Journal of Global Fashion Marketing

Bridging Fashion and Marketing

ISSN: 2093-2685 (Print) 2325-4483 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgfm20

Corporate social responsibility as an emerging

business model in fashion marketing

C. Anthony Di Benedetto

To cite this article: C. Anthony Di Benedetto (2017): Corporate social responsibility as an

emerging business model in fashion marketing, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/20932685.2017.1329023

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2017.1329023

Published online: 02 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgfm20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 05 June 2017, At: 11:23
JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2017.1329023

Corporate social responsibility as an emerging business

model in fashion marketing
C. Anthony Di Benedetto
Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important part of many Received 20 February 2017
firms’ customer relationship management programs and can be a Revised 15 April 2017
source of competitive advantage. Many firms have reaped competitive Accepted 19 April 2017
advantage by making CSR a central part of their corporate mission, KEYWORDS
rather than an afterthought, since this ensures sustained commitment Corporate social
to CSR. Sustainability can be an important CSR target for firms in the responsibility; fashion
fashion industry, though the adoption of sustainability initiatives has marketing; fashion
been slower than in other industries such as food production. This merchandising; customer
article explores the reasons why fashion manufacturers and retailers relationship management;
have been reluctant to take action to increase the production of sustainability
sustainable fashion products, and why consumers have generally 关键词
been reluctant to purchase sustainable fashion products. We present 企业社会责任（CSR）;
an agenda for the future, which details several concrete steps for 时尚营销; 时尚商品推销;
fashion manufacturers and retailers to overcome the barriers to 消费者关系管理; 可持续
customer adoption. The central idea is for firms in the fashion industry 发展
to recognize the long-term benefits of adopting a business model
which includes CSR, and specifically sustainability, as an integral part
of the corporate mission. We conclude with managerial implications.

企业社会责任作为时尚营销的新兴商业模式
企业社会责任（CSR）是许多企业在客户关系管理系统里的重要
组成部分，还可以成为一种竞争优势。许多企业通过将企业社会
责任作为公司使命的核心部分，取得了竞争优势，而不是事后考
虑，因为这确保了企业社会责任的持续承诺。 尽管可持续发展
举措在时尚产业的采用比其他行业如食品生产要慢，但可持续发
展仍然成为时尚产业的重要CSR目标 。
时尚产业似乎为管理者提供了一个重要的机会，不仅为环境
负责，并能够提高他们在环境方面的表现。时尚产业由于对土地
和水的使用，染料和制造废物进入环境的破坏性以及垃圾填埋后
的消费后废物而被定为“肮脏”行业。此外，令人惊讶的是，在杂
货店经常选择有机食品的同一客户可能很少或没有注意到购买衣
服时的环境后果.
如果时尚生产者和制造商对环境表现出更高的关注度，可能
大众会对环境问题有更好的认识，可持续时尚产品的也会有更多
选择，以及时尚产品可持续发展概况的信息也会更丰富。然而，
为了引起任何重大的变化，时尚界的竞争对手将需要重新考虑他
们的商业模式，并将可持续发展积极地纳入其企业使命。这里还

CORRESPONDENCE TO C. Anthony Di Benedetto tonyd@temple.edu

© 2017 Korean Scholars of Marketing Science
2  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

存在供需问题：即使时尚制造商生产和销售更广泛的可持续时尚
产品，也不能保证客户对它们有很大的需求，特别是如果将其定
位为”可持续性”使他们不那么时尚。
本文将企业社会责任作为一种新兴的商业模式，将可持续性构
建到产品中，一般化并且具体在时尚营销行业的背景下。 CSR被认
为是公司客户关系管理系统的重要组成部分。 有些公司只是口头
上敷衍，而另一些公司则欣然接受， 而对企业社会责任的态度差
异可能会导致成功与不成功的实施差异 。可持续性被讨论为时尚
产业的竞争优势的来源，本研究介绍了许多说明成功开发或销售
可持续发展产品的公司的例子。我们注意到，可持续时尚的许多
主要例子都来自于小型， 刚起步的创业公司，而大型跨国公司
却落后于此（尽管如巴塔哥尼亚 (Patagonia）等大型企业所展开
的努力已经有所探讨）。接下来，对企业不愿意通过采取行动来
增加对可持续时尚产品需求的原因，以及客户不愿意购买这些可
持续产品的一些原因进行了考察。该文章总结了未来的议程，为
时尚制造商和销售商提供了几个具体步骤，以克服客户采用的障
碍，并提高时尚产业的企业社会责任感。

1. Introduction
The first book dedicated to environmentalism, Silent Spring by Rachel Carlson, appeared
in 1962, and targeted, among other things, the use of pesticides and insecticides which
were entering the soil and water supply with potential health consequences. The first Earth
Day was held in 1970; the US-based Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed
shortly thereafter. Consumer groups began to emerge in big numbers in the 1990s and
more countries developed legislation designed to safeguard both economic growth and
protection of the environment. From these beginnings, consumer demand for sustainable,
organic, and environmentally friendly products has grown rapidly to the present day. For
example, in the food industry, interest in pesticide-free, organic food products started
small as small health food stores began to spring up in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as
the collective consciousness became more aware of environmental issues. What started as a
grass-roots movement toward organic products developed into a full-fledged industry, with
the emergence of major grocery chains such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s dedicated to
organic produce, sustainable fishing practices, no genetically modified meats, and many
other initiatives.
It is perhaps surprising to find that the fashion industry has lagged behind food and
other industries in developing and promoting sustainable, fashionable items of clothing.
The fashion industry is considered a “dirty” industry due to destructive use of land and
water, dyes and manufacturing waste entering the environment, and post-consumer waste
ending up in landfills (Dietz, 2016). Therefore, it seems as if fashion industry leaders should
be interested in taking responsibility for the environment and improving their performance
with respect to the environment. Furthermore, the same customer who routinely chooses
organic over conventional produce at the grocery store may pay little attention to the envi-
ronmental consequences when buying an item of clothing. More environmental concern
on the part of fashion producers and manufacturers would result in higher awareness of
environmental issues, greater choice in sustainable fashion products, and more information
on the sustainability profile of fashion products. But to achieve the required level of change,
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  3

