The Impact of Customer-Centric Sustainability on Brand Relationships

Abstract

This paper contributes to the existing but scarce literature on customer-centric sustainability and measures consumers’ perceptions of fast-fashion brands regarding economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Furthermore, it aims to test the impact of each dimension of customer–brand relationships, specifically brand trust, affective brand commitment, and continuance brand commitment. A research model and nine hypotheses were tested through multiple linear regressions using a convenience sample of 228 Portuguese fast-fashion consumers. It also provides additional insights into how consumers’ perceptions of the three dimensions of sustainability might affect customer–brand relationships, namely brand trust and brand commitment. The results reveal a significant relationship between all dimensions of customer-centric sustainability and brand trust. Furthermore, economic sustainability and social sustainability were found to significantly predict effective brand commitment. Additionally, this study demonstrates that brand trust positively influences consumers’ intentions to maintain long-term relationships with fast-fashion brands. The implications of the results are discussed in detail, shedding light on the importance of incorporating customer-centric sustainability practices into brand management strategies within the fast-fashion industry. Further elaboration and discussion of the results can be found in this study.

1. Introduction

The fast-fashion industry is well known for having a fair share of sustainability problems [1,2,3,4]. A McKinsey report about the fast-fashion industry bluntly stated that 2019 marked a year of awakening as consumers began urging fashion brands to take a stand and address sustainability concerns [5]. However, in more recent times, new challenges are dominating the fashion agenda, particularly inflation and geopolitical concerns, which are negatively affecting both consumer demand and brands’ operating costs [6].

Hence, consumers have a saying regarding fast-fashion brands and hold a powerful position to influence their sustainability strategies. However, one of the first challenges in understanding such a position is to understand and fully grasp the very concept of sustainability. In fact, there is a lack of consensus among researchers on conceptualizing sustainability since the term has not yet been clearly defined in the literature and is recurrently mixed up with other terms, such as environmental concerns [7]. Since Elkington’s proposal of the TBL (Triple Bottom Line) [8,9], research on sustainability has been strongly grounded on three pillars: social, environmental, and economic. The TBL has been widely explored in previous research from a plethora of viewpoints and frameworks. One such framework is CCS (customer-centric approach to sustainability) [10,11], where TBL is employed to highlight the multidimensional nature of sustainability from the viewpoint of the consumer. Hence, based on this framework, this study proposes to measure sustainability and its influence on customer–brand relationship dimensions such as brand trust and brand commitment. Fast fashion brands are increasingly eager to respond to consumers’ concerns regarding their sustainable marketing strategies [12,13], especially because such strategies can strengthen the consumer–brand relationship in terms of brand trust and brand commitment [11,14]. There is a lack of studies adopting a customer-centric approach to sustainability and focusing on the impact of customer-centric sustainability on brand trust and brand commitment. One of the few examples is a study developed by Choi et al. [14] revolving around fashion brands of sports goods and which uncovered that sustainability significantly helped predict brand commitment. Another example is Kim and Park’s [11] approach to the relationship between the dimensions of customer-centric sustainability and brand trust.

Given the scarcity of literature employing a customer-centric approach to sustainability, this paper proposes to investigate three research goals: (i) measure consumers’ perceptions of the three dimensions of CCS regarding fast-fashion brands; (ii) measure the impact of each dimension of CCS on brand trust; and (iii) measure the impact of each dimension of CCS on continuance and affective brand commitment. This paper, thus, contributes to measuring the impact of sustainability’s dimensions of fast-fashion brands on brand trust and brand commitment, both of which are dimensions of customer–brand relationships.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework and develops the hypothesis of this research. This is followed by methodological decisions in Section 3. Section 4 reports on our findings based on a survey of Portuguese fast-fashion consumers. The paper concludes in Section 5 with a discussion of findings, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Sustainability in the Context of Fast Fashion

The term “fast fashion” refers to inexpensively produced clothes that replicate catwalk and high-cost luxury fashion trends to meet consumers’ desires for trendy apparel [2,15]. From the viewpoint of consumers, this trend offers enormous benefits by allowing them to access and purchase up-to-date and trendy clothes for extremely low prices. However, such benefits are achieved at the cost of poor labour conditions, depletion of natural resources, and low-quality materials, which altogether led to labelling fast-fashion manufacturing sites as sweatshops [3].

