Sustainability in the Fast Fashion Industry

A quantitative Study on Consumers’ Brand Attitude towards Green Brand Extensions and its Effects on Brand Loyalty

Celina Hinzmann, Rebecca Stark-Nässlin

Department of Business Administration Master’s Thesis in Business Administration III, 30 hp, Spring 2020 Master’s Program in Marketing Supervisor: Vladimir Vanyushyn

ABSTRACT

Only a few industries face challenges regarding sustainability to the same extent as the fashion industry being one of the largest consumer industries and the second most polluting industry in the world. These challenges are encouraged by the fast fashion business model, which is dominant in the sector and relies on the quick responsiveness to latest fashion trends while maintaining low prices, encouraging more consumption and shorter product life cycles. On the other side, a consumer shift towards more environmental consciousness can be observed leading to most fast fashion brands integrating sustainability in various forms into their products and services. A path that many fast fashion brands take in order to become more sustainable is the strategy of green branding through green brand extensions. Green brand extensions (GBEs) involve the application of an established brand name to new and greener products due to environmental considerations of the brand and can be divided into green line extensions (GLEs) and green category extensions (GCEs).

Due to identified research gaps concerning how green brand extensions change consumer attitudes as well as the relationship between brand loyalty and the green image of brands, the following research question got developed to gain in-depth in consumer behavior in the fast fashion industry related to green brand extensions:

RQ: How do green brand extensions of fast fashion brands affect the consumers’ parent brand attitude and brand loyalty?

This primary study that aims to answer the research question was conducted following a deductive research approach and adopting a quantitative research design through collecting data by means of a web questionnaire. Thereby, the brand attitude of fashion consumers on green line and green category extensions as well as the relationship to brand loyalty got investigated focusing on Generation Y and Z as largest consumer groups of fast fashion.

The main results of the study are that the introduction of a GLE by a fast fashion brand generally leads to a more positive brand attitude and a slightly improved brand loyalty of consumers towards the parent brand. However, when introducing a GCE, the launch has rarely a positive effect on the brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers towards the parent brand. The relationship of GLEs and brand attitude is thereby moderated by the environmental concern of consumers as well as their friends and by the initial brand attitude towards the fast fashion brand. The relationship of GLEs and brand loyalty on the other hand is only moderated by environmental concern of consumers and the initial brand attitude. Looking at GCEs and their relationship with brand attitude as well as brand loyalty, it is influenced and moderated by the age of consumers, the environmental concern of their friends as well as consumers’ initial brand loyalty towards the parent brand.

Keywords: Fast fashion, Fast Fashion Industry, Sustainability, Consumer behavior, Brand extensions, Green brand extensions, Green line extensions, Green category extensions, Brand attitude, Brand loyalty, Brand Switching

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our supervisor Vladimir Vanyushyn at Umeå School of Business, Economics, and Statistics for his continuous constructive feedback and suggestions which helped us improve the quality of our thesis.

Moreover, we would like to thank all the participants in our survey who made the conducted primary study possible as well as our relatives and friends who supported and inspired us during this process.

Umeå University, May 19, 2020

Celina Hinzmann & Rebecca Stark-Nässlin

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Problem Background: The Challenge Sustainability 1 1.1.1 The Fashion Industry and Sustainability 1 1.1.2 Increasing Consumer Awareness towards Sustainable Products 3 1.1.3 Fast Fashion Companies’ Reactions to the Sustainability Trend 4 1.1.4 Green Brand Extensions and the Importance of Brand Loyalty 4 1.2 Identified Research Gaps 5 1.3 Research Purpose & Research Question 6 1.4 Delimitations 7 1.5 Contribution 7 2. Theoretical Framework 8 2.1 The Fast Fashion Industry 8 2.1.1 What is Fast Fashion? 9 2.1.2 Environmental Sustainability in the Fashion Industry 11 2.1.3 Sustainable Branding in the Fast Fashion Industry 12 2.1.3.1 The Concept of Brands and Branding 13 2.1.3.2 Drivers for Sustainable Branding 14 2.1.3.3 Sustainability as Brand Positioning Strategy 16 2.1.3.4 Green Brand Extensions as Form of Sustainable Branding 17 2.2 Consumers in the Fast Fashion Industry 18 2.2.1 Main Age Groups of Fast Fashion Consumers 19 2.2.1.1 Generation Y Consumers 19 2.2.1.2 Generation Z Consumers 20 2.2.2 Consumer Decision Making in the Fast Fashion Industry 21 2.2.2.1 Specific Consumption Patterns in the Fast Fashion Industry 22 2.2.2.2 Influencing Factors related to the Consumer 23 2.2.3 Brand Attitude 25 2.2.3.1 Influencing Factors related to the Brand 26 2.2.3.2 Brand Attitude towards Sustainable Products 28 2.2.3.3 Brand Attitude Outcomes 29 2.2.3.3.1 Brand Loyalty 29 2.2.3.3.2 Brand Switching 30 2.3 Integrative Model & Hypotheses 31 3. Scientific and Practical Methodology 35 3.1 Pre-understanding of Relevant Topics 35 3.2 Literature Search & Literature Review 36 3.3. Research Philosophy 36 3.3.1 Ontology 37

3.3.2 Epistemology 39 3.4 Research Approach 40 3.5 Research Design 41 3.6 Quality Criteria 43 3.7 Data Collection 45 3.8 Ethical Considerations 46 3.9 Survey Design 47 3.10 Sampling Technique 53 3.11 Data Analysis Strategy 54 4. Empirical Findings 56 4.1 Findings on Demographics and Moderators related to the Consumer 57 4.2 Findings on Moderators related to the Brand and Brand Attitude 64 4.3 Findings on Green Line vs. Green Category Extensions 66 4.4 Cronbach’s Alpha 72 5. Analysis and Discussion 72 5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis 73 5.1.1 Regression 1 73 5.1.2 Regression 2 75 5.2 Discussion and Results 76 5.3 Revision of the Integrative Model and Hypothesis Testing 81 6. Conclusions 84 6.1 General Conclusion 85 6.2 Theoretical Contribution 86 6.3 Recommendations to Practitioners 87 6.4 Societal Implications 87 6.5 Limitations and Future Research 88

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Overview of the Questionnaire and References. Table 2. Overview of the identified Variables. Table 3. Descriptive Statistics FI. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics EC. Table 5. Descriptive Statistics SB. Table 6. Descriptive Statistics FxEC. Table 7. Ranking of Factors Most Important to Least Important. Table 8. Outcome Brand Example. Table 9. Outcome Brand Example split according to Age. Table 10. Outcome Brand Example split according to Gender. Table 11. Descriptive Statistics Green Line Extension. Table 12. Descriptive Statistics Green Category Extension. Table 13. Paired Samples Test GBExBA. Table 14. Paired Samples Test GBExBL. Table 15. Paired Samples Test GBExBF. Table 16. Paired Samples Test GBExS. Table 17. Paired Samples Test GBExSB. Table 18. Cronbach’s Alpha. Table 19. Regression 1: Green Line Extension. Table 20. Regression 2: Green Category Extension. Table 21. Effects of moderating variables on Green Line Extensions. Table 22. Effects of moderating variables on Green Category Extensions.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Components of Brand Equity. (Source: Mademlis & Werneborg, 2019, p. 11) Figure 2. Theoretical Summary. (Own depiction) Figure 3. Integrative Model to guide the Primary Research. (Own depiction) Figure 4. The Research Onion. (Source: Saunders et al., 2019, p. 130) Figure 5. The Deductive and Inductive Approach to Reasoning. (Source: Bryman, 2016, p. 23) Figure 6. Four Stages of Validity and Reliability in a Question. (Source: Saunders et al., 2016, p. 450) Figure 7. Responses FI Statements (in percentage). Figure 8. Responses EC Statements (in percentage). Figure 9. Responses SB Statements (in percentage). Figure 10. Responses FxEC Statement (in percentage). Figure 11. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would like Brand X even more’. Figure 12. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would buy products from Brand X more often’. Figure 13. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘The sustainable extension fits to Brand X’. Figure 14. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would be sceptical towards a green extension of Brand X’. Figure 15. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would tell my friends about the extension of Brand X’.

Figure 16. Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would only buy the new line if the products have similar features’. Figure 17. Revised Integrative Model 1: Green Line Extension. (Own depiction) Figure 18. Revised Integrative Model 2: Green Category Extension. (Own depiction)

ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA - Analysis of Variance BA - Brand Attitude (Identified variable) BF - Brand Fit (Identified variable) BL - Brand Loyalty (Identified variable) BPS - Brand Positioning Strategy CO2 - Chemical formula of Carbon Dioxide CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility DV - Dependent variable EA - Environmental Awareness (Identified variable) EC - Environmental Concern (Identified variable) E.g. - Example given Etc. - Etcetera EU - European Union F - Friends (Identified variable) F.e. - For example FI - Fashion Interest (Identified variable) FMCG - Fast-moving consumer good GBE - Green Brand Extension GCE - Green Category Extension Gen Y - Generation Y Gen Z - Generation Z GLE - Green Line Extension GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation I.e. - In example IV - Independent variable M - Moderator NGO - Non-governmental organization REACH - Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (Regulation regarding chemicals in textiles in the EU) S - Scepticism (Identified variable) SB - Social Belonging (Identified variable) TBL - Triple Bottom Line UN - United Nations

KEY DEFINITIONS

Fast fashion Fast fashion is a business model pursued by several fashion retailers that involves the quick responsiveness to latest fashion trends while maintaining low prices, encouraging more consumption and shorter product life cycles (Own definition).

Sustainability Sustainable development means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 403).

Environmental Sustainability Environmental sustainability involves making responsible choices that will reduce the negative impacts of businesses on the ecological environment (Park & Kim, 2016a, p. 29).

Sustainable Fashion Sustainable fashion includes fashion products with a conscience to care about labor conditions and environmental responsibility (Shen et al., 2014, p. 972). In the context of this study, the terms ‘Green fashion’, ‘Ethical fashion’ as well as ‘Eco-fashion’ are being used as synonyms.

Brand A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competitors (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 549).

Brand Equity Brand equity is the value of a brand, based on the extent to which it has brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, strong brand associations and other assets such as patents, trademarks and channel relationships (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 556).

Brand Identity Brand identity refers to a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain (Da Silveira et al., 2011, p. 29).

Brand Positioning Brand positioning refers to the strategic process of uniquely placing a product or service in the mind of the consumer (Mademlis & Werneborg, 2019, p. 11).

Brand Awareness Brand awareness refers to consumers’ capability to identify a certain brand under different circumstances e.g. to what degree certain brands are remembered by consumers (Keller, 1993, p. 3).

Brand Image Brand image can be defined as the perceptions consumers have about a brand which are the brand associations held in consumers memory (Keller, 1993, p. 3).

Brand Knowledge Brand knowledge can be defined as a structure in memory consisting of beliefs and an attitude, which are associated with different degrees of strength (Keller, 1993, p. 2).

Sustainable Branding Sustainable or green branding refers to establishing a brand which can be easily differentiated from competitors’ brands due to the factor sustainability (Danciu, 2015, p. 52).

Brand Extension Brand extensions involve the application of an established brand name to new products in order to capitalize on the equity of the original brand name and to capture new market segments (Kim et al., 2001, p. 211).

Line Extension Line extensions can be defined as using a successful brand name to introduce additional items in a given product category under the same brand name (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 565).

Category Extension Category extensions refer to using a successful brand name to launch a new or modified product in a new category (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 565).

Green Brand Extension Green brand extensions can be defined as the application of an established brand name to new and greener products due to environmental considerations of the brand (Own definition).

Brand Attitude Brand attitude represents the previous experience a consumer had with a brand and his or her respective expectations on the brand (Kim & Ma, 2014, p. 168).

Greenwashing Greenwashing is the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company (Delmas & Burbano, 2011, p. 66).

Brand Loyalty Brand loyalty reflects a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product and service consistently in the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293).

Brand Switching Brand switching intentions are the possibility of transferring consumers’ existing transactions with an organization to a competitor (Wu et al., 2018, p. 697).

1. Introduction

To introduce the subject of the present master’s thesis, the first part of this chapter gives insights in the problem background of the chosen topic, beginning with the fashion industry and industry issues regarding sustainability from an environmental, social and economic perspective. As consumers become more aware of sustainability issues, changing consumer attitudes towards sustainable products are outlined. Leading to many fast fashion brands pursuing the strategy of green brand extensions by launching greener product lines or product categories, possible consumer reactions towards green branding in relation to brand loyalty are described. Based on these findings, research gaps that this work intends to fill are defined, which leads to the research purpose as a guideline for this thesis and the statement of the underlying research question in the second and third part of the introductory chapter. Finally, the chapter concludes with delimitations of the work.

1.1 Problem Background: The Challenge Sustainability

“Nearly every apparel marketer is following consumer demand by leaping onto the green wagon” (Pasquarelli, 2019). Since the 1970’s, consumers have steadily gained awareness and understanding regarding the magnitude of environmental issues due to an increasing level of education (Mohd Isa & Xin Yao, 2013, p. 84). Together with the potential risks of climate change and growing concerns with respect to limited natural resources, the increased consumer awareness led to sustainability becoming one of the mega trends of the past years across industries (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 1). In only four years, the global market value of green products has gained a fourfold increase from $209 billion in 2011 to $845 billion in 2015 (Lin et al., 2016, p. 425). Influencing consumers as well as companies to make more conscious decisions, sustainability has turned into a fundamental concept that guides society (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 1), including generally speaking the three dimensions of social inclusion, economic efficiency and environmental responsibility.

1.1.1 The Fashion Industry and Sustainability

One of the industries in which sustainability holds a lot of potential due to the upgradeable performance regarding green practices in the past and up until now is the fashion industry. Park & Kim (2016b, p. 114) argue that there are only a few industries that face challenges regarding sustainability to the same extent as the fashion industry. Textiles and clothing are a fundamental part of everyone’s life, making the $2.5 trillion fashion and apparel industry one of the largest consumer industries (Kell, 2018). One concept that emerged in the late 1990’s and that has become a source of particular growth for many companies in the industry is fast fashion (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 165). The concept of fast fashion relies on mass production, low prices and large volume of sales, referring to clothing that moves quickly from the catwalk to stores in order to capture current fashion trends, which becomes possible through short production- and lead times (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 168). Encouraging over-consumption, the clothing production has approximately doubled between 2000 and 2014 as consumers in the European Union (EU) bought 40 % more garments on average (Sajn, 2019, p. 1) and globally, consumers bought even 60 % more garments than a few decades ago (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). In Europe, fashion companies went from two collections per year in 2000 to an average of 5 collections in 2011, with the Spanish fast fashion retailer Zara having the shortest design- to-retail cycle of five weeks, leading to 24 collections per year (Sajn, 2019, p. 2). However,

1

as the production of garments increases steadily, consumers keep their clothes nowadays only half as long as in 2000 and about 40 % of clothes in the wardrobes of developed countries are never worn (Kell, 2018). The worldwide clothing utilization, meaning the average number of times a garment is worn by a consumer before its disposal, has decreased by 36 % compared to 15 years ago (Press, 2019) and is now at 10 average usages per garment. It is estimated that more than half of fast fashion produced is disposed of in less than a year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, p. 19). Economically, customers miss out on $460 billion of value globally by discarding clothes that could still be worn.

Fast fashion as the dominant business model in the sector led to the fashion industry being the second most polluting industry in the world according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (Villemain, 2019). The production of fashion caused 1,2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2015, which is equal to up to 10 % of the total global CO2 emissions (Kell, 2018). This number is higher than the emissions of all international flights and maritime shipping combined (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, p. 20). Another environmental issue caused by the fashion industry is the immense consumption of water. Using around 93 billion cubic meters of water annually (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, p. 20), the fashion industry is the second largest consumer of water worldwide and responsible for 20 % of the world’s industrial wastewater (Kell, 2018). It takes around 2.000 gallons of water to produce one pair of jeans, which equals enough drinking water for one person for 10 years (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). But the fashion industry does not only use an enormous amount of water, it is also responsible for 20 % of all industrial water pollution worldwide as it has been identified as a major contributor to the problem of plastic entering the ocean during the washing of plastic-based textiles (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). Especially the dying process of garments uses an horrendous amount of water, with which two million olympic-sized swimming pools could be filled each year and is simultaneously also the world’s second largest polluter of water. Looking at the almost completely linear way of producing, distributing and using clothing, also the disposal of apparel poses a great threat to the environment. Cheap production and cheap end prices for consumers lead to excessive waste. Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck filled with clothes is burned or dumped in a landfill, which in total is up to 85 % of textiles going to waste per year (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation calculated that more than $500 billion of value is lost every year due to the underutilisation of clothing and the lack of recycling (House of Commons, 2019, p. 5).

The fashion industry also has a significant impact on the social dimension of sustainability. Being the world’s third biggest manufacturing industry after the automotive and technology industry (House of Commons, 2019, p. 5), garment production is also one of the world’s most labour-intensive manufacturing industries with more than 60 million people employed along its global value chain (House of Commons, 2019, p. 12). Since the 1980’s, many fashion retailers have offshored their production to benefit from low labour costs. Feeling the ongoing price pressure within the fashion industry, fashion companies keep wages of workers of which the majority are women and girls mostly at the minimum wage in their country, which is in many cases below the level of subsistence. According to the Fair Labor Association, the average worker in the garment industry in Bangladesh, the world’s second largest garment exporter, would need an 80 % pay raise to earn a wage living up to only the most conservative living wage benchmark (Kjellqvist & Sjödin, 2018, p. 33). Quartz reports that clothing workers are some of the worst paid in the world while being subject to unsafe conditions and health hazards (Bain, 2018). Those poverty wages combined with working hours of 10-12 hours or even more per day (Kjellqvist & Sjödin,

2

2018, p. 7) that often go beyond legal limits and that lead in many cases to workers not being able to continue beyond their 30’s, show the impact of the fashion industry on societies (House of Commons, 2019, p. 13). Looking at the highly unbalanced value chains of fashion companies, “it takes a CEO from one of the world’s top five fashion brands just four days to earn the same amount a Bangladeshi garment worker will earn over her lifetime” (Bain, 2018).

Viewing the future of the fashion industry, it is expected to expand further as the world population steadily increases exceeding 8 billion this decade (House of Commons, 2019, p. 8). Alone since 2017, the apparel and footwear industry grew between 4 to 5 % (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 2). Until 2030, it is projected that the global apparel consumption could rise by 63 % from 62 million in 2019 tons to 102 million tons (House of Commons, 2019, p. 8).

1.1.2 Increasing Consumer Awareness towards Sustainable Products

Having clarified selected problems of the fashion industry concerning sustainability, it is highly interesting to investigate the consumers’ mindsets with respect to the current state of the fashion industry. Once fueling the fast fashion development, recent research has found a consumer shift towards increasing sustainability awareness. Social campaigns such as #fashionrevolution and #whomademyclothes as well as huge scandals like the factory collapse of Rana Plaza in 2013 that killed over 1.000 workers have spread demand for more transparency and more sustainable practices among consumers (Pasquarelli, 2019). Also non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are generating more awareness of the industry’s negative social and environmental impact by educating consumers through tools such as the Fashion Transparency Index about garment factories and suppliers of fashion brands (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 17).

Consumers are more environmentally conscious than ever before (Cheng, 2019). According to a survey conducted by the consulting firm BCG, 75 % of interviewed consumers view sustainability as extremely or very important (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 11). Furthermore, measurement and data analytics company Nielsen found that 81 % of consumers feel strongly that companies should help the environment (Pasquarelli, 2019). Regarding sustainable behavior of consumers, 93 % of consumers claim that they participate in some type of sustainability efforts and 75 % agree that it is somewhat important for them to purchase from sustainable brands (Borin et al., 2013, p. 118). Therefore, consulting firm McKinsey & Company found that internet searches for sustainable fashion have tripled between 2016 and 2019 (Berg et al., 2019, p. 11). As price plays an important factor when buying fast fashion, it is interesting to see that some consumers even claim that they are willing to pay premium prices for environmentally friendly products (Lin et al., 2016, p. 425). Specifically Generation Z (Gen Z) and millennial consumers “increasingly back their beliefs with their shopping habits, favoring brands that are aligned with their values and avoiding those that don’t” (Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company, 2019, p. 45). Therefore, 48 % of Gen Z consumers have switched from/ to certain fashion brands in the past based on social and environmental practices (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 11). But research has also shown that sustainability considerations are not yet powerful enough to be the most important factor when purchasing fashion items, since sustainability is until now for only 7 % of consumers the most important driver of purchasing behavior (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 12). Nevertheless, as especially consumers that are well aware of sustainability issues in the fashion industry

3

value transparency in fashion companies’ business practices (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 114), fast fashion companies need to pay increasingly attention to these developments since more than 50 % of the Gen Z consumers plan to switch brands in the future if there are greener alternatives (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 11) and Gen Z will account for 40 % of global consumers by 2020 (Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company, 2019, p. 45). According to Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 2), the increased interest in environmental challenges among consumers is not showing any signs of slowing down and is even becoming a large determinant in consumers’ decision making.

1.1.3 Fast Fashion Companies’ Reactions to the Sustainability Trend

With consumers becoming more environmentally conscious and “billions of people using consumption as a means to express their deeply-held beliefs” (Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company, 2019, p. 45), most fast fashion brands are responding by integrating sustainability in various forms into their products and services and using the strategy of green branding. To integrate sustainability into products and services has resulted in a large increase of sales for those brands (Papista et al., 2017, p. 101). According to the Pulse of Fashion report, improvements come especially from two segments: small- sized players in the mid-price segment and medium to large-sized companies in the lower price segment (Lehmann et al., 2019, p. 2). Edwin Keh, the CEO of the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel, claims that “the willingness and ability to change is what’s going to be the distinguishing characteristic of the winners and the losers in the next ten years” (Berg et al., 2019, p. 10). One recent happening in the fashion industry underlining his statement is the bankruptcy of the fast fashion retailer Forever 21, signaling the shift in consumer tastes and highlighting the relevance for firms to adopt more sustainable practices. “A population focused on sustainability just doesn’t fit in with Forever 21’s ethos” (Cheng, 2019). Therefore, most fast fashion retailers work in different ways towards becoming greener as this endeavor is likely to be critical for competitive success in the near future. According to a survey of top global executives, the majority of firms have eco-friendly strategies and a corporate board dedicated to the issue (Olsen et al., 2014, p. 119). In the fashion industry, this trend is also clearly indicated by the 5 times increase in the number of sustainable fashion products launched over the past two years (Berg et al., 2019, p. 11). Thereby, environmental sustainability, specifically resource efficiency, transparency and sustainable materials, is the top focus of executives in fashion firms according to a McKinsey survey (Berg et al., 2019, p. 14). Examining the large fast fashion players with respect to their values, current initiatives and visions, it is striking that almost all of them set a focus on sustainability. “All of us here at Inditex are committed to sustainability, one of our firm’s core strategic principles” as Pablo Isla, Inditex CEO, stated (Inditex, 2019). Other examples are statements by Tadashi Yanai, Fast Retailing President and CEO, that claimed that “profitability has little meaning unless we do our part to put society firmly on a path of stable and sustainable development” (Fast Retailing, 2018, p. 5) as well as Adidas Group CEO Kasper Rorsted, saying: “We see it as an obligation for us as a global company to do business in a responsible and sustainable way” (Adidas Group, 2016, p. 4).

1.1.4 Green Brand Extensions and the Importance of Brand Loyalty

A path that many fast fashion firms take in order to become more sustainable and to improve the brand’s image towards consumers is the strategy of green branding through green brand extensions (GBEs) (Borin et al., 2013, p.118). Brand extensions as growth

4

strategy in general have become the most common approach for companies in the last two decades (Milberg et al., 2010, p. 543) and Chatterjee (2009, p. 368) state that over 85 % of new product introductions in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry are brand extensions. Generally, brand extensions involve the application of an established brand name to new products and they can be divided into two different forms, vertical and horizontal brand extensions (Kim et al., 2001, pp. 211). Vertical brand extensions involve the extension of the brand within the same product category, often with the differentiation factor of price or quality. Those vertical brand extensions are often also referred to as line extensions and looking at fast fashion companies pursuing green branding, many examples of this described path can be named. Zara, the main brand in the portfolio of the Inditex Group, launched its eco-conscious Join Life collection in 2016, accounting for 20 % of Zara’s offerings by the end of 2019 (Holgate, 2019). Another example of a green line extension (GLE) is the sporting goods company Adidas that introduced its collaboration with Parley for the Oceans in 2015 which consists of shoes from recycled plastic from the ocean as it is estimated that there will be more plastic in the ocean than sea life by 2050 (Newbold, 2019). In another collaboration, Adidas works on innovations regarding sustainable and recycled materials together with designer Stella McCartney and also the third largest fast fashion group H&M launched its conscious line within the H&M brand already back in 2010 which is made with sustainable materials such as organic cotton and polyester. Contrary to vertical brand extensions, the introduction of products from a new product class are called horizontal brand extensions, therefore also referred to as category extensions. According to Hill & Lee (2015, p. 206), numerous fast fashion retailers have utilized brand extension strategies to introduce new categories such as menswear or children’s wear. An example for a green category extension (GCE) is the interior collection ‘Lindex-Baby Home’, which got recently introduced by the Swedish fashion retailer Lindex. Through the collection, Lindex tapped into a new product category by extending their existing baby collection with playful interior pieces for the baby room (Lindex, 2020). Thereby, all pieces are made out of recycled polyester and organic cotton that is GOTS- certified.

As the theoretical framework chapter will outline, the strategy of brand extensions has advantages and disadvantages. However, Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 4) argue that, even though consumers still prefer a favorite brand over a green brand, the increased awareness amongst consumers towards sustainability can change their purchase behavior accordingly. That is why companies need to take green branding strategies such as GBEs into account in order to be successful in the long-term perspective. One of the key elements for driving future business success is customer satisfaction as this factor has a major impact on brand equity from a consumer-based perspective (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 2). Brand equity in turn plays a critical role for brands because it adds value to products or services and therefore helps brands to develop positive customer perception and achieve in turn customer loyalty. It is five times more expensive to gain new customers compared to building strong and loyal relationships with existing customers (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293). As an increasing number of consumers switch between brands, a loss of customers can decrease companies’ profits (Zhang et al., 2018, p. 1). Especially in industries such as the fashion industry where competition between many brands is intense, brand loyalty is crucial (Lin et al., 2016, p. 428).

5

1.2 Identified Research Gaps

Looking at existing research regarding consumer attitudes of brands becoming more green, there is first of all a lack of causal evidence to support that consumers are positively impacted by companies’ sustainability efforts. Olsen et al. (2014, p. 120) state that extensive literature can be found on how brand extensions change consumer attitudes towards a brand, but research has remained silent on the introduction of specifically green products and if and how those change brand attitude. Therefore, future studies need to investigate consumers’ pro environmental attitudes and their effect on brand loyalty further (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 2). In connection to this, there is also limited research on the relationship between brand loyalty and the green image of brands (Lin et al., 2016, p. 428). According to Papista et al. (2017, p. 101), research has revealed a gap between consumers' pro-environmental attitudes and their purchase behavior. However, there is little emphasis on green branding and consumer loyalty in connection to consumers attitudes within this research, which indicates a gap that this thesis intends to fill.

Examining more specifically literature on the fashion industry, Kim et al. (2013, p. 245) argue that generally too little attention had been paid to fast fashion retailing management and the existing literature focuses mainly on the supplier’s side by doing research on supply chain management themes instead of looking at consumers’ attitudes. One research attempt that emphasized however more on the consumer side is a study by Hill & Lee (2015, p. 205) that test Generation Y (Gen Y) consumer brand attitudes regarding a potential sustainable line extension of a fast fashion retailer, but the authors argue that future research should investigate younger generations to update their findings (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 218). As stated earlier, Generation Z consumers will account for 40 % of global consumers by 2020, which makes this target group highly interesting to include in further research. But the authors also argue that further research on Generation Y consumers concerning their specific perceptions on purchasing sustainable products would be helpful to bridge an existing gap between consumers’ opinions and actual behavior regarding sustainability, which in turn would be useful for companies. Furthermore, the connection of brand commitment and sustainability efforts of fast fashion brands needs more research in order to prove a positive relation between the two factors. Thereby, the area of brand switching which can be considered the opposite of brand loyalty is especially interesting to investigate when examining category extensions (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 381).

1.3 Research Purpose & Research Question

This study intends to fill these presented gaps by conducting further research on consumers in the fashion industry. Therefore, existing literature findings on two identified focus areas, the fast fashion industry and the consumer side regarding purchasing behaviours, brand attitudes and potential brand loyalty, are being analyzed before conducting primary data on consumers via the quantitative research method. The primary research of this study is revolving around brand attitudes of consumers on vertical and horizontal GBEs by fast fashion companies and whether the relation is mostly positive or negative. The focus lays on Generation Y and Z consumers to fill the gap of a lack of data on Gen Z, but also to investigate whether the perceptions of these two generations are rather similar or discrepant. Thereby, it is highly interesting to find out more about the process of how fashion consumers make purchase decisions and to what extent sustainability matters for them regarding the purchase decision. Finally, the study intends to shed light on the relationship of GBEs by companies and brand loyalty with respect to whether the aspect

6

of sustainability in fast fashion has a strengthening effect on brand loyalty or not. To precisely state what will be investigated in the present master’s thesis and to narrow down the issue, a research question to guide the paper got developed. According to Bryman (2016, p. 6), “a research question is a question that provides an explicit statement of what it is the researcher wants to find out about.” In order to gain in-depth knowledge on consumers’ perceptions regarding sustainability in the fast fashion industry and to fulfill the research purpose, the following research question got formulated:

RQ: How do green brand extensions of fast fashion brands affect the consumers’ parent brand attitude and brand loyalty?