major competitors in the fashion industry will need to rethink their business models and
actively incorporate sustainability into their corporate missions (Porter & Kramer, 2002).
The objective of this article is to discuss corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an
emerging business model to build sustainability into products, in general and then specif-
ically within the context of the fashion marketing industry. CSR is generally viewed as an
important part of a firm’s customer relationship management (CRM) program; some firms
only pay lip service to it while others embrace it, and this attitude toward CSR is likely to
make the difference between successful and unsuccessful implementation. We then dis-
cuss sustainability as a source of competitive advantage within the fashion industry, and
present many illustrative examples of firms that have successfully developed or marketed
sustainability products. We note that many of the leading examples of sustainable fashion
have emerged from small, startup manufacturers, while large multinationals have lagged.
Next, we explore some of the reasons firms have been reluctant to take action to increase
the demand for sustainable fashion products, and also some of the reasons why customers
have been reluctant to purchase these sustainable products. Finally, we present an agenda
for the future, in which we present some concrete steps for fashion manufacturers and
merchandisers to follow in order to overcome the barriers to customer adoption, and to
improve the CSR profile of the fashion industry.

2. CSR and sustainability as an emerging business model

Thought leaders in the business world know that one needs to be able to recognize the
need for fundamental change in order to survive; this has been sometimes described as
creating a new business model (Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann, 2008). Indeed, the
firm with the longest and most successful track record is not necessarily the one with the
first or the best product, but the one that has the superior business model. Johnson et al.
(2008) provide the iPod as an example. There were competing music players at the time
of the iPod launch, of similar technology and design. The reason the iPod succeeded was
that it went beyond these obvious product strengths and coupled them to a sound busi-
ness model. Apple provided easy-to-use iTunes software and excellent service, and chose a
pricing policy that appealed to the consumer: technically a reverse razor-and-blade model
in which Apple sells the “blades” (music files) at low price but locks in purchase of a high-
priced “razor” (iPod) (Johnson et al., 2008). Other examples in different industries, from
big-box retailers like Wal-Mart to low-cost airlines like Southwest, show that the firm that
enters a market with a distinctly different product and a clever business model innovation
can dominate in the long run.
Academics as well as managers are interested in CSR as an emerging trend, and CSR is
increasingly a major component of a redefined business model, designed to help a firm to
survive and stay competitive in today’s society. As the name implies, the objective of a CSR
program is for the firm to provide some benefit to society. A successful CSR program is
sometimes said to have provided a “win-win-win” outcome: the company makes sales and
profits; the customer is satisfied with the product or service obtained; and society reaps bene-
fits in some way (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Porter & van der Linde, 1995; Reinhardt, 1999). CSR
can be manifested in terms of the business adopting sustainable business practices (Brown
& Dacin, 1997). Academic research into CSR has often investigated how a sustainability
management program may be a key part of the firm’s CSR initiatives. Some new research
4  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

is focusing on specific issues in sustainable new product development (SNPD) (Marcus &
Fremeth, 2009) such as the role of the sustainability manager or environmental specialist
in the development of new products (Genç & Di Benedetto, 2015). Nevertheless, this is a
promising area for future research, both in terms of product sustainability in general, and
in terms of fashion products specifically. Furthermore, related programs, such as sustainable
packaging, manufacturing processes, and architecture, are comparatively understudied, and
provide rich potential for future academic research in sustainability.
Sustainability has often been viewed in the literature as a critical part of a firm’s CRM
program. It has often been studied using terms such as enviropreneurial marketing and
corporate environmentalism (Banerjee, Iyer, & Kashyap, 2003; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Menon
& Menon, 1997; Varadarajan, 1992). A seminal article in this stream (Porter & Kramer,
2002) explored why some firms have been slower to pick up on CSR activities than others.
They implied that firms may invest in CSR activities for the wrong reasons, for example,
to obtain the public relations benefits or to improve a poor public image. In cases like this,
shareholders may be opposed to spending on CSR initiatives, seeing them as a “necessary
evil.” They may understand why the firm acts in this way, but the bottom line for them
is that the CSR activities run counter to the corporate mission; they cut into corporate
profits, decrease shareholder wealth, and reduce their dividends (Walley & Whitehead,
1994). If the CSR activity is perceived by the public as nothing more than a public relations
“greenwashing” exercise (such as jumping on the green bandwagon with exaggerated claims
about sustainability), it will not be effective and may even backfire on the firm. In addition,
sustainability compliance may require new investment and the economic benefits of the
activities may not be seen for years (Hart & Ahuja, 1996).
Porter and Kramer (2002) argue that the most successful firms take a different perspec-
tive on CSR. Rather than seeing CSR activities as inconsistent with the corporate mission,
diverting activity and funds from the firm’s profit-making objective, these firms actually
include CSR activities as “baked into” the corporate mission. Indeed, investing in CSR
activities is not viewed as inconsistent with the corporate mission, but in fact as essential to
achieving the corporate mission. Shareholders understand that they are investing in a firm
which is planning to give back to society somehow. Rather than showing disappointment
in lost dividends, shareholders welcome the fact that, in their own way, they are helping
a well-intentioned company in its social responsibility objectives. Indeed, there is early
empirical evidence that links social responsibility (specifically, environmental responsibil-
ity) in the new product process with new product success or profitability (Pujari, Wright,
& Peattie, 2003).
There is an increasing number of companies which seem to have been founded based
on a business model with a specific CSR mission in mind. The Body Shop, for example, is
known for its environmental agenda, stressing all-natural ingredients and natural lifestyle,
in contrast to its competitors in the cosmetics industry that rely on emotional orientation
and a glamorous image to sell product (Kim & Mauborgne, 1999). Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream
supports sustainable farming practice, humane cage-free farms, productive waste, non-
genetically modified food, and several other environmental and social causes (http://www.
benjerry.com). The clothing store Patagonia has objectives of eco-friendliness, fair labor,
ethics, and corporate responsibility (Brewer, 2016). Firms such as these have established
unique positions in their respective markets from which they have derived competitive
advantage (Sweeney, 1997).
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  5

