Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2083793
E. Manzini
Abstract This short contribution offers a perspective on the general topic of the Special Issue reflecting on the evolution of fashion and its contemporary meaning. Starting from a discussion of how the nature of fashion was shaped and contributed in turn to shape several founding ideas of modern civilization, it introduces some possible directions for re-signifying fashion, transforming its social and cultural function toward more sustainable paradigms.
{"title":"Fashion as diversity and care","authors":"E. Manzini","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2083793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2083793","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This short contribution offers a perspective on the general topic of the Special Issue reflecting on the evolution of fashion and its contemporary meaning. Starting from a discussion of how the nature of fashion was shaped and contributed in turn to shape several founding ideas of modern civilization, it introduces some possible directions for re-signifying fashion, transforming its social and cultural function toward more sustainable paradigms.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82662395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2083792
L. Coscieme, S. Manshoven, J. Gillabel, F. Grossi, L. Mortensen
Abstract The textiles production and consumption system is a priority product-value chain for the European Commission in its 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan. The Action Plan foresees a European Union strategy for sustainable textiles in a circular economy with the aim of creating markets for sustainable and circular textile products, services, and business models. The European Environment Agency (EEA) and its Topic Center on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE) have shown that consumption of clothing, footwear, and household textiles in Europe is on average the fourth highest category of environmental and climate impacts from a consumption perspective and from a vantage point that considers the entire life cycle. The fashion industry is responsible for more than 60% of total textiles used and clothing is expected to remain the largest application of textiles in the future. To enable a sustainable and circular textiles system, a transformation of fashion production and consumption is needed. This transformation requires innovation in business-model design, technology, and social practices through the adoption of specific policy making, education, and behavioral change enablers. In this Brief Report, we present a framework to map and advance the implementation and scaling of circular business models. This is illustrated by exploring four different circular business-model approaches for fashion and textiles, including models based on product durability; access models based on renting, leasing, and sharing; garment collection and resale; and recycling and reuse of materials. For each business-model type, we discuss enablers based on technical and social innovations and policy, behavioral change, and education.
{"title":"A framework of circular business models for fashion and textiles: the role of business-model, technical, and social innovation","authors":"L. Coscieme, S. Manshoven, J. Gillabel, F. Grossi, L. Mortensen","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2083792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2083792","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The textiles production and consumption system is a priority product-value chain for the European Commission in its 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan. The Action Plan foresees a European Union strategy for sustainable textiles in a circular economy with the aim of creating markets for sustainable and circular textile products, services, and business models. The European Environment Agency (EEA) and its Topic Center on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE) have shown that consumption of clothing, footwear, and household textiles in Europe is on average the fourth highest category of environmental and climate impacts from a consumption perspective and from a vantage point that considers the entire life cycle. The fashion industry is responsible for more than 60% of total textiles used and clothing is expected to remain the largest application of textiles in the future. To enable a sustainable and circular textiles system, a transformation of fashion production and consumption is needed. This transformation requires innovation in business-model design, technology, and social practices through the adoption of specific policy making, education, and behavioral change enablers. In this Brief Report, we present a framework to map and advance the implementation and scaling of circular business models. This is illustrated by exploring four different circular business-model approaches for fashion and textiles, including models based on product durability; access models based on renting, leasing, and sharing; garment collection and resale; and recycling and reuse of materials. For each business-model type, we discuss enablers based on technical and social innovations and policy, behavioral change, and education.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88094246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2082124
B. Alcott
Abstract While agreeing with the science of the “planetary boundaries” work of Johan Rockström and colleagues, as well as their normative support for political measures to restrict the human economy to the realm inside those boundaries, a recent article by Brand et al. in this journal criticizes the former mainly on the grounds that they pay too little attention to capitalism’s alleged growth imperative and to certain technocratic and/or global-only interpretations to which the planetary boundaries framework is dangerously open. I argue that Brand et al. do not refute or disagree with Rockström et al., as they claim, but rather point out what the latter omit. Rockström et al. consciously limited the scope of their work, and therefore a polemical criticism of their omissions is not justified. I also argue against the centrality of the concept “capitalism” in Brand et al.’s critique, claiming that growth/degrowth analyses and strategies for degrowth do not need to go into the issues of capitalism vs. alternatives to it because drivers of growth are deeper than such systems concepts allow us to investigate. Capitalism and socialism do explain some things, but mainly, they themselves have to be explained in a full analysis of both over-growth and what to do about it politically in democracies. Shifts toward acceptance of material-energy limitations must be psychological and social, whatever the economic system’s rules on such things as ownership of the means of production, economic-power equality, the money system, or macro-economic incentives to growth.
