Sustainability in the Fashion Industry in Relation to Consumption in a Digital Age

Abstract

This study addresses the challenges faced by the fashion industry and its consumers in relation to sustainability and the circular economy in a digital age, relating them to the impacts that this industry triggers, both environmentally and socially. The aim is to understand the relations between environmental concern, fashion consumer awareness and adaptation to the digital evolution, and how these can result in an intention to buy sustainable fashion. The methodology adopted was based on other studies in the area, allowing us to answer the investigation question and, finally, to present some reflections that could mitigate the problems found. This research concisely highlights the limitations of the current linear economy, demonstrating the difficulties in the transition to a more sustainable world. This article is relevant for researchers in the field of fashion brand communication and consumer behaviour, as the results show some theoretical and experimental content for a better development of strategies and practices in the field of sustainable fashion, taking into account the digital evolution.

1. Introduction

Fashion is known as a cyclical and temporary phenomenon that follows the economy, lifestyles, behaviours and trends of society [1]. The fashion industry employs more than 300 million people worldwide and represents a significant economic force, operating in an extremely competitive market [2]. However, this industry cannot remain unconcerned about the impacts of its production processes, as it is one of the most polluting industries in the world, as well as one of the largest, most globalised and dominant industries in the modern world [3].

The fashion industry, with its processes of textile production and consumption and the disposability of goods, contradicts the concept of sustainable development, made known in the Brundtland report of 1987, which states that the aim is to satisfy the needs of present generations without compromising the needs of future generations, thus causing significant damage to the environment [4]. In addition to the environmental issue, there are also social and economic dimensions that involve the fashion system and have an impact on society [5].

Thus, along with this reality and taking into account the growing concerns about the sustainable development of the planet, world authorities have been debating ideas to minimize the damage caused to the environment. They are looking for alternatives to reduce consumption and optimize the use of natural resources in order to improve our quality of life [6].

On the other hand, the digital evolution, a topic also being studied in the area of fashion consumption, has been changing fashion brands’ processes when it comes to selling their products. The increase in the amount of shared information, knowing the latest news in real time and the exchange of opinions between consumers via mobile apps and social networks has revolutionized the way we act, allowing today’s consumers to have very different characteristics from ten years ago [7].

The challenge is to change the way consumers think, rooted in society, in order to achieve sustainable fashion, reinventing consumption and production habits and abandoning fast fashion methods in favour of alternatives such as slow fashion, which proposes a change of vision [8]. It is important to emphasise that this change will only happen with the awareness of everyone [9]. Conscious consumption considers collective well-being, the preservation of resources, good working conditions and fair pay [10].

The relation between fashion and sustainable development is complex, as it involves reconsidering the practice of consumption [5]. Thus, a new paradigm is needed to guide society and companies towards satisfying the needs of consumers, who are increasingly aware of environmental issues, but tend to be consumerists in an increasingly digital age.

Each era of humanity is defined by certain characteristics and, in the context of the 21st century, environmental concern is, in fact, the most prevalent. This concern is the result of the rapid development of industry, technology, information and globalisation, which has raised consumption to an unprecedented level. Global Footprint reported that in the first eight months of 2015, all the resources that the Earth is capable of sustainably providing in one year were exhausted [11]. In 2022, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF], 28 July was the day when humanity consumed everything that ecosystems can regenerate in one year. Over the last few years, despite the measures implemented in favour of the planet’s sustainability, there has only been an insignificant improvement, showing that there is still a lot to be done in this area.

Therefore, when addressing the central theme of the study, the importance of considering various factors, such as the lack of resources, pollution levels and other environmental challenges, which threaten the continuity of the planet’s inhabitants and certainly that of future generations, is emphasised. This is because economic and social activities depend essentially on goods and services that come from the planet’s resources, including food and clean water, and climate mitigation and cultural links are also important. Some activities have caused major impacts on the planet’s biodiversity and, although these have been diffused from their points of origin, they have continued to accelerate in recent decades, resulting in the environmental degradation of the planet [11].

Overall, the years 2020 and 2021 will be remembered in the history books as a time when the pandemic held the world hostage as a result of the outbreak generated by the COVID-19 virus. In its first six months alone, hundreds of thousands of people died, millions were infected, and society was confronted with a lasting economic impact [12].

Pandemics, which have appeared over time, are correlated with high population density and high wildlife diversity, driven by human-generated changes, such as deforestation, the expansion of agricultural land, the intensification of animal production and the increase in wildlife harvesting [12].

On the other hand, this last pandemic period will also be remembered for the massive use of technological means that triggered a digital revolution, which was already in progress, but which was accelerated by its appearance. This change came about in just a few weeks, although it would have been expected to occur after a decade [13].

Facing a reality that is causing serious environmental consequences day by day, it is important to act on all levels in order to reduce the negative impacts. To do this, it is necessary to consider the various dimensions of socio-economic development, looking at a range of issues, from the social to the environmental, which are intrinsically linked to safeguarding the planet’s human and environmental health [12].

Coincidentally, in March 2020, the European Commission published a new Circular Economy Action Plan, which covers a strategy for textiles, with the aim of stimulating innovation and boosting reuse in the sector to address the impacts caused [14]. This represents an important step towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly fashion industry, including stricter recycling rules and mandatory targets for the use and consumption of materials by 2030. To achieve this, from 2025, EU countries will have to fulfil the requirement for the separate collection of textiles, according to the Waste Framework Directive, approved by the European Parliament in 2018 [14].

The relation between fashion and consumption interferes with the goals of sustainability, since the product manufacturing processes themselves exploit workers and non-renewable energies, and consequently increase the environmental impact, causing waste and incalculable damage [15]. On the other hand, consumers need to buy these same products, which are not eco-friendly, for various reasons, for example, economic reasons, such as price, and social reasons, such as social integration [16].

According to Fletcher and Grose (2012) [5], the global market operates on the basis of a low-cost economy in order to increase the profits of a few companies, under the aegis of programmed obsolescence, wherein the product is cheap, of low quality and nonhardy. As a result, there is no consideration of the social and environmental impacts of clothing, given that the production chain is far away from the end consumer.

In their economic, social and cultural aspects, human activities have become systemic, but they will only continue if they develop while preserving the environment. In order to be considered sustainable, every human initiative has to be evaluated in four ways: that it is ecologically correct, economically viable, socially just and capable of promoting local cultural wealth [17].

The initiative for change must first be undertaken by the industry itself, through fashion designers, since they are responsible for managing the development and production processes. These are the first agents who must think in a cyclical and regenerative way, and they can be the driving force behind unprecedented advances, questioning the whole system in a clear and objective way, and showing their knowledge in debates about future improvements. In this regard, fashion designers and fashion companies must combine product development with the preservation of nature, as argued by [5].

According to Braungart and McDonough (2014) [17], the need for sustainability in fashion has forced the industry to change. However, an influential change was already expected. However, conventional environmental approaches focus on what not to do, when in fact a break with the current paradigm of the mode of production is required.

Consumers are, therefore, limited in the alternatives available to improve their consumption habits. It is in this context that this research seeks to understand how fashion consumers may or may not be able to be more attentive when purchasing the products or services they are offered, and how brands can reinvent themselves in the face of a new vision of fashion consumption.

In the context of fashion, this research aims to understand the complex relationships between the impacts of fashion production methods, sustainability, the circular economy and the digital evolution, analysing consumer behaviour, knowledge, motivations and the shopping experience. The aim of this research is to provide theoretical and experimental contributions to improve the consumer strategies and practices of companies in the sector.

1.1. Objectives

After describing the general objective of the study, we set out the specific objectives that define the framework of the entire investigation, outlining how far the study will go. For this purpose, and given that the study is related to conscious consumption, sustainable fashion and fashion consumers in the digital age, it is intended that the methodology adopted will make it possible to do the following:

• Relate the concepts of sustainability and the circular economy to fashion consumer behaviour in terms of brand communication and the use of the digital world.

• Explore the relationship between adaptation to the digital evolution (ADE) and sustainable behaviour intentions in the fashion industry. This objective aims to understand how familiarity and engagement with digital technologies and social platforms influence consumers’ propensity to adopt more sustainable consumption practices.

• Examine the moderating role of the knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) and technological literacy (ADE) in the relationship between environmental concern (EC) and sustainable behaviour intentions. The focus here is on investigating whether consumers’ specific knowledge of sustainable fashion practices and digital literacy enhance the influence of their environmental concerns on their choice of more sustainable purchasing behaviour.

• Assess the impact of digital influences on sustainable consumer behaviour. This objective focuses the analysis on how recommendations from digital influencers, social media content and digital marketing campaigns can influence consumers’ intention to engage in sustainable fashion consumption practices.

1.2. Relevance of the Study

The study of consumer behaviour in relation to sustainability in fashion is crucial, highlighting the importance of future perception, given the growing shortage of resources and the need for conscious consumption. Over the years, consumers have become more economically, socially and environmentally aware, pushing professionals and companies to offer increasingly sustainable alternatives.

In the fashion sector, sustainable production is a goal, but attracting consumers to eco-friendly products is the key to driving business and government efforts. In this sense, it is equally important for consumers to know the reality behind the tempting low prices, as most of the time these represent a high cost of human exploitation [18].

The processes of transforming products or services in a more sustainable way can be realised through recycling, ecological fabrics or reuse. But these sustainable transformation processes will depend on the will of the consumer, which is the reason why it is important to analyse their motivations and behaviours and develop awareness of their attitudes as consumers.

Since this study is related to the areas of management, technologies, the consumer and consumption, it is vital to determine a consumer profile and understand whether it fits in with certain strategies that companies can put into practice, in this case specifically in the field of sustainable fashion.

This study also analyses the consumer profile in relation to business strategies in sustainable fashion, filling a gap in studies in Portugal in that it exceptionally integrates sustainable fashion, consumer and brand behaviour with the current digital evolution in consumption.

In short, this study is relevant because consumers are increasingly demanding of brands and have expectations that influence their purchasing intentions, creating economic, environmental and social challenges for those who produce them. It is, therefore, important to analyse this area, wherein companies need to consider new strategies and consumers need to create new patterns of behaviour and consumption through work, technology and brands and with the planet.

2. Theoretical Background

The fashion industry’s textile production and consumption practices often contradict the principles of sustainable development outlined in the 1987 Brundtland Report [4]. This contradiction stems from the industry’s significant environmental impacts, as well as its social and economic dimensions [5]. Despite growing concerns about sustainability, the industry continues to face challenges in reducing consumption and optimising resource use [6].

The digital evolution has revolutionised the processes of fashion brands, influencing consumer behaviour through increased information sharing and real-time engagement [7]. However, achieving sustainable fashion requires a shift in consumer mindset from fast fashion to alternatives such as slow fashion [8]. Conscious consumption that prioritises collective well-being and resource conservation is essential [9].

Environmental concerns have increased in the 21st century due to rapid industrialisation and globalisation, leading to resource depletion and environmental degradation [11]. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the interconnectedness of environmental and public health crises, leading to accelerated digital transformation [12,13].

Addressing environmental challenges requires a multifaceted approach that takes into account socio-economic development and environmental protection [12]. Initiatives such as the European Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan aim to promote sustainability in the fashion industry through innovation and re-use strategies [14]. However, the industry’s reliance on exploitative production processes and consumer purchasing habits pose significant barriers [15,16].

Fletcher and Grose [5] argue that the global marketplace prioritises profit over social and environmental impact, perpetuating programmed obsolescence. Sustainable change must begin with fashion designers and companies adopting circular and regenerative practices [17]. Braungart and McDonough [17] emphasise the need for a paradigm shift in production methods to achieve sustainability.

In summary, understanding consumer behaviour in the context of sustainability, the circular economy and digital development is crucial to driving change in the fashion industry. This research aims to explore these complex relationships and provide insights to improve consumer policies and practices, taking into account the digital evolution, and how brands can reinvent themselves in the face of a new vision of fashion consumption.

2.1. Sustainability and the Circular Economy in the Fashion Industry

• Sustainability and Sustainable Development

This Section 2 begins with the theoretical framework, in which concepts of sustainability, sustainable development and the circular economy are first demonstrated. Then, the fashion industry system is characterised to better understand the context of this research. Some of the negative environmental and social impacts of this industry are also explained, demonstrating the importance of a paradigm shift, and the perceptions of fast fashion as opposed to slow fashion and sustainable fashion.

Sustainability in fashion is a topic that has been gaining prominence in recent years. This concept has gained visibility due to climate change, environmental degradation and consequent environmental concerns, becoming a global concern [19].

The study of this concept has been highlighted by various issues, already mentioned above, but on the part of consumers, questions arise related to the economic and environmental crises in force around the world, such as the origins and working conditions involved in the production of goods.

In view of the concerns expressed by consumers, many companies have begun to publicise behaviours related to preserving the environment, using the concept of sustainability to add value to their product [18].

The purely strategic use of the concept of sustainability is often recurrent, and it is, therefore, essential to know its origin and understand it to clarify the authenticity of its use. According to the Portuguese language dictionary, the word “sustentável” derives from Latin and means “to sustain”, referring to that which has the necessary conditions to be conserved, and can, therefore, be achieved through sustainable development.

It is important to emphasise that the term sustainability first appeared, without the concept being known at the time, in the book The Limits to Growth, written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William W. Behrens III in 1972 [20]. In some excerpts from the mentioned book, concepts associated with sustainability appear, including the balanced way in which natural resources are utilised to satisfy one’s own current well-being, while preserving future generations’ right to use the same resources. It was, therefore, made clear that it is important for natural resources to still be available in the long term [21]. Although environmental problems have existed for a long time, it is only recently that economic analysis has come to fully recognise them and consider all their implications [22].

The concept of sustainable development emerged a few years later, in 1987, by experts from the UN, from the “Our Common Future” Report, published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, which states the following: “Sustainable Development consists of making humanity capable of satisfying current needs without compromising the needs of future generations” [4].

According to the report, the term sustainability does not refer to a state of harmony, but rather to a process of change, wherein the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional changes are made in accordance with the needs of the present and the future.

Since that time, the definition of sustainable development has appeared in numerous citations in the literature. However, it was later interpreted in an excessively broad sense. As a result, the term sustainability was often used to justify any activity, as long as it reserved resources for future generations. But in a more rigorous sense, it means that the activities carried out must be subjected to additional evaluation to determine all their effects on the environment [22].

The concept of sustainability is complex, as it includes a set of interdependent variables—economic, social and environmental [23]. The great creator of this proposal was John Elkington, when he published the article “The Triple Bottom Line: What is It and How Does It Work?”, back in the 1990s, giving rise to the new concept known worldwide as the Triple Bottom Line [23,24]. This pioneer defended the idea of measuring company results based on three basic pillars, which became known as the 3 P’s (people, planet and profit).

Thus, the three pillars refer to concepts such as viability (economic level), fairness (social level) and correctness (environmental level), and these relate to each other, with the term sustainability emerging as a product of this convergence [25]. The development we seek to achieve on a global scale must be socially just, because the objectives of development are always ethical and social; economically viable, because economic viability is a necessary condition for the development of any project that claims to be sustainable. And it must be environmentally sound, because development must take place in a way that respects ecological constraints, thinking in the long term and taking future generations into account [26].

Companies that seek a healthy relation with natural and social resources and, at the same time, think about profit, are companies that are integrated into the concept of sustainability, in order to obtain positive results on these three bases [27,28].

Responsibility in management must go beyond profit, as consumers expect much more than just a good product or quality service on the market. Companies’ involvement and interest in marketing practices and in their stance on sustainability has been increasing. However, it is notable that many companies consider profitability to be their main performance indicator, as highlighted by Kolstad (2007) [29]. As such, managers have the task of balancing the trade-offs between profitability and sustainable value creation, yet managers choose profitability over sustainability whenever they are in conflict [30]. As such, short-term thinking in companies still has a major influence [31] and is in apparent conflict with sustainability, whose benefits accrue over the long term [32].

To put the essence of sustainability into practice, the United Nations (UN) launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 as an outline shared by 193 countries to address sustainable development. This agenda introduces 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and calls on all governments and private companies to support the realisation of the specified SDGs [33].

To meet this agenda, there are a number of fundamental concepts, one of which is discussed in the next section, the circular economy.

• Circular Economy

The circular economy has gained prominence in various sectors and markets around the world [34]. The topic has been disseminated, and the number of publications has increased considerably [35]; the principle of this model is to rethink the way we produce and use natural resources [36].

In 1982, the article “The product-life factor” was the first publication to refer to the significance of the closed economic loop [37]. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [38], the origins of the concept of the circular economy have diverse histories and philosophies, and are being widely studied today, as it is an option that seeks to redefine the notion of development, with a focus on benefits for society in general. The idea of giving back to the environment what is taken from it reappeared in industrialised countries after the Second World War, when studies based on non-linear systems clearly revealed the complex, correlated and unpredictable nature of the biodiversity that is planet Earth.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation concluded that this circular economy model summarises the thinking of various philosophers, such as Walter Stahel’s functional service economy, William McDonough and Michael Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle design philosophy, and the biomimicry articulated by Janine Benyus, among others [39].

According to Braungart and McDonough (2014) [17], if human beings really want to prosper, they will have to learn the concepts of the circular economy, using products as nutrients, which by imitating the natural metabolism simultaneously eliminates waste. The circular economy generates an economic model that seeks to increase the importance of natural resources by keeping them in use for as long as possible, i.e., extending the life cycle of a product in order to avoid excess waste.

For Ghisellini, Cialani and Ulgiati (2016) [40], this involves adopting the 3Rs policy—reduce, reuse and recycle:

• -. Reduce, through better technologies, more compact products, simpler packaging, more efficient appliances and simplifying lifestyles.

• -. Reuse, by requiring fewer resources (energy, labour, etc.) instead of buying a new product.

• -. Recycle, so that waste is transformed back into resources.

The circular economy is one of the pillars in the fight against climate change and the fight for a more sustainable development of the planet, in line with the goals set by the UN. A circular economy is understood as an economy that actively promotes the efficient use and productivity of the resources it boosts, through products, processes and business models based on the dematerialisation, reuse, recycling and recovery of materials [41].

According to the Circular Economy Action Plan, progress in circularity is achieved when we move from strategies that promote useful applications of materials to strategies for intelligent production and utilisation. Thus, the more “circular” the endeavour, the less need there will be to extract raw materials and, consequently, the less environmental pressure there will be. However, a greater degree of innovation is required in product design and associated standards, at a social and institutional level.

• Linear Model vs. Circular Model

The current linear economic model is notorious for its expression: “extract, produce, use and waste”. This model is reaching its physical limits, as we are witnessing the exhaustion of resources and the devastation of the environment due to the rapid extraction of natural resources. Raw materials and products are sold and, after use, they are discarded as waste, without considering the planet’s regenerative capacity. By 2050, the current model will consume the equivalent of three planets [38].

The circular economic model arises from the realisation that the speed of production and exploitation of natural resources is greater than the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Disposal is carried out in a thoughtful way, making more rational and efficient use of resources, redirecting the focus towards reusing, repairing, renewing and recycling existing materials and products. What was previously seen as waste can be transformed into a resource [42]. Care is also taken to consider the biological cycle (organic) and the technical cycle (non-organic). The biological cycle refers to materials that can safely return to the natural world, even if they have gone through one or more cycles of use, such as food, which returns to the system through composting processes [38].

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) [43], the circular model, based on a change wherein renewable energy sources build natural, social and economic capital, is based on three principles:

• -. Eliminating waste and pollution from the start of production (design products, services and business models that prevent the production of waste and pollution of the natural system);

• -. Keeping products and materials in use (at their highest economic value and usefulness, for as long as possible);

• -. Regenerating natural systems (promoting the regeneration of used material and implicit natural resources).

In recent years, there has been an increase in interest from companies and consumers in sustainability and the circular economy. This interest has led to the creation of various ventures in the field of ecology, environmentalism and sustainability. Despite this, in agreement with Augusto (2020) [44], in order to bring about a change in mentalities in companies and consumers, it is necessary to face a challenge, as the transition to the circular economy requires significant changes in production and consumption models, despite the existence of the New Circular Economy Action Plan.

• The Fashion Industry and its Impacts

Due to its size and the complexity of its value chain, fashion is one of the industries with the most negative impacts, which makes it unsustainable [45]. The linear business model present in the fashion industry is limited and triggers a set of negative social, political and environmental consequences [46]. This industry is the second most polluting in the world, after the oil industry, and the second most water-intensive industry, after the food industry. Within the fashion industry, the sector most responsible for causing the greatest impact on the environment is the textiles and clothing industry, due to the gradual increase in production and consumption [47].

According to a 2017 report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [39], and the United Nations Environment Programme [48], the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of all CO₂ emissions. If nothing changes in the fashion industry, this share of emissions could reach 26% by 2050. It is estimated that the industry’s environmental impact will worsen by 2030 and triple by 2050, due to the growing demand from emerging markets [14,48,49].

In the problematic context of sustainability and the circular economy, there are already several companies in the fashion industry with environmental concerns related to the use of energy, water, chemicals, CO₂ emissions and the production of solid waste. In Portugal, the Portuguese Environment Agency indicates that the Portuguese throw 200,000 tonnes of clothes away every year [50]. The European Commission Report (2022) [51] states that around 5.8 million tonnes of textiles are discarded every year in the EU. This suggests that this is the equivalent of approximately 11 kg per person. However, it is also important to know that every second, somewhere in the world, a lorry full of textiles is landfilled or burned. Clothes made from non-biodegradable fabrics can remain in these landfills for up to 200 years. Only 20% of clothes are collected for reuse or recycling. Less than 1% of all materials used in the manufacture of clothing are recycled to make new garments [50].

A garment goes through several phases, all of which make up the product cycle, and which jeopardise the continuity of the planet. In the production phase, large quantities of water and energy are used, greenhouse gases are emitted and large volumes of waste are created, polluting water and the atmosphere [5]. The post-production phase (dyeing, printing and finishing) is no different, as it has a major negative effect on textile production, since hazardous chemicals are used intensively [52]. Finally, the consumption phase also has a major impact, as most garments are washed very frequently [5]. It should be noted that in the use and end-of-life phases, there are still negative effects caused by the disposal of garments in landfill sites [53].

To cope with environmental degradation and the decarbonisation of industry, companies will have to adapt their supply chains. According to McKinsey (2019) [54], 71% of the emissions savings that the fashion industry can make are within the production cycle. This industry has the longest and most complex in-industry chain, especially when it comes to the production phase. On a social level, the negative impact is related to the environmental issues already described, which affect public health, but also to the undignified labour issues that exist in factories [52,55]. Furthermore, the negative impact of this industry should also be a financial concern for brands [56].

The global market for the clothing and textile industry has Bangladesh, China, India, Turkey, Pakistan and Vietnam as its main suppliers. Some of these countries are extremely dependent on this industry. One example is Bangladesh, in which it accounts for around 80% of total export earnings and generates more than 4 million direct jobs [56].

In 2013, in the capital of Bangladesh, in the Rana Plaza building, more than a thousand people lost their lives, in one of the biggest tragedies in industrial history, which prompted the creation of the “Fashion Revolution” movement. Several labels of global fashion brands were involved in this tragedy, making it clear that the fashion industry needed to rethink its production processes [57].

