Faculty of Business, Economics & Law UQ Business School Being sustainable while being

fashionable in clothing industry

Exploring the potential integration of Sustainable Fashion Products

and Collaborative Fashion Consumption Services

A project submitted to the UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Global Management. Semester 1, 2020

By Saurabh Kumar, 45990746

Dated: 14 June 2020

Supervisor: Dr Nicolas Pontes

Executive Summary

Fashion industry being the second most polluting industry has received a considerable attention towards sustainability. As the fashion industry is a demand-driven industry, the authors have recently suggested to shift the focus from the production end to the consumer end of the industry for a sustainable future. However, the current market offerings in the sustainable fashion industry demand the consumers to compromise with style, design, trends, or price which makes it difficult for the consumers to find a balance of perceived cost and benefit.

Thus, with the help of desk research and exploratory primary research, this thesis finds an alternative to minimize the perceived cost of sustainable fashion and proposes a model with which consumers might find a greater cost-benefit balance in the sustainable fashion industry. This provides an alternative to be sustainable and fashionable at the same time.

First, the research explores the potential barriers and drivers of the existing market offerings in the sustainable fashion product industry and the collaborative fashion consumption service industry. By proposing a set of drivers which can alleviate a set of barriers present in these industries, a possible integration of the models is proposed. The integrated model is subscription based rental clothing model only for recycled and upcycled clothing (SBRC). Then the consumer insights about the proposed model are garnered to understand the consumer acceptance of the model.

The research further finds that consumers have diverse level of concerns but there is a potential integration between recycled and upcycled fashion product industry and rental fashion service industry. Further, the integration is more likely to significantly influence the sustainable consumption behaviour of the fashion-oriented consumers than the sustainability-oriented consumers. A detailed study of various elements of the models which might influence the sustainable consumption behaviour is presented in the thesis.

Finally, the proposed model being a novel business model, a future research to understand the financial viability and other business perspectives of the model is suggested.

I

Preface

This thesis is written as part of the Masters of Global Management at The University of Queensland (UQ), St. Lucia. The clothing industry is the second biggest polluting industry of the world requires an ‘out of the box’ thinking for a sustainable future. The teachings from the university equipped me with enough tools such that I can take the responsibility to write my master thesis on such an important topic. This topic has been immensely rewarding, educational, and inspirational for me.

I would like to thank my Professor and Supervisor Dr Nicolas Pontes for his valuable guidance throughout the thesis. His expertise in marketing helped me to think about sustainability from a new angle. His close engagement and cooperation helped me to think critically and his encouragement helped me to take an extra step to propose a novel sustainable business idea. I would also like to thank the UQ Ethics Committee for their valuable feedback and guidelines. Further, I am thankful to the UQ Library for providing valuable resources and necessary training. Moreover, I am extremely thankful to my colleague, Daniel, for giving me a third person perspective on the topics presented in the thesis.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the participants of the interview who took out their valuable time and gave their consumer insights towards the proposed model. Their willingness to participate has made this thesis possible.

12 June 2020

Saurabh Kumar

II

Disclaimer

The work presented in this project is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original, except as acknowledged in the text. The material has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.

12 June 2020 Saurabh Kumar

III

List of Abbreviations

CFC - Collaborative Fashion Consumption

SBRC - Subscription based rental clothing model only for recycled and upcycled clothing re(up)cycled – recycled and/or upcycled

List of Figures

Figure 1: Pictorial representation of Thesis Disposition ...... 4 Figure 2: The Four Models of DCE, Design in a Circular Economy (RSA 2016) ...... 9 Figure 3: Conceptual Framework proposed by Meyer (2001) to analyse the perceived cost and benefits balance ...... 20 Figure 4: Brief presentation of the operations of the SBRC model ...... 21 Figure 5: An example of first-order concepts coding ...... 28 Figure 6: An example of the second-order coding ...... 29 Figure 7: The proposed conceptual framework to facilitate integrating sustainable clothing product industry and CFC services industry ...... 32

List of Tables

Table 1: Analysis of the influence on respondent’s sustainable consumption behaviour ...... 36

IV

Table of Contents

Executive Summary I

Preface II

Disclaimer III

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Question 2

1.3 Thesis Disposition 3

1.4 Thesis Contribution 4

2 Literature Review 6

2.1 The Fashion Industry 6

2.1.1 Fast Fashion 7

2.2 Sustainable consumption in the fashion industry 7

2.3 Closed-loop circular economy in the fashion industry 8

2.4 The Sustainable fashion Product Industry 10

2.4.1 Recycled and Upcycled fashion products 11

2.4.2 Drivers for indulging in sustainable clothing products 11

2.4.3 Barriers for indulging in sustainable clothing products 12

2.5 The Collaborative Fashion Consumption (CFC) Industry 14

2.5.1 Rental and Subscription-based-rental fashion services 15

2.5.2 Collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) as a sustainable consumption model 16

2.5.3 Drivers for indulging in CFC services 17

2.5.4 Barriers for indulging in CFC services 18

2.6 Theory of individually perceived cost-benefits balance 19

3 Proposed Conceptual Operational Model 21

4 Methodology 23

4.1 Research design and approach 23

4.1.1 Theory-based conceptual framework 24

4.1.2 Interviews: consumers perceived cost-benefit balance in the model 24

4.2 Data Collection 24

4.2.1 Data Sources and Sampling 24

4.2.2 Semi-Structured interview guide and process 25

4.3 Data Analysis 27

4.3.1 Transcription 27

4.3.2 Coding 27

4.4 Research Quality 29

4.4.1 Credibility 29

4.4.2 Transferability 30

4.4.3 Dependability 30

4.4.4 Confirmability 31

4.5 Ethical considerations 31

5 Conceptual Framework 32

6 Findings 35

6.1 Summary 35

6.2 Overall influence on sustainable fashion consumption behaviour 36

6.3 Analysis of proposed combinations 40

6.4 Additional potential influencing factors 53

7 Discussions 56

7.1 Contribution to literature 56

7.2 Managerial contribution 58

7.3 Limitations and Future Research 58

8 List of references 60

9 Appendix 73

9.1 Interview Guide 73

9.2 Participant Information Sheet 76

9.3 Ethics Approval Letter 82

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Government policies and corporate strategies have been shifting towards sustainability and sustainable development since 1987, following Brudtland’s report (Brundtland, Khalid, Agnelli, Al-Athel & Chidzero, 1987). Sustainable development has three dimensions: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection (United Nations [UN], n.d.). Agenda 21 of the United Nations defines this as the aim to meet the current industry demand without compromising the demand for future generations. Sustainable fashion is a very broad and complex movement as different brands showcase their actions of sustainability in different ways, which can be misleading (Park & Armstrong, 2019). Previously, various topics including production process of fashion brands (Pedersen & Gwozdz, 2014; Shaw, Hogg, Wilson, Shiu, & Hassan, 2006), retailing of garments (Wigley et al., 2012; Ozdamar-Ertekin & Atik, 2015) and fashion supply chain (Nagurney & Yu, 2012; Fletcher, 2013) have contributed to the sustainable fashion literature. But, surprisingly, very little has been studied about the consumption phase of the fashion business (Kim & Jin, 2019; Peattie, K., & Peattie, 2009; Carrigan, Moraes, & McEachern, 2013; Fletcher, 2013; Bly, Gwozdz, & Reisch, 2015).

The production of fabrics for clothes require a mass amount of resources which contributes to more than 10 per cent of the global carbon emission (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMAF], 2017). The World Bank estimates that the fashion industry is the second-largest water pollutant accounting for 17-20% of the total water pollution. Unfortunately, the waste generated by the fashion industry is not confined only to the production stage, but a larger amount of waste is generated at the consumption stage of the product life cycle (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007). The demand for fashion apparel has significantly risen in the last two decades (Lang, & Armstrong, 2018), making it a sensitive issue for U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (Şen, 2008). This demand has increased by nearly 100 per cent in the past 15 years and the estimates of EMAF (2017) suggest that the fashion industry might be responsible for more than a quarter of the world’s carbon emission by 2050. Overconsumption of fashion has led to frequent disposal behaviour all over the world (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015) with fashion items use average decreasing by 36% in the past 15 years (EMAF, 2017) which is a big sustainability concern (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014; Lang & Armstrong, 2018). To illustrate,

1

in Germany, on average each person holds more than 95 pieces of clothing, excluding socks and underwear (Greenpeace, as cited in Iran & Schrader, 2017). A huge amount of premature fashion products which ends up in landfills can be reused or recycled (Pal & Gander, 2018; US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Question

Recently, researchers have unequivocally stated that understanding the consumer's end of the value chain in the consumption of clothing will help to enhance sustainability in the fashion industry (e.g. McNeill & Moore, 2015; Lang, Armstrong & Brannon, 2013; Park & Armstrong, 2019; Fletcher, 2013; Peattie, K., & Peattie, 2009; Niinimäki, 2010; Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Carter & Rogers, 2008; Waste & Resources Action Programme [WRAP], 2012). These studies include aspects of (re-)use, recycle, laundering, buying, and disposal of clothes. Even though there is a rapid increase sustainable purchase intention (Shaw et al., 2006), consumers tend to have an attitude-behaviour gap (Park & Lin, 2018; Bray, Johns, & Kilburn, 2011; Niinimäki, 2010) particularly in the fashion industry (Barnes, Lea‐ Greenwood, & Joergens, 2006; McNeill & Moore, 2015). One of the main reasons for this attitude–behaviour gap is the fact that consumers are strategic and often compare other offerings while making a purchase decision (Meyer, 2001; Barnes et al., 2006). As a result, for transforming the consumption pattern towards sustainable clothing, the perceived benefits of the offered product and/or service should be higher than the perceived costs (Meyer, 2001). Unfortunately, being ‘fashionable’ and ‘sustainable’ at the same time seems to be mutually exclusive behaviour (Bray et al., 2011; McNeill & Moore, 2015) for the average consumer.

Evolving from the need to understand the consumer’s end of the value chain, researchers have more recently explored sustainable fashion products and collaborative fashion consumption (CFC). While sustainable fashion products refer to designing, producing, (re)using and disposing of the clothes as directed by the Sustainable Development Goals (Iran & Schrader, 2017), CFC refers to the concept in which consumers share their clothes for monetary or non- monetary benefits (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Iran & Schrader, 2017), mainly through the Internet (Belk, 2014; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016).

Although it has been evident from previous researches that environmental concern is one of the main driving forces for both sustainable fashion product consumption behaviour and collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) behaviour, no research has been done to explicitly to

2

understand the integration between them. Iran and Schrader (2017) suggested that sustainable fashion consumption requires a new consumption behaviour than relying just on eco-efficient fashion products to reduce consumer’s attitude–behaviour gap. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to understand the integration of sustainable fashion products and collaborative fashion consumption services. With this goal in mind, the following research question is proposed:

RQ: “How can sustainable fashion products and collaborative fashion consumption services be integrated to influence sustainable fashion consumption behaviour?”

1.3 Thesis Disposition

To answer the research question, this thesis follows to review previous literature in chapter 2. The review of the literature has been done from the consumer's point of view rather than the production point of view. Due to limited time and resources offered in a master thesis, only those attributes which are most relevant for the current research question have been identified in the literature review. Further, in chapter 3, the thesis outlines the understanding of a potential combination of the model. The proposed combinations of the model being non-existent in the world has been explained briefly. This brief explanation will set a premise for the research design. Then in chapter 4, the methodology for the research is explained. The methodology suggests the use of desk research for doing exploratory primary research. Thus, in chapter 5, a conceptual framework, based on desk research, is proposed with the help of which primary research is done for the thesis. The conceptual framework proposes a combination of barriers of the existing models which can be alleviated by the drivers of the integrated model. Thereafter, chapter 6 explains the findings from the exploratory research followed by discussions mentioned in chapter 7.

