Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and Nudge Theory: Examining the Effects of Choice Architecture on Consumption of Sustainable Fashion over Fast Fashion

Abstract

This study considers ways to increase the consumption of sustainable fashion given the significant environmental and social damages associated with the industry. A series of experiments were conducted examining the impacts of choice architecture (nudges) under field conditions in collaboration with one of Israel’s largest shopping centers. This study sought to identify which interventions at the retail level successfully motivate sustainable fashion behavioral change regarding purchases and willingness to pay more, along with agreement with several statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion. Among the types of nudges examined in this field study were providing information, increasing accessibility to sustainable alternatives and appealing to social identity in relation to demographics and green self-image. This study found that offering alternatives to consumers constituted the most effective way to “nudge” consumers toward more sustainable purchasing behavior. Nonetheless, this does not negate the contribution of providing information and strengthening social norms regarding sustainable fashion. Additionally, in all groups, most participants reported that they did not know how to distinguish between sustainable and non-sustainable fashion, nor did they believe that the clothes they purchased were actually sustainable. The findings emphasize the need for policies that will increase the accessibility of sustainable fashion.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness about the environmental and social externalities associated with the rapidly growing fast fashion sector [1]. Clothes are cheaper than ever [2], and the magnitude of the negative impacts associated with them is well characterized [1]. While regulations, such as the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles and the Bangladesh Accord [3,4], are beginning to influence “supply” and affect the way clothes are produced, the potential for significantly changing the demand side with reference to consumer preferences is still poorly developed. A growing consensus is forming about sustainable fashion policies that are designed to modify demand and consumption patterns, such as the European Union’s campaign to reduce fast fashion consumption [5] and the Helsinki Fashion Library, which seek to transform consumer fashion consumption patterns [6]. Fast fashion sales, however, continue to skyrocket [2], posing the question: “What is the most efficient way to influence consumers?”, which is more relevant than ever.

This article initially describes the environmental and social hazards of fast fashion alongside the economic contribution of the fashion industry. It then considers consumer dynamics in the fashion world and how they can be influenced. In the next section, a series of “nudges” are depicted, each with the potential to induce greater preference for sustainable clothing. This research then contrasts the empirical effectiveness of each “nudge” when implemented in real-world conditions. The overall purpose of this research is to provide practical tools, both for policy makers and sustainable fashion producers, to reduce the gap between consumers’ generally positive attitude towards sustainability and sustainably manufactured clothing and their actual purchasing behaviors. In addition, this study seeks to improve the present understanding of behavioral aspects of economic decisions concerning sustainable fashion consumption.

1.1. Economic, Environmental and Social Dimensions of the Fashion Industry

The fashion industry is one of the most polluting, exploitative and profitable industries in the world. In addition to being strongly associated with child labor [7,8] and unsafe working conditions [9,10], the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of clothing all produce adverse environmental effects. To a great extent, these phenomena can be traced to the characteristics of the economic model prevailing in the fashion industry: highly globalized mass production, constant consumption and a linear take-make-disposal model [11,12].

Most of the environmental and occupational burdens associated with mass production and disposal occurs among developing countries characterized by low GDP and a surfeit of low-wage workers [7,13,14]. The associated environmental hazards are significant. They include the utilization of fossil fuels, along with copious amounts of water and toxic fertilizers [15]. The release of untreated sewage into water and significant contamination, frequently, are also caused by the dyeing process for clothes. The fashion industry annually produces a total of one billion tons of CO₂, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined [16]. Landfilling huge amounts of textile waste in developing countries is typically a result of massive clothing donations from Western countries and their excess consumption of apparel [17].

The exploitation of workers and occupational risks are additional areas of grave concern: the garment assembly process alone employs 40 million workers worldwide, of which 20% are children under the age of twelve [18]. Harsh, exploitive conditions, including long shifts, lack of vacation, safety deficiencies and occupational risks, are very common [14].

Nonetheless, alongside the environmental damages it engenders, it is important to recognize the economic value of the fashion industry as a global business of USD 2.3 trillion [18]. Both have grown exponentially due to the rapid expansion of the fast fashion model. Fast fashion describes the swift dissemination of runway trends to consumers, offering inexpensive, mass-produced garments with global appeal, albeit often sacrificing quality.

Globally, 80 billion pieces of new clothing are purchased each year, translating into a substantial driver of global GDP. The industry as a whole employs more than 300 million people worldwide, representing a powerful economic force [19]. In fact, during the last fifteen years, aggregate clothing production has approximately doubled. Demand is driven by a growing middle-class population and has increased per capita sales [20,21,22].

1.2. Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Fashion

Sustainable fashion is an approach to fashion that strives to be socially and environmentally responsible. It relies on an ethical commitment to the environment and putting people first [23]. Other concepts synonymous with the term sustainable fashion include green or eco fashion. Ethical and slow fashion are also used in the literature [24].

Within the broad menu of sustainable fashion, it is customary to include second-hand clothes, independent designers, designers who produce via fair trade, clothes created using organic materials, clothes created from textile scraps and high-quality clothes that are made to last [25]. In addition, an accepted prerequisite of sustainable fashion consumption is a revealed preference for fewer clothes under a quality versus quantity approach [26].

It is important to emphasize that alternatives to fast fashion do not necessarily mean that that a luxury expensive garment is a priori more sustainable than cheaper alternatives or that expensive clothes are always more sustainable. In fact, there is great controversy about what sustainable fashion entails. There are numerous options, some of which actually contradict each other. The only consensus in the field is that reducing consumption constitutes the most sustainable way to moderate the environmental and social pathologies [25]. With that in mind, increasing the willingness to pay more (WTPM) for garments is generally considered a key component of the strategy to promote sustainable consumption and serves as a somewhat rare launching point between the business sector and the environmental movement.

The prevailing consumer preference for fast fashion constitutes a key driver in the growth of the industry. Hence, shifts in consumer behavior—namely, reducing clothing purchases, choosing to purchase sustainable alternatives and prolonging garment lifetimes—are essential for reducing the damages associated with the fashion industry. Expanding the market share of sustainable fashion is not only a policy objective that benefits the environment; the industrial sector itself also stands to benefit. The global sustainable or “ethical” fashion market size reached a value of nearly USD 6.35 billion in 2019, having increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.7% since 2015. Contemporary analysts predict that the market is expected to grow from USD 6.35 billion to USD 8.25 billion within four years at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.8% [27,28].

