Journal of Global Fashion Marketing

Bridging Fashion and Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgfm20

Do verbal and visual nudges influence consumers’

choice for sustainable fashion?

Irene Roozen, Mariet Raedts & Laura Meijburg

To cite this article: Irene Roozen, Mariet Raedts & Laura Meijburg (2021) Do verbal and visual
nudges influence consumers’ choice for sustainable fashion?, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
12:4, 327-342, DOI: 10.1080/20932685.2021.1930096

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2021.1930096

Published online: 15 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1715

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgfm20
JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING
2021, VOL. 12, NO. 4, 327–342
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2021.1930096

Do verbal and visual nudges influence consumers’ choice for

sustainable fashion?
a b
Irene Roozen , Mariet Raedts and Laura Meijburga
a
Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Marketing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; bFaculty of Arts,
Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The fashion industry is one of the largest polluters of the world. The Received 30 November 2020
exploitation of resources for the ever-changing trends in fashion Revised 6 May 2021
puts tremendous pressure on the environment. The literature Accepted 11 May 2021
shows that nudging could be an encouraging tool to promote pro- KEYWORDS
environmental behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate Nudge; sustainable fashion;
whether nudging can influence consumers’ choice towards sustain­ fast fashion; fashion
able fashion. involvement; organic cotton
We examined if a verbal or visual nudge on a retailer’s website
can significantly influence consumers’ (sustainable) fashion choice.
Data was collected by an online survey. Respondents (N = 288) were
randomly divided into three experimental conditions, i.e. verbal
nudge, visual nudge or control group (no nudge). The findings
showed a significant positive influence of the verbal nudge and,
to a lesser extent, of the visual nudge on choosing the sustainable
version of the apparel. The nudges also positively influenced the
willingness to pay for the sustainable apparel. This suggests that
nudging is a promising tool to direct consumers to a more sustain­
able fashion choice. Furthermore, the results showed that respon­
dents with a relatively high score on ecological conscious consumer
behavior and a relatively low score on fashion involvement are
significant more likely to choose the sustainable apparel.

1. Introduction
In the fashion industry collections come and go rapidly, especially in the fast fashion
industry (Preuit & Yan, 2017). In most cases, fast fashion apparels are manufactured in
a cheap way with remarkably high speed, due to short production and distribution lead
times. This results in low prices to be paid by the customers, who are able to update their
wardrobe conforming the latest trends at any time of the year (Cachon & Swinney, 2011).
The growing overconsumption of clothes is a worldwide development with serious
consequences for the environment (Niinimäki et al., 2020).
The fashion industry is responsible for 8 to 10% of the world’s greenhouse gasses and
20% of industrial wastewater pollution worldwide (United Nations Climate Change,
2018). Impacts from the fashion industry consist of a yearly production of 92 million
tons of waste and the consumption of 79 trillion liters of water. Moreover, cotton has the

CORRESPONDENCE TO Irene Roozen Faculty of Economics and Business, Warmoesberg 26, Faculty of Economics and
Business, Warmoesberg 26, KU Leuven, 1000 Brussels, Belgium irene.roozen@kuleuven.be
© 2021 Korean Scholars of Marketing Science
328 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

highest footprint of all fashion fibers (Niinimäki et al., 2020). For the growth of one
kilogram of cotton, between 7.000 and 20.000 liters of water are needed (Helvetas, 2007).
In order to mitigate these negative impacts of fabric production, a shift to organically
grown textiles and fibers should be made. These more organic textiles and fibers are part
of the concept of “sustainable” fashion.
The fashion industry has started to think about how to design and develop apparels
that have less harmful effects during their entire lifecycle (Aakko & Koskennurmi-
Sivonen, 2013). Research on sustainable fashion has mainly focused on people’s intention
to buy and use sustainable fashion (Min Kong & Ko, 2017; Song & Ko, 2017). For
example, research showed that consumers’ attitude towards sustainable clothing has
a significant impact on their purchase intentions (Rausch & Kopplin, 2020; Song & Ko,
2017). Other studies found that consumers’ perceived environmental knowledge (i.e.
their awareness of environmental issues and consequences of human actions on the
environment) significantly influences their attitudes towards sustainable products and
their intentions to purchase sustainable products (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Preuit &
Yan, 2017). Some studies analyzed the motivations and barriers to the popularization of
sustainable fashion (Ertekin & Atik, 2015; Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Moon et al., 2015).
Despite the increase in research within the sustainability field, customers’ actual purchase
behavior of sustainable apparels is still relatively low. For people creating sustainable
fashion marketing campaigns, it therefore remains a challenge to narrow the gap between
consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable fashion and their actual purchase behavior (Lee
et al., 2020). Consumers often express their interest in sustainability but continue to seek
out fast and inexpensive fashion (Jung & Jin, 2014). Moreover, many consumers agree
with environmentalism, seeking to protect and conserve the elements of the earth’s
ecosystem, but when they have to make a practical decision between an environment-
friendly product and a relatively cheaper and easier accessible product, their choice often
does not reflect their intention to be more sustainable (Joergens, 2006). Often the theory
of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and/or the attitude – behavior gap (Wiederhold &
Martinez, 2018) are used as explanation. Especially in the “sustainable” fashion industry,
consumers experience an enormous field of tension. While trying to behave environ­
mentally friendly and ethically, consumers not only want to pursue belonging and self-
esteem, they also seek social acceptance (Lundblad & Davies, 2016). Even though
consumers show an interest in environmentally friendly and/or ethical fashion products,
the relationship between attitude and purchase behavior is affected by several (personal)
circumstances or barriers, e.g. lack of information, lack of credibility of the information,
and lack of availability (Wiederhold & Martinez, 2018). Therefore, the following question
arises: which techniques can be used to overcome this gap?
In order to make consumers choose the more sustainable option when purchasing
apparels, the use of a nudge can play a role (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Research has
already shown that nudging can be a promising tool to promote pro-environmental and
sustainable consumption behavior (Lehner et al., 2016). However, to our knowledge, only
limited research exists on the effectiveness of the use of a nudge on choosing a sustainable
apparel option and, moreover, for the environmentally unfriendly fast fashion industry.
Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate if a nudge can significantly
influence consumers’ choices for relatively more “sustainable” (fast) fashion products.
Besides, we compared the impact of two different nudges by providing either verbal or
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 329

