Consumer relationship with pro-environmental

apparel brands: effect of knowledge,

skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
Department of Fashion Design and Merchandising, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The apparel industry is often scrutinized for its lack of environmental stewardship, and thus pro-environmental initiatives have been of
significant consideration among apparel brands in recent years. However, one personality trait of specific concern to brand marketers is consumer
skepticism toward climate change, which has the potential to negatively impact the success of brands’ pro-environmental initiatives. In this light,
research indicates that knowledge of the environmental impact of products can lead to lower skepticism (Tobler et al., 2012) and ultimately higher
purchase intentions of such products. Thus, this study investigates the impact of consumers’ knowledge about environmental impact of apparel,
climate change skepticism on their evaluation of brands’ pro-environmental initiatives (shared value and perceived benefit) and ultimately their
relationship with the brand (perceived trust, commitment), leading to purchase intention for both familiar and unfamiliar brands.
Design/methodology/approach – Two separate studies were conducted for familiar and unfamiliar brands. Data for online surveys were collected
from two US nationwide samples and analyzed using path analyses.
Findings – Consumers’ intention to purchase from a pro-environmental brand was influenced by knowledge and skepticism. Particularly, the
obtained shared value perceptions and perceived benefits of consumers influenced their relationship with the brand through trust and commitment,
which eventually impacted their intention to purchase from the brand. Differences were observed for familiar and unfamiliar brands.
Practical implications – Findings of this study will help brand managers design effective pro-environmental marketing messages. Both familiar and
unfamiliar brands would benefit from educating consumers about the true environmental impact of their apparel choices, as well as the personal
benefits and values earned when purchasing/consuming pro-environmental apparel. This, in turn, reduces consumer skepticism toward climate
change, leading to favorable evaluations of the brand’s pro-environmental initiatives and improvement of long-term brand relations.
Originality/value – This study extended the social exchange theory by understanding antecedents of consumers’ shared value and perceived
benefits, namely, their knowledge about the environmental impact of apparel and their skepticism toward climate change, with the final outcome
variable being consumers’ patronage intention of pro-environmental brands.
Keywords Purchase intention, Social exchange theory, Apparel, Pro-environmental, Trust, Knowledge, Commitment, Skepticism,
Perceived benefits, Brand relationships, Shared value, Brand relation, Brand familiarity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction consumers. A majority of consumers have increasingly

Sustainable, particularly pro-environmental, initiatives have
been of significant consideration among apparel brands and
their consumers in recent times as the environmental impact of
the apparel industry has become well known. Although the
global apparel industry is valued at $3tn, apparel production
finds itself the second leading industrial cause of environmental
pollution, thus taking a vast toll on the planet (Fashion United,
2019). The industry is often scrutinized for its lack of
environmental stewardship such as contributing to excessive
landfill waste and use of harmful chemicals (Boström and
Micheletti, 2016; McCarthy, 2018).
The past few years have seen an increase in pro-
environmental initiatives by both apparel brands and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
29/1 (2020) 1–14
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1794]
expressed interest in considering pro-environmental products
for purchase and expect brands to disclose their pro-
environmental initiatives publicly (Nielson, 2015). It is
particularly important for apparel brands to communicate such
initiatives clearly and effectively because of the fact that pro-
environmental qualities of apparel are credence attributes, that
is, it is difficult to evaluate from surface appearance if a product
is made with harmful dyes or uses recycled materials
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
1997). This is aggravated by the complex and fragmented
nature of the apparel supply chain, in which a single garment is
manufactured in multiple countries under varying
environmental regulations, thus making it difficult for
consumers to know the true environmental impact of their
consumption choices.
Received 22 March 2018
Revised 7 August 2018
27 February 2019
17 April 2019
17 April 2019
Accepted 24 April 2019

1
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
Therefore, to aid consumer decision-making and portray
contributions toward the betterment of the environment,
apparel brands are communicating with consumers regarding
their pro-environmental initiatives through marketing messages
and/or advertisements (henceforth, ads). However, while some
consumers react favorably to pro-environmental ads from
apparel brands, others tend to have unfavorable opinions, often
discounting them as less credible, leading to a negative
evaluation of the ad and the brand as a whole (Bhaduri et al.,
2017). Given that ads are meant to inform, remind and
persuade consumers, marketers have and continue to invest
considerable efforts to understand the factors that lead to
effective ad persuasion and favorable brand evaluations. One of
the personality traits of consumers that can be of specific
concern for today’s brand marketers is skepticism toward
climate change, or an individual’s doubt(s) about the way the
severity of climate change is communicated in media, and one’s
belief that human activity has no effect on climate change
(Whitmarsh, 2011). In this light, research indicates that
although 48 per cent of US consumers think that climate
change is a result of human activities, 51 per cent believed that
there is no evidence of climate change and/or that it is because
of natural causes (Funk and Kennedy, 2016). Therefore, while
some consumers might actively seek out pro-environmental
products to minimize their ecological footprint, others might to
think of such actions as unnecessary.
Previous research has found that knowledge of the
environmental impact of products can lead to lower skepticism
(Tobler et al., 2012) and ultimately higher purchase intentions
of such products (Hiller Connell and Kozar, 2012; Reiter,
2015). However, little is known regarding how individuals
evaluate pro-environmental messages and/or brands’ pro-
environmental initiatives based on their own knowledge and
skepticism. In this light, Romani et al. (2016) indicated that it is
essential to monitor consumers’ perceptions of a brands’ pro-
environmental initiatives to create and maintain consumer-
brand relationships. Yet, little research can be found on how
consumers’ evaluations of brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives impact their relationships with the brand such as
through perceived trust and commitment towards the brand,
ultimately leading to brand patronage intentions. Given the
importance of relationship variables in predicting consumers’
long-term engagement with the brand (Fournier, 1998) and the
ultimate effectiveness of the brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives, this study investigates the impact of consumers’
knowledge about environmental impact of apparel and climate
change skepticism and the impact it has on their evaluation of
the brands’ pro-environmental initiatives (namely, shared value
and perceived benefit), and ultimately their relationship with
the brand (namely, perceived trust and commitment). Finally,
given that brand familiarity has been known to impact
consumers’ brand evaluations, two separate studies were
conducted using both familiar and unfamiliar brands to better
understand the impact of brand familiarity on consumers’
evaluation of and relationships with the brands.
The findings of this study bear significant implications for
brand managers in terms of designing effective pro-
environmental marketing messages as both familiar and/or an
unfamiliar brand. This study’s findings indicate that educating
consumers about the true environmental impact of their
2
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
apparel purchase choices is essential to reduce their overall
skepticism toward climate change. This reduction of skepticism
in turn can influence consumers’ evaluations of the brand, as
well as influence long-term brand–consumer relationships. In
addition, this study extends the social exchange theory (SET)
by understanding antecedents of consumers’ shared value and
perceived benefits, namely, their knowledge about the
environmental impact of apparel and their skepticism toward
climate change, with the final outcome variable being
consumers’ patronage intention of pro-environmental brands.
Thus, academics can use this research to better understand the
relationship between brands and consumers’ social exchanges
related to pro-environmental marketing messages from brands
that undertake and promote green strategies.
