HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

---------***---------

BUSINESS RESEARCH
Instructor: Nguyen Thanh Luan

Topic: Factors affecting young people

at universities fast fashion purchase intention

Name: Nguyen Phuoc Nhu Y

ID Student: 20DH480512

HCMC, 12/2022
 ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
fast fashion consumption
industry, purchase
intention, perceived
consumer effectiveness
ABSTRACT
These study goals are to check for elements affecting the
purchase intention in the fashion industry of students in the
universities in Viet Nam. An online survey turned into
performed with various samples of 122 respondents was
analyzed. Data have been analyzed with the use of SEM
(Structural Equation Modeling). The consequences showed
that General attitude toward Social responsibility and
Customer personality characteristic have an effect on
customers’ purchase intention in the fast fashion industry.
This study aims to highlight the significant elements that
influence consumers' general attitudes and tendency to
purchase fast fashion items.

1. Introduction

Fast fashion is a word used to describe products that are made fast to be sent to stores and sold to
customers. It is inspired by the newest fashion trends. Customers in the fashion sector can
purchase eye-catching, brand-new, in-style items at costs that are within reach of the majority of
consumers. The production process used in fast fashion emphasizes more, quicker. As a result,
these products frequently have affordable costs that are suited for the wider public while yet
keeping up with the most recent fashion trends. A group of young consumers that consistently
have a sense of style that keeps up with the "trend" make up Fast Fashion's target market. It is
argued that the fashion industry is the second most polluting industry in the world after oil,
endangering the resources of our planet (Bailey et al., 2022). Consumers' growing concern over
how their purchase choices affect the environment (Miller & Merrilees, 2013). Although the idea
of a partial contradiction between the two still exists, sustainability has evolved in the fashion
industry - thinking about the environment when shopping for cloths tends to decrease
consumers’ pleasure and aesthetic reason to engage in it in the first place. Although consumers
are becoming more concerned, they frequently hesitate to act right away on their concerns for a
variety of reasons (D’Astous & Legendre, 2009). Fast fashion firms' sustainability initiatives are
frequently questioned and seen as dishonest because of how they are thought to be inherently
unsustainable (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). Additionally, customers frequently don't think they can
individually influence environmental issues. While some well-known fashion brands, like
Forever 21, Shein, Zara, H&M, Shein, Topshop, etc., have established their own sustainable
clothing lines with considerable success, does this really matter to customers? I will assess the
success of the fast fashion industry's sustainable clothing lines in terms of customer attitudes in
this work, as well as whether or not consumers believe businesses when they say they are
working to protect the environment. I'll also look at:

 How people feel they can personally affect environmental issues

 Whether the previous relationship is impacted by how people view sustainability
initiatives.
 Additionally, how this affects their decision to buy fast fashion firms' sustainable goods
2. Review of literature
2.1 Overview the sectors

Fast fashion is a word used to describe products that are created fast to be delivered to stores and
sold to customers. It is influenced by the newest fashion trends. The target market for Fast
Fashion consists of young people who always have a sense of style and follow "trends" like New
Look, H&M, Topshop, Zara, GAP, Esprit, Fashion Nova, Primark, and UNIQLO are significant
brands in the fast fashion industry. Fast fashion also has been criticized for creating a "throw-
away" mentality even while it benefits customers. Because of this, it is also referred to as
disposable fashion. The target market for the fast fashion industry, young adults in their teens
and early twenties, admits that they rarely wear the clothes they buy. Fast fashion's detractors
claim that because of the low-cost materials and production techniques it employs, it adds to
waste and pollution. Poor-quality clothing ages quickly yet cannot be recycled because it is
mostly (more than 60%) comprised of synthetic materials. They will end up in landfills after
being abandoned. As a result, it is said that the fashion business is the second most polluted in
the world after the oil industry, jeopardizing the resources of our planet.

According to (Chien et al., 2018), impulsiveness, which directly influences purchase intentions,
is the root cause of impulse buying. As a result, the perceived quality of products is not a factor
in this phenomenon. Additionally, customers are more likely to intend to buy products from a
brand when they believe its social responsibility to be genuine (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014).
Customers' purchasing intentions for the brands' sustainable apparel products will also be
influenced by their general perception of fast fashion companies.