3

Figure 1: Pictorial representation of Thesis Disposition

1.4 Thesis Contribution

The concern for the environment is not enough to drive the consumers towards sustainable fashion, it needs to combine with other drivers (Barnes et. al 2006; Lundblad & Davies, 2016). Previous literature has focused to understand the barriers and drivers of various sustainable offerings in the clothing industry, including both sustainable fashion products and sustainable fashion services. Although recent literature has received traction towards the consumer end of these industries, they have focused specifically either on the product or the service aspect of the industry, an integrated model has not been studied. The environment is a common antecedent

4

of these industries; thus, this research work adds by analysing consumer acceptance for the potential integration of these industries. The integrated model is a new business model; thus, exploring the consumer insights for the combined model will not only contribute to the literature but also the business managers in the fashion industry. Furthermore, with the current market offerings, being ‘sustainable’ and ‘fashionable’ at the same time seems to be a mutually exclusive behaviour for an average consumer (Bray et al., 2011; McNeill & Moore, 2015). Thus, as part of the methodological contribution, this thesis studies the possibility of making them mutually inclusive for average consumers.

5

2 Literature Review

To understand the significance of the research question proposed in Chapter 1, the literature review primarily shows the current state of the fashion industry. Then it highlights the commonly suggested ways to indulge in sustainable fashion consumption through the circular economy. This economy facilitates two types of sustainable fashion consumption models which are explained in the further sub-chapters. Further, a relevant theory is highlighted to set a premise for exploring the consumer acceptance of the integrated model.

It is important to note that the literature has been reviewed only from the consumer's point of view to fulfil the research gap; and, it has been reviewed with the focus on environmental sustainability, ignoring other sustainability such as social sustainability.

2.1 The Fashion Industry

Clothing is a basic need of most humans serving many purposes; one of them is to create an individual and social identity of a person (Belk, 1988; Murray, 2002). Self-expression, self- esteem, gaining acceptance from others, need for belonging are frequently cited motivations for the fashion consumption (Belk, 1985; Gabriel & Lang, 2015; Michaelidou & Dibb as cited in Meyer, 2001). Lundblad and Davies (2016) suggested that consumers are not only concerned about design but also about comfort and values while using clothes. Furthermore, Svensson (2016) argued that people have developed a very complex relationship with clothes rather than having a relation to just keep them warm and protected. Consumers are increasingly found to be compromising with quality if they are offered clothes at low prices (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010; Lang et. al., 2013). This preference of price rather than quality has reduced the lifespan of the clothes tremendously (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010). Moreover, fashion companies have developed an artificial craving for clothes by adding more phases into the existing fashion seasons (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010) which has led to behaviour of buy- and-throw-away among the fashion consumers (Rauturier, 2018). As a result, ‘out of fashion’ or ‘fashion change’ has been the most frequently cited reason for discarding or disposal of the clothes (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010).

Fletcher (2008) finds that more than 82% of the entire energy used in the product life cycle is used at the consumption stage. To illustrate, consumers launder their clothes more frequently (Slater, 2003) and at a higher temperature than required because of hygiene issues (Wigley et

6

al., 2012). It is not only laundering but also other activities such as hoarding of clothes (Hollins et al., 2006), disposal of clothes into landfills (WRAP, 2012), and release of plastic microfibers during washing (Olsen-Nauen & Rossebø, 2019) have massive environmental consequences. More than £30 billion worth of clothing is still unused in the UK and one-third of the clothing which is worn ends up in landfills (WRAP, 2012). Moreover, 0.5 million tonnes of plastic microfibers annually contribute to ocean waste (Park & Lin, 2018). The shift in the clothing consumption paradigm to fast fashion is one of the most commonly cited reasons for such environmental impacts.

2.1.1 Fast Fashion

The fashion industry has significantly evolved in the last decade (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010); the dynamics have changed to low-cost and high-flexibility with the increasing number of fashion seasons (Barnes & Lea‐Greenwood, 2006). Now, the clothing design has “move swiftly from runway to stores in order to capture the latest trends” (Cortez, Tu, Van Anh, ZagitaNg & Vegafria, 2014, p. 1) and is driven by the idea of “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow” (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 166). It is quite popular among young customers who tend to have an “insatiable demand for newness” (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006, p. 269) and very little awareness about sustainability (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). In the study by Morgan and Birtwistle (2009), about 20 per cent of the young female consumers reported purchasing a new garment every week. This has increased the pressure on the fashion industry, and thus on the environment (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Following the demand of fast fashion followers, retailers are selling the products which are designed to be worn fewer than 10 times, leading to the frequent disposal of clothes (Lang et. al., 2013). Moreover, the limited space in the wardrobe makes it a need for fast fashion followers to dispose of premature clothes. Liu, Wang, Chen, & Lu (2012) identifies fast fashion as one of the biggest competitors of the businesses which promote sustainability through ‘cloth sharing’ business models.

2.2 Sustainable consumption in the fashion industry

Sustainable consumption in the fashion industry refers not only to buying clothes in an environmentally friendly way (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009) but also to the post-purchase activities which involve (re-)using, recycling, and disposal (Harris, Roby & Dibb, 2016; Ha- Brookshire & Hodges, 2009). To illustrate, “decreasing amounts of clothes bought (in the purchasing phase), washing less frequently and at lower temperatures, longer wearing periods

7

(in the usage phase), as well as proper feeding back into the system for recycling after use (in post-usage phase), are some examples of sustainable fashion consumption” (Allwood et al. as cited in Iran & Schrader, 2017, p. 4). Even though there are multiple sustainable fashion movements taken by companies, sustainable consumption can be a habituated behaviour only when consumers find more personal benefits attached to the cloth than the personal cost (Meyer, 2001; Harris et al., 2016).

Some of the other frequently suggested ways to reduce the intention-behaviour gap in sustainable consumption behaviour are: improving the longevity of clothes by offering reuse services (Harris et al., 2016), creating appeal through combining emotional and factual benefits (Hartmann, Ibáñez, & Sainz, 2005; Khan & Rundle‐Thiele, 2019), and improving personal benefits by reducing the price and improving appearances (McNeill & Moore, 2015). A closed- loop circular economy can facilitate a lot of these ways (Khan & Rundle‐Thiele, 2019).

2.3 Closed-loop circular economy in the fashion industry

The circular economy is a crucial need of the era; according to the report of World Economic Forum (2014) “three billion middle-class consumers are expected to enter the global market by 2030, driving unprecedented demand for goods and services” (p.4). Thus, the idea behind the circular economy is “economic competitiveness, reduced dependence on natural resources, and the prevention of waste” (Baker-Brown, 2019, p. 10). In the concept of ‘Cradle to Cradle’, EMAF (2017) explained that a product can be continued in two different cycles in their post usage phase: biological or technological cycles. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for the textiles to continue in the biological cycle because this cycle includes composting and only a few fibres can be composted (Niinimäki, 2017). Thus, employing the technical cycle is a more feasible option for closing the loop in the textile industry to facilitate sustainable fashion disposal. Jørgensen and Pedersen (2018), suggested five ways for employing a closed-loop circular economy in the fashion industry; reselling or reusing the products (e.g. collaborative fashion), refurbish and renewing the products (e.g. recycled clothes), upcycle resources and materials for reuse (e.g. upcycled clothes), leasing (e.g. rental clothes), and repair services. The end goal of the closed-loop circular economy in the fashion industry to increase the longevity of the clothes while maintaining the value of the clothes (Niinimäki, 2017). This requires a collective effort of all the stakeholders including producers, designers, manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and most importantly, consumers.

8

Figure 2: The Four Models of DCE, Design in a Circular Economy (RSA 2016)

This given model was developed by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), in the “Great Recovery” programme 2013. The model shown in figure 2 explains the interactions of the stakeholders on four levels. Interaction in the smaller circle represents more sustainable consumption behaviour. The smallest circle being the first level, ‘Design for longevity’, represents the interaction of different consumers among themselves; for example, cloth swapping. The goal of this level is to extend the product use phase. The second level, ‘Design for service’, represents the interaction of the consumers with the companies providing product-service-systems such as clothing rental companies. The goal of this level is to intensify the use of products. The third level, ‘Design for reuse in manufacture’, represents the interaction of the consumers with the manufacturers in which the manufacturers are challenged to extend the longevity of the products through recycling, remanufacturing, or other new techniques (Niinimäki, 2017). The fourth level, ‘Design for material recovery’, is the most interesting level showing the interaction of consumers with the 9

resource management teams for using the wastes to manufacture new products. This model also shows other stakeholders, presented in the outer circle, with whom the interaction is possible for a more sustainable future of the fashion industry. With the increasing number of stakeholders getting connected in the network of systems presented, there will be an increase in sustainable fashion consumption (Niinimäki, 2017).

2.4 The Sustainable fashion Product Industry

With sustainability becoming a buzzword, sustainable fashion products are gaining attraction in the mainstream fashion market (Barnes, Lea‐Greenwood, Watson, & Yan, 2013; Mora, Rocamora, & Volonté, 2014). Sustainable fashion refers to the design, production, (re-)use, post-use, or disposal of the cloth with alignment to the sustainable development goals (Iran & Schrader, 2017). To illustrate, fashion made out of trash or ‘trashion’ is one of the most popular sustainable fashion purchase behaviours (Claudio, 2007). Out of the wide range of topics included in the sustainable development goals, this literature review focuses only on the environmental sustainability aspect.

According to a study done by Unilever (as cited in Olsen-Nauen & Rossebø, 2019), more than 33% of consumers have the intention to buy clothes of brands that have strong environmental sustainability strategies as part of their core activities. This intention is strongly influenced by the general level of concern for the environment (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Recently, there has been a sharp increase in the number of fashion brands that are embracing the opportunity and developing new value propositions to attract potential green-consumers (Lang & Armstrong, 2018; Chan, 2001; Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014). To illustrate, H&M has deployed disposal boxes in some of the stores to promote sustainable disposal of garments (Gupta, Gwozdz, & Gentry, 2019). Further, some researchers have coined the term, ‘slow fashion’ which shows contrast to the ‘fast fashion’, in order to promote sustainable fashion consumption behaviour. It promotes certain consumption behaviours such as purchasing quality over quantity and utilising various sustainably produced such as recycled and upcycled clothes (Fletcher, 2010; Ozdamar-Ertekin & Atik, 2015). To explore these opportunities, companies can employ various value propositions, such as incorporating renewable and organic raw materials, promoting services such as garment collection initiatives (Gupta et al., 2019), promoting vintage clothing (Wigley et al., 2012), recycled clothing (Park & Lin, 2018), and upcycled clothing (Park & Lin, 2018).

10

2.4.1 Recycled and Upcycled fashion products

Recycled clothes and upcycled clothes are the most commonly known sustainable fashion clothes. While recycled clothing refers to clothes made from raw materials which are derived from breaking down of a product (Payne, 2015) such as plastic bottles (Meng & Leary, 2019), upcycled clothing refers to clothes which designed or crafted by converting the textile waste or useless clothes into new products of better quality or higher environmental value (Cassidy & Han, 2013). Traditionally, these practices are popular in developing countries (such as India) at a household level due to the availability of limited resources (Park & Lin, 2018). Even though these practices are not new to the market, recycling and upcycling have got considerable attention from the developed countries recently, making it one of the most viable forms of sustainable clothing models. Companies such as ‘Doodlage’ and ‘Eco wings’ in India, ‘Blonde Gone Rogue’, and ‘Fabric For Freedom’ in the UK, ‘Recover Brands’ and ‘ArClothing’ in the US have gained significant market attention by selling re(up)cycled [recycled and/or upcycled] clothes. To illustrate, American companies such as ‘Recover Brands’ utilise everything ranging from cotton swept off from the factory floor to polyester made from plastic bottles to make recycled apparel. British brands such as ‘Fabric For Freedom’ focus on increasing the life of the apparels by redesigning them into new pieces. The Spanish brand ‘Ecoalf’ collects junk from the oceans and recycles them into fashion apparel and the US brand ‘Zero Waste Daniel’ makes every piece of clothing from the scrap material. These practices of converting something useless into something useful is one of the best sustainable solutions because it reduces the burden of raw materials on the environment (Szaky, 2014). The market of recycled clothing has significant latent market potential, but the problem lies in the fact that only 25 per cent of the disposed clothes are collected for recycling, the rest ending up in the landfill (EMAF, 2017). Sustainable clothing is a purpose-driven product market which drives in a lot of attention, explained in the following sub-chapter.