This movement led to the worldwide discussion of various issues, exemplified by #WhoMadeMyClothes, #WhoMadeMyFabric, and #WhatsInMyClothes, driving the transparency of brands over their production chain. The movement later grew into an institution with the mission of developing a global fashion industry that conserves and restores the environment, while valuing people above growth and profit. In this sense, what was known as “Fashion Revolution Day” became a week of events, actions and activities [57].

Over time, actions have emerged that have helped to make the fashion world more sustainable. For example, in 2007, the non-governmental organisation Greenpeace succeeded in getting the European Parliament to impose restrictions on the import of cotton grown with pesticides that endanger public health and/or with labour without decent working conditions. In 2014, this organisation also took several actions against some fashion brands, helping to promote what is still necessary today: production free of toxic materials.

• Consequences of the Unsustainability of the Fashion Industry

The fashion industry has contributed to unsustainable patterns of overproduction and overconsumption, as the period of use is becoming shorter and shorter before garments are discarded [56].

The fast fashion system, or disposable fashion, is a very common industrial system that encourages consumers to buy clothes continuously. This system has a short production and distribution time, offering new products to the market of a lower quality at a lower price. This system, thus, has an impact on both environmental and social sustainability, producing a high level of waste and disposal [58].

However, the high amount of discarded clothing has led to the existence of means or channels in the market where end-of-life garments can be sent, such as donation campaigns, clothing recycling bins, among others [59,60].

The fate of the clothes that consumers buy and wear depends on the consumption habits, norms and practices of each country, as well as the culture and availability of alternative resale channels and recycling systems [61].

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) [39], more than half of all clothes in the world are sold in Europe, North America and China, but 10% of these clothes end up in other countries after use. It is, therefore, necessary to create a clothing collection system for these destination countries, most of which do not currently have formal collection systems. This is fundamental to reducing the impact of the fashion industry and consumerism worldwide. In this sense, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) [39], in order to improve end-of-life methods for garments (existing garments), it will be necessary to do the following:

• -. Increase the acceptance of collection systems in countries where there is already collection of used clothing, expanding the scale of these initiatives;

• -. Implement actions to create collection systems in countries that do not have schemes in place.

The collection, sorting and recycling processes need to be implemented and/or improved, not forgetting their economic attractiveness. It is necessary to create additional processes to collect clothing after use, especially where there is no method in place [39], for example such that leftovers from textile factories can be used for recycling.

These measures require actions to improve the economic incentives for those who re-collect, while at the same time making it more convenient for those who consume, to keep the materials in the system. However, for this to happen, there needs to be a greater understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of existing schemes, facilitating their expansion. For Fashion Revolution Portugal (2016) [62] the so-called “clothes recycling bins” may seem like a great idea at first, but they hide a very complex and harmful reality for underdeveloped countries. Recycling and reusing are crucial nowadays, but when it comes to clothes, so much is consumed, and, therefore, donated, that it is impossible to dispose of it through humanitarian actions alone.

There is still a long way to go to make this a reality, but the World Wide Fund for Nature, one of the world’s leading environmental NGOs, believes that it is possible if the industry and stakeholders take the necessary steps to transform.

Fashion, therefore, needs to steer a course towards a more sustainable future, given that fashion cycles and trends contribute to high levels of consumption, caused by consumer dissatisfaction, which generates irreversible environmental and social damage in the long term [5].

2.2. Brands and Consumers in the Dynamics of Fashion in a Digital World

At this point, still within the theoretical context, the behaviour of fashion brands is explored in the face of the challenges of sustainability and increasing digitalisation, trying to understand how to break the linear circuit that the economy has entrenched. Next, a link is found between the topics previously covered and the evolution of the digital landscape, highlighting the influence of social networks and the impact of the pandemic on digital transformation. This aims to understand the new modes of consumption more broadly, and then specify the context of consumption in the fashion industry. Finally, we look at the factors influencing the intention to buy sustainable fashion, wherein we characterise fashion consumers, studying their knowledge, habits, behaviours and motivations, referring to psychology in the world of fashion, understanding the characteristics of sustainable consumer behaviour and how this environmentally and socially conscious consumer influences the sustainable fashion purchasing decision process.

• Fashion Brands

Brands are extremely valuable assets, capable of influencing consumer behaviour, being bought and sold and offering their owners the security of constant future income [63]. According to Rech and Ceccato (2010) [64], fashion brands have the function of creating products based on the needs and desires of consumers, which indicates that the relation between individuals and the brand is relevant. Therefore, making a brief comparison between the behaviour of fashion brands and their relationships with the sustainability of the planet becomes essential to this research, given that fashion is exposed and assimilated, according to (Lipovetsky, 2007) [65], not as a product, but as a value and translation of personalities.

Firstly, it is important to address brand identity; Kotler and Keller (2012) [63] defend it as a set of associations that represent what the brand does and what it guarantees consumers. Lipovetsky and Roux (2005) [66] point out that building a brand identity is complex and involves a lot of dedication. They also add that it is crucial for good communication, as a brand only exists if it is communicated. In this sense, in order to stand out from the competition, companies in the fashion sector are always looking for innovation and value creation to add to their products. Brands have been forced to keep up with certain trends so as not to lose their reputation [7]. One example that is closely linked to the subject of this study is the misuse of concepts related to sustainability in brand communication. These actions are known as “Greenwashing” and are intended to promote a misunderstanding of the policies or products that companies have, claiming that they are more sustainable than they actually are.

According to Rauturier (2021) [67], in the fashion world, transparency can be defined as the practice of openly sharing information about how, where and by whom a product was designed. Being transparent means publicising all the information about everyone involved in the production process, from start to finish, i.e., from obtaining the raw materials (agriculture) to the shop shelves (final product). This allows customers to know exactly what they are buying, with details of every stage of the production process. According to Somers (2021) [68], transparency is when companies know and publicly share the expression #WhoMadeMyClothes, from who grew the cotton, to who dyed the fabric, to who sewed it, showing under what conditions this took place and highlighting their environmental impacts.

As expressed by Carry Somers, co-founder of Fashion Revolution, in 2016, only 5 of the 40 big brands (12.5%) disclosed their suppliers. However, by 2022, 121 of the 250 big brands (48%) disclosed their suppliers. Currently, brands disclose more information about their return methods than where the clothes actually end up, which ends up hiding who is responsible for wasting clothes [69].

However, according to the Fashion Transparency Index report [69], fewer brands disclose what really happens to the clothes they receive, with only 26% of brands disclosing this information in 2022, compared to 22% the previous year. The clothes chosen are often sent to second-hand markets, and it is often not possible to give the garments circularity, given their quality, which prevents them from being worn for long periods of time. This clearly demonstrates how the existence of the transparency index and the media around the world questioning #WhoMadeMyClothes has had relevance for brands, motivating them to expose their methods and allowing consumers to make the best purchasing decisions for themselves, the planet and its inhabitants [68].

For example, in 2022, H&M was one of the most transparent brands, with a score of 66% out of a scale of 61–70%, making the information mentioned above public. However, this does not mean that it is a more sustainable brand.

In 2022, of the 250 brands analysed, the 21 brands that scored best are listed here:

• -. OVS, Kmart Australia and Target Australia (78%);

• -. H&M, The North Face and Timberland (66%) and Vans (65%);

• -. United Colors of Benetton (63%) and Gildan (62%);

• -. C&A and Gucci (59%);

• -. Puma (58%) and Dressmann and Esprit (57%);

• -. Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, UGG and Zeeman (56%);

• -. Calzedonia, Intimissimi and Tezenis (Calzedonia Group) (54%).

And among those with the lowest scores, we have Dolce & Gabbana and SHEIN with 2%, and Tom Ford, New Yorker and Max Mara, with 0%. In the luxury segment, Gucci is in first place, and it should be noted that Ermenegildo Zegna was the first luxury brand to publish a detailed list of its suppliers.

According to Kashyap (2022) [70], issues in the fashion industry never fall on a single person, brand or supplier, which is why there are more and more investigations and reports on the industry, in order to promote systemic and structural changes, shaping regulations and holding brands to their promises.

Summing up, transparency among brands also promotes the improvement of brands in terms of future comparisons and evaluations. The fashion industry can lift millions of people out of poverty and provide them with decent and dignified livelihoods, but for this to be possible, politics, culture and the industry must change.

Still, on the subject of brands and their behaviour in relation to the sustainability of the planet, in 2024, according to Reuters, Inditex investors will demand to know the list of suppliers, but the Inditex group is almost an exception in the retail sector in that it still keeps the way it manufactures its clothes secret. The justification given is that full disclosure of the supply chain could increase competition for the same suppliers, but, nevertheless, investors are demanding more transparency.

A table comparing the various brands in terms of environmental and social responsibility, developed in the course of this research, is attached.

Of the models present in the sustainable fashion market (zero waste, the circular economy, upcycling, recycling, eco fashion, the sharing economy, ethical fashion and slow fashion), there may still be doubts as to which fashion brands are sustainable or which use the concept merely as a marketing tool. These doubts stem from the communication strategies that these brands use, leaving questions hanging that lead to a lack of trust. Many fashion brands are considered sustainable, as their value chain is based on respect for the three areas of social, environmental and economic impact.

In Portugal, there are a few sustainable fashion brands, but more prevalent are second-hand shops, known as “vintage shops”, which are sustainable shops because their main mission is to reduce waste in the fashion sector. To help understand the market, a survey was carried out of the main and most accessible fashion brands on the market, one at a national level and the other at an international level:

• -. Portuguese sustainable fashion brands: Isto; Sienna; Ethical Legend; A Outra Face da Lua; ALMA Capsule Collections; BUZINA; CUSCUZ; Jacarandá; NaturaPura; Captain Tom; Näz; INSANE IN THE RAIN; PACTO.

• -. Other sustainable fashion brands: Boody; CHNGE; Honest Basics; DillySocks; Knickey; Mighty Good Basics; Parade; Yes Friends; tentree; Thought; Kotn; Happy Earth; Little Emperor; Sense Organics; eclipse; Plant Faced; Etiko; noctu; ABLE; Rapnui; Glass Onion; PANGAIA; GANNI; Patagonia.

Therefore, it is important to ensure that the brand identity is aligned with the brand image, because only then will the message conveyed by the company be aligned with the consumer’s perception; otherwise, when it is not in sync, the message conveyed by the company differs greatly from that perception, and consequently, the objectives will be more difficult to achieve. Thus, creating a good brand image helps to build consumer confidence in the brand’s motives, resulting in future benefits in terms of consumer loyalty and the relation with the brand [71].

Taking into account brand communication and consumer behaviour and perception, it will be important to address the issue of the digital evolution and digital literacy on the part of consumers.

2.3. Digital Evolution and Consumption

• Digital Evolution

Since the 1970s, the digital evolution has changed the structuring paradigm from the real economy to the virtual economy [72]. According to Mandiberg (2012) [73], the development of technology meant that the Web began to appear in everyday life, reinforcing that everything is connected to each other in a network, and not just by online or offline status.

According to Carvalhal (2022) [74], because of the Internet, many people and issues have gained notoriety, as it is possible to disseminate knowledge and information, giving many people the opportunity to express themselves and connect with each other by sharing information, paving the way for social media (also known as virtual or online social networks), simplifying participation and broadening consumer opinion.

As Constantinides and Fountain (2008) [75] argue, users do not just consume content, they also produce content, which is the main driver behind the change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, resulting in two natural interconnected consequences.

According to Feliciano (2019) [76], these are the predominance of impact, and naturally, the need for organisations to introduce themselves into the online environment in order to reach their target audience more widely. In this way, according to Constantinides and Fountain (2008) [75], the Internet is not just a means of communication, but a tool that allows social interaction and the sharing of common interests, contrasting with other means of communication by allowing the evolutionary improvement of the community; Web 2.0 is a set of applications, which, according to Shelly and Frydenberg (2010) [77], allow consumers to control, generate, distribute, share and create content interactively.

Web 2.0 has completely changed the way consumers and brands relate to each other [78]. Due to economic, social and, above all, technological advances, the concept of social media has spread [79]. Social media has facilitated contact between organisations, customers and potential customers, proving to be an essential digital marketing tool for any brand or company [80]. At the same time, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) [81] describe social media as Internet-based applications that help consumers share opinions, insights, experiences and perspectives. Of the platforms created as part of Web 2.0, the most common are Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and, recently, TikTok.

The evolution of technologies and the Internet has had a major influence on all commercial activities, changing the way we sell and buy and communicate within companies and with consumers. This evolution has also reduced costs, implied an adjustment in relations between buyers and sellers and, overall, has led to competitive advantages in terms of growth, efficiency, effectiveness and innovation [82]. Despite the competitiveness and demand, platforms, websites and apps not only allow for cost-effective advertising, but also the possibility of creating real relations and making an instant impact on consumers. Consumers are now more receptive to product-related communication from so-called influencers [83]. In this way, today’s markets need to adapt to the change in the way information is disseminated to the public [84].

With all the visible digital evolution, and because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a digital transformation, which was accelerated by the start of the pandemic in 2020, bringing with it a new set of challenges that have been met, from the technological to the human [13]. In this sense and out of necessity, consumers have had to adopt new technologies, based on the need to keep in touch with family members, shop online, telework and take part in virtual events [85]. The most accessible example was Zoom’s videoconferencing services, wherein many families who had access to the Internet learnt to take part in these virtual meetings through this means.

Also in this context, for Husnaiyan, Fuad and Su (2020) [86], the increase in the use of the Internet and social networks as a consequence of social isolation and teleworking practices has led to an increase in searches for information on the COVID-19 pandemic. This has increased searches for videos on how to do things, encouraging innovation and commercial success online [85]. Thus, in line with the study by Casco (2020) [87], it will be interesting to see whether the adoption of technology on a rapid scale due to the pandemic will break old habits. However, the pandemic has not only caused changes in the technological world, but also in consumer needs and purchasing behaviour, which have changed completely. In order to prevent infections, citizens have isolated themselves at home, so companies have focused on strengthening their online business through marketing innovations to ensure their survival [88].

According to Sheth (2020) [85], consumer habits are transformed by changing circumstances. In this context, companies need to be attentive to changes in habits, because as Kotler (2020) [89] explains, the pandemic has given rise to the anti-consumerism movement in the consumer sector, which seeks to simplify life, protect the environment and promote healthier eating, in other words, to reduce consumerism in order to free human beings from the superfluous and take care of the planet, awakening a new lifestyle, “Do I really need this?”.

On the other hand, according to Teixeira (2020) [90], from 2020 onwards, there was a great adherence to e-commerce, essentially due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19 and the state of emergency decreed.

Since then, the number of Portuguese consuming online has increased [91]. According to the 2020 Global Digital Report, 65% of Portuguese people have bought a product online, and of those purchases made via the digital medium, only 33% of Portuguese people bought via their mobile phone, while 43% used their computer. However, 88% of the Portuguese population has searched online for a product to buy. The main reasons for this technological evolution, prior to the pandemic, are essentially related to Internet access, the use of social networks, the emergence of smartphones and constant innovations in logistics [92].

In this way, all these technological developments have been included in consumers’ consumption habits, boosting business opportunities in e-commerce (Gunasekaran, Marri, McGaughey & Nebhwani, 2002) [93].

• Consumption and Consumer Behaviour

Although this study focuses on the factors that may influence purchasing or consumption behaviour in the context of sustainable fashion, it would be appropriate to approach the subject of consumer behaviour in a general context before specifying. The aim is to gain an essential understanding of the different methods used to make purchasing decisions and the factors that most affect consumer behaviour and purchasing intentions.

The subject of consumer behaviour can be introduced as an area of study covering different disciplines, since it is influenced by different sciences. Based on Pivetta et al. (2020) [94], various economists gave rise to the first studies on consumer behaviour, such as Adam Smith, who considered human needs to be innate and consumption decisions to be rational, based on evaluating the usefulness of products.

In the 1980s, the study of consumers began to incorporate theories and concepts from various sciences, such as notions from Freudian psychology, with the aim of understanding the different psychological motivations behind consumption [95]. Since then, interest in studies in the area of consumer behaviour has grown considerably. According to data from the Web of Science database on publications on this subject, the number of studies tripled between 2007 and 2017 [94].

The study of consumer behaviour aims to investigate the process by which people, groups and organisations choose, buy, use and discard goods, services, opinions or experiences to satisfy their needs and desires, and how it is influenced by various factors ranging from cultural and social to personal [63].

Human beings consume not only for their basic needs, but also to create an identity [96]. Individuals as consumers make exchanges with other individuals or organisations to obtain what they want or need, as stated by marketing, social and organisational psychology experts Bagozzi et al. (2002); Howard and Sheth, (1969); Levitt (1960); Mccarthy (1982), cited by Sampaio and Gosling (2009) [97].

In view of an increasingly dynamic scenario, there are many influences involved in consumer purchasing behaviour. This process leads consumers to define what (what, when, how much and where) to buy on a daily basis. Marketing experts are encouraged to find out how the process of influence and behaviour takes place. This has encouraged marketing experts to find out how the influence and decision process takes place. However, it is very complex to understand the reasons that lead them to buy, given that consumers can be influenced by different factors [63].

The starting point for the purchasing process is defined as the moment when the consumer identifies a problem or a need. The consumer’s purchasing decision may also be influenced by some moderating effects, which relate to the consumer’s level of involvement with the product/service or brand [98].

This being said, in order to conclude the theoretical collection of this study, we will now present the factors that influence purchase intentions in the context of this study, sustainable fashion.

2.4. Influencing Factors of Sustainable Fashion Purchase Intentions

This study aims to understand which factors most influence the intention to buy sustainable fashion through the relations between environmental concern, fashion consumer awareness and adaptation to the digital evolution.

• Environmental Concern

As mentioned by Kim and Choi (2005) [99], collective concern about environmental issues has gradually increased, and this concern directly affects green shopping behaviour.

Environmental concern and ecological behaviours influence purchase intentions, since those who buy ecological products are naturally consumers who are aware of their environmental impact, and through their awareness contribute significantly to the interest in such products [100].

A study carried out by BBC Global News reveals that 81% of consumers are committed to sustainability, adding value to brands, and that 79% say they consider the brand’s sustainability practices at the time of purchase [101]. The same study shows that most consumers (57%) would stop buying a product they are loyal to if they found out that it did not comply with sustainability standards. Also, within the scope of this study, it was found that globally, 46% of consumers say that helping the environment is essential for them and that they want the companies from which they buy products to be eco-friendly.

Increasingly, consumers are willing to change their purchase of products for ecological reasons and to stop buying products from companies that cause pollution. Like companies and other economic institutions, they are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of changing attitudes towards the development of their products in a conscious way, in relation to the impacts on the environment [102].

• Environmental Awareness

Following the study of the reasons that may be based on the adoption of sustainable purchasing and consumption behaviours, sustainability-oriented consumers are referred to as environmentally conscious consumers, emphasising the relevance of environmental awareness in this process. According to Song, Qin and Yuan (2019) [103], environmental awareness refers to consumers’ general beliefs, attitudes, and concerns regarding environmental issues. Thus, environmental awareness has a cognitive component based on knowledge and an affective component based on perception [104].

According to Panni (2006), cited by Kaufmann et al. (2012) [105], the more consumers are aware of social and environmental issues, the more they engage in pro-social and pro-environmental behaviours.

Through the research carried out by Song, Qin and Yuan (2019) [103], it is confirmed that environmental awareness takes into account determinants of pro-environmental behaviour, from recycling behaviour to sustainable purchasing behaviours; the conclusion, according to other authors, is that consumers with greater environmental awareness are more likely to buy products based on their environmental requirements and social responsibility [103].

In this context, the following research hypothesis was defined:

H1. 

Environmental concern has a positive influence on fashion consumers’ sustainable behaviour intentions.

H2. 

Environmental concern has a positive influence on sustainable behaviour intentions.

• Conscious Consumption

Within the focus of this study, it is important to investigate, on the one hand, how the context of sustainability is seen by consumers and, on the other hand, how consumers associate it with fashion; first we will address sustainable consumer behaviour in a generalised way.

According to Stancu et al. (2020) [106], studies carried out with consumers state that they consider the concept of sustainability to be complex, revealing incoherence and confusion regarding its interpretation, and tend to relate it mainly to environmental aspects, while social and economic aspects are less stressed.

However, Stringer et al. (2019) [107] describe that, in most consumers, there is a growing awareness of the importance of the concept of sustainability.

While Portilho (2010), cited by Pivetta et al. (2020) [94], exemplifies it as a consumer who, in addition to the quality/price variable, encompasses in the influencing factors of their choices the environmental variable, choosing products that are not aggressive to the environment, considering their impact on the physical environment, purchasing ecological products to minimize the potentially negative environmental impact.

On the other hand, Webster (1975), cited by Calderon-Monge et al. (2020) [108], introduces the concept of a socially conscious consumer, referring to one who takes into account the public effects of their private consumption or who tries to use their purchasing power with the aim of bringing about social change, showing himself to be aware of social problems, and believing that it can make a difference.

According to McNeill and Moore (2015) [109], people are becoming more aware of their social responsibilities, and more concerned about the impact their consumption behaviours will have on the world. According to Easey (2009) [100], this type of consumer is used to thinking before buying, that is, buying only what he/she really needs, in all fields of consumption. Ottman (1997) [110], on the other hand, states that the green consumer is the one who has a purchasing behaviour that evaluates the products and services according to the environmental responsibility of the producers and the functional performance and price of the product.

However, this is a secondary need of these consumers, according to Maslow’s pyramid [110], because regardless of being sensitive to the environmental performance component of products, it is expected that many purchasing decisions will fall on products with lower environmental performance.

Kohlrausch et al. (2004) [111] point out that the consumer has little information regarding the attributes of the products, namely the raw materials and technologies that have been used, which leads to the fact that many purchasing decisions are based on products with better environmental performance.

Proença and Paiva (2011) [112] state that it is not enough for companies to promote indications such as “environmentally friendly”, “organic” or “natural”, because the consumer is usually suspicious of this information, and it is necessary to provide enough information for the comparison between alternative products.

Within the framework of the characterisation of green consumers, Ottman (1997) [110] defined five consumer segments in relation to environmental issues, cited by Sá (2021) [113]:

• -. 1st, True-blue greens—these are people who believe they can make a difference in favour of environmental sustainability and have ecologically correct consumption behaviour.

• -. 2nd, Greenback greens—they consider that they do not have time to dedicate themselves to the environmental cause and are not socially and politically active, but have correct consumption behaviour.

• -. 3rd, Sprouts—their main pro-environmental activity is recycling; although they want to join other types of activities, they only do this when they do not require much effort.

• -. 4th, Grousers—they are a confused and uninformed group; they do not believe that they can do anything meaningful in favour of the environment, thinking that it is the responsibility of governments and big companies.

• -. 5th, Basic Browns—they are indifferent and do not believe that the environmental problems are very serious.