Literature review and hypothesis development
Social exchange theory
Rooted in economics, psychology and sociology, the SET
proposes that during social interactions, behaviors of
individuals can be thought of as types of commodity exchanges
(Homans, 1958). If the individual’s benefit from the exchange
is higher than the cost of the interaction, he/she will engage in
the exchange, while if the cost overshadows the benefits, the
exchange will be terminated (Zhao et al., 2017). Applying SET
to transactions between brands and consumers, it can be
proposed that consumers might engage in transactions with a
brand when the benefits obtained from doing so is higher than
the costs involved. SET is particularly applicable to
transactions between pro-environmental brands and their
consumers, given that products marketed as environmentally
friendly are associated with a price premium (increased cost),
leading consumers to carefully evaluate the benefits obtained in
exchange for the higher cost (Hiller Connell, 2010).
The main structure of the SET model includes conditions of
exchange, sources of exchange and expectations of exchange,
leading to the structure of networks/strategies, with the final
outcome of exchange (Blau, 2017). According to Blau (2017),
trust and commitment are two important constructs facilitating
transactions in SET. Zhao et al. (2017) extended the SET
theory to include determinants and outcomes of trust and
commitment, namely, shared value, perceived benefits and
behavioral intention, among others. In this study, we further
extend the model by understanding antecedents of consumers’
shared value and perceived benefits namely their knowledge
about the environmental impact of apparel and their skepticism
toward climate change with the final outcome variable being
consumers’ patronage intention of pro-environmental apparel
brands.
Skepticism toward climate change and knowledge about
environmental impact of apparel
Literature indicates that, particularly for pro-environmental
initiatives, an individuals’ skepticism toward climate change
(henceforth, skepticism) in general can negatively impact their
opinions/evaluations (Corner et al., 201). Additionally word of
mouth of those opinions can impact others surrounding the
initial consumer (Leonidou and Skarmeas, 2017). Skepticism,
for the purpose of this study, represents an individual’s doubt
(s) about the way the severity of climate change is
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
communicated in media and its anthropogenic nature, rather
than about climate science itself (Whitmarsh, 2011). This
skepticism may stem from a number of sources, including
perceived, conflicting, unreliable or partial scientific evidence,
and untrustworthy or misleading sources of information
(Corner et al., 2012). Based on this understanding of
skepticism, consumers who are skeptical may still be interested
in brands’ pro-environmental initiatives (given that they do not
disbelieve the existence of climate change), yet might be
skeptical about such initiatives communicated by the brand.
According to Leonidou and Skarmeas (2017), consumer
skepticism of environmental activities is increasing and
extrinsic motives have no effect on consumers. The authors
also indicate that when skeptical about a brand’s pro-
environmental initiatives, consumers often try to obtain
additional information about the product and/or the brand,
often delaying/abandoning their purchase/consumption
decision. In addition, consumers have been found to have
extremely low knowledge about the environmental impact of
the apparel industry, which provides another layer to
consumers being unable to discern brands’ pro-environmental
messages (Hiller Connell, 2010). Hill and Lee (2012) found
that specifically in the apparel industry, conflicting messages
about concern for the environment and sustainability confuse
consumers, leading to lack of trust regarding the information,
and thus there is need to build more knowledge and awareness
of environmental impact among consumers.
Studies indicate that consumers who are more
knowledgeable about environmental issues in the apparel
industry were more concerned about their purchase decisions
and made greater efforts to ensure that their purchases did not
result in any harm to the environment (Kozar and Hiller
Connell, 2010). Moreover, prior knowledge about the
environmental impact of apparel (henceforth, knowledge) has
been found to be related to consumers’ trust and attitude
toward pro-environmental apparel brands (Bhaduri and Ha-
Brookshire, 2011). In this light, Romani et al. (2016) indicated
that it is essential to monitor consumers’ perceptions of a
brands’ pro-environmental initiatives to create and maintain
consumer–brand relationships. Given that there exists
immense debate about the true extent of climate change and
the contribution of human beings toward the same, it is
plausible that scientific knowledge about the impact of a
process/product on climate change or environment in general
might reduce consumers’ skepticism (Tobler et al., 2012).
Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H1. Participant’s knowledge (about the environmental
impact of apparel) inversely influences their skepticism
toward climate change.
Impact of knowledge and skepticism on shared value
and perceived benefits
Literature indicates that having knowledge and awareness helps
consumers to understand the true impact of brands’ pro-
environmental initiatives and, as a result, understand the values
and benefits that they might obtain from such initiatives (Ogle
et al., 2004). Additionally, the more consumers acknowledge
the negative impact of a process/product on the environment
3
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
the more likely they are to have a positive attitude or belief
toward that product/process and are more likely to support
such a product/process (D’Souza et al., 2006). In this light, pro-
environmental qualities of products are often not self-
reinforcing; hence, one of the key strategies to motivate
consumers to make pro-environmental purchases is to focus on
the individual values and benefits obtained from such
purchases (Buenstorf and Cordes, 2008).
In this context, shared values are defined as a consensus
between the consumer and the brand (Zhao et al., 2017, p. 375;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Another variable of interest in this
study is perceived benefit. Perceived benefit is defined as the
“self-serving consideration perceived by an individual” (Zhao
et al., 2017, p. 375). According to SET, consumers engage in a
relationship with a brand when they consider the perceived
benefit of their transaction to be higher than the potential cost
(Zhao et al., 2017; Fournier, 1998). However, studies on
perceived benefit of pro-environmental apparel have mostly
focused on perceived health benefits, which consumers have
failed to recognize in apparel (unlike for organic food) (Kim
and Damhorst, 1998). To create a beneficial relationship
between a brand and its consumer(s), there needs to be an
understanding of trust along with shared values and perceived
benefits that highlight the paybacks from a consumer–brand
relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Fournier, 1998). Based
on findings from Romani et al. (2016) consumers’ skepticism
about a brands’ CSR efforts can play a major factor in
consumption of green products as well as brand–consumer
relationships, with negative consumer perceptions negatively
impacting both.
Therefore, this study focused on the perceived social and
psychological benefits of pro-environmental apparel. Given the
importance of shared value and perceived benefits in
consumers’ overall pro-environmental consumption scenarios
and its expected relationship with knowledge, it is
hypothesized:
H2a-b. Knowledge positively influences participants’ shared
value with (H2a) and perceived benefit from (H2b)
brands’ pro-environmental initiatives.
In addition, skepticism represents an individual’s doubt(s)
about the way the severity and cause of climate change is
communicated in media and its anthropogenic nature
(Whitmarsh, 2011). Thus, if consumers have lower (than
higher) skepticism, that is, they believe in the severity of and
human impact on climate change, they are more likely to share
the same pro-environmental values with a brands’
environmental initiatives and would perceive that the brand
undertaking such initiatives would benefit them, the consumer,
and the environment in general (Schau et al., 2009). In this
light, market research indicates that more than 50 per cent of
US consumers believe that individuals, businesses and the
government have the highest potential to solve environmental
issues (Cone Communications, 2017; Funk and Kennedy,
2016). Particularly in the USA, consumers believe that
businesses can play an integral role in facilitating social and
environmental change (Cone Communications, 2017), which
will eventually benefit society and the environment at large.
Because public uncertainty and skepticism have now become
central to debates about climate change and are seen as major
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
barriers to public engagement, understanding the effect of
consumers’ skepticism in their decision-making process is
essential for the success of businesses’ pro-environmental
initiatives. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H3a-b. Skepticism toward climate change negatively
influences shared value with (H3a) and perceived
benefit from (H3b) brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives.
