The fashion industry has become a major contributor to environmental pollution and the consumption patterns of consumers have emerged as a main driver in affecting the environment.  Jang et al. (2012), D'souza et al. (2015) and James et al. (2017) studies highlight the immediate need for sustainable practices and approaches in the fashion industry. Jacobs et al. (2018) and Blazquez et al. (2020) study showed the gap between consumer behaviour towards sustainable fashion products and the present market share of sustainable fashion products. Kim et al. (2013) study also identified eight negative beliefs related to fast fashion, like “overly trendy styles, big stores discomfort, poor performance, lack of personal help, deindividuation, inauthenticity, irresponsibility, and foreignness as negative beliefs regarding fast fashion”.

Rahman et al. (2020) focused on internal and external factors influencing consumers’ preferences and also explored gender-related differences in sustainability. Hasbullah et al. (2022) research also stressed the role of motivating cues influencing consumers’ preferences and intention to purchase sustainable products. Various previous studies underscore the complex changing aspects of sustainable consumption, stressing the need for increased awareness, education and active involvement to foster more sustainable practices. Hur & Cassidy (2019) also emphasised the need for creating awareness and active engagement of consumers. Lai & Cheng (2016) study in Hong Kong explained the significant role of perceived responsibility and sustainable marketing practices in shaping consumers’ purchasing behaviour. Zhao et al. (2014) showed the significance of attitude towards sustainable consumption and the influencing role of willingness to pay a premium for sustainable products despite limited knowledge.

Various previous studies have been conducted on studying the factors influencing sustainable product purchase behaviour (SPPB) still, there exists a gap in the literature. Recognising the changing nature of sustainable purchase intention and behaviour (Sharma et al., 2022; Nascimento & Loureiro, 2022; Ray & Nayak, 2023), there is an urgent need for a detailed review to gain a deep understanding of consumer behaviour towards sustainable fashion.

With the growth of sustainable fashion brands in India, such as Ethicus, Nicobar, Doodlage, there is an immediate need to study this attitude-behaviour gap. Thus, this study conducts a systematic review considering 41 research papers,employing the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methods (TCCM) (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019; Nascimento & Loureiro, 2022). This review facilitates the identification of underexplored areas that can explain SPPB from both theoretical and empirical perspectives.

Sustainability has become an important social issue. Now, consumers are more aware about the impact of their consumption habits on environment. According to Khare (2020), youth are more aware about their eco-friendly consumption options and this changing pattern pushes businesses to adopt sustainable business practices. Businesses also have a responsibility towards environment protection, as it adversely impacts the rights of people (Mahecha & Punia, 2023). Businesses play a dual role in climate change, as they are both the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and essential components in developing solutions to address climate change. Pandey & Yadav (2023) study showed that positive attitudes towards sustainable fashion were influenced by perceived environmental, political and social benefits, with younger generations, particularly Gen Y and Z, significantly influencing intentions to buy. McKinsey & Company (2020) survey highlighted increased consumer engagement with sustainability in the fashion industry post COVID-19 pandemic, with younger generation showing the interest towards durable and sustainable consumptions, giving an opportunity for brands to manufacture sustainable products. Kerr and Landry (2017) study emphasised the need to act, as the population is growing and impacting the environment negatively. This suggests the need for adopting more sustainable practices in the fashion industry to reduce its environmental footprint. According to Pandey & Yadav (2023) study fashion industry is the second-largest consumer of water, approximate 20% of water wastage.

What is Sustainable Fashion?

