Received: 8 November 2018 Revised: 9 April 2019 Accepted: 23 April 2019

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2330

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sustainable dressing: Consumers' value perceptions towards

slow fashion

Tuğba Şener1 | Ferdi Bişkin2 | Nurgül Kılınç3

1
Faculty of Art, International Hoca Ahmet
Yesevi Turkish‐Kazakh University, Turkistan, Abstract
Kazakhstan Slow fashion that improves with an increasing awareness of sustainability has
2
Faculty of Tourism, Necmettin Erbakan
changed consumers' value perception and purchasing behaviours. The aim of this
University, Konya, Turkey
3
Faculty of Art and Design, Selçuk University,
study is to determine slow fashion dimensions that influence consumers' value per-
Konya, Turkey ceptions for slow fashion products and to reveal the effects of the perceived value

Correspondence
Tuğba Şener, Assistant Professor, Faculty of
Art, International Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Turkish‐
Kazakh University, Bekzat Sattarhanov Street
No: 29, Turkistan, Kazakhstan.
Email: tugbasener@selcuk.edu.tr
on consumers' intentions to purchase and willingness to pay higher prices. The sam-
ple includes 725 students pursuing higher education in Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to specify the factor struc-
ture of the variables used in the research, and structural equation modelling was used
to test the hypotheses.
Data analysis showed that authenticity, locality, and exclusivity aspects in Turkey and
equity, functionality, locality, and exclusivity aspects in Kazakhstan contributed to
perceived customer value. Perceived customer value in both groups positively affects
the intention to purchase and the willingness to pay higher prices. In addition, con-
sumers who intend to purchase slow fashion clothing are willing to pay higher prices
than other products.
The results suggest that consumers in different countries have different orientations
that influence their perceptions of value. From this perspective, this study can pro-
vide designers with insights on the importance of making sustainable designs that
are appropriate to the target market beyond the trends imposed by the global fashion
industry.

K E Y W OR D S

design, perceived customer value, purchase intention, slow fashion, sustainability

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N This change in production and consumption has led to a strategy

Thanks to economic, political, and technological correlations amongst
countries, and now that the producers have the opportunity to reach
greater distances more rapidly, the whole world is now a single market
for fashion brands. This has affected consumption behaviours,
resulting in a social and cultural similarity of consumers. Fashion
brands can present their products to many points in the world in a
short period of time, and consumers from different countries share
similar clothing styles regardless of their local culture.
called fast fashion. As a strategy that consists of high fashion (trend)
product design, fast fashion, with its short production and distribution
time (Cachon & Swinney, 2011), has elevated fast fashion brands such
as Zara, H&M, Next, Primark, Topshop, and Uniqlo to the most valu-
able global brand categories (WPP & Millward, 2017).
The growing awareness of environmental and social concerns
about sustainability has initiated a slow fashion movement against fast
fashion. Sustainability involves the capacity to meet today's needs
without making reducing the capacity for future generations to meet