2.4.2 Drivers for indulging in sustainable clothing products

Although consumers are very concerned about sustainability, it does not always get translated into behaviour (Bray et al., 2011), particularly in the fashion industry (Barnes et al., 2006). In their study, Jägel, Keeling, Reppel, & Gruber, (2012) divided the motives of buying sustainable fashion products into 5 patterns: value for money, style and image, comfort and well-being, environmental concern, and social concern. Joshi and Rahman (2015) identified similar individual and situational factors that play a vital role in the purchase intention of the

11

consumers. However, previous research is not very consistent regarding the drivers of sustainable clothing because the end goals of the consumers regarding this is very complex (Harris et al., 2016).

The most frequently cited drivers by the previous researchers are: the ‘concern for environment’ (Harris et al., 2016; Jägel et al., 2012; McNeill & Moore, 2015; Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Park & Lin, 2018; McEachern, Seaman, Padel, & Foster, 2005) and ‘social pressure’ (Kim & Damhorst, 1998; Cowan & Kinley, 2014) which positively affects sustainable purchase intention and behaviour (McEachern et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2016). Social pressure has been identified as an important driver not only in recent research but also in decade-old research papers (Kim & Damhorst, 1998). Valle, Rebelo, Reis, & Menezes (2005), notes that the expectations of the social groups influence the purchasing behaviour of environmentally friendly products. Previously, they coined the term ‘group conformity’ for the social pressure drive. Previous literature in green marketing confirms that environmental awareness is a prerequisite for the customers to engage in green purchasing (Dembkowski, 1998). Therefore, Gupta et al. (2019) suggest that educating people about the negative impacts of the fashion industry on the environment will be an effective measure for the adoption of the sustainable movement. Lastly, Lundblad & Davies (2016) notes that the indulgence in sustainable clothing is related to the better reputation of the individuals. Despite the availability of various drivers for indulging in sustainable fashion products, there are huge attitude-behaviour gaps. This is because of the various barriers mentioned in the following sub-chapter.

2.4.3 Barriers for indulging in sustainable clothing products

Barnes et al. (2006) and Iwanow, McEachern, & Jeffrey (2005) argued that environmental concern is not enough to drive consumers towards sustainable clothing, other influencers such as price, style, and quality also play important roles. Similarly, Lundblad and Davies (2016) and Jägel et al. (2012) suggested that consumers are motivated to buy sustainable products not only to reduce waste and support the environment but also to seek individual benefits such as style, image, comfort, and wellbeing. Further, the studies of McNeill and Moore (2015), Meyer (2001) and Olsen-Nauen and Rossebø (2019) also supported the arguments by stating that perception of higher price and scarce availability of style and quality are some of the important barriers for indulging in sustainable clothing. Connell (2010) conducted a review of the literature followed by a study which also supported the arguments. She divided these barriers into two parts, internal and external; while the internal barriers included barriers such as limited

12

awareness and negative attitudes towards sustainable clothes, external barriers included barriers such as price and lack of options. Following the previous research, Harris et al. (2016) also conducted a study to identify the associated barriers related to sustainable clothing and found similar barriers. To sum up, previous findings have been very consistent about the barriers for indulging in a sustainable fashion.

High price (Jägel et al., 2012; Meyer, 2001; Lundblad & Davies, 2016), lack of choice, trend, availability, or newness (Harris et al., 2016; McNeill & Moore, 2015; Olsen-Nauen & Rossebø, 2019; Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Law, Zhang, & Leung, 2004), lack of information or awareness (Harris et al., 2016; Meyer, 2001; Wigley et al., 2012; Henninger, Alevizou, & Oates, 2016), unattractive appearance, style or design (Barnes et al., 2006; Lundblad & Davies, 2016), lack of transparency by firms related to sustainable clothing or misleading use of the term ‘sustainable clothing’ (Henninger et al., 2016) are some of the commonly cited barriers in the last decade. Moreover, it is also evident from the study of Bly et al. (2015) that sustainable fashion consumers care about sustainability not only while purchasing clothes but also while using, reusing, and disposing clothes. This also leads to a need for service requirements such as better care and disposal of sustainable clothing (Yarrow, 2014). These services have a significant potential to attract green customers (Lang et. al., 2013).

Lundblad and Davies’ (2016) study shows that consumers compare the price for sustainable clothing with high street clothing and they perceive sustainable clothes to be higher priced as compared. Unfortunately, the cost attached to care for the environment generally increases the price of sustainable clothes (Meyer, 2001). Further on, while social pressure is a driver for sustainable clothes, it eventually follows that consumers will seek for trend, style, and newness (McNeill & Moore, 2015; Harris et al., 2016) to cope up with the social pressure. Therefore, research has suggested that an increase in the choice and availability of sustainable fashion will reduce the attitude-behaviour gap of sustainable fashion consumption (Wigley et al 2012; McNeill & Moore 2015). It is not only the choice but also limited availability of the sustainable fashion local retailers which makes it difficult and time-consuming to find sustainable fashion options (Laitala & Klepp, 2018). Sustainable clothing retailers also need to consider that sustainable offerings should meet the need for variety (Harris et al., 2016), styles (Barnes et al., 2006), and newness (McNeill & Moore, 2015) of clothes to meet the individual benefits of the consumers. It follows that there is a linear relationship between ‘newness in fashion’ (or fashion trends) and ‘fashion consumption’ (Law et al., 2004). While consumers generally fulfil the need

13

for fast fashion through fast fashion, Meyer (2001) argued that awareness regarding the negative environmental impacts of fast fashion is very limited. This limited level of awareness consequently leads to a limited level of beliefs for curbing the consumption of fast fashion. The theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) states that beliefs are the antecedents for attitude and that increased attitude leads to increased intention. The limited belief acts as a barrier to having positive intentions towards sustainable fashion consumption (Wigley et al., 2012; Khan & Rundle‐Thiele, 2019). Conclusively, even though sustainable fashion consumption is gaining attention, awareness remains relatively low (Battaglia, Testa, Bianchi, Iraldo & Frey, 2014).

As a result, the interviews conducted by Harris et al. (2016) suggested that by offering environmentally friendly clothes alone will not drive the consumers towards sustainable fashion consumption. There is a need to combine these drivers with some other factors to make it a habituated norm (Lundblad & Davies, 2016). Furthermore, because ‘out of fashion’ or ‘fashion change’ (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007) are the crucial concerns of the sustainable clothing industry, companies should offer services of disposal, recycle and reuse of clothes to the consumers (Lang et. al., 2013).

2.5 The Collaborative Fashion Consumption (CFC) Industry

In the last decade, we have seen a tremendous shift in consumer preference from ownership to the accessibility of products (Chen 2009; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). Twenty-three per cent of US consumers used the services of at least one of the “sharing” apps in 2013. The global size of the collaborative consumption economy is expected to be at $335 billion by 2025 (Tabcum, 2019). Companies such as Uber and Airbnb have gained the market spotlight by offering accessibility (Benoit, Baker, Bolton, Gruber & Kandampully, 2017). There is a similar shift in the fashion industry, following which companies such as ‘Rent the Runway’, ‘Borrow or Steal’ and ‘Albright’ have given a new outlook to the fashion industry. This shift in the demand for fashion and the new outlook of the industry is commonly known as collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) or “fashion sharing” (Botsman, 2015; Hamari et al., 2016; Belk, 2014). “In the case of apparel, sharing may mean renting clothes for a short amount of time from the retailer or peer-to-peer exchange of clothes via a retailer that connects buyers and sellers without owning inventory” (Park & Armstrong, 2019, p. 1). This form of exchange has been labelled by various names, collaborative apparel consumption (e.g. Park & Armstrong, 2019),

14

sharing (e.g. Belk, 2010; Lamberton & Rose, 2012), access-based consumption (e.g. Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), non-ownership services (e.g., Wittkowski, Moeller & Wirtz, 2013), presumption (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010), two-sided markets (Rochet & Tirole, 2006). The most common name being collaborative consumption (Iran & Schrader, 2017; Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). Although CFC has been known throughout history (Hamari et al., 2016), it is becoming increasingly popular with the advent of the digital age (Belk, 2014).

As mentioned before, there are various CFC modes such as gifting, lending, sharing, swapping, renting, leasing, second hand (Iran & Schrader, 2017), but for the scope of this thesis, we will focus mainly on rental and subscription-based-rental clothing services.

2.5.1 Rental and Subscription-based-rental fashion services

While rental fashion is an activity for occasional wear in which consumer borrows, leases or hires a piece of clothing for a specific amount of fee and time (Armstrong, Niinimäki, Lang, & Kujala, 2016), the subscription-based-rental fashion is an activity for long term or regular wear in which consumer has access to varied products for use over a period of time in exchange for a periodic fee (Park & Armstrong, 2019). Rental companies such as Bag Borrow or Steal, Chic by Choice, Rent the Runway, Armarium, Mine for Nine, and subscription-based rental companies such as Letote, Gwynniebee, For Days, Bag Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway, and Mine for Nine are some of the examples of companies offering these services. These services give access to unaffordable clothes, such as luxury designer clothes to the customers (Cook & Hodges 2015; Lang & Armstrong 2015). Moreover, they allow the fast-fashion consumers to refresh their wardrobes and try new styles (Okonkwo, 2010). While the benefit of the rental service is that the customers rent the cloth whenever needed, the benefit in the subscription- based rental service is that the customer will find it cheaper and easier to rent, provided that the consumer rents frequently. According to a study in the UK by Westfield London (2016), more than 46% of the people are interested in renting fashion. Battle et al. (2018) argued that within 10 years, consumers might get indifferent between buying and renting the luxury fashion. Consequently, the global online market for rental fashion is expected to expand at an annual growth rate of 9.8% (Future Marketing Insights, 2016) and reach approximately US$1.8 billion by 2026 (Chen, 2009).

15

Stål and Jansson (2017) argued that renting fashion is a viable option for consumers who would like to be sustainable, yet do not want to have a drastic change in their consumption behaviour. Hamari et al. (2016) also argued that promoting rental fashion consumption as a sustainable consumption practice could improve the customers’ attitude towards renting. Beyond that, various researchers have also suggested that consumer activities such as irresponsible laundering while using the clothes (Laitala, Boks, & Klepp, 2011; Allwood, Laursen, de Rodriguez & Bocken, 2015) and immature disposal of clothes (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010) are the most responsible factors for environmental degradation. Clearly, these environmental impacts can be reduced to a compelling level by employing renting services as it can cater to consumers' demand for novelty in fashion and professional care, without compromising with environmental sustainability (Park & Armstrong, 2019). These activities are discussed in detail, later in this paper.

2.5.2 Collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) as a sustainable consumption model

Collaborative Fashion Consumption (CFC) is a form of sustainable consumption as it offers great market potential (Kim & Jin, 2019) by creating a circular economy (Khan & Rundle‐ Thiele, 2019). This form of consumption practice has the potential to offset the demand for the non-sustainable fast fashion industry (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010). Botsman and Rogers (2010) argued that the recirculation of clothes generated by CFC could help to curb the waste without compromising with the demand for newness. An increase of 10% second-hand sales could save 3% carbon and 4% water per ton of clothing (Waste & Resources Action Programme [WRAP], 2017). Further, CFC can potentially save 27% carbon, 33% water, 22% resource cost, and 22% waste by extending the active life of clothes by 9 months (WRAP, 2012). Moreover, when garments are monitored professionally for by rental companies in B2C renting then considerably less amount of water, energy and detergents are wasted as compared to private washing (Hirschl, Konrad, & Scholl, 2003), and the longevity of the clothes also get extended (Figge, Young & Barkemeyer, 2014). Furthermore, having access rather than ownership will act as a reflexive strategy to motivate consumers for acting more sustainably (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Consequently, with the help of rental and subscription-based-rental services, consumers will not have to stock their clothes to fulfil their demand for varied options and newness. Thus, consumers will be able to counterbalance the negative environmental effect by saving the latent waste (Bardhi &

16

Eckhardt, 2012) and by avoiding the premature disposal of clothes (Woolridge, Ward, Phillips, Collins, & Gandy, 2006; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007). Conclusively, a judicious, and careful consideration is required to foster sustainability through CFC (Lang et al., 2013).

