. Introduction
su16198586 In recent years, there has been increasing awareness about the environmental and
social externalities associated with the rapidly growing fast fashion sector [1]. Clothes are
Academic Editors: Arminda Paço,
Antonio Boggia and Elaine Ritch
cheaper than ever [2], and the magnitude of the negative impacts associated with them
is well characterized [1]. While regulations, such as the EU Strategy for Sustainable and
Received: 27 June 2024 Circular Textiles and the Bangladesh Accord [3,4], are beginning to influence “supply” and
Revised: 13 September 2024 affect the way clothes are produced, the potential for significantly changing the demand
Accepted: 30 September 2024 side with reference to consumer preferences is still poorly developed. A growing consensus
Published: 3 October 2024 is forming about sustainable fashion policies that are designed to modify demand and
consumption patterns, such as the European Union’s campaign to reduce fast fashion
consumption [5] and the Helsinki Fashion Library, which seek to transform consumer
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
fashion consumption patterns [6]. Fast fashion sales, however, continue to skyrocket [2],
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. posing the question: “What is the most efficient way to influence consumers?”, which is
This article is an open access article more relevant than ever.
distributed under the terms and This article initially describes the environmental and social hazards of fast fashion
conditions of the Creative Commons alongside the economic contribution of the fashion industry. It then considers consumer
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// dynamics in the fashion world and how they can be influenced. In the next section,
[Link]/licenses/by/ a series of “nudges” are depicted, each with the potential to induce greater preference
4.0/). for sustainable clothing. This research then contrasts the empirical effectiveness of each

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586. [Link] [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 2 of 30

“nudge” when implemented in real-world conditions. The overall purpose of this research
is to provide practical tools, both for policy makers and sustainable fashion producers,
to reduce the gap between consumers’ generally positive attitude towards sustainability
and sustainably manufactured clothing and their actual purchasing behaviors. In addition,
this study seeks to improve the present understanding of behavioral aspects of economic
decisions concerning sustainable fashion consumption.

1.1. Economic, Environmental and Social Dimensions of the Fashion Industry

The fashion industry is one of the most polluting, exploitative and profitable industries
in the world. In addition to being strongly associated with child labor [7,8] and unsafe
working conditions [9,10], the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of clothing all pro-
duce adverse environmental effects. To a great extent, these phenomena can be traced to the
characteristics of the economic model prevailing in the fashion industry: highly globalized
mass production, constant consumption and a linear take-make-disposal model [11,12].
Most of the environmental and occupational burdens associated with mass production
and disposal occurs among developing countries characterized by low GDP and a surfeit
of low-wage workers [7,13,14]. The associated environmental hazards are significant. They
include the utilization of fossil fuels, along with copious amounts of water and toxic
fertilizers [15]. The release of untreated sewage into water and significant contamination,
frequently, are also caused by the dyeing process for clothes. The fashion industry annually
produces a total of one billion tons of CO2 , more than all international flights and maritime
shipping combined [16]. Landfilling huge amounts of textile waste in developing countries
is typically a result of massive clothing donations from Western countries and their excess
consumption of apparel [17].
The exploitation of workers and occupational risks are additional areas of grave
concern: the garment assembly process alone employs 40 million workers worldwide,
of which 20% are children under the age of twelve [18]. Harsh, exploitive conditions,
including long shifts, lack of vacation, safety deficiencies and occupational risks, are very
common [14].
Nonetheless, alongside the environmental damages it engenders, it is important to recog-
nize the economic value of the fashion industry as a global business of USD 2.3 trillion [18].
Both have grown exponentially due to the rapid expansion of the fast fashion model.
Fast fashion describes the swift dissemination of runway trends to consumers, offering
inexpensive, mass-produced garments with global appeal, albeit often sacrificing quality.
Globally, 80 billion pieces of new clothing are purchased each year, translating into a
substantial driver of global GDP. The industry as a whole employs more than 300 million
people worldwide, representing a powerful economic force [19]. In fact, during the last
fifteen years, aggregate clothing production has approximately doubled. Demand is driven
by a growing middle-class population and has increased per capita sales [20–22].

1.2. Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Fashion

Sustainable fashion is an approach to fashion that strives to be socially and environ-
mentally responsible. It relies on an ethical commitment to the environment and putting
people first [23]. Other concepts synonymous with the term sustainable fashion include
green or eco fashion. Ethical and slow fashion are also used in the literature [24].
Within the broad menu of sustainable fashion, it is customary to include second-hand
clothes, independent designers, designers who produce via fair trade, clothes created using
organic materials, clothes created from textile scraps and high-quality clothes that are made
to last [25]. In addition, an accepted prerequisite of sustainable fashion consumption is a
revealed preference for fewer clothes under a quality versus quantity approach [26].
It is important to emphasize that alternatives to fast fashion do not necessarily mean
that that a luxury expensive garment is a priori more sustainable than cheaper alternatives
or that expensive clothes are always more sustainable. In fact, there is great controversy
about what sustainable fashion entails. There are numerous options, some of which actu-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 3 of 30

ally contradict each other. The only consensus in the field is that reducing consumption
constitutes the most sustainable way to moderate the environmental and social patholo-
gies [25]. With that in mind, increasing the willingness to pay more (WTPM) for garments
is generally considered a key component of the strategy to promote sustainable consump-
tion and serves as a somewhat rare launching point between the business sector and the
environmental movement.
The prevailing consumer preference for fast fashion constitutes a key driver in the
growth of the industry. Hence, shifts in consumer behavior—namely, reducing clothing
purchases, choosing to purchase sustainable alternatives and prolonging garment lifetimes—
are essential for reducing the damages associated with the fashion industry. Expanding the
market share of sustainable fashion is not only a policy objective that benefits the environ-
ment; the industrial sector itself also stands to benefit. The global sustainable or “ethical”
fashion market size reached a value of nearly USD 6.35 billion in 2019, having increased at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.7% since 2015. Contemporary analysts predict
that the market is expected to grow from USD 6.35 billion to USD 8.25 billion within four
years at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.8% [27,28].
Indeed, customer demand for sustainable clothing is on the rise. Studies indicate that
consumers increasingly prioritize fashion items based on personal values [29,30], with
younger generations showing particular interest in sustainability issues. Generation Z in
particular is driving the global demand for sustainable fashion, with six out of ten con-
sumers from Generation Y and Z preferring sustainable products over cheaper alternatives;
additionally, 37% are willing to pay more for responsible products [31]. These trends are
particularly pronounced among Generation Z women [26,32].
In this context, recent research indicates that women and the younger generations tend
to express a higher interest in fashion in general. This is reflected in a tendency to purchase
more clothes, more frequently as recreation or motivated by pleasure rather than due to
any actual need for additional clothing [33,34]. In fact, young women are the main target
audience of fashion companies. As a result, paradoxically, they not only tend to purchase
more fast fashion, but also purchase more sustainable fashion and express a greater interest
in the field [35].
One possible explanation for this gap can be found in Lades’s study [36] on the use of
nudges to promote ethical consumption. Based on neuroscientific findings, Lades suggests
that self-image motives can lead to impulsive consumption, contrasting with reflexive
thought and self-control. In this context, a strong green self-image may drive higher con-
sumption of sustainable fashion rather than a decrease in consumption per se. Therefore,
both aspects of reflexive thought can be leveraged to promote ethical consumption. This
raises a dilemma regarding the most effective strategy for reducing fast fashion consump-
tion: promoting sustainable fashion or advocating consumption reduction? The question
reflects the broader inquiry into the nature of sustainable fashion discussed earlier.
Environmental attitudes and individual value priorities are also important variables in
purchasing fashion in general and sustainable fashion in particular. A positive correlation
exists between the importance of fashion brand sustainability and consumers’ decisions
to buy sustainable clothing products. Furthermore, it is well established that consumers
tend to have a greater preference for brands or products that align more closely with their
self-concept [37,38]. Nonetheless, the sustainability of a fashion brand and positive attitude
towards the sustainability of fashion brands or a product is not a guarantee of increased
acquisition of sustainable products [39]. In fact, a gap between actual purchasing behavior
and a positive attitude towards sustainability is more common than a positive attitude
towards sustainability that translates into actual purchasing behavior.
It is worth noting that actual purchasing behavior of sustainable clothing by cus-
tomers is still relatively modest, and reducing the gap between positive consumer attitudes
towards sustainable fashion and their actual purchasing behavior remains a huge chal-
lenge [40]. Consumers often express their interest in sustainability but for many reasons
continue to look for fast and cheap fashion items [41–43]. Frequently, there is a marked
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 4 of 30

dissonance between the pro-environmental attitudes of fashion consumers and actual con-
sumer choices [44,45]. A contemporary expression of this gap can be seen in the fact that the
Chinese ultra-fast fashion company, SHEIN, which is particularly popular among Genera-
tion Z worldwide, is the most profitable fashion company in the United States today [46,47].
This suggests that in order to transform the environmental and social performance of the
fashion industry, it is not enough to simply create sustainable fashion options. It is also
necessary to direct consumer preferences by additional means.

1.3. Theory: Nudges and Consumer Preferences

One effective method to shape consumer preferences in fashion is through “nudging”
or “choice architecture.” This concept, derived from behavioral economics, political theory
and social psychology, involves subtle interventions that steer individuals towards pre-
ferred options without eliminating alternatives or altering economic incentives significantly.
Choice architecture focuses on designing environments through soft mechanisms to gently
influence decision making [48]. Nudges, widely utilized in commercial and public policy
realms, are favored for their broad influence, low costs, accessibility and non-invasiveness.
In fashion, choice architecture is frequently used to increase excessive sales: Fashion
chains create unique scents for themselves, distributing them at high volumes in stores;
sale product stands in clothing stores are usually located at the entrance to the store with
shelves placed at the average eye level of 1.67 m. This design is intended to encourage
consumers to pull out garments [49,50]. The lighting, background music, and absence of a
clock in the stores are all nudges designed to create a “party feeling”, which is attractive
for a certain target public and can remove customer inhibitions, extending the length of
customers’ stay.
The pricing of clothes also constitutes a nudge. Seasonal sales at their inception often
include a 50% discount mechanism, but indirectly: clothing is priced at a discount, but
in order to exploit it, consumers are pushed to purchases additional items they do not
need. An example of this pricing method is 1 + 1 sales or three items for a lower price than
two [51]. All of these are nudges leading consumers to purchase more fashion items than
originally intended.
Choice architecture can also be deployed with the purposes of promoting social objec-
tives or creating a positive environmental impact. A series of studies conducted in Asia [52]
and Europe [53] found a positive effect of nudge on consumers’ WTPM for sustainable
products. Yan, Henninger and Jones identified nudging as an effective way to induce
actions that reduce microfiber pollution arising from textiles [54]. Roozen, Raedts and
Meijburg showed a significant positive influence of verbal nudges in encouraging consumer
preference for sustainable versions of clothes and WTPM for sustainable apparel [55]. A
German study on “Sustainability Labels for Fashion in Online Retail” revealed that such
labels, serving as nudges, boosted consumers’ willingness to buy sustainable fashion items
and pay higher prices. However, the magnitude of the effect depends on consumers’ trust
in the environmental claims and the credibility of the fashion brand [56].
The professional literature divides green nudges into three categories:
(1) Green nudges that provide information about a product’s green characteristics, for
example, information on CO2 emissions from e-commerce deliveries [57].
(2) Green nudges in the area of identity, fostering comparisons with others. These
nudges highlight social norms by comparing preferences with peers or stimulating
competition for social status by encouraging consumers to signal green behavior to
their environment [58–60].
(3) Green nudges that exploit the behavioral effects of intentionally designed default
choices [59].
Accordingly, people can be motivated toward pro-environmental behavior by three
main strategies: first, facilitating green behavior directly by reducing cognitive costs;
second, the salience of certain features can be increased; and finally, people’s sense of
“social identity” can be harnessed by using normative motivations that favor green con-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 5 of 30