Indeed, customer demand for sustainable clothing is on the rise. Studies indicate that consumers increasingly prioritize fashion items based on personal values [29,30], with younger generations showing particular interest in sustainability issues. Generation Z in particular is driving the global demand for sustainable fashion, with six out of ten consumers from Generation Y and Z preferring sustainable products over cheaper alternatives; additionally, 37% are willing to pay more for responsible products [31]. These trends are particularly pronounced among Generation Z women [26,32].

In this context, recent research indicates that women and the younger generations tend to express a higher interest in fashion in general. This is reflected in a tendency to purchase more clothes, more frequently as recreation or motivated by pleasure rather than due to any actual need for additional clothing [33,34]. In fact, young women are the main target audience of fashion companies. As a result, paradoxically, they not only tend to purchase more fast fashion, but also purchase more sustainable fashion and express a greater interest in the field [35].

One possible explanation for this gap can be found in Lades’s study [36] on the use of nudges to promote ethical consumption. Based on neuroscientific findings, Lades suggests that self-image motives can lead to impulsive consumption, contrasting with reflexive thought and self-control. In this context, a strong green self-image may drive higher consumption of sustainable fashion rather than a decrease in consumption per se. Therefore, both aspects of reflexive thought can be leveraged to promote ethical consumption. This raises a dilemma regarding the most effective strategy for reducing fast fashion consumption: promoting sustainable fashion or advocating consumption reduction? The question reflects the broader inquiry into the nature of sustainable fashion discussed earlier.

Environmental attitudes and individual value priorities are also important variables in purchasing fashion in general and sustainable fashion in particular. A positive correlation exists between the importance of fashion brand sustainability and consumers’ decisions to buy sustainable clothing products. Furthermore, it is well established that consumers tend to have a greater preference for brands or products that align more closely with their self-concept [37,38]. Nonetheless, the sustainability of a fashion brand and positive attitude towards the sustainability of fashion brands or a product is not a guarantee of increased acquisition of sustainable products [39]. In fact, a gap between actual purchasing behavior and a positive attitude towards sustainability is more common than a positive attitude towards sustainability that translates into actual purchasing behavior.

It is worth noting that actual purchasing behavior of sustainable clothing by customers is still relatively modest, and reducing the gap between positive consumer attitudes towards sustainable fashion and their actual purchasing behavior remains a huge challenge [40]. Consumers often express their interest in sustainability but for many reasons continue to look for fast and cheap fashion items [41,42,43]. Frequently, there is a marked dissonance between the pro-environmental attitudes of fashion consumers and actual consumer choices [44,45]. A contemporary expression of this gap can be seen in the fact that the Chinese ultra-fast fashion company, SHEIN, which is particularly popular among Generation Z worldwide, is the most profitable fashion company in the United States today [46,47]. This suggests that in order to transform the environmental and social performance of the fashion industry, it is not enough to simply create sustainable fashion options. It is also necessary to direct consumer preferences by additional means.

1.3. Theory: Nudges and Consumer Preferences

One effective method to shape consumer preferences in fashion is through “nudging” or “choice architecture.” This concept, derived from behavioral economics, political theory and social psychology, involves subtle interventions that steer individuals towards preferred options without eliminating alternatives or altering economic incentives significantly. Choice architecture focuses on designing environments through soft mechanisms to gently influence decision making [48]. Nudges, widely utilized in commercial and public policy realms, are favored for their broad influence, low costs, accessibility and non-invasiveness.

In fashion, choice architecture is frequently used to increase excessive sales: Fashion chains create unique scents for themselves, distributing them at high volumes in stores; sale product stands in clothing stores are usually located at the entrance to the store with shelves placed at the average eye level of 1.67 m. This design is intended to encourage consumers to pull out garments [49,50]. The lighting, background music, and absence of a clock in the stores are all nudges designed to create a “party feeling”, which is attractive for a certain target public and can remove customer inhibitions, extending the length of customers’ stay.

The pricing of clothes also constitutes a nudge. Seasonal sales at their inception often include a 50% discount mechanism, but indirectly: clothing is priced at a discount, but in order to exploit it, consumers are pushed to purchases additional items they do not need. An example of this pricing method is 1 + 1 sales or three items for a lower price than two [51]. All of these are nudges leading consumers to purchase more fashion items than originally intended.

Choice architecture can also be deployed with the purposes of promoting social objectives or creating a positive environmental impact. A series of studies conducted in Asia [52] and Europe [53] found a positive effect of nudge on consumers’ WTPM for sustainable products. Yan, Henninger and Jones identified nudging as an effective way to induce actions that reduce microfiber pollution arising from textiles [54]. Roozen, Raedts and Meijburg showed a significant positive influence of verbal nudges in encouraging consumer preference for sustainable versions of clothes and WTPM for sustainable apparel [55]. A German study on “Sustainability Labels for Fashion in Online Retail” revealed that such labels, serving as nudges, boosted consumers’ willingness to buy sustainable fashion items and pay higher prices. However, the magnitude of the effect depends on consumers’ trust in the environmental claims and the credibility of the fashion brand [56].

The professional literature divides green nudges into three categories:

(1)

Green nudges that provide information about a product’s green characteristics, for example, information on CO₂ emissions from e-commerce deliveries [57].

(2)

Green nudges in the area of identity, fostering comparisons with others. These nudges highlight social norms by comparing preferences with peers or stimulating competition for social status by encouraging consumers to signal green behavior to their environment [58,59,60].

(3)

Green nudges that exploit the behavioral effects of intentionally designed default choices [59].

Accordingly, people can be motivated toward pro-environmental behavior by three main strategies: first, facilitating green behavior directly by reducing cognitive costs; second, the salience of certain features can be increased; and finally, people’s sense of “social identity” can be harnessed by using normative motivations that favor green consumerism [48,61]. All three approaches can encourage sustainable consumption. Nonetheless, given limited resources and bandwidth among sustainable fashion marketers and producers, identifying the most effective green nudge constitutes a particularly salient pursuit. It should be noted that the impact of nudges on sustainable fashion consumption has been studied sparingly, partly due to the limited research focusing on sustainable fashion consumption. The present research attempts to address this scarcity.

