I Would Not
Buy From
That Brand!
MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 ECTS
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Marketing AUTHORS: Veera Niemi & Amanda Utbys Nerac JÖNKÖPING May 2021
A Comparative Study of Generation X, Y, and Z’s Brand
Avoidance Behaviours Towards Fast Fashion Brands
i
Master Thesis in Business Administration
Title: I Would Not Buy From That Brand! Authors: Veera Niemi & Amanda Utbys Nerac Tutor: Adele Berndt
Date: 2021-05-24
Key terms: Generation X, Generation Y, Generation Z, Fast Fashion, Fast Fashion Brands, Anti-Consumption, Brand Avoidance
Abstract
Background: Several fast fashion brands have been criticised regarding their business
practices, with poor working conditions in developing countries and use of toxic chemicals. Subsequently, many consumers have turned to anti-consumption practices such as brand avoidance to distance themselves from various fast fashion brands. Five elements have emerged among brand avoidance associated with experiential avoidance, identity avoidance, moral avoidance, deficit-value avoidance, or advertising related avoidance which underpin this behaviour.
Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare brand avoidance behaviours toward
fast fashion brands among Generations X, Y, and Z. This research attempts to identify the specific reasons why different generations avoid fast fashion brands, as well as the factors that contribute to this behaviour. The purpose is to compare the three generations to know which factors influence each generation the most. It is plausible that the factors vary significantly between cohorts since they have grown up in different environments. Consequently, generational distinction is regarded as an essential variable.
Method: Comprehending the purpose of this research and examining causal
relationships, this thesis used a quantitative research design. The empirical data was gathered through an online survey, considering the large sample size and current COVID-19 pandemic. Due to these circumstances, the most insightful information could be obtained about participants' behaviour regarding fast fashion brands using an online survey. The data was analysed and interpreted utilising a deductive approach.
Conclusion: The results show that the generations differ in their brand avoidance
behaviours for experiential avoidance, moral avoidance, and advertising avoidance towards fast fashion brands. These differences were observed where the consumers perceive the performance to be poor, the brand is inconvenient, and when the advertising is perceived to be unpleasant. Regarding moral avoidance, the data was not sufficient to distinguish which cohorts differ, but only that there was a significant difference somewhere.
ii
Acknowledgements
The authors of this thesis would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to everyone who has contributed to this thesis.
First and foremost, the authors would like to thank their tutor Adele Berndt for her guidance and support throughout the process. Through her critical eye and experience within the research topic, valuable feedback was given and kept encouraging and pushing the authors to always improve the work.
Secondly, the authors would like to thank the seminar group for their valuable insights and constructive feedback regarding the work.
Third, the authors would like to thank all the respondents for taking part of the study. Without their participation this work would not have been completed.
Lastly, the authors would like to thank their family and friends for the support they have given through this whole process.
Amanda Utbys Nerac Veera Niemi
iii
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ... 1
1.1 The Fast Fashion Industry ... 1
1.2 Brand Avoidance ... 2 1.3 Problem ... 4 1.4 Purpose ... 5 1.5 Delimitations ... 6 1.6 Contributions ... 6 1.7 Key Terms ... 7
2.
Theoretical Framework ... 9
2.1 Generational Cohorts and Fast Fashion ... 9
2.2 Anti-Consumption ... 10
2.3 Brand Avoidance ... 13
2.4 Experiential Avoidance ... 14
2.4.1 Experiential Avoidance in Fast Fashion ... 14
2.4.2 Experiential Avoidance – Generational Cohorts ... 16
2.5 Identity Avoidance ... 17
2.5.1 Identity Avoidance in Fast Fashion... 18
2.5.2 Identity Avoidance – Generational Cohorts ... 19
2.6 Moral Avoidance ... 20
2.6.1 Moral Avoidance in Fast Fashion ... 21
2.6.2 Moral Avoidance – Generational Cohorts ... 22
2.7 Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 24
2.7.1 Deficit-Value Avoidance in Fast Fashion ... 24
2.7.2 Deficit-Value Avoidance – Generational Cohorts ... 25
2.8 Advertising Avoidance... 27
2.8.1 Advertising Avoidance in Fast Fashion ... 28
2.8.2 Advertising Avoidance – Generational Cohorts ... 28
3.
Research Methodology ... 32
3.1 Research Philosophy ... 33
3.2 Research Approach ... 34
iv
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis ... 38
3.4.1 Surveys ... 38
3.4.2 Sampling ... 41
3.5 Data analysis ... 42
3.5.1 Reliability of the Research ... 44
3.5.2 Validity of the Research ... 45
3.5.3 Ethical Considerations ... 45
4.
Empirical Findings ... 47
4.1 Demographic and Characteristics of Respondents ... 47
4.2 Tests for Reliability ... 48
4.2.1 Cronbach's Alpha ... 48
4.3 Testing Assumptions for MANOVA ... 49
4.3.1 No Univariate Outliers ... 49
4.3.2 Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance Matrices ... 49
4.3.3 No Multicollinearity ... 49 4.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 50 4.4.1 Experiential Avoidance ... 50 4.4.2 Identity Avoidance ... 52 4.4.3 Moral Avoidance ... 52 4.4.4 Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 53 4.4.5 Advertising Avoidance... 55
5.
Analysis and Discussion ... 57
5.1 Experiential Avoidance ... 57
5.2 Identity Avoidance ... 58
5.3 Moral Avoidance ... 59
5.4 Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 61
5.5 Advertising Avoidance... 62
6.
