R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Sustainable dressing: Consumers' value perceptions towards
slow fashion
Tu
ğba Şener
1|
Ferdi Bi
şkin
2|
Nurgül K
ılınç
31
Faculty of Art, International Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Turkish‐Kazakh University, Turkistan, Kazakhstan
2
Faculty of Tourism, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
3
Faculty of Art and Design, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey
Correspondence
Tuğba Şener, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Art, International Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Turkish‐ Kazakh University, Bekzat Sattarhanov Street No: 29, Turkistan, Kazakhstan.
Email: tugbasener@selcuk.edu.tr
Abstract
Slow fashion that improves with an increasing awareness of sustainability has
changed consumers' value perception and purchasing behaviours. The aim of this
study is to determine slow fashion dimensions that influence consumers' value
per-ceptions for slow fashion products and to reveal the effects of the perceived value
on consumers' intentions to purchase and willingness to pay higher prices. The
sam-ple includes 725 students pursuing higher education in Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to specify the factor
struc-ture of the variables used in the research, and structural equation modelling was used
to test the hypotheses.
Data analysis showed that authenticity, locality, and exclusivity aspects in Turkey and
equity, functionality, locality, and exclusivity aspects in Kazakhstan contributed to
perceived customer value. Perceived customer value in both groups positively affects
the intention to purchase and the willingness to pay higher prices. In addition,
con-sumers who intend to purchase slow fashion clothing are willing to pay higher prices
than other products.
The results suggest that consumers in different countries have different orientations
that influence their perceptions of value. From this perspective, this study can
pro-vide designers with insights on the importance of making sustainable designs that
are appropriate to the target market beyond the trends imposed by the global fashion
industry.
K E Y W O R D S
design, perceived customer value, purchase intention, slow fashion, sustainability
1
|I N T R O D U C T I O N
Thanks to economic, political, and technological correlations amongst countries, and now that the producers have the opportunity to reach greater distances more rapidly, the whole world is now a single market for fashion brands. This has affected consumption behaviours, resulting in a social and cultural similarity of consumers. Fashion brands can present their products to many points in the world in a short period of time, and consumers from different countries share similar clothing styles regardless of their local culture.
This change in production and consumption has led to a strategy called fast fashion. As a strategy that consists of high fashion (trend) product design, fast fashion, with its short production and distribution time (Cachon & Swinney, 2011), has elevated fast fashion brands such as Zara, H&M, Next, Primark, Topshop, and Uniqlo to the most valu-able global brand categories (WPP & Millward, 2017).
The growing awareness of environmental and social concerns about sustainability has initiated a slow fashion movement against fast fashion. Sustainability involves the capacity to meet today's needs without making reducing the capacity for future generations to meet
DOI: 10.1002/bse.2330
their own needs (The World Commission on the Environment and Development, 1987). It targets a more just and richer world where the natural environment and cultural achievements are protected for future generations (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). In this regard, slow fashion brings environmental and social responsibilities to the fashion industry and its stakeholders, and the literature mostly includes stud-ies situated in this context. However, this study focuses on a different feature of slow fashion, customer value creation. The purpose of the study is to determine the slow fashion dimensions that affect con-sumers' perceptions of value for slow fashion products and to reveal the effects of the perceived value on consumers' intentions to pur-chase and willingness to pay higher prices (WPPP). The proposed model assumes that consumers will be willing to purchase products in slow fashion and pay more for these products if brands create cus-tomer value in slow fashion.
2
|L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W
2.1
|Slow fashion
Slow fashion is an understanding and a production model that sets sight on durable goods produced on small scales with classical design via local resources and traditional production techniques (Fletcher, 2010). Slow fashion requires that the entire production process and the final product be sustainable. Slow fashion products, however, are often priced higher than fast fashion ones. Higher prices can be con-sidered as an obstacle for most consumers to purchase these products (Yang, Song, & Tong, 2017). On the other hand, it enables consumers to purchase fewer high‐quality products, thereby consuming fewer resources (Kanıskan, 2013).
Slow fashion has been branching out with transparent production systems and sustainable products that require fewer mediators between local producer and consumer and that value local resources and distributors. As an alternative to the current hierarchy of designer, manufacturer, and consumer, slow fashion offers cooperation between the parties and especially mediates the employment of local women (Clark, 2015). Slow fashion process encourages garment com-panies to be sustainable, environmental, and ethical in their designs; to use the methods that require quality, artisanship, and experienced labour in production; and to educate consumers to make conscious decisions about clothing choices (Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013). Stål and Jansson (2017) ascertained that in the Swedish fashion indus-try, enterprises wanted to influence consumer behaviour with a vari-ety of applications, including the whole consumption cycle, such as using sustainable materials in production, clothing renting and sharing, washing advice, free renovation, and returning clothes.