This study was designed to examine the effects of choice architecture under field conditions through a series of quasi-experiments conducted in collaboration with one of the largest shopping centers in Israel, “Dizengoff Center”. Dizengoff Center is a mall founded in 1977 in the heart of Tel Aviv. There are over 400 stores in the mall, of which roughly half are fashion stores, visited daily by about 50,000 visitors. In order to answer the question of what is the most effective way to nudge customers towards sustainable fashion, four separate field trials were conducted, examining the effect of three types of nudges on consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable fashion at the expense of fast fashion:

(1) Providing information on the damages caused by the fashion industry; (2) increasing alternatives in the form of options for purchasing sustainable fashion products; and (3) emphasizing the social identity attained through the purchase of sustainable fashion. We hypothesized that all three green nudges would positively influence consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable fashion, albeit in varying manners and degrees, as detailed below:

Hypothesis 1. 

Nudge 1 would reduce the quantity of fashion products purchased by consumers and increase their willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable options.

Hypothesis 2. 

Nudge 2 would increase both the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased and consumers’ WTPM.

Hypothesis 3. 

Nudge 3 would increase the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased by consumers but would not affect their WTPM.

Hypothesis 4. 

Across all experimental conditions, women’s WTPM would be higher than men’s.

Hypothesis 5. 

Consumers with a high green self-image, based on self-report, would report encountering more sustainable fashion products and identifying fewer barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion.

Hypothesis 6. 

Younger consumers would report more barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion than adults.

Hypothesis 7. 

Consumers who report a high action-based green self-image would purchase fewer fashion products compared with those who report a non-action-based green self-image.

Hypothesis 8. 

The higher the green self-image, the more consumers would agree with statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion, regardless of their actual purchase behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

The purpose of the research was to examine: (a) “which nudges influence consumers to purchase more sustainable fashion?” and (b) “which constitutes the most effective strategy?” In addition, this study identifies barriers and catalysts for sustainable fashion consumption among different demographic consumer groups. To this end, four separate field trials were conducted:

2.1. Nudge 1: Knowledge: Providing Information to Consumers about the Environmental and Social Damages of the Fashion Industry

Over 100 signs were hung throughout the Dizengoff Center mall, providing article-based information about the environmental and social impact of the fashion industry. Among the messages hung were:

• “Fast and cheap fashion is not really cheap, somewhere someone else is paying the full price”.
• “We have enough clothes in the world for the next fifty years”.
• “Over 64% of women workers in textile factories say that they suffer physical and verbal abuse every day”.

See Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, Figure A4 and Figure A5 in Appendix A. For the full list, see Appendix B.

To assess the impact of the information campaign on consumers, approximately 200 questionnaires (for the full questionnaire see Appendix C) were distributed at eight different mall exits. Volunteers handed out paper questionnaires that were later digitized for analysis. They informed recipients that the mall was conducting a survey to enhance the customer experience but did not read the questions aloud. Despite printing 400 questionnaires on the experiment day, about half were either unreturned or completed insufficiently, leading to the disqualification of several potential respondents from the sample. Participation in filling out the questionnaires was voluntary, and the team implementing the survey were instructed not to persuade or ask more than once due to the request of the mall. The recipients did not receive a financial incentive or any other kind of incentive to encourage them to answer the questionnaire.

2.2. Nudge 2: Increasing Sustainable Fashion Alternatives within the Mall

In order to encourage the purchase of sustainable fashion and more broadly transform it into a default behavior for consumers, a three-day sustainable fashion festival was held, involving over thirty stalls selling sustainable fashion products. Among the examples of products sold at the festival were: second-hand clothes, clothes from independent designers, recycled jewelry, organic cotton underwear and more, see Figure A6, Figure A7 and Figure A8 in Appendix A. All products sold in the festival were certified as sustainable by an impartial association that promotes sustainable fashion.

To assess the impact of expanding sustainable fashion options, 200 out of 260 distributed questionnaires collected at mall exits were analyzed. Notably, experiments 1 and 3 involved a random sample of mall visitors, unaware of the impending intervention, while the sustainable fashion festival was extensively advertised. Although many attendees likely came specifically for the festival, potentially introducing bias, approximately 50,000 individuals visited the mall during the intervention period, with only several hundred attending festival-exclusive activities. Moreover, the festival featured additional events like a clothes swap party and an upcycling workshop in a separate mall building from where products were sold. Prior research suggests that environmental nudges can maintain transparency without compromising effectiveness [62]. Hence, despite the considerable turnout for the sustainable fashion festival, their impact on survey outcomes is presumed insignificant.

2.3. Nudge 3: Highlighting the Social Identity Involved in Purchasing Sustainable Fashion

Every customer at the mall entrance was given a cloth shopping bag with the statement “I only buy green fashion”. Accordingly, from the moment recipients wore the bag, they essentially declared to those around them that they would only purchase sustainable fashion, see Figure A9 in Appendix A. We assumed that “green fashion” is more familiar and popular among the general Israeli public than “sustainable fashion”, so we used this term during the experiment. Here too, about 200 questionnaires were collected from those leaving the mall at eight different exits. Finally, group 4 was examined—a control group who encountered no experimental intervention except for the distribution of questionnaires upon exiting the mall. Again, roughly 200 questionnaires were collected from the control group as they left the mall. The four experiments were conducted throughout the month of July 2021, one week apart, on a fixed day, from 16:00 p.m. to 21:00 p.m.

Several caveats are germane: in nudge 1, signs only provided negative information about the fashion industry and did not specifically nudge consumers to purchase green fashion. It is possible that the nudge’s effect was to reduce purchases in general rather than increase sustainable fashion sales. In nudge 2, which presented respondents with sustainable alternatives, several festival stalls sold used clothes, which were cheaper than other sustainable fashion options mentioned earlier. This rendered the WTPM criterion less valid in experiment 2 for measuring purchase sustainability. To address this limitation, we included a variable measuring agreement with statements on the climate crisis and sustainable fashion, which refer to both perceptions and beliefs as well as actual behavior across all experiments. Finally, in nudge 3, the bags could have been interpreted by consumers as a marketing campaign by the mall, limiting their influence on social identity. The bags, however, did not have a logo of the mall or of any other entity, while the color and font of the inscription contrasted highly with the mall’s branding (green lettering on white bags, as opposed to pink and black branding).

