Fashion Conscious Consumption and Consumer Perception: A Study in the Local Productive Arrangement of Clothing of Pernambuco

ABSTRACT

This study aims to analyze the relationship between the perception of corporate social responsibility actions (PCSRA) and the purchase of green products (PGP) on price sensitivity (PS) and the influence of these constructs on conscious consumption (CC). For this purpose, a descriptive quantitative study was carried out with fashion consumers of a Local Productive Clothing Arrangement in the Agreste area of Pernambuco, and the data was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling. The results identified that PGP has an influence on PS and a negative relationship with CC. PCSRA, on the other hand, has a positive influence on CC, but not on PS, and the relationship between PS and CC was not significant. These results indicate that social aspects have a greater predominance over CC, and price does not seem to be a barrier to the consumer’s consciousness regarding the consumption of fashion products. This study innovates by bringing to debate the relationship between relevant constructs that have been investigated separately in the field of consumption.

KEYWORDS
Fashion Conscious Consumption; Price Sensitivity; Green Products; Corporate Social Responsibility; Clothing LPA

RESUMO

O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar a relação entre percepção de ações de responsabilidade social empresarial (PARS) e compra de produtos verdes (CPV) sobre a sensibilidade a preço(SP) e a influência desses construtos sobre o consumo consciente (CC). Para tanto, uma pesquisa quantitativa descritiva foi realizada com consumidores de moda do Arranjo Produtivo Local de Confecções do Agreste Pernambucano e os dados analisados pela Modelagem de Equações Estruturais. Foi identificado que a CPV tem influência sobre a SP e uma relação negativa com o CC. Já a PARS tem influência positiva sobre o CC, mas não sobre a SP, e a relação entre SP e CC não se mostrou significativa. Esses resultados demonstram que o aspecto social tem maior predominância sobre o CC e que preço parece não ser uma barreira para a consciência do consumidor quanto ao consumo de produtos de moda. Este estudo inova ao trazer para debate a relação entre construtos relevantes, mas que tem sido investigado em separado no campo do consumo.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Consumo Consciente de Moda; Sensibilidade a Preço; Produtos Verdes; Responsabilidade Social Empresarial; APL de confecções

1. INTRODUCTION

The increased level of awareness among individuals, here called conscious consumption, has demanded socio-environmentally responsible products and services from companies (Biswas, Raj & Srivastava, 2018; Severo, Guimarães, Dellarmelin & Ribeiro, 2019). Therefore, some authors such as Straughan and Roberts (1999) and Peattie and Collins (2009) argue that the presence of conscious consumption is relevant to the purchase of sustainable products. However, authors such as Frederico, Quevedo-silva and Freire (2013) and Mondini, da Rosa Borges, Mondini and Dreher (2018) report that there are no guarantees that sustainable behavior will, in fact, occur, even with the existence of socio-environmental consciousness as there is a gap between discourse and sustainable action by consumers.

Hence, the factors that influence the conscious consumption construct need to be further investigated, mainly due to its important role in the purchase decision process, since, according to Brochado, Teiga and Oliveira-Brochado (2017) and Severo et al. (2019), conscious consumption may not lead to the purchase of sustainable products, but its absence makes this type of purchase less probable.

It is also important to point out that identifying such factors can not only help to understand the construct, but also assist in the knowledge about conscious consumption in certain markets, such as the fashion market, where the perspective of sustainable production has great relevance, as it is one of the most polluting sectors (Pedersen & Gwozdz, 2013). In addition, the need for evaluation is also confirmed by checking the relevance for the national context, whose textile production chain is considered to be the fifth-largest industry in the world (Associação Brasileira da Indústria Têxtil e de Confecção [ABIT], 2018), and regional, given that the Local Productive Arrangement (LPA) of the Clothing Pole from the Agreste area of Pernambucano is responsible for 47.5 thousand direct jobs and 2,561 companies, with a turnover of about 3.5 billion reais in 2017 (ABIT, 2018).

Regarding the different factors indicated in the literature as being relevant to the purchase decision, it is possible to indicate those presented by Lii, Wu and Ding (2013), Salamandic, Alijosiene and Gudonaviciene (2014) and Kumar, Manrai and Manrai (2017), which point out the following aspects as considered by consumers: environmental, which is related to the preference of consuming green products; social, which involves the consumers’ perceptions in relation to corporate social responsibility actions, and; economic, related to consumer price sensitivity, which plays an important role in describing one’s willingness to pay and knowledge about product prices.

From the above, it is possible to infer that these variables, consumption of green products, perception of corporate social responsibility actions, and price sensitivity, when present in a purchase decision, may influence the level of consumer consciousness towards more sustainable consumption. Additionally, studies in the field of consumer behavior have identified that, on many purchase occasions, the perception of socioenvironmental attributes in products and services has reduced price sensitivity on consumer decisions (Tsuda, Hara & Uwasu, 2013; Joshi & Rahman, 2019; Cerri, Testa & Rizzi, 2018).

Thus, this present work proposes to analyze the influence of green products purchase, the perception of corporate social responsibility actions and price sensitivity on fashion conscious consumption, as well as to analyze how the purchase of green products and the perception of corporate social responsibility actions influence consumer price sensitivity. For that, a descriptive research of quantitative nature was developed, in which a survey method was applied and the data analyzed by structural equation modeling technique.

As a main result, it is observed that the purchase of green products influences price sensitivity, the perception of corporate social responsibility actions influence fashion conscious consumption, but the relationship between purchase of green products and conscious consumption is negative, contrary to what was formulated in this study. Furthermore, the relationship between price sensitivity and conscious consumption was not significant, the opposite as stated by the referenced literature.

This study innovates by analyzing variables perceived by consumers, which influence their conscious consumption, that have been investigated separately in the literature, by pointing out that individuals perceive social and environmental issues in a choice process, even though it reflects differently in their behavior, by confirming the importance of corporate actions perform on social and environmental aspects and also by bringing the conclusion that the purchase of green products reduces price sensitivity in relation to sustainable products.

2. THEORETICAL REFERENCE

2.1. Conscious consumption and the fashion market

According to Mondini et al. (2018), consciousness can be understood as the level of knowledge about the impacts that the actions of individuals cause to the environment, also called environmental awareness or conscious consumption, being referred to in this study by the latter. Therefore, conscious consumption becomes closely related to the mobilization of people to achieve sustainability (Carvalho, Salgueiro & Rita, 2015; Otto & Pensini, 2017). According to Peattie and Collins (2009), consumers are seeking to obtain even more information about the social and environmental impacts that occur during the production and consumption cycle of products and their purchasing decision is starting to be based on these criteria.