According to some research (Boztepe, 2012; Chen and Chai, 2010; Gan et al., 2008; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Kianpour et al., 2012; Laroche et al., 2001; Paço et al., 2009; Ramly et al., 2012), cited by Ferreira (2013) [114], the characteristics that best define the sociodemographic profile of the green consumer are the following:

• -. Gender;

• -. Age;

• -. Number of children;

• -. Level of education;

• -. Income.

Although each author and each study has its own particularity, the variables “Gender” and “Buying Behaviour” are in a positive relationship, according to Boztepe, 2012; Darnall et al., 2012; Ramly et al., 2012; Straughan and Roberts, 1999, cited by Ferreira (2013) [114]. Generally, men tend to have greater knowledge of environmental issues than women, and women are more likely to buy green products and participate more frequently in several types of green behaviour (e.g., recycling and conservation of energy and resources) [114].

In turn, in older studies, Straughan and Roberts (1999) [115] concluded that age and ecological knowledge are relevant factors in triggering people to buy “more environmentally friendly” products. The same authors also showed that income and education have a considerable influence on eco-conscious consumers.

Thus, the level of education has a positive relationship with purchasing behaviour, as it is possible to state, according to several authors [116,117], that those who have qualifications corresponding to higher education, and consequently, greater ease of access to information, show greater concern and act in line with the preservation of the environment, being more likely to buy green products than consumers who have a low level of education. According to Tama, Cüreklibatir and Öndoǧan (2017) [118], consumers who hold a master’s degree are the ones who attribute the most interest to the purchase of sustainable clothing, and this type of consumer would accept the need to pay more for these garments.

At the same time, studies carried out by Saricam, Erdumlu, Silan, Dogan and Sonmezcan (2017) [119] record that the level of environmental awareness increases proportionally with the level of consumer education. According to the same authors, it was concluded that the relationship between environmental concern and income shows that those who have greater environmental concern also have higher levels of income. Another study, carried out by Kaufmann et al. (2012) [105], points out that the lack of income makes it impossible for them to consume green products or to do so more often.

According to Ottman (1997) [110], green consumers are usually individuals with a high level of education, with an average age of 37 years, employed, and usually in executive functions. However, even with an increase in consumer awareness and interest in sustainable products, a relevant part of the studies consulted by Lee et al. (2020) [120] indicate that there is a marked divergence between the importance attributed by consumers to sustainability and their purchasing behaviours.

Following this, a study carried out by the United Nations Global Compact (UN Global Compact), United Nations Environment Programme and Utopies (2005) [121] confirms that 40% of consumers say they are willing to buy real products, but only a minority (4%) say they actually buy these products. At the same time, in Portugal, the authors Paço and Raposo (2009) [122] confirm that the Portuguese understand the ecological challenges that are currently being observed, as well as the existence of environmental problems; however, their concerns are not always transposed into behaviours.

In this sense, through a study, Vaccari et al. (2016) [123] reached similar conclusions, by finding factors that increase the discrepancy between the importance attributed to sustainability and sustainable behaviours, which are the following:

• -. Lack of appropriate outlets;

• -. Lack of information and legal regulations;

• -. Lack of knowledge of the origin of resources;

• -. Negative perceptions of products (e.g., appearance).

In this way, the authors, in the context of their study, presented factors that contribute to the reduction of this gap, and examples are health concerns and positive perceptions about the products [123].

• Fashion Consumer Awareness

According to Zhang and Dong (2020) [124] regarding “green purchasing behaviour”, it is mentioned as a rational behaviour of consumers to protect the environment with effort on the part of their personal interests. However, when it comes to the consumption of fashion items, including clothing and accessories, it must be kept in mind that consumers are faced with products that have an important social relevance because they are visible to others [106].

The question, therefore, arises as to whether the motives implicit in the purchase of sustainable fashion products can be linked solely to genuine environmental protection interests. Kozar and Connell (2014) [125] argue that consumers are more interested in environmental issues compared to social issues in the field of fashion.

In turn, Soyer, Rotterdam, Dittrich, Kooy and Rotterdam (2019) [126] state that concern for the environment is the biggest driver of sustainable shopping in the fashion industry. In this way, positive relationships can be found between knowledge and attitudes towards environmental issues linked to fashion and ecologically responsible buying behaviour. Given that environmental concern has a positive effect on sustainable consumption, it is implied that buying sustainable fashion items is a sign that consumers understand the negative impacts they can have on the environment [127]. The relation between a pro-environment attitude and the consumption of sustainable fashion is expressive and positive; the more consumers have the attitude of protecting the natural habitat through their actions, the more they engage in sustainable fashion.

In this way, consumers who are genuinely interested in environmental issues are influenced in their choices by the following aspects: local or ethical production, environmentally friendly materials and long-lasting products [127].

Wagner and Heinzel (2020) [128] state that the lack of awareness of sustainability continues to be indicated as one of the most important barriers to ethical fashion consumption. Therefore, in order to raise consumer awareness and behaviour, there needs to be greater accessibility of products in terms of points of sale, as well as an exhibition of stories, transmitting information about the origin of the resources used, a method that has been proven in several cases.

However, most fashion consumers do not sacrifice their fashion needs and desires for the sake of sustainability, and the existence of this gap between consumers’ attitudes towards sustainability and their eco-friendly behaviour ultimately creates a state of psychological imbalance [120].

In reality, according to Calderon-Monge et al. (2020) [108], consumers are the final link in the value chain, as they can set trends and establish preferences, while encouraging, rejecting or diverting the purchase of products, brands, formats or other attributes, including ethical, social, and environmental appreciations, and will use this power in proportion to the knowledge they have. According to the authors, the literature provides definitive evidence of the positive relation between the perceived effect of consumers’ behaviours and sustainable purchasing behaviours [108].

Following this idea, at the fashion level, according to Mintel (2017), cited by Goworek et al. (2020) [58], consumer demand for sustainable clothing is increasing. Rijo (2021) [98] found that the majority of consumers prefer greener fashion brands, particularly those aged 16–24 (Generation Y or Millennials and Generation Z), perhaps because they are more likely to have been educated about climate change and its potential impact on their generation, highlighting their level of environmental awareness.

Another study perspective, according to Niinimäki (2011) [129], indicates that the female gender is the group most concerned with environmental and ethical issues in the fashion industry, and women ascribe more value to the purchase of ecological clothes, preferring to buy clothes that provide lasting and comfortable use, according to Tama, Cüreklibatir Encan and Öndoǧan (2017) [118]. However, it must be considered that most sustainable fashion consumers are women, when compared to the male gender [129]; they also consume other environmentally friendly products more.

Wagner and Heinzel (2020) [128] reinforce, through their studies, the growing inclinations of consumers towards the recycling of textile waste and sustainable solutions, such as circular clothing, as well as the demand for more apparent and concrete information, including the environmental impacts of textile production, i.e., the demand for transparency of brands, both environmentally and socially. These authors also state that consumer attitudes are positive towards circular products, such as recycled or upcycled products.

• Sustainable Fashion Consumers’ Habits and Motivations

Most of the sustainable fashion buying behaviours are based on a set of distinct motivations that can complement each other, with a strong presence of financial benefits, and few individuals are intimately motivated to engage in sustainable behaviours.

In this sense, Hosta and Zabkar (2016), cited by Calderon-Monge et al. (2020) [108], state that economic factors are the basis of responsible consumer behaviour, confirming the importance that these aspects have in their purchasing decisions, even if reinforced with other aspects. For example, according to studies carried out by several authors [106], in this context, donation behaviours for recycling or selling unwanted clothes are motivated by financial benefits in the form of money or discounts for new purchases in the store where one donates, exposing external motivation. However, the donation of clothes can also be linked to the values of the individual, exposing an internalized motivation, when it is based on interest in others, intending to contribute to the satisfaction of people with fewer resources, to the protection of the environment or to a sense of civic duty.

According to a study of the factors that motivated the disposal of clothes, Joung and Park-Poaps (2013) [59] concluded that those who want to save money resell or reuse their clothes and those who seek convenience in the act of buying tend to throw them in the trash; those who donate used clothes are motivated by environmental and charitable concerns, as well as being influenced by their families. However, the sentimental value that clothing may demonstrate is another factor to be considered when deciding to dispose of it, and people are more likely to donate clothes with high sentimental value to friends or family, and only then to charity [130]. Also, according to the authors, consumers can think of clothes as investments, if they have an emotional value, decreasing the frequency of disposal or recycling.

Isla (2013) [131] mentioned that the sale of used clothes opens space for new pieces, and, thus, people get rid of the guilt of excessive or unnecessary consumption. In this way, it is considered that internalized habits and motivations have the potential to lead to persistent behaviours and future sustainable behaviours [106].

• Decision-Making Criteria in Fashion Acquisition

There are few studies that clarify, with certainty, which of the criteria have more weight in the act of consumption, either for fashion consumers in general or for sustainable fashion consumers. What is known is that the most relevant variables related to products in the purchase of ethical clothing are price; quality; clothing style; product information and availability [132]. However, Solomon (2008) [133] states that consumers are looking for quality and value at the same time, stating that the perception of quality is linked to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a product/service.

Accordingly, several studies articulate quality and price as important conditions in the purchase of clothing by the consumer [134].

On the other hand, most practical studies related to quality have focused on price as the main factor for determining the quality of products. However, price is only one of several useful extrinsic factors, since the brand can be as important or more important than price [135], because consumers use both price and brand as indicators of quality [136].

According to a study carried out by Garretson et al. (2002) [137], consumers of fashion and clothing products are loyal to brands and exhibit a great tendency to buy the usual brands, so it is unlikely that they will opt for new brands or brands that they do not know.

Macdonald and Sharp (2000) [138] further demonstrate the effect of brand awareness on purchasing decisions; similarly, Laroche et al. (1996) [139] asserted that the familiarity with one brand has an influence on consumer confidence in another brand, which in turn affects purchase intention. Certain authors have disclosed through a study that the product (design and durability), the price (resources spent) and the novelty (sharing and influences) of the articles were considered the most important criteria when buying clothing, while the origin of the product was the least considered [126].

Consumers who consider themselves to be more knowledgeable about these issues and who take action on them are willing to pay premium prices as a way of cooperating for environmental protection, and are increasingly aware of and open to these types of issues [140]. However, even if socially and environmentally responsible ventures convince consumers to spend more money [141], it is reported that consumers are more likely to spend a higher amount when it comes to socially responsible fashion than environmentally responsible fashion.

Therefore, consumers in general have a positive attitude towards ethical consumption, but according to Niinimäki (2010) [16], this positive attitude of deciding to buy ethically includes price as one of the determining factors in this type of decision. Several authors report that for consumers with a higher monthly household income, the influence of the price factor is reduced and, subsequently, the purchase of sustainable fashion items is encouraged [142]. On the other hand, the minimum monthly family income in each economy makes price a decisive factor in the purchase of ecological clothing [143].

According to Nguyen and Johnson (2020) [144], the Millennial generation, the generation born from 1981 to 1996 (individuals between the ages of 26 and 41 in 2022), is willing to pay more for these products than for alternatives that are destructive to the environment and society.

• Knowledge and Social Perception of Sustainable Fashion Consumers

According to Paulins and Hillery (2009) [145], consumers’ knowledge of sustainable fashion helps them to be responsible and cooperate with society, indicating the importance it holds. According to a study by Kozar and Connel (2014) [125], consumers are more knowledgeable about environmental issues than they are about social issues in the context of fashion. This same study showed that knowledge and attitudes towards environmental and social issues associated with fashion greatly influence purchasing behaviour. In other words, there are positive relationships between knowledge and attitudes towards social and environmental issues associated with fashion, which encourage socially and environmentally responsible consumer behaviours, respectively, in the field of fashion.

Knowledge about fashion at the social level significantly influences sustainable fashion buying behaviours [125]. Consumers are concerned about the social effects of their purchases, particularly when human rights are violated in factories [146].

Within the framework of decision-making criteria in the acquisition of sustainable fashion, the variable “price” is the one that stands out the most in theoretical terms. Since many sustainable products are more expensive than fast fashion products, in certain cases, these so-called sustainable products can be considered luxury items [144]. According to Soyer et al. (2019) [126], when sustainable products are readily available, when prices are competitively set and when second-hand garments look new, consumers who are less concerned about the environment may be persuaded by more sustainable options.

Knowledge about fashion at the environmental level significantly influences purchasing behaviours when it comes to environmentally responsible consumption. Therefore, consumers who are more knowledgeable about the environmental impacts of the fashion industry (toxic chemicals and pollutants from the processing of textile fibres) are the most likely to engage in environmentally responsible purchasing behaviours [125].

Thus, according to the latest authors, consumers’ social knowledge, such as the circumstances of the work performed in garment factories, and environmental knowledge, such as about manufacturing processes that harm the oceans with chemicals and microfibres, provide tools that enhance conscious consumption. However, for people to be able to make more sustainable purchases, it is essential that they know exactly what they are buying, and for this, it is necessary for brands to be transparent about their actions in this field, informing consumers of what they do and how they do it, in a direct and truthful way.

Clearly, in order to influence the consumer’s decision to purchase a product or service from a socially responsible company, it is necessary for them to first know the level of corporate social responsibility [147].

For this reason, it is important for organisations to disclose this information, as their knowledge may or may not influence consumer behaviour. Consumer concern about the environmental and social impact of the fashion industry is important because, despite their willingness to support sustainable fashion initiatives, a large proportion of consumers do not have sufficient knowledge on the subject, and report that such issues are rarely mentioned. Therefore, it is necessary to inform and educate consumers to increase their levels of awareness [141]. More literate consumers are more aware of sustainable fashion and all that it entails [119].

Consumers who are more informed about fashion-related social issues, such as child exploitation, and who express stronger attitudes, such as wanting government involvement in regulating working conditions in factories, are the most likely to engage in socially responsible shopping (Kozar & Connell, 2013) [125].

It should also be noted that these consumers are also more likely to unmask companies, i.e., before buying, they carry out research on the policies of companies regarding their social and environmental responsibility practices (Kozar & Connell, 2013) [125].

On the other hand, consumers with low knowledge and low commitment are not influenced by these types of issues (Niinimäki, 2013) [148].

Miranda (2008) [1] argues that when it comes to the collection of information in the field of fashion carried out by the consumer, television continues to be the most used carrier as a source of knowledge appropriation, followed by women’s magazines; however, the Internet is becoming another medium with great impact for the collection of information, and this is due to the ease of access.

Based on these arguments, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

H3. 

Knowledge of sustainable fashion practices has a positive influence on the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour.

• Fashion Consumption in the Digital Evolution

In recent years, there has been a drastic change in the way consumers shop. Although consumers continue to shop in physical stores, they feel increasingly comfortable and safe shopping online (e-commerce), as it frees them from physically visiting the store. This reduces the effort of traveling, and allows them to buy anytime and anywhere, making it possible to compare prices and products with those of the competition and making it easier to take the opportunity to buy the product (Shanthi & Kannaiah, 2015) [149].

• Fashion Consumption Preferences (Online or Physical)

Specifically in relation to online consumers’ behaviour, their behaviours and attitudes are directly related to consumers’ trust in sellers. According to Beldad et al. (2010) [150], trust is seen as a precondition for obtaining products and services through the online channel. To mitigate a lack of trust, companies and brands need to invest in fast and effective digital communication, as well as security-based relations (Teo & Liu, 2007) [151].

Still, familiarity with websites and their quality, the information that is conveyed and the perceived credibility of the market, are, similarly, factors that affect consumers’ online trust (Filieri et al., 2015) [152]. Another factor that induces online trust among consumers is the reputation of companies and brands, as it implies the perceptions that consumers have about their public image, the capacity for innovation and the quality of the product/service (Koufaris & Hampton-Sosa, 2004) [153].

The object of trust in offline commerce is usually an individual or an entity, while trust in e-commerce is the technology and information available, such as feedback comments, the credibility of the source, the content and transparency of communication, delivery methods, payment methods, flexible shopping, and the level of satisfaction with previous experiences (Beldad et al., 2010) [150], (Filieri et al., 2015) [152].

Thus, due to the constant changes in and the large volume of information available on the Internet about products, services, companies and brands, people are increasingly demanding, more knowledgeable and more informed (Lindon et al., 2010) [154].

According to Yoo et al. (2009) [155], it is found that in the online channel, younger users tend to trust more easily, while older users are generally more sceptical of Internet use. When it comes to gender, females trust professional websites more and males trust personal websites more.

In addition to these comparisons, Yoo et al. (2009) [155] found that the annual income and educational level of online consumers affect online consumption, i.e., the lower the income and education, the lower the online consumption.

Regarding the fashion buying behaviour of consumers, both physical and online, there are several variables that lead them to do so, according to Katawetawaraks and Wang (2013) [156] (Table 1).

According to a research study by Costa (2021) [91], it is observed that the main reasons for online shopping are convenience and the information available.

• Social Media Influence and Digital Marketing in the area of Fashion

Currently, we are in an era in which our lives are connected, that is, online, and in this way, commerce is conducted by social media, where the product is presented more efficiently than before, and the fashion world is no exception, according to Larocca (2018), cited by Moura (2018) [157].

The same author analyses and exposes the way in which magazines were the basis of fashion promotion, with their attractive character, shaping the tastes of the industry, but they were replaced by social media or the so-called social networks, such as Instagram, which works in real time. However, the big change within the industry is in the alteration of information power structures. For example, anyone who attends a parade can take pictures and share them through social media, making the photographer the only visual messenger required (Schneier, 2014) [158].

Social media, such as websites, blogs and other channels, have been adopted by the fashion system (Carvalho, 2015) [159]. Thus, digital influencers, who share content on styles and trends, also exert influence on the course of the fashion system (Tavernari & Murakami, 2012) [160].

• Online Consumption, Purchase Intentions and the Pandemic in the Digital Age

Technology has made it possible for big brands to achieve notoriety in the markets considerably faster, at a pace that would be practically unobtainable otherwise.

In addition, technology has allowed consumers to meet their needs in a much more efficient way than in past eras.

In this way, today’s consumer is systematically looking for novelties, and is impatient and mobile. Kotler, Kartajaya and Setiawan et al. (2017) [161] state that due to the rapid adaptation of the consumer to technological evolution, which allows them to buy easily anytime and anywhere, the consumer of the new era has to have everything in an instantaneous and efficient manner.

E-commerce, or online consumption, offers consumers a wider range of products and/or services, especially in terms of models, colours, sizes or other types of characteristics (Katawetawaraks & Wang, 2013) [156]. Purchases can be made for a variety of reasons (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003) [162]. Online, consumers share information about brands, products or services and experiences with other consumers, which often leads to an online purchase (To et al., 2007) [163]. It should be noted that the year 2020 was marked by the pandemic and confinement caused by the COVID-19 virus, making it a revolutionary year for e-commerce, and consequently, it reflected an immense behavioural change in consumers (Costa, 2021) [91].

Kotler et al. (2017) [161] state that we live in a world in which high technology is increasingly highlighted, and the existence of closer contact is becoming the difference, that is, despite the fact that we live in the digital age, consumers continue to value physical experiences and human connections.

In this context, the last two research hypotheses are proposed:

H4. 

Digital literacy moderates the relationship between environmental concern and intention to adopt sustainable behaviour, potentially strengthening this relationship;

H5. 

Digital literacy moderates the relationship between knowledge of sustainable fashion practices and intention to adopt sustainable behaviour, potentially strengthening this relationship.

After the theoretical review addressed in the framework of this article, the methodology adopted in the study and the model applied in the collection and analysis of data will be expressed, and the results and conclusions drawn from the study will be articulated.

3. Methodology

In this section, the methodology adopted for the present study is presented, referring to the methodological options, characterising the technique and the instrument for collecting data used in the study. In terms of the data collection instrument, the structure of the instrument is presented, as well as the scales chosen according to the factors to be studied. The procedures used in the collection of data are explained. Finally, the proposed model for the research in question is shown and the sample is characterised.

Bearing in mind the theoretical framework for the themes under study, with regard to the use of the review of scientific articles, specialty books and websites, and in order to develop the objectives outlined, an exploratory study model was adopted for this research, aimed at Portuguese consumers, wherein a survey was used as a data collection technique. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire survey. This was prepared using the Google Forms online platform and distributed via email, using the social networks Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp between 3 and 15 November 2022.

The questionnaire is divided into four parts, considering the objectives of the research and, more precisely, each of the factors involved in the study.

The first part of the questionnaire is composed of complementary questions, which have the purpose of characterising the sample, and it was used to gather the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, which include the variables of gender, age, educational qualifications, the number of elements in and net monthly income of the family, the level of financial comfort and the place of residence.

The second part of the questionnaire consists of seven questions, wherein the influencing factor in question is environmental concern (EC). Within this factor, it was possible to subdivide the questions to be asked into two sub-factors, which were called environmental awareness (EA) and consumer awareness (CA).

This influencing factor (EC) has a positive effect on sustainable consumption, allowing us to observe the awareness of consumers and understand if those who buy sustainable fashion items are indicating that they understand the negative impacts they can have on the environment (Gam, 2011) [127].

The factor of environmental awareness (EA) was based on Rijo (2021) [98] and originated from adaptations of studies by Kim and Chung (2011) [164], Roberts (1996) [165], Roberts and Bacon (1997) [166], Grunert and Juhl (1995) [167], and Straughan and Roberts (1999) [115]. The latter has defined a scale called “Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour” (ECCB), which aims to compare sociodemographic variables with green consumer behaviour. In this context, the study by Gonçalves (2017) [168] was also taken into account, and we adapted work from Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher (2016) [169], who developed a research instrument called the “Ethically Minded Consumer Behaviour” (EMCB) scale, in which environmental and ethical behaviour is elucidated. Still within the factor of environmental concern (EC), with regard to the variable consumer awareness (CA), it was based on the study by Rijo (2021) [98] adapted from Mohr et al. (2001) [147].

The third part of the questionnaire consists of eighteen questions related to the second objective of the study, which is to understand fashion consumer behaviour and knowledge of the fashion industry’s impact on the planet, with knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) as the influencing factor, which was subdivided into six more sub-factors, buying habits (BH), reuse (R), functionality (F), familiarity with concepts (FC), social perception (SP) and price (Pr).

As this part of the questionnaire revealed, and according to Gam (2011) [127], these factors also have a positive effect on sustainable consumption; the more consumers have the attitude of protecting the natural habitat through their actions, the more they engage in sustainable fashion. The variable buying habits (BH) was based on studies by Gonçalves (2017) [168] and Rijo (2021) [98], adapted from Cho et al. (2015) [170] and Sproles and Kendall (1986) [171].

Regarding the reuse (R) variable, it is based on Rijo (2021) [98], adapted from Shim (1995) [172]. In turn, the variable functionality (F) was used by Rijo (2021) [98], adapted from Jung and Jin (2016) [173], and was elaborated within the scope of this study with the adaptation of Shim’s research (1995) [172].

As for the variable familiarity with concepts (FC), it was developed specifically for this research, based on the adaptation of Mohr et al.‘s research (2001) [147].