sumerism [48,61]. All three approaches can encourage sustainable consumption. Nonethe-
less, given limited resources and bandwidth among sustainable fashion marketers and
producers, identifying the most effective green nudge constitutes a particularly salient
pursuit. It should be noted that the impact of nudges on sustainable fashion consumption
has been studied sparingly, partly due to the limited research focusing on sustainable
fashion consumption. The present research attempts to address this scarcity.
This study was designed to examine the effects of choice architecture under field
conditions through a series of quasi-experiments conducted in collaboration with one of
the largest shopping centers in Israel, “Dizengoff Center”. Dizengoff Center is a mall
founded in 1977 in the heart of Tel Aviv. There are over 400 stores in the mall, of which
roughly half are fashion stores, visited daily by about 50,000 visitors. In order to answer the
question of what is the most effective way to nudge customers towards sustainable fashion,
four separate field trials were conducted, examining the effect of three types of nudges on
consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable fashion at the expense of fast fashion:
(1) Providing information on the damages caused by the fashion industry; (2) in-
creasing alternatives in the form of options for purchasing sustainable fashion products;
and (3) emphasizing the social identity attained through the purchase of sustainable fash-
ion. We hypothesized that all three green nudges would positively influence consumers’
willingness to purchase sustainable fashion, albeit in varying manners and degrees, as
detailed below:

Hypothesis 1. Nudge 1 would reduce the quantity of fashion products purchased by consumers
and increase their willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable options.

Hypothesis 2. Nudge 2 would increase both the proportion of sustainable fashion products pur-
chased and consumers’ WTPM.

Hypothesis 3. Nudge 3 would increase the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased by
consumers but would not affect their WTPM.

Hypothesis 4. Across all experimental conditions, women’s WTPM would be higher than men’s.

Hypothesis 5. Consumers with a high green self-image, based on self-report, would report en-
countering more sustainable fashion products and identifying fewer barriers to purchasing sustain-
able fashion.

Hypothesis 6. Younger consumers would report more barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion
than adults.

Hypothesis 7. Consumers who report a high action-based green self-image would purchase fewer
fashion products compared with those who report a non-action-based green self-image.

Hypothesis 8. The higher the green self-image, the more consumers would agree with statements
regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion, regardless of their actual purchase behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

The purpose of the research was to examine: (a) “which nudges influence consumers to
purchase more sustainable fashion?” and (b) “which constitutes the most effective strategy?”
In addition, this study identifies barriers and catalysts for sustainable fashion consumption
among different demographic consumer groups. To this end, four separate field trials
were conducted:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 6 of 30

2.1. Nudge 1: Knowledge: Providing Information to Consumers about the Environmental and
Social Damages of the Fashion Industry
Over 100 signs were hung throughout the Dizengoff Center mall, providing article-
based information about the environmental and social impact of the fashion industry.
Among the messages hung were:
• “Fast and cheap fashion is not really cheap, somewhere someone else is paying the
full price”.
• “We have enough clothes in the world for the next fifty years”.
• “Over 64% of women workers in textile factories say that they suffer physical and
verbal abuse every day”.
See Figures A1–A5 in Appendix A. For the full list, see Appendix B.
To assess the impact of the information campaign on consumers, approximately
200 questionnaires (for the full questionnaire see Appendix C) were distributed at eight
different mall exits. Volunteers handed out paper questionnaires that were later digitized
for analysis. They informed recipients that the mall was conducting a survey to enhance the
customer experience but did not read the questions aloud. Despite printing 400 question-
naires on the experiment day, about half were either unreturned or completed insufficiently,
leading to the disqualification of several potential respondents from the sample. Participa-
tion in filling out the questionnaires was voluntary, and the team implementing the survey
were instructed not to persuade or ask more than once due to the request of the mall. The
recipients did not receive a financial incentive or any other kind of incentive to encourage
them to answer the questionnaire.

2.2. Nudge 2: Increasing Sustainable Fashion Alternatives within the Mall

In order to encourage the purchase of sustainable fashion and more broadly transform
it into a default behavior for consumers, a three-day sustainable fashion festival was held,
involving over thirty stalls selling sustainable fashion products. Among the examples of
products sold at the festival were: second-hand clothes, clothes from independent designers,
recycled jewelry, organic cotton underwear and more, see Figures A6–A8 in Appendix A.
All products sold in the festival were certified as sustainable by an impartial association
that promotes sustainable fashion.
To assess the impact of expanding sustainable fashion options, 200 out of 260 distributed
questionnaires collected at mall exits were analyzed. Notably, experiments 1 and 3 involved
a random sample of mall visitors, unaware of the impending intervention, while the sus-
tainable fashion festival was extensively advertised. Although many attendees likely came
specifically for the festival, potentially introducing bias, approximately 50,000 individuals
visited the mall during the intervention period, with only several hundred attending
festival-exclusive activities. Moreover, the festival featured additional events like a clothes
swap party and an upcycling workshop in a separate mall building from where products
were sold. Prior research suggests that environmental nudges can maintain transparency
without compromising effectiveness [62]. Hence, despite the considerable turnout for the
sustainable fashion festival, their impact on survey outcomes is presumed insignificant.

2.3. Nudge 3: Highlighting the Social Identity Involved in Purchasing Sustainable Fashion
Every customer at the mall entrance was given a cloth shopping bag with the statement
“I only buy green fashion”. Accordingly, from the moment recipients wore the bag, they
essentially declared to those around them that they would only purchase sustainable
fashion, see Figure A9 in Appendix A. We assumed that “green fashion” is more familiar
and popular among the general Israeli public than “sustainable fashion”, so we used this
term during the experiment. Here too, about 200 questionnaires were collected from those
leaving the mall at eight different exits. Finally, group 4 was examined—a control group
who encountered no experimental intervention except for the distribution of questionnaires
upon exiting the mall. Again, roughly 200 questionnaires were collected from the control
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 7 of 30

group as they left the mall. The four experiments were conducted throughout the month of
July 2021, one week apart, on a fixed day, from 16:00 p.m. to 21:00 p.m.
Several caveats are germane: in nudge 1, signs only provided negative information
about the fashion industry and did not specifically nudge consumers to purchase green
fashion. It is possible that the nudge’s effect was to reduce purchases in general rather
than increase sustainable fashion sales. In nudge 2, which presented respondents with
sustainable alternatives, several festival stalls sold used clothes, which were cheaper than
other sustainable fashion options mentioned earlier. This rendered the WTPM criterion
less valid in experiment 2 for measuring purchase sustainability. To address this limitation,
we included a variable measuring agreement with statements on the climate crisis and
sustainable fashion, which refer to both perceptions and beliefs as well as actual behavior
across all experiments. Finally, in nudge 3, the bags could have been interpreted by
consumers as a marketing campaign by the mall, limiting their influence on social identity.
The bags, however, did not have a logo of the mall or of any other entity, while the color
and font of the inscription contrasted highly with the mall’s branding (green lettering on
white bags, as opposed to pink and black branding).
The questionnaire received by participants covered:
• Demographics: Age, gender, major occupation in life and identity of people with
whom they came to shop.
• Impact on consumption: Did they purchase clothing items, and if so, how many? Did
they notice if they were sustainably produced, and how much did they pay for them?
(Participants were asked to state the amount of clothing purchased and money spent).
• Attitudes: Degree of agreement with several statements regarding sustainable fashion
(questions 8–11) and the climate crisis (questions 12–14) on a Likert scale ranging 1
to 5. For example: “I prefer to buy a single item over several cheap items at the same
price”; “The climate crisis is a critical crisis and must be addressed urgently”; and “I
believe there is a connection between my consumer choices and the climate crisis”.
• Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion: These were presented using a nominal
scale, with three options (yes/no/I’m not sure). For example: “I feel I know how to
distinguish between green and non-green clothes”.
• Green self-image: These questions compare self-reported environmental awareness
on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (question 18) with actual green behaviors on a descriptive
nominal scale (question 19). For instance: “My social circle recognizes me as environ-
mentally conscious compared to others” and “Which of these actions do you regularly
engage in: donate to environmental organizations, volunteer for green causes, follow
a vegan or vegetarian diet, refrain from car ownership, avoid purchasing new clothes,
or buy organic products?”.

2.4. Dependent and Independent Variables

Dependent variables in the statistical analysis include:
• Attitudes towards the climate crisis, examined by the degree of agreement with
statements about the climate crisis;
• Attitudes regarding fast fashion and sustainable fashion, tested by the degree of
agreement with the statements on fashion;
• Perceived green self-image tested by both self-perception and reported actions;
• Willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable fashion, based on the ratio between
the amount of clothing items purchased and the total expenditure on clothing;
• Barriers facing sustainable fashion, tested by the degree of agreement with statements
concerning the consumers’ fashion purchases at the time of the experiment;
Independent variables are:
• Type of intervention (providing information/increasing alternatives/social identity);
• Common environmental behaviors;
• The social group with which respondents came to the mall (family, friends, alone, etc.);
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 8 of 30

• General demographic characteristics.

The questionnaire also examined the conspicuousness of the nudge: Did participants
notice the writing on the cloth bag? Did they participate in the festival? This question
served as a vigilance measure. The questionnaire was developed based on prior studies
exploring motives for fashion consumption and sustainability [35,63,64] as well as two pre-
vious surveys conducted by the authors, which assessed consumer patterns in sustainable
consumption [65,66]. It was also refined with input from professors and experts in sus-
tainable fashion consumption. Prior to the implementation of the survey, the institutional
review included a review of the questionnaire to ensure that its questions did not raise
any sensitive privacy issues or compromise in any way the anonymity of all respondents.
Before administering the questionnaire in experiments, a pilot version was distributed to
fifty subjects, applying a snowball technique in WhatsApp groups.
To examine the relationship between the type of intervention or the relationship
to people with whom respondents came to shop and the degree of agreement with the
statements concerning climate and fashion, a two-way analysis of variance was performed.
It assessed the relationship between the four types of interventions (knowledge, alternative,
social norms and a control group) and five options, involving the people with whom
respondents came to shop. A follow-up Bonferroni test was then conducted.
The number of items purchased, the average expenditure for each item of clothing
representing the WTPM, and the degree of agreement with the statements were all examined
in relation to each of the interventions in relation to gender and in relation to age group. To
examine how perceived green self-image and common environmental behaviors predict
agreement with statements related to climate change, a simultaneous multiple regression
test was conducted. t-tests were then used to analyze barriers to purchasing sustainable
fashion. These tests aimed to determine differences in perceived green self-image and
environmental behaviors between respondents who can distinguish green clothes and those
who cannot; respondents who encounter sustainably produced clothes while shopping
and those who do not; and respondents who believe their purchased clothes are green
products versus those who do not. Additionally, clothing purchase patterns, expenditure
and agreement with statements were analyzed in relation to gender, age and green self-
image. Finally, barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion were examined in each of the
intervention groups in relation to gender, age and green self-image.
During the four days of the experiment, 1100 questionnaires were distributed, of which
675 questionnaires were filled out satisfactorily (425 questionnaires were partially or inade-
quately filled out and consequently rejected while entering data from the questionnaires).