The questionnaire received by participants covered:

• Demographics: Age, gender, major occupation in life and identity of people with whom they came to shop.
• Impact on consumption: Did they purchase clothing items, and if so, how many? Did they notice if they were sustainably produced, and how much did they pay for them? (Participants were asked to state the amount of clothing purchased and money spent).
• Attitudes: Degree of agreement with several statements regarding sustainable fashion (questions 8–11) and the climate crisis (questions 12–14) on a Likert scale ranging 1 to 5. For example: “I prefer to buy a single item over several cheap items at the same price”; “The climate crisis is a critical crisis and must be addressed urgently”; and “I believe there is a connection between my consumer choices and the climate crisis”.
• Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion: These were presented using a nominal scale, with three options (yes/no/I’m not sure). For example: “I feel I know how to distinguish between green and non-green clothes”.
• Green self-image: These questions compare self-reported environmental awareness on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (question 18) with actual green behaviors on a descriptive nominal scale (question 19). For instance: “My social circle recognizes me as environmentally conscious compared to others” and “Which of these actions do you regularly engage in: donate to environmental organizations, volunteer for green causes, follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, refrain from car ownership, avoid purchasing new clothes, or buy organic products?”.

2.4. Dependent and Independent Variables

Dependent variables in the statistical analysis include:

• Attitudes towards the climate crisis, examined by the degree of agreement with statements about the climate crisis;
• Attitudes regarding fast fashion and sustainable fashion, tested by the degree of agreement with the statements on fashion;
• Perceived green self-image tested by both self-perception and reported actions;
• Willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable fashion, based on the ratio between the amount of clothing items purchased and the total expenditure on clothing;
• Barriers facing sustainable fashion, tested by the degree of agreement with statements concerning the consumers’ fashion purchases at the time of the experiment;

Independent variables are:

• Type of intervention (providing information/increasing alternatives/social identity);
• Common environmental behaviors;
• The social group with which respondents came to the mall (family, friends, alone, etc.);
• General demographic characteristics.

The questionnaire also examined the conspicuousness of the nudge: Did participants notice the writing on the cloth bag? Did they participate in the festival? This question served as a vigilance measure. The questionnaire was developed based on prior studies exploring motives for fashion consumption and sustainability [35,63,64] as well as two previous surveys conducted by the authors, which assessed consumer patterns in sustainable consumption [65,66]. It was also refined with input from professors and experts in sustainable fashion consumption. Prior to the implementation of the survey, the institutional review included a review of the questionnaire to ensure that its questions did not raise any sensitive privacy issues or compromise in any way the anonymity of all respondents. Before administering the questionnaire in experiments, a pilot version was distributed to fifty subjects, applying a snowball technique in WhatsApp groups.

To examine the relationship between the type of intervention or the relationship to people with whom respondents came to shop and the degree of agreement with the statements concerning climate and fashion, a two-way analysis of variance was performed. It assessed the relationship between the four types of interventions (knowledge, alternative, social norms and a control group) and five options, involving the people with whom respondents came to shop. A follow-up Bonferroni test was then conducted.

The number of items purchased, the average expenditure for each item of clothing representing the WTPM, and the degree of agreement with the statements were all examined in relation to each of the interventions in relation to gender and in relation to age group. To examine how perceived green self-image and common environmental behaviors predict agreement with statements related to climate change, a simultaneous multiple regression test was conducted. t-tests were then used to analyze barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion. These tests aimed to determine differences in perceived green self-image and environmental behaviors between respondents who can distinguish green clothes and those who cannot; respondents who encounter sustainably produced clothes while shopping and those who do not; and respondents who believe their purchased clothes are green products versus those who do not. Additionally, clothing purchase patterns, expenditure and agreement with statements were analyzed in relation to gender, age and green self-image. Finally, barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion were examined in each of the intervention groups in relation to gender, age and green self-image.

During the four days of the experiment, 1100 questionnaires were distributed, of which 675 questionnaires were filled out satisfactorily (425 questionnaires were partially or inadequately filled out and consequently rejected while entering data from the questionnaires).

3. Results

3.1. General

As is often the case in quasi-experiments, there was some asymmetry in the natural allocation of the different groups. There were more women than men, and more participants came to the mall with friends or a partner than alone. Moreover, the majority of participants were either employed or self-employed (for a full description, see

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study participants.

	N	%
Gender
Man	224	32.9%
Woman	451	66.8%
With whom did they come to the mall?
Alone	208	30.8%
With friends	232	34.4%
With a partner	79	11.7%
With family members	143	21.2%
Other	13	1.9%
Main occupation
High school student	150	22.2%
Soldier	39	5.8%
Student	63	9.3%
Employee/Self-employed	295	43.7%
Pensioner	62	9.2%
On Maternity Leave	4	0.6%
Unemployed	54	8.0%
Other	8	1.2%
Age
16–20	199	29.66%
21–30	150	22.36%
31–45	158	23.55
46–60	98	14.61%
61–75	47	7.00%
76 and older	19	2.83%

).

3.2. Differences between the Intervention Conditions

In examining WTPM for sustainable fashion under the various intervention conditions, it was found that in the knowledge group, the purchase amount (157.2 NIS, SD = 256.8) and the number of items purchased (1.7, SD = 2.4) revealed the highest responses. The lowest purchase amount (109.8 NIS, SD = 201.4) and number of items purchased (1.4, SD = 2.3) were found among the social norms group. The ratio between the amount spent and the number of items purchased (representing low WTPM) was highest among the control group (See Figure 1 and

Table 2. Purchases in NIS under the various intervention conditions.

	Control (N = 123)		Knowledge (N = 169)		Alternative (N = 149)		Social Norms (N = 234)
	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M
The amount of purchase	300.6	154.7	256.8	157.2	233.8	136.6	201.4	109.8
Number of items purchased	2.4	1.5	2.4	1.7	2.1	1.6	2.3	1.4
Average amount spent on an item	130.3	65.5	99.1	59.9	124.6	58.3	71.4	41.5

).

In examining the degree of agreement with the statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion among the different intervention groups, it was found that the alternative group expressed the highest agreement (4.4, SD = 0.9), followed by the social norms group (4.1, SD = 0.9) and then the knowledge group (4.0, SD = 1.0), and finally, the lowest agreement was found among the control group (3.8, SD = 1.0) (see Figure 2 and

Table 3. Degree of agreement with the statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion and predominance of green self-image among the different intervention groups.