Slow fashion provides mutual benefits among workers, designers, retailers, and consumers in the process of designing, producing, and using clothes (Jagel, Keeling, Reppel, & Gruber, 2012) because it accepts the consumer as a production partner. This partnership shows that the end user is a remarkable stakeholder in the slow fashion movement (Cataldi, Maureen, & Crystal, 2010).
Research that examines consumer attitudes towards slow fashion suggests that slow fashion is still in the developmental stage. Pookulangara and Shephard (2013) conducted focus group interviews and concluded that consumers did not have enough knowledge of slow fashion to make conscious purchasing decisions, and they did not find products in slow fashion suitable for fashion.
Harris, Roby, and Dibb (2015) identified the following obstacles to consumer preference for slow fashion products: consumers' lack of knowledge and understanding about sustainability, their ethical con-cerns on different matters, and thoughts such as“I look good in these clothes,” when their main criterion should be how it is produced. Forsman and Madsen (2017) found that consumers are interested in sustainable fashion, but they also find it“inaccessible” because it is expensive and not accessible.
Jung and Jin (2014) developed a scale to determine the basic dimensions of slow fashion. They proposed that consumers' slow fash-ion orientatfash-ions are realised in terms of equity, authenticity, functfash-ion- function-ality, localism, and exclusivity. Consumer orientations express how consumers perceive slow fashion and reveal its dimensions. Jung and Jin (2016) wanted to determine the slow fashion attributes that con-tributed to perceived customer value. Findings obtained from 221 American consumers reveal that slow fashion is influential in creating customer value and that customer value affects consumers' purchas-ing intentions in positive ways.
2.2
|Perceived customer value
Perceived customer value is the consumer's general assessment of a product's benefit. Consumers make this assessment by comparing the benefits that they receive (quality, comfort, etc.) with things (money, time, etc.) that they must give away (Zeithaml, 1988). Per-ceived customer value is based on an assessment of the comparison between benefit and cost by comparison with competitors (Kotler & Armstrong, 2011).
The perceived customer value in the consumer's purchasing behav-iour is a decisive factor in choosing products. Value is not decided by businesses but rather is perceived and decided by customers (Bai, Li, & Niu, 2016). In the rapidly changing and highly competitive global econ-omy, businesses have similar opportunities to access resources such as technology, knowledge, and talent. Businesses that offer similar goods and services in such environments must do more than ever to distin-guish themselves from their competitors. Customer value, at this point, is an important resource for differentiation. Businesses that offer value beyond customers' expectations will have a competitive advantage (McFarlane, 2013). In this respect, developing the value‐ providing factors for the customer in a way that will provide customer loyalty is valuable.
Originally, the concept of perceived customer value included price and quality dimensions and then expanded with studies that pre-sented social and emotional aspects of the value (Simova, 2009). The Perceived Customer Value Scale (PERVAL) developed by Sweeney and Soutar (2001) revealed that the perceived customer value includes four components: quality, price, emotional, and social.
Quality value: benefit from the expected performance of the product.
Price value: monetary benefit from product use by reducing short‐ and long‐term costs.
Emotional value: the benefit of the emotional situation or feelings that the product provides.
Social value: benefit derived from the power of the product to improve the social sense of self/social life of the consumer.
In this study, the perceived customer value is evaluated within these four dimensions.
3
|H Y P O T H E S I S D E V E L O P M E N T
The model proposed in this study (Figure 1) assumes that each of the five basic dimensions of slow fashion, as determined by Jung and Jin (2014), positively affects perceived customer value and that this situ-ation increases consumers' willingness to purchase slow fashion prod-ucts and pay more prices for these prodprod-ucts.
3.1
|The impact of slow fashion features on
perceived customer value
Equity, which is one of the characteristics of slow fashion, refers to the orientations of consumers in terms of working conditions for workers, fair trade, and fair wages that workers deserve (Jung & Jin, 2014). Slow fashion is built on a production system free from work-places with poor working conditions called sweatshops, a system that adheres to fair trade principles (Shen, Richards, & Liu, 2013). Con-sumers who are concerned about equity in this regard perceive slow fashion products as valuable.
Authenticity is related to consumers' orientations towards the use of traditional methods of private production, workmanship, and cloth-ing production (Jung & Jin, 2014). There is a risk that craft and craft‐ based production have been weakened due to mass production, as well as the forgotten traditional techniques transmitted throughout generations (Ditty, 2015). Slow fashion seeks to protect unique tradi-tional techniques against this risk. Giovanni Bonotto, an Italian entre-preneur, produces fabrics using traditional techniques to ensure
unique and innovative products for high fashion designers (Cimatti, Campana, & Carluccio, 2017). An American brand, Mata Traders, is directly engaged in production services from artisans in India and Nepal. Its designs using traditional techniques and tools include hand‐printed motifs and embroideries (www.matatraders.com). Con-sumers who expect their clothing to be unique perceive slow fashion products as more valuable.