visual information on the environmentally friendly aspect of the fast fashion product
with a choice situation without a nudge (i.e. no information). Furthermore, we measured
the intention to buy the product and the willingness-to-pay for the apparel. Finally, we
analyzed if individual differences (i.e. ecological conscious consumer behavior, fashion
involvement, gender, age and consumers’ financial situation) can also significantly
influence their choice process.

2. Literature review
2.1. Fast fashion industry
The fast fashion industry is defined by two key characteristics. First, it consists of short
production runs and distribution lead times, enabling quick response techniques of less
than two weeks (Watson & Yan, 2013). Second, the fast fashion industry has a highly
fashionable product design because it carefully monitors consumer tastes for trends.
Style, taste, acceptance and change are the major elements of fast fashion apparels and
some fast fashion retailers, such as Zara, have raised the number of new collections to
more than twenty a year (Christopher et al., 2004; Drew & Yehounme, 2017).
The rapid growth of fast fashion goes along with many serious environmental com­
plications (Claudio, 2007; Moon et al., 2015). The production of fashion products, for
example, consumes a large amount of natural and industrial resources. The production of
one cotton T-shirt needs, for instance, 2.700 liters of water, this is similar to what an
average person drinks in 2.5-year (Drew & Yehounme, 2017). Furthermore, the fashion
industry has a high energy use and, therefore, an excessive carbon footprint. In addition,
during the production process, over 15.000 different chemicals are used (Niinimäki et al.,
2020). Furthermore, at the end of their life cycle, fashion products cause pollution and
take up important landfill space. The majority of used clothes ends up in disposal where
they are not recycled in an efficient way and, therefore, create a lot of pollution and exert
toxic chemicals (Remy et al., 2016).

2.2. Sustainable fashion

As a consequence of the concerns for the environmental impact of the fashion industry,
people in the garment industry started brainstorming about how to create apparels that
have relatively fewer externalities. This refers to the concept of “sustainable fashion”.
According to Aakko and Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2013) sustainable fashion is an endea­
vor that draws together sustainable development and fashion, meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Goworek et al. (2012, p. 938) define sustainable fashion as “clothing which incorporates
one or more aspects of social or environmental sustainability, such as fair-trade manu­
facturing or fabric containing organically-grown raw material”. Often sustainable fashion
is seen as a synonym for the term “slow fashion”, which is in contrast to fast fashion. The
slow fashion movement is a cultural transition towards quality over quantity. It does not
necessarily mean that everything should be done slowly, but the production should be at
the appropriate speed. Slow fashion is often characterized by higher quality of materials
and more ethical production processes. Also, the welfare of employees in slow fashion
330 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

industries is generally higher than the welfare of those working in fast fashion industries.
Slow fashion products are mainly made from more durable materials, which make them
also more expensive. On the other hand, however, consumers can enjoy slow fashion
products for a longer period of time. Furthermore, slow fashion garments are often
classic and simple, which helps to prolong their lifespan and, thereby, to reduce the
amount of fashion waste (Preuit & Yan, 2017). Finally, sustainability is also high on the
agenda of fashion retailers and brands. For example, H&M, Mango and John Lewis have
launched multiple recycling initiatives to pave the way for a more sustainable fashion
industry: reuse of dropped off old clothes to create new products and sales of second-
hand clothes (Preuss, 2021).