Bus Strat Env. 2019;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 ŞENER
their own needs (The World Commission on the Environment and
Development, 1987). It targets a more just and richer world where
the natural environment and cultural achievements are protected for
future generations (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). In this regard, slow
fashion brings environmental and social responsibilities to the fashion
industry and its stakeholders, and the literature mostly includes stud-
ies situated in this context. However, this study focuses on a different
feature of slow fashion, customer value creation. The purpose of the
study is to determine the slow fashion dimensions that affect con-
sumers' perceptions of value for slow fashion products and to reveal
the effects of the perceived value on consumers' intentions to pur-
chase and willingness to pay higher prices (WPPP). The proposed
model assumes that consumers will be willing to purchase products
in slow fashion and pay more for these products if brands create cus-
tomer value in slow fashion.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | Slow fashion
Slow fashion is an understanding and a production model that sets
sight on durable goods produced on small scales with classical design
via local resources and traditional production techniques (Fletcher,
2010). Slow fashion requires that the entire production process and
the final product be sustainable. Slow fashion products, however, are
often priced higher than fast fashion ones. Higher prices can be con-
sidered as an obstacle for most consumers to purchase these products
(Yang, Song, & Tong, 2017). On the other hand, it enables consumers
to purchase fewer high‐quality products, thereby consuming fewer
resources (Kanıskan, 2013).
Slow fashion has been branching out with transparent production
systems and sustainable products that require fewer mediators
between local producer and consumer and that value local resources
and distributors. As an alternative to the current hierarchy of designer,
manufacturer, and consumer, slow fashion offers cooperation
between the parties and especially mediates the employment of local
women (Clark, 2015). Slow fashion process encourages garment com-
panies to be sustainable, environmental, and ethical in their designs; to
use the methods that require quality, artisanship, and experienced
labour in production; and to educate consumers to make conscious
decisions about clothing choices (Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013).
Stål and Jansson (2017) ascertained that in the Swedish fashion indus-
try, enterprises wanted to influence consumer behaviour with a vari-
ety of applications, including the whole consumption cycle, such as
using sustainable materials in production, clothing renting and sharing,
washing advice, free renovation, and returning clothes.
Slow fashion provides mutual benefits among workers, designers,
retailers, and consumers in the process of designing, producing, and
using clothes (Jagel, Keeling, Reppel, & Gruber, 2012) because it
accepts the consumer as a production partner. This partnership shows
that the end user is a remarkable stakeholder in the slow fashion
movement (Cataldi, Maureen, & Crystal, 2010).
ET AL.
Research that examines consumer attitudes towards slow fashion
suggests that slow fashion is still in the developmental stage.
Pookulangara and Shephard (2013) conducted focus group interviews
and concluded that consumers did not have enough knowledge of
slow fashion to make conscious purchasing decisions, and they did
not find products in slow fashion suitable for fashion.
Harris, Roby, and Dibb (2015) identified the following obstacles to
consumer preference for slow fashion products: consumers' lack of
knowledge and understanding about sustainability, their ethical con-
cerns on different matters, and thoughts such as “I look good in these
clothes,” when their main criterion should be how it is produced.
Forsman and Madsen (2017) found that consumers are interested in
sustainable fashion, but they also find it “inaccessible” because it is
expensive and not accessible.
Jung and Jin (2014) developed a scale to determine the basic
dimensions of slow fashion. They proposed that consumers' slow fash-
ion orientations are realised in terms of equity, authenticity, function-
ality, localism, and exclusivity. Consumer orientations express how
consumers perceive slow fashion and reveal its dimensions. Jung and
Jin (2016) wanted to determine the slow fashion attributes that con-
tributed to perceived customer value. Findings obtained from 221
American consumers reveal that slow fashion is influential in creating
customer value and that customer value affects consumers' purchas-
ing intentions in positive ways.
2.2 | Perceived customer value
Perceived customer value is the consumer's general assessment of a
product's benefit. Consumers make this assessment by comparing
the benefits that they receive (quality, comfort, etc.) with things
(money, time, etc.) that they must give away (Zeithaml, 1988). Per-
ceived customer value is based on an assessment of the comparison
between benefit and cost by comparison with competitors (Kotler &
Armstrong, 2011).
The perceived customer value in the consumer's purchasing behav-
iour is a decisive factor in choosing products. Value is not decided by
businesses but rather is perceived and decided by customers (Bai, Li, &
Niu, 2016). In the rapidly changing and highly competitive global econ-
omy, businesses have similar opportunities to access resources such as
technology, knowledge, and talent. Businesses that offer similar goods
and services in such environments must do more than ever to distin-
guish themselves from their competitors. Customer value, at this
point, is an important resource for differentiation. Businesses that
offer value beyond customers' expectations will have a competitive
advantage (McFarlane, 2013). In this respect, developing the value‐
providing factors for the customer in a way that will provide customer
loyalty is valuable.
Originally, the concept of perceived customer value included price
and quality dimensions and then expanded with studies that pre-
sented social and emotional aspects of the value (Simova, 2009). The
Perceived Customer Value Scale (PERVAL) developed by Sweeney
and Soutar (2001) revealed that the perceived customer value includes
four components: quality, price, emotional, and social.
ŞENER ET AL.
Quality value: benefit from the expected performance of the
product.
Price value: monetary benefit from product use by reducing short‐
and long‐term costs.
Emotional value: the benefit of the emotional situation or feelings
that the product provides.
Social value: benefit derived from the power of the product to
improve the social sense of self/social life of the consumer.
In this study, the perceived customer value is evaluated within
these four dimensions.
3 | H Y P O T HE S I S D E V E L O P M E N T
The model proposed in this study (Figure 1) assumes that each of the
five basic dimensions of slow fashion, as determined by Jung and Jin
(2014), positively affects perceived customer value and that this situ-
ation increases consumers' willingness to purchase slow fashion prod-
ucts and pay more prices for these products.
3.1 | The impact of slow fashion features on
perceived customer value
Equity, which is one of the characteristics of slow fashion, refers to
the orientations of consumers in terms of working conditions for
workers, fair trade, and fair wages that workers deserve (Jung & Jin,
2014). Slow fashion is built on a production system free from work-
places with poor working conditions called sweatshops, a system that
adheres to fair trade principles (Shen, Richards, & Liu, 2013). Con-
sumers who are concerned about equity in this regard perceive slow
fashion products as valuable.
Authenticity is related to consumers' orientations towards the use
of traditional methods of private production, workmanship, and cloth-
ing production (Jung & Jin, 2014). There is a risk that craft and craft‐
based production have been weakened due to mass production, as
well as the forgotten traditional techniques transmitted throughout