A notable example in the clothing industry is Tom’s Shoes, which donates a pair of
shoes to children in poor countries for every pair they sell. This business model has been
successfully adapted by other companies who redistribute clothing or glasses to impover-
ished children or to other needy individuals. In one such adaptation, the Soulfull Project
manufactures packages of hot soup mix (ingredients are nutritious, all-natural, and contain
no genetically modified ingredients), which are sold in local grocery stores; for every soup
cup sold, one is donated to a local food bank located near the store of purchase (http://
www.thesoulfullproject.com).
The remainder of this article examines the adoption of sustainability as a key element of
the business model by firms in the fashion industry. Sustainability can clearly be a source of
competitive advantage, as has been documented in other industries such as food; indeed, on
a limited scale, some firms in the textile industry have made some profitable steps toward
sustainability. But the industry as a whole, and in particular large competitors in fast-
fashion manufacture and retail, has lagged behind food and other industries in embracing
sustainability as part of the business model (Ritch, Schröder, Brennan, & Pretious, 2011).
We examine the uptake of sustainability in general, then narrow our focus to the fashion
industry to examine the barriers to adoption of sustainability as well as the success stories
of firms that have been at the forefront of this movement. We conclude with comments
about the state of the fashion industry in terms of sustainability and environmental issues
and an agenda for the future.

3. Sustainability in the fashion industry

It is clear that firms in many industries have made major commitments to sustainability,
particularly in recent years. Low-emission and electric vehicles have entered the automobile
market, and appliance manufacturers have strived to produce more energy-saving house-
hold goods. Certain industries have found many opportunities to increase sustainability or
to add other environmentally friendly benefits. In the construction industry, for example,
recent or upcoming products include no-water urinals, carbon-fired heat pumps, power-
over-the-ethernet for house lighting, and hybrid, high-efficiency dryers (Peiffer, 2015).
Environmentally friendly packaging has also been a ripe opportunity for sustainability
innovations. A target in recent years has been the single-serve coffee pods, which produce
substantial waste, much of which is not recyclable, and also use up natural resources in
their manufacture. Mars Drinks (a division of the food manufacturer Mars Inc.), which
packages coffee for offices and other business-to-business customers, developed a way to
produce single-serve coffee packaging which reduces the carbon footprint by 31 percent.
This was accomplished by assessing the environmental impact of this packaging throughout
the production process, from the raw materials used through distribution and post-use
(Hardcastle, 2016). Other firms such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Disney, H&M,
Adidas, and Nike have made significant reductions in their carbon footprint in recent years
(Castro, 2016; Hardcastle, 2016). There are even reports that Pepsico is experimenting with
self-contained, edible packaging (Hardcastle, 2015).
Yet despite this mounting evidence of the sustainability movement in most industries,
it appears that the fashion industry has been slower to take on a commitment to environ-
mental stewardship. There may be several reasons why fashion has lagged behind leading
industries such as food and automobiles: the continued high demand for trendy fashions
6  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