1.4 Delimitations

In order to set boundaries for this research and consequently to provide clearer results, a first delimitation to the present thesis is the consideration of established fast fashion brands that are well-known and that pursue the strategy of GBEs instead of considering brands in the fashion industry in general. Fast fashion brands have the biggest negative impact on the environment and social factors due to the large number of collections per year and the offering of low prices. Therefore, they are the opposite of sustainable fashion brands and thus highly interesting to investigate as consumers shift more and more towards a conscious and sustainable behaviour. In this context, it is important to highlight that the study will examine fast fashion brands and not fast fashion companies, even though the term ‘Company’ will be used frequently being the umbrella for the brands in the brand portfolio and being responsible for setting the strategy for the brands. Another delimitation is the consideration of GBEs and therefore the exclusion of other corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices undergone by fast fashion companies. As GBEs within the fast fashion industry are very product-centered, brands focus mostly on the use of recycled materials, which touches mostly upon the dimension of environmental sustainability. Thus, environmental sustainability within the fast fashion industry will be the emphasis, even though the social and economic factors of sustainability are also indirectly involved in GBEs. Considering the consumer side of this thesis, the conducted primary research focuses regarding the age of potential participants on generation Y and Z fashion consumers due to the explained research gap regarding generation Z consumers, excluding other age groups. Concerning the country of origin of participants, the primary research will exclusively focus on consumers that have been living in Europe for the majority of their life, thereby excluding those who have been living in countries outside of Europe for the majority of their lives. However, due to our own personal background in Sweden and Germany, we expect to get the majority of responses from those two countries.

1.5 Contribution

The contribution to the existing literature on GBEs and its effect on the parent brand in terms of attitudes and loyalty of consumers are threefold. First, we contribute to a better understanding of GBEs and its effect on brand equity among Gen Y and Gen Z consumers in Europe. Second, we explore factors that relate to the fast fashion industry and how it relates to sustainability. Third, our study helps to emphasize the importance of GBEs by identifying and investigating moderating factors on brand attitude and brand loyalty toward the parent brand of fast fashion retailers. We are of the belief that the results of this study can be of value for managers, marketers, young consumers and fast fashion brands.

7

2. Theoretical Framework

“A thorough, sophisticated literature review is the foundation and inspiration for substantial, useful research” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). Therefore, this second chapter introduces the theoretical background by examining relevant existing literature. Split into two relevant perspectives, the chapter lays the foundation for the reader to understand the intent and following primary research better. The first subchapter explains the fast fashion industry further and shows how the mega trend sustainability is changing the way companies in the fast fashion industry operate. Secondly, fast fashion consumers are being examined regarding main age groups, factors that matter when buying clothes as well as specific consumption patterns. Another discussed topic of the second subchapter is the effect of more sustainable practices of companies on brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers. Finally, the theoretical findings are being summarized and presented in an integrative model to guide the primary research, which will be revised based on the primary findings in the end of the present master’s thesis.

2.1 The Fast Fashion Industry

During the last 20 years, the fashion industry has undergone a significant transformation due to an increased globalization, changed consumer behaviours and technological advancements (Kim et al., 2013, p. 245). In the 1980’s, the fashion industry consisted of around eight traditional seasons and items could be classified into low-end, mass-market and high-end determined by price, brand and quality of the article (Anguelov, 2016, p. 2). Fashion retailers competed in the market by forecasting consumer demand and fashion trends long before the actual consumption and the average consumer preferred more basic apparel leading to retailers focussing on mass production (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, pp. 165). However, the 1990’s marked a decisive change of the fashion industry as competition levels increased through several large retailers dominating the market. This transformed business environment led to companies switching from product-driven to buyer-driven decisions and since consumers became more fashion conscious, retailers were forced to increasingly desire low costs, flexibility in design, quality, delivery and speed to market. In order to fulfill consumers’ expectations, the number of fashion seasons increased to 24 distinct seasons, which expanded the product range (Anguelov, 2016, p. 2). Further, fashion retailers began to compete by ensuring speed to market through adopting fashion trends from fashion shows and runways quickly into affordable products (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 165, 169). Instead of forecasting trends, the fashion industry shifted towards using real-time data to understand the needs of the consumers. “Technological and industry-specific innovations have led to a new reality, in which consumers find themselves with an increasing number of fashionable choices that do not demand a high price” (Anguelov, 2016, p. 3). Also the clear separation between high-end and low-end fashion items faded and in some cases “the difference between a $10 skirt and a $200 skirt can be undetectable” (Anguelov, 2016, p. 2). The need for faster responsiveness, reduced lead times and low costs also generated new supply models such as just-in-time and the outsourcing of production to countries with low labor costs. Nowadays, the fashion industry is the most pervasive and internationalized industry in the world (Anguelov, 2016, p. 1) in which polarisation persists as the top 20 companies account for 97 % of the industry’s economic profit (Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company, 2019, p. 11).

8

2.1.1 What is Fast Fashion?

Due to the described changes in the fashion industry, the business concept of fast fashion has become the most well-recognized model in the industry (Kim et al., 2013, pp. 243). Employed by mass retailers such as Zara, Mango or H&M as mentioned in the introduction, fast fashion is a contemporary business strategy and as European fast fashion companies expand their sales and profits by over 20 % per year, the growth trend of the industry is proven. But which factors characterize the model of fast fashion and how can alternatives to fast fashion within the fashion industry be categorized? Before looking at popular definitions of fast fashion, this section has the purpose to clarify differences between supposedly synonyms to fashion. The broadest term to examine is the textile industry that commonly refers to the production of yarn, textiles and fabrics including all types of textile products such as household textiles or textiles for other industries such as the car or medical industry in example (Sajn, N., 2019, p. 2). When referring to the fashion industry, the term covers the production of garments, but also shoes, bags, jewellery and other accessories whereas the clothing industry includes exclusively articles of clothing. The terms ‘garments’ or ‘apparel’ are being used as synonyms of clothing. Overall, this thesis focuses on the fashion industry, since large fast fashion companies often produce shoes and accessories in addition to clothing items and GCEs within the fashion industry often involve the broadening of the product range towards items outside the clothing industry. However, the garment production constitutes a large proportion of the fashion industry, which is why there will be an emphasis on clothes.

The business model of fast fashion can be defined in different ways. Therefore, this subchapter is presenting important definitions merging in the end into one definition, which will be used as the basis for this thesis. According to a rather old definition of fast fashion by Byun & Sternquist (2008, p. 135), fast fashion is “a marketing approach to respond to the latest fashion trends by frequently updating products with a short renewal cycle and turning the inventory at a rapid rate.” This definition emphasizes the speed to market as an important characteristic, however, lacks the inclusion of other important factors that are common for fast fashion. Also the definition of fast fashion as a marketing strategy can be misleading as it is a strategy which influences the whole company operations instead of just the marketing department. However, marketing plays a critical role within the fast fashion concept as Bhardwaj & Fairhurst (2010, p. 168) notice: Fast fashion “has been characterized by several marketing factors such as low predictability, high impulse purchase, shorter life cycle, and high volatility of market demand.” Hereby, especially the factor of high impulse purchases is highly interesting when looking at the consumer side of the fashion industry and will be further explained in the section about specific consumption patterns in the fast fashion industry. Moreover, the report by House of Commons (2019, p. 6) about the fashion industry states that fast fashion “involves increased numbers of new fashion collections every year, quick turnarounds and often lower prices” and “reacting rapidly to offer new products to meet consumer demand is crucial to this business model.” The addition of the factor of low prices due to low production costs can also be seen in the definition by Hall (2018, p. 285) who sees fast fashion as “global trend that is characterized by the ability of fashion companies to respond quickly to fast-changing fashion trends and consumer tastes while maintaining low prices.” This definition is helpful as it shows the interdependence of speed to market and costs for the company.

9

One of the factors all definitions touch upon is the speed of which fast fashion companies operate, relating to quick responsiveness to industry and consumer trends as well as to a fast translation of those trends into products, meaning the speed to market. Fast fashion retailers sell items that are inspired by current runway trends and through adopting them quickly into inexpensive products, they hope to bring the items faster on the market than competing retailers (Sorensen & Johnson Jorgensen, 2019, p. 2). Therefore and ensured by a shorter supply chain, the speed of operation is essential for companies in order to compete in the fast fashion industry, which also goes along with the described quick turnarounds resulting in an increase of production of fashion items as well as an increased number of different fashion collections per year. Further, the pursuit of the latest fashion trends is also interlinked with and can only be achieved by fast fashion retailers deliberately undersupplying products (Byun & Sternquist, 2008, p. 135). Secondly, one characterizing factor for fast fashion according to especially newer definitions is the reduced production costs and in turn the reduced end prices of fast fashion items for the consumer. In the late 1960’s, Western fashion companies began to offshore their production and sourcing of materials to industrial markets overseas and controlling the costs during the production process has been continuous since then (McNeill & Moore, 2015, p. 213). Relating to the low production costs of fast fashion items, they are also characterized by relatively poor quality (House of Commons, 2019, p. 6). Through shorter lead times, the time for extensive wash tests or wearer trials is often scarce, which has negative consequences for the garment quality. However, the lower quality of garments will not be included in the definition of fast fashion due to its difficult quantification and highly individual nature. The majority of consumers in the fashion industry is not able to determine good quality over bad (Yuille, n.d.). Synthesizing the introduced definitions and including the most important characteristics of pursuing the fast fashion strategy, this thesis works in the upcoming chapters with the following definition: Fast fashion is a business model pursued by several fashion retailers that involves the quick responsiveness to latest fashion trends while maintaining low prices, encouraging more consumption and shorter product life cycles.

As this master’s thesis will examine consumer perceptions and possible brand loyalty when fast fashion brands decide to implement GBEs as a result of trying to become more sustainable, it is interesting to take a look at alternatives to fast fashion items within the fashion industry in case of brand switching. Even though there can be overlapping business concepts, two main alternatives to fast fashion can be identified. Firstly, slow fashion can be considered as the opposite of the fast fashion concept regarding the factor of sustainability. The slow fashion business model emerged as a response to fast fashion companies and it emphasizes sustainability values and ethical conduct (Henninger et al., 2015, pp. 401). According to Hall (2018, p. 286), slow fashion includes an overall focus on sustainability in production and consumption, ensured through small-scale production, the utilization of local materials and markets in production, traditional production techniques or design concepts that are season-less, slower production times as well as prices that reflect ecological and social costs encouraging less consumption. Park & Kim (2016a, p. 26) state that sustainable fashion brands employ the triple bottom line (TBL) model, which means that they incorporate the three pillars of economical, environmental and social sustainability in their operations. The main differentiation factor between fast fashion and slow fashion is therefore the degree of sustainability consideration in all business operations. This becomes especially an interesting alternative for consumers as fast fashion retailers try to move towards more sustainability through GBEs and thereby slightly decreasing the gap between the two extremes. The second alternative to fast fashion are luxury brands, for which the factor price can be identified as the main

10

differentiator to fast fashion. “By definition, luxury multibrand proliferation is priced high” (Anguelov, 2016, p. 18). The luxury fashion industry is dominated by a few conglomerates, in example (i.e.) LVMH which includes the brands Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior. Interesting to note is that the price gap between luxury clothes and fast fashion items slowly decreases as also luxury retailers like Versace begin to offer options with lower prices (Anguelov, 2016, pp. 2) and in general, many fashion brands that offer premium apparel in the mid-price range can be found. Nevertheless, luxury and premium fashion items can still be considered as an alternative to fast fashion, because a higher price of a fashion item is often connected to a higher quality as argued earlier and also more sustainable fashion items aim towards higher quality to reduce the speed of turnarounds. Therefore, the quality of the item can be considered as the main reason consumers switch from fast fashion brands to luxury or premium brands.

2.1.2 Environmental Sustainability in the Fashion Industry

As portrayed in the introductory chapter of the present master’s thesis, fashion and sustainability seem like two contradictory terms. Where the former is characterized by hedonism and short product life cycles as outlined in the previous part, the latter includes ethics, durability and the reuse of products (Lundblad & Davies, 2016, p. 149). However, many fashion brands nowadays try to become more sustainable because they have realised the benefits of incorporating sustainable products and strategies in their offering. The overall term ‘Sustainability’ is very broad and many different definitions can be found. Being the most popular definition, this thesis uses the definition that got introduced in 1987 by the United Nations (UN): Sustainable development means “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 403). Relating sustainability to the fashion industry, sustainable fashion implies that the products are produced and sold with a sustainability-oriented objective (Shen et al., 2014, p. 971), whereby the terms ‘Green fashion’, ‘Ethical fashion’ and ‘Eco-fashion’ are being used as synonyms to the expression ‘Sustainable fashion’ in the context of this thesis. According to Shen et al. (2014, p. 972), sustainable fashion can be defined as “fashion products with a conscience to care about labor conditions and environmental responsibility.” However, the introductory chapter stated that the main focus of this thesis will be on environmental sustainability as sustainable fashion is predominantly associated with environmental sustainability (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 407). Therefore, fast fashion companies emphasize especially on those environmental factors when pursuing GBEs as they seem as most important to attract and maintain customers. Specifically environmental sustainability can be defined as “making responsible choices that will reduce the negative impacts of businesses on the ecological environment” (Park & Kim, 2016a, p. 29).

To understand the connection between fashion items and sustainability in more detail, this subchapter intends to further shed light on attributes of a sustainable fashion product. According to Shen et al. (2013, p. 136), the approach of developing sustainable fashion includes a set of eight considerations. The first factor is that sustainable fashion often gets produced from or contains recycled materials. Relating to the utilized materials for sustainable fashion items, they are furthermore often organic, meaning that the fibers come from natural sources without the use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals. Thirdly, green fashion is in many cases vegan to protect the animals that suffer for the fashion industry, which means that no real leather or fur is being used for the product. The next three factors that will be explained are more related to the production process of sustainable fashion.

11

Sustainable products are often locally made in order to minimize transportation as well as contribute to the local economy and they are in many cases fair trade certified which touches upon the respect of human rights in the production process and sweatshop-free labor conditions. Artisan is the third criterion of how fashion items are being produced, referring to traditional ways of producing fashion with new ways of consumption. Finally, the last two factors are connected to the longer usage of fashion items in order to encourage less consumption. First of all, the topic of upcycling clothes or buying fashion second-hand has been a trend for sustainability conscious consumers, which is why vintage is the first factor related to consumption patterns of sustainable fashion. Secondly, custom-made fashion is a way to decrease the number of mass-produced disposable fashion and ensure better quality of the garments, leading in turn to a longer clothing utilization by the consumers. In total, those eight factors can be summarized in three main consideration points, which are (1) the utilized raw materials incorporating recycled, organic and vegan materials, (2) the production process empowering workers throughout the supply chain and (3) the long-lasting consumption through upcycling and a higher quality of the fashion item (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 401).

Nevertheless when looking at GBEs in the context of this thesis, not all the mentioned attributes of a sustainable fashion item are usually being considered by fast fashion companies when introducing a more sustainable product line or product category. To keep the increased but still relatively low prices for their more sustainable offerings, fast fashion brands often deal with only one or two points of the life cycle by offering in example a organic cotton collection or engage in a recycling program for used clothes while maintaining their existing business model (Park & Kim 2016b, p. 114). According to Park & Kim (2016a, p. 29), most fast fashion brands focus on which raw materials to utilize and thereby try to improve environmental sustainability mainly by using more environmentally friendly materials and conducting life cycle analysis on the materials used. As explained, the extent of fast fashion brands’ sustainability efforts can vary, which leads to two different approaches of fashion brands to sustainability. Park & Kim (2016a, pp. 29) argue that a main differentiator is whether brands make active or reactive decisions towards more sustainable practices. Fast fashion brands’ environmental sustainability efforts are mainly reactive meaning they try to satisfy a segment of environmentally conscious consumers with their more sustainable product portfolio. The reactive approach involves the adoption of only some sustainable business operations mainly in response to consumer demand and the offering of more sustainable fashion items in a limited quantity (Park & Kim 2016b, pp. 114). Further, the reactive approach to sustainability is characterized by a strong focus on marketing the brand’s own sustainability efforts. Slow fashion brands on the other side aim to transform the whole industry by actively seeking for opportunities to invest in sustainability and taking on a leadership role towards sustainable development. Therefore, the active approach to sustainability goes far beyond simply marketing the sustainable alternatives.

2.1.3 Sustainable Branding in the Fast Fashion Industry

Strengthened in the UN Agenda 21 in 2002, concerns on sustainability that include social and environmental factors were reinforced and have been growing since then in society (Shen et al., 2014, p. 971). Therefore, many fashion companies began to implement a variety of sustainability initiatives, which range from green marketing to CSR programs in order to build up a sustainable brand identity (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 114). This final subchapter of the first main part of the theoretical framework will look into theories related

12

to brands and branding, sustainable branding as well as more specifically on GBEs of fast fashion brands.

2.1.3.1 The Concept of Brands and Branding

The concept of brands is century old and since the 19th century, the importance of branding has been widely recognized (Farquhar, 1989, p. 24). According to Kotler et al. (2005, p. 549), a brand can be defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competitors.” Brands are viewed as the major enduring asset of a company (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 555), which makes them highly valuable to the company and important to analyze in the context of fast fashion companies changing strategically towards a more sustainable branding. How valuable brands are in the marketplace depends on their brand equity, the added value with which a brand endows a product (Farquhar, 1989, p. 24). A more specific definition has been given by Kotler et al. (2005, p. 556) that define brand equity as “the value of a brand, based on the extent to which it has brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, strong brand associations and other assets such as patents, trademarks and channel relationships.” The higher the brand equity, the more powerful is the brand, which makes brand equity a key strategic asset. In the context of this thesis, brand equity is a highly important term as it relates directly to a greater brand loyalty (Keller, 2003, p. 9), which will be the third big relevant topic within the theoretical framework. According to Mademlis & Werneborg (2019, p. 11), there are four elements that should be taken into account to build brand equity: (1) brand image, (2) brand awareness, (3) brand identity and (4) brand positioning.

Figure 1: The Components of Brand Equity.

Because the terms ‘Brand image’ and ‘Brand awareness’, together forming the ‘brand knowledge’, are closely connected to consumers and their attitudes, associations and impressions, they will be defined and further described in the upcoming subchapter about consumers in the fast fashion industry, which is the second big topic of the theoretical framework. Brand identity on the other hand is related to the company’s ethos, goals and values and reflects the brand and its business strategy (Mademlis & Werneborg, 2019, p. 12). According to Da Silveira et al. (2011, p. 29), brand identity refers to “a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain.” This definition is a rather traditional point of view and newer definitions argue that it lacks the perspective

13

of the consumer side. However, in the context of this thesis the term brand identity is used to refer to the internal vision of the brand manager instead of the external perceptions of the consumer. With respect to sustainability, Mademlis & Werneborg (2019, p. 12) argue that social responsibility programs can be utilized to build on the established brand identity therefore, a green brand identity in turn should provide benefits to environmentally conscious consumers (Hartmann et al., 2005, p. 10). Therefore, the identity of the brand is directly influenced when companies take the strategic decision to incorporate more sustainable practices into their operations. The last factor that builds brand equity is brand positioning, which refers to the strategic process of uniquely placing a product or service in the mind of the consumer (Mademlis & Werneborg, 2019, p. 11). Likewise as brand identity, also this element is a factor constructed by the company, even though brand positioning takes place in the consumer’s mind. The factor of brand positioning will be further explained later on in connection to sustainability.

2.1.3.2 Drivers for Sustainable Branding

Nowadays, fast fashion companies need to improve the side effects of the described lowered production costs, i.e. the poor quality and the lack of sustainability (Chang & Jai, 2014, p. 853), which many companies do by taking different approaches towards more sustainable practices. One aspect that helps brands to differentiate their products from their competitors and that therefore has a direct influence on brand equity is branding. According to Keller (2003, p. 7), branding has become a top management priority as effective branding can lead to higher revenue streams, greater market share, increased market awareness and consumer’s trust (Mademlis & Werneborg, 2019, p. 3). “Consumers view a brand as an important part of a product, and branding can add value to a product” (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 549). Therefore, the practice of branding has become so strong that nowadays almost all products and services are branded. Mademlis & Werneborg (2019, p. 4) argue that sustainability has changed the rules of branding as effectively incorporating sustainability into the brand can improve brand equity. Sustainable branding can be defined as “establishing a brand which can be easily differentiated from competitors’ brands due to the factor sustainability” (Danciu, 2015, p. 52), starting with selecting a niche for the company’s green product in the market and going on with developing a green brand that addresses customers in that niche market (Danciu, 2015, p. 55).

According to Olsen et al. (2014, p. 119), research has been focused on understanding consumers motivations of buying green products, but less literature can be found regarding the implications to introduce a green new product from the firm’s perspective. Therefore, the main drivers for fast fashion companies to become more sustainable are being explained in this subchapter. Johannsdottir (2015, p. 688) divides drivers for sustainable branding into internal and external factors, whereby pro-environmental actions by companies driven by internal factors can be seen as voluntarily. As internal drivers, Johannsdottir (2015, p. 689) describes three different aspects: the expectation of financial benefits through increased product value or reduced costs, ethical motivations based on the company’s culture and values as well as pressure from shareholders/ owners. However, internal drivers are in their voluntary nature more important for sustainable brands that follow as described previously the active approach to sustainability. Therefore, reactive fast fashion brands are mostly driven by external drivers for sustainable branding, which is why those are hereinafter outlined in more detail.

14

The five categories for external drivers are (1) government and regulations, (2) market drivers, (3) social drivers, (4) financial resources, and (5) environmental factors. Regarding the first factor of laws and regulations in the fashion industry, most of the EU legislations are focused on the import from low-wage countries, standards for textile names or on chemical analysis of textile fibers (Retail Forum for Sustainability, 2013, pp. 2). Considering the environmental perspective, the most important regulations are related to chemicals, i.e. the legislation REACH, which includes that all substances included in textiles produced in the EU need to be registered and that importers of textiles outside of the EU officially need to register potential substances of very high concern. Other newer legislations target the supply chain transparency of fashion retailers. France i.e. established in 2017 the ‘Duty of Care of Parent Companies and Ordering Companies’ ensuring that companies set up vigilance plans to identify risks in their supply chain (Dobre, 2018). Also Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir (2019, p. 3) argue that legislations stipulate actions that support sustainability and specifically the circularity of the economy. The second reason why companies develop sustainable branding strategies are certain market drivers, which are related to market pressure from e.g. trade organizations, networks and experts and which lead to peer pressure stemming from rivalry (Johannsdottir, 2015, p. 688). This factor plays an important role for the fast fashion industry as sustainability concerns in the industry grew, which puts pressure on the entire industry as the reputation of the industry is at risk. “Therefore, it can be in the best interest of industry associations to develop environmental standards or principles, pressing companies to follow them” (Johannsdottir, 2015, p. 688). Further, public rankings of brands according to their sustainability efforts such as the ‘Sustainable brand index’ as Europe’s largest independent brand study focused on sustainability indicate the increased market pressure on fast fashion companies to change their practices (Sustainable Brand Index, 2020). The third motivation for companies to deal increasingly with sustainability issues are social drivers, which partly have been previously explained in the introductory chapter. Social drivers refer to pressure from a broad group of stakeholders such as the wider society, consumers, investory, suppliers, etcetera (etc.). When specifically looking at the fashion industry, especially two stakeholder groups can be identified as main drivers. According to Dobre (2018), campaigns from NGOs such as the Detox campaign by Greenpeace have put extra pressure on fast fashion companies. Thereby, media and specifically social media plays an important role as companies are either acknowledged for environmentally responsible behavior or shamed for irresponsible behavior in public (Johannsdottir, 2015, p. 688). Secondly, there is as described an increasing awareness towards sustainability in society and “because there are more consumers with responsible and environmental attitudes since the early 1990s, [...] companies are forced to change their behaviors with regard to compliance with the society’s environmental concern” (Chen, 2010, p. 308). The fact that customers become more informed about sustainability, imposes an even higher pressure on fast fashion companies to develop greener values and behavioural patterns (Danciu, 2015, p. 50). As fourth external driver for sustainable branding, Johannsdottir (2015, p. 688) argues for financial capital as an important factor, which leads to insurers, banks or other financial institutions that can influence companies’ actions. However, no further evidence that this driver strongly applies to the fashion industry could be found, which is why it will not be considered more in detail in this thesis. The last driver for companies to become more sustainable is the natural environment and the depletion of natural resources. This factor is highly critical to the fashion industry when i.e. looking at the previously discussed horrendous water usage for clothing production. Also the self-caused climate change imposes a threat to the industry as fashion companies rely on the mentioned water supplies or raw materials, e.g. cotton, that are sensitive to the natural environment (David

15

Gardiner & Associates, 2012, p. 10). An example of potential causes of climate change and its impact on the fashion industry was the flooding in Thailand in 2011, that harmed more than 160 companies in the textile industry.

2.1.3.3 Sustainability as Brand Positioning Strategy

As sustainability becomes more important for companies to consider, this part of the present master’s thesis sheds light on the opportunity of green brand positioning strategies (BPS). In the competitive fashion industry, marketers need to position their brand clearly in the consumer’s mind (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 559). According to Chang & Jai (2014, p. 856), brand positioning can be defined as “a part of the value proposition and brand identity” and BPSs can be key tools for brand implementation and long-term success in the market. Within the branding process, decisions regarding brand positioning are made in the first step, followed by the brand name selection, brand sponsorships and the brand development (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 559). As brand positioning is closely connected to marketing activities, different ways to communicate a company’s BPS to consumers have been identified in the reviewed existing literature. According to Kotler et al. (2005, p. 559), brand positioning in general can be done along different levels of the brand’s meaning in order to develop a deep set of associations for the brand. Those five levels of meaning that a brand can convey are (1) product attributes, (2) benefits, (3) buyer values, (4) a certain culture and (5) personality. When setting up the BPS, marketers therefore need to decide at which levels the brand should be positioned and promoted. Chang & Jai (2014, pp. 856) focus in their scientific paper on the attribute approach and the benefit approach to communicate with consumers. The attribute approach is one of the most common approaches in the retail industry and it enables retailers to provide rational statements related to the brand to the consumer. The benefit approach on the other side is equally common and is basically the outcome of the brand choice. Effectiveness of this approach is related to the easy evaluation of positive trade-offs for choosing a certain brand over others by the consumer.

When considering the factor sustainability within the BPS, Hartmann et al. (2005, p. 10) suggest that green positioning is essential for the success of sustainable branding strategies. Examined literature on specifically green BPSs focus on functional and emotional strategies to position the brand (Danciu, 2015, p. 56; Hartmann et al., 2005, p. 11). Green BPSs that are based on functional attributes are related to the first level of meaning that a brand can convey and aim at establishing brand associations by delivering information on relevant environmental advantages of the product compared to conventional products (Danciu, 2015, p. 56). Those benefits can f.e. be related to the production process, the product use or the product elimination (Hartmann et al., 2005, p. 11). However, functional attributes might not be a sufficient motivating factor to buy more sustainable products and they can easily get imitated by competitors. Therefore, the emotional green BPS that is related to the second level of meaning becomes highly relevant as it takes the emotional bond a consumer has with a brand in consideration. Danciu (2015, pp. 56) argues that the consumers' belief to make a difference on sustainability criteria strengthens their commitment to the brand and therefore this emotional bond can lead to brand loyalty in a way functional attributes cannot. Further three types of emotional green brand benefits of consumers can be identified: the feeling of well-being by contributing to a better environment, the auto-expression benefit by exhibiting environmental consciousness to others as well as the sensation feeling through the contact with nature.

16

2.1.3.4 Green Brand Extensions as Form of Sustainable Branding

As stated earlier, there are different forms of sustainable branding that companies utilize to attract more environmental and social conscious consumers and one path companies including firms within the fast fashion industry use are GBEs. According to Kim et al. (2001, pp. 211), brand extensions “involve the application of an established brand name to new products in order to capitalize on the equity of the original brand name and to capture new market segments.” Since brand extensions became popular in the 1980’s, the number of scientific studies on brand extensions increased and nowadays, scholars divide brand extensions into two primary forms as briefly described in the introductory chapter of this thesis: vertical respectively line extensions as well as horizontal or also category extensions. According to Kotler et al. (2005, p. 565), line extensions can be defined as “using a successful brand name to introduce additional items in a given product category under the same brand name.” The majority of brand extensions are line extensions and popular additional items to introduce are i.e. new flavours, forms, colors, added ingredients or package sizes. Reasons for companies to decide for line extensions are to meet the variety desire of consumers, utilize excess capacity or to command more shelf space from retailers. With respect to sustainability, fast fashion companies use GLEs due to the recognized latent consumer want and their wish to capitalize on it. Therefore, fast fashion companies use eco-friendly ingredients to appeal to the customer’s desire to reduce their carbon footprint (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 367). On the other side, Kotler et al. (2005, p. 565) define category extensions as “using a successful brand name to launch a new or modified product in a new category.” If implemented gradually, brand extensions can bridge two different product categories (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 207). Within the fast fashion industry, brands offer a natural or eco-friendly alternative to satisfy the same functional need with their GBE (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 368). In the context of this thesis, GBEs can be defined as the application of an established brand name to new and greener products due to environmental considerations of the brand.