generations (Ditty, 2015). Slow fashion seeks to protect unique tradi-
tional techniques against this risk. Giovanni Bonotto, an Italian entre-
preneur, produces fabrics using traditional techniques to ensure
FIGURE 1 Proposed model in the study
3
unique and innovative products for high fashion designers (Cimatti,
Campana, & Carluccio, 2017). An American brand, Mata Traders, is
directly engaged in production services from artisans in India and
Nepal. Its designs using traditional techniques and tools include
hand‐printed motifs and embroideries (www.matatraders.com). Con-
sumers who expect their clothing to be unique perceive slow fashion
products as more valuable.
Functionality is a concept of maximising the benefit of clothing
(Jung & Jin, 2014). Consumers' clothing includes different combina-
tions and long‐wearing orientations, preferring simple and classical
designs. Kazakhstan's slow fashion brand, Adili, is a significant repre-
sentative of the slow fashion outfit with trans‐season/seasonal cloth-
ing that is not been outdated after a season and is designed to be kept
(Wood, 2009). Slow fashion, as opposed to the values represented by
fast fashion, overlooks the trends and aims to produce timeless pieces
that offer a classic look. Classic clothes that can be combined with dif-
ferent pieces also have a long life (Aakko, 2014). Because consumers
realise that slow fashion products can be used in many combinations
with their long life and classic designs, they perceive these products
as economically valuable despite their high prices.
Localism is related to consumers' orientation to prefer products
produced at local facilities using local resources (Jung & Jin, 2014).
Slow fashion brands focus on using local materials and resources
as much as possible and support the development of local busi-
nesses. For example, the Australian fashion brand Rant Clothing uses
fabrics made from local sources and produces clothes within 30 km
of its central office (Milburn, 2017). Contrary to the general trends
imposed by the global fast fashion industry, slow fashion is per-
ceived by consumers as a feature of maintaining local identity and
resources.
Exclusivity relates to the privilege of clothes and is related to con-
sumers' orientations towards rare, limited‐edition clothes (Jung & Jin,
2014). Slow fashion products are produced in a limited number and
high quality, mostly based on manual labour (Henninger, Alevizou,
Oates, & Cheng, 2016). In this respect, the limited number of slow
fashion garments has a high value perceived by consumers with differ-
entiation and expectation to feel exclusive in society.
H1 is proposed considering the possible effects of fast fashion on
perceived customer value as presented in the literature.
4 ŞENER
H1. The equity (a), authenticity (b), functionality (c),
localism (d), and exclusivity (e) dimensions of slow fashion
have significant effects on the perceived customer value.
3.2 | The effect of perceived customer value on
consumers' intention to purchase and WPPP
Customer value affects purchase intention; however, high customer
value directly increases purchase intention (Hakim & Susanti, 2017).
Customer loyalty is a result of the perceived value; companies that
offer high customer value by improving their products, thus increasing
customer satisfaction, gain customers' loyalty and increase their prof-
itability (Anderson & Mittal, 2016). In the 1980s and 1990s, con-
sumers tended to buy only fashionable clothing. Today's consumers,
however, are generally more value‐oriented, meaning that they
request clothes that are not only fashionable but also beneficial in
many ways (Castelo & Cabral, 2017). Given the positive impact of slow
fashion on perceived customer value, consumers are likely to purchase
products in slow fashion and settle for higher prices. In this respect,
H2, H3, and H4 are proposed.
H2. Consumers' value perceptions on slow fashion prod-
ucts have significant effects on consumers' purchasing
intentions.
H3. Consumers' value perceptions on slow fashion prod-
ucts have significant effects on consumers' willingness to
pay higher prices.
H4. Consumers' intention to purchase slow fashion
products has a significant impact on the willingness to
pay higher prices for slow fashion products.
This study proposes that the intention to purchase is a result of the
perceived value. Thus, the perceived value is expected to have a medi-
ating role in the effect of slow fashion orientation on purchasing
intent. From this point, the direct effect of consumer's slow fashion
orientation on purchasing intent must also be measured, and accord-
ingly, H5 is proposed.
H5. Consumers' orientations towards slow fashion prod-
ucts have no significant effects on purchasing intentions.
4 | METHODS
4.1 | Data Collection
Consumer data were collected through face‐to‐face surveys by
researchers in both countries. The study population are consumers
who live in Kazakhstan and Turkey. Considering time, cost, and acces-
sibility criteria, 762 students selected by simple random sampling
method from two universities offering higher education services in
both countries formed the research sample. Many academic studies
demonstrate that it is appropriate for students to be selected as
ET AL.
samples in studies. The clothing product category is familiar to stu-
dents and is in their field of interest (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006;
Im, Bhat, & Lee, 2015). Additionally, students' consumption behav-
iours and perceptions towards fashion products are confirmed to be
similar to those of typical users by industry sources (Kao, 2013).
Thirty‐seven questionnaires were not accepted as valid because they
were not completely filled. The number of questionnaires in Turkey
considered valid for analysis was 435, plus 290 for Kazakhstan, for a
total number of 725.
One hundred ninety‐nine of the participants in Kazakhstan were
women, and 91 were men; the participants in Turkey were 271
women and 164 men. Considering the total distribution according to
gender, the total number of female participants was 470 (64.8%),
and number of male participants was 255 (35.2%). Whereas the aver-
age monthly expense was 150 USD in Turkey, it was 90 USD in
Kazakhstan.
4.2 | Scale
The research survey consisted of demographics, consumers' orienta-
tion towards slow fashion, perceived customer value for slow fashion,
intention to purchase, and a WPPP for slow fashion products.
The Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion (COSF) scale, which is
used to determine consumers' orientation to slow fashion, is derived
from the study by Jung and Jin (2014). The scale includes five dimen-
sions: equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity, and
each dimension consists of three items. The perceived customer value
for slow fashion was measured with the PERVAL scale from Sweeney
and Soutar (2001). This scale consists of four dimensions and 19 items
including quality, price, and emotional and social values of a product.
The three items that measure consumers' purchase intentions (PurcIn)
are from the study by Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999), and three
items measuring the WPPP for slow fashion products were taken from
Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, and Tencati (2008).
Participants were asked to grade all items using a 5‐point Likert
scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In addition, a
brief description of fast fashion and slow fashion was included in the
questionnaire to help participants understand the content.
5 | RESULTS
To determine the factor structure of the variables used in the study,
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used, and struc-
tural equation modelling was used for the hypothesis testing. SPSS
21 was used for exploratory factor analysis, and AMOS 20 was used
for confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.
Factor structures and reliability levels of the scales used in the
research were examined. For this purpose, participants' responses to
all scales used were subjected to exploratory factor analysis. The
obtained values indicate that the data are suitable for the application
of factor analysis (KMO = 0.858 p = .001).
ŞENER ET AL. 5