Impact of shared values and perceived benefits on trust
and commitment toward brand
According to SET, trust and commitment are two major
components that provide the foundation for motivations by
consumers (Homans, 1958). Trust toward a brand is defined as
a consumer’s willingness to rely on the ability of a brand to
perform its stated function (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Commitment, on the other hand, is defined as a consumer’s
emotional or psychological attachment to a brand within a
product class and indicates the extent to which the brand is
considered the only acceptable choice for that particular
product class (Warrington and Shim, 2000). Given that the
apparel industry often receives negative media attention
because of its lack of environmental stewardship leading
consumers to question the legitimacy of brands’ true pro-
environmental efforts, trust and commitment are essential for
the ultimate success of brands’ pro-environmental initiatives
(Bhaduri and Ha-Brookshire, 2011).
Literature indicates that shared value is a positive predictor
of trust and commitment (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002;
Zhao et al., 2017). According to Payne and Holt (2001),
customer value is built upon nine core themes, including
relationship value between the customer and brand.
Specifically when discussing green products Lam et al. (2016)
argue that trust and satisfaction mediate value and the intention
to purchase or repurchase goods. Thus, this study looks at how
shared values regarding a pro-environmental initiative of an
apparel brand is affected by a similar relationship. It is expected
that if consumers share the same values as the brand they might
be more likely to trust the brand’s pro-environmental ads and
be committed to the brand. In fact, it has been found that
individual values, ethics, and perceived benefits are of utmost
importance when purchasing sustainable apparel (Leary et al.,
2014). Given that an understanding of shared values can lead
to consumer loyalty (Hess and Story, 2005) it is hypothesized
that:
H4a-b. Shared value related to brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives influences perceived trust (H4a) and
commitment (H4b).
In addition to shared values, literature indicates that perceived
benefits directly impact trust, commitment and brand loyalty
(Kuo and Feng, 2013). However, empirical research on
perceived benefits in a pro-environmental apparel purchase
scenario has been limited and inconclusive. According to
Loureiro (2013), perceived benefits impact consumers’ trust
toward a brand by reducing risks associated with a
consumption decision. Therefore, based on existing literature,
if consumers perceive that they are receiving a type of benefit
4
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
from the brand’s pro-environmental initiatives, they might be
more likely to trust and engage in a committed relationship with
the brand. Thus it is hypothesized:
H5a-b. Perceived benefits positively influence consumer’s
perceived trust (H5a) and commitment (H5b).
Finally, trust toward a brand is important for commitment and
loyalty to a brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002; Hess and
Story, 2005). Relationship marketing relies on consumers’ trust
toward the brand, which in turn develops a personal connection
between the brand and consumer, eventually facilitating
commitment toward the brand (Hess and Story, 2005; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). Using brand awareness and cultivating trust
toward the brand provides patronage and referrals of already
loyal consumers, as well as enhances further commitment and
loyalty of new consumers (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002).
According to Garbarino and Johnson (1999) consumers with a
closer relationship with a brand have higher trust mediating
attitudes and intention. Given the importance of trust and
commitment in establishing and maintaining a long-term
relationship with a brand and ultimately brand patronage,
particularly for pro-environmental brands, it is hypothesized for
apparel brands that,
H6. Perceived trust positively influences commitment
toward the brand.
Influence of trust and commitment on purchase
intention
This study focused on purchase intention as the final outcome
variable because, according to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980),
behavioral intentions are immediate determinants of behavior.
In this light, behavioral intention, particularly purchase
intention, is defined as a person’s perceived likelihood that he/
she will engage in a given behavior, specifically purchase from
the brand (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Understanding
purchase intention is important because the success of a
brand’s pro-environmental initiative(s) ultimately depends on
consumers’ patronage of the same and their ultimate purchase
of pro-environmental products from the brand (Connelly and
Prothero, 2003).
This study explored two types of intentions related to brand
patronage: intention to purchase goods from the brand and
intention to tell a friend/family about the brand. Intention to
purchase was operationalized as the future intent to exchange
money for goods/services. In addition, although not a
patronage behavior, intention to tell a friend/family about a
brand is an important indicator of word-of-mouth
communication because family/friends act as sources of brand/
product-related information influencing consumers’ brand
patronage intentions (Ogle et al., 2004).
According to studies by Ellis et al. (2012) and Hustvedt and
Bernard (2008), consumers are willing to pay higher prices for
pro-environmental apparel and are beginning to make
environmentally conscious decisions regarding apparel
purchases (Hiller Connell, 2011). In this light, the key to
consumers’ willingness to pay and purchase intention of a
sustainable product is linked to a mindful consumer with
commitment to purchasing from a sustainable brand and
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
inhibits trust towards the brand (MacMillan et al., 2005; Sheth
et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2017). Particularly for apparel
purchases, consumers, even with a positive attitude toward pro-
environmental brands, often lack positive purchase intentions
because of a lack of trust in the brand’s pro-environmental
initiatives (Bhaduri and Ha-Brookshire, 2011). Therefore,
given the importance of trust and commitment toward
consumers’ behavioral intentions, it is hypothesized:
H7a-b. Trust (H7a) and commitment (H7b) toward the
brand positively influence consumers’ brand
patronage intentions.
Familiar brands vs unfamiliar brands
Brand familiarity has been a topic of interest among researchers
because of its impact on consumer decision-making processes
and ultimately on consumer–brand relationships. Particularly,
familiar brands (vs. unfamiliar ones) have been found to have
higher persuasive power and are considered as more credible
sources of information (Kamins and Marks, 1991). Research
indicates that consumer relationships with a familiar brand is
harder to impact than unfamiliar ones because of the already
established shared values, perceived benefits and trust and
commitment (Chong Lim and MY Chung, 2014). A high level
of familiarity with a brand often leads to feelings of higher
satisfaction, as well as higher trust with the brand (Ha and
Perks, 2005). Specifically, familiarity with a brand influences
consumer confidence with the brand, ultimately impacting his/
her purchase intentions (Laroche et al., 1996). Applying these
findings in the context of SET, it can be expected that brand
familiarity can influence consumers’ trust and commitment,
thus impacting their intention to engage in a transaction with
the brand.
Despite the importance and relevance of brand familiarity in
brand relationships, literature related to brand familiarity in the
context of pro-environmental brands is extremely limited and
inconclusive. For example, Türkel et al. (2016) found that
familiar vs unfamiliar brands did not differ regarding
consumers’ brand engagement for sustainable brands. On the
contrary, consumers’ expectations of brand behavior and brand
trust varied between familiar and unfamiliar based on the type
of communication administered by brands (such as style and
tone of message) (Gretry et al., 2017). Looking at food
products, Fandos Herrera and Flavián Blanco (2011)
discovered that there are strong differences between customers
with high/low familiarity regarding trust and loyalty of a specific
type of ham.
Thus, in this study familiarity of a brand is pertinent to a
consumer understanding what the brand stands for, its CSR
practices and the products they provide its customer. This is
because consumers’ existing perceptions about brands’ pro-
environmental initiatives, particularly negative perceptions, can
adversely influence future consumer–brand relationships
(Romani et al., 2016). However, such may not be the case for
unfamiliar brands, which can work both as an advantage or
disadvantage to the brand. Given the potential impact of brand
familiarity on brand relationship and an absence of substantial
literature, it is pertinent that brand familiarity be studied in the
context of SET for pro-environmental brand initiatives.
