Volume 24 Issue 4 Article 1 December 2022 Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior of Apparel: An Examination Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior of Apparel: An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences of Antecedents and Consequences Maja Hrlec Gorš e University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia Mateja Kos Koklič University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, mateja.kos@ef.uni-lj.si Anž e Zalokar Putr d.o.o., Trzin, Slovenia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Fashion Business Commons, and the Marketing Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Hrlec Gorš e, M., Kos Koklič , M., & Zalokar, A. (2022). Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior of Apparel: An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences. Economic and Business Review, 24(4), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1309 This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior of Apparel: An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences Maja Hrlec Gorse a , Mateja Kos Koklic b, *,An ze Zalokar c a University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia b University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia c Putr d.o.o., Trzin, Slovenia Abstract Thisresearchexaminestheethicallyminded consumerbehavior (EMCB)anditsantecedentsandconsequencesinthe context of ethical clothes. Its objective is to test the relationships among the reasons for and against buying, subjective knowledge,EMCBandintentiontopurchaseethicalclothes.Theauthorsusesurveydatafrom280consumerstotestthe conceptual model. Support is provided for the majority of the hypothesized relationships: reasons for buying and subjective knowledge positively and reasons against buying negatively affect EMCB, and EMCB in turn positively influences the intention to purchase. Additionally, reasons against buying decrease the intention. The study also dis- cusses implications for companies. Keywords: Ethically minded consumer behavior, Purchase of ethical clothes, Reasons for/against buying, Subjective knowledge JEL classification: M30, M31 Introduction N owadays, numerous companies embrace the need to consider ecological and human wel- fare when adopting their sustainable development principles (Chow & Chen, 2012). In addition, many different organizations have a mission to educate consumers, organizations and governments on the need to behave ethically and more responsibly to- wards the environment and consider the welfare of future generations (Kinoti, 2011). Similarly, con- sumers increasingly consider ecological and human welfare issues in their everyday choices (Sudbury- Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016). Indeed, ethical consum- erism is holding an important position in today's society (Carrington et al., 2014). Consumers have one of the key roles in promoting ethical con- sumption, cleaner production and proper use of resources, since their choices can influence how each product is produced, which means that consumers can make industries change their way of production (Jaca et al., 2018). Ethically minded consumers are concerned with environmental is- sues, animal welfare, human rights health related implications (Cooper-Martin & Holbrook, 1993). However, although an upsurge in the consumption of ethical product has been evident, the growth in ethical consumption is still small (Govind et al., 2017). Textile industry is one of the industries with a strongfocusonethicalinitiatives(Wangetal.,2017). It induces remarkable impacts on the environment (Laitala, 2014). Although, there are strong initiatives in fashion to follow sustainability and consumers state that they behave ethically, in fashion industry consumers do not act as expected (Wiederhold & Martinez, 2018). In particular, with fast fashion, the concept of clothing has changed dramatically, clothing life cycle has drastically shortened and an environmentalperspectiveonclothingconsumption Received 3 April 2019; accepted 13 August 2019. Available online 1 December 2022 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: mateja.kos@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Kos Koklic). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1309 2335-4216/© 2022 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). has gained new dimensions. Therefore, fast fashion industry is known by short-term use, increasing waste, usually low quality, and labor exploit (Gwozdz et al., 2017). However, fashion industry also has an opportunity to change its business concept in such a way to concurrently gain profits and increase environmental and social performance (Pulse of the fashion industry, 2019). However, also consumers create a huge impact with their apparel consumption. More specifically, they make de- cisions about how frequently, how many and what type of clothes they will purchase. On the other hand, they decide how these clothes are used, maintained and, in the end, how they are disposed when worn out or no longer needed (Gwozdz et al., 2017). An important as well as worrying fact is that only around 20% of clothing is recycled or reused (Global Footprint Network, 2017). Scholars and practitioners alike devoted a lot of attention to understand the underlying de- terminants of ethical clothing consumption. The existing research documents different motives and factors of ethical behavior, and understanding these is becoming ever more important (Minton et al., 2015). Authors emphasize the importance of un- derstanding the reasons that impact and justify de- cisions (Burke et al., 2014; Mercier& Sperber, 2011). Advantages, different alternatives as well as disposal with a wide range of information enable clearer justification for decisions. Despite various attempts to explain ethical behavior, the role of positively and negatively framed reasoning as well as subjective knowledge in shaping ethical clothing consumption remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the antecedents and consequences of ethically minded consumer behavior when pur- chasing clothes. The proposed model includes rea- sons for buying, reasons against buying, and the subjective knowledge influencing ethically minded consumerbehavior(EMCB)andpurchaseintention. Hence, the present research aims to add to the existing knowledge base by investigating relevance of selected factors that may facilitate or hinder ethical consumption of clothes. The study offers several contributions to the existing literature on ethical consumption. First, it seeks to quantify the relative importance of two types of reasons: reasons for and reasons against ethical consumption. Additionally, prior research has been advanced by examining the underlying reasons or cognitions shedding light on the complementarity between attitudes for and against a behavior. These reasons are examined simulta- neously on a set of respondents, which has rarely been conducted in the consumer ethics literature (e.g.Burkeetal.,2014).Hence,thisresearchinforms interventions that seek to promote particular types ofbehavioralsothroughproductdifferentiationand communication strategies targeted at consumers. Second, our research extends previous work of Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher (2016) by employing their novel construct called “ethically minded con- sumer behavior”. This study is one of the first studies utilizing and examining EMCB. To the best ofourknowledge,thereisonlyonestudyexamining EMCB (Le & Kieu, 2019). Third, the study provides greater understanding of the impact of selected antecedent and consequent constructs on EMCB and thus extends knowledge base on the nomolog- ical network of EMCB. In so doing, we hope to provide useful guidelines for designing policies to affect ethical behavior. Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.First,webriefly review the existing literature with respect to ethical consumption and then develop a conceptual framework which serves as the basis for the con- struction of the hypotheses. We then report on the development of the measures, the data collection methodology andtheanalytical proceduresutilized. Finally, the findings of the study are presented alongwithadiscussionofmanagementimplications and future research avenues. 1 Theoretical background and hypotheses development Issues related to ethical behavior and ethical consumption in the textile industry have been pro- pelled in recent years, as companies have adopted and implemented various global initiatives in the field of ethical behavior (Dickson et al., 2009; Kozar &HillerConnell,2013).Ontheotherhand,thereare consumers who admit that it is important to behave in a sustainable way, but their actions are not re- flected in everyday life. This phenomenon of atti- tude-behavior gap has been observed in many ethical consumption studies (e.g. Carrington et al., 2016; Papaoikonomou et al., 2011; Wiederhold & Martinez, 2018). Similarly, some researchers point outanothergapcalledthe “intention-behavior”gap. Although consumers intend to buy ethical or sus- tainableproducts,theirintentionsarenottranslated into actual behavior (Carrington et al., 2014; Jung & Jin, 2014). Dickson (1999) found that consumers are unwilling to pay more to acquire ethical apparel, regardless their related knowledge and attitudes. However, Carrington et al. (2016) concluded that around a half of the consumers are willing to pay more for the product with ethical attributes. Carri- gan and Attalla (2001) noted that consumers ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 197 perceived price, quality, and value as more impor- tant attributes in making ethical purchasing decisions. Attempting to explain human behavior is a very demanding task, resulting in numerous theoretical models. Numerous authors studying sustainable and ethical consumer behavior draw on the atti- tude-behavior models. Some of the most influential theoretical frameworks in social psychology are Ajzen's behavioral models. These models suggest that a single act (behavior) is predictable from an attitude towards the act (Ajzen, 1991, 2011). Re- searchers attempting to understand the purchase behavior of ethically minded consumers tend to apply cognitive models (Fukukawa, 2003). Two of the most widely applied attitude-behavior models are the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and its revisioncalledthetheoryofplannedbehavior(TPB) (Ajzen, 1991, 2011). An overview of the existing literature indicates that TRA is the most popular model in attitude research on recycling behavior. In line with this theory, the immediate antecedent of any behavior is the intention to perform the behavior in question. There are two conceptually independent determinants of an individual's inten- tion. One is personal factor called attitude towards the behavior and the second predictor is a social factor, social norm. On the other hand, the theory also deals with the antecedents of attitudes and subjective norms. TPB is similar to TRA, the only differencebeingtheadditionofanewantecedentto intentions and behavior, the so called perceived behavioral control (Davies et al., 2014). Although identified as one of the most commonly used frameworks to tap into sustainable and ethical behavior, these models have been criticized for at- titudes alone usually being poor predictors of be- haviors (e.g. De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007). Furthermore, Shaw et al. (2005) conclude that a substantial amount of variance in buying behavior remains unexplained by models based on attitude- behavior relations, and that other theoretically relevant variables should be included. Another relevant theory was proposed by Ban- dura (1986), who argued that human actions can be explained by three interactive variables: personal factors, environment, and behavior. Interactions of the personal factor, environmental factors and con- sumer behavior constitute the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Based on the literature review, it becomes evident that internal and external factors influence ethical consumer behavior. SCT includes inner and external factors that drive humans. The theory can be easily implemented when exploring ethical behavior, because it is believed that environmental topics could best be explained by personalfactors,suchasage,gender,andeducation (Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al., 2007). One of the frameworks in explaining ethical pur- chase decisions is the reasons theory (Westaby, 2002, 2005; Westaby & Fishbein, 1996) which formally conditions the reason type (reason for and reason against) on behavioral intention or fre- quency. More specifically, reasons for performing a behaviorandreasonsagainstperformingabehavior represent an individual's specific motives, depend- ing on the behavioral intention or frequency of the consumer's behavior. Along these lines, the concept of a reason-based choice deserves special attention (Shafir,1993).Itskeypremiseisthatconsumersseek reasonstoresolveconflict.Theytendtogivegreater weight to positive features in a choice task and greater weight to negative features in a rejection task. Consumers find it more comfortable to utilize negativereasoning againstethical consumption and rejectethicaloptions.Indoingso,theysimplifytheir decisionandmaintainstatusquo(Burkeetal.,2014). Itisimportanttounderstandvariousreasons,dueto their impact on devising and evaluating arguments thathelpjustifydecisions(Mercier&Sperber,2011). The literature outlined different reasons used by consumers to decide whether (or not) to behave ethically. Every individual has its own presentation of what is ethical and ethical consumers have their own motives for choosing one