Considering the advantages of brand extensions and the motivation for companies to pursue this strategy, research has found that brand extensions are an effective way of growing into new markets and reaching new customers while having significantly reduced costs and risks (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 207). Introducing a new line or category under the well-known parent brand name can convince consumers to purchase the newly launched products while reducing risks by relying on consumers’ previous experiences of the brand (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 206). Further, high advertising expenses to familiarize the consumer with the new brand name can be saved (Kotler et al., 2005, p. 565). Especially with respect to GBEs, this brand extension strategy can be beneficial since research indicates that consumers prefer to purchase sustainable products from brands that are well-known and established (Borin et al., 2013, p. 121). Given the offering of products that the consumer is comfortable associating with the parent brand, another advantage for brands is that “successful brand extensions have positive spillover effects on parent brand equity” (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 377). In spite of the advantages of brand extensions, also a few risks can also be identified. According to Kotler et al. (2005, p. 565), heavily extended brands might cause consumer confusion and the overextended brand might lose its specific meaning. This risk relates to brand dilution, which occurs when consumers no longer associate a brand with a specific product. Further, companies that pursue line extensions have to be careful to not cannibalize the company’s other items. Considering GBEs, efforts by companies to become more sustainable are not valued equally by all consumers (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 114). “Companies believe a sustainable marketing strategy will be

17

viewed favorable by the consumer and subsequently improve brand loyalty, but this is not always the case” (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 4). Some consumers believe that fast fashion companies are mostly driven by financial performance instead of valuing financial, environmental and social performance equally. Therefore, organizations can also be faced with a trade-off in terms of green branding that can result in a diluted or severely damaged brand image (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 368). Poor reactions to GBEs can damage the core brand equity, especially when consumers perceive the sustainable products as less superior than the conventional alternative. Another challenge concerning GBEs is the increased availability of sustainable alternatives on the market, which has created confusion among consumers regarding the complexity of sustainability claims and the real impact of company initiatives on society and the environment (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 114).

Looking at the advantages and disadvantages of brand extensions, Völckner & Sattler (2006, p. 18) argued in 2006 that approximately 80 % of all brand extensions in many FMCG product categories fail. Therefore, it is highly crucial as a manager to consider potential determines of brand extension success in order to reduce the failure rate. Völckner & Sattler (2006, p. 30) identified accordingly to their research five success factors for brand extensions: (1) the fit between the parent brand and the extension product, (2) the previous experience of consumers’ with the parent brand, (3) the conviction of consumers’ with the parent brand, (4) the acceptance of retailers of the new product as well as (5) the marketing support that the extension product receives. The following second relevant perspective of the consumer side will reflect especially upon the first three factors in more detail.

2.2 Consumers in the Fast Fashion Industry

Fashion represents materialistic consumption and is a way for consumers to show both wealth and status in how they dress and look (Kim et al., 2013, p. 244). Therefore, consumers consider fashion to be very connected to their identity since wearables are visible and act like a second skin. A trend that could be seen throughout the past decades is that consumers are becoming more fashion savvy, which in turn puts pressure on retailers to provide quick fashion to the market (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 170). As a result, fashion trends are moving at high speed on a global level, providing more options for consumers and leading them to shop more often. Despite that consumption patterns are generally fragmented, fast fashion is growing in importance among people as also explained in previous chapters. The fast fashion industry in particular is associated with hedonic values of consumption behavior, i.e. the fun and pleasure in creating individual styles with rare fashion items (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 116). Brands that in the eyes of consumers are associated with uniqueness and follow current trends provide pleasant and fun experiences to shoppers, which positively yields brand affect. The “brand affect is greater when the hedonic value [...] of products is high” (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 116). Brand affect is according to Park & Kim (2016b, p. 115) the potential of a brand to cause a positive emotional response in the average consumer. The experience that the yielded brand affect of fast fashion brands is greater than the yielded brand trust explains why many consumers are aware of the negative environmental impact of the fast fashion industry, but they still enjoy the cheap, trendy and enjoyable shopping experience that fast fashion provides (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 116). However, as general consumption patterns shift towards more conscious purchase decisions as explained earlier, it is highly interesting to investigate current fast fashion consumers and see whether awareness of

18

environmental and social issues leads nowadays more and more often to final sustainable choices.

2.2.1 Main Age Groups of Fast Fashion Consumers

Consumer attitudes towards fast fashion brands and sustainability tend to vary amongst different consumer generations. Baby boomers or also called Generation X that are born before 1981 prefer to purchase fewer number of items at a higher quality, while the next generation, referred to as Gen Y, prefers a greater number of items that are of low-quality, trendy and at a cheap price (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 170). Then again, Gen Z values price above other factors when purchasing fashion items (Hanbury, n.d.). Within the scope of this master’s thesis, the attitudes of fashion consumers belonging to Gen Y and Gen Z will be investigated as they contain the main age groups of fast fashion consumers.

2.2.1.1 Generation Y Consumers

Gen Y, also referred to millennials, is a consumer segment that is both large and powerful and that has a long future of potential consumer decisions ahead since the consumers within this segment are entering young adulthood (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 97). According to research published on the Iperceptions blog, the Gen Y segment was born between 1981 to 1997 (Iperceptions, 2016). However, to keep the Gen Y analytically meaningful and reach a clear distinction to Gen Z, the Pew Research Center agreed to make 1996 the last birth year for millennials in 2018 (Dimock, 2019), which is why people born from 1981 to 1996 will be referred to as Gen Y within the scope of this thesis. In general, consumers of the Gen Y are highly educated, career-driven and politically progressive (Schawbel, 2015). As of 2014, millennials were in the ages 20-34 which included 72 million people in America with a spending power of 21% of the total amount, making this consumer group of large interest for many brands, especially those with a focus on sustainability (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 97). Gen Y is also important for brands since this consumer group has a large amount of influence over older generations and is usually considered to be trendsetter within the fashion industry (Schawbel, 2015). Regarding certain consumption patterns, the Internet plays a big role in Gen Y’s lifestyle, which influences their buying behavior as most millennials have used technologies most of their childhood (Simões & Borges Gouveia, 2008). Further, it has been found that larger, well-known brands tend to be more accepted by the Gen Y segment compared to the Generation X who can best be targeted by niche brands. Another difference to the precedent Generation X is that millennials tend to be more brand loyal, even at young ages. This fact got confirmed by study made in Dutch schools in 1999, where many 5 to 6-year-old children referred to brand names when requesting Christmas gifts. Likewise, a study conducted by Elite Daily showed that 60 % of millennials said that they are often or always loyal to brands that they currently use if presented with product quality (Schawbel, 2015). Therefore, it is of utmost importance for brands to build strong relationships with Gen Y consumers. Gen Y prefers to learn independently through their own experiences and to form their own opinions, on which purchase decisions regarding brands and products are based (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 98). Concerning sustainability, Gen Y is driven by a sense of moral obligation that can be related to ethical issues in their purchasing decisions. This moral obligation is thereby not only based on personal interest, but also on an interest for the environment and the society at large. Likewise, 75 % of millennials expect brands to give back to society instead of being solely driven by profits as this consumer group is tired of corporate greed and states to prefer brands that support local communities over those who do not (Schawbel, 2015).

19

Previous studies have shown that consumers who have a higher awareness of and a greater trust in a brand’s sustainability claims are more likely to evaluate the brand more positively, which has an effect on their purchase intentions (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 99). Therefore, an awareness of sustainability product attributes develops favorable brand attitudes of consumers towards environmentally-friendly products. However, millennials tend to be more skeptical about fashion brands and their sustainability claims as well as brand transparency in their supply chains compared to previous generations (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 97). Therefore, it is of high importance to further educate millennials in sustainability related issues and how they relate to the fashion industry (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 102). According to Leung et al. (2015, p. 58) millennials are more willing to spend more money on fashion compared to other generations, which is why millennials are said to be fashion-conscious as they want to be up-to-date on the latest trends. This leads to fast fashion brands holding a unique position to target Gen Y consumers with sustainable fashion items since fast fashion brands have the experience of targeting this consumer group with trendy and fashionable items that appeal to them (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 206).

2.2.1.2 Generation Z Consumers

According to FourHooks (2015), Gen Z is a consumer segment that consists of current teenagers who were born after 1995. However, the Pew Research Center decided in 2018 that anyone born from 1997 and onward should belong to the consumer segment Gen Z, again to keep Gen Y in contrast to Gen Z analytically meaningful (Dimock, 2019). Therefore, consumers born in 1997 and later will be referred to as Gen Z within the scope of this thesis. In general, consumers in the Gen Z group are highly informed people who want control over their lives and futures (Hanbury, n.d.). A distinctive aspect concerning Gen Z consumers is that they have grown up with computers and mobile devices and do not know a world without it, which is why Gen Z can be referred to as ‘Technoholics’ as they solely depend on information technology (FourHooks, 2015). Regarding consumption patterns and the choice of products, Gen Z knows what type of products they want and from what brand the products should come from. For brands targeting the Gen Z market, it is essential that products and services are created within a digital and connected environment in order to facilitate sharing in social media networks (Eleftheriou-Smith, 2012, pp. 12). Furthermore, this consumer group has also been found to be more brand- savvy than might be expected since they appreciate the increased sense of reality when brands come to life for them. To target and reach Gen Z consumers in the first place can however be rather difficult for brands as they use several digital platforms simultaneously and tend to view content for a shorter period of time compared to Gen Y (Patel, 2017). With respect to sustainability, consumers of Gen Z have been raised in times where information on depleting resources and global warming has been given a lot of attention, which has impacted this generation (Kingston, 2014). A study made by the advertising agency Sparks & Honey revealed that 60 % of Gen Z consumers said that they want a job that has a social impact. This young consumer group cares more about sustainability than previous generations, however, is also faced with the dilemma to purchase and wear new clothes constantly as they can be considered the most photographed generations (Hanbury, n.d.). Therefore, Gen Z consumers with interest in sustainability while wanting to own the latest styles have given rise to unconventional ways of shopping such as rental, second hand and thrift shopping. Moreover, people belonging to Gen Z are also more progressive of sexual, racial and generational diversity and are less likely to favor traditional gender roles (Kingston, 2014). When looking at all factors that consumers take into consideration when purchasing fashion items, the online magazine Business Insider conducted a survey

20

targeted towards Gen Z that revealed that 60 % of the respondents saw price as the most important factor when purchasing products from brands (Hanbury, n.d.). Since this consumer group is driven by price, they also show less brand loyalty, making it difficult for brands to convey Gen Z consumers to be loyal. People in Gen Z are more prone to support and engage with brands that they feel understand them and reflect their values and if brands i.e. break promises, these young consumers will switch to other brands. This leads to the fact that Gen Z consumers switch brands more often compared to other generations. One reason why Gen Z consumers have been reported to be more sceptical towards actions undergone by brands is that they have the ability to verify information they receive online. Hence, they also value authenticity and transparency of brands. A last distinction to the previously described, older Gen Y is that Gen Z consumers do not use brands as a way to identify with as previous generations have done as they rather create their own personal brand. For millennials, brand image is determined by the brand and their way of marketing it but for Gen Z, brand image is more about how the brand is perceived and marketed by the person wearing it.

2.2.2 Consumer Decision Making in the Fast Fashion Industry

In order to understand how consumers in the fast fashion industry perceive actions such as GBEs, it is highly important to investigate how consumers decide to make purchases. According to Furaiji et al. (2012, pp. 78), consumers generally go through five different steps when making purchase decisions. The buying process begins with the need recognition, where the buyer realizes a need or reacts to a marketing stimuli from a brand. Secondly, the consumer decides how much information is required to make the decision and based on the information search, the consumer can then evaluate the different alternatives. This leads in the fourth phase to the purchase decision and finally to a postpurchase evaluation after the purchase was being made. This consumer buying decision process varies depending on the desired product or service to purchase. Thereby, three different types of buying behaviors can be identified (Furaiji et al., 2012, p. 81). When purchasing frequently bought products that are of low costs, consumers minimize the information search and option evaluation phase as their level of involvement is low. This type of buying behavior is called routine response behavior. Limited decision making is the second type and it is related to consumers knowing which product to buy but having not decided on a brand yet. The product cost and the level of involvement is higher than for routine response purchases, but still relatively low. Also the time spent on searching for the right product and evaluating choices increases. The last type of buying behaviors is the extended decision making where consumers buy products with a high price and therefore spend a lot of time on the decision making process due to their high involvement.

Consumers do not behave in the same way in all industries and especially in the fashion industry where consumers increasingly adopt shopping based on omni-channeling, it is important to closely look at the consumer decision making process (Strähle, 2017, p. 2). Furaiji et al. (2012, pp. 80) argue that purchasing fashion items can be seen as a typical example of limited decision making. A consumer often knows what item to purchase and evaluates different brands based on individual influencing factors. Thereby, he or she might seek advice from a friend or read the reviews on the product online as Strähle (2017, p. 2) argues that fashion products are mostly bought because of an emotional rather than a rational need. Therefore, the relevancy to peers plays an important role in the decision making process, especially in the fast fashion industry. However, buying a particular product does not always lead to the same type of decision making. Looking at different

21

fashion items, the price can f.e. determine the specific consumer behavior as luxury items would cause a higher involvement that fast fashion items. Within the scope of this thesis, the emphasis lies on fast fashion brands and their consumers, which makes the typical purchase a limited decision making leaning toward routine response behavior.

An interesting factor that comes into place in the developed research question for this thesis is the consumers’ perceptions of GBEs undergone by fast fashion companies. “When confronted with ‘ethical’ products, consumers often become more involved, and this results in a more extensive information search” (Furaiji et al., 2012, p. 80). Consumers tend to adopt environmentally-friendly products and brands based on the perception of a higher quality, which results in satisfaction, repurchase intentions and finally loyalty as the ultimate goal for most brands (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293). Furthermore, products characteristics and design referred to as epistemic values of a product significantly influence how consumers make decisions, but the main influencing aspect is the consumer’s knowledge of green products. Chatterjee (2009, p. 370) adds to this statement that even though consumers might lack scientific knowledge on environmental issues, they can still make more sustainable choices if information is available upon purchase. Another important factor in the decision making process of consumers is the perceived value, meaning the consumers’ perceptions of what they receive versus what they give (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 115). This factor also acts as a predictor of consumers’ intentions to remain loyal to the brand and is therefore of high relevance regarding the research question of this thesis. However, it is important to remember that consumers’ intentions are not always reflected in their actual purchase behavior, which poses a challenge in understanding consumer behavior (Mohd Isa & Xin Yao, 2013, p. 84).

2.2.2.1 Specific Consumption Patterns in the Fast Fashion Industry

One specific consumption pattern that can be related to the fast fashion industry and their consumer is the impulse purchase behavior. As Dhurup (2014, p. 170) argues, impulse purchase behavior is related to hedonistic seeking goals, meaning the consumer experiences a desire for a product. According to Furaiji et al. (2012, p. 80), purchasing a certain product can result in different types of problem solving processes and most consumers occasionally make purchases solely on impulse instead of on the basis of one of the three explained buying behavior types. The concept of impulse purchasing can be defined as an immediate and sudden purchase where the consumer has no pre-shopping intentions to buy a certain product (Liapati et al., 2015, p. 253). The consumer experiences an urge to purchase a specific product and therefore, the purchase happens spontaneous and without a high level of reflection. Fujita (2008, p. 38) argues that consumers usually are stimulated to purchase products when they are right in front of them, which makes impulse purchasing central for the fashion industry. Furthermore, Liapati et al. (2015, p. 252) state that the fashion industry is the sector where the highest degree of impulse buying has been observed and continues to be. These findings are in line with fast fashion brands’ strategies to launch new lines of clothing every two to three weeks at low prices to increase sales through impulse buying (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010, p. 353). Especially fashion interested consumers have helped fast fashion brands to grow exceptionally due to their frequent impulse purchasing behavior (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010, pp. 355). Likewise, Liapati et al. (2015, pp. 252) argue that consumers who are more involved and interested in fashion are emotionally affected during their shopping experience, which positively influences their impulse purchasing behavior. Moreover, previous studies have shown that both psychological and situational factors have an impact on consumers and

22

their drive to make impulse purchases, e.g. consumers’ time perspective and the scarcity of the message type. Another factor that can determine the likelihood of making an impulse purchase is the time spent in store (Liapati et al., 2015, p. 255). Usually consumers who spend longer time in stores engage more often in impulse purchasing, which can be connected to the satisfaction and positive emotions they receive from the shopping experience, also referred to as shopping enjoyment.

A second consumption pattern that can be seen in the fast fashion industry is a propensity to brand switching, which is encouraged through hedonism (Michaelidou & Dibb, 2009, p. 323). This behavior is strengthened if consumers perceive a high similarity within a product class, however, weaker when individuals are highly involved with a product. As the fast fashion industry offers products to comparatively low prices, the involvement of consumers in the buying process is lower as well and they tend to brand switching. This tendency to brand switching also relates to a new emerging consumer type, referred to as hybrid consumer. According to Ehrnrooth & Gronroos (2013, p. 1793), hybrid consumers are consumers that do not fit in a specific market segment, meaning they could be buying a low-end brand one day and the next day invest in an item from a premium or high-end brand. In the past, brands that focus on valuing their customers and building long-term relations with them were seen as most likely to succeed in the long-term perspective (Ehrnrooth & Gronroos, 2013, p. 1796). However, some customers nowadays prefer to have no relationship with the company depending on the customer’s commitment level, which can vary based on the type of product or the amount of switching costs. Especially young fashionistas are more likely to pursue hybrid purchases according to Ehrnrooth & Gronroos (2013, p. 1805). As sustainability efforts made by fast fashion companies are being investigated within the scope of the present master’s thesis, impulse and hybrid purchases might be more rare as the level of involvement increases when purchasing more ethical products as explained earlier. They are, nevertheless, mentioned and described in this theoretical framework as they might regardless have an influence on the quantitative results of the primary study and thereby, deviations could possibly be explained by means of these two specific purchase patterns of fast fashion consumers.

2.2.2.2 Influencing Factors related to the Consumer

The final purchase decision for a certain product or service is based on multiple factors and consumers usually engage in trade-offs amongst those different factors (Papista et al., 2017, p. 101). In this process, consumers can perceive the evaluated attributes either negatively or positively. According to Zhang et al. (2018, p. 2), consumers perceive a brand from two perspectives, an inside and an outside perspective. The inside perspective reflects the consumers’ evaluations, their personal reflections and how the brand is viewed by friends, while the outside perspective displays how consumers perceive the brand compared to alternative brands. This subchapter outlines four factors that influence the consumer’s brand attitude and therefore also the final purchase decision, respectively (1) Age, (2) Social Belonging, (3) Fashion Interest and (4) Environmental Concern. Those factors are related to the individual consumer and are therefore independent from the evaluated brand. Furthermore, all these identified factors will be evaluated according to the research objective and therefore related to the fashion industry and to sustainable consumption.

23

Age

The traditional view of consumers within the fashion industry is that environmental and ethical considerations are the least considered factors in terms of purchase decisions (Kim et al., 2013, p. 244). However, changes have been spotted in the past years as consumers have begun to value ethical and environmental factors more when purchasing fashions items. Young people tend to be more concerned about environmental issues because they stay more up to date concerning recent news and they are generally more proactive, which makes it easier for them to make sustainable choices (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 5). This can be related to a group of consumers called pioneers of sustainable fashion (Bly et al., 2015 p. 126). These consumers actively warrant the concept of sustainable consumption by purchasing fewer fashion items with higher quality, buying second-hand and in some cases even sewing their own clothes. However, the research on the relationship between age and environmental interest is not conclusive as some scholars argue that the older population is more concerned about sustainability issues compared to the younger one. The present master’s thesis focuses on two generations, Gen Y and Gen Z. According to Merriman (2015, p. 3), there are several factors that differentiates these two generations, above all the elements of self-centeredness vs. self-awareness. Gen Z consumers put a larger emphasis on having responsibility and a role in society, while Gen Y consumers are more self-centered and tend to focus on what values are given to them instead of what they can do to improve society. Therefore, it becomes of interest and importance to further investigate differences in brand attitude and brand loyalty towards fast fashion brands and their sustainability claims.

Social Belonging

Consumers have a need for social belonging which reflects one’s need to choose brands that enhance one’s social self-concept and the association with social groups (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). The need for social belonging can encourage individuals to become more environmentally friendly since their surroundings expect it. People behave according to prevailing social norms that satisfy different social needs and these social needs motivate consumers to become more sustainable in their consumption. This can also be explained by the altruism theory arguing that the consumer’s willingness to do good simply comes from the need for social approval, for which they are willing to sacrifice resources (Lin et al., 2017, p. 428). Therefore, consumers need to experience that they receive some benefits related to their social status and self-esteem through consuming green brands. However, Kim & Park (2016b, p. 117) argue that consumers who perceive a psychological risk of not looking good and a social risk of not being as trendy are less prone to purchasing sustainable fashion. Therefore, some fashion brands made attempts to develop more sustainable and stylish clothes, but nevertheless, sustainability is often perceived as conflicting with the consumer’s need for trendy and stylish clothes.

Fashion interest

The brand attitude of a consumer depends on the individual’s attitude towards, interest in as well as opinion about fashion products, the so-called fashion orientation (Gam, 2011, p. 180). People with a high fashion orientation use clothes as a way to differentiate themselves from others and therefore tend to spend more money on fashion items (Goldsmith et al., 1991, p.409). Moreover, they value the symbolic meaning of fashion more (Beaudoin et al., 2000, p.57-58), tend to seek additional information about the fashion

24

items and have more knowledge about new fashion brands, which indicates that those consumers with a high fashion orientation are more likely to accept new fashion brands (Gam, 2011, p.179). Fast fashion is considered a barrier for sustainable consumption since many consumers value being trendy above being ethical (McNeill & Moore, 2015, p. 4). There is also a reverse relationship between fashion consciousness and sustainability as consumers tend to associate eco-fashion negatively the more fashion conscious they are (Park & Kim, 2016b, p. 117). Despite the strong environmental interest of young people in their 20s and 30s, they often do not have a positive perception towards sustainable fashion and tend not to apply their environmental interest or ethics when it comes to fashion. This is further supported by Streit & Davis (2013, p. 216) who argue that fashion is sexy and sustainability is neither perceived as fashionable nor sexy and also Kim & Park (2016b, p. 117) state that fashion-conscious consumers might favor sustainable brands less. However, it has been found that consumers with a high fashion orientation develop stronger brand trust for fast fashion brands since those brands offer trendy and fashionable designs. This is on the other side not in line with conservative consumers who consider fast fashion as waste since purchasing multiple items of low quality and throwing clothes quickly away (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010, p. 170).

Environmental concern

Environmental concern refers to an individual’s knowledge, involvement and interest within sustainability. As explained previously, the interest for sustainability among consumers continues to increase as environmental and social issues in our society grow (Chang & Jai, 2014, p. 856). According to Hill & Lee (2015, p. 208), the consumers’ level of knowledge influences their attitudes towards a more sustainable behavior. Park & Kim (2016b, p. 117) also discusses the importance of consumers’ knowledge of sustainability issues as a motivator for sustainable consumption. This is especially applicable in the fashion industry since consumers nowadays are more aware of the industry’s working conditions and more sustainable fibers, increasing the consumers’ support for eco-fashion. This effect may reflect negatively on fast fashion brands as many social and environmental problems are created by such brands. Further, consumers’ involvement within sustainability also influences how they evaluate environmental issues. The more involved they are, the more they will process information of the fashion brand’s sustainability efforts (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 208). Especially in the fashion industry, transparency of brands plays an important role as transparent business practices increase consumers’ likelihood to purchase (Bhaduri & Ha-Brookshire, 2011, p. 137). This is also in line with Yan et al. (2012, p. 3) who argue that there is a need for more detailed information as many consumers have a fairly low understanding of sustainability in the fashion industry and therefore sustainable products are perceived as complex by consumers. Another interesting finding concerns the altruistic value reflecting the concern people experience for how their own consumption affects others, which in turn can motivate consumers to make choices because it is the right thing to do (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). However, Hill & Lee (2015, p. 206) argue that regardless of consumers’ environmental interest, they will still choose products that meet their desires in terms of price, quality, style and fit.

2.2.3 Brand Attitude

Brand attitude represents the previous experience a consumer had with a brand and his or her respective expectations on the brand (Kim & Ma, 2014, p. 168). It provides consumers with a general measure of how positively they perceive a certain brand and reflects how

25

consumers identify certain brand names with benefits that set them apart from competitors (Kim & Ma, 2014, pp. 166). Furthermore, it has been found that a consumer’s brand attitude influences purchase intentions, which makes the construct of brand attitude of utmost importance for companies to understand. These findings are also in line with Chang & Jai (2014, p. 863) who argue that consumers with a positive brand attitude will have increased purchase intentions, especially for the brand’s conventional products and sustainable products which is interesting as the present thesis revolves around GBEs. Therefore, fashion brands need to remember the importance of promoting their brand image and products so that consumers evaluate the brand positively, resulting in a high brand equity (Chang & Jai, 2014, p. 859). Kim & Ma (2014, p. 168) additionally found that consumers with a positive brand attitude are even willing to pay a higher price for a product. A positive brand attitude is connected to the previously explained influencing factor of social belonging since consumers form a positive brand attitude towards brands that symbolizes their social status and make them feel superior. Moreover, brand attitude is linked to a consumer’s brand knowledge as a familiarity with a brand can save the consumer time as well as reduce risks and uncertainties (Su & Tong, 2016, p. 4).

2.2.3.1 Influencing Factors related to the Brand

After explaining influencing factors on brand attitude and brand loyalty related to the consumer previously, this subchapter explains four factors that are related to the specific brand. Those are (1) Brand knowledge, (2) Brand fit, (3) Emotional connection and (4) Functional attributes.

Brand Knowledge

According to Keller (1993, p. 8) and as depicted in Figure 1, brand knowledge can be explained by two dimensions: Brand awareness and brand image. Brand knowledge can be defined as a structure in memory consisting of beliefs and an attitude, which are associated with different degrees of strength (Keller, 1993, p. 2). The first component of brand knowledge, brand awareness, refers to consumers’ capability to identify a certain brand under different circumstances, e.g. to what degree certain brands are remembered by consumers as it consists of the two phenomenons brand recognition and brand recall (Keller, 1993, p. 3). The second dimension of brand knowledge is the brand image which can be defined as “the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumers' memory”. According to Chang & Jai (2014, p. 854), a brand image is formed by store or product characteristics and thereby, sustainability efforts of fashion companies influence the brand image significantly. Similarly, Hill & Lee (2015, p. 209) explain brand knowledge as multi-faceted since it consists of the functional brand knowledge, the non- product-related brand knowledge as well as abstract features. It is central to understand the dimensions of brand knowledge because they influence consumers’ perceptions when they are exposed to brands in different ways (Keller, 1993, p. 2). Regarding brand extensions, consumers associate a parent brand with a certain set of attributes and when brand extensions are introduced, consumers form attitudes towards both, the parent brand and the extension (Kim et al., 2001, p. 3). A brand extension is evaluated by consumers based on their prior knowledge of the parent brand since they usually transfer the knowledge of the parent brand to the extension (Hill & Lee, p. 209). The transfer of a brand attitude from the parent brand to their extensions is called the spillover effect (Kim & Ma, 2014, p. 168). According to Hill & Lee (2015, p. 209), the transfer of knowledge includes functional and non-product-related knowledge (emotional aspects) as well as marketing and positioning.

26

Consumers will transfer their knowledge more easily to the brand extension if they think that the extension is similar to the parent brand. It has also been shown that consumers with a higher level of parent brand knowledge usually evaluate its extension more favorably (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 209). These findings are related to and can be explained by the difference in processing of new information depending on the parents’ brand knowledge. The consumers’ level of brand knowledge influences the knowledge structure associated with the brand, which allows them to access the information given and integrate new information more easily. Therefore, consumers will make more detailed evaluations of brand extensions if the parent brand knowledge is higher.

Brand Fit

Previous studies have identified multiple conceptualizations of brand fit, whereby perceived fit is related to brand concept consistency and product feature fit (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 208). Product feature fit can be defined as the similarity between actual product features of a new product and the features of the already existing products of a brand. Included in product fit is also the general quality of a brand and its products. On the other side, brand concept consistency can be defined by the fit between functional and symbolic brand images of a brand. Further, product category fit reflects the similarity between a brand’s current product category and the newly introduced product category. A brand extension that is newly introduced by its parent brand will have its own set of attributes. These attributes can be in line with the parent brand’s image or they are inconsistent with it. Due to the consistency or inconsistency, consumers are influenced by the information they receive about a brand extension, which will not only influence their perceptions towards the brand extension but also the parent brand itself (Kim et al., 2001, p. 3). Brands offering a wide selection of products under one brand will influence consumers’ perceptions of the brand concept and the categorization process (Hill & Lee, 2015, pp. 208). A high level of perceived fit between a brand and its extension will expand brand affect and knowledge transfer from the parent brand to its brand extension. Consumers assess fit, color, style and material when purchasing fashion items, which means that their existing knowledge of these features will be present when evaluating a newly introduced brand extension. In addition to these features, consumers also are influenced by the brand image of the fast fashion retailer when creating an overall attitude towards the new brand extensions product and the fit with existing products of the brand. According to Chatterjee (2009, p. 368) consumers react more favorably to high-fit brand extensions than low-fit brand extensions due to cognitive consistency and line extensions are perceived as more favorable compared to category extensions. Likewise, Kim & Ma (2014, pp. 168) argue that consumers also tend to evaluate line extensions more favorably, which results in higher purchase intentions of consumers for line extension products than products from a new brand. In line with these findings, several studies argue that the success of a brand extension is determined by the fit between parent brand and its extension, whether retailers accept the new brand extension, by consumers’ impression of the parent brand and whether the new brand extension receives marketing support or not. However, it is notable that consumers’ barriers to adopting green fashion products in terms of line extensions are lower compared to products from other industries where product category extensions involve a different set of attributes in terms of usage. Despite the benefits of brand extensions, there also exist several risks since low-fit brand extensions risk to damage or dilute the brand image of the parent brand (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 368). This is especially true in terms of GBEs since poor evaluations of GBEs can weaken the parent brand and damage its brand equity.