2.2 Theory

Theory of Perceived quality

The degree to which a product meets its functions, given the needs of the consumer, is the typical
definition of perceived quality (KOTLER, 1984). Consumer needs are taken into consideration
while making quality judgments. According to the principle of trait activation, personality traits
manifest as responses to situational signals that are relevant to those traits. Features of quick
fashion products have an impact on young buyers' needs for fashion involvement and impulse
purchases. Consumers are more concerned with their style and appearance as well as the pursuit
of stylish items, especially apparel, as seen by the association between perceived quality by
haptic perception such as some fast fashion brands like H&M, and Zara. (Louise Lundblad,
2016). According to the theories of "perceived quality," there are two studies that support these
claims: “Perceived quality of food products and its relationship to consumer preferences: theory
and measurement” (STEENKAMP, 1986); and “Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral
intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants” (Jang &
Namkung, 2009). Customers are more likely to care about the quality of fast fashion products
and spend more time analyzing product quality, therefore perceived quality makes sense.

Corporate social responsibility theory

CSR means that companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. The economic,
environmental, stakeholder, social, and voluntariness elements make up the CSR construct
(Dahlsrud, 2008). As a result, CSR is increasingly being recognized as a crucial component of
global brand strategy through SCG in the fast fashion sector. Furthermore, although altruistic
CSR may hinder company performance growth, strategic CSR encourages it. CSR of companies
or brands (D’Astous & Legendre, 2009; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014), or socially responsible
consumer behavior (Valor, 2007; Wesley et al., 2012), addresses both environmental and social
challenges.
It is essential to a company's overall strategy and refers to this company's point of view. It has to
do with seeking out advantages for both the company and society (Keys & van der Graaf, 2009).
Some well-known fast fashion brands have started to understand that the way their benefits and
reputation are impacted by the CSR performance of their partners, such as suppliers and
manufacturers. The studies: “Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of
Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility” (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014);
and “The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Motivational Attitude on Socially
Responsible Purchasing Behavior in South Korea” (Wesley et al., 2012) are in line with the
claims of "Corporate social responsibility theory". Numerous studies indicate that customers are
eager to support socially conscious businesses (Barone et al., 2000). The relationship between
companies and consumers is based on how well companies behave in terms of their corporate
social responsibility (CSR) efforts. CSR activities have a positive impact on the satisfaction of
customers (Kitchin, 2003). This shows that the influence of customer opinions on a company's
social responsibility should not be disregarded and that it is further tied to general consumer
perceptions of a company (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014).

3. Hypotheses development and Conceptual framework

3.1 Trust (TT) and General Attitude (AT)

Trust is defined as confidence in the reliability and integrity of an exchange partner, which is
connected to consistency, honesty, fairness, accountability, helpfulness, and compassion
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Trust in a brand further means consumers believe the brand’s actions to
be motivated by positive intentions toward their welfare (Munuera-Aleman et al., 2003). Brand
authenticity and brand trust have a positive relationship (Schallehn et al., 2014). Additionally,
trust is a key indicator of successful marketing outcomes including loyalty, customer retention,
and buy intention. Businesses need to build trust with their customers in order to have a positive
impact on their relationships. Trust has a big impact on how customers view a company's CSR
work (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). Consumers now have both the sustainable and traditional
options when it comes to sustainable fashion. They must determine whether the claim of a
sustainable product is accurate, though. Consumers still frequently believe that a label indicating
a product's environmental sustainability is "simply another green label" used by the brand to
command a higher price or a publicity stunt, commonly known as "perceptions of greenwashing"
(Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Ritch, 2015). This viewpoint emphasizes the value of trust even more.
In compliance with (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014), I expect to be applicable to the case of logic will
apply to the fast fashion consumption industry as well and think that consumers' opinions of
these businesses' social responsibility will have a big impact on both their general attitudes and
their trust in these brands, which leads to the following hypotheses:

H1. Social responsibility perceptions of the fast fashion industry's efforts have a positive impact
on customers' attitudes in general.

H2. Social responsibility perceptions of the fast fashion industry's efforts have a positive impact
on customer trust.