However, the role of conscious consumption as a driver of green products consumption still needs to be further investigated. According to Mondini et al. (2018), the consciousness at the time of consumption itself is not able to guarantee that individuals will purchase green products. On the other hand, Brochado et al. (2017) argue that without the presence of consciousness, it would be more difficult for individuals to engage in this kind of purchase. Therefore, it is essential to have a better understanding of this construct to evaluate what factors can influence it (Al Mamun, Mohamad, Yaacob & Mohiuddin, 2018; Peattie and Collins, 2009; Straughan and Roberts, 1999).

This identification becomes important in certain market segments, such as the fashion market, which is the focus of this study. The fashion market segment has a market logic that advocates the intense flow of fast fashion products, the encouragement of consumerism and the need for creating collections periodically in response to growing demand. Because of this, the fashion market bis one of the market segments with a higher level of negative impact on the environment (Becker-Leifhold, 2018; Cimatti, Campana & Carluccio, 2017).

Although most companies in this sector are adapting their production processes to cause less negative social-environmental impacts (Garcia, Cordeiro, Alencar & Costa Neto, 2019; Oliveira Jr., Huertas & Oliveira, 2015; Severo et al., 2019; Stefano & Alberton, 2018), the purchase of products is not always related to this type of organizational effort (Diddi, Yan, Bloodhart, Bajtelsmit & McShane, 2019; Park & Lin, 2018). This is possibly due to the fact that the variables worked on by the companies in the socio-environmental sphere may not be perceived by consumers during a purchasing process and, thus, may not influence conscious consumption (Kim & Kang, 2018; McNeill & Moore, 2015; Sung & Woo, 2019; Wagner, Curteza, Hong, Chen, Thomassey & Zeng., 2019).

Following the investigative perspective of Lii et al. (2013), Salamandic et al. (2014) and Kumar et al. (2017), these authors pointed out that consumers may have a better perception of certain variables when it comes to purchasing situations in which sustainable products are available. Therefore, this study works with the constructs purchase of green products (Lii et al., 2013), perception of corporate social responsibility actions (Salamandic et al., 2014), and price sensitivity (Kumar et al., 2017) as potential influencers of conscious consumption. These constructs are explained in the following sections.

2.2. Purchase of Green Products (PGP)

Green products are products that use fewer resources, bring about less impact and risks to the environment, and prevent waste generation since the conception stage of production (Dangelico & Pontrandolfo, 2010). The purchase of green products can be an important factor in assessing trends related to sustainable consumption. That is because, as the attention to this type of product has grown over the years, mainly due to its character compatible with the current demand for environmental protection, the increase in the number of offers, and the number and diversity of green products purchased, present important indicators that confirm this trend (Hong, Wang & Yu, 2018).

As Afonso (2010) points out, consumers who demonstrate green consumer behavior, those who are concerned that products are manufactured with little or no environmental impact, reveal an intention to purchase green products, which can translate into effective purchasing behavior for different segments. Buying intention indicates the likelihood of a person behaving in a certain way in purchase situations and may point out the future purchase behavior of an individual (Ajzen, 1991; Cerri, Testa & Rizzi, 2018).

Although researches show that there is a gap between the intention to consume and the effective purchase of green products (Sheth, Sethia & Srinivas, 2011), individuals who already have green consumption behavior may be predisposed to purchase other products which are aso called sustainable. The experience of buying green products provides individuals with greater knowledge and ability to make purchases in other categories, therefore leading them to be more favorable and receptive to companies of different segments that have socio-environmentally responsible products and enhance the consumer’s environmental consciousness (Chen & Wang, 2016). Thus, in order to better understand the relationship between PGP and conscious consumption, the following hypothesis was developed:

• H1a: PGP has a direct and positive relationship with the CC of fashion products.

Additionally, it is possible that, when consumers obtain more experience in purchasing green products, they become less sensitive to price variations of products in this category (Duerden & Witt, 2010; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). In general, green or sustainable products are perceived as more expensive which makes this an important factor in consumer evaluation, when consumers are more sensitive to changes (Binkley & Bejnarowicz, 2003; Yang, 2019). Despite that, consumers who have had experience purchasing green products and/or have a preference for purchasing these products, may have internalized factors associated with sustainability, which make them less sensitive to price variations (Tsuda, Hara & Uwasu, 2013; Cerri, Testa & Rizzi, 2018), negatively influencing individuals’ price sensitivity. Thisleads to the following research hypothesis:

• H1b: PGP has a direct and negative relationship with PS.

2.3. Perception of corporate social responsibility actions (PCSRA)

According to Moravcikova, Stefanikova and Rypakova (2015), consumers have become more concerned about the impact of their purchase decisions and have been following information on the actions of their favorite brands, such as if companies position themselves as socially responsible. These criteria have been identified as important decision motivators for purchasing products. The positive perception of corporate social responsibility actions provides positive word-of-mouth and dissemination to other consumers who do not consume the brand yet (Arli & Hasmono, 2010; Castro-González, Bande, Fernández-Ferrín & Kimura, 2019).

In their studies, Ferreira, Ávila and Faria (2010) observed the effects of perceiving corporate social responsibility actions in the consumer’s purchase intention. These studies have shown that consumers perceive an additional benefit in purchasing products advertised by companies as socially responsible, showing a willingness to pay 10% more for these products. In addition to it, in another research conducted by Maigan (2001), it was identified that European consumers boycotted companies that had no social responsibility when presented with media cases of mistreating employees and accumulation of undue capital.

Therefore, it is interesting to analyze the relationship between these variables by assuming that:

• H2a: PCSRA has a direct and positive relationship with CC of fashion products.

In addition to being able to influence conscious consumption, the perception of corporate social responsibility actions may also be important in decreasing consumers’ price sensitivity. One of the barriers that lead individuals to reflect on the price companies charge for sustainable products is the lack of knowledge about their actions in favor of the environment (Arli & Hasmono, 2010; Dellarmelin, Severo & Lazzarotto, 2017). Therefore, the perception of corporate social responsibility actions can provide information about the positive actions that companies develop in the social sphere, and influence the way consumers analyze the prices of the company’s products, which leads to the definition of the following research hypothesis:

• H2b: PCSRA has a direct and negative relationship with PS.