	Control (N = 123)		Knowledge (N = 169)		Alternative (N = 149)		Social Norms (N = 234)
	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M
Agreeing with the statements about climate and sustainable fashion	1.0	3.8	1.0	4.0	0.9	4.4	0.9	4.1
Predominance of green self-image (self-report)	1.4	4.1	1.5	4.3	1.3	4.5	1.3	4.4
Predominance of green self-image (based on actions)	1.2	1.4	1.1	1.7	1.2	1.7	1.1	1.6

).

In examining the predominance of participants’ green self-image (based on self-reporting as opposed to actions) among the different experimental groups, it was found that the green self-image based on self-reporting was highest among the alternative group (M = 4.5, SD = 1.3) and lowest among the control group (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4). In assessing green self-image based on actions, it was also found that the highest self-image existed among the alternative group (M = 1.7, SD = 1.2) and the lowest existed among the control group (M = 1.4, SD = 1.2). Among all intervention groups, green self-image based on actions was significantly lower than that based on self-reporting (see Table 3).

Differences between the Intervention Conditions in Barriers to Purchasing Sustainable Fashion

In examining barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different intervention groups, the alternative group showed the greatest ability to distinguish between “green” clothing and those not sustainably produced (32.2%, N = 48/149). The social norms group (who were given a tote bag with a sustainable consumption slogan) were the least able to differentiate between green and non-green clothes (41.9%, N = 98/234); the knowledge group exposed to signage reported the lowest level of confidence in differentiating between sustainable and unsustainable clothing (44.4%, N = 75/169) (for full results, see Figure 3 and

Table 4. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Feel Like I Know How to Distinguish Between Green and Non-Green Clothes” among the different intervention groups.

	Control (N = 123)		Knowledge (N = 169)		Alternative (N = 149)		Social Norms (N = 234)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
Yes	26.8	33	24.9	42	32.2	48	27.4	64
No	35.0	43	30.8	52	28.2	42	41.9	98
I’m not sure	38.2	47	44.4	75	39.6	59	30.8	72

).

In response to the question “I came across many green clothes today”, the most frequent answer in all groups was “no”. Nonetheless, the alternative group contained the highest proportion of participants who answered “yes” (28.2%). The highest proportion answering “no” was found in the knowledge group (59.2%,) (for the full results, see Figure 4 and

Table 5. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Came across Many Green Clothes Today” among the different intervention groups.

	Control (N = 123)		Knowledge (N = 169)		Alternative (N = 149)		Social Norms (N = 234)
I came across many green clothes today	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
Yes	18.7	23	7.1	12	28.2	42	15.0	35
No	44.7	55	59.2	100	38.9	58	54.7	128
I’m not sure	36.6	45	33.7	57	32.9	49	30.3	71

).

In response to the question “I believe the clothes I bought today are green clothes”, the most common answer among all groups was “no”. The alternative group, however, had the highest rate of participants who answered “yes” relative to the other groups (23.5%), while the knowledge group had the highest rate of participants who answered “no” (50.9%) (See

Table 6. Prevalence and percentages of agreement with the statement “I Believe that the Clothes I Bought Today Are Green products” among the different intervention groups.

	Control (N = 123)		Knowledge (N = 169)		Alternative (N = 149)		Social Norms (N = 234)
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
Yes	15.4	19	8.3	14	23.5	35	17.5	41
No	43.1	53	50.9	86	40.9	61	50.4	118
I’m not sure	41.5	51	40.8	69	35.6	53	32.1	75

).

3.3. Analysis Based on Demographic Characteristics

3.3.1. Gender

The gender analysis inter alia assessed WTPM for sustainable fashion and the association between gender green self-image based on self-reporting and based on actions. The amount of purchases, the number of items purchased and the average amount per item were all higher among men (M = 143.9, SD = 249.2; M = 1.8, SD = 2.4 and M = 56.4, SD = 124.2 respectively). At the same time, the degree of agreement with environmental statements was higher among women (M = 4.2, SD = 0. 9 relative to M = 3.9, SD = 1.0 among men). This was also true regarding the self-reporting of green self-image (M = 4.5, SD = 1.3 among women compared with M = 4.1, SD = 1.5 among men) as well as environmental actions (M = 1.7, SD = 1.1 among women compared with M = 1.3, SD = 1.2 among men) (see

Table 7. WTPM for sustainable fashion in NIS: degree of agreement with environmental statements and green self-image based on gender analysis.

	Women (N = 451)		Men (N = 222)
	SD	M	SD	M
Amount purchased	241.0	132.4	249.2	143.9
Number of items bought	2.2	1.4	2.4	1.8
Average amount per item	92.5	53.4	124.2	56.4
Agreed with statements on climate and sustainable fashion	0.9	4.2	1.0	3.9
Predominance green self-image (self-reporting)	1.3	4.5	1.5	4.1
Predominance green self-image dominance (based on actions)	1.1	1.7	1.2	1.3

).

In evaluating the barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion, more men than women reported not knowing how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not: (29.7% of women reported not knowing how to distinguish compared with 46.4% of men). The most common answer among both genders regarding whether they encountered many “green clothes” today was “no”. Nonetheless, more women than men said they had encountered green clothing (18.4% vs. 12.6%, respectively), while more men than women also said they were uncertain (35.6% of men vs. 31.7% of women).

Most respondents amongst both women and men reported that they had not purchased green clothes. At the same time, again the proportion of women reporting purchases of green clothes was higher than among male respondents (17.5% among women compared with 13.5% among men) (see

Table 8. Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion based on gender.

	Women (N = 451)		Men (N = 222)
	%	N	%	N
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not
Yes	29.7	134	23.4	52
No	29.3	132	46.4	103
I’m not sure	41.0	185	30.2	67
I came across many green clothes today
Yes	18.4	83	12.6	28
No	49.9	225	51.8	115
I’m not sure	31.7	143	35.6	79
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products
Yes	17.5	79	13.5	30
No	46.8	211	47.3	105
I’m not sure	35.7	161	39.2	87

).