Basic component analysis and varimax method were used to trans-
form the factors. In determining the factors, the eigenvalue factor ≥1
was taken into consideration. As a result of the factor analysis, it is
seen that 72.825% of total variance is explained.
In reaction to the analysis to ascertain if the Common Method Var-
iance exists or not in the scales used, the eigenvalue was 8.668, and
the explained variance value was 21.669. These results indicate that
there is no common method variance problem.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the appropri-
ateness of the resulting dimensions to the factor structures deter-
mined by the hypothesis. The model appropriateness values of the
generated model surfaced at the levels as “acceptable” or “good fit.”
Factor loadings of some expressions, however, are below 0.50. In
addition, variance sharing on some items is statistically above the
desired level. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed again after
subtracting the expression with low factor load (“Is reasonably priced.”
PERV27 “Would be economical.” PERV30) and the expressions
PERV19‐PERV20, PERV21‐PERV22, and PERV25‐PERV26 were com-
bined; obtained values are presented in Table 1.
Following the modifications, the model consists of 11 factors and
38 variants observed. Analysis of the reliability values (CR‐Composite
Reliability) of the subdimensions in Table 1 shows that all the values
are above the acceptable value of 0.70. Thus, the scales are reliable.
Examination of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for conver-
gent validity reveals that they are all above 0.50. These values indicate
that convergent validity is ensured.
All MSV values in Table 1 are lower than AVE values, and the first
step of decomposition validity is provided. The second step is given in
Table 2 below in the discriminant validity table (correlation matrix).
Validity and reliability of the scales are ensured as a result of both
explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis.
When Table 2 is examined, correlation values of variables used in
the study, out of root values of AVE (diagonal section) and some
descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) are presented.
The fact that the out of the root AVE values of the variables were
higher than the correlation coefficients in the table shows that the
separation was validated (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
When a general evaluation of validity and reliability is performed, as
a result of confirmatory factor analysis, convergent and discriminate
validity is ensured, and the scales are reliable.
The model fitting values indicate that all the compliance values are
statistically desired (Table 3).
According to Tables 1 and 3, the entire model conforms to an
acceptable level. (CMIN/DF = 1,885 p < .001; RMR = 0.056;
GFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.962; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.035;
PCLOSE = 1.000).