2.4. Price sensitivity (PS)

Price exerts a considerable influence on the consumers’ purchase decision process (Han, Gupta & Lehman, 2001; Wang, Liu, Kim & Kim, 2018). Based on Alford and Biswas (2002) study about how price influences consumer decisions, it is the level of consumers’ awareness about the price that makes the theme more relevant. According to Rao and Monroe (1988), a higher price increases the perception of an economic cost and, therefore, negatively influences product evaluations and purchase intentions if the consumer does not see benefits from paying the extra value.

The present study follows the definition established by Botelho and Urdan (2005), who definee this level of awareness as price sensitivity, a dimension studied with a focus on the variation of consumer behavior due to an oscillation in the amount to be paid. In relation to sustainable products, price becomes an obstacle to the purchase decision, as it is a the belief that products with such ecological characteristics are likely to be more expensive (Lin, Tseng, Yeh, Liao & Wang, 2020).

According to Joshi and Rahman (2017; 2019), purchasing environmentally friendly products requires more effort from the consumer, such as accepting higher prices due to the cost of research and development required in its manufacturing process. In a study on willingness to pay, and purchase intention for sustainable product innovation, Dellarmelin et al. (2017) observed that there was no significant effect of sustainability on purchase intention and willingness to pay.

Thus, people still tend to consume their products preferentially because of price and quality, and considering that not all consumers have relevant information about green products that make them spend greater financial effort for this purchase (Marian, Chrysochou, Krystallis & Thøgersen, 2014), the following hypothesis was elaborated:

• H3a: PS has a direct and negative influence on CC of fashion products.

The following figure (Figure 1) summarizes the theoretical model proposed in this study.

Figure 1.
Theoretical research model

3. RESEARCH METHOD

The present study is quantitative (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 2013), in which a survey method was adopted (Gil, 2019). The data collection process involved the Local Productive Arrangement (LPA) in the the Clothing Pole of Agreste Pernambucano consumption context, which integrates the cities: Toritama, Santa Cruz do Capibaribe, Caruaru, Riacho das Almas and Taquaritinga (Bezerra Filho, Suza & Baldi, 2007).

The reason for studying this clothing LPA is due to its strategic relevance to the state of Pernambuco, which, despite being especially characterized by fast fashion production, already shows a growing demand for sustainable fashion products. This demand can be represented by the offer of sustainable fashion products by some local companies (e.g., Norppa, Plural Colaborativo, Caboklo, Ayô, Seu Santinno, Frantty, Allysonlorena, among others) and by the actions led by the city halls to improve the production process with a focus on sustainability (Prefeitura de Caruaru, 2018). It is also possible to mention the movements to engage and encourage conscious fashion consumption, such as the Fashion Revolution Week, which aims to raise awareness about the real cost of fashion and its impact on the world, in all stages of its production and consumption process (Fashion Revolution Brazil, 2020).

The population of this study is composed of the entire population residing in the LPA, aged over 18 years old, which is considered the age associated with the beginning of autonomy in decisions. The data collection was carried out in July 2019 through the application of an online questionnaire developed on Google Forms. Regarding the study sample, it was non-probabilistic and cross-sectional, with the application of the snowball sample technique, in which individuals sent the questionnaire through a sharing network (Malhotra, 2019). The questionnaire scales, described in Table 1, were a seven-point Likert type, taking values ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) regarding the statements to measure the respondent’s answers. Regarding the CC scale adapted from Grohmann et al. (2012), only the health dimension was not considered for not being part of this research scope.

The sample size required for this study was calculated based on Hair Jr., Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham (2006)’s recommendation, which defines 5-10 observations per parameter in the collection instrument as a safe number of observations. As the collection instrument of this study contains 22 items, 110 answered questionnaires were considered as the minimum suitable number for the data to be validated. The instrument was pretested with 15 respondents (Malhotra, 2019) and after the adjustments recommended by the respondents were made, the link to the final questionnaire,prepared in Google Forms, was sent through the WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook platforms.

Data analysis was performed using the statistical program IBM SPSS and IBM SPSS AMOS, in order to obtain the sample descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and standard deviation), the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and to generate the structural equation modeling to evaluate the relationships between variables (SEM) (Hair Jr. et al., 2006).

The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), which identifies dimensions of common variability existing in a set of phenomena (Corrar, Paulo & Dias-filho, 2011), was used to analyze the scales dimensionality. To perform this analysis, a Varimax rotation was used, together with the sphericity tests of Bartlett and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), in order to assess the quality of the analysis and the adjustment of the factors obtained, indicating consistency of the results (Hair Jr. et al., 2006).

Then, data reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with an acceptable reliability level above 0.6, and Pearson’s coefficient, with values ​​close to zero, as recommended by Hair Jr. et al. (2006).

In order to conduct the scale analyzes, the relationships and the correlations between the constructs, as well as testing the hypotheses, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling - SEM (Byrne, 2010) were applied, starting from the analysis of the measurement model and the structural model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2011). The hypothesis tests, the covariance matrix and the correlations were evaluated from the values of the standardized estimates, the non-standardized estimates and the p-values (p <0.05) (Byrne, 2010; Severo, Guimarães & Dorion, 2018).