This industry has grown so rapidly in recent years that it became common to discuss such issues as the phenomenon of democratization of fashion [16], earlier referred to as the McDonaldization of fashion [17]. There are many notable European fast-fashion brands, such as Zara, Hennes & Mauritz (H&M), and Mango, who have achieved worldwide success by operating under a fast-fashion business model. Zara, for example, is recognized for being capable of adjusting very rapidly to trends, having lead times as low as 15 days [18]. Worldwide, other fashion retailers stood out in the fast-fashion model, particularly with the rise of online fashion retailers such as Shein, ASOS, and Fashion Nova [3].

Retailers embracing fast-fashion models work with very short lead times to quickly respond to consumers changing demands [19] and are able to program the obsolescence of their products, which in turn incentivizes consumers to repurchase again [20]. This model and its negative impacts on social, environmental, and economic levels opened up a heated debate among scholars, policy makers, activists, and consumers, placing the unsustainability of the industry in the spotlight [21]. In this sense, policy discussions and research agendas were redirected to debate the urgent need to move from unsustainable to sustainable fashion models. The debate, however, gained traction during the 1960s when consumers started gaining awareness of the malicious effects that clothing manufacturing had on the environment [22], and later on, in the 80s, when the movement of slow fashion arose, along with a philosophy consistent with the Slow Food movement originated in Italy. The sustainable and slow fashion movement aims to encourage a change of pace in fashion production and consumption and supports the premise that clothes should be produced to last longer [23,24,25].

According to Henninger et al. [22], there is no straightforward definition of sustainable fashion because it is subjective in nature. However, the underlying principles of sustainable fashion include transparency over the production process and traceability of raw materials, as well as social aspects such as working conditions. The concept is often associated with the words organic, fair trade, green, and sustainable [7]. Examples of sustainable practices in the fashion industry are gaining momentum, and several companies are paving the way to sustainable fashion and being recognized as such, for example, Patagonia and Stella McCartney [4]. Examples of sustainable practices may include but are not limited to the use of recycled, vegan, or organic materials [26]. However, the question arises, can an industry that promotes overconsumption at an alarming rate and that fuels the obsolescence of its product be sustainable?

In line with the above-mentioned, fast fashion is often labelled as intrinsically unsustainable given the vast amount of clothing items and new collections placed in the market in very short periods and the fast pace at which these are consumed and disposed of by consumers [27,28]. Henninger et al. [22] have expressed the concern that sustainable fast fashion can indeed be an oxymoron, given that the apparel industry is based on consumerism. Brands are now more mindful of the materials they are using and are also acting to reduce the use of water or chemicals in the fabrication of textiles. However, even though there is more consciousness, for example, in sourcing fabrics, clothes are still being made at accelerated rates with the intention to be sold. This is consequently going against the definition of sustainability, and thus the juxtaposition of these terms together in the same phrase expresses contrasting concepts. Despite the above-mentioned, because of the rising interest in the topic of sustainability, many retailers are striving to change the course of fast fashion by attempting to eliminate or reduce the negative effects their businesses may have [12]. Research has shown that fast-fashion retailers can benefit from positioning themselves as sustainable through the use of sustainability marketing strategies [13]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that although retailers are already making efforts to change the unsustainable nature of fast fashion, this change will only be possible if consumers are willing to support this move. Hence, beyond the supply side, it is important to understand the consumer’s perspective and embrace a customer-centric approach to sustainability (CCS).

2.2. Customer-Centric sustainability (CCS)

The three well-known pillars of sustainability—social, economic, and environmental—are akin to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach developed by Elkington in the 1990s [9]. Elkington suggested that instead of looking to the economic bottom line and traditional economic indicators (e.g., return on investment or profit), companies should simultaneously assess the impact of their businesses on the society and environment in which they operate. Because TBL received some criticisms for the lack of customer involvement, Sheth et al. [10] proposed an adapted version of the customer-centric sustainability approach that places customers at the core of the framework. The CCS approach upholds that firms’ actions planned for each of the TBL dimensions must necessarily take the consumer into consideration. Because customers are vital to any business in the sense that they hold the power to penalize brands by boycotting them if they understand their voice is not being heard, such companies must pay close attention to them when creating their sustainability [29]. Hence, CCS has been discussed in the literature as a relevant approach to inspire the design of sustainability plans and reach sustainable consumers [11,30]. The following paragraphs expound on the TBL dimensions applied to the customer-centric approach.