{"title":"Comment on Ulrich Brand et al., “From planetary to societal boundaries”","authors":"B. Alcott","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2082124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2082124","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While agreeing with the science of the “planetary boundaries” work of Johan Rockström and colleagues, as well as their normative support for political measures to restrict the human economy to the realm inside those boundaries, a recent article by Brand et al. in this journal criticizes the former mainly on the grounds that they pay too little attention to capitalism’s alleged growth imperative and to certain technocratic and/or global-only interpretations to which the planetary boundaries framework is dangerously open. I argue that Brand et al. do not refute or disagree with Rockström et al., as they claim, but rather point out what the latter omit. Rockström et al. consciously limited the scope of their work, and therefore a polemical criticism of their omissions is not justified. I also argue against the centrality of the concept “capitalism” in Brand et al.’s critique, claiming that growth/degrowth analyses and strategies for degrowth do not need to go into the issues of capitalism vs. alternatives to it because drivers of growth are deeper than such systems concepts allow us to investigate. Capitalism and socialism do explain some things, but mainly, they themselves have to be explained in a full analysis of both over-growth and what to do about it politically in democracies. Shifts toward acceptance of material-energy limitations must be psychological and social, whatever the economic system’s rules on such things as ownership of the means of production, economic-power equality, the money system, or macro-economic incentives to growth.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90453854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2076352
Steffen Hirth, Filippo Oncini, F. Boons, Bob Doherty
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about debates on rethinking food and other socio-technical systems. While swiftly re-establishing normality has understandable appeal in a crisis, the landscape-level changes during the pandemic also hold windows of opportunity to “build back better” and to achieve sustainability transitions. In this article, we ask whether a cycle of disruption and adaptation results either in the rise of more sustainable niche practices or the consolidation of the socio-technical regimes in place. To approach this question, we consider the specific cases of charitable and on-the-go food provision and examine the extent to which COVID-induced adaptations have resulted in debates about, and implementations of, more just and sustainable practices. We draw on systems transitions and practice theoretical approaches to elucidate dynamics and elasticity and thus the effect of socio-technical practice changes. After describing the pre-COVID food regimes, we evaluate organizational practice adaptations during the lockdowns with regard to (1) changing cultural images of food security and provision, (2) socio-technical innovations, and (3) new forms of governance. We find that rather than justifying the public and policy frame of “building back better,” the effect of recovery measures reinforces the socio-technical regimes and omits wider sectoral and societal sustainability challenges such as the systemic reduction of poverty and waste.