2.5.3 Drivers for indulging in CFC services

Park & Armstrong (2019) argued that motivation for collaborative apparel consumption is a very complex phenomenon both in practice and in theory and that it requires a nuanced approach to enquiry. The findings of previous researchers have been very inconsistent regarding the motivations of consumers to indulge in CFC. Broadly, previous findings suggest a wide range of drivers, such as economic motive (Hamari et al., 2016; Ek Styvén & Marian, 2020; Guiot & Roux, 2010; Ferraro et al. 2016; Khan & Rundle‐Thiele, 2019; Durgee & Colarelli O'Connor, 1995), concern-for-sustainability (Ek Styvén & Marian, 2020; Guiot & Roux, 2010; Park & Armstrong, 2019; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Hamari et al., 2016; Khan & Rundle‐ Thiele, 2019; Akbar & Hoffmann, 2018; Möhlmann, 2015), variety seeking (Barnes et al., 2006; Kim & Jin, 2019; Lang & Armstrong, 2018), hedonic or recreational motive (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Kim & Jin, 2019; Lawson, Gleim, Perren, & Hwang, 2016), access to aspirational brands (Chang, 2018; Ferraro et al., 2016), temporary need (Durgee & Colarelli O'Connor, 1995), convenience (Durgee & Colarelli O'Connor, 1995; Hamari et al., 2016), demand for newness (Kim & Jin, 2019), wardrobe space (Ha-Brookshire & Hodges, 2009), social belongingness (Möhlmann, 2015) to indulge into CFC.

Among the various motives stated by researchers for the CFC, economic motives are the most common (Battle, Ryding & Henninger, 2018; Ferraro, Sands & Brace-Gov, 2016). Sharing resources is considered cheaper than buying and accumulating. According to the estimates of Beltrami, Kim, and Rölkens (2019), despite the growing fast fashion market, CFC services could outgrow it within the next 10 years. Previously, Ferraro et al. (2016) argued that the financial crisis 2008 was one of the main reasons to compel the growth of CFC, but Safdar and Kapner (2017) noted that even in the boom, women are willing to opt for CFC or sharing services. Moreover, an increasing number of people who used to buy fashion products are motivated to rent them (Chang, 2018). Despite the huge market size, the state of research and knowledge of this industry remains scarce (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Kim & Jin, 2019). Though CFC has a huge potential to combat the environmental impact (Akbar & Hoffmann, 2018), surprisingly only a little research has been examined for the consumers' involvement in CFC (Kim & Jin, 2019; Park & Armstrong, 2019).

17

Subsequently, Kim and Jin (2019) found in their study that the most reliable driver for indulging in CFC is concern-for-sustainability, followed by social belongingness, variety seeking, hedonic or recreational motive, and then the economic motive. Other factors such as convenience were not found to be reliable in this study. The fashion industry can rely more on renting or buying used clothes to counter fast fashion consumption and to meet the sustainable development goal targets (EMAF, 2017). Moreover, Kim and Jin (2019) and Ek Styvén and Marian (2020) argue that highlighting sustainability impacts while marketing CFC can increase the level of indulgence. Ek Styvén and Marian (2020) also noted that once a consumer is indulged in CFC, the influence of concern-for-sustainability as a driver becomes significantly stronger. Durgee and Colarelli O'Connor (1995) found that CFC services such as renting have a great potential to solve the temporary need for clothing such as the need for party wear or formal wear. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, one of the main unique selling propositions for CFC companies such as ‘Rent the Runway’ is to give access to unaffordable designer clothes (Ferraro et al., 2016). Thus, consumers get access to fulfil their desire for status (Lawson et al., 2016).

2.5.4 Barriers for indulging in CFC services

The drivers mentioned in the previous sub-chapter have made it possible to an extent to be fashionable and sustainable at the same time, but certain barriers hinder the indulgence. Although previous studies have found that the economic motive and concern-for-sustainability as a common value proposition for CFC, previous researchers (Park & Armstrong, 2019; Ek Styvén & Marian, 2020) suggested that CFC has not been able to utilise the latent market potential. Despite the fact that consumers can get attracted to CFC due to socio-economic concerns, the fear of being economically judged prevails (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Thus, marketing CFC as a sustainable consumption model can improve significant customer loyalty (Park & Armstrong, 2019). Khan and Rundle‐Thiele (2019) suggested that high environmental consciousness positively moderates the relationship between usage intention and perceived economic benefit of shared clothes. This can also be understood well with the help of the theory of reasoned action given by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) which explains that an increase in attitude (e.g. here, sustainability) will increase the intentions. Evidently, the experts in the field have suggested that promoting CFC as a sustainable act will improve the attitude towards shared clothing, thus increasing the usage intention (Park & Armstrong, 2017; Ek Styvén & Marian, 2020). Conclusively, the more consumers perceive CFC as a sustainable behaviour, the more

18

inclined they will be to use it. “Displaying messages on the environmental impact (e.g., sustainability dimension) that results from sharing can help reinforce consumers’ sharing decisions as well” (Park & Armstrong, 2019, p. 14).

2.6 Theory of individually perceived cost-benefits balance

Based on various conventional theories such as marketing theories, corporate strategy theories and macro-economic theories, Meyer (2001) conceptualized the theory of individually perceived cost-benefits balance which states that a rational customer tries to minimize their cost while maximizing their benefits. Further, it is important to understand that these costs include not only the monetary value which the customer pays while purchasing a product but also other costs incurred by customers both before and after the purchase of the product; hence, these costs and benefits include both economic and non-economic factors.

To illustrate, apart from the price of the products, the individually perceived balance of costs also includes the cost of supply which include the cost of searching the products and evaluating various alternatives during the pre-consumption phase of the product. During the consumption phase, they might have to incur the cost to learn to use the product while unlearning the usage of old. These costs are defined as the cost of change and cost of usage respectively by Meyer (2001). Further, elaborating about post-consumption phase, he argued that a customer thinks of the cost of disposal which includes costs such as the cost of fuel and time for disposal of a product. Similarly, the individually perceived benefits include factors such as functional benefits, self-esteem benefits and other benefits. These include benefits gained through technical performance and workmanship of the product; feeling of the customer within a social environment; and appearance and image of the product, respectively.

According to Meyer (2001), Huser (1996), and Belz (1999), there needs to be a cost-benefit balance for inducing consumers to sustainable products. Further, Meyer (2001) argued that the current market offerings for sustainable clothes are highly inclined towards the cost because the benefit side is highly reliant on appeal for consumers’ environmental awareness. It needs to be integrated with other benefits to achieve a cost-benefit balance and to expand the customer base from pure green customers to general market offerings subsequently (Huser, 1996; Belz, 1999).

19

Figure 3: Conceptual Framework proposed by Meyer (2001) to analyse the perceived cost and benefits balance

20

3 Proposed Conceptual Operational Model

To answer the research questions, it is important to understand the operations of the proposed combination. Thus, this chapter gives a brief explanation of the operations of the integrated model.

Out of the various possible combinations, the integrated model combines the re(up)cycled fashion products and rental fashion services because these are the most common products and services of the sustainable fashion product industry and CFC service industry, respectively.

Figure 4: Brief presentation of the operations of the SBRC model

21

The combination is named as ‘Subscription-based rental clothing services only for recycled and upcycled clothing’ (SBRC), as shown in figure 4. The model presents the interaction of the business which is a consolidator of various brands with the customers.

Figure 4 is divided into two parts: reusing and recycling. The service offering for renting the clothes is facilitated with the help of a subscription-based rental model at the point of sale and collection of SBRC model. The point of sale and collection offers both one-time rental and subscription-based rental service of only re(up)cycled clothes to the customers. In order to ensure the availability of a wide range of clothes to the customers, the point of sale and collection is the consolidator of different brands offering sustainable clothes. After a customer returns the clothes, they are sent to the sorting department where the department decides if the cloth is fit for re-use or the cloth needs to be sent to the recycling/upcycling chain. The reusable cloths are further sent to the care department where the clothes are professionally handled for services such as cleaning, laundering, drying, and ironing to make it fit for re-consumption. Then it is sent to the point of sale and then eventually to the consumers. However, if the clothes are sorted for recycling by the sorting department, then the clothes are sent to the textile industry for recycling/upcycling. It is important to note that in this model, only re(up)cycled clothes are rented to the customers. Therefore, the source of the raw materials for recycled clothes is also shown at the bottom of figure 4. The recyclable raw materials such as plastics from the plastic industry enter the value chain and are prepared for recycling/upcycling. Overall, this facilitates a circular economy.

22

4 Methodology

This chapter outlines the methodological approach followed to answer the research question. This chapter is structured as follows: the research design which is used for the analysis is explained, then the population and recruitment method is explained, followed by the data collection and analysis process and then the research quality and ethical considerations are explained.

4.1 Research design and approach

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016) explain research design as “the general plan of how one will go about answering the research questions” (p.163). Among the various reasons, the purpose of the thesis and the amount of previous research determines that the research design should be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory. Since no previous research has focused on integrating the ‘re(up)cycled fashion products’ and ‘rental fashion services’, this thesis used qualitative research methodology to explore the consequences of the integration. Ponelis (2015) stated that qualitative research produces unstructured and non-numeric data but is often rich and contextual, helping to produce in-depth exploratory insights (Jemna, 2016). Thus, exploratory research method for this thesis helps to understand and garner the consumer insights about the proposed model.

Saunders et al. (2016) suggest that only a particular phenomenon of the proposed model should be studied if the research is limited by time and/or resources; a master thesis has a similar nature. Thus, this study is structured into two parts; firstly, based on previous studies and theories, a conceptual framework is proposed. Then, with the help of the proposed conceptual framework, cross-sectional semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the consumer acceptance of the proposed model.

Deductive logics are used for the preliminary research through which the conceptual framework is proposed and then the proposed framework is used as a basis for the interviews. However, the data analysis is done based on inductive logics which made it possible to ask open questions, garner in-depth insights and understand the consumer acceptance of the proposed model. Finally, the discussion section compares the findings with existing theories and employs inductive analysis to develop a better understanding of the proposed model.

23

4.1.1 Theory-based conceptual framework

Following the theory of cost-benefits balance explained in chapter 2.5, a conceptual framework is presented based on previously identified barriers and drivers. Those barriers and drivers highlighted in the literature review were very broadly explained in relation to the sustainable fashion products and CFC service. However, for conducting focused research, only those drivers and barriers are identified in this framework which are related to rental clothing services and re(up)cycled clothing fashion products. This framework is showcased in chapter 5.

4.1.2 Interviews: consumers perceived cost-benefit balance in the model

It is important to understand the consumers' intention towards the proposed model. Thus, cross- sectional semi-structured interviews were conducted with the aim to garner potential consumer insights about the model. Following the individually perceived cost-benefit balance suggested by Meyer (2001) the interviewees were asked related questions to understand the impact of the proposed model on their perceived cost-benefit balance. Some of the non-prominent barriers which cannot be alleviated by the proposed combination are outside the scope of the thesis. However, due to the exploratory and open nature of the interview, the interviewees found some important unaddressed barriers which are discussed in the findings section. The proposed framework discussed in chapter 5 was taken as a premise for the interviews.

4.2 Data Collection

4.2.1 Data Sources and Sampling

Huser (1996) and Belz (1999) explains that environmental awareness is the most important precondition to indulge rationally in sustainable products. As the proposed model is a novel combination, the interviewees needed to have some level of related knowledge for collecting information-rich responses (Palinkas et al., 2013). As a result, following the suggestion of Flick (2014), homogenous purposive sampling is used in a geographic area where people seem to have related knowledge. However, this sampling method might attract some level of moderation for which a moderation test was done in the interview by asking open questions related to previous experiences with sustainable clothing. The reason behind this sampling method is threefold. First, the interviewees are expected to be homogenous in both demographic and psychographic variables. This helped in conducting focused research by ruling out the

24

confounding variables, such as interviewees age could have been far away from the average age suggested by Barnes and Lea-Greenwood (2006). Second, the interviewees are master level students at the university which makes it highly likely that they have some level of knowledge related to sustainability and fashion. Third, it is highly likely that the market validation for the proposed model will be geography where people care about sustainability. Thus, the university students were a good representative of the sample for conducting the interviews. Overall, it is imperative to understand the consumer behaviour of the aforementioned geography.