being sold by fast-fashion retailers; a supply chain that is difficult or unwilling to change; and
the belief that customers may care more about an item of clothing’s price and appearance
than its environmental benefits (Indvik, 2016). An individual who would only buy organic
produce or buy coffee from a fair-trade supplier may not think twice about whether his or
her T-shirt was made of organic cotton, or whether the manufacturing process used in its
production caused an abnormal amount of air pollution. In a recent quote, designer Lucio
Castro noted that retailers carrying his products told him that their customers did not care
about material sustainability or production methods, but were rather more concerned about
lower price. He remarked, “I thought, [as with food], there would be organic stores [for
fashion] by now… but even from the fashion industry, there’s not much support or interest
in promoting fashion brands” (Indvik, 2016).
Fashion has been rated as one of the environmentally “dirtiest” industries, due to its use
of pesticides, toxic dyes entering waterways, manufacturing waste, post-consumer waste,
as well as destructive use of land and water (Dietz, 2016). The statistics back up these state-
ments. The fashion industry is the second highest user of water and the second greatest
polluter among all industries, causing about 10% of global carbon emissions; furthermore,
85% of textiles end up in landfills (http://www.fairfashioncenter.org). The relative lack of
attention to sustainability in the fashion industry, however, also implies that there is a lot
of untapped potential, once the competing firms begin to prioritize sustainable objectives
in their corporate missions.
Many of the notable sustainable fashion initiatives have been the efforts of smaller firms
or startups. These seem to be the most prominent vehicles for change, since they do not have
the buildup of infrastructure already in place. Global fashion manufacturers do, of course,
and this infrastructure would need to be dismantled and overhauled for any significant
improvements in sustainability. As has been noted, “it is, after all, much simpler for a startup
company to build a transparent supply chain than to try to force an overhaul on an existing
one” (Indvik, 2016). Big fashion firms, especially the most luxurious brands, are not as far
along in the process. Among the larger fashion merchandising companies, Kering is proba-
bly one of the most sustainability-conscious; their corporate mission includes sustainability
initiatives, they own renowned designer Stella McCartney’s company (a major environmen-
tally friendly fashion design house), and have made notable efforts to build sustainability
into their supply chain. However, even Kering’s positioning strategy for its fashion lines is
built around image, design, country of manufacture, and fashion artisanship and skill, not
sourcing, production, or other environmental or sustainability initiatives (Indvik, 2016).
This is not to say that the process has not begun. There are several fashion manufacturers
and designers that have been at the forefront of the sustainable fashion movement. Stella
McCartney uses only organic fabric, avoids use of fur and other undesirable materials, and
works only with ethical manufacturers. Patagonia has a long history of social responsibil-
ity programs, including environmental initiatives and social responsibility in the supply
chain. For decades, L.L. Bean has sold clothing and accessories designed for many years of
use, encouraging customers to commit to products that last rather than to follow rapidly
changing fashions. Over a century ago, company founder Leon L. Bean said that he “didn’t
consider a sale complete until goods are worn out and the customer still satisfied.” Ray-Ban
has elevated their Aviator sunglasses to fashion icon status, encouraging many consum-
ers to forgo disposable fashion sunglasses in favor of one forever-stylish pair. They have
also designed wooden-framed sunglasses in keeping with their commitment to sustainable
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  7

fashion (Patagonia and L.L. Bean examples from company websites; other examples from
http://www.earth911.com).
In addition to these well-known names, there are several smaller manufacturers and
suppliers in the fashion industry that have focused on solving at least one of the major envi-
ronmental concerns outlined earlier. Evrnu is a US-based technology that recycles cotton
textile waste into renewable fibers (a so-called “closed loop” production process). Firms
that seek to reduce textile waste and source recycled cotton for their raw material would be
very interested in this technology. Metawear is a US clothing manufacturer which supports
several sustainable or environmentally friendly initiatives, including seaweed-based ink for
screen printing, fair labor organic material for T-shirts and custom apparel, and solar and
geothermal renewable energy (both examples from http://www.factory45.co).
There is still the issue of consumer demand for sustainable clothing, however, which is
hindering the fashion industry, as a whole, from the sustainable strides seen in the food,
automobile, and other industries. Consumer demand for trendy, fashionable clothing seems
to be insatiable; the emergence and success of many fast-fashion retailers attest to this. The
“slow fashion” movement has sprung up, much as the “slow food” movement, originating
in Italy in the 1980s, has been put forward as an environmentally friendly antidote to fast-
food fervor (for information, see http://www.slowfood.com). But, almost by definition, slow
fashion implies longer-lasting clothing, which is sensible but antithetical to the fast-moving
fashion cycle. It is difficult to believe that sustainable fashion can satisfy the immediate-
gratification-driven consumer’s desire for seasonal, fashionable clothing and, at the same
time, encourage the purchase of timeless, long-lasting items (Farag, 2016).
Another major barrier is the fashion supply chain. Simply stated, the availability of
sustainable raw materials is still rather limited, which means that designers that prioritize
sustainability in their fashion merchandise may need to compromise other important attrib-
utes such as design or cut (Farag, 2016). Nevertheless, the success of prominent designers
such as Stella McCartney, who are fully committed to sustainability in fashion, suggests
that there is not necessarily a zero-sum tradeoff between sustainability and fashion, and
that we have only begun to explore the opportunities available to fashion designers who
prioritize sustainability. In short, while we are not there yet, there should come a time in
the not-too-distant future when “sustainability and fashion can stylishly (and profitably)
coexist… [and when] sustainable fashion is just good-old fashion” (Farag, 2016).

4. Sustainability and fashion: An agenda for the future

So what happens next? Is sustainable fashion the next big thing? Will slow fashion replace
fast fashion as the next future trend? Other than a few notable examples, will designers con-
tinue to have trouble making the tradeoff between desirable, fashionable wear and timeless,
sustainable clothes? Fashion industry observers can take a lesson from the food industry
over the last few decades. From humble beginnings in small “health food stores,” the food
industry has wholeheartedly committed to a more sustainable profile, as evidenced by
the growth of retail chains such as Whole Foods which offer a wide range of organic and
conventional products, practice sustainable fishing and farming, use no hormone-treated
dairy, and use local food sourcing where possible. The success of such initiatives is unques-
tionable. In 2013, Whole Foods alone had annual sales revenues of over $14 billion (Stone,
2015). During this period, the “slow food” movement emerged, whose goal is to promote
8  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