Sustainable fashion refers to efforts to minimise the fashion industry’s adverse environmental and social impacts. Sustainable fashion is part of a growing trend towards system maintainability and aims to resolve issues arising from clashes between fast fashion production and consumers (Woodside & Fine, 2019). It involves eco-friendly products that fulfill environmentally conscious consumers’ demands. The purpose is to reduce wastage from textiles, improve workers working conditions and slow down production and consumption at the global level.  The concept is emerging with the ethical purchasing decisions by consumers and eco-conscious practices. Carey et al. (2014) suggests that within the slow fashion movement, sustainable fashion constitutes a subset. The terms eco-fashion, sustainable clothing, slow fashion, green-fashion, and ethical-fashion are commonly interchanged to describe this term. Joergens (2006) define, “ethical fashion as fashionable clothes that incorporate fair trade principles with sweatshop-free labor conditions while not harming the environment or workers by using biodegradable and organic cotton.” Reimers et al. (2016) define, “ethical fashion as clothing that seeks to minimise its negative impact on the environment, employees, and animals via processes that include, but are not limited to, slow fashion.” Niinimäki (2010) define, “eco-fashion as clothing that is designed for lifetime use; it is produced in an ethical system, perhaps even locally; it causes little or no environmental impact and it makes use of eco-labelled or recycled materials.” Carey & Cervellon (2014) define, “eco fashion as any clothing item made in an environmentally friendly process including recycled materials, nontextile materials, and reused clothing.” Lundblad & Davies (2015) define, “green fashion as the concept is related to the ecological dimension of sustainable development.” Lee et al. (2012) define, “sustainable fashion encompasses the myriad of issues of an ethical or environmental nature in the production and consumption of fashion.” Goworek et al. (2012) define, “sustainable clothing as clothing which incorporates one or more aspects of social and environmental sustainability, such as fair-trade manufacturing or fabric containing organically-grown raw material.”  Wei & Jung (2017) define, “sustainable fashion as fashion products that benefit, or at least do not harm, our environment and society in their production and consumption processes, and contribute to creating a sustainable future of human beings.”  Tama et al. (2017) define, “slow fashion as a philosophy, design approach, and method of consumption that prioritises the relationship between the wearer and the clothing, local production and resources, and ethical treatment of workers.”

Sustainable Fashion Models

Gurova's (2024) exploration of sustainable fashion consumption practices (SFCP) among young consumers in Finland employed a “Practice Theory Approach”, focusing on the stages of acquisition, use and discard. Ronda (2023) investigated market barriers moderating the link between sustainable fashion consumption and consumer behaviour using the “Attitude-Behaviour Gap Model”. Daukantienė (2022) proposed methods and approaches for sustainable fashion (SF), emphasising circular design strategies targeting materials and production stages. Williams & Hodges (2022) introduced a “Value-Action Gap Model”, exploring the complexities of sustainable and responsible fashion consumption (SRFC) among Gen Z consumers. Ki et al. (2020) explored the moral dynamics influencing consumer perceptions of Circular Fashion (CF) initiatives through the Moral Responsibility Theory of Corporate Sustainability (MRCS). Kozlowski et al., (2015) study identified sustainability factors in the corporate sustainability framework of 14 clothing brands. The study highlighted a shift towards more environmentally focused fashion design practices and increased emphasis strategies for clothing and shoe recycling. Akenji et al. (2015) provided a “Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) cycle”, a comprehensive structure for companies to improve sustainability and embrace circular economy principles. The nine principles within the cycle included “resource management, design for sustainability, cleaner production and research efficiency, eco-labeling and certification, sustainable marketing and lifestyle and waste management”.

Screening and Selection

The screening process involved selecting studies that examined various factors influencing consumers’ sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). To retrieve relevant research papers, multiple sources and databases were searched like Emerald, Wiley Online Library, Science Direct, Sage publication, etc. (shown in Figure 1). Then, studies exploring factors affecting consumers' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB) were analysed. During 2010, many new fashion and sustainability journals emerged. On the basis of this development, the study has conducted an extensive literature review covering the period from 2007 to 2024. Additionally, this period has seen the emergence of new fashion journals and a rise in special issues addressing sustainability in fashion industry, sustainable practices and green consumption. A total of 58 research papers were thoroughly reviewed, 7 papers were excluded due to low impact factor and 10 papers were irrelevant as they were not related to theme of study like sustainable hotel, sustainable cars, etc. and eliminated, resulting in 41 papers selected for review (Figure 2). For literature review, top rating 29 journals were selected to confirm use of high-quality research papers as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1: Database

Figure 2: Chart for selection

Figure 3: Top Quality Sampled Publications on SPPB

THEORIES

Table 1 shows the theoretical frameworks used in previous studies investigating factors affecting consumers’ sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB) towards sustainable apparels, organic food, green personal care products and green products. Out of 41 studies, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) emerged as the most popular framework, appearing in 11 studies. Then, Norm Action Theory (Schwartz, 1977) model also featured in 3 studies, examining the impact of personal and social norms on SPPB. Lastly, Moral Theories, Value Belief Norms, the Theory of Consumption Values, Attitude Behaviour Intention Gap Model, Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Model, Stimulus – Organism – Response Model, Social Cognitive Theory and Reciprocal Determinism and Diffusion of Innovations Theory were each applied in one study, focusing on various psychological, ethical and social factors influencing SPPB. Interestingly, 17 studies in the current review opted not to apply any specific theoretical framework. This detailed exploration of theoretical frameworks shows the multidimensional nature of consumer behaviour towards sustainability and highlights the significance of considering various theoretical perspectives to gain a deep understanding of SPPB.