The interviewees were requested for voluntary participation and were recruited through a social media post on a specific page of a university; the university is in a country which is known to be a forerunner of sustainability. Twenty-two participants, 9 Female and 13 males were recruited, and each interview lasted between 50 and 70 minutes.

4.2.2 Semi-Structured interview guide and process

The data collection techniques followed various suggestions given by (Gioia, Corley & Hamilton, 2013) such as trying to understand their words and using their terminologies rather than ours, focusing the research question but at the same time ensuring that the questions asked in the interview were thorough rather than leading-the-witness questions. Due to Covid-19, the interviews were done online through video collaboration tools; the interviewees had an option of ‘video-off’ and ‘video-on’ in order to minimise the social desirability bias. The screen was shared with the interviewees to facilitate explaining the concepts by showcasing pictures in order to maximize the feeling of in-person communication. However, utmost care was taken that no emotionally appealing pictures are shown which could have added biases to their responses; only the picture of the proposed model (figure 4) and proposed framework (figure 5) presented in this thesis were shown to the participants. Rowley (2002) suggested asking ‘why’ and ‘how’ type questions by being open and flexible to the insights of the interviewees. This was important for the research question because there were latent value propositions or potential concerns which were not identified previously due to the novelty of the concept. Further, the semi-structured interview was designed to protect the larger interest of the interviewees while trying to serve our own (Gioia et. al., 2013). The questions were open-ended (see Appendix A) and divided into four parts, as follows: -

25

4.2.2.1 Part 1 – Understanding the general clothing purchasing behaviour

In part 1, the questions related to the general buying behaviour of the consumer were asked followed by their awareness about the impact of the clothing industry on the environment. This helped in limiting the confounding variables and served as a premise to analyse the answers to the question asked in the later sections.

4.2.2.2 Part 2 - Buying re(up)cycled clothing products

In part 2, the questions related specifically to re(up)cycled clothes were asked. The related concepts were explained to the interviewees in the starting of each subsection and were given some time for the web search of the specific product. This strategy was used to resonate the real purchasing environment of consumers in which the consumers generally gain some knowledge from the internet about a product or service before buying it, as suggested by (Belk, 2014; Hamari et al., 2016). They were also asked about the barriers and drivers which they generally encounter while buying re(up)cycled clothes. This strategy has twofold benefits: firstly, barriers and drivers were not a new element for the interviewees when they were asked specific questions about the proposed framework, and secondly, this allowed exploring new barriers and drivers.

4.2.2.3 Part 3 - Indulging in rental clothing services

Similar to part 2, in part 3, they were asked questions related specifically to rental clothing. A separate question was asked to analyse the perceived association of rental clothing with the environment.

4.2.2.4 Part 4 - Intention towards the proposed model and framework

Finally, in part 4, the interviewees were first explained the proposed model with the help of figure 4 and then they were asked if they see any potential match in their own identified barriers and drivers. Finally, the proposed framework was shown to the interviewees and their insights as a consumer were asked for each combination. In the end, they were asked an open question about the potential influence of the proposed model in their sustainable fashion consumption behaviour.

26

4.3 Data Analysis

4.3.1 Transcription

The audio and video recordings were transcribed and structured to ensure manageability, readability, learnability, and interpretability (Flick, 2014). The relevant parts were rewritten to minimize errors. Moreover, to better analyse the interviews, some emotions were also noted down such as sarcasm, laughter, and similar conversational features.

4.3.2 Coding

The coding was done with the help of software named ‘NVivo’. The use of the software facilitated features such as auto-code, adding effectiveness to the analysis. Furthermore, the software facilitated multiple views of the data which ensured effectiveness in the analysis. At first, the data codes were adopted in the reporting of interviews. For example, participants were coded with word ‘Participant’ followed by their participant number such as P1, P22; males were coded with letter M followed by their age such as M23, M35; and females were coded by letter F followed by their age such as F23, F27. To illustrate further, for a code ‘Participant 14, F27’ means that it was the response from participant 14, who is 27 years old female. As suggested by Gioia et al. (2013), a wider number of categories in the initial interviews were made and then after finding the similarity, they were narrowed down to a smaller number of categories.

4.3.2.1 First-order concepts coding or initial data analysis

As suggested by Gioia et al. (2013), very little effort to distil the information was made at this level of analyses. Thus, at this level, the information was coded comprehensively with an aim to create an analytical skeleton. Each piece of information was given a different code such that it could have been easier to notice the similarities and differences further down in the analysis. As suggested by Charmaz (2014), this level of coding was kept most close to the data in order to conceptualize a large amount of data.

27

Figure 5: An example of first-order concepts coding (The software ‘Nvivo’ helped to bring all the information belonging to the same code together and helped to visualise those in multiple views)

4.3.2.2 Second-order themes and dimensions coding or focused data analysis

As suggested by Gioia et al. (2013), this order coding was done by being close to the research question and the phenomena which the thesis is trying to observe. This level was time- consuming and intensive but was very reflective. Following the illustrative explanatory insights of Gioia et al. (2013) and Charmaz (2014) closely made it possible to not only make sense of the data but also have a graphic presentation of the required progress of the data. This was the pivotal step in the research approach.

28

Figure 6: An example of the second-order coding

4.4 Research Quality

The quality of research refers to the strengths and weaknesses of the data obtained. The most common method to examine the research quality is to examine data validity and data reliability (Saunders et al., 2016). However, many researchers consider those determinants fit for examining the quality of quantitative research rather than qualitative research (Guba, 1981; Saunders et al., 2016). Therefore, qualitative researchers have proposed to examine the trustworthiness through the measures of credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability (Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1984).

4.4.1 Credibility

Credibility assesses the degree to which research can be plausible and reliable (Guba, 1981). As a part of credibility, the interviews were combined with a wide amount of information garnered through literature and theories. The semi-structured interviews provided high flexibility to gain unforeseen insights and were combined with the screen sharing tool for a

29

better understanding of the proposed model to the interviewees. The screen sharing also offered more control on the topics such that the larger interest of the interviewees can also be catered while serving the interest of the thesis (Gioia et al., 2013; Walle, 2015). Moreover, understanding the relevance of the topic, the interviewees were allowed time to google search about a type of cloth mentioned in the particular section of the interview resonating to the normal pre-purchasing environment for a customer. At last, before conducting the interviews, the research guide was sent to the ‘ethics committee’ of ‘The University of Queensland’ such that they could notify if there are any possible credibility issues; they being experts.

4.4.2 Transferability

Transferability refers to the external validity or generalizability of a concept (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Since the combined model presented in this thesis is a novel combination, the research aims to explore and maximise the insights rather than a direct application of the result (Walle, 2015). However, the participants were continuously reminded to give insights about their understanding on behalf of their peers or other consumers as well such that the developed concept can be applied in a more general setting. Nevertheless, as suggested by Guba (1981), it has been aimed to garner sufficient information such that the readers, at least in the target market, can take independent decisions concerning the possible application of the proposed model. The homogeneity of the participants enabled the thesis to provide comprehensive information related to the attributes of the participants such as to leverage management decisions. Moreover, a thorough study of the theories, in this thesis, also provided information about the right combination for the proposed model and the consumers.

4.4.3 Dependability

Dependability refers to the likelihood of producing the same results if the research is repeated, provided the research procedure is constant (Walle, 2015). To assure dependability, the research followed an interview guide which was first analysed by the supervisor of the research and then was critically analysed by the ethics committee of ‘The University of Queensland’. Further, a pre-test was conducted with two persons in order to get critical feedback, the responses of whom have not been included in the analysis. The necessary changes were made after getting feedback from all the three sources. Walle (2015) stated that it is important to learn from the interviewees rather than controlling them. At last, the number of interviewees was ‘twenty-two’ which was a sufficiently large number to assure dependability in this qualitative research.

30

4.4.4 Confirmability

Confirmability refers to potential biases of the investigator as a result of the intimacy between the interviewer and the informant (Guba 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This risk of losing objectivity because of the intimacy can be minimized by having awareness of the same (Walle, 2015). To minimize the risk of biases, the informants were sent Participant Information Sheets (see appendix B) which was duly reviewed by the ethics committee before sending. Moreover, the interviewees had an option to keep their camera off while doing the interviews to minimize the social pressure. However, there might be some level of biases due to the nature of sustainable products.

4.5 Ethical considerations

Though the research process came under the ‘Low and Negligible risk’ category, a comprehensive review of ethical considerations was done by the Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs). The ethical principles of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research were strictly adhered (see Appendix C for the approval letter). As previously mentioned, all guidelines including the collection of the consent forms, informing the participants, and anonymizing the collected data were followed. All research reported in this and the subsequent study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Queensland (approval: 2020000987).

31

5 Conceptual Framework

In this chapter, a conceptual framework for sustainable fashion consumption is proposed based on the theory of cost and benefit balance.

The drivers of the framework represent the benefits of the consumers and the barriers represent the cost to the consumers. Based on the literature reviews, potential combinations are shown with help of which a consumer can alleviate the identified barriers of one industry with the drivers of another industry, through the SBRC model. The proposed model focuses on a niche re(up)cycled clothing market in order to tap the latent potential of branding; a full-fledged sustainable model adding to the easiness of such branding. The proposed framework can be explained as below:

Figure 7: The proposed conceptual framework to facilitate integrating sustainable clothing product industry and CFC services industry

32

P1: High Price – Economical

Under the SBRC model, the consumers will be able to rent the high priced re(up)cycled clothes. Thus, the ‘economic’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘high price’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P2: Limited Choice - Variety in Choice

The ‘point of sale’ in the SBRC model is a consolidator of various brands offering sustainable clothes; thus, the consumers will have access to more variety of recycled clothes at a single point. Hence, the ‘variety in choice’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘limited choice’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P3: Design concern - Access to professionally designed clothes

As a result of paying a subscription fee or one-time rental fee, the SBRC model makes the professionally designed clothes more accessible to consumers. Thus, the ‘access to designer clothes’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘design concern’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P4: Lack of newness - Subscription to newness

As a result of the subscription model, under the SBRC model, the consumers can change their clothes and/or trend often. Thus the ‘subscription to newness’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘lack of newness’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P5: Limited availability - More Clothes into circulation

As a result of the rental nature of the model, the clothes which would have been stored in the customer wardrobe comes back to the circulation; thus, ensuring high availability. Hence, the ‘more clothes into circulation’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘limited availability’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

33

P6: Lack of communication - High Engagement

In general, sustainable consumers like to have more communication about the impact which their sustainable act is bringing which gets limited after the consumer buys a cloth. These communications also increase their environmental awareness related to purchasing behaviour. Hence, the ‘high engagement’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘lack of communication’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P7: Limited knowledge for care and disposal - Professional care and disposal

The caring such as laundry of cloth and their disposal is one of the prime sources of pollution. Sustainable consumers are often concerned about their actions due to limited knowledge for care and disposal. Hence, the ‘professional care and disposal’ drive of rental clothing service will alleviate the ‘limited knowledge for care and disposal’ barrier of re(up)cycled clothes.

P8: High association with environmental impact - Limited awareness about the environmental impact

While indulging in rental clothing services, consumers get driven because of environmental impact to a very limited extent. Previous researchers have suggested that adding sustainability to the marketing of rental clothing services will increase the market proportion significantly. Hence, the ‘high association with environmental impact’ drive of re(up)cycled clothes will alleviate the ‘limited awareness about environmental impact’ barrier of rental clothing service as the peers of the consumers will associate the behaviour with environmental consciousness rather than price consciousness.

P9: Socially praised – Socially disparaged

Re(up)cycled fashion is socially praised by the peers because of connotation with the environment; at the same time, the consumers have a fear that their indulgence in rental fashion services with has a connotation with affordability by their peers. Hence, the ‘socially praised’ drive of re(up)cycled clothes will alleviate the ‘socially disparaged’ barrier of rental clothing service.

34

6 Findings

In this section, an in-depth analysis of the findings is explained with the help of illustrative quotes. The quotes mentioned are from multiple respondents and have been transcribed into the reader-friendly tone. Some of the similar quotes by multiple respondents have also been merged into one to avoid repetitions for readers. In the illustrative quotes, as elaborated in chapter 4.3.2 coding, the code states the participant number followed by their gender and age. To help the readers to follow through the analysis, a summary of the findings is presented followed by the detailed explanations of the findings.