3. Results
3.1. General
As is often the case in quasi-experiments, there was some asymmetry in the natural
allocation of the different groups. There were more women than men, and more participants
came to the mall with friends or a partner than alone. Moreover, the majority of participants
were either employed or self-employed (for a full description, see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study participants.

N %
Gender
Man 224 32.9%
Woman 451 66.8%
With whom did they come to the mall?
Alone 208 30.8%
With friends 232 34.4%
With a partner 79 11.7%
With family members 143 21.2%
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 9 of 30

Table 1. Cont.

N %
Other 13 1.9%
Main occupation
High school student 150 22.2%
Soldier 39 5.8%
Student 63 9.3%
Employee/Self-employed 295 43.7%
Pensioner 62 9.2%
On Maternity Leave 4 0.6%
Unemployed 54 8.0%
Other 8 1.2%
Age
16–20 199 29.66%
21–30 150 22.36%
31–45 158 23.55
46–60 98 14.61%
61–75 47 7.00%
76 and older 19 2.83%

3.2. Differences between the Intervention Conditions

In examining WTPM for sustainable fashion under the various intervention conditions,
it was found that in the knowledge group, the purchase amount (157.2 NIS, SD = 256.8) and
the number of items purchased (1.7, SD = 2.4) revealed the highest responses. The lowest
purchase amount (109.8 NIS, SD = 201.4) and number of items purchased (1.4, SD = 2.3)
were found among the social norms group. The ratio between the amount spent and the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 10 of 32
number of items purchased (representing low WTPM) was highest among the control group
(See Figure 1 and Table 2).

200

150

100

50

0
Average amount paid per item Amount of clothing purchased

Knowledge Alternatives Social Norms Control Group

Figure 1. Low WTPM for sustainable fashion in NIS under the various intervention conditions.
Figure 1. Low WTPM for sustainable fashion in NIS under the various intervention conditions.

Table 2. Purchases in NIS under the various intervention conditions.

Table 2. Purchases in NIS under the various intervention conditions.
Knowledge (N Alternative Social Norms
Control (N = 123)Knowledge
Control Alternative Social Norms
= 169) (N = 149) N = (234)
(N = 123) (N = 169) (N = 149) (N = 234)
SD M SD M SD M SD M
SD M SD M SD M SD M
The amount of purchase 300.6 154.7 256.8 157.2 233.8 136.6 201.4 109.8
The amount
Number of purchase
of items purchased 300.6 2.4 154.7 256.8
1.5 157.2
2.4 1.7233.8 2.1 136.6 1.6 201.4
2.3 109.8
1.4
Number of items purchased
Average amount spent on an item 2.4 130.3 1.5 2.4
65.5 1.7
99.1 59.9 2.1 124.6 1.6 58.3 2.3
71.4 1.4
41.5
Average amount spent on an item 130.3 65.5 99.1 59.9 124.6 58.3 71.4 41.5
In examining the degree of agreement with the statements regarding the climate cri-
sis and sustainable fashion among the different intervention groups, it was found that the
alternative group expressed the highest agreement (4.4, SD = 0.9), followed by the social
norms group (4.1, SD = 0.9) and then the knowledge group (4.0, SD = 1.0), and finally, the
lowest agreement was found among the control group (3.8, SD = 1.0) (see Figure 2 and
Table 3).
 Control (N = 123)
= 169) (N = 149) N = (234)
SD M SD M SD M SD M
The amount of purchase 300.6 154.7 256.8 157.2 233.8 136.6 201.4 109.8
Number of items purchased
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586
2.4 1.5 2.4 1.7 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.4
10 of 30
Average amount spent on an item 130.3 65.5 99.1 59.9 124.6 58.3 71.4 41.5

In examining
In examining thethe degree
degreeof ofagreement
agreementwith
withthethestatements
statementsregarding
regardingthe the climate
climate cri-
crisis
sis and sustainable fashion among the different intervention groups, it was
and sustainable fashion among the different intervention groups, it was found that the found that the
alternative group expressed the highest agreement (4.4, SD = 0.9), followed
alternative group expressed the highest agreement (4.4, SD = 0.9), followed by the social by the social
norms group
norms group (4.1,
(4.1, SD
SD = = 0.9)
0.9) and
and then
then the
the knowledge
knowledge group
group (4.0,
(4.0, SD
SD == 1.0),
1.0), and
and finally, the
finally, the
lowest agreement was found among the control group (3.8, SD = 1.0)
lowest agreement was found among the control group (3.8, SD = 1.0) (see Figure 2 and (see Figure 2 and
Table 3).
Table 3).

Figure 2. The degree of agreement with statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fash-
Figure 2. The degree of agreement with statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable
ion among the different intervention groups.
fashion among the different intervention groups.

Table 3. Degree of agreement with the statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion
and predominance of green self-image among the different intervention groups.

Control Knowledge Alternative Social Norms

(N = 123) (N = 169) (N = 149) (N = 234)
SD M SD M SD M SD M
Agreeing with the statements about
1.0 3.8 1.0 4.0 0.9 4.4 0.9 4.1
climate and sustainable fashion
Predominance of green self-image
1.4 4.1 1.5 4.3 1.3 4.5 1.3 4.4
(self-report)
Predominance of green self-image
1.2 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6
(based on actions)

In examining the predominance of participants’ green self-image (based on self-

reporting as opposed to actions) among the different experimental groups, it was found
that the green self-image based on self-reporting was highest among the alternative group
(M = 4.5, SD = 1.3) and lowest among the control group (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4). In assessing
green self-image based on actions, it was also found that the highest self-image existed
among the alternative group (M = 1.7, SD = 1.2) and the lowest existed among the control
group (M = 1.4, SD = 1.2). Among all intervention groups, green self-image based on
actions was significantly lower than that based on self-reporting (see Table 3).

Differences between the Intervention Conditions in Barriers to Purchasing

Sustainable Fashion
In examining barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different interven-
tion groups, the alternative group showed the greatest ability to distinguish between “green”
clothing and those not sustainably produced (32.2%, N = 48/149). The social norms group
(who were given a tote bag with a sustainable consumption slogan) were the least able
to differentiate between green and non-green clothes (41.9%, N = 98/234); the knowledge
group exposed to signage reported the lowest level of confidence in differentiating between
 Sustainable Fashion
In examining barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different inter-
vention groups, the alternative group showed the greatest ability to distinguish between
“green” clothing and those not sustainably produced (32.2%, N = 48/149). The social norms
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 group (who were given a tote bag with a sustainable consumption slogan) were the11least of 30
able to differentiate between green and non-green clothes (41.9%, N = 98/234); the
knowledge group exposed to signage reported the lowest level of confidence in differenti-
ating between
sustainable sustainable
and and unsustainable
unsustainable clothing
clothing (44.4%, (44.4%,(for
N = 75/169) N =full
75/169) (forsee
results, fullFigure
results,
3
see Figure 3
and Table 4).and Table 4).

Figure 3. Agreement with the statement “I Feel Like I Know How to Distinguish Between Green
Figure 3. Agreement with the statement “I Feel Like I Know How to Distinguish Between Green and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 and Non-Green Clothes” among the different intervention groups. 12 of 32
Non-Green Clothes” among the different intervention groups.

Table 4. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Feel Like I Know How to
Table 4. Prevalence
Distinguish Betweenand percentages
Green of agreement
and Non-Green with
Clothes” the statement
among “I Feel
the different Like I Know
intervention How to
groups.
Distinguish Between Green and Non-Green Clothes” among the different intervention groups.
Control Knowledge Alternative Social Norms
Control Knowledge (N Alternative Social Norms
(N = 123) (N = 169) (N = 149) (N = 234)
(N = 123) = 169) (N = 149) N= (234)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between
I feelgreen
like Iclothes
knowand
howthose
to distinguish
that are not
between% N % N % N % N
% N % N % N % N
green clothes and those that are not
Yes 26.8 33 24.9 42 32.2 48 27.4 64
Yes 26.8 33 24.9 42 32.2 48 27.4 64
No 35.0 43 30.8 52 28.2 42 41.9 98
No 35.0 43 30.8 52 28.2 42 41.9 98
I’m not sure
I’m not sure 38.2 38.2 47 4744.4 44.475 75 39.6 39.6 59 59 30.8
30.8 72
72

In response
In response to to the
thequestion
question“I“Icame
cameacross many
across manygreen
greenclothes today”,
clothes the the
today”, mostmost
fre-
quent answer in all groups was “no”. Nonetheless, the alternative group contained
frequent answer in all groups was “no”. Nonetheless, the alternative group contained the the
highest proportion
highest proportion of of participants
participants who
who answered
answered “yes”
“yes” (28.2%).
(28.2%). The
The highest
highest proportion
proportion
answering “no”
answering “no” waswas found
foundininthe
theknowledge
knowledgegroup
group(59.2%,)
(59.2%,)(for
(forthe
thefull
fullresults,
results,see
seeFigure
Figure4
4 and
and Table
Table 5).5).

Figure 4. Agreement with the statement “I Came across Many Green Clothes Today” among the
Figure 4. Agreement with the statement “I Came across Many Green Clothes Today” among the
different intervention groups.
different intervention groups.
Table 5. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Came across Many Green
Clothes Today” among the different intervention groups.

Control Knowledge (N Alternative Social Norms

(N = 123) = 169) (N = 149) N = (234)
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 12 of 30

Table 5. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Came across Many Green
Clothes Today” among the different intervention groups.

Control Knowledge Alternative Social Norms

(N = 123) (N = 169) (N = 149) (N = 234)
I came across many green clothes today % N % N % N % N
Yes 18.7 23 7.1 12 28.2 42 15.0 35
No 44.7 55 59.2 100 38.9 58 54.7 128
I’m not sure 36.6 45 33.7 57 32.9 49 30.3 71

In response to the question “I believe the clothes I bought today are green clothes”, the
most common answer among all groups was “no”. The alternative group, however, had the
highest rate of participants who answered “yes” relative to the other groups (23.5%), while
the knowledge group had the highest rate of participants who answered “no” (50.9%) (See
Table 6).

Table 6. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Believe that the Clothes I
Bought Today Are Green products” among the different intervention groups.