{"title":"Building back normal? An investigation of practice changes in the charitable and on-the-go food provision sectors through COVID-19","authors":"Steffen Hirth, Filippo Oncini, F. Boons, Bob Doherty","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2076352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2076352","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about debates on rethinking food and other socio-technical systems. While swiftly re-establishing normality has understandable appeal in a crisis, the landscape-level changes during the pandemic also hold windows of opportunity to “build back better” and to achieve sustainability transitions. In this article, we ask whether a cycle of disruption and adaptation results either in the rise of more sustainable niche practices or the consolidation of the socio-technical regimes in place. To approach this question, we consider the specific cases of charitable and on-the-go food provision and examine the extent to which COVID-induced adaptations have resulted in debates about, and implementations of, more just and sustainable practices. We draw on systems transitions and practice theoretical approaches to elucidate dynamics and elasticity and thus the effect of socio-technical practice changes. After describing the pre-COVID food regimes, we evaluate organizational practice adaptations during the lockdowns with regard to (1) changing cultural images of food security and provision, (2) socio-technical innovations, and (3) new forms of governance. We find that rather than justifying the public and policy frame of “building back better,” the effect of recovery measures reinforces the socio-technical regimes and omits wider sectoral and societal sustainability challenges such as the systemic reduction of poverty and waste.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85651944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-28DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2068751
S. Luís, I. Silva
Abstract The triple bottom line is at risk of being reduced to an accounting tool rather than serving as a paradigm for organizational sustainability. To be successful, approaches promoting organizational sustainability should be humanized, that is, to further incorporate measures of perceptions and behaviors toward the environment, the economy, and the society in their frameworks and/or indexes of sustainability. The first goal of this work is to illustrate the importance of adopting this approach by assessing employees’ perceptions and behaviors of a banking institution highly committed to sustainability, focusing on the environmental bottom line. The second goal is to contribute to understanding of the antecedents of decisive perceptions (perceived organizational support toward the environment) and behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment) by exploring if and/or how the relation between them is moderated by organizational policies, middle-management support, and employees’ social norms. Data analyses of an online questionnaire (N = 145) showed that employees’ perceptions and behaviors were above average and allowed tailoring intervention strategies to further promote environmental sustainability. The results further evinced that middle-management support strengthened the relation between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment. Organizational policies had a small moderating effect that became non-significant when management support was taken into account, and employees’ social norms toward the environment had no effect. This work describes a humanized and successful way of promoting sustainability in organizations through the dynamization of sustainable policies, processes, and practices by middle managers.
{"title":"Humanizing sustainability in organizations: a place for workers’ perceptions and behaviors in sustainability indexes?","authors":"S. Luís, I. Silva","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2068751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2068751","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The triple bottom line is at risk of being reduced to an accounting tool rather than serving as a paradigm for organizational sustainability. To be successful, approaches promoting organizational sustainability should be humanized, that is, to further incorporate measures of perceptions and behaviors toward the environment, the economy, and the society in their frameworks and/or indexes of sustainability. The first goal of this work is to illustrate the importance of adopting this approach by assessing employees’ perceptions and behaviors of a banking institution highly committed to sustainability, focusing on the environmental bottom line. The second goal is to contribute to understanding of the antecedents of decisive perceptions (perceived organizational support toward the environment) and behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment) by exploring if and/or how the relation between them is moderated by organizational policies, middle-management support, and employees’ social norms. Data analyses of an online questionnaire (N = 145) showed that employees’ perceptions and behaviors were above average and allowed tailoring intervention strategies to further promote environmental sustainability. The results further evinced that middle-management support strengthened the relation between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment. Organizational policies had a small moderating effect that became non-significant when management support was taken into account, and employees’ social norms toward the environment had no effect. This work describes a humanized and successful way of promoting sustainability in organizations through the dynamization of sustainable policies, processes, and practices by middle managers.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82424948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-17DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2069542
Tobias Haas, Jeremias Herberg, David Löw-Beer
Abstract For a long time, Germany was regarded as a pioneer in climate policy. Recently, conflicts have intensified over the phase-out of coal from the energy sector. In 2020, the German Bundestag created the legal basis for a coal phase-out by 2038, subsequently revised to 2030 by the new coalition government of September 2021. This article analyzes the recent controversies from a political-economy perspective and shows the interrelationships and tensions between capitalism, democracy, and sustainability within Germany. In particular, the rise of right-wing populist attitudes opposing a coal phase-out, highlights the conflictual character and the social embeddedness of sustainability politics. The analysis of the conflicts surrounding the coal phase-out makes it possible to situate the future of energy supply in the overall societal context.
