Transparent Threads: Understanding How U.S. Consumers Respond to Traceable Information in Fashion

Abstract

This study employed the stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) model to investigate the factors that influence consumers’ internal evaluation and, consequently, their behavioral actions toward apparel with traceable information. The S-O-R model proposed comprised information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts as the stimuli, brand trust and perceived value as the organisms, and purchase intention, word-of-mouth, and brand loyalty as the behavioral responses. Additionally, consumer environmental knowledge was included as a moderator for the relationships between the stimuli and the organisms. A total of 400 eligible U.S. consumer responses were collected for analysis through a Qualtrics online survey. The proposed model’s psychometric properties were evaluated, and the hypotheses were tested using the multiple regression method. The model shows satisfactory explanatory power for consumers’ internal states and behavioral responses toward apparel with traceable information. To enhance traceable marketing strategies, brands should focus on improving their brand image and promotional efforts to motivate consumers to make more sustainable choices. Effective traceability has a substantial impact on consumer trust, loyalty, perceived value, WOM, and purchase intention. The proposed research model shows good explanatory power.

1. Introduction

The fashion industry stands as one of the largest and most influential sectors globally, characterized by its rapid pace of trend evolution and consumer-driven demands. In response to the competitive nature of this market, apparel companies continually strive to meet consumer expectations by fostering frequent style changes and offering accessible pricing through the fast-fashion business approach [1]. However, this accelerated production model has contributed to detrimental effects such as clothing overproduction, textile waste, and environmental pollution, exacerbating concerns surrounding climate change and environmental degradation. Concurrently, there has been a perceptible shift in consumer awareness towards environmental impact and sustainability, prompting the emergence of traceability as a pivotal tool to promote transparency and sustainable practices within the fashion industry [2].

Traceability, initially employed to address safety issues in the food industry, has been defined by the EU General Food Law as the ability to track and trace food, feed, or substances throughout all stages of production, processing, and distribution [3]. In the context of fashion, traceability assumes a crucial role in mitigating environmental and social risks, offering consumers insights into a product’s journey and empowering them to make informed and sustainable purchasing decisions. Agrawal et al. [4] propose that the integration of supply chain traceability with blockchain technology holds the potential to establish transparent and sustainable supply chains within the fashion industry.

Several fashion brands have recognized the significance of traceability and have embraced it as a core element of their sustainability initiatives. Brands like H&M, All American Clothing Co., Honest By, and Patagonia have implemented various forms of traceability, ranging from environmental and material traceability to providing comprehensive insights into their manufacturing processes and supply chains [5]. These efforts underscore a growing consumer preference for brands that prioritize transparency and sustainability, aligning with the evolving consumption patterns of environmentally conscious consumers, particularly Millennials and Generation Zers [6].

Despite the increasing emphasis on traceability within the fashion industry, there remains a gap in the literature regarding consumer reactions to traceability information and its influence on their perceptions and behavioral responses. Denuwara et al. [7] note a dearth of research exploring the social aspects of sustainability in relation to traceability, highlighting the need for more comprehensive studies in this domain. Similarly, Kumar et al. [8] emphasize the importance of addressing consumer confusion and the risks associated with traceability, underscoring the necessity of understanding consumer attitudes and preferences toward traceable apparel products.

Therefore, this study aimed to fill this gap by investigating consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to apparel retailers that provide traceability information on their products. Drawing on the S-O-R (stimulus–organism–response) model, we sought to elucidate the impact of traceable information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts as stimuli on consumers’ internal organismic evaluation measured by brand trust and perceived value, consequently leading to their behavioral responses, including purchase intention, brand loyalty, and word-of-mouth. Additionally, consumer environmental knowledge was included as a moderator for the relationships between the stimuli and the organisms. By applying the S-O-R model, commonly utilized in studies of consumer behavior, this study provided insights into the underlying psychological mechanisms driving consumer perceptions and decisions within the context of traceable apparel products. This research endeavored to contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of traceability in shaping consumer behavior and its implications for sustainable practices within the fashion industry.

The rest of this article is structured as follows. The next section provides an in-depth review of the relevant literature and introduces hypotheses based on this review. Following this, the research model is described, including the operationalization of constructs using appropriate measures and scales. The methodology section details the survey participants, the datasets utilized, and the statistical techniques employed. Afterward, the results are presented and analyzed. This article then concludes by summarizing the findings and the contributions and provides the implications for both academic researchers and industry practitioners. Finally, this study’s potential limitations are addressed, and suggestions for future research are proposed.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Model

The SOR (stimulus–organism–response) model, proposed by environmental psychologists Mehrabian and Russell in 1974 [9], has been widely utilized in various fields, including the fashion industry and consumer behavior research [10,11,12]. According to this model, the stimulus (S) represents external environmental factors that affect the organism. The organism (O) is the psychological transformation mechanism through which individuals process and internalize these stimuli, resulting in an emotional response. This emotional response, in turn, leads to a behavioral response (R) [11,13]. The SOR model provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for examining how traceable apparel information influences consumer perceptions and behaviors.

Building on the SOR framework, this study introduces eight constructs and one moderator to identify the determinants of U.S. consumers’ behavioral responses toward traceable apparel information. The stimulus constructs, which include information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts, are external factors beyond the consumer’s control that facilitate the organism’s processing in the model [10,11]. The proposed moderator, consumer environmental knowledge, is expected to affect the relationship between the stimulus and the organism constructs [14]. The organism constructs—brand trust and perceived value—evoke specific consumer responses, such as purchase intention, word-of-mouth (WOM), and brand loyalty.