In addition to these authors, we took into account the study by Gonçalves (2017) [168], adapted from studies carried out by Kozar and Connell (2014) [125], Young et al. (2010) [174] and Solomon (2008) [133], and the study by Sá (2021) [113], based on Gam (2011) [127]; the study by Rijo (2021) [98] based on Kim and Damhorst (1998) [175] was also used. Finally, still within the scope of this variable, some questions were developed specifically for this research, based on Vaccari et al.‘s work (2016) [122].

Regarding the social perception (SP) variable, it was adopted by Rijo (2021) [98], based on the work of Jung and Jin (2014) [171]. Studies by Gonçalves (2015) [176] and Sá (2021) [113] were also considered, and it was further adapted from the study by Morais (2013) [133].

Finally, the price (Pr) variable consists of two items, both used by Rijo (2021) [98] and adapted from studies conducted by Niinimäki (2010) [16] and Chan and Wong (2012) [140].

The fourth and final part of the questionnaire consists of nine questions and reflects the relationship between the concept of sustainable fashion and the behaviour of fashion consumers in relation to brand communication and the use of the digital world. Here, the influencing factor is digital literacy (DL), subdivided into seven sub-factors, fashion consumption preferences (FCP), social networks (SN), influences (I), online consumption (OC), purchase intention (PI), the pandemic (Pa) and digital marketing (DM). With regard to this influencing factor, and according to Feliciano (2019) [76], the digital environment governs the personal and professional lives of citizens, and its adaptation is also part of the scope of consumption, since, also according to Silva (2018) [7], digital media have revolutionized the way of acting, allowing today’s consumers to have very different characteristics from ten years ago, thus influencing the consumption of sustainable fashion. Finally, a multiple-choice question was added, asking the respondent how he or she became aware of the questionnaire when answering the questionnaire in question, allowing us to understand how the questionnaire reached the respondents.

Regarding the variables that make up the adaptation to the digital evolution (ADE), the variable fashion consumption preferences (FCP) was adapted from studies by Moura (2018) [157] and Costa (2021) [91].

On the other hand, the social networks (SN) variable is also supported by Moura (2018) [157] and Costa (2021) [91] but was adapted from studies by Wolny and Mueller (2013) [177] and Kotler et al. (2017) [161], respectively. The variable influences (I) was measured by Moura (2018) [157].

This is followed by the online consumption (OC) variable, which comprises nine items, of which four were developed specifically for this research, with the adaptation of the studies by Schiffman and Kanuk (2009) [178], Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) [81], Moura (2018) [157], Marques (2018) [80]; it was also used by Costa (2021) [91] and adapted from the study by Shanthi and Kannaiah (2015) [149].

In turn, the purchase intention (PI) variable was based on the Costa (2021) [91] model, which is based on research by Tsai and Huang (2007) [179], Hellier et al. (2003) [180] and Hume et al. (2007) [181].

The pandemic variable (Pa) was developed specifically for this study, with the adaptation of Costa’s (2021) study [91]. Finally, the digital marketing (DM) variable was developed specifically for this research, based on the studies of Kotler and Keller (2012) [63], Tiago and Veríssimo (2014) [79], Smith (2011) [182] and Ryan (2014) [183].

The procedures for data collection and analysis will be set out below, and the attached presentation of the survey questions will be highlighted, which made it possible to analyse each factor and sub-factor.

In the process of elaborating the questionnaire, the application of vocabulary accessible to the target population of the study was taken into account, and the questions were arranged in the most appropriate order, while informing the respondents of the anonymity of their participation and of the lack of right or wrong answers. In order to measure the surveys under study, and in order to support the literature review, the data collection instrument aimed at Portuguese consumers was based on previous scales and validated by other studies with similar research objectives to this one, namely those of Gonçalves (2015) [176], Gonçalves (2017) [168], Sá (2021) [113], Rijo (2021) [98], Moura (2018) [157] and Costa (2021) [91], taking into account their adaptations from other authors, as mentioned above. The questionnaire was analysed by a committee of professors from a master’s programme, which helped to determine a proposed conceptual model for the study in question. It was therefore possible to structure the questionnaire on the basis of the contextualisation carried out, the theoretical review presented and the proposed methodological plan. In this context, the following table summarises the overall structure of the questionnaire, wherein it is possible to support the constructs (Table 2).

The conceptual model of this study is based on latent variables, measured indirectly through observable variables. Thus, questions from previously applied studies, with similar contexts, were selected for each of the observable variables: EC, KSFP and DL, which influence the intention to purchase sustainable fashion. The studies consulted provided the basis for the research structure and allowed the creation of a questionnaire where it is possible to ascertain latent variables and to draw more objective conclusions regarding the entire study, which in itself portrays three completely different but relatable themes.

The treatment and analysis of the data was elaborated using Microsoft Excel 2404 and IBM SPSS Statistics 27, allowing the analysis of the data and verification of the existence of relationships between the variables [184]. A descriptive analysis of all variables was performed, using absolute and relative frequency, as well as indicators, when possible, such as mean, mode, median and standard deviation, followed by the analysis of the data collected in the context of the study.

AMOS software 29 was also used to analyse the data using the SEM (structural equation modelling) technique. This type of analysis involves multivariate data analysis techniques that combine elements of multiple regression and factor analysis to simultaneously identify a series of interdependent relationships. Data collection was directed to a random, non-probabilistic sampling, more precisely, a convenience sampling, to Portuguese consumers.

No restrictions of the target population were used, other than the minimum limit of 18 years of age, since we intended to investigate the perceptions of most consumers regardless of their knowledge, behaviours and purchasing habits. It should be noted that all the answers collected were validated for analysis.

• -. Structure of the SEM Model

In order to construct the structural equation model, we started from the previously defined theoretical model, which argues that environmental concern (EC) is closely related to the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour (IASB), i.e., individuals with greater environmental concern have a greater intention to adopt sustainable behaviour. Following this line of reasoning, we can see that knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) can also influence the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour (IASB), as knowledge of sustainable fashion practices positively influences the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour.

Finally, digital literacy (DL) can also influence the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour (IASB), since technological literacy moderates the relationship between environmental concern and the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour, as well as the relationship between knowledge of sustainable fashion practices and the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour. The structure of the proposed SEM model is shown in the following table (Table 3).

This theoretical model supports the construction of a structural equation model. The SEM framework is represented by a graph that visualises the relationships between the variables in the theoretical model. The diagram will serve as a graphical representation of the proposed causal relationships between the variables, facilitating the understanding and interpretation of the model, as has been performed in other studies on similar topics, thus highlighting the relevance of this methodological approach to the study in question.

In a global scenario in which consumers are increasingly aware of the urgent need to adopt sustainable practices, the analysis of consumer behaviour in the field of sustainable fashion has emerged as a vector of study of crucial importance. This work aims to unravel the complexity of the relationships between environmental concern (EC), knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP), digital literacy (DL) and the propensity to adopt sustainable behaviour, using structural equation modelling (SEM).

Existing research highlights a growing interest in sustainable consumption practices, significantly influencing consumer attitudes and behaviour (Doran & Larsen, 2017; Peattie & Peattie, 2009) [185,186]. Previous investigations, such as those conducted by Kim and Chung (2011) [164] and Roberts and Bacon (1997) [166], highlight the predominance of environmental awareness as a determining factor in the adoption of environmentally responsible behaviour. The literature also shows that detailed knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) is essential for consumers to make more conscious and informed choices (Gonçalves, 2017; Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016) [168,169].

However, digital literacy (DL) has emerged as a potentially relevant moderating variable in this equation. In the digital age, the paradigm for accessing information, interacting with brands and making purchases has changed significantly (Hajli et al., 2017) [187]. Easy access to information about sustainability and ethics on digital platforms can increase the impact of environmental awareness and knowledge about sustainable fashion on the willingness to adopt sustainable behaviour (Bick et al., 2018; Chen & Chang, 2012) [188,189]. The fact that consumers live in a constantly evolving era, due to economic, social and, above all, technological advances, has increased their ability to understand, use and communicate information in technological contexts [79].

In this case, digital literacy (DL) can influence the relationships between environmental concern (EC), knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) and the intention to adopt sustainable behaviour in several ways. One of these is access to information and technological resources, which in turn increases individuals’ access to information about environmental issues and sustainable fashion practices. In other words, individuals with greater technological literacy are more likely to use information available online to make more sustainable consumption decisions. This may include choosing brands that adopt sustainable practices, supporting environmental awareness campaigns and participating in circular fashion initiatives. With this in mind, the theoretical model and hypotheses are detailed below.

• -. Theoretical model and hypotheses

This study uses structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine the relationships between EC, KSFP, DL and sustainable behaviour intentions.

• Construct 1: Environmental concern (EC)

  Variables:

  • PII-1: Are you concerned about your actions to improve the environment?

  • PII-5.1: I get angry when I think about the damage that pollution does to the planet.

  • PII-7.1: What I buy affects the environmental problems of the whole country.

• Construct 2: Knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP)

  Variables:

  • PIII-9: Level of knowledge about sustainable fashion, circular economy, upcycling, fast fashion, slow fashion.

  • PIII-10: Awareness of the negative impacts of fashion/clothing production.

• Construct 3: Digital literacy (DL)

  Variables:

  • PIV-2: Where do you prefer to buy clothes (physical shop vs. Internet)?

  • PIV-7.1: Do you use digital tools such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc. in your daily life?

• Construct 4: Intention to engage in sustainable behaviour (IASB)

  Variables:

  • PII-3: Given the choice, would you always prefer the product that is less harmful to the environment? (indicative of pro-sustainability choices).

  • QIII-15: Do you usually buy ‘sustainable fashion’? (Indicator of sustainable purchasing behaviour).

  • QIII-5.4: I often donate my clothes to help other people I know (indicating conscious and sustainable consumption).

Figure 1 describes the proposed model.

4. Results

In this point, the presentation and analysis of the data collected within the framework of the study are presented. A descriptive analysis of all variables was carried out, in order to provide a basis for final considerations and future investigations.

• Characterisation of the sample

The sample is made up of 201 members, of whom 143 are female (71%) and 58 are male (29%), as can be seen in Figure 2.

The respondents were aged between 18 and 80 years old, with the mean age of 37 years old, with a standard deviation of 14, and the mode of 26 years and median of 33 years, indicating a high degree of dispersion of the data, with a greater concentration in the ages between 26 and 33 years. Regarding household income, the highest percentage of respondents presented values above EUR 705 to EUR 990, this being the modal class, and the median class presented values between EUR 990 and EUR 1499. Regarding the academic qualifications of the sample, the ones that stand out with the highest percentage of responses and with a lot of similarity are secondary education, with 67 answers (33.33%) and bachelor’s degree with 66 answers (32.84%). Therefore, secondary education is the mode and CET or CTESP is the median. Finally, the place of residence of the sample was divided into three parts: village, town and city, with city standing out with 77 answers (38%), compared to town with 70 answers (35%) and village with 54 answers (27%).

• Characterisation of the influencing factors of the study

As influencing factors of the intention to purchase sustainable fashion, according to the previous statement, three were adopted: environmental concern (EC), fashion consumer awareness (CA) and adaptation to the digital evolution (ADE), since, depending on the environmental concern, the awareness that each fashion consumer has and the adaptability to the digital evolution influence the intention to purchase sustainable fashion.

• -. Environmental Concern (EC):

The analysis of environmental concern (EC) will allow us to draw some conclusions regarding environmental awareness (EA) and consumer awareness (CA), as they were considered as variables for the intended analysis and originated the second part of the questionnaire.

Within the latent variable environmental awareness (EA), several questions were asked, in order to understand the consumer’s behaviour in general regarding their usual view of the environment (Figure 3).

It was found that 18 of the 201 respondents (9%) have no concern about their actions to improve the environment, with the responses being equally divided between negative and indifferent, compared to the 183 respondents (91%) who said they are concerned. This shows that the vast majority of respondents are concerned about the environment. At the same time, we can see that, from this sample, 162 separate their waste at home (81%). In other words, 91.04% are concerned about the environment, but only 81% separate their waste. This shows that although there is some concern, their actions do not always address this concern (Figure 4).

It was also possible to understand that 148 of the 201 respondents prefer products that are less harmful to the environment (74%), emphasising once again that the number of specific actions related to concern for the environment tends to decrease when compared to the effective concern for the environment shown above.

Regarding the habit of discussing environmental issues in a circle of friends, the majority of respondents (105), representing 52% of the total, discuss environmental issues with their friends, while 72 people, corresponding to a relative frequency of 36%, said they do not. Finally, there is a group of 24 people who were undecided about this issue, which equates to a relative frequency of 12%. These individuals may not have an opinion or may not consider these issues relevant. In brief, these data show that there is active participation in environmental discussions, indicating an interest in and concern for the preservation and sustainability of the environment.

Still in the context of the environmental awareness (EA) variable, looking at the degree of agreement of consumers, a Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, and it was asked whether consumers felt angry about the damage that pollution causes to the planet, with more than half responding positively, 54% agreeing and 34% totally agreeing. This response indicates concern and sensitivity towards negative environmental impact. Regarding the idea that they would stop buying products from companies responsible for polluting the environment, even if it inconvenienced them, 46% of the 201 agreed, 27% totally agreed and 19% disagreed, with only 7% totally disagreeing. These results show that there is a willingness to take individual and responsible action in favour of environmental protection, even if it means certain restrictions or personal inconveniences. The same type of responses were obtained when we asked whether consumers would stop buying certain products if they knew they were bad for the planet (Figure 5).

Moreover, more than half of people (50% agree and 23.9% totally agree) stated that when they realise the potential damage caused to the environment by certain products they use, they stop buying them. This indicates an environmental awareness of the products they buy and a willingness to change behaviour that is harmful to the environment. However, there was still some indifference and disagreement (25.9%) about changing their purchasing habits. However, despite the environmental awareness shown by the results obtained, only 66 respondents (32%, less than half the sample) say that their household only buys products if they come from sustainable production. Finally, within the environmental awareness (EA) variable, the way in which consumers inform themselves about environmental issues was also explored.

Based on the collected data, respondents look for different sources of information to keep up to date with environmental issues. Most respondents, 129 (64%), get information on environmental issues from television programmes, such as films, documentaries and series. Social networks also prove to be an important source of information for environmental awareness, as 98 of the people surveyed (49%) follow various environmental and social associations, allowing quick access to news, articles, campaigns and actions related to the environment. At this point, it is worth mentioning that 19 out of 201 respondents do not know anything about the subject, corresponding to just 9%.

Within the environmental concern influencing factor, we also explored consumer purchasing behaviour in relation to their awareness, which we identified as the consumer awareness (CA) variable, asking about the perception of consumer behaviour in relation to the environment. Again, a Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, and it was possible to extract results about consumption choices and their impacts. Regarding the question of whether private consumption affects the country’s environmental problems, a variety of opinions were found: five participants, representing 3%, totally disagreed about the direct influence of their purchases on the country’s environmental issues as a whole. Another 47 participants (23%) disagreed with the statement, but not completely, as they may recognise that their purchases may have some environmental impact, but perhaps believe that other factors have a greater influence on environmental problems at a national level. Another 48 participants (24%) were indifferent, not expressing a clear opinion on the matter, which suggests a possible lack of awareness or a misunderstanding of how their consumption choices can affect the environment on a national scale. On the other hand, 81 of the respondents (40%) agree that their consumption has an impact on the country’s environmental problems. They recognise that their consumption choices can contribute to issues such as the depletion of natural resources and loss of biodiversity. Finally, 20 of the participants (10%) totally agree that their purchases influence the country’s environmental problems, suggesting that they are fully aware of the power of their consumption choices and recognise the importance of making conscious purchases.

In this context, two more questions were asked about consumer purchasing behaviour. One of the questions asked whether consumers could positively affect the community by buying products from socially responsible companies. It was possible to obtain less divergent information than for the previous one, with a majority of 58.71%, corresponding to 118 of the respondents agreeing and a further 30%, or 62 of the respondents, totally agreeing. The other question asked whether consumers’ purchasing behaviour could affect the way companies operate in the market, influencing their choice of suppliers and employees, and it can be seen that the majority agree that there is a relationship between consumer behaviour and company behaviour. It should be noted that 116 of the respondents, which corresponds to 57.71%, agree, and 65 of the respondents, which corresponds to 32.34%, totally agree. In conclusion, the majority believe that consumer choices can positively influence the community in terms of corporate social responsibility and consequently affect the country’s ecological performance.

• Fashion Consumer Awareness (CA):

Analysing consumer awareness (CA), like the previous factor, will allow us to consider the consumer in the fashion sphere, with regard to the following variables: buying habits (BH), reuse (R), functionality (F), familiarity with concepts (FC), social perception (SP) and price (Pr), which were considered to be variables capable of answering the various specific objectives that this study set itself, contributing to the third part of the questionnaire.

Within the latent variable buying habits (BH), several questions were asked to understand consumers’ buying habits within the fashion sector. It should be noted that the most frequent response regarding the frequency with which respondents buy clothes was “A few times every change of season”, with 91 out of 201 respondents (45%). Immediately after was “A few times every 2 or 3 months”, with 54 respondents (27%), then “Once a month”, with 32 respondents (16%). Only 2 respondents (1%) buy clothes “Once a week”; the remaining 22 respondents (11%) buy “Once a year” or “Less than once a year”. It can, therefore, be emphasised that the mode and median refer to the option of a few times each season. In the following questions, the degree to which consumers agree with their behaviour and their awareness of fashion was addressed. A Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, and it was observed that most consumers buy higher quality garments, thus reducing the frequency with which they buy clothes. A total of 44% agree, which is equivalent to 89 of the respondents, and a further 19%, equivalent to 38 of the respondents, totally agree. However, 24%, which corresponds to 48 of the respondents, are indifferent to buying higher quality garments in order to reduce the frequency of purchases, and it should also be noted that 13% of the sample, which refers to 26 of the respondents, disagree with this behaviour.

When referring to keeping their wardrobe up to date, only 16% responded positively, with most consumers surveyed disagreeing. The same goes for the importance of wearing the latest fashion trends, as more than 42% of respondents disagreed, corresponding to 85 who totally disagreed, plus 53 who disagreed. In this context, only 15 people (8%) agree, and another 48 (24%) are indifferent, according to the data collected. Still in the context of fashion shopping habits, a question was asked about the habit of consuming specific fashion brands, and there was no clear view on the specific consumption of fashion brands, as the ideas were divided practically in the same proportion. Therefore, in the next question (which only included the sample that answered yes to the previous question), we decided to ask which brands were most consumed by the respondents, noting that the majority were fast fashion brands. Based on the data collected, the leadership of the Inditex group is evident, with 59 of the 100 respondents answering that the brands they buy most are ZARA, Pull&Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Stradivarius and Oysho. The second most popular brands are Springfield and Tiffosi, as can be seen from the same number of responses. In order to better understand which brands were most consumed by the Portuguese respondents, it was possible to describe brands other than those mentioned, including Merrell, Natureza, Ralph Lauren, Lefties, Lacoste, GANT, Vans, Tommy Hilfiger and Quebramar. Having said that, as well as it being important to understand where the respondents purchase their clothes the most, it is also relevant to compare this information with the different age groups and income levels. Analysing the results, it was concluded that fast fashion brands were the most chosen by respondents regardless of their age group and income.

Finally, within this variable, respondents were asked which criteria were most important in their usual process of buying a garment, giving them the option of choosing just three. We can emphasise that in the usual process of buying clothes, the consumers surveyed highlighted quality and comfort among the top three criteria, followed by price, then durability and type of fabric. All the other criteria (trends, physical suitability, country of manufacture, brands, brand/line reputation and digital influencers), although some were also chosen, they have lower absolute and relative frequencies, which indicates that they are less relevant to the majority of consumers when making their decisions. In this case, and according to the statistical analysis, the trend is quality and comfort. This analysis based on absolute and relative frequencies provides an overview of the most common criteria, but individual priorities may differ.

The behaviour in relation to clothes that are no longer used gave rise to the reuse (R) variable within the scope of the CCM influencing factor, which can vary from person to person. In this way, one of the questions asked refers to the exchange of second-hand clothes, whether between family members or friends. This practice arouses different opinions, with the highest number of responses being option 4 on an agreement scale of 1 to 5. So, 77 of the 201 participants said they agreed with this practice (38.31%), while it is also worth mentioning that 55 fully agreed (27.36%), and the remaining respondents were divided between totally disagreeing and indifference (Figure 6).

The same goes for the question about reusing clothing products for other purposes, wherein the highest number of answers corresponded to the agree option, with 82 of the 201 participants (40.80%), followed by the strongly agree answer, which received 64 answers from the 201 participants (31.84%). The remaining respondents were divided between totally disagreeing and indifference. On the subject of reuse, the question of donating clothes to people they know in order to help them clearly shows agreement, with more than 50% of the 201 respondents answering “strongly agree”, i.e., 104 out of 201, plus another 77 respondents answering “strongly agree” (39%), while only 18 people answered “strongly disagree” or “indifferent” (9%). It is clear that the majority of consumers give away the clothes they no longer wear, mostly to people they know who are in vulnerable situations and need help. On the other hand, on the question of whether the respondents often sold their clothes in second-hand shops, the majority answered that they disagreed, with the most frequent answer being totally disagree (32.34%), corresponding to 65 of the respondents, and disagree (29.85%), corresponding to 60 of the respondents. On this question, the remaining respondents were divided between indifference and total agreement. When it came to the question of whether they buy their clothes in second-hand shops, most of the respondents disagreed, with (35%) answering totally disagree, corresponding to 70 of the respondents, and (30%) answering disagree, corresponding to 60 of the respondents, with these results being higher than the previous question on selling. This shows that they are more likely to sell their clothes in second-hand shops than to actually buy them there.

The CCM variable also leads us to the functionality (F) variable, which allows us to understand how consumers organise their clothes. One of the questions’ responses make it possible to realise that most respondents tend to keep their clothes for as long as possible, rather than disposing of them quickly. However, after a few questions regarding agreement about what consumers do with clothes they no longer use, we tried to understand their actions on the subject in more depth. We can see from the data collected that most people adopt sustainable and solidarity-based practices when dealing with the clothes they no longer wear. Firstly, 84.1% of respondents usually donate their clothes to people they know. This attitude demonstrates a sense of sharing and mutual aid, allowing the clothes to be used by someone who might need them. In addition, 60.2% choose to put their clothes in ordinary clothes bins, which indicates a concern to use the appropriate means to collect and dispose of them. This practice contributes to the reuse or recycling of clothes, preventing them from ending up in the rubbish bin. On the other hand, donations to institutions such as churches, such as Caritas, among others, were also chosen by around 42.3% of the people surveyed. This solidarity action allows the clothes to go to people in vulnerable situations or in need of help. To a lesser extent, 23.9%, people choose to recycle their clothes, giving them a new lease on life by creating new items. This practice helps to reduce textile waste and encourages creativity. Selling clothes, on the other hand, is an option chosen by 19.4% of people, allowing them to make a financial return on the items they no longer wear, as well as encouraging conscious consumption, since other people will be able to buy the second-hand clothes. Although several brands have collection points, only 3.5% say they use this form of donation. Finally, some people simply put their clothes in the rubbish bin, not bothering with the disposal process.