2.3. Purchasing fast- and sustainable fashion

Consumers show a large interest in sustainable issues. However, their actual behavior is
not in line with their attitudes (Joergens, 2006). Four main barriers to the popularization
of sustainable fashion were identified by Moon et al. (2015). The first barrier is the
constraint knowledge about sustainability. Consumers, in general, have little knowledge
about the negative impacts of the production and consumption of fast fashion clothes.
The second barrier consists of the insufficient resources of sustainable goods and
materials. Moreover, sustainable fashion products often cost more than general apparels,
which is the third barrier to the popularization of sustainable fashion. The higher price is
caused by the more expensive and durable environmentally friendly materials and
production processes. The last barrier is the design of the products. The design of
sustainable fashion is complex and, therefore, not all fashion designers know how to
implement it. Also, consumers often perceive the design of sustainable fashion products
as unfashionable and unattractive. These barriers make it hard for consumers to behave
in line with their interest in sustainability, causing a gap between their attitudes towards
sustainable fashion products and their actual fashion purchases.
In order to avoid the negative consequences of the fashion industry and to lower the
barrier towards sustainable fashion, changes have to be made by the industry. Pal and
Gander (2018) suggest that the business model in the fashion industry can be changed by
connecting three strategies: “narrowing”, “slowing” and “closing”. “Narrowing” includes
the use of organic fibers and clean technologies. The aim is to have a more demand-
driven production with less pollution, less energy and less water spillage. “Slowing” can
be connected to the concept of slow fashion. It consists of the promotion of durable,
timeless garments and aims at a decrease in overall consumption. “Closing” refers to
closing the loop by implementing a circular system.
Although when customers have heard about the externalities of the fashion industry
and are affected by them, they are not turning their knowledge into behavior (Joergens,
2006). Consumers could play a crucial role in changing the industry, for example, by
reacting differently to brands and/or companies that are known to have a relatively high
score on polluting production processes. However, this information is not always (pub­
lic) available which makes it difficult to undertake potential action. Grappi et al. (2017)
and Roozen and Raedts (2020) have shown that transparency and sharing (negative)
information about the production process of the (fast) fashion industry could make
a significant change in consumers’ attitudes. A nudge can, therefore, be a significant tool
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 331

to inform (potential) customers about the apparels and the consequences of their
acquisitions. Furthermore, a nudge can focus people’s choice on relatively more sustain­
able options when purchasing apparels and, hence, helping them contributing to a more
sustainable fashion industry. For example, Aspers (2008) and Perez and Dos Santos
Lonsdale (2018) showed the importance of a labelling system in the fashion garment
industry, whereby the minimum standard of ethical and environmental conditions of the
fashion product were indicated on the label. A fMRI-study by Lee et al. (2020) found that
a “green” logo on a fashion product can significantly increase consumers’ preferences for
sustainable fashion products. Both prior exposures (in the form of a label or a logo) to an
environmental priming message can be classified as a nudge communication technique.

2.4. The concept of nudging for the fashion industry

According to Thaler and Sunstein (2008, p. 89) a nudge is “any aspect of the choice
architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any
option or significantly changing their economic incentives”. Nudges aim to facilitate
people’s choices, without interfering with their freedom of choice and preferences
(Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Often, nudges are implemented by policymakers for two
reasons: to reduce undesirable behavior (e.g. the consumption of unhealthy food) and/or
to stimulate desirable behavior (Lehner et al., 2016).
Lehner et al. (2016) discuss four types of tools for nudging: simplification and framing
of information, changes to a physical environment, changes to a default policy, and the
use of social norms. Firstly, simplification and framing refer to the accessibility and the
manner in which information is displayed. Simplification plays an important role in
consumers’ decision-making process, whereas framing influences individuals’ values and
attitudes. An experiment involving framing in a school cafeteria found that product
names such as Grandma’s Zucchini Cookies, increased sales compared to Zucchini
Cookies (Wansink et al., 2001). A second tool for nudging involves changing consumers’
physical environment, such as putting products on eye-level in supermarkets. Thirdly,
people prefer to stick to default options because this means following the path of least
resistance. For example, when enrolment for an organ donation program is the default
option, people are more likely to take part than when they have to sign up for the
program (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Finally, social norms can significantly influence
consumer behavior. Goldstein et al. (2008) were able to increase the re-use rate of hotel
towels by adding a sign that stated that the majority of guests reused their towels instead
of focusing on the environmental benefits. It is important to remark that strong under­
lying preferences and involvement can influence the effect of a nudge intervention
(Lehner et al., 2016). Additionally, the literature shows that ecological conscious con­
sumer behavior can significantly influence consumers’ attitude towards (fast) fashion
clothing (Diddi et al., 2019; Roozen & Raedts, 2020; Sun et al., 2014). Therefore, for
testing the effectiveness of a nudge in choosing sustainable fashion, the fashion involve­
ment of a consumer and the ecological conscious consumer behavior have to be taken
into account.
Nudges could be encouraging tools to promote a broad range of pro-environmental
and sustainable consumption behaviors (Lehner et al., 2016). A well-known example of
this so called “green nudges” took place at Rutger University, which adopted a policy to
332 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

change the settings of all printers on double-sided printing by default. By doing this, they
saved seven million pages in one semester, which is equivalent to 620 trees (Croson &
Treich, 2014). Dianoux et al. (2019) present an overview of the different typologies of
nudges. They showed that in external business communication nudges can be very
effective. Furthermore, research shows that nudges are quick, low-cost and easy to
implement stimuli to convince individuals to adopt the desired behavior (Dianoux
et al., 2019). Although there is potential for more nudging interventions, experiments
for choosing sustainable fashion options have remained unexplored by researchers.
Therefore, two main research questions can be formulated:

RQ1: Can nudging significantly influence consumers’ choice for a more sustainable
clothing item?