2.2. Stimulus: Information Quality

Information quality refers to the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of the information provided to consumers regarding the traceability of products [15]. In the context of traceable apparel, high-quality information encompasses comprehensive details about the sourcing of materials, production processes, and assessments of environmental or social impacts [2,4]. This level of detail ensures transparency and accountability, enabling consumers to make informed decisions about the products they purchase [8].

Within the stimulus–organism–response (SOR) model, information quality plays a critical role in shaping consumer perceptions and behaviors. When a brand offers transparent and detailed information about its supply chain practices, consumers are more inclined to view the brand as trustworthy and make purchases based on this information [16]. Therefore, ensuring a high information quality not only bolsters traceability efforts but also profoundly impacts consumers’ trust, attitudes, and decision-making processes [8,17]. By providing consumers with accurate, reliable, and relevant information, brands can build stronger relationships with their customers and encourage more sustainable purchasing behaviors. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1. 

Information quality positively affects (a) brand trust and (b) perceived value.

2.3. Stimulus: Brand Image

Brand image is a critical aspect of how consumers perceive a brand, especially in comparison to its competitors, and plays a pivotal role in determining its market success [18]. When a brand’s image is perceived positively, it often translates into market success and consumer loyalty [19]. One effective strategy for enhancing brand image is the adoption of sustainability practices, such as providing consumers with detailed traceability information about a product’s lifecycle [20]. These sustainability initiatives highlight a brand’s commitment to ethical and responsible business practices, which is particularly appealing to environmentally conscious consumers.

The practice of offering product traceability not only demonstrates transparency but also reinforces a brand’s dedication to sustainability, thereby fostering consumer trust. This trust is especially significant in an era where consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental and social impacts of their purchases. Alhaddad [21] reported a strong positive correlation between brand image and brand trust. A well-established and favorable brand image naturally cultivates a sense of trust among consumers, making them more likely to develop a lasting relationship with the brand.

Furthermore, a strong brand image significantly enhances consumers’ perceptions of the brand’s value. When a brand is associated with positive attributes such as quality, reliability, and ethical practices, consumers are more likely to perceive its products as high-quality and prestigious [22]. This elevated perception often leads consumers to be willing to pay a premium for products from a reputable brand, reflecting the added value they associate with the brand’s image.

In addition to enhancing the perceived value, a positive brand image evokes positive emotions and fosters a deeper emotional connection with consumers [23]. Brands that successfully establish an emotional resonance with their consumers are more likely to build enduring trust and loyalty. When consumers feel emotionally connected to a brand, their trust in that brand strengthens, leading to repeat purchases and long-term brand loyalty. Given the significant impact of brand image on consumer trust and perceived value, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H2. 

Brand image positively affects (a) brand trust and (b) perceived value.

2.4. Stimulus: Promotional Efforts

Promotional efforts encompass a range of marketing and communication strategies that apparel brands utilize to highlight the traceability of their products. These strategies often emphasize sustainable sourcing practices and ethical production methods, reflecting the growing consumer awareness of the negative impacts of clothing on society and the environment. This shift in consumer consciousness is driving the market dynamics, compelling companies to adopt practices which align with both environmental sustainability and market demands. As a result, consumers are increasingly attentive to the traceability information provided by clothing brands and are more likely to be influenced by promotional activities when making purchasing decisions [1].

Today’s consumers are not only more informed but also have higher expectations regarding the sustainability practices of the brands they support. They demand greater transparency and accountability, expecting brands to demonstrate and communicate their commitment to sustainable practices [24]. Effective marketing strategies bridge the gap between a brand’s transparency initiatives and consumer awareness, enhancing consumers’ understanding and appreciation of these efforts. By clearly communicating their sustainability initiatives, brands can attract environmentally conscious consumers and build stronger trust [25].

Promotional efforts that effectively convey traceability information can significantly enhance consumers’ trust and perceived value of a brand. When consumers are presented with clear, reliable information about a brand’s sustainable practices, they are more likely to view the brand as credible and trustworthy. This trust is crucial, as it directly influences consumer perceptions and purchase intentions [24]. Through strategic promotional campaigns, apparel brands can forge a stronger connection between consumers and sustainable practices, fostering positive associations and encouraging environmentally conscious consumer behaviors [1,26]. Given the significant impact of promotional efforts on consumer perceptions and behaviors, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H3. 

Promotional efforts positively affect (a) brand trust and (b) perceived value.

2.5. Moderating Effect: Consumer Environmental Knowledge

Consumer environmental knowledge encompasses individuals’ understanding and awareness of environmental issues, sustainability practices, and the impact of their consumption choices on the environment. This includes topics such as climate change, resource depletion, pollution, and the importance of sustainable practices across various industries, including fashion. Consumers who possess a higher level of environmental knowledge are more likely to value and seek out traceability information [26]. They understand the significance of being informed about the origins, materials, and production processes of the products they purchase [27]. These informed consumers are more inclined to support brands that are transparent about their supply chain and sustainability practices [28].

Customer environmental knowledge acts as a moderating factor in the relationship between stimuli and organisms within the context of the SOR (stimulus–organism–response) model. When exposed to traceability information, consumers with high environmental knowledge are more likely to positively interpret and respond to the stimulus, resulting in favorable attitudes and behaviors towards sustainable and transparent brands [28]. These consumers’ awareness and understanding of environmental impacts enable them to appreciate the importance of traceability information, enhancing their trust in brands which provide such transparency [2].