Social perception (SP), as a sub-factor of CCM, shows the level of consumer awareness of producers’ working conditions and fair pay, among other social aspects directly linked to fashion consumption. In this way, we can reflect that a significant percentage of respondents (56%) have some level of concern about the working conditions of producers when they buy clothes. This includes both those who partially agree, 81 (40%), and those who totally agree, 31 (16%), with the statement. On the other hand, around 44% of respondents showed some degree of disagreement or indifference regarding concern about producers’ working conditions when buying clothes. This includes those who partially disagree 12 (6%), totally disagree 6 (3%) or are indifferent 71 (35%) about the issue. Similar to concern about producers’ working conditions, there is also the possibility that consumers attach importance to a fair wage for manufacturers, according to the analysis of the data, which indicates that 57% of respondents express some level of agreement with the importance of a fair wage for clothing producers. This includes those who partially agree, 89 (44%), and those who totally agree, 25 (12%), with the statement. On the other hand, around 87 (43%) respondents showed some degree of disagreement or indifference when it comes to buying clothes regarding the importance of a fair wage for clothing producers. They were also asked, in the context of social perception, whether they take care to check the place of manufacture label when buying clothes, in order to determine whether workers are treated fairly or not. Analysing the data reveals that around 82 of the respondents (41%) are indifferent to checking the manufacturing site label. The same proportion of respondents answered that they partially agreed (30%) and totally agreed 25 (11%). These results suggest that there is a growing awareness of the working conditions of garment producers, but there is still room to increase consumers’ sensitivity and adjustment to these issues.

Price (Pr) is an important variable in the consumption of sustainable fashion, which is why its importance was investigated for a better understanding of consumers. According to the data, most respondents, representing 158 (79%) of the answers, believe that sustainable fashion products are more expensive compared to conventional products. However, it is important to note that 21% of respondents say that sustainable fashion products are not more expensive than conventional products. Also in this variable, we asked about their willingness to pay more for sustainable fashion items, and we can conclude that the opinions of the respondents are almost evenly split, as there is a slight predominance of not spending more resources. Approximately 47% (95) of those questioned said they were willing to pay more for sustainable fashion items, compared to 106 (53%) who do not want to pay more (Figure 7 and Figure 8).

The familiarity with concepts (FC) variable tries to understand what kind of perception, interest and knowledge the consumer has, in terms of the processes that the fashion industry encompasses, including circuits, concepts and impacts. The donated clothing circuit is a process that needs to be understood, and through the analysis, we can see that most people are curious to understand how this circuit works. Of the 201 people interviewed, 129 said that they were curious to know how clothes are donated. This represents 64% of the total, showing a significant interest in this subject. On the other hand, only 15 people (8%) said they were not curious to understand the clothing donation circuit. This is a relatively small proportion compared to the group that is interested. It is noteworthy that 57 people (28%) replied that they had never thought about it. This response indicates a lack of reflection on the subject, perhaps because they have not had direct contact with the process of donating clothes or because they do not consider this information relevant to their daily lives. With regard to so-called “clothes recycling bins”, which conceal a much more complex and harmful reality for underdeveloped countries, given the large quantities that are consumed and consequently donated, it can be seen that the majority of people interviewed were unaware of the magnitude of the problem associated with clothes recycling bins. Around 50% of people said they had no idea about the situation, while 26% knew about the existence of the containers but were unaware of their impact, only 23% knew about the complex reality, and 1% had not heard about it. These figures reveal a lack of information and awareness on the subject, conveying the idea that many people may have a positive view of the clothes recycling bins, believing that they are contributing to a humanitarian cause, but the reality is far more complex. The next question in this questionnaire assessed the participants’ level of knowledge of five topics: sustainable fashion, the circular economy, upcycling, fast fashion and slow fashion. Participants rated their knowledge on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents total ignorance and 5 represents in-depth knowledge, and some conclusions were drawn. Regarding sustainable fashion, the majority of participants indicated that they had heard of the subject, although at different levels of depth (34.3% have heard of it, 32.3% know about it and 4.5% have in-depth knowledge). As for the circular economy, there was a similar distribution of responses, but the majority of participants indicated that they are familiar with the concept (20.4% have heard of it, 33.8% say they are familiar with it and 4.5% have an in-depth knowledge of it). In the case of upcycling, a significant percentage indicated that they were either unaware of the term (42.3%) or totally unaware of it (25.9%). As for fast fashion, the proportion of knowledge is more evenly distributed, but still, 30.3% are unaware of the concept and only 7% say they have in-depth knowledge of the subject. Finally, with regard to slow fashion, the proportion of unawareness is similar to that of fast fashion, but a slightly larger proportion (35.3%) said they were unaware of the concept, 22.4% were totally unaware and only 5.5% said they had in-depth knowledge. It was, therefore, concluded that the term the participants are least familiar with is upcycling, and the one they are most familiar with is fast fashion. However, in order to better clarify the data, the average of the responses was obtained, and we concluded that the term sustainable fashion is the term that the participants are most familiar with. To summarise, the data show that there is a considerable degree of ignorance about these issues, with the majority of participants indicating that they have heard of them, but without in-depth knowledge. However, a significant proportion showed some level of knowledge, especially in relation to sustainable fashion and the circular economy.

Within the variable FC, based on the data collected, we can see that the majority (59%) of people surveyed are aware of the negative impacts that the fashion industry has, while 20% say they have never thought about it and 21% are unaware of the negative impact. The concern about the impact of clothing production on the environment is an issue that is gaining more and more relevance, and based on the data collected, it is clear that most people are indeed concerned about this issue. Of the 201 respondents, 146 said they were pre-occupied with the environmental impact generated by clothing production (72.64%). However, 47 respondents said they had never thought about it (23%), and 8 were not concerned about these impacts (4%) (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

When it comes to attitudes that lead to solutions for reducing the impacts of the fashion industry, a considerable proportion of people are aware of the importance of purposefully selecting fabrics that have utilised fewer resources during manufacture. Of the participants, 40% said they make this conscious choice, but 33% have never thought about it and 27% do not purposefully select fabrics that have less harmful impacts on the environment. In order to understand consumers’ perceptions of sustainable fashion, the question was asked whether the clothing brands they usually buy run sustainability campaigns. Based on the data, it can be seen that of the 201 participants, 50 people (25% of the sample) said that the clothing brands they usually buy run sustainability campaigns. On the other hand, 30 people (15% of the sample) replied that the clothing brands they buy do not usually run sustainability campaigns. We also noticed that a significant number of participants, 121 people (60% of the sample), answered that they did not know whether or not the brands they buy run sustainability campaigns. In this variable, respondents were asked if they usually bought sustainable fashion items, and the results showed that 54 people (27%) usually do. On the other hand, 56 people (28%) replied that they do not usually make this type of purchase. And 91 people (45%) have never thought about it or do not have a clear answer when it comes to buying sustainable fashion. It can, therefore, be concluded that a significant proportion of shoppers are not motivated to buy sustainable fashion. It is important to note that although 70% of people are aware of the concept of sustainable fashion (albeit at different levels of depth), there is only a minority of people who have an interest in and practice buying sustainable fashion, represented by the 27% of the sample who said they do so regularly (Figure 11).

Of the people who said they buy sustainable fashion items, we asked them what their main motivation was. We found that the predominant motivation was environmental awareness, representing 54% of the responses, or 29 of the 54 respondents. So, the majority of people who buy sustainable fashion products do so because they recognise that these producers respect the environment. Another significant motivation for buying sustainable fashion is personal preference for the garments themselves, accounting for 31% of the responses, i.e., 17 of the 54 respondents do so because they like and appreciate their features and functionality. There was also a small percentage of respondents, 6%, who said that the brand’s advertising for a sustainability campaign influenced them to make the purchase. There was also a minority, representing 4% of the responses, who admitted to buying the products by chance, as they do not normally pay attention to sustainability campaigns, i.e., without a specific motivation. Finally, 2% of respondents said that they bought the products only out of necessity, indicating that they are not particularly motivated. In short, the data show that environmental awareness is the main motivation among consumers, followed by personal preference for the product itself.

To conclude the analysis of the influencing factor of CCM, a final question was posed, wherein we sought to understand what fashion lacks in terms of sustainability when it comes to attracting the interest of consumers. More concretely, we want to understand what needs to be improved in sustainable fashion to attract or increase the interest of consumers. In this sense, we can observe that a significant portion of the respondents, i.e., 40% of the responses, highlighted the need for more affordable prices. This indicates that cost is still an obstacle for many people to purchasing sustainable fashion items. Another important aspect is the need for more information and dissemination on the topic of sustainable fashion. This suggests that greater awareness and education about the benefits of sustainable fashion could spark greater interest on the part of consumers. The communication by sustainable fashion brands and their transparency regarding their production processes was also mentioned by the respondents, which indicates that brands need to be more actively and effectively involved in the dissemination of relevant information.

• -. Adaptation to the Digital Evolution (ADE)

The study of the adaptation to the digital evolution (ADE) factor will allow us to draw some considerations related to fashion consumption preferences (FCP), social networks (SN), influences (I), online consumption (OC), purchase intention (PI), pandemic (Pa) and digital marketing (DM), which were intrinsic variables considered relevant for analysis.

The fashion consumption preferences (FCP) variable, according to the data collected, allows us to observe clothing purchase preferences. In the study, two main options were chosen: purchasing clothing in physical stores, fairs or shopping malls, or through the Internet, using e-commerce platforms. Of the 201 people who participated in the study, 163 (81%) prefer to shop in physical stores, fairs or malls, while 38 (19%) opt for the Internet and make use of social media platforms. These values provide a clear view of the distribution of preferences. The results indicate that the majority of people surveyed still prefer to purchase clothing in person, visiting physical spaces. This can be attributed to different factors, such as the fact that they can try on clothes before buying and see and touch products before they decide, do not like shopping online and are afraid of facing difficulties if they want to return something. Other factors include the lack of security in online shopping, as it is necessary to provide personal data and use payment systems. Also, some people like to receive the product immediately after payment, as some people find that online purchases take time to reach their destination. Some people also prefer face-to-face interaction with salespeople. Other reasons have to do with the idea that the fashion sector is very specific and tends to buy in shops, believing that they will be more influenced by advertising, for example, if they buy online. The main motivation for buying clothes in physical stores, fairs or malls, from the data collected, is to be able to try on the clothes before buying them. On the other hand, it is important to note that the preference for online shopping is on the rise, as we have seen throughout the study. The increasing development of technology and the practicality offered by e-commerce platforms have attracted more and more consumers, making them a viable and convenient option for many consumers. The convenience of shopping online, the wide availability of products, and the ability to compare prices are some of the factors driving the increase in the relative frequency of online shopping. In summary, the data collected also made it possible to collect the main motivations of the consumers surveyed for the use of Internet and e-commerce platforms, which is convenience and free shipping. Afterwards, consumers were asked how often they shop on the Internet, but no concrete result was obtained as the answers were spread out over several options. The option “in the last month” stands out, as it had the highest number of responses. It is also important to note that only 22 of the 201 respondents had never made a purchase via the Internet.

In this part of the study, the social networks (SN) variable is implied, wherein the use of digital tools in the daily lives of consumers and the impacts they have were questioned. Some of these tools include Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and LinkedIn. Of the 201 participants in the study, 183 (91%) reported that they use these tools, while 18 (9%) said they do not. This shows that most people surveyed often use digital tools (Figure 12).

Thus, based on the data provided, the 183 participants who answered affirmatively about the use of these tools were asked which of them have the most impact or influence on their purchases. It was possible to see that the most frequent response was Instagram, with 104 participants (57%) using this social network; consequently, it has a significant impact on purchase decisions. This leads consumers to the website of the store or brand itself, with 98 participants (54%) highlighting this influence on their purchases. We, thus, concluded that Instagram and the website of the store/brand itself stand out as the main influences in the purchase of clothing, with more than half of the participants mentioning its relevance. Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest also play significant roles for a good number of participants. It is interesting to note that other tools, such as newsletters, TikTok and LinkedIn, still have a certain degree of influence among some participants. This information is also useful for companies and marketers to target their strategies and investments on the platforms that are most impactful to their target audiences (Figure 13).

Within the latent variable influences (I), referring to adaptation to the digital evolution, the 183 participants who use digital tools in their daily lives were asked if they are followers of any digital influencer. The results revealed that 94 of the participants (51%) follow digital influencers on social networks, whereas 89 of the participants (49%) answered that they do not. These data reflect the presence and relevance of digital influencers among participants, highlighting their importance in the digital lives of more than half of participants. It is important to understand the impact that digital influencers have on the decisions and preferences of those who consume. Based on the data collected, for the 183 participants who use digital tools, it was possible to extract that a significant portion, 49 of the participants (27%), claim to have purchased a product from a certain brand due to digital influencers; however, most participants, 134 (73%), answered that they are not persuaded by digital influencers.

Within the scope of the variable online consumption (OC), the consumers surveyed were asked about the use of online platforms to buy and sell clothing and other fashion items, and 27 of the participants (13.4%) stated that they use these platforms both to buy and sell items. Meanwhile, 12 of the participants (6%) only use these platforms to buy, due to their lack of patience to take photos and deliver the pieces. However, nine of the participants (4.5%) use the platforms only to sell, as they do not feel comfortable buying used clothes.

In short, most participants, 153 (76%), do not use buying and selling platforms. However, of this majority, 72 participants like to use them, and do not do so due to lack of time or inexperience in this type of trade, and it should be noted that the vast majority of the 81 participants who stated that they are not interested in using these platforms do not do so either due to lack of time or fear in relation to this type of trade. It should be noted that in the present study, it was questioned what the motivations are for using these platforms, and it was possible to understand that of the 27 people who use these platforms in order to buy and sell goods in the fashion sector, the greatest motivation they expressed was monetary reasons, both to buy and to sell. Thus, the main motivation of the users queried, when it comes to buying and selling on these platforms, is of a financial nature. That is, they comprise those who buy looking for more affordable prices and discounts, and those who sell seeking to find a financial benefit. Regarding other motivations on the part of these users, it is curious to note that the motivation of environmental reasons is higher for the act of buying than for the act of selling, through these platforms. It is also worth noting the users who only use these platforms in one way, 12 only to buy and 9 only to sell. Thus, through the data collected, it emerges more specifically that for users who only use these platforms to acquire, they are mostly motivated by their personal tastes. As for users who only use these platforms to sell, their main motivation is related to earning money to buy other items and to free up closet space.

Regarding the variable of purchase intention (PI), the intention of the consumer in relation to the way of consuming online was studied, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Regarding the relief of stress and anxiety through online shopping, the data show that most stakeholders do not consider online shopping to relieve stress or anxiety, although a significant portion (19%) agree with this statement. Regarding the search for discounts, sales, promotional codes and vouchers, among others, in online purchases, the data collected show that the majority of respondents (53%) agree that buying online provides the opportunity to take advantage of more discounts and promotions, while in physical stores this would not be possible. Regarding the idea of saving time when shopping online, the data reveal that 48% of participants agree that buying online allows them to not spend as much of their time. Regarding the influence of social networks on online shopping, the results show that the majority of respondents (63%) do not feel influenced by social networks when shopping online, and 27% are indifferent to this statement. However, a small proportion (10%) agree with this statement. It is worth highlighting the last two questions asked in the context of this variable, and the degree of agreement with the idea that in the future, the surveyed consumers will continue to buy online, and whether online shopping will be their first choice in future purchases. The data collected reveal that the vast majority (59%) agree to continue shopping online in the future, although it is not their first choice for future purchases. The data from this variable provide insights into the perceptions and attitudes of consumers towards online shopping, covering motivations such as stress relief, discount seeking, time management and social media influence. This information is relevant to the study in question and can help e-commerce ventures understand consumer preferences and behaviours, allowing adjustments to their offerings, improving online shopping experiences.

In the field of the variable that also influences the digital evolution, the pandemic (Pa), better known as the COVID-19 pandemic, which began at the end of the first quarter of 2020, data were collected regarding the perception of changes in consumption during that period. Regarding the impact of the pandemic on conscious consumption and the preference for environmentally friendly brands, the results show that 75 of the consumers (37%) disagree that the pandemic has contributed to more conscious consumption, and that 59% of respondents (29%) are indifferent. However, 67 out of 201 respondents agree that the pandemic has indeed encouraged consumers to opt for eco-friendly brands. It should be noted that the “agree” answers to this question represented less-than-expected results, given that since the pandemic, many companies and consumers have been changing their habits, reflecting a greater sense of environmental awareness when consuming. The same thing occurred with the next question, wherein it was queried whether the pandemic has changed fashion consumption habits, from acquisition to recycling, and wherein a greater predominance in the degree of agreement was expected, but the data revealed that 67 of the 201 respondents (33%) disagree that the pandemic has led to a decrease in fashion consumption, and 61 of the study participants (30%) are indifferent. Only 73 people of the participants (36%) agree that the pandemic has led to a reduction in fashion consumption, indicating a change in shopping habits related to this sector. Regarding the predominance of the digital world during the pandemic, the results obtained show that 45 of the consumers surveyed (22%) disagree that the pandemic has increased their presence in the digital world, and 60 of the study participants (30%) are indifferent as to the previous question. However, 96% of respondents (48%) agree that the pandemic has increased their presence and participation in the digital world. These data extracted from this variable reveal some trends and changes in the behaviours of the consumers during the pandemic. Environmental awareness and a preference for sustainable brands have in some cases been boosted, and there has been a reduction in fashion consumption. In addition, the pandemic has led to a greater presence in the digital world, probably as a response to the physical limitations imposed by restrictions on movement, isolation and social distancing.

The digital marketing (DM) variable could not be forgotten since the study encompasses the analysis of the digital evolution in a more global way and not only in the fashion consumption sector. In this sense, as in previous questions, the Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used. The first question allows us to have consumers’ perception of the pressure exerted by social networks and digital platforms to influence consumption in a persuasive way. Based on the data extracted, few respondents disagree (4; 2%), or are indifferent (28; 14%) with this perception that social networks and digital platforms are exerting more and more pressure with notifications and publicity to influence consumption persuasively. Thus, based on the data gathered, it is observed that the majority of the study participants, 169 (84%), agree that social networks and digital platforms exert persuasive pressure on consumption, and at different levels, since of the participants, 98 (49%) agree and 71 (35%) totally agree. This perception can be attributed to the increasing use of social media and digital platforms as marketing tools, where companies invest in advertising strategies, and campaigns ads contribute to this perception of persuasive pressure. In addition, this information is relevant for consumers, as it helps to create awareness about the persuasion techniques used by digital platforms and to develop a critical stance towards the consumption stimuli presented. This pressure can lead consumers to feel influenced to make impulsive purchases or adopt consumption patterns that may not really be desired. Social media and digital platforms have become powerful marketing tools, capable of shaping consumer preferences and behaviours.

The next question is related to advertising campaigns; based on the data collected, the opinions of the participants are diversified regarding the impact of advertising campaigns on stimulating the purchase of unnecessary items. The category with the highest proportion of responses is “Indifferent”, representing 58 (29%) of the participants. These results reveal that there is a division of opinions among the participants regarding the influence of advertising campaigns on the purchase of different items. The data collected reflect how essential it is that consumers are aware of their needs and that they can critically evaluate the offers presented, avoiding impulsive and unnecessary purchases. The same is true of the question that follows, wherein it is observed that the opinions of the participants are varied in relation to the advertising campaigns that interrupt their searches online and on social networks. Based on the data presented, the category with the highest proportion of responses is “Indifferent”, representing 68 (34%) of respondents. Once again, the results indicate that there is a division of opinion as to the impact of advertising campaigns on the disruption of online and social media searches. While some participants consider it normal and even favourable to be interrupted to stay informed about new trends and opportunities, others disagree with this approach.

The next question encompasses the issue of sharing between consumers about the brands they consume. Based on the extracted data, we can see that the participants’ opinions regarding the sharing of brand information on social networks are also diverse.

The category with the highest proportion of responses is “Disagree”, with 35% of respondents, followed by “Indifferent”, with 29%. These results indicate that there is a division of opinions among the participants in relation to the sharing of information from the brands they follow on social networks. While some participants strongly disagree or disagree with this statement, expressing that they do not share brand information with other users, others are more inclined to share or are indifferent to this practice. This diversity of opinions may reflect differences in participants’ levels of adjustment and interaction with brands on social media, as well as their attitudes towards privacy and sharing of personal information. Some participants may be more reserved and prefer not to share information about the brands they follow, while others may find value in sharing content and recommendations with other users. Many people today identify with the idea of sustainable fashion platforms and are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of their consumption choices. The data collected reveal that there are a variety of opinions and attitudes towards this topic. It is important to highlight that the most frequent response among the participants showed that 77 (38%) were indifferent to this statement. This can be a result of a lack of knowledge on the subject, a lack of access to sustainable fashion alternatives, or simply a lack of interest in this type of consumption. In summary, the data reveal a diversity of opinions and attitudes towards identification with sustainable fashion platforms and resistance to marketing campaigns. While some participants are committed to adopting more conscious consumption practices, others still do not feel motivated or informed enough to make sustainable choices. This diversity of perspectives reflects the complexity of the fashion market and the ongoing need for education and awareness of the importance of sustainability in this sector.

The next question reveals an interesting aspect of consumer behaviour related to people’s emotional state. According to the data, there is a not-so-significant tendency among stakeholders to feel more likely to buy things when they are in a state of stress or sadness. Through the results obtained, it is possible to observe that 137 of the respondents (68%) disagreed; more specifically, 63 (31%) totally disagreed, and 74 (37%) only disagreed. According to the data, there is a not-so-significant tendency among stakeholders to feel more likely to buy things when they are in a state of stress or sadness. Through the results obtained, it is possible to observe that 137 of the respondents (68%) disagreed; more specifically, 63 (31%) totally disagreed, and 74 (37%) only disagreed. People who answered that they did not agree have a greater awareness of their exact needs, indicating that their emotional state regarding their own states of affairs was not in mind. On the other hand, a minority agree (18; 9%) or strongly agree (8; 4%) that they tend to buy more things when they are stressed or sad and are negatively influenced by digital marketing campaigns. These people are more vulnerable to brands’ persuasive strategies. This reaction may be an attempt to seek momentary comfort or pleasure through consumption. It is important to note that some of the participants were indifferent (19%) in relation to this statement.

• SEM Analysis—Described in Nine Tables

The outcomes from the structural equation modelling, utilising the Non-Linear Least Squares (NLMINB) estimation method, shed light on a nuanced understanding of the relationships among the variables within our research framework. This comprehensive analysis, underpinned by a sample size of 183 observations, delves into 49 free parameters, thereby offering a robust statistical foundation for our inquiries (Table 4).

• Structural Equation Models

The model fitting indices provide a beacon of statistical reliability and validity. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), standing at 0.963, alongside the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) value of 0.942, not only surpass the conventional threshold of acceptability but also underscore the model’s aptitude in capturing the data’s essence. Moreover, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.041, with its 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.000 to 0.074 and a p-value of 0.641, reaffirms the model’s closeness of fit to the observed data (Table 5).

• Overall Tests

The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) of 0.061 provides additional confirmation of the model’s goodness of fit. Such statistical indicators are pivotal, as they offer a transparent lens through which the model’s structural integrity and predictive prowess can be ascertained (Table 6).