Functionality is a concept of maximising the benefit of clothing (Jung & Jin, 2014). Consumers' clothing includes different combina-tions and long‐wearing orientations, preferring simple and classical designs. Kazakhstan's slow fashion brand, Adili, is a significant repre-sentative of the slow fashion outfit with trans‐season/seasonal cloth-ing that is not been outdated after a season and is designed to be kept (Wood, 2009). Slow fashion, as opposed to the values represented by fast fashion, overlooks the trends and aims to produce timeless pieces that offer a classic look. Classic clothes that can be combined with dif-ferent pieces also have a long life (Aakko, 2014). Because consumers realise that slow fashion products can be used in many combinations with their long life and classic designs, they perceive these products as economically valuable despite their high prices.
Localism is related to consumers' orientation to prefer products produced at local facilities using local resources (Jung & Jin, 2014). Slow fashion brands focus on using local materials and resources as much as possible and support the development of local busi-nesses. For example, the Australian fashion brand Rant Clothing uses fabrics made from local sources and produces clothes within 30 km of its central office (Milburn, 2017). Contrary to the general trends imposed by the global fast fashion industry, slow fashion is per-ceived by consumers as a feature of maintaining local identity and resources.
Exclusivity relates to the privilege of clothes and is related to con-sumers' orientations towards rare, limited‐edition clothes (Jung & Jin, 2014). Slow fashion products are produced in a limited number and high quality, mostly based on manual labour (Henninger, Alevizou, Oates, & Cheng, 2016). In this respect, the limited number of slow fashion garments has a high value perceived by consumers with differ-entiation and expectation to feel exclusive in society.
H1 is proposed considering the possible effects of fast fashion on perceived customer value as presented in the literature.
H1. The equity (a), authenticity (b), functionality (c), localism (d), and exclusivity (e) dimensions of slow fashion have significant effects on the perceived customer value.
3.2
|The effect of perceived customer value on
consumers' intention to purchase and WPPP
Customer value affects purchase intention; however, high customer value directly increases purchase intention (Hakim & Susanti, 2017). Customer loyalty is a result of the perceived value; companies that offer high customer value by improving their products, thus increasing customer satisfaction, gain customers' loyalty and increase their prof-itability (Anderson & Mittal, 2016). In the 1980s and 1990s, con-sumers tended to buy only fashionable clothing. Today's concon-sumers, however, are generally more value‐oriented, meaning that they request clothes that are not only fashionable but also beneficial in many ways (Castelo & Cabral, 2017). Given the positive impact of slow fashion on perceived customer value, consumers are likely to purchase products in slow fashion and settle for higher prices. In this respect, H2, H3, and H4 are proposed.
H2. Consumers' value perceptions on slow fashion prod-ucts have significant effects on consumers' purchasing intentions.
H3. Consumers' value perceptions on slow fashion prod-ucts have significant effects on consumers' willingness to pay higher prices.
H4. Consumers' intention to purchase slow fashion products has a significant impact on the willingness to pay higher prices for slow fashion products.
This study proposes that the intention to purchase is a result of the perceived value. Thus, the perceived value is expected to have a medi-ating role in the effect of slow fashion orientation on purchasing intent. From this point, the direct effect of consumer's slow fashion orientation on purchasing intent must also be measured, and accord-ingly, H5 is proposed.
H5. Consumers' orientations towards slow fashion prod-ucts have no significant effects on purchasing intentions.
4
|M E T H O D S
4.1
|Data Collection
Consumer data were collected through face‐to‐face surveys by researchers in both countries. The study population are consumers who live in Kazakhstan and Turkey. Considering time, cost, and acces-sibility criteria, 762 students selected by simple random sampling method from two universities offering higher education services in both countries formed the research sample. Many academic studies demonstrate that it is appropriate for students to be selected as
samples in studies. The clothing product category is familiar to stu-dents and is in their field of interest (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006; Im, Bhat, & Lee, 2015). Additionally, students' consumption behav-iours and perceptions towards fashion products are confirmed to be similar to those of typical users by industry sources (Kao, 2013). Thirty‐seven questionnaires were not accepted as valid because they were not completely filled. The number of questionnaires in Turkey considered valid for analysis was 435, plus 290 for Kazakhstan, for a total number of 725.
One hundred ninety‐nine of the participants in Kazakhstan were women, and 91 were men; the participants in Turkey were 271 women and 164 men. Considering the total distribution according to gender, the total number of female participants was 470 (64.8%), and number of male participants was 255 (35.2%). Whereas the aver-age monthly expense was 150 USD in Turkey, it was 90 USD in Kazakhstan.
4.2
|Scale
The research survey consisted of demographics, consumers' orienta-tion towards slow fashion, perceived customer value for slow fashion, intention to purchase, and a WPPP for slow fashion products.
The Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion (COSF) scale, which is used to determine consumers' orientation to slow fashion, is derived from the study by Jung and Jin (2014). The scale includes five dimen-sions: equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity, and each dimension consists of three items. The perceived customer value for slow fashion was measured with the PERVAL scale from Sweeney and Soutar (2001). This scale consists of four dimensions and 19 items including quality, price, and emotional and social values of a product. The three items that measure consumers' purchase intentions (PurcIn) are from the study by Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999), and three items measuring the WPPP for slow fashion products were taken from Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, and Tencati (2008).
Participants were asked to grade all items using a 5‐point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In addition, a brief description of fast fashion and slow fashion was included in the questionnaire to help participants understand the content.
5
|R E S U L T S
To determine the factor structure of the variables used in the study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used, and struc-tural equation modelling was used for the hypothesis testing. SPSS 21 was used for exploratory factor analysis, and AMOS 20 was used for confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Factor structures and reliability levels of the scales used in the research were examined. For this purpose, participants' responses to all scales used were subjected to exploratory factor analysis. The obtained values indicate that the data are suitable for the application of factor analysis (KMO = 0.858 p = .001).
Basic component analysis and varimax method were used to trans-form the factors. In determining the factors, the eigenvalue factor≥1 was taken into consideration. As a result of the factor analysis, it is seen that 72.825% of total variance is explained.
In reaction to the analysis to ascertain if the Common Method Var-iance exists or not in the scales used, the eigenvalue was 8.668, and the explained variance value was 21.669. These results indicate that there is no common method variance problem.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the appropri-ateness of the resulting dimensions to the factor structures deter-mined by the hypothesis. The model appropriateness values of the generated model surfaced at the levels as“acceptable” or “good fit.” Factor loadings of some expressions, however, are below 0.50. In addition, variance sharing on some items is statistically above the desired level. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed again after subtracting the expression with low factor load (“Is reasonably priced.”
PERV27 “Would be economical.” PERV30) and the expressions
PERV19‐PERV20, PERV21‐PERV22, and PERV25‐PERV26 were com-bined; obtained values are presented in Table 1.
Following the modifications, the model consists of 11 factors and 38 variants observed. Analysis of the reliability values (CR‐Composite Reliability) of the subdimensions in Table 1 shows that all the values are above the acceptable value of 0.70. Thus, the scales are reliable.
Examination of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for conver-gent validity reveals that they are all above 0.50. These values indicate that convergent validity is ensured.
All MSV values in Table 1 are lower than AVE values, and the first step of decomposition validity is provided. The second step is given in Table 2 below in the discriminant validity table (correlation matrix). Validity and reliability of the scales are ensured as a result of both explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis.
When Table 2 is examined, correlation values of variables used in the study, out of root values of AVE (diagonal section) and some descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) are presented. The fact that the out of the root AVE values of the variables were higher than the correlation coefficients in the table shows that the separation was validated (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). When a general evaluation of validity and reliability is performed, as a result of confirmatory factor analysis, convergent and discriminate validity is ensured, and the scales are reliable.
The model fitting values indicate that all the compliance values are statistically desired (Table 3).
According to Tables 1 and 3, the entire model conforms to an acceptable level. (CMIN/DF = 1,885 p < .001; RMR = 0.056; GFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.962; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.035; PCLOSE = 1.000).
TABLE 1 Confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model
Variables and items Estimate Standard error T value P value CR AVE α MSV
COSF7 <‐‐‐ Equity .869 — — — .877 .705 .877 0.064 COSF4 <‐‐‐ Equity .830 .034 25.227 *** COSF1 <‐‐‐ Equity .819 .036 24.937 *** COSF15 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .840 — — — .854 .661 .854 0.146 COSF5 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .802 .043 22.307 *** COSF2 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .796 .045 22.187 *** COSF14 <‐‐‐ Functionality .760 — — — .790 .557 .788 0.116 COSF8 <‐‐‐ Functionality .681 .058 15.798 *** COSF3 <‐‐‐ Functionality .793 .063 16.623 *** COSF11 <‐‐‐ Localism .829 — — — .855 .664 .853 0.086 COSF10 <‐‐‐ Localism .880 .045 23.520 *** COSF6 <‐‐‐ Localism .729 .040 20.633 *** COSF13 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .666 — — — .780 .745 .775 0.093 COSF12 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .838 .081 15.548 *** COSF9 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .699 .072 15.088 *** Quality <‐‐‐ PERVAL .665 .089 9.731 *** .741 .615 .889 0.229 Emotional <‐‐‐ PERVAL .736 .100 10.214 *** Price <‐‐‐ PERVAL .611 .101 9.809 *** Social <‐‐‐ PERVAL .564 — — —
PurcIn 37 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .867 — — — .900 .751 .900 0.264
PurcIn 36 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .893 .033 30.228 ***
PurcIn 35 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .839 .034 28.017 ***
WPPP40 <‐‐‐ WPPP .888 — — — .932 .822 .932 0.264
WPPP39 <‐‐‐ WPPP .946 .027 38.821 ***
WPPP38 <‐‐‐ WPPP .884 .029 34.449 ***
Note. COSF = Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion, PERVAL = Perceived Customer Values, PurcIn = Purchase Intention, WPPP = Willingness to Pay a
Price Premium,
CMIN/DF = 1.885 p < .001; RMR = 0.056; GFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.962; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.035; PCLOSE = 1.000. Abbreviations: AVE, Average Variance Extract; CR, Composite Reliability.