product over another and whether to buy an ethical product or not. Among the often mentioned reasons for not buying ethical products are low availability of green prod- ucts, personal beliefs and values and also higher costs that are involved (Davari & Strutton, 2014; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). In the context of pur- chasing ethical clothing, concern about environ- mental impacts (also through perceived consumer effectiveness), values, norms and social identity, different consumption patterns, and positive im- pacts on one's life have been highlighted (Burke et al., 2014; Gwozdz et al., 2017). On the other hand, consumers do not engage in ethical clothing con- sumption because of the many barriers or con- straints, such as price-quality concerns, lack of information about ethical clothing, availability of such products, cynicism and skepticism, economic resources, and retail environments (Burke et al., 2014; Connell Hiller, 2010). In addition to these reasons for and against ethical behavior, subjective knowledge has been underlined as an important determinant of sustainable behavior (Redman & Redman,2016;Joshi&Rahman,2017).Interestingly, thestudybyVicente-Molinaetal.(2013)pointedout that subjective knowledge is the most relevant of all 198 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 the knowledge-related factors in determining the pro-environmental behavior. Based on these foundations, we propose a con- ceptual model depicted in Fig. 1. The underlying premise in our model is that three factorsereasons for buying, reasons against buying and subjective knowledge regarding ethical clothing e determine the EMCB and in turn, the intention to purchase ethical clothes. In this model, the ethically minded consumer behavior refers to past and current clothing consumption choices pertaining to envi- ronmental issues and corporate social responsibility (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016). EMCB could also be considered a proxy for current behavior. Reasons for buying encompass various factors motivating the consumer to purchase ethical clothes, such as saving money, improving (or sus- taining) health, and aiding in identity creation. Conversely, reasons against buying ethical clothes include an individual's motives not to purchase ethical clothes, for example, perceiving no other benefit other than being ethical or perceiving no added value (Burke et al., 2014). Subjective knowl- edge reflects an individual's perception of how much he/she knows about ethical clothes (Park et al., 1994). Purchase intention describes the likeli- hoodthatanindividualwillpurchaseethicalclothes in the future (Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008). In the first set of hypotheses, we propose three antecedentsofethicallymindedconsumerbehavior: reasons for buying, reasons against buying, and subjective knowledge. In doing so, we rely on the reasons theory (Westaby & Fishbein, 1996): reasons for performing a behavior and reasons against per- formingabehaviorrepresenttwosetsofmotivesfor their behavior (behavioral frequency). For example, Brenton(2013)empiricallydemonstratedthatvarious reasonsforbuyingethicalproductsweresignificantly related to frequency of purchasing ethical products. Similarly, Ebreo and Vining (2001) found that altru- isticreasonsenhanceone'srecyclingbehavior,while otherreasons,i.e.socialandeconomic,donotplaya significant role. They also came to a conclusion that noneofthereasons,i.e.thosefor(altruisticandeco- nomic)andthoseagainst(social),significantlyshape waste-reduction behavior. Along these lines, Chat- zidakis and Lee (2013) explored the reasons against consumption, which lead to anti-consumption. The authorsdrewacleardistinctionbetweenreasonsfor and reasons against consumption. Reasons function asantecedentsofchoicesandthusguideindividual's decisions(Kivetz,1999).Basedonthisgrounding,we hypothesizethefollowing: H1. Reasons for buying ethical clothes positively influence EMCB. H2. Reasons against buying ethical clothes nega- tively influence EMCB. Perceivedorsubjectiveknowledgehasbeenposited asanantecedentof(sustainable)consumerbehavior in several studies. For example, Ellen (1994) found that subjective knowledge positively influences the purchase of organic food. Similarly, Pieniak et al. (2010) concluded that subjective knowledge was positively and relatively strongly associated with organic vegetables consumption. Somewhat different finding has been provided by Joshi and Rahman(2017),showingasignificantbutweakeref- fectofsubjectiveknowledgeonsustainablepurchase behavior. Although most studies suggest that knowledge might positively affect sustainable behavior, too much information might also compli- cateprocessesandnegativelyaffectbehavior(Chen& Chang, 2013; Press & Arnould, 2009). To address these somewhat contrasting findings regarding the impact of subjective knowledge on sustainable behavior,weposit: Subjective knowledge Reasons for buying Reasons against buying Purchase intention EMCB H1 H2 H3 H5 H6 H7 H4 Fig. 1. Conceptual model development. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 199 H3. Subjective knowledge positively influences EMCB. The next three hypotheses focus on antecedents of purchaseintention.Theexistingresearchshowsthat past or current behavior can be used to provide an explanation of future behavioral intentions (Bagozzi et al., 2000; Bamberg et al., 2003). This has been demonstrated by Han and Kim (2010) who found that the frequency of past behavior increases the intention to revisit a green hotel. Furthermore, Bagozzi and Dabholkar (1994) found that prior recycling behavior was a better predictor of inten- tiontorecyclethanrecyclingattitudes.Thestudyby Davies et al. (2002) also lends support to the role of past behavior in impacting intention to recycle. Hence, we posit that an individual with past and current ethically minded behavior with regard to clothes will more likely form intention to engage in purchasing ethical clothes in the future: H4. EMCBpositivelyinfluencespurchaseintention. The next two hypotheses are, similar to H1 and H2, formulated on the grounds of the reasons theory (Westaby& Fishbein, 1996), suggesting that reasons for buying encourage the purchase intention and reasons against buying inhibit the intention. Posi- tively framed reasons trigger consumers to choose/ buyaproduct,whilenegativelyframedreasonslead consumerstoexpressdoubtandconcernsandreject ethical alternatives (Burke et al., 2014; Winchester et al., 2008). Empirical evidence has been provided by Claudy et al. (2013) who showed that reasons against significantly influence an individual's intention to adopt a renewable energy system (solar panels), while reasons for adoption did not play a significant role. A somewhat different context has been explored by Westaby (2005) who found that employees shape their intention to