1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, the fashion industry has evolved in significant ways. One of the most noticeable changes is the emergence of the concept of fast fashion, which is practiced by a number of companies such as Zara, H&M, Top Shop, Uniqlo and Mango. Fast fashion has been celebrated as a new, innovative business model that allows fashion retailers to cut short their supply chains, speed up new product development, introduce new styles frequently and increase sales (Ghemawat, Nueno, & Dailey, 2003). The fast fashion business model has two key success factors: affordable prices and a continuous supply of new clothes. The essence of the fast fashion business model is a combination of quick-response production skills and improved product design capabilities (Cachon & Swinney, 2011).

However, recent events have exposed the seamier side of fast fashion, particularly questions about the ethical and environmental aspects of its business model. One such case was the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh in 2013, when 1,138 garment workers lost their lives and more than 2,000 were injured (Neate, 2014). The building was constructed with substandard materials and extra floors were built without proper permits. Workers were forced to work in these conditions even though there was evidence that the building was not safe. This accident received global attention as an example of an unsafe working environment in the supply chain of fashion industry.

In addition to this case, there have been other instances of the quest for the cheapest labor costs leading to harmful consequences, such as the use of child labor and unsafe working conditions. This was exemplified by the recent scandal at Turkish sweatshops, where Syrian child refugees were found working in order to reduce production and labor costs (Afanasieva, 2016). On the environmental side, shortening the life cycle of clothes increases waste, resulting in a doubling of the amount of clothes discarded, from 7 million to 14 million tons, within a period of fewer than 20 years (Wicker, 2016). This is largely because consumers tend to dispose of cheaper, mass-produced fashion products more quickly than they do with expensive ones.

In light of these facts, it has become extremely difficult to ignore the social and environmental impacts that fast fashion has on society. In the early 2000s, the idea of fast fashion seemed beneficial, innovative and promising as a customer-centric strategy because it readily responded to customers’ demands for new garments and styles. As a result, both academics and practitioners argued that “fast fashion systems can be of significant value” (Cachon & Swinney, 2011, p. 778), and the introduction of the fast fashion business model has been regarded as one of the most important disruptive innovations in the retail industry. However, the recent and growing outcry over its ethical dimensions, namely, its human and environmental consequences, has led some to question the fundamental aspects of the fast fashion business model. This, in turn, has led to questions about how the fashion industry can replace its binary thinking about the social-economic continuum (i.e. whether a company prioritizes economic profits for shareholders over acting responsibly as a corporate citizen) with a more sustainable economic model that addresses both social and economic objectives.

These two sharply contrasting sides of the fast fashion industry may be viewed from a number of different perspectives. In this chapter, we present ideas and research to aid thinking and move the agenda on sustainable fashion in a new direction. We do so by shedding light on why consumers accept or resist fast fashion. First, we emphasize the trajectory from customer myopia to a customer boycott. Then, in order to identify ways to strike a middle ground between these two extremes of myopia and boycott, we introduce several promising paths that could ease the transition of the fast fashion industry towards sustainability by implementing a multilevel strategic renewal of the fast fashion business model.

2. From consumer myopia to boycott

In this section, we explore the reasons customers are attracted to fast fashion consumption. We put forth the central claim that fashion managers need to adopt strategies that demand a rethinking of traditional, customer-focused perspectives. Over the past 30 years, the business literature has gradually directed attention to customer-focused strategies (Bagozzi et al., 2012; Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993; Korschun, Bhattacharya, & Swain, 2014). Definitions of “customer-oriented” and “customer centricity” have emerged and scholars have repeatedly shown that customer-focused strategies are related to a higher level of customer satisfaction (Franke & Park, 2006), thus contributing to improvements in a firm’s financial performance.

Many scholars have argued that a firm’s customer focus on business sustainability is paramount (Sheth, Sethia, & Srinivas, 2011). This thinking derives from the view that responsible consumption is premised on consumers’ mindsets, and some scholars (Valor & Carrero, 2014) see responsible consumption as one of many “personal” projects that an individual undertakes. It stresses that companies should better respond to consumers’ needs by embracing sustainable business.

Nonetheless, researchers have shown that the sustainability agenda suffers from a gap between attitudes and behaviors, meaning that consumers generally recognize the importance of responsible consumption and favor sustainability, but they do not necessarily act in a way that is consistent with these attitudes and reflective of this recognition (Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010). At the same time, it is worth noting that many fast fashion retailers suffer from spurious customer loyalty, whereby customers may purchase apparel due to social norms (i.e. they prefer to wear clothes in a style similar to what others wear) or contextual influences, such as low prices or convenience (Dick & Basu, 1994), but do not develop stable relationships with the brands (i.e. genuine brand loyalty). Thus, although customer-focused strategies are well established in managerial practice, the industry still struggles to bridge the gap between attitudes about sustainability and consumer practices. Why does this gap persist?