2.2.1. CCS: Economic Dimension

In Elkington’s TBL approach [8], the economic dimension relates to firms’ economic performance and profitability. The CCS framework put forward by Sheth et al. [10] offers a broader definition where the economic dimension encompasses both the financial performance of the firm but also the “economic interests of external stakeholders, such as a broad-based improvement in economic well-being and standard of living’’ (p. 24). Within stakeholders, the authors include customers as priority stakeholders [31,32]. Economically sustainable firms express concerns for the economic well-being of their customers in different ways, but particular emphasis is given to the quality attached to clothes by consumers [12]. Quality is, in fact, one of the main features that consumers most associate with sustainability, which is directly related to their perceptions that buying the highest quality available is the same as buying more sustainable products. Previous research has also argued that fast-fashion brands incite overconsumption and do not have a concern for the durability of their products [33]. Good quality of the materials and good workmanship, durability, materials’ resistance, and comfort provided by the clothes are all indicators of the economic dimension valued by consumers according to the CCS framework [11]. Consequently, and according to these authors, if brands are willing to invest in providing high-quality products, they are also showing concerns with the economic well-being of their customers since they do not have the necessity to repurchase the products as often.

2.2.2. CCS: Environmental Dimension

The environmental dimension of the CCS approach refers to the negative impact of consumption on the ecological environment caused by businesses [10], which in the fashion industry is notoriously related to the use of toxic chemicals and high amounts of water needed to produce textiles, thus causing the depletion of natural resources [34,35]. It is not surprising then that fast-fashion brands are attempting to minimize the negative impacts of their business on the environment and are eager to communicate their positioning as more sustainable firms, acting towards more environmentally friendly strategies and actions [12,13]. However, fast-fashion retailers are fighting the negative environmental impacts caused by their businesses by offering more “green” products which use more conscious textiles, more eco-friendly production practices, and by appealing to garment recyclability [11].

The environmental aspect of the product itself can be easily improved by retailers, but incentives must be created for their outsourced manufacturing to follow the same path so that they can become sustainable throughout their whole supply chain [36]. The goal of a fast-fashion brand to become environmentally sustainable seems to contradict the nature of the business itself. However, research has found that consumers consider that both can co-exist, especially if more sustainable products are equivalent to conventional garments offered by fast-fashion brands [37].

2.2.3. CCS: Social Dimension

The social dimension of the customer-centric framework of sustainability concerns the impact of consumption on the well-being, quality of life, and welfare of communities [10,11]. The social aspects of sustainability are as vast as fair wages, access to health and education, and fair labour conditions, not only for employers but also for the communities who are exposed to the business throughout the supply chain [38]. In the particular case of fast fashion, social aspects are related to the fairness of the wages paid to factory workers, the perception of the conditions in which garments are made and the consumer’s preference towards local production, and also their perception of fast-fashion businesses’ contributions to the communities in which they operate [11]. Unfortunately, the fast-fashion industry has its fair share of socially irresponsible practices, such as using sweatshops, paying poor salaries to workers, or overall poor working conditions. Most recently, a disaster in the Rana Plaza factory complex killed over a thousand workers but also sparked a worldwide awakening to the social sustainability dimension [39].

2.3. The Impact of Customer-Centric Sustainability on Customer-Brand Relationships

The brand relationship framework suggests a deep commitment between customers and brands based on trustworthiness, where brands have customers’ best interests in mind and respond to their needs [40,41]. Customer-brand relationships can potentially produce benefits such as word-of-mouth but also expectations of continuity and the opportunity for brands to cross-sell other products [42]. Different perspectives have been studied under the customer–brand relationship rationale, for example, brand loyalty [43], brand fidelity [44], brand trust [41,45], brand commitment [46], and brand love [47]. Consumer-brand trust is particularly important in the context of this research. Tong et al. [46] suggested that when consumers trust a brand, they feel safe that the brand will meet their expectations. Brand trust is built over time and transforms a relationship that could otherwise be transactional into an intricate, close, and personal relationship. Regarding the relationship between sustainability concerns and brand trust, Neumman et al. [41] found trust is a direct predictor of purchase intention when consumers perceive the sustainability efforts of these brands as altruistic. Moreover, Park and Kim [11] revealed that brand trust developed towards fast-fashion brands was found to be positively affected by the social and economic dimension of the CCS, whilst the environmental dimension was found to not be a significant predictor. However, studies conducted in other industries have found that trust presents a moderating effect regarding the perceptions of consumers’ environmental practices presented by brands [48]. Consequently, this study hopes to contribute to clarifying how each CCS dimension impacts brand trust for fast-fashion brands.