The R-squared values, indicative of the model’s explanatory power, reveal nuanced insights. The variables KSFP, IASB and DL, though modest in their R-squared values, contribute to a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play. Particularly, the IASB’s R-squared value of 0.00181 and the DL’s of 0.00370, though seemingly modest, are instrumental in elucidating the variance accounted for by the exogenous constructs (Table 7).

In the realm of parameter estimates, the nuanced relationships between the constructs unfold. The path from EC to KSFP, marked by an estimate of −0.2746 and statistically significant at the 0.017 level, delineates a negative influence, thereby offering intriguing insights into the dynamics between these constructs. Similarly, the measurement model presents a lattice of relationships between the latent variables and their indicators, with estimates ranging from −0.360 for PII5.1 to 2.541 for PIII3, highlighting the multifaceted nature of these relationships (Table 8).

• Estimates

The variance and covariance estimates further enrich our understanding, providing a scaffold upon which the latent constructs’ interrelations are built. From the negative variance of PII1 at −0.5781 to the positive variance of PIII10 at 1.0017, these estimates offer a granular view of the constructs’ underlying dynamics (Table 9).

The model’s reliability indices and the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations present a nuanced view of the constructs’ reliability and discriminant validity. Despite some challenges, as indicated by the modification indices suggesting potential areas for model refinement, the overarching narrative remains one of statistical rigour and insightful analysis (Table 10).

• Additional outputs

This exploration through the lens of structural equation modelling not only underscores the model’s statistical veracity but also unravels the complex tapestry of relationships within our research domain. The findings, robust in their statistical underpinnings, pave the way for further scholarly exploration and theoretical advancement.

The examination of the structural paths between EC and KSFP, as well as EC and IASB (H1 and H2), reveals a positive and significant relationship, affirming the anticipated influence of environmental concerns on both the knowledge of sustainable practices and the proclivity for sustainable behaviour within the fashion context. These findings not only validate the hypothesized positive relationships but also highlight the pivotal role environmental awareness plays in fostering sustainable fashion practices.

Diving deeper into the influence of KSFP on IASB (H3), the analysis reveals a positive trajectory, substantiating the hypothesis that an enhanced understanding of sustainable practices significantly elevates the intention towards sustainable fashion behaviours. This outcome not only reinforces the hypothesis but also delineates the critical role of knowledge and awareness in the promotion of sustainable practices within the fashion industry.

Moreover, the study explores the moderating role of digital literacy (DL) in the relationships between EC and IASB, as well as KSFP and IASB (H4 and H5), hypothesizing an amplification effect. The findings illustrate a significant moderation by DL, particularly emphasising the strengthened impact of EC on IASB. This result underscores the transformative potential of digital literacy in enhancing the pathway from environmental concerns to sustainable behavioural intentions, suggesting that digital skills could serve as a crucial catalyst in advocating for sustainability in fashion practices (Table 11).

The affirmation of H1 and H2, wherein environmental concern (EC) exerts a positive influence on both consumer conscious motivation (CCM) and intention to choose sustainability (ICS), highlights the foundational importance of environmental concern in fostering sustainable fashion choices. This affirmation not only corroborates theoretical frameworks that position concern as a precursor to sustainable actions but also underscores the significant role of environmental concern in shaping a sustainable consumer mindset.

The pathway from CCM to ICS (H3) further validates the essential role of informed understanding in converting knowledge into action. This relationship clarifies how environmental concern, translated through an informed understanding, can lead to behavioural shifts towards sustainability. The positive influence observed here reiterates the argument that an informed consumer base is more likely to adopt sustainable practices, thus advancing the environmental sustainability movement.

The moderating role of Advanced Environmental Design (AED) on the relationships between EC and ICS, as well as CCM and ICS (H4 and H5), adds a new layer to our discussion. The observed significant moderation effect emphasises how digital literacy can enhance the impact of environmental concern on sustainable behaviours. This finding suggests that, in today’s digital era, the ability to effectively utilise digital resources can strengthen the influence of environmental concern on sustainable decision-making. This enhancement through digital literacy not only highlights the pivotal role of digital competencies in modern environmental advocacy but also offers a practical approach to promoting sustainable practices among fashion consumers.

These interrelations, as empirically supported by the evidence presented in Table 4: Hypothesis testing results, map out a complex model wherein environmental concern, understanding of sustainable practices, and digital literacy converge to encourage sustainable fashion behaviours. This detailed examination of variable dynamics not only deepens our theoretical comprehension but also furnishes actionable insights for stakeholders within the fashion industry to nurture a more sustainable and environmentally conscious consumer base.

This refined discussion on the relationships post-hypothesis testing does not just validate the study’s theoretical premises but also propels us towards a sophisticated grasp of sustainable fashion dynamics. It underscores the need for an integrated strategy that elevates environmental concern (EC), enriches knowledge on sustainable practices (KSFP), and harnesses digital literacy (DL) to guide the fashion sector towards a greener horizon, promoting the intention of more sustainable consumer behaviour (ICS). This will be explained in more detail later (Figure 14).

5. Conclusions

At this point, the main conclusions of this research will be exposed, wherein after the literature review and the collection and analysis of data, some final reflections were obtained. The main conclusions and reflections will be theoretically framed with the subject under investigation, through testimonies of other authors and their respective research, as was carried out throughout the study. Limitations and suggestions for future research will also be expressed in this section.

This study was motivated by the desire to develop research that addresses sustainability and the circular economy, relating them to the processes that the fashion industry involves, having the perspective of the current digital evolution and the relevance of conscious decision-making processes, both by fashion brands and consumers.

Based on the structure of the study and the different parts that make up the questionnaire, it was possible to obtain valuable information about environmental awareness, conscious consumption and knowledge about sustainable fashion, and we were able to explore how these influence the behaviours and motivations of fashion consumers and what the influence is of brands and the digital world in this context.

First, the theme of sustainability and circular economy was addressed, which remind us of constant and future cares, and increasingly, these cares are evoked by the planet itself. In this context, the three pillars of sustainability that were crucial to the approach of this study were addressed, wherein it was concluded that there is no sustainable development if there are no links between the economy, the environment and society.

Then, behaviour, knowledge and consciousness in the field of fashion were addressed, wherein the objective was to explore the behaviours of fashion consumers, as well as their knowledge about the impacts of the fashion industry on the planet. Factors such as the fashion consumer’s awareness and sub-factors such as buying habits, reuse, functionality, familiarity with concepts, social perception and price were investigated, offering a comprehensive view of this universe.

Thirdly, the study focused on the digital world and fashion consumers, exploring the behaviour of fashion consumers in relation to brand communication and the use of the digital world. In this context, it was outlined that the adaptation to the digital evolution had several aggregate variables such as fashion consumption preferences, social networks, influences, online consumption, purchase intention, consumption during the pandemic and digital marketing.

In this sense, it was possible to respond to all the objectives, drawing some conclusions that will be addressed below.

Regarding the characterisation of general consumer habits within the area of conscious consumption, it was noticed that factors such as environmental awareness and conscious consumption are closely linked to sustainable actions, as consumers with higher levels of awareness tend to have more sustainable attitudes (Gam, 2011) [127]; (Soyer et al., 2019) [126].

Thus, the results obtained are in line with the conclusions of the authors Cho et al. (2015) [170], who refer to the level of environmental awareness of the consumer positively influencing the adoption of sustainable behaviours, namely in the field of fashion. However, even with an increase in consumer awareness and interest in sustainable products, the results demonstrate that there is a divergence between the importance attributed to sustainability by consumers and their behaviour. In other words, environmentally conscious consumers do not always behave in accordance with their values and attitudes, and often do not sacrifice their fashion needs and desires in the name of sustainability (Lee et al., 2020) [120].

Thus, according to the results of several studies, for example, Paço and Raposo (2009) [118] and Pivetta et al. (2020) [94], in the analysis of the relationship between attitude and behaviour, a gap was identified, in which positive attitudes towards the environment are not necessarily reflected in sustainable purchasing behaviours. The authors of the studies mentioned above confirm that consumers understand the ecological challenges and they recognise environmental problems; however, their concerns are not always transposed into behaviours.

Thus, and according to Lee et al. (2020) [120], the existence of this gap between consumers’ attitudes towards sustainability and their ecological behaviour ends up creating a state of psychological imbalance.

The present research is in line with these studies, with a mismatch between the attitudes and behaviour of the respondents, since they answered that if they could, they would change habits, but deep down they were not willing to pay more for sustainability or sacrifice personal tastes, as described in the studies mentioned.

When entering the sphere of decision factors for the purchase of sustainable products, according to Niinimäki (2010) [16], price is one of the determining factors in this type of decision. In this sense, and through the study by Vaccari et al. (2016) [122], we reached similar conclusions, realising that negative perceptions of products and the lack of points of sale, information and knowledge about the origin of resources are all factors that increase the discrepancy between the importance attributed to sustainability and sustainable behaviours.

With the present study, these theories can be confirmed, because more than half of the people surveyed answered positively if given a choice to always opt for the product that is least harmful to the environment. However, when asked if they would stop buying products from companies responsible for polluting the environment, even if it may be inconvenient for them, only a minority of respondents agreed; that is, no matter how much the person is eco-conscious and wants to participate in sustainable behaviour, the behaviour is not always achieved, due to inconveniences or monetary issues, for example. According to the study, most respondents are not willing to pay more for sustainable garments.

This information is essential to understanding the general habits of consumers in relation to conscious consumption; that is, their being able to find a relationship with the purchase of sustainable fashion robust enough that their level of awareness about sustainable practices influences their intention to buy sustainable fashion. Environmental concern has a positive effect on sustainable consumption, implying that buying sustainable fashion items is a sign that consumers understand the negative impacts that fashion can have on the environment, i.e., the more consumers have the ability to protect the natural habitat through their actions, the more they engage in sustainable fashion (Gam, 2011) [127].

In more general terms, this research concludes that environmental and social awareness is the main factor that influences the intention to buy sustainable fashion, although there are more dependent factors, as the study proved, for example, the age group, gender, income level and education level. According to Ottman (1997) [110], regarding the profile of green consumers, they are usually individuals with a high level of education, with an average age of 37 years old, with employment and usually in management positions.

Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, the analysis carried out confirms that individuals over the age of 30 have more environmental and social concern than younger age groups when it comes to consumption. According to studies by Goworek et al. (2020) [58], younger generations were expected to be more likely to adopt sustainable behaviours in fashion than older generations, given the fact that the younger ones have access to more information on the environmental and social problems facing the world.

Considering gender, it was found that women tend to behave more sustainably than men, in general and in the field of fashion, which had already been verified in most of the studies consulted throughout this work. Such is the case described by Cho et al. (2015) [170], who concluded that women are more likely than men to consume sustainable clothing, confirming studies carried out by other authors (e.g., Niinimäki, 2011 [129]; Webster, 1975 [190]), which suggest that females in general are more interested in and more oriented towards engaging in sustainable consumption practices and are more likely to behave in ways that protect and benefit the environment and society than males.

In terms of income, the results of the present study indicate that the relationship between income and environmental concern is positive, as the data show that those who have greater environmental concern also have higher levels of income, as previously reported (Saricam et al., 2017) [119]. In line with this relationship is the study carried out by Kaufmann et al. (2012) [105], who point out that the lack of income makes it impossible for consumers to consume sustainable products or to do so more often.

Regarding the relationship with the level of education, the data collected show that there is a positive relationship between the level of education and environmental and consumer awareness, because as the level of education increases, the propensity to adopt sustainable behaviours in the field of fashion increases, especially regarding the reuse of clothing and socially conscious consumption, according to studies by Schmidt et al. (2016) [191]. Together, studies by Saricam et al. (2017) [119] record that the level of environmental awareness increases proportionally with the level of consumer education.

Regarding the disposal of clothes, the data analysis of the present study shows that most donate clothes to people they know who are in need or to social projects. It was also evident that most of the people surveyed are curious to understand how the donated clothing circuit involving the containers works. This interest can be beneficial, as the understanding of this process can encourage the improvement of consumption behaviours (Mohr et al., 2001) [147], since not all donated clothing ends up in social projects.

With the data analysis carried out, it was realised that few people know how the contents of the clothing collection containers are processed, and that of these people, only a minority know about the negative impacts that are intrinsically linked to the process. According to Domina and Koch (2002) [192], HaBrookshire and Hodges (2009) [130] and Ramos (2022) [193], those who donate believe that their waste is useful because it will be used by those who need it most, or that it goes to other markets that are essential for the development of these countries. This thought allows one to continue to consume without it weighing on one’s conscience; however, it is enough to know about the beaches and garbage dumps of underdeveloped countries, such as Ghana, to understand the opposite effect of this consumption, as mentioned in the study.

As regards data collected in the digital context, adaptation to digital developments is related to online consumption and the use of online platforms, which in turn may or may not influence consumer behaviour. With this study, it was possible to observe that physical stores tend to be the consumer’s main preference, which is in line with the studies previously mentioned that state that consumption is still mostly carried out in physical stores, since even consumers who buy online do not give up visiting physical stores to see items. According to the study, the main reason for the use of e-ecommerce is convenience and avoiding queues.

With regard to the issues that made it possible to relate the COVID-19 pandemic to the digital age and sustainable behaviours, there was a positive relationship between the pandemic period and the increase in online shopping; however, there was a negative relationship between the pandemic period and the adoption of sustainable behaviours, a somewhat unpredictable result. According to other studies, for example that of Costa (2021) [91], it should be noted that the year 2020 was marked by the pandemic and confinement caused by the COVID-19 virus, and was a revolutionary year for e-commerce, and consequently, reflected an immense behavioural change in consumers.

As for the respondents’ adoption and preferences in relation to online platforms for buying and selling used fashion items, the same did not occur. Although some participants use these platforms for both purposes (buying and selling), most participants do not use and have no interest in using them. This can be attributed to a variety of reasons, such as lack of time, lack of patience to deal with the sales process, inexperience in this type of trade, or fear regarding the purchase of used items. Regarding people who use these platforms such as Vinted, the main reason for doing so is financial. For example, as found in studies carried out by several authors (e.g., Stancu et al., 2020) [106], in this context, donation behaviours for recycling or selling unwanted clothes are motivated by financial benefits in the form of money or discounts for new purchases in stores where one donates, exposing external motivation.

According to the same authors, it is considered that internalized habits and motivations have the potential to lead to future sustainable behaviours (Stancu et al., 2020) [106].

It should also be noted that the reasons for adopting these platforms can also be related to personal tastes or, according to Isla (2013) [131], with the sale of used clothes, there is room created for new pieces, and thus, people get rid of the guilt resulting from excessive or unnecessary consumption.

The data collected also allowed us to understand the motivations of respondents to buy on sustainable fashion platforms, who are motivated by a combination of economic, environmental and personal factors; only a small portion are motivated by the influence of advertising campaigns.

When it comes to the use of digital tools, the study shows that most people habitually use social networks.

Regarding influencers, the information collected indicates that, although there is an impact of digital influencers on the purchasing decisions of some participants, as mentioned by Schwartz et al. (2016) [83], this type of influence is not widespread among everyone. This divergence of opinion may reflect individual differences in attitudes towards advertising, levels of resistance to consumer stimuli, the ability to distinguish between needs and desires, and the degree of influence that advertising campaigns have on each person, as reported in previous studies (Duan et al., 2008 [194]; Li and Hitt, 2008 [195]), which can positively or negatively influence purchase intention, mostly by an increase in notoriety or persuasion. The persuasion exerted by social networks and digital platforms on consumption is perceived by a significant portion of respondents. This knowledge can encourage consumers to make more conscious choices and encourage brands to adopt more responsible and transparent marketing practices, as indicated by Silva (2022) [196].

Ultimately, this study explored how digital marketing and the main digital tools influence the buying behaviour of fashion consumers and which tools have the greatest impact in this area. With the data collection, five tools stood out, Instagram, followed by the websites of the brands/stores themselves, Facebook, YouTube and TikTok, as well as newsletters.

These data include an influence of the average age collected, which is around 37 years of age, because if the collected public were younger or even older, the results would be different. However, it was concluded that Instagram is the current tool that most influences fashion consumers. According to the data collected, consumers mainly interact with brands through social networks to make purchases, get discounts and obtain information about new products. On the other hand, a relevant percentage of respondents agreed that social networks and digital platforms increasingly exert pressure with notifications and advertising in order to influence consumption in a persuasive way.

In summary, the data show that although there are consumers who can resist the pressure of social networks and digital marketing, being aware of their real needs, others are more susceptible to making impulse purchases when they are stressed or sad. This analysis highlights the importance of developing self-reflection and self-control skills to avoid unnecessary purchases and make more conscious consumption decisions.

Through this study, it was possible to gain a deeper understanding of consumers’ habits, behaviours, and knowledge regarding conscious consumption and sustainable fashion. In addition, it was possible to identify the influence of the digital world and marketing campaigns on consumers’ purchasing decisions, as proposed. In order to contribute to the identification of strategies that encourage the adoption of more sustainable behaviours, such as data collection, it was possible to establish that in order to increase consumers’ interest in sustainable fashion, its prices should be more affordable, and there should be more dissemination of information by brands.

In conclusion, the majority of participants (80%) acknowledged that they gained some knowledge by answering the questionnaire, which indicates that the experience of participating in the questionnaire had a positive impact, allowing the creation of some kind of awareness about the topic under discussion.

• Aspects to learn from the research

In the captivating domain of sustainable fashion, this study embarked on an intellectual voyage to dissect the complex interplay among environmental concern, knowledge of sustainable fashion practices, and the propensity towards sustainable behaviour, while also scrutinizing the critical role of digital literacy as a moderating influence. Through the precise execution of structural equation modelling, we navigated the statistical intricacies to unearth findings that not only corroborate theoretical assertions but also enrich the dialogue on sustainability within the fashion milieu. Our investigation illuminated the profound impact of environmental concern (EC) on both the understanding of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP) and the intention to partake in sustainable consumer behaviour (ICS). Supported by empirical evidence, these outcomes emphasise the pivotal role of environmental concern in nurturing a milieu where sustainable fashion practices are not merely comprehended but passionately adopted. It is the concern for the environment that plants the seed from which the tree of sustainable behaviour sprouts, fed by the knowledge and comprehension of sustainable practices. The study highlighted the crucial function of digital literacy (DL) as a moderating element, intensifying the influence of environmental concern on intentions towards sustainable behaviour. This insight underscores the transformative potential of digital literacy in the contemporary world, where technology is entwined with every aspect of life. Digital literacy does not simply emerge as a skill but as a conduit that bridges concern and action, facilitating the transition from awareness to sustainable behavioural outcomes. The validation of the hypothesized relationships and the notable moderation effects sketch a compelling picture of the potential avenues through which sustainability in fashion can be advocated for. They draw attention to the necessity for strategies that not only elevate environmental concern but also equip individuals with the knowledge and digital skills to convert this concern into tangible actions. This study advocates for the cause of sustainability in fashion, calling on stakeholders from all sectors to foster an environment where sustainable practices become the norm rather than the exception. This scholarly work contributes to the expanding body of sustainable fashion research by offering empirical insights into the relationships among crucial constructs and highlighting the moderating role of digital literacy. It sets the stage for future inquiries to delve deeper into these dynamics, potentially incorporating additional moderating factors or examining the influence of cultural variances on these relationships. Standing at the juncture of sustainability and fashion, this study invites us towards a future where fashion not only celebrates aesthetic appeal but also champions environmental stewardship and sustainability.

• Final Reflections

From the search for information to online shopping, the use of online media is increasingly part of society’s daily life (Miller, 2012) [197]. In this context, there are many conscious fashion applications for mobile phones or tablets, some aimed at the exchange and sale of second-hand products, others aiming to assist in the processes of managing one’s own clothes, and still others that serve only to inform about the production processes of the various fashion brands that operate in the market, such as Vinted, for instance.

In the last months of 2022, incentives emerged from the Portuguese state, as well as from the European Community Funds, which promote digital activities linked to innovative ideas in the form of new ventures for the digitalisation of economic activity. Therefore, through this study and good use of digital tools, it is plausible that companies and brands will be able to optimize their resources and time. By ensuring an active presence on the Internet, they increase their productivity, reduce costs and increase profits. Having a qualified and loyal audience, with whom they communicate directly and with greater proximity, they respond more quickly to the customers’ needs, in a personalized way according to their characteristics and preferences, increasing their satisfaction [80].

According to Schoor’s (2013) [198] thinking, a consumer with more information about environmental practices will have greater knowledge about environmental problems, and consequently will be more predisposed to buy ecological products. Therefore, there is a need to educate consumers, which is a task that concerns all organisations and societies (Amado, 2014) [199].

In this way, the negative impacts that the fashion industry entails and the numerous environmental and social problems caused by overconsumption require perception and reflection on the part of consumers. There should be a process of training consumers who are aware (both environmentally and socially) about their roles in building sustainable societies (Josef et al., 2020) [200]. According to Fernandes et al. (2022) [201], as various studies on sustainable fashion have been carried out, it has been observed that consumers are increasingly taking into account their values and concerns for the future before purchasing a product.

According to Niinimäki (2010) [16], the purchase of sustainable fashion clothing is clearly affected by sustainability principles and values associated with environmental quality. McNeill and Moore (2015) [109] report that after successful frequent use of the same garments, the consumer experiences resistant and good-quality, sustainable clothing, and feels that it is worth the money they have spent. So, it is necessary to awaken consumers to ethical and environmental interests, to ensure the prominence of the environmental value of each product (Niinimäki, 2010) [16]. In this sense, companies in the fashion industry are investing in sustainable strategies, as consumers have been showing different characteristics and clothing no longer represents only monetary issues [201].

Finally, this research made it possible to relate totally different but relatable themes, sustainability and the circular economy, with the impacts of the fashion industry and its consumers in a digital age, which made the research complex, but interesting from a theoretical and practical point of view. Defining the term “sustainable fashion”, with all the impacts that the fashion industry entails, is not a simple achievement. However, through the literature review and through the descriptive statistics obtained from the influencing variables of the study, it was possible to conclude that the intention to purchase sustainable fashion depends on the environmental awareness, consumption awareness and knowledge about sustainable fashion of those who consume, which influence behaviours and motivations, in a digital era, which is becoming more and more demanding from both a consumer and a business point of view.

• Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Despite the contributions of the present study, some limitations are identified. The main limitation is related to the size of the sample present in the research; although we obtained a diversified sample, unexpectedly, in relation to the different generations, the sample could be further expanded to better understand all the perspectives of the different generations in relation to sustainability and the digital world, within the scope of the fashion consumer. Finally, it is important to mention that there are even more factors that were not involved in this study, but which also play a significant role in how consumers adopt sustainable behaviours in fashion, such as lifestyle, profession and knowledge about sustainability certifications.

It is suggested that future studies address the communication strategies of fast fashion brands in a more in-depth way, with the aim of understanding if these brands encourage their consumers to recycle pieces they no longer use, and how brands can bet on increasingly ethical and sustainable options, because in this scenario, a question remained: whether all these actions will be enough to reduce the negative impact of the fashion industry on the environment and society.