5
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
Therefore, in this manuscript, empirical data is gathered on
how consumers evaluate brands’ pro-environmental initiatives
and form relationships with a brand for both familiar and
unfamiliar. The impact of brand familiarity is especially
relevant because of the current business environment which has
seen a surge of start-up (unfamiliar) clothing brands that
promise to offer consumers pro-environmental choices. To
create their niche, and portray their environmental
contributions, these brands have made pro-environmental
initiatives a primary focus of their marketing campaigns.
Study 1: familiar brands
Method
Research design
An online survey was designed for the purpose of this study.
Given that all constructs involved in this study are theory-
driven and empirical studies have already been conducted
using the same, a quantitative approach was selected (Jaccard
and Jacoby, 2009). Participants were exposed to pro-
environmental ads from two apparel brands. Because each
media message is composed of an infinite number of attributes,
there are risks of the systematic effect of confounding variables
(Thorson et al., 2012). In a study involving one single ad, any
conclusion(s) about the effect of manipulation must be
restricted to the particular ad, rather than categories of ads
(Thorson et al., 2012). Because the focus of the study is to
understand consumer response to a group of ads, in this case
pro-environmental ads from brands, multiple but similar pro-
environmental ads from two different apparel brands were
created for each treatment group to help generalize the study
results to a wider population of ads. Thus, to reduce the
confounding effect of brands, two brand names were used, two
ad versions were developed (altering the text) to reduce the
confounding effect of text content. This resulted in four
different pro-environmental static ads. The focus of the study
was not to see the differences across ads but to generalize the
findings across pro-environmental ads and brands by reducing
between-message variance to random error (Thorson et al.,
2012).
Stimuli and manipulation check
Given the aim of the study was to understand consumer
responses to familiar brands’ pro-environmental initiatives, it
was necessary to ensure that the brands used in the stimuli were
familiar to US consumers. Based on existing research using
familiar brands in the USA, two brands were identified,
namely, Nike and Adidas (Bhaduri et al., 2017). Additionally,
the two brands offer a wide range of merchandise for a wide
target market. Next, 88 students enrolled in a US public
university indicated (1: not familiar at all to 5: extremely
familiar) both Nike (mean: 4.65, SD: 0.57) and Adidas (mean:
4.55, SD: 0.68) as familiar. Thus, the two brands were deemed
suitable for the study purposes (see Appendix 1 for sample
stimuli).
Measures
Knowledge was measured using 11 items (Kim and Damhorst,
1998) anchored as True, False or Don’t Know. Participants
scored 1 point for a correct response and 0 for incorrect or not
knowing. This captures all the essential aspects of knowledge
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
related to the environmental impact of apparel and has been
widely used by prominent researchers (Kim and Damhorst,
1998; Dickson, 2000; Brosdahl and Carpenter, 2010; Hiller
Connell, 2010; Hiller Connell and Kozar, 2012; Kozar and
Hiller Connell, 2010, 2013; Reiter, 2015). Skepticism toward
climate change was measured using 12 items (Whitmarsh,
2011). Perceived benefits was measured using eight of nine
items, with one item removed because of its measurement of
influence on others rather than the major focus of the study,
influence of the brand (Kuo and Feng, 2013). Shared value was
measured using three items (MacMillan et al., 2005), perceived
trust used three items (Hong and Cha, 2013), commitment
used three items (Li et al., 2006) and finally intention to
purchase used two items (Hyllegard et al., 2012) all on seven-
point Likert-type scales (1- strongly disagree to 7- strongly
agree). These measures were deemed appropriate for this study
because of their previous usage in the context of SET (Zhao
et al., 2017) and their applicability in the present study.
Measures used for Study 1 and Study 2 show the scale items.
Items
1 Climate change skepticism (Whitmarsh, 2011)
 Climate change is too complex and uncertain for
scientists to make useful forecasts.
 Claims that human activities are changing the climate
are exaggerated.
 The media is often too alarmist about issues such as
climate change.
 I do not believe climate change is a real problem.
 Floods and heat waves are not increasing; there is
just more reporting of them in the media these
days.
 Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth’s
temperatures.
 It is too early to say whether climate change is really a
problem.
 There is too much conflicting evidence about climate
change to know whether it is actually happening.
 Too much fuss is made about climate change.
 The evidence for climate change is unreliable.
 Many leading experts still question if human activity
is contributing to climate change.
 I am uncertain about whether climate change is really
happening.
2 Knowledge about environmental impact of apparel (Kim and
Damhorst, 1998)
 Chemical pollutants are produced during
manufacturing of synthetic or manufactured fibers
such as polyester. (True)
 Chemical pollutants are not produced during
processing of natural fibers such as cotton. (False)
 Federally and regionally mandated standards for
clean air and water have not yet been imposed on
textile/apparel companies. (False)
 Air pollution can occur during some common dye
processes of textiles/apparel. (True)
 Textile/apparel dyeing and finishing processes use a
lot of water. (True)
 Fibers such as wool cannot be commercially recycled.
(False)
6
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
 Disposable diapers have substantially contributed to
the quantity of textile/apparel products discarded in
landfills. (True)
 Special finishes on fabrics may create problems for
recycling. (True)
 Phosphate-containing laundry detergents can be a
source of water pollution. (True)
 Natural fibers are usually biodegradable. (True)
 The use of larger quantities of natural fibers by the
textile/apparel industry will significantly decrease
energy consumption. (False)
3 Perceived benefit (Kuo and Feng, 2013)
 The brand allows me to increase my knowledge
about environmental issues related to apparel
products.
 The brand helps me solve problems associated with
environmental impact of apparel products.
 The brand helps increase my understanding of
environmental issues related to apparel products.
 I can enhance my status and reputation by
purchasing pro-environmental apparel from this
brand.
 I can increase my credibility and authority by
purchasing pro-environmental apparel from this
brand.
 I feel pleased and relaxed with this brand.
 I gain joy and happiness from this brand.
 I feel inspired by this brand.
4 Shared value (Macmillan et al., 2005)
 In general, the brand’s environmental opinions and
values are a lot like mine.
 I like and respect the brand’s environmental values.
 The brand and I share a similar set of environmental
values.
5 Perceived trust (Hong and Cha, 2013)
 I trust the brand’s environmental initiatives.
 I believe the brand will keep its environmental
promises and commitments.
 I trust the brand and would purchase products from
this brand.
6 Commitment (Li et al., 2006)
 I would enjoy discussing this brand and its
environmental initiatives with other people.
 It is easy to become attached to this brand and its
environmental initiatives.
 This brand has a great deal of environmental
attraction for me.
7 Intention to purchase (Hyllegard et al., 2012)
 In the future do you intend to purchase pro-
environmental apparel/clothing from this brand?
 In the future do you intend to tell a friend/family
member about pro-environmental initiatives from
this brand?
Sample selection and procedure
A sample of 204 adult US consumers were recruited using
market-based research firm, Qualtrics. After providing
electronic consent, participants completed demographic
questions, followed by items measuring their knowledge and
skepticism. Then participants were exposed to one randomly
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
selected pro-environmental ad from one of the two brands,
followed by questions about shared value, perceived benefit,
perceived trust, commitment and purchase intention. Finally,
participants were debriefed that the ads were manipulated for
the purpose of the study. Throughout the study, three attention
filter questions were incorporated to ensure participant
attention (Bhaduri et al., 2017). Each participant took 11-
12 min to complete the study.