3.3.2. Age

An analysis of WTPM for sustainable fashion, the agreement with statements about the climate crisis and sustainable fashion and green self-image based on self-reporting as well as on actions in relation to age was also conducted. The youngest cohort spent the most on clothing with the highest number of items, contrasting dramatically with the 61–75 age group, which purchased the least number of items for the lowest amount (1.7 items in the amount of NIS 158.4 in the 16–20 age group compared with 0.8 items in the amount of 69.4 NIS in the 61–75 age group). Agreement with statements regarding the climate crisis and sustainable fashion was most common among the 76 and older respondents, while the age group that expressed the lowest agreement was 16–20 (M = 4.9 at the 61–75 age group compared with M = 3.9 in the 16–20 age group).

As for the extent of a green self-image based on self-reporting, it was found that groups aged 61–75 and 76 and older reported the highest green self-image (5). Other age groups reported a somewhat lower green self-image, ranging from 4.2 to 4.3. In contrast, when examining green self-image based on actions, the age group that was 76 and older on average had a green self-image ranking of only 1.7, while the other age groups ranged from 1.4 to 1.6.

Responses to questions examining barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion differed among the various age groups. In response to the question “I feel like I know how to distinguish between green and non-green clothes”, the age group that strongly reported an ability to differentiate was the oldest cohort 76 years and older (52.6%) as well as 61–75 years old (51.1%). Purportedly, the 31–45 and 21–30 age groups largely reported that they did not know the difference (39.2% and 40.0%, respectively). In the 16–20 age group, the most common answer was “I’m not sure” (35.2%, N = 70/199). (See Figure 5 and

Table 9. Barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion among the different age groups.

	31–45 (N = 158)		21–30 (N = 150)		16–20 (N = 199)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not	%	N	%	N	%	N
Yes	20.9	33	24.7	37	25.1	50
No	39.2	62	40.0	60	35.7	71
I’m not sure	39.9	63	35.3	53	39.2	78
I came across many green clothes today
Yes	13.9	22	18.0	27	15.6	31
No	51.3	81	47.3	71	49.2	98
I’m not sure	34.8	55	34.7	52	35.2	70
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products
Yes	11.4	18	12.7	19	22.6	45
No	48.7	77	44.7	67	43.2	86
I’m not sure	39.9	63	42.7	64	34.2	68
	76 and above (N = 19)		61–75 (N = 47)		46–60 (N = 98)
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not	%	N	%	N	%	N
Yes	52.6	10	51.1	24	30.6	30
No	21.1	4	25.5	12	26.5	26
I’m not sure	26.3	5	23.4	11	42.9	42
I came across many green clothes today
Yes	21.1	4	27.7	13	13.3	13
No	52.6	10	51.1	24	56.1	55
I’m not sure	26.3	5	21.3	10	30.6	30
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products
Yes	26.3	5	21.3	10	12.2	12
No	57.9	11	53.2	25	50.0	49
I’m not sure	15.8	3	25.5	12	37.8	37

).

In response to the question “I came across many green clothes today”, the most common answer among all age groups was “no”. The age groups that most often reported encountering many green clothes were 61–75 years old (27.7%) and then 76 years old and older (21.1%) (See Figure 6 and Table 9). The most common answer among all age groups responding to the statement, “I believe the clothes I bought today are green clothes”, was “no”. Nonetheless, the age group that most reported a belief that the clothes they purchased were in fact “green” were those respondents 76 years and older (26.3%). However, this was also the age group in which the rate of “no” respondents were the highest (57.9%), and the rate of “I’m not sure” respondents was the lowest (15.8%). The 21–30 years old cohort expressed the least certainty that the clothes they had purchased that day were green (42.7%) (See Figure 7 and Table 9).

3.4. Analysis of Variance

To examine the relationship between the type of intervention (knowledge/alternative/social norms), the people with whom respondents came to the mall, the agreement with climate-related statements and sustainable fashion and green self-image, an analysis of variance was conducted. In a bivariate analysis of variance, a significant primary effect was found for the type of intervention to which respondents were exposed (F(3656) = 3.78, ** p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.02). At the same time, no significant effect was found for the variable involving the people with whom respondents were accompanied to the mall (F(4656) = 2.05, n.s), with no interaction found (F(11,656) = 1.62, n.s).

Bonferroni follow-up tests suggest that in cases where respondents were exposed to “alternatives”, results were more meaningful (M = 4.47, SD = 0.13). The degree of agreement with statements regarding climate crisis and sustainable fashion was also higher among respondents who were “provided information” (M = 4.07, SD = 0.08), significantly greater than in the control group (M =3.85, SD = 0.15). Confidence intervals were not measured as the experiments were quasi-experiments, and therefore, random sampling or normal distribution cannot be assumed.

To examine the relationship between green self-image based on self-reporting and actions and agreement with the statements on climate and fashion, a simultaneous multiple regression was performed. The regression model significantly explains 28.2% of the variance in the degree of agreement with the statements (F(2671) = 132.1, ** p < 0.001). Green self-image based on self-reporting was a significant predictor of agreement with environmental statements. In other words, the higher the level of reporting about green self-image, the higher the agreement with statements about climate and fashion (β = 0.47, t = 13.06, ** p < 0.001). Green self-image based on the number of actions was also found to be a significant predictor of agreement with climate and fashion statements. Accordingly, the higher the number of actions, the higher the agreement with pro-environmental statements (β = 0.13, t = 3.62, ** p < 0.001) (see

Table 10. Regression coefficients for predicting agreement with statements about the climate crisis and sustainable fashion. *** = p ≤ 0.001.

	B	SEB	B
Green self-image dominance (self-report)	0.47	0.02	32 ***
Green self-image dominance (number of actions)	0.13	0.03	11 ***

).

A t-test for independent samples was conducted to examine the difference in green self-image between those who reported the ability to distinguish green clothes from others and those who did not, based on self-reporting and actions, in barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion. As anticipated, a significant disparity was observed between the groups (t(418.93) = 10.6, ** p < 0.01). Those who claimed knowledge of distinguishing green clothes exhibited a higher green self-image (M = 5.06, SD = 1.15) compared with those who reported an inability to distinguish them (M = 3.74, SD = 1.42). A significant difference was also found between the groups as defined by green self-image based on actions (t(362.12) = 5.11, ** p < 001). Respondents’ knowledgeability about distinguishing green clothes showed a higher green self-image based on their reported actions (M = 1.85, SD = 1.25), surpassing those who lacked this knowledge (M = 1.27, SD = 1.05).

