Next Article in Journal
Integrating Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of Theme Extraction via Text Mining
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Government Construction and Provincial Green Innovation Efficiency: Empirical Analysis Based on Institutional Environment in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/su162210031
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Engaging in Fashion Take-Back Programs: The Role of Loyalty and Perceived Benefits from a Social Exchange Perspective

by
Hyesim Seo
and
Byoungho Ellie Jin
*
Department of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 10031; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210031
Submission received: 2 October 2024 / Revised: 11 November 2024 / Accepted: 12 November 2024 / Published: 18 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Numerous fashion brands, such as Patagonia, H&M, and Levi’s, offer take-back programs, encouraging customers to return used clothing for monetary incentives so that the brands can resell, recycle, or donate them. Drawing on social exchange theory, this study suggests that consumers are more likely to participate in a loyal brand’s take-back program as they own more items from loyal brands due to repeated purchases. Loyal consumers, viewing this as part of an ongoing relationship with the brand, may participate because they perceive greater benefits than non-loyal consumers. In turn, brands benefit by keeping loyal consumers engaged through product collection and future purchases using coupons. This study examines how brand loyalty affects the perceived benefits of take-back programs, shaping participation intention. It also explores how environmental concern moderates the mediating effect of perceived benefits between brand loyalty and participation intention. Data were collected from 467 U.S. consumers via an online survey. Results revealed that the more loyal consumers were, the greater they perceived economic, environmental, and convenience benefits to be, increasing their intention to participate. Economic benefits were more effective for consumers with low levels of environmental concern, while environmental benefits were more influential for those with high levels of environmental concern.

1. Introduction

Nearly every day, a flood of new fashion items pours into shops, but behind the scenes, piles of discarded clothes accumulate somewhere in the world. The prevalence of environmental issues has raised awareness about responsible production and operation throughout the fashion supply chain [1]. As part of these efforts, fashion brands have begun focusing on managing their end-of-life products [2]. More than 160 fashion brands now operate take-back programs [3]. Fashion take-back programs motivate customers to return used garments in exchange for brand credits or discounts, with the ultimate aim of reselling, recycling, or donating the collected items. For example, Tommy Hilfiger has kept over 100,000 kg of garments from its take-back program since 2020 and produced Tommy Remixed collections from upcycled products [4]. Eileen Fisher has taken over 1.5 million items since 2009 for resale, donation, or repurposing [5]. These programs help divert unwanted clothing from landfills and incineration, promoting extended material circulation through recycling or reuse [6].
The effective implementation of take-back programs relies on consumer engagement and commitment, as these are pivotal factors in the return of products to brands [7]. Some fashion brands have been operating take-back programs for years, but the scale of these initiatives needs to be more substantial in order to mitigate overall waste effectively [8]. Therefore, to capture the full value of take-back programs, it is crucial to ensure that consumers return used items to brands at the end of their lifecycle. As such, questions arise: Why do consumers return their used clothing to brands? What motivates them to do so, and how does it motivate them?
However, existing research seeking to answer the questions is limited. First, scant research exists because fashion take-back programs run by brands and retailers have only recently been introduced into the industry. While there are previous studies on take-back programs in other domains, such as consumer electronics [9], they cannot be applied to the fashion sector. Second, existing research on fashion take-back programs does not explain how consumers are motivated to participate. Researchers performed a single case study of a European fashion brand’s take-back program [7]. Experimental research was performed to explore the effects of information types of program purposes and reward levels on consumers’ participation intention [6].
This study examines the reasons behind consumers’ participation in fashion take-back programs. Since these programs are primarily brand-specific, brand-loyal consumers are more likely to engage in their preferred brand’s take-back program as they place greater value on the benefits received from the brand compared to non-loyal consumers. Building on social exchange theory, this study tests whether brand loyalty increases perceived benefits—economic, environmental, and convenience—and enhances the intention to participate in fashion take-back programs. This study further investigates how environmental concerns impact the mediating effects of consumers’ benefit perceptions between brand loyalty and participation intention. After confirming the benefits of participating in take-back programs via in-depth interviews with U.S. consumers, we then administered an online survey to collect data for hypothesis testing.
The findings contribute to the research on consumers’ clothing disposal behavior regarding take-back programs. They also contribute to the literature on social exchange theory by revealing the motives behind participation in take-back programs from the perspective of consumer–brand relationships. Practical implications are discussed for fashion brands and retailers, offering insights into mechanisms for augmenting participation, considering consumers’ loyalty, perceived benefits, and levels of environmental concern.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Fashion Take-Back Programs as a Clothing Disposal Method