RQ2: Do sociodemographic (age, gender and financial situation) and fashion related
characteristics of the participants (e.g. ecological conscious consumer behavior, fashion
involvement) significantly influence consumers’ sustainable fashion choice process?

3. Research design
In order to be able to test the two research questions, a quantitative research was
conducted. A survey was designed using Qualtrics.com. Data was collected with
Prolific. We implemented the nudge in a simulation of the Hennes & Mauritz AB
(H&M) website. H&M is one of the leading fast fashion companies in terms of global
revenues, the company operates in more than 74 countries and has over 126.000 employ­
ees (https://hmgroup.com/brands/hm.html). Therefore, H&M can be considered as
a strong prototype of a global fast fashion company (Del Rocío Bonilla et al., 2019).
The brand is also becoming more and more committed to creating great fashion at the
best price in a sustainable way. One of the steps towards more sustainable fashion was the
launch of their Conscious collection, a line made from fabrics such as organic cotton,
organic linen, tencel and recycled polyester (Diderich, 2011; H&M, n.d.). Therefore,
choosing their website in our experimental setting was a well-considered choice.
In the first part of the questionnaire, participants were randomly allocated to one of
the three conditions: a verbal nudge, a visual nudge or the control setting (no nudge). On
the next page of the questionnaire, participants had to choose between two black T-shirts
(one of the most popular apparels worldwide). This gender-neutral product increased the
likelihood that participants would be able to associate with the situation and answer the
questions. Both T-shirts looked the same and had the same descriptions (available sizes,
number of reviews and available colors). The only difference between both pieces of
clothing was their fabric. One T-shirt was made from regular cotton. The other one was
an ecological fashion product – a sustainable fashion T-shirt – from the Conscious
collection. In each of the three experimental conditions, the two T-shirts were shown
randomly next to each other. Figure 1 presents the control condition.
In the verbal nudge condition, extra information in text form was provided and
presented in a way that fits human information processing capabilities and decision-
making processes (Lehner et al., 2016). In line with the Conscious collection of H&M the
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 333

Figure 1. Information about the Conscious T-shirt (L) and the non-sustainable version of the T-shirt (R)
in the control condition.

Figure 2. Verbal nudge condition with the Conscious T-shirt on the left and the non-sustainable
version of the T-shirt on the right.

“Conscious Cotton T-shirt” we added additional information about the T-shirt’s sustain­
able fabrics. In Figure 2 the verbal nudge is presented.
For the visual nudge condition, we added a website page with a visual emphasis on the
Conscious collection of H&M (see Figure 3). Participants were kindly asked to click
through to the next page after having looked at the web page. On the next page of the
questionnaire, they were asked to select one of the two versions of the T-shirt (see Figure 1).

Figure 3. The visual nudge used in the experiment.

334 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

After choosing one of the T-shirts, we asked the participants on a 7-point scale about
their intentions to buy the chosen product (“very unlikely”, . . ., “very likely” based on
Roozen & Raedts, 2020) and their willingness to pay (WTP) for the two T-shirts (“I really
do not want to buy it”, “less than € 2,99”, “between € 3 and € 4,99”, “between € 5 and € 9,99”,
“between € 10 and € 14,99”, “between 15 and € 29,99”, “between € 30 and 49,99” and more
than € 49,99”). Next, we measured ecologically conscious consumer behavior (SECB) when
purchasing apparels, based on Sudbury-Riley’s Likertscale (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher,
2016) with 4 7 point items (“when I purchase apparels, I always make a conscious effort to
buy textiles that are low in pollutants”, “if I understand the potential damage to the
environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase them”, “I normally make
a conscious effort to limit my purchases of apparels that are made of or use scarce resources”
and “I switch brands for ecological reasons”). Furthermore, we measured participants’
fashion involvement: their perceived personal relevance or interest in fashion. Tigert
et al. (1976) has shown that consumers with a relatively high score on fashion involvement
buy significantly more items of clothing and spend more per item than consumers with
a relatively low score on fashion involvement. Fashion involvement was measured on
a 5-items 7 point Likert scale (i.e. “I try to keep my wardrobe up-to-date with fashion trends”,
“I like to shop for clothes”, “I like fashion”, “I often buy T-shirts” and “I often buy clothes in
general”) and based on Tigert et al. (1976). Finally, gender, age, and the financial situation
(“how would you describe your financial situation?” 1 “poor”, . . ., 10 “very good”) of the
participants were measured (Roozen & Raedts, 2020).