Table 1: Theories applied

Source: Authors’ Study

CONTEXT

Country wise studies

The distribution of studies across different countries shows a diverse geographic picture in the research on SPPB as shown in Figure 4. Among the 41 selected studies, India emerged as the prominent contributor with 7 studies, followed by the USA with 4 studies. Additionally, 3 studies adopted a cross-country approach. Australia and China each appeared in 2 studies, while UK, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Turkey and Jordan are each studied in 1 study. Remaining, 13 studies show research conducted in other countries, highlighting the global research and study into SPPB. This distribution shows the international interest and importance of understanding consumer behaviours towards sustainability across diverse geographical areas.

Figure 4: Countries wise studies

General Overview

Previous studies used various theories to investigate consumers’ sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB) within various areas such as sustainable apparels, organic food, green personal care products and green products. Figure 5 shows theories, characteristics and context related to SPPB. This figure shows the adoption and execution of theories at consumer, product and country level and outcomes.

Figure 5: General Overview of SPPB studies

Socio-Cultural Factors

Lee (2010) and Kumar et al. (2019) findings showed the role of peer influence on consumers’ sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Similarly, Tsarenko et al. (2013) and Yadav & Pathak (2017) results showed the positive influence of social and reference groups on consumers' decision-making processes regarding sustainable products purchase. However, Khare & Sadachar (2017) study on Indian youth did not find any role of peer influence. Chakraborty & Sadachar (2023) study found the impact of traditional values and Adhitiya & Astuti (2019) findings showed the role of social value on consumers’ sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Kumar (2021) and Dean et al. (2012) study found the indirect impact of subjective norms on sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). In other studies, Munerah et al. (2021) and Chaudhary and Bisai, (2018) found the strong role of social norms on sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB).

Ethical Factors

Leonidou et al. (2015) define ethics as, “individual's moral beliefs, rules, and obligations about right and wrong, guiding an individual's life and direct decision-making”.  Munerah et al. (2021) findings showed positive associated between ethical commitment and consumers' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Hartmann et al. (2018); Kim & Seock (2019) and Munerah et al. (2021) findings suggested positive influence of personal norms on consumers' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Liu et al. (2020) showed significant impact of moral standards on sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Similarly, Jung et al., 2020) and Al-Adamat et al. (2020) showed positive impact of ethical values and norms on consumers' attitudes towards sustainable consumption.  Al-Adamat et al. (2020) study also indicate that all dimensions of moral intelligence positively influence purchase intentions.

Political Factors

Braithwaite (1999) define, political actions as, “person's desire to engage in various socio-political issues such as lobbying political agents, participating in pressure groups, and boycotting irresponsible companies”.  Larson & Farac (2019) showed individual political beliefs significantly influence individuals' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Johnstone and Hooper (2016) study showed role of government sustainable initiatives like promoting green products in influencing sustainable product purchase intention (SPPI). Kumar et al. (2019) study also found the importance of enforcing strict rules and regulations to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices among manufactures and consumers.

Product Related Factors

Gurova (2024) study showed positive association between individual’s acceptability and knowledge of sustainable products towards sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Jung et al. (2020) found that product related factors i.e. eco-labels, sustainable consumption values and green brand image affect individuals' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Adhitiya & Astuti (2019) study found that green risk, functional values and experience also impact sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). However, Dangelico et al. (2021) study showed negative association between product price and individuals' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Conversely, Kumar et al. (2020); Chaudhary & Bisai (2018) and Narula & Desore (2016) study showed positive link between willingness to pay and sustainable product purchase intention. Adhitiya & Astuti (2019) study in Indonesia found no relationship between price and quality on affect individuals' sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB).

Environmental Factors

Dunlap & Jones (2002) study state that “‘the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them and or indicate the willingness to contribute personally to their solution”. Chaudhary & Bisai (2018); Dangelico et al. (2021) showed a positive relation between environmental concern and SPPB. However, Choi & Johnson (2019) study did not find a link between environmental concern and SPPB. Other researchers like Kim & Chung (2011); Kumar et al. (2020) reported a positive association between environmental consciousness and pro-environmental intentions. Similarly, Tryphena & Aram (2023) and Choi & Johnson (2019) found consumers with environmental knowledge are more inclined towards the purchase of sustainable products. More environmental awareness leads to more purchase of sustainable products.