stay in the company based on both reasons for and reasons against staying. Based on this argumentation, the following two hypotheses are suggested: H5. Reasons for buying ethical clothes positively influence purchase intention. H6. Reasons against buying ethical clothes nega- tively influence purchase intention. Finally, the last hypothesis taps into the role of subjective knowledge in shaping purchase inten- tion. Previous studies not only demonstrated a sig- nificant effect of subjective knowledge on behavior, but also presented evidence of impacting an in- dividual's behavioral intention. This has been supported by Barnes et al. (2009) who revealed that better knowledge also increases the willingness to pay a price premium. Furthermore, Lee (2017) also demonstrated that subjective environmental knowledge increases green purchase intention. Similarly, Goh and Balaji (2016) also attested to the positive impact of environmental knowledge on green purchase intention. To test the connection between subjective knowledge and purchase inten- tion, we formed the following hypothesis: H7. Subjective knowledge positively influences purchase intention. 2 Methodology An online survey of adult residents of a European Union country was conducted to test the proposed conceptual model. For the purpose of the study, non-probability sampling was employed. The re- searchers initially identified a limited number of adult respondents. These respondents were then asked to share the survey with their acquaintances whoalsomettheacquiredagecriterion,resultingin a snowball sample. In total, the data analysis included 280 useable responses collected via online questionnaires among general population repre- sentatives. The average age of the respondents was 35.3 years (std. deviation was 13.5), with 60.4% of respondents up to 34 years old, 27.1% between 35 and 54 years old, and 12.5% above 55. The per- centage of females was 64.6% and of males 35.4%. Well abovehalf oftherespondents(75.7%)reported having completed (upper) secondary education, while 20% completed tertiary and 4.3% completed primary level. In terms of income, the largest share (36.8%)oftherespondentsstatedthattheirpersonal monthlyincomeishigherthantheaveragepersonal income in Slovenia (1087 EUR), 28.9% of the re- spondents reported they have average income and 34.3% of the sample reported that they receive less than 1087 EUR per month. The socioedemographic profile of respondents is presented in Table 1. Table 1. The socio-demographic profile of respondents. Variable %/M (SD) Variable % Gender Education Women 64.6 Primary level 4.3 Men 35.4 Upper secondary level 75.7 Tertiary level 20.0 Age (in years) 35.3 (13.5) Income Up to 34 60.4 Below average 36.8 35 to 54 27.1 Average 28.9 55þ 12.5 Above average 34.3 200 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 The questionnaire consisted of several multi-item construct measurements based on the existing literature, and, unless noted otherwise, employed the five-point Likert-type scales. The reasons for and against buying ethical clothes were defined as the specific subjective factors that people use to explain their anticipated behavior in terms of buying ethical clothes. Reasons for buying ethical clothes encompassed three distinct dimensions, namely, better health, saving money and self- esteem. Ethical apparel is usually thought of as an expensive product, but on the other hand, con- sumersmightsavethemoney,iftheybuyinsecond hand shop or wear apparel till it is worn out. Rea- sonsforbuyingweremeasuredwith3items,suchas “Ethical clothes are better for my health and well- being”. The reasons against buying were captured with 4 items (lack of interest, carelessness about the problems, no added value, no personal benefit), for example “Except for ethicality, ethical clothes bring no added value”. Both scales were drawn from the measurement instrument previously used by Burke et al. (2014). The intention to purchase ethical clotheswasoperationalizedasthelikelihoodthatan individual will purchase ethical clothes in the near future. This construct was measured with 3 items and was adapted from Michaelidou and Hassan (2008). One of the intention items was “In the next 6 months, I intend to buy an ethical clothing”.EMCB reflects ethically minded consumer behavior with respect to purchasing ethical clothes as a variety of consumption choices. A seveneitem scale was adapted from Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher (2016) to measure EMCB regarding clothes, for example: “Whenthereisachoice,Ialwayschoosetheapparel brand that contributes to the least amount of envi- ronmental damage”. The scale uses a scoring method comprising 1¼ never true, 2¼ rarely true, 3¼sometimestrue,4¼mostlytrue,and5¼always true. In this way, a higher score is indicative of a greaterlevelofreportedethicallymindedconsumer behavior (Appendix, Table A1). Subjective knowl- edge refers to a consumer's perception of the amount of information about the textile industry problems that they have stored in their memory. It was measured with a single item adapted from Flynn and Goldsmith (1999), namely “I believe I am sufficiently informed about the problems of the textile industry (fair trade, environmental pollution, …)”. All the measurement items are presented in the Appendix, Table A1. The construct reliabilities exceeded the suggested cut-off value 0.6 (Churchill, 1979), with reasons for buying reliability 0.74, rea- sons against buying reliability 0.81, intention reli- ability 0.87, and EMCB reliability 0.88. 3 Results Before testing the hypotheses, we first provide insight into the descriptive statistics of the data gathered.Forthispurpose,welookedattheaverage values of the participants’ levels of agreement with each construct in the questionnaire (see Table 2). In the total sample, the respondents agreed above averagewithtwoconstructs:reasonsforbuyingand purchase intention. Their levels of agreement ranged on average from 3.10 to 3.21. On the other hand, their levels of agreement were below average for reasons against buying, subjective knowledge and EMCB. In addition, to better elucidate the re- lationships among them, we examined correlations among them. The correlations range from 0.11 to 0.47, the lowest being the correlation between the reasons against buying and subjective knowledge, and the highest being the correlation between the reasons for buying and EMCB. In testing the conceptual model, we followed a two step-procedure as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, we evaluated the measure- ment model. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to check the unidimensionality, validity and reliability of the chosen constructs. The convergent validity of the model was supported, as all t-test values of theindicatorloadings inthemeasurement model were statistically significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). All multiple-item constructs dis- played adequate composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The CR values ranged from 0.82 to 0.88 and AVE values varied between 0.50 and 0.70, with cut-off values of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminantvaliditywasexaminedbyconstraining the covariance in any set of two constructs (Ander- son & Gerbing, 1988) and then performing a chi- squaredifferencetest onthevaluesobtained forthe constrained and unconstrained models. Since the unconstrained models had significantly lower chi- squarevalues,itcanbeconcludedthatthemeasures exhibit acceptable discriminant validity. Table 2. Average values of participants’ levels of agreement with the constructs. Avg. value Correlations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Reasons for buying 3.10 1 0.45 0.26 0.47 0.26 2. Reasons against buying 2.27 1 0.11 0.47 0.47 3. Subjective knowledge 2.29 1 0.37 0.18 4. EMCB 2.67 1 0.44 5. Purchase intention 3.21 1 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 201 Next, we proceeded with evaluating the full structural model to assess the hypothesized re- lationships among the constructs. The model fit in- dicatorsshowed the data conform well to the model (c2 ¼ 214.42, df ¼ 130, p ¼ 0.00, GFI ¼ 0.924, CFI ¼ 0.965, RMSEA ¼ 0.051, sRMR ¼ 0.047). An- tecedentsinthemodelexplainthe47.4%variancein EMCB, while EMCB together with other anteced- ents explains the 37.3% variance in the purchase intention. To test the proposed hypotheses, we checked the t-values of the relevant paths. As expected, the data confirm that the reasons for buying positively influence EMCB, which supports H1 (g ¼ 0.30; t ¼ 3.26). Similarly, we found a sig- nificant negative impact of the reasons against buyingonEMCB,yieldingsupporttoH2(g¼ 0.42; t¼ 4.17). In H3, we predicted a positive influence of subjective knowledge on EMCB and found sup- port (g¼ 0.21; t¼ 4.72). As predicted in H4,EMCB significantly determines an individual's purchase intention (g¼ 0.36; t¼ 3.68). Based on our analysis, we could not find a significant effect of the reasons for buying on the intention as predicted in H5 (g¼ 0.16;t¼ 1.56).However,thereseemstobea prominent effect of the reasons against buying on thepurchaseintention(H6;g¼ 0.53;t¼ 4.60).H7 predicted a negative effect of subjective knowledge on the intention, but the path coefficient was insig- nificant (g ¼ 0.05; t ¼ 1.05). The results are sum- marized in Table 3 which also provides the standardized path coefficients. Further,giventhatthereasonsforbuying,reasons against buying and subjective knowledge poten- tially have an indirect effect on purchase intention through EMCB, the indirect effects of the three exogenous variables were also examined. Analysis revealed that the indirect effect of the reasons against buying on the intention (unstandardized path coefficient (UPC)¼ 0.15) is stronger and of opposite sign, when compared to the indirect effect of the reasons for buying (UPC¼ 0.11). Somewhat smaller and also significant is the indirect effect of subjectiveknowledgeontheintention(UPC¼0.07). Whenevaluatingthetotaleffectsofthreeexogenous variables on the purchase intention, it can be concluded that subjective knowledge bears the strongest effect (UPC ¼ 0.12), followed by reasons against (UPC¼0.68) and reasons for buying (UPC¼ 0.05; insignificant effect). 4 Discussion and implications In the present study, we investigate how reasons for and against ethical clothes as well as subjective knowledge influence consumers’ ethically minded consumer behavior and subsequently their pur- chase intentions. By gathering and analyzing data from 280 Slovene consumers, we test the proposed research hypotheses andfind support forfive out of seven hypotheses. We could not prove H5, which stated that the reasons for buying influence pur- chase intention, nor could we provide support for H7 about a positive influence of subjective knowl- edge on purchase intention. Our findings suggest that both reasons for and reasons against buying significantly impact EMCB, but the two factors work in the opposite direction. Specifically, reasons for buying enhance frequency of ethical purchase of clothes (H1), while reasons against buying inhibit this type of behavior (H2). Based on our study, it seems that better health, saving money and higher self-esteem work as sig- nificant encouragements of ethically minded behavior.Ontheotherhand,reasonssuchaslackof interest,perceiving noadded valueandnopersonal benefits hinder an individual's ethically minded behavior. Hence, this lends support to the reasons theory (Westaby & Fishbein, 1996), as well as sub- stantiates the notion proposed by Kivetz (1999) about reasons as drivers of consumer's decisions. However, although conducted in another context, the findings by Ebreo and Vining (2001) are not completely aligned with the current study, since the authors could not provide support for all the rea- sons in case of recycling or waste-reduction. Wealsoshowthatsubjectiveknowledgeaboutthe textile industry significantly drives EMCB, thus providing support for H3. Our finding of a positive Table 3. Testing the conceptual model. Hypothesis SPC (t-value) Result H1þ: Reasons for buying/ EMCB 0.30 (3.26*) Supported H2-: Reasons against buying/ EMCB 0.42 ( 4.17*) Supported H3þ: Subjective knowledge/ EMCB 0.21 (4.72*) Supported H4þ: EMCB/ Purchase intention 0.36 (3.68*) Supported H5þ: Reasons for buying/ Purchase intention 0.16 ( 1.56) Not supported H6-: Reasons against buying/ Purchase intention 0.53 ( 4.60*) Supported H7þ: Subjective knowledge/ Purchase intention 0.05 (1.05) Not supported Note: * one sided p-value < 0.05; SPC¼ Standardized Path Coefficient. 202 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 significant effect corroborates studies of previous authors,suchasJoshiandRahman(2017),Ellen(1994) andPieniaketal.