6
|H Y P O T H E S I S T E S T I N G
The hypothesis of the impact associated with the level of structural equation model to test was examined separately for Turkey and Kazakhstan. The five dimensions of the COSF scale (equity, authentic-ity, functionalauthentic-ity, localism, and exclusivity) were tested to determine whether they affect the PERVAL scale. In addition, the effect level of the PERVAL scale on the PurcIn and WPPP scales was considered, as well as the effect of PurcIn on the WPPP scale. Finally, whether the COSF scale has an impact on the PurcIn scale regardless of the PERVAL scale was tested. This was designed to measure whether the PERVAL scale has an intermediary role on purchase intent. The test results are shown in Table 4.
The results of the survey sample from Turkey reveal that the authenticity, localism, and exclusivity subdimensions of COSF have statistically significant and positive effects on the PERVAL scale (p < .001). H1b, H1d, and H1e are supported. The equity and func-tionality dimensions, however, have no statistically significant effects on the PERVAL scale. H1a and H1c are rejected. The path diagram showing the test results and the model fit values are shown in Figure 2.
Examination of the research results for the Kazakhstan sample shows that equality, functionality, localism, and exclusivity subdimensions of COSF have statistically significant and positive effects on PERVAL scale (p < .001 and p < .05). H1a, H1c, H1d, and H1e are supported. On the other hand, the authenticity dimension has no statistically significant effect on the PERVAL scale. H1b is rejected. The path diagram showing the test results and the model fit values are shown in Figure 3.
In both countries, the PERVAL scale has a statistically significant and positive effect on both the PurcIn and WPPP scales; PurcIn scale has a statistically significant and positive effect on the WPPP scale (p < .001). H2, H3, and H4 are supported. On the other hand, the COSF scale had no statistically significant effect on the PurcIn scale (p < .05). H5 is supported.
7
|D I S C U S S I O N
The localism and exclusivity dimensions of slow fashion appear to be the common factors that increase the perceived customer value of slow fashion clothing in both countries. Jung and Jin (2016), in a study TABLE 2 Mean, standard deviation, and discriminant validity (n = 725)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Equity 3.19 1.06 0.840 2. Authenticity 3.89 0.94 0.181 0.813 3. Functionality 3.90 0.87 0.072 0.241 0.747 4. Localism 3.83 0.94 −0.032 0.278 0.242 0.815 5. Exclusivity 3.55 1.07 0.252 0.305 0.065 −0.070 0.738 6. Quality 3.87 0.82 0.160 0.382 0.341 0.293 0.212 0.708 7. Price 3.58 0.90 0.157 0.241 0.209 0.175 0.154 0.447 0.835 8. Emotional 3.61 0.81 0.093 0.258 0.204 0.195 0.246 0.504 0.437 0.767 9. Social 3.23 0.93 0.208 0.161 0.129 0.100 0.287 0.288 0.458 0.377 0.821 10. Purchase Intention 3.38 0.98 0.107 0.178 0.124 0.154 0.130 0.241 0.350 0.296 0.280 0.867 11. Willingness to Pay a Price Premium 3.00 1.11 0.149 0.137 0.040 0.072 0.261 0.178 0.364 0.291 0.284 0.514 0.906 Note. The lower triangle of the matrix represents the correlation coefficients between constructs. The diagonal values in bold represent the square root of
the AVE of each construct.
TABLE 3 Model compliance values table
Model fit indices Good compliance Acceptable compliance First analysis results Final results after corrections
CMIN/DF 0 < x2< 2 2 < x2< 3 2.157 1.885
RMR 0 < RMR < 0.05 0 < RMR < 0.08 0.049 0.056
GFI 0.95≤ GFI ≤ 1.00 0.90≤ GFI ≤ 0.95 0.906 0.918
AGFI 0.90≤ AGFI≤1.00 0.85≤ AGFI≤0.90 0.891 0.902
CFI 0.97≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 0.95≤ CFI ≤ 0.97 0.949 0.962
TLI 0.95≤ TLI ≤ 1.00 0.90≤ TLI ≤ 0.95 0.946 0.958
RMSEA 0≤ RMSEA≤0.05 0.05≤ RMSEA≤0.08 0.040 0.035
of American consumers, found that only the exclusivity dimension of slow fashion had an effect on the perceived value. Consumers feel the need to be special and unique. For this reason, they demand goods, services, and experiences to distinguish themselves from other
consumers (Lynn & Harris, 1997). Products often have an impact on how people feel and behave in their social environment. Purchasing sustainable products is generally expected to improve an individual's image in a social group (Meyer, 2001). Therefore, the expectation of TABLE 4 Hypotheses test results
Hypothesised relationship
Turkey Kazakhstan
Standardised est. Standard error t value p Sup. Standardised est. Standard error t value p Sup.