4. Results
4.1. Sample description and measurements
We ran this study among male and female respondents from different age groups. The
respondents were randomly exposed to one of the three experimental conditions. In total,
288 responses were used for the data analysis. The fist condition, i.e. the verbal nudge
condition, had 96 respondents, the visual nudge condition had 94 respondents and the
third condition, the control group, had 98 respondents. 49.1% of the respondents were
female. No significant differences between the experimental conditions were found
(X 2 ½2� ¼ 2:509; p = .285). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 67 years
(M = 29.28, SD = 9.71). The average score for their financial situation was 5.43 on 10
(SD = 2.02). No significant differences were found for age (F[2.279] = 1.490.; p = .227)
and financial situation scores (F[2.272] = .082.; p = .921) between the different experi­
mental conditions. Most of the participants were inhabitants from a western country. In
total 88.02% of the participants were from Europe, 2.10% from Canada, 3.59% from the
US, 2.40% from South Africa, and 1.49% from South America, and about 2% from other
countries. Geographical locations can have a significant impact on the awareness, knowl­
edge, and behaviors of consumers (Min Kong & Ko, 2017). However, almost all of our
participants are from western countries and the manipulation material used in our
experiment is common for the western market. Based on the results of the reliability
analyzes average scores for the constructs ecologically conscious consumer behavior
(SECB) (Cronbach’s α = .902, M = 4.25, SD = 1.50), and fashion involvement
(Cronbach’s α = .862, M = 3.71, SD = 1.33) were calculated.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 335

4.2. Research results

The data in Table 1 shows that nudging can significantly influence consumers’ choice for
sustainable fashion (RQ1), (X 2 ½2� ¼ 15:90; p < .001). The participants in the verbal
nudge condition chose the sustainable version of the T-shirt significantly more often
than the control group (no nudge).
To answer RQ2 a model that could predict discrete outcomes was needed. A binary
model was the best option since there were only two possible discrete outcomes: choosing
a sustainable T-shirt (from the Conscious collection) versus choosing a non-sustainable
T-shirt, therefore, we used a binary logistic regression model. We estimated to what extend
sociodemographic and fashion related characteristics of the participants significantly influ­
ence the sustainable fashion choice process next to the presence of a verbal or visual nudge.
The probabilities that a participant chooses a sustainable or a regular T-shirt are given by:
�
exp Xtt β
PSUS T Shirt ðXi ; ωÞ ¼ (1)
1 þ expðXtt βÞ

1
PREG T Shirt ðXi ; ωÞ ¼1 PEF ðXi ; ωÞ ¼ (2)
1 þ expðXtt βÞ

in which ω is a vector of the estimated coefficients β, and Xi are the regressor variables in
the model. In Table 2 the estimated coefficients, standard errors, log-odds (exp (B)), and
fit values of the model are presented.
Table 2 shows the significant positive influence of the verbal nudge on the sustainable
choice process (p < .001). In binary logistic regression the log-odds (see Table 2) can be
interpreted as odds ratios, for every unit increase in the answer, the probability becomes exp

Table 1. Effect of both type of nudges on consumers’ choice for sustainable fashion.
Verbal nudge (n = 98) Visual nudge (n = 94) No nudge (n = 97)
Choice T-shirt Regular 27.1% 44.7% 55.1%
Sustainable (Conscious) 72.9% 55.3% 44.9%

Table 2. Effects of explanatory variables on choosing the sustainable version of the T-shirt1).
Variables (Xi) Estimated Coefficients β (SD) Log odds (Exp (B))
Verbal nudge 1.396 (.338)*** 4.040
Visual nudge .581 (.318)* 1.788
Average Ecological Social behavior .361(.097)*** 1.434
Average Fashion Involvement -.211 (.105) ** .809
Gender -.577 (.282) .562
Age -.014 (.014) .986
Financial Situation -.055 (.069) .947
Constant -.071 (.799) .931
Log likelihood (estimated model) 329.620
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients X2[7] = 43.808 (p < .001)
R2 Nagelkerke .199
Hosmer & Lemeshow Goodness of Fit X2 [8] = 9.071 (p = .336)
U2 (% predicted correctly) 67.8%
***Significant (p < .01), **Significant (p < .05), *Significant (p < .10).
1)
According to McFadden (1984) and Hensher et al. (2005) the sample size allowed us to use binary logistic regression
analyses (minimum requirement of 50 choosing each alternative).
336 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

(B) higher. For example, the probability that a consumer chooses the sustainable T-shirt
after being confronted with the verbal nudge is 4.040 times higher compared to the no-
nudge (control) condition. Furthermore, the visual nudge also shows, to a lesser extent,
a significant positive influence on the sustainable choice process (p < .100). For the visual
nudge, the probability for choosing the sustainable version of the T-shirt increases with
1.788 times, compared to the control condition with no nudge. Furthermore, participants
with a relatively high score on ecological conscious consumer behavior and a low score on
fashion involvement have a significant higher change to choose the sustainable apparel.
Subsequently, the results indicate that socio-demographic variables do not significant
influence the choice process (p > .05). The different goodness of fit values are satisfying
and indicate that the model is significantly better than to the null model. Finally, Table 3
shows how many cases were correctly predicted in the full binomial logit model, using
a cut-value of .500. The overall percentage of cases that were correctly predicted is 67.8%
(74.8% for the sustainable choice and 58.5% for the regular choice).
The average score for purchase intention is 4.82 (SD = 1.62) on a 7-point scale,
suggesting that our participants’ intention to buy the T-shirt of their choice was relatively
high. The purchase intention did not significantly differ between both nudging condi­
tions (F[2,287] = .021; p = .979) or between the two options regular of conscious version
of the T-shirt: t[286] = 1.730; p = 0.085. We also found no significant differences for
purchase intention for both T-shirt versions within the different nudge conditions (t no-
nudge [96] = .587, p = .559; t verbal -nudge [94] = 1.038, p = .302; t visual-nudge [92] = 1.494,
p = .139). Hence, these findings suggest that the nudge only influenced our participants’
choice behavior, but not their intentions to buy the T-shirt.
However, we found significant differences between participants’ willingness to pay
scores for the different nudge conditions and within the different choice options. Table 4

Table 3. Classification of correctly predicted consumers’ choice.

