The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1361-2026.htm

A study of consumer choice A study of

consumer
between sustainable and non- choice

sustainable apparel cues in Poland

Osmud Rahman 213
Department of Fashion, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, and
Received 8 November 2019
Małgorzata Koszewska Revised 4 March 2020
Department of Production Management and Logistics, Accepted 24 March 2020

Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to expand the existing knowledge on fashion consumption in general
and age/gender effects on clothing choice in particular. This study was undertaken to empirically examine the
importance of various sustainable and non-sustainable apparel cues, as well as the functional, aesthetic,
symbolic, financial, environmental and social/ethical aspects of clothing. Although Poland’s economy has been
transformed remarkably over the last decade, there is still a paucity of empirical research focusing on this area
has been conducted.
Design/methodology/approach – A self-administered online survey was employed for this study. Twenty
product cues (10 non-sustainable cues and 10 sustainable), eight items of ‘environmental commitment and
behaviour’ measuring scale and demographic questions were used for data collection and empirical testing.
Findings – A total of 288 useable surveys were collected for analysis. The results revealed that many Polish
consumers would not purchase a sustainable or ‘green’ product if it did not provide enough aesthetic, functional
and financial benefits to satisfy their needs and aspirations. Women were more reliant on garment fit and style
than men. Our findings underscore several meaningful implications and useful information. Sustainable
fashion is not merely about environmental, social and ethical benefits, but their aesthetic, functional, symbolic
and financial values must be factored in as well.
Originality/value – There is limited empirical research examining the age and gender effects in relation to
sustainable and non-sustainable apparel cues. Unlike many previous research that only focused on one
dimension or single aspect of clothing (e.g. aesthetic/hedonic attribute or functional/utilitarian attribute).
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Poland, Sustainability, Aesthetic and functional attributes, Age and gender
effects, Environmental and social/ethical attributes
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Sustainability plays a critical part in every sector of the economy. Practitioners,
academicians, policy-makers and the general public are increasingly becoming concerned
with issues of sustainability and environmental impact. This phenomenon does not solely
occur in developed nations, but also transition economies such as Poland. This nation seems
to be particularly interesting for sustainability research, and it has been classified as one of
the three ‘new consumer countries’ (Poland, Ukraine, and Russia) in Eastern Europe with
impressive economic growth at an average rate of 5% annually over the past ten years
(Myers and Kent, 2003). It is worth stressing that only a few countries worldwide have
recorded such long-lasting GDP growth in the last three decades. According to Raszkowski
and Bartniczak (2019), the global index provider FTSE Russell reclassified Poland from the
status of ‘emerging markets’ to ‘developed markets’ on 24 September 2018. Currently, it is the Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International
eighth largest economy in the European Union and the largest one among the Central and Journal
Eastern European countries. According to a report on this country’s environmental policy Vol. 24 No. 2, 2020
pp. 213-234
(Zawadzka-Ste˛ pniak, 2009), greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 28.9% between 1988 © Emerald Publishing Limited
1361-2026
and 2007. Irrefutably, sustainable development has made remarkable progress in Poland. DOI 10.1108/JFMM-11-2019-0258
JFMM Many national funding programmes such as Energia Plus (Energy Plus) and Ciepłownictwo
24,2 Powiatowe- pilota_z (District Heating-Pilot Programme) are available not only to entrepreneurs
and urban dwellers but also to farmers in rural areas in order to reduce the impact of negative
environmental practices (Government of the Republic of Poland, 2019).
Due to the rise of environmental awareness, a considerable amount of research on
sustainable practices and consumption have been undertaken and disseminated over the last
ten years. The prior studies were conducted in many areas, with topics including corporate
214 social responsibility (Lombart and Louis, 2014), sustainable practices and transformable
design (Rahman and Gong, 2016; Chu and Rahman, 2012), eco-labelling (Koszewska, 2011),
zero-waste design practices (McQuillan, 2011), recycling and upcycling (Shim et al., 2018),
slow fashion movement (Pookulangara and Shephard, 2013), and circular economy
(Koszewska et al., 2018). These aforementioned strategies and interdisciplinary research
provide compelling evidence that the issue of sustainability has received widespread
attention in both academia and industry. In addition, empirical studies (Cleveland et al., 2011;
Rahman et al., 2016) have reported that demographic variables play a prominent role in
market segmentation to identify consumer groups with similar needs and behaviours. For
example, demographic research conducted in Europe (Creusen, 2010) found that higher
earning, better educated, and/or older consumers tended to pay more attention to product
quality when shopping for very diverse ranges of products including automobiles, coffee
makers and electric razors. However, it is worth mentioning that the results regarding the
impacts of demographic factors on sustainable consumer behaviour are contradictory and
inconclusive (Auger and Devinney, 2007; Jain and Kaur, 2006). Based on our literature review,
there is still a paucity of research examining the effects of demographic variables in relation
to sustainability.
For this study, apparel was chosen based on its essentiality and ubiquity to investigate the
Polish consumers’ choice in relation to both sustainable and non-sustainable factors.
According to a recent report published by the European Union (2019), clothing accounts for
2–10 % of the environmental impact of EU consumption. The amount of clothes purchased in
the European Union has increased by 40 % per person in just a few decades-driven by a fall in
prices and the speed in which fashion is delivered to consumers (Koszewska, 2016). It is also
worth stressing that Poland is one of the top ten European Union countries recognized as
textile and clothing industry leaders (Euratex, 2018)
Due to Poland’s economic growth, it is imperative to understand what elements play an
important role in purchasing decisions. The overarching objective is to investigate and
broaden our understanding of Polish consumer behaviour, choice, and preference of clothing,
particularly from age and gender perspectives. Therefore, the purposes of this study are
twofold: (1) to understand what product cues (sustainable and non-sustainable) may play a
relatively more significant role in apparel evaluation; and (2) to examine the age and gender
effects on apparel evaluation.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section is a literature review related
to sustainability, sustainable and non-sustainable cues, demographic factors (age and
gender) and also the development of hypotheses. This is followed by the research
methodology. In the next two sections, empirical findings and conclusions are reported
respectively. Finally, limitations and future research are presented to conclude the study.

Literature review
Sustainability and (non-)sustainable apparel cues
‘Sustainability’ has been used interchangeably with sustainable development, ecological/
green system, triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility (Amran and Haniffa, 2011;
Carey and Cervellon, 2014). However, there is no consensus or universally agreeable
definition, as some critics have pointed out that the term is difficult to define adequately A study of
(Costanza and Patten, 1995). In this study, the concept of sustainability is about maximizing consumer
the positive and minimizing the negative environmental, social and ethical impact. Thus,
sustainable buying behaviours are referred to those individuals who pay attention to these
choice
three sustainable aspects (environmental, social and ethical) during the apparel shopping
process. It is noteworthy that the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘green’ are used interchangeably
in this article. According to the prior cue utilization studie (Hines and Swinker, 2001; Rahman,
2015), consumers often use multiple informational cues to evaluate a product prior to their 215
buying decisions. To understand which factors may play a relatively more significant role in
apparel evaluation, 20 product cues were selected for the present study, including 10 non-
sustainable cues and 10 sustainable cues (see Table 1). Non-sustainable cues are directly/
indirectly related to the physical product without considering the sustainable aspects. The
reasons why 10 product cues were labelled as ‘non-sustainable’ because we want to ensure
that the evaluation of these cues should not base on the sustainable aspects or features. Non-
sustainable product cues can be dichotomized into two types-intrinsic and extrinsic (Hines
and Swinker, 2001; Rahman et al., 2008); psychic and physical (Swan and Combs, 1976); or
functional and aesthetic (Rahman et al., 2010). In the context of apparel evaluation, intrinsic
cues are referred to the physical compositions of clothing (e.g. style, colour, fabric, and fit),
whereas extrinsic cues are referred to those product-related attributes not directly attached to
the physical product (e.g. price, brand name and country of origin). The psychic utility is
associated with the aesthetic aspects of a product such as style and colour, whereas physical
utility is linked to functional and utilitarian aspects such as durability and comfort (Rahman
et al., 2017). Thus, the terms ‘psychic’ and ‘aesthetic’ are used interchangeably in this article,
as well as ‘physical’ and ‘functional’. Many apparel studies (Rahman, 2015; Jegethesan et al.,
2012) have revealed that consumers often use a wide array of cues to justify their choices.
However, there is limited empirical research (Geiger and Keller, 2018) examining the
influential effects of both sustainable and non-sustainable cues on apparel purchases,
particularly in a transition economy.