{"title":"From carbon democracy to post-fossil capitalism? The German coal phase-out as a crossroads of sustainability politics","authors":"Tobias Haas, Jeremias Herberg, David Löw-Beer","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2069542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2069542","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For a long time, Germany was regarded as a pioneer in climate policy. Recently, conflicts have intensified over the phase-out of coal from the energy sector. In 2020, the German Bundestag created the legal basis for a coal phase-out by 2038, subsequently revised to 2030 by the new coalition government of September 2021. This article analyzes the recent controversies from a political-economy perspective and shows the interrelationships and tensions between capitalism, democracy, and sustainability within Germany. In particular, the rise of right-wing populist attitudes opposing a coal phase-out, highlights the conflictual character and the social embeddedness of sustainability politics. The analysis of the conflicts surrounding the coal phase-out makes it possible to situate the future of energy supply in the overall societal context.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84459050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-17DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2063097
U. Wethal, Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs, A. Hansen, Sejal Changede, G. Spaargaren
Abstract The COVID-19 crisis has led to an unprecedented acceleration in the number of people working from home (WFH). This article applies a practice theoretical lens to expand the pre-pandemic telework literature which often overlooks how WFH is part of complex socio-material arrangements. Based on 56 household interviews in the UK, the United States, and Norway during lockdown in Spring 2020, we reveal the everyday realities of WFH, exploring their implications for the future of work. Developing the concept of boundary traffic, which refers to the additional interaction and collision of a range of everyday practices normally separated in time and space when working outside the home, we provide some insights into how disruption and de- and re-routinization vary by household type, space, and employer’s actions. Much teleworking scholarship highlights technological and spatial flexibility of work, without recognizing the mundane realities of WFH when there is no space for a large computer monitor, preferences to be with children even when a secluded home office is available, or a feeling that important social connections diminish when working on a virtual basis. We discuss the future of work in relation to digitalization, social inequality, and environmental sustainability and conclude by stressing how WFH cannot be understood as merely a technical solution to work-life flexibility. Rather, lockdown-induced WFH has deeply changed the meaning and content of homes as households have resolved the spatial, material, social, and temporal aspects of boundary traffic when embedding work into the domestic practice-bundle.
{"title":"Reworking boundaries in the home-as-office: boundary traffic during COVID-19 lockdown and the future of working from home","authors":"U. Wethal, Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs, A. Hansen, Sejal Changede, G. Spaargaren","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2063097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2063097","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 crisis has led to an unprecedented acceleration in the number of people working from home (WFH). This article applies a practice theoretical lens to expand the pre-pandemic telework literature which often overlooks how WFH is part of complex socio-material arrangements. Based on 56 household interviews in the UK, the United States, and Norway during lockdown in Spring 2020, we reveal the everyday realities of WFH, exploring their implications for the future of work. Developing the concept of boundary traffic, which refers to the additional interaction and collision of a range of everyday practices normally separated in time and space when working outside the home, we provide some insights into how disruption and de- and re-routinization vary by household type, space, and employer’s actions. Much teleworking scholarship highlights technological and spatial flexibility of work, without recognizing the mundane realities of WFH when there is no space for a large computer monitor, preferences to be with children even when a secluded home office is available, or a feeling that important social connections diminish when working on a virtual basis. We discuss the future of work in relation to digitalization, social inequality, and environmental sustainability and conclude by stressing how WFH cannot be understood as merely a technical solution to work-life flexibility. Rather, lockdown-induced WFH has deeply changed the meaning and content of homes as households have resolved the spatial, material, social, and temporal aspects of boundary traffic when embedding work into the domestic practice-bundle.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76659627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-16DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2069996
Otto von Busch
Abstract There seems to be a consensus across both the fashion system and academia that “fast fashion” has a problem with sustainability. An increase in consumption of cheap and accessible clothing is behind the rise in extraction and pollution across the world seems obvious, and often the solutions offered span from material and technical solutions to awareness-raising and ethical education of consumers. But most of these interventions either implicitly or explicitly push blame on the consumers of cheap goods. It is “they” who consume too much, the consumers of cheap garments. While goods and behaviors readily available to the upper strata of society are deemed sustainable, it is the aspirational consumption of less affluent consumers that needs to be rectified. This article examines how the general discourse on sustainable fashion strikes unevenly at the lower rungs of social hierarchies, amplifying differences in privilege and wealth while also moralizing, preaching down to, and denigrating the desires of the poor. Using Felix Guattari’s framework of the three ecologies, the discussion examines some familiar tropes in sustainability discourse, focusing on three lines: the emphasis on industrial and technological solutionism, the undermining of democratic principles, and the emotional besmirching of aspirations. These three tendencies add up to a contemporary equivalent of sumptuary laws aiming to hold back the social mobility and lowly desires of the masses. While this may not be the intent of the promoters of sustainable fashion, a thoughtless and single-minded critique of fast fashion impacts the dissemination of agency and blame across the definitions of sustainability. The article calls for practitioners to examine the premises of sustainable fashion more closely. Any serious discussion around fashion must start with the question: What is to be sustained?