Control Knowledge Alternative Social Norms

(N = 123) (N = 169) (N = 149) (N = 234)
I believe that the clothes I bought today are
% N % N % N % N
green products
Yes 15.4 19 8.3 14 23.5 35 17.5 41
No 43.1 53 50.9 86 40.9 61 50.4 118
I’m not sure 41.5 51 40.8 69 35.6 53 32.1 75

3.3. Analysis Based on Demographic Characteristics

3.3.1. Gender
The gender analysis inter alia assessed WTPM for sustainable fashion and the asso-
ciation between gender green self-image based on self-reporting and based on actions.
The amount of purchases, the number of items purchased and the average amount per
item were all higher among men (M = 143.9, SD = 249.2; M = 1.8, SD = 2.4 and M = 56.4,
SD = 124.2 respectively). At the same time, the degree of agreement with environmental
statements was higher among women (M = 4.2, SD = 0. 9 relative to M = 3.9, SD = 1.0 among
men). This was also true regarding the self-reporting of green self-image (M = 4.5, SD = 1.3
among women compared with M = 4.1, SD = 1.5 among men) as well as environmental
actions (M = 1.7, SD = 1.1 among women compared with M = 1.3, SD = 1.2 among men)
(see Table 7).
In evaluating the barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion, more men than women
reported not knowing how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not:
(29.7% of women reported not knowing how to distinguish compared with 46.4% of men).
The most common answer among both genders regarding whether they encountered
many “green clothes” today was “no”. Nonetheless, more women than men said they had
encountered green clothing (18.4% vs. 12.6%, respectively), while more men than women
also said they were uncertain (35.6% of men vs. 31.7% of women).
Most respondents amongst both women and men reported that they had not purchased
green clothes. At the same time, again the proportion of women reporting purchases of
green clothes was higher than among male respondents (17.5% among women compared
with 13.5% among men) (see Table 8).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 13 of 30

Table 7. WTPM for sustainable fashion in NIS: degree of agreement with environmental statements
and green self-image based on gender analysis.

Women Men
(N = 451) (N = 222)
SD M SD M
Amount purchased 241.0 132.4 249.2 143.9
Number of items bought 2.2 1.4 2.4 1.8
Average amount per item 92.5 53.4 124.2 56.4
Agreed with statements on climate and sustainable fashion 0.9 4.2 1.0 3.9
Predominance green self-image (self-reporting) 1.3 4.5 1.5 4.1
Predominance green self-image dominance (based on actions) 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.3

Table 8. Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion based on gender.

Women Men
(N = 451) (N = 222)
% N % N
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green
clothes and those that are not
Yes 29.7 134 23.4 52
No 29.3 132 46.4 103
I’m not sure 41.0 185 30.2 67
I came across many green clothes today
Yes 18.4 83 12.6 28
No 49.9 225 51.8 115
I’m not sure 31.7 143 35.6 79
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green
products
Yes 17.5 79 13.5 30
No 46.8 211 47.3 105
I’m not sure 35.7 161 39.2 87

3.3.2. Age
An analysis of WTPM for sustainable fashion, the agreement with statements about
the climate crisis and sustainable fashion and green self-image based on self-reporting as
well as on actions in relation to age was also conducted. The youngest cohort spent the most
on clothing with the highest number of items, contrasting dramatically with the 61–75 age
group, which purchased the least number of items for the lowest amount (1.7 items in the
amount of NIS 158.4 in the 16–20 age group compared with 0.8 items in the amount of
69.4 NIS in the 61–75 age group). Agreement with statements regarding the climate crisis
and sustainable fashion was most common among the 76 and older respondents, while the
age group that expressed the lowest agreement was 16–20 (M = 4.9 at the 61–75 age group
compared with M = 3.9 in the 16–20 age group).
As for the extent of a green self-image based on self-reporting, it was found that
groups aged 61–75 and 76 and older reported the highest green self-image (5). Other age
groups reported a somewhat lower green self-image, ranging from 4.2 to 4.3. In contrast,
when examining green self-image based on actions, the age group that was 76 and older
on average had a green self-image ranking of only 1.7, while the other age groups ranged
from 1.4 to 1.6.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 14 of 30

Responses to questions examining barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion differed

among the various age groups. In response to the question “I feel like I know how to
distinguish between green and non-green clothes”, the age group that strongly reported
an ability to differentiate was the oldest cohort 76 years and older (52.6%) as well as
61–75 years old (51.1%). Purportedly, the 31–45 and 21–30 age groups largely reported
that they did not know the difference (39.2% and 40.0%, respectively). In the 16–20 age
group, the most common answer was “I’m not sure” (35.2%, N = 70/199). (See Figure 5
and Table 9).
Table 9. Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different age groups.

31–45 21–30 16–20

(N = 158) (N = 150) (N = 199)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green
% N % N % N
clothes and those that are not
Yes 20.9 33 24.7 37 25.1 50
No 39.2 62 40.0 60 35.7 71
I’m not sure 39.9 63 35.3 53 39.2 78
I came across many green clothes today
Yes 13.9 22 18.0 27 15.6 31
No 51.3 81 47.3 71 49.2 98
I’m not sure 34.8 55 34.7 52 35.2 70
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green
products
Yes 11.4 18 12.7 19 22.6 45
No 48.7 77 44.7 67 43.2 86
I’m not sure 39.9 63 42.7 64 34.2 68
76 and above 61–75 46–60
(N = 19) (N = 47) (N = 98)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green
% N % N % N
clothes and those that are not
Yes 52.6 10 51.1 24 30.6 30
No 21.1 4 25.5 12 26.5 26
I’m not sure 26.3 5 23.4 11 42.9 42
I came across many green clothes today
Yes 21.1 4 27.7 13 13.3 13
No 52.6 10 51.1 24 56.1 55
I’m not sure 26.3 5 21.3 10 30.6 30
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green
products
Yes 26.3 5 21.3 10 12.2 12
No 57.9 11 53.2 25 50.0 49
I’m not sure 15.8 3 25.5 12 37.8 37

In response to the question “I came across many green clothes today”, the most
common answer among all age groups was “no”. The age groups that most often reported
encountering many green clothes were 61–75 years old (27.7%) and then 76 years old and
older (21.1%) (See Figure 6 and Table 9). The most common answer among all age groups
responding to the statement, “I believe the clothes I bought today are green clothes”, was
“no”. Nonetheless, the age group that most reported a belief that the clothes they purchased
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 15 of 30

were in fact “green” were those respondents 76 years and older (26.3%). However, this
was also the age group in which the rate of “no” respondents were the highest (57.9%),
and the rate of “I’m not sure” respondents was the lowest (15.8%). The 21–30 years old
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 cohort expressed the least certainty that the clothes they had purchased that day were15green
of 32
(42.7%) (See Figure 7 and Table 9).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 16 of 32

52.60%
51.10%
42.90%
I believe that the clothes I bought today are
40.00%

39.90%
39.20%

39.20%
green products
35.70%

35.30%

Yes 26.3 5 21.3 10 12.2 12

30.60%
No 57.9 11 53.2 25 50.0 49

26.50%

26.30%
25.50%
25.10%

24.70%

23.40%
I’m not sure 15.8 3 25.5 12 37.8 37

21.10%
20.90%

In response to the question “I came across many green clothes today”, the most com-
mon answer among all age groups was “no”. The age groups that most often reported
encountering many green clothes were 61–75 years old (27.7%) and then 76 years old and
older (21.1%) (See Figure 6 and Table 9). The most common answer among all age groups
responding to the statement, “I believe the clothes I bought today are green clothes”, was
“no”. Nonetheless, the age group that most reported a belief that the clothes they pur-
16–20 2 1 –were
chased 3 0 in fact 3“green”
1–45 4 6 – 6 0respondents
were those 6 1 –76
7 5 years7and
6 Y Eolder
A R S O(26.3%).
LD However,
yes no I'm not sure AND OLDER
this was also the age group in which the rate of “no” respondents were the highest (57.9%),
and the rate of “I’m not sure” respondents was the lowest (15.8%). The 21–30 years old
Figure 5. Agreement with the statement “I Feel like I Know How to Distinguish between Green and
Figure
cohort Agreementthe
[Link] with the statement
least certainty “I Feelthe
like I Know How to Distinguish between Green and
Non-Green Clothes” among different agethat
groups. clothes they had purchased that day were
green (42.7%) (See Figure 7 and Table 9).
Non-Green Clothes” among different age groups.
Table 9. Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different age groups.
yes no I'm not sure 31–45 21–30 16–20
56.10%

(N = 158) (N = 150) (N = 199)

52.60%
51.10%
49.20%

I feel like I know how to distinguish between

47.30%

% N % N % N
green clothes and those that are not
42.90%
39.20%

Yes 20.9 33 24.7 37 25.1 50

35.20%

34.80%
34.70%

No 39.2 62 40.0 60 35.7 71

30.60%

I’m not sure 39.9 63 35.3 53 39.2 78

27.70%

26.30%

I came across many green clothes today

21.30%

Yes 13.9 22 18.0 27 15.6 31

18.00%
15.60%

No 51.3 81 47.3 71 49.2 98

13.90%

13.30%

I’m not sure 34.8 55 34.7 52 35.2 70

I believe that the clothes I bought today are
green products
Yes 11.4 18 12.7 19 22.6 45
No 48.7 77 44.7 67 43.2 86
16–20 21–30 31–45 46–60 61-75 76 YEARS OLD
I’m not sure 39.9 63 42.7 64 34.2 68
AND OLDER
76 and above 61–75 46–60
(N =Green
Figure 6. Agreement with the statement “I Came Across Many 19) Clothes
(N =Today”
47) among
(N = 98)
the
Figure 6. Agreement with the statement “I Came Across Many Green Clothes Today” among the
I feel like
different age Igroups.
know how to distinguish between
different age groups. % N % N % N
green clothes and those that are not
Yes 52.6 10 51.1 24 30.6 30
No 21.1 4 25.5 12 26.5 26
I’m not sure 26.3 5 23.4 11 42.9 42
I came across many green clothes today
Yes 21.1 4 27.7 13 13.3 13
No 52.6 10 51.1 24 56.1 55
I’m not sure 26.3 5 21.3 10 30.6 30
Sustainability 2024, 16,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586
8586 17
16 of 32
of 30

yes no I'm not sure

57.90%
53.20%
50.00%
48.70%
44.70%
43.20%

42.70%

39.90%

37.80%
34.20%

26.30%
25.50%
22.60%

21.30%

15.80%
12.70%

12.20%
11.40%

16–20 21–30 31–45 46–60 61-75 76 YEARS

OLD AND
OLDER

Figure 7. Agreement with the statement “I Believe the Clothes I Bought Today Are Green Clothes”
Figure 7. Agreement with the statement “I Believe the Clothes I Bought Today Are Green Clothes”
among the different age groups.
among the different age groups.