Demographic variables
According to the literature review, many studies (Jegethesan et al., 2012; Seock and Bailey,
2008; Zelezny et al., 2000) on marketing and consumer behaviour indicate that age and gender
are the two most important demographic variables. For example, age and gender are
considered as significant predictors or indicators in determining consumers’ purchasing
intentions for apparel products (Kim and Kim, 2004; Rahman et al., 2018). Bohdanowicz and
Clamp (1994) found that gender is an important factor influencing consumer’s choice of
clothing, and Behling (1985–1986) suggested that age plays a significant impact on the
clothing adoption process. Since these two demographic variables play such a great
influential role in market segmentation and consumer behaviour, this current study was
mainly focused on these specific variables.

Age
Consumer age and non-sustainable cues
Clothing plays a very important role in the self-formation and socialization process, especially
among the youth. It can be used as a non-verbal communicator, ‘second skin’ of the bodily
self, or ‘social glue’ to affiliate with desired social groups or significant others (Chang et al.,
2015; Horn and Gurel, 1981). According to previous studies (Rahman et al., 2016; Henry, 2002),
younger consumers tended to pay more attention to the aesthetic aspects of a product
(want-based/hedonic attributes), whereas older ones were more concerned with their
JFMM Sustainable or Genres or sub-
24,2 Apparel cues non-sustainable categories Definitions and characteristics

Colour Non-sustainable Intrinsic-psychic Colour information (e.g. hue, value and intensity)
(I-ps) is the most visible element for apparel products
(Rasband, 2001)
Style Non-sustainable Intrinsic-psychic Combination of design features within a garment
(I-ps) (Kunz, 1998)
216 Durability Non-sustainable Intrinsic-physical Length of time a garment is suitable for use
(I-ph) (Rosenau and Wilson, 2006)
Comfort Non-sustainable Intrinsic-physical Physical interactions and experiences with the
(I-ph) clothing material (Metje et al., 2008)
Garment fit Non-sustainable Intrinsic-psychic/ Sufficient room for movement, comfortable to
physical (I-ph) wear, aesthetic appeal and fashionability
(Stamper et al., 1991)
Fabric Non-sustainable Intrinsic-psychic/ Fabric tactile properties, weight, and texture
physical (I-ps/ph) providing protection, aesthetic appearance and
physical comfort (Rahman, 2012)
Quality-workmanship Non-sustainable Intrinsic-psychic/ The ability of a garment to meet both functional
physical (I-ps/ph) and aesthetic expectations (O’Neal et al., 1990)
Brand name Non-sustainable Extrinsic Name, symbol, design, or mark used as a signal to
communicate social status, wealth, and group
affiliation (Kotler, 1997; Rahman and Petroff, 2014)
Country of origin Non-sustainable Extrinsic Country of origin (country-of-manufacture or
(made-in label) assembly) influences consumer perception (Lee
and Schaninger, 1996)
Price Non-sustainable Extrinsic Price is linked to financial and perceived risks or
uncertainty (Agarwal and Teas, 2001)
Garment life (ability to Sustainable Environmental Keeping end-of-life-cycle products from disposal
recycle/reuse/dispose) through recycling and reuse if possible (Fletcher,
2008)
Certified eco-friendly Sustainable Environmental Certified labelling to inform consumers of the
label environmental impacts of specific products (Bratt
et al., 2011)
Less water usage Sustainable Environmental Reduce or minimizing water use for textile and
apparel production (Merchant, 2009; WWF, 2013)
Air quality Sustainable Environmental Strive for ‘pollution-free’ textile and apparel
production (Fletcher, 2008)
Less energy usage Sustainable Environmental Reduce or minimizing energy usage for textile and
apparel production (Merchant, 2009; WWF, 2013)
Certified ethical label Sustainable Social/ethical Certified labelling informing consumers about
(sweatshop-free product) ethical consumption (Carrigan et al., 2004)
Worker safety Sustainable Social/ethical Working conditions, health, and safety (Fair
Trade, 2015)
Fair wages Sustainable Social/ethical Wages based on fair and reasonable market rates
(Fair Trade, 2015)
Table 1. No child labour Sustainable Social/ethical Without the exploitation of children (Gandhi and
Selected product cues – Kaushik, 2016)
categorizations and No animal skin usage Sustainable Social/ethical Without the exploitation of animals (Gandhi and
definitions Kaushik, 2016)

functional values (need-based/utilitarian attributes). In a similar vein, a study of clothing

choice conducted by Taylor and Cosenza (2002) in the United States found that fit, style and
visual appearance were the three most significant evaluative cues for later-aged female teens.
Another apparel study (Birtwistle and Moore, 2006) also reported that age is significantly and
positively correlated with garment practicality and durability. In other words, people place a
higher priority on the utilitarian values of clothing as they age. Based on the findings of
previous research, the following hypotheses were postulated:
H1a. Younger consumers rely more significantly on extrinsic cues (brand name, country
of origin) to evaluate apparel than do older consumers.
 H1b. Younger consumers rely more significantly on intrinsic (psychic) cues (style and A study of
colour) to evaluate apparel than do older consumers. consumer
H1c. Older consumers rely more significantly on intrinsic (physical) cues (durability and choice
comfort) to evaluate apparel than do younger consumers.

Intrinsic-psychic cues and physical cues

According to the findings of an apparel study (Rahman et al., 2008), comfort, quality, and 217
fabric are strongly and positively correlated. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that consumers
are likely to use interrelated, complementary or similar cues to evaluate apparel products
simultaneously regardless of their age. For example, pragmatic consumers would probably
use intrinsic cues including both psychic (aesthetic) and psychic/physical (aesthetic/
functional) attributes to guide their apparel choice and purchases – e.g. durability
(sturdiness), comfort (ease of movement), garment fit (comfort and attractiveness) and
fabric (stretch-ability, softness) (see Table 1 for the classification of apparel cues). In a similar
vein, psychic cues such as style, colour and psychic/physical cues (fit and quality) are highly
correlated. For example, the style, colour and garment fit can create a fresh look and
fashionable appearance. With this perspective, the following two hypotheses were proposed:
H2a. ‘Intrinsic-psychic’ cues (colour and style) and ‘intrinsic-psychic/physical’ cues (fit,
fabric and quality) are significantly correlated in the context of apparel evaluation.
H2b. ‘Intrinsic (physical)’ cues (durability and comfort) and ‘intrinsic (psychic/physical)’
cues (garment fit, fabric, and quality) are significantly correlated in the context of
apparel evaluation.

Consumer age and sustainable cues

Previous studies (Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016; Khare and Sadachar, 2017) have found that
young people aged 18–24 are sustainability-conscious. Young consumers are more receptive
to new ideas and products including green concepts and eco-fashion than older consumers
(Ottman et al., 2006). Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) also found that the age of the consumer was
negatively correlated with environmental behaviour. Indeed, young people are more involved
with environmental behaviour and more sensitive to environmental issues as compared to the
older demographics (Carrete, et al., 2012). With these perspectives, it is reasonable to suggest
that young consumers are more concerned with the sustainable (environmental, social and
ethical) aspects of clothing than their older counterparts. Thus, the following hypotheses
were formulated:
H3a. Young consumers rely more significantly on the environmental cues (garment life,
certified eco-friendly labelling, less energy usage, less water usage, air quality) to
evaluate apparel than do older consumers.
H3b. Young consumers rely more significantly on the social/ethical cues (certified ethical
labelling, worker safety, fair wages, no child labour, no animal skin usage) to
evaluate apparel than do older consumers.