Conclusion and Implications ... 63
6.1 Conclusion... 63
6.2 Implications ... 64
6.3 Limitations ... 65
v
Figures
Figure 1 Five Types of Brand Avoidance (Knittel et al., 2016) ... 31
Figure 2 The Research Onion (Saunders et al., 2019)... 32
Figure 3 Different Types of Research Approaches (Saunders et al., 2019) ... 35
Figure 4 Process of a Deductive Approach (Bryman & Bell, 2011) ... 36
Figure 5 SPSS Output: Multivariate Tests for Experiential Avoidance ... 50
Figure 6 SPSS Output: Multivariate Tests for Identity Avoidance ... 52
Figure 7 SPSS Output: Multivariate Tests for Moral Avoidance ... 53
Figure 8 SPSS Output: Multivariate Tests for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 54
Figure 9 SPSS Output: Multivariate Tests for Advertising Avoidance ... 55
Tables
Table 1 Hypotheses Developed for the Thesis ... 30Table 2 Survey Structure ... 40
Table 3 Respondent Profile ... 47
Table 4 Cronbach's Alpha ... 48
Table 5 Summary of Rejected/Not Rejected Hypotheses ... 56
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Design ... 80Appendix 2 - Codebook ... 85
Appendix 3 - Test for Cronbach’s Alpha for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 88
Appendix 4 - Box’s M Test for Experiential Avoidance ... 88
Appendix 5 - Box’s M Test for Identity Avoidance ... 89
Appendix 6 - Box’s M Test for Moral Avoidance ... 89
Appendix 7 - Box’s M Test for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 90
Appendix 8 - Box’s M Test for Advertising Avoidance ... 90
Appendix 9 - Between-Subjects Effects for Experiential Avoidance ... 91
Appendix 10 - Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test for Experiential Avoidance ... 93
Appendix 11 - Spearman’s Correlation Test for Experiential Avoidance I ... 93
Appendix 12 - Spearman’s Correlation Test for Experiential Avoidance II ... 94
vi
Appendix 14 - Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test for Identity Avoidance... 97
Appendix 15 - Between-Subjects Effects for Moral Avoidance ... 98
Appendix 16 - Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test for Moral Avoidance ... 100
Appendix 17 - Between-Subjects Effects for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 101
Appendix 18 - Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 103
Appendix 19 - Spearman’s Correlation Test for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 103
Appendix 20 - Between-Subjects Effects for Advertising Avoidance ... 104
Appendix 21 - Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test for Advertising Avoidance ... 106
Appendix 22 - Spearman’s Correlation Test for Advertising Avoidance ... 106
Appendix 23 - Descriptive Statistics for Experiential Avoidance ... 107
Appendix 24 - Descriptive Statistics for Identity Avoidance... 107
Appendix 25 - Descriptive Statistics for Moral Avoidance ... 108
Appendix 26 - Descriptive Statistics for Deficit-Value Avoidance ... 108
1
1. Introduction
______________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of the topic for this thesis. The chapter starts with an introduction to the fast fashion industry and the issues that have emerged. Following, brand avoidance behaviour is presented leading up to the problem and purpose discussion. Lastly, contributions, delimitations, and essential key terms used in this thesis are stated.
______________________________________________________________________ “Fast fashion is like fast food. After the sugar rush,
it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.” -Livia Firth
1.1 The Fast Fashion Industry
The fashion industry is the world's third-largest manufacturing industry, following the automotive and technology sectors (Zhang et al., 2021). Additionally, despite its exponential growth globally, the fast fashion industry faces social, legal, and environmental issues from the manufacturing phase to the warehouse (Yoon et al., 2020). Several news sources have focused on ethical issues such as poor working conditions, child labour abuse, and environmental problems such as tons of textile waste from overconsumption and increased harmful chemical pollution from fast fashion (Kim & Oh, 2020). Consumers are becoming more conscious of the fast fashion industry's sustainability status due to these problems (Yoon et al., 2020). Consequently, consumers are "voting" in their purchases by making more educated buying decisions and avoiding products manufactured or distributed by a business seen as unethical. Alongside these reasons, poor performance, inauthenticity, low quality, and content of advertising of fast fashion brands are also driving consumers away from brands (Yoon et al., 2020).
One of the crucial points concerning fast fashion is globalisation (Rese et al., 2019). The term “fast fashion” has been shaped by clothing manufacturers to express that this type of fashion refers to current fashion trends (Yoon et al., 2020). According to Yoon et al. (2020), fast fashion can be described by three following main features. Firstly, this type
2
of fashion is characterised by short lead times and secondly to serve a mass market. Thirdly, it is distinguished by a fast stock turnover, with current fast fashion goods being produced in a bi-weekly rhythm (Yoon et al., 2020). In addition, the concept of fast fashion is well developed as most of the major fast fashion brands originate from Europe (Choi et al., 2010). The fast fashion brands available to society today include, for example, Zara, H&M and Topshop. These brands have spread globally and created strong market positions for themselves (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
On the negative side, fast fashion results in clothing waste which is seen as a rising global issue. This is due to the rapid rate at which “disposable” fashion products are being used and discarded (Degenstein et al., 2020). In fact, many of the fast fashion apparel are only designed to last up to 10 times of wear (Mcneill & Moore, 2015). Fast fashion is often referred to as “McFashion” due to its quick gratification (Hall, 2018). Moreover, it is comparable to McDonald’s as clothing is produced fast, bought cheaply and thrown away afterwards (Jang et al., 2012), as is fast food. The term is global and, to a certain extent, appropriate (Joy et al., 2012). According to Hall (2018), the labelling of fast fashion as ‘McFashion’ is also seen as fitting in terms of the system’s characteristics, such as high production and the resulting negative environmental impacts and labour abuse.
1.2 Brand Avoidance
With the growth of the fast fashion industry, there are positive effects and several negative consequences, mainly related to environmental and social impact (Kim et al., 2013). Excessive production, overexploitation of natural resources, overconsumption and unethical capitalisation of labour are some issues that can be connected to the fast fashion industry (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Numerous fast fashion brands have been criticised for, among other things, poor working conditions in developing countries and pollution using toxic chemicals. It must also be said that various brands are trying to improve their image by offering sustainable products (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019).
As a response to these negative impacts of the fast fashion industry, some consumers have turned to anti-consumption practices, thereby distancing themselves from the fast fashion brands. Anti-consumption can be directed towards certain types of products (e.g., fast fashion), but also toward a brand (e.g., H&M). However, anti-consumption should not be
3
confused with alternative consumption which is described as the “refusal of purchasing traditional products via traditional channels” (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020, p.41) or sustainable consumption (Close & Zinkhan, 2009; Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Sustainable consumption includes purchases that are fairly traded products, intrinsically green, products against animal testing, and organically grown products (Lee, 2014). A consumer's sustainable consumption choice reflects a purchasing preference and includes a broader representation of a lifestyle, voice of values and choice, all in line with sustainability (Lee, 2014). This as anti-consumption is a consumer’s response to consumption itself, hence, consuming less of the product, or more of a sustainable one is not a form of anti-consumption.
The term anti-consumption is a broad concept including emotions such as dislike, hate, brand rejection and brand avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b; Odoom et al., 2019). For this research, the focus will be on the latter. Whereas dislike and hatred towards a brand evoke strong emotions, consumers who simply avoid brands may not hate or dislike the brand. Instead, they avoid it due to conflicts of personal principles or beliefs (Odoom et al., 2019). The most widely adopted definition of brand avoidance is a phenomenon whereby “consumers deliberately choose to keep away from or reject a brand” (Lee et al., 2009b, p.422). Brand avoidance should be distinguished from the other types of negative brand relationships. For example, brand hate commonly occurs on a social basis, while brand avoidance is on a more individual level (Odoom et al., 2019). Further, there is a notable difference in the nature of brand avoidance and brand hate as avoidance is a type of behaviour whereas brand hate is something emotional. Additionally, brand hate or dislike is often connected with stronger emotions such as the loathing of a brand. On the other side of the spectrum, brand avoidance is related to taking distance from the brand, which is not considered emotional (Odoom et al., 2019).
It has been suggested that there are five types of brand avoidance: (1) experiential avoidance, (2) identity avoidance, (3) moral avoidance, (4) deficit-value avoidance, and (5) advertising avoidance (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009b; Lee et al., 2009a; Odoom et al., 2019).