Table 1.
Composition of the data collection instrument

Construct	Scale Source	Items (dimensions and variables)	Code
Conscious Consumption (CC)	Adapted from Straughan and Roberts (1999) and Grohmann et al. (2012)	Recycling dimension
		I try to buy fashion products made with sustainable material.	CC_RD1
		I try to buy only fashion products that can be recycled.	CC_RD2
		Whenever possible, I buy fashion products made with recycled material.	CC_RD3
		I avoid buying fashion products with packaging that is not biodegradable.	CC_RD4
		I avoid buying fashion products that have a lot of packaging.	CC_RD5
		When possible, I always choose fashion products that cause less pollution.	CC_RD6
		I always make an effort to reduce the use of fashion products made from scarce natural resources.	CC_RD7
		I do not buy fashion products that harm the environment.	CC_RD8
		Habit change dimension
		When I have to choose between two identical fashion products, I always choose the one that is least harmful to other people and the environment.	CC_HCD1
		I have already convinced friends or relatives not to buy fashion products that harm the environment.	CC_HCD2
		When I know the possible damage that a fashion product can cause to the environment, I do not buy it.	CC_HCD3
		I do not buy fashion products that can cause the extinction of some animal and plant species	CC_HCD4
		I have already changed or stopped using fashion products for ecological reasons.	CC_HCD5
		I do not buy fashion products manufactured or sold by companies that harm or disrespect the environment.	CC_HCD6
Purchase of Green Products (PGP)	Adapted from Chan (2001)	I approve the idea of buying green fashion products.	PGP01
		Buying green fashion products is a good idea.	PGP02
		I have a favorable attitude toward buying a green version of a fashion product.	PGP03
Perception of corporate social responsibility actions (PCSRA)	Adapted from Maigan (2001)	I would pay more to buy fashion products from a socially responsible company.	PCSRA01
		I consider the ethical reputation of companies when I buy something.	PCSRA02
		I avoid buying fashion products from companies that have been involved in immoral actions.	PCSRA03
		I would pay more to buy fashion products from a company that cares for the well-being of our society.	PCSRA04
		If the price and quality of two fashion products were the same, I would buy from the company that has a socially responsible reputation.	PCSRA05
Price Sensitivity (PS)	Adapted from Vieira and Matos (2012)	The element that most influences my fashion buying decision is price.	PS01
		The perception of a fair price is an important element in my decision to buy fashion products.	PS02
		When buying a fashion product, I analyze the purchase cost-benefit.	PS03
		The discounted price of a fashion product is a deciding factor in my purchase.	PS04

• Source: authors (2019)

4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

After the application of the questionnaire, a sample of 190 valid responses was obtained, with a predominant profile being of women (63.2%)with higher education (42.6%), residing in the city of Caruaru (92.1%). The average age of the respondents was 30 years old, with an average family income of R$ 3,862.03 per month.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) are summarized in Table 2, where the individual items of the scales are grouped into factors that represent the expected theoretical constructs, with the only exception being the CC construct, whose items related to habit change dimension (CC_HCD1 and CC_HCD2) ended up composing the Recycling dimension.

Table 2.
Data reliability and dimensionality

Variables	C.F.	H 2	KMO	Barlett			Exp.V.*
				df	Chi2	Sig
CC_RD1	0.772	0.691	0.928	45	1048.151	0.000	59.37%
CC_RD2	0.740	0.611
CC_RD3	0.684	0.722
CC_RD4	0.756	0.651
CC_RD5	0.660	0.563
CC_RD6	0.778	0.694
CC_RD7	0.653	0.599
CC_RD8	0.634	0.690
CC_HCD1	0.530	0.550
CC_HCD2	0.726	0.690
CC_HCD3	0.746	0.701	0.821	6	300.171	0.000	68.52%
CC_HCD4	0.727	0.656
CC_HCD5	0.571	0.594
CC_HCD6	0.703	0.682
PGP01	0.855	0.806	0.728	3	310.440	0.000	80.66%
PGP02	0.883	0.824
PGP03	0.788	0.741
PCSRA01	0.543	0.634	0.744	10	419.285	0.000	60.75%
PCSRA02	0.533	0.666
PCSRA03	0.630	0.665
PCSRA04	0.649	0.654
PCSRA05	0.440	0.664
PS01	0.779	0.651	0.659	6	191.175	0.000	57.30%
PS02	0.782	0.657
PS03	0.621	0.577
PS04	0.747	0.576

• Source: Field research (2019).
• ^* Exp.V. = explained variance

The Pearson coefficient correlation analysis identified correlations between the observable variables with values above the ideal limit of 0.7, between the variables PGP01 <-> PGP02 (0.783) and PCSRA02 <-> PCSRA03 (0.752). However, as variables above 0.7 and below 0.8, are considered acceptable, and due to the theoretical contribution, it was decided to keep these items (Guimarães, Severo & Vasconcelos, 2017).

Regarding the Composite Reliability (CR) and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), all parameters are within the recommended values (Byrne, 2010; Fornell & Larcker, 1981), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.
Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted

Variables	Mean	S.D.	C.V.	α	CR	AVE
CC	3.649	1.4518	43.83%	0.933	0.930	0.869
PCSRA	5.032	1.47498	29.31%	0.838	0.899	0.640
PGP	5.795	1.48309	25.59%	0.876	0.932	0.820
SP	5.749	1.03715	18.04%	0.738	0.831	0.560

• Source: Field Research (2019)
• Note. S.D. (Standard Deviation), C.V (Coefficient of Variation), CR (Composite Reliability); AVE (Average Variance Extracted); α = Cronbach.

The Convergent Validity (CV) and Discriminant Validity (DV) (Kline, 2011) were assessed as part of the measurement model analysis (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), the results are shown in Table 4. In order to verify the CV, the guidelines of Kline (2011) were followed, which suggest taking the AVE as the basis for evaluation and define the value above 0.5 as appropriate. By looking at Table 4, it is possible to verify that the AVE values ​​are above the recommended, confirming CV.

Table 4.
Correlations, shared variance and AVE

Variables	CC	PGP	PCSRA	PS
CC	0.869	0.187	0.749	0.028
PGP	0.432	0.820	0.339	0.183
PCSRA	0.866	0.582	0.640	0.070
PS	0.169	0.428	0.266	0.560

• Source: Field Research (2019)
• Note: AVE values are on the diagonal of the table (in bold), values below the diagonal are the correlations and the ones above it are the shared variances (squared correlations).

To verify the DV, the recommendation of Fornell and Lacker (1981) was used, who suggests comparing the AVE of each construct with the shared variance, taking as a reference that AVE values must be above shared variances values. According to the result in Table 4, as only the shared variance value between the PCSRA and CC constructs was greater than the AVE, the result can be considered acceptable for analysis (Fornell & Lacker, 1981). Thus, the DV is established.

The analysis of the Mahalanobis Square Distance (D2), a measure used to check outliers that had markings very distant from most respondents (Marôco, 2014), pointed out seven observations with outliers and, therefore, they were removed from the analysis. Thus, with the data from the measurement model showing results within the recommended levels, the following structural model analyses was performed (Byrne, 2010).

From the analysis of the structural model adjustment indexes (Marôco, 2014), in order to assess the interrelationship between the constructs, were found the results shown in Table 5, indicating that the obtained indexes are suitable for the proposed model. For the EVCI and RMR factors, Marôco’s (2014) recommendation was followed, which suggests that the lower these values are, the better the fit of the integrated model. The values of EVCI and RMR for this research are considered the lowest expected values.