Data analyses
Descriptive analyses data were conducted to understand
respondent characteristics. Principal component analysis
(PCA) was conducted to determine the underlying dimensions
of each variable. Inter-item reliability was established through
Cronbach’s a and composite reliability index. Finally, for
hypotheses tests, maximum-likelihood estimation-based path
analysis was conducted using AMOS 22.0 (Bhaduri and
Stanforth, 2016). Overall fit of the model was assessed
by statistic indexes: model x 2, relative x 2 (CMIN/DF),
standardized root means square residual (SRMR), comparative
fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI) and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) with confident limit
(PCLOSE) and other indices.
Results
Respondents’ characteristics
Age of the participants (46.6 per cent male and 53.4 per cent
female) ranged from 18 to 77 (mean = 46.03, SD = 14.97).
Table I shows demographic details of participants.
Principal component analysis and scale reliability
PCA with oblique rotation using eigenvalue >1 revealed one
principal component each for knowledge (59.3 per cent of
total variance explained; factor loadings: 0.72-0.43),
climate skepticism (70.42 per cent of total variance
explained; factor loadings: 0.92-0.76), perceived benefit
(67.99 per cent of total variance explained; factor loadings:
0.85-0.77), shared value (83.94 per cent of total variance
explained; factor loadings: 0.89-0.94); perceived trust (89.4
per cent of total variance explained, factor loading: 0.95);
commitment (85.3 per cent of total variance explained;
factor loadings: 0.93-0.91); and intention to purchase
(89.43 per cent of total variance explained; factor loading:
0.95). Reliabilities of the scales ranged from 0.96 to 0.73 for
Cronbach a and from 0.97 to 0.88 for composite reliability
indices.
Hypotheses tests
Path analysis was conducted using AMOS. Because the
model was theory-driven and all constructs were verified
through PCA to be reliable and valid, observed variables
were used for the analysis (Bhaduri and Stanforth, 2016).
The path model consisted of one exogenous variable for
knowledge. There were six endogenous variables: climate
change skepticism, shared value, perceived benefits,
perceived trust, perceived commitment and purchase
intention. In the path model, correlations were considered
between the error terms of shared value and perceived
benefit and between perceived trust and perceived
commitment. The overall model fit, indicated by
7
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
x 2 goodness of fit index, was not satisfactory ( x 2 = 16.46,
df = 7, p = 0.021). However, x 2 is highly sensitive to sample
size and sizes of correlations in the model; hence, other fit
indices were considered to evaluate model fit (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). Other fit indices (CMIN/DF = 2.53, CFI =
0. 99, NFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.07,
PCLOSE = 0.13, IFI = 0.99, RFI = 0.949, GFI = 0.96), as
well as parsimony adjusted measures (PRATIO = 0.33,
PNFI = 0.33, PCFI = 0.33 and AGFI = 0.94) indicate good
model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Davcik, 2014). Thus, the
path model was deemed appropriate for testing the study
hypotheses.
For familiar brands, H1 posited that participant
knowledge inversely influenced skepticism. Based on path
analysis results, higher level of knowledge led to lower
skepticism (b = 0.19, p = 0.005), supporting H1. H2
posited that knowledge is a positive predictor of shared
value (H2a) and perceived benefit (H2b). Results indicated
that knowledge did not significantly influence perceived
benefit (b = 0.083, p = 0.24) but positively influenced
shared value (b = 0.18, p = 0.012), supporting H2a but not
H2b. Similarly, H3 posited that skepticism is a negative
predictor of shared value (H3a) and perceived benefit
(H3b). Results indicate that skepticism towards climate
change did not significantly influence shared value
(b = 0.007, p = 0.921) or perceived benefit (b = 0.076,
p = 0.287), lacking support for both H3a and H3b. H4
proposed that shared value acts as an antecedent to
perceived trust (H4a) and commitment (H4b). Results
indicated that shared value positively influenced perceived
trust (b = 0.51, p < 0.001), and commitment (b = 0.28,
p < 0.001), supporting H4a and H4b. Similarly, H5a-b
posited that consumers’ perceived benefit acts as an
antecedent to their trust (H5a) and commitment (H5b).
Results indicated that perceived benefit positively
influenced perceived trust (b = 0.34, p < 0.001) and
commitment (b = 0.47, p < 0. 001), supporting H5a-b. H6
posited that trust also acted as a positive antecedent for
participants’ commitment toward the brand. Path analysis
results indicated that trust positively influenced
commitment (b = 0.21, p < 0.001), supporting H6. Finally,
H7 posited that participant’s trust (H7a) and commitment
(H7b) positively influence purchase intention. Results
indicated that perceived trust [standardized path coefficient
(b) = 0.17, p = 0.006] and commitment (b = 0.68,
p < 0. 001] positively influenced intention to purchase,
supporting both H7a and H7b. See Figure 1 for results of
hypotheses.
Study 2: unfamiliar brands
Method
Research design, stimuli and manipulation check
The same research design as Study 1 with the exception that
unfamiliar brands were used was implemented for Study 2.
Because it was necessary to ensure that the brands used in the
stimuli were unfamiliar to US consumers, researchers
identified two domestic brands based in India with no
international presence, namely, Jabong and Myntra. A total of
88 students enrolled in a mid-western state university
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14

Table I Demographic characteristics of participants (Study 1: n = 204; Study 2: n = 206)

Study 1 Study 2
Variable Levels Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Age 18-20 4 2.0 5 2.4
21-30 31 15.2 42 20.4
31-40 43 21.1 39 18.9
41-50 46 22.5 36 17.5
51-60 39 19.1 39 18.9
61-70 30 14.7 40 19.4
71-80 11 5.4 5 2.4
Gender Male 95 46.6 105 51.0
Female 109 53.4 101 49.0
African-American/Black 19 9.3 23 11.2
Hispanic/Latino 9 4.4 11 5.3
Pacific Islander 6 2.9 10 4.8
Native American/Alaskan 2 1.0 2 1.0
Other 8 3.9 9 4.4
Education High school/some college education 86 42.2 93 45.1
Bachelor’s degree 45 22.1 53 25.7
Some graduate education 29 14.2 24 11.7
Graduate degree 31 15.2 23 11.2
Extended Education 13 6.4 12 6.3
US region Midwest 34 16.7 46 22.3
Northeast 41 20.1 49 23.8
South 91 44.6 72 35.0
West 38 18.6 39 18.9

Figure 1 Results of Study 1 and Study 2 0.96 to 0.71 for Cronbach a and from 0.98 to 0.86 for
composite reliability indices.
Study1: Familiar Brands
H3a H4a Respondent characteristics
Climate Change b = 0.007 b = 0.51***
Skepticism Shared Value Perceived Trust H7a
H4b b = 0.17** Age of the participants (51 per cent male and 49 per cent
H2a b = 0.28 ***
H1
b = -0.19 **
b = 0.18 ** H6 Intention to female) ranged from 19 to 77 (mean = 46.02, SD = 15.31). See
b = 0.21*** Purchase
H3b
b = 0.08 H5a
Table I for demographic details of participants.