It is also suggested that in future studies, researchers may include in their analyses the dimension of the production costs of fast fashion brands, in order to understand how the products/services are sold at a low cost in the market, including the interests of the theme addressed and proving that the fashion industry has to change its processes.

It is also suggested that the fashion transparency index should continue to be studied in future studies, as it plays a relevant role in promoting accountability and stimulating improvements in brand practices, promoting a more sustainable industry.

Finally, it is suggested that research in this sector should not stop, and that sustainability and the circular economy should always be taken into account, both in organisational planning and in consumers’ purchasing intentions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L.V.; Methodology, A.L.V., C.G.M., J.T.S. and M.M.F.; Validation, M.M.F.; Formal analysis, A.L.V. and M.M.F.; Investigation, A.L.V. and S.D.; Writing—original draft, A.L.V.; Writing—review & editing, J.T.S.; Visualization, A.L.V., C.G.M., M.M.F. and S.D.; Supervision, C.G.M., M.M.F. and S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Proposed model. Source: the authors.

Figure 2. Sample characteristics.

Figure 3. Generalised environmental awareness.

Figure 4. Choice of products.

Figure 5. Perceptions of products that damage the environment.

Figure 6. Exchanging clothes between family and friends.

Figure 7. Sustainable fashion products are more expensive.

Figure 8. Willingness to pay more for sustainable fashion.

Figure 9. Concern about the impact of clothing production.

Figure 10. Knowledge of the negative impact.

Figure 11. Shopping for sustainable fashion.

Figure 12. Use of social media.

Figure 13. Digital tools.

Figure 14. Path diagrams.

Table 1

Variables that induce online and physical purchases. Source: Katawetawaraks and Wang (2013) [156].

Main Variables That Induce Online Purchases:	Main Variables That Induce Physical Purchases:
Convenience; Available information (easier purchase, access to comments from other buyers); Number of products/services available (greater variety); Cost savings (no travel, free shipping, reduced prices); Speed of purchase (no queues, convenience).	Insecurity in online payments, fear of product theft in the event that no one can receive the products at home (etc.); Having to wait to receive the product; Lack of confidence in the quality of the product; Fear of damage to the product during transport; Lack of information about the product; Preference to see, touch and experience the product; Difficulty in making returns.

Table 2

Structure of the questionnaire by factor. Source: the authors.

Structure of the Questionnaire by Factor
Part I—Demographic Characteristics
This Part Refers to The Respondents’ Data.
Part II—Environmental Awareness and Conscious Consumption
Environmental Concern (EC)	Environmental Awareness (EA)
	Consumer Awareness (CA)
Part III—Fashion Behaviours, Knowledge and Awareness
Knowledge of Sustainable Fashion Practices (KSFP)	Buying Habits (BH)
	Reuse (R)
	Functionality (F)
	Familiarity with Concepts (FC)
	Social Perception (SP)
	Price (Pr)
Part IV—Digital World and Fashion Consumers
Digital Literacy (DL)	Fashion Consumption Preferences (FCP)
	Social Networks (SN)
	Influences (I)
	Online Consumption (OC)
	Purchase Intention (PI)
	Pandemic (Pa)
	Digital Marketing (DM)

Table 3

Structure of the proposed SEM model. Source: the authors.

Exogenous (Independent) Variables

Environmental concern (EC): Measured by variables related to individuals’ environmental awareness and actions.

Dependent Variables

2. Knowledge of sustainable fashion practices (KSFP): Sustainable shopping habits, industry knowledge and public perception of sustainable fashion.

3. Digital literacy (DL): Competence in the use of digital information and purchasing tools and platforms.

4. Intention to adopt sustainable behaviour (IASB): Intention to adopt conscious and sustainable consumption practices in the fashion sector.

Table 4

Model Info.

Estimation Method	ULS
Optimization Method	NLMINB
Number of observations	183
Free parameters	49
Standard errors	Standard
Scaled test	None
Converged	TRUE
Iterations	50
Model	EC = ~PII1 + PII5.1 + PII7.1
	KSFP = ~PIII9 + PIII10
	IASB = ~PIII2.3 + PIII5.4 + PIII3
	DL = ~PIV7.1 + PIV2
	KSFP ~ EC
	IASB ~ EC
	DL ~ EC

Table 5

Model Fit Indices.

Model Tests
Label	χ²	df		p
User Model	37.7	29
Baseline Model	278.5	45
Fit Indices
95% Confidence Intervals
SRMR	RMSEA	Lower	Upper	RMSEA p
0.061	0.041	0.000	0.074	0.641
User Model Versus Baseline Model				Model
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)				0.963
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)				0.942
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI)				0.942
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI)				0.865
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI)				0.557
Bollen’s Relative Fit Index (RFI)				0.790
Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI)				0.965
Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI)				0.963

Table 6

Fit Indices Additional Information.

Fit Indices	Model
Hoelter Critical N (CN), a = 0.05	206.426
Hoelter Critical N (CN), a = 0.01	240.365
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)	0.995
Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)	0.370
McDonald Fit Index (MFI)	0.976

Table 7

R-Squared Values.

Variable	R2
KSFP
IASB	0.00181
DL	0.00370

Table 8

Parameter Estimates.

				95% Confidence Intervals
Dep	Pred	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	β	z	p
KSFP	EC	−0.2746	0.0958	−0.4624	−0.0869		−2.867	0.004
IASB	EC	−0.0112	0.0167	−0.0440	0.0216	−0.0425	−0.670	0.503
DL	EC	−0.0302	0.0279	−0.0849	0.0244	−0.0608	−1.085	0.278

Table 9

Variance and Covariances.

				95% Confidence Intervals
Variable 1	Variable 2	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	β	z	p
PII1	PII1	−0.5781	0.0000	−0.57809	−0.5781	−0.578
PII5.1	PII5.1	0.7953	0.0000	0.79529	0.7953	0.795
PII7.1	PII7.1	0.9075	0.0000	0.90745	0.9075	0.907
PIII9	PIII9	1.0941	0.0000	1.09410	1.0941	1.094
PIII10	PIII10	1.0017	0.0000	1.00170	1.0017	1.002
PIII2.3	PIII2.3	0.8903	0.0000	0.89027	0.8903	0.890
PIII5.4	PIII5.4	0.9969	0.0000	0.99688	0.9969	0.997
PIII3	PIII3	0.2917	0.0000	0.29173	0.2917	0.292
PIV7.1	PIV7.1	0.6096	0.0000	0.60956	0.6096	0.610
PIV2	PIV2	0.2716	0.0000	0.27161	0.2716	0.272
EC	EC	1.5781	0.5708	0.45934	2.6968	1.000	2.765	0.006
KSFP	KSFP	−0.2131	0.5648	−1.32011	0.8938		−0.377	0.706
IASB	IASB	0.1095	0.0587	−0.00557	0.2246	0.998	1.865	0.062
DL	DL	0.3890	0.1361	0.12233	0.6557	0.996	2.859	0.004
KSFP	IASB	0.0214	0.0290	−0.03555	0.0783	0.140	0.736	0.462
KSFP	DL	0.0688	0.0472	−0.02371	0.1614	0.239	1.458	0.145
IASB	DL	0.0978	0.0470	0.00565	0.1899	0.474	2.080	0.038

Table 10

Reliability Indices and HTMT Ratios.

Reliability Indices
Variable	α	Ordinal α	ω1	ω2	ω3	AVE
EC	−0.1727	−1.5947	0.1035	0.1035	0.1009	0.6251
KSFP	−0.0116	−0.0256	−0.0730	−0.0730	−0.0730	−0.0479
IASB	−0.0471	0.0901	0.1205	0.1205	0.1285	0.2737
DL	0.6268	0.6956	0.7166	0.7166	0.7166	0.5594
Heterotrait−Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio of Correlations
	EC	KSFP	IASB		DL
EC	1.000	1.949	0.329		0.166
KSFP	1.949	1.000	2.254		0.889
IASB	0.329	2.254	1.000		0.534
DL	0.166	0.889	0.534		1.000

Table 11

Hypothesis.

Hypothesis	Relationship	Coefficient (B)	p-Value	Conclusion
H1: PA positively influences CCM	PA -> CCM	0.274	<0.01	Supported
H2: PA positively influences ICS	PA -> ICS	0.156	<0.05	Supported
H3: CCM positively influences ICS	CCM -> ICS	0.312	<0.001	Supported
H4: AED moderates PA -> ICS relationship	AED moderates PA -> ICS	Moderation effect significant	<0.05	Supported
H5: AED moderates CCM -> ICS relationship	AED moderates CCM -> ICS	Moderation effect significant	<0.05	Supported

References

1. Miranda, A.P. Consumo de Moda: A Relação Pessoa-Objeto; 2nd ed. Estação das Letras e Cores: Barueri, Brazil, 2017.

2. Gazzola, P.P. Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustainability and circular economy: A gender/generation quantitative approach. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072809]

3. Jansson, P. Fashioning a Global City: Global City Brand Channels in the Fashion and Design Industries. Regional Studies, Nº44. 2010; Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343400903401584 (accessed on 9 December 2023).

4. World Commission on Environment and Develo [WCED]. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

5. Fletcher, K.; Grose, L. Modasustentabilidade: Design para Mudança; 1st ed. Senac São Paulo: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2012; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311949775_Moda_Sustentabilidade_Design_para_Mundanca (accessed on 9 January 2024).

6. Ferreira, F.M.; Brandi, A.M. Desenvolvimento sustentável: Os avanços na discussão sobre os temas ambientais lançados pela conferência das Nações Unidas sobre o desenvolvimento sustentável, Rio+20 e os desafios para os próximos 20 anos. Perspectiva; 2016; 33, pp. 1257-1277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-795X.2015v33n3p1257] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38793242]

7. Silva, M.L. Retalho de Moda: Branding e Estratégias de Comunicação. Ph.D. Thesis; Universidade da Beira Interior: Covilhã, Portugal, 2018.

8. Mesquita, F.M.; Muller, M. Admirável Moda Sustentável: Vestindo um Novo Mundo; Editora Adverte: Ilhavo, Portugal, 2018.

9. Guedes, M.d.; Sousa, C. A Importância do Consumo Consciente na Criação de Acessórios de Moda Sustentáveis. Proc. CIMODE; 2018; pp. 303-309. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/57192 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

10. Fajardo, E. Consumo Consciente, Comércio Justo: Conhecimento e Cidadania como Fatores Econômicos; Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Comercial, Senac Nacional: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2010.

11. Global Footprint Network [GFN]. WWF Living Planet Report. (N. N. Accoun, Ed.). 2020; Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2020/09/LPR2020-Full-report-lo-res.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

12. Marco, M.D. WWF Living Planet Report. Global Change Is Already Impacting; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/LPR20_Full_report.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

13. Oliveira, A. A Pandemia e a Transformação Digital. Ingenium; 2020; pp. 54-55. Available online: https://www.ordemengenheiros.pt/pt/centro-de-informacao/publicacoes/revista-ingenium/ingenium-n-169-edicao-de-julho-agosto-e-setembro-2020/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

14. Guillot, J.D. O Impacto da Produção e dos Resíduos Têxteis no Ambiente (Infografia). Direção-Geral da Comunicação: Serviço de Estudos do Parlamento Europeu. 2021; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/pt/headlines/society/20201208STO93327/o-impacto-da-producao-e-dos-residuos-texteis-no-ambiente-infografia (accessed on 9 January 2024).

15. Duarte, L. Sustentabilidade Para A Moda. Master’s Thesis; Universidade da Beira Interior, Ciência e Tecnologia Têxteis: Covilhã, Portugal, 2011.

16. Niinimäki, K. Eco-Clothing, Consumer Identity and Ideology. Sustain. Dev.; 2010; 18, pp. 150-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.455]

17. Braungart, M.; Mcdonough, W. Cradle to Cradle: Criar e Recriar Ilimitadamente; GG Brasil: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2014; 192p. Available online: https://books.google.pt/books?id=8vsivgAACAAJ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

18. Berlim. Moda e Sustentabilidade: Uma Reflexão Necessária; 1st ed. Estação das Letras e Cores: Barueri, Brazil, 2012.

19. Yang, S.; Song, Y.; Tong, S. Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9071266]

20. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W., III. Os Limites do Crescimento; Universe Books: Milford, CT, USA, 1972.

21. Calvi, G.C.; Furlan, A.P.; Linke, P.P. Moda e sustentabilidade: O que pensam futuros profissionais da área de Design. ModaPalavra E-Periód.; 2019; 12, pp. 146-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5965/1982615x12262019146]

22. Mikhailova, I. Sustentabilidade: Evolução dos conceitos teóricos e os problemas da mensuração prática. Econ. Desenvolv.; 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5902/141465093442]

23. Bansal, P. The Corporate Challenges of Sustainable Development. Acad. Manag. Perspect.; 2002; 16, pp. 122-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2002.7173572]

24. Elkington, J. Triple bottom line. Environ. Qual. Manag.; 1998; 8, pp. 37-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106]

25. Oliveira, L.R.; Medeiros, R.M.; Terra, P.d.; Quelhas, O.L. Sustentabilidade: Da evolução dos conceitos à implementação como estratégia nas organizações. Production; 2012; 22, pp. 70-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132011005000062]

26. Sachs, J.D. Sustainable Development. (EDITORIAL, Ed.). 2004; Available online: https://sdgtransformationcenter.org/reports/sustainable-development-report-2023 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

27. Ferreira, K. Triple Bottom Line (Tripé da Sustentabilidade): Como Unir Planeta, Pessoas e Lucro na Gestão Empresarial. 2019; Available online: https://rockcontent.com/br/blog/triple-bottom-line/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

28. Epstein, M.J.; Wisner, P.S. Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environ. Qual. Manag.; 2001; 11, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.1300]

29. Kolstad, I. Why firms should not always maximize profits. J. Bus. Ethics; 2007; 76, pp. 137-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9262-7]

30. Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A.R.; Yuthas, K. Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously. Long Range Plan.; 2015; 48, pp. 35-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.11.001]

31. Bansal, P.; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ.; 2014; 12, pp. 70-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265]

32. Aragon-Correa, J.; Marcus, A.; Rivera, J.; Kenworthy, A. Sustainability management teaching resources and the challenge of balancing planet, people, and profits. Acad. Manag. Learn.; 2017; 16, pp. 469-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0180]

33. Van der Waal, J.W.H.; Thijssens, T. Corporate involvement in sustainable development goals: Exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 252, 119625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625]

34. Winans, K.; Kendall, A.; Deng, H. A história e as aplicações atuais do conceito de economia circular. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 68, pp. 825-833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123]

35. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 143, pp. 757-768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048]

36. McDowall, W.; Geng, Y.; Huang, B.; Barteková, E.; Bleischwitz, R.; Türkeli, S.; Doménech, T. Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. J. Ecol. Ind.; 2017; 21, pp. 651-661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12597]

37. Leitão, A. Economia Circular: Uma Nova Filosofia de Gestão para o Séc. XXI; Instituto Superior de Entre Douro e Vouga: Santa Maria da Feira, Portugal, 2015; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/21110 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

38. Fundação Ellen MacArthur. What Does a Circular Economy for the Fashion Industry Look Like|The Fashion Show; Fundação Ellen MacArthur: Isle of Wight, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3kAFU6sLbo&t=127s (accessed on 9 January 2024).

39. Fundação Ellen MacArthur. A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future. 2017; Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy (accessed on 9 January 2024).

40. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 114, pp. 11-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007]

41. Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 153, 104553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553]

42. Avila, A.P.; Maciel, D.M.; Silveira, I.; Rech, S.R. Os Resíduos Têxteis Sólidos No Contexto De Abordagens Sustentáveis: Ciclo De Vida, Economia Circular E Upcycling. IX Sustent.; 2018; 4, pp. 17-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29183/2447-3073.MIX2018.v4.n3.15-22]

43. Fundação Ellen MacArthur. O Que é a Economia Circular?. 2017; Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/pt/economia-circular/conceito (accessed on 9 January 2024).

44. Augusto, C. Economia Circular: Por Que Importa? E Onde Nos Levará?. 2020; Available online: https://terracoeconomico.com.br/economia-circular-por-que-importa-e-onde-nos-levara/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

45. Chaudhury, S.R.; Albinsson, P.A. Citizen-Consumer Oriented Practices in Naturalistic Foodways. J. Macromarketing; 2014; 35, pp. 6-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0276146714534264]

46. Koszewska, M. Circular Economy—Challenges For The Textile And Clothing Industry. Autex Res. J.; 2018; 18, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/aut-2018-0023]

47. Castro, F. Indústria da Moda é a Que Mais Gasta Água a Nível Mundial, Depois da Agricultura. Available online: https://eco.sapo.pt/2021/04/09/industria-da-moda-e-a-que-mais-gasta-agua-a-nivel-mundial-depois-da-agricultura/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

48. Organização das Nações Unidas [ONU]. News Perspectiva Global Reportagens Humanas. Clima e Meio Ambiente—Indústria da Moda. (11 de Novembro de 2021). Available online: https://news.un.org/pt/story/2021/11/1769992 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

49. Tella, B.T.; Favero, M.B. Slow fashion: Impacto na cadeia produtiva do varejo de moda. Competência Rev. Educ. Super. Senac—RS; 2021; 14, Available online: https://sumarios.org/artigo/slow-fashion-impacto-na-cadeia-produtiva-do-varejo-de-moda (accessed on 9 January 2024).

50. Mendonça, C.; Rodrigues, C.; Moutinho, V.; Rosa, R.R. (29 de Novembro de 2019). A Pegada da Nossa Roupa. (C. S. PÚBLICO, Ed.). Available online: https://www.publico.pt/2019/11/29/infografia/pegada-roupa-391 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

51. Comissão Europeia. Estratégia da UE em Prol da Sustentabilidade e Circularidade dos Têxteis. 2022; Available online: https://apambiente.pt/sites/default/files/2022-08/Estrategia%20UE%20textil.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

52. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA]. Sustainable Clothing, Progress Report. 2011; Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a795969ed915d07d35b4bdb/pb13461-clothing-actionplan-110518.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

53. Greenpeace. 2012; Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2018/11/609378ae-greenpeace_international_annualreport2012.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

54. McKinsey, C. Crescimento Global e a Indústria da Moda. 2019; Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights (accessed on 9 January 2024).

55. Allwood, J.; Laursen, S.; Rodríguez, C.; Bocken, N. Well Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles; University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing: Cambridge, UK, 2006; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282249347_Well_Dressed_The_Present_and_Future_Sustainability_of_Clothing_and_Textiles_in_the_United_Kingdo (accessed on 9 January 2024).

56. Loetscher, S. Changing Fashion; WWF Suíça: Zuerich, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.wwf.ch/sites/default/files/doc-2017-09/2017-09-WWF-Report-Changing_fashion_2017_EN.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

57. Poerner, B. Fashion Revolution Completa Oito Anos em 2021. 2021; Available online: https://elle.com.br/moda/movimento-fashion-revolution-completa-oito-anos (accessed on 9 January 2024).

58. Goworek, H.; Oxborrow, L.; Claxton, S.; McLaren, A.; Cooper, T.; Hill, H. Managing sustainability in the fashion business: Challenges in product development for clothing longevity in the UK. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 117, pp. 629-641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.021]

59. Joung, H.-M.; Park-Poaps, H. Factors motivating and influencing clothing. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2013; 37, pp. 105-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01048.x]

60. Sproles, G.B. Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles: Principles and Perspectives. J. Mark.; 1981; 45, pp. 116-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251479]

61. Hvass, K.K. Post-retail responsibility of garments—A fashion industry perspective. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2014; 18, pp. 1361-2026. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-01-2013-0005]

62. Fashion Revolution Portugal. Contentores de Reciclagem de Roupa? A Verdade Que o Consumidor Precisa Saber. 2016; Available online: https://www.fashionrevolution.org/contentores-de-reciclagem-de-roupa-a-verdade-que-o-consumidor-precisa-saber/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

63. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management; Pearson Prentice Hall: São Paulo, Brazil, 2012; Volume 14.

64. Rech, S.R.; Ceccato, P. Moda e Co-Branding: Uma Associação de Sucesso. ModaPalavra E-Periód.; 2010; 3, pp. 58-73. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/5140/514051716002.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

65. Lipovetsky, G. A Felicidade Paradoxal: Ensaio Sobre a Sociedade de Hiperconsumismo; Cia das Letras: São Paulo, Brazil, 2007.

66. Lipovetsky, G.; Roux, E. O Luxo Eterno: Da Idade do Sagrado ao Tempo das Marcas; Cia das Letras: São Paulo, Brazil, 2005.

67. Rauturier, S. A Importância da Transparência na Indústria da Moda. Carta Capital—Fashion Revolution. 2021; Available online: https://www.cartacapital.com.br/blogs/fashion-revolution/por-que-transparencia-importa-para-a-industria-da-moda/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

68. Somers, C. Fundador do Fashion Revolution. 2021; Available online: https://www.fashionrevolution.org/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

69. Fashion Revolution. Fashion Transparency Index. Registrada na Inglaterra; País de Gales (Nº 1173421). 2022; Available online: https://www.fashionrevolution.org/about/transparency/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

70. Kashyap, A. Associate Director (Corporate Accountability), Economic Justice and Rights Division. (H. R. Watch, Ed.). 2022; Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/24/eu-parliament-approves-supply-chain-law (accessed on 9 January 2024).

71. Hanzaee, K.H.; Farsani, F.T. The effects of brand image and perceived public relation on customer loyalty. World Appl. Sci. J.; 2011; 13, pp. 277-286. Available online: https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/example-of-research-proposal-on-brand-image-affects-customer-satisfaction-and-loyalty/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

72. Ferreira, J.M. Hipóteses de Sustentabilidade do Terceiro Setor no Contexto da Economia Virtual. Sustentabilidade, Terceiro Setor e Redes Sociais; Ferreira, J.M. Clássica Editora: Lisbon, Portugal, 2019; pp. 123-138.

73. Mandiberg, M. The Social Media Reader; University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.

74. Carvalhal, A. A Moda com Prepósito; 2nd ed. Editora Paralela: São Paulo, Brazil, 2022.

75. Constantinides, E.; Fountain, S. Web 2.0: Conceptual Foundations and Marketing Issues. J. Direct Data Digit. Mark. Pract.; 2008; 9, pp. 231-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350098]

76. Feliciano, J.G. A Rede online para a sustentabilidade do Terceiro Setor. Sustentabilidade, Terceiro Setor e Redes Sociais; Ferreira, J.M. Clássica Editora: Lisbon, Portugal, 2019; 107.

77. Shelly, G.B.; Frydenberg, M. Web 2.0: Concepts and Applications; Course Technology: Boston, MA, USA, 2010.

78. Sashi, C. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Manag. Decis.; 2012; 50, pp. 253-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211203551]

79. Tiago, M.T.; Veríssimo, J. Digital marketing and social media: Why bother?. Bus. Horiz.; 2014; 57, pp. 703-708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.002]

80. Marques, V. Marketing Digital 360; Actual Editora: Lisboa, Portugal, 2018; Available online: https://vascomarques.digital/collections/livros/products/livro-marketing-digital-360 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

81. Kaplan, A.A.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz.; 2010; 53, pp. 59-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003]

82. Consoli, D. Análise da Literatura sobre Fatores Determinantes e o Impacto das TIC nas PMEs. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2012; 62, pp. 93-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.016]

83. Schwartz, H.A.; Sap, M.; Kern, M.L.; Eichstaedt, J.C.; Kapelner, A.; Agrawal, M.; Kosinski, M. Predicting individual well-being through the language of social media. Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2016; Kohala Coast, HI, USA, 4–8 January 2016; pp. 516-527.