Predicted
Choice T-shirt
Observed Regular Sustainable % correct
Choice T-shirt Regular 69 49 58.5
Sustainable 39 116 74.8
Overall (%) 67.8
The cut-value is .500.

Table 4. Willingness to pay scores (WTP) for the T-shirt given the nudge condition and the consumers’
choice.
WTP_R1) WTP_C2)
Choice Visual Verbal Average Visual Verbal Average
T-shirt: No-nudge nudge nudge WTP No-nudge nudge nudge WTP_
Regular 4.13 (.953) 4.38 (1.10) 4.62 4.32 3.93 4.02 4.42 4.07
(N = 54) (N = 42) (1.06) (1.04) (1.18) (1.14) (.809) (1.10)
(N = 26) (N = 122) (N = 54) (N = 42) (N = 26) (N = 122)
Conscious 4.11 (1.15) 3.87 (1.01) 4.24 4.09 4.41 4.48 4.70 4.55
cotton (N = 44) (N = 52) (1.16) (1.12) (1.06) (.874) (1.15) (1.05)
(N = 70) (N = 166) (N = 44) (N = 52) (N = 70) (N = 166)
1)
Willingness to pay scores for the regular T-shirt; 2)Willingness to pay scores for the Conscious T-shirt.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 337

presents the average scores for the WTP for the two different T-shirts (both variables
were measured after the choice process).
The results of Table 4 show that – in general – the average scores of the WTP is higher
for the chosen option than for the non-chosen option, and also higher for the conscious
cotton T-shirt than for the regular T-shirt. A paired samples t-test showed that the
participants who chose the regular T-shirt have an average score for WTP for the regular
T-shirt of 4.32 which is significantly higher than the WTP score for the conscious cotton
T-shirt (4.07): t[121] = 3.308, p = .001. Also, the participants who chose the conscious
cotton T-shirt have a significant higher WTP for their chosen option (4.55) compared to
their non-chosen option (4.09): t[165] = 6.971, p < .001. An independent samples t-test
showed that the average WTP for the conscious cotton T-shirt (4.55) is at a 10%
reliability level significantly higher than for the regular T-shirt option (4.32):
t [286] = 1.884, p = 0.061 (see Table 4). Furthermore, the average WTP scores for the
conscious cotton T-shirt are significant higher in the verbal nudge condition compared
to the no nudge condition (F[2, 285] = 5.117; p = .007). This suggests that the nudge
could not only significantly influence the choice behavior towards a sustainable choice, it
can also significantly positive influence the WTP for the sustainable fashion choice.
Furthermore, the results of paired sample t-tests show that for the control condition
(no-nudge) the WTP is not significantly different between the regular and the conscious
cotton T-shirt. However, for the visual and verbal nudge conditions the WTP for the
consciousness cotton T-shirt is significantly higher at a 10% reliability level (t visual nudge
[95] = 2.941, p = .004; t verbal nudge [93] = 1.891, p = . 062).

5. Conclusion and discussion

The fashion industry is one of the biggest polluters worldwide, it is responsible for chemical
pollution and excessive waste (land filling). Also high carbon emissions are produced
during the production phase (Niinimäki et al., 2020). However, there is a rise in “new”
strategies of sustainable fashion collections in the fashion industry. Unfortunately, there are
still barriers to the popularization of these sustainable fashion collections (Ertekin & Atik,
2015; Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Moon et al., 2015). The aim of this study was to investigate
if nudges can give a gentle push towards more sustainable choice of clothing.
The literature shows that a nudge can be a promising tool for sustainable behavior
(Dianoux et al., 2019; Goldstein et al., 2008; Lehner et al., 2016; Rolls et al., 2002).
However, research about the effectiveness of a nudge for a sustainable fashion choice is
rare. This paper addressed this gap in the literature.
Our findings show a significant influence of the presence of a verbal nudge on
consumers’ sustainable fashion choice. When verbal information is provided on the
positive environmentally friendly characteristics of a garment, consumers are more likely
to choose this piece of clothing compared to the non-sustainable version of the clothing
piece. This finding is in line with other researches where verbal nudges are proven to be
efficient (Fischer, 2008; Lee et al., 2020; Wansink et al., 2001). Another way to give the
respondent a gentle push towards the sustainable garment was through a visibility nudge,
however, this nudge showed to be less effective than the verbal one. Furthermore, our
results show that in our control condition (no nudge) there was no significant difference
between the choice options (55.1% choose the regular cotton T-shirt).
338 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