6.1 Summary

From the collected consumer insights, it can be suggested that when the re(up)cycled product industry as the part of sustainable fashion products industry and rental fashion services industry as the part of CFC services are integrated then some of the consumers will find incentives to influence their sustainable fashion consumption behaviour. There were very mixed responses and diverse level of concerns, similar to what previous researchers suggested (Harris et. al, 2016; Park & Armstrong, 2019). Being the nature of exploratory research, some new insights were also discovered which might influence their sustainable fashion consumption. However, the in-depth analysis of the responses suggested that the proposed combination is more likely to influence the action of fashion-oriented consumers than sustainability-oriented consumers. One of the possible explanations can be that fashion-oriented consumers are likely to be influenced by the trend of sustainability. Conversely, sustainability-oriented consumers have already had a mental shift away from being fashionable. Thus, sustainability-oriented consumers are not very attracted towards ‘being fashionable’ value proposition of the model. A detailed explanation of the effect on individually perceived cost-benefit analysis for each factor is explained in the further sub-chapters. It has been demonstrated in Table 1; however, an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind this segregation is outside the scope of the thesis.

35

Table 1: Analysis of the influence on respondent’s sustainable consumption behaviour

6.2 Overall influence on sustainable fashion consumption behaviour

When asked about the overall influence on their sustainable fashion consumption behaviour, the respondents analysed their cost-benefit, similar to what was proposed by Meyer (2001) in the theory if individually perceived cost-benefit analysis. However, some of the barriers or drivers, which were subjective to respondents, played a major role in their overall decision. Nevertheless, the contrast between the responses of fashion-oriented consumers and the responses of sustainable consumers were notable. Interestingly, fashion-oriented consumers were more attracted to the proposed model than the sustainable consumer.

The respondents were very diverse while analysing the impact of the proposed combinations; having an option to be fashionable while being sustainable can be attractive for their social status.

36

(Illustrative Quote 1)

Even though the model gives a potential option to be sustainable and fashionable; some of the respondents did not see any difference between a rental model and SBRC model and would like to rent only occasional clothes. Hence, the total impact on overall sustainable consumption would be negligible in those cases.

37

(Illustrative Quote 2)

It was difficult for sustainable consumers to see the value addition because they might already have had a mental shift from being trendy towards consuming durable and sustainable clothes.

(Illustrative Quote 3)

38

For some respondents who never have indulged into rental clothing or re(up)cycled clothing, it was difficult to analyse the cost-benefit balance. Hence, they expressed that their decision will specifically depend on factors such as design, availability, and trust. Their concerns were understandable as this was a new model for them.

(Illustrative Quote 4)

However, those respondents also saw some value addition for them, and they were willing to try the proposed service offering and then make the decisions based on their experiences.

39

(Illustrative Quote 5)

6.3 Analysis of proposed combinations

High Price - Economical

When asked about the economic factor, most respondents categorised the SBRC model based on usage: regular clothes and occasional clothes. The respondents who were sustainable wanted

40

to use their clothes for a longer period because of which they did not find the regular wear clothes to be an economical option under the SBRC model. Conversely, fashion-oriented consumers found the combination to be economical for both regular and occasional clothes as they feel the need to change the design of their regular clothes as well.

(Illustrative Quote 6)

Limited Choice - Variety in Choice

When asked about the limited choice, the respondents feel that the number of options available in the recycled clothes of a particular brand is limited; even if it is available then the familiarity is low. This significantly affects their consumer journey because of which they opt for a non- sustainable option. Thus, the respondents found it appealing to have recycled clothes from different brands under one business. They feel that the consolidator part of the SBRC model will reduce the hassle in their consumer journey and give them variety in choice.

41

(Illustrative Quote 7)

Design Concern - Access to professionally designed clothes

There were mixed responses related to the design concerns. Some respondents being very particular about their choice did not find any value addition in professionally designed clothes.

Similarly, some respondents find the design of re(up)cycled clothes to be out of their demand segment. Conversely, some respondents having design concerns suggested that this combination would solve the problem because they believe that designer clothes are the runway fashion which is later adopted by the consumers in society.

42

(Illustrative Quote 8)

43

Lack of Newness - Subscription to Newness

Lack of newness as a driver depends a lot on the demand for change in a consumer.

Interestingly, the sustainability-oriented respondents already had a mental shift of not seeking for a new design in every fashion season. However, the respondents who tended to be fashion- oriented found this as an option to change their fashion while being sustainable.

(Illustrative Quote 9)

44

Limited availability - More clothes into circulation

More clothes into circulation was not a very significant driver for the respondents to solve the problem of limited availability because they argued that the solution to this barrier is more producer related than consumer related. To illustrate, according to them, there is limited availability because of the limited number of stores, the solution of which can be found by the producer rather than consumers. However, they find some value addition because of the consolidator part of the SBRC model.

(Illustrative Quote 10)

Nevertheless, due to the mental shift towards online shopping, limited availability was not a problem for some respondents. According to them if they need a re(up)cycled cloth then they can find it online. However, finding the clothes online added hassle to their consumer journey.

45

(Illustrative Quote 11)

Limited communication - High engagement

For this combination, there were two types of responses. While some respondents wanted to increase their communication with the brands, others were already overwhelmed by the existing level of communication. For instance, a respondent wanted to increase the level of communication due to reasons such as getting educated about the novel sustainable offerings or to know more about the impact of their sustainable behaviour. However, some respondents did not like to engage more with the companies because of information overflow.

46

(Illustrative Quote 12)

47

Besides these, while expressing their concern about the lack of communication-related to the identification of sustainable clothes, they found the combination to be a potential problem solver.

(Illustrative Quote 13)

Limited knowledge of care and disposal - Professional care and disposal

The respondents argued that the barrier of limited knowledge about disposal is fading because of the increased availability of the disposal services in their geographical region. However, the responses were mixed concerning the professional care of clothes. While some respondents assumed it to be the responsibility of the consumers, some suggested it as an alternative to laundry services. Beyond that, some other respondents did not mind washing the clothes on their own. To sum up, the respondents who seek extra services for care and disposal found value addition in this combination.

48

49

(Illustrative Quote 14)

High awareness about the environmental impact - Limited awareness about the environmental impact

Interestingly, even though the theme of the interview was sustainability, most respondents did not identify sustainability as a driver for rental clothing until they were asked specifically about it. Evidently, the connotations with sustainability were not one of their prime motivations in case of rental clothing services. Conversely, in case of re(up)cycled clothes, sustainability was identified as a prime driver. Thus, they stated that the combined model will increase their connotation with sustainability. However, some of them also argued that their contribution to sustainability would be negligible as they would rent the clothes only for occasional wear.

Beyond that, some respondents also expressed the concern of having a negative environmental footprint because of indulgence in the proposed model because of regular shipping services.

50

51

(Illustrative Quote 15)

Socially praised - Socially disparaged

The respondents frequently mentioned that this combination will alleviate their fear of being perceived as economically weak. Adding to the increased connotation with the environment, the respondents stated that their indulgence in the SBRC model will imply that they are environmentally conscious rather than economically weak which will offset their barrier of being socially belittled. Furthermore, some of them also stated that the indulgence will positively affect their social status and that they will be able to express their motivations to indulge in rental clothing more confidently.

52

(Illustrative Quote 16)

6.4 Additional potential influencing factors

Owing to the nature of the interview, the respondents were very open-minded while expressing their concerns and drive, some of which were common among the respondents. Due to the limited awareness about sustainability, the consumers feel manipulated by different brands. Hence, they argued that the proposed model being consolidator of different brands can act as a sustainability expert between consumers and various brands. Thus, the business having this model can alleviate the barrier of limited knowledge about sustainability for consumers; however, gaining consumer trust will be a significant factor here. Moreover, hygiene being a common barrier for consumers, the trust in the model through transparency was seen as an important part of the model by the respondents. Furthermore, some respondents argued that it would be difficult for them to shift their mentality from ownership to access in clothing because of the hassle and complexity involved in the process. Interestingly, some respondents stated that they perceive the re(up)cycled clothing to be cheaper than normal clothes because they assume that the significant cost of fabrics could be saved by the company. Nonetheless, even after expressing concerns, sustainable consumers generally stated that their peers or colleagues

53

would be very attracted to the model as they have a demand for newness. Subsequently, they also expressed that the use of ‘subscription’ as a terminology makes the option sound to be cheaper. Finally, the respondents were also concerned about their choice getting limited because it might not be possible to make some of the type of clothes from recycled materials.

54

(Illustrative Quote 17)

55

7 Discussions

In this part, the thesis presents an analytical discussion of the findings in relation to the previous literature. Due to the exploratory nature of the research and novelty of the business model, some new consumer insights were also garnered from the interviewees which also attracts in-depth future research.

The findings show various elements in which the respondents see value addition by integrating the re(up)cycled fashion products and rental fashion consumption services; however, it was evident that not every customer will find value in the combined model because sustainable fashion is a wide and complex concept (Park & Armstrong, 2019) and consumers are diverse in their concerns (Harris et at., 2016). Nevertheless, we know from the theory of individually perceived cost-benefit analysis (Meyer, 2001) that consumers are often strategic, and compares one offering with that of others (Barnes et al., 2006). Evidently, with the help of barriers and drivers, the findings from the interview confirm that the respondents who found more added value proposition in the combined model suggested that the model might have an impact on their sustainable fashion consumption behaviour. However, it is important to note that the magnitude of the significance of different combinations of barriers and drivers within the framework might be different; hence, it would be an interesting topic for the future research.

7.1 Contribution to literature

First, it is evident from the findings that sustainable offerings need to be combined with other market offerings in order to have a cost-benefit balance for the consumer. This adds up to the findings of Barnes et al. (2006) and Iwanow et al. (2005) who previously argued that price, quality, and style play an important role in sustainable offerings and that environmental concerns alone are not enough to drive consumers behaviours. Similarly, it confirms the speculations of Huser (1996) and Belz (1999) who suggested that current market offerings are highly dependent on the appeal for environmental awareness. For example, respondents who cared about durability did not find much benefit attached in the combined model and were less positive about the influence on their sustainable fashion consumption behaviour.

Second, the findings of this research also extend the argument of Henninger et al. (2016) that consumers feel like sustainable clothing brands are misleading. The present findings suggested that respondents find the sustainability-related information to be misleading by different brands

56

because of which they find potential in the SBRC model, as it can act as an expert. Thus, the consumers will need to have information flow one company only rather than different brands. Further, this will also make sustainable clothes easily available, leading to a better consumer journey. This adds to the findings of Meyer (2001), Harris et al., (2016), and McNeill & Moore, (2015) who suggested that the limited availability of sustainable fashion adds hassle to the consumer journey. Moreover, the findings also suggest that the attitude-behaviour gap of consumption will decrease once these clothes are easily available to the consumers, confirming the suggestion of Wigley et al. (2012). Furthermore, the respondents did not find much value addition in ‘lack of availability’ and ‘more clothes into circulation’ combination as these factors where internal to the consumers which build upon the findings of Connell (2010) and Laitala & Klepp, (2018) who have categorised ‘limited availability’ barrier as an external barrier.

Third, it is evident in the findings that with the help of an integrated model, the respondent’s perception towards rental fashion services will be more inclined towards sustainability and that it will positively influence the indulgence in sustainable fashion consumption behaviour. This confirms the arguments of Kim and Jin (2019) and Ek Styvén and Marian (2020) that highlighting sustainability impacts while marketing CFC will increase the indulgence in sustainable fashion. This will also positively impact the social status which is found to be one of the most important drivers. The findings suggested that consumers will feel more confident and will express more about their indulgence in rental fashion services. Eventually, it will positively impact the sustainable fashion consumption behaviour. This finding confirms the arguments of previous research (Belk, 1985; Richins, 1994; Gabriel & Lang, 1995).