3.2 Perceptions of social responsibility and perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)

Social responsibility likely has a positive impact on consumers' general attitudes of fast fashion
brands. It is suggested that perceived consumer efficacy has a favorable impact on purchase
intention. Although it is encouraged to measure perceived consumer efficacy separately from
consumer attitude, the two are nevertheless tightly associated. This led us to further investigate if
social responsibility could be linked to perceived consumer effectiveness since when customers
positively perceive a brand's sustainability efforts, this will increase their sense of empowerment
(Neumann et al., 2021). In light of this, I propose this hypothesis:

H3. Perceived consumer effectiveness is positively influenced by consumers' perceptions of fast

fashion brands' social responsibility.

3.3 Customer personality characteristic (CPC)

According to the principle of trait activation, personality traits are exhibited as responses to
situational signals that are relevant to the trait (Flight et al., 2012). Previous studies investigated
how customer personality traits affected how much fashion consumers bought (Saran et al.,
2016; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017). In general, freshly released brands and fashion trends that
consumers want to acquire are the catalysts for fashion-oriented impulsive buying (Park et al.,
2012; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017) or it is driven by low prices, which leads consumers to make
an intuitive decision (Majumdar, 2010). The majority of fast fashion buyers, according to (Joy et
al., 2012), are under the age of 28. Young customers' requirements for fashion engagement and
impulse buying behavior are influenced by fast fashion product qualities (Muzinich et al., 2003;
Park et al., 2012; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017). There is, however, a research gap regarding
potential mediators, such as perceived quality and sensory domination on decision-making,
which are of special importance in this study because of the interaction between general attitude
and the fast fashion consumption sector. Additionally, the impact of fashion involvement on
purchasing intentions is moderated by general attitude. To explain these relationships, I put forth
the following theory:

H4. The impact of fashion involvement on purchase intentions is mediated by general attitude

3.4 Purchase intention

The intention of a person to behave in a particular way can be described by their attitudes toward
behavior, their perceptions of social pressure, and their judgments of how difficult the behavior
is (Kang et al., 2013). I will study purchase intention as one manifestation of behavioral intention
in our empirical environment, the Fast fashion sector. Customers are more likely to intend to buy
products from a firm when they believe its social responsibility to be trustworthy (Kang &
Hustvedt, 2014). Additionally, according to the current authors, personality traits like
impulsiveness (Chien et al., 2018), which is brought on by intuitive sensibility and takes the
ELM's peripheral pathway, are the root causes of impulsive buying (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
So, I postulate that consumers' general attitudes regarding the fast fashion consumption industry
will also influence their propensity to buy sustainable apparel from those brands:

H5. Consumers' general attitudes toward the fast fashion business positively impact their
purchase intention.

As previously hypothesized, social responsibility affects consumers' general attitudes as well as

their trust in businesses to uphold their social responsibility commitments, which in our case take
the form of sustainable clothing lines. Consumer general attitudes are positively correlated with
purchase intention. According to logic, trust should be related to the purchase intention:

H6. Consumers' purchase intentions are positively influenced by their trust in the fast fashion
consumption industry products.
3.5 Environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness

The ability of a consumer to influence environmental resource issues is measured by their

perception of their own effectiveness as consumers. It has often been shown that perceived
consumer effectiveness affects consumers' purchase intention and consumer behavior (Antonetti
& Maklan, 2014; Kang et al., 2013). It is a significant predictor of environmentally conscious
purchasing behavior in a variety of industries (Lee et al., 2014; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008),
including the fashion sector (Kang et al., 2013). It's also important to distinguish between
perceived consumer effectiveness and the idea of self-efficacy, which is the conviction that one
can plan and carry out the actions necessary to achieve specified goals (Antonetti & Maklan,
2014). Additionally, perceived consumer effectiveness outperforms environmental concern,
which is defined as a person's general disposition towards the environment, as a predictor of
environmentally conscious consumer behavior (Kim & Choi, 2005). I believe that perceived
consumer effectiveness and environmental concern go hand in hand because perceived consumer
effectiveness is a belief in and of itself, and environmental concern is related to beliefs as well
(Antonetti & Maklan, 2014). However, for the reasons mentioned, I will place a stronger
emphasis on perceived customer effectiveness. According to (Kang et al., 2013), I contend that
customers are more inclined to buy sustainable clothing and help address environmental
problems if they believe their individual purchases matter. As a result, I surmise that:

H7. Perceived consumer effectiveness will positively affect customers' intentions to purchase
products from the fast fashion consumption industry products.