To examine the hypothesis regarding differences in self-reported green self-image and actions among those encountering many green clothes while shopping versus those who did not, an independent samples t-test was conducted. A significant disparity between the groups emerged (t(450) = 4.02, ** p < 0.001). Individuals encountering many green clothes exhibited a higher self-reported green self-image (M = 4.87, SD = 1.33) compared with those encountering fewer green clothes (M = 4.25, SD = 1.43).

A difference emerged between groups with high and low green self-image based on actions (t(451) = 2.91, ** p < 0.05). Those who reported encountering many green clothes while shopping exhibited a higher green self-image (M = 1.93, SD = 1.26) than those encountering fewer green clothes (M = 1.56, SD = 1.14).

In testing differences in green self-image between those who believe their clothes purchased are green products and those who do not believe so, a significant difference was found (t(248.15) = 5.80, ** p < 0.01). Individuals who believed that they had purchased green products exhibited a higher self-reported green self-image (M = 4.96, SD = 1.14) than those who did not (M = 4.16, SD = 1.51). Furthermore, a significant difference emerged between the groups regarding green self-image based on actions (t(425) = 2.75, ** p < 0.01): those believing their purchases were green products exhibited a higher green self-image based on actions (M = 1.86, SD = 1.17) compared with those who did not (M = 1.51, SD = 1.14) (see

Table 11. Means and standard deviations of green self-image based on self-reporting and actions, according to barriers to purchasing sustainable fashion.

	Green Self-Image Based on a Number of Actions		Green Self-Image Based on Self-Report
I feel like I know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not	M	SD	M	SD
Yes	1.85	1.25	5.06	1.15
No	1.27	1.05	3.74	1.42
I encountered many green clothes today
Yes	1.93	1.26	4.87	1.33
No	1.56	1.14	4.25	1.43
I believe that the clothes I bought today are green products
Yes	1.86	1.17	4.96	1.14
No	1.51	1.14	4.16	1.51

).

4. Discussion

Since its inception, fashion has always served as a means by which individuals shape their physical and social identities. Fashion has the power to change people, not only in their appearance, but also their perceptions, feelings and beliefs [41,65,66]. In the discourse about fashion and the environment, there is a tendency to emphasize the environmental damages of the fashion industry [67,68,69]. Given the growing cultural and psychological power of fashion, however, sustainable fashion also has the ability to positively influence consumption patterns in many areas that extend beyond consumers’ clothing choices. This underlies the importance of promoting sustainable fashion.

This study found that offering consumers sustainable alternatives was the most effective way to “nudge” them to support sustainable fashion. In other words, a distinct primary effect was found when providing an alternative intervention. Moreover, the largest proportion of consumers who reported that they know how to differentiate between green clothes and those could not was the group that had been primed to realize that sustainable alternatives to fast fashion exist. This was also true for respondents who believed that the clothes they purchased were indeed green clothes and among all levels of green self-image. It can be concluded that offering the public accessible sustainable clothing alternatives constitutes the most effective way to encourage sustainable fashion purchasing patterns.

Providing simplified information along with a new framing of products constitute common nudging tools to promote sustainable consumption. Their impact on people’s actual choices, however, appears to be limited and largely context-dependent. Previous studies [55,57,60,70,71] found that nudges that change the physical environment and change default options are more effective than merely simplifying and framing information differently. This is especially true in the field of climate protection, even when the default is transparent, as in the present study [62]. This study’s results, which show that providing information constitutes the least effective nudge, are consistent with these findings.

Nonetheless, the analysis does not negate the potential contribution that new information and strengthening social norms that encourage sustainable fashion may provide. The percentage of people who reported that they “did not encounter green clothes” during the visit to the mall, as well as those that “don’t believe they know how to distinguish between green clothes and those that are not”, was higher among respondents who had been exposed to new knowledge. This effect was also more common among groups who were nudged to conform to new social norms than in the control group. Similarly, the level of agreement with statements concerning the climate crisis and sustainable fashion among the alternative and information groups indicates that engaging in the subject increases awareness about the problem.

Another explanation for the relatively limited impact of providing information could be people’s inclination to disregard climate-related information when it conflicts with their existing beliefs, especially when it may involve incurring extra costs [72]. Sustainable fashion, frequently linked with higher clothing prices, appears to be an artifact of this phenomenon. This tendency might further explain the diminished impact of information. Furthermore, research in the field indicates that nudges that provide information have limited to no effect on cooperative goals within a collaborative environment [73]. Addressing the climate crisis and mitigating the negative impacts of the fashion industry are inherently collaborative goals that cannot be achieved individually; they depend on wide societal cooperation for success. This highlights the need for judicious public policy on the subject.

Demographic Nuances: A Surprising Generation Gap

More than half of the adults aged 61 and over reported with greater confidence that they knew how to differentiate between green clothes and those that were not. The older the respondent, the more confident they were about the environmental merits or flaws of new clothing. In contrast, among the 16–20-year-old group, the rate of participants reporting uncertainty as to whether the clothes they purchased were green was particularly high. Moreover, the oldest respondents were also the most modest clothing consumers as far as quantities purchased and associated expenses were concerned. With respect to the degree of sustainability, these results are somewhat ambiguous. This is because buying clothes sparingly is considered to be a preferred, sustainable pattern, while spending little on clothing may not be. This paradox, in many ways, embodies a broader question: what is sustainable fashion?

This is an important finding because the primary target audience of sustainable fashion advocates is Generation Z and Y, demographic groups between the ages of 16 and 35. Ostensibly, young people are more concerned about the climate crisis than their parents. However, these generations are also often characterized by confusion and distrust in authority figures [74,75]. This finding, along with the results regarding green self-image, amplify the effect involving the influence of alternatives to sustainable consumption.

It is noteworthy that in all groups, most participants reported not knowing how to distinguish between sustainable and non-sustainable fashion. The confusion among consumers reflects a common, global phenomenon. A 2015 study reported that there are relatively few consumers who can successfully distinguish between different types of labels and certifications [76].

In a study conducted in Germany about sustainability and fashion labels, it was found that although many fashion products are labeled as sustainable, only 14% of the products are labeled as sustainable by an impartial third party [56]. The lack of an authoritative arbiter makes it difficult for consumers to understand to what extent a product should be deemed sustainable.