Previous research also indicated that brand commitment is a consequence of brand trust [46]. The concept of brand commitment goes beyond customers’ satisfaction with a brand in the sense that it is linked with the feeling that the brand is trustworthy and attentive to customers’ needs [40]. Tong et al. [46] add that commitment expresses consumers’ “strong willingness to maintain a lasting relationship with the brand” (p. 7). The literature recognizes that brand commitment has two components, affective commitment and continuance commitment [49]. Affective brand commitment is at the centre of the relationship between consumers and brands, helping to explain customers’ loyalty to brands in the sense that it is related to the pleasure of maintaining a relationship and also the development of an emotional attachment to a brand [45]. Continuance commitment is connected to the lack of alternatives and high switching costs [49].

There is a lack of studies focusing on the impact of customer-centric sustainability on brand trust and brand commitment. One of the few examples is a study developed by Choi et al. [14] revolving around fashion brands of sports goods and which uncovered that sustainability significantly helped predict brand commitment. The same study also added regarding brand commitment that sustainability was one of the factors that affected this concept of brand relationship the most. Thus, based on the suggestions made by Park and Kim [11] and Fullerton [49], the present study aims to clarify the relationship between the three CCS dimensions, brand trust, and brand commitment, and proposes the research hypotheses presented in Figure 1:

H1. 

Customer-centric economic sustainability positively affects (a) brand trust, (b) affective brand commitment and (c) continuance brand commitment.

H2. 

Customer-centric environmental sustainability positively affects (a) brand trust, (b) affective brand commitment and (c) continuance brand commitment.

H3. 

Customer-centric social sustainability positively affects (a) brand trust, (b) affective brand commitment and (c) continuance brand commitment.

3. Methodology

This study employs an exploratory quantitative approach and reports on a survey of 228 Portuguese consumers of fast fashion. A convenience sample was applied to the universe of this study, comprised of consumers of at least one of the three bigger fast-fashion brands in Europe widely present in Portugal (H&M, Mango, and Zara), which have been establishing a more visible communication about their sustainability concerns and actions. A filter question allowed for the safeguarding of this criterion since each respondent selected the brand they bought the most from in the set of the three fast-fashion brands presented.

3.1. Data Collection: Survey Development and Procedures

The scales used in the questionnaire were based on previous works by Park and Kim [11] and Fullerton [49], and the main constructs are brand-specific; thus, respondents answered questions regarding the three above-mentioned brands (H&M, Mango, and Zara). The questionnaire contained a total of 29 questions. In the first part, respondents were invited to choose the brand they buy most frequently among the three fast-fashion brands. The second part comprises 12 questions, where each group of four items measures the dimensions of CCS (environmental, economic, and social). The third part of the questionnaire has 11 questions and measures the constructs of customer–brand relationship (brand trust, affective brand commitment, and continuance brand commitment). The last part collects sociodemographic data to characterize our sample. Appendix A provides the items used for each of the constructs. Each of the items was measured using a Likert scale with seven levels that ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).

The initial version of the survey was subjected to a pre-test and reviewed in order to mitigate some of the concerns reported from the sample of pre-test trials. The issues reported concerned wording and question formulation. The questionnaire was shared online via Google Forms and self-administered by respondents.

3.2. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the 26th version of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). A regression model was used to test the proposed research hypotheses. Three different multiple linear regressions were employed to test the impact of each dimension of CCS on the dependent variables (brand trust, affective brand commitment, and continuance brand commitment).

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characterization

The final sample consisted predominantly of female fast-fashion consumers, with male respondents not surpassing 9.6%. Respondents were asked to choose the fast-fashion brand that they bought most frequently between H&M, Zara, and Mango. The results show that 67.5% of respondents bought Zara more frequently, followed by H&M, which represented 20.2% of respondents’ preferences.

Table 1. Sample characterization.