Table 5.
Model Adjustment Indexes

Indexes	Results	Criteria
X2/Gl (805,338/338)	1.639	[2; 3] Acceptable adjustment
p-value	0.000	>0.05 Acceptable adjustment
AGFI	0.802	[0.80; 0.90] Acceptable adjustment
GFI	0.844	[0.80; 0.90] Acceptable adjustment
IFI	0.940	>0.90 Good adjustment
TLI	0.928	>0.90 Good adjustment
CFI	0.939	>0.90 Good adjustment
NFI	0.859	[0.80; 0.90] Acceptable adjustment
PCFI	0.800	[0.70; 0.80] Acceptable adjustment
RMSEA	0.059	<0.08 Good adjustment
PCLOSE	0.063	>0.05 Very good adjustment
EVCI	3.307	The lower the better
RMR	0.227	The lower the better

• Source: Field Research (2019)

Thus, these results indicate an appropriate adjustment in the measurement of the latent constructs. Therefore, the adaptation of the scales was adequate, making it possible to apply structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. Table 6 shows the results regarding the hypotheses and Figure 2 shows the relationships between the constructs, with their respective coefficients. Out of the five hypotheses, two were confirmed, H1b and H2a. Hypothesis H1a was partially confirmed and H2b and H3a were not confirmed, as they presented p-values higher than 0.05 (p>0.05).

Table 6.
Hypothesis testing

Hypotheses	Standardized coefficient	Unstandardized coefficient	S.E.	C.R.	p-value*	Status
H1a(+): CPV -> CC	-.385	-.320	0.107	-2.969	0.003	Partially supported
H1b(+): CPV -> SP	0.334	0.230	0.091	2.557	0.011	Supported
H2a(+): PARS -> CC	1.180	0.990	0.164	6.017	0.000	Supported
H2b(+): PARS -> SP	0.097	0.070	0.096	0.715	0.475	Unsupported
H3a(-): SP -> CC	-.060	-.070	0.098	-.725	0.468	Unsupported

• Source: Field research (2019).
• ^*p-value reference: (p<0.05).

Figure 2.
Final integrated model - standardized coefficients.

The hypothesis H1a, regarding the relationship between the preference for purchasing green products and the conscious consumption of fashion products, was partially confirmed. Despite having significance (p <0.05), the relationship was found to be negative, demonstrating that, in this research, consumers who had consumed green products were not conscious observing the consumption of fashion products. Therefore, this result contradicts the arguments presented in the studies of Afonso (2010) and Chen and Wang (2016), when they state that consumers who already demonstrate green consumption behavior or have experience in purchasing these products have a greater environmental awareness concerning consumption.

On the other hand, this result can be explained by the arguments of Tsuda et al. (2013) and Brochado et al. (2017), who state that, in some cases, a previous experience can be considered as a barrier to socio-environmental awareness, especially if consumers perceive either that the product does not have a more ecological production process or the company does not develop actions towards sustainability as promised in advertisement campaigns.

In the present study, as it addresses fashion products, it is believed that the consumer cannot have access to the production information of a company and, by not being sure that the process is not merely greenwashing, since it refers to products manufactured in an LPA that still has a preponderance of fast fashion companies, individuals may have the perception of ineffectiveness in their purchase in regards tosustainability (Oliveira Jr., et al., 2015).

The hypothesis H2a, which refers to the relationship between the perception of corporate social responsibility actions and the conscious consumption of fashion products, was confirmed, with standardized estimated relationship values of 1.180. In this way, the perception of corporate social responsibility actions has a strong influence on the conscious consumption of fashion products, as indicated by Ferreira et al. (2010) and Castro-González et al., (2019).

The confirmation of H2a provides an important contribution regarding fashion products consumption, since the social perspective had more impact on conscious consumption than the green perspective of the product. One factor that explains this significant result of H2a is that fashion companies tend to carry out more communication campaigns about the social responsibility actions they develop than about the ones that benefit the environment in the production process (Moure, 2019; Severo et al., 2019). As a result, it can interfere with consumer perception about this factor and, consequently, about conscious consumption. Thus, this is a relevant managerial implication for companies, in the sense that it is essential that they build their communication to strengthen the consumer perception of the environmental responsibility actions that are performed (Dellarmelin et al., 2017).

Regarding hypothesis H1b, which refers to the relationship between preference for purchasing green products and its direct and negative influence on price sensitivity, statistical significance was obtained, considering the standardized regression coefficient of 0.334, confirming the hypothesis. The perspective of authors such as Duerden and Witt (2010) and Lemon and Verhoef (2016), that it is possible that when consumers get more experience in purchasing green products they become less sensitive to price variations, which seems to justify the results of the present study. Consumers who have had experience in purchasing green products and have a preference for purchasing them tend to have greater knowledge about the importance of the product, and therefore the price is no longer a relevant aspect (Binkley & Bejnarowicz, 2003; Tsuda et al ., 2013; Cerri, Testa & Rizzi, 2018).

The hypothesis H2b, which assesses a direct and negative relationship between the perception of corporate social responsibility actions and price sensitivity, did not obtain statistical significance (p> 0.05) and,thus, was not confirmed. Consumer perception about the development of social responsibility actions by companies is not directly and negatively related to their price sensitivity, contrary to the studies used in the theoretical reference section to support the hypothesis (Dellarmelin, Severo & Lazzarotto, 2017; Joshi & Rahman, 2017; Cerri, Testa & Rizzi, 2018), making this result one of the important points of this study.

This is because, in hypothesis H2a, a positive relationship was identified between social responsibility actions and conscious consumption, which would intuitively lead to the prospect that price would also be positively influenced by the construct. In other words, consumer price sensitivity would be reduced when corporate social responsibility actions are perceived. However, the absence of statistical relevance indicates that these two constructs are not considered together in the same decision process when analyzing the conscious consumption of fashion products.

Finally, the hypothesis H3a, which assesses the relationship between price sensitivity and conscious consumption, was also not confirmed, due to the lack of statistical significance (p> 0.05), indicating that, in the case of this investigation, price sensitivity is not related to fashion conscious consumption. This result contradicts studies which state that price is one of the most important barriers to conscious consumption (Ferreira and Coelho (2017) and Lin et al. (2020).