4
1.3 Problem
In previous research, far greater attention has been given to positive brand relationships such as brand love (Albert & Merunka, 2013; Batra et al., 2012) and brand affection (Yim et al., 2008) whereas negative relationships have been less explored (Berndt et al., 2019; Knittel et al., 2016). With regards to brand avoidance in the context of fast fashion, there are various works that refer to individual generations and compare them only partly in some cases (Hill & Lee, 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Knittel et al., 2016; Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Furthermore, these numerous studies do not specifically compare generational cohorts which may be an important factor.
To the knowledge of the authors, there is also no academic research on the differences in brand avoidance behaviour between generational cohorts. This is important to analyse as brands usually do not target an entire population (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016) but focus on specific consumer groups. Moreover, it is plausible that the differences of upbringing in different environments can have an effect in the way cohorts perceive brands but also differences in terms of brand avoidance behaviour.
However, researchers suggest that Generation X consumers generally purchases more due to higher income and free time available (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Additionally, in a study by Leung and Taylor (2002), Generation X consumers expressed that fashionable clothing is an important attribute, something which fast fashion offers to a fraction of the price of high-end brands (Degenstein et al., 2020; Knošková & Garasová, 2019; Mcneill & Moore, 2015; Yoon et al., 2020). Therefore, Generation X is an important cohort to study.
Generation Y on the other hand with its large market size and substantial purchasing power (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Knittel et al., 2016; Lazarevic, 2012; Noble et al., 2009; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019) has been described as an interesting target group for marketers (Parment, 2013). Thus, this generation has been widely researched (Knittel et al., 2016). They are familiar with brands (Knittel et al., 2016; Lazarevic, 2012) and have the most experience in making brand-related decisions, having grown up in an environment saturated with brands (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Knittel et al., 2016).
5
Like Generation X, Generation Z consumers have received less attention in brand avoidance research and only been studied sporadically (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020; Yoon et al., 2020). Nonetheless, this generation is believed to be an upcoming larger market segment (Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Tabassum et al., 2020) and thus important to include in this study. Furthermore, Generation Z has grown up with unique beliefs, values, economic, technological, and socio-cultural environment compared to other generations (Tabassum et al., 2020).
Yoon et al. (2020) study show, that the most recent research on fashion has focused on consumers attitudes towards sustainability. This has left attitudes towards anti-consumption with less attention (Yoon et al., 2020). We, therefore, see the importance of filling the research gap by highlighting the differences in brand avoidance behaviours between Generation X, Y, and Z toward fast fashion brands (Yoon et al., 2020).
1.4 Purpose
This research varies from previous studies in the way that authors of this thesis compare brand avoidance behaviours between three different Generations (X, Y, and Z) regarding fast fashion brands. Research and literature on brand avoidance are still seen as relatively scarce and therefore important to study further (Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 2015; Lee et al., 2009a; Lee, et al., 2009b). It is vital to understand consumers and their behaviour in more depth to know what motivates them to not consume (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 2015; Zavestoski, 2002).
It has been suggested that market segmentation through generational cohorts is more effective in comparison to segmentation through age only (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). This argues for the importance of recognising the differences in brand avoidance behaviour between the different cohorts. Furthermore, generational cohorts have been widely used in marketing studies (Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Eastman & Liu, 2012; Gazzola et al., 2020; Hill & Lee, 2015; Knittel et al., 2016; Leung & Taylor, 2002; Lissitsa & Kol, 2016; Rese et al., 2019; Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020; Yoon et al., 2020). Nevertheless, instead of studying only one generation, we survey three Generations (X, Y, and Z). There are various reasons for brand avoidance towards fast fashion brands. However, these reasons do not necessarily have to be the same for different generations which argues for the
6
importance to study all three cohorts. Thus, the research question (RQ) for this study is the following: Are Generation X, Y, and Z different in terms of their brand avoidance
behaviours towards fast fashion brands?
1.5 Delimitations
For this research, brand avoidance behaviour towards fast fashion brands will be studied. It should be noted that fast fashion stores will be not included in the research scope. Unlike fast fashion brands, fast fashion stores (e.g., Nelly, Åhléns or Zalando) carry several different brands in their online and brick and mortar stores. With this said, it is plausible that there is a mix of fast fashion brands as well as non-fast fashion brands that are carried in the same store. As the purpose of this study is to compare brand avoidance behaviours between Generation X, Y, and Z, towards fast fashion brands, it is important to distinguish between fashion stores (with a mix of different types of fashion) and fast fashion brands.
Furthermore, this study will only focus on brand avoidance. In other words, the motivations for alternative consumption or sustainable consumption are not within the scope of this research. Additionally, we will not study the reasons for why consumers would purchase less fast fashion products, but only consider the complete avoidance of such products.
1.6 Contributions
The contribution to the current literature on brand avoidance behaviour towards fast fashion brands are based on three approaches. Firstly, we contribute to a better understanding of brand avoidance and the factors leading to this behaviour among consumers. Secondly, our study compares three different Generations (X, Y, and Z), enabling us to compare the generations and their drivers. Thirdly, our study highlights the problem areas in the fast fashion industry.
Understanding and addressing the reasons for brand avoidance are essential, as the consequences of this behaviour can significantly impact an organisation's profitability and reputation (Knittel et al., 2016). For marketing managers, generation specification can mean critical information. Having as much detailed information about consumers as
7
possible can be crucial to compete in a highly competitive market (Knittel et al., 2016). Consumers are found to share negative perceptions of brands more in numerous places, including social media, than contrasting positive emotions (Bailey, 2004). They are also seen to express more dislike and distaste for brand experiences than what they would do with positive experiences (Knittel et al., 2016). This highlights the importance of brand avoidance as a topic (Knittel et al., 2016). Identifying the reasons behind brand avoidance will help to prevent negative experiences from spreading. We are confident that this study's findings can be helpful and valuable to fast fashion brands, managers, and marketers to understand better their consumers and what factors lead them to avoid certain brands.
1.7 Key Terms
Generation X: refers to individuals born between the year of 1961 and 1979. This
Generation is primarily characterised by being one of the most highly educated generations historically, but also characterised by scepticism and individualism (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Further, it is also suggested that individuals born during this time period are to some extent socially insecure (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016).
Generation Y: consists of individuals born between the years 1980 and 1995 and are also
referred to as “Millennials”. This generation is considered to be well-educated and technologically adept (Knittel et al., 2016; Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). It is suggested that Generation Y is the first “high-tech” generation and are very consumption-oriented individuals (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Unlike the previous generation, Generation Y consumers are willing to spend more money to purchase eco-friendly products as they highly value the environment and social issues (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). This generation is believed to have a large current purchasing power (Knittel et al., 2016). They are also known to be curious to try new products (Knittel et al., 2016).