Conversely, consumers with lower levels of environmental knowledge may not fully grasp the significance of apparel traceability information. This lack of understanding can lead to a weaker connection between the stimulus and consumers’ perception of a brand’s sustainable efforts [26]. Without a solid foundation of environmental knowledge, consumers may fail to see the value in a brand’s sustainability efforts, resulting in a diminished impact of traceability information on their purchasing decisions. Therefore, consumer environmental knowledge plays a pivotal role in shaping consumer reactions to a product’s traceable information presented by apparel brands [29]. It influences how consumers process information about a product’s origins, materials, and production processes, ultimately affecting their trust in the brand and perceived value of the products. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H4a–f. 

Consumer environmental knowledge moderates the effects of stimuli i.e., information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts on organisms, i.e., brand trust, and perceived value.

2.6. Organism: Brand Trust

Brand trust refers to a consumer’s willingness to rely on a brand under conditions of uncertainty or risk, grounded in their beliefs and evaluations of the brand’s reliability, credibility, safety, trustworthiness, and honesty [30,31]. Brand trust is a foundational element in building and maintaining long-term relationships with customers. Portal et al. [30] stated that the ultimate goal of marketing is to generate an intense bond between the consumer and the brand. Positive consumer experiences with a brand reinforce this trust, making it stronger over time. Brands communicate their identities, aspirations, and values through their actions and messaging [31].

Traceable information serves as a critical cue for brand trust. By providing transparency about the various stages of a product’s supply chain, brands affirm their reliability and credibility, enhancing consumer trust. This transparency helps reduce uncertainty, as consumers can verify the brand’s claims and promises, ensuring a consistent product performance [32]. Trust in a brand is thus built through direct and positive experiences with a brand, as well as through the brand’s efforts to be transparent and reliable.

Research has consistently shown that brand trust is a strong predictor of brand loyalty. Nikhashemi and Valaei [33] indicated that brand trust emerged as the most significant factor influencing brand loyalty. Other studies have similarly recognized brand trust as a crucial variable in fostering long-term customer relationships and brand loyalty [34,35]. Giovanis and Athanasopoulou [34] stressed that brand trust is essential for retaining loyal customers. Consequently, brand trust is expected to significantly influence brand loyalty, as a high trust in a brand encourages repeat purchases and customer retention [35]. Moreover, brand trust significantly impacts purchase intention. When consumers trust an apparel brand, they are more likely to purchase its products, even under uncertain conditions. This trust reduces the perceived risk associated with purchasing, thereby increasing the likelihood of a purchase [36]. Studies have demonstrated that brand trust positively affects purchase intention and brand loyalty [36,37].

Trustworthy brands reap significant benefits from positive word-of-mouth, a powerful and organic form of promotion. When consumers are satisfied with and trust a brand, they are naturally inclined to share their positive experiences with friends, family, and social networks [38]. These consumers effectively become brand advocates, spreading favorable opinions and endorsements which can influence others’ perceptions and purchasing decisions. This type of organic promotion is exceptionally valuable because personal recommendations are generally more trusted and impactful than traditional advertising methods [35]. The availability of a product’s traceable information significantly enhances this dynamic. By making this information accessible, brands can demonstrate their commitment to ethical practices, sustainability, and quality [39]. The role of traceable information in fostering trust extends beyond individual consumers. It also influences broader consumer communities and social groups. When a brand’s commitment to transparency and ethical practices is consistently communicated and endorsed by satisfied consumers, it can create a ripple effect [2]. This widespread positive perception can significantly enhance a brand’s reputation, attract new customers, and strengthen loyalty among already-existing ones. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H5. 

Brand trust positively affects (a) consumers’ purchase intention, (b) word-of-mouth, and (c) brand loyalty.

2.7. Organism: Perceived Value

Perceived value refers to a consumer’s assessment of whether a product’s attributes can satisfy their needs and expectations in a particular context [40]. Perceived value is a crucial determinant of customer satisfaction and willingness to buy [41]. It is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various dimensions such as quality, price, emotional response, and transaction value [41,42].

Prior research has consistently shown that perceived value mediates the relationship between external variables and purchase intention [41,43]. Chi [44] found that perceived value is the most influential factor in consumers’ purchasing behavior, underscoring its critical role in the decision-making process. Similarly, Wang et al. [17] indicated that perceived value is positively correlated with a consumer’s intention to purchase and repurchase a product, suggesting that consumers who perceive a high value are more likely to remain loyal to a brand.

Chinomona et al. [45] identified four dimensions of perceived value—hedonic, price, quality, and transaction—which collectively impact customer loyalty. Their research demonstrated that these dimensions significantly influence consumer behavior, fostering long-term loyalty. Centobelli et al. [39] emphasized the importance of traceability in enhancing consumers’ perceived value. Consumers associate traceability with benefits such as control, safety, quality, and health, which, in turn, build trust and confidence in a brand. In the context of apparel, when consumers have access to detailed information about a product’s origin, materials, and manufacturing processes, they are more likely to perceive a higher value. This transparency reassures them of the brand’s commitment to ethical and sustainable practices, thereby increasing their trust and satisfaction.

This heightened perceived value has several positive implications for consumer behavior. For instance, when consumers perceive a high value in a brand or product, they are more likely to engage in positive word-of-mouth (WOM). They become advocates for the brand, sharing their positive experiences and recommendations with friends, family, and broader social networks [46]. This organic promotion is highly effective, as personal endorsements are often more trusted and persuasive than traditional advertising methods.