Regardless of the refutation of hypothesis H3a, the result leads to important reflections: in a first analysis, it is possible to conclude that conscious consumption may not be a variable that depends on price in a fashion buying process (Joshi & Rahman, 2017). That is, when there is the willingness to consume consciously, the consumer does so without it affecting their perception of what they consider more or less expensive in terms of price.

Additionally, the absence of relationships with statistical significance may indicate that price may not be a relevant factor in fashion products purchase decision, as pointed out by Ghali-Zinoubiand and Toukabri (2019). Lastly, a third reflection consists in the fact that the analyzed clothing LPA has a characteristic of manufacturing products with low prices (ABIT, 2018), which could lead individuals to perceive that the price of products, regardless of whether they are ecological or not, would be lower than in other locations (Dellarmelin et al., 2017; Ferreira & Coelho, 2017; Marian et al., 2014). It would also explain the lack of significant relevance between the constructs of price sensitivity and fashion conscious consumption in the analyzed context.

5. CONCLUSION

Considering the context of fashion products presented in this investigation, the findings show that the consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility actions influences conscious consumption, that hat the purchase of green products has a negative influence on conscious consumption and the price sensitivity did not obtain statistical significance to exert influence, contradicting the proposed theoretical model. This leads to the understanding that, in a fashion context, the actions carried out by companies regarding social responsibility are more perceived by consumers than the characteristics of green products, in a way that influences their conscious consumption, and the consideration of price as a barrier to sustainable consumption will depend on the context and the object of research.

The findings also show that the purchase of green products decreases consumers’ price sensitivity when it comes to the fashion context, but the same was not identified in the relationship between the perception of social responsibility and price sensitivity. These results lead to the observation that previous experiences with green products have more effect on the price issue than the actions taken by organizations regarding the social aspect related to fashion products.

From a theoretical point of view, this research contributes to the debate about the variables that influence conscious consumption, by proposing an analysis among the constructs purchase of green products, price sensitivity and perception of corporate social responsibility actions. Additionally, these results bring important contributions to support the advances of sustainability studies within the field of consumer behavior, by assessing the factors that can influence the conscious consumption of individuals and, consequently, their sustainable products purchase decisions.

In addition, an important theoretical contribution of this research is found in the result of the relationship between price sensitivity and conscious consumption, contradicting studies that indicate price as a strong barrier to the consumer when purchasing green/sustainable products, such as those from Otto and Pensini (2017), Al Mamun et al. (2018), and Lin et al. (2020). In the present study, it can also be inferred that price does not demonstrate to be a relevant variable for the development of conscious consumption of the consumers who buy in the clothing LPA of Pernambuco, considering that both constructs have satisfactory statistical results individually but did not show significance when analyzed together.

From a managerial point of view, the results obtained also demonstrate relevant contributions, especially regarding the importance of the price variable in the market of sustainable fashion products. That is because, it was demonstrated that when there is the willingness to consume consciously, the consumer does it without being affected by the perception of what they consider more or less expensive in terms of price. Another relevant practical contribution for managers is related to the companies’ social responsibility actions, in the sense that it is essential they build their communication to strengthen consumer perception of the company’s environmental responsibility actions, since, regarding fashion products, the social perspective had more impact on conscious consumption than the green characteristic of the product.

It is important to acknowledge that the study presents some limitations. First, despite the appropriate number of respondents (Hair Jr. et al, 2006), it is not possible to describe the sample as representative. This is because the snowball technique may not guarantee that everyone in the population has a non-zero chance of participating in the study. Second, the lack of specification on the type of sustainable fashion product may have led to a more generalized result about consumer perception. Applications of this model taking into consideration a specific sustainable fashion product or product category could lead to a different result. Third, this study evaluates the consumption behavior in a cross-sectional approach rather than a longitudinal one.

For future investigations, it is suggested to work with an experiment based on information about social responsibility on the labels of clothing items to verify the influence of such actions on consumer environmental awareness, price sensitivity and perception of corporate social responsibility. Furthermore, because this research analyzed the data obtained in a region where the clothing segment is very important economically, the application of this same study in contexts in which the financial dependence on the clothing sector is less prominent may bring different results.