Knowledge about H7b
b=0.34 ***
Environmental Perceived Benefit Commitment
C b = 0.68***
H2b H5b Hypotheses tests
Impact of Apparel
b = 0.08 b = 0.47***
The same model as Study 1 was tested for Study 2 using
Study2: Unfamiliar Brands
H3a H4a
unfamiliar brands. The overall model fit, indicated by
x 2goodness of fit index, was satisfactory ( x 2 = 11.26, df = 7,
Climate Change b = -.17** b = 0.42***
Skepticism Shared Value Perceived Trust H7a
H4b b = 0.20***
H2a b = 0.40** p = 0.13). In addition, other fit indices (CMIN/DF = 1.61,
H1 b = 0.18** H6 Intention to
b = -0.18** H3b b = 0. 20*** Purchase CFI = 0. 99, NFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.06,
b = 0.06 H5a
Knowledge about b = 0.20*** H7b PCLOSE = 0.39, IFI = 0.99, RFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.96), as well
Environmental Perceived Benefit Commitment b =0.67***
H2b H5b
Impact of Apparel
b = 0.11 b = 0.50***
as parsimony adjusted measures, (PRATIO = 0.333, PNFI =
0.33, PCFI = 0.33 and AGFI = 0.94) indicate good model fit
Notes: ***Represents significance level of 0.001; **represents (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Davcik, 2014). Thus, the path model
significance level of 0.05 was deemed appropriate for testing the study hypotheses.
Based on path analysis results, higher level of knowledge led
to lower skepticism (b = 0.18, p = 0.010), supporting H1.
Second, knowledge did not significantly influence perceived
indicated, on a five-point Likert scale (1: not familiar at all to 5:
benefit (b = 0.105, p = 0.135) but positively influenced shared
extremely familiar), mean familiarity score for Jabong 1.11 (S.
value (b = 0.181, p = 0.008), supporting H2b but not H2a.
D.: 0.385) and that for Myntra as 1.09 (S.D.: 0.33). Thus,
Third, skepticism influenced shared value negatively (b =
these two brands were deemed unfamiliar and suitable for the
0.17, p = 0.012) but did not influence perceived benefit (b =
study.
0.062, p = 0.375), supporting H3a but lacking support for
Measures, sample, procedure and data analyses H3b. Fourth, shared value positively influenced perceived trust
The same measures from Study 1 were used for Study 2. A (b = 0.42, p < 0.001), and commitment (b = 0.40, p = 0.003),
sample of 206 adult US consumers were recruited using supporting H4a and H4b. Fifth, perceived benefit positively
Qualtrics and followed the same research and data analyses influenced perceived trust (b = 0.20, p < 0.001) and
procedures as Study 1. Reliabilities of the scales ranged from commitment (b = 0.50, p < 0.001), supporting H5a-b. Fifth,

8
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
trust positively influenced commitment (b = 0.20, p < 0. 001),
supporting H6. Finally, perceived trust (b = 0.20, p < 0.001)
and commitment (b = 0.67, p < 0.001) positively influenced
intention to purchase, supporting both H7a and H7b. See
Figure 1 for results of Study 2.
Discussions
This study focused on understanding how consumers’
intention to purchase from a pro-environmental apparel brand
is influenced by their knowledge of environmental impact of
apparel and their overall skepticism toward climate change.
Particularly, it was found that consumers’ shared value
perceptions and perceived benefits obtained from pro-
environmental apparel brands influenced their relationship
with the brand through trust and commitment. This ultimately
impacted their intention to purchase from the brand. Specific
findings of the study are discussed below.
First, for both familiar and unfamiliar brands, knowledge
about pro-environmental impact of apparel negatively
impacted participants’ skepticism toward climate change,
meaning, the higher the knowledge, the lower was the level of
skepticism. Second, for both familiar and unfamiliar brands,
consumers’ knowledge positively impacted their shared value
but had no significant impact on perceived benefits, which is
notable to apparel retailers because although consumers with
high knowledge shared pro-environmental values with the
brand and respected their initiatives, they did not feel that the
brand’s initiatives would benefit them personally in any way.
The results could be attributed to the fact that, even though
consumers are aware about the harmful environmental impacts
of apparel, they fail to see the personal harm that can be caused
by the same. This is important for academics and brands to take
note of as there is a continued focus on sustainability and
needing consumers/students to be active participants in the
process. This might be because a majority of apparel consumed
in the USA is made overseas, in multiple developing countries
with varying levels of environmental regulations. This lack of
transparency in the supply process obscures responsibility and
accountability when things go wrong (Bhaduri and Ha-
Brookshire, 2011), leaving consumers to be unable to see the
personal benefits of pro-environmental initiatives. In addition,
apparel remains on the surface of our skin (unlike food, which is
ingested), and hence the possible benefits of using less water or
eco-friendly dyes for apparel manufacturing is often overlooked
(Kim and Damhorst, 1998).
Third, shared value and perceived benefits positively
influenced trust and commitment for both familiar and
unfamiliar brands, supporting previous literature and findings
regarding the positive relationship between perceived benefit
and brand trust and commitment (Leary et al., 2014;
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002; Zhao et al., 2017; Hess and
Story, 2005). This indicated that when consumers increasingly
share their pro-environmental values with the brand and/or
perceive that the brand provides them with pro-environmental
benefits, they tend to form a relationship with the brand by
trusting it and eventually developing a commitment toward the
same.
Fourth, for both familiar and unfamiliar apparel brands, trust
and commitment toward the brand, particularly toward their
9
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
pro-environmental initiatives, positively influenced consumers’
purchase intention. In addition, brand trust also influenced
consumers’ commitment toward the brand. Therefore, in sync
with previous studies, higher trust and commitment,
irrespective of brand familiarity, were strong predictors of
consumers’ ultimate intention to purchase from the brand
(MacMillan et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2017; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2002; Hess and Story, 2005; Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Ellis et al., 2012; Hiller Connell, 2011).
Fifth, although there were similarities between how
consumers form decisions regarding familiar and unfamiliar
brands based on their knowledge and skepticism, one major
difference was observed between the two. While skepticism
toward climate change did not influence consumers’ shared
value or perceived benefit for familiar brands, it did influence
shared value (but not perceived benefits) for unfamiliar brands.
Particularly, for unfamiliar brands, the effect of skepticism on
shared value was negative, indicating that consumers who were
highly skeptical about climate change in general (and its
anthropogenic nature) did not perceive that they shared similar
values with an unfamiliar pro-environmental brand. Given that
climate change skepticism involves concerns about the impact
of human beings on climate change, consumers with high
skepticism might consider that pro-environmental initiatives by
a brand are not essential in curbing climate change and thus do
not agree with the brands’ pro-environmental values. This is
particularly applicable for unfamiliar brands because
information from such brands is often seen as less credible,
leading skeptics to discount the authenticity of unfamiliar
brands’ pro-environmental messages and initiatives (Low and
Lamb, 2000).
Another important point of consideration is that for familiar
brands, knowledge significantly reduced skepticism, but this
skepticism did not influence shared value or perceived benefit.
On the other hand, knowledge significantly influenced shared
value, which in turn influenced perceived trust and
commitment. Therefore, for familiar brands, irrespective of
consumers’ skepticism, their knowledge was a better predictor
of consumers’ perception of the brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives and eventually their relationship with the brand. On
the contrary, for unfamiliar brands, even though knowledge
significantly reduced skepticism, both knowledge and
skepticism then influenced shared value (with the strength of
influence being highly similar but in the opposite direction).