27

Emotional connection

The emotional connection or also referred to as hedonic value reflects how a product or brand can “trigger consumers’ emotions, change their emotional status, or arouse their feelings and affective states through stimuli such as playfulness and aesthetics” (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). Hedonic value can occur due to consumers’ own liking, pleasure, or the pleasant experience they have with the product. In terms of sustainable brands, consumers can derive pleasure from i.e. organically produced fabrics using natural fibers and dyes. According to Hill & Lee (2015, p. 209), consumers’ emotions play a central role in forming attitudes towards brands and are often referred to as brand affect, which is usually measured in the form of consumers’ likability or favorability towards a brand. As argued also in chapter 2.2, it has been found that an increased level of brand affect results in a more positive attitude towards brand extensions, which is why emotions play a central role in evaluating brand extensions. Likewise, consumers with a higher level of brand attachment are more likely to see the similarities between a parent brand and its extension and view the extension more favorably. Other emotional factors that affect the brand attitude of consumers are personal characteristics of a brand since those generate a strong brand attachment (Zhang et al., 2018, p. 2). It has also been found that emotion is a very powerful motivator of behavior and that emotional benefits are important as those help consumers differentiate among brands that are otherwise quite similar in their functionalities (Lin et al., 2017, p. 427). Lastly, brand love, “the degree of emotional attachment that a satisfied consumer has for a particular brand”, can influence the urge for impulse purchasing behavior as brand love has a positive influence on affective brand commitment (Liapati et al., 2015, p. 254).

Functional attributes

Functional brand attributes refer to the style, fit, fabrication and color that consumers evaluate when making purchase decisions in the fashion industry (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 209). According to Lin et al. (2017, p. 427), consumers develop a positive brand attitude if they experience that the brand has a good functionality, meaning that the quality is satisfactory. As consumers look for additional functional benefits when using sustainable products, functional brand benefits are essential when consumers form an overall attitude towards a brand. This also reflects the trade-off between price and quality that consumers investigate when purchasing items (Chang & Jai, 2014 pp. 857). Consumers develop an overall brand impression depending on their perception of the price-quality-balance, which can differ depending on the expectation of a specific brand. One example is that consumers expect products from luxury brands to be of high quality due to the higher price. However, it has been found that consumers value quality over price when it comes to environmentally friendly products (Borin et al., 2013, p. 119).

2.2.3.2 Brand Attitude towards Sustainable Products

Kim & Ma (2014, p. 168) argue that environmental commitment by fashion brands directly influences consumers’ attitudes towards the brand and their intent to purchase products from it. It has also been found that the probability of consumers reacting more positively towards GLEs of fashion brands is high since sustainability efforts taken by fashion companies are often highly linked with the design and production process within the same product line or category. In addition, consumers with a high level of environmental concern

28

will be more prone to engage in pro-environmental behavior as mentioned in section 2.2.2.2.

Fashion brands are experiencing several barriers to supplying and delivering sustainable fashion to their consumers (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 402). Firstly, it is not always feasible for fashion brands to have a globalized and transparent supply chain even though consumers demand it due to the high competitiveness in the market and manufacturers being pressured to lower the prices. Another barrier that fashion brands are struggling with is the attitude-behavior-gap referring to consumers who ideally want to purchase sustainable fashion but do not always follow through in their behavior. One reason for the attitude-behavior-gap can be the consumers’ lack of awareness and knowledge of environmental issues in the fashion industry, which in turn hinders the development of sustainable fashion. In fact, Hill & Lee (2015, p. 206) argue that consumers have a lack of sustainability knowledge in the fashion industry, especially within the production process, regardless of how concerned they are about sustainability. Furthermore, the rise of the megatrend sustainability has, in some cases, forced fashion brands to engage in misleading marketing communications of green credentials, which is referred to as greenwashing (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 402). Delmas & Burbano (2011, p. 66) define greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company.” A greenwashing firm engages parallel in two different behaviors: poor environmental performance and a positive communication about that performance, which creates skepticism and mistrust towards sustainability claims amongst consumers (Delmas & Burbano, 2011, p. 67). Therefore, fashion brands that promote their sustainability efforts are firstly treated with suspicion inclining that loyal and trustful relationships with consumers take time to build and maintain (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 402). This increased risk perception of consumers when purchasing more sustainable products can damage the entire green market according to Lin et al. (2017, p. 426). Lastly, price is a third barrier for consumers to purchase sustainable products as consumers who pay a higher price for an item are more likely to suffer a financial loss compared to consumers who pay a lower price (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). As consumers tend to view purchase costs as a negative factor, it will directly influence how they evaluate the products, thus influencing loyalty. Furthermore, consumers can be motivated to purchase green brands, but the physical effort of searching, selecting and purchasing in terms of time cost and availability can hinder them from following through with their motivation.

2.2.3.3 Brand Attitude Outcomes

Emphasized by Shukla (2009, pp. 348), behavioural intentions are a phenomenon that is important for brands to investigate as it is directly tied to purchase decisions. This becomes even more relevant studying younger consumers in this thesis because young adults develop most of their behavioural response patterns during their early life cycle. Two behavioural intentions of consumers are brand loyalty and brand switching, which will be examined in this section.

2.2.3.3.1 Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty reflects “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product and service consistently in the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293). This brand attitude outcome is related to consumers’ willingness to maintain a positive relation

29

with the brand through regular purchasing of products from the same company as well as spreading a positive word-of-mouth and it measures the attachment that consumers have towards certain brands connecting consumers’ intention towards repeating their purchases (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 2). Therefore, brand loyalty creates several advantages for brands such as an increased customer base, reduced costs of marketing, trade leverages and an improved ability to strategically respond to competitive threats. In addition, it has been found that brand loyalty has a positive impact on brand consequences including consumers’ willingness to accept premium prices more frequently, a positive word-of- mouth communication and an increased purchase probability, which makes brand loyalty especially in a competitive market important to consider (Lin et al., 2017, p. 428). It is five times more expensive to attract and gain new customers compared to keeping existing ones, which makes it understandable that companies want to create loyal long-term relationships with their consumers in order to increase the profitability of their business (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293). Likewise, Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 3) argue that it is central to maintain loyal relationships with consumers to secure financial outcomes as a significant loss of consumers will lead to negative financial results. Concerning the trend of sustainability, it is important for brands to continuously investigate their base customers’ attitudes as they can otherwise risk an unforeseen change in brand loyalty.

Brand name, price, brand design, perceived quality, customer trust and customer satisfaction strengthen brand loyalty to certain brands according to Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 3). Brand loyalty is always built on brand trust, which reflects consumers’ willingness to rely on the capability of a brand to perform what it promises (Papista et al., 2017, p. 104). Customer satisfaction is a key driver for a business’ success since it influences brand loyalty and affects repurchase intentions. Likewise, Mohd Suki (2015, p. 293) concludes that customer satisfaction considerably influences brand loyalty. Customer satisfaction is defined as “customer needs, wishes and expectations met or overcome during the product/ service period, giving way to repurchasing and customer loyalty” (Mohd Suki, 2015, p. 293). In terms of sustainable products, consumers’ environmental satisfaction relates to their feeling that sustainable product consumption is enjoyable since the product performance meets their expectations and needs. According to Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 2) customer satisfaction has also a vital impact on brand equity, which is a central success factor for brands as previously mentioned. Other important aspects especially concerning GBEs are functional, emotional and altruistic factors since those factors motivate brand loyalty to green products (Papista et al., 2017, p. 109). In fact, in some situations consumers can be prone towards continuously purchasing green brands without developing actual relationships with them, as long as they experience certain benefits from the brands. This behavioural pattern is related to brand commitment reflecting consumers’ intentions to act supportive towards the relationship they have with the brand, such as acting faithful and be willing to make small sacrifices (Papista et al., 2017, p. 104).

2.2.3.3.2 Brand Switching

Brand switching intentions are “the possibility of transferring consumers’ existing transactions with an organization to a competitor” (Wu et al., 2018, p. 697). It has been found that alternative attractiveness which many consumers feel through the desire to try a different and new brand can influence how consumers view brands entailing to potentially create a negative spiral (Zhang et al., 2018, p. 9). This is the case since negative brand image has a negative effect on brand recognition affecting brand emotion negatively and which in turn can create brand switching intention. According to Zhang et al. (2018,

30

p. 2), consumers are nowadays faced with numberless brand options which can create confusion and frustration for consumers leveraging brand switching. Further, any changes in marketing can cause brand-switching since the major drivers for consumers to be loyal to brands are brand superiority or inferiority. It has also been shown that word-of-mouth criticism can prompt brand-switching (Zhang et al., 2018, p. 1). A concept that is especially relevant for this thesis is green brand switching behavior which is a process where consumers replace the current brand with other competing brands due to environmental considerations, either partially or entirely for a certain period of time (Wu et al., 2018, p. 698). As argued before with respect to brand loyalty, green brand satisfaction is decreasing the likelihood of consumers to switch to other green branded products (Wu et al., 2018, p. 703).

2.3 Integrative Model & Hypotheses

To summarize the most important findings from the presented existing literature, Figure 2 provides an overview of important factors to consider in the following primary research. The overall image depicts the fashion industry with the fast fashion industry as part of it. As research has shown, the main drivers for fast fashion companies to pursue GBEs are government and regulations, market drivers, social drivers as well as environmental factors. Leading to fast fashion companies strategically deciding to incorporate more sustainable practices in the form of GBEs in their operations, they have the choice between vertical or horizontal brand extensions. The brand seeking a GBE is named ‘Brand X’ in Figure 2. Proven in previous research, most fast fashion companies make the decision to pursue horizontal brand extensions, however, also GCE will be considered in the primary research in order to compare both approaches to GBEs. The GBE of brand X has in turn an effect on the brand attitude of the consumer, which is named ‘Consumer X’ in Figure 2. Additionally, the brand attitude of consumer X is impacted by influences related to the consumer and influences related to the brand as previously described in the second subchapter of the theoretical framework. As consumer influences, the factors age, social belonging, fashion interest and environmental concern have been identified and for brand influences, brand knowledge, brand fit, emotional connection as well as functional attributes could be derived from existing literature findings. Depending on the resulting brand attitude, two major outcomes of GBEs can be named. A positive caused attitude of the consumer towards brand X leads to repeated purchases from brand X and thereby to brand loyalty. However, in case of a negative brand attitude the outcome is brand switching to either other fast fashion brands or to brands outside the fast fashion industry such as slow fashion brands or premium/ luxury brands.

31

Figure 2: Theoretical Summary.

As Figure 2 is very complex and also includes indirect factors that are not the main research priority of this empirical study, the present master’s thesis comes up with a more streamlined integrative model, which is depicted in Figure 3 and which will hereafter guide the primary research. Broadly speaking, fast fashion companies pursue GBEs, which has an effect on the consumer’s brand attitude and brand loyalty. As outlined by Martin & Bridgmon (2012, p. 3), quantitative research which will be conducted in this primary study involves the interplay among variables. Relevant for this thesis are the identification of independent variables, dependent variables as well as moderators. An independent variable (IV) is according to Martin & Bridgmon (2012, p. 4) the presumed cause variable, meaning that the IV influences another variable. In Figure 3, GBEs are therefore considered an IV as they will have an effect on brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers. Dependent variables (DV) or also referred to as response variables on the other hand are the presumed resulting outcome in research, which are observed and measured in response to the IV. “Changes in the independent variable produce changes in the dependent variable” (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012, p. 4). Therefore, the factors brand attitude and brand loyalty are identified as DVs since they are considered as potential outcomes of GBEs, the IV. However, the relationship between IV and DV always depends on certain factors called moderating variables. A moderator (M) can be defined as another IV that may have a significant effect on the original relationship between IV and DV (Dang et al., 2019, p. 5). Therefore, the effect of the IV on the DV will vary with different levels of the moderator. For the primary research of this thesis, eight moderators with potential influence on the relationship between GBE and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty could be identified as explained in the previous chapters. Factors that are related to the consumer are age, social belonging, fashion interest and environmental concern and factors that are related to the brand are brand knowledge, brand fit, emotional connection and functional attributes.

32

The most common tool to conduct the statistical analysis in a quantitative research study is hypothesis-testing (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012, p. 30). Therefore, an alternative hypothesis (Ha) need to be established. “An alternative hypothesis is a speculative statement about the relation of two or more variables” (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012, p. 30). In case of the present primary study being experimental research, the alternative hypothesis reflects the change of the DV through the IV. Furthermore, alternative hypotheses can either be nondirectional where the researcher has no clear expectation about the direction of the results or directional. According to Martin & Bridgmon (2012, p. 31), a directional alternative hypothesis states an expectation for the outcome of the study based on previous literature findings. Due to the extensive theoretical framework of this chapter and multiple literature findings to guide the primary research, four directional hypotheses will be formulated. Within this study, the relation between GBE as IV and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty as DV are expected to be positive. Split up in GLEs and GCEs, the following directional alternative hypotheses, one for each DV, can be stated:

Ha1: Green line extensions have a positive effect on the brand attitude of consumers.

Ha2: Green line extensions have a positive effect on the brand loyalty of consumers.

Ha3: Green category extensions have a positive effect on the brand attitude of consumers.

Ha4: Green category extensions have a positive effect on the brand loyalty of consumers.

33

Figure 3: Integrative Model to guide the Primary Research.

34

3. Scientific and Practical Methodology

The third chapter concentrates on the scientific as well as practical methodology, which guided this master’s thesis throughout the working process. Research methodology includes the assumptions, postulates, rules and methods that researchers follow to conduct a scientific study. Therefore, the literature search process is explained and the choice of literature including source criticism is reasoned in a first step. Secondly, philosophical standpoints from the ontological, epistemological as well as axiological perspective are stated, followed by the research approach and research design. Following, the practical approach to methodology in terms of data collection, ethical considerations, survey design and sampling technique. Finally, this chapter concludes by presenting the data analysis strategies used for this thesis.

3.1 Pre-understanding of Relevant Topics

People’s knowledge is tied to their own previous experiences and past knowledge (Gilje & Grimen, 2011, p. 179). Therefore, this first part within the methodology chapter seeks to clarify our pre-understandings of the research topics revolving around marketing, the fast fashion industry as well as sustainability, since our previous knowledge and experiences has guided us in the search of new and unfamiliar knowledge of these two topics. First of all, both of us share pre-understandings of the broad subject matter of Marketing on an academic level through our master’s studies at Umeå University. In our program, courses such as branding, consumer behavior as well as market analysis are included. Moreover, one of us worked at an international advertising agency for two years. Regarding previous knowledge of the fashion industry, one of us has pre-understandings due to her bachelor’s studies in fashion management at AMD Akademie Mode & Design, which is a program that studies the fashion, lifestyle and consumption goods industry from a managerial perspective. Furthermore, both of us have valuable practical experience due to previous jobs in the fashion industry. One of us worked in the marketing department of a high fashion retailer, while the other pursued a job as a store assistant in an apparel and interior store. Finally, we also share pre-understandings of sustainability related issues and how they influence business operations through engaging in various projects linked to sustainability. One of us participated in a sustainability accelerator called ASAP which included a sustainability case challenge in cooperation with three large companies in Sweden and the other one organized this program the following year incorporated in an internship and worked as a project manager for Sustainergies Academy, which is a sustainability program that connects students and organizations through workshops. Considering the overall pre-understandings of researchers, it has been argued that one is not able to put aside their pre-knowledge during research as all understanding is connected to a given set of fore-structures, which is why we carefully consider how those influence our research (Laverty, 2003, p. 24). To avoid misunderstandings of certain terms and concepts, i.e. sustainability or fast fashion, we had thorough discussions followed by an extensive literature review. Thereby, we aimed to keep an objective position throughout the research process in order to provide results that are not influenced by our subjective perceptions and to contribute insights that are based on information free from personal opinions.

35

3.2 Literature Search & Literature Review

Existing literature is important for scientific studies as it is used to present results of similar, previously conducted studies, to relate the present primary research to those similar studies and to provide a framework for comparing the results of the present research with other studies (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 5). Also according to Ghauri & Grønhaug (2010, p. 50), “all qualified research builds on prior knowledge”, which is why an extensive and thorough literature review is critical for a successful research study. In order to create a scientific foundation for the present master’s thesis overall and specifically for the theoretical framework, a variety of available literature, mainly scientific articles and textbooks but also other sources including statistics from research institutes and articles from credible newspapers, was retrieved. Primarily, the used literature got sourced through Umeå University's library database, i.e. EBSCO, Emerald or Elsevier, as well as through Google Scholar. Furthermore, other student studies from Diva Portal were used in order to ease our literature search and to get an understanding of previously conducted research of university students. Within these databases, the keywords were mainly based on the theories used in the previous theoretical framework chapter. Keywords used to find relevant literature for the present master’s thesis were: Fast fashion, Fast Fashion Industry, Sustainability, Consumer behavior, Brand extensions, Green brand extensions, Green line extensions, Green category extensions, Brand attitude, Brand loyalty, Brand Switching.

According to Patel & Davidson (2011, p. 69), it is of utmost importance to critically examine the used literature, because substandard sources can have a negative influence on the quality of the study. For the literature search of the present master’s thesis, a focus laid on peer-reviewed journals and most recently published sources in order to increase the source reliability. Not peer-reviewed sources were only used to highlight the topicality of the chosen research field, e.g. to show industry issues related to sustainability, and to show the need for the present primary study. Even though some of the used books, respectively, are quite old, they are all notable publications that have contributed to the contemporary research field. The intention in working with books and scientific articles was therefore to combine popular research from well-known books with relevant and up-to-date articles. Furthermore, some statistics regarding the fast fashion industry date a few years back as recent numbers from only maximum one year ago could not be found. Another point that can be mentioned regarding the criticism of sources is that not a lot of research could be found regarding the exact thesis topic of GBEs in the fast fashion industry. Thereby, findings on f.e. GBEs in other industries or general brand extensions in the fashion industry had to be used and related to our topic. Even though this practice might lead to slightly biased literature findings, they could still be utilized to get an overview of existing research in the field.

3.3. Research Philosophy

To show the issues underlying the choice of data collection techniques and analysis procedures which is the core of a research project, Saunders et al. (2019, p. 128) developed the ‘research onion’, depicted in Figure 4. Holden & Lynch (2004, p. 16) argue that the selection of a methodology that is inconsistent with the research problem can lead to inaccurate results, which in turn has a negative influence on the researcher’s professionalism. Hence, it is highly important to take all five layers of the research onion into consideration when conducting research, which is why they will be explained in this chapter, going from the most outer layer, the research philosophy, to the inner layers.

36

Thereby, the adopted research philosophy can be seen as the foundation of how the present research got conducted and as the backbone of the selected research strategy.

Figure 4: The Research Onion.

According to Saunders et al. (2019, p. 130), “the term research philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge” that defines philosophical paradigm. In every step of conducting scientific research, researchers make different assumptions that shape how the research question is understood, what methodology is being chosen as well as how results of the study are being interpreted. Thereby, it is of utmost importance to have a well thought-through and consistent set of assumptions in order to create a coherent research project. According to Sobh & Perry (2005, p. 1194), many researchers put a lot of time into choosing the right methodology, even though a core issue for researchers is not related to choosing the methodology but to the acknowledgement of the research paradigms. The research paradigm, which can be defined as “overall conceptual framework within which a researcher may work” (Sobh & Perry, 2005, p. 1194) consists besides the methodology of two other elements, ontology and epistemology. Saunders et al. (2019, p. 133) add to those findings, that assumptions within the research philosophy can be divided into three most commonly used types, (1) assumptions about the realities a researcher encounters called ontological assumptions, (2) assumptions about human knowledge referred to as epistemological assumptions as well as and additionally (3) assumptions about the extent and ways the researchers values influence the research. The latter type of assumptions refers to the research paradigm element of axiology, covering the philosophy of values (Given, 2008, p. 52). However, axiology has primary relevance in qualitative research and will therefore not be explained further in the scope of this thesis. Going on, the two different types of assumptions referring to ontology and epistemology and their implications on research will be explained more in detail in the following subchapters.

37

3.3.1 Ontology

The word ‘Ontology’ derives from the Greek language and can be translated to ‘thing’ or ‘rational account’ (Given, 2008, p. 557). Generally speaking, ontology is not concerned with the specific nature of empirical entities, but rather with basic questions regarding the universal forms of existence. In scientific research, “ontology refers to the assumptions about the nature of reality” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 133) and shapes the way researchers see their objectives. Questions regarding ontology refer to the nature of social entities, which can be seen in two different ways (Bryman, 2016, p. 28). On the one hand, social entities can be considered objective entities that are independent from social actors and on the other hand they can be considered social constructions that are built from the perceptions and actions from social actors. These two opposing extremes of how to view the nature of reality lead to two main viewpoints of ontology, objectivism and subjectivism (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 134).

Objectivism can be defined as “an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors” (Bryman, 2016, p. 29). This implies that the social reality we research is external to us and others and objectivism therefore is related to realism (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 135). As interpretations or experiences of social actors do not influence the social world, objectivists believe that there is only one true reality experienced by all social actors, meaning that social and physical phenomena tend to be universal and enduring in character. The second ontological position is subjectivism, which can be defined as an ontological position that is “asserting that social reality is made from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 137). Subjectivism incorporates assumptions of the arts and humanities and can be split up into two different viewpoints. The most extreme version of subjectivism is called nominalism, which considers that all structures of social phenomena are created by researchers and other social actors. The less extreme form of subjectivism is called social constructionism, involving that social actors create partially shared realities.

Considering the choice of the quantitative research approach for this primary study of fashion consumers’ brand attitude and brand loyalty with respect to GBEs, the ontological position of objectivism got adopted within the scope of this thesis. Manus et al. (2017, p. 3) argue that as the researcher is external to what is being researched, the quantitative methodology is most commonly used within the worldviews of objectivists. Furthermore, general observation is typical for objectivists, which is being utilized in the primary study by observing the consumer behavior within the fast fashion industry. Fast fashion companies pursuing GBEs can be seen as the reality and the consumers that act with this reality are the social actors. As the phenomenon of GBEs is existing and can be observed multiple times in the fashion industry, they are taken for granted and can’t be changed by the social actors. When deciding for an objectivist view, it is important to clarify that ontological positions can be seen on a scale with different gradations. Our ontological approach can be located not on the total extreme objectivistic view but rather in a more moderate position. Even though conducting quantitative statistical data, the setup of the questionnaire still leaves a small room for interpretation of how the social actors perceived the question, which is a more subjective characteristic.

38

3.3.2 Epistemology

The word Epistemology comes originally from the Greek words ‘episteme’ translated into ‘knowledge and ‘logos’ meaning ‘explanation’ (Given, 2008, p. 264) and is the second type of philosophical assumptions that will be discussed in the present thesis. Epistemology refers to “assumptions about knowledge, what constitutes acceptable, valid and legitimate knowledge, and how we can communicate knowledge to others” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 133). This brings up the central epistemological question whether the social world should be studied by means of the same principles and procedures as natural sciences (Bryman, 2016, p. 24). As also ontology, epistemology can be seen on a scale with different gradations and constitutes of the two extreme views positivism and interpretivism as well as realism in the middle as a more moderate view.

The research philosophy of positivism relates to “the philosophical stance of the natural scientist and entails working with an observable social reality to produce law-like generalisations” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 144). According to the positivist view, humans and their social worlds can be studied in the same way as physical phenomena and hence, social science research is congruent with natural science research. The purpose of theory is to generate deductive hypotheses that can be tested and that can lead to an explanation of laws (Bryman, 2016, p. 24). The knowledge is thereby acquired through the collection of facts and data and the research is being done in a value-free way as well as not influenced by human interpretation or bias. Hence, the positivist philosophy is related to the ontological position of objectivism (Manus et al., 2017, p. 3). In contrast, the philosophy of interpretivism “emphasizes that humans are different from physical phenomena because they create meanings” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 148). Therefore, interpretivism is a critique of positivism from a subjective perspective and has the conception that humans and their social surroundings and physical phenomena cannot be studied in the same way and that the subject matter of the social sciences needs to be different to natural science research. The study of the social world requires according to interpretivism a different logic of research procedure that reflects more on the distinctiveness of humans compared to the natural order (Bryman, 2016, p. 26). Further, knowledge is acquired by deep-level investigation and analysis of phenomena to develop an understanding of those and results are instead of being generalized more limited to a specific context (Manus et al., 2017, p. 3). Finally, the approach of realism to research philosophy strives to search for an understanding of the common reality in an economy where people act interdependently (Sobh & Perry, 2005, pp. 1199). Regarding research, realism incorporates that reality exists independently of the researcher’s mind, meaning that there is an external reality. Overlapping opinions of realism with positivism are that the natural and social sciences should apply the same approach to collect data and the belief that there exists an external reality (Bryman, 2016, p. 25).

According to Manus et al. (2017, p. 3), researchers’ ontological views affect their epistemological underpinnings. As the ontological position of objectivism got adopted within the scope of this thesis, an positivist epistemological position is suitable for the primary study. First of all, we as researchers will try to remain neutral and detached from our research and the collected data, which is a typical line of action within the positivist view (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 146). As the chosen approach to collect the data is an Internet questionnaire, explained further in the upcoming subchapters, the respondents can self-select their answers independently from the researchers' values. Therefore, the interpretivist position would not fit this study as a typical data collection approach within

39

this view are in-depth interviews, where the answers may vary from respondent to respondent and the researchers have the possibility to frame the questions. Secondly, the focus of the present study will be on law-like generalizations by observing consumer attitudes towards GBEs in the fast fashion industry, which relates to collecting measurable and quantifiable data in line with the positivist position (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 146). Lastly, the extensive literature review and resulting theoretical framework is the basis for the two developed hypotheses, which follows the procedure of a deductive research approach. According to Bryman (2016, p. 24), deductivism is one principle included in the concept of positivism and also Saunders et al. (2019, p. 146) argue that positivist researchers use existing theory to develop hypotheses.

3.4 Research Approach

As every research project involves the use of theory, the relationship between theory and research poses a significant factor to investigate. According to Saunders et al. (2019, p. 152), two contrasting approaches to reason in a scientific research project can be named, the deductive and the inductive approach, plus the abductive approach as an alternative reasoning.

The process of deduction has its origin in research in the natural sciences (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 155). Thereby, researchers draw upon what is known about the topic of interest by investigating existing theories and thereafter deduct hypotheses that will be confirmed or rejected by the empirical findings (Bryman, 2016, p. 21). The process of deduction most commonly includes six different steps: (1) the examination of theory, (2) the deduction of hypotheses, (3) the collection of data, (4) the analysis of the findings, (5) the confirmation or rejection of the stated hypothesis and (6) the revision of theory. Saunders et al. (2019, p. 154) identify different characteristics of the deductive approach to research. First of all, researchers use a highly structured methodology to facilitate replication as deduction is linked to the positivist, more generalizing position as mentioned previously. Generalization is also the second characteristic of deduction, which induces the need for a sufficient sample size in order to reach a high validation of the study. The sample size for the present primary study will be described more in detail later on. Finally, the methodology needs to be operated in a way that enables facts to be quantifiable and measurable. Contrary to deduction, induction is an alternative approach to reasoning and runs the opposite direction, from particulars to generalizations (Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010, p. 316). According to Bryman (2016, pp. 21), especially the last step of the process of deduction, revision of theory, includes a movement that is in the opposite direction from deduction. Another difference between deduction and induction is that induction is likely to be particularly concerned with the context in which the research takes place (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 155). Following the inductive process and thereby the path of discovering (Patel & Davidson, 2011, p. 23), observations and its findings leads to the tabulation of data and afterwards to the theory and inductive conclusions contain knowledge claims that are not analytically implied by the premises (Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010, p. 316). Figure 5 outlines the basic difference between the deductive and inductive approach to the relationship between theory and research.

40

Figure 5: The Deductive and Inductive Approach to Reasoning.

Lastly, abduction can be considered a combination of induction and deduction as it shifts back and forth between moving from theory to data and from data to theory (Saunders et al., 2019, pp. 155). Therefore, abduction is a very flexible approach to reasoning and most management researchers use at least some element of abduction when conducting a scientific study. According to Saunders et al. (2019, p. 155), “abduction begins with the observation of a ‘surprising fact’; it then works out a plausible theory of how this could have occurred.” Bryman (2016, p. 394) states that the approach of abduction is strongly tied to induction, which is why this approach was not chosen within the scope of this study.

“As a scientific approach that emphasis structure, quantification, generalizability and testable hypotheses, the deductive approach is most likely to be underpinned by the positivist research philosophy” (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 154). Therefore, the present scientific master’s thesis follows the deductive approach of reasoning as academic theories are used as a starting point to state hypotheses with the purpose to test premises in the research setting. Through a quantitative study in form of an Internet questionnaire, the hypothesis will be tested without any uncontrolled influences. Furthermore, the results will be discussed against the background of previous theory and the integrative model that got developed by means of existing literature findings will be revised. All these points of action indicate the utilization of the deductive approach of reasoning.