Moreover, perceived value plays a pivotal role in fostering brand loyalty. Studies have shown that consumers who perceive a high value are more likely to remain loyal to a brand and continue purchasing its products [47]. This loyalty is driven by the satisfaction and trust that come from recognizing a brand’s value proposition. As a result, loyal customers not only make repeat purchases but also contribute to a brand’s long-term success through positive WOM and ongoing support.

The impact of perceived value on consumer behavior extends to purchase intention as well. Consumers who perceive a high value are more inclined to purchase a product, as they feel assured of its quality, reliability, and worth. This assurance reduces the perceived risk associated with the purchase, making consumers more confident in their decision. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed to encapsulate these insights.

H6. 

Perceived value positively affects (a) consumers’ purchase intention, (b) word-of-mouth, and (c) brand loyalty.

2.8. Response: Purchase Intention

Purchase intention refers to the opinion and judgment of consumers based on their general evaluation of whether to buy products or services [48]. Purchase intention is the level of a consumer’s belief and conviction to buy a specific product. Purchase intention can significantly impact future decisions on purchasing and repurchasing products or services [49]. Nowadays, traceability plays a crucial role in improving sustainability practices [8]. According to Ghali-Zinoubi et al. [50], traceability knowledge could significantly affect consumers’ purchase intention toward sustainable apparel products. Consumers informed of a product’s traceability information are likely to trust the brand, which could be a significant factor in gaining loyal consumers [51]. Yasin [52] stated that brand trust positively impacts consumers’ purchase intention.

2.9. Response: Word-of-Mouth

Word-of-mouth (WOM) is a method of sharing opinions and information by consumers that can determine choices and decisions regarding products, brands, and services [53]. It is the method of communication among consumers about the performance, usage, experience, and characteristics of specific products [54]. Positive WOM is recommendations and positive opinions about products, while negative WOM is complaints and negative reviews [55]. In the fashion industry, WOM is essential because it can lead to a company’s success. WOM could spread quickly and gain a large base of loyal consumers [56]. According to Guerreiro and Pacheco [57], WOM is one of the most critical aspects that significantly impact the brand image and purchase intention of brands in consumer markets. With the increasing popularity of social media and influencers, there is another marketing approach to communicate with other consumers: electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) [58]. Younger groups could be more affected by influencers and eWOM as they spend more time on media platforms and obtain deeper insights into product reviews [58]. EWOM and WOM can be significant factors in informing other consumers about the traceability systems used in different brands.

2.10. Response: Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty refers to a consumer’s consistent preference and commitment to repurchasing a specific brand’s products or services over time, despite the availability of competing alternatives [22]. Traceability can increase brand loyalty because consumers want to buy from sustainable brands [59]. The benefits of cultivating brand loyalty are substantial, including repeat purchases, positive word-of-mouth, resilience against competitors, higher lifetime value, and brand advocacy. Understanding and nurturing brand loyalty is essential for businesses aiming to build long-term relationships with their customers and achieve sustained success in the marketplace [33].

3. Methodology

3.1. Proposed Research Model

Based on an extensive literature review, a research model including eighteen hypothesized relationships is shown in Figure 1. Consumers’ cognition and emotion (i.e., brand trust and perceived value) towards traceable apparel information are affected by information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts as the stimuli. Consequently, consumers’ internal states influence their behavioral responses, including purchase intention, WOM, and brand loyalty. Consumer environmental knowledge could moderate the relationships between the stimulus constructs (i.e., information quality, brand image, promotional efforts) and the organic constructs (i.e., brand trust, perceived value). Demographic variables, including age, gender, and income level, are included as the control factors.

3.2. Data Collection and Sampling

The primary data were collected by a Qualtrics online survey of U.S. consumers. The professional survey platform used was Prolific (https://www.prolific.com/, accessed on 14 March 2024), which enabled us to reach a wide range of eligible consumers and provide high-quality responses [60]. Prior studies suggest that Prolific provides a high quality of survey data among the commonly used online survey platforms [61]. It allows researchers to quickly collect large amounts of data from participants with diverse demographics [60,61]. Compared with conventional survey methods, online surveys have advantages, such as low financial resource requirements, short response times, and representative samples. Online surveys also have a simpler way of loading data than traditional paper surveys [62]. A total of 400 eligible responses were received in March 2024.

The profile of the survey respondents is presented in

Table 1. Profile of survey respondents.

Items	Classification	Percentage	Items	Classification	Percentage
Age	18–24	16.50%	Ethnicity	White/Caucasian	67.75%
	25–34	36.00%		Black/African American	10.75%
	35–44	24.00%		Asian American/Pacific Islander	13.00%
	45–54	14.50%		Latino/Hispanic	5.75%
	55–64	6.00%		Native American	0.50%
	65–74	2.50%		Other	2.25%
	75 years and older	0.50%	Annual household income	Under USD5000	4.00%
Gender	Male	34.75%		USD5000–USD9000	1.25%
	Female	62.50%		USD10,000–USD14,999	3.25%
	Non-binary	1.75%		USD15,000–USD24,999	7.25%
	Not to answer	1.00%		USD25,000–USD34,999	9.25%
Fashion Product Expenditure	USD0–USD99	8.50%		USD35,000–USD49,000	10.00%
	USD100–USD299	23.25%		USD50,000–USD74,999	21.50%
	USD300–USD499	26.25%		USD75,000–USD99,000	13.75%
	USD500–USD699	14.75%		USD100,000–USD149,000	17.50%
	USD700–USD899	5.75%		USD150,000 and more	12.25%
	USD900–USD1099	8.00%
	USD1100–USD1499	5.50%
	USD1500–USD1999	2.50%
	USD2000 and more	5.50%

Note: 400 eligible responses.