3.4. Analysis of Variance

Toexamine
To examinethe the relationship
relationship between
between the of
the type type of intervention
intervention (knowledge/alterna-
(knowledge/alternative/social
tive/social
norms), thenorms),
peoplethe people
with whom with whom respondents
respondents came to the came to the
mall, themall, the agreement
agreement with
with climate-
climate-related
related statements statements and sustainable
and sustainable fashion and fashion
greenand green self-image,
self-image, an analysis an of
analysis
variance of
variance
was was conducted.
conducted. In a analysis
In a bivariate bivariateofanalysis
variance, ofavariance,
significant a significant
primary effect primary effect
was found
wasthe
for found
typefor of the type of intervention
intervention to which respondents
to which respondents were exposed were exposed
(F(3656) (F(3656)
= 3.78, ** p = 3.78,
0.01,
** p = 0.01,
partial 2
η =partial
0.02). Atη =the
2 0.02).
same Attime,
the same time, no significant
no significant effect was
effect was found found
for the for the
variable vari-
involv-
ablethe
ing involving
people with the people
whomwith whom respondents
respondents were accompaniedwere accompanied to the mall
to the mall (F(4656) (F(4656)
= 2.05, n.s),
with
= 2.05,non.s),
interaction
with nofound (F(11,656)
interaction found= (F(11,656)
1.62, n.s). = 1.62, n.s).
Bonferroni follow-up tests suggest that in cases where respondents were exposed to
“alternatives”,
“alternatives”,resultsresultswere
weremoremore meaningful
meaningful (M(M = 4.47, SD SD
= 4.47, = 0.13). TheThe
= 0.13). degree of agreement
degree of agree-
with
ment with statements regarding climate crisis and sustainable fashion was also among
statements regarding climate crisis and sustainable fashion was also higher higher
respondents
among respondents who were who“provided information”
were “provided (M = 4.07,
information” (MSD = 0.08),
= 4.07, SD significantly greater
= 0.08), significantly
than
greater the control
in than in the group
control (M
group=3.85,(M SD = 0.15).
=3.85, Confidence
SD = 0.15). Confidenceintervals werewere
intervals not measured
not meas-
as theasexperiments
ured the experiments werewerequasi-experiments,
quasi-experiments, and and
therefore, random
therefore, random sampling or normal
sampling or nor-
distribution cannot be assumed.
mal distribution cannot be assumed.
To
To examine
examine the the relationship
relationship between
between greengreen self-image
self-image basedbased on on self-reporting
self-reporting and and
actions and agreement with the statements on climate and
actions and agreement with the statements on climate and fashion, a simultaneous fashion, a simultaneous multiple
multi-
regression
ple regression was wasperformed.
performed. The Theregression model
regression significantly
model explains
significantly 28.2%28.2%
explains of theofvari-
the
ance in the
variance indegree of agreement
the degree of agreement with the
with statements (F(2671)
the statements = 132.1,
(F(2671) = ** p < 0.001).
132.1, Green
** p < 0.001).
self-image
Green self-imagebased on self-reporting
based was a significant
on self-reporting predictorpredictor
was a significant of agreement with environ-
of agreement with
mental statements. In other words, the higher the level of reporting
environmental statements. In other words, the higher the level of reporting about about green self-image,
green
the higher the
self-image, the agreement with statements
higher the agreement about climate
with statements about and fashion
climate and(βfashion
= 0.47, (β
t ==13.06,
0.47,
** p < 0.001). Green self-image based on the number of actions
t = 13.06, **p < 0.001). Green self-image based on the number of actions was also found was also found to be toa
significant predictor of agreement with climate and fashion statements.
be a significant predictor of agreement with climate and fashion statements. Accordingly, Accordingly, the
higher the number
the higher the number of actions, the higher
of actions, the agreement
the higher the agreementwith with
pro-environmental
pro-environmental statements
state-
(β = 0.13, t = 3.62, ** p < 0.001) (see Table 10).
ments (β = 0.13, t = 3.62, ** p < 0.001) (see Table 10).
A t-test for independent samples was conducted to examine the difference in green
self-image between those who reported the ability to distinguish green clothes from others
and those who did not, based on self-reporting and actions, in barriers to purchasing
sustainable fashion. As anticipated, a significant disparity was observed between the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 17 of 30

groups (t(418.93) = 10.6, ** p < 0.01). Those who claimed knowledge of distinguishing
green clothes exhibited a higher green self-image (M = 5.06, SD = 1.15) compared with
those who reported an inability to distinguish them (M = 3.74, SD = 1.42). A significant
difference was also found between the groups as defined by green self-image based on
actions (t(362.12) = 5.11, ** p < 001). Respondents’ knowledgeability about distinguishing
green clothes showed a higher green self-image based on their reported actions (M = 1.85,
SD = 1.25), surpassing those who lacked this knowledge (M = 1.27, SD = 1.05).

Table 10. Regression coefficients for predicting agreement with statements about the climate crisis
and sustainable fashion. *** = p ≤ 0.001.

B SEB B
Green self-image dominance (self-report) 0.47 0.02 32 ***
Green self-image dominance (number of actions) 0.13 0.03 11 ***

To examine the hypothesis regarding differences in self-reported green self-image and

actions among those encountering many green clothes while shopping versus those who
did not, an independent samples t-test was conducted. A significant disparity between the
groups emerged (t(450) = 4.02, ** p < 0.001). Individuals encountering many green clothes
exhibited a higher self-reported green self-image (M = 4.87, SD = 1.33) compared with those
encountering fewer green clothes (M = 4.25, SD = 1.43).
A difference emerged between groups with high and low green self-image based
on actions (t(451) = 2.91, ** p < 0.05). Those who reported encountering many green
clothes while shopping exhibited a higher green self-image (M = 1.93, SD = 1.26) than those
encountering fewer green clothes (M = 1.56, SD = 1.14).
In testing differences in green self-image between those who believe their clothes
purchased are green products and those who do not believe so, a significant difference was
found (t(248.15) = 5.80, ** p < 0.01). Individuals who believed that they had purchased green
products exhibited a higher self-reported green self-image (M = 4.96, SD = 1.14) than those
who did not (M = 4.16, SD = 1.51). Furthermore, a significant difference emerged between
the groups regarding green self-image based on actions (t(425) = 2.75, ** p < 0.01): those
believing their purchases were green products exhibited a higher green self-image based
on actions (M = 1.86, SD = 1.17) compared with those who did not (M = 1.51, SD = 1.14)
(see Table 11).

Table 11. Means and standard deviations of green self-image based on self-reporting and actions,
according to barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion.

Green Self-Image Based Green Self-Image

on a Number of Actions Based on Self-Report
I feel like I know how to distinguish
between green clothes and those that are M SD M SD
not
Yes 1.85 1.25 5.06 1.15
No 1.27 1.05 3.74 1.42
I encountered many green clothes today
Yes 1.93 1.26 4.87 1.33
No 1.56 1.14 4.25 1.43
I believe that the clothes I bought today are
green products
Yes 1.86 1.17 4.96 1.14
No 1.51 1.14 4.16 1.51
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 18 of 30

4. Discussion
Since its inception, fashion has always served as a means by which individuals shape
their physical and social identities. Fashion has the power to change people, not only in
their appearance, but also their perceptions, feelings and beliefs [41,65,66]. In the discourse
about fashion and the environment, there is a tendency to emphasize the environmental
damages of the fashion industry [67–69]. Given the growing cultural and psychological
power of fashion, however, sustainable fashion also has the ability to positively influence
consumption patterns in many areas that extend beyond consumers’ clothing choices. This
underlies the importance of promoting sustainable fashion.
This study found that offering consumers sustainable alternatives was the most ef-
fective way to “nudge” them to support sustainable fashion. In other words, a distinct
primary effect was found when providing an alternative intervention. Moreover, the largest
proportion of consumers who reported that they know how to differentiate between green
clothes and those could not was the group that had been primed to realize that sustainable
alternatives to fast fashion exist. This was also true for respondents who believed that the
clothes they purchased were indeed green clothes and among all levels of green self-image.
It can be concluded that offering the public accessible sustainable clothing alternatives
constitutes the most effective way to encourage sustainable fashion purchasing patterns.
Providing simplified information along with a new framing of products constitute
common nudging tools to promote sustainable consumption. Their impact on people’s
actual choices, however, appears to be limited and largely context-dependent. Previ-
ous studies [55,57,60,70,71] found that nudges that change the physical environment and
change default options are more effective than merely simplifying and framing information
differently. This is especially true in the field of climate protection, even when the default is
transparent, as in the present study [62]. This study’s results, which show that providing
information constitutes the least effective nudge, are consistent with these findings.
Nonetheless, the analysis does not negate the potential contribution that new infor-
mation and strengthening social norms that encourage sustainable fashion may provide.
The percentage of people who reported that they “did not encounter green clothes” during
the visit to the mall, as well as those that “don’t believe they know how to distinguish
between green clothes and those that are not”, was higher among respondents who had
been exposed to new knowledge. This effect was also more common among groups who
were nudged to conform to new social norms than in the control group. Similarly, the
level of agreement with statements concerning the climate crisis and sustainable fashion
among the alternative and information groups indicates that engaging in the subject increases
awareness about the problem.
Another explanation for the relatively limited impact of providing information could
be people’s inclination to disregard climate-related information when it conflicts with their
existing beliefs, especially when it may involve incurring extra costs [72]. Sustainable
fashion, frequently linked with higher clothing prices, appears to be an artifact of this
phenomenon. This tendency might further explain the diminished impact of information.
Furthermore, research in the field indicates that nudges that provide information have lim-
ited to no effect on cooperative goals within a collaborative environment [73]. Addressing
the climate crisis and mitigating the negative impacts of the fashion industry are inherently
collaborative goals that cannot be achieved individually; they depend on wide societal
cooperation for success. This highlights the need for judicious public policy on the subject.

Demographic Nuances: A Surprising Generation Gap

More than half of the adults aged 61 and over reported with greater confidence that
they knew how to differentiate between green clothes and those that were not. The older
the respondent, the more confident they were about the environmental merits or flaws
of new clothing. In contrast, among the 16–20-year-old group, the rate of participants
reporting uncertainty as to whether the clothes they purchased were green was particularly
high. Moreover, the oldest respondents were also the most modest clothing consumers as
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 19 of 30

far as quantities purchased and associated expenses were concerned. With respect to the
degree of sustainability, these results are somewhat ambiguous. This is because buying
clothes sparingly is considered to be a preferred, sustainable pattern, while spending little
on clothing may not be. This paradox, in many ways, embodies a broader question: what
is sustainable fashion?
This is an important finding because the primary target audience of sustainable
fashion advocates is Generation Z and Y, demographic groups between the ages of 16
and 35. Ostensibly, young people are more concerned about the climate crisis than their
parents. However, these generations are also often characterized by confusion and distrust
in authority figures [74,75]. This finding, along with the results regarding green self-image,
amplify the effect involving the influence of alternatives to sustainable consumption.
It is noteworthy that in all groups, most participants reported not knowing how
to distinguish between sustainable and non-sustainable fashion. The confusion among
consumers reflects a common, global phenomenon. A 2015 study reported that there are
relatively few consumers who can successfully distinguish between different types of labels
and certifications [76].
In a study conducted in Germany about sustainability and fashion labels, it was found
that although many fashion products are labeled as sustainable, only 14% of the products
are labeled as sustainable by an impartial third party [56]. The lack of an authoritative
arbiter makes it difficult for consumers to understand to what extent a product should be
deemed sustainable.
Moreover, in a recent report, “License to Greenwash”, ten certifications, labels and
environmental voluntary initiatives in the field of fashion were examined [77]. In the
absence of sufficient legislation and oversight in the field, environmental certification labels
have become a common means of spreading greenwashing. The phenomenon contributes
to a further decrease in consumer trust. This is particularly important because trust has
been found to be a mediating variable in consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable
products [56,77–80]. In other words, the greater the reliability of the product, the more
consumers are willing to buy more of it for a higher price—and vice versa. This could also
explain the relatively low effect found in the study for providing information.