Generation Z: individuals born between 1996 and 2010. This generation is also referred
to as the “Post Millennials” (Chaturvedi et al., 2020) and are defined as being highly educated, innovative individuals with a great technological ability (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). It is suggested that Generation Z individuals like the previous generation, are environmentally conscious. However, this generation possesses an increased
8
willingness and desire to purchase environmentally and socially sustainable products (Chaturvedi et al., 2020). It is argued that fashion items function as a tool for social inclusion and acceptance among peers (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
Fast fashion: is a term used for fashion brands and stores where current trends change
rapidly (Chaturvedi et al., 2020). Fast fashion products are well-known for the mimicking of luxury catwalk trends sold for a low price and mass-marketed towards a large consumer base (Yoon et al., 2020). As these fashion products are rapidly updated and renewed, consequences such as weak quality and short durability follows (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
Fast fashion brands: this term is used for brands that design, make, and market their
own clothes. This term is used to distinguish brands that carry their own fashion products exclusively from fast fashion stores which include several other brands on the same platform.
Anti-consumption: is a broad term used for the practices of brand rejection, brand
dislike, brand hate, and brand avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b). Unlike alternative consumption or sustainable consumption, anti-consumption is a deliberate choice to reject or avoid a brand, despite financial capacity, product availability, and access to the product (Lee et al., 2009a).
Brand avoidance: refers to the deliberate choice of a consumer to distance themselves
from a brand (Lee et al., 2009b). Whereas brand hate and brand dislike commonly occur on a social, or group level, brand avoidance is on the individual level (Odoom et al., 2019). There are five types of brand avoidance: (1) experiential factors, (2) identity factors, (3) moral factors, (4) deficit-value factors, or (5) advertising factors (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009a; Odoom et al., 2019).
9
2. Theoretical Framework
______________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the theoretical background on the relevant concepts for this study. The chapter starts with a discussion on generational cohorts and their link to fast fashion brands. Subsequently, an overview on anti-consumption and brand avoidance will follow. The five types of brand avoidance will be discussed in depth, providing the reader with relations to fast fashion brands and each generational cohort’s connection to brand avoidance towards fast fashion brands.
______________________________________________________________________
2.1 Generational Cohorts and Fast Fashion
A cohort is described as a group which shares similar life experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and ideas despite differences in social class, culture or geographical location (Bolton et al., 2013; Knittel et al., 2016; Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). In terms of generational cohorts, as each generation has lived through the same political, social, and economic events and experiences, a common perspective on current events is shared (Bolton et al., 2013; Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Further, as generations mature, characteristics developed which distinguishes the generational cohort from previous generations.
Individuals born between 1961 and 1979 are known as Generation X (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). This generation has been given little attention in brand avoidance research as well as in the context of fast fashion (Lambert-Pandraud & Laurent, 2010). Research by Rese et al. (2019) suggests that individuals of Generation X prefer high-quality style over fast fashion goods. Moreover, Generation X is characterised by scepticism towards technology (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). With the rise of online shopping and technological advancements in stores (e.g., self-checkout systems), it is plausible that this could lead to resistance or even avoidance among this generation. It has also been proposed that this generational cohort is characterised by a high degree of individualism (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016).
Generation Y consists of individuals born between 1980 and 1995, and are also frequently referred to as “Millennials” (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). It is suggested that this generation has been a widely targeted group by many fast fashion brands (Sorensen &
10
Jorgensen, 2019), and research by Rese et al. (2019), shows that Generation Y prefer to purchase fast fashion to a greater extent than the previous generations. This could be reflected in the fact that this generation is open to new products and trends, and is more easily affected by the in-store environment (Knittel et al., 2016; Rese et al., 2019). However, Generation Y is also more likely to feel more strongly about ethical business practices and are more environmentally conscious than previous generations, such as Generation X (Rese et al., 2019; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). On another note, it has been suggested that Generation Y is known for paying less attention to the brand of a product, and rather focus on price and quality (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). There seems to be very little connection between these individuals and the brands they purchase, and instead the attitudes form around the consumption experience (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016).
Like Generation X, Generation Z, individuals born between 1996 to 2003 , has only been studied sporadically (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020; Yoon et al., 2020). However, this generation is believed to become a leading generation in determining the future of fast fashion goods (Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Tabassum et al., 2020) and thus, important to study. Research by Tabassum et al. (2020) exemplifies that Generation Z differs from other generations because they like products and brands in which they can prefer realistic, relatable content and see their reflection. Furthermore, they have solid moral and ethical values when it comes to environmental sustainability, which affects their purchasing decisions (Chaturvedi et al., 2020). Consumers in Generation Z are characterised as innovative individuals who are highly educated, technologically savvy, and naturally creative. Moreover, they are receptive to new products and are widely regarded as the most environmentally conscious generation (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
2.2 Anti-Consumption
Anti-consumption is a broad concept that encompasses manifestations including consumer boycotts (Iyer & Muncy, 2009a), voluntary simplicity, and brand avoidance (Kuanr et al., 2020). It mainly exists in developing countries where consumption levels have risen to excessive stages (Oral & Thurner, 2019). Anti-consumption studies the causes and phenomena against consumption (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; Lee & Ahn, 2016). More specifically, it means the deliberate or voluntary avoidance of consumption, and it takes place either selectively or in a general fashion
11
(Iyer & Muncy, 2009; Lee & Ahn, 2016). Anti-consumption focuses on phenomena that oppose the use, acquisition, or disposal of certain goods (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). In particular, the reasons why a consumer reclaims, restricts or rejects consumption are examined (Hogg et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2020).
One of the biggest goals in a consumer’s anti-consumption lifestyle is the desire to improve being (Oral & Thurner, 2019). Oral and Thurner (2019) characterise well-being as a consumer's assessment of his or her life, which includes both a cognitive and affective component. The cognitive component means satisfaction with life, and the affective component includes positive emotions such as happiness. The concept of well-being describes the state of individuals or groups in different areas, such as their social, economic, psychological, or physical status (Diener & Ryan, 2008; Iyer & Muncy, 2016; Lee & Ahn, 2016; Sirgy & Lee, 2006). Furthermore, well-being reflects personal growth, self-acceptance, physical fitness, and a feeling of community.
Iyer and Muncy (2009) suggest four different areas of anti-consumption that have emerged over the years. These are global impact consumers, simplifiers, market activists, and anti-loyal consumers (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). The first group reduces consumption based on the benefit of the planet and society. In contrast, the second group moves to a simpler life by breaking away from a consuming fast-paced society. The third group usually avoids a specific brand or product because they think it poses a particular problem to society (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). Lastly, the fourth group avoids buying the product because of its low quality (Lee et al., 2009b).
From a critical point of view, some people may think that the reasons for anti-consumption are the opposite of the reasons for consuming certain brands or products (Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 2015). Nevertheless, we would like to emphasise that anti-consumption is not the opposite of the reasons for consumption. To illustrate this, consumers who want to save the planet cannot logically think that the reason for not consuming eco-friendly products is the desire to harm the environment (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013).