Thus, if a consumer is familiar and knowledgeable about the
environmental impact of apparel, they are more likely to engage
in a positive relationship with the brand. However, with
unfamiliar brands, the effort to convey their pro-environmental
initiatives is more intense, as consumers are skeptical about
how such initiatives are communicated. Thus, to benefit the
brand-consumer relationship, messages regarding pro-
environmental campaigns need to be more transparent and
clear to reduce skepticism and aid the consumer’s decision-
making process.
Implications
Theoretical implications
Given the importance of pro-environmental initiatives in
benefitting the environment, understanding the factors that
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
influence consumers’ relationships with the brand and their
ultimate purchase intentions is important to marketers,
consumers and academics alike. From a theoretical
perspective, this study introduced consumers’ knowledge
about the environmental impact of apparel and skepticism and
antecedents of their shared value with and perceived benefits
from an apparel brand. Results indicated that shared value and
perceived benefits impact consumers’ brand relationships,
through trust and commitment, which eventually impacts their
brand patronage intentions. Thus, the study extended SET to
include knowledge and skepticism as antecedents of shared
value, perceived benefits and patronage intention toward pro-
environmental apparel brands. In addition, the study results
indicate the impact of brand familiarity in the process.
Particularly, for unfamiliar (not familiar) brands, consumers’
climate change skepticism negatively influenced their shared
value, which according to SET is an important predictor of
consumers’ trust and commitment and ultimate engagement in
a transaction with the brand.
Managerial implications
The results showed that knowledge negatively impacted
consumers’ skepticism irrespective of brand familiarity.
Therefore, apparel brands, both familiar and unfamiliar, can
benefit from increasing knowledge, that is, educating
consumers about the environmental impact of apparel to
reduce their general skepticism toward climate change, and
eventually influence consumers’ future brand relationships.
Specifically, brands’ pro-environmental ads and other
marketing initiatives need to educate consumers about the
direct impact of their pro-environmental offerings and highlight
the personal benefits and values gained from eco-friendly
apparel to garner positive brand evaluations. Although it was
beyond the scope of this study to understand how consumers
can be educated, major brands such as Adidas and Patagonia
have started to provide transparent information about their
supply chain and their specific environmental initiatives to
make consumers more informed about the impact of their
consumption choices. This is important because, even as
sustainable initiatives become more prominent within the
apparel industry, there is still a disconnect in consumer
knowledge of how their purchases truly affect the environment
and themselves.
The study results also indicate that when consumers share
similar values and perceive that the brand (familiar or
unfamiliar) offers them benefits, they develop a relationship
with the brand by trusting them and being committed to them.
Given the importance of relationship variables in predicting
consumers’ long-term engagement with the brand and the
ultimate effectiveness of the brands’ pro-environmental
initiatives, clearly focusing on the values and benefits and
aligning them with those shared by consumers is a way for
brands to create a niche for themselves in the market. This is
equally important for both familiar brands, who might want to
retain existing customers, and unfamiliar or start-up
enterprises, who might be trying to connect with their
consumers to create their own niche and stand out amid
competition.
Particularly for unfamiliar brands, consumers’ climate
change skepticism negatively influenced their shared value with
10
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
the brand’s pro-environmental initiatives. This can be
attributed to the fact that consumers with high skepticism
might consider that pro-environmental initiatives by an
unfamiliar brand are not essential in curbing climate change or
question the credibility/authenticity of the brand’s pro-
environmental initiatives (Low and Lamb, 2000). Therefore,
unfamiliar brands need to credibly communicate their pro-
environmental messages such as through third-party
certifications and/or traceable supply chain information to
reduce skepticism, increase knowledge and in turn positively
influence shared value for their pro-environmental initiatives to
be heard and appreciated.
Limitations and scope of future research
Despite its many contributions, this study is not without
limitations, which in turn, provide us with opportunities for
future research. First, the study involved apparel brands only,
whereas future studies involving brands from other industries
might be interesting, as this may be unique to the apparel
industry because of the fact there is such low knowledge of
apparel environmental impact. In addition, this study delved
into consumers’ knowledge of environmental impact of apparel
only and not the social aspect. Given that the apparel industry is
highly labor intensive and employs over 60 million employees
globally, it has tremendous potential to impact society as well
(Fashion United, 2019). Therefore, future studies investigating
the impact of consumers’ knowledge about the social impact of
the apparel industry would be beneficial and could possibly
provide more outlets for brands to connect with consumers on
a more human/social level, in addition to pursuing the pro-
environmental initiatives. Second, only US consumers were
used in this study. Given that a majority of apparel
manufacturing is done in developing countries, consumers in
those countries might have unique schemas about pro-
environmental initiatives undertaken by global brands.
Therefore, conducting cross-cultural studies, particularly
including consumers from developing economies, might yield
interesting results. Third, this study considered knowledge as
the only predictor of skepticism. Given that skepticism can arise
from lack of compelling message arguments and/or credibility
of the source of the message (Whitmarsh, 2011), future studies
on other factors that can reduce consumer skepticism, such as
perceived credibility of the message source, as well as message
arguments might be insightful. In addition, given that familiar
brands often act as sources of credible information (as
compared to unfamiliar brands) (Low and Lamb, 2000),
controlling for the effect of such perceived credibility might
yield interesting results. In this light, the study uses two
separate samples to test for the effect of familiar vs unfamiliar
brands. Given that sample characteristics (such as means and
SDs) might differ across samples, it was not possible to
compare the strength of path coefficients for familiar and
unfamiliar brands. Therefore, in future studies, introducing
brand familiarity as a moderator with one larger sample might
be beneficial. Finally, future research could also be conducted
using qualitative methods to gain a deeper, richer
understanding of how consumers form relationships with
brands.
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Bhaduri, G. and Ha-Brookshire, J.E. (2011), “Do transparent
business practices pay? Exploration of transparency and
consumer purchase intention”, Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Bhaduri, G. and Stanforth, N. (2016), “Evaluation of
absolute luxury effect of cues, consumers’ need for
uniqueness, product involvement and product knowledge
on expected price”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 471 -486.
Bhaduri, G., Ha-Brookshire, J.E. and Leshner, G. (2017),
“Too good to be true? Effect of consumers’ brand
schemas on apparel brands’ fair labor marketing
messages”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 187-203.
Blau, P. (2017), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Routledge.
Boström, M. and Micheletti, M. (2016), “Introducing the
sustainability challenge of textiles and clothing”, Journal of
Consumer Policy, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 367-375.
Brosdahl, D.J. and Carpenter, J.M. (2010), “Consumer
knowledge of the environmental impacts of textile and
apparel production, concern for the environment, and
environmentally friendly consumption behavior”, Journal of
Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, Vol. 6
No. 4.
Buenstorf, G. and Cordes, C. (2008), “Can sustainable
consumption be learned? A model of cultural evolution”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 646-657.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002), “Product-class
effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: the role
of brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-58.
Chong Lim, B. and MY Chung, C. (2014), “Word-of-mouth:
the use of source expertise in the evaluation of familiar and
unfamiliar brands”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Cone Communications (2017), “2017 Cone communications
CSR study”, available at: www.conecomm.com/research-
blog/2017-csr-study (accessed 20 July 2018).
Connelly, J. and Prothero, A. (2003), “Sustainable
consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity
discourse”, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 275-291.
Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L. and Xenias, D. (2012),
“Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate
change: biased assimilation and attitude polarization”,
Climatic Change, Vol. 114 Nos 3/4, pp. 463-478.
Davcik, N.S. (2014), “The use and misuse of structural
equation modeling (SEM) in management research: a review
and critique”, Journal of Advances in Management Research,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-81.
Dickson, M.A. (2000), “Personal values, beliefs, knowledge,
and attitudes relating to intentions to purchase apparel from
socially responsible businesses”, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
11
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M. and Lamb, P. (2006), “An empirical
study on the influence of environmental labels on
consumers”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 162-173.
Ellis, J.L., McCracken, V.A. and Skuza, N. (2012), “Insights
into willingness to pay for organic cotton apparel”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Fandos Herrera, C. and Flavián Blanco, C. (2011),
“Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products:
the role of familiarity”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 282-296.
Fashion United (2019), “Global fashion industry statistics-
International apparel”, available at: https://fashionunited.
com/global-fashion-industry-statistics/ (accessed 19 February
2019).
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Funk, C. and Kennedy, B. (2016), “Public views on climate
change and climate scientists”, available at: www.
pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-
and-climate-scientists/ (accessed July 22 2018).
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N. and van Riel, A.C. (2017),
“Don't pretend to be my friend! When an informal brand
communication style backfires on social media”, Journal of
Brand Research, Vol. 74, pp. 77-89.
Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H. (2005), “Effects of consumer
perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand
familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour: An International Research Review, Vol. 4 No. 6,
pp. 438-452.
Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), “Trust-based commitment:
multidimensional consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 313-322.
Hill, J. and Lee, H.H. (2012), “Young generation Y
consumers’ perceptions of sustainability in the apparel
industry”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 477-491.
Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2010), “Internal and external barriers to
eco-conscious apparel acquisition”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 279-286.
Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2011), “Exploring consumers’
perceptions of eco-conscious apparel acquisition behaviors”,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Hiller Connell, K.Y. and Kozar, J.M. (2012), “Sustainability
knowledge and behaviors of apparel and textile
undergraduates”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 394-407.
Homans, G.C. (1958), “Social behavior as exchange”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 597-606.
Hong, I.B. and Cha, H.S. (2013), “The mediating role of
consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase
intention”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 927-939.
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus
new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Hustvedt, G. and Bernard, J.C. (2008), “Consumer
willingness to pay for sustainable apparel: the influence of
labelling for fibre origin and production methods”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 491-498.
Hyllegard, K.H., Yan, R.N., Ogle, J.P. and Lee, K.H. (2012),
“Socially responsible labeling: the impact of hang tags on
consumers' attitudes and patronage intentions toward an
apparel brand”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Jaccard, J. and Jacoby, J. (2009), Theory Construction and Model-
Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists, Guilford
Press.
Kamins, M.A. and Marks, L.J. (1991), “The perception of
kosher as a third party certification claim in advertising for
familiar and unfamiliar brands”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 177-185.
Kim, H.S. and Damhorst, M.L. (1998), “Environmental
concern and apparel consumption”, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 126-133.
Kozar, J.M. and Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2010), “Socially
responsible knowledge and behaviors: comparing upper-vs.
lower-classmen”, College Student Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 279-293.
Kozar, J.M. and Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2013), “Socially and
environmentally responsible apparel consumption:
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors”, Social Responsibility
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 315-324.
Kuo, Y.F. and Feng, L.H. (2013), “Relationships among
community interaction characteristics, perceived
benefits, community commitment, and oppositional
brand loyalty in online brand communities”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 948-962.
Lam, A.Y., Lau, M.M. and Cheung, R. (2016), “Modelling
the relationship among green perceived value, green trust,
satisfaction, and repurchase intention of green products”,
Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 47-60.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhou, L. (1996), “Brand familiarity
and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: an
empirical test in a multiple brand context”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 115-120.
Leary, R.B., Vann, R.J., Mittelstaedt, J.D., Murphy, P.E. and
Sherry Jr, J.F. (2014), “Changing the marketplace one
behavior at a time: perceived marketplace influence and
sustainable consumption”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1953-1958.
Leonidou, C.N. and Skarmeas, D. (2017), “Gray shades of
green: causes and consequences of green skepticism”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 401-415.
Li, D., Browne, G.J. and Chau, P.Y. (2006), “An empirical
investigation of web site use using a commitment-based
model”, Decis. Sci, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 427-444.
Loureiro, S.M.C. (2013), “The effect of perceived benefits,
trust, quality, brand awareness/associations and brand
12
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
loyalty on internet banking brand equity”, International
Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 139.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), “The measurement and
dimensionality of brand associations”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-368.
MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A. and Downing, S.
(2005), “Relationship marketing in the not-for-profit sector:
an extension and application of the commitment–trust
theory”, Journal of Brand Research, Vol. 58 No. 6,
pp. 806-818.
McCarthy, A. (2018), “Are our clothes doomed for the
landfill?”, available at https://remake.world/stories/news/are-
our-clothes-doomed-for-the-landfill/.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 20-38.
Nielson (2015), “Green generation: millennials say
sustainability is a shopping priority”, available at: www.
nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/green-generation-
millennials-say-sustainability-is-a-shopping-priority.html
(accessed 21 March 2018).
Ogle, J.P., Hyllegard, K.H. and Dunbar, B.H. (2004),
“Predicting patronage behaviors in a sustainable retail
environment adding retail characteristics and consumer
lifestyle orientation to the belief-attitude-behavior
intention model”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp. 717-741.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(1997), “Eco-Labelling: actual effects of selected
programs: organisation for cooperation and
development”, GD 97 105.
Payne, A. and Holt, S. (2001), “Diagnosing customer value:
integrating the value process and relationship marketing”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 159-182.
Reiter, L. (2015), “Investigating the role of social networking
sites in increasing purchase intention for environmentally
sustainable apparel: an exploratory study”, available at:
http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/19004 (accessed
21 March 2018).
Romani, S., Grappi, S. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2016), “Corporate
socially responsible initiatives and their effects on
consumption of green products”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 253-264.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M., Jr. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How
brand community practices create value”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S. (2011), “Mindful
consumption: a customer-centric approach to sustainability”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 21-39.
Thorson, E., Wicks, R. and Leshner, G. (2012), “Experimental
methodology in journalism and mass communication
research”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 112-124.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H. and Siegrist, M. (2012),
“Consumers’ knowledge about climate change”, Climatic
Change, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 189-209.
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri
Türkel, S., Uzunoglu, E., Kaplan, M.D. and Vural, B.A.
(2016), “A strategic approach to CSR communication:
examining the impact of brand familiarity on consumer
responses”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 228-242.
Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), “An empirical
investigation of the relationship between product
involvement and brand commitment”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 761-782.
13
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14
Zhao, Q., Chen, C.D., Wang, J.L. and Chen, P.C. (2017),
“Determinants of backers’ funding intention in
crowdfunding: social exchange theory and regulatory
focus”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 370-384.
Whitmarsh, L. (2011), “Scepticism and uncertainty about
climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over
time”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 690-700.
 Knowledge, skepticism and brand familiarity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Lauren Copeland and Gargi Bhaduri Volume 29 · Number 1 · 2020 · 1–14

Appendix

Figure A1 Sample stimuli

Corresponding author
Gargi Bhaduri can be contacted at: gbhaduri@kent.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

14