H1a Equity̵> PERVAL −.002 .029 −.037 .971 N .314 .032 3.828 *** Y
H1b Authenticity̵> PERVAL .239 .043 3.531 *** Y .057 .032 .765 .444 N
H1c Functionality̵> PERVAL .097 .043 1.561 .118 N .303 .039 3.719 *** Y
H1d Localism̵> PERVAL .316 .048 4.566 *** Y .166 .027 2.279 .023** Y
H1e Exclusivity̵> PERVAL .271 .049 3.899 *** Y .150 .031 1.981 .048** Y
H2 PERVAL̵> PurcIn .500 .126 7.195 *** Y .359 .190 4.102 *** Y
H3 PERVAL̵> WPPP .213 .125 3.241 .001 Y .266 .211 3.730 *** Y
H4 PurcIn̵> WPPP .360 .060 6.276 *** Y .511 .089 7.775 *** Y
H5 COSF̵> PurcIn −.028 .379 −.219 .827 Y .106 .373 .658 .510 Y
Note. COSF, Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion; PERVAL, Perceived Customer Values; PurcIn, Purchase Intention; WPPP, Willingness to Pay a Price
Premium. ***p < .001.
FIGURE 2 Structural equation modelling for testing hypotheses (Turkey)CMIN/DF = 1.918
p < .001; RMR = 0.089; GFI = 0.864;
AGFI = 0.845; CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.046; PCLOSE = .961.PERV
R2= 0.54; PIN R2= 0.25; WPPP R2= 0.25 **
p < .001.
FIGURE 3 Structural equation modelling for testing hypotheses (Kazakhstan)CMIN/ DF = 1.515 p < .001; RMR = 0.064; GFI = 0.851; AGFI = 0.830; CFI = 0.937; TLI = 0.931; RMSEA = 0.042; PCLOSE = .994. PERVAL R2= 0.51; PIN R2= 0.12; WPPP
differentiation and sense of feeling exclusive by standing out in soci-ety are significant positive consequences of slow fashion products towards perceived customer value.
Slow fashion supports local production. It includes unique designs in terms of local production, the authenticity of different geographies and cultural reflection. Therefore, it makes sense that consumers' ori-entations towards exclusivity and localism dimensions are parallel. Focus on local resources and methods in design limits production vol-ume and therefore access to these designs. This positively affects con-sumer perceptions of value for designs that have a localism feature (Allen, 2015).
Although the authenticity dimension affects consumers' value per-ceptions in Turkey, it is not influential in Kazakhstan, which can be explained by consumers' ever‐mounting orientations to westernisation in their purchasing behaviours (ITKIB, 2015). According to the results acquired, consumers in Kazakhstan support the use of local resources and labour in garment production, but they are not interested in the fact that the designs are unique to their country.
The equity and functionality aspects are not effective in con-sumers' value perceptions of slow fashion clothing but are influential in Kazakhstan. In terms of equity, this may be due to the possibility of consumers getting closer to the conditions of production, and as a result of Kazakhstan's close geographical location to the world's larg-est garment manufacturer China. China's economic presence in Kazakhstan swells as consumers choose to buy cheaper products (BTI, 2018). On the other hand, more than 70% of the European Union's textile and apparel imports are covered by Asian countries. Many Asian workers are deprived of social security under long
work-ing hours, low wages, and dangerous workplace conditions
(D'Ambrogio, 2014). This may have influenced young consumers' ori-entations towards equality and their perception of value.
The positive effect of the functionality aspect on perceived cus-tomer value for slow fashion may be related to the amount that Kazakhstan allocates for spending. The monthly expenses of Kazakh-stan consumers in the sample are lower than those of consumers in Turkey (Turkey 150$, Kazakhstan 90$). Accordingly, consumers in Kazakhstan prefer to use their budget on long‐lasting and functional garments that provide a variety of combined alternatives rather than buying a wide variety of clothes. Because of this orientation, slow fashion clothes may be perceived as valuable.