Individual Factors

Various studies have explored individual factors such as consumers' attitudes (Arvola et al., 2008; Choi & Johnson, 2019), egoistic values (Kim & Seock, 2019), ability (Hasbullah et al. 2022) and health awareness (Kumar, 2021) showing different associations with sustainable product purchase intention (SPPI) and sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB). Factors positively correlated with SPPI/SPBI include perceived behavioural control (Kim & Chung, 2011); Kumar, 2021; Kumar et al. 2020; Yadav & Pathak 2017), consumers’ intention (Yadav & Pathak 2017); self-efficacy (Ling, 2013) and perceived consumer effectiveness (Emekci, 2019). However, Choi & Johnson (2019) study did not find an association between perceived behavioural control and SPPB and Zhen & Mansori (2012) study also found no influence of consumer innovativeness on buying sustainable food.

Research approaches and methods

The research into SPPB considered a diverse array of research approaches, as shown in the Table 2. Structural Equation Modeling emerged as the most popular research method, used in 16 studies (Arvola et al. (2008), Tsarenko et al. (2013) and Kumar (2021) and others). Multiple Regression Analysis was also employed, with 5 studies. Probit Regression Analysis, Hierarchical Regression Analysis and Independent Sample t-test were also employed as seen in the work of Tryphena & Aram (2023), Harland et al. (2007) and Liu et al. (2020) respectively. Additionally, Phipps et al. (2013) utilised a Theoretical Based approach. Lee (2010) employed factor analysis. Various studies adopted Traditional Regression Analysis as shown in Table 2. The Systematic Literature Review method was also popular, with 7 studies. Furthermore, qualitative method i.e. interview was employed in studies by Basgoze & Tektas (2012) and Harris et al. (2016).

 Table 2: Research approach and methods

Source: Authors’ Study

consumer behaviour (Purohit et al., 2022) and major structural changes across various aspects of life and businesses (Rayburn et al., 2021). As a result, there is an immediate need for the development of new theories and models to support research efforts towards sustainable consumption in the post-pandemic era. There is a call to action for developing frameworks and models to guide future studies within this developing area.

The current literature review showed that consumer behaviour is influenced by various factors like socio-cultural, political, ethical, environmental, individual and product related factors.  Most of the studies are based on quantitative methods like regression analysis and structural equation modelling. The findings also showed that most of the studies used Theory of Planned Behaviour for understanding consumer behaviour towards sustainable product purchase intention (SPPI) and sustainable products purchase behaviour (SPPB).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH SCOPE

The current study focuses only on sustainable products within the fashion industry i.e. green apparel, organic food, green personal care products and green beauty products. To extend the scope of current study, future research should explore sustainable practices in other industries such as green automobiles, green hotels, green manufacturing, green electricity, green packaging, etc. This extension will provide a detailed understanding of sustainability efforts and practices across various industries, thereby enhancing the body of knowledge in this field.