Moreover, our findings indicate that – in general – participants are eager to pay
a significant higher price for the garment they had chosen. In addition, the willingness to
pay for the sustainable T-shirt was higher than for the regular T-shirt. Therefore, a nudge
towards a sustainable choice can also be a profitable instrument for the fashion industry.
These findings confirm the results of the study of O’Connell (2020) who showed that 37%
of his participants would pay an extra 10% for sustainable fashion products compared to
non-sustainable fashion, and that 31% were even willing to pay 25% more, whereas Moon
et al. (2015) showed that a higher price of sustainable fashion is often seen as a barrier
towards buying.
Moreover, the findings of our binary logistic regression model show that next to the
nudges, ecological conscious behavior has a significant positive impact on consumers’
sustainable choice behavior. This is in line with the research of Diamantopoulos et al.
(2003) which showed that consumers with a high score on environmental concern are
more likely to purchase green products. Our results show that consumers with a relatively
high score on fashion involvement are significant less willing to choose for the sustain­
able fashion option. This suggests that consumers with a high involvement rate of fashion
products are less willing to choose for a relatively “slow” fashion sustainable product.
Also Kim et al. (2018) found that involvement in the (fast) fashion development plays
a significant role. They showed that involvement creates an emotional connection which
can be translated in a higher score on loyalty towards the fashion industry. Furthermore,
our results show that sustainable fashion choices are not significantly influenced by age,
gender and the financial situation of consumers.
Our results show that a “relatively” cheap and convenient policy as introducing
a “nudge” on the online website of a fast fashion retailer can significantly influence
the sustainable choice behavior of potential customers (cf. Dianoux et al., 2019).
Furthermore, our findings indicate that potential customers are even willing to pay
more for their (sustainable) choices. Participants in all conditions indicated that they
were willing to purchase the T-shirt, which means that the “extra” push does not
significantly negative influence their purchasing intention behavior. Furthermore, the
verbal nudge had interesting other repercussions. Additional (verbal and visual)
information on the retailer’ website about the sustainable aspects of the product
increased the WTP. In general, sustainable fashion products are more expensive
because of their environmentally friendly materials and processes. This research
shows that if additional information on the environmental aspects of the product is
provided, consumers are willing to pay more for the product. This finding shows that
the barrier of a higher price can be overcome by additional information (Ertekin &
Atik, 2015). Therefore, we can conclude that nudges are a promising tool that fast
fashion companies can implement in their online web shop to direct consumers to
sustainable fashion options. Furthermore, the findings of Tezer and Bodur (2020)
indicate that consumers’ consumption experience significantly improves after buying
a relative environmentally friendly purchase, which even suggests an extra “boost” of
the sustainable fashion choice.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 339

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

The current study examined the effects of using verbal and visual nudges on consumers’
sustainable fashion choice behavior in an online retail environment. Future research is
needed to understand whether this nudging effect can be generalized to other fashion
products and/or for other sustainable material (i.e. organic cotton, organic linen, tencel
and recycled polyester) for other companies. Furthermore, the nudges focused on the
environmental externalities of the fashion industry. However, in the fashion industry not
only the environment suffers, also the social impact of the (fast) fashion industry
(extreme low wages, a lack of evident worker’s rights, health implications for the workers
and labor under dangerous circumstances). The fashion industry often uses child labor in
their production process (Brooks, 2019). Therefore, the influence of “social” nudges (for
example, “child-labor” free clothing) should be investigated.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Irene Roozen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5152-7334
Mariet Raedts http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-8339

References
Aakko, M., & Koskennurmi-Sivonen, R. (2013). Designing sustainable fashion: Possibilities and
challenges. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 17(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-
17-01-2013-B002
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl &
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer-Verlag.
Aspers, P. (2008). Labelling fashion markets. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6),
633–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00724.x
Brooks, A. (2019). Clothing poverty: The hidden world of fast fashion and second-hand clothes. Zed
Books.
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: Quick response, enhanced design,
and strategic consumer behavior. Management Science, 57(4), 778–795. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.1100.1303
Christopher, M., Lowson, R., & Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile supply chains in the fashion
industry. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 367–376. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09590550410546188
Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 115(9), A448–A454. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.115-a449
Croson, R., & Treich, N. (2014). Behavioral environmental economics: Promises and challenges.
Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-
9783-y
Del Rocío Bonilla, M., Del Olmo Arriaga, J. L., & Andreu, D. (2019). The interaction of Instagram
followers in the fast fashion sector: The case of Hennes and Mauritz (H&M). Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, 10(4), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2019.1649168
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R., & Bohlen, G. (2003). Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of evidence and
340 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.