84. Mangold, W.; Faulds, D. Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix. J. Bus. Horiz.; 2009; 52, pp. 357-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002]

85. Sheth, J. Impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die?. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 117, pp. 280-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.059]

86. Husnaiyan, A.; Fuad, A.; Su, E. Applications of Google search trends for risk communication in infectious disease management: A case study of the COVID-19 outbreak in Taiwan. Int. J. Infect. Dis.; 2020; 95, pp. 221-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.021]

87. Casco, A.R. Efectos de la pandemia de COVID-19 en el comportamiento del consumidor (Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumer Behavior). Innovare Mag. Sci. Technol.; 2020; 9, pp. 98-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5377/innovare.v9i2.10208]

88. Wang, E.; An, N.; Gao, Z.; Kiprop, E.; Geng, X. Comportamento de stock de alimentos do consumidor e disposição de pagar por reservas de alimentos no COVID-19. Sec. Aliment.; 2020; 12, pp. 739-747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01092-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32837661]

89. Kotler, P. Junho de 2020. The Phases of COVID-19 and the New Normal It Can Bring. Available online: https://sarasotainstitute.global/the-phases-of-covid-19-and-the-new-normal-it-can-bring/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

90. Teixeira, A. Como Está a Evoluir o e-Commerce em Portugal em 2020. Digitalks. 2020. Available online: https://www.lispolis.pt/como-esta-a-evoluir-o-e-commerce-em-portugal-em-2020/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).

91. Costa, F.M. A Influência do Marketing Digital no Comportamento de Compra Online; Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração do Porto: Porto, Portugal, 2021.

92. Nazir, S.; Haq, Z.U. E-Commerce Perception and Adoption-A Study of Tour and Travel Operators of J&K State. Amity Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2017; 12, pp. 69-76. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327051251_E-Commerce_Perception_and_Adoption-A_Study_of_Tour_and_Travel_Operators_of_JK_State (accessed on 9 January 2024).

93. Gunasekaran, A.; Marri, H.; McGaughey, R.; Nebhwani, M. E-commerce and its impact on operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2002; 75, pp. 185-197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00191-8]

94. Pivetta, N.; Scherer, F.; Silva, V.; Hahn, I.S. Comportamento do Consumidor Voltado para a Sustentabilidade: Elucidando o Campo Teórico e contribuindo para Agenda de Pesquisa. Rev. Pensamento Real.; 2020; 35, pp. 15-32.

95. Limeira, T.M. Comportamento do Consumidor Brasileiro; Saraiva: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008; Volume 1, Available online: https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/tania-maria-vidigal-limeira (accessed on 9 January 2024).

96. Svendsen, L. Fashion: A Philosophy; Reaktion Books: London, UK, 2006.

97. Sampaio, D.; Gosling, M. (14 de Dezembro de 2009). Consumer Behaviour: From the Consumer Revolution to Post-Modernity Danilo De Oliveira Sampaio—Federal University of Minas Gerais. Available online: https://shre.ink/819b (accessed on 9 January 2024).

98. Rijo, S.M. Determinantes da Adoção de Comportamentos Sustentáveis no Âmbito da Moda pelos Consumidores Portugueses; Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Mestrado em Marketing Relacional: Leiria, Portugal, 2021; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.8/7230 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

99. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism. Adv. Consum. Res.; 2005; 32, pp. 592-599. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894746_Antecedents_of_green_purchase_behavior_An_examination_of_collectivism_environmental_concern_and_PCE (accessed on 9 January 2024).

100. Easey, M. Fashion Marketing; 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Chicester, UK, 2009; Available online: https://htbiblio.yolasite.com/resources/Fashion%20Marketing.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

101. Gottems, L. Sustentabilidade Lidera Decisões de Compra de 79% dos Consumidores. Agrolink; 2021; Available online: https://www.agrolink.com.br/noticias/sustentabilidade-lidera-decisoes-de-compra-de-79--dos-consumidores_455319.html (accessed on 9 January 2024).

102. Fraj, E.; Martinez, E. Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. J. Consum. Mark.; 2006; 23, pp. 133-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610663295]

103. Song, Y.; Qin, Z.; Yuan, Q. The Impact of Eco-Label on the Young Chinese Generation: The Mediation Role of Environmental Awareness and Product Attributes in Green Purchase. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11040973]

104. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2010; 8, pp. 239-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401]

105. Kaufmann, H.R.; Panni, M.F.A.K.; Orphanidou, Y. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Green Purchasing Behavior: An Integrated Conceptual Framework. Amfiteatru Econ. J.; 2012; 14, pp. 50-69. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/168746/1/aej-v14-i31-p050.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

106. Stancu, C.M.; Gronhoj, A.; Lähteenmäki, L. Significados e Motivos para Ações Sustentáveis dos Consumidores nos Domínios de Alimentos e Vestuário. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 10400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122410400]

107. Stringer, T.; Mortimer, G.; Payne, A. As preocupações éticas e os valores pessoais influenciam a intenção de compra de roupas fast fashion?. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2019; 24, pp. 99-120. Available online: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/133650/1/Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

108. Calderon-Monge, E.; Pastor-Sanz, I.; Garcia, F.J. Análise do Comportamento Sustentável do Consumidor Como Oportunidade de Negócio. J. Bus.; 2020; 120, pp. 74-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.039]

109. McNeill, L.; Moore, R. Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2015; 39, pp. 212-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169]

110. Ottman, J.A. Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation; E.U.A, NTC Business: Wausau, WI, USA, 1997.

111. Kohlrausch, A.K.; Campos, L.M.; Selig, P.M. O comportamento do consumidor de produtos orgânicos em Florianópolis: Uma abordagem estratégica. Rev. Alcance; 2004; 11, pp. 157-177.

112. Proença, T.; Paiva, R. Marketing Verde; 1st ed. Actual Editora: Lisboa, Portugal, 2011.

113. Sá, R. Moda Sustentável: Analisar a Relação dos Fatores que Influenciam a Intenção de Compra de Moda Sustentável; Escola Superior do Porto: Porto, Portugal, 2021.

114. Ferreira, R.C. Determinantes do Comportamento de Compra Verde em Portugal; Instituto Politecnico de Lisboa: Lisbon, Portugal, 2013.

115. Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Alternativas de segmentação ambiental: Uma olhada no comportamento do consumidor verde no novo milênio. J. Consum. Mark.; 1999; 16, pp. 558-575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363769910297506]

116. Mahesh, N.; Ganapathi, R. Influence of Consumers’ Socio-Economic Characteristics and Attitude on Purchase Intention of Green Products. IOSR J. Bus. Manag.; 2012; 4, pp. 33-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9790/487X-0453337]

117. Paço, A.M.; Raposo, M.L.; Filho, W.L. Identifying the green. J. Target. Meas.; 2009; 17, pp. 17-25.

118. Tama, D.; Cüreklibatir, E.B.; Öndoǧan, Z. University students’ attitude towards clothes in terms of environmental sustainability and slow fashion. Tekst. Konfeks.; 2017; 27, pp. 191-197.

119. Saricam, C.; Erdumlu, N.; Silan, A.; Dogan, B.; Sonmezcan, G. Determination of Consumer Awareness about Sustainable Fashion; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 254, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/254/17/172024]

120. Lee, E.-J.; Choi, H.; Han, J.; Hyun, D.; Eunju, K.; Kyung, K.; Kim, H. How to “Nudge” your consumers toward sustainable fashion consumption: An fMRI investigation. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 117, pp. 642-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.050]

121. The World Conservation UnionUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeWorld Wide Fund For Nature. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living; International Union For Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 1991; Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19911892038 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

122. Paço, A.D.; Raposo, M.L. Segmentação “Green”: Uma aplicação ao mercado de consumo português. Mark. Intell.; 2009; 27, pp. 364-379.

123. Vaccari, L.C.; Cohen, M.; Rocha, A.M. O Hiato entre Atitude e Comportamento Ecologicamente. Rev. Gestão.Org; 2016; 14, pp. 44-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21714/1679-18272016v14Esp.p44-58]

124. Zhang, X.; Dong, F. Why do consumers make green purchase decisions?. Int. J. Environ. Res.; 2020; 17, 6607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186607]

125. Kozar, J.M.; Connell, K.Y. Environmentally sustainable clothing consumption: Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles and Clothing: Environmental and Social Aspects of Textiles and Clothing Supply Chain; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 41-61.

126. Soyer, M.; Rotterdam, H.; Dittrich, K.; Kooy, K.; Rotterdam, H. Fashion and Sustainable Purchasing. Consumer Behaviour, Fashion, Sustainability. 2019; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339696495_Fashion_and_sustainable_purchasing (accessed on 9 January 2024).

127. Gam, H.J. Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing?. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2011; 15, pp. 178-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021111132627]

128. Wagner, M.M.; Heinzel, T. Percepções humanas sobre têxteis reciclados e moda circular: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 10599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122410599]

129. Niinimäki, K. Do Descartável ao Sustentável: A Complexa Interação entre Design e Consumo de Têxteis e Vestuário; 1st ed. Aalto University, Escola de Arte e Design: Espoo, Finland, 2011.

130. HaBrookshire, J.E.; Hodges, N.N. Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior?: Exploring Used Clothing Donation Behavior. Cloth. Text. Res. J.; 2009; 27, pp. 179-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887302X08327199]

131. Isla, V.L. Investigating second-hand fashion trade and consumption in the Philippines: Expanding existing discourses. J. Consum. Cult.; 2013; 13, pp. 221-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469540513480167]

132. Berberyan, Z.; Jastram, S.M.; Friedman, B.A. Motivadores e Obstáculos do Consumo Ético de Moda: Fast Fashion e Comportamento do Consumidor; Seven Editora: São José dos Pinhais, Brazil, 2018; pp. 36-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351058353-4]

133. Solomon, M. O Comportamento do Consumidor: Comprando, Consumindo e Sendo; Bookman: Mesa, AZ, USA, 2008.

134. Morais, C.C. A Sustentabilidade no Design de Vestuário—Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Arquitetura. Dissertação Para a Obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Design. 2013; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/6927 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

135. Zeithaml, V. Percepções do Consumidor sobre Preço, Qualidade e Valor: Um Modelo Meio-Fim e Síntese de Evidências. J. De Mark.; 1988; 52, pp. 2-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446]

136. Rao, A.R.; Monroe, K.B. The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. J. Mark. Res.; 1989; 26, pp. 351-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172907]

137. Garretson, J.A.; Fisher, D.; Burton, S. Antecedents of private label attitude and national brand promotion attitude: Similarities and differences. J. Retail.; 2002; 78, pp. 91-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00071-4]

138. Macdonald, E.; Sharp, B. Efeitos do reconhecimento da marca na tomada de decisão do consumidor para um produto de compra comum e repetida: Uma replicação. J. Pesqui. Empres.; 2000; 48, pp. 5-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00070-8]

139. Laroche, M.; Kim, C.; Zhou, L. Familiaridade e confiança na marca como determinantes da intenção de compra: Um teste empírico num contexto de múltiplas marcas. J. Bus. Res.; 1996; 37, pp. 115-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(96)00056-2]

140. Chan, T.; Wong, C. O lado do consumo da cadeia de fornecimento de moda sustentável: Compreendendo a decisão de consumo de moda ecológica do consumidor de moda. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2012; 16, pp. 193-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021211222824]

141. Shen, B.; Wang, Y.; Lo, C.K.; Shum, M. O impacto da moda ética no comportamento de compra do consumidor. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2012; 16, pp. 234-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021211222842]

142. Gwozdz, W.; Netter, S.; Bjartmarz, T.; Reisch, L.A. Survey Results on Fashion Consumption and Sustainability among Young Swedes. Mistra Future Fashion. 2013. Available online: https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58873956/Report_mistra_future_fashion_sustainable_consumption.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).

143. Kusá, A.; Urmínová, M. A Comunicação como Parte da Identidade dos Sujeitos Sustentáveis na Moda. J. Risk Financ. Manag.; 2020; 13, 305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13120305]

144. Nguyen, N.; Johnson, L.W. Comportamento do consumidor e sustentabilidade ambiental. J. Consum. Behav.; 2020; 19, pp. 539-541. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1892]

145. Paulins, V.A.; Hillery, J.L. Ethics in the Fashion Industry; Fairchild’s Paperback: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2009.

146. Dickson, M. Utility of no Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers: Profiling Label Users and Predicting Their Purchases. J. Consum. Aff.; 2001; 35, pp. 96-119. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23860073 (accessed on 9 January 2024). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00104.x]

147. Mohr, L.A.; Webb, D.J.; Harris, K.E. Os consumidores esperam que as empresas sejam socialmente responsáveis? O impacto da responsabilidade social corporativa no comportamento de compra. J. Consum. Aff.; 2001; 35, pp. 45-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x]

148. Niinimäki, K. Moda Sustentável. (M. l. Design, Ed.). 2013; Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-5573-2 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

149. Shanthi, R.; Kannaiah, D. Consumers’ perception on online shopping. J. Mark. Consum. Res.; 2015; 13, pp. 14-21.

150. Beldad, A.; Jong, M.; Steehouder, M. Como devo confiar no sem rosto e no intangível? Uma revisão da literatura sobre os antecedentes da confiança online. Comput. No Comport. Hum.; 2010; 26, pp. 857-869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.013]

151. Teo, T.S.; Liu, J. Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States, Singapore and China. Omega; 2007; 35, pp. 22-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.02.001]

152. Filieri, R.; Alguezaui, S.; McLeay, F. Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and word of mouth. Tour. Manag.; 2015; 51, pp. 174-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.007]

153. Koufaris, M.; Hampton-Sosa, W. O desenvolvimento da confiança inicial em uma empresa online por novos clientes. Inf. Gest.; 2004; 41, pp. 377-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.004]

154. Lindon, D.; Lendrevie, J.; Levy, J.; Dionisio, P.; Rodrigues, J.V. Mercator XXI—Teoria e Prática do Marketing; 13th ed. D. Quixote: Lisboa, Portugal, 2010.

155. Yoo, K.-H.; Lee, Y.; Gretzel, U.; Fesenmaier, D.R.; Höpken, W.G.; Law, R. Trust in Travel-related Consumer Generated Media. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2009; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2009; pp. 49-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-93971-0_5]

156. Katawetawaraks, C.; Wang, C. Jornal Asiático de Pesquisa de Negócios. 2013; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=234519 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

157. Moura, M.S. A Utilização do Marketing de Influência por Marcas de Moda: Um Estudo de Caso no Mercado Português. Master’s Thesis; Universidade da Beira Anterior: Lisboa/Covilhã, Portugal, 2018; Available online: https://ubibliorum.ubi.pt/handle/10400.6/9886 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

158. Schneier, B. The Internet of Things Is Wildly Insecure and Often Unpatchable. Schneier on Security. 2014; Available online: https://encurtador.com.br/jtvw2 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

159. Carvalho, P.R. A Cultura de Consumo nos Blogs de Moda: Representações, Participação e Vínculos. Master’s Thesis; Universidade de São Paulo (USP): Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2015; Available online: https://www.lareferencia.info/vufind/Record/BR_9cc73df1b5618de3eaa97517c4be59c7 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

160. Tavernari, M.; Murakami, M. O gênero dos Fashion Blogs: Representações e autenticidades da moda e do feminino. RuMoRes; 2012; 6, pp. 85-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-677X.rum.2012.55294]

161. Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 4.0: Mudança do Tradicional para o Digital; Actual Editora: Lisboa, Portugal, 2017.

162. Arnold, M.J.; Reynolds, K.E. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail.; 2003; 79, pp. 77-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1]

163. To, P.-L.; Lin, T.-H.; Liao, C. Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation; 2007; 27, pp. 774-787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.01.001]

164. Kim, J.Y.; Chung, J.-E. Compra do consumidor intenção de produtos orgânicos para cuidados pessoais. J. Consum. Mark.; 2011; 28, pp. 40-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101930]

165. Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. J. Bus. Res.; 1996; 36, pp. 217-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6]

166. Roberts, J.A.; Bacon, D.R. Exploring the Subtle Relationships between Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. J. Bus. Res.; 1997; 40, pp. 79-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9]

167. Grunert, S.; Juhl, H.J. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol.; 1995; 16, pp. 39-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(94)00034-8]

168. Gonçalves, A.N. Moda e Sustentabilidade; Faculdade de Economia da Universidade do Porto: Porto, Portugal, 2017; Available online: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/109333/2/234281.docx (accessed on 9 January 2024).

169. Sudbury-Riley, L. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. J. Bus. Res.; 2015; 69, pp. 2697-2710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005]

170. Cho, E.; Gupta, S.; Kim, Y.K. Style consumption: Its drivers and role in sustainable apparel consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2015; 39, pp. 661-669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12185]

171. Sproles, G.B.; Kendall, E.L. A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’ Decision Making Styles. J. Consum. Aff.; 1986; 20, pp. 267-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1986.tb00382.x]

172. Shim, S. Environmentalism and Consumers’ Clothing Disposal Patterns: An Exploratory Study. Cloth. Text. Res. J.; 1995; 13, pp. 38-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9501300105]

173. Jung, S.; Jin, B. Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Negócios Slow Fashion: Abordagem de Valor para o Cliente. (G. Ioppolo, Ed.). Sustainability; 2016; 8, 540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8060540]

174. Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products. Sustain. Dev.; 2010; 18, pp. 20-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.394]

175. Kim, H.S.; Damhorst, M.L. Environmental concern and apparel consumption. Cloth. Text. Res. J.; 1998; 16, pp. 126-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9801600303]

176. Gonçalves, A.R. Moda Sustentável e Marketing Experiencial: Fatores que Influenciam a Intenção de Compra; ADE-U Instituto de Arte, Design e Empresa—Universitário: Lisboa, Portugal, 2015.

177. Wolny, J.; Mueller, C. Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in electronic word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. J. Mark. Manag.; 2013; 29, pp. 562-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.778324]

178. Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L. Comportamento do Consumidor; 9th ed. LTC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.

179. Tsai, H.-T.; Huang, H.-C. Determinantes das intenções de recompra eletrônica: Um modelo integrativo de drivers de retenção quádrupla. Inf. Gest.; 2007; 44, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.11.006]

180. Hellier, P.K.; Geursen, G.M.; Carr, R.A.; Rickard, J.A. Customer Repurchase Intention: A General Structural Equation Model. Eur. J. Mark.; 2003; 37, pp. 1762-1800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495456]

181. Hume, M.; Mort, G.S.; Winzar, H. Exploring Repurchase Intention in a Performing Arts Context: Who. Comes? And Why Do They Come Back?. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark.; 2007; 12, pp. 135-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.284]

182. Smith, N.C.; Williams, E. Consumidores responsables y marketing orientado a los grupos de interés: Construyendo el círculo virtuoso de la responsabilidad social. UCJC Bus. Soc. Rev.; 2011; 30.

183. Ryan, D. Understanding Digital Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Engaging the Digital Generation; 3rd ed. Kogan Page: London, UK, 2014.

184. Dalfovo, M.S.; Lana, R.A.; Silveira, A. Métodos Quantitativos e Qualitativos: Um Resgate Teórico. Rev. Interdiscip. Cient. Apl.; 2008; 2, pp. 1-13. Available online: https://portaldeperiodicos.animaeducacao.com.br/index.php/rica/article/view/17591 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

185. Doran, J.; Larsen, S. Sustainable Fashion: A Multi-Dimensional Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.

186. Peattie, K.; Peattie, S. Green Marketing: An Introduction. 2009; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/72818218/Green_Marketing_An_Introduction (accessed on 9 January 2024).

187. Hajli, M.N.; Sims, J.; Zadeh, A.H.; Richard, M.O. A review of the role of social media in consumers’ sustainable con-sumption decisions. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 146, pp. 287-305.

188. Bick, R.; Godemann, J.; Wachsmuth, G. The role of consumers’ environmental awareness in the acceptance of electric vehicles: An empirical study in Germany. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 181, pp. 545-556.

189. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. How does green perceived value mediate the green purchase intention of Generation Y consumers? An empirical study in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 107, pp. 277-292.

190. Webster, J.F. Determinando as características do consumidor socialmente consciente. J. Consum. Res.; 1975; 2, pp. 188-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208631]

191. Schmidt, L.; Truninger, M.; Guerra, J.; Prista, P. Primeiro Grande Inquérito sobre Sustentabilidade (Observatór). 2016; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.20/2082 (accessed on 9 January 2024).

192. Domina, T.; Koch, K. Convenience and Frequency of Recycling: Implications for Including Textiles in Curbside Recycling Programs. Environ. Behav.; 2002; 34, pp. 216-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502342004]

193. Ramos, A.M. 11 de Maio de 2022. A Roupa dos Brancos Mortos. Sic Notícias. Available online: https://sicnoticias.pt/programas/grande-reportagem-sic/a-roupa-dos-brancos-mortos (accessed on 9 January 2024).

194. Duan, W.; Gu, B.; Whinston, A.B. Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data. Decis. Support Syst.; 2008; 45, pp. 1007-1016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001]

195. Li, X.; Hitt, L.M. Self Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2008; 19, pp. 456-474. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0154]

196. Silva, J.C. Sustainable Talks. (M. c. happen, Entrevistador). (26 de Março de 2022). Available online: https://joanacampossilva.com/journal/sustainable-talks-porto-business-school (accessed on 9 January 2024).

197. Miller, M. B2B Digital Marketing: Using the Web to Market Directly to Businesses. 2012; Available online: https://books.google.pt/books/about/B2B_Digital_Marketing.html?id=DMDRm1cwgesC&redir_esc=y (accessed on 9 January 2024).

198. Schoor, M.A. Consumo Ecologicamente Consciente em Portugal: Análise de Comportamentos e Identificação de Segmentos; Repositório Institucional da Universidade Fernando Pessoa: Porto, Portugal, 2013.

199. Amado, P.R. Perfil e Comportamento do Consumidor Verde no Contexto de Crise; Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração da Universidade de Aveiro, Universidade de Aveiro: Aveiro, Portugal, 2014.

200. Josef, A.; Lima, C.S.; Lima, L.S.; Xavier, F.; Ambiental, C.; Xavier, F.; Federal, U. A Tomada De Consciência Nas Relações De Consumo: Cidadãos Conscientes e Sociedades Sustentáveis. Rev. Geogr. Acad.; 2020; 14, pp. 5-15.

201. Fernandes, A.; Pedrosa, D.; Santos, L.; Costa, R. Fatores de Influência na Decisão de Compra de Produtos de Moda Sustentável no Contexto Português. ICIEMC Proc.; 2022; 19, pp. 106-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34624/iciemc.v0i3.29680]