The findings suggest that, in both Turkey and Kazakhstan, the per-ceived customer value affected the PurcIn of slow fashion and willing-ness to pay more for these products. In addition, consumers who intend to purchase slow fashion clothing are willing to pay higher prices. Consumers' slow fashion orientations have no direct impact on purchasing intent. The intention to purchase has emerged as a result of the perceived value. In that case, it can be set forth that the perceived value has a mediating role in the effect of slow fashion orientation on purchase intention. The result obtained is consistent with previous studies demonstrating the positive impact of the per-ceived value on purchase intent (Jung & Jin, 2016; Wu & Chang, 2016; Hu, 2011; Chi, Yeh, & Tsai, 2011; Kwok, Wong, & Lau, 2015; Naami, Rahimi, & Ghandrav, 2017).
8
|C O N C L U S I O N
An overall assessment suggests that clothes that have features of authenticity, localism, and exclusivity in Turkey and equity, localism, exclusivity, and functionality in Kazakhstan are perceived as more valuable. In both countries, it is important for consumers to pay atten-tion to the use of local materials and labour (localism) in their garment production, as well as the desire to feel exclusive according to the clothes they wear (exclusivity), which has increased the perceived cus-tomer value towards slow fashion clothes. The fact that clothing man-ufacturers differ in the dimensions determined by their countries' consumer orientation can be considered as an important opportunity in the slow fashion market. As a result of slow fashion products' per-ceived value, consumers who would like to have slow fashion clothes are willing to pay higher prices for these clothes. This paves the way for slow fashion producers to gain loyal customers. Thus, slow fashion can contribute to local economies as well as environmental, social, and economic sustainability both in Turkey and in Kazakhstan.
The results obtained may contribute to the development of slow fashion literature, which is still developing. There are some limitations in the research. First, this research is limited to five dimensions of slow fashion and four dimensions of perceived customer value. In future studies, models with different dimensions can be developed by taking into consideration the changes in the behaviour of clothing use. In addition, the effect of COSF on each subdimension of the PERVAL scale can be examined separately. In that case, it will be essential to collect more data for more reliable results. In this study, the sample consisted of students. A study with a sample group demonstrating larger and different demographic characteristics may be useful to con-firm the findings. Intercultural work is important for the global fashion market. Developing studies to cover different countries will facilitate understanding of fashion consumers.
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T
We would like to thank Dr. Fatih Koç for all his help and guidance.
O R C I D
Tuğba Şener https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-0410 Ferdi Bişkin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9864-751X Nurgül Kılınç https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0610-6730
R E F E R E N C E S
Aakko, M. (2014). Artisanal and slow: The case of Anna Ruohonen. In b. K. Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion: New approaches (pp. 56–67). Finland: Helsinki Aalto University.
Allen, K. (2015). Luxury for the masses: Why we can't all have it all, Avail-able from: https://repository.tcu. edu/handle/116099117/10278. Anderson, E., & Mittal, V. (2016). Strengthening the satisfaction‐profit
chain. Journal of Service Research, 3, 107–120. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/109467050032001
Bai, Y., Li, C., & Niu, J. (2016). Study on Customer‐Perceived Value of Online Clothing Brands. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Bertrandias, L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 10, 25–40. https://doi.org/
10.1108/13612020610651105
BTI (2018). Kazakhstan Country Report, Cited 01.03.2019, Available from: https://www.bti‐project.org/en/reports/country‐reports/detail/itc/ KAZ,
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: Quick response, enhanced design, and strategic consumer behavior.
Manage-ment Science, 57(4), 778–795. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.1100.1303
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9669‐4
Castelo, J. S. F., & Cabral, J. E. O. (2017). Consumers in a social network: The perception of clothing quality per gender. Review of Business
Man-agement, 20, 22–36.
Cataldi, C., Maureen, D., & Crystal, G. (2010). Slow fashion: Tailoring a stra-tegic approach towards. Sustainability, Available from:. https://www. diva‐portal.org/smash/get/diva2:832785/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Chi, H., Yeh, H. & Tsai, Y. (2011). The influences of perceived value on con-sumer purchase intention: The moderating effect of advertising endorser, Available from: http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi% 20Ching%20Tsai.pdf.
Cimatti, B., Campana, G., & Carluccio, L. (2017). Eco design and sustainable manufacturing in fashion: A case study in the luxury personal accesso-ries industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 393–400. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.050
Clark, H. (2015). Slow + Fashion—An Oxymoron—or a Promise for the Future. Fashion Theory, 12, 427–446. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 175174108X346922
D'Ambrogio, E. (2014) Workers' conditions in the textile and clothing sec-tor: Just an Asian affair?, European parliamentary research service, Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu.