Figure 1. Illustration of the research model

4. Research methodology

All items, besides a few demographics, had been measured primarily based totally on a seven-
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree). Data had been accumulated through
the usage of a web survey, allotted thru social media. The survey changed into directed at
younger purchasers between the age of 18 and 35 and especially centered on students at
universities in Viet Nam. A minimum sample size was changed into decided the usage of the "10
times rule" supplied via way of means of (F. Hair Jr et al., 2014). To behavior, the partial least
squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis, at least 122 answers were determined
to be necessary. In addition, the minimal sample size changed to calculate the usage of G*Power
model four with the subsequent parameters: statistical power of 0.8, a margin of error of 0.05, an
effect size of 0.15, and 6 predictors. A sample size of ninety-two is recommended via way of
means of the findings. I acknowledged that they are probably perceived in a different way among
purchasers. The use of purposive sampling changed into warranted because of the need for the
screening method to be carried out on the sample so that it will assure that simplest the human
beings had been covered withinside the studies who had been acquainted sufficiently with the
subject handy offer beneficial information. In general, the statistics received are extra accurate
when purposeful sampling is used. Only those who consented to participate had been given
questionnaires, which had been accumulated in any case components have been filled out. A
questionnaire surveying the population changed was used to collect the statistics, and it changed
the design with preceding studies in mind.

Table 1. Measurement items

Construct Measurement items Source

Perceptions of SR1: The fast fashion industry is committed to using (Kang &
social a portion of its profits to help nonprofits Hustvedt, 2014)
responsibility SR2: The fast fashion industry gives back to the
communities in which they do business
SR3: Local institutions benefit from the fast fashion
industry's contributions
(Continued)
Table 1. (Cont)
Construct Measurement items Source
Customer CPC1: Fashion-oriented impulse buying is (S. F. Liu et al.,
personality stimulated by new fashion styles and brands that 2021)
characteristic consumers want to acquire
CPC2: Triggered by low prices, making a purchase
an intuitive decision for consumers
CPC3: Buying impulsiveness directly influences a
consumer’s purchase intentions
Trust TT1: The fast fashion industry product claims are (Kang &
believable Hustvedt, 2014)
TT2: Over time, my experiences with the fast
fashion industry have led me to expect it to keep its
promises
TT3: The fast fashion industry has names you can
trust
General attitude AT1: I think the fast fashion consumption industry (Kang &
has very good brands (companies) Hustvedt, 2014)
AT2: The fast fashion consumption industry is very
useful
AT3: My opinion of fast fashion consumption is
very favorable
Perceived PCE1: Through my personal choices, I can (Kang &
consumer contribute to the solution of environmental issues Hustvedt, 2014)
effectiveness PCE2: My personal actions are significant enough in
affecting environmental problems
PCE3: Environmental issues are affected by my
individual choices
PCE4: Ecological degradation is partly a
consequence of my own consumption choices
(Continued)
 Table 1. (Cont)
Construct Measurement items Source
Purchase intention PI1: I will most likely buy products from brands in (Öberseder et al.,
the fast-fashion industry like H&M, UNIQLO, 2014)
Zara...
PI2: I will probably buy products from FMCG
brands like Zara, H&M, UNIQLO,... next time I
need clothes
PI3: I will definitely try other products from FMCG
brands like Zara, H&M, UNIQLO, etc.

I used SmartPLS four to conduct our analysis. First, I examined the constructs and items via
confirmatory component analyses to assess whether or not the reliability and validity of all
version measurements may be ensured. Subsequently, I evolved a structural version and
examined it to decide the family members amongst constructs of interest for speculation checks
thru partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