5. Conclusions
5.1. Confirmation of Hypotheses Regarding Effectiveness of Interventions
Prior to conducting the study, we assumed that increasing consumer alternatives
in the form of options for purchasing sustainable fashion products would both increase
the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased and consumers’ WTPM for
sustainable clothing products. We also hypothesized that emphasizing social identity
attained through the purchase of sustainable fashion would increase the proportion of
sustainable fashion products purchased by consumers but would not affect their WTPM for
these products. The results confirm this assumption. Indeed, we conclude that providing
alternatives in their shopping selections constitutes the best way to nudge consumers
towards sustainable fashion, and the “alternatives” nudge proved more effective than the
highlighted social norms.
We further hypothosized that providing information about the damages caused by the
fashion industry would reduce the quantity of fashion products purchased by consumers
and increase their willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable options. Here, the
results did not conform to the initial hypotheses. Offering information was in fact the least
effective nudge for advancing sustainable fashion that was tested in this study.

5.2. Greenwash and Reliability in Fashion

In all experimental situations, including this study’s control group, most participants
did not believe that the clothes they purchased were sustainably produced. The proportion
of people who did believe that the clothes they purchased were green was highest among
the alternatives group, which had been exposed to sustainable options. Among respondents
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 20 of 30

in the social norms groups and the knowledge group, the proportion of people who could
distinguish green clothing was higher than in the control group. These two results indicate
that the prominent placing of sustainable alternatives can strengthen consumer trust.
Providing information and creating a social norm can positively affect awareness. This
awareness, however, does not necessarily translate into the purchase of sustainable fashion.
As mentioned, among all demographic groups and at all levels of green self-image,
those exposed to sustainable alternatives were more likely to report that they did know how
to differentiate between green and environmentally destructive clothes, while those who
were exposed to knowledge were the least likely to do so. Even so, the rate of consumers in
the alternative group who reported knowing how to identify green clothes was less than
half. It is also possible that participants in the knowledge group by being exposed to the
potential environmental and social hazards of clothing took the issue more seriously than
other groups. Accordingly, being able to honestly express an inability to identify “green
clothes” might be seen as an expression of a newly acquired sense of responsibility.
Similarly, the social norm group had the highest proportion of consumers admitting
they lacked requisite knowledge to identify green fashion. Carrying a bag emblazoned
with “I only buy green fashion” likely prompted contemplation following initial unease to
a realization of an inability to identify sustainable fashion. This underscores the importance
of a dependable certification policy from a public policy standpoint. Supplying credible in-
formation from an impartial government source promises to enhance consumer confidence
and encourage greater adoption of sustainable fashion.

5.3. The Gap between Consumer Statements and Their Actual Purchases
This study confirms the desire of consumers to purchase sustainably: this impulse is
expressed, inter alia, through a high degree of agreement with statements regarding the
climate crisis and fashion. However, a significant gap exists between these intentions and
actual sustainable consumer behaviors across all groups.
This study reveals that men tend to spend more and buy more clothing items than
women, while women show greater agreement with perceptions linking climate to fashion.
Additionally, young people exhibit higher spending and purchase rates compared with
older adults. This indicates a lower susceptibility to fast fashion trends but also an attraction
to low prices with high environmental costs. Notably, senior citizens demonstrate the
highest agreement with pro-environmental statements, reflecting their consumer behavior.
The gap between consumer statements and their actual purchases is a well-known
challenge facing sustainable fashion manufacturers [81,82]. It constitutes a significant
obstacle to increasing the proportion of fashion manufacturers who aspire to become more
sustainable [81–84]. Studies from around the world that address the action gap in the field
of sustainable fashion found that a lack of understanding and lack of knowledge about
what sustainable fashion really is offers a compelling explanation to the gap [85,86]. In
addition to other factors like lack of sufficient trust and environmental knowledge [87],
social influences, beliefs and a low level of knowledge are influential [88,89].
From a business perspective, the action gap can also be seen as an opportunity. Past
studies found that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products if they value
environmental protection and believe that purchasing these products will contribute to
that objective [90]. Considering that knowledgeable, environmentally conscious consumers
focus on quality over quantity [82], fashion companies that focus on creating sustainable
fashion in small quantities through fair production and, above all, with transparency,
may be able to help narrow the gap while increasing consumers’ WTPM for sustainable
fashion products.
From the perspective of public policy, creating opportunities to increase profits through
sustainable fashion (e.g., subsidizing the production of sustainable fashion) may indeed
offer a significant incentive for fashion companies to adopt green strategies. However, rely-
ing exclusively on economic motivations is unwise. Frequently, pollution and exploitation
remain cheaper than sustainable production. Therefore, it is not enough to rely solely on
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 21 of 30

market forces. There are several incipient examples of legislation to this end that have
been adopted internationally during the last decade [91]. It is time to advance a holistic
strategy that addresses the challenges of reliable certification and greenwash prevention.
These measures will contribute to the overall aim of increasing the number and accessibility
of sustainable alternatives, strengthening the impact of the nudge found to be the most
effective in this study.
Ultimately, nudges are powerful tools that have the potential to contribute to ongoing
efforts to improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. However, their effect is often of
limited duration and is dependent on context. To minimize the purchasing gap, a robust set
of policies promoting sustainable fashion is essential. While nudges play a role, constituting
a vital component within a comprehensive strategy, they cannot serve as the sole approach.
Considering consumer distrust in market alternatives, relying solely on nudges without a
clear definition of sustainable fashion will likely result in unsatisfactory outcomes, reflected
in the fashion industry’s expanding environmental footprint notwithstanding heightened
sustainability aspirations. At the same time, well-designed, non-coercive interventions
targeting consumer behaviors can make an important contribution to a more sustainable
fashion industry.
This study suggests that thoughtfully designed nudges can influence consumers
to purchase their clothing in a more sustainable manner and affect their consumption
patterns. Quasi-experimental studies over a limited period in a single shopping mall
clearly have limitations. But clear empirical data, like that generated in the present research,
should inform policy makers as they begin to address the environmental implications of fast
fashion. As more policies are designed to address consumer behavior and nudges are scaled
up and implemented in a wider context, systematic evaluation studies will be extremely
important for a reliable ex post assessment of the effectiveness of these interventions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.P.M. and A.T.; methodology, M.P.M.; software, M.P.M.;
validation, M.P.M. and A.T.; formal analysis, M.P.M.; investigation, M.P.M. and A.T.; resources,
M.P.M.; data curation, M.P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.M. and A.T.; writing—review
and editing M.P.M. and A.T.; supervision, A.T.; project administration, M.P.M.; funding acquisition,
M.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Pollak Fellowship Program for Excellence; the Richard
and Rhoda Goldman Scholarship Fund; the David Horwinst Foundation for the Study of Society and
the Economy; and the Rothschild Foundation.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics
Committee of Tel Aviv University in accordance with accepted procedures. A copy of the Ethics
Committee’s approval can be provided upon request.
Informed Consent Statement: All study participants signed the informed consent statement attached
to the questionnaire. Additionally, those whose photos appear in the article provided explicit consent
for their inclusion.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting the reported findings will be provided upon request
from [Link]@[Link].
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Dizengoff Center, as well as the dozens of
volunteers who helped carry out the four experiments, for making the ambitious research possible.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 23 of 32
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 23 of 32

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Dizengoff Center, as well as the dozens of
Acknowledgments:
volunteers who helpedThecarry
authors
out would
the fourlike to thank thefor
experiments, Dizengoff Center,
making the as wellresearch
ambitious as the dozens of
possible.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 22 of 30
volunteers who helped carry out the four experiments, for making the ambitious research possible.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Photos
Photos

Figure A1.
Figure A1. Signs
Signs hanging
hanging from
from thethe ceiling
ceilingofofthe
themall,
mall,TheThesigns,
signs,written
writtenininHebrew,
Hebrew,read:
read:“Nylon
“Nylon
Figure A1. will
pantyhose Signstake
hanging
30 to from
40 theto
years ceiling of the mall,
decompose” The
(first fromsigns,
the written
left), in Hebrew,
“Fast and cheapread: “Nylon
fashion isn’t
pantyhose
pantyhose will
will take 30 to 40
take 30 else years
to 40isyears to decompose”
to decompose” (first from
(first from the left), “Fast and cheap fashion isn’t
really cheap; someone paying the price” (second fromthetheleft),
left),“Fast and cheap
and “Raising fashion
animals forisn’t
really
really cheap;
cheap; someone
someone else
elseisispaying
paying the
theprice”
price” (second
(second from thetheleft),
left),and
and“Raising
“Raisinganimals
animalsforforwool
wool requires a huge amount of resources” (third from fromthe left).
requires a hugea amount
wool requires of resources”
huge amount (third (third
of resources” from the
fromleft).
the left).

Figure A2. Electronic sign outside the mall.

Figure A2.
Figure A2. Electronic sign outside
Electronic sign outside the
the mall.
mall.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 2423of
of 32
30
Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16, 8586
8586 24 of
24 of 32
32

Figure A3. “In

“In order
order to
to produce
produce one
one t-shirt
t-shirt it
it is
is necessary to use one hundred and fifty grams of
Figure
Figure A3.
Figure A3. “In
A3. “In order
order to produce
to produce one
one t-shirt
t-shirt it is necessary
it is to
necessary to
necessary
use
use one
to use one hundred
one hundred and
hundred and fifty
and fifty grams
fifty grams of
grams of
of
insecticides”.
insecticides”.
insecticides”.
insecticides”.

Figure A4. “Eighty-two percent of our clothes end up in incineration or landfill”.

Figure A4.
Figure
Figure A4. “Eighty-two
A4. “Eighty-two percent
“Eighty-two percent of
percent of our
of our clothes
our clothes end
clothes end up
end up in
up in incineration
in incineration or
incineration or landfill”.
or landfill”.
landfill”.