. Among the 400 respondents, 34.75% were male, 62.25% were female, 1.75% were non-binary, and 1.255% preferred not to say. The ages of the respondents ranged from 18 years to older than 75 years, with the highest rate of response at 36% from the 25–34-year-old age range, followed by 35–44-year-olds at 24%. Regarding ethnicity, most respondents were Caucasian at 67.50%, while 13% were Asian American/Pacific Islander, 10.75% Black or African American, 5.75% Latino/Hispanic, 2.5% other, and 0.50% Native American. A total of 21.5% of the respondents’ annual household income ranged from USD50,000 to USD74,999, followed by USD100,000–USD149,999 at 17.5%, USD75,000–USD99,999 at 13.5%, USD150,000 and more at 12.25%, USD35,000–USD49,999 at 10%, USD25,000–USD34,999 at 9.25%, USD15,000–USD24,999 at 7.25%, under USD5000 at 4.25%, USD10,000–USD14,999 at 3.25%, and USD5000–USD9999 at 1.25%. Regarding annual fashion product expenditure, 26.25% of respondents reported that they spent USD300–USD499, 23.25% spent USD100–USD299, 14.75% spent USD500–USD699, 8.5% spent USD0–USD99, 8% spent USD900–USD1099, 5.75% spent USD700–USD899, 5.5% spent USD1100–USD1499, 5.5% spent USD2000 and more, and 2.5% spent USD1500–USD1999.

3.3. Survey Instrument

Nine constructs were included in the proposed research model. These constructs were adapted from the previous literature. The scales for information quality (IQ), brand image (BI), and promotional efforts (PE) were adapted from Tian et al. [63]. The scale for consumer environmental knowledge (CEK) was adapted from Leclerq-Machado et al. [64]. The brand trust (BT) scale was derived from research conducted by Lau and Lee [65]. The perceived value (PV) scale was derived from Chen et al. [66]. The scale for purchase intention (PI) came from Kumar et al. [8] and Park and Lin [67], while the scale for word-of-mouth (WOM) was adapted from Gremler and Gwinner [68]. Lastly, the scale for brand loyalty (BL) was derived from research conducted by Lau and Lee [65] and Zethaml et al. [69]. A five-point Likert scale (with one as “strongly disagree” and five as “strongly agree”) was applied to all the adapted scales.

Table 2. Constructs and corresponding measurement items.

Construct	Measurement Items	Source
Information Quality (IQ)	IQ1: The product provides me with sufficient information about my needs. [0.805] IQ2: I receive accurate information from the website about the product. [0.864] IQ3: Labeling on traceable information is clearly understandable. [0.803]	Tian et al. [63]
Brand Image (BI)	BI1: The brand’s traceable information disclosure has better characteristics than that of the original products. [0.786] BI2: The brand’s traceable information disclosure has a reputation for quality. [0.856] BI3: The brand’s products are familiar to me. [0.747]	Tian et al. [63]
Promotional Efforts (PE)	PE1: The marketing of traceable product information leaves me with a positive impression. [0.856] PE2: The promotion of traceable product information makes me happy. [0.901] PE3: The promotion of traceable product information brings me good memories. [0.708]	Tian et al. [63]
Consumer Environmental Knowledge (CEK)	CEK1: I know how to behave sustainably when buying apparel products with traceable information. [0.832] CEK2: I know how I could lower the ecological harm with my shopping behavior. [0.859] CEK3: I understand how I could reduce the negative environmental consequences with shopping apparel products that disclose traceable information. [0.887] CEK4: I understand how to protect the environment in the long-term with my shopping behavior. [0.866]	Leclercq-Machado et al. [64]
Brand Trust (BT)	BT1: I trust this brand. [0.900] BT2: I feel that I can trust this brand completely. [0.874] BT3: I cannot rely on this brand *. [0.720] BT4: I feel safe when I buy apparel products from this brand. [0.821]	Lau & Lee [65]
Perceived Value (PV)	PV1: The quality of apparel products with traceable information is very good. [0.855] PV2: The apparel products purchased from brands that disclose traceable information can meet my expectations. [0.808] PV3: The apparel products purchased from brands that disclose traceable information make me feel very happy. [0.765]	Chen et al. [66]
Purchase Intention (PI)	PI1: I consider purchasing apparel products with disclosed traceable information. [0.861] PI2: I intend to buy apparel products with traceable information instead of apparel products without traceable information in the future. [0.724] PI3: I might buy apparel products with disclosed traceable information in the future. [0.850] PI4: I would consider buying apparel products with disclosed traceable information if I happen to see them in-store or online. [0.853]	Kumar et al. [8]; Park & Lin [67]
Word-of-Mouth (WOM)	WOM1: I say positive things about traceable information to other people. [0.896] WOM2: I would recommend brands that provide traceable product information. [0.898] WOM3: I encourage friends and relatives to refer brands that provide traceable information. [0.926]	Gremler & Gwinner [68]
Brand Loyalty (BL)	BL1: I choose the same brand whenever I seek traceable information. [0.726] BL2: I would like to shop products with traceable information from certain brands. [0.874] BL3: I would like to come back to this brand in the future. [0.856]	Lau & Lee [65]; Zeithaml et al. [69]

Note: * reversed measures. The factor loadings are listed in the parentheses.

lists all the constructs and their corresponding measurement scales and factor loadings.