Brand	%
H&M	20.2
ZARA	67.5
MANGO	12.3
Gender	%
Female	90.4
Male	9.6
Education level	%
Secondary school	25.9
Higher education	74.1
Income level (net/household)	%
Less than €1000	25.9
€1000–€1500	34.6
€1500–€2000	18.9
More than €2000	20.6

briefly showcases the characterization of the sample regarding brand choices, gender, education level, and income level.

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with principal component analysis and rotation Varimax to identify the dimensionality of the variables and to extract a set of factors. Before proceeding with EFA, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was performed. Additionally, another test necessary to confirm the appropriateness of EFA is Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which is used to test the null hypotheses that the correlations matrix is an identity matrix [46].

Table 2. KMO, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and variance explained.

Customer-Centric Sustainability Scale
Items	EC1, EC2, EC4; ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, SOC1, SOC2, SOC3, SOC4
KMO	0.867
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square	1360.86
Df	55
Sig.	<0.001
% Variance Explained	72.14
Brand Trust Scale
Items	T1, T2, T3, T4
KMO	0.796
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square	330.615
Df	6.000
Sig.	0.000
% Variance Explained	65.764
Brand Commitment Scale
Items	AFF1, AFF2, AFF3, CONT1, CONT2, CONT3
KMO	0.829
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square	663.3
Df	10
Sig.	<0.001
% Variance Explained	80.6

validates that both tests were found satisfactory for EFA.

The performed KMO test generated KMO values that ranged between 0.796 (for Brand Trust scale) and 0.867 (for Customer-centric Sustainability scale). Since all KMO values are above the value of 0.6, it was possible to proceed with EFA. Regarding Bartlett’s test of sphericity, all the variables present a significance level lower than 0.05 (Sig. = 0.000), which means that there are correlations among the different variables for each of the underlying variables. Thus, the test confirms that we can reject the null hypotheses since the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Also, as presented in Table 2, the variance explained was superior to 65% in all scales, which grants a relatively robust and meaningful representation of the data. This indicates that the identified factors successfully capture and explain the underlying patterns and structure within the dataset.

Table 3. EFA results and Alpha Cronbach.

Item	Communalities	M	SD	CC Economic Sustainability	CC Environmental Sustainability	CC Social Sustainability	Brand Trust	Affective Brand Commitment	Continuance Brand Commitment
CCS–EC1	0.771	3.6	0.802	0.874
CCS–EC2	0.636	4.03	0.648	0.853
CCS–EC4	0.807	3.50	0.850	0.781
CCS–ENV1	0.782	2.91	0.927		0.851
CCS–ENV2	0.733	2.64	0.889		0.834
CCS–ENV3	0.841	2.70	0.906		0.801
CCS–ENV4	0.587	3.21	0.943		0.683
CCS–SOC1	0.725	2.42	0.934			0.832
CCS–SOC2	0.748	2.74	0.934			0.770
CCS–SOC3	0.645	2.23	0.974			0.756
CCS–SOC4	0.661	2.75	0.953			0.745
T1	0.722	3.55	0.808				0.850
T2	0.744	3.50	0.837				0.863
T3	0.589	3.59	0.913				0.767
T4	0.576	4.02	0.785				0.759
AFF1	0.851	2.79	1.289					0.836
AFF2	0.820	2.50	1.306					0.831
AFF3	0.734	3.66	1.052					0.842
CONT1	0.686	2.19	1.292						0.660
CONT2	0.823	1.97	1.243						0.862
CONT3	0.867	1.87	11.148						0.905
Cronbach Alpha				0.821	0.875	0.850	0.821	0.873	0.851

Note: M = median; SD = Standard Deviation; CC = Customer-centric.

presents the values for EFA. The communality values were evaluated for all the variables to confirm whether any of the variables showcased a communality value below 0.5, for which researchers recommend removing the item from the study due to the fact that it meant that the factor accounted for less than 50% of the variable’s variance [4]. In this case, two items EC3 (“The clothes from the selected brand are well designed and stylish.”) and T5 (“The selected brand does not pretend to be something it is not.”) fell below 0.5 with values of 0.260 and 0.471, respectively. Thus, these two items were removed, and the tests were repeated.