(2010)whodemonstratedtheeffect ofsubjectiveknowledgeonanindividual'sbehavior. Although not the primary goal of our study, we also compared the strength of the three antecedents of EMCB. Interestingly, the direct effect of nega- tively framed reasons in shaping EMCB is stronger compared to positively framed reasons, followed by subjective knowledge. The rationale for such outcome might lie in the framing effect literature which denotes that there are substantial differences in how we process negatively and positively framed information. More specifically, the loss is more substantial than the gain (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981);hence,the effect ofnegatively framed reasons (against) is the strongest. Ethicallymindedconsumerbehaviorhasalsobeen confirmedasasignificantpredictoroftheintentionto purchase ethical clothes, thus supporting H4.In our study, EMCB closely corresponds to the concept of past behavior which has been previously demon- strated as an independent predictor of later actions. In particular, several studies related to green behavior provide evidence of such relationship (e.g. Bagozzi&Dabholkar,1994;Han&Kim,2010). Surprisingly, the reasons for buying ethical clotheswerenotsupportedasanantecedentofone's purchase intention (H5). It is suggested that the positively framed reasons are negligible in directly shaping the intention, but they affect the intention indirectly through EMCB. In fact, based on the direct and indirect effects, it may be concluded that EMCBisafullmediatorintherelationshipbetween the reasons for buying and the purchase intention. One of the potential reasons for this outcome is the so called negativity bias, implying that consumers tend to overvalue negative information relative to positive information when combining both into one evaluation (Baumeister et al., 2001; Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Namely, negative dimensions loom larger than positive dimensions (Shafir, 1993). This bias has also been confirmed in the ethics literature showing that consumers have a negativity bias in their response to ethical information in that they overestimate negative response to bad behavior (Moosmayer, 2012). Consumers who continually reject ethical options of buying ethical apparel might over utilize negative reasoning to decrease ethical alternatives and devaluate reasons for buying ethical clothes and simplify their decision process (Burke et al., 2014). In contrast, the impact of reasons against buying on the intention is substantial (H6 supported) and even stronger than the impact of EMCB. Overall, our findings regarding H5 and H6 only partly corroborate the reasons theory (Westaby & Fish- bein, 1996) which states that reasons for buying encourage and reasons against buying reduce the purchase intention. Partial support to the study is also provided by Winchester etal.(2008) who found that positive and negative beliefs contribute to purchasepropensity.Inthecontextofbuyingethical apparel, intentions seem to be primarily influenced by particular reasons against buying, which present negatively framed reasons and thus influence an individual even more (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). A similar conclusion has been reached by Claudy et al. (2013) who found that only reasons against adoption influence the intention to adopt solar en- ergy panels, but not reasons for. Finally, the hypothesized relationship between subjective knowledge and purchase intention (H7) has not been supported in our study. Although consumers are interested in obtaining information aboutdifferentproducts,someauthors(Cervellon& Carey, 2011; Mancini et al., 2017) argue that con- sumers’ understanding of sustainable apparel is often vague. Based on the descriptive statistics, it seems thatthe level of subjective knowledge among participants in our study is below average. Along theselines,Zhangetal.(2018)foundaninsignificant effect of subjective knowledge on purchasing intention of green housing and assumed it comes from possessing inadequate knowledge or infor- mation of green housing. The low level of knowl- edge might be a trigger for consumers to believe that ethical apparel is just one made of expensive, organic, natural fibers. This misunderstanding may cause low involvement and nullify the intention to purchase ethical apparel. Also, consumers may not even know that they are making ethical apparel purchases, due to their ignorance of the ethical concept itself (Chang & Watchravesringkan, 2018). Given the significant effect of subjective knowledge on EMCB and significant effect of EMCB on inten- tion, EMCB fully mediates the relationship between knowledge and intention. Thefindingsofthisstudyofferusefulimplications for various industries by highlighting three areas: positively framed reasoning, negatively framed reasoning and perception of knowledge about ethical clothes. These factors directly and/or indi- rectly shape an individual's ethical behavior and intentionstopurchaseethicalclothes.Basedonpath coefficients, the negatively framed reasons are the strongestdeterminantsofethicalbehavioraswellas the intention. Hence, marketing practitioners should pay close attention to these reasons and address them in their messages targeted at relevant ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 203 target groups. Specifically, tapping into reasons suchasnotbeinginterested,perceivingnopersonal benefits or perceiving no added value, brings the most potential to minimize this type of reasoning in order to strengthen EMCB and in turn purchase intention. On the other hand, the key reasons for buying ethical clothes were saving money, providing a healthier alternative and helping an individual with creating a positive identity. Communicating these reasons to potential con- sumers might strengthen their ethically minded behavior and purchase intention. Furthermore, uti- lizing content marketing strategies might prove useful to strengthen reasons for buying and sub- jective knowledge as well as diminish reasons against buying ethical clothes. Additionally,wearehighlightingtheopportunities for implications in practice. H&M Group is one of only two companies within the apparel industry named as one of the 2019 world's most ethical com- panies (Ethisphere Report, 2019). Their values and ambition to lead the change towards a sustainable fashionindustry,aswellastheirCodeofEthics(one and the same for all markets), guides them in everyday mission to conduct business in a fair and ethical way (H&M, 2019). Accordingly, there are still vastopportunitiestoincreaseethicalwayofthinking, behavior and promoting ethical products. Our find- ings can be sound support for the companies within the textile industry and help them to better under- standthereasonsforandagainstpurchaseofethical clothes and how to influence consumers' ethical behaviorandtheirpurchaseintentions. Several limitations apply to this study and pave the way for future research. First, one of the key limitations of the research was the sampling method, since the technique used was informal samplingonthebasisofself-selectionunits.Second, online survey was used as a method of collecting data, which automatically excludes respondents who do not have access to a computer. Third, given that the determinants of EMCB as well as de- terminants of purchase intention explained less than50%ofvariance(47.4%and37.3%respectively), other potential antecedents of EMCB and intention could be considered for future research. For example, Joshi and Rahman (2017) contend that subjective norm is a strong antecedent of sustain- able purchase behavior. Hence, testing subjective norms as determinants of EMCB could potentially increase the amount of the explained variance. Fourth, the reasons theory poses certain limits on understanding consumer behavior, as it looks at humans as rationally guided individuals (Postow, 2013). Also Ajzen (2011) stated that TPB and other reasoned action models are too “rational” and do not take into account cognitive and affective pro- cesses that are known to bias human judgements and behavior. To better capture the human nature, insights into these processes (for example, through emotionally charged reasons) would also be required (Westaby & Fishbein, 1996). Finally, our study employs a cross-sectional design, while a longitudinal approach would provide a more strin- gent insight into causal relationships. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179e211. Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26(9), 1113e1127. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411e423. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 313e340. Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational contingencies and the theory of reasoned ac- tion: Application to fast food restaurant consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 97e106. Bamberg,S.,Ajzen,I.,&Schmidt,P.(2003).Choiceoftravelmode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit,and reasonedaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 175e187. Bandura,A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnes, A. P., Vergunst, P., & Topp, K. (2009). Assessing the consumer perception of the term “organic”: A citizens' jury approach. British Food Journal, 111(2), 155e164. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).Badisstrongerthangood.Reviewof General Psychology, 5(4), 323e370. Brenton,S. (2013).The political motivationsofethical consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 490e497. Burke, P., Eckert, C., & Davis, S. (2014). Segmenting consumers' reasons for and against ethical consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2237e2261. Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical con- sumer e do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560e577. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intentionebehavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2759e2767. Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory, 16(1), 21e38. Cervellon, M. C., & Carey, L. (2011). Consumers’perceptions of ‘green’: Why and how consumers use eco-fashion and green beauty products. Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty, 2(1/2), 117e138. Chang, H. J., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2018). Who are sustain- ably minded apparel shoppers? An investigation to the influencing factors of sustainable apparel consumption. Inter- national Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(2), 148e162. Chatzidakis, A., & Lee, M. S. (2013). Anti-consumption as the study of reasons against. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 190e203. Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: Themediationeffectsofgreenconsumerconfusionandgreen perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489e500. 204 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 Chow,W.,&Chen,Y.(2012).Corporatesustainabledevelopment: Testing a new scale based on the mainland Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 519e533. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better mea- sures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64e73. Claudy, M. C., Peterson, M., & O'Driscoll, A. (2013). Under- standing the attitude-behavior gap for renewable energy systems using behavioral reasoning theory. Journal of Macro- marketing, 33(4), 273e287. Connell Hiller, K. Y. (2010). Internal and external barriers to eco- consciousapparelacquisition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 279e286. Cooper-Martin, E., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Ethical consump- tions experiences and ethical space. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 113e118. Davari, A., & Strutton, D. (2014). Marketing mix strategies for closingthegapbetween greenconsumers'pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(7), 563e586. Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intentionebehaviour mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29e113. De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 361e380. Dickson, M. A. (1999). US consumers’ knowledge of and concern with apparel sweatshops. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(1), 44e55. Dickson,M.,Loker,S.,&Eckman,M.(2009).Socialresponsibilityin the global apparel industry. New York: Fairchild. Ebreo,A.,&Vining,J.(2001).Howsimilararerecyclingandwaste reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 424e448. Ellen,P.S.(1994).Doweknowwhatweneedtoknoweobjective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 43e52. Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57e66. Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39e50. Fukukawa, K. (2003). A theoretical review of business and con- sumerethicsresearch:Normativeanddescriptiveapproaches. The Marketing Review, 3(4), 381e401. GlobalFootprint Network.(2017).RetrievedMarch10,2018,from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological- footprint/ Goh, S. K., & Balaji, M. S. (2016). Linking green skepticism to green purchase behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 629e638. Govind,R.,Singh,J.J.,Garg,N.,&D'Silva,S.(2017).Notwalking thewalk:Howdualattitudesinfluencebehavioraloutcomesin ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(4), 1195e1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3545-z Gwozdz,W.,Nielsen,K.S.,&Müller,T.(2017).Anenvironmental perspective on clothing consumption: Consumer segments and their behavioral patterns. Sustainability Switzerland, 9(5), 1e27. H&M. (2019). H&M group one of the 2019 world's most ethical com- panies. https://about.hm.com/en/media/news/general-news- 2019/hm-group-one-of-worlds-most-ethical-companies.html Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel cus- tomers' decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospi- tality Management, 29(4), 659e668. Jaca, C., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Psomas, E. L., & Ormazabal, M. (2018). What should consumer organizations do to drive environmentalsustainability?JournalofCleanerProduction,181, 201e208. Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Investigating the determinants of consumers' sustainable purchase behaviour. Sustainable Pro- duction and Consumption, 10, 110e120. Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2014). A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: Sustainable future of the apparel industry. Interna- tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 510e519. Kinoti,M.W.(2011).Greenmarketinginterventionstrategiesand sustainable development: Conceptual paper. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(23), 263e273. Kivetz,R. (1999).Advancesinresearchon mentalaccountingand reason-based choice. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 249e266. Kozar, J. M., & Hiller Connell, K. Y. (2013). Socially and environ- mentally responsible apparel consumption: Knowledge, atti- tudes,andbehaviors.SocialResponsibilityJournal,9(2),315e324. Laitala, K. (2014). Consumers' clothing behaviore a synthesis of researchresults. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 444e457. Lee,Y.K.(2017).Acomparativestudyofgreenpurchaseintention between Korean and Chinese consumers: The moderating role of collectivism. Sustainability, 9(10), 1930. Le, T. D., & Kieu, T. A. (2019). Ethically minded consumer behaviourinVietnam:Ananalysisofculturalvalues,personal values, attitudinal factors and demographics. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing& Logistics, 31(3), 609e626. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/APJML-12-2017-0344 Mancini, P., Marchini, A., & Simeone, M. (2017). Which are the sustainable attributes affecting the real consumption behav- iour? Consumer understanding and choices. British Food Journal, 119(8), 1839e1853. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Ar- guments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57e111. Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health con- sciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on atti- tudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163e170. Minton, E., Kahle, R., L, & Kim, C. H. (2015). Religion and motives for sustainable behaviors: A cross-cultural comparison and contrast. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1937e1944. Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). Negativity bias in consumer price response to ethical information. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(2), 198e208. Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Ginieis, M. (2011). Towards a holistic approach of the attitude behaviour gap in ethical consumer behaviours: Empirical evidence from Spain. Inter- national Advances in Economic Research, 17(1), 77e88. Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 71e82. Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 21(6), 581e588. Pulse of the fashion industry. (2019). Global fashion agenda & boston consulting group. Copenhagen: Global Fashion Agenda, BostonConsulting Group,and Sustainable ApparelCoalition. Postow, B. C. (2013). Reasons for action: Toward a normative theory and meta-level criteria (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media. Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). Constraints on sustainable energy consumption: Market system and public policy chal- lengesandopportunities.JournalofPublicPolicyandMarketing, 28(1), 102e113. Redman,A.,&Redman,E.(2016).Issubjectiveknowledgethekey to fostering sustainable behavior? Mixed evidence from an education intervention in Mexico. Education Sciences, 7(1), 4. Ethisphere Report. (2019). World's most ethical apparel companies. Scottsdale, Arizona: Ethisphere. SanzdeAcedoLizarraga,M.L.,SanzdeAcedoBaquedano,M.T., & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2007). Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age differences. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(3), 381e390. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 205 Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546e556. Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., & Thomson, J. (2005). Anexplorationofvaluesinethicalconsumerdecisionmaking. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(3), 185e200. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity,andextremitybiases.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology, 52(4), 689. Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and valida- tion. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697e2710. Tversky,A.,&Kahneman,D.(1981).Theframingofdecisionsand the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453e458. Vermeir,I., & Verbeke, W.(2006).Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169e194. Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernandez-Sainz, A., & Izagirre- Olaizola, J. (2013). Environmental knowledge and other vari- ables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 130e138. Wang,L.,Li,Y.,&He,W.(2017).TheenergyFootprintofChina's textile industry: Perspectives from decoupling and decompo- sition analysis. Energies, 10(10), 1e11. Westaby, J. D. (2002). Identifying specific factors underlying atti- tudes toward change: Using multiple methods to compare expectancy-value theory to reasons theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1083e1104. Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 97e120. Westaby, J. D., & Fishbein, M. (1996). Factors underlying behav- ioralchoice:Testinganewreasonstheoryapproach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(15), 1307e1323. Wiederhold, M., & Martinez, L. F. (2018). Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude-behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(4), 419e429. Winchester, M., Romaniuk, J., & Bogomolova, S. (2008). Positive and negative brand beliefs and brand defection/uptake. Eu- ropean Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 553e570. Zhang, L., Chen, L., Wu, Z., Zhang, S., & Song, H. (2018). Inves- tigating young consumers' purchasing intention of green housing in China. Sustainability, 10(4), 1044. 206 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 Appendix Table A1. Measurement items. Construct Item Reasons for buying Ethical clothes are better for my health and well-being. By buying ethical clothing, I save money in the long run. I am a better person for buying ethical clothes. Reasons against buying I am not interested in ethical clothing. I do not care about problems in the textile industry. Except for ethicality, ethical clothes bring no added value. I do not see the personal benefit of buying ethical clothing. Subjective knowledge I believe I am sufficiently informed about the problems of the textile industry (fair trade, environmental pollution, …). EMCB When there is a choice, I always choose the apparel brand that contributes to the least amount of environmental damage. If I consider that clothing poses a potential threat to the environment, then I do not buy it. I do not buy brands of clothes that harm the environment. Whenever possible, I buy a brand of clothing with the option of recycling. Where possible, I buy clothes from recycled fibers. I pay more money for eco-friendly clothing brands, even when I have a cheaper alternative. I pay more money for socially responsible clothing brands, even when I have a cheaper alternative. Purchase intention In the next 6 months, I intend to buy ethical clothing. I want to buy ethical clothing in the next 6 months. I will very likely buy ethical clothing in the next 6 months. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:196e207 207