Moreover, in a recent report, “License to Greenwash”, ten certifications, labels and environmental voluntary initiatives in the field of fashion were examined [77]. In the absence of sufficient legislation and oversight in the field, environmental certification labels have become a common means of spreading greenwashing. The phenomenon contributes to a further decrease in consumer trust. This is particularly important because trust has been found to be a mediating variable in consumers’ willingness to purchase sustainable products [56,77,78,79,80]. In other words, the greater the reliability of the product, the more consumers are willing to buy more of it for a higher price—and vice versa. This could also explain the relatively low effect found in the study for providing information.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Confirmation of Hypotheses Regarding Effectiveness of Interventions

Prior to conducting the study, we assumed that increasing consumer alternatives in the form of options for purchasing sustainable fashion products would both increase the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased and consumers’ WTPM for sustainable clothing products. We also hypothesized that emphasizing social identity attained through the purchase of sustainable fashion would increase the proportion of sustainable fashion products purchased by consumers but would not affect their WTPM for these products. The results confirm this assumption. Indeed, we conclude that providing alternatives in their shopping selections constitutes the best way to nudge consumers towards sustainable fashion, and the “alternatives” nudge proved more effective than the highlighted social norms.

We further hypothosized that providing information about the damages caused by the fashion industry would reduce the quantity of fashion products purchased by consumers and increase their willingness to pay more (WTPM) for sustainable options. Here, the results did not conform to the initial hypotheses. Offering information was in fact the least effective nudge for advancing sustainable fashion that was tested in this study.

5.2. Greenwash and Reliability in Fashion

In all experimental situations, including this study’s control group, most participants did not believe that the clothes they purchased were sustainably produced. The proportion of people who did believe that the clothes they purchased were green was highest among the alternatives group, which had been exposed to sustainable options. Among respondents in the social norms groups and the knowledge group, the proportion of people who could distinguish green clothing was higher than in the control group. These two results indicate that the prominent placing of sustainable alternatives can strengthen consumer trust. Providing information and creating a social norm can positively affect awareness. This awareness, however, does not necessarily translate into the purchase of sustainable fashion.

As mentioned, among all demographic groups and at all levels of green self-image, those exposed to sustainable alternatives were more likely to report that they did know how to differentiate between green and environmentally destructive clothes, while those who were exposed to knowledge were the least likely to do so. Even so, the rate of consumers in the alternative group who reported knowing how to identify green clothes was less than half. It is also possible that participants in the knowledge group by being exposed to the potential environmental and social hazards of clothing took the issue more seriously than other groups. Accordingly, being able to honestly express an inability to identify “green clothes” might be seen as an expression of a newly acquired sense of responsibility.

Similarly, the social norm group had the highest proportion of consumers admitting they lacked requisite knowledge to identify green fashion. Carrying a bag emblazoned with “I only buy green fashion” likely prompted contemplation following initial unease to a realization of an inability to identify sustainable fashion. This underscores the importance of a dependable certification policy from a public policy standpoint. Supplying credible information from an impartial government source promises to enhance consumer confidence and encourage greater adoption of sustainable fashion.

5.3. The Gap between Consumer Statements and Their Actual Purchases

This study confirms the desire of consumers to purchase sustainably: this impulse is expressed, inter alia, through a high degree of agreement with statements regarding the climate crisis and fashion. However, a significant gap exists between these intentions and actual sustainable consumer behaviors across all groups.

This study reveals that men tend to spend more and buy more clothing items than women, while women show greater agreement with perceptions linking climate to fashion. Additionally, young people exhibit higher spending and purchase rates compared with older adults. This indicates a lower susceptibility to fast fashion trends but also an attraction to low prices with high environmental costs. Notably, senior citizens demonstrate the highest agreement with pro-environmental statements, reflecting their consumer behavior.

The gap between consumer statements and their actual purchases is a well-known challenge facing sustainable fashion manufacturers [81,82]. It constitutes a significant obstacle to increasing the proportion of fashion manufacturers who aspire to become more sustainable [81,82,83,84]. Studies from around the world that address the action gap in the field of sustainable fashion found that a lack of understanding and lack of knowledge about what sustainable fashion really is offers a compelling explanation to the gap [85,86]. In addition to other factors like lack of sufficient trust and environmental knowledge [87], social influences, beliefs and a low level of knowledge are influential [88,89].

From a business perspective, the action gap can also be seen as an opportunity. Past studies found that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products if they value environmental protection and believe that purchasing these products will contribute to that objective [90]. Considering that knowledgeable, environmentally conscious consumers focus on quality over quantity [82], fashion companies that focus on creating sustainable fashion in small quantities through fair production and, above all, with transparency, may be able to help narrow the gap while increasing consumers’ WTPM for sustainable fashion products.

From the perspective of public policy, creating opportunities to increase profits through sustainable fashion (e.g., subsidizing the production of sustainable fashion) may indeed offer a significant incentive for fashion companies to adopt green strategies. However, relying exclusively on economic motivations is unwise. Frequently, pollution and exploitation remain cheaper than sustainable production. Therefore, it is not enough to rely solely on market forces. There are several incipient examples of legislation to this end that have been adopted internationally during the last decade [91]. It is time to advance a holistic strategy that addresses the challenges of reliable certification and greenwash prevention. These measures will contribute to the overall aim of increasing the number and accessibility of sustainable alternatives, strengthening the impact of the nudge found to be the most effective in this study.

Ultimately, nudges are powerful tools that have the potential to contribute to ongoing efforts to improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. However, their effect is often of limited duration and is dependent on context. To minimize the purchasing gap, a robust set of policies promoting sustainable fashion is essential. While nudges play a role, constituting a vital component within a comprehensive strategy, they cannot serve as the sole approach. Considering consumer distrust in market alternatives, relying solely on nudges without a clear definition of sustainable fashion will likely result in unsatisfactory outcomes, reflected in the fashion industry’s expanding environmental footprint notwithstanding heightened sustainability aspirations. At the same time, well-designed, non-coercive interventions targeting consumer behaviors can make an important contribution to a more sustainable fashion industry.

This study suggests that thoughtfully designed nudges can influence consumers to purchase their clothing in a more sustainable manner and affect their consumption patterns. Quasi-experimental studies over a limited period in a single shopping mall clearly have limitations. But clear empirical data, like that generated in the present research, should inform policy makers as they begin to address the environmental implications of fast fashion. As more policies are designed to address consumer behavior and nudges are scaled up and implemented in a wider context, systematic evaluation studies will be extremely important for a reliable ex post assessment of the effectiveness of these interventions.