1. Adhitiya, L., & Astuti, R. D. (2019). The Effect of Consumer Value on Attitude Toward Green Product and Green Consumer Behaviour in Organic Food. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series, 0(5), 193. https://doi.org/10.12962/j23546026.y2019i5.6299
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
3. Al-Adamat, A., Al-Gasawneh, J., & Al-Adamat, O. (2020). The impact of moral intelligence on green purchase intention. Management Science Letters, 2063–2070. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.005
4. Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2-3), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.010
5. Basgoze, P., & Tektas, O. O. (2012). Ethical perceptions and green buying behaviour of consumers: A cross-national exploratory study. Journal of Economics and Behavioural Studies, 4(8), 477–488.
6. Blazquez, M., Henninger, C. E., Alexander, B., & Franquesa, C. (2019). Consumers’ Knowledge and Intentions towards Sustainability: A Spanish Fashion Perspective. Fashion Practice, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2019.1669326
7. Braithwaite, V. (1997). Harmony and security value orientations in political evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 401–414.
8. Carey, L., & Cervellon, M. C. (2014, September 2). Ethical fashion dimensions: pictorial and auditory depictions through three cultural perspectives. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 18(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-11-2012-0067
9. Carey, L., & Cervellon, M.-C. (2014). Ethical fashion dimensions: pictorial and auditory depictions through three cultural perspectives. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 18(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-11-2012-0067
10. Chakraborty, S. and Sadachar, A. (2023), "Can a connection with the indigenous cultural values encourage sustainable apparel consumption?", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 27 (1), 80-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2021-0191
11. Chaudhary, R., & Bisai, S. (2018). Factors influencing green purchase behaviour of millennials. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(1).
12. Chopdar, P. K., Paul, J., & Prodanova, J. (2022). Mobile shoppers’ response to Covid-19 phobia, pessimism and smartphone addiction: Does social influence matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121249
13. Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F., & Pompei, A. (2021). Which are the determinants of green purchase behaviour? A study of Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2766
14. Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2012). The role of self‐identity, past behaviour, and their interaction in predicting intention to purchase fresh and processed organic food 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 42(3), 669-688.
15. Emekci, S. (2019). Green consumption behaviours of consumers within the scope of TPB. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(3), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-05-2018-2694.
16. Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., & Hiller, A. (2012). The sustainable clothing market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211274937
17. Gurova, O. (2024), "Practice theory approach to Gen Z’s sustainable clothing consumption in Finland", Young Consumers, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-06-2023-1765
18. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2007). Situational and Personality Factors as Direct or Personal Norm Mediated Predictors of Pro-environmental Behaviour: Questions Derived From Norm-activation Theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665058
19. Harris, F., Roby, H., & Dibb, S. (2016). Sustainable Clothing: Challenges, Barriers and Interventions for Encouraging More Sustainable Consumer Behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), 309–318.
20. Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., & D’Souza, C. (2018). The role of psychological empowerment in climate-protective consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 392–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-01-2017-0080
21. Hasbullah, N. N., Sulaiman, Z., Mas’od, A., & Ahmad Sugiran, H. S. (2022). Drivers of Sustainable Apparel Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study of Malaysian Millennial Consumers. Sustainability, 14(4), 1945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041945
22. Jacobs, K., Petersen, L., Hörisch, J., & Battenfeld, D. (2018). Green Thinking but Thoughtless buying? an Empirical Extension of the value-attitude-behaviour Hierarchy in Sustainable Clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320
23. Jaiswal, D., & Kant, R. (2018). Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.008
24. James, A. M., & Montgomery, B. (2017). Making the change: The consumer adoption of sustainable fashion. Detox Fashion: Supply Chain, 47-84.
25. Jang, J., Ko, E., Chun, E., & Lee, E. (2012). A Study of a Social Content Model for Sustainable Development in the Fast Fashion Industry. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 3(2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2012.10593108
26. Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679321
27. Johnstone, M.-L., & Hooper, S. (2016). Social influence and green consumption behaviour: a need for greater government involvement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9-10), 827–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2016.1189955
28. Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1-2), 128–143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2306774815000034
29. Jung, H. J., Choi, Y. J., & Oh, K. W. (2020). Influencing Factors of Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention to Sustainable Apparel Products: Exploring Consumer “Attitude–Behavioural Intention” Gap. Sustainability, 12(5), 1770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051770
30. Khare, A., & Sadachar, A. (2017). Green apparel buying behaviour: A study on Indian youth. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(5), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12367
31. Kim, S. H., & Seock, Y.-K. (2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behaviour: The mediating role of personal norms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.023
32. Kumar, A., Prakash, G., & Kumar, G. (2021). Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102270
33. Kumar, G. A. (2021). Framing a model for green buying behaviour of Indian consumers: From the lenses of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126487.
34. Kumar, R., Saha, R., P.C., S., & Dahiya, R. (2019). Examining the role of external factors in influencing green behaviour among young Indian consumers. Young Consumers, 20(4), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/yc-12-2018-0921