Consumers typically dispose of clothing by reselling, donating, passing it on to friends or family members, dropping it off in recycling bins, or simply throwing it away [10]. Recently, take-back programs have emerged as another method, with over 160 fashion brands implementing these programs [3,6]. Fashion take-back programs differ from other clothing disposal methods.
Table 1 provides examples of existing fashion take-back programs. Fashion take-back programs are notable for providing brand-specific monetary incentives for returned items, benefiting consumers loyal to the brand. The type and amount of the incentives depend on the condition of the returned item and the program’s policies. For example, as shown in Table 1, Eileen Fisher accepts its own branded garments in any condition, offering $5 store credit for each item. In contrast, Madewell offers a $20 discount on new purchases of jeans for any brand’s denim jeans in good condition. Consumers may find reselling their items online more profitable than take-back programs, as it allows them to set the sale price flexibly and earn cash instead of redeemable branded rewards.
However, it is more convenient to participate in fashion take-back programs than reselling items, where consumers must handle various tasks, including posting listings with product photographs, contacting potential buyers, and managing shipping once the item is sold. To participate in a brand’s take-back program, consumers simply need to drop off items at the nearest participating brand store or mail them in. The drop-off method may be especially effortless for consumers who regularly or frequently visit the stores of the brand whose program they intend to participate in. Regarding the collected items, the brand then takes responsibility for disposing of the items on behalf of the consumers. Many fashion brands choose to resell collected garments in good condition through resale sections on their websites, such as Lululemon’s Like New and Levi’s SecondHand, while recycling or donating the rest. Thus, the convenience of participating may be an important motivator for fashion take-back programs, even if the monetary gains are lower compared to those derived from reselling items.

2.2. Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange is “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do, in fact, bring from others [11]”. Early researchers Homans [12] and Blau [11] asserted that exchange can underlie social relationships, where individuals provide, receive, or reject tangible and intangible resources [13]. Social exchange can be distinguished from economic exchange by its reciprocity [14]. The norm of reciprocity suggests that when someone does something for another person, the recipient may feel obligated to return the favor, depending on the benefits received from the actions [15]. The organizational behavior literature on social exchange emphasizes the central role of employees’ benefit perception in employee–employer relationships. In the workplace, when employees perceive benefits such as rewards and support from their employer, they reciprocate through contributions, including higher levels of commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and better performance [14,16]. Similarly, social exchange can occur within customer–brand relationships. Consumers can perceive benefits from the core service or the relationship itself, and both consumers and companies must derive benefits for a long-term relationship [17].
This study suggests that fashion take-back programs align more with social exchange within a consumer–brand relationship than with general economic exchange. These programs are designed for customers who have previously purchased from the brand, encouraging them to return used products. Consumers’ decisions to participate in take-back programs may be influenced by brand loyalty built from positive past experiences with the products [18]. When consumers, especially loyal ones, are satisfied with their past transactions and overall brand experience, they are more likely to repurchase and advocate for the brand [19]. Returning used products to the brand may indicate a willingness to maintain the relationship, driven by brand loyalty, by supporting the take-back program and by making another purchase using monetary incentives. Thus, participating in a take-back program can be viewed as a social exchange within the consumer–brand relationship.
Drawing on social exchange theory, this study suggests that consumers are more likely to participate in a loyal brand’s take-back program, as they own more items from loyal brands due to repeated purchases. Loyal consumers, viewing this as part of an ongoing relationship with the brand, may participate because they perceive greater benefits than non-loyal consumers. In turn, brands benefit by keeping loyal consumers engaged through product collection and future purchases using coupons. This reciprocity can reflect the nature of social exchange in take-back programs. Since social exchange theory emphasizes socioemotional aspects such as “give and take” [14,20], it may help to explain consumer motivations, particularly their perception of benefits, when engaging with take-back programs. Social exchange theory has been widely applied in relationship marketing research to understand key behavioral outcomes of relational exchanges with brands, such as repurchase intentions [21]. Thus, applying the theory in this study’s context can provide insights into consumer motivation and participation in take-back programs as a form of social exchange within a consumer–brand relationship.