12
Consumer boycotts are an exciting form of consumer behaviour and can be understood as a type of social control of companies (Smith, 1989). Consumer boycotts are efforts by one or more parties to accomplish specific goals by prompting consumers to abstain from purchasing certain products in the market (Klein et al., 2004; Zeng et al., 2021). Marketers do not welcome boycotts, but companies targeted by consumer boycotts are usually unable to maintain sufficient consumer focus (Klein et al., 2004). Boycotts signify a mechanism of social control of firms and represent consumer power, making them of expressively important (Klein et al., 2004). According to Sen et al. (2001) a consumer chooses between the individual benefit of consumption and the collective desire to refrain from consumption to receive the shared benefits of a successful boycott. Boycotting is also linked to the complaining behaviour of customers (Klein et al., 2004). One form of complaint is seen as mere withdrawal, where the consumer decides to avoid the firm's product offerings in the future (Klein et al., 2004). Consumer boycotts have become more relevant for marketing decisions due to their widespread use (John & Klein, 2003) and powerful tool for expressing consumer dissatisfaction towards business practices and the company itself (Albrecht et al., 2013).
In contrast, voluntary simplicity is known as one of the unique forms of anti-consumption practice (Lee et al., 2009). It includes reducing everyday life control by reducing or refining overall consumption (Huneke, 2005; Kuanr et al., 2020). A person engaged in voluntary simplification believes that excessive consumption harms one’s well-being and the environment (Lee & Ahn, 2016). Therefore, a stress-free and more straightforward life is the focus (Iyer & Muncy, 2009; Zavestoski, 2002). Chang (2018) emphasises that consumers’ primary goal of pursuing voluntary simplicity is to reduce material consumption and free up resources. These resources include time, money, personal growth, and happiness. The concept has also implications for social responsibility, ecological impact, and natural resources conservation (Chang, 2018). Shaw and Moraes (2009) suggest alternative ways to reduce consumption. They are exemplified by repairing or reusing products to extend their life. Other options are buying second-hand goods and growing food for part-time farms (Shaw & Moraes, 2009). In conclusion, voluntary simplification can be defined as a way of life in which the total consumption of resources and energy is brought to a level within the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet (Alexander, 2014).
13
2.3 Brand Avoidance
Brand avoidance is part of the anti-consumption concept and can be described as a type of action where consumers intentionally distance themselves from a brand (Odoom et al., 2019). According to Berndt et al. (2019), brand avoidance can be characterised as a consumer’s decision against a brand and Cherrier (2009) identifies brand avoidance as human behaviour and attitude. The deliberate reluctance to use or buy a brand, where this behaviour is valid, and certain conditions apply. These conditions consist of the consumer having the financial resources and the brands’ availability (Lee et al., 2009). Conversely, this means that brands that are not available on the market or are available at very high prices cannot be classified as brand avoidance. Also, consumers must have a choice to a substitute for the brand (Odoom et al., 2019).
Brand avoidance is when a consumer feels that a particular brand promise is at the edges with their wants and needs (Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 2015). Another point is that consumer may react to what the brand/company has promised, also alternatively to what the company morally should have promised (Kavaliauskė & Simanavičiūtė, 2015). Therefore, the brand avoidance behaviour may not always be related to what the brand itself promises (Strandvik et al., 2013). Regardless of what the brand promises, brand avoidance occurs when negative beliefs, feelings and attitudes towards a particular brand are reinforced in the consumer's mind and hence act as a barrier to purchase (Nenycz-Thiel & Romaniuk, 2011; Romani et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2006). Moreover, negative feelings towards a brand may also arise after the purchase, allowing a consumer to avoid the brand before trying (Romani et al., 2012). In conclusion, negative feelings towards brands can be directly linked to brand avoidance behaviour.
Research conducted by Lee et al. (2009) suggests that there are three types of brand avoidance namely: (1) experiential avoidance, (2) identity avoidance, and (3) moral avoidance. This framework by Lee et al. (2009) has since been extended to include five types of brand avoidance also including (4) value-deficit avoidance and (5) advertising avoidance (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009a). In the following section, these five types of brand avoidance will be presented. In more detail, fast fashion implications of
14
these five types of brand avoidance will be explained and how they appear between generations.
2.4 Experiential Avoidance
Experiential avoidance is related to the perceptions and use of a product (Knittel et al., 2016). There are several reasons which are associated with this type of avoidance such as unmet expectations and poor brand performance (Knittel et al., 2016; Odoom et al., 2019). Unmet expectations are associated with the promises given by brands. Brand promises can be either explicit or implicit, but one of the main functions is to provide the consumer with a set of expectations on what will happen when a consumer purchases a product or service (Lee et al., 2009b). Further, when brand promises are delivered accordingly with consumer expectations it encourages the consumer to repurchase the brand. However, when the consumer perceives that these brand promises are unmet or undelivered, negative emotions towards the brand can form (Odoom et al., 2019). Consequently, these negative emotions can lead to brand avoidance or even brand hatred. The same is true for when the brand performance is perceived to be poor (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009; Odoom et al., 2019). Unpleasant store environment can also be a reason for experiential avoidance, which refers to the shopping experience itself (Knittel et al., 2016).
2.4.1 Experiential Avoidance in Fast Fashion
Fashion products shall aim to fulfil two needs: the functional and the aesthetic needs of the consumer (de Klerk & Tselepis, 2007; Kim et al., 2013). The functional characteristics of fashion products are linked to the durability and use of product, whereas aesthetic characteristics are related to the beauty experience the fashion products provide the wearer with (de Klerk & Tselepis, 2007). More often than seldom, fast fashion products are characterised by poor quality as the lead times are often very short (Cachon & Swinney, 2011; Yoon et al., 2020) and the brands push their products out to the consumers at a rapid speed (Bruce & Daly, 2006; Kim et al., 2013; Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
For fast fashion brand products, poor performance can be present in terms of stitching, fit, wearability, ease of care (Kim et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2020), or poor workmanship (Lin et al., 2020). In the study by Kim et al. (2013) on Korean consumers, poor performance was identified as one of the factors that has a significant effect on brand
15
avoidance. It was found that poor performance in terms of insufficient quality was acknowledged by consumers that do not purchase fast fashion as a reason for avoidance. It was also shown that consumers that do purchase fast fashion products do so despite poor quality being recognised by them. However, fashion items that appear as cheap-looking can lead to brand avoidance among Chinese sportswear consumers (Lin et al., 2020).
Hassle is also recognised as one of the reasons for experiential (Berndt et al., 2019; Knittel et al., 2016; et al., Lee et al., ; Lin et al., 2020). For fast fashion brands this refer to core service failures, inconveniences, prices, and superior performance and experiences from competitors on the market (Lin et al., 2020). It has been suggested that in the case of fast fashion sportswear brands that the shopping atmosphere needs to be pleasant for the consumer (Lin, 2020).