EFA for the scale Customer-centric Sustainability results in three factors: factor 1, Customer-centric Economic Sustainability, comprises three items with factor loadings from 0.781 to 0.874; factor 2, Customer-centric Environmental Sustainability, comprises four items with factor loadings from 0.683 to 0.851; and factor 3, Customer-centric Social Sustainability, comprises four items and with factor loadings from 0.745 to 0.832. The Brand Trust scale results in one single factor with four items and factor loadings between 0.76 and 0.86. Finally, the scale Brand Commitment results in two factors: factor 1, Affective Brand Commitment, with three items and factor loadings between 0.83 and 0.842, and factor 2, Continuance Brand Commitment, with three items and factor loadings between 0.66 and 0.905. Factors’ selection was supported by previous literature.

Finally, after EFA, one must guarantee that the scales for each of the constructs are reliable, which can be validated if Cronbach’s alpha meets the threshold value of 0.7 or 0.6 in the case of exploratory research [50]. Table 3 shows that all factors presented a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.8, which ranged from 0.821 (for brand trust and Customer-centric Economic Sustainability) and 0.875 (for Customer-centric Environmental Sustainability).

Table 4. Inter Constructs Correlations.

	CC Economic Sustainability	CC Environmental Sustainability	CC Social Sustainability	Brand Trust	Affective Brand Commitment	Continuance Brand Commitment
CC Economic Sustainability	1	0.365 **	0.353 **	0.445 **	0.264 **	0.205 **
CC Environmental Sustainability	0.365 **	1	0.625 **	0.455 **	0.272 **	0.215 **
CC Social Sustainability	0.353 **	0.625 **	1	0.465 **	0.330 **	0.240 **
Brand Trust	0.445 **	0.455 **	0.465 **	1	0.404 **	0.337 **
Affective Brand Commitment	0.264 **	0.272 **	0.330 **	0.404 **	1	0.655 **
Continuance Brand Commitment	0.205 **	0.215 **	0.240 **	0.337 **	0.655 **	1
M	3.7096	2.8506	3.3355	3.6584	2.9867	1.9970
SD	0.65885	0.78353	1.03850	0.67402	1.09077	1.08690
SK	−0.461	0.259	0.135	−0.386	0.021	0.961
KU	1.039	0.705	0.273	0.197	−0.961	−0.105

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Note: M = Mean; Sd= Standard Deviation; SK = skewness; KU = Kurtosis.

presents the Pearson correlation between the latent variables. All the study variables are significantly correlated with each other, which proves the discriminant validity of the constructs. It also presents skewness and kurtosis values, indicating that data are normally distributed and the normality assumptions of the study are met (values between −3 and 3)

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

In order to test the hypothesis through multiple regression analyses, some requirements need to be confirmed. The linearity of the regression between the dependent variable and independent variables was validated. It was confirmed that there was no multicollinearity between the predictors since all correlations between independent variables were below 0.7 for all multiple regressions. A normal distribution of the residuals is reflected by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p-value > 0.05). No multicollinearity is supported by the variance inflation factor (VIF) values below 10 (between 1.189 and 1.709) and tolerance above 0.1. And finally, homoscedasticity was revealed by the similarity of the variance of error terms across the values of the independent variables.

The following sections present all regressions summarised in

Table 5. Multiple regression analysis.

	Model A Brand Trust			Model B Affective Brand Commitment			Model C Continuance Brand Commitment
	β	t	sig	β	t	sig	β	t	sig
Customer-Centric Economic Sustainability	0.293	4.86	<0.001	0.259	2.346	0.020	0.007	0.057	0.954
Customer-Centric Social Sustainability	0.152	3.330	0.001	0.241	2.882	0.004	0.185	2.118	0.03
Customer-Centric Environmental Sustainability	0.175	2.875	0.004	0.10	0.898	0.37	0.153	1.314	0.190
R2	0.33 **			0.137 **			0.065 **
F	37.435 **			12.134 **			5.311 **

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

. The variable selection process followed the enter method, where researchers choose the independent variables, in this case, based on the literature review. This allows to extract more meaningful information to answer the research problem [51].

4.3.1. Multiple Linear Regression—A

The first multiple linear regression aims to test hypotheses H1a, H2a, and H3a, where the dependent variable is brand trust, and the independent variables are customer-centric economic sustainability, customer-centric social sustainability, and customer-centric environmental sustainability. As shown in Table 5, the output for regression A establishes that 33% of the variance of brand trust can be explained by the three dimensions of the customer-centric sustainability framework. In addition, the ANOVA test was found to be significant (p < 0.001), thus indicating that there is a linear relationship between the variables.