2.3. Perceived Benefits of Fashion Take-Back Program Participation

Considering the reciprocity principle in social exchange, the research model in this study highlights three primary benefits—economic, environmental, and convenience—that consumers perceive when considering participation in fashion take-back programs. These perceived benefits encourage consumers to return used products to brands. Specifically, the perceived economic and environmental benefits were derived from a literature review. To confirm these benefits, in-depth consumer interviews were conducted as a pilot study. Through these interviews, perceived convenience benefits emerged as an additional benefit, while economic and environmental benefits were reaffirmed. Further details are provided in the following sections.

2.3.1. Perceived Economic and Environmental Benefits

Based on a review of the sustainable consumption literature and the characteristics of take-back programs, we consider economic and environmental benefits to be important motivators. Economic and environmental benefits have been studied in research on sustainable clothing consumption. Economic benefits are crucial extrinsic motivations in clothing consumption since consumers are concerned about money [22,23]. Research on collaborative consumption and clothing disposal behaviors defines economic benefits as opportunities to save money on products or earn money, motivating consumers to engage in sustainable consumption, such as reselling used clothing or using fashion rental services [23,24].
In this study, economic benefits are considered to be among the significant motivations, as fashion take-back programs are notable for offering brand-specific monetary incentives in exchange for returned items. We define the economic benefits of take-back program participation as monetary incentives customers receive, such as store credit and discount coupons, in exchange for their returned used items. These rewards are beneficial in terms of future purchases at the participating brand. Thus, economic benefits may motivate participation.
The environmental benefits of sustainable practices have been noted in studies on reusing and recycling textiles and clothing. The benefits involve positive environmental contributions, such as reduced textile and clothing waste rates; the conservation of raw material, water, and energy used for new clothing production; and a reduced carbon footprint [25]. According to research on purchasing from green brands, when purchasing products from an environmentally sustainable brand, consumers perceive indirect environmental benefits arising from the brand’s environmental commitment [26]. Furthermore, consumers experience a sense of moral satisfaction called a warm glow. This is derived from brand purchases that contribute to the environment [27]. That is, consumers feel good and proud of their green behavior because they believe they are doing the right thing for the environment and avoid the guilt associated with unethical behavior [28].
This study views environmental benefits as another motivation for consumer participation in take-back programs. As these programs aim to reduce the environmental impact of production and textile waste by promoting the reuse and recycling of used clothing, the environmental benefits appear clear. Additionally, consumers may feel a sense of pride in contributing to environmental sustainability through these programs, which can also be regarded as an additional environmental benefit. Therefore, taken together, the environmental benefits in this study involve the environmental contributions of fashion take-back programs and the concomitant warm glow feeling—namely, a feeling of goodness and pride.

2.3.2. Pilot Study: In-Depth Interviews to Confirm Various Benefits

To confirm the benefits of fashion take-back programs, we conducted in-depth interviews with fourteen U.S. consumers. The interviews were administered from 8 February to 27 February 2024 upon receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. The participants comprised six males and eight females aged 20 to 37 years. Among them, five had prior experience with fashion take-back programs, while nine shared their thoughts without any prior experience. We used the semi-structured questionnaire that included questions about motivations or thoughts about participating in fashion take-back programs and the reasons for the answers. In the interviews, this study mainly sought to understand what would motivate consumers to participate in fashion take-back programs. Each interview lasted approximately for 40 to 50 min and was conducted via Zoom. The interviews were recorded and transcribed with participants’ consent to facilitate detailed analysis and derive meaningful insights.
The interviews confirmed that economic and environmental benefits were motivations for take-back program participation. In addition, convenience benefits were newly identified as an important motivation. Economic benefits seemed the most prominent. Several participants valued the monetary rewards from their favorite brands’ take-back programs as they could use them to purchase new products, driven by brand loyalty. For example, one participant preferred a particular brand’s take-back program over donations due to the store credit, stating, “They (the brand) typically have other products that I would like to purchase.”
The environmental sustainability of fashion take-back programs was identified as another common motivation. For example, participants mentioned that “If it helps the sustainability. I would like to be part of that”. A few also mentioned feeling good about engaging in the programs as sustainable practices. One noted that “I think those kinds of trade-ins make people feel good and make them feel like a sustainable shopper”. The economic and environmental benefits can jointly motivate consumer participation. One mentioned that “I would think, oh, cool! I am not throwing them away, and I am getting money”.
Lastly, convenience benefits were found to be an important motivation. We combined the responses related to the easy participation process and the reduced effort required compared to other profitable options, like reselling online, into ‘convenience benefits.’ Experienced participants highlighted the ease of participation, saying, for example, that “The experience is really easy. They make it very simple. You basically bring your clothes in”. Regarding shipping options, one participant mentioned that “If you ship it straight to the brand, fill out the form, and say this does not fit me, they say: Thank you very much. Here is the gift card. So that was kind of why I chose that route (take-back program)”. Several participants favored take-back programs over resale online despite potentially higher payouts. For example, one explained that “You have to spend the time to make a post about it and wait for someone to even want to buy it… some people ask for measurements”. Another participant noted that “…I have to ship, and you know I have to talk to other people for doing it. So, if I want to buy something from that brand, I will just go and trade in”. This response also highlights the effortless benefit of bringing used clothing while shopping in-store.