Knošková and Garasová’s (2019) research demonstrates that fast fashion companies allow consumers to buy fashion clothes at a lower price. Furthermore, this will enable consumers to purchase designer-like products for much less money (Knošková & Garasová, 2019). Such comparatively lower prices attract especially younger age groups of customers who do not hesitate to buy fashionable items, which further contribute to impulse purchasing (Byun & Sternquist, 2008). Consequently, the temptation is high due to low prices, making fast fashion products challenging to avoid due to the attraction towards low prices.
A study by Yoon et al. (2020) shows that fast fashion products that are considered too trendy are a form of unfulfilled expectations. A promise gives a reason to expect something; hence it is indisputable that brand promises lead to expectations (Grönroos, 2006; Lee et al., 2009). This may contribute to brand avoidance because the product is expected to deliver more value than it does. Moreover, the study showed that among Koreans, fast fashion is avoided for the reason mentioned above. Among Spanish people, overly trendy styles were seen as the complete opposite, and consumers do not avoid brands based on this argument (Yoon et al., 2020).
16
2.4.2 Experiential Avoidance – Generational Cohorts
2.4.2.1 Generation X
Generation X is described by some researchers as loyal and committed to brands (Lazarevic, 2012) but there are also some who suggest that this is not the case (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016) thus, creating a conflict in the current literature. Additionally, this generation is characterised by scepticism towards technology (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). According to a study conducted by Leung and Taylor (2002), Generation X finds the retail environment to be somewhat significant. They are more likely to visit a fashion shop if it has a better environment, such as air conditioning, more mirrors and rooms, and clean and organised premises (Leung & Taylor, 2002). Generation X expects retailers to provide them with a personalised brand experience while shopping (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Hence, Generation X expects high-quality goods, personalised deals, and higher perceived value (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). They are very value-focused and make more analytical purchasing decisions (Lazarevic, 2012).
2.4.2.2 Generation Y
Generation Y is described as a generation demanding the latest trends and styles in fashion at a much quicker rate in comparison to older generations (Morton, 2002). Also worth mentioning is the lack of brand loyalty that is present among these consumers (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Generation Y mainly focuses on a brand's experience and feel rather than an evaluation of the brand or the value connected with the brand (Moore & Carpenter, 2008). Characterised by being status-driven, this generation is using consumption as a way to display and express their wealth as well as purchasing power (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). It has also been suggested that Generation Y is more concerned with the style and quality of fashion products rather than the price (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). In a study by Sorensen and Jorgensen (2019), it was found that females of Generation Y showed a greater interest in the quality of fashion items in comparison to men.
2.4.2.3 Generation Z
When it comes to Generation Z's behaviour towards fast fashion brands, experiential avoidance seems to have a minor effect (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Nevertheless,
17
Generation Z consumers appear to be sensitive to product quality (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). The reasons behind experiential avoidance are primarily expressed because expectations for fast fashion brands were discovered to be poor, which could lead to such behaviour (Gabrielli et al., 2013). Another factor may be the value proposition, which is fashionable clothing at low prices. Since price is often regarded as indicative of quality, lower prices can lead to lower quality standards, reducing the probability of Generation Z avoiding such brands (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
A significant problem among this generation is that fast fashion brands are considered too fashionable/trendy to wear for extended periods (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). The primary reasons tended to be trying something new and refreshing the wardrobe. Expectations for fast fashion brands were low in both cases, raising the probability of experiential avoidance (Gabrielli et al., 2013). Some consumers of this generation believe that fast fashion businesses contribute to the disappearance of traditional culture and that fast fashion brands aim to follow the current trends (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Furthermore, it is also worth noting that Generation Z considers fast fashion brands don't always have enough colour options. However, these previously listed causes are the least evident among this generation, as moral avoidance is perceived to have the most significant effect (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
Taking Generation X’s technological scepticism and Generation Y’s lack of brand loyalty (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016) into consideration, we hypothesise that there are differences
between the generational cohorts with respect of experiential avoidance.
2.5 Identity Avoidance
Identity avoidance refers to avoidance towards incompatible brands and cannot fulfil symbolic identity requirements (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009). Instead, consumers purchase brands that aid them to enhance and maintain their desired or actual self-image (Knittel et al., 2016). Brands representing negative symbolic meanings to an individual motivate avoidance of the brand as it contrasts their self-concept (Lee et al., 2009). For example, individuals might choose to avoid organisations that are inconsistent in their values. However, identity avoidance is associated with the brand’s incapacity to fulfil the individual self-image and related connections to negative reference groups. What
18
contrasts these two concepts of identity avoidance is that the idea of the undesired self is relatively concrete, whereas the linkage to negative reference groups is more stereotypical (Knittel et al., 2016). Another reason for identity avoidance is associated with the inauthenticity of a brand. As a result of a brand becoming mainstream, consumers might perceive that the brand is not authentic enough (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009). As Lee et al. (2009) argued, consumption of certain brands can lead to a loss of identity, also referred to as deindividualization.
2.5.1 Identity Avoidance in Fast Fashion
Fashion products can be viewed as a type of “second skin” of the wearer and are closely linked to a person’s identity (Kim et al., 2013). The clothes worn by an individual is always visible and can indicate the wearer’s wealth or social status. Furthermore, fashion items make it possible for individuals to express themselves both in terms of the actual and ideal self. It is also suggested that fashion, in general, contributes to the communication of a person’s group identity (Kim et al., 2013). Subsequently, it can be argued that fashion products are closely linked to an individual’s identity. On the contrary, when a fashion product fails in communicating and representing the individual’s identity of self, the fashion product might be avoided instead.
The study by Kim et al. (2013), shows that consumers of fast fashion brands are not as concerned about the inauthenticity of fast fashion brands and do not affect brand avoidance in the same way as poor performance. It appears that consumers of fast fashion brands are aware of the fast fashion that these brands tend to copy trends and styles from high fashion brands. However, as consumers perceive that fashion items lead to deindividualization, the likelihood of brand avoidance increases (Kim et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2020). As fashion products are perceived to “all be the same” and that everyone shops at the same place, consumers tend to avoid these brands as they become too popular (Lin et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2020).
19 2.5.2 Identity Avoidance – Generational Cohorts
2.5.2.1 Generation X
According to research by Lissitsa and Kol (2016), Generation X is characterised by a high level of individualism and self-reliance. Furthermore, Generation X consumers are nonconformists (Dias, 2003) who feel that brands do not represent their personality or identity (Lazarevic, 2012). Generation X does not need their clothes to be marketed to represent their social standing (Leung & Taylor, 2002). This generations’ purchasing habits are more compounded by their perceived inconsistency when looking for clothes. In general, brand loyalty rises with education: the more educated an individual is, the more loyal he or she is to a brand (Leung & Taylor, 2002). One explanation for this behaviour is a need to belong. Exemplifies, that belonging to a particular community helps them feel safe and influential, and they think that successful individuals should act according to their social standing (Leung & Taylor, 2002).