Ditty, S. (2015). It's Time for a Fashion. Revolution, Available from:. https:// www.fashionrevolution.org
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion
Practice, 2, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.2752/175693810X1277462
5387594
Forsman, L. & Madsen, D. (2017). Consumers' Attitudes Towards Sustain-ability and Sustainable Labels in The Fashion Industry, Available from: http://www.diva‐portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1143596 &dswid=4824
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data
anal-ysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
Hakim, L., & Susanti, N. (2017). Influence of Customer Relationship Man-agement, Brand Equity, Perceived Product Quality, Perceived Price on Customer Value and Purchase Intention. International Journal of
Eco-nomics and Finance, 9, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef. v9n7p122
Harris, F., Roby, H., & Dibb, S. (2015). Sustainable clothing: Challenges, bar-riers and interventions for encouraging more sustainable consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12257
Henninger C.E., Alevizou P.J., Oates C.J. & Cheng R. (2016). Communicat-ing sustainability: The case of slow‐fashion micro‐organizations. In:
Sustainable Consumption. The Anthropocene: Politik‐Economics‐Society‐ Science, vol 3, (ed. by Genus A.), Springer, Cham.
https://www.matatraders.com/pages/handmade-fashion, Cited16.05.2019. Hu, Y. (2011). Linking perceived value, customer satisfaction, and purchase
intention in e‐commerce settings. Advances in Computer Science,
Intelli-gent System and Environment, 106, 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978‐3‐642‐23753‐9_100
Im, S., Bhat, S., & Lee, Y. (2015). Consumer perceptions of product creativ-ity, coolness, value and attitude. Journal of Business Research, 68, 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.014
ITKIB. (2015). Hazır Giyim & Konfeksiyon Sektörü Açısından Kazakistan. İstanbul, Turkey.
Jagel, T., Keeling, K., Reppel, A., & Gruber, T. (2012). Individual values and motivational complexities in ethical clothing consumption: A means‐ end approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.659280
Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2014). A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: sus-tainable future of the apparel industry. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 38, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12127
Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2016). Sustainable development of slow fashion busi-nesses: Customer value approach. Sustainability, 8. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su8060540
Kanıskan, E. (2013). Moda Tasarımında Sürdürülebilirlik. In: Moda Tasarım (ed. by: Curaoğlu, F.) pp. 192–219. Anadolu Üniversitesi Web‐Ofset, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Kao, D. T. (2013). The impacts of consumers' need for uniqueness (CNFU) and brand personality on brand switching intentions. Journal of Business
Theory and Practice, 1, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.22158/jbtp.v1n1p83
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2011). Principles of marketing (17rd ed.). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Kwok, M. L. J., Wong, M. M., & Lau, M. M. (2015). Examining how environ-mental concern affects purchase intention: Mediating role of perceived trust and moderating role of perceived risk. Contemporary Management
Research, 11, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.13845
Lynn, M. & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self‐ uniqueness through consumption, retrieved from: Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration site: http://scholarship.sha.cor-nell.edu/articles/149.
McFarlane, D. (2013). Thee strategic importance of customer value.
Atlan-tic Marketing Journal, 2, 62–75.
Meyer, A. (2001). What's in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.302
Milburn, J. (2017). Slow clothing culture. Journal of the HEIA, 24, 2–10. Naami, A., Rahimi, Z., & Ghandrav, P. (2017). The Effect of Perceived Value,
Perceived Risk, and Price on Customers Buying Intention (Case Study: Employees of Presov Electronics Company). International Review of
Management and Marketing, 7, 164–170.
Pookulangara, S., & Shephard, A. (2013). Slow fashion movement: Under-standing consumer perceptions‐An exploratory study. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 200–206. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.002
Shen, D., Richards, J., & Liu, F. (2013). Consumers' awareness of sustain-able fashion. The Marketing Management Journal, 23, 134–147. Simova, J. (2009). Conceptual models of customer value: Implications for
clothing retailing. Marketing a Obchod, 1, 88–97.
Stål, H. I., & Jansson, J. (2017). Sustainable consumption and value propo-sitions: Exploring product–service system practices among Swedish
fashion firms. Sustainable Development, 25, 546–558. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sd.1677
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐4359(01)00041‐0 Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, N. G., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). The role of
per-ceived risk in the quality‐value relationship: A study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing, 75, 77–105. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022‐4359(99)80005‐0
The World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987). Our
common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wood, Z. (2009). “Slow fashion”, Available from: http://learn.eartheasy. com/2009/01/slow‐fashion.
WPP & Kantar Millward Brown, 2017 BrandZ top 100 global brands. Avail-able from: http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/top‐global‐brands/ 2017.
Wu, S., & Chang, H. (2016). The Model of Relationship between the Per-ceived Values and the Purchase Behaviors toward Innovative Products. Journal of Management and Strategy, 7, 31–45. https://doi. org/10.5430/jms.v7n2p31
Yang, S., Song, Y., & Tong, S. (2017). Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 9. https://doi. org/10.3390/su9071266
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means‐end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302
How to cite this article: Şener T, Bişkin F, Kılınç N.
Sustain-able dressing: Consumers' value perceptions towards slow fashion. Bus Strat Env. 2019;28:1548–1557.https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.2330