TABLE 1 Confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model

Variables and items Estimate Standard error T value P value CR AVE α MSV

COSF7 <‐‐‐ Equity .869 — — — .877 .705 .877 0.064

COSF4 <‐‐‐ Equity .830 .034 25.227 ***
COSF1 <‐‐‐ Equity .819 .036 24.937 ***
COSF15 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .840 — — — .854 .661 .854 0.146
COSF5 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .802 .043 22.307 ***
COSF2 <‐‐‐ Authenticity .796 .045 22.187 ***
COSF14 <‐‐‐ Functionality .760 — — — .790 .557 .788 0.116
COSF8 <‐‐‐ Functionality .681 .058 15.798 ***
COSF3 <‐‐‐ Functionality .793 .063 16.623 ***
COSF11 <‐‐‐ Localism .829 — — — .855 .664 .853 0.086
COSF10 <‐‐‐ Localism .880 .045 23.520 ***
COSF6 <‐‐‐ Localism .729 .040 20.633 ***
COSF13 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .666 — — — .780 .745 .775 0.093
COSF12 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .838 .081 15.548 ***
COSF9 <‐‐‐ Exclusivity .699 .072 15.088 ***
Quality <‐‐‐ PERVAL .665 .089 9.731 *** .741 .615 .889 0.229
Emotional <‐‐‐ PERVAL .736 .100 10.214 ***
Price <‐‐‐ PERVAL .611 .101 9.809 ***
Social <‐‐‐ PERVAL .564 — — —
PurcIn 37 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .867 — — — .900 .751 .900 0.264
PurcIn 36 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .893 .033 30.228 ***
PurcIn 35 <‐‐‐ Purchase Intention .839 .034 28.017 ***
WPPP40 <‐‐‐ WPPP .888 — — — .932 .822 .932 0.264
WPPP39 <‐‐‐ WPPP .946 .027 38.821 ***
WPPP38 <‐‐‐ WPPP .884 .029 34.449 ***

Note. COSF = Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion, PERVAL = Perceived Customer Values, PurcIn = Purchase Intention, WPPP = Willingness to Pay a
Price Premium,
CMIN/DF = 1.885 p < .001; RMR = 0.056; GFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.962; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.035; PCLOSE = 1.000.
Abbreviations: AVE, Average Variance Extract; CR, Composite Reliability.
6 ŞENER ET AL.