Results reveal that all three independent variables (customer-centric economic sustainability, customer-centric environmental sustainability, and customer-centric social sustainability) have a significant influence on brand trust (p-value < 0.05). Consequently, all three hypotheses, H1a, H2a, and H3a, were validated by this multiple linear regression.

4.3.2. Multiple Linear Regression—B

The second multiple linear regression tests whether the customer-centric dimensions of sustainability have a positive effect on affective brand commitment (hypotheses H1b, H2b, and H2c). The ANOVA test was also significant (p > 0.001), which points to a linear relationship between the variables. Although there is a significant linear relationship between the variables, the independent variables present low predictive power over the dependent variable. As shown in Table 5, the three dimensions of customer-centric sustainability can only explain 13,7% of the variance of affective brand commitment. Even though the adjusted coefficient of determination is low, it is higher than 0.1, so the regression analysis can still be performed [51].

Results reveal that not all independent variables of the multiple linear regression B were found to be statistically significant predictors of the dependent variable. Both customer-centric economic sustainability and customer-centric social sustainability are significant predictors of affective brand commitment, but the same cannot be said of customer-centric environmental sustainability, whose p-value is higher than 0.05. In this sense, customer-centric environmental sustainability did not make a significant contribution to change in affective brand commitment. Thus, H1b and H2b were confirmed; however, H3b was not supported.

4.3.3. Multiple Linear Regression—C

The third and final multiple linear regression tests if the customer-centric dimensions of sustainability have a positive effect on continuance brand commitment. In line with the above hypotheses, H1c, H2c and H3c, the dependent variable is continuance brand commitment, whereas customer-centric economic sustainability, customer-centric social sustainability, and customer-centric environmental sustainability are the independent variables.

The ANOVA test was also significant (p < 0.001); thus, there is a linear relationship between the variables in this regression. However, Table 5 showcases that according to the interpretation of the adjusted R squared, the three dimensions of customer-centric sustainability can only explain 6.5% of the variance of continuance brand commitment. As this value is below the cut-off value of 10%, suggested as acceptable to confirm that the independent variables have predictive power over the dependent variable, it is not possible to confirm hypotheses H1c, H2c, and H3c.

To wrap up this section,

Table 6. Summary of results.

Hypothesis	Empirical Result
H1a: Customer-centric economic sustainability positively affects brand trust.	Supported
H1b: Customer-centric economic sustainability positively affects affective brand commitment.	Supported
H1c: Customer-centric economic sustainability positively affects continuance brand commitment.	Not Supported
H2a: Customer-centric environmental sustainability positively affects brand trust.	Supported
H2b: Customer-centric environmental sustainability positively affects affective brand commitment.	Not Supported
H2c: Customer-centric environmental sustainability positively affects continuance brand commitment.	Not Supported
H3a: Customer-centric social sustainability positively affects brand trust.	Supported
H3b: Customer-centric social sustainability positively affects affective brand commitment.	Supported
H3c: Customer-centric social sustainability positively affects continuance brand commitment.	Not Supported

summarizes the results obtained for the research hypotheses.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Following Kim and Park’s [11] study, this research aimed to measure the impact of customer-centric sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) on brand trust and extend the analysis to the impact of each of the three dimensions on brand commitment (affective and continuance). Results revealed that customer-centric economic sustainability, customer-centric environmental sustainability, and customer-centric social sustainability all had a significant statistical impact on brand trust, thus supporting hypotheses H1a, H2a, and H3a.

5.1.1. The Relationship between Customer-Centric Sustainability and Trust

These results are not fully consistent with previous research supporting that customer-centric environmental sustainability had an insignificant impact on brand trust [11]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that even though customer-centric environmental sustainability was found to be a significant predictor of brand trust, it was the dimension with the least impact. Our findings confirm that customer-centric economic sustainability is playing a greater role for consumers, which suggests that consumers might want a change in the pace at which the industry is moving and expect products to last longer, as previously suggested in the literature [25,52].