3.4. Data Analysis Methods

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to test the constructs in the proposed model. Measurement items with factor loadings below 0.70 were eliminated. Unidimensionality was confirmed when a single underlying construct accounted for the variation in the examinees’ responses [70]. Before testing the individual hypotheses, the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of each construct were assessed to ensure model adequacy. The reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, with values above 0.70 indicating good consistency [71]. The convergent validity was established when the average variance-extracted (AVE) scores for all the constructs exceeded the 0.50 threshold. The discriminant validity was demonstrated when the AVE score for each construct was greater than the squared correlation between the constructs [72].

After confirming the adequacy of all the constructs, a single score for each construct was obtained by averaging the measurement items, and it was utilized in subsequent analyses, such as correlation and multiple regression [73,74,75]. Normality assumptions for each construct were examined using skewness and kurtosis, with normality considered to have been met when the skewness and kurtosis of a variable exceeded +3.0 or fell below −3.0 [76]. Multicollinearity among the predictor variables was evaluated using variance-inflation factors (VIF), with values below 5.0 indicating no multicollinearity issues [77]. Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between the constructs, ensuring that the correlation coefficient (r) did not exceed 0.8 to avoid multicollinearity [78].

Multiple regression is generally applied to predict the value of a variable based on the value of two or more other variables [79]. Thus, multiple regression analysis was deemed suitable for testing the hypotheses in this study.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 3. Correlations and psychometric properties of all constructs.

	IQ	BI	PE	CEK	BT	PV	PI	WOM	BL
IQ	1	0.534 **	0.525 **	0.309 **	0.291 **	0.469 **	0.381 **	0.271 **	0.341 **
BI	0.285	1	0.612 **	0.389 **	0.382 **	0.553 **	0.427 **	0.404 **	0.493 **
PE	0.276	0.375	1	0.465 **	0.449 **	0.657 **	0.649 **	0.630 **	0.614 **
CEK	0.095	0.151	0.216	1	0.684 **	0.422 **	0.424 **	0.439 **	0.454 **
BT	0.085	0.146	0.202	0.468	1	0.399 **	0.410 **	0.438 **	0.433 **
PV	0.220	0.306	0.432	0.432	0.159	1	0.542 **	0.549 **	0.576 **
PI	0.145	0.182	0.421	0.180	0.168	0.275	1	0.608 **	0.581 **
WOM	0.073	0.163	0.397	0.193	0.192	0.301	0.370	1	0.665 **
BL	0.116	0.243	0.377	0.206	0.187	0.332	0.338	0.442	1
Mean	3.9	3.5	3.6	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.9	3.4	3.5
S.D.	0.71	0.66	0.73	0.80	0.81	0.60	0.63	0.85	0.66
VIF	1.762	2.225	1.695	1.704	2.117	1.655	2.358	1.752	2.128
Cronbach’s alpha	0.763	0.705	0.740	0.884	0.860	0.728	0.829	0.890	0.751
AVE	0.680	0.636	0.682	0.742	0.692	0.657	0.679	0.822	0.675
Skewness	−0.52	0.05	−0.65	−0.89	−0.85	0.02	−0.55	−0.40	−0.46
Kurtosis	0.45	0.14	0.72	0.85	0.64	−0.02	1.20	0.25	1.00
χ2 test p value	0.118	0.173	0.135	0.090	0.105	0.187	0.127	0.088	0.163

Note: The italic numbers are the squared corresponding correlations. **: correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). IQ = information quality; BI = brand image; PE = promotional efforts; CEK = consumer environmental knowledge; BT = brand trust; PV = perceived value; PI = purchase intention; WOM = word-of-mouth; and BL = brand loyalty.

presents the correlations and psychometric properties of all constructs. The normality assumptions for each construct were met. The unidimensionality of each construct was confirmed. The reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of each construct were demonstrated. There was no multicollinearity issue as none of the correlation coefficients exceeded 0.8.

Table 4. Results of hypothesis testing.

Hyp.		DV	IDV	Std. Coef. (β)	t-Value	Sig. at p < 0.05	Control Variable	Std. Coef. (β)	t-Value	Sig. at p < 0.05	Total R2	Sig. at p < 0.05
		BT	Constant		5.162	<0.001					0.227	<0.001 F = 19.28 (6/393)
H1a	N		IQ	0.025	0.461	0.645	Age	0.029	0.648	0.517
H2a	Y		BI	0.176	2.956	0.003	Gender	0.048	1.069	0.286
H3a	Y		PE	0.335	5.681	<0.001	Income	−0.063	−1.406	0.160
		PV	Constant		8.122	<0.001
H1b	Y		IQ	0.117	2.583	0.010	Age	−0.050	−1.353	0.177		<0.001 F = 60.41 (6/393)
H2b	Y		BI	0.206	4.202	<0.001	Gender	0.026	0.699	0.485	0.480
H3b	Y		PE	0.468	9.651	<0.001	Income	−0.023	−0.631	0.529
		PI	Constant		6.336	<0.001	Age	0.062	1.523	0.129
H5a	Y		BT	0.231	5.176	<0.001	Gender	−0.022	−0.544	0.587	0.345	<0.001 F = 41.44 (5/394)
H6a	Y		PV	0.455	10.145	<0.001	Income	0.035	0.847	0.397
		WOM	Constant		0.666	0.506	Age	0.004	0.108	0.914		<0.001 F = 44.23 (5/394)
H5b	Y		BT	0.261	5.915	<0.001	Gender	−0.023	−0.581	0.562	0.359
H6b	Y		PV	0.448	10.104	<0.001	Income	−0.031	−0.776	0.438
		BL	Constant		3.836	<0.001	Age	−0.016	−0.393	0.695	0.384	<0.001 F = 49.12 (5/394)
H5c	Y		BT	0.246	5.684	<0.001	Gender	−0.020	−0.514	0.608
H6c	Y		PV	0.473	10.886	<0.001	Income	0.051	1.288	0.199