TABLE 2 Mean, standard deviation, and discriminant validity (n = 725)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Equity 3.19 1.06 0.840

2. Authenticity 3.89 0.94 0.181 0.813
3. Functionality 3.90 0.87 0.072 0.241 0.747
4. Localism 3.83 0.94 −0.032 0.278 0.242 0.815
5. Exclusivity 3.55 1.07 0.252 0.305 0.065 −0.070 0.738
6. Quality 3.87 0.82 0.160 0.382 0.341 0.293 0.212 0.708
7. Price 3.58 0.90 0.157 0.241 0.209 0.175 0.154 0.447 0.835
8. Emotional 3.61 0.81 0.093 0.258 0.204 0.195 0.246 0.504 0.437 0.767
9. Social 3.23 0.93 0.208 0.161 0.129 0.100 0.287 0.288 0.458 0.377 0.821
10. Purchase Intention 3.38 0.98 0.107 0.178 0.124 0.154 0.130 0.241 0.350 0.296 0.280 0.867
11. Willingness to Pay a Price Premium 3.00 1.11 0.149 0.137 0.040 0.072 0.261 0.178 0.364 0.291 0.284 0.514 0.906

Note. The lower triangle of the matrix represents the correlation coefficients between constructs. The diagonal values in bold represent the square root of
the AVE of each construct.

TABLE 3 Model compliance values table

Model fit indices Good compliance Acceptable compliance First analysis results Final results after corrections
2 2
CMIN/DF 0<x <2 2<x <3 2.157 1.885
RMR 0 < RMR < 0.05 0 < RMR < 0.08 0.049 0.056
GFI 0.95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1.00 0.90 ≤ GFI ≤ 0.95 0.906 0.918
AGFI 0.90 ≤ AGFI≤1.00 0.85 ≤ AGFI≤0.90 0.891 0.902
CFI 0.97 ≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 0.95 ≤ CFI ≤ 0.97 0.949 0.962
TLI 0.95 ≤ TLI ≤ 1.00 0.90 ≤ TLI ≤ 0.95 0.946 0.958
RMSEA 0 ≤ RMSEA≤0.05 0.05 ≤ RMSEA≤0.08 0.040 0.035

Note. CMIN/DF = 1.885 p < .001; RMR = 0.056; GFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.962; TLI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.035; PCLOSE = 1.000.

6 | H Y P O T HE S I S T E S TI N G Examination of the research results for the Kazakhstan sample

The hypothesis of the impact associated with the level of structural
equation model to test was examined separately for Turkey and
Kazakhstan. The five dimensions of the COSF scale (equity, authentic-
ity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity) were tested to determine
whether they affect the PERVAL scale. In addition, the effect level
of the PERVAL scale on the PurcIn and WPPP scales was considered,
as well as the effect of PurcIn on the WPPP scale. Finally, whether the
COSF scale has an impact on the PurcIn scale regardless of the
PERVAL scale was tested. This was designed to measure whether
the PERVAL scale has an intermediary role on purchase intent. The
test results are shown in Table 4.
The results of the survey sample from Turkey reveal that the
authenticity, localism, and exclusivity subdimensions of COSF have
statistically significant and positive effects on the PERVAL scale
(p < .001). H1b, H1d, and H1e are supported. The equity and func-
tionality dimensions, however, have no statistically significant effects
on the PERVAL scale. H1a and H1c are rejected. The path diagram
showing the test results and the model fit values are shown in
Figure 2.
shows that equality, functionality, localism, and exclusivity
subdimensions of COSF have statistically significant and positive
effects on PERVAL scale (p < .001 and p < .05). H1a, H1c, H1d, and
H1e are supported. On the other hand, the authenticity dimension
has no statistically significant effect on the PERVAL scale. H1b is
rejected. The path diagram showing the test results and the model
fit values are shown in Figure 3.
In both countries, the PERVAL scale has a statistically significant
and positive effect on both the PurcIn and WPPP scales; PurcIn scale
has a statistically significant and positive effect on the WPPP scale
(p < .001). H2, H3, and H4 are supported. On the other hand, the
COSF scale had no statistically significant effect on the PurcIn scale
(p < .05). H5 is supported.
7 | DISCUSSION
The localism and exclusivity dimensions of slow fashion appear to be
the common factors that increase the perceived customer value of
slow fashion clothing in both countries. Jung and Jin (2016), in a study
ŞENER ET AL. 7

TABLE 4 Hypotheses test results

Turkey Kazakhstan

Hypothesised relationship Standardised est. Standard error t value p Sup. Standardised est. Standard error t value p Sup.