local food sourcing, regional cuisine, and traditional food production and to provide an
alternative to the ubiquitous fast food restaurants.
In the food industry in particular, consumers have become deeply involved in sustaina-
bility issues, and will pay attention, for example, to issues such as fair trade (where worker
conditions and salaries are not exploitative), organic produce, and local sourcing (Ritch
et al., 2011). Nevertheless, other than some notable examples as listed earlier, there has been
less evidence that companies outside the food industry have geared their product offerings
around consumers’ sustainability concerns.
While the food industry has clearly made great strides in recent decades, the record
of the fashion industry has been spottier. Despite the obvious advancements, the fashion
industry as a whole, and in particular the largest high-fashion labels, still has to play catchup.
The environmental impact of textiles (from the use of pesticides, to pollutants entering
the water supply, to the large amounts of clothes that end up in landfills) has much room
for improvement. As indicated by the fast-fashion movement, we have witnessed ever-
increasing demand for mass-market, fashionable items sold at reasonable prices, often with
the intention of being worn only for one season, possibly only a few times. In this context,
it is very clear to see how the fashion industry almost has a built-in barrier to sustaina-
bility, which advocates the very opposite ideals: minimal use of scarce resources, reuse of
resources, and recycling of material (Black, 2008). In a fashion application, this would be
the mantra of retailers like L.L. Bean who have practiced a long-enduring “never goes out
of fashion” position for their clothes, but not many others. It is precisely for this reason why
we have seen the “slow fashion” movement begin to take hold, albeit at a slower rate than
the corresponding “slow food” trend which has its roots in the 1980s.
There have been some attempts to understand the reluctance of consumers to embrace
fashion sustainability in the same way as they have done so for food and other industries. At
least four barriers to consumer adoption of green behaviors have been identified; these can
be interpreted as challenges to overcome regardless of industry context. These include: con-
vincing people to pay for environmental benefits; changing people’s thoughts and concerns
about the environment; communicating sufficiently complex and detailed environmental
information; and encouraging change in consumer behavior (Polonsky, 2011). As shown in
the conceptual model in Figure 1, there are several important barriers to adoption specific
to the sustainable fashion industry: these include lack of product information on ethical
clothing products; accessibility to ethical clothing products; a perception that ethical cloth-
ing products are not as fashionable as mainstream products; and price (Ritch et al., 2011).
Of these, insufficient product labeling information seems to be quite an important factor.
Organic and fair trade labeling in the food business is quite common, even in mainstream
food retailers, and it has been noted that the “Fairtrade” logo used in the UK is recognized
by over 50 percent of the population in that country (Black, 2008). By contrast, few fashion
retailers provide adequate labeling concerning fair trade or ethical sourcing for fashion
products (Connolly & Shaw, 2006). Consumers also may lack information on some negative
impacts of the fashion industry on the environment, such as the amount of energy used in
production, or the health of farmers involved in cotton production (Allwood, Laursen, de
Rodriguez, & Bocken, 2006; Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009), though they may have received
exposure to certain issues such as carbon emissions due to transportation, which leads to
a preference for buying local (Ritch et al., 2011). Another concern that has received much
media attention is the fate of clothing production workers in sweatshops; consumers may
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  9

Lack of Product Information on

Ethical Clothing Products

Overcome through: better labeling,

more customer information,
education on more issues

Accessibility to Ethical Clothing

Products

Overcome through: better promotion

by retailers, more availability in a
wider range (e.g., workplace clothes)
Slower Adoption of
Ethical Clothing Products
Fashionability Perception of Ethical
Clothing Products

Overcome through: promoting the

fashionability of ethical clothing
products, reduce negative perceptions
of ethical clothing

Price/Value of Ethical Clothing

Products

Overcome through: customer

education, availability of side-by-side
comparison at point of retail

Figure 1. Conceptual model of adoption barriers in sustainable fashion. Source: Drawn in part from Ritch
et al. (2011).
Note: For each barrier, some suggested ways to overcome the barrier are listed.

prefer to buy products which are not produced in sweatshops for ethical reasons (Solomon
& Rabolt, 2009). As noted by Polonsky (2011), sufficiently complex and detailed information
needs to be provided to customers so that they can make the best informed choices with
respect to the environment.
Another factor is accessibility: the big international retailers have not done enough to
introduce and promote organic, fair trade, or sustainable clothing for the mass market
(Shaw & Tomolillo, 2004). Thus, many consumers may claim to be ethically committed,
and not especially fashion conscious, but still require professional-looking clothes for the
workplace and simply buy what is available since sustainable clothing is hard to find (or not
properly labeled, as seen already) (Fisher, Cooper, Woodward, Hiller, & Goworek, 2008).
The perception that ethical, sustainable clothing is not fashionable seems to be still prev-
alent, despite the efforts of many of the top designers as mentioned earlier who have been
at the forefront of the ethical fashion movement. Indeed, the nature of fashion is that it is
10  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