5. Data analysis
5.1 Respondents’profile

Table 1 shows a summary of the demographic profiles of the respondents in this study. The
majority of respondents to this study are female (75.41%) of the total respondents, while the
remaining (24.59%) are male. The respondents of this study are currently students at universities
in Ho Chi Minh City, of which the majority (72.13%) of them are 3rd year students, (6.56%) are
freshman, (7.38%) are 2nd year students, the rest (13.93%) are 4th year students. Of which,
(84.43%) are from the age group of 18 - 21, (12.3%) for the age group of 22 - 25 , age group 26 -
30 is (3.28%). The percentage of people with monthly income of less than 1 million VND in the
study was (22.95%), from 1 to 3 million VND (15.57%), from 3 to 5 million VND (39.34%), and
(22.3%) is the percentage of people earning over 5 million VND per month. Most of the
interviewees (49.18%) of this study make purchases less than 3 times per month, (2.46%)
purchases with a frequency of 3 - 5 times, (38.52%) are from 6 to 8 times, the rest (9.84%) make
shopping more than 8 times a month. When asked, "Do you believe in the social responsibility
activities of brands in the fast fashion industry?", (90.98%) of them chose "Yes", the rest only
(9.02%) answered "No". The majority of respondents (25.41%) of this study indicated that they
have shopped at fashion brand Zara, (18.03%) for FMStyle, (23.77%) for H&M, (21.31%) for
ULIQLO, (3.28%) for MANGO, the rest (8.2%) for fashion brand VMStyle. With the rapid
sample change characteristics of this industry. With (33.61%) the percentage of respondents
using a fashion product in the period from 3 to 6 months, (1.64%) use it only once, (9.84%) is
less than a month, from 6 months to 1 year has a rate of (32.79%), and (22.13%) is used over 1
year.

Table 2. Demographic profiles of respondents

Category Frequences Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 30 24.59

Female 92 75.41

Age

18 - 21 103 84.43

22 - 25 15 12.30

26 - 30 4 3.28

Classify

First year student 8 6.56

Second-year student 9 7.38

Third-year student 88 72.13

Final-year student 17 13.93

Monthly income

< 1 milion VNĐ 28 22.95

1 to 3 milion VNĐ 19 15.57

3 to 5 milion VNĐ 48 39.34

(Continued)
Table 2. (Cont)

Category Frequences Percentage (%)

> 5 milion VNĐ 27 22.13

Requency of fast fashion shopping per month

< 3 times 60 49.18

3 – 5 times 3 2.46

6 – 8 times 47 38.52

> 8 times 12 9.84

Consumers believe in the social responsibility

activities

Yes 111 90.98

No 11 9.02

Brand

FMStyle 22 18.03

H&M 29 23.77

MANGO 4 3.28

ULIQLO 26 21.31

VMStyle 10 8.20

Zara 31 25.41

Product usage time

Only 1 time 2 1.64

(Continued)
 Table 2. (Cont)

Category Frequences Percentage (%)

< 1 month 12 9.84

1- 6 months 41 33.61

6 months - 1 year 40 32.79

> 1 year 27 22.13

5.2 Assessing the outer measurement model

Both reliability and validity must be achieved in order to access the measurement model for a
reflective model. While validity is examined by assessing a construct's convergent validity and
discriminant validity, reliability could be evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and composite
reliability (CR). While validity is inspected by evaluating a constructs' convergent validity and
discriminant validity (F. Hair Jr et al., 2014). A construct's convergent validity denotes “the
extent to which two or more attempts to measure the construct are consistent with one another”
(X. Liu & Wei, 2003), and could be confirmed, “by examining both the average variance
extracted (AVE) and indicator loadings” (Zhang et al., 2014). On the other hand, the
discriminant validity represents “the extent to which the construct is empirically distinct from
other constructs or, in other words, the construct measures what it is intended to measure” (F.
Hair Jr et al., 2014), and it is established when “the square root of the AVE for each construct is
greater than the correlations between that construct and all other constructs” (Chen & Shen,
2015). Besides, discriminant validity could also be established, if “the loadings of each indicator
on its construct are higher than the cross-loadings on other constructs” (F. Hair Jr et al., 2014).
Cronbach's alpha values should be greater than 0.70, CR values should have at least 0.60, AVE
values should have more than 0.50, and indicator loading should achieve 0.70 and above
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As shown in Table 1, the values for CR and Cronbach's alpha have
beyond the thresholds, establishing the validity of all constructs. Additionally, convergent
validity is attained because the indicator loadings and AVE all appear to be excellent. Regarding
discriminant validity, Table 2 demonstrates that the indicators are heavily loaded on their
respective constructs, demonstrating discriminant validity once more.