H1a Equity ̵> PERVAL −.002 .029 −.037 .971 N .314 .032 3.828 *** Y
H1b Authenticity ̵> PERVAL .239 .043 3.531 *** Y .057 .032 .765 .444 N
H1c Functionality ̵> PERVAL .097 .043 1.561 .118 N .303 .039 3.719 *** Y
H1d Localism ̵> PERVAL .316 .048 4.566 *** Y .166 .027 2.279 .023** Y
H1e Exclusivity ̵> PERVAL .271 .049 3.899 *** Y .150 .031 1.981 .048** Y
H2 PERVAL ̵> PurcIn .500 .126 7.195 *** Y .359 .190 4.102 *** Y
H3 PERVAL ̵> WPPP .213 .125 3.241 .001 Y .266 .211 3.730 *** Y
H4 PurcIn ̵> WPPP .360 .060 6.276 *** Y .511 .089 7.775 *** Y
H5 COSF ̵> PurcIn −.028 .379 −.219 .827 Y .106 .373 .658 .510 Y

Note. COSF, Consumer Orientation to Slow Fashion; PERVAL, Perceived Customer Values; PurcIn, Purchase Intention; WPPP, Willingness to Pay a Price
Premium.
***p < .001.

FIGURE 2 Structural equation modelling for

testing hypotheses (Turkey)CMIN/DF = 1.918
p < .001; RMR = 0.089; GFI = 0.864;
AGFI = 0.845; CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.933;
RMSEA = 0.046; PCLOSE = .961.PERV
R2 = 0.54; PIN R2 = 0.25; WPPP R2 = 0.25
**
p < .001.

FIGURE 3 Structural equation modelling for

testing hypotheses (Kazakhstan)CMIN/
DF = 1.515 p < .001; RMR = 0.064;
GFI = 0.851; AGFI = 0.830; CFI = 0.937;
TLI = 0.931; RMSEA = 0.042; PCLOSE = .994.
PERVAL R2 = 0.51; PIN R2 = 0.12; WPPP
R2 = 0.44 **p < .001.