Consumer age and (non-)sustainable cues

With respect to the preceding discussion, it seems important to raise the following question.
Do young consumers pay more attention to the aesthetic cues over sustainable ones when
they shop for clothing? An apparel study of young Australian consumers (Jegethesan et al.,
2012) revealed that ethical attributes played a relatively less significant role than most of the
other product-based attributes including style, price, brand name and country of origin.
JFMM In addition, D’Souza et al. (D’Souza et al., 2006) found that many consumers are dominantly
24,2 more price-conscious when it comes to actual purchases. Other studies (Gandhi and Kaushik,
2016; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001) also point out that consumers’ sustainability attitudes
seldom translate into green buying behaviours-which is known as the ‘attitude-action’ gap.
Although apparel consumers are interested in eco-fashion, many are not willing to pay a
higher price, nor sacrifice their personal needs for ecological benefits. However, to the best of
our knowledge, there is limited research investigating the salient impact of both the
218 sustainable and non-sustainable cues in a transition economy such as Poland. In view of the
scarcity of empirical support, the following exploratory hypotheses were developed:
H4a. Young consumers rely more significantly on non-sustainable cues to evaluate
apparel than sustainable cues (environmental and social/ethical).
H4b. Older consumers rely more significantly on non-sustainable cues to evaluate
apparel than sustainable cues (environmental and social/ethical).
H5. Both young and older consumers rely more significantly on the price to evaluate
apparel than sustainable cues (environmental and social/ethical).

Gender
Gender and non-sustainable cues
Traditionally, women are associated with consumption while men are more aligned with
production (Heinzle et al., 2010; Kelan, 2008). According to Kelan (2008), about 80% of the
household buying decisions are made by women. In the context of apparel shopping, women
do not only shop for themselves, but also shop for, or co-shop with, their family members
(Rahman and Kharb, 2018). With these perspectives, it is not difficult to understand why
female consumers are more engaged in fashion consumption and are relatively more fashion-
conscious than their male counterparts (Seock and Bailey, 2008; Gupta and Gentry, 2016).
Studies conducted in Asia (Jung and Lee, 2006; Lee et al., 2013) reported that women are more
highly concerned with their physical attractiveness; and are relatively more sensitive to the
aesthetic cues than men (Creusen, 2010). Moreover, research of female apparel consumers
(Rahman et al., 2017; Jegethesan et al., 2012) indicated that garment fit, style, comfort, and
quality were often considered to be important determinant cues, but not as highly regarded as
those related to aesthetics. Another study conducted by Fernandez (2009) concluded that
women are more ‘other-oriented’ and often seek for hedonic benefits, whereas men are more
‘self-oriented’ and often look initially at their functional benefits. As Creusen (2010, p. 28)
asserted, ‘Most of the (literature) findings point to a higher importance of functionalities for
males’. Based on the above discussion, it is reasonable to suggest that women’s apparel
choices are often driven by the ‘aesthetic’ attributes; whereas men are more driven by
‘functional’ attributes such as comfort and durability.
H6a. Female consumers rely more significantly on intrinsic-psychic cues (style and
colour) to evaluate apparel than do male consumers.
H6b. Male consumers rely more significantly on intrinsic-physical cues (comfort and
durability) to evaluate apparel than do female consumers.

Gender and sustainable cues

Some early eco-feminist authors (Mies and Shiva, 1992; Shiva, 2002) have reported that
women are relatively more concerned with environmental issues than men due to their
feminine and domestic nature (e.g. reproductive and socialization capacities). In a study
(Zelezny et al., 2000) of gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviour, the
authors found that women displayed a greater commitment to the environment than do A study of
men across age and national origin. Women showed higher intentions of purchasing consumer
sustainable products than men (Khan and Trivedi, 2015; Bulut et al., 2017), and
ostensibly, the majority of previous studies (Zelezny et al., 2000; Khan and Trivedi, 2015;
choice
Panzone et al., 2016) supported the notion that women are more interested in fashion and
are more concerned with environmental issues than men. With this perspective, it is
reasonable to propose that women are more reliant on the sustainable cues to evaluate
an apparel product than men. 219
H7a. Female consumers rely more significantly on environmental cues (garment life,
certified eco-friendly labelling, less water usage, less energy usage, air quality) to
evaluate apparel than do male consumers.
H7b. Female consumers rely more significantly on social/ethical cues (certified ethical
labelling, worker safety, fair wages, no child labour, no animal skin usage) to
evaluate apparel than do male consumers.

Gender and (non-)sustainable cues

Prior empirical studies (Jegethesan et al., 2012; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; North et al.,
2010) have reported that consumers were not prepared to sacrifice product attributes for
ethical attributes. For example, Jegethesan et al.’s (2012) study found that garment fit
and style were considered to be two of the most significant factors when purchasing
jeans. Another study (Moon et al., 2015) found that South Korean consumers often put
their preferences of styles and brand names before sustainability. Carrigan and Attalla
(2001) also suggest that consumers are not willing to buy ethical products if the price is
higher and/or the quality is lower (e.g. uncomfortable material) over regular
(nonsustainable) products. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that consumers are
reluctant to trade off product-related benefits (e.g. psychic/aesthetic and physical/
functional cues) against less desirable sustainable benefits.
H8a. Female consumers rely more significantly on non-sustainable cues than
sustainable cues.
H8b. Male consumers rely more significantly on non-sustainable cues than
sustainable cues.

Methodology
Research instrument
The instrument was a self-administered online survey comprised of three sections. The first
section focused on environmental commitment and behaviour. Eight items were adopted or
slightly modified from D’Souza’s (2015) measures with statements such as ‘I would rather
spend my money on eco-friendly clothes more than anything else’ and ‘I would be willing to
reduce my consumption to help protect the environment’. The second section included 20
items of apparel cues – 10 sustainable cues and 10 non-sustainable cues. These apparel cues
were then categorized into sustainable and non-sustainable groups with six prevalent values
and benefits including ‘intrinsic-psychic (I-ps)’, ‘intrinsic-physical (I-ph)’, ‘intrinsic-psychic/
physical (I-ps/Iph)’, ‘extrinsic’, ‘environmental’, and ‘social/ethical’. As indicated in Table 1,
colour and style are linked to a product’s aesthetic appearance; durability and comfort are
associated with functional usage and performance; while fit, fabric, and quality can provide
both psychic/aesthetic and physical/functional benefits. Although the country of origin,
brand name and price are extrinsic cues, price is often associated with financial risks and
JFMM benefits. In addition to the aforementioned product attributes, ten sustainable cues including
24,2 five environmental cues (garment life, certified eco-friendly labelling, less water usage, air
quality, and less energy usage) and five social/ethical cues (certified ethical labelling, worker
safety, fair wages, no child labour, and no animal skin usage) were also employed. The
selection criteria of all product cues were based on the relevancy and frequency of use for
fashion and clothing studies of cue utilization and sustainability/environmental research
(Rahman et al., 2016; Hines and Swinker, 2001; Jegethesan et al., 2012; Rahman and Kharb,
220 2018). Participants were asked to rate the relative significance of each cue based on a five-
point Likert scale (1 5 strongly disagree/unimportant to 5 5 strongly agree/very important).
The third section contained questions eliciting sociodemographic and behavioural responses
in the context of apparel evaluation and purchases. Questions such as age, gender, income,
level of education and annual apparel expenditure were employed.

Online data collection and analytical method

The English version of the questionnaire survey was translated into Polish and then back-
translated into the original language. This back-translation method (Brislin, 1986) was used
to prepare the Polish version for use in the Republic of Poland. It was then pretested with 20
individuals to avoid any inapplicable questions and misunderstandings, followed by making
corresponding amendments based on the recommendations. An online data-gathering tool
(Webankieta) was used for the current study. The reasons web-based surveys were chosen
over traditional paper surveys were to: (1) lower administrative time and financial costs, (2)
minimize coding time and errors, and (3) provide more convenience for the participants (Kang
and Park-Poaps, 2010). The data were primarily collected from convenience sampling
through the assistance of acquaintances and friends in Poland. In terms of data analysis, IBM
SPSS Statistics 25 was used for analysis. Simple descriptive analysis was used to analyse the
demographic information, Cronbach’s Alpha (α) was employed to measure the scale
reliability or internal consistency, t-test was used to compare means and determine the
significant difference between two groups, and Pearson Coefficient was used to measure the
strength of the association among variables.