5.1.2. The Relationship between Customer-Centric Sustainability and Brand Commitment

Regarding the relationship between customer-centric sustainability and brand commitment (affective and continuance), our findings revealed that whilst customer-centric economic sustainability and customer-centric social sustainability were found to be significant predictors of affective brand commitment, the same cannot be said of customer-centric environmental sustainability. Thus, according to our findings, and once again, the environmental dimension of sustainability does not impact consumers’ willingness to commit long-term to a fast-fashion brand. These are interesting findings since the environmental dimension is often the most explored in the literature and the one most often advertised by brands that make special collections focusing on the use of organic materials [22]. This research revealed that this dimension may be outweighed by the willingness to buy cheaper, especially in a context of an economic crisis [15]. Thus, fashion brands may need to shift the focus from the customer-centric environmental dimension of sustainability to both the economic and social dimensions. In line with the above, H1b and H3b were confirmed, but H2b was not supported. Regarding the influence of the three dimensions of sustainability on continuance brand commitment, our findings indicate a weak effect. The explanatory power of these three variables in relation to the variance of continuance brand commitment was found to be minimal. Consequently, our findings do not support H1c, H2c, and H3c.

5.2. The Adequacy of the CCS Framework: Future Research and ‘Food for Thought’ for Practitioners

This study contributes to the existing but scarce literature concerning the adequacy of the CCS framework to measure consumers’ perceptions of fast-fashion brands regarding sustainability. It also provides additional insights into how consumers’ perceptions of the three dimensions of sustainability might affect customer–brand relationships, namely brand trust and brand commitment. Firstly, as above-mentioned, this paper suggests that the three dimensions of sustainability were significant predictors of brand trust, while previous research with consumers from the United States of America (USA) found that environmental sustainability was not a significant predictor [14]. Thus, Portuguese consumers of fast-fashion brands revealed different perceptions when compared with consumers from the USA. Given these contrasting findings, we encourage future research to test the CCS framework with consumers from different cultural backgrounds, namely in other European settings, to explore if differences in cultural backgrounds are at the root of these differences. Moreover, it would also be very interesting to compare consumers’ perceptions of CCS in developing countries.

Regarding brand-customer relationships based on commitment, previous research [49] found that sustainability was a predictor of brand commitment. Our study provided further details on this relationship by exploring brand commitment into two different dimensions: affective brand commitment and continuance brand commitment. Findings revealed that none of the CCS dimensions was found to be significant predictors of continuance brand commitment. Affective brand commitment, on the other hand, our findings suggested the social and economic dimensions have significant predictive power, but the same was not found in the environmental dimension.

Lastly, previous research has been criticized for employing macro-level measures of sustainability [10]. By using the three-dimensional CCS framework, the present study strived to mitigate the lack of research which focus on more micro levels of sustainability. By doing so, we were able to conclude that all three dimensions are differently perceived and valued by fashion consumers. What is striking is that sustainability efforts from fast-fashion industries have strongly focused on reducing the impact of the industry on the environment. Our findings revealed, however, that despite these efforts, consumers do not value the environmental dimension as much as the social and economic. In fact, it is the CCS variable with less predictive power on brand trust and no predictive power at all over affective brand commitment. Social and economic-centric sustainability, on the contrary, were found to be predictors of both brand trust and affective brand commitment, and the economic dimension is the one with the greatest impact. This means that environmental arguments used by fast-fashion retailers to reflect their concerns towards sustainability, for example, ‘we are sourcing more ecological fabrics’, are deemed less important for consumers than economic arguments, for example, ‘our clothes are cheaper in the long run given its durability and fit’. Hence, fashion retailers should rethink, and reframe, their marketing and communication strategies in order to embrace consumers’ perceptions regarding the three dimensions of customer-centric sustainability (social, environmental, and economic) instead of putting the spotlight on environmental arguments alone. A marketing strategy with a more balanced focus on all three dimensions of sustainability may also mitigate the risk of greenwashing since it portrays a brand concerned, and committed, to all aspects of sustainability, thus lessening the risk of some actions being perceived as misleading.

5.3. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be noted. Firstly, our results are based on a non-probabilistic sample technique, not allowing a generalization of the results for the population. Nevertheless, convenience samples have been widely used in consumer research for decades, thus yielding valuable results and contributions. And secondly, the sample is constituted of 90.4% of female respondents, which raises the question of the gender bias of the sample. The female bias in the sample, however, is consistent with other studies on consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable fashion and brand attributes in which women predominate [1].