of American consumers, found that only the exclusivity dimension of consumers (Lynn & Harris, 1997). Products often have an impact on
slow fashion had an effect on the perceived value. Consumers feel how people feel and behave in their social environment. Purchasing
the need to be special and unique. For this reason, they demand sustainable products is generally expected to improve an individual's
goods, services, and experiences to distinguish themselves from other image in a social group (Meyer, 2001). Therefore, the expectation of
8 ŞENER
differentiation and sense of feeling exclusive by standing out in soci-
ety are significant positive consequences of slow fashion products
towards perceived customer value.
Slow fashion supports local production. It includes unique designs
in terms of local production, the authenticity of different geographies
and cultural reflection. Therefore, it makes sense that consumers' ori-
entations towards exclusivity and localism dimensions are parallel.
Focus on local resources and methods in design limits production vol-
ume and therefore access to these designs. This positively affects con-
sumer perceptions of value for designs that have a localism feature
(Allen, 2015).
Although the authenticity dimension affects consumers' value per-
ceptions in Turkey, it is not influential in Kazakhstan, which can be
explained by consumers' ever‐mounting orientations to westernisation
in their purchasing behaviours (ITKIB, 2015). According to the results
acquired, consumers in Kazakhstan support the use of local resources
and labour in garment production, but they are not interested in the
fact that the designs are unique to their country.
The equity and functionality aspects are not effective in con-
sumers' value perceptions of slow fashion clothing but are influential
in Kazakhstan. In terms of equity, this may be due to the possibility
of consumers getting closer to the conditions of production, and as a
result of Kazakhstan's close geographical location to the world's larg-
est garment manufacturer China. China's economic presence in
Kazakhstan swells as consumers choose to buy cheaper products
(BTI, 2018). On the other hand, more than 70% of the European
Union's textile and apparel imports are covered by Asian countries.
Many Asian workers are deprived of social security under long work-
ing hours, low wages, and dangerous workplace conditions
(D'Ambrogio, 2014). This may have influenced young consumers' ori-
entations towards equality and their perception of value.
The positive effect of the functionality aspect on perceived cus-
tomer value for slow fashion may be related to the amount that
Kazakhstan allocates for spending. The monthly expenses of Kazakh-
stan consumers in the sample are lower than those of consumers in
Turkey (Turkey 150$, Kazakhstan 90$). Accordingly, consumers in
Kazakhstan prefer to use their budget on long‐lasting and functional
garments that provide a variety of combined alternatives rather than
buying a wide variety of clothes. Because of this orientation, slow
fashion clothes may be perceived as valuable.
The findings suggest that, in both Turkey and Kazakhstan, the per-
ceived customer value affected the PurcIn of slow fashion and willing-
ness to pay more for these products. In addition, consumers who
intend to purchase slow fashion clothing are willing to pay higher
prices. Consumers' slow fashion orientations have no direct impact
on purchasing intent. The intention to purchase has emerged as a
result of the perceived value. In that case, it can be set forth that
the perceived value has a mediating role in the effect of slow fashion
orientation on purchase intention. The result obtained is consistent
with previous studies demonstrating the positive impact of the per-
ceived value on purchase intent (Jung & Jin, 2016; Wu & Chang,
2016; Hu, 2011; Chi, Yeh, & Tsai, 2011; Kwok, Wong, & Lau, 2015;
Naami, Rahimi, & Ghandrav, 2017).
ET AL.
8 | CO NC LUSIO N
An overall assessment suggests that clothes that have features of
authenticity, localism, and exclusivity in Turkey and equity, localism,
exclusivity, and functionality in Kazakhstan are perceived as more
valuable. In both countries, it is important for consumers to pay atten-
tion to the use of local materials and labour (localism) in their garment
production, as well as the desire to feel exclusive according to the
clothes they wear (exclusivity), which has increased the perceived cus-
tomer value towards slow fashion clothes. The fact that clothing man-
ufacturers differ in the dimensions determined by their countries'
consumer orientation can be considered as an important opportunity
in the slow fashion market. As a result of slow fashion products' per-
ceived value, consumers who would like to have slow fashion clothes
are willing to pay higher prices for these clothes. This paves the way
for slow fashion producers to gain loyal customers. Thus, slow fashion
can contribute to local economies as well as environmental, social, and
economic sustainability both in Turkey and in Kazakhstan.
The results obtained may contribute to the development of slow
fashion literature, which is still developing. There are some limitations
in the research. First, this research is limited to five dimensions of slow
fashion and four dimensions of perceived customer value. In future
studies, models with different dimensions can be developed by taking
into consideration the changes in the behaviour of clothing use. In
addition, the effect of COSF on each subdimension of the PERVAL
scale can be examined separately. In that case, it will be essential to
collect more data for more reliable results. In this study, the sample
consisted of students. A study with a sample group demonstrating
larger and different demographic characteristics may be useful to con-
firm the findings. Intercultural work is important for the global fashion
market. Developing studies to cover different countries will facilitate
understanding of fashion consumers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank Dr. Fatih Koç for all his help and guidance.
ORCID
Tuğba Şener https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-0410
Ferdi Bişkin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9864-751X
Nurgül Kılınç https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0610-6730
RE FE RE NC ES
Aakko, M. (2014). Artisanal and slow: The case of Anna Ruohonen. In b. K.
Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion: New approaches (pp. 56–67).
Finland: Helsinki Aalto University.
Allen, K. (2015). Luxury for the masses: Why we can't all have it all, Avail-
able from: https://repository.tcu. edu/handle/116099117/10278.
Anderson, E., & Mittal, V. (2016). Strengthening the satisfaction‐profit
chain. Journal of Service Research, 3, 107–120. https://doi.org/
10.1177/109467050032001
Bai, Y., Li, C., & Niu, J. (2016). Study on Customer‐Perceived Value of
Online Clothing Brands. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management, 6, 914–921. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.68088
ŞENER ET AL.
Bertrandias, L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Some psychological motivations
for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 10, 25–40. https://doi.org/
10.1108/13612020610651105
BTI (2018). Kazakhstan Country Report, Cited 01.03.2019, Available from:
https://www.bti‐project.org/en/reports/country‐reports/detail/itc/
KAZ,
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: Quick
response, enhanced design, and strategic consumer behavior. Manage-
ment Science, 57(4), 778–795. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.1100.1303
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The missing link
between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case
of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9669‐4
Castelo, J. S. F., & Cabral, J. E. O. (2017). Consumers in a social network:
The perception of clothing quality per gender. Review of Business Man-
agement, 20, 22–36.
Cataldi, C., Maureen, D., & Crystal, G. (2010). Slow fashion: Tailoring a stra-
tegic approach towards. Sustainability, Available from:. https://www.
diva‐portal.org/smash/get/diva2:832785/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Chi, H., Yeh, H. & Tsai, Y. (2011). The influences of perceived value on con-
sumer purchase intention: The moderating effect of advertising
endorser, Available from: http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%
20Ching%20Tsai.pdf.
Cimatti, B., Campana, G., & Carluccio, L. (2017). Eco design and sustainable
manufacturing in fashion: A case study in the luxury personal accesso-
ries industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 393–400. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.050
Clark, H. (2015). Slow + Fashion—An Oxymoron—or a Promise for the
Future. Fashion Theory, 12, 427–446. https://doi.org/10.2752/
175174108X346922
D'Ambrogio, E. (2014) Workers' conditions in the textile and clothing sec-
tor: Just an Asian affair?, European parliamentary research service,
Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu.
Ditty, S. (2015). It's Time for a Fashion. Revolution, Available from:. https://
www.fashionrevolution.org
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion
Practice, 2, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.2752/175693810X1277462
5387594
Forsman, L. & Madsen, D. (2017). Consumers' Attitudes Towards Sustain-
ability and Sustainable Labels in The Fashion Industry, Available from:
http://www.diva‐portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1143596
&dswid=4824
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data anal-
ysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
Hakim, L., & Susanti, N. (2017). Influence of Customer Relationship Man-
agement, Brand Equity, Perceived Product Quality, Perceived Price
on Customer Value and Purchase Intention. International Journal of Eco-
nomics and Finance, 9, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.
v9n7p122
Harris, F., Roby, H., & Dibb, S. (2015). Sustainable clothing: Challenges, bar-
riers and interventions for encouraging more sustainable consumer
behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40, 309–318.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12257
Henninger C.E., Alevizou P.J., Oates C.J. & Cheng R. (2016). Communicat-
ing sustainability: The case of slow‐fashion micro‐organizations. In:
9
Sustainable Consumption. The Anthropocene: Politik‐Economics‐Society‐
Science, vol 3, (ed. by Genus A.), Springer, Cham.
https://www.matatraders.com/pages/handmade-fashion,Cited16.05.2019.
Hu, Y. (2011). Linking perceived value, customer satisfaction, and purchase
intention in e‐commerce settings. Advances in Computer Science, Intelli-
gent System and Environment, 106, 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978‐3‐642‐23753‐9_100
Im, S., Bhat, S., & Lee, Y. (2015). Consumer perceptions of product creativ-
ity, coolness, value and attitude. Journal of Business Research, 68,
166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.014
ITKIB. (2015). Hazır Giyim & Konfeksiyon Sektörü Açısından Kazakistan.
İstanbul, Turkey.
Jagel, T., Keeling, K., Reppel, A., & Gruber, T. (2012). Individual values and
motivational complexities in ethical clothing consumption: A means‐
end approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 373–396.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.659280
Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2014). A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: sus-
tainable future of the apparel industry. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 38, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12127
Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2016). Sustainable development of slow fashion busi-
nesses: Customer value approach. Sustainability, 8. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su8060540
Kanıskan, E. (2013). Moda Tasarımında Sürdürülebilirlik. In: Moda Tasarım
(ed. by: Curaoğlu, F.) pp. 192–219. Anadolu Üniversitesi Web‐Ofset,
Eskişehir, Turkey.
Kao, D. T. (2013). The impacts of consumers' need for uniqueness (CNFU)
and brand personality on brand switching intentions. Journal of Business
Theory and Practice, 1, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.22158/jbtp.v1n1p83
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2011). Principles of marketing (17rd ed.). New
Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Kwok, M. L. J., Wong, M. M., & Lau, M. M. (2015). Examining how environ-
mental concern affects purchase intention: Mediating role of perceived
trust and moderating role of perceived risk. Contemporary Management
Research, 11, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.13845
Lynn, M. & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self‐
uniqueness through consumption, retrieved from: Cornell University,
School of Hospitality Administration site: http://scholarship.sha.cor-
nell.edu/articles/149.
McFarlane, D. (2013). Thee strategic importance of customer value. Atlan-
tic Marketing Journal, 2, 62–75.
Meyer, A. (2001). What's in it for the customers? Successfully marketing
green clothes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 317–330.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.302
Milburn, J. (2017). Slow clothing culture. Journal of the HEIA, 24, 2–10.
Naami, A., Rahimi, Z., & Ghandrav, P. (2017). The Effect of Perceived Value,
Perceived Risk, and Price on Customers Buying Intention (Case Study:
Employees of Presov Electronics Company). International Review of
Management and Marketing, 7, 164–170.
Pookulangara, S., & Shephard, A. (2013). Slow fashion movement: Under-
standing consumer perceptions‐An exploratory study. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 200–206. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.002
Shen, D., Richards, J., & Liu, F. (2013). Consumers' awareness of sustain-
able fashion. The Marketing Management Journal, 23, 134–147.
Simova, J. (2009). Conceptual models of customer value: Implications for
clothing retailing. Marketing a Obchod, 1, 88–97.
Stål, H. I., & Jansson, J. (2017). Sustainable consumption and value propo-
sitions: Exploring product–service system practices among Swedish
10
fashion firms. Sustainable Development, 25, 546–558. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1677
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The
development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2),
203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐4359(01)00041‐0
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, N. G., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). The role of per-
ceived risk in the quality‐value relationship: A study in a retail
environment. Journal of Retailing, 75, 77–105. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022‐4359(99)80005‐0
The World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987). Our
common future: Report of the world commission on environment and
development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wood, Z. (2009). “Slow fashion”, Available from: http://learn.eartheasy.
com/2009/01/slow‐fashion.
WPP & Kantar Millward Brown, 2017 BrandZ top 100 global brands. Avail-
able from: http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/top‐global‐brands/
2017.
ŞENER ET AL.
Wu, S., & Chang, H. (2016). The Model of Relationship between the Per-
ceived Values and the Purchase Behaviors toward Innovative
Products. Journal of Management and Strategy, 7, 31–45. https://doi.
org/10.5430/jms.v7n2p31
Yang, S., Song, Y., & Tong, S. (2017). Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion
Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 9. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9071266
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A
means‐end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52,
2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302
How to cite this article: Şener T, Bişkin F, Kılınç N. Sustain-
able dressing: Consumers' value perceptions towards slow
fashion. Bus Strat Env. 2019;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.2330