Results
Consumer profile and apparel expenditure
In total, 288 useable data were collected from 134 (46.5%), 139 (48.3%) and 15 (5.2%)
participants belonging to the age groups of 18–24 (Generation Z), 25–34 (younger Millennial)
and 35þ, respectively. Gender was skewed towards females who comprised 67% of the total
number of participants-a possible explanation could be due to the fact that women are more
interested in fashion activities than men (Seock and Bailey, 2008; Gupta and Gentry, 2016). As
shown in Table 2, more than half (56%) of the younger adults aged 18–24 earned 3,000 PLN or
less per year, while 62.6% of the older participants aged 25–34 earned 3,000 PLN or above.
Although the monthly income of younger participants was lower than their older
counterparts, many of them (29.1%, n 5 39) spent more than 20% of their income on
apparel as compared to only 18.1% (n 5 25) for the older age group.
Prior to further analysis, Cronbach’s α was computed to test the reliability in order to
ensure the quality of the measurement. According to Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994)
criterion, reliability coefficients of 0.70 or greater are considered to be ‘good’. Cronbach’s
alpha scores of all measuring items were considered ‘very good’ ranging from 0.861 to 0.897.

Environmental commitment and behaviour

According to the analysis of ‘environmental commitment and behaviour’, participants were
committed to improve and protect the environment. Eight out of nine measuring items scored
 Sample 18–24 years old 25–34 years old
A study of
(N 5 288) (n 5 134) (n 5 139) consumer
Monthly income n % n % n % choice
No income 5 3.7 4 3.0 1 0.7
Less than 2,000 PLN 48 35.3 30 22.4 18 12.9
2,001 PLN – 3,000 PLN 42 30.8 22 16.4 20 14.4
3,001 PLN – 4,000 PLN 29 21 7 5.2 22 15.8 221
4,001 PLN – 5,000 PLN 23 16.8 9 6.7 14 10.1
5,001 PLN or above 66 51.6 20 14.9 46 36.7
No responses 51 37.8 38 28.4 13 9.4
Money spent on clothing annually
Less than 5% of annual income 36 26.1 8 6.0 28 20.1
6–10% 42 30.7 17 12.7 25 18.0
11–15% 31 22.7 12 9.0 19 13.7
16–20% 19 13.2 7 5.2 12 8.6
21–25% 19 14.6 11 8.2 8 5.8 Table 2.
26–30% 21 15.5 13 9.7 8 5.8 Monthly income and
Over 30% of income 24 17.7 15 11.2 9 6.5 apparel expenditure of
No responses 81 59.7 51 38.1 30 21.6 Polish participants

more than 3 on a 5-point scale, except the ‘I prefer to purchase eco-clothing even if it is
somewhat more expensive’ (x 5 2.95) item. In addition, the t-test result indicated that there are
no statistically significant mean differences between age groups (or genders) on
environmental commitment and behaviour. However, these two measuring items: ‘I would
be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment’ (t 5 0.004, df 5 286,
p 5 0.027) and ‘Supporting environmental protection makes me more committed to the
environment’ (t 5 2.202, df 5 286, p 5 0.004) between genders were the only exception (as
shown in Table 3). Based on these findings, Polish consumers are quite concerned about
environmental and sustainable practices. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that our recruited
participants might use a wide array of attributes (sustainable and non-sustainable cues) to
evaluate apparel products, rather than just focusing on a single cue (e.g. style), monolithic
factor (e.g. aesthetic) or unidimensional perspective (non-sustainable factors).

Age – results of H1 to H4
Consumer age and the importance of non-sustainable cues
As shown in Table 4 below, the result of the t-test scores reveal that there were no statistically
significant mean differences in the extrinsic (brand name, country of origin), intrinsic-psychic
(style and colour) or intrinsic-physical cues (durability and comfort) being used as an
important determinant for clothing evaluation between the young consumer group (aged 18–
24) and the older consumer group (aged 25–34). Thus, H1a, H1b, and H1c were not supported.

Correlations between product cues

In terms of the correlations of ‘intrinsic-psychic’ and ‘intrinsic-psychic/physical’ cues, a
number of correlation tests were conducted on colour, style, garment fit, fabric and quality (as
shown in Table 5). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) of these five product cues was
strong and positive, thus H2a was supported. In terms of the correlation between ‘functional’
and ‘intrinsic-psychic/physical’ cues (durability, comfort, garment fit, fabric, and quality), all
 24,2

222
JFMM

Table 3.

behaviour
environmental
Significant mean

commitment and
differences between
genders/age groups on
18–24 years old 25–34 years old
Females (n 5 182) Males (n 5 106) (n 5 134) (n 5 139)
95% CI for
Eco commitment and mean 95% CI for
behaviour M SD n M SD n difference t df M SD n M SD n mean difference t df

Whenever possible, I 3.80 1.101 182 3.61 1.168 106 0.087, 0.454 1.334 286 3.61 1.137 134 3.80 1.143 139 0.458, 0.085 1.352 271
buy products which I
consider
environmentally
friendly
I would be willing to 3.60 1.179 182 3.60 1.321 106 0.296, 0.297 0.004* 286 3.37 1.243 134 3.74 1.212 139 0.660, 0.075 2.476 271
reduce my
consumption to help
protect the
environment
When I have the choice 3.70 1.137 182 3.54 1.281 106 0.121, 0.452 1.137 286 3.57 1.160 134 3.65 1.238 139 0.374, 0.199 0.601 271
between two equal
clothing items, I
purchase the one less
harmful to others and
the environment
I would avoid buying 3.32 1.304 182 3.21 1.201 106 0.188, 0.421 0.753 286 3.08 1.251 134 3.39 1.288 139 0.609, 0.004 1.993 271
clothing items if it had
potentially harmful
environmental effects
I would rather spend 3.23 1.347 182 2.81 1.332 106 0.097, 0.742 2.559 286 2.93 1.328 134 3.09 1.377 139 0.483, 0.162 0.981 271
my money on eco-
friendly clothes more
than anything else
I prefer to purchase eco- 2.96 1.177 182 2.92 1.224 106 0.254, 0.324 0.254 286 2.78 1.140 134 3.02 1.248 139 0.523, 0.047 1.644 271
clothing even if it is
somewhat more
expensive

(continued )
 18–24 years old 25–34 years old
Females (n 5 182) Males (n 5 106) (n 5 134) (n 5 139)
95% CI for
Eco commitment and mean 95% CI for
behaviour M SD n M SD n difference t df M SD n M SD n mean difference t df

Supporting 4.26 0.810 182 4.06 1.068 106 0.018, 0.421 1.807 286 4.15 0.771 134 4.17 1.060 139 0.238, 0.205 0.144 271
environmental
protection makes me
more socially
responsible
Protecting the natural 4.09 1.063 182 3.90 1.187 106 0.075, 0.459 1.413 286 3.97 1.103 134 4.00 1.142 139 0.298, 0.238 0.220 271
environment increases
my quality of life
Supporting 3.96 1.027 182 3.67 1.177 106 0.031, 0.552 2.202* 286 3.89 1.045 134 3.77 1.157 139 0.145, 0.381 0.885 271
environmental
protection makes me
more committed to the
environment
Note(s): *p < 0.05
consumer

223
choice
A study of

Table 3.
JFMM Age group Age group
24,2 18–24 years 25–34 years
(n 5 134) (n 5 139)
95% CI for mean
Apparel product cues M SD N M SD N difference t df

Garment fit 4.69 0.606 134 4.53 0.715 139 0.004, 0.312 1.918 271
224 Comfort 4.67 0.572 134 4.73 0.609 139 0.203, 0.079 0.869 271
Quality: 4.51 0.680 134 4.63 0.629 139 0.267, 0.045 1.401 271
workmanship
Price 4.56 0.595 134 4.28 0.808 139 0.110, 0.449 3.242* 271
Style 4.43 0.750 134 4.40 0.728 139 0.146, 0.206 0.332 271
Durability 4.45 0.678 134 4.54 0.617 139 0.246, 0.063 1.171 271
Colour 4.32 0.762 134 4.29 0.764 139 0.149, 0.215 0.359 271
Fabric 4.07 0.810 134 4.40 0.795 139 0.512, 0.130 3.305* 271
No child labour 3.98 1.362 134 4.22 1.190 139 0.558, 0.051 1.637 271
Fair wages 3.98 1.352 134 3.96 1.206 139 0.291, 0.319 0.088 271
Workers safety 3.93 2.363 134 3.92 1.204 139 0.302, 0.311 0.029 271
No animal skin usage 3.82 1.250 134 3.37 1.373 139 0.141, 0.767 2.854* 271
Air quality 3.72 1.216 134 3.67 1.194 139 0.232, 0.342 0.376 271
Less energy usage 3.48 1.225 134 3.55 1.149 139 0.359, 0.207 0.531 271
Certified ethical label 3.38 1.142 134 3.50 1.282 139 0.406, 0.174 0.787 271
Garment life 3.43 1.160 134 3.57 1.180 139 0.414, 0.143 0.957 271
Less water usage 3.37 1.223 134 3.32 1.280 139 0.249, 0.348 0.324 271
Table 4.
The significant Certified eco-label 3.00 1.097 134 3.19 1.191 139 0.467, 0.079 1.400 271
differences between Brand name 3.12 1.233 134 2.99 1.167 139 0.152, 0.420 0.921 271
age groups on Country of origin/ 2.77 1.244 134 2.83 1.305 139 0.370, 0.238 0.427 271
evaluative made-in label
product cues Note(s): *p < 0.05