Figure A5. “Eight thousand toxic chemicals are used in the process of dyeing clothes”.
Figure A5.
Figure A5. “Eight thousand
thousand toxic
toxic chemicals
chemicals are
are used
used in
in the
the process
process of
of dyeing
dyeing clothes”.
clothes”.
Figure A5. “Eight
“Eight thousand toxic chemicals are used in the process of dyeing clothes”.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586
8586 2524of
of 32
30
Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16, 8586
8586 25 of
25 of 32
32

Figure
Figure A6. Sales
A6. Sales stand
stand of
of ecological
ecological birthing
birthing boxes.
boxes.
Figure A6.
Figure A6. Sales
Sales stand of
stand of ecological
ecological birthing
birthing boxes.
boxes.

Figure A7. Second-hand clothes stand.

Figure A7.
Figure A7. Second-hand clothes stand.
Second-hand clothes stand.

Figure A8. Customers at a second-hand clothing stand.

Figure A8.
Figure A8. Customers
Customers at
at aa second-hand
second-hand clothing
clothing stand.
stand.
Sustainability 2024,16,
Sustainability2024, 16,8586
8586 26
25 of 32
of 30

Figure A9.
Figure A9. Participants
Participants holding
holding cloth
cloth bags
bags with
with the
the inscription
inscription “I
“I Only
Only Buy
Buy Green
Green Fashion”.
Fashion”.

Appendix B
Appendix B
Captions on
Captions on Signs
Signs
•• Eighty thousand
Eighty thousand toxic
toxic chemicals
chemicals are areused
usedin inthe
theprocess
processof ofdyeing
dyeingthe
thefabrics
fabrics
•• Fast and
Fast and cheap
cheap fashion
fashion isis not
not really
really cheap,
cheap, somewhere
somewhere someone
someone else
else is
is paying
paying the
the
full price
full price
•• In
In order
order toto produce
produce oneone pair
pair of
of jeans,
jeans, itit takes
takes the
the amount
amount of of water
water that
that a person
person drinks
drinks
for
for 7.5
7.5 years
years
•• It
It takes
takes 2700
2700 LL of
of water
water to
to produce
produce one one t-shirt
t-shirt
•• We
Wehave
have enough
enoughclothes
clothesininthe
theworld
worldfor forthe
thenext
nextfifty
fiftyyears
years
•• Over
Over 64% of women workers in textile factories
of women workers in textile factories say that they say that they suffer
suffer physical
physical and and
ver-
verbal abuse every
bal abuse every day day
•• 21%
21% ofof the
the clothes
clothes wewe own
own will
will never
never be be worn
worn
•• 80%
80% ofof the
the time
time we
we wear
wear 20%
20% ofof the
the clothes
clothes in in our
our closet
closet
•• Raising
Raising animals
animals forfor wool
wool consumes
consumes aa huge huge amount
amount of of resources.
resources. In
In aa country
country with
with
300 sunny days a year do we really need another
300 sunny days a year do we really need another sweater? sweater?
•• Did
Did you
you know?
know? Polyester
Polyester made
made fromfrom petroleum
petroleum
•• The
The decomposition process of synthetic fabrics
decomposition process of synthetic fabrics takes
takes several
several hundred
hundred years,
years, please
please
think wisely before throwing them
think wisely before throwing them away away

Appendix
Appendix C C
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Dear customer: We
Dear customer: Weare
areconducting
conducting anan experiment
experiment in collaboration
in collaboration withwith Tel Aviv
Tel Aviv Uni-
University, with the aim of improving the fashion shopping experience, the questionnaire
versity, with the aim of improving the fashion shopping experience, the questionnaire is
is completely
completely anonymous
anonymous and
and will
will bebe used
used toto improve
improve the
the shoppingexperience
shopping experienceonly.
only.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
1. With who
1. With who did
did you
you come
come toto Dizengoff
Dizengoff Center
Center today?
today?
A.
A. alone
alone
B.
B. with friends
with friends
C.
C. with a spouse
with a spouse
D.
D. with family members(children/parents)
with family members (children/parents)
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 26 of 30

E. Other
2. During your visit, did you purchase items of clothing (including bags, shoes, scarves, etc.)?
A. Yes
B. No
3. In what amount of money did you buy?________
4. How many items did you buy?_______________
5. What is the cost of each item?________________
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
6. I prefer to buy a single item over several cheap items at the same price
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

7. When I buy a garment, I look for information about the composition of the fabric
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

8. When I buy clothes, I look for information about the terms of employment of the
clothing manufacturers
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

9. I prefer to buy locally made clothes

I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

10. I believe it is important to purchase green products (green products are products that
are not harmful to the environment, or less harmful than their counterparts)
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

11. The climate crisis is a critical crisis and must be dealt with urgently
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

12. I believe there is a connection between my consumer choices and the climate crisis
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6

13. I feel that I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
14. I came across many green clothes today during my shopping
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
15. I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
16. My social environment will testify to me that in relation to other people I have a high
environmental awareness
I don’t agree 2 3 4 5 Strongly
at all 1 agree 6
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 27 of 30

17. Which of the following behaviors do you regularly do (you can mark more than
one answer)
A. Donate money/volunteer in a green organization
B. Consume a vegan/vegetarian diet
C. Avoid car ownership
D. Avoid buying new clothes
E. buy organic products
18. A (depends on experiment). Did you notice the inscription on your bag?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I’m not sure
19. B (depends on the experiment). A sustainable fashion festival took place this week.
Are you:
A. I did not hear or participate
B. I heard but did not participate
C. Participate in one or more activities of the festival
20. Please indicate your main occupation
A. High school student
B. a soldier
C. student
D. Full-time employee/self-employed
E. pensioner
F. A woman on maternity leave
G. Not employed
21. Age: _________
22. Gender:
A. man
B. woman
C. Not interested in answering

References
1. Rahman, O.; Hu, D.; Fung, B.C.M. A Systematic Literature Review of Fashion, Sustainability, and Consumption Using a Mixed
Methods Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12213. [CrossRef]
2. Niinimäki, K.; Peters, G.; Dahlbo, H.; Perry, P.; Rissanen, T.; Gwilt, A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat. Rev. Earth
Environ. 2020, 1, 189–200. [CrossRef]
3. Chowdhury, S.F. Impact of the Accord and Alliance on Labor Productivity of the Bangladesh RMG Industry. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Brac University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.
4. EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles. Available online: [Link]
strategy_en (accessed on 25 June 2024).
5. ReSet the Trend—#ReFashionNow-Become a Role Model! Available online: [Link]
economy/reset-trend_en (accessed on 25 June 2024).
6. Astrid, C.; Saskia, C.; Hendrik, S. Organizational characteristics explaining participation in sustainable business models in
the sharing economy: Evidence from the fashion industry using conjoint analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2603–2613.
[CrossRef]
7. Lotfi, M.; Boote, A. The unsustainable impact of patriarchy on the industry. Lampoon Magazine, 28 March 2023; Volume 27.
8. Children’s Rights in the Garment and Footwear Supply Chain. Available online: [Link]
rights-in-garment-and-footwear-supply-chain-2020 (accessed on 25 June 2024).
9. Dzhengiz, T.; Haukkala, T.; Sahimaa, O. (Un)Sustainable transitions towards fast and ultra-fast fashion. Fash Text 2023, 10, 19.
[CrossRef]
10. Truly Oppressive Working Conditions of the Clothing Industry. Available online: [Link]
working-conditions-of-the-clothing-industry/ (accessed on 25 June 2024).
11. Pal, R.; Gander, J. Modelling environmental value: An examination of sustainable business models within the fashion industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 251–263. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 28 of 30

12. The Business of Fashion, & McKinsey & Company. The State of Fashion 2017. Available online: [Link]
media/McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/The%20state%20of%20fashion/The-state-of-fashion-2017-McK-BoF-
[Link] (accessed on 25 June 2024).
13. Franklin-Wallis, O. Wasteland: The Secret World of Waste and the Urgent Search for a Cleaner Future, 1st ed.; Hachette Books: New
York, NY, USA, 2023.
14. Bick, R.; Halsey, E.; Ekenga, C.C. The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 92. [CrossRef]
15. Changing Markets Foundation & STAND. Synthetics Anonymous-Fashion Brands’ Addiction to Fossil Fuels. Changing Mar-
kets Foundation 2021. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 25 June 2024).
16. Mäkinen, K. Clothing Rental—Service Development Proposals through Service Design. Master’s Thesis, Turku University of
Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, 2019. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 25 June 2024).
17. Manieson, L.A.; Ferrero-Regis, T. Castoff from the West, pearls in Kantamanto? A critique of second-hand clothes trade. J. Ind.
Ecol. 2023, 27, 811–821. [CrossRef]
18. The Business of Fashion, & McKinsey & Company. The State of Fashion 2022. Available online: [Link]
media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/state%20of%20fashion/2022/[Link] (accessed on 25
June 2024).
19. The Business of Fashion, & McKinsey & Company. The State of Fashion 2019. Available online: [Link]
media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/fashion%20on%20demand/[Link] (accessed on 25
June 2024).
20. Cheng, W.H.; Song, S.; Chen, C.Y.; Hidayati, S.C.; Liu, J. Fashion meets computer vision: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR)
2021, 54, 1–41. [CrossRef]
21. The Circular Economy: A Wealth of Flows, 2nd ed. Available online: [Link]
economy-a-wealth-of-flows-2nd-edition (accessed on 25 June 2024).
22. Hwang, J.; Sun, X.; Zhao, L.; Youn, S.-Y. Sustainable Fashion in New Era: Exploring Consumer Resilience and Goals in the
Post-Pandemic. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3140. [CrossRef]
23. Holy, M.; Borčić, N. Information, consumerism and sustainable fashion. In Sustainable Growth and Development in Small Open Economies.
2018, p. 179. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 25 June 2024).
24. Hehorn, J.; Ulasewicz, C. Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? A Conversation Exploring Issues, Practices and Possibilities, 1st ed.; Fairchild
Book: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 24–37.
25. Peleg Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A. Sustainable Fashion—Rationale and Policies. Encyclopedia 2022, 2, 1154–1167. [CrossRef]
26. Guo, W.; Kim, E. Categorizing Chinese Consumers’ Behavior to Identify Factors Related to Sustainable Clothing Consumption.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6126. [CrossRef]
27. Sustainable Fashion Market Analysis Shows the Market Progress in Attempt to Decrease Pollution in the Global Ethicalfashion
Market 2020. Available online: [Link]
Fashion-Market-Analysis-Shows-The-Market-Progress-In-Attempt-To-Decrease-Pollution-In-The-Global-Ethicalfashion-
[Link] (accessed on 25 June 2024).
28. Ethical Fashion Market 2022—By Product (Organic, Man-Made/Regenerated, Recycled, Natural), By Type (Fair Trade, Animal
Cruelty Free, Eco-Friendly, Charitable Brands), By End-User (Men, Women, Kids), and By Region, Opportunities and Strategies—
Global Forecast to 2030. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 25 June 2024).
29. Gazzola, P.; Pavione, E.; Pezzetti, R.; Grechi, D. Trends in the Fashion Industry. The Perception of Sustainability and Circular
Economy: A Gender/Generation Quantitative Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2809. [CrossRef]
30. Ray, S.; Nayak, L. Marketing Sustainable Fashion: Trends and Future Directions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6202. [CrossRef]
31. The Global Consumer: Changed for Good-Consumer Trends Accelerated by the COVID-19 Pandemic Are Sticking. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 25
June 2024).
32. Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Lyu, Y. Profiling Consumers: Examination of Chinese Gen Z Consumers’ Sustainable Fashion Consumption.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8447. [CrossRef]
33. Weber, S.; Weber, O. How Fashionable Are We? Validating the Fashion Interest Scale through Multivariate Statistics. Sustainability
2022, 14, 1946. [CrossRef]
34. Bhattacharjee, A.; Chanda, R.S. Psychology of consumer: Study of factors influencing buying behavior of millennials towards
fast-fashion brands. Cardiometry 2022, 23, 360–368. [CrossRef]
35. Morgan, L.R.; Birtwistle, G. An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 190–198.
[CrossRef]
36. Lades, L.K. Impulsive consumption and reflexive thought: Nudging ethical consumer behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 2014, 41, 114–128.
[CrossRef]
37. Malhotra, N.K. Self concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. J. Econ. Psychol. 1988, 9, 1–28. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 29 of 30