cyclical, with ever-changing styles and preferences, which leads fashion-oriented customers
to continually add to their clothing collection (Hayes & Jones, 2006; O’Cass, 2004). Even
though the fashionable customer can theoretically update their wardrobe to some extent
by swapping clothes, shopping at online auctions, going to second-hand and consignment
stores, and the like (Winakor, 1969), there is still a perception that “ethical” still connotes, at
least to some, “baggy and ‘ethnic’” more than “fashionable” and that ethical clothing would
only appeal to a small segment of the market (Ritch et al., 2011). Inevitably, a competitive
fashion retail industry has emerged (Easey, 2009), though there is no reason why these
mainstream retailers could not do more to procure and promote ethical lines of clothing.
A fourth concern is price. As in the case of food, household cleaners, and other products,
if there is a choice between a regular and an organic or sustainable option, the latter is usually
more expensive. In their research, Ritch et al. (2011) found evidence that some consumers
would choose clothing made from organic cotton if the price were not too different from
other materials. In fact, a very low price on clothing might be a signal that somewhere in
the production process, corners were cut (possibly due to worker exploitation), but if an
alternative, ethical clothing line is not available in the store, customers may prefer it even
if it is higher priced (Connolly & Shaw, 2006). Here is another case where fashion retailers
have lagged behind their counterparts in grocery chains. There is rarely a side-by-side “con-
ventional” versus “organic” choice in fashion retail stores as is commonly seen in produce
sections of supermarkets.
One must also keep in mind that, as the green movement has matured, consumers have
become much more sophisticated and knowledgeable, and are likely to be skeptical of envi-
ronmental or sustainable claims made by manufacturers. In the food industry, consumers
might have been swayed by a vague “environmentally friendly” claim on a label 20 years
ago. Now they are more likely to ask for specific sustainability claims, and to be skeptical of
generic “greenness” claims (Di Benedetto & Chandran, 1995). Consumers exhibit similar
levels of skepticism toward sustainability claims made by fashion manufacturers, or so-called
“greenwashing” (Yates, 2009). In fact, there have been cases where ethical or sustainable
commitments made by fashion retailers were discredited in the media, which increases
consumers’ skepticism of ethical claims, as well as feelings of helplessness and complete
distrust (Ritch et al., 2011). In order to minimize consumer skepticism or ambivalence,
one must be prepared to list specific benefits and provide full transparency and empirical
support (Schroder & McEachern, 2004).
In sum, there have been stirrings in the fashion industry for years, and many influential
designers have made ethical concerns a priority, yet mainstream sustainability in fashion
has lagged far behind the food industry and other industries as well. This is at least partially
due to fundamental differences between fashion and other industries: as Coco Chanel
famously said, “fashion is made to become unfashionable.” Fashion followers may not be
so interested in clothing that can be worn for many years, especially if sustainable clothing
is perceived as less fashionable. Nevertheless, there are other obstacles and opportunities.
An ethically concerned, fashionable consumer can choose from a designer that uses organic
or sustainable material, practices fair trade, refuses to buy from sweatshops, and so forth.
Mainstream manufacturers can assist in this choice. For example, luxury brands usually have
very high brand loyalties and the luxury brand names possess high levels of brand equity
(Heine, 2010; Lloyd & Luk, 2010). Luxury brand manufacturers could play a leadership
role in providing and promoting environmentally responsible lines to their loyal customer
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  11

Table 1. Sustainable initiatives in the fashion industry: An agenda for the future.
Increase visibility of sustainable fashion products in retail stores
Increase transparency through labeling and improved information sharing
Identify which sustainable/ethical concerns are less communicated and less understood
Recognize regional differences in sustainability concerns
Fund/partner with startup designers with a sustainable mission
Continue research into sustainable fabrics
Identify other sustainable alternatives, even marginal ones
Identify new ethical business models or adaptations of successful ethical business models
Sustainability is made part of the business model to ensure consistency of commitment

base, thereby driving sustainable fashion into the mainstream. Additionally, the mainstream
retailer also has a role to play, in making these choices available to the consumer; even the
most ethically concerned shopper will not make the sustainable decision if the option is
not available. While we are seeing progress, such as the slow and steady progress of “slow
fashion,” the mainstream manufacturers and retailers can do more to accelerate the process;
in fact, this is an opportunity to be at the forefront of an emerging mainstream movement
toward ethical, sustainable fashion.
Table 1 presents several sustainable initiatives for the fashion industry, aimed at overcom-
ing some of the barriers mentioned in this article. Sustainable fashion products should be
more available, and more visible, in retail stores, the bigger the better. International retailers
have incredible power in selecting which manufacturers’ products they want to carry and
distribute. Customers are already familiar with the “organic versus conventional” choices
available at supermarkets, and many may be delighted if presented with a similar choice at
a favorite clothing retailer. Increased information and greater transparency are also critical.
While most consumers will have heard stories of unethical treatment of workers in sweat-
shops, many are probably not aware of the environmental impact of the fashion industry,
from air and water pollutants to big contributions to landfills. Consumers need to be made
more aware of some of the less understood environmental concerns pertaining to the fashion
industry, through improved communication. It is clear that consumer awareness has been
markedly increased with respect to organic food products (not to mention the health effects
of smoking or other public service campaigns), as well as certain very specific fashion-related
issues (such as the anti-fur campaigns of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]).
Similar campaigns can be used to heighten understanding of other pressing issues related
to fashion. Even if aware of these concerns, however, the average consumer cannot make
the best choices because he/she does not always have enough information about which
products are sustainable (and in what sense they are sustainable), and which are simply
“greenwashing” (making unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims of sustainability). More and
better labeling, sanctioned by government agencies, such as exists in the food and household
cleaner industries, would be of great benefit to consumers.
Another issue to consider is that certain environmental or sustainable concerns may
be more important in some geographic areas than others. In some places (such as the east
coast of the US), a pressing issue is lack of space in landfills, while elsewhere (such as the
US west coast) landfills are less of an issue but air and water pollution are great concerns.
In less developed parts of the world, the concerns are even more basic, such as clean air
to breathe and clean water for drinking, or non-contaminated soil for growing crops. As
more information is gathered about regional environmental concerns, fashion retailers may
12  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