{"title":"“What is to be sustained?”: Perpetuating systemic injustices through sustainable fashion","authors":"Otto von Busch","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2069996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2069996","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There seems to be a consensus across both the fashion system and academia that “fast fashion” has a problem with sustainability. An increase in consumption of cheap and accessible clothing is behind the rise in extraction and pollution across the world seems obvious, and often the solutions offered span from material and technical solutions to awareness-raising and ethical education of consumers. But most of these interventions either implicitly or explicitly push blame on the consumers of cheap goods. It is “they” who consume too much, the consumers of cheap garments. While goods and behaviors readily available to the upper strata of society are deemed sustainable, it is the aspirational consumption of less affluent consumers that needs to be rectified. This article examines how the general discourse on sustainable fashion strikes unevenly at the lower rungs of social hierarchies, amplifying differences in privilege and wealth while also moralizing, preaching down to, and denigrating the desires of the poor. Using Felix Guattari’s framework of the three ecologies, the discussion examines some familiar tropes in sustainability discourse, focusing on three lines: the emphasis on industrial and technological solutionism, the undermining of democratic principles, and the emotional besmirching of aspirations. These three tendencies add up to a contemporary equivalent of sumptuary laws aiming to hold back the social mobility and lowly desires of the masses. While this may not be the intent of the promoters of sustainable fashion, a thoughtless and single-minded critique of fast fashion impacts the dissemination of agency and blame across the definitions of sustainability. The article calls for practitioners to examine the premises of sustainable fashion more closely. Any serious discussion around fashion must start with the question: What is to be sustained?","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74621777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-16DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2068225
T. Brydges, C. Henninger, M. Hanlon
Abstract Over the last thirty years, sustainability has become a growing concern in the fashion industry. While there is agreement among a growing range of actors regarding the need to engage with the social and environmental challenges created by the fashion industry, there is less consent regarding what sustainability entails. Although “sustainability” may be intuitively understood, it has different meanings, depending on how it is applied, and who it is applied by. Without a clear-cut definition, sustainability becomes subjective. In this context, there is a need for research at the intersection of brand-sustainability initiatives and their communication to consumers, who play a vital role in this transition. Drawing on a case study of the Swedish fashion industry, we explore how evolving industrial business models and emerging best practices are informed by a robust understanding of sustainability. We evaluate how brands communicate sustainability to consumers across three key sites: brand websites (including corporate social responsibility reports), social media platforms, and in-store campaigns. We found that not only do brands use a range of practices to define sustainability differently, but furthermore, these definitions vary depending on the context. Considering the industry’s ongoing history with greenwashing, it is vital to address and confront this issue head on. We argue that there is a need to determine what constitutes sustainability in the fashion industry and, in turn, hold businesses to that standard. As COVID-19 has only magnified and intensified these challenges, the article explores the implications of a more robust approach for both theory and practice.