38. Thøgersen, J.; Ölander, F. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. J. Econ. Psychol.
2002, 23, 605–630. [CrossRef]
39. Mandarić, D.; Hunjet, A.; Vuković, D. The impact of fashion brand sustainability on consumer purchasing decisions. J. Risk
Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 176. [CrossRef]
40. Lee, E.-J.; Choi, H.; Han, J.; Kim, D.H.; Ko, E.; Kim, K.H. How to “nudge” your consumers toward sustainable fashion
consumption: An fMRI investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 642–651. [CrossRef]
41. Jung, S.; Jin, B. A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: Sustainable future of the apparel industry. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014,
38, 510–519. [CrossRef]
42. Ramonienė, L. Sustainability motives, values and communication of slow fashion business owners. J. Philanthr. Mark. 2023, 28,
1788. [CrossRef]
43. Meyner, N.; Olofsson, N.; Fager, F. The Effect of Substantial Factors that Influence Consumers’ Purchase Decisions on Clothes
in the Fast Fashion Industry in Sweden. A Quantitative Study of the Significant Substantial Factors Which Affect Swedish
Consumers’ Purchase Decisions When Buying Fast Fashion Items. Bachelor’s Thesis, Jönköping University-Business School,
International Management, Jönköping, Sweden, May 2023.
44. Joergens, C. Ethical fashion: Myth or future trend? J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2006, 10, 360–371. [CrossRef]
45. Neumann, R.; Mehlkop, G. Neutralization strategies account for the concern-behavior gap in renewable energy usage–Evidence
from panel data from Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 99, 103041. [CrossRef]
46. Shein Revenue and Usage Statistics. 2024. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 25 June 2024).
47. Mizrachi, M. The Good, the Bad, and the Sustainable: How Technology Has Changed and Continues to Change the World of
Fashion, from Cotton Gin to Digital Clothes. In Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles, 1st ed.; Ayşegül, K., İbrahim, M., Kanat., S., Eds.;
IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [CrossRef]
48. Thaler, R.H. From cashews to nudges: The evolution of behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 2018, 108, 1265–1287. [CrossRef]
49. Herstein, R.; Gilboa, S.; Gamliel, E. Private and national brand consumers’ images of fashion stores. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2013,
22, 331–341. [CrossRef]
50. Herstein, R.H.; Berger, R. Creating & Managing Brand Image, 1st ed.; Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2015;
pp. 57–73.
51. Ben-Ami, M.; Hornik, J.; Eden, D.; Kaplan, O. Boosting consumers’ self-efficacy by repositioning the self. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48,
1914–1938. [CrossRef]
52. Banerjee, A.; Dutta, T.; Mishra, A.S. Value-based nudging of ethnic garments: A conjoint study to differentiate the value perception
of ethnic products across Indian Markets. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2023, 27, 612–631. [CrossRef]
53. Schürmann, C.L.; Helinski, C.; Koch, j.; Westmattelmann, D. Digital Nudging to Promote Sustainable Consumer Behavior?
An Experimental Analysis in Online Fashion Retail. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems,
Kristiansand, Norway, 11–16 June 2023.
54. Yan, S.; Henninger, C.E.; Jones, C.; McCormick, H. Sustainable knowledge from consumer perspective addressing microfibre
pollution. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2020, 24, 437–454. [CrossRef]
55. Roozen, I.; Raedts, M.; Meijburg, L. Do verbal and visual nudges influence consumers’ choice for sustainable fashion? J. Glob.
Fash. Mark. 2021, 12, 327–342. [CrossRef]
56. Gossen, M.; Jäger, S.; Lena Hoffmann, M.; Bießmann, F.; Korenke, R.; Santarius, T. Nudging Sustainable Consumption: A
Large-Scale Data Analysis of Sustainability Labels for Fashion in German Online Retail. Front. Sustain. 2022, 3, 922984. [CrossRef]
57. Nijssen, S.R.; Pijs, M.; van Ewijk, A.; Müller, B.C. Towards more sustainable online consumption: The impact of default and
informational nudging on consumers’ choice of delivery mode. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 11, 100135. [CrossRef]
58. Bicchieri, C.; Dimant, E. Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information. Public Choice 2019, 191, 443–464.
[CrossRef]
59. Schubert, C. Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 329–342. [CrossRef]
60. Loschelder, D.D.; Siepelmeyer, H.; Fischer, D.; Rubel, J.A. Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging
helps café customers to avoid disposable to-go-cups. J. Econ. Psychol. 2019, 75, 102146. [CrossRef]
61. Sunstein, C.R.; Reisch, L.A. Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harv. Environ. Law Rev.
2014, 38, 127. [CrossRef]
62. Bruns, H.; Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E.; Klement, K.; Jonsson, M.L.; Rahali, B. Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? J.
Econ. Psychol. 2018, 65, 41–59. [CrossRef]
63. Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I. The circular economy and bioeconomy in the fashion sector: Emergence of a “sustainability bias”. J.
Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129774. [CrossRef]
64. Cairns, H.M.; Ritch, E.L.; Bereziat, C. Think eco, be eco? The tension between attitudes and behaviours of millennial fashion
consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 46, 1262–1277. [CrossRef]
65. Peleg-Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A. Caveats in Environmental Justice, Consumption and Ecological Footprints: The Relationship and
Policy Implications of Socioeconomic Rank and Sustainable Consumption Patterns. Sustainability 2020, 12, 231. [CrossRef]
66. Peleg-Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A. The Impact of the Corona Crisis on the Environmental Behaviors of Different Socioeconomic Groups.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 064086. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8586 30 of 30

67. Olivar Aponte, N.; Hernández Gómez, J.; Torres Argüelles, V.; Smith, E.D. Fast fashion consumption and its environmental
impact: A literature review. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2024, 20, 2381871. [CrossRef]
68. Claudio, L. Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, A449–A454.
[CrossRef]
69. Munasinghe, P.; Druckman, A.; Dissanayake, D.G.K. A systematic review of the life cycle inventory of clothing. J. Clean. Prod.
2021, 320, 128852. [CrossRef]
70. Lehner, M.; Mont, O.; Heiskanen, E. Nudging—A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour? J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
134, 166–177. [CrossRef]
71. Meske, C.; Potthoff, T. The Dinu-Model—A Process Model for the Design of Nudges. In Proceedings of the 25th European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 5–10 June 2017.
72. Momsen, K.; Ohndorf, M. Information avoidance, selective exposure, and fake (?) news: Theory and experimental evidence on
green consumption. J. Econ. Psychol. 2022, 88, 102457. [CrossRef]
73. Engel, C.; Kurschilgen, M. The fragility of a nudge: The power of self-set norms to contain a social dilemma. J. Econ. Psychol.
2020, 81, 102293. [CrossRef]
74. Marczak, M.; Winkowska, M.; Chaton-Østlie, K.; Rios, R.M.; Klöckner, C. “When I say I’m depressed, it’s like anger.” An
Exploration of the Emotional Landscape of Climate Change Concern in Norway and Its Psychological, Social and Political
Implications. Res. Sq. 2021. [CrossRef]
75. Wood, S. Generation Z as consumers: Trends and innovation. Institute for Emerging Issues. NC State Univ. 2013, 119, 7767–7779.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 26 June 2024).
76. Hwang, C.G.; Lee, Y.A.; Diddi, S. Generation Y’s moral obligation and purchase intentions for organic, fair-trade, and recycled
apparel products. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2015, 8, 97–107. [CrossRef]
77. Licence to Greenwash: How Certification Schemes and Voluntary Initiatives Are Fuelling Fossil Fashion. Available online:
[Link]
fossil-fashion/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
78. Kumar, P.; Polonsky, M.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Kar, A. Green information quality and green brand evaluation: The moderating effects of
eco-label credibility and consumer knowledge. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 2037–2071. [CrossRef]
79. Rossi, C.; Rivetti, F. Assessing Young Consumers’ Responses to Sustainable Labels: Insights from a Factorial Experiment in Italy.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10115. [CrossRef]
80. Badiei Khorsand, D.; Wang, X.; Ryding, D.; Vignali, G. Greenwashing in the Fashion Industry: Definitions, Consequences, and
the Role of Digital Technologies in Enabling Consumers to Spot Greenwashing. In The Garment Economy: Understanding History,
Developing Business Models, and Leveraging Digital Technologies, 2nd ed.; Springer International Publishing: Gewerbestrasse Cham,
Switzerland, 2023; pp. 81–107.
81. McNeill, L.; Moore, R. Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to
sustainability in clothing choice. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 212–222. [CrossRef]
82. Richey, A.K. The Green Gap: How Consumers Value Sustainable Fashion. Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. 2021. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 26 June 2024).
83. Hassan, L.M.; Shiu, E.; Shaw, D. Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an
Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 219–236. [CrossRef]
84. Henninger, C.E.; Singh, P. Ethical Consumption Patterns and the Link to Purchasing Sustainable Fashion. In Sustainability in
Fashion; Henninger, C., Alevizou, P., Goworek, H., Ryding, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
85. How Data Is Making the Business Case for Sustainable Fashion. Available online: [Link]
emea/consumer-insights/consumer-trends/how-data-making-business-case-sustainable-fashion/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
86. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors affecting green purchase behavior and future research directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015, 3,
128–143. [CrossRef]
87. Wiederhold, M.; Martinez, L.F. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude- behaviour gap in the green apparel
industry. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 419–429. [CrossRef]
88. Tetik, C.; Cherradi, O. Attitude-Behavior Gap in Sustainable Clothing Consumption. Bachelor’s Thesis, Jönköping University-
Business School, International Management, Jönköping, Sweden, May 2020.
89. Sreen, N.; Purbey, S.; Sadarangani, P. Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
2018, 41, 177–189. [CrossRef]
90. Jung, H.J.; Choi, Y.J.; Oh, K.W. Influencing Factors of Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention to Sustainable Apparel Products:
Exploring Consumer “Attitude–Behavioral Intention” Gap. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1770. [CrossRef]
91. Peleg Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A. Regulation for Promoting Sustainable, Fair and Circular Fashion. Sustainability 2022, 14, 502. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.