REFERENCES

• Associação Brasileira da Indústria Têxtil e de Confecção. (2018). Obtido em https://www.abit.org.br/cont/perfil-do-setor.
  » https://www.abit.org.br/cont/perfil-do-setor.
• Afonso, ACB (2010). O consumidor verde: perfil e comportamento de compra (dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Portugal.
• Ajzen, I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50 (2), 179-211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Al Mamun, A., Mohamad, MR, Yaacob, MRB, & Mohiuddin, M (2018). Intention and behavior towards green consumption among low-income households. Journal of Environmental Management, 227, 73-86. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.061
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.061
• Alford, BL, & Biswas, A (2002). The effects of discount level, price consciousness and sale proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention. Journal of Business Research, 55 (9), 775-783. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00214-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00214-9
• Arli, DI, & Hasmono, HK (2010). Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility in a developing country. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 46-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00824.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00824.
• Becker-Leifhold, CV (2018). The role of values in collaborative fashion consumption - A critical investigation through the lenses of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 781-791. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.296
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.296
• Bezerra Filho, R., Suza, IIL, & Baldi, M (2007). Inovação e Desenvolvimento no APL de Confecções de Pernambuco - Brasil a partir da Integração Universidade-Indústria-Governo. In XII Seminario Latino Iberoamericano de Gestion Tecnologica, Buenos Aires.
• Binkley, JK, & Bejnarowicz, J (2003). Consumer price awareness in food shopping: the case of quantity surcharges. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 27-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00005-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00005-8
• Biswas, I., Raj, A, & Srivastava, SK (2018). Supply chain channel coordination with triple bottom line approach Transport. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 115, 213-226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.05.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.05.007
• Botelho, D., & Urdan, AT (2005). Lealdade à marca e sensibilidade ao preço: um estudo da escolha da marca pelo consumidor. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 9(4), 163-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552005000400009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552005000400009
• Brochado, A., Teiga, N, & Oliveira-Brochado, F (2017). The ecological conscious consumer behaviour: are the activists different?International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(2), 138-146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12321
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12321
• Byrne, BM (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming (2ª ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Carvalho, BL, Salgueiro, MF, & Rita, P (2015). Consumer Sustainability Consciousness: A five dimensional construct. Ecological Indicators, 58, 402-410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.053
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.053
• Castro-González, S., Bande, B., Fernández-Ferrín, P., & Kimura, T (2019). Corporate social responsibility and consumer advocacy behaviors: The importance of emotions and moral virtues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23, 846-855. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.238
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.238
• Cerri, J., Testa, F., & Rizzi, F (2018). The more I care, the less I will listen to you: How information, environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers’ attitudes and the purchasing of sustainable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 343-353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.054
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.054
• Chan, RYK (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behaviour. Psychology and Marketing, 18(4), 389-413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1013
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1013
• Chen, Y., & Wang, R (2016). Are humans rational? Exploring factors influencing impulse buying intention and continuous impulse buying intention. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15, 186-197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1563
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1563
• Cimatti, B., Campana, G., & Carluccio, L (2017). Eco Design and Sustainable Manufacturing in Fashion: A Case Study in the Luxury Personal Accessories Industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 393-400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.050
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.050
• Corrar, LJ, Paulo, E., & Dias-Filho, JM (2011). Análise multivariada: para os cursos de administração, ciências contábeis e economia São Paulo: Atlas.
• Dangelico, RM, & Pontrandolfo, P (2010). From green product definitions and classifications to the Green Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16-17), 1608-1628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.007
• Dellarmelin, ML, Severo, EA, & Lazzarotto, J (2017). A influência da inovação sustentável e do luxo sobre a disposição a pagar e a intenção de compra do consumidor.REAd. Revista Eletrônica de Administração (Porto Alegre),23(2), 258-273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413.2311.058.62218
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413.2311.058.62218
• Diddi, S., Yan, RN, Bloodhart, B., Bajtelsmit, V., & McShane, K (2019). Exploring young adult consumers’ sustainable clothing consumption intention-behavior gap: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption 18, (200-209), 2352-5509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.009
• Duerden, MD, & Witt, PA (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007
• Fashion Revolution Brazil. (2020). Semana Fashion Revolution Obtido em https://semanafashionrevolution.com.br/
  » https://semanafashionrevolution.com.br/
• Ferreira, DA, Ávila, M., & Faria, MD (2010). Efeitos da responsabilidade social corporativa na intenção de compra e no benefício percebido pelo consumidor: um estudo experimental. Revista da Administração, 45(3), 285-296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0080-2107(16)30481-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0080-2107(16)30481-2
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• Frederico, E., Quevedo-silva, F., & Freire, OBL (2013). Conquistando a confiança do consumidor: minimizando o GAP entre consciência ambiental e consumo ambiental. Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade, 2(2), 50-70. Obtido em http://www.revistageas.org.br/ojs/index.php/geas/article/view/67
  » http://www.revistageas.org.br/ojs/index.php/geas/article/view/67
• Garcia, S., Cordeiro, A., Alencar, NI, & Costa Neto, PLO (2019). The sustainability awareness of Brazilian consumers of cotton clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (1490-1502), 0959-6526. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.069
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.069
• Gil, AC (2019). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social (7ª ed.) São Paulo: Atlas .
• Ghali-Zinoubiand, Z., & Toukabri, M (2019) The antecedents of the consumer purchase intention: Sensitivity to price andinvolvement in organic product: Moderating role of product regionalidentity. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 90, 175-179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.028
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.028
• Grohmann, MZ, Battistella, LF, Velter, NA, & Casasola, F (2012). Comportamento Ecologicamente Consciente do Consumidor: Adaptação da Escala ECCB para o Contexto Brasileiro. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 6 (1), 102-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v6i1.321
  » https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v6i1.321
• Guimarães, J., Severo, E., & Vasconcelos, C (2017). Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Survey of Companies in Southern Brazil. Brazilian Business Review, 14(3), 352-367. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2017.14.3.6.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2017.14.3.6.
• Hair Jr., J., Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE, & Tatham, RL (2009). Análise multivariada de dados (6ª ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Han, S., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, DR (2001). Consumer Price Sensitivity and Price Thresholds. Journal of Retailing, 77 (4), 435-456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00057-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00057-4
• Hong, Z., Wang, H., & Yu, Y (2018). Green product pricing with non-green product reference. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 115, 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.03.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.03.013
• Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Investigating the determinants of consumers’ sustainable purchase behavior. Sustainable Production and Consumption , 10, 110-120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002
• Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z (2019). Consumers’ sustainable purchase behavior: modeling the impact of psychological factors. Ecological Economics, 159, 235-243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.025
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.025
• Kim, J., & Kang, S (2018). How social capital impacts the purchase intention of sustainable fashion products. Journal of Business Research 117, (596-603), 0148-2963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.010
• Kline, RB (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling New York: Guilford.
• Kumar, B., Manrai, AK, & Manrai, LA (2017). Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: a conceptual framework and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.004
• Lemon, KN, & Verhoef, PC (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey.Journal of Marketing, v. 80(6), 69-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
  » https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
• Lii, YS, Wu, KW, & Ding, MC (2013). Doing Good Does Good? Sustainable Marketing of CSR and Consumer Evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20 (15-28). doi:10.1002/csr.294
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.294
• Lin, H., Tseng, TH, Yeh, C., Liao, Y., & Wang, Y (2020). What drives customers’ post-purchase price search intention in the context of online price matching guarantees. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, v. 54, 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102015
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102015
• Maigan, I (2001). Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30 (1), 57-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006433928640
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006433928640
• Malhotra, NK (2019). Pesquisa de Marketing - Uma Orientação Aplicada (7ªed.) Porto Alegre: Bookman .
• Marian, L., Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., & Thøgersen, J (2014). The role of price as a product attribute in the organic food context: an exploration based on actual purchase data. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 52-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.001
• Marôco, J (2014). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software e aplicações (2ª ed.). Perô Pinheiro: Report Number.
• McNeill, L., & Moore, R (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212-222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169
• Moravcikova, K., Stefanikova, Ľ., & Rypakova, M (2015). CSR Reporting as an Important Tool of CSR Communication. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 332-338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00861-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00861-8
• Moure, RC (2019). CSR communication in Spanish quoted firms. European Research on Management and Business Economics 25 (2) 93-98. 2444-8834. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.02.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.02.002
• Mondini, VED, da Rosa Borges, G., Mondini, LC, & Dreher, MT (2018). Influência dos fatores consciência ambiental e hábitos de consumo sustentável sobre a intenção de compra de produtos ecológicos dos indivíduos. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, 12(2), 117-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.12712/rpca.v12i2.1178
  » https://doi.org/10.12712/rpca.v12i2.1178
• Oliveira Jr., AB, Huertas, MKZ, & Oliveira, MJ (2015). A influência da comunicação de ações sustentáveis corporativas na intenção de compra e o efeito moderador do tipo de consumidor. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental - RGSA, 9 (1), 2-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v9i1.1025
  » https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v9i1.1025
• Otto, S., & Pensini, P (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009
• Park, HJ, & Lin, LM (2018). Exploring attitude-behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research 117, 623-628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025
• Peattie, K., & Collins, A (2009). Guest editorial: Perspectives on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (2), 107-112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00758.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00758.x
• Pedersen, E., & Gwozdz, W (2013). From Resistance to Opportunity-Seeking: Strategic Responses to Institutional Pressures for Corporate Social Responsibility in the Nordic Fashion Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 1-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1630-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1630-5
• Prefeitura de Caruaru. (2018). Começam as obras do segundo Laboratório de Análises Têxteis do país. Obtido em https://caruaru.pe.gov.br/comecam-as-obras-do-segundo-laboratorio-de-analises-texteis-do-pais/
  » https://caruaru.pe.gov.br/comecam-as-obras-do-segundo-laboratorio-de-analises-texteis-do-pais/
• Rao, AR, & Monroe, KB (1988). The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 253-264. doi: 10.1086/209162
  » https://doi.org/10.1086/209162
• Salamandic, E., Alijosiene, S., & Gudonaviciene, R (2014). Price Sensitivity measurement depending on brand awareness: A case of Ziede Brand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 156, 473-478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.224
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.224
• Sampieri, RH, Collado, CF, & Lucio, PB (2013). Metodologia de pesquisa (5ªed.) Porto Alegre: Penso.
• Severo, E., Guimarães, J., & Dorion, E (2018). Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generations’ perception for a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 91-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.129
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.129
• Severo, EA, Guimarães, JCF, Dellarmelin, ML, & Ribeiro, RP (2019). The Influence of Social Networks on Environmental Awareness and the Social Responsibility of Generations.Brazilian Business Review,16(5), 500-518. doi: https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2019.16.5.5
  » https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2019.16.5.5
• Sheth, JN, Sethia, NK, & Srinivas, S (2011). Consumo consciente: uma abordagem de sustentabilidade centrada no cliente.Jornal da Academia de Ciências de Marketing , 39(1), 21-39.
• Stefano, SR, & Alberton, A (2018). Alinhamento entre Estratégia da Organização e Competências para Sustentabilidade: Proposição de um Modelo para Análise.Revista Capital Científico - Eletrônica, 16(4), 117-130. Recuperado de https://revistas.unicentro.br/index.php/capitalcientifico/article/view/5272.
  » https://revistas.unicentro.br/index.php/capitalcientifico/article/view/5272.
• Straughan, RD, & Roberts, JA (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558-575. doi: 10.1108/07363769910297506
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910297506
• Sung, J., & Woo, H (2019). Investigating male consumers’ lifestyle of health and sustainability (LOHAS) and perception toward slow fashion. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 120-128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.018
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.018
• Tsuda, K., Hara, K., & Uwasu, M (2013). Prospects and challenges for disseminating life cycle thinking towards environmental conscious behaviors in daily lives. Sustainability, 5(1), 123-135. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010123
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010123
• Vieira, VA, & Matos, CA (2012). A influência da apresentação do preço sobre as avaliações dos clientes. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 16 (4), 544-565. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552012000400004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552012000400004
• Wagner, M., Curteza, A., Hong, Y., Chen, Y., Thomassey, S., & Zeng, X (2019). A design analysis for eco-fashion style using sensory evaluation tools: Consumer perceptions of product appearance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 253-262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.06.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.06.005
• Wang, H., Liu, H., Kim, SJ, & Kim, KH (2018). Sustainable fashion index model and its implication. Journal of Business Research 99, 430-437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.027
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.027
• Yang, Z., Sun, S., Lalwani, AK, & Janakiraman, N (2019). How Does Consumers’ Local or Global Identity Influence Price-Perceived Quality Associations? The Role of Perceived Quality Variance. Journal of Marketing, 83 (3) 145-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242918825269
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242918825269