3.5 Research Design

The research design refers to “the way in which a research idea is transformed into a research project or plan that can then be carried out in practise by a researcher or research team” (Given, 2008, p. 761). It includes decisions about how the research is conceptualized as well as how the research contributes to a particular area. Overall, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 163) state that the research design functions as a guide to answer the research question and is therefore of utmost importance for a study conducted in an academic setting. Within the research design, it is first of all important to consider possible purposes of research, followed by the identification of a suitable research strategy.

The classification of the research purpose is threefold (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 174). Scholars distinguish between exploratory, descriptive as well as explanatory research studies, however, the research purpose of a project can have more than one purpose. Exploratory studies are used to clarify the understanding of a problem as they seek to find out what is happening, to gain new insights, to ask questions and to assess a phenomenon

41

in a new light. According to Given (2008, p. 327), researchers explore when they have little knowledge about the issue to be examined but nevertheless have reason to believe in the need to explore the issue further. A typical research strategy to follow exploratory research purpose is to conduct case studies (Sue & Ritter, 2012, p. 2). If however an exploratory survey will be run within a scientific study, researchers usually look for respondents that are knowledgeable of the issue, which is why the present primary study doesn’t follow exploratory research. Contrary to an exploratory study, a descriptive research purpose is pursued when the research problem is well understood (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2015, p. 56). Saunders et al. (2016, p. 175) argue that the object of descriptive studies is to “gain an accurate profile of events, persons or situations” and that they can be either the forerunner of exploratory studies or part of an explanatory research purpose. Finally, explanatory research has the objective to explain why phenomena occur and to predict further occurrences (Sue & Ritter, 2012, p. 2). Typically, explanatory studies establish causal relationships between variables as Saunders et al. (2016, p. 176) explain. In contrast to descriptive research that seeks to discover a certain fact e.g. customer dissatisfaction, explanatory research attempts to understand how different factors are contributing to these findings, meaning how identified aspects are contributing to the dissatisfaction of customers (Sue & Ritter, 2012, pp. 2). As the primary study within the present master’s thesis investigates consumer perceptions towards GBEs by means of different factors and their contribution to the either positive or negative relation between GBEs and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty, the purpose of the study is explanatory. Also, a typical aspect of explanatory research is the setup of hypotheses that specify the direction of the relationship between the variables, which applies for this primary research study.

According to Bryman (2016, p. 32), the choice of the research strategy depends on previous decisions regarding the ontological and epistemological orientation as well as the chosen research approach. A research strategy is a general orientation to the conduct of social research and two different strategies can be named, the quantitative and qualitative research strategy. The terms quantitative and qualitative are widely used in management research and they differ according to their data collection techniques and data analysis procedures (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 165). The main factor to distinguish both methods is that quantitative research aims to collect, analyze and display data in numerical form, whereas qualitative research aims to generate or use non-numerical data but rather displays data in narrative form (Given, 2008, p. 713). According to Manus et al. (2017, pp. 4), the quantitative methodology is the traditional focus of social research applying a natural science approach, while qualitative methodology is especially important in behavioural sciences. When considering ontology, epistemology as well as the research approach, the quantitative method is associated with a deductive approach to the relationship between theory and research, follows a positivist position and embodies a view of social reality as an objective reality (Bryman, 2016, pp. 32). On the other hand, qualitative research emphasizes an inductive approach, an interpretivist epistemological orientation as well as constructionism as ontological view. Further, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 167) explain that the two approaches to research design can either be used alone, referring to a mono method, or can be used in combination which is called multiple methods. The multiple methods methodology is defined as “research in which the inquirer or investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of study” (Given, 2008, p. 526). Therefore, Manus et al. (2017, p. 5) argue that the multiple methods offer broader research results that couldn’t be reached with a mono method approach. Having in mind

42

the previously made decisions regarding our methodological positions, this thesis follows a quantitative research design as it serves our philosophical standpoints and choice of research approach the best.

In summary, the present primary research study follows a deductive research approach with an explanatory purpose, has a positivist position and looking at ontological assumptions, takes an objectivist approach. As clarified in the specific subchapters, these standpoints have been proven to be typical for quantitative research, which is why a quantitative research design got adopted for this study. However, a change of any standpoint could result in an opportunity for further studies.

3.6 Quality Criteria

Validity

Aspects to consider upon designing the survey are the data’s validity to enable accurate data and reliability to collect data consistently (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 449). “Validity and reliability are important aspects of survey research” (Given, 2008, p. 848). It is argued that there are at least four crucial stages that must occur for the questions to be valid and reliable (See Figure 6).

Figure 6: Four Stages of Validity and Reliability in a Question.

According to Given (2008, p. 909), validity refers in the field of research to “the ‘goodness’ or ‘soundness’ of a study” and multiple approaches to reach validity have emerged depending on the research paradigms and methodologies that guide the research. Having adopted a positivist perspective and using the quantitative research design as previously described, validity is often dependent on the degree to which a study is accurately identified and described. In relation to surveys, external validity (or also generalizability) refers to how representative a sample of the population is and therefore how findings can be equally applied to other research settings (Given, 2008, p. 848). On the other hand, internal validity

43

reflects the questionnaire’s ability to measure what is intended to be measured and that the findings represent the reality of what is supposed to be investigated (Saunders et al., 2016, pp. 450). There are different types of validity in terms of questionnaires: Content validity, criterion validity and construct validity. Content validity reflects the representative coverage of the developed questions, which is a judgement call and can be assessed by examining the literature review or asking for other people’s opinion whether the questions are relevant or not. In case of the present primary study, a careful literature review described previously as well as the support of our supervisor helped to get inspiration for the set-up of the questionnaire as well as certain questions. Secondly, criterion validity concerns the ability of each question to measure and make correct predictions and is often undertaken using statistical analysis, f.e. correlation (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 450). For this thesis, the brand attitude of consumers is being measured, but the second DV brand loyalty can be difficult to measure. The phenomenon of brand loyalty includes a purchase, the consumer’s satisfaction as well as a repurchase which is difficult to examine due to the limited time frame, which is why the focus lays on intended brand loyalty. Lastly, construct validity represents whether a set of questions actually measures the intended construct and therefore deals with setting up correct variables and grouping relevant questions together.

By paying attention to equally distributed respondents, especially concerning age and gender, external validity got achieved for the most part in our own opinion. In order to ensure a high degree of generalizability of a study on this level, it would have to have an extensive deep understanding of the activities and behaviours that are studied (Collis & Hussey, 2014, p. 54). This is very difficult to achieve in many cases, but if any other study would be able to reaffirm the findings of this study, a higher degree of validity of this thesis would be concluded. As of now, we will not make any claims of the results, conclusions or theory being used to be generalizable for future research. This is the case since the findings of this thesis is based on a sample that only consists of younger people within the Gen Y and Gen Z segment living in Europe where cultural differences across countries within Europe and outside Europe exists.

Reliability

Despite that a survey can be valid it must also be reliable as validity is not sufficient on its own (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 451). Reliability is broadly described as “the dependability, consistency, and/or repeatability of a project’s data collection, interpretation, and/or analysis” (Given, 2008, p. 753). Likewise for validity, also reliability is viewed differently in qualitative and quantitative research. For quantitative studies, reliability is characterized by the extent to which different researchers would arrive at similar results when engaging in the same study. In addition to comparing the data collected with other data from multiple sources which will be done in the analysis chapter of this thesis, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 451) state that there are three common methods to assess reliability: Test re-test, internal consistency and alternative form. All of these methods are undertaken during the data collection but still need to be thought of at the survey design. Test re-test refers to questionnaires being distributed and answered twice by each participant. This has not been done within the scope of the present thesis as it would be impossible to distribute the questionnaire twice to each participant due to the anonymity of all responses and it would be extremely time consuming. Secondly, internal consistency involves correlating the outcomes of different questions with each other (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 451). The most commonly used method to calculate internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha, which will be used to ensure reliability for this primary study as displayed in the empirical findings

44

chapter. Lastly, the approach of alternative form refers to comparing responses from questions with the same meaning but that are formulated in a different way (Saunders et al., 2016, pp. 451). These questions with the same meaning, so-called check questions, are usually included in longer surveys and can lead to occurring difficulties as some participants may not be motivated to answer a similar question twice. Having this in mind, the decision was made to not include check questions in this survey to keep the questionnaire fairly short and to motivate more consumers to participate.

Replicability

Replicability is closely related to reliability which emphasizes that a study should have the possibility to be replicated, which in turn is based on the transparency and detailed explanations by the researcher of the study (Collis & Hussey, 2014, p. 217). Having our thesis in mind, we have accurately reported the full process of this study in this chapter, practical methodology, where we thoroughly explain our choices in terms of study design and statistical methods used. In addition, the findings and result of this thesis have been reported in a detailed and logical manner which makes it easy for the reader to follow and understand the full process. Further, we have been fully transparent with problems that we have encountered during the process by reporting them to make it feasible for others to replicate this study.

3.7 Data Collection

Dahmström (2011, p. 14) argues that there are two commonly used ways to collect data which are the primary or secondary data collection approach. The difference between the two paths is generally that the primary data approach deals with collecting new and current information, while within the secondary data approach previously collected information is being used. Furthermore and according to Yin (2009, p. 101), a primary data approach is best suited when the research aims to observe a phenomenon firsthand by f.e. conducting interviews or surveys. The secondary data approach on the other hand includes the usage of published summaries and raw data that most organizations collect and store to support their operations (Saunders et al, 2016, p. 316). Regarding advantages and disadvantages of the two paths, the primary data collection approach can be beneficial as it provides the researchers with flexibility to adjust the delimitations of the study to the research question (Dahmström, 2011, p. 14). Primary data also reflects more current and up-to-date information that at times can be more relevant than secondary data that might be older or not serving the aim of the study (Dahmström, 2011, p. 130). However, it can also be very costly and time consuming to collect primary data, which can be considered as disadvantages. On the other hand, the secondary data approach is time efficient, less expensive and provides the researcher with a large sample and detailed information (Dahmström, 2011, p. 127), but might on the contrary be less recent than primary data. With these facts in mind, the present master’s thesis is based on the collection of primary data as this path is more appropriate according to the research purpose and the research question. The rising and pressing issue of sustainability within the fast fashion industry is a fairly new topic and mainly basing the research on secondary data would therefore not reflect the consumers’ attitudes towards fashion brands’ attempts to become more sustainable accurately. As previously mentioned, younger people tend to be more concerned with environmental issues and hence, make more sustainable choices (Kuchinka et al., 2018, p. 5), which is why up-to-date data needs to be collected. Nevertheless,

45

secondary data was used in the theoretical framework and the findings of the primary research study will be used to support or refute the secondary data.

One of the most commonly used methodologies in social science is survey research, which refers to “the set of methods used to gather data in a systematic way from a range of individuals, organizations, or other units of interest” (Given, 2008, p. 846). Generally, it includes all techniques of data collection in which individuals are asked to respond to the same set of questions in a fixed order (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 437) including questionnaires, interviews, focus groups or observations (Given, 2008, p. 846). As questionnaires are most often used in quantitative research designs, this section will explain different types of questionnaires. According to Saunders et al. (2016, p. 440), there are two categories of questionnaires: Self-completed questionnaires including Internet questionnaires as well as postal or mail questionnaires and interviewer-completed questionnaires which include telephone questionnaires as well as face-to-face questionnaires. Within the scope of this thesis, the data collection through an Internet questionnaire has been chosen, meaning that the questionnaire is distributed to the respondents through the Internet. Internet questionnaires can be divided into Web questionnaires whereby the respondents access the form through their web browser using a hyperlink and mobile questionnaires whereby participants access the form via scanning a QR code into their mobile device. As the questionnaire got distributed through a hyperlink in social media platforms, this thesis is using a Web questionnaire as primary data collection method, however, also referred to as an online survey in the present paper. One particular issue with using Web questionnaires is that respondents are not always motivated to answer the questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 441). However, it provides the opportunity for researchers to collect a large sample that can be geographically dispersed, which is the main reason why a Web questionnaire has been chosen as the data collection technique for this thesis. Further, it is also an efficient technique that becomes an important factor due to the limited time frame of the thesis.

3.8 Ethical Considerations

Bell & Bryman (2007, p. 71) have identified eleven categories of ethical principles. (1) Harm to participants reflects the potential to cause harm to them during the research process and the need to ensure the physical and psychological well-being of respondents, the researcher and others that are affected by the study. (2) Dignity refers to the need to respect the dignity of participants and avoid causing anxiety or discomfort to them during the research process. To protect the participants, (3) Privacy reflects the need to protect and avoid invasions of the participants’ privacy, (4) Informed consent is the need to make sure that all respondents are fully informed about the process and outcome of the research and give consent, (5) Confidentiality requires the researcher to ensure that the collected data are confidential and kept that way and (6) Anonymity is the protection of the participants of the study. Furthermore, (7) Deception reflects the potential for deception through lies or misleading behavior during the research process. Two other important factors to keep a high credibility for the research are (8) Affiliation which is the need to declare personal or professional associations that can influence the research such as conflicting interest and sponsorship as well as (9) Honesty and transparency reflecting the requirement of open and honest communication to the parties involved and interested in the research. Finally, (10) Reciprocity represents the idea of mutual benefit between the researcher and respondents or that some type of collaboration between the two should exist

46

and (11) Misrepresentation refers to the need for the researcher to avoid misleading, misrepresenting, misunderstanding or untrue reporting of the findings from the research.

When conducting research, it is central to consider these ethical considerations and be guided by them when collecting the required data. Therefore, Ejlertsson (2014) recommends following especially four relevant ethical considerations when designing a questionnaire, which has also been followed in the present master’s thesis. Firstly, informed consent is a central factor as also previously stated. Respondents need to understand the purpose of the research and that it is voluntary to take part in the study (Ejlertsson, 2014, p. 32). Since the questionnaire was distributed online, respondents gave their consent to participate and to use their responses by answering the form. There were no participants who were pressured into participating in the survey. To ensure that the participants understand the process and the outcome of the questionnaire, the survey began with a short text to explain the form, that the outcome is only being used within the scope of our thesis and that we would really appreciate their participation (See Appendix 1). Another important ethical guideline is affiliation since it is crucial to inform participants if there are organizations in the background supporting or sponsoring the study (Bell & Bryman, 2007, p. 71). Also for this ethical guideline, the short introduction of the survey helped to explain that we are two marketing students from Umeå University and that the purpose of the study is to investigate consumers’ opinions of fast fashion brands’ sustainability efforts, hence, no other organizations are involved in the study. The third ethical principle that guided the work in the survey design was confidentiality to keep personal information safe and anonymity (Ejlertsson, 2014, p. 32). In the introduction text of the survey, respondents were ensured that all answers of the survey would be anonymous. All collected data was confidential and in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Lastly, Ejlertsson (2014, p. 32) argues that it is central that the collected data from the survey should only be used for the intended research objectives. This was again ensured through the introduction of the survey in which it was stated that the answers will only be used for this particular research project.

3.9 Survey Design

Web questionnaires only offer one chance to collect the required data compared to interviews where the researcher can rephrase the question if not understood by the respondent or go deeper into certain issues as the interview proceeds (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 444). Therefore, it is important to precisely define the questions of the survey and give thought to the structure of the questionnaire, all prior to the data collection. Before formulating the questions for the survey, it is important to distinguish between three types of data variables that can be collected through a questionnaire as these influence the way to frame the questions: Factual and demographic, attitudes and opinions as well as behaviors and events (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 445). Factual and demographic variables contain data that is easy to answer to the respondent and that are likely to be accurate, i.e. characteristics such as age, gender, education or income. Concerning the present primary study, the introductory questions of the survey regarding age, gender and country of origin aim to collect demographic data. Secondly, attitude and opinion variables contain data for which the respondents might have needed to think about before answering and that are likely to be influenced by the context in which they are asked. Those variables reflect how respondents feel about something or show their beliefs of true and false statements. Behavior and events variables on the other hand reflect what respondents do with a need to record a concrete experience. This thesis mainly focuses on the opinion of the

47

respondents since the aim is to investigate the consumers’ brand attitude and brand loyalty towards GBEs of fast fashion brands. Therefore, most of the other questions in the survey reflect opinion variables.

Regarding the design of individual questions, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 452) argue that researchers have three options: adopting questions used in other questionnaires, adapting questions used in other questionnaires or developing their own questions. To adopt or adapt questions can be helpful if one wishes to compare findings with another study and it can also lead to a higher reliability. Further, some argue that it is more efficient to adopt and adapt questions rather than developing own questions. In order for this questionnaire to achieve a high validity, similar variables that had previously been validated are used. Some questions of the developed survey are inspired by previous studies related to green branding in the fast fashion industry and brand loyalty towards sustainable brands as Table 1 shows (Hill & Lee, 2015; Kuchinka et al., 2018), while others are newly developed questions. Also a clear wording of questions and the use of familiar terms to the respondents were paid attention to as Kelley et al. (2003, p. 263) state that these considerations improve validity as well. Therefore, the survey was constructed in a specific order with selected scales to avoid generic risks that could generate a biased response and the decision was made to structure the questions based on the variables and moderators. Regarding the design of the questions, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 452) explain that there are two types of questions: open questions for which the respondents can answer in their own way and closed questions providing a number of alternative answers from which the respondents can choose. As this primary study is quantitative, only closed questions are being used in the questionnaire to compare responses easier with each other and lower the risk of false interpretations. Other reasons to choose solely closed questions are that they are faster to answer for the respondents making it easier to achieve a high number of participants and that they are also quicker to assess by the researcher, which is important due to the limited time frame of this thesis. More specifically, Saunders et al. (2016, pp. 452) explain six different types of closed questions, of which the present primary study used three. The introductory questions are so-called list questions, whereby the respondents are presented a question with a list of possible responses of which they can choose the suitable answer. In the case of this survey, the participants were only allowed to choose one response for these questions. Going on, most of the following questions are rating questions since that question type is often used to collect opinion data (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 457) and the research purpose of this present master’s thesis is the measurement of brand attitude and brand loyalty. Rating questions use the Likert-style rating where survey participants need to respond to which degree they agree or disagree. Finally, the moderator of functional attributes was hard to examine with one or multiple rating questions, which is why the questionnaire includes one ranking question. A ranking question allows the researcher to understand the relative importance of different attributes to respondents since they are asked to place factors in rank order (Saunders et al., 2016, pp. 455). It has been found that respondents prefer not to rank more than seven items as it would take too much effort and hence decrease their motivation to complete the survey. Therefore, the ranking question included in the present survey includes six items that the respondents were supposed to rank.

The constructed questionnaire for this primary study was developed based on the theoretical framework and the integrative model depicted in Chapter 2. In total, it consists of 27 statements and questions plus three main introductory demographic questions as displayed in Table 1 and Appendix 1. According to Given (2008, p. 847), question

48

sequencing should be considered when structuring a questionnaire as all items should be located in context and in a section where they are most meaningful. Therefore, the present questionnaire is structured by means of different constructs displayed in the first column of Table 1. With respect to the number of questions, two questions are not being counted as they have a structuring/ general task. To ensure that all respondents are from Europe, the question ‘Have you been living in Europe for the majority of your life?’ was asked, but it is not counted as a main demographic question as if answered with ‘No’, the survey will be over for the respondent. The same accounts for the question to choose the most familiar fast fashion brand as this question had solely the function to ensure that the respondent is familiar with the fast fashion brand in the two displayed scenarios of GLE and GCE. Guided by commonality, all statements were asked to rank on a 5-point scale from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree unless stated otherwise in Table 1 (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 457).

Constructs Statements/ Questions References

Demographics 1. What year were you born? Answer possibilities: 1981-1996, 1997 or later

2. What gender are you? Answer possibilities: Male, Female, Prefer not to say

3. Have you been living in Europe for the majority of your life? If yes, in which country? Answer possibilities: Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe

Fashion Interest 4. I love fashion and keep up with the latest trends. (FI)

5. I purchase many fashion items each month.

6. I think a lot about what clothes to wear and how items fit together.

Environmental 7. I am aware of environmental issues in the world. Hill & Lee, Concern (EC) 2015, p. 213

8. I am actively trying to behave in a sustainable way (in example I recycle, choose vegetarian options over meat or I pick environmentally friendly transportation options).

9. I know a lot about environmental issues in the fashion industry.

Social Belonging 10. I easily get influenced by the opinions of my Kuchinka et al., (SB) friends. 2018, p. 14

11. If my friends would buy a certain brand, I would most likely buy the brand as well.

49

Independent 12. My friends are interested in sustainability issues Question (FxEC) such as climate change or scarcity of resources.

Independent 13. What factors play a role for you when purchasing a Question new fashion item? Please rank all answers from 1 (Factors) (most important) to 6 (least important). Answer possibilities: Style, Fit/ Comfort, Quality, Price, Environmental impact, Brand name

Brand Example 14. I like the brand X. Hill & Lee, (H&M, Zara or 2015, p. 213 Mango)

15. I regularly purchase fashion items at brand X.

16. Brand X is my preferred brand when shopping fashion.

17. I think brand X cares about the environment. Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 213

18. I know how brand X is addressing sustainability issues.

19. If another fast fashion brand, in example [H&M, Kuchinka et al., Zara or Mango], would have great clothes on sale, I 2018, p. 14 would still decide to buy from brand X.

Green Line 20. I would like brand X even more. Hill & Lee, Extension (GLE) 2015, p. 213 Scenario

21. I would buy products from brand X more often.

22. This new sustainable clothing line fits to the image Hill & Lee, I have of brand X. 2015, p. 213

23. I would be skeptical towards brand X if they launched a more sustainable line.

24. I would only purchase clothes from the sustainable line if they are similar in price, quality and style to the regular brand X.

25. I would tell my friends about brand X launching a Kuchinka et al., new sustainable clothing line. 2018, p. 14

Green Category 26. I would like brand X even more. Hill & Lee, Extension (GCE) 2015, p. 213 Scenario

27. I would buy products from brand X more often.

28. This sustainable paperwork line fits to the image I Hill & Lee, have of brand X. 2015, p. 213

50

29. I would be skeptical towards brand X if they launched a sustainable paperwork line.

30. I would tell my friends about brand X launching a Kuchinka et al., sustainable paperwork line. 2018, p. 14 Table 1: Overview of the Questionnaire and References.

In total, the questionnaire consists of 8 constructs as displayed in Table 1 in order to structure the survey. The first construct concerns demographic questions (Questions 1-3) and therefore can be seen as an introduction of the questionnaire to ensure a smooth beginning for the respondent. The next three constructs, FI, EC and SB, are influencing factors related to the consumer as described in the integrative model (Figure 3). Consumers’ interest in fashion is of importance to measure since it provides an indication of their attitudes towards fashion brands (Gam, 2011, p.179), which is why the construct FI consists of three statements (Questions 4-6). Secondly and as mentioned in the theoretical framework, consumers’ knowledge of sustainability will in turn influence their attitudes toward engaging in more sustainable behavior (Hill & Lee, 2015, p. 208). Therefore, also the construct EC consists of three statements (Questions 7-9). Finally, consumers have a need for social belonging and therefore tend to choose brands that enhance their self-concept and associations with preferred social groups (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103), leading to the construct SB including two statements (Questions 10 & 11). Afterwards, there are two independent questions, whereby the first one (Question 12) combines a new factor called ‘Friends’ (F) and EC with each other and the second one (Question 13) tests the importance of various factors that play a role when purchasing fashion items, in line with the influencing factor ‘Functional attributes’ related to the brand. McNeill & Moore (2015, p. 4) argue that consumers value being trendy above being ethical, which is a barrier for sustainable consumption and also Hill & Lee (2015, p. 206) state as explained before that consumers tend to choose products that meet their desires in terms of price, quality, style and fit regardless of environmental interest. Therefore, this question regarding the importance of certain factors when purchasing fashion items is highly interesting. Going on, the respondents have to choose a brand that they are most familiar with. Thereby, three popular fast fashion brands, H&M, Zara and Mango, are given as examples to choose from. This question substitutes the need for a statement regarding brand knowledge, which had been identified as an influencing factor related to the brand in the integrative model as well. The statements after choosing the brand (Questions 14-19) concern the general brand attitude of the respondent towards the chosen brand as well as the variables environmental awareness and brand loyalty (explained in Table 2), followed by two fictional GBE case scenarios, one concerning a GLE (Questions 20-25) and one a GCE (questions 26-30). To see similarities and differences in answers of the respondents, the statements in these two scenarios were the same except for one additional statement for the GLE case to test the importance of brand fit as an identified moderator in the integrative model (Question 24).

In order to analyze the survey results in dependability of certain questions to each other, different variables are defined (See Table 2). Thereby, 4 of the in total 17 variables group together suitable questions that have been tested for internal reliability in section 4.4. The first four identified variables, FI, EC, SB as well as FxEC, match with the respective constructs which were previously explained. The question concerning the ranking of different factors (Question 13) is not included as a variable because of its differing question type, which makes it hard to analyze in comparison to the other statements. Therefore, this

51

question will only be considered in the empirical findings, but not in the regression analysis. The present primary study focuses on consumers’ brand attitude and brand loyalty towards the parent brand, which is why the variables brand attitude (BA) and brand loyalty (BL) got identified. As depicted in Table 2, they are measured in both, the brand example and in the fictional GBE scenarios. Additionally, the variable environmental awareness (EA) got set up for question 18 basically referring to the environmental knowledge a consumer has about the brand. Finally, the two GBE scenarios measure the previous variables BA, BL and SB as well as two new variables which are ‘Brand fit’ (BF) and ‘Skepticism’ (S). For the variables, question 24 is not included in a variable as this question has a side function to test how similar products of the GBE have to be to products from the parent brand as also described before.

Variables Statements (partly shortened)

FI - I love fashion and keep up with the latest trends. - I purchase many fashion items each month. - I think a lot about what clothes to wear and how items fit together.

EC - I am aware of environmental issues in the world. - I am actively trying to behave in a sustainable way. - I know a lot about environmental issues in the fashion industry.

SB - I easily get influenced by the opinions of my friends. - If my friends would buy a certain brand, I would most likely buy the brand as well.

FxEC - My friends are interested in sustainability issues.

BA - I like the brand X. - I regularly purchase fashion items at brand X. - Brand X is my preferred brand when shopping fashion. - I think brand X cares about the environment.

EA - I know how brand X is addressing sustainability issues.

BL - If another fast fashion brand would have great clothes on sale, I would still decide to buy from brand X.

GLExBA - I would like brand X even more.

GLExBL - I would buy products from brand X more often.

GLExBF - This new sustainable clothing line fits to the image I have of brand X.

GLExS - I would be skeptical towards brand X if they launched a more sustainable line.

GLExSB - I would tell my friends about brand X launching a new sustainable clothing line.

GCExBA - I would like brand X even more.

GCExBL - I would buy products from brand X more often.

GCExBF - This sustainable paperwork line fits to the image I have of brand X.

52

GCExS - I would be skeptical towards brand X if they launched a sustainable paperwork line.

GCExSB - I would tell my friends about brand X launching a sustainable paperwork line. Table 2: Overview of the identified Variables.

All the moderators that got identified through the theoretical framework and that are depicted in the integrative model (Figure 3) except ‘Brand knowledge’ and ‘Emotional connection will be tested in the present primary study. As argued before, no specific statement to test the brand knowledge of the respondents was included in the questionnaire as this factor is hard to test regarding GBEs. In order to evaluate BA and BL as well as to present two different GBE scenarios, the brand has to be familiar to the consumer. Therefore, this factor got taken as a prerequisite to test the other moderators by offering the respondent the choice between three fast fashion brands, H&M, Zara and Mango as brand examples. Secondly, the emotional connection towards a brand is highly difficult to test through an online survey which is why this moderator is indirectly included in the statements to test brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is the direct outcome of being emotionally attached to a brand since Liapati et al. (2015, p. 254) argue that brand love positively influences brand commitment.

3.10 Sampling Technique

Every researcher needs to consider what type of sampling should be used (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 272). Within some research projects, it is possible to collect and analyze data from an entire population or focus group, which is referred to as a census. However, it is wrong to assume that a census will surely provide better results than considering data from a sample and often it is impossible to collect and analyze data from the entire focus group due to limited time, money and access. According to Given (2008, p. 797), a sample is “the set of actual data sources that are drawn from a larger population of potential data sources.” Therefore, the process of sampling involves the definition of the whole population as the first step and the choice of the actual sample as the second step. There are several sampling techniques that help the researcher to reduce the amount of data needed from all possible elements or cases to only the sample. Kelley et al. (2003, p. 264) argue that it is central to consider the type and size of the needed sample as this can prevent sampling errors. The available sampling techniques can be divided into probability and non-probability sampling (Saunders et al., 2016, pp. 275). For probability samples, the chance for each case of being selected from the population is known and tends to be equal for all cases. On the contrary, for non-probability samples the chance for each case to be selected from the population is not known making it impossible to answer a research question that requires to make statistical inferences of the characteristics from the population. Saunders et al. (2016, p. 276) argue that it is rather common that researchers use several sampling techniques at different stages of the research projects. An important factor to keep in mind when choosing the sampling technique is to match the research question, purpose of the study and research approach (Speklé & Widener, 2018, p. 5).