3. Consumer myopia

Although the customer-focused view is of undisputed value in business (Franke & Park, 2006), it is also prone to consumer myopia. We define consumer myopia as the failure of consumers to accurately assess their own needs and wants and the failure to act in the interest of the greater good and their own good.

One way to explain consumer myopia is to embed it in early marketing theories that focus on the role of desires in consumer behaviour (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003; Kozinets, Patterson, & Ashman, 2016). Scholars have extensively assessed and confirmed the effects of desire on product purchases (Kim, Chan, & Kankanhalli, 2012). The view of desire-based consumption is still very influential and has gained a strong foothold in marketing research. However, researchers might dispute whether desire is beneficial and whether it has a positive effect on consumers’ long-term well-being. Fast fashion responds to consumers’ desire for instant gratification and their tendency to act impulsively instead of attending to the real needs that are in line with their well-being. The dispute over whether desire has positive or negative consequences for individuals is nothing new and dates back to philosophical debates during the times of Plato and Hobbes. One of the most recent and far-reaching ideas along these lines come from Parfit (2011), who suggests that desire does not give individuals reasons to act, such that individuals have no reason to care about the impact of their actions beyond the immediate moment and the immediate consequences. Following this line of thought, desire may guide consumers to make purchases, but it may also make them myopic because it does not give them reasons to care about whether the items they purchase support their own and others’ well-being. Thus, desire-based thinking about fashion is likely to be at odds with sustainability.

A further explanation lies in the conceptualization of consumption as being goal-directed (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999). The dominant characteristic of modern consumer culture is the role of goals that give a sense of purpose to the act of consumption, that is, whether the purpose is ethical or material or otherwise. From a consumer perspective, this view implies that consumers do not act in a way that is consistent with their sustainability-friendly attitudes and instead act on an insatiable demand for more goods. Goals might have the effect of narrowing one’s focus and self-interest, but at the same time they limit consumers’ considerations of the implications and consequences of their behavior on others. With the aim of pursuing their personal goals, consumers neglect the environmental hazards and social threats that fast fashion entails. At the same time, fast fashion fuels a vicious circle of consumption because it can never really bridge the gap between what it promises to consumers and what those consumers’ goals are. Fast fashion can be seen by consumers as a means for them to reach their goals because they view it as a way of being accepted and admired by others. Nonetheless, a piece of apparel might not help a consumer win the acceptance or admiration by others, thus suggesting that there is in fact a misalignment between consumers’ goals and what fast fashion promises to provide. We thus stress that consumer myopia might occur as a byproduct of consumers believing that fast fashion is a means for them to attain their personal goals.

4. Consumer boycott

Even though some may recognize the problem of consumer myopia, the average consumer may not be an agent for change. This implies that if fashion managers want to shift their attention to the consumers’ post-purchase experience in order to understand what makes the purchase a meaningful act, they need to turn their attention to consumers who deviate from the norm. Accordingly, we shed light on why some consumers boycott fast fashion brands, a behavior that challenges conventional conceptions of the nature of fashion management. Taking a long-term perspective, it seems likely that boycott movements contribute to changes in mainstream consumers’ perceptions of fast fashion.

In our discussion, we draw from Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001), who situate their analysis of consumer boycotts within social dilemma theory. The main premise of social dilemma theory is that members of a group face a dilemma when they have to choose between maximizing their personal interest and supporting the interest of the group (Dawes, 1980; Hardin, 1968). When one’s personal interest and the interest of the group do not converge, consumers are consequently confronted with the following question: should I buy this product that is cheap in price but comes with a high cost for society? In the case of a boycott, consumers not only refuse to buy the product, but they also engage in a confrontational relationship with the company that produces the product. The main trigger for consumers to participate in a boycott is the perceived egregiousness of the firm’s actions. Other determining factors are “the desire to make a difference, the scope for self-enhancement, counterarguments that inhibit boycotting, and the cost to the boycotter of constrained consumption” (Klein, Smith, & John, 2004, p. 92). Therefore, the antecedents of boycotts exist at multiple levels. They are not only nested in the consumers’ degree of commitment to social-environmental outcomes (Smith, Palazzo, & Bhattacharya, 2010), but they also depend on the type of social standards firms adopt (McDonnell, 2015; Russell, Russell, & Honea, 2016) and on the social context within which the consumers’ perceptions and behaviors evolve (Fisher & Price, 1992; Osterthus, 1997). Likewise, the outcome of boycotts can be predicted by taking a similar multilevel perspective (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016). Indeed, in the cases of boycotts that are reported to have led to concrete changes of practices in the target organizations, multiple actors were involved in the process and the social positioning of the organization, as well as the broader social context, were key elements (Briscoe, Gupta, & Anner, 2015; Seidman, 2007).