• ERRATUM

  In the English version of the article “Fashion Conscious Consumption and Consumer Perception: A Study in the Local Productive Arrangement of Clothing of Pernambuco”, with DOI number: 10.15728/bbr.2022.19.1.6, published in the journal Brazilian Business Review, vol. 19, n. 1, p. 96-115, the authors noted missing data in Table 2, on page 105 of the article. They provided a new table, which is now published together with this Erratum note. This occurrence has no consequences for the analysis of the results presented on the research and has no effect on the conclusions drawn and presented in the article.
  Table 2 -
  Data reliability and dimensionality
  

  Variables	C.F.	H 2	KMO	Barlett			Exp.V.*	Cronbach
  				df	Chi2	Sig
  CC_RD1	0.772	0.691	0.928	45	1048.151	0.000	59.37%	0.923
  CC_RD2	0.740	0.611
  CC_RD3	0.684	0.722
  CC_RD4	0.756	0.651
  CC_RD5	0.660	0.563
  CC_RD6	0.778	0.694
  CC_RD7	0.653	0.599
  CC_RD8	0.634	0.690
  CC_HCD1	0.530	0.550
  CC_HCD2	0.726	0.690
  CC_HCD3	0.746	0.701	0.821	6	300.171	0.000	68.52%	0.846
  CC_HCD4	0.727	0.656
  CC_HCD5	0.571	0.594
  CC_HCD6	0.703	0.682
  PGP01	0.855	0.806	0.728	3	310.440	0.000	80.66%	0.876
  PGP02	0.883	0.824
  PGP03	0.788	0.741
  PCSRA01	0.543	0.634	0.744	10	419.285	0.000	60.75%	0.838
  PCSRA02	0.533	0.666
  PCSRA03	0.630	0.665
  PCSRA04	0.649	0.654
  PCSRA05	0.440	0.664
  PS01	0.779	0.651	0.659	6	191.175	0.000	57.30%	0.738
  PS02	0.782	0.657
  PS03	0.621	0.577
  PS04	0.747	0.576

  • Source: Field research (2019).
  • * Exp.V. = explained variance

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 Feb 2022
• Date of issue
  Jan-Feb 2022

History

• Received
  28 June 2020
• Reviewed
  21 Sept 2020
• Accepted
  24 Mar 2021
• Published
  07 Jan 2022