For the present master’s thesis, non-probability sampling was chosen to collect the data, more specifically purposive sampling and volunteer sampling. Purposive sampling, also called judgmental sampling, allows the researcher to base the sampling on judgement to select the appropriate cases that will best answer the research question (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 301). This technique is common in research studies that need very small samples

53

and cases that are particularly informative. Regarding this primary study, the research question and research purpose have guided this decision as two different consumer segments, specifically Gen Y and Z, are of interest and all participants should have lived the majority of their lives in Europe meaning that all other possible respondents are excluded from the survey. To ensure that these criteria are being fulfilled, the post on social media platforms asked specifically for Gen Y and Z consumers from Europe and in the questionnaire, only the age group of those two generations and four country clusters in Europe could be selected for the respective question. The second used sampling technique, volunteer sampling, can be divided into two different techniques (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 303). Within this study, snowball sampling where participants are volunteered to be part of the research instead of being chosen was an efficient method to generate more responses to the questionnaire. Thereby, we contacted our closest friends as well as family members that were within the defined sample and asked them to in turn contact their friends. A difficulty that can occur with this technique is that respondents identifying other respondents pay less attention to the identified sample. However, this case was taken care of by having precise answer possibilities for the demographic questions as previously described. The second sampling technique included in volunteer sampling is self-selection sampling where respondents identify themselves to be part of the research. As we published the link to the survey on social media platforms, participants could choose to be part of the study, which often happens due to a strong feeling or opinion about the research.

Once the sampling techniques were chosen, the distribution of the questionnaire began with a pre-test by sending the link to a smaller sample of the targeted population in order to ensure that there were no misinterpretations of questions. This procedure is also suggested by Kelley et al. (2003, p. 263). The pre-test was sent out to 10 of our close friends and family as this number would rather be an approximate representation of 10 percent of our intended sample size. The outcome of the pre-test were some minor changes in wording and framing of the questions e.g. the question ‘I think brand X cares about the environment’ which previously was ‘Brand X cares about the environment. Once the pre-test phase was completed, the questionnaire was distributed through a hyperlink on both of our Facebook profiles as we know several people that live in Europe and belong to either the Gen Y or the Gen Z segment. Furthermore, we also shared the survey in different Facebook groups as well as WhatsApp groups encouraging people to answer the form. In total, we received 125 answers in 9 days and the decision to close the survey after this time horizon was due to the falling response rate. Furthermore, we had reached the initial goal of 100 survey respondents. Out of the 125 answers we had 4 fallout participants that were excluded from the study because they had not lived in Europe for the majority of their lives. Therefore, they did not belong to the target sample of this study resulting in 121 measurable responses.

3.11 Data Analysis Strategy

In this last section of the methodology chapter, the tools used to collect and analyze the data will be described. The raw data was collected through a Google Forms online questionnaire and afterwards imported into an Excel file, in which all the data got coded into numerical values to structure the information and to be able to analyze it easier in SPSS. The IBM software SPSS is commonly used for quantitative studies (Bell & Bryman, 2011, p. 360), which is why the decision was made to pursue the statistical analysis through this software. In the empirical findings, each question will be analyzed first of all independently and split according to age, gender and country of origin. Thereby important

54

measurements of the descriptive statistics are the mean, median and the standard deviation of each question as measures of central tendency (Leech et al., 2005, p. 20). The mean or also called arithmetic average is calculated by adding up all raw scores of all respondents and dividing them by the number of scores, meaning the number of respondents. Therefore, the mean shows the central tendency of a frequency distribution. The median or middle score on the other side is the center of all the answers and is an appropriate measure of central tendency for ordinal level raw data. If the mean and the median are fairly close to each other it indicates that the data are fairly evenly located around the mean. Finally, the standard deviation is an important number to analyze as it measures variability when the data is normally distributed (Leech et al., 2005, p. 21). The standard deviation is based on the deviation of each score to the calculated mean for all scores. Furthermore, a variety of inferential statistical tests were used to analyze the outcome of the questionnaire.

Cronbach’s Alpha

As previously mentioned, the questions of the present thesis are partly inspired and taken from previous studies as well as partly developed independently. In order to evaluate the variables that got set up meaning the questions combined in the scale, it is important that the sets of questions are consistent in each other in order to reach a high reliability of the survey. According to Saunders et al. (2016, p. 451) Cronbach’s alpha is the most commonly used method to calculate internal consistency measuring the consistency of responses to a set of questions. The outcome of the calculation is called the alpha coefficient, which is a value between 0 and 1. Thereby, values of 0.7 or above indicate that the grouped questions are measuring the same thing depicting a good measurement of reliability. In case that one or more sets have an inferior coefficient, we will try to delete questions from the set or try different combinations until internal reliability is reached.

Paired T-Test

A t-test is a statistical test that is used to compare numerical data for two variables that measure the same feature but under different conditions (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 543). One purpose of this primary study is to see differences in brand attitude and brand loyalty between GLEs and GCEs and the rating statements for each scenario are the same except an additional statement regarding brand fit for GLEs. As the samples are related to each other as the same participants answered both scenarios, a paired t-test seems suitable to include in the empirical findings chapter for those statements (Hinton et al., 2014, p. 127). The first score that will be of relevance is the difference in means between the two scenarios. As all statements of this part of the analysis are rated on a 5-point scale, a significant discrepancy in means can be approximately a difference of 0.5 or higher and being above 1 strongly significant. Another indicator of how statistically significant the answers for the two scenarios are is the so-called p-value (shown in the column ‘Sig. (2- tailored)’ in the respective tables) as a value of p < 0.01 is considered statistically significant (Hinton et al., 2014, p. 130).

Multiple Regression

Regression analyses are “used to predict the values of a dependent variable given the values of one or more independent variables” (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 548). As this primary study deals with two dependent variables, brand attitude and brand loyalty, as well as multiple moderators, the analysis used within the scope of the present master’s thesis is a multiple

55

regression analysis. For this type of analysis, the coefficient of multiple determination, also referred to as R2, indicates how good a predictor of the multiple regression is likely to be and ranges from 0 to 1 (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 547). R2 is 1 when the independent variable explains the variance in the dependent variables fully, which is however rarely the case, and R2 is 0 if none of the variation can be explained. To have a reference value when interpreting this coefficient, Saunders et al. (2016, p. 547) argue that research rarely obtains a coefficient above 0.8. One way to test whether the likelihood of distinct groups being different occurred by chance is a one-way analysis of variance, also called one-way ANOVA, to see if the model works in general (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 544). Furthermore, our multiple regression analysis will focus on the β-coefficient (beta coefficient) and its p- value (shown in the column ‘Sig.’ in the respective tables). The β-coefficient helps to understand how an independent variable can predict the dependent variables as the coefficient measures the degree of change in the outcome variable per 1-unit change in the predictor variable. Thereby, the β-value can range between -1 and 1 (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 545). If the β-coefficient is positive, every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable will lead to the increase of the outcome variable by the β-coefficient. If the β-coefficient is negative on the other hand, every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable will lead to the decrease of the outcome variable by the β-coefficient. As for the paired t-test, the p-value reflects the likelihood of the coefficient to have occurred by chance, meaning the statistical significance (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 548). A significance value that is p < 0.05 indicates that the coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, while p > 0.05 means that the coefficient is more likely to have occurred by chance.

56

4. Empirical Findings

After conducting the online survey, this chapter firstly presents a raw description of demographic information about the sample, followed by the quantitative empirical findings that can be retrieved from the survey. Those empirical findings are split into discoveries regarding moderators related to the consumer and related to the brand, which goes in line with the previously developed integrative model. The last part of this chapter focuses on the statistical reliability of the results.

4.1 Findings on Demographics and Moderators related to the Consumer

The first four questions of the Internet questionnaire are related to basic demographic information of the respondents. A total of 121 responses got recorded through the presented survey in a time horizon of 9 days. Out of these 121 responses, 75 were born 1981-1996 and therefore part of the Gen Y and 46 were born 1997 or later accounting for Gen Z. This presents a ratio of 62 % to 38 %. As this question is highly relevant according to the stated research purpose to examine Gen Y in contrast to Gen Z, the following empirical findings of most questions will be presented in two different charts representing answers from Generation Y compared to Generation Z. Furthermore, a total of 79 respondents (65.3 %) were female and 42 (34.7 %) were male. The defined target group included only consumers that have been living in Europe for the majority of their lives. Therefore, the third question of the survey had the sole function to ensure that the person answering the questionnaire is from Europe, resulting in 100 % of the respondents replying ‘Yes’ as opposite reactions (‘No’) got erased due to irrelevance. As Europe includes many countries with different cultures and values, the countries got grouped into Central Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe (See appendix 1 on what countries have been grouped together). In total, 59 respondents (48.8 %) have been specified to come from Central Europe, 52 (43 %) from Northern Europe, 5 respondents (4.1 %) from Southern Europe and another 5 respondents from Eastern Europe. These results are in line with our expectations to get the most responses from Central and Northern Europe according to our origins in Sweden and Germany, which is why only these two country clusters are being compared if showing differences due to insufficient data from the other two country clusters. The two questions regarding gender and country of origin can be considered supplementary questions to gain insights on demographics of the respondents. However, they are not part of the main research purpose and therefore, only interesting differences between genders and different countries of origin concerning certain questions are being presented in this chapter.

The empirical findings of the following ten statements that got ranked by the respondents on a 5-point scale will be introduced in this paragraph. As explained in the survey design, those statements represent the moderators related to the consumer, meaning FI construct that includes questions 5-7, the EC construct, including statements 8-10, SB construct, where 11 & 12 statements are included, as well as an independent statement that reflects Friends’ environmental concern (FxEC, question 13) and the ranking question regarding what factors play an important role when shopping fashion items (question 14). For each block of questions, descriptive statistics including the computed mean, median and standard deviation will be shown, followed by bar charts on each question, first including both generations and genders and secondly split up into Generation Y and Generation Z as well as male and female. If differences can be found regarding consumers from Northern vs. Central Europe, it will be stated as well.

57

Fashion Interest (FI)

As previously mentioned, this construct includes three statements summarized as fashion interest. As seen in Table 3, the mean and median are relatively close for all three statements, which indicates that the data are fairly evenly located around the mean.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics FI.

Generally, the most respondents of the survey, in total 33.1 %, agreed to the first statement that they love fashion and keep up with the latest trends (See Figure 7). The mean for this question can be located at 2.99, which shows that the average of respondents answered ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ on this question. With a standard deviation of 1.144 which can be considered as an average deviation for a 5-point scale, the mean can be taken as representative of all answers. Comparing the two age groups of the sample Gen Y and Z with each other, the means for this statement are similar, however, for Gen Y most respondents answered ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ whereas the majority of Gen Z respondents answered ‘Agree’, followed by ‘Disagree’ (See Appendix 2). This indicates that the Gen Z representatives are slightly more interested in fashion with a mean of 3.07 and have in most cases a stronger opinion about their fashion interest. For this first statement of the fashion interest block, the results also need to be split according to gender (See Appendix 3) as the difference between female and male respondents is significant. The most female respondents (43 %) answer to agree that they love fashion and keep up with the latest trends, whereas the most male participants in the survey replied with ‘Disagree’ (45.2 %). These findings are also in line with the mean of 3.35 for female and 2.31 for male respondents, which shows that females are on average more interested in fashion than men.

The second statement that got stated in the scope of this primary study had the purpose to investigate how often surveyed consumers purchase fashion items as one characteristic of fast fashion is a high frequency of fashion purchases of consumers. Thereby, a total of 47.1 % survey respondents strongly disagreed to buy many fashion items per month, resulting in a mean of 1.98. Also for this second question, the rather stable standard deviation of 1.133 signifies that the mean can be taken as representative of all answers. When comparing the two age groups (See Appendix 2), a significant difference of a mean of 1.77 for Gen Y and 2.33 for Gen Z can be identified as only 32.6 % of Gen Z consumers compared to 56 % of Gen Y consumers answered ‘Strongly disagree’ on this statement.

58

Therefore, the conclusion that Gen Z consumers purchase more fashion items per month than Gen Y consumers can be drawn from these findings, which goes in line with the slightly greater love for fashion of the younger generation as found through the first statement of the FI construct. Also comparing the answers of female and male respondents, a notable difference of a mean of 2.23 for females to a mean of 1.52 for males got found through this survey (See Appendix 3), which demonstrates that female consumers purchase more frequently fashion items than male consumers.

Finally, findings of the last statement to test the fashion interest of the sample display that most respondents of the questionnaire (36.4 %) agreed to think a lot about what clothes to wear and how items fit together. The mean for this question is accordingly 3.59 with the lowest standard deviation of 1.022 for this block of questions. Comparing Gen Y and Z, the difference in answers is not as significant as for the past two statements since Gen Z thinks only slightly more about what clothes to wear with a mean of 3.7 to 3.52 (See Appendix 2). Regarding differences between the genders, females are more likely to think a lot about what clothes to wear and how items fit together as 44.3 % females answered ‘Agree’ compared to 21.4 % of the male respondents. The mean of females for this statement is at 3.86 compared to 3.07 for males, since the majority of males (42.9 %) answered ‘Neither agree nor disagree’. For all three statements of the fashion interest block, the country of origin plays no significant role as answers were very similar between respondents from Central and Northern Europe (See Appendix 4).

Figure 7: Responses FI Statements (in percentage).

Environmental Concern (EC)

The next three statements were grouped together to test the environmental concern of consumers that answered the survey. Also for these statements, the mean and median are relatively similar for all three assertions as depicted in Table 4, indicating that the data are fairly evenly located around the mean. Furthermore, the standard deviation for these statements is low, especially for the first statement, which is why the mean can be trusted to show the representative result for each statement.

59

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics EC.

The first statement ‘I am aware of environmental issues in the world’ is a fairly general assertion, which got answered with ‘Strongly agree’ by most of the respondents (57 %), followed by 32.2 % that agreed and resulting in a mean of 4.43. As seen in Appendix 5, the difference between Gen Y and Z is not significant with a mean of 4.48 to 4.35, indicating that Generation Y is slightly more aware of environmental issues in the world. The almost same ratio can be seen comparing female responses resulting in a slightly higher mean of 4.48 than male responses averaging to a mean of 4.33 (See Appendix 6).

Secondly, most participants (41.3 %) of the questionnaire responded ‘Strongly agree’ to actively trying to behave in a sustainable way. The mean for this statement lays at 3.98, which shows that many of the respondents actively try to behave in a sustainable way. Comparing the findings for this statement according to age, Gen Y consumers answered in more cases to strongly agree (48 %) than Gen Z consumers (30.4) resulting in a mean of 4.19 for the older generation to 3.63 for the younger one (See Appendix 5). Therefore, Gen Y is more likely trying to behave in a sustainable way. Also for the two different genders, a difference in means can be seen as displayed in Appendix 6. In total 76 % of all female respondents answered to either strongly agree or agree, compared to 61.9 % of male participants in the survey. The ratio of the mean is 4.14 for females to 3.67 for males, meaning that women are more often trying to behave in a sustainable way than men. Looking conclusively at the results according to countries of origin (See Appendix 7), this statement is the only one in the EC block of assertions that shows significant differences between Central and Northern Europe. Whereas the average of responses is 4.24 for participants from Central Europe, it is only 3.71 for consumers in Northern Europe, intending that more central European people from the sample try to actively behave in a sustainable way.

Finally, it is interesting to see that participants in this primary study know generally a lot about sustainability and related issues in the world, however, know less about environmental issues in the fashion industry. Most of the respondents answered this statement with ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, which is also shown in the mean of 3.29. The survey results show for this statement distinct differences comparing the examined generations as Gen Y consumers score a mean of 3.48 in contrast to Gen Z with a mean of 2.98 (See Appendix 5). This outcome is caused due to 20 % of Gen Y consumers answering to strongly agree with this statement compared to 4.3 % within Gen Z. According to the tables in Appendix 6, the differences between genders on this assertion are insignificant with females knowing slightly more than males about environmental issues in the fashion industry.

60

Figure 8: Responses EC Statements (in percentage).

Social Belonging (SB)

The next two statements concern the need of social belonging of the participants, which got identified as a moderating variable in the theoretical framework. For both statements, the mean and median are again relatively similar indicating that the data are fairly evenly located around the mean. The standard deviation for all assertions is low, hence, the mean can be trusted to show the representative result for each statement.

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics SB.

The main answer for the first statement ‘I easily get influenced by the opinions of my friends’ was ‘Disagree’ with 37.2 % of all participants responding in this way. The second most often chosen response was to neither agree nor disagree, which resulted in a mean of 2.57. Looking at Appendix 8, no significant differences according to age can be identified and also according to gender (See Appendix 9), the discrepancy is only small with women getting slightly more influenced by opinions of their friends. Furthermore, consumers in Northern Europe answered slightly more often to ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, whereas Central European consumers disagreed more often, resulting in a mean of 2.83 for Northern Europe to 2.41 for Central Europe (See Appendix 10).

61

The second statement investigating the need of social belonging of consumers shows that most people from the sample strongly disagree to take the factor that friends buy a certain brand as motivation to buy the same brand, followed by ‘Disagree’. Therefore, the mean for this question can be located at 2.03 as Table 5 displays. Comparing Gen Y and Z (See Appendix 8), the variation of the mean (2.07 to 1.98) is marginal, but it is noticeable when comparing the standard deviations, that Gen Z’s answers are more spread out than Gen Y’s as no consumers from Gen Y answered ‘Strongly agree’, but 4.3 % of the Gen Z consumers did. However, also the amount of answers for ‘Strongly disagree’ were higher for Gen Z (32 % to 45.7 %). The two genders vary not significantly from each other for this statement as Appendix 9 shows, but comparing consumers from Central Europe with Northern Europe according to statistics in Appendix 10, Northern European consumers score a mean of 2.33 and Central European consumers of 1.85, indicating that participants from Northern Europe are more likely to buy a certain brand due to their friends interest in the brand.

Figure 9: Responses SB Statements (in percentage).

Independent question: FxEC

For this statement concerning FxEC, the mean and median are comparatively far apart. Most respondents of this primary study are surrounded by friends that are interested in sustainability with a mean of 3.31 as depicted in Table 6 and Figure 10 and with the most people responding with ‘Agree’ to this statement. However, the results are as mentioned quite spread out for this statement and not as evenly located around the mean as for statements.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics FxEC.

62

Figure 10: Responses FxEC Statement (in percentage).

Analyzing the two examined generations in contrast, it can be stated that Gen Y consumers respond more positively with in total 60 % answering to agree or strongly agree compared to Gen Z consumers where only 34.8 % responded in this way (See Appendix 8). This is also represented in the mean of 3.55 for Gen Y and 2.93 for Gen Z. However, for the two different genders, no significant difference could be noticed (See Appendix 9).

Independent question: Most important to least important factor

The analysis for this question has to be a different approach as it included instead of ranking a statement on a 5-point scale a ranking of 6 factors that can play a role for the consumer when buying fashion items. However, once a factor is selected as i.e. most important factor, it cannot be selected again. The factor that got selected as most important by most participants in the survey is ‘Style’ with 33.9 %, closely followed by ‘Fit/ Comfort’ with 33.1 % of all respondents according to Table 7. Secondly, most consumers selected ‘Quality’ with 25.6 % and again ‘Style’ and ‘Fit/ Comfort’ as their second most important factor when shopping for fashion. According to the results of this questionnaire, ‘Brand Name’ matters the least to the average surveyed consumer as 66.1 % ranked this factor as least important, followed by the ‘Environmental Impact’ that mattered to 19 % the least and is to 31.1 % not important. The factor ‘Price’ was fairly evenly spread in the middle of the ranking as 29.8 % of the survey participants saw the price as rather important and 27.3 % ranked it as rather not important.

63

Table 7: Ranking of Factors Most Important to Least Important.

When comparing the findings split into age groups (See Appendix 11), one aspect that can be noticed is that the younger Gen Z value ‘Style’ with 41.3 % more often than Gen Y (29.3 %) as the most important factor. The, on average, highest ranked factor for Gen Y is ‘Fit/ Comfort’ with 37.3 %. Furthermore, the results show that Gen Z consumers are slightly more price sensitive and on the other hand, Gen Y value the factor ‘Environmental Impact’ higher compared to Generation Z. Analyzing the genders in contrast, the main difference discovered is men care more for the factor ‘Quality’ (52.4 % of all male respondents saw quality as most important or important, compared to 34.2 % of all females), whereas females rank ‘Style’ on average higher (See Appendix 12). Finally, also the differences between consumers from Central Europe and Northern Europe are comparatively small with survey respondents from Central Europe valuing Fit/ Comfort at most important factor with 39 % and consumers from Northern Europe scoring the highest for ‘Style’ as most important factor with 40.4 % (See Appendix 13). For all the other factors, the outcomes differed only in a marginal way.

4.2 Findings on Moderators related to the Brand and Brand Attitude

This subchapter presents findings on the statements related to the brand, which were asked to rank after the ones concerning the consumer and which are especially highly interesting to analyze in correlation to each other happening in the analysis chapter. To achieve a high credibility, the survey asked the respondent to choose the fast fashion brand he or she is most familiar with and accordingly, all the following statements and questions were then formulated with respect to the chosen brand. The three fast fashion brands that were given to choose from are H&M, which 68.6 % of all surveyed consumers chose, followed by Zara with 28.1 % and lastly Mango with 3.3 % (See Appendix 14). Secondly, the results from the next statement ‘I like the brand X’ indicates most consumers chose a fast fashion brand they at least do not see in a negative light, since in total 80 % of all respondents ranked this statement with ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ or higher showed in Appendix 15 and resulting in a mean of 3.5 (Table 8). However, these findings also indicate that at least 20 % are either no fast fashion shoppers or could not identify with none of the three given brands. The following two statements had the purpose to test the deeper connection of the surveyed consumers with the brand. Both statements had a comparatively high standard deviation, which shows that the given answers were fairly spread out on the 5-point scale. With a mean of 2.88, most respondents answered ‘Disagree’ (32.2 %) to regularly purchasing fashion items at the chosen brand, followed by ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘Agree’ (See Appendix 15) and the mean for the statement whether the chosen brand is the preferred brand when shopping fashion resulted in an even lower mean of 2.47 according to Table 8. This rather shallow connection to the chosen brand of many surveyed consumers might lead to an adulteration of results, which will be explained and investigated more closely in the analysis chapter. Going on, only a few respondents

64

evaluate the chosen fast fashion brand to care for the environment with a mean of 2.44 and most people responding ‘Disagree’ or ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ (both 35.5 % of all answers) while resulting in a very low standard deviation below 1. The knowledge of consumers about actions towards more sustainability undertaken by the chosen brand varies, since the percentages of consumers disagreeing, being neutral or agreeing are almost the same (See Appendix 15). Lastly, also the brand loyalty that got tested with the final general statement can be seen as low with a mean of 1.95 and in total 76 % of survey participants strongly disagreeing or disagreeing.

Table 8: Outcome Brand Example.

For comparing the two age groups as well as males and females with each other, the mean got used as a basic determinant for average tendencies to see where the responses are similar and different from each other. Table 9 displaying how Gen Y and Z participants in the questionnaire ranked the statements shows generally that Gen Z has a deeper connection with the chosen fast fashion brand than Gen Y as Gen Z consumers answered on average numerically higher on all first three statements. Furthermore, a marginal difference can be noticed in the statement ‘I know how brand X is addressing sustainability issues’ since Generation Y respondents on average know more about how H&M, Zara or Mango are addressing sustainability issues according to the survey. However, responses from the last statement reveal that even though consumers belonging to Gen Z like the chosen brand more and also purchase it more often, they still can be considered less brand loyal since they are more likely to switch to another brand in case of a great sale.

65

Table 9: Outcome Brand Example split according to Age.

Split according to gender, the results in Table 10 show significant discrepancies regarding the first three statements as women reach higher scores on all of them. This means that females are on average more likely to like the chosen brand and purchase it regularly. However, the rating of the other statements does not show strong differences between men and women.

Table 10: Outcome Brand Example split according to Gender.

Finally, the differences between consumers from Central Europe and Northern Europe are small with an only insignificant disparity of Northern European survey participants having a slightly deeper connection with the chosen fast fashion brand, trusting the brand marginally more to care for the sustainability and also knowing a little bit more about how the chosen brand is addressing sustainability issues (See Appendix 16).

4.3 Findings on Green Line vs. Green Category Extensions

The findings on the last two question blocks will be viewed in comparison to see differences between the consumer perceptions on GLEs and GCEs (See Tables 11 & 12).

66

As explained in the survey design, the respondents read first a GLE scenario and later in the questionnaire a GCE scenario and for each situation, they have to rank a few statements. The standard deviation of the first statements can be evaluated as relatively average, however, the standard deviation of the last two statements are comparatively high showing that the given answers are quite spread out on the 5-point scale.

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics Green Line Extension.

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics Green Category Extension.

Already in the first statement to like the chosen brand even more due to the GLE or GCE, a clear difference in responses can be noticed. Figure 11 displays that when examining GLEs, most survey participants answered that they like the brand even more, adding the answers for ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ resulting in a sum of 76.9 % and an overall mean of 3.99. However, when being confronted with the GCE scenario, the majority of participants (40.5 %) answered to ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ followed by ‘Disagree’ (24.8 %) and ‘Strongly Disagree’ (16.5 %) and resulting in a mean of 2.67. Comparing the results for this first statement of GLEs and GCEs, the paired samples test shows that the difference between the two means are statistically significant with 1.322 difference in means and a significance value below 0.001 (See Table 13).

67

Figure 11: Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would like Brand X even more’.

Table 13: Paired Samples Test GBExBA.

The same trend towards seeing the chosen brand as more positive after a GLE instead of a GCE can be detected by means of the second statement. These two statements reflect intentional brand loyalty. Again, most respondents answered ‘Agree’ to being more likely to buy from the chosen brand after a GLE with 34.7 % and a mean of 3.49. On the other hand, after a GCE most respondents would not feel inclined to buy from the brand more often as most survey participants answered ‘Disagree’ (35.5 %). Also comparing the means of the second statement of both scenarios, the mean regarding category extensions is clearly lower with 2.29. As the paired samples test displays, also for these two statements the difference between the means is statistically significant with 1.198 difference in means and a significance value below 0.001 (See Table 14).

Figure 12: Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would buy products from Brand X more often’.

Table 14: Paired Samples Test GBExBL.

The next statement had the purpose to investigate the perceived brand fit of the GBE to the parent brand. Overall, Figure 13 shows that the participants in the questionnaire have the opinion that a sustainable clothing line would fit better to the chosen fast fashion brand

68

than a sustainable paperwork line, presumably due to the similarity of products. However, even though the mean for the brand fit of the sustainable paperwork line is low with 2.07, also the brand fit for the sustainable clothing line is fairly low with a mean of 2.87, probably because fairly few respondents think that the chosen fast fashion brand is in general sustainable (mean of 2.44, See Table 8) and therefore do not see the connection of a greener line and a fast fashion company. Again, the paired samples test indicates that the discrepancy between the means is statistically significant with 0.802 and a significance value below 0.001 (See Table 15).

Figure 13: Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘The sustainable extension fits to Brand X’.

Table 15: Paired Samples Test GBExBF.

Going on, the respondents had to rank whether they would be skeptical if the chosen fast fashion brand would introduce a GLE or GCE. Overall, the results show that consumers are less skeptical if a brand introduces a new green line, nevertheless, the difference is not as great as for the previous statements with a mean of 2.66 for the GLE scenario compared to 2.85 for the GCE (See Table 11 & 12). This is underlined by the paired samples test that displays a difference of means of -0.19, which can be rated as not statistically significant with a significance value of 0.127 (See Table 16). Analyzing the results more in detail, Figure 14 reveals vividly that most respondents disagreed to be skeptical towards a GLE of the chosen fast fashion brand with 28.9 % followed by ‘Strongly disagree’ and most survey participants clicked ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ (33.9 %) followed as well by ‘Strongly disagree’ to be skeptical towards a new sustainable paperwork line.

Figure 14: Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would be sceptical towards a green extension of Brand X’.

69

Table 16: Paired Samples Test GBExS.

The last statement that tested the social belonging factor, which reflects whether consumers enjoy the GBE and therefore will tell their friends about the new launch so hence they will enjoy it together, results in almost completely opposite outcomes as Figure 15 displays. Most of the questionnaire respondents strongly agree that they would tell their friends about a GLE of their chosen fast fashion brand (31.4 %), whereas 27.3 % of all surveyed consumers strongly disagreed to tell their friends about the new sustainable paper line described in the GCE scenario. This great discrepancy is also represented by the difference in means of 3.55 for the line extension vs. 2.58 for the category extension (See Table 11 & 12). Likewise, the paired samples test shows that the difference between the two means is statistically significant with 0.975 and a significance value below 0.001 (See Table 17).

Figure 15: Results Line vs. Category Extension ‘I would tell my friends about the extension of Brand X’.

Table 17: Paired Samples Test GBExSB.

Finally, the scenario for introducing a sustainable clothing line involved one additional statement to test if the environmental friendliness of the new product line can alone be a factor to buy the products or if the fashion items have to be similar to the parent brand regarding the other influencing factors such as price or style. Thereby, the results show that many consumers believe that the new product line should be similar to the parent brand’s items as 25.6 % responded with ‘Agree’ and 24.8 % with ‘Strongly Agree’. As this statement stands alone as it concerns only GLEs and not GCEs, the findings from this statement are noted as interesting but will not be included in the regression analysis. It is not possible to compare it to any other statement and the framing of the statement can also

70

be considered to be a leading question which is another reason for why it is excluded from the analysis.

Figure 16: Results Line Extension ‘I would only buy the new line if the products have similar features’.