Fit
(I-ps/ Fabric Quality Colour Style Durability Comfort
ph) (I-ps/ph) (I-ps/ph) (I-ps) (I-ps) (I-ph) (I-ph)

Fit (I-ps/ph) 1 0.199* 0.294* 0.297* 0.368* 0.111 0.282*

Fabric (I-ps/ 0.199* 1 0.555* 0.226* 0.259* 0.437* 0.332*
ph)
Quality (I-ps/ 0.294* 0.555* 1 0.339* 0.382* 0.572* 0.398*
ph)
Table 5. Colour (I-ps) 0.297* 0.226* 0.339* 1 0.741* 0.277* 0.184*
Pearson correlation Style (I-ps) 0.368* 0.259* 0.382* 0.741* 1 0.289* 0.223*
coefficients of Intrinsic-
Durability (I- 0.111 0.437* 0.572* 0.277* 0.289* 1 0.407*
Psychic/Physical (I-ps/
ph), Intrinsic-Psychic ph)
(I-ps) and Intrinsic (I- Comfort (I- 0.282* 0.332* 0.398* 0.184* 0.223* 0.407* 1
ph) cues based on 99% ph)
statistical significance Note(s): *p > 0.01 5 not significant

products were significantly correlated except ‘durability’ and ‘garment fit’. Therefore, H2b
was partially supported.

Consumer age and the importance of sustainable cues

According to the survey analysis, there were no statistically significant mean differences of
all environmental cues between age groups. In other words, younger consumers did not rely
more on environmental cues than do their older counterparts when evaluating apparel. In A study of
terms of the social/ethical cues, there were no significant mean differences between age consumer
groups, except the category of ‘no animal skin usage’ (t 5 2.854, df 5 271, p 5 0.005). Based on
these results, H3a was not supported and H3b was partially supported.
choice
Consumer age in relation to the impact of (non-)sustainable and price cues
The results of this study indicated that the mean scores of all non-sustainable cues were
higher than all sustainable cues, except for the two ‘extrinsic cues’ – a brand name and
country of origin. In addition, the average mean value of 10 non-sustainable cues of both age 225
groups (x younger consumers 5 4.145; x older consumers 5 4.162) was much higher than the
average mean value of 10 sustainable cues (x younger consumers 5 3.609; x older
consumers 5 3.627). Therefore, H4a and H4b were supported. These findings are consistent
with a previous apparel study (Rahman et al., 2017). As shown in Table 4, both younger and
older consumers relied more significantly on the price to evaluate apparel products than any
of the environmental and social/ethical cues. This finding provides support for H5.

Gender – results of H5 to H8
Gender and the importance of non-sustainable cues
In addition, Table 6 revealed that female consumers rely more significantly on style
(t 5 2.930, df 5 286, p 5 0.004) to evaluate apparel than do male consumers, but not colour
(t 5 2.854, df 5 286, p 5 0.154). Thus, H6a was partially supported. Our findings also
indicated that there were no significant differences between males and females regarding the
functional cues (durability and comfort) being used as evaluative criteria for apparel
products, and H6b was not supported.

Gender and the importance of sustainable cues

According to the results of the t-test, there were statistically significant mean differences in all
environmental and social/ethical cues between gender, except for ‘garment life’ (t 5 0.698,
df 5 286, p 5 0.486). It is evident that female consumers relied more significantly on both
environmental and social/ethical cues to evaluate apparel than did male consumers. Based on
these findings, H7a was partially supported and H7b was supported.

Gender in relation to the impact of (non-)sustainable cues

It is evident that both females and males relied more significantly on non-sustainable cues
than on sustainable cues, except for the two ‘extrinsic cues’ (brand name and country of
origin). The average mean value of 10 non-sustainable cues for both genders (x
females 5 4.149; x males 5 4.126) was much higher than the average mean value of the 10
sustainable cues (x females 5 3.778; x males 5 3.402). Therefore, H8a and H8b were
supported. These empirical findings are consistent with the results of H4a and H4b. In other
words, apparel consumers are more concerned with a product’s aesthetics (psychic cue),
functions (physical cue) and price (extrinsic-financial) than on their environmental, social/
ethical and extrinsic attributes. Although brand name played a relatively less important role
in apparel evaluation, men tended to use this evaluative cue more heavily than their female
counterparts. According to the mean scores, male participants rated ‘brand name’ higher than
‘no animal skin usage’, ‘certified ethical labelling’, ‘less water usage’, ‘certified eco-labelling’
and ‘country of origin’.

Other findings and observations

As shown in Table 3, younger consumers (x 5 4.56) relied more significantly on price cue to
evaluate apparel products than their older counterparts (x 5 4.28). The t-test result revealed
JFMM Females (n 5 182) Males (n 5 106)
24,2 95% CI for mean
Apparel product cues M SD N M SD N difference t df

Garment fit 4.74 0.543 182 4.39 0.775 106 0.196, 0.503 4.482* 286
Comfort 4.73 0.527 182 4.68 0.670 106 0.094, 0.186 0.646 286
Quality: workmanship 4.55 0.661 182 4.64 0.620 106 0.247, 0.063 1.166 286
226 Price 4.51 0.628 182 4.28 0.848 106 0.050, 0.395 2.540* 286
Style 4.51 0.637 182 4.25 0.860 106 0.085, 0.435 2.930* 286
Durability 4.48 0.628 182 4.51 0.693 106 0.183, 0.131 0.325 286
Colour 4.34 0.761 182 4.21 0.765 106 0.050, 0.317 1.429 286
Fabric 4.27 0.820 182 4.25 0.791 106 0.247, 0.063 1.166 286
No child labour 4.22 1.187 182 3.95 1.383 106 0.037, 0.571 1.730 286
Fair wages 4.18 1.130 182 3.69 1.417 106 0.194, 0.792 3.244* 286
Workers safety 4.15 1.117 182 3.60 1.432 106 0.251, 0.849 3.625* 286
No animal skin usage 3.96 1.119 182 2.96 1.393 106 0.704, 1.294 6.666* 286
Air quality 3.84 1.105 182 3.55 1.339 106 0.000, 0.576 1.970* 286
Less energy usage 3.66 1.095 182 3.31 1.297 106 0.066, 0.630 2.428* 286
Certified ethical label 3.61 1.106 182 3.19 1.325 106 0.135, 0.708 2.895* 286
Garment life 3.56 1.154 182 3.46 1.148 106 0.179, 0.375 0.698 286
Less water usage 3.48 1.215 182 3.18 1.286 106 0.000, 0.597 1.969* 286
Certified eco-label 3.12 1.044 182 3.13 1.265 106 0.283, 0.261 0.081 286
Table 6.
The significant Brand name 3.02 1.180 182 3.20 1.230 106 0.464, 0.112 1.203 286
differences between Country of origin/ 2.79 1.254 182 2.85 1.293 106 0.368, 0.242 0.409 286
females and males on made-in label
apparel product cues Note(s): *p < 0.05

that there was a statistically significant mean difference in price between age groups
(t 5 3.242, df 5 271, p 5 0.001). A few possible explanations can account for this disparity.
First, the annual income of younger consumers was lower than the older consumers, as
indicated in Table 2. Many of these younger participants (over 47%) earned below the level of
national average gross wage – 4,839.24 PLN per year (Trading Economics, 2019). Second,
younger consumers were sensitive to prices due to their limited budget for apparel purchases.
Third, they might enjoy browsing various stores to compare prices and alternatives as
compared to older consumers. In addition, younger consumers paid more attention to ‘no
animal skin usage’ (t 5 3.305, df 5 271, p 5 0.001) whereas older consumers relied much
more on ‘fabric’ (t 5 2.854, df 5 271, p 5 0.005) when shopping for apparel.
As shown in Table 7, among ten sustainable cues, ‘no child labour’ was frequently cited as
the most important cue, followed by ‘fair wages’ and ‘worker safety’. All these top three
sustainable cues are significantly higher than the hypothesized mean. For example, ‘no child
labour’ (x 5 4.12), which is significantly higher than the hypothesized mean of 3.0 (t 5 15.02,
p 5 0.000). According to these findings, it is reasonable to suggest that participants were
more concerned with the aforementioned three social/ethical cues than the environmental
ones regardless of their age and gender. In addition, it seems both ‘certified ethical labelling’
and ‘certified eco-labelling’ played a relatively less important role.