Note: Y = hypothesis supported; N = hypothesis not supported; Std. Coef. = standardized coefficients; DV = dependent variable; IDV = independent variable, IQ = information quality; BI = brand image; PE = promotional efforts; CEK = consumer environmental knowledge; BT = brand trust; PV = perceived value; PI = purchase intention; WOM = word-of-mouth; and BL = brand loyalty.

presents the results of hypothesis testing. Among the twelve hypotheses, eleven of them (H1b, H2a, H3a, H2b, H3b, H5a, H6a, H5b, H6b, H5c, and H6c) were statically significant at a p < 0.05 level, and H1a was insignificant. The effects of the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, and income level) on U.S. consumers’ responses toward traceable information in apparel brands were insignificant at a p < 0.05 level.

The result reveals that IQ does not affect BT significantly (β = 0.025, t = 0.461), not supporting H1a. This indicates that a higher quality of traceable information does not enhance consumers’ trust in a brand significantly. When brands only provide this information on the shopping webpage, consumers may have skepticism about whether it is accurate or true or demand more detailed information for a better understanding. BI positively affects BT (β = 0.176, t = 2.956), supporting H2a. This reveals that, when brands with traceable information have a strong brand image, the trust in the brands will be higher. These results are in line with previous findings [80]. Finally, PE significantly affects BT (β = 0.335 t = 5.681), supporting H3a. This shows that strong promotional efforts by a brand with traceable information can increase the trust in the brand in the consumer’s mind. Therefore, apparel brands should continue implementing effective marketing that strategically communicates their products’ traceability since it helps form brand trust and further strengthens the consumer–brand relationship.

IQ has a positive effect on PV (β = 0.117, t = 2.583), supporting H1b. This indicates that the quality of information about a product’s traceability can increase consumers’ preference or evaluation of whether a product’s attributes can meet their needs and satisfaction. Brand image significantly affects the perceived value (β = 0.206, t = 4.202), supporting H2b. This shows that, when a brand with traceable product information has a strong image, the brand’s products in the consumer’s mind are deemed more valuable and satisfactory. Finally, PE positively affects the perceived value (β = 0.468, t = 9.651), supporting H3b. This suggests that effective marketing and communication strategies that highlight the traceability and sustainability aspects of a product can substantially enhance consumers’ perceived value of that product [26].

BT significantly affects PI (β = 0.231 t = 5.176), supporting H5a. This indicates that, when consumers trust a brand which shares traceable product information, their purchase intention increases. These findings align with previous studies [80,81]. PV is also found to significantly affect purchase intention (β = 0.455, t = 10.145), supporting H6a. This shows that consumers’ satisfaction with the perceived value of traceable apparel information encourages them to buy apparel from these brands. These findings are in line with previous studies [17,43,44].

BT and PV significantly affect the word-of-mouth of apparel products with traceable information (β = 0.261, t = 5.915; β = 0.448, t = 10.104), supporting both H5b and H6b. This indicates that, when consumers trust a brand which shares traceable product information, the consumers will want to tell others about the brand. Additionally, when consumers evaluate that a product’s attributes can meet their needs and satisfaction, they will discuss it with others. These results corroborate the findings of prior studies [33,82].

BT significantly affects BL (β = 0.246, t = 5.684), supporting H5c. This means that consumers with higher levels of trust in a brand will be loyal to the brand, which could lead to long-term customer relationships. This finding is in line with previous studies [31]. PV significantly affects BL (β = 0.473, t = 10.886), supporting H6c. This indicates that, when customers gain value from a brand, they are more loyal to the brand than other brands that do not provide the same level of value. This result supports the findings of prior studies [33,47].

Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing (moderating effects).

Hyp.		DV	IDV	Std. Coef. (β)	t-Value	Sig. at p < 0.05
		BT			21.249	<0.001
H4a	Y		IQ × CEK	0.285	5.538	<0.001
H4b	Y		BI × CEK	0.271	4.628	<0.001
H4c	Y		PE × CEK	0.353	6.117	<0.001
		PV			33.706	<0.001
H4d	Y		IQ × CEK	0.274	4.772	<0.001
H4e	Y		BI × CEK	0.285	5.134	<0.001
H4f	Y		PE × CEK	0.562	6.415	<0.001

Note: Y = hypothesis supported; N = hypothesis not supported; Std. Coef. = standardized coefficients; DV = dependent variable; IDV = independent variable; IQ = information quality; BI = brand image; PE = promotional efforts; CEK = consumer environmental knowledge; BT = brand trust; and PV = perceived value.

presents the results of the moderating effect’s testing. CEK moderated the relationship between IQ (β = 0.285, t = 5.538), BI (β = 0.271, t = 4.628), and promotional efforts (PE) (β = 0.353, t = 6.117) with brand trust, supporting H4a–c. CEK also moderated the relationship between IQ (β = 0.274, t = 4.772), BI (β = 0.285, t = 5.134), and PE (β = 0.562, t = 6.415) with PV, supporting H4d–f. These results indicate that consumers with better environmental knowledge reacted more positively in terms of perceived value and trust toward the brands that were known for sustainable practices and had disclosed traceable information about their products [1,49].