However, the research disputes the findings of Kim and Jin (2019) in which the researchers found convenience as a non-reliable factor for indulgence in CFC. While responding to the barriers of rental clothing, hassle and convenience was one of the most frequently cited barriers. Moreover, the findings of this research challenge the drive concern-for-sustainability which was shown as the most reliable driver in the study of Kim and Jin (2019). The respondents mostly forgot to mention this drive until it was specifically asked to them. Furthermore, Stål and Jansson (2017) suggested that renting fashion is a viable option for sustainable consumers who do not like to have a drastic change in their fashion consumption. This research moderately disputes the argument because the sustainability-oriented respondents were more likely to be satisfied with their current purchasing behaviour and found renting fashion to be hassle and non-sustainable. However, their likelihood increased once they were offered the services of

57

rental fashion for re(up)cycled clothes only but not to a very large extent. Finally, this research challenges and then extends to the findings of Bhardwaj and Fairhurst (2010) who suggested that the consumers are ready to compromise with quality for the price. Some of the sustainability-oriented respondents suggested they are likely to compromise with the price for the quality and not the other way round. The findings of Bhardwaj and Fairhurst (2010) might be true for the fashion-oriented consumers but it cannot take as a general assumption.

At last, the findings also suggested and confirms the argument of EMAF (2017) that the fashion industry can rely more on renting and buying used clothes to counteract the environmental hazard created by fast fashion, in order to meet the sustainable development goal targets.

7.2 Managerial contribution

The consumer insights gained from this research can help drawing various managerial implication for the sustainable fashion industry. Primarily, it will not only help the managers to understand the consumer barriers but also will help to understand the potential solution to those barriers. Further, Park & Armstrong (2019) suggested that marketing rental fashion as a sustainable consumption model can improve customer loyalty. Thus, the proposed combination can be employed by the managers of re(up)cycled fashion brands or rental fashion services companies to attract more green customers and improve customer loyalty. Beltrami et al. (2019) suggested that CFC services could outgrow the fast fashion market in 10 years; the managers of CFC services can gain insights from this thesis about the impact of having only sustainable product offerings in the marketing of their services. In the end, the proposed model being a novel model gives a good basis to be used as a startup model by entrepreneurs or as a spin-off model by the intrapreneurs.

7.3 Limitations and Future Research

Due to the novelty of the proposed model and the limited time and resources offered in a master thesis some of the limitations were inevitable and can be used as a basis for future research. Primarily, the thesis studied the consumer end of the model, but it will be important to understand the financial viability and operations viability of the model. The operations viability limitation was mitigated by explaining the operational model of SBRC but as the findings suggested, there should be a lot of other elements which needs to be taken into consideration. This can also include factors such as sustainable packaging and carbon-neutral delivery of

58

clothes. Moreover, as the findings suggest, some of the barriers such as design concern were highly significant to the respondents and their indulgence will be mostly dependent on those factors. So, it will be important to measure the magnitude of the significance of the mentioned barriers and drivers in future research. As suggested by Connell (2010) and backed by the respondents, some barriers such as limited availability barriers are the part of consumer barrier but the solution to it is external to the consumers. Thus, future research needs to propose an external but viable solution for these prominent barriers. Following the suggestion of Huser (1996), and Belz (1999), the interviews were done in a country which is known to be a pioneer of sustainability; it will be interesting to garner the consumer insights of the respondents residing in a country where people care more about fashion than sustainability. The comparison of the insights will help the managers of sustainable fashion brands to expand globally. Finally, future research can focus on the comparison between subscription-based rental fashion model offering both sustainable and non-sustainable clothes (hybrid model) and the one which offers only sustainable cloth (SBRC model).

There were some other methodological limitations which have been mentioned in the methodology section, chapter 4, of the thesis. A combination of interview and survey on a geographical area where the respondents are familiar with the rental services would be an ideal way to research about the consumer acceptance; however, a survey was not possible for this thesis because the responses could have been biased by the Covid-19 pandemic.

59

8 List of references

Akbar, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2018). Under which circumstances do consumers choose a product service system (PSS)? Consumer benefits and costs of sharing in PSS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 416-427.

Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., de Rodriguez, C. M., & Bocken, N. M. (2015). Well dressed?: The present and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 22(1), 42.

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., & Kujala, S. (2016). A use‐oriented clothing economy? Preliminary affirmation for sustainable clothing consumption alternatives. Sustainable Development, 24(1), 18-31.

Baker-Brown, D. (2019). The Re-Use Atlas: A Designer's Guide Towards the Circular Economy. Routledge.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of consumer research, 39(4), 881-898.

Barnes, L., & Lea‐Greenwood, G. (2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Barnes, L., Lea‐Greenwood, G., & Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Barnes, L., Lea‐Greenwood, G., Watson, M. Z., & Yan, R. N. (2013). An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Battaglia, M., Testa, F., Bianchi, L., Iraldo, F., & Frey, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and competitiveness within SMEs of the fashion industry: Evidence from Italy and France. Sustainability, 6(2), 872-893.

60

Battle, A., Ryding, D., & Henninger, C. E. (2018). Access-Based Consumption: A New Business Model for Luxury and Secondhand Fashion Business?. In Vintage Luxury Fashion (pp. 29-44). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of consumer research, 36(5), 715-734.

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of business research, 67(8), 1595-1600.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer research, 12(3), 265-280.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of consumer research, 15(2), 139-168.

Beltrami, M., Kim, D.,Rölkens, F. (n.d.). The State of Fashion 2019. Retrieved April 05, 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/Th e%20influence%20of%20woke%20consumers%20on%20fashion/The-State-of- Fashion-2019.ashx

Belz, FM (1999). Integrative eco-marketing. In corporate environmental management in Germany (pp. 163-189). German university publishing house, Wiesbaden.

Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017). A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal of Business Research, 79, 219-227.

Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. The international review of retail, distribution and consumer research, 20(1), 165-173.

Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2010). Sell, give away, or donate: an exploratory study of fashion clothing disposal behaviour in two countries. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(3), 353-368.

Birtwistle, G., & Moore, C. M. (2007). Fashion clothing–where does it all end up?. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

61

Bly, S., Gwozdz, W., & Reisch, L. A. (2015). Exit from the high street: An exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(2), 125-135.

Botsman, R. (2015, May 27). Defining The Sharing Economy: What Is Collaborative Consumption–And What Isn't? Retrieved March 03, 2020, from https://www.fastcompany.com/3046119/defining-the-sharing-economy-what-is- collaborative-consumption-and-what-isnt

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption.

Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of business ethics, 98(4), 597-608.

Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our common future. New York, 8.

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

Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management.

Cassidy, T., & Han, S. L. (2013). Upcycling fashion for mass production. In Sustainability in fashion and textiles: Values, design, production and consumption (pp. 148-163). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Chan, R. Y. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers' green purchase behavior. Psychology & marketing, 18(4), 389-413.

Chang, L. (2018, November 19). Rent the Runway is launching a new way for designers to partner with the company — and it’s great news for subscribers. Business Insider. Retrieved May 04, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.nl/rent-the-runway- launches-rtr-platform-2018-11/

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

62

Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 925-940.

Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry.

Connell, K. Y. H. (2010). Internal and external barriers to eco‐conscious apparel acquisition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), 279-286.

Cook, S. C., & Hodges, N. (2015). Exploring non-ownership apparel consumption through online fashion product rental services: An application of institutional theory.

Cortez, M., Tu, N. T., Van Anh, D., ZagitaNg, B., & Vegafria, E. (2014). Fast Fashion Quadrangle: An Analysis. Academy Of Marketing Studies Journal, 18(1), 1- 18. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/amsjvol18no12014.pdf

Cowan, K., & Kinley, T. (2014). Green spirit: consumer empathies for green apparel. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 493-499.

Dembkowski, S. (1998). The environmental value‐attitude‐system model understanding the divergence between stated environmental consciousness and overt consumer behaviour. Eco‐Management and Auditing, 5(2), 62-74.

Durgee, J. F., & Colarelli O'Connor, G. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 12(2), 89-104.

Ek Styvén, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2020). Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychology & Marketing.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017). A new textiles economy: redesigning fashion’s future. Recuperado de: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report. pdf. Fecha de acceso, 5.

Ferraro, C., Sands, S., & Brace-Govan, J. (2016). The role of fashionability in second-hand shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, 262-268.

63

Figge, F., Young, W., & Barkemeyer, R. (2014). Sufficiency or efficiency to achieve lower resource consumption and emissions? The role of the rebound effect. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 216-224.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.

Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(21), 9175-9179.

Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion Practice, 2(2), 259-265.

Fletcher, K. (2013). Sustainable fashion and textiles: design journeys. Routledge.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

Future Market Insights (2016, October 18). Online Clothing Rental Market. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/online-clothing-rental- market

Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (2015). The unmanageable consumer. Sage.

Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 355-371.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj, 29(2), 75.

Gupta, S., Gwozdz, W., & Gentry, J. (2019). The Role of Style Versus Fashion Orientation on Sustainable Apparel Consumption. Journal of Macromarketing, 39(2), 188-207.

Ha-Brookshire, J. E., & Hodges, N. N. (2009). Socially responsible consumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(3), 179-196.

64

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the association for information science and technology, 67(9), 2047-2059.

Harris, F., Roby, H., & Dibb, S. (2016). Sustainable clothing: challenges, barriers and interventions for encouraging more sustainable consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), 309-318.

Hartmann, P., Ibáñez, V. A., & Sainz, F. J. F. (2005). Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.

Henninger, C. E., Alevizou, P. J., & Oates, C. J. (2016). What is sustainable fashion?. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Hirschl, B., Konrad, W., & Scholl, G. (2003). New concepts in product use for sustainable consumption. Journal of cleaner production, 11(8), 873-881.

Hollins, O. (2006). Recycling of low grade clothing waste. Defra Contract Reference: WRT152. Nonwoven Innovation & Research Institute.

Hüser, A., & Mühlenkamp, C. (1992). Advertising for ecological goods: design aspects from an information economy perspective. Marketing NDT , 14 (3), 149-156.

Iran, S., & Schrader, U. (2017). Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Iwanow, H., McEachern, M. G., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). The influence of ethical trading policies on consumer apparel purchase decisions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

Jägel, 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(3-4), 373-396.

Jemna, L. M. (2016). Qualitative and mixed research methods in economics: the added value when using qualitative research methods. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and law, (09), 154-167.

65

Jørgensen, S., & Pedersen, L. J. T. (2018). RESTART sustainable business model innovation (Palgrave studies in sustainable business in association with Future Earth). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic management review, 3(1-2), 128-143.

Khan, J., & Rundle‐Thiele, S. (2019). Factors explaining shared clothes consumption in China: Individual benefit or planet concern?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 24(4), e1652.

Kim, H. S., & Damhorst, M. L. (1998). Environmental concern and apparel consumption. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(3), 126-133.

Kim, N. L., & Jin, B. E. (2019). Why buy new when one can share? Exploring collaborative consumption motivations for consumer goods. International Journal of Consumer Studies.

Laitala, K., & Klepp, I. G. (2018). Motivations for and against second-hand clothing acquisition. Clothing cultures, 5(2), 247-262.

Laitala, K., Boks, C., & Klepp, I. G. (2011). Potential for environmental improvements in laundering. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(2), 254-264.

Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109-125.

Lang, C., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2018). Fashion leadership and intention toward clothing product-service retail models. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Lang, C., Armstrong, C. M., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: An exploration of the role of personal attributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 706-714.

66

Law, K. M., Zhang, Z. M., & Leung, C. S. (2004). Fashion change and fashion consumption: the chaotic perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Lawson, S. J., Gleim, M. R., Perren, R., & Hwang, J. (2016). Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2615- 2623.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage

Liu, Z., Wang, J., Chen, Q., & Lu, G. (2012). Clothing similarity computation based on TLAC. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology.

Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149-162.

McEachern, M., Seaman, C., Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour. British food journal.

McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212-222.

Meng, M. D., & Leary, R. B. (2019). It might be ethical, but I won't buy it: Perceived contamination of, and disgust towards, clothing made from recycled plastic bottles. Psychology & Marketing.

Meyer, A. (2001). What's in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(5), 317-330.

Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193-207.

Mora, E., Rocamora, A., & Volonté, P. (2014). On the issue of sustainability in fashion studies. International Journal of Fashion Studies, 1(2), 139-147.

67

Morgan, L. R., & Birtwistle, G. (2009). An investigation of young fashion consumers' disposal habits. International journal of consumer studies, 33(2), 190-198.

Murray, J. B. (2002). The politics of consumption: A re-inquiry on Thompson and Haytko's (1997)“Speaking of Fashion”. Journal of consumer research, 29(3), 427-440.