The key definition, motivation and outcomes of consumer myopia and consumer boycotts are summarized in Table 6.1. We now turn to looking at the firm in order to envision solutions that could lead fast fashion companies to renew their business model for the purpose of embracing sustainability.

5. Rethinking the fast fashion business model

For companies operating in the fashion industry, the business model mainly relies on products with a short life cycle, and this might contribute to these companies “digging their own graves.” They not only face the risk of a consumer boycott and other types of consumer activism because of the controversial actions and practices associated with fast fashion, but they might also dissuade investors who value sustainability from investing in their activities, ultimately threatening their own survival by their extensive use of scarce natural resources. Several alternative paths for breaking this vicious circle exist (Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014; Palazzo & Wentland, 2011).

6. Conclusion

Over the past 10 years, fast fashion retailers have reaped the profits of embracing customer-centric views. They have responded constantly to the insatiable consumer demand for new garments and styles. Reducing the traditional four-season life cycle to a monthly or even more frequent cycle overhauls of their product range thereby allows fast fashion retailers to have a fruitful business model that benefits from customers’ constant demand for more.

Nonetheless, fast fashion retailers need to recognize that conventional consumers may be subject to consumer myopia. It will require them to look beyond the ecosystem of traditional customers to realize that the current business model is at risk and vulnerable to changing social norms, such as greater demand for responsible and environmentally friendly business operations. Early signs of consumer boycotts or activism should alert managers in the fast fashion industry. In particular, in the current digital age, brand reputation is at risk and prone to social movements once a sizable crowd of critics coalesces around a particular issue or cause (e.g. Lee, Oh, & Kim, 2013). Thus, the central argument that we put forth in this chapter is that fast fashion retailers need to consider sustainability and responsibility as necessities for innovation and that there is an opportunity to anticipate changing trends before the mainstream consumer adopts social norms that lead him or her to withdraw from fast fashion.

Consequently, this social shift demands managers to rethink fundamental aspects of their strategy. In this chapter, we propose three levers that might be helpful to enhance the sustainability of the business model: (1) shifting the time horizon of investment, (2) the strategic inclusion of activism, and (3) embracing institutional pressure for social responsibility. Lately, refinement of the empirical research on sustainable business practices has allowed for an accumulation of evidence which indicates that such practices significantly enhance the firm’s long-term performance (Eccles et al., 2014; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). This finding constitutes a crucial argument for managers of fast fashion companies who are willing to engage in a transformation of the fast fashion business model by embracing sustainable business practices. Alongside this needed shift in the time horizon of investment, which is the first lever that can enhance the sustainability of the business model, we have identified a second lever which is related to the inclusion of activism. Indeed, firms have to deal with the diverse strategies that social movements use to pressure them into changing the business practices that may have detrimental consequences for various stakeholders and into adopting a more ethical behavior instead. Rather than considering this phenomenon a threat, fast fashion retailers can seize the emerging business opportunities by working closely with environmental activists. As an illustrative example, Dubuisson-Quellier (2013) has shown how activist organizations, such as environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), can shape the product valuation made by the consumers, thereby creating business opportunities for firms that align their strategies with the new consumers’ preferences for eco-friendly products. Finally, the third lever we consider in this chapter concerns the fast fashion retailers’ responses to institutional pressure for social responsibility. In this context, institutions can be defined as “as regulatory structures, governmental agencies, laws, courts, and professions” (Scott, 1987, p. 498, cited in Oliver, 1991, p. 147). When facing pressures that emanate from these institutions, firms can choose among different behaviors in order to survive and succeed. They can be more or less active in influencing their institutional context. A recent study of strategic responses to institutional pressures for social responsibility within the Nordic fashion industry indicates that the most common response from fashion retailers is to comply with the norms (Pedersen & Gwozdhz, 2014). We argue that complying with institutional norms is not sufficient for fast fashion retailers who are active in markets where institutional pressures for a company’s social responsibility are high. Rather, they should proactively participate in the elaboration of new norms and thereby shape their institutional environment in order to secure their leading position in the fashion industry. We hope these levers can provide some insights contributing to the positive changes in the fast fashion industry.