The price of fashion

A customer waits with purchases outside fast-fashion retailer Primark's flagship Oxford St store. Photo: Getty Images
A customer waits with purchases outside fast-fashion retailer Primark's flagship Oxford St store. Photo: Getty Images

As the pace of fashion quickens, consumers are responding in different ways, Tom McKinlay reports.

The brightly coloured on-trend top in the clothing store window has a price tag that means you can buy it today. No problem. Even though you don't really need it: as if that has any bearing.

So do you go in, or do you pause?If the top is cotton, it could be that some thousands of litres of water and all manner of pesticides have gone into its making. It's brightly coloured, so it could be that some of the chemical dyes have contributed to the poisoning of a river somewhere in Southeast Asia.

But maybe such concerns aren't on your radar. If that's the case you may fit neatly into one of the three categories of fashion consumer coined for a study at the University of Otago by Associate Prof Lisa McNeill and Rebecca More.

Their research paper, published in the International Journal of Consumer Studies, looked at consumers' attitudes to sustainability when it comes to fashion and the ‘‘fast fashion conundrum''.

As the research pair outline in their paper, fashion cycles have become increasingly fast-paced, and ‘‘some sectors of the fashion industry have adopted increasingly unsustainable production techniques to keep up with demand and increase profit margins''.

Earlier research found retailers were responding to fast-fashion followers' ‘‘insatiable demand for newness'' by offering garments designed to be worn fewer than 10 times.

Others in the industry have responded to concerns about sustainability. But even where that has happened, it may not have prompted the desired change in consumer behaviour.

As Prof McNeill points out, the industry can produce clothing more sustainably, but someone has to buy it for it to have an impact.

So, the pair set out to identify what, if anything, might prompt the fashion-focused consumer to consider a more sustainable purchasing ethos.

‘‘Is that possible, can you be a fashionable consumer and want to buy clothing that is sustainable or can you limit or change your clothing consumption to be more sustainable but still be a fashionable consumer or consider yourself fashionable?'' Prof McNeill asks.

What they found is that there are three clear groups of fashion consumers in relation to sustainability. The first group, the ‘‘self'' consumer, is ‘‘concerned with hedonistic needs'', turning over fashion very quickly, and has very little concern for where and how that clothing is produced.

At the other end of the spectrum there is a small group of consumers for whom the first consideration is where things are produced and how they are produced.

‘‘They would never make a fashion consumption decision without considering all of the implications around sustainability.''

They are the ‘‘sacrifice'' consumers.

‘‘And then you have that bulk of consumers sitting in the middle who are aware of the concept [of sustainability] and they are interested in it and they do their recycling and they are interested in perhaps purchasing sustainably produced food products and that kind of thing, but they are kind of struggling to see how that would translate into their fashion consumption.''

They are the ‘‘social'' consumers.

Understanding these groups is important because of the huge environmental footprint of the fashion industry.

Some of the figures around textile waste are quite horrifying, as people dispose of yesterday's fashion, Prof McNeill says.

‘‘Not because their clothing is worn out or useless to them but because it is no longer desirable or fashionable in their eyes.''

Beyond the horrors of the human cost of cheap sweatshop-produced fashion in countries such as Bangladesh, organisations such as Greenpeace have drawn attention to the environmental damage being done.

Its Detox campaign named and shamed brands using toxic dyes, poisoning rivers and the surrounding population.

Prof McNeill says part of what those involved in marketing do is to try to understand what prevents people changing their behaviour, in order to come up with solutions.

‘‘For example, a consumer might have the perception that a sustainably produced clothing product is going to be much more expensive than a product that is less sustainably produced.''

That is not always the case, so having identified that barrier, marketing can communicate a message to help people make more sustainable choices.

‘‘We can talk about sustainability in so many different ways. It could be about buying more second-hand items, or wearing more re-purposed items, but that does not fit with everyone's tastes. So you have to educate people to the different aspects of sustainability that are represented in fashion to really be able to enter all of those markets,'' Prof McNeill says.

‘‘We know in fashion that not everyone does make a decision based solely on price.''

A lot of people will buy something they want regardless of price, particularly at the upper end of branded fashion products.

‘‘What we would look for there are perceptions that those consumers might have that are barriers to uptake of sustainable products.''

They might be concerned that the fabric is not going to be as attractive or the designs not as sharp.

Marketing could communicate that there are options available that fit the bill.

With the ‘‘self'' group, there is probably little that marketing can achieve. They are just not interested in sustainability.

‘‘With that group of consumers, the change probably does have to come at the manufacturing end. And there are a number of modified manufacturing models that allow the production of fast fashion that is also more sustainable.''

The ‘‘social'' group holds more promise. They tend to be socially aware and with a little more information about sustainable fashion choices, are likely to jump on the clothes horse.

The ‘‘sacrifice'' consumers are already there, but for manufacturers there is work to do to gain their trust, which could mean more repeat purchases.

‘‘Some of it is going to have to be the morals of the industry. Things like that Greenpeace campaign. They were targeting these manufacturers at the mass end of the market and saying, well the best way to do it is to actually name and shame the manufacturer around these issues. Even if the consumer really wants to buy that beautiful dress ... to replace the one they bought last week, even if they want to do that they are faced with an advertising campaign that shows children in China effectively being poisoned by dye processes. They are probably going to feel something when they see that and understand the message behind it.''

 

 

Add a Comment