1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
Dianoux, C., Heitz-Spahn, S., Siadou-Martin, B., Thevenot, G., & Yildiz, H. (2019). Nudge:
A relevant communication tool adapted for agile innovation. Journal of Innovation Economics
& Management, 28(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.028.0007
Diddi, S., Yan, R.-N., Bloodhart, B., Bajtelsmit, V., & McShanel, K. (2019). Exploring young adult
consumers’ sustainable clothing consumption intention-behavior gap: A behavioral reasoning
theory perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.spc.2019.02.009
Diderich, J. (2011). H&M launches sustainable conscious collection. Women’s Wear Daily, 201
(23), 3. https://www-proquest-com.kuleuven.ezproxy.kuleuven.be/trade-journals/h-amp-m-
launches-sustainable-conscious-collection/docview/850494926/se-2?accountid=17215
Drew, D., & Yehounme, G. (2017, July 5). The apparel industry’s environmental impact in 6
graphics. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/apparel-industrys-environ
mental-impact-6-graphics
Ertekin, Z. O., & Atik, D. (2015). Sustainable markets: Motivating factors, barriers, and remedies
for mobilization of slow fashion. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0276146714535932
Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving electricity?
Energy Efficiency, 1(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-9009-7
Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms
to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3),
472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., & Hiller, A. (2012). The sustainable clothing
market: An evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 40(12), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211274937
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Barbarossa, C. (2017). Fashion without pollution: How consumers
evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
02.183
H&M. (n.d.). Conscious products explained. H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB, Belgium. https://www2.
hm.com/nl_be/customer-service/product-and-quality/conscious-concept.html .
Helvetas. (2007). From the plant to the T-shirt. HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation. https://
organiccotton.org/oc/wGlobal/scripts/wDownloadDocument.php?path=/oc/pdf/07_from-
plant-to-t-shirt.pdf
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge
University Press.
Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: Myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 10(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679321
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2014). A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: Sustainable future of the
apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12127
Kim, J., Park, J., & Glovinsky, L. (2018). Customer involvement, fashion consciousness, and loyalty
for fast-fashion retailers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), 301–316.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2017-0027
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Lee, E.-J., Choi, H., Han, J., Kim, D. H., Ko, E., & Kim, K. H. (2020). How to “nudge” your
consumers toward sustainable fashion consumption: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 642–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.050
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 341

Lehner, M., Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2016). Nudging – A promising tool for sustainable
consumption behaviour? Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086
Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion
consumption. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 15(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1559
McFadden, D. L. (1984). Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In Z. Griliches &
M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 2, pp. 1395–1457). Elsevier.
Min Kong, H., & Ko, E. (2017). Why do consumers choose sustainable fashion? A cross-cultural
study of South Korean, Chinese, and Japanese consumers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
8(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2017.1336458
Moon, K., Lai, C., Lam, E., & Chang, J. (2015). Popularization of sustainable fashion: Barriers and
solutions. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 106(9), 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405000.2014.955293
Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Patsy, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The environ­
mental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(4), 189–200. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9
O’Connell, L. (2020). How much more are you willing to pay for sustainable fashion than normal
fashion? Statista .https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010137/premium-consumers-willing-to-
pay-for-sustainable-fashion-products-by-amount-worldwide/
Pal, R., & Gander, J. (2018). Modelling environmental value: An examination of sustainable
business models within the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 251–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.001
Perez, A., & Dos Santos Lonsdale, M. (2018). Garment label design and companion information to
communicate fashion sustainability issues to young consumers. Visible Language, 52(3),
115–139. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/136138/
Preuit, R., & Yan, R.-N. (2017). Fashion and sustainability: Increasing knowledge about slow
fashion through an educational module. International Journal of Environmental & Science
Education, 12(5), 1139–1154. http://www.ijese.net/makale/1882.html
Preuss, S. (2021). Sustainability efforts of the fashion industry in February 2021. Fashion United.
https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/33-sustainability-efforts-of-the-fashion-industry-in-
february-2021/2021031254398
Rausch, T. M., & Kopplin, C. S. (2020). Bridge the gap: Consumers’ purchase intention and
behavior regarding sustainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123882. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123882
Remy, N., Speelman, E., & Swartz, S. (2016). Style that’s sustainable: A new fast-fashion formula.
McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com
Rolls, B. J., Morris, E. L., & Roe, L. S. (2002). Portion size of food affects energy intake in
normal-weight and overweight men and women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
76(6), 1207–1213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/76.6.1207
Roozen, I., & Raedts, M. (2020). The power of negative publicity on the fast fashion industry.
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 11(4), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2020.
1798802
Song, S., & Ko, E. (2017). Perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustainable fashion:
Application of Q and Q-R methodologies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(3),
264–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12335
Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review,
development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005
Sun, Y., Kim, K. H., & Kim, J. (2014). Examining relationships among sustainable orientation,
perceived sustainable marketing performance, and customer equity in fast fashion industry.
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 5(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2013.
866319
342 I. ROOZEN ET AL.

Tezer, A., & Bodur, H. O. (2020). The greenconsumption effect: How using green products
improves consumption experience. The Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 25–39. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz045
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and
happiness. Yale University Press.
Tigert, D. J., Ring, L. R., & King, C. W. (1976). Fashion involvement and buying behavior:
A methodological study. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 46–52. https://www.acrwebsite.
org/volumes/5822/volumes/v03/NA-03
United Nations Climate Change (2018). UN helps fashion industry shift to low carbon. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/news/un-helps-fashion-
industry-shift-to-low-carbon
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels’ effect on sales. TheCornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-
8804(01)81011-9
Watson, M. Z., & Yan, R. N. (2013). An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus
slow fashion consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(2), 141–159.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2011-0045
Wiederhold, M., & Martinez, L. F. (2018). Ethical consumer behavior in Germany: The attitude-
behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(4),
419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12435