Nagurney, A., & Yu, M. (2012). Sustainable fashion supply chain management under oligopolistic competition and brand differentiation. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 532-540.

Niinimäki, K. (2010). Eco‐clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable development, 18(3), 150-162.

Niinimäki, K. (2017). Fashion in a circular economy. In Sustainability in Fashion (pp. 151- 169). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Okonkwo, U. (2010). Luxury online: Styles, systems, strategies. Springer.

Olsen-Nauen, K., & Rossebø, S. S. (2019). Sharing is caring: collaborative consumption in the fashion industry: an explorative study of the consumer acceptance for fashion-sharing business models in the outdoor and activewear market.

Ozdamar Ertekin, Z., & Atik, D. (2015). Sustainable markets: Motivating factors, barriers, and remedies for mobilization of slow fashion. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53-69.

Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents: Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335- 348.

Pal, R., & Gander, J. (2018). Modelling environmental value: An examination of sustainable business models within the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 251- 263.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42(5), 533-544.

68

Park, H. J., & Lin, L. M. (2018). Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research.

Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2017). Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(5), 465-474.

Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2019). Is money the biggest driver? Uncovering motives for engaging in online collaborative consumption retail models for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 42-50.

Payne, A. (2015). Open-and closed-loop recycling of textile and apparel products. In Handbook of life cycle assessment (LCA) of textiles and clothing (pp. 103-123). Woodhead Publishing.

Peattie, K., & Peattie, S. (2009). Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction?. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 260-268.

Pedersen, E. R. G., & Gwozdz, W. (2014). From resistance to opportunity-seeking: Strategic responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility in the Nordic fashion industry. Journal of business ethics, 119(2), 245-264.

Ponelis, S. R. (2015). Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: A case of Information Systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10(1), 535-550.

Rauturier, S. (2018). What is Fast Fashion?. Retrieved March 30, 2020 https://goodonyou.eco/what-is-fast-fashion/

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of consumer culture, 10(1), 13- 36.

Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two‐sided markets: a progress report. The RAND journal of economics, 37(3), 645-667.

Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management research news.

69

Safdar, K., & Kapner, S. (2017, October 14). Rent the Runway Chases the Fast-Fashion Shopper. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/rent-the-runway-chases-the-fast-fashion-shopper- 1507982400

Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson

Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In Handbook of research on sustainable consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Şen, A. (2008). The US fashion industry: a supply chain review. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 571-593.

Shaw, D., Hogg, G., Wilson, E., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. (2006). Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice. Journal of strategic marketing, 14(4), 427-440.

Slater, K. (2003). Environmental impact of textiles: production, processes and protection (Vol. 27). Woodhead Publishing.

Stål, H. I., & Jansson, J. (2017). Sustainable consumption and value propositions: Exploring product–service system practices among Swedish fashion firms. Sustainable Development, 25(6), 546-558.

Svensson, Vigga. (2016). Consumer culture: The Day Your Baby’s Wardrobe Became Better Than Yours. Accessed from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Pf5Dt8Hg

Szaky, T. (2014). Outsmart waste: The modern idea of garbage and how to think our way out of it. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Tabcum, S. (2019, March 04). The Sharing Economy Is Still Growing, And Businesses Should Take Note. Retrieved May 05, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeslacouncil/2019/03/04/the-sharing-economy-is- still-growing-and-businesses-should-take-note/

70

United Nations Sustainable Development. (n.d.). The Sustainable Development Agenda – Retrieved April 26, 2020, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

US Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: facts and figures for 2012. US Environ. Prot. Agency, 1- 13.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2015). Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2013.

Valle, P. O. D., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and behavior, 37(3), 364-396.

Walle, A. H. (2015). Qualitative research in business: A practical overview. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Westfield London. (2016). How we shop now trend report. Westfield [online]. Retrieved March 10, 2020, from https://uk.westfield.com/london/ how-we-shop-now.

Wigley, S. M., Sinha, P., Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., & Hiller, A. (2012). The sustainable clothing market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International journal of retail & distribution management.

Wittkowski, K., Moeller, S., & Wirtz, J. (2013). Firms’ intentions to use nonownership services. Journal of Service Research, 16(2), 171-185.

Woolridge, A. C., Ward, G. D., Phillips, P. S., Collins, M., & Gandy, S. (2006). Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: An UK energy saving perspective. Resources, conservation and recycling, 46(1), 94-103.

World Economic Forum. (2014). Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Accessed from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_201 4.pdf

71

Wrap (2012) Valuing our clothes. The true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/valuing-our-clothes [Accessed: 9 April 2020].

WRAP (2017). Valuing our clothes: The cost of UK fashion. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Banbury, Oxon. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sustainable‐textiles/valuing‐our‐clothes%20

Yarrow, K. (2014). Decoding the new consumer mind: how and why we shop and buy. John Wiley & Sons.

72

9 Appendix

9.1 Interview Guide Before starting the questions: -

 Ask them if they had any concern related to the consent form or other information

given to them and if they want any amendments to that for the sake of this interview.

 Explain to them that if they need anything to be changed (or stop) while doing the

interview then you can do so without asking any questions.

 Explain to them that they should communicate and stop in between if they feel any

kind of risk.

 Explain about the flow of the interview.

 Give other basic information (sustainability – only environmental sustainability; think

as a consumer; take your time for impromptu questions; average time for the

interview)

 Ask for the consent of recording the interview.

After the consent is given, start with the basic questions to make the person comfortable and to have more information about the moderating factors: -

Understanding the clothing purchasing behaviour

1. How often do you buy clothes and how does the aspect of sustainability impact your

purchasing behaviour?

2. How familiar you are with the environmental impact of the clothing industry, elaborate?

3. A moment when your clothing purchase was impacted by sustainability factor?

73

Recycled and Upcycled Fashion Products

Explain the concept of recycled and upcycled fashion

1. To resonate the normal buying and enquiring behaviour, if you want then you can take

a moment and search online about these clothes?

2. How familiar you are/were with the concepts of recycled and upcycled clothes?

3. How available do you think these products are? (If you want then, you can find a

satisfying product)

4. Identify the barriers and drivers – According to you, what will hinder you and what will

motivate you to buy recycled and upcycled fashion products?

Rental Clothing and Subscription based rental clothing services

Explain the related concepts

1) To resonate the normal buying and enquiring behaviour, if you want then you can take

a moment and search online about these clothes?

2) How familiar you are/were with these concepts?

3) How available do you think these services are? (If you want then, you can find these

services easily)

4) Identify the barriers and drivers – According to you, what will hinder you and what will

motivate you to avail these services?

5) How do you associate the indulgence in these services with the environmental impact?

74

Introduce the proposed model (SBRC MODEL)

Explain the related concepts.

Re-identify the drivers and barriers which the participants mentioned on their own and then check the impact of SBRC on those according to the participants

Introduce the conceptual framework

Explain the business side of each combinations and ask them to comment on each as a consumer

(one by one)

1. How will the proposed model impact your overall sustainable fashion consumption

behaviour?

Switch off the recording. Close the interview with the thank you note.

Close with other formalities such as how the person can receive the information about the results and how the person can contact you if the person has any level of concern or the person wants to amend some statement or if the person wants to delete the data or if the person has any other request.

75

9.2 Participant Information Sheet

Research Title: Sustainable Consumption Behaviour: Exploring the integration of Sustainable

Fashion Products and Collaborative Fashion Consumption Services

In simple words: Analysing the consumer acceptance for a business which offers rental clothing services of only recycled clothes

Researchers:

Chief Investigator/Researcher: Dr Nicolas Pontes, lecturer at The University of Queensland,

Business School, is the Chief Investigator. Dr Pontes will be responsible for the design of the research, coordination of the project, supervision of collection and data analysis, and preparation of papers. He will be the contact person for the Human Research Ethical

Application.

Investigator/Researcher: Saurabh Kumar, Masters of Global Management final semester student at The University of Queensland Australia will be responsible for conducting the research work under the supervision of the Chief Investigator.

Thank you for your interest in participating in this research project. Please read the following information about the project so that you can decide whether you would like to take part in this research. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have about our involvement in the project.

Participation and Consent

In this study, you will be asked to participate in a short audio/video interview (depending on your preference). The interview be of approximately 60 minutes. You will be asked some

76

questions related to your sustainable fashion consumption behaviour, the barriers you face while doing that and the motivation for indulging in such a behaviour.

Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not have to answer any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon any current or future relationship with the University of Queensland.

If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the research project during your participation without comment or penalty. Any information already obtained that can be linked to you will be destroyed. You will not be able to review your responses before submitting or save a copy of your responses after submitting the survey. You may withdraw from the interview at any point. If you withdraw without completing the interview, then your responses will not be used.

Privacy and Confidentiality

All data and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law.

All data and information gained in this study will be stored so that they are not identifiable and cannot be linked to you. Data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per UQ

Management of research data policy. Presentation and publication of the results of this project will be in aggregate form. Non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used by other researchers in similar or related projects.

77

What is this research about?

The growing concern for the environment is attracting consumers towards sustainable products or services in the market. It is important to find synergy between the multiple options available for the consumers. The fashion industry being one of the most polluting industries is moving rapidly towards sustainability. Surprisingly, only recently the consumption end of the fashion industry has attracted researchers.

Sustainable fashions products such as recycled and upcycled products and collaborative fashion consumption services such as rental and second-hand are most common. These have been explored previously by the researchers as two different concepts and sold by companies as two different products and/or services. The goal of this research is to find a synergy between two.

What will I need to do?

If you agree to participate then we will collaborate online through a channel of your preferred choice (which is free to use). You can opt for the audio interview if you do not feel comfortable on the video interview. The interview will be recorded but only after gaining your consent. The interview may last approximately 60 minutes and you can withdraw at any time if you wish to.

You will be well appreciated for imparting your valuable time. The interviewer will also be more than happy to give further knowledge about the existing services in the fashion industry and how the trend is shifting to sustainable fashion such that you can use utilise the information for your future involvement in the clothing industry.

78

What are the possible benefits of taking part?

There is no direct benefit received by the participant. However, you might gain knowledge of various options and potential fashion options available in the world. The participant can ask potential questions about the topic and the interviewer will try to answer them. Moreover, you can send the questions before the interview for the related topic if participants seeks to gain more knowledge about the topic, the researcher will be happy to answer them after the interview. Moreover, at the end of the interview, the researcher will make the participant informed about the current situation of the sustainable fashion such that that can help the participant while making future purchasing decisions related to sustainable fashion.

What are the possible risks and disadvantages of taking part?

There is not any potential mental or physical risk to the interviewee beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

However, if you feel so, then you can opt out at any point of time and ask the interviewer to delete all the data recorded. The questions asked is very open ended so that you can explain about your choice freely.

What will happen to the information about me?

All information collected about you will remain confidential. The information collected will be coded and will be analysed for the research purpose of this research only. All the collected data will be deleted as and when you want me to do so otherwise it will be deleted automatically within 60 days.

79

It is anticipated that the results of this research project will be published and/or presented in a variety of forms. In any publication and/or presentation, information will be provided in such a way that you cannot be identified.

What will happen if I decide to withdraw?

Your participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the research anytime without needing to provide any explanation, and you would not receive any penalty or bias as a result of your withdrawal. Should you decide to withdraw, all the information collected from/about you will be destroyed and will not be used in the research.

Can I hear about the results of this research?

If you wish to hear about the results of the research, then you need to contact on [email protected]. The results will not be sent automatically because all the relevant details such as email id, video channel id, etc will be deleted soon after the interview will be conducted to ensure maximum possible anonymity. However, if you want to receive the result then drop me an email after 60 days of the interview and the results will be well communicated to you and the website where my thesis will be available to public will also be communicated such that you can refer to that in future.

Who can I contact if I have any concerns about the project?

This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of The University of

Queensland and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher contactable on [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in the study, you may contact the Ethics Coordinator on +61 7 3365 3924 or email [email protected]

80

Thank you for helping with this research project.

By ticking the button below, you are indicating that you have read the informed consent statements above and agree to participate. If do not wish to participate, simply close this window.

 I agree to participate

This research Ethics ID number: SK01131

81

9.3 Ethics Approval Letter

82

83