Comparing the results of Gen Y and Gen Z consumers, the differences are not significant for most of the statements as Appendices 17 & 18 outline. Consumers of the Gen Y are slightly more likely to like the brand more after the introduction of a GLE with a mean of 3.89 for Gen Z and 4.05 for Gen Y. However as the second statement indicates, this does not cause a higher probability to buy products from the brand for Gen Y consumers. Regarding the brand fit, Gen Y survey participants are more skeptical with respect to the chosen fast fashion brand introducing a greener clothing line and also think that a more sustainable line does not fit to the image of the chosen brand (See Appendix 17). For GCEs on the other hand, questionnaire participants of the Gen Z are more open than those of Gen Y to like the brand more and also buy products from the chosen brand more often due to the new sustainable paperwork line. Gen Z reaches higher means for both statements (See Appendix 18). The questions concerning the perceived brand fit result in the same outcome as for GLEs, because Gen Y consumers are also regarding GCEs more critical and have the opinion that a sustainable paperwork line fits less to the chosen parent brand. One difference that can be noticed regarding whether respondents would tell their friends about the sustainable paperwork line is that Gen Z is more likely than Gen Y to share their information with friends. However, the overall numerical results are all higher for the GLE statements than for the GCE ones.

When comparing answers that men and women have given for these statements, differences can be noticed especially regarding the GLE scenario. In general, women develop a more positive brand attitude towards a brand due to a GLE than man. This is shown by the survey outcome, depicted split according to gender in Appendix 19, as more female respondents answered to like the chosen brand even more with a mean of 4.18 than men with a mean of 3.64 and women are also more likely to buy products more frequently due to a GLE of a brand. Further, a larger number of female participants in the survey (mean of 3.08) believe that a sustainable clothing line would fit the chosen fast fashion brand than men (mean of 2.48). However, men are more skeptical regarding GBEs in general as the results show differences in means for GLEs and GCEs (See Appendix 19 & 20). Also for the statement whether respondents would tell their friends about the brand extension, a discrepancy in means can be started for the GLE and GCE scenario. After reading both scenarios but especially after introducing a new sustainable clothing line, more women would tell their friends about the GBE than men with a mean of 3.87 (females) to 2.95 (males) for the GLE.

The last comparison that will be made in this part is according to country of origin, more precisely between Northern and Central Europe, whereby the answers differed mostly

71

regarding the GCE (See Appendix 21 & 22). Consumers from Central Europe answered more often to have an increased positive attitude towards the chosen brand and to be more likely to buy products more often from the brand after reading the GCE scenario than Northern European consumers. This difference is especially visible for the statement ‘I would buy products from brand X more often’ as Central European participants reached a mean of 2.47 compared to 2.06 for Northern Europeans. Another contrast that can be noticed is that for both scenarios, survey respondents from Central Europe are more likely to tell their friends about the GBE than Northern Europeans.

4.4 Cronbach’s Alpha

As previously described in the data analysis subchapter, Cronbach’s alpha is used to establish internal reliability for the present thesis and for the identified variables and a commonly accepted level of internal reliability is a Cronbach’s alpha of above 0.7 (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 451). Initially, some of the statements should have been grouped together differently, however that did not work with the Cronbach’s alphas as they were too low. Therefore, we used the SPSS function ‘Scale if item deleted’ to see whether certain items are the origin of such an issue. For the variable FxEC i.e., question 13 (See Table 1) should have originally been grouped within SB as well. However, with that question the variable had only a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.456, which inclines that the coherence of that set of items would be questioned in the present thesis and which is why this question got removed from the variable SB to establish internal reliability. Therefore, in total four variables include more than one statement and as Table 18 shows, all of them reach an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha.

Variables Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items

FI 0,773 3

EC 0,768 3

SB 0,748 2

BA 0,749 4 Table 18: Cronbach’s Alpha.

72

5. Analysis and Discussion

After displaying the raw empirical findings, this chapter focuses first on the multiple regression analysis to show dependencies of the moderators on the relationship between GBEs and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty. Afterwards, the outcome of this primary study is being compared to the finding from the theoretical framework and the developed integrative model is being adjusted accordingly.

5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis

In order to evaluate the causal relationship between the independent variable towards the dependent variables, in case of the present study the relationship of GBE’s towards brand attitude and brand loyalty, multiple regression analyses are conducted. In this part of the thesis, the identified moderators from the integrative model are called independent variables, which should however not be confused with GBEs as general independent variable. The independent variables that are examined within the scope of this thesis are Age, Gender, FI, EC, FxEC, SB, BA, EA, and BL. The variable Gender is used as a standardized control variable as it does not have an observable effect on respondents’ reactions to GBEs. Age is usually a control variable as well, but as this thesis intends to compare two age groups (Gen Y and Gen Z) it is not viewed as a control variable in this thesis since it has a somewhat observable effect.

5.1.1 Regression 1

The first regression analysis evaluates the relationship between the GLE and the independent variables that are mentioned in the section above. Regressions were thereby made for all the dependent variables, which are GLExBA, GLExS, GLExBF, GLExBL and GLExSB (See Table 19).

73

Table 19: Regression 1: Green Line Extension.

For the dependent variable GLExBA, only the independent variables EC and BA are significant with p-values of 0.036 for EC and 0.003 for BA (See Table 19). The other independent variables have a p-value above 0.05, hence, it is likely that they have occurred by chance. Looking at the independent variables EC and BA towards the dependent variable GLExBA, BA has a higher β-coefficient of 0.290 compared to EC with 0.201, which is however not a large difference. As both coefficients are positive, it can be derived that EC and BA have a positive impact on GLExBA. In addition, R2 accounts for 0.216 meaning that 21,6 % of the variation in GLExBA can be explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23) and looking at the ANOVA, the model is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.001 (See Appendix 24).

In the regressions towards the dependent variable GLExS, there are three independent variables that are significant, which are EC, FxEC and BA with p-values of 0.048, 0.041 and 0.000 (See Table 19). The other dependent variables cannot be seen as significant since the p-values are above 0.05. However, the independent variable Age has a p-value of 0.067 which is below the 10 % level and therefore can be evaluated as significant, even though a p-value below 5 % will be seen as statistically significant for this thesis as mentioned in the data analysis chapter. One fact that needs to be mentioned regarding this specific dependent variable is that the statement was formulated in a negative way, which means that positive β-coefficients as for EC (0.176) have a negative influence on GLExS and FxEC (-0.172) and BA (-0.437) with negative β-coefficients imply a positive impact on GLExS. Furthermore, 32.1 % of the variation in GLExS can be explained by the independent variables as R2 accounts for 0.321 (See Appendix 23) and the model is statistically significant overall with a p-value below 0.001 (See Appendix 24).

Regarding the variable GLExBF, the regressions for Age, EC, FxEC, SB, BA and BL are significant because of p-values below 0.05 (See Table 19). Among these six significant variables, BA has the highest positive impact on GLExBF with a β-coefficient of 0.443 and EC has the lowest with a β-coefficient of 0.164 while all other significant independent variables lay in between and therefore also have a positive influence on GLExBF. The R2 value as depicted in Appendix 23 is at 0.488 and the model is significant overall with a p- value below 0.001 (See Appendix 24).

In terms of the relationship between the dependent variable GLExBL and the independent variables, EC and BA are the variables that are statistically significant, both with p-values of 0.001 (See Table 19). As the β-coefficients for both variables are positive with 0.307 for EC and 0.319 for BA, it can be derived these variables have a positive influence on GLExBL. For this relationship, R2 indicates that 23 % of the variation in GLExBL can be

74

explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23) and the model is overall significant with a p-value below 0.001 (See Appendix 24).

Finally, the regression for EC regarding GLExSB is significant due to a p-value below 0.05 (See Table 19), while all the other independent variables have no statistical significance as they have a high probability of occurring by chance. However, the independent variable Gender has a p-value of 0.058 thus being very close to a significant value being below the 10 % level. Even though Gender with regard to GLExSB can be evaluated as significant, it will not be further considered within the scope of this thesis due to the set 5 % border. EC has a positive impact on GLExSB with a β-coefficient of 0.264. Furthermore, R2 accounts for 0.234 (See Appendix 23) and the overall model is statistically significant with a p-value below 0.001 in the ANOVA (See Appendix 24).

5.1.2 Regression 2

The second regression analysis evaluates the relationship between the dependent variables GCE and the previously mentioned independent variables. Regressions were made for all the dependent variables, GLExBA, GLExS, GLExBF, GLExBL and GLExSB (See Table 20).

Table 20: Regression 2: Green Category Extension.

75

With respect to GCExBA, only the independent variables Age, FxEC and BL are statistically significant with p-values of 0.026, 0.010 and respectively 0.033 as Table 20 displays. The remaining independent variables reach too high p-values to be considered significant. Evaluating the significant independent variables towards GCExBA, FxEC has the highest β-coefficient with 0.241, however not with a big numerical difference compared to Age and BL. As all the β-coefficients of the significant independent variables are positive, they all have a positive impact on GCExBA. In addition, the R2 value indicates that 16.2 % of the variation in GCExBA can be explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23), which is lower than the R2 for GLExBA (21.6 %). Looking at the ANOVA, the model is overall significant with a p-value of 0.017 (See Appendix 25).

In the regressions towards the dependent variable GCExS, there are no independent variables that are statistically significant and reach a p-value below 0.05 (See Table 20). The independent variable BA has a p-value of 0.076 which is within the 10 % interval but not considered significant in the scope of this thesis. As the β-coefficient for BA is negative with -0.187 but the statement was formulated in a negative way as already stated in the regression 1, the independent variable BA has a positive influence on GCExS. The R2 accounts for 0.82 meaning that 8.2 % of the variation in GCExS can be explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23), which is far low compared to the R2 of GLExS (32.1 %). Moreover, the model is not statistically significant as the p-value in the ANOVA is 0.3664 indicating that the investigated independent variables do not explain skepticism towards GCE (See Appendix 25).

Going on, for the regressions of GCExBF there is only one significant independent variable which is FxEC with a p-value of 0.007 and with a β-coefficient of 0.260 (See Table 20), FxEC has a positive influence on GCExBF. The R2 value for this regression shows that 13.2 % of the variation in GCExBF can be explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23), which is low compared to the R2 value of GLExBF (48.5 %). In addition, the model is not significant with a p-value of 0.062, which is within the 10 % interval but is not considered significant for this thesis (See Appendix 25).

Regarding the relationship between the dependent variable GCExBL and the examined independent variables, the variables Age, FxEC and BL can be considered significant with p-values of 0.001, 0.010 and 0.013 (See Table 20). All of the statistically significant variables have a positive influence on GCExBL in general due to their positive β- coefficients, whereby Age has the highest coefficient with 0.331. R2 accounts for this regression for 0.15 (See Appendix 23), which is lower than the R2 value for GLExBL (0.23). As the ANOVA (See Appendix 25) displays, the model is overall significant with a p-value of 0.029.

The last investigated relationship is between the dependent variable GCExSB and the independent variables, whereby no variables could be identified as statistically significant as all the p-values are above 0.05 (See Table 20). Hence, they have a high probability of occurring by chance. The R2 value indicates that only 6.2 % of the variation in GCExSB can be explained by the independent variables (See Appendix 23). This is a very low value in comparison to the R2 of GLExSB which is 23.4 %. In addition, the model is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.608 in the ANOVA (See Appendix 25).

76

5.2 Discussion and Results

This part of the thesis discusses the displayed outcomes of the empirical findings as well as of the multiple regression analysis in comparison to the existing research that got described in the theoretical framework.

Important factors when purchasing fashion items

As previously mentioned, Gen Y ranks the factor ‘Fit/Comfort’ with 37.3 % as the most important factor when purchasing fashion items, followed by ‘Style’ with 29.3 % and ‘Quality’ with 16 %. In comparison, the factor ‘Style’ was ranked as the most important factor amongst Gen Z consumers as well with 41.3 %, followed by ‘Fit/Comfort’ with 26,1 % (See Appendix 11). This is in line with Hill & Lee (2015, p. 205) arguing that consumers will choose products that meet their style, quality, fit and price desires despite their environmental concern. According to the collected data of this study, Gen Z respondents tend to value style slightly more than Gen Y, which is also underlined by Gen Z being the most photographed generation and hence desiring to constantly wear new clothes to keep up with the latest trends (Hanburt, n.d.). The factor ‘Brand name’ was ranked as the least important factor by Gen Y with 70.7 % followed by the factor ‘Environmental impact’ with 12 %. Likewise, Gen Z ranked ‘Brand name’ as the least important factor with 58.7 % followed by ‘Environmental impact’ with 30.4 % (See Appendix 11). These findings are contradictory to the existing literature on the topic, since it is argued that Gen Z cares more for sustainability issues compared to previous generations (Hanbury, n.d.). In addition, Kuchinka et al. (2018, p. 5) argue that young people tend to be more concerned about environmental issues which in turn makes it easier for them to make sustainable choices. However, both investigated generations value environmental impact in this primary study fairly low compared to the other factors. Therefore, the traditional view of fashion consumers indicating that environmental and ethical considerations are the least considered factors in purchase decisions can, at least with respect to this study, be considered as accurate (Kim et al., 2013, p. 244). Overall, these findings are also in line with McNeill & Moore (2015, p. 4) who conclude that consumers value being trendy above being ethical. Another contradictory finding of our study is concerning the factor ‘Price’. According to a study by Business Insider, Gen Z consumers are very driven by price as 60 % ranked price as the most important factor in that study (Hanbury, n.d.). However, our findings indicate that price is not ranked amongst the most important factors as only 13 % of the Gen Z respondents ranked ‘Price’ as the most important factor.

Green Line Extensions

The models (dependent variables) concerning GLEs are all statistically significant according to the ANOVAs in the multiple regression analysis (See Appendix 24). All the results on which variables moderate which GLE models are summarized in Table 21.

77

IV/DV GLExBA GLExS GLExBF GLExBL GLExSB

Age absent absent present absent absent

Gender absent absent absent absent absent

FI 0 0 0 0 0

EC + + + + +

FxEC 0 - + 0 0

SB 0 0 + 0 0

BA + - + + 0

EA 0 0 0 0 0

BL 0 0 + 0 0 Table 21:Effects of moderating variables on Green Line Extensions.

The effect of GLEs on the general BA of consumers (Question 20) is moderated by their EC and their initial BA (BAbefore) towards the parent brand (See Table 21). This indicates that the more environmentally concerned consumers are, the more they will like the parent fast fashion brand for launching a new sustainable clothing line. Respectively, the more positive a consumer’s initial attitude towards the brand is, the more they will like the GLE. This is in line with the study by Hwang et al. (2015, p. 99) who argue that consumers with higher environmental concern are more likely to evaluate the sustainability claims of a brand positively. As a result they develop more favorable brand attitudes towards environmentally-friendly products. In addition, consumers with a favorable brand attitude towards the brand will have increased purchase intentions for the brand’s conventional and sustainable products (Chang & Jai, 2014, p. 863).

The effect of GLEs on skepticism of consumers is as well moderated by their EC and initial BA towards the parent brand, but also their friends’ EC (FxEC) (See Table 21). These findings show that the more environmentally concerned consumers are, the more skeptical they will be towards a new sustainable clothing line. These findings can be explained by the thought of greenwashing as fashion brands that promote their sustainability efforts are firstly met with suspicion by consumers (Henninger et al., 2015, p. 402). Likewise, Hill & Lee (2015, p. 208) state that the more involved consumers are within environmental issues, the more they will process information on fashion brands’ sustainability efforts. Secondly, the findings from the present study indicate that the more positive the initial brand attitude of consumers towards the parent brand is, the less skeptical they will be. This is in line with Hill & Lee (2015, p. 209) arguing that consumers will transfer their knowledge and positive attitudes from the parent brand to the extension if they view it to be similar to the parent brand. Furthermore, consumers that belong to a social group that is concerned with environmental issues are found to be less skeptical towards a new sustainable clothing line. This result can be explained by Papista et al. (2017, p. 103). Individuals choose brands in order to enhance one’s social self-concept and the association with social groups inclining that the need for social belonging can encourage them to make more sustainable options since their surroundings expect it.

78

Thirdly, the relation of GLEs and BF is moderated by the variables Age, EC, FxEC, SB, BAbefore and BLbefore (See Table 21). Therefore, the more environmentally concerned consumers are and the more environmentally concerned their social group is, the more they view a GLE as a good fit to the parent brand. These results are confirmed by Hill & Lee (2015, p. 208) as a higher involvement with environmental issues will lead to a more positive fit evaluation. In addition, the higher consumers’ need to belong to their social group is, the more they tend to view a new sustainable clothing line as a good fit to the parent brand which can be explained by the consumers’ surroundings expecting them to behave in a sustainable way (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). Concerning the influencing variable Age, Gen Z consumers tend to think that a sustainable clothing line is a good fit with the parent fast fashion brand more often than Gen Y consumers. This is in line with Hanbury (n.d.) arguing that the young consumer group Gen Z cares more about sustainability than Gen Y. The reason why Gen Z tends to perceive a higher brand fit between a sustainable clothing line and its parent brand is that Gen Y consumers tend to be more skeptical towards fashion brand’s sustainability claims (Hwang et al., 2015, p. 97). Finally, the more consumers like the parent brand and are loyal to it initially, the more they tend to view a new sustainable clothing line as a good fit to the parent brand. These findings are confirmed by Hill & Lee (2015, pp. 208) stating that if the parent brand is well known, the level of perceived fit between an extension and its parent brand will be higher. In addition, Kim & Ma (2014, p. 168) state that consumers tend to evaluate line extensions more favorably and as better fitting to the parent brand compared to category extensions.

The relation of the GLE and BL is moderated by consumers’ EC and their BAbefore towards the parent brand (See Table 21). This indicates that the more consumers are environmentally concerned and the more favorable attitudes they have towards the parent brand, the more likely they are to be loyal to the parent brand. This can be explained by Hwang et al. (2015, p. 99) who state that consumers’ level of environmental concern is influencing how they evaluate sustainability claims of brands and a favorable brand attitude toward a brand will increase purchase intentions which is related to brand loyalty. Brand commitment can explain consumers’ intention to act supportive towards the brand and make them evaluate the brand favorably (Papista et al., 2017, p. 104). In addition, brand loyalty is built on trust which reflects consumers’ willingness to rely on the capability of a brand to perform what it promises (Papista et al., 2017, p. 104), which can easier be done when there is already an established relationship to and a positive attitude with the parent brand.

The final relationship that got investigated through the GLE scenario is between the GLE and SB, which can be seen as an indicator for BL and which is only moderated by consumers’ EC. These findings indicate that the more environmentally concerned consumers are, the more likely they tell their friends about the new sustainable clothing line (See Table 21). Comparing this outcome with findings from secondary literature, Strähle (2017, p. 2) argues that fashion consumers purchase based on an emotional need rather than a rational one and therefore, friends and peers play an important role in the decision-making process.

Green Category Extensions

Regarding the models (dependent variables) for GCEs, only GCExBA, GCExBF and GCExBL are statistically significant according to the ANOVAs in the multiple regression analysis (See Appendix 25). Therefore and due to only absent independent variables for

79

GCExS and GCExSB, these dependent variables will not be analyzed further. All the results on which variables moderate which GCE models are summarized in Table 22.

IV/ DV GCExBA GCExS GCExBF GCExBL GCExSB

Age present absent absent present absent

Gender absent absent absent absent absent

FI 0 0 0 0 0

EC 0 0 0 0 0

FxEC + 0 + + 0

SB 0 0 0 0 0

BA 0 0 0 0 0

EA 0 0 0 0 0

BL + 0 0 + 0 Table 22: Effects of moderating variables on Green Category Extensions.

The relationship of GCE and the caused BA toward the parent brand is moderated by the variables Age, FxEC and BL. Gen Z consumers tend to develop a more positive BA due to a GCE compared to Gen Y (See Table 22). This is in line with Hanbury (n.d) who states that consumers within the Gen Z segment tend to care more about sustainability than previous generations, influencing their attitudes towards sustainable products in a positive way. Likewise, Kingston (2014) argues that Gen Z consumers have been raised in times where information on global warming and depleting resources are given a lot of attention, which in turn will affect their attitudes towards brands’ sustainability efforts. The results further show that if respondents have environmentally concerned friends, they are more likely to develop a positive brand attitude towards the parent brand due to a GCE. The need for individuals to belong to their social group and to associate themselves with the group can explain why consumers tend to view GCEs more favorable if their friends are environmentally concerned. As stated earlier, individuals can become encouraged by their social group to behave more sustainably because their surroundings expect it (Papista et al., 2017, p. 103). Furthermore, the purchase decision of fashion items follows limited decision-making meaning that people purchase based on individual influencing factors and hence, it is more common to seek advice from friends (Strähle, 2017, p. 2). Also the emotional need plays a larger role when purchasing fashion than the rational need which confirms the relevancy of individuals’ social groups in the decision making process. Finally, consumers that are already loyal to the parent fast fashion brand will more likely view the new GCE in a positive way as well. This is in line with Hwang et al. (2015, p. 99) explaining that consumers who already evaluate the sustainability claims of a brand more favorable in turn will have increased purchase intentions for conventional and green products, which is highly related to brand equity hence, related to brand loyalty (Chang & Jai, 2014, p. 863).

80

The relationship of GCEs and BF is moderated by the independent variable FxEC indicating that consumers with environmentally concerned friends are more likely to view a GCE as a good fit with the parent brand (See Table 22). This can be explained by the study by Papista et al. (2017, p. 103) in which it is argued that individuals’ need to belong to their social groups can encourage them to make more sustainable choices as their surroundings expect them to. This can be the reason why consumers view a GCE as a good fit to the parent brand as their friends are environmentally concerned which can influence their own opinions.

Finally, the responses to the statement concerning GCE and BL were moderated by the variables FxEC and their initial brand loyalty towards the parent brand (BLbefore) (See Table 22). This indicates that if a consumer is surrounded by environmentally concerned friends, he or she will be more likely to be brand loyal to the parent brand due to the new GCE. This is again in line with Papista et al. (2017, p. 103) who argue that consumers’ need for social belonging can encourage them to make more sustainable choices since their fiends expect them to. Therefore, they will more likely become loyal to brands that make efforts to become more sustainable. Furthermore, consumers that are initially already brand loyal to the parent brand will more likely stay or become even more loyal due to the new GCE. This result can be somewhat explained by Su & Tong (2016, p. 4) since consumers’ brand knowledge and familiarity with the parent brand influences their favorable attitudes towards the brand. Hence, they will more likely be inclined to try new products from the brand as they can rely on the capability of the brand to perform what it promises and what is already known by consumers (Papista et al., 2017, p. 104). Likewise, Kim & Ma (2014, p. 168) argue that environmental commitment by fashion brands can influence consumers’ intent to purchase from the brand, which is linked to brand loyalty.

5.3 Revision of the Integrative Model and Hypothesis Testing

The analysis and the discussion of the empirical findings lead to the revision of the integrative model that got developed based on secondary literature and that guided the primary study. Initially, the model displayed the dependent variable ‘Green brand extensions’, the two independent variables ‘Brand attitude’ and ‘Brand loyalty’ as well as 8 identified moderators of these relationships (See Figure 3). Based on the empirical findings, the revised model is split up into GLEs and GCEs as the results show significant differences regarding the caused brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers and also the moderators are updated according to the findings of this study (See Figure 17 & 18). It is important to notice in this context that the revised model only includes significant findings discovered through this primary study. However, other moderators might play a role as well even though they have not shown a significant influence in our study, because compared to studies published in journals, we have a small sample size.

81

Figure 17: Revised Integrative Model 1: Green Line Extension.

Looking at the revised model for GLEs (See Figure 17), it can be noticed that if fast fashion companies introduce a GLE, consumers are likely to have a more positive BA towards the parent brand and also an improved BL. According to Table 11, the respondents answered with a mean of 3.99 that they would like the chosen fast fashion brand even more when introducing a GLE and with a mean of 2.66 that they would on average rather not be skeptical if the chosen brand introduces a GLE. The mean for the statement to also buy products from the brand more often indicating BL was at 3.49, which is slightly above the average response possibility of 3 indicating a weaker but still present positive relation. Furthermore, the statement whether to tell friends about the GLE can also be seen as an indicator for BL and for GLEs, the statement reached a mean of 3.55, which is why GLEs do lead in some cases to a higher BL. A reason why the brand attitude of consumers is influenced more positively through GLEs than the brand loyalty is that brand switching is very common in the fast fashion industry since products are similar to each other and have fairly low prices (Michaelidou & Dibb, 2009, p. 323). This reasoning is also accurate as question 19 reveals that several of the respondents would switch brands if other fast fashion brands would have clothes on sale (See Table 8). However, these relationships are influenced by moderating variables, specifically by EC, BAbefore and FxEC. The highest influence has the variable EC as it influenced all the statements of the GLE scenario positively except GLExS which was influenced negatively meaning that if respondents have a high EC, they are more skeptical towards a GLE of the chosen brand (See Table 21). If respondents care for the environment, they are likely to develop a more positive BA and a stronger BL towards the chosen fast fashion brand. Likewise, BAbefore has a positive effect on the BA as well as the BL after the GLE. The third moderating variable that shows significant influence on the relationship between GLE and BA and BL is FxEC. If friends of the respondent care more for the environment, they are less skeptical towards a GLE of

82

the chosen brand. Other influencing independent variables according to Table 21 are Age, SB and BLbefore, however, those were not included in the revised model as they only influence the statement regarding BF positively. As BF did not get tested as an independent variable but as a dependent variable, the findings on BF are viewed as independent in the scope of this master’s thesis and are therefore not included in the revised model.

Figure 18: Revised Integrative Model 2: Green Category Extension.

With respect to GCEs, neither the BA nor the BL is positively influenced by a GCE of a fast fashion brand (See Figure 18). The mean for the statement to like the brand even more is at 2.67 (See Table 12) which is below 3 as average answer possibility. Furthermore, respondents would rather not buy products from the chosen brand more often with a mean of 2.29 and would also rather not tell their friends about the new GCE with a mean of 2.58. However, this relationship can positively be influenced by three identified moderators that are FxEC, BLbefore and Age. If friends of the respondent care for the environment, they are more likely to develop a more positive BA and BL. The same accounts for the initial BL, that, if it is high, also results in perceiving the GCE of the brand as more positive and developing a stronger BL towards the parent brand. Finally, Age influences both, BA and BL, whereby Gen Z develops a more positive BA and a stronger BL after the introduction of a GCE than Gen Y.

Regarding the developed hypotheses in subchapter 2.3, Ha1 and Ha2 can be confirmed as GLEs showed a positive effect on the brand attitude and a slightly positive effect on brand loyalty of consumers. On the other hand, Ha3 and Ha4 have to be rejected due to the lack of evidence that GCEs lead to a more positive brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers. However and as argued before, certain moderating variables can influence the relationship

83

between the independent variables GLE and GCE as well as their dependent variables BA and BL.

84

6. Conclusions

This last chapter has the purpose to summarize the present master’s thesis as well as to answer the research question based on the findings of the primary study. Furthermore, it will give theoretical contributions, practical recommendations, societal implications, mention limitations of the study and provide opportunities for future research.

6.1 General Conclusion

This study has broadly speaking the objective to examine consumer behavior in the fashion industry and specifically to show what effects GBEs of fast fashion companies have on the brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers. As GBEs can be divided into GLEs and GCEs, the findings have also been viewed from these two perspectives as they show significant differences regarding the variables that moderate the relationships. Another research purpose of the study was to examine differences in brand attitude and brand loyalty between Gen Z and Y. To guide the research, the following research question got developed:

RQ: How do green brand extensions of fast fashion brands affect the consumers’ parent brand attitude and brand loyalty?

In order to answer this research question, existing literature on two main topics of the thesis got reviewed. The first part concerned the fast fashion industry regarding the topic of sustainability in fast fashion and the sustainable branding possibility of GBEs. Secondly, consumers within the fast fashion industry got analyzed concerning specific consumption patterns, brand attitude and brand loyalty behaviours as well as split up into the two relevant age groups, Gen Y and Z. These findings led in the last part of the theoretical framework to the development of an integrative model including 8 identified moderators to influence the relationship between GBEs and brand attitude and brand loyalty to guide the primary study that got conducted within the scope of the present master’s thesis. Thereby, the hypotheses that GLEs and GCEs lead to a more positive brand attitude and an improved brand loyalty got stated to be tested through the present research. Afterwards, the primary study was conducted following a deductive research approach and adopting a quantitative research design through collecting data by means of a web questionnaire. To structure the survey according to the integrative model, it began with questions regarding moderating variables related to the consumer, followed by moderating variables related to the brand. Thereafter, the respondent was presented to different scenarios, one regarding a GLE of a familiar fast fashion brand and one regarding a GCE. To analyze the collected data of in total 121 responses, the software SPSS was used to conduct multiple regression analyses to see how various variables affect the brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers due to GBEs.

The main results of the primary study are that the introduction of a new GLE by a fast fashion brand generally leads to a more positive brand attitude and an improved brand loyalty of consumers towards the parent brand. However, when introducing a GCE, the launch has rarely a positive effect on the brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers towards the parent brand. These relationships are influenced by certain variables that got identified through the primary study and therefore adjusted in the revised model. The brand attitude of consumers towards the parent brand caused by a GLE is influenced by the consumers’ level of environmental concern, the level of environmental concern of their

85

friends as well as their initial brand attitude towards the fast fashion brand. When introducing a GLE, consumers tend to like the parent brand even more if they are concerned for the environment, however, they also tend to be more skeptical towards the brand. This shows the need for fast fashion brands to be transparent and honest regarding their sustainability efforts. Nevertheless, if friends of the consumer show a high level of environmental concern, they tend to be less skeptical towards the GLE and the parent brand, which shows how consumers get influenced by their surroundings. Secondly, also a positive attitude towards the brand before the launch of the GLE leads to an improved brand attitude after the introduction and to less skepticism towards the GLE. Regarding the brand loyalty behavior of consumers towards the parent brand caused by a GLE, the relationship is influenced by the environmental concern of consumers as well as their initial attitude towards the brand. If consumers are highly concerned with environmental issues, they tend to buy products of the brand more often and they are more likely to tell their friends about the GLE, which are both measures for increased brand loyalty. Secondly, consumers also tend to purchase products from the fast fashion brand more often increasing brand loyalty when they liked the brand before the introduction as well. When investigating the results on GCEs, the initial loyalty towards the brand, the environmental concern of friends as well as the age of the consumer can be identified as influencing the relationship of GCEs and brand attitude and brand loyalty. If a consumer is loyal to a fast fashion brand, a newly introduced GCE will increase the brand attitude as they tend to like the brand even more as well as the brand loyalty of the consumer since they tend to also buy products from the brand more frequently. The same accounts for the environmental concern of consumers’ friends, which leads in case of a high level to an improved brand attitude and brand loyalty of the consumer. The last identified moderator of the perception of GCEs by consumers is the age because Gen Z is more likely to like the fast fashion brand even more and purchase more products from it due to a GCE than Gen Y consumers.