5.3 Structural model assessment

Table 3. Indicator loadings, AVE, CR and Cronbach's alpha of constructs

Construct Items Loadings AVE Rho_A CR Cronbach

General attitude
AT AT1 0.867 0.761 0.844 0.905 0.842
AT2 0.906
AT3 0.842
Customer personality characteristic
CPC CPC1 0.842 0.702 0.801 0.876 0.786
CPC2 0.898
CPC3 0.769
Perceived consumer effectiveness
PCE PCE1 0.750 0.702 0.859 0.904 0.856
PCE2 0.845
PCE3 0.929
PCE4 0.818
Purchase Intention
PI PI1 0.876 0.770 0.853 0.910 0.850
PI2 0.910
PI3 0.846
Social responsibility
SR SR1 0.798 0.683 0.765 0.866 0.766
SR2 0.789
SR3 0.889
Trust
TT TT1 0.852 0.668 0.787 0.857 0.753
TT2 0.870
 TT3 0.722

Table 4. Indicator loadings and cross-loadings

AT CPC PCE PI SR TT
AT1 0.867 0.641 0.630 0.735 0.497 0.697
AT2 0.906 0.581 0.793 0.783 0.615 0.776
AT3 0.842 0.577 0.671 0.703 0.562 0.738
CPC1 0.581 0.842 0.422 0.535 0.311 0.510
CPC2 0.635 0.898 0.612 0.510 0.518 0.701
CPC3 0.504 0.769 0.537 0.465 0.554 0.442
PCE1 0.648 0.507 0.750 0.523 0.591 0.691
PCE2 0.739 0.519 0.845 0.596 0.521 0.654
PCE3 0.700 0.526 0.929 0.563 0.631 0.779
PCE4 0.593 0.542 0.818 0.540 0.509 0.679
PI1 0.747 0.575 0.524 0.876 0.433 0.591
PI2 0.777 0.511 0.674 0.910 0.529 0.666
PI3 0.711 0.495 0.545 0.846 0.476 0.628
SR1 0.548 0.454 0.523 0.431 0.798 0.503
SR2 0.530 0.500 0.619 0.489 0.789 0.575
SR3 0.503 0.387 0.518 0.427 0.889 0.503
TT1 0.636 0.496 0.753 0.560 0.577 0.852
TT2 0.767 0.586 0.750 0.702 0.592 0.870
TT3 0.675 0.568 0.522 0.463 0.374 0.722

5.4 Investigating the structural model

The results of the structural model investigation are listed in Table 4 and illustrated Fig 1. All
hypotheses are supported except H5 and H7, which are pertaining to factors affecting students at
the university’s fast fashion purchase intention. The relevant explanations for these outcomes are
further elaborated in a later discussion section. With a p-value of 0.05 or lower set as the
significance level. The results showed that SR has a direct positive effect on TT (β = 0.642, p <
0.05), and substantial influence on AT (β = 0.378, p < 0.05), as well as PCE (β = 0.675, p <
0.05). Besides, CPC is significantly associated with AT (β = 0.481, p < 0.05), and AT has a
significant association with PI (β = 0.876, p < 0.05). Conversely, the relationship between TT
and PI (β = 0.029, p > 0.05), and the relationship between PCE and PI (β = -0.063, p > 0.05)
were unsuccessful in influencing the purchase intention in fast fashion industry consumption.
CPC has a stronger effect on AT than SR; while AT acts as an intermediary leading to the PI. So,
PCE makes the strongest impact to purchase intention to fast fashion industry consumption.