2.5.2.2 Generation Y
Generation Y has been socialised to believe that the society they live in is materialistically driven (Lazarevic, 2012) and has become consumption-oriented. Materialistic possessions are used in a way to show others the social status and the individual self. It is further suggested that the generation is aware of what consequences might stem from a wrong purchase, such as the ones related to negative reference groups (Lazarevic, 2012). Furthermore, it is implied that Generation Y consumers believe it is essential that a product of possession is credible on the streets (Morton, 2002). In addition to this, little attention is paid to brands but is more concerned about products to match their personality (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016).
Consumers in Generation Y want to be identified with successful brands (Lazarevic, 2012). Furthermore, if common values such as achievement, style, income, and so on exist, generation Y consumers will perceive a similarity between themselves and the brand (Lazarevic, 2012). Whether generation Y consumers see the brand as consistently matching their beliefs and assisting them in identifying themselves, it could be easier for
20
the consumer and the brand to form a partnership (Lazarevic, 2012). If this is not the case, this cohort may experience identity avoidance.
2.5.2.3 Generation Z
Similarly, Generation Z consumers also emphasise owning a product rather than owning a specific brand of that product (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Moreover, Generation Z is perceived to be overall environmentally conscious, using fashion as a tool for social acceptance and inclusion by peers (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). However, it appears that Generation Z consumers are prone to brand avoidance for fashion products with a mass-appeal, non-unique features, and similar styles as other competing brands and prefer fashion products that express their personality (Kim et al., 2013; Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
Generation X is being known for their high individualism (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Generation Y is using material possessions for displaying their social status (Lazarevic, 2012) and Generation Z is signified by the importance of social inclusion among their peers (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Thus, we hypothesise that Generation X differ
from Generation Y and Z with respect of identity avoidance.
2.6 Moral Avoidance
Moral avoidance refers to the ideological incompatibility between the brand and consumer and is associated with individual socio-economic and political views (Lee et al., 2009). It can consist of moral issues such as unethical practices (e.g., forced labour), unfair trade practices or lack of transparency (Odoom et al., 2019). One example of this is avoidance of brands that are associated with corporate irresponsibility, or avoid large brands to prevent monopolies, this is also referred to as anti-hegemony (Knittel et al., 2016). The intention with this type of moral avoidance is not to minimise the overall consumption, but to avoid brands with a certain type of behaviour. Sandiki and Ekici (2009) refer to this type of politically motivated as ‘predatory globalisation’ and as being driven by the belief that global brands (e.g., Levi’s) exploit working forces, destroys the environment, and increases inequality gaps. These global brands are described as
21
predatory as they are perceived to threaten and attempting to dominate those that are more vulnerable.
Furthermore, the perceived power imbalance between the brand and consumers can also motivate moral avoidance (Lee et al., 2009), this as consumers feel that there is a lack of choice or freedom (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009; Odoom et al., 2019). Country effects are another motivation for moral avoidance and is associated with the consumers’ perception of the country of origin (COO) of a brand. COO can be used by consumers as a measure of quality and thereby to purchase brands from certain countries, but also to avoid those from other geographical regions (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009).
It has also been seen that some consumers avoid certain countries and instead purchases local brands as a type of patriotism. Some marketing scholars suggest that individuals that are on the left-side spectrum of politics are more likely to buy brands that align with their political views, but also to resist or boycott brands that are perceived to be ‘political enemies’ (Jost et al., 2017). However, other researchers mean that political extremists of both the left- and right-wing are as likely to boycott or ‘buycott’ a brand (Copeland, 2014; Pecot et al., 2021). This as extremists on both sides of the political spectrum tend to resist change and being sceptical towards those that are perceived to be enemies of their own political ideology (Copeland, 2014).
2.6.1 Moral Avoidance in Fast Fashion
One influential aspect in moral avoidance towards fast fashion brands is the brand’s country-of-origin (COO) mentioned before (Garrett et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020; Tjandra et al., 2015), in which the clothing is produced. Many fast fashion garments are often manufactured in other countries than headquartered (Tjandra et al., 2015). Therefore, labour costs in emerging economies are lower than in advanced economies, but the labour skills used in manufacturing of fashion products are often comparable to advanced economies (Tjandra et al., 2015).
A consumer who experiences brand avoidance from a moral avoidance perspective will not see the brand/company as having a morally acceptable practice (Odoom et al., 2019). These could be child labour, poor working conditions, and unfair wages, among other
22
problems (Roozen & Raedts, 2020; Yoon et al., 2020). Besides, the fashion industry has often been criticised for its lack of environmental and social responsibility (Teona et al., 2020). These are all connected to moral considerations. The different generations show different behaviour when it comes to moral avoidance. It is also intelligible that older generations are less willing to accept novelties and innovations in fast fashion (Adnan et al., 2017; Lee, 2014).
2.6.2 Moral Avoidance – Generational Cohorts
2.6.2.1 Generation X
Adnan et al. (2017) and Lee (2014) argue that older generations are less willing to accept innovative and new ideas than younger generations. Furthermore, environmental supporters tend to be younger cohorts because younger generations are more interested in sustainable development than older cohorts (Adnan et al., 2017). According to Adnan et al. (2017), younger generations are also more sensitive to environmental issues. Analysis of consumer’s consciousness related to the natural environment by age shows that younger cohorts own more knowledge about ecological aspects and participate in environmental protection more than older generations (Carrete et al., 2012; Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Rese et al., 2019; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). This fact could be linked to Generation X and generations after this cohort of consumers is older (Gurǎu, 2012). However, the authors of this thesis did not find studies that have been conducted on precisely the attitude of Generation X towards moral avoidance.
2.6.2.2 Generation Y
Sorensen and Jorgensen (2019) argue that Generation Y, so called Millennials, similarly to Generation Z value social issues and the environment more than former generations (e.g., Generation X), and shows similarities here with Generation Z. Generation Y is said to buy brands that match their social principles and personal values towards the environment (Hwang & Griffiths, 2017; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019; Todeschini et al., 2017). This generation is willing to pay a premium for responsibly produced clothing compared to a similar product such as a fast fashion product that is not made according to ethical principles (Hwang & Griffiths, 2017). However, mental expectations and values conflict with their buying behaviour, as they are a generation that cares about
23
sustainability but still buys fast fashion (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). The question arises if Generation Y cares enough about environmental issues to make responsible choices (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). This age group is willing to acquire products from companies committed to sustainable development (Gazzola et al., 2020; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). Gazzola et al. (2020) emphasise that this behaviour can be seen in the fashion industry and as a whole. Millennials actively follow the news about social and environmental issues, and therefore the level of knowledge about these subjects is higher than older generations (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019).