Additional conclusions regarding important factors for consumers when buying fashion as well as regarding brand fit can be made based on the findings of the study. First of all, Gen Z perceives style as the most important factor when purchasing fashion items, whereby Gen Y prefers fit/ comfort. However and even though still fairly low ranked, Gen Y consumers care more for the environmental impact of their purchases compared to Gen Z. Concerning the perceived brand fit of the GBE towards the parents brand, various variables play a role regarding GLEs. Gen Z is more likely to perceive the GLE as fitting to the brand than Gen Y. Furthermore, a high environmental concern of consumers as well as their friends leads to a high perceived brand fit, similarly as a high need for social belonging of consumers and a positive initial brand attitude and brand loyalty. Concerning GCEs, only a high environmental concern of friends of the consumer leads to a higher perceived brand fit, however, the model could not be identified as statistically significant. With regards to the research purpose to discover differences between Gen Y and Z consumers it can be concluded that a few have been found, however, the age has only an influence on the relationship of GCE and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty and not on GLE and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty.

6.2 Theoretical Contribution

With this research, several contributions to the literature addressing GBEs in the fast fashion industry and consumer attitudes and potential brand loyalty caused by those GBEs are offered. Investigating current research priorities in marketing which are published every two years by the Marketing Science Institute, the present master thesis touches upon

86

the research priority of ‘Cultivation the Customer Asset’. As a firm’s success depends on the customer’s willingness to pay for the offered products or services, consumer and customer insights are a top research priority (Marketing Science Institute, 2018, p. 3). Capabilities to track the customer along the purchase funnel have increased, offering a large potential regarding new findings on the consumer decision making process. Contributing primary research to the importance of sustainability in purchase decisions in the fast fashion industry, this thesis gives partial insights in effective strategies to drive deeper and lasting customer engagement with the firm. Thereby, it contributes specifically to the existing research conducted on Gen Y and touches furthermore upon another important consumer group for the fast fashion industry, Gen Z, on which has been less research done yet due to the younger age of the generation. Finally, this study also adds to the question of the effectiveness of green marketing and when and how these green strategies work. Overall, the developed integrative model as well as the revised model afterwards show the effect of GLEs and GCEs on consumers’ brand attitude and brand loyalty and including important moderating variables of these relationships, which serves as an important guideline to support researchers and managers alike.

6.3 Recommendations to Practitioners

Our main contribution for policy, consumer and marketers is finding that GLEs do affect consumers’ attitude and loyalty towards the parent brand in a positive manner, however, GCEs do not have an effect. In addition, the findings of this study are highly interesting for marketing and operational managers of fast fashion companies in order to gain further market insight in behavioural patterns of their consumers. As consumers become more attentive to sustainability issues, the findings contribute to the questions of how important sustainability practices of fast fashion firms are to consumers. However, despite the benefits of introducing brand extensions there exists several risks with low-fit brand extensions that can possibly damage the brand equity of the parent brand (Chatterjee, 2009, p. 368). Therefore, it is central that a GBE is introduced with caution, especially since our findings show that consumers with high environmental concern tend to be more skeptical towards GLEs within the fast fashion industry. Thereby, the extent of the sustainability efforts by fast fashion companies is a critical factor to investigate as it plays a role in whether consumers perceive the efforts as authentic or consider them as greenwashing. This factor also relates more specifically to how effective GBEs of fast fashion retailers are to contribute positively to the brand equity of the company and if a recommendation for fast fashion companies concerning vertical or horizontal GBEs can be expressed. The results from this study provide useful information on managers and marketers strategic decision making in terms of introducing new GBEs within the fast fashion industry and the effects it has on the parent brand. All in all, the findings of this primary research can be used by fast fashion companies to shape their overall strategy regarding sustainability further in order to meet continuously their customers’ needs.

6.4 Societal Implications

Sustainability is a topic that increasingly plays a role in consumers’ mindsets and that affect their behaviors as the world deals with numerous challenges such as climate change and the scarcity of resources, making it of utmost importance to lead the change for younger generations. Therefore, many fast fashion companies change traditional practices towards more sustainability to meet their customers’ demands. By outlining that GLEs lead to a more positive brand attitude and somewhat contribute to brand loyalty of fast fashion

87

consumers, this study does not only contribute to a better economic performance of fast fashion companies by showing useful insight on their consumers, but also to society as a whole to tackle sustainability issues. In order for fast fashion companies to offer successfully more sustainable items, they need to understand their customers, to which this study contributes. More fast fashion companies that introduce greener clothes lead in turn to a higher awareness of the urgency to take responsibility regarding sustainability in society. This study also shows the need to further educate the younger generation on the importance of sustainability and green products within the fashion industry.

6.5 Limitations and Future Research

According to Saunders et al. (2016, p. 642), all research has its limitations and constraints, which entail at the same time opportunities for future research. The first limitations that have to be mentioned concern the sample of the present primary study. Even though the sample size was with 121 responses of the questionnaire sufficient for the present master’s thesis to conduct valid research, it could be extended in future studies to conduct even more precise data. Furthermore, the distribution of the sample regarding the two investigated age groups, Gen Y and Z, was not completely even with a ratio of 62 % for Gen Y and 38 % for Gen Z, which can lead to a sample bias. The same fairly uneven distribution can be seen regarding gender, which is of less importance due to the findings that gender rarely matters in the probability of a certain answer, but still should be mentioned as a limitation as more precise data might reveal more distinct differences. In order to show the empirical findings in a balanced manner, all the graphs depict the distribution in percentage instead of numerical. The final limitation concerning the sample size is the geographic constraint as this study is mainly considering consumers from Northern and Central Europe in the present primary study. Therefore, a future research opportunity would be to conduct more samples from Southern and Eastern Europe or extend the research even to other continents to see whether the country of origin matters with respect to how consumers perceive GLEs and GCEs of fast fashion companies.

Also concerning the chosen methodology, a few limitations can be identified. To collect the data through the survey, non-probability sampling was utilized, which makes it impossible to generalize the findings of the primary study as the total of respondents might not represent the whole identified sample equally. As we distributed the questionnaire through social media platforms to potential participants we knew personally in beforehand, the results might be biased due to a similar mindset of respondents living in similar environments as us. Therefore and even though the collected data unveils distinct patterns, a future research opportunity is to use probability sampling in order to make generalizations from the sample to the population being studied. Another limitation concerning the research method is the decision to consider a p-value of < 0.05 of the β- coefficient and in the ANOVA as statistically significant, which is a fairly conservative perspective to analyze quantitative data, however, which also provides a more valid research outcome. Therefore, a research opportunity is to additionally consider variables with p-values < 0.1 to not have occurred by chance and that in turn are statistically significant in the multiple regression analysis to gain broader research results.

The last identified type of limitations are theoretical limitations of the thesis that concern the theoretical framework and that have partly been discussed in the literature review. As there is a lack of previous research conducted on the exact topic of GBEs in the fast fashion

88

industry, findings on topics such as GBEs in other industries or general brand extensions in the fashion industry had to be used and related to our topic.

Further future research opportunities are first of all the consideration of the through secondary literature identified moderators ‘Brand knowledge’ and ‘Emotional connection’ as those were less considered in this primary study due to explained reasons. To test these moderators, other research methods such as qualitative interviews should be considered to collect suitable and in-depth data. Also the variable of brand fit requires further research regarding its influence on the relationship between GBEs and brand attitude as well as brand loyalty. Moreover, the expansion of the research to other industries of FMCGs to discover whether general patterns of consumer behavior towards GBEs can be found or whether the brand attitude and brand loyalty of consumers in the fashion industry is unique and distinctive can provide additional research opportunities. Another possible chance for future research is the comparison of GBEs and the introduction of new sustainable brands in the fast fashion industry since companies such as i.e. H&M are launching new sustainable brands such as ARKET and AFound. Thereby it would be interesting to see if the capitalization on the brand name by launching GBEs has a positive effect on consumer perceptions of the parent brand in the fast fashion industry or if the separation of the rather unsustainable parent brand and the newly introduced green brand can be considered a smart choice. Lastly, the perspective of one or multiple industry experts would be interesting to include in the study resulting in a mixed-method approach to support the findings from a more practical angle. This was due to the limited time frame of the present master’s thesis as well as due to the circumstances regarding the COVID-19 pandemic not achievable in the scope of this thesis, leaving the opportunity for future research studies.

89

REFERENCE LIST

Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 27-41.

Adidas Group (2016). Adidas Sustainability Progress Report. [Electronic]. Available via: https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/08/7b/087bf055-d8d1-43e3-8adc- 7672f2760d9b/2016_adidas_sustainability_progress_report.pdf. [Retrieved February 18, 2020].

Anguelov, N. (2016). The dirty side of the garment industry. Fast Fashion and its negative impact on environment and society. 1st edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Bain, M. (2018). In just four days, top fashion CEOs earn a garment worker’s lifetime pay. Quartz [Online] January 24. Available via: https://qz.com/1186813/top-fashion- ceos-earn-a-garment-workers-lifetime-pay-in-just-four-days-oxfam-says. [Retrieved February 20, 2020].

Beaudoin, P., Moore, M.A., & Goldsmith, R.E. (2000). Fashion leaders’ and followers’ attitudes toward buying domestic and imported apparel. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 18 (1), 56-64.

Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Content Analysis. British Journal of Management, 18, 63–77.

Berg, A., Hedrich, S., Ibanez, P., Kappelmark, S., Magnus, K.H., & Seeger, M. (2019). Fashion’s new must-have: Sustainable sourcing at scale. McKinsey apparel CPO Survey 2019. McKinsey & Company. Available via: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/fashions %20new%20must%20have%20sustainable%20sourcing%20at%20scale/fashions-new- must-have-sustainable-sourcing-at-scale-vf.ashx. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Bhaduri, G., & Ha-Brookshire, J.E. (2014). Do transparent business practices pay? Exploration of transparency and consumer purchase intention. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 29 (2), 135-149.

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.

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.

90

Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3- 15.

Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22 (2), 118-128.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman A. & Bell E. (2011), Business Research Methods, Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company (2019). The state of fashion 2019. Business of Fashion, McKinsey & Company. Available via: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/The%2 0State%20of%20Fashion%202019%20A%20year%20of%20awakening/The-State-of- Fashion-2019-final.ashx. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Byun, S.E., & Sternquist, B. (2008). The antecedents of in-store hoarding: Measurements and application in the fashion fashion retail environment. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (2), 133-147.

Chatterjee, P. (2009). Green brand extension strategy and online communities. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 11 (4), 367-384.

Chang, H.J., & Jai T.M. (2014). Is fashion sustainable? The effect of positioning strategies on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (4), 853-867.

Chen, Y.S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93 (2), 307-319.

Cheng, A. (2019). More consumers want sustainable fashion, but are brands delivering it? Forbes [Online] October 17. Available via: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2019/10/17/more-consumers-want- sustainable-fashion-but-are-brands-delivering-it/#1d4c181634a5. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students.4 th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave macmillan.

Dahmström, K. (2011). Från datainsamling till rapport : att göra en statistisk undersökning 5th edition. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simoes, C. (2011). Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 28-36.

Danciu, V. (2015). Successful green branding, a new shift in brand strategy: Why and how it works. The Romanian Economic Journal, 18 (56), 47-64.

91

Dang, V.T., Nguyen, N., Bu, X., & Wang, J. (2019). The relationship between corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance: A moderated mediation model of strategic similarity and organization slack. Sustainability, 11, 3395.

David Gardiner & Associates (2012). Physical risks from climate change. A guide for companies and investors on disclosure and management of climate impacts. David Gardiner & Associates. Available via: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/physical-risks-from-climate- change.pdf. [Retrieved March 16, 2020].

Delmas, M. and Burbano, V., (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87.

Dhurup, M. (2014). Impulse fashion apparel consumption: The role of hedonism, fashion involvement and emotional gratification in fashion apparel impulse buying behavior in a developing country. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, 5 (8), 168-177.

Dimock, M. (2019). Defining Generations: Where Millennials End And Generation Z Begins. Pew Research Center. Available via: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z- begins/?fbclid=IwAR1egt4YL18oznROYxuPh63lc4xDLsNgTk3UFYAr7N9usZdOVKj BEWNzXmI. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

Dobre, R. (2018). Moving the fashion industry forward: Regulations and industry tools. Sustainalytics [Organizational Website]. Available via: https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-blog/moving-the-fashion-industry-forward- regulations-and-industry-tools. [Retrieved March 16, 2020].

Egels-Zandén, N., & Hansson, N. (2016). Supply Chain Transparency as a Consumer or Corporate Tool: The Case of Nudie Jeans Co. Journal of Consumer Policy, 39 (4), 377- 395.

Ehrnrooth, H., & Gronroos, C. (2013). The hybrid consumer: Exploring hybrid consumption behavior. Management Decision, 51 (9), 1793-1820.

Ejlertsson, G. (2014). Enkät i praktiken. En handbok i enkätmetodik. 3rd edition. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Available via: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New- Textiles-Economy_Full-Report.pdf. [Retrieved February 14, 2020].

Farquhar, P.H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1 (3), 24-33.

Fast Retailing (2018). Sustainability Report 2018. [Electronic]. Available via: https://www.fastretailing.com/eng/sustainability/report/pdf/sustainability2018_en.pdf. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

92

FourHooks (2015, April 26). The Generation Guide - Millennials, Gen X, Y, Z And Baby Boomers. FourHooks [Web blog post]. Available via: http://fourhooks.com/marketing/the-generation-guide-millennials-gen-x-y-z-and-baby- boomers-art5910718593/. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

Furaiji, F., Latuszynska, M., & Wawrzyniak, A. (2012). An empirical study of the factors influencing consumer behavior in the electric appliances market. Contemporary Economics, 6 (3), 76-86.

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

Ghauri, P.N., & Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th edition. London: Pearson Education.

Gilje, N., & Grimen, H. (2007). Samhällsvetenskapernas förutsättningar. 3rd edition. Göteborg: Daidalos.

Given, L.M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Volume 1&2. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R., & Freiden, J.B. (1991). Social values and fashion leadership. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 1 (10), 37-45.

Hall, J. (2018). Digital Kimono: Fast fashion, Slow fashion? Fashion Theory. The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture, 22 (3), 283-307.

Hanbury, M. (n.d). Gen Z is leading an evolution in shopping that could kill brands as we know them. Business Insider [Online]. Available via: https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-shopping-habits-kill-brands-2019- 7?r=US&IR=T. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

Hartmann, P., Ibanez, V.A., & Sainz, F.J.F. (2005). Green branding effects on attitude: Functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23 (1), 9-29.

Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J., & Oates, C.J. (2015). What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20 (4), 400-416.

Hill, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Sustainable brand extensions of fast fashion retailers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 19 (2), 205-222.

Hinton, P.R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS explained. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

Holden, M.T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: Understanding research philosophy. The Marketing Review, 4 (4), 397-409.

93

Holgate, M. (2019). As Zara announces its latest sustainability goals, three of its design team weigh in on going slower and creating responsibility. Vogue [Online] July 16. Available via: https://www.vogue.com/article/zara-sustainable-initiatives. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

House of Commons (2019). Fixing fashion: Clothing consumption and sustainability. House of Commons. Available via: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/1952.pdf. [Retrieved February 19, 2020].

Hwang, C., Lee, Y., & Diddi, S. (2015). Generation Y's moral obligation and purchase intentions for organic, fair-trade, and recycled apparel products. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 8 (2), 97-107.

Inditex (2019, August 23). Inditex executive chairman Pablo Isla signs global commitment towards sustainability. Inditex. Available via: https://www.inditex.com/article?articleId=635111&title=Inditex+Executive+Chairman+ Pablo+Isla+signs+global+commitment+towards+sustainability. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Iperceptions (2016, July 26). A Millennial's Perspective On The Millennial Consumer [Infographic]. Iperceptions [Web blog post]. Available via: https://www.iperceptions.com/blog/infographic-millennials. [Retrieved March 31, 2020].

Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10 (3), 260-371.

Johannsdottir, L. (2015). Drivers of proactive environmental actions of small, medium and large Nordic non-life insurance companies - and insurers as a driving force of action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 685-698.

Kell, G. (2018). Can fashion be sustainable? Forbes [Online] June 4. Available via: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgkell/2018/06/04/can-fashion-be- sustainable/#22ba4a47412b. [Retrieved February 19, 2020].

Keller, K., 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-20.

Keller, K.L. (2003). Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. Interactive Marketing, 5 (1), 7-20.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15 (3), 261- 266.

Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 35 (2), 315-333.

Kim, C.K., Lavack, A.M., & Smith, M. (2001). Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands. Journal of Business Research, 55 (3), 211-222.

94

Kim, H., Choo, H.J., & Yoon, N. (2013). The motivational drivers of fast fashion avoidance. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17 (2), 243-260.

Kim, H., & Ma, M. (2014). Influence of parent brand attitude and self-brand congruity on consumer response to green brand extensions for apparel products. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 5 (2), 165-181.

Kingston, A. (2014). Get Ready For Generation Z. Maclean’s [Online] July 15. Available via: https://www.macleans.ca/society/life/get-ready-for-generation-z/. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

Kjellqvist, M. & Sjödin, M. (2018). Left behind. How fashion brands turn their back on women in the Bangladesh garment industry. Fair Action. Available via: https://fairaction.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Fair-Action_Left-behind_20181003.pdf. [Retrieved February 20, 2020].

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V., & Saunders, J. (2005). Principles of Marketing. 4th edition. London: Pearson Education.

Kuchinka, D., Balazs, S., Gavriletea, M., & Djokic, B. (2018). Consumer Attitudes toward Sustainable Development and Risk to Brand Loyalty. Sustainability, 10 (4), 997.

Laverty, S.M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (3), 21-35.

Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C., & Morgan, G.A. (2005) SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. 2nd edition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lehmann, M., Arici, G., Boger, S., Martinez-Pardo, C., Krueger, F., Schneider, M., Carrière-Pradal, B., & Schou, D. (2019). Pulse of the fashion industry. 2019 Update. Global Fashion Agenda, Boston Consulting Group and Sustainable Apparel Coalition. Available via: https://globalfashionagenda.com/pulse-2019-update/#. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Leung, A., Yee, R., & Lo, E. (2015). Psychological and Social Factors of Fashion Consciousness: An Empirical Study in the Luxury Fashion Market. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 19 (3), 58-69.

Liapati, G., Assiouras, I., & Decaudin, J. (2015). The role of fashion involvement, brand love and hedonic consumption tendency in fashion impulse purchasing. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 6 (4), 251-264.

Lin, J., Lobo, A., & Leckie, C. (2017). Green brand benefits and their influence on brand loyalty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35 (3), 425-440.

Lindex (2020, January 28). Lindex släpper inredningskollektion för barnrum. Lindex. https://about.lindex.com/sv/press/nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/2020/lindex-slapper- inredningskollektion-for-barnrum. [Retrieved February 24, 2020].

95

Eleftheriou-Smith, L.-M. (2012). The truth about youth. Do you know Generation Z? Campaign [Online] April 20. Available via: https://www.campaignlive.com/article/truth- youth-know-generation-z/1127065. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

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

Mademlis, A., & Werneborg, S. (2019). Improving brand equity with environmental sustainability work - A qualitative study in Sweden. Master thesis. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Manus, P.M., Mulhall, S., Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2017). An investigation in the methodological approaches used in doctoral business research in Ireland. In: ECRM 2017: 16th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Dublin, Ireland. June 22-23.

Marketing Science Institute (2018). Research Priorities 2018-2020. Marketing Science Institute. Available via: https://www.msi.org/uploads/articles/MSI_RP18-20.pdf. [Retrieved February 18, 2020].

Martenson, R. (2018). When is green a purchase motive? Different answers from different selves. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46 (1), 21- 33.

Martin, W.E., & Bridgmon, K.D. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods. From hypothesis to results. 1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McFall-Johnsen, M. (2019). The fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined. Here are the biggest ways it impacts the planet. Business Insider [Online] October 21. Available via: https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution- emissions-waste-water-2019-10?r=US&IR=T. [Retrieved February 14, 2020].

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, 212-222.

Merriman, M. (2015). What if the next big disruptor isn’t a what but a who? Gen Z is connected, informed and ready for business. Ernst & Young LLP. Available via: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-what-if-the-next-big-disruptor-isnt-a- what-but-a-who/$File/EY-what-if-the-next-big-disruptor-isnt-a-what-but-a-who.pdf. [Retrieved March 18, 2020].

Michaelidou, N., & Dibb, S. (2009). Brand switching in clothing: The role of variety- seeking drive and product category-level characteristics. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 322-326.

Milberg, S.J., Sinn, F., & Goodstein, R.C. (2010) Consumer Reactions to Brand extensions in a competitive context: Does fit still matter? Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 543-553.

96

Mohd Isa, S., & Xin Yao, P. (2013). Investigating the preference for green packaging in consumer product choices: A choice-based conjoint approach. Business Management Dynamics, 3 (2), 84-96.

Mohd Suki, N. (2015). Customer environmental satisfaction and loyalty in the consumption of green products. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 22 (4), 292-301.

Newbold, A. (2019). Stella McCartney on pushing Adidas to create its most sustainable sportswear collection yet. Vogue UK [Online] July 15. Available via: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/adidas-stella-mccartney-autumn-winter-2019. [Retrieved February 20, 2020].

Olsen, M.C., Slotegraaf, R.J., & Chandukala, S.R. (2014). Green claims and message frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78, 119- 137.

Papista, E., Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., & Dimitriadis, S. (2017). Types of value and cost in consumer-green brands relationship and loyalty behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17 (1), 101-113.

Park, H., & Kim, Y.K. (2016a). An empirical test of the triple bottom line of consumer- centric sustainability: The case of fast fashion. Fashion and Textiles, 3 (1), 25-43.

Park, H., & Kim, Y.K. (2016b). Proactive versus reactive apparel brands in sustainability: Influences on brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 114-122.

Pasquarelli, A. (2019). How sustainability in fashion went from the margins to the mainstream. AdAge [Online] March 4. Available via: https://adage.com/article/cmo- strategy/sustainability-fashion-mainstream/316828. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Patel, D. (2017). 5 differences between marketing to millennials vs. Gen Z. Forbes [Online] November 27. Available via: https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/11/27/5-d%E2%80%8Bifferences- %E2%80%8Bbetween-%E2%80%8Bmarketing-%E2%80%8Bto%E2%80%8B- m%E2%80%8Billennials-v%E2%80%8Bs%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bgen- z/#169c74db2c9f. [Retrieved April 6, 2020].

Patel, R., & Davidson, B. (2011). Forskningsmetodikens grunder: Att planera, genomföra och rapportera en undersökning. 4th edition. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Press, C. (2019). More work needed to stop fast fashion greenwashing. Raconteur [Online] December 17. Available via: https://www.raconteur.net/retail/greenwashing- fast-fashion. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Retail Forum for Sustainability (2013). Sustainability of textiles. Retail Forum for Sustainability. Available via: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/retail/pdf/issue_paper_textiles.pdf. [Retrieved March 16, 2020].

97

Sajn, N. (2019). Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry. What consumers need to know. EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service. Available via: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/633143/EPRS_BRI(2019)63 3143_EN.pdf. [Retrieved February 20, 2020].

Sarumathi, S. (2014). Green purchase behavior – A conceptual framework of socially conscious consumer behavior. Global Journal of Finance and Management, 6 (8), 777- 782.

Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students. 7th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students. 8th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Schawbel, D. (2015). 10 New Findings About The Millennial Consumer. Forbes [Online]. January 20. Available via: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2015/01/20/10-new-findings-about-the- millennial-consumer/#425f0c8a6c8f. [Retrieved 31 March 2020].

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.

Shen, B., Zheng, J.H., Chow, P.S., & Chow, K.Y. (2014). Perception of fashion sustainability in online community. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 105 (9), 971- 979.

Shen, D., Richards, J., & Liu, F. (2013). Consumers’ awareness of sustainable fashion. Marketing Management Journal, 23 (2), 134-147.

Shukla, P. (2009). Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (5), 348-357.

Simões, L., & Borges Gouveia, L. (2008). Consumer Behaviour of the Millennial Generation. In: III Jornadas de Publicidade e Comunicação. A Publicidade para o consumidor do Séc. XXI. UFP. Porto, Portugal, April 10.

Sobh, R., & Perry, C. (2005). Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (11/12), 1194-1209.

Sorensen, K., & Johnson Jorgensen, J. (2019). Millennials perceptions of fast fashion and second-hand clothing: An exploration of clothing preferences using Q methodology. Social Sciences, 8 (9), 244.

Speklé, R.F., & Widener, S.K. (2018). Challenging issues in survey research: Discussion and suggestions. Journal of management accounting research, 30 (2), 3-21.

98

Strähle, J. (2017). Green fashion retail. In: J. Strähle, ed. Green fashion retail. 1st edition. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 1-6.

Streit, C.-M., & Davies, I.A. (2013). ‘Sustainability isn’t sexy’ An exploratory study into luxury fashion. In: M.A. Gardetti & A.L. Torres, ed. Sustainability in fashion and textiles: Values, Design, production and Consumption. 1st edition. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. pp. 207-222.

Su, J., & Tong, X. (2016). Brand personality, consumer satisfaction, and loyalty: A perspective from denim jeans brands. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44 (4), 427-446.

Sue, V.M., & Ritter, L.A. (2012). Conducting Online Surveys. 2nd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Sustainable Brand Index (2020). About. Sustainable Brand Index [Organizational Website]. Available via: https://www.sb-index.com/about. [Retrieved March 16, 2020].

Thorisdottir, T.S., & Johannsdottir, L. (2019). Sustainability within fashion business models: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11 (8), 2233.

Villemain, C. (2019, March 25). UN launches drive to highlight environmental cost of staying fashionable. UN News [Organizational Website]. Available via: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035161. [Retrieved February 17, 2020].

Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 18-34.

Wu, H., Wei, C., Tseng, L., & Cheng, C. (2018). What drives green brand switching behavior? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36 (6), 694-708.

Zhang, X., Ding, X., Ma, L., & Wang, G. (2018). Identifying factors preventing sustainable brand loyalty among consumers: A mixed methods approach. Sustainability, 10 (12), 4685.

Yan, R.-N., Hyllegard, K.H., & Blaesi, L.F. (2012). Marketing eco-fashion: The influence of brand name and message explicitness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18 (2), 151-168.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th edition. London: SAGE Publications.

Yuille, P. (n.d.). Exploring the relationship between the presumed quality and durability of fast fashion garments, by the Generation Y, female consumer. PLATE Conference [Online]. Available via: https://www.plateconference.org/exploring-relationship- presumed-quality-durability-fast-fashion-garments-generation-y-female-consumer. [Retrieved April 10, 2020].

99

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Survey Design.

100

101

102

103

104

105

Appendix 2. Fashion Interest split according to Age.

106

Appendix 3. Fashion Interest split according to Gender.

107

Appendix 4. Fashion Interest split according to Country of Origin.

108

Appendix 5. Environmental Concern split according to Age.

109

Appendix 6. Environmental Concern split according to Gender.

110

111

Appendix 7. Environmental Concern split according to Country of Origin.

Appendix 8. Social Belonging split according to Age.

112

113

Appendix 9. Social Belonging split according to Gender.

114

Appendix 10. Social Belonging split according to Country of Origin.

115

Appendix 11. Influencing Factors when Shopping Fashion split according to Age.

Appendix 12. Influencing Factors when Shopping Fashion split according to Gender.

116

Appendix 13. Influencing Factors when Shopping Fashion split according to Country of Origin.

117

Appendix 14. Most familiar Fast Fashion Brand.

118

Appendix 15. Outcome Brand Example.

119

Appendix 16. Outcome Brand Example split according to Country of Origin.

120

Appendix 17. Statements on Green Line Extensions split according to Age.

Appendix 18. Statements on Green Category Extensions split according to Age.

121

Appendix 19. Statements on Green Line Extensions split according to Gender.

Appendix 20. Statements on Green Category Extensions split according to Gender.

122

Appendix 21. Statements on Green Line Extensions split according to Country of Origin.

123

Appendix 22. Statements on Green Category Extensions split according to Country of Origin.

124

Appendix 23. R2 Values.

Dependent variables Predictors (Constant) R2

GLExBA Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.216

GLExS Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.321

GLExBF Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.485

GLExBL Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.230

GLExSB Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.234

GCExBA Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.162

GCExS Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.082

GCExBF Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.132

GCExBL Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.150

GCExSB Gender, Age, FI, EC, SB, FxEC, EA, BA, BL 0.062

Appendix 24. ANOVA for all Dependent Variables of the GLE.

125

Appendix 25. ANOVA for all dependent variables of GCE.

126

127