5. Conclusions and Implications

The fashion industry is one of the largest global sectors, exerting a considerable influence on the economy. However, clothing manufacturing has a profound environmental and climatic impact due to issues such as overproduction, the wasteful use of water and energy, and increasing pollution. As consumers become more environmentally conscious, there is a growing demand for sustainability in fashion. In response, fashion brands are adopting eco-friendly strategies to align with consumer preferences and reduce their environmental footprint. One such strategy is the introduction of traceability, aimed at promoting transparency and encouraging sustainable practices.

This study makes some significant contributions to the field. Firstly, it employs the S-O-R model to investigate the factors that influence consumers’ internal evaluation and, consequently, their behavioral actions toward apparel with traceable information. The S-O-R model proposed comprises information quality, brand image, and promotional efforts as the stimuli, brand trust and perceived value as the organisms, and purchase intention, word-of-mouth, and brand loyalty as the behavioral responses. Additionally, consumer environmental knowledge is included as a moderator for the relationships between the stimuli and the organisms. The proposed model shows satisfactory explanatory power for consumers’ internal states and behavioral responses.

Secondly, understanding consumer responses to traceability in apparel brands is crucial for developing effective business strategies and building consumer trust. Traceability information about a product’s lifecycle can promote its sustainability and inform consumers about the quality of fabrics and the product’s end-of-life stage. The findings of this study reveal that consumers are not only satisfied with the availability of traceability information but also place significant importance on a brand’s image. To enhance traceable marketing strategies, brands should focus on improving their brand image and promotional efforts to motivate consumers to make more sustainable choices. Effective traceability has a substantial impact on consumers’ trust, loyalty, perceived value, and purchase intention. This study demonstrates that providing traceability information can significantly influence consumers’ sustainable decisions in the fashion industry.

Thirdly, this research highlights the importance of promotional efforts in shaping the perceived value. The findings indicate that promotional activities, when executed effectively, can significantly enhance consumers’ perception of value. It is critical for brands to communicate their transparency and sustainability efforts through strategic marketing campaigns.

The findings of this study elucidate the intricate dynamics that shape consumers’ perceptions and behaviors toward traceable apparel information, yielding significant theoretical implications. By identifying critical factors such as information quality, brand image, promotional efforts, perceived value, and brand trust, this study contributes to the existing literature on consumer trust and brand loyalty within the context of transparency and sustainability. The integrated S-O-R model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how traceability information and its disclosure and promotion by brands can affect consumers’ internal and external reactions. The role of environmental knowledge as a moderator highlights the importance of environmental awareness in consumers’ decision-making processes, underscoring the need for brands to prioritize sustainability alongside product quality. This theoretical insight expands the understanding of how environmentally conscious consumers interact with traceable information and supports the argument that transparency can enhance consumer trust and loyalty. Furthermore, this study’s application of the S-O-R model demonstrates its utility in exploring complex consumer behaviors in the fashion industry, suggesting that this model can be applied to other contexts where transparency and sustainability are pivotal.

From a practical standpoint, the results provide actionable insights for businesses aiming to strengthen consumer relationships through transparency and sustainability initiatives. The emphasis on brand image, consistent messaging, and a cohesive visual identity is crucial for fostering consumer trust and loyalty. Brands that effectively communicate their commitment to sustainability and transparency can attract and retain environmentally conscious consumers. Promotional efforts that highlight traceability information and sustainable practices can significantly enhance brand credibility. Companies should invest in marketing campaigns that emphasize these aspects to reinforce their commitment to ethical practices and appeal to a growing segment of eco-aware consumers. By doing so, brands can differentiate themselves in a competitive market and build stronger connections with their audience.

Moreover, prioritizing perceived value by offering high-quality products accompanied by transparent information can drive consumer satisfaction and encourage repeat purchases. Ensuring that consumers have access to detailed, reliable information about a product’s origins, materials, and production processes can elevate their perception of value and foster a deeper sense of trust in the brand. Businesses can leverage these insights to develop comprehensive sustainability reports and product labels that provide detailed traceability information. Such initiatives not only comply with regulatory standards but also cater to consumer demand for transparency, ultimately cultivating long-term brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth recommendations.

6. Limitations and Future Studies

This study’s limitations present valuable opportunities for future research. Firstly, the focus on U.S. consumers limits the applicability of the findings to other countries or regions, given the cultural differences and varying interpretations of fashion and sustainability. Future research could expand on this by exploring diverse cultural contexts or conducting cross-cultural studies to gain a more comprehensive understanding of global behavioral trends in sustainable fashion consumption. Secondly, the gender distribution of the study participants was predominantly female, which suggests an area ripe for further investigation. Exploring the role and influence of male consumers in sustainable apparel consumption is crucial, as this demographic has been underrepresented in the existing literature. Future studies could specifically target male consumers to better understand their perspectives and behaviors regarding sustainable fashion. Lastly, this research utilized a quantitative approach to examine the statistical relationships between the constructs under investigation. While this method provides valuable insights into the strength and direction of these relationships, it also opens the door for qualitative research to complement these findings. Qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, could offer a richer, more nuanced understanding of the motivations and dynamics driving consumer behaviors toward traceable apparel information. By addressing these limitations, future research can build on the current study’s foundation and contribute to a more holistic understanding of sustainable fashion consumption across different demographics and cultural settings.