target their offerings appropriately so as to do the most good locally. Consumers already
have an understanding of the benefits of local food sourcing (to minimize emissions due
to transportation), so one starting point might be sourcing fashionable products locally
wherever possible.
Multinational design firms and retailers are profitable, and some of that profit can be
used to finance sustainable projects. As mentioned earlier, some of the most radical sustain-
able initiatives come from startups, whose very existence seems to be due to a sustainable
idea on the part of ownership (no-wash jeans to reduce water waste, for example). These
small innovators are great sources of ideas. Multinationals can identify up-and-coming
entrepreneurs with the most radical and distinctive ideas, provide venture capital funding,
or enter into a business partnership with them to market their products. These radical
fashion innovations can then be taken worldwide (Zhang & Di Benedetto, 2010), and have
environmental or sustainability advantages not always associated with radical fashion inno-
vation. Alternatively, funding can be earmarked for research into better, cheaper, or more
sustainable fabrics, or streamlining the supply chain so that sustainable fashion product
can enter the marketplace more efficiently and at lower costs (Calantone, Di Benedetto, &
Rubera, 2012). Considering the examples presented in this article, it is a good idea not to
neglect a small or seemingly marginal idea. So what if only a small number of people buy
no-wash jeans, or socks made from corn fiber? As long as that number is not zero, there
is some environmental benefit, and if the idea catches on, it may be very profitable for all
concerned: a true win-win-win situation where the retailer makes profit, the customer gets
a product that they like and also gives them a feeling that they “made a difference,” and
society benefits in some meaningful way.
Finally, it is important to recognize that big change may only come about if firms think
in terms of innovating their business model so as to more fully include CSR concerns. We
have witnessed several companies, mostly small, entrepreneurial startups, whose whole
existence seems to be due to a passionate concern for society. The Tom’s Shoes model
previously mentioned has been so successful that other firms have started up, and adapted
it in a clever way (changing the product being offered, or making the charitable donation
more regional or local, for example). As Porter and Kramer (2002) noted, rethinking the
corporate mission to explicitly include CSR activity is a business model that is growing in
importance, and results in greater good for society. Firms that have rethought their business
model in this way are incentivized to act in a socially responsible manner. Without the
motivation being “baked” right into the corporate mission, it is possible that a firm may still
fund CSR activities, but these will be the first to be cut when the firm faces a profit squeeze.
In the fashion industry, this could be described as “making a sustainable commitment to
sustainability.” That is, including sustainability as a central part of the corporate mission
ensures that the firm will not abandon it even during challenging economic times. It is hard
to say how many major firms in the fashion industry have CSR initiatives built into their
business model, but it is fair to say that much can be learned from the smaller firms (both
manufacturers and designers) who recognize the potential in a small idea for sustainability
in fashion. If done successfully, such initiatives will eventually reduce the environmental
footprint of the fashion industry. It is clear, though, that there must be sincere commitment
and participation from all concerned (the material producers, manufacturers, designers,
retailers, and marketers) for these societal changes to occur.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  13

5. Conclusions and implications for management

The agenda for the future in sustainable fashion initiatives suggests several directives for
management upon which direct action can be taken. Overriding these is the observation
that many of the leading initiatives in sustainable fashion have been undertaken by small
firms seemingly dedicated to environmental or sustainable causes. While there has been
some action on the part of large manufacturers or retailers, there remain rich opportunities
for improvement. The following section summarizes the key points of this paper, with a
focus on actionable steps that can be taken by management in the short and long term.
Many of the initiatives outlined in Table 1 could be introduced in the short term with
little or no difficulty. By making a commitment to sustainable products, retailers can begin
increasing the visibility of such products. Similar to the display of organic versus conven-
tional produce in grocery stores, retailers can have sustainable versus conventional clothing
lines positioned near each other in stores. Additionally, they can increase in-store signage as
well as advertising and promotion to raise consumer awareness of the existence of sustain-
able lines and how they are different in terms of environmental impact. Some store chains
could even use sustainability as a competitive positioning claim to set themselves apart
from the competition. Better labeling on the sustainable items (similar to detailed nutrition
labeling on food products) can further promote the benefits of these products to consumers.
Longer-term initiatives are also feasible for retailers and manufacturers, and they should
begin to focus their efforts on these initiatives as well. For example, while some environ-
mental issues are well-known to consumers, it is likely that many of the pressing con-
cerns (the environmental impact of textile manufacture, for example, or the availability
of sustainable options to traditional fabrics) are less understood. Qualitative “voice of the
customer” research could identify the biggest gaps in consumer knowledge, and prior-
itize these in terms of severity and importance. Other long-term initiatives include further
research into alternative fabrics, and alternative textile process techniques which are less
harmful to the environment. While small startup firms often seem to be at the forefront of
alternative fabrics, it is the larger manufacturers who, either acting alone or in partnership
with government or university labs, can afford to invest significantly in research into sus-
tainable or environmentally friendly textile products or processes. Much can be gained by
closer collaboration between fashion designers, manufacturers, and marketers, such that
environmentally responsible design is viewed as a strategic resource by the manufacturing
firm. Design for environmental responsibility can differentiate the manufacturer from its
competitors and can also support a desirable corporate identity (Di Benedetto, 2012).
The most important implication for management, however, is the need to fully integrate
a commitment to sustainability into the business model. In the case of larger firms, not
counting notable exceptions such as Patagonia, the wholehearted acceptance of sustainability
as an integrated part of the business model is not always clear. Even when a firm is appar-
ently taking steps in the right direction, there may not be long-term commitment unless
investments in sustainability are indeed seen as part of the business model, rather than a
diversion from the business model. Without this business model refocus, sustainability
efforts will be among the first to be cut in times of economic hardship and a commitment
to sustainability will not be maintained over time.
14  C. A. DI BENEDETTO