Conclusion
Sustainable and non-sustainable cues – observations, implications, and challenges
According to the present study, it is evident that many participants predominantly relied on
non-sustainable cues (garment fit, comfort, quality/workmanship, and style) to guide their
product choices over available sustainable cues. These results yielded clear support for past
previous studies (Jegethesan et al., 2012; North et al., 2010), where sustainable cues provided A study of
limited information and less influential power in the product evaluation and selection process. consumer
Many consumers would not purchase a sustainable or ‘green’ product if it did not provide
enough intrinsic-psychic, intrinsic-physical and extrinsic benefits to satisfy their needs and
choice
aspirations. These findings are also in line with qualitative research (Koszewska, 2012)
conducted in Poland, most of the Polish consumers cited comfort, aesthetic and quality are the
most important selection criteria when they shopped for textile products.
These findings underpin several implications and challenges not only for fashion 227
practitioners but also for academicians. First of all, eco-clothing will not be widely accepted if
consumers are sceptical about their environmental claims, and/or lack of ‘green’ knowledge.
This implies that many apparel consumers are not well-informed or unable to obtain
sufficient ‘green’ information to make smart and justifiable choices. Thus, an ‘attitude-action
gap’ exists among Polish consumers. Secondly, although Polish consumers are concerned
about their impact on the environment, many do not want to sacrifice their personal needs
and wants. Interestingly, prior research (Ellis et al., 2012; Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009) found
that people are willing to pay more for a product ‘if they were sure it was ethically made’
(Abacus Data, 2010, p. 4). Hence, fashion designers and marketers should communicate the
egoistic (individual self and wellbeing), altruistic (well-being of other individuals) and
ecological (ecosystem, living organisms) values innovatively through their product designs
and marketing strategies. Thirdly, Polish consumers generally do not perceive nor associate
conventional clothing with personal wellbeing, health and safety risks, unlike food,
cosmetics, and skincare products (Pudaruth et al., 2015). With this perspective, it is
reasonable to believe that product types could play a significant role in green consumption
and pro-environmental behaviour. For example, people are more willing to pay a premium
price for certain products (e.g. organic food) than for eco clothing. Lastly, buying decisions is a
complex process interplay with many factors; often involving trade-offs between a wide array
of sustainable and non-sustainable cues. For example, consumers may choose a garment with
minimal features (e.g. devoid of decorative and unnecessary elements) in exchange for a lower
price, less energy consumption, and minimal fabric usage. In line with this concept, designers
can use alternative approaches, such as transformable design and zero-waste techniques, to
increase product functionality, aesthetic appeal, longevity, versatility, and possibly enhance
emotional experiences.
Although a substantial amount of research in ‘green’ consumption has been focused on
examining many aspects pertaining to the environment, the majority of sustainability
research was undertaken in Western developed countries (Auger and Devinney, 2007; Bratt
et al., 2011; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003) rather than in developing, or transition economies. In
order to gain a deeper understanding of the consumers’ sustainability concerns and their

Sustainable cues Genre Frequency Mean S.D.

No child labour Social/ethical 288 4.12 1.267

Fair wages Social/ethical 288 4.00 1.263
Workers safety Social/ethical 288 3.95 1.268
Air quality Environmental 288 3.73 1.202
No animal skin usage Social/ethical 288 3.59 1.317
Less energy use Environmental 288 3.53 1.183 Table 7.
Garment life Environmental 288 3.52 1.150 Frequency, mean
Certified ethnic label Social/ethical 288 3.45 1.206 scores and standard
Less water usage Environmental 288 3.37 1.248 deviation of
Certified eco-label Environmental 288 3.13 1.129 sustainable cues
JFMM ever-changing needs in these specific nations, additional empirical research is necessary to
24,2 further explicate the underlying impact of these salient sustainable attributes – especially
where social and ethical responsibility is concerned.

Intrinsic psychic and physical cues – garment fit, comfort, quality/workmanship, and style
According to the findings, psychic and physical cues played a very important part in clothing
228 evaluation for both genders and age groups. However, women were more reliant on garment
fit and style than men, as shown in Table 6. Results also indicated that style, colour, garment
fit, fabric and quality (workmanship) are positively and significantly correlated. With these
perspectives, fashion practitioners and designers should pay extra attention to these
variables in order to provide more desirable products with longer-lasting aesthetic and
utilitarian values. In other words, it is particularly important to select appropriate materials
(organic/conventional, stretch/non-stretch) and construction techniques (knit/woven) to
create comfortable, fashionable and well-fitting garments to satisfy their consumers’
functional (ease of movement, durability), psychological (aesthetically pleasing,
attractiveness) and physiological (tactile response and sensorial experience) needs. In these
ways, sustainable design can prolong the life span of a product. Thus, the desirability of a
garment (long-lasting style) plays a very important part of product longevity. As Fletcher
(2008, p. 166) points out in her book titled Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys:
‘it becomes clear that making a product last is very different to making a long-lasting
product’. According to the Cotton Incorporated (2007), a study reported that many consumers
stopped wearing their dark denim jeans because of the colour fading, even though the jeans
are still in good condition and sturdy. With this perspective, it is reasonable to believe that
many apparel consumers often select and consume a clothing item not because of its
sturdiness and durability, but more about its style. As another result, consumers would be
more likely to use and keep their desirable product over a longer period of time; and hopefully
lessen the purchase of new garments. As Zafarmand et al. (2006; p. 179) asserts, ‘. . . a
product’s aesthetic durability promotes its sustainability’. In addition to product longevity,
designers may consider using certified eco-textiles (e.g. Global Organic Cotton Standard/
GOTS and/or Fairtrade certified organic cotton) to offer added value to the product.

Extrinsic cues – brand name and country of origin

Brand name and country of origin play a relatively less important role in clothing evaluation
and purchasing decisions in Poland. In other words, these two product cues are not a good
surrogate indicator of extrinsic and ‘green’ values. These results concur with prior apparel
studies (Rahman et al., 2017, p. 65), which indicated that most consumers are more interested
in the intrinsic cues including such as the aesthetic and functional aspects of clothing. Many
consumers would not want to purchase a garment that does not fit their body type, nor
enhances their physical appearance regardless of the brand name and country of origin. The
present study also reveals another interesting result. Although Polish women considered
brand name and country of origin to be the two least important evaluative cues, men tended
to rely more on the brand name to guide their clothing choices. The possible explanation is
that many men have less knowledge, ability, and motivation to judge an apparel product than
women. It is reasonable to suggest that male consumers tend to rely more on the brand name
to guide their clothing selection and purchasing decisions.