{"title":"Selling sustainability: investigating how Swedish fashion brands communicate sustainability to consumers","authors":"T. Brydges, C. Henninger, M. Hanlon","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2068225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2068225","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the last thirty years, sustainability has become a growing concern in the fashion industry. While there is agreement among a growing range of actors regarding the need to engage with the social and environmental challenges created by the fashion industry, there is less consent regarding what sustainability entails. Although “sustainability” may be intuitively understood, it has different meanings, depending on how it is applied, and who it is applied by. Without a clear-cut definition, sustainability becomes subjective. In this context, there is a need for research at the intersection of brand-sustainability initiatives and their communication to consumers, who play a vital role in this transition. Drawing on a case study of the Swedish fashion industry, we explore how evolving industrial business models and emerging best practices are informed by a robust understanding of sustainability. We evaluate how brands communicate sustainability to consumers across three key sites: brand websites (including corporate social responsibility reports), social media platforms, and in-store campaigns. We found that not only do brands use a range of practices to define sustainability differently, but furthermore, these definitions vary depending on the context. Considering the industry’s ongoing history with greenwashing, it is vital to address and confront this issue head on. We argue that there is a need to determine what constitutes sustainability in the fashion industry and, in turn, hold businesses to that standard. As COVID-19 has only magnified and intensified these challenges, the article explores the implications of a more robust approach for both theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88559377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-11DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2065774
M. Bodenheimer, J. Schuler, Thekla Wilkening
Abstract We analyze the business models of online business-to-consumer (B2C) fashion rental and share challenges and lessons learned from an in-depth case study of a former German fashion-rental company. The firm focused on renting everyday, rather than special occasion, clothing, thus increasing the potential sustainability impact of its offer significantly. We also examine drivers and barriers of both an everyday children’s wear and a women’s wear rental model by incorporating both retailer and consumer perspectives through business data, manager interviews, and consumer surveys with customer and target groups. All data were merged into a single, in-depth analysis of the business models. By combining the complementary viewpoints of retailer and consumers, we were able to more precisely pinpoint the locations of the difficulties in the business models. The main barriers to success were the worsening quality of the company’s inventory and its difficulty acquiring and retaining customers, due both to a lack of familiarity with the concept of fashion rental and the poorly perceived price-performance ratio of fashion rental. These issues suggest that online-fashion rental should begin by focusing on special occasion rentals with more high-end fashion options and should plan a sizeable budget for marketing to raise consumer awareness of alternatives to traditional retail models and alleviate customer concerns. If such a rental model is successful and establishes a stable customer base, everyday fashion-rental options could be explored as a supplement. The article demonstrates the importance of integrating different data sources to obtain a comprehensive understanding of why online-rental models fail or succeed.
{"title":"Drivers and barriers to fashion rental for everyday garments: an empirical analysis of a former fashion-rental company","authors":"M. Bodenheimer, J. Schuler, Thekla Wilkening","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2065774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2065774","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We analyze the business models of online business-to-consumer (B2C) fashion rental and share challenges and lessons learned from an in-depth case study of a former German fashion-rental company. The firm focused on renting everyday, rather than special occasion, clothing, thus increasing the potential sustainability impact of its offer significantly. We also examine drivers and barriers of both an everyday children’s wear and a women’s wear rental model by incorporating both retailer and consumer perspectives through business data, manager interviews, and consumer surveys with customer and target groups. All data were merged into a single, in-depth analysis of the business models. By combining the complementary viewpoints of retailer and consumers, we were able to more precisely pinpoint the locations of the difficulties in the business models. The main barriers to success were the worsening quality of the company’s inventory and its difficulty acquiring and retaining customers, due both to a lack of familiarity with the concept of fashion rental and the poorly perceived price-performance ratio of fashion rental. These issues suggest that online-fashion rental should begin by focusing on special occasion rentals with more high-end fashion options and should plan a sizeable budget for marketing to raise consumer awareness of alternatives to traditional retail models and alleviate customer concerns. If such a rental model is successful and establishes a stable customer base, everyday fashion-rental options could be explored as a supplement. The article demonstrates the importance of integrating different data sources to obtain a comprehensive understanding of why online-rental models fail or succeed.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88324808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：