Disclosure statement
No conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., de Rodriguez, C. M., & Bocken, N. M. (2006). Well dressed? The present
and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.
Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2003). Corporate environmentalism: Antecedents and
influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing, 67, 106–122.
Black, S. (2008). Eco-Chic: The fashion paradox. London: Black Dog.
Brewer, T. (2016). Ten eco-friendly ethical fashion brands to watch in 2016. Retrieved March 27,
2016, from http://www.thetrendspotter.net
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.
Calantone, R. J., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Rubera, G. (2012). Launch timing and launch activities
proficiency as antecedents to new product performance. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing
Science, 22, 290–309.
Castro, A. (2016). This new study shows adidas and H&M are two of the world’s most sustainable
companies. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.complex.com
Connolly, J., & Shaw, D. (2006). Identifying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 14, 353–368.
Di Benedetto, C. A. (2012). Product design: Research trends and an agenda for the future. Journal of
Global Fashion Marketing, 3, 99–107.
Di Benedetto, C. A., & Chandran, R. (1995). Behaviors of environmentally concerned firms: An agenda
for effective strategic development. In M. J. Polonsky & A. T. Mintu-Wimsatt (Eds.), Environmental
marketing: New developments in practice, theory and research (pp. 269 –492). Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Press, Chapter 13.
Dietz, D. (2016). Fashion faux pas: How is the world’s 2nd dirtiest industry not a topic at Climate
Week? Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Easey, M. (2009). Fashion marketing (3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Farag, N. (2016). Can sustainable fashion even be fashionable? Retrieved August 2, 2016, from http://
www.manrepeller.com
Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., Hiller, A., & Goworek, H. (2008). Public understanding of
sustainable clothing: A report to the department for environment, food, and rural affairs. London:
Defra.
Genç, E., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2015). Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product
development process: The role of the environmental specialist. Industrial Marketing Management,
50, October, 150–161.
Hardcastle, J. L. (2015). Will Pepsi come in an edible can? Retrieved July 17, 2015, from http://www.
environmentalleader.com
Hardcastle, J. L. (2016). Six sustainable packaging trends to watch in 2016. Retrieved January 22,
2016, from http://www.environmentalleader.com
Hart, S., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5,
30–37.
Hayes, S. G., & Jones, N. (2006). Fast fashion: A financial snapshot. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 10, 282–300.
Heine, K. (2010). The personality of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1,
154–163.
Indvik, L. (2016). Why is it taking fashion so long to get on board with sustainability? Retrieved May
24, 2016, from http://www.fashionista.com
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING  15

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008, December). Reinventing your business
model. Harvard Business Review, 86, 50–59.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Creating new market space. Harvard Business Review, January-
February, 77, 83–93.
Lloyd, A. E., & Luk, S. T. K. (2010). The devil wears Prada or Zara: A revelation into customer
perceived value of luxury and mass fashion brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1, 129–141.
Marcus, A. G., & Fremeth, A. R. (2009). Green management matters regardless. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 23, 17–26.
Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The emergence of corporate
environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61, 51–67.
Morgan, L. R., & Birtwistle, G. (2009). An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 180–198.
O’Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing
involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 869–882.
Peiffer, E. (2015). Top 10 green building products for 2016. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from
http://www.constructiondive.com
Polonsky, M. (2011). Green marketing: What does the future hold? In C. D’Souza, M. Taghian, &
M. Polonsky (Eds.), Readings and cases in sustainable marketing: A strategic approach to social
responsibility (pp. 245–256). Prahran, Australia: Tilde University Press.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard
Business Review, 80, 5–16.
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 120–134.
Pujari, D., Wright, G., & Peattie, K. (2003). Green and competitive: Influences on environmental new
product development performance. Journal of Business Research, 56, 657–671.
Reinhardt, F. L. (1999). Bringing the environment down to earth. Harvard Business Review, 77,
149–158.
Ritch, E., Schröder, M., Brennan, C., & Pretious, M. (2011). Sustainable consumption and the retailer:
Will fashion ethics follow food? In C. D’Souza, M. Taghian, & M. Polonsky (Eds.), Readings and
cases in sustainable marketing: A strategic approach to social responsibility (pp. 176–198). Prahran,
Australia: Tilde University Press.
Schroder, M. J. A., & McEachern, M. G. (2004). Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food
purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28,
168–177.
Shaw, D., & Tomolillo, A. C. (2004). Undressing the ethical issues in fashion: A consumer perspective.
In M. Bruce, C. Moore, & G. Birtwistle (Eds.), International retail marketing (pp. 141–152). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Solomon, M. R., & Rabolt, M. J. (2009). Consumer behavior in fashion (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson/
Prentice-Hall.
Stone, B. (2015). Whole foods, half off. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://www.bloomberg.com.
Sweeney, K. J. (1997). The strengths and limits of consumer driven codes of conduct, and a mid-stream
view of the apparel industry partnership. Speech given at Notre Dame Center for Ethics and
Religious Values in Business, Notre Dame, IN, October 6, 1997.
Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). Marketing’s contribution to strategy: The view from a different looking
glass. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 335–343.
Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72, 46–51.
Winakor, G. (1969). The process of clothing consumption. Journal of Home Economics, 61, 629–634.
Yates, L. (2009). Green expectations. Consumer Focus. Retrieved from http://www.consumerfocus.
org.uk
Zhang, D., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2010). Radical fashion and radical fashion innovation. Journal of
Global Fashion Marketing, 1, 194–204.