Extrinsic cue-price
As shown in Tables 4 and 6, there were statistically significant mean differences in price
being used for apparel evaluation between age groups, as well as between genders.
The findings indicate that younger consumers, and females, relied more on the price to A study of
evaluate clothing than older consumers and males. There are several possible explanations consumer
for these differences: (1) younger consumers have less disposable income for apparel
purchases than older consumers; (2) females are more cautious and sensitive towards retail
choice
price than their male counterparts; and (3) females are more engaged in fashion than men, and
therefore are willing to spend time and effort in comparing prices between alternatives.
Moreover, price plays a more important role in clothing evaluation over sustainable cues. It is
reasonable to suggest that Polish consumers are price conscious and to believe that many are 229
not willing to pay a higher price for eco-clothing if they do not perceive their value is
worthwhile. In summary, the results of the present study underscore several meaningful
implications and useful information. Sustainable fashion is not merely about environmental,
social and ethical benefits, but their extrinsic and intrinsic (psychic, physical, psychic/
physical) values must be factored in as well.
According to a recent report released by Accenture report (2020) showed that most (82%)
Polish consumers believe that fashion companies should take greater responsibility for
environmental protection. Although sustainable cures did not perceive as important as non-
sustainable cues (e.g. price, style, and fabric), many Polish consumers have become
increasingly interested in sustainability aspects of clothing production. However, there is a
very limited number of research on sustainable cues and almost no such analyses for the
Polish market. Therefore, the information on how age and gender affect consumer choice
between sustainable and non-sustainable apparel cues could be extremely useful for the
business practitioners as well as the researchers who are interested in the apparel market,
particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

Limitations and further research

Although the current study provides meaningful insights on fashion consumption and
sustainability, further research of consumer-centric approaches towards sustainability is
needed. In addition, an in-depth understanding of whether consumer decision-making is
driven by fashion trends, personal needs, and/or price; which would be useful to identify
buying patterns and choices. However, this study is not without limitations and
shortcomings. Firstly, the results should not be generalized to other developed nations or
developing markets with different demographics such as population size, age cohorts (e.g.
pre-teen, baby boomers) and ethnic groups. Secondly, apparel was employed for the present
study, therefore, the findings may not be valid for other consumer products. Thirdly, as
qualitative research approaches grow in importance for product design and development,
ethnography and observational research can shed additional light on this topic and generate
further information. Fourthly, future research may also be extended to investigate
consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to eco clothing. Considerations to include
cross-cultural examinations of sustainable practices and eco-marketing strategies is also
recommended.