Generation Y’s awareness of products’ country of origin seems to be quite extensive, and using the country-of-origin data to evaluate the brand’s price, quality, and ethical attitude (Tjandra et al., 2015). This generation favours products that serve their needs and are perceived as relevant (Tjandra et al., 2015). They are said to support good brands for the environment, employees, and what does something positive for the future (Yarrow & O’Donnel, 2010). The abuse of workers and animals and ethical issues affect Generation Y’s perception of country of origin (Tjandra et al., 2015).
2.6.2.3 Generation Z
For Generation Z, moral avoidance is the most potent variable of all five brand avoidance types (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). This type of brand avoidance is seen, especially among companies in the fast fashion industry, because overconsumption is the most significant (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). According to Chaturvedi et al. (2020), Generation Z has a solid understanding of environmentally friendly products and environmental issues. Sustainable development is impressively taken into account, and buying used or recycled clothes is a better option than buying products from convenience stores (Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Gazzola et al., 2020). This demand comes from high education and understanding of the anthropogenic impact on the environment (Adnan et al., 2017). Generation Z consumers believe that companies have their responsibilities and obligations to address ongoing environmental issues in their business (Adnan et al., 2017). This generation of customers are more inclined to switch their consumption to more environmentally friendly and sustainable brands and are therefore willing to pay more for such brands than other generations (Chaturvedi et al., 2020).
24
According to Chaturvedi et al. (2020), Gazzola et al. (2020), and Vajkai Kovács and Zsóka (2020), Generation Z has a strong desire to consume responsibly. Further, Generation Z consumers are more receptive to new, innovative ideas than other generations (Adnan et al., 2017; Lee, 2014). The most crucial aspect is the poor value for money and mass production in fast fashion production (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). It is also noteworthy that Generation Z is willing to face increased price tags in responsible products than other generations (Gazzola et al., 2020).
It has been suggested by several researchers that both Generation Y and Generation Z are more ethically and environmentally conscious than previous generations (Chaturvedi et al., 2020; Rese et al., 2019; Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). Thus, we hypothesise that
Generation X differ from Generation Y and Z with respect of moral avoidance.
2.7 Deficit-Value Avoidance
Deficit-value avoidance can occur when the consumer perceives the cost to benefit trade-off to be unacceptable (Lee et al., 2009). It has been suggested that consumers tend to avoid brand products which are considered to be of low quality, i.e., deficient in value (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2009b; Odoom et al., 2019). Additionally, unfamiliarity of a brand signifies a higher risk which can lead avoidance (Knittel et al., 2016; Odoom et al., 2019). Arguably, new brands in the market can suffer from unfamiliarity as consumers avoid the new brands and choose those who are known. Moreover, the aesthetic of a product seems to have an impact on brand avoidance as more aesthetically pleasing packaging for example can function as an indicator of product and brand quality (Knittel et al., 2016; Odoom et al., 2019). In other words, it is suggested that brands that lack certain aesthetic elements (e.g., using the wrong or dull colours) signal aesthetic insufficiency, thus signalling lower brand quality. In addition, food favouritism also appears among consumers as they purchase certain food products from the brand while avoiding others (Knittel et al., 2016).
2.7.1 Deficit-Value Avoidance in Fast Fashion
It can be concluded that when consumers avoid brands because of the deficit-value reasons, they consider the cost-value ratio. As a result, unlike failures caused by previous experience (Bogomolova & Millburn, 2012), this mechanism does not necessitate prior
25
personal experience or use of a brand (Knittel et al., 2016). Conversely, deficit-value avoidance does not have to provide actual knowledge and use of the product. Instead, it reflects on the interaction between what is gained and what is compromised (value) (Berndt et al., 2019). Unawareness of the brand also influences expectations of the importance of the brand, and if users are unaware of the brand, they would not purchase it (Berndt et al., 2019). Furthermore, if a consumer is unfamiliar with a brand, they may assume it provides less value than well-known brands.
2.7.2 Deficit-Value Avoidance – Generational Cohorts
2.7.2.1 Generation X
Considering the deficit-value avoidance behaviour of Generation X’s, it is seen that this generation is less practical in placing importance on product quality, value or comfort and focuses less on the garment’s authenticity (Littrell et al., 2005). Lazarevic (2012), conversely, contends that Generation X consumers place a high value on the brand and make more analytical buying decisions, which contradicts the literature with the previously stated information. The clothing trend is more relevant to the Generation X cohort (Eastman & Liu, 2012). Their product behaviour is primarily based on buying fashionable clothing (Littrell et al., 2005). Besides, Generation X attaches less importance to the practical way of purchasing (Littrell et al., 2005). Therefore, this can be linked to their less valuable orientation, more generally in clothing products (Littrell et al., 2005).
A study conducted by Lissitsa and Kol (2016) elucidate that Generation X has a risk-averse personality and a poor risk tolerance. They value customer convenience, social involvement, and branding (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Moreover, this generation has a reputation for being extremely disloyal to brands and businesses (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Nevertheless, the contradiction appears in the literature, with another source arguing that Generation X is intensely loyal and committed to brands (Lazarevic, 2012). According to Leung and Taylor (2002), Generation X believes that higher-quality apparel is worth a higher price, so higher prices should be associated with higher-quality clothing. Since Generation X is looking for a good value, they would like to see a broader range of clothing with a higher perceived value (Leung & Taylor, 2002). With greater financial constraints and needs, Generation X often shops at value retailers (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016).
26 2.7.2.2 Generation Y
Generation Y consumers buy products based on their lifestyle and personality and pay only a small amount of attention to the brands themselves (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). This generation calls itself rationally oriented consumers for whom the product features and clothing prices are more important than the brand names themselves (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Besides, Generation Y’s loyalty to specific brands is volatile, rapidly changing according to fashion, brand and trend popularity, focusing on product quality and style (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). These factors are more important for Millennials than the product’s low price (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). Moreover, together with environmental awareness, this might contribute to deficit-value avoidance in the context of that generation.
2.7.2.3 Generation Z
Deficit-value avoidance in brand design may be the most significant factor seen as a reason to avoid a particular brand (Knittel et al., 2016). With Generation Z being an environmentally conscious generation, the poor value for money seems to be a more critical factor to avoid particular fast fashion brands than, for example, a low price (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020). Both Generation Z and Y represent green conception of fashion. For these generations clothing quality is number one (Gazzola et al., 2020). Moreover, this may contribute to deficit-value avoidance. Gazzola et al. (2020) study about Generation Z shows that six out of ten respondents want to buy sustainable clothing and prefer the quality of purchased clothing over price. Many consumers are spending more money on acquisition responsible clothing (Gazzola et al., 2020). In Generation Z, deficit-value avoidance is particularly evident when consumers associate the low cost of a fast fashion product with poor quality (Vajkai Kovács & Zsóka, 2020).
With Generation Y and Z being more environmentally conscious than the previous generations (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019), it is plausible that quality in terms of eco-friendliness is among the quality criteria for products. Therefore, we hypothesise that