35. Larson, R. B., & Farac, J. M. (2019). Profiling Green Consumers. Social Marketing Quarterly, 25(4), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500419882391
36. Lee, K. (2010), “The green purchase behaviour of Hong Kong young consumers: the role of peer influence, local environmental involvement, and concrete environmental knowledge”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23 (1), 21-44.
37. Lee, N., Choi, Y. J., Youn, C., & Lee, Y. (2012, January). Does Green Fashion Retailing Make Consumers More Eco-friendly? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302x12446065
38. Lee, S. H.-N., Kim, H., & Yang, K. (2015). Impacts of sustainable value and business stewardship on lifestyle practices in clothing consumption. Fashion and Textiles, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-015-0043-8
39. Leonidou, L. C., Coudounaris, D. N., Kvasova, O., & Christodoulides, P. (2015). Drivers and Outcomes of Green Tourist Attitudes and Behaviour: Sociodemographic Moderating Effects. Psychology & Marketing, 32(6), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20806
40. Leonidou, L. C., Coudounaris, D. N., Kvasova, O., & Christodoulides, P. (2015). Drivers and outcomes of green tourist attitude and behaviour: Socio-demographic moderating effects. Psychology and Marketing, 32, 635–650.
41. Ling, C.Y. (2013). Consumers' purchase intention of green products: an investigation of the drivers and moderating variable. Elixir Mark. Manag. 57 (A), 14503–14509.
42. Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2015, November 11). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1559
43. Mahecha, M., & Punia, M. (2023). Climate change and business development: a critical analysis of ways to achieve sustainable development.  J. Pub. Pol'y, 13, 367.
44. Mandarić, D., Hunjet, A., & Vuković, D. (2022). The Impact of Fashion Brand Sustainability on Consumer Purchasing Decisions. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(4), 1–17. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15040176
45. Mio, C., Panfilo, S., & Blundo, B. (2020). Sustainable Development Goals and the Strategic Role of business: a Systematic Literature Review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3220–3245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2568
46. Munerah, S., Koay, K. Y., & Thambiah, S. (2020). Factors influencing non-green consumers’ purchase intention: A partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124192
47. Narula, S. A., & Desore, A. (2016). Framing green consumer behaviour research: opportunities and challenges. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-08-2014-0112
48. Nascimento, J. and Loureiro, S.M.C. (2022), "The PSICHE framework for sustainable consumption and future research directions", EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-12-2021-0199
49. Niinimäki, K. (2010, March 26). Eco‐clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.455
50. Pandey, M., & Yadav, P. S. (2023). Understanding the role of individual concerns, attitude, and perceived value in green apparel purchase intention; the mediating effect of consumer involvement and moderating role of generation Z&Y. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 9, 100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100120
51. Paul, J., & Mas, E. (2019). Toward a 7-P framework for international marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2019.1569111
52. Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.
53. Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Simpson, B., & Weaver, T. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.016
54. Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116
55. Purohit, S., Arora, R., & Paul, J. (2022). The bright side of online consumer behaviour: Continuance intention for mobile payments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2017
56. Rahman, O., Fung, B. C. M., & Chen, Z. (2020). Young Chinese Consumers’ Choice between Product-Related and Sustainable Cues—The Effects of Gender Differences and Consumer Innovativeness. Sustainability, 12(9), 3818. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093818
57. Ray, S., & Nayak, L. (2023). Marketing Sustainable Fashion: Trends and Future Directions. Sustainability, 15(7), 6202. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076202
58. Rayburn, S. W., McGeorge, A., Anderson, S., & Sierra, J. J. (2021). Crisis‐induced behaviour: From fear and frugality to the familiar. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12698
59. Reimers, V., Magnuson, B., & Chao, F. (2016, October 3). The academic conceptualisation of ethical clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-12-2015-0097
60. Sharma, A. P. (2021). Consumers’ purchase behaviour and green marketing: A synthesis, review and agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1217–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12722
61. Sinha, P., Sharma, M. and Agrawal, R. (2023), "A systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable fashion in the apparel industry", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 3482-3507. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2022-0142
62. Tama, D., Encan, B. C., & Öndoğan, Z. (2017). University Students’ attitude towards Clothes in Terms of Environmental Sustainability and Slow Fashion. Textile and Apparel, 27(2), 191-197.
63. Tryphena, R., & Aram, I. A. (2023). Consumer perception on sustainable clothing among urban Indians. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics, 18, 15589250231168964
64. Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., Sands, S., & McLeod, C. (2013). Environmentally conscious consumption: The role of retailers and peers as external influences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.006
65. Wei, X., & Jung, S. (2017). Understanding Chinese Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Sustainable Fashion Products: The Moderating Role of Face-Saving Orientation. Sustainability, 9(9), 1570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091570
66. Willian, J., & Loureiro, S. (2022). The PSICHE framework for sustainable consumption and future research directions. Euromed Journal of Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/emjb-12-2021-0199
67. Woodside, A. G., & Fine, M. B. (2019). Sustainable fashion themes in luxury brand storytelling: The sustainability fashion research grid. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 10(2), 111–128.
68. Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2017). Determinants of consumers' green purchase behaviour in a developing nation: Applying and extending the theory of planned behaviour. Ecological Economics, 134, 114–122.
69. Yeon Kim, H., & Chung, J. (2011). Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101930
70. Zhen, J. S., & Mansori, S. (2012). Young female motivations for purchase of green products. International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 3(5), 61–72.