Table 5. Results of hypotheses testing

Standard
Structural Original Sample mean T statistics (| P
Hypotheses deviation Supported
Path sample (O) (M) O/STDEV|) values
(STDEV)
H1 SR -> TT 0.642 0.648 0.055 11.692 0.000 Yes
H2 SR -> AT 0.378 0.380 0.082 4.587 0.000 Yes
H3 SR -> PCE 0.675 0.680 0.056 11.946 0.000 Yes
H4 CPC -> AT 0.481 0.484 0.082 5.888 0.000 Yes
H5 TT -> PI 0.029 0.031 0.121 0.239 0.811 No
H6 AT -> PI 0.876 0.874 0.101 8.689 0.000 Yes
H7 PCE -> PI -0.063 -0.062 0.123 0.513 0.608 No
 Figure 2. Results of hypotheses testing
6. Discussion and Conclusion
6.1 Discussion

This observation aimed to recognize the function of perceptions, customer attitude, and trust
withinside the social responsibility of brands. In addition, the customer personality characteristic
impacts the general attitude that ends in the decision to shop for fast fashion products, it'll make
an essential contribution to the sector of environmental sustainability withinside the fashion
industry. The consequences of this observation underline that positive perceptions concerning
brands’ social responsibility efforts, additionally consumer personality characteristic directly
have an effect on what purchasers generally think about those brands with regard to
environmental issues. Although preceding literature has proven purchasers’ trust is an effective
mechanism to have an effect on purchase intention in the direction of the brands’ sustainable
clothing lines (H5), I did not discover assistance for this connection. One explanation could be
the following: despite the fact that respondents may want to imply they trust withinside the
brands, most of them are not acquainted with or too interested in their social responsibility
campaigns. Thus, in those cases, it would have been hard to then translate trust directly into
purchase intention. Similarly, perceived customer effectiveness may be positively associated
with purchase intention in advance analyses (H7). However, in our setting, this impact changed
into now no longer significant. Most of my respondents had by no means bought any clothing
from brands’ sustainable clothing lines before.
6.2 Implications

I assumed the presence of pro-environmenta and environmental situations l beliefs as antecedents

for attitude and perceived consumer effectiveness. However, current studies determined that
consumers buy sustainable items additionally for the motives of reinforcing themselves, to sign a
strong point, and because of an experience of empowerment thru keeping off status or
industrially produced items (Bly et al., 2015; Calvo Dopico & Calvo Porral, 2012; Ferraro et al.,
2016; Vogel & Watchravesringkan, 2017). As those elements are already acknowledged to be
effective players in fashion consumption, they need to be integrated while investigating
sustainable consumer behavior withinside the fashion context as well.

6.3 Limitations

In this study, I provided the constructs of perceptions on customers personality characteristic,

social responsibility, perceived consumer effectiveness, trust, general attitude, and purchase
intention that have been always mentioned to occupy a crucial function in sustainable consumer
behavior. These constructs have been eventually included inside one model, and data have been
gathered to research the underlying relations inside that model.

6.4 Conclusion

In this research, I presented the specific constructs of perceptions on social responsibility,

customers personality characteristic, general attitude, trust, purchase intention, and perceived
consumer effectiveness, which have been consistently reported to occupy an important role in
sustainable consumer behavior. These constructs were subsequently integrated within one model,
and data were collected to analyze the underlying relations within that model.

6.5 Directions for future research

In addition, to increase trust amongst customers, managers, marketers, and consumers ought to
communicate environmental sustainability greater openly. However, those practitioners need to
realize that environmental sustainability may be stylish, and fast fashion brands may be
sustainable. Advertising managers need to consider messages that spotlight the capacity of
individual consumers' contribution to fixing environmental problems to increase trust
effectiveness and perceived purchaser.
References

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2014). Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride
Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices. Journal of
Business Ethics, 124(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bailey, K., Basu, A., & Sharma, S. (2022). The Environmental Impacts of Fast Fashion on Water
Quality: A Systematic Review. Water (Switzerland), 14(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071073

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The Influence of Cause-Related
Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282006

Bly, S., Gwozdz, W., & Reisch, L. A. (2015). Exit from the high street: an exploratory study of
sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
39(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12159

Calvo Dopico, D., & Calvo Porral, C. (2012). Sources of equity in fashion markets. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 391–403.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211264883

Chen, J., & Shen, X.-L. (2015). Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: An empirical
investigation. Decision Support Systems, 79, 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.07.012

Chien, S.-H., Wu, J.-J., & Huang, C.-Y. (2018). “We made, we trust”: Coproduction and image
congruence in the food-tourism factories. Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(4), 310–
317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.01.002

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132
D’Astous, A., & Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding Consumers’ Ethical Justifications: A Scale
for Appraising Consumers’ Reasons for Not Behaving Ethically. Journal of Business
Ethics, 87(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9883-0