References
Abacus Data (2010), “Ethical consumerism and Canadians”, Abacus Data, pp. 1-14, available at: http://
abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CCSR-Ethical-Consumerism-Final.pdf (accessed 8
November 2019).
Accenture (2020), “Czy ekologia jest w modzie. Raport o odpowiedzialnej konsumpcji i zrownowa_zonej
modzie w Polsce [Is ecology in vogue. Report on responsible consumption and sustainable
fashion in Poland]”, Accenture 2020, available at: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-
114/Accenture-Czy-ekologia-jest-w-modzie-Raport-2020.pdf (accessed 8 November 2019).
JFMM Agarwal, S. and Teas, R. (2001), “Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-14.
24,2
Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2011), “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a
developing country”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 141-156.
Auger, P. and Devinney, T.M. (2007), “Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of
references with unconstrained ethical intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 4,
pp. 361-383.
230
Behling, D. (1985-1986), “Fashion change and demographics: a model”, Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18-24.
Birtwistle, G. and Moore, C.M. (2006), “Fashion innovativeness in the UK: a replication study”,
ANZMAC 2016 Conference Proceedings, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Bohdanowicz, J. and Clamp, L. (1994), Fashion Marketing, Routledge, New York.
Bratt, C., Hallstedt, S., Robert, K., Broman, G. and Oldmark, J. (2011), “Assessment of ecolabelling
criteria development from a strategic sustainability perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 19 No. 14, pp. 1631-1638.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and
Berry, J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research: Cross-cultural Research Methodology
Series, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 8, pp. 137-164.
Bulut, Z.A., Çimrin, F.K. and Do gan, O. (2017), “Gender, generation and sustainable consumption:
exploring the behavior of consumers from Izmir, Turkey”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 597-604.
Carey, L. and Cervellon, M.-C. (2014), “Ethical fashion dimensions: pictorial and auditory depictions
through three cultural perspectives”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 483-506.
no, R., Felix, R., Centeno, E. and Gonzalez, E. (2012), “Green consumer behaviour in
Carrete, L., Casta~
an emerging economy: confusion, credibility, and compatibility”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 470-481.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-578.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. and Wright, J. (2004), “Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of
the potential for ethical consumption within the older market”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 401-417.
Chang, W.-L., Rahman, O., Hsu, C.W. and Chang, H.-C. (2015), “Service brand and customer attire: a
genetic algorithm approach”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 194-205.
Chu, A. and Rahman, O. (2012), “Colour, clothing, and the concept of ‘green’: colour trend analysis and
professionals’ perspectives”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 147-157.
Cleveland, M., Papadopoulos, N. and Laroche, M. (2011), “Identity, demographics, and consumer
behaviours: international market segmentation across product categories”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 244-266.
Costanza, R. and Patten, B.C. (1995), “Commentary: defining and predicting sustainability”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 193-196.
Cotton Incorporated (2007), “Understanding consumers’ expectations about laundering”, Supply Chain
Insights, Vol. 2 No. 3, available at: www.cottoninc.com (accessed 8 November 2019).
Creusen, M.E.H. (2010), “The importance of product aspects in choice: the influence of demographic
characteristics”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. and Peretiatko, R. (2006), “Green products and corporate strategy,
an empirical investigation”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 144-157.
D’Souza, C., Gilmore, A.J., Hartmann, P.V.A. and Sullivan-Mort, G. (2015), “Male eco-fashion: a Market A study of
reality”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 35-42.
consumer
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilchh, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.B. (2003), “Can socio
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
choice
empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 465-480.
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, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 290-305. 231
Euratex. Annual report 2018 (2018), The European apparel and textile confederation, available at:
https://euratex.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Euratex-annual-report-2018-LR.pdf (accessed 8
November 2019).
Fair Trade (2015), available at: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/ehat-is-fairtrade (accessed November
8, 2019).
Fernandez, P.R. (2009), “Impact of branding on Gen Y’s choice of clothing”, The Journal of the South
East Asia Research Centre for Communications and Humanities, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
Fletcher, K. (2008), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys, Earthscan, London.
Gandhi, M. and Kaushik, N. (2016), “Socially responsive consumption behaviour – an Indian
perspective”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-102.
Geiger, S.M. and Keller, J. (2018), “Shopping for clothes and sensitivity to the suffering of others: the
role of compassion and values in sustainable fashion consumption”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 1119-1144.
Government of the Republic of Poland (2019), “Ministries of environment and energy make strides in
fight for better air quality and development of RES”, The Ministry of the Environment of the
Republic of Poland, available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/environment/ministries-
ofenvironment-and-energy-make-strides-in-fight-for-better-air-quality-and-development-of-res2
(accessed 8 November 2019).
Gupta, S. and Gentry, J.W. (2016), “Construction of gender roles in perceived scarce environments –
maintaining masculinity when shopping for fast fashion apparel”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 251-260.
Heinzle, S., K€anzig, J., Nentwich, J. and Offenberger, U. (2010), “Moving beyond gender differences in
research on sustainable consumption: evidence from a discrete choice experiment”,
working paper.
Henry, P. (2002), “Systematic variation in purchase orientations across social classes”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 424-438.
Hines, J.D. and Swinker, M.E. (2001), “Knowledge: a variable in evaluating clothing quality”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 72-76.
Horn, M.J. and Gurel, L.M. (1981), The Second Skin, Houghton Miffin, Boston, MA.
Hustvedt, G. and Dickson, M.A. (2009), “Consumer likelihood of purchasing organic cotton apparel:
influence of attitudes and self-identity”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2006), “Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green
consumers: an exploratory study of consumers in India”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 107-146.
Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J.N. and Soutar, G.N. (2012), “Young Australian consumers’ preferences for
fashion apparel attributes”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 275-289.
Jung, J. and Lee, S.-H. (2006), “Cross-cultural comparisons of appearance self-schema, body image, self-
esteem, and dieting behavior between Korean and US women”, Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 350-365.
JFMM Kang, J. and Park-Poaps, H. (2010), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion
leadership”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 312-328.
24,2
Kelan, E. (2008), “Bound by stereotypes?”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-7.
Khan, N. and Trivedi, P. (2015), “Gender differences and sustainable consumption behavior”, British
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 29-35.
Khare, A. and Sadachar, A. (2017), “Green apparel buying behavior: a study on Indian youth”,
232 International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 558-569.
Kim, E.Y. and Kim, Y. (2004), “Predicting online purchase intentions for clothing products”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 883-897.
Kolter, P. (1997), Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Koszewska, M., Rahman, O., Kharb, D. and Dyczewski, B. (2018). “Comparative analysis apparel
consumer purchase criteria across countries: conclusion for circular economy”, the 8th
International Conference of Applied Research on Textile.
Koszewska, M. (2011), “Social and eco-labelling of textile and clothing goods as means of
communication and product differentiation”, Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, Vol. 19
No. 4, p. 2026.
Koszewska, M. (2012), “Role of consumers’ input into the development of innovations. Innovative
trends in the textile and clothing industry and the needs of Polish consumers”, Fibres and
Textiles in Eastern Europe, Vol. 6A No. 95, pp. 9-15.
Koszewska, M. (2016), “Understanding consumer behavior in the sustainable clothing market: model
development and verification”, in Muthu, S.S., Gardetti and Angel, M. (Ed.), Green Fashion,
Springer, Vol. 1, pp. 43-94.
Kunz, G.I. (1998), Merchandising: Theory, Principles, and Practice, Fairchild, New York, NY.
Lee, D. and Schaninger, C. (1996), “Country of production/assembly as a new country image construct:
a conceptual application to global transplant decision”, Advances in International Marketing,
Vol. 7, pp. 233-54.
Lee, E., Park, N.-K. and Han, J.H. (2013), “Gender difference in environmental attitude and behaviors in
adoption of energy-efficient lighting at home”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 No. 9,
pp. 38-50.
Lombart, C. and Louis, D. (2014), “A study of the impact of corporate social responsibility and price
image on retailer personality and consumers’ reactions (satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the
retailer)”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 630-642.
McQuillan, H. (2011), “Zero-waste design practice: strategies and risk taking for garment design”, in
Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T. (Eds), Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the Way We Make and
Use Clothes, Earthscan, London, pp. 83-100.
Merchant, B. (2009), “How many gallons of water does it take to make”, Treehugger, available at:
https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-many-gallons-of-water-does-it-take-tomake.
html (accessed 8 November 2019).
Metje, N., Sterling, M.C.J. and Baker, C.J. (2008), “Pedestrian comfort using clothing values and body
temperatures”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 96 No. 4,
pp. 412-435.
Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (1992), Ecofeminism, Palgrave, New York.
Moon, K.K.L., Lai, C.S.-Y., Lam, E.Y.-N. and Chang, J.M.T. (2015), “Popularization of sustainable
fashion: barriers and solutions”, The Journal of the Textile Institute, Vol. 106 No. 9,
pp. 939-952.
Myers, N. and Kent, J. (2003), “New consumers: the influence of affluence on the environment”,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Vol. 100 No. 8, pp. 4963-4968.
North, E., De Vos, R. and Kotze, T. (2010), “The importance of apparel product attributes for female A study of
buyers”, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 41-51.
consumer
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
choice
O’Neal, G., Hines, J. and Jackson, H. (1990), “Interpreting the meaning of consumer perceptions of
clothing quality”, Proceedings of the 1990 Annual Meeting, Monument CO: Association of
College Professors of Textiles and Clothing.
Ottman, A.J., Stafford, E.R. and Hartman, C.L. (2006), “Avoiding green marketing myopia: ways to 233
improve consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products”, Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 22-36.
Panzone, L., Hilton, D., Sale, L. and Cohen, D. (2016), “Socio-demographics, implicit attitudes, explicit
attitudes, and sustainable consumption in supermarket shopping”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 77-95.
Pookulangara, S. and Shephard, A. (2013), “Slow fashion movement: understanding consumer perceptions
– an exploratory study”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 200-206.
Pudaruth, S., Juwaheer, T.D. and Seewoo, Y.D. (2015), “Gender-based differences in understanding the
purchasing patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of
female customers”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 179198.
Rahman, O. and Gong, M. (2016), “Sustainable practices and transformable fashion design – Chinese
professional and consumer perspectives”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology
and Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 233-247.
Rahman, O. and Kharb, D. (2018), “Fashion innovativeness in India: shopping behaviour, clothing
evaluation and fashion information sources”, International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-298.
Rahman, O. and Petroff, L. (2014), “Communicating brand image through fashion designers’ homes,
flagship stores and ready-to-wear collection”, in Hancocks II, J.H., Manlow, V., Muratovski, G.
and Peirson-Smith, A. (Eds), Global Fashion Brands: Style, Luxury & History, Intellect Publisher,
pp. 179-198.
Rahman, O., Zhu, X. and Liu, W.-S. (2008), “A study of the pyjamas purchasing behaviour of Chinese
consumers in Hangzhou, China”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 217-231.
Rahman, O., Jiang, Y. and Liu, W.-S. (2010), “Evaluative criteria of denim jeans: a crossnational study
of functional and aesthetic aspects”, The Design Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 291311.
Rahman, O., Wong, K.K.-K. and Yu, H. (2016), “The effects of mall personality and fashion orientation
on shopping value and mall approach behaviour among Chinese shoppers”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 28, pp. 155-164.
Rahman, O., Fung, B.C.M., Chen, Z. and Gao, X. (2017), “A cross-national study of apparel consumers’
preferences and the role of product evaluative cues”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 796-812.
Rahman, O., Fung, B.C.M., Chen, Z., Chang, W.-L. and Gao, X. (2018), “A study of apparel consumer
behaviour in China and Taiwan”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 22-33.
Rahman, O. (2012), “The influence of visual and tactile inputs on denim jeans evaluation”,
International Journal of Design, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Rahman, O. (2015), “Denim jeans: a qualitative study of product cues, body type and appropriateness
of use”, Fashion Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-74.
Rasband, J. (2001), Art Essentials in Color, Fairchild, New York, NY.
Raszkowski, A. and Bartniczak, B. (2019), “On the road to sustainability: implementation of the 2030
agenda sustainable development goals (SDG) in Poland”, Sustainability, Vol. 11
No. 366, pp. 1-20.
JFMM Rosenau, J.A. and Wilson, D.L. (2006), Apparel Merchandising: The Line Starts Here, 2nd ed., Fairchild
Publications, New York.
24,2
Seock, Y. and Bailey, L. (2008), “The influence of college students’ shopping orientations and gender
differences on online information searches and purchase behaviours”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 113-121.
Shim, S., Kim, J. and Na, Y. (2018). “An exploratory study on up-cycling as the sustainable clothing life
at home”, Fashion and Textiles, Vol. 5 No. 14, pp. 1-15.
234
Shiva, V. (2002), Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Development, Zed books, London.
Stamper, A.A., Sharp, S.H. and Donnel, L.B. (1991), Evaluating Apparel Quality, 2nd ed., Fairchild,
New York.
Swan, J.E. and Combs, L.J. (1976), “Product performance and consumer satisfaction: a new concept”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, pp. 25-33.
Taylor, S.I. and Cosenza, R.M. (2002), “Profiling later aged female teens: mall shopping behavior and
clothing choice”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 393-409.
Trading Economics (2019), “Poland average gross wage”, Trading Economics”, available at: https://
tradingeconomics.com/poland/wages (accessed 8 November 2019).
European Union (2019), “Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry. What consumers
need to know”, European Union, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/
BRIE/2019/633143/EPRS_BRI(2019)633143_EN.pdf (accessed 8 November 2019).
WWF (2013), “The impact of a cotton t-shirt”, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), available at: https://www.
worldwildlife.org/stories/the-impact-of-a-cotton-t-shirt (accessed 8 November 2019).
Zafarmand, S.J., Sugiyama, K. and Watanabe, M. (2006), “Aesthetic and sustainability: the aesthetic
sttributes promoting product sustainability”, The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, Vol. 3
Nos 3-4, pp. 173-186.
Zawadzka-Ste˛ pniak, D. (2009), “Environmental policy in poland climate and energy policy: priorities
and challenges”, The Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Poland, available at:
https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/europe/v4þ1/pdfs/ws_gh_0910_04.pdf (accessed 8
November 2019).
Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.-P. and Aldrich, C. (2000), “Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 443-458.

Corresponding author
Osmud Rahman can be contacted at: orahman@ryerson.ca

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
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.