F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

Ferraro, C., Sands, S., & Brace-Govan, J. (2016). The role of fashionability in second-hand
shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, 262–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.07.006

Flight, R. L., Rountree, M. M., & Beatty, S. E. (2012). Feeling The Urge: Affect in Impulsive
and Compulsive Buying. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(4), 453–466.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200407

Jang, S. (Shawn), & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral
intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants. Journal of
Business Research, 62(4), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.038

Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability,
and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory - Journal of Dress Body and
Culture, 16(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174112X13340749707123

Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The
Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 125(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1916-7

Kang, J., Liu, C., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel
consumption: the role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and
perceived personal relevance. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), 442–452.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12013

Keys, T. M. T. W., & van der Graaf, K. (2009). Making the most of corporate social
responsibility. Www.Mckinsey.Com/Global-Themes/Leadership/Making-the-Most-of
Corporate-Social-Responsibility .
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of
Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE.

Kitchin, T. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A brand explanation. Journal of Brand

Management, 10(4), 312–326. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540127

KOTLER, Ph. (1984). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. KOTLER, Ph.

Lee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, M., & Choi, J. (2014). Antecedents and interrelationships of three types
of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2097–2105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.018

Liu, S. F., Lee, H. C., & Lien, N. H. (2021). Do fast fashion consumers prefer foreign brands?
The moderating roles of sensory perception and consumer personality on purchase
intentions. Asia Pacific Management Review, 26(2), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.001

Liu, X., & Wei, K. K. (2003). An empirical study of product differences in consumers’ E-
commerce adoption behavior. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(3), 229–
239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-4223(03)00027-9

Louise Lundblad, I. A. D. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion
consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 149–162.

Majumdar, Ramanuj. (2010). Consumer behaviour  : insights from Indian market. PHI Learning.

Miller, D., & Merrilees, B. (2013). Linking retailer corporate brand and environmental
sustainability practices. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(7), 437–443.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0379

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308

Munuera-Aleman, J. L., Delgado-Ballester, E., & Yague-Guillen, M. J. (2003). Development and

Validation of a Brand Trust Scale. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530304500103
Muzinich, N., Pecotich, A., & Putrevu, S. (2003). A model of the antecedents and consequents of
female fashion innovativeness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(5), 297–
310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00060-7

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’
Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation. Journal
of Business Ethics, 124(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1787-y

Park, E. J., Kim, E. Y., Funches, V. M., & Foxx, W. (2012). Apparel product attributes, web
browsing, and e-impulse buying on shopping websites. Journal of Business Research,
65(11), 1583–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.043

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL OF

PERSUASION.

Ritch, E. L. (2015). Consumers interpreting sustainability: moving beyond food to fashion.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(12), 1162–1181.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0042

Saran, R., Roy, S., & Sethuraman, R. (2016). Personality and fashion consumption: a conceptual
framework in the Indian context. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(2),
157–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2015-0032

Schallehn, M., Burmann, C., & Riley, N. (2014). Brand authenticity: model development and
empirical testing. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(3), 192–199.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0339

STEENKAMP, J.-B. E. M. (1986). PERCEIVED QUALITY OF FOOD PRODUCTS AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP TO CONSUMER PREFERENCES: THEORY AND MEASUREMENT.
Journal of Food Quality, 9(6), 373–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
4557.1986.tb00807.x

Valaei, N., & Nikhashemi, S. R. (2017). Generation Y consumers’ buying behaviour in fashion
apparel industry: a moderation analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal, 21(4), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-01-2017-0002
Valor, C. (2007). The influence of information about labour abuses on consumer choice of
clothes: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7–8), 675–695.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X229993

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in
Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological
Economics, 64(3), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007

Vogel, A. T., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2017). Consumer evaluations of trend imitation: brand
equity, consumer attitudes and preference. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(5),
516–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1257

Wesley, S. C., Lee, M.-Y., & Kim, E. Y. (2012). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
and Motivational Attitude on Socially Responsible Purchasing Behavior in South Korea.
Journal of Global Marketing, 25(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2012.697383

Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., & Zhao, L. (2014). What motivates customers to participate in
social commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer
experiences. Information & Management, 51(8), 1017–1030.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.07.005