2.3.3. Convenience Benefits Identified from Interviews

As noted, the interviews revealed convenience to be an additional benefit of participating in fashion take-back programs. We define the convenience benefits of fashion take-back programs as providing an easy and effortless method for disposing of used branded clothing.
Fashion take-back programs provide straightforward methods to enable consumers to dispose of used clothing, with brands handling the responsible disposal on consumers’ behalf. Compared to reselling online, these programs offer a more convenient process, while both options provide opportunities for monetary gain. Consumers only need to drop off or mail in items, avoiding the tasks of listing, communicating with buyers, and handling shipping. The brand then takes responsibility for the disposal of the collected items, making the process especially easy for regular store visitors. Convenience should be addressed when exploring the motivations for take-back program participation. Inconvenience discourages people from engaging in sustainable clothing disposal behaviors and is closely related to the propensity to discard clothing [23,29].
Overall, the interviews confirmed the economic, environmental, and convenience benefits of fashion take-back programs, an area previously underexplored in the literature. Therefore, economic, environmental, and convenience benefits are considered in order to motivate consumer participation in fashion take-back programs. After incorporating the three benefits into our research framework, we conducted an online survey to collect data.

2.4. Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty involves both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions, which are essential in strategic marketing [30]. Behavioral loyalty, or purchase loyalty, pertains to consumers’ willingness to repurchase from a brand, while attitudinal loyalty refers to the level of commitment toward the brand [31]. Therefore, true brand loyalty integrates these two dimensions and is defined as “a biased, behavioral response (purchase) over time by a decision-making unit toward one or more brands, driven by brand commitment [32]”.
Given that commitment means the enduring desire to sustain a relationship [33], a consumer–brand relationship closely relates to brand loyalty. Consumers establish a relationship with a brand to fulfill their needs or goals related to the brand [34]. Consumers typically remain loyal to a brand to attain better value in terms of utility and cost, such as rewards for frequent users, or to enjoy the benefits that arise from relationship connections [35]. In this regard, it is assumed that brand-loyal consumers are more likely to value the benefits they will receive from the brand than non-loyal consumers.
Most fashion take-back programs target the current customer base, encouraging them to return the brand’s products that they own. Additionally, monetary rewards that can be used for future purchases may seem more advantageous to regular customers. Given the nature of brand loyalty, involving commitment and repurchasing behavior [32], we expect that loyal consumers are more likely to favor the idea and benefits of take-back programs. Therefore, this study suggests that brand loyalty is fundamental in explaining consumers’ engagement with fashion take-back programs.

2.5. Environmental Concern

In the industrialized world, a clean environment is highly valued, and most people feel obligated to act in an environmentally friendly manner [36]. Accordingly, consumers’ environmental concern about pollution and natural resources has grown [37]. Environmental concern means “a general attitude toward preserving the environment” [38] (p. 38).
As one of the biggest industries in the world [39], the fashion industry impacts the environment from manufacturing to consumption through water and chemical use, CO2 emissions, and textile waste [40]. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [41], clothing and footwear generation in the U.S. doubled to 13 million tons from 2000 to 2018 and the clothing disposal rate also surged [42]. In 2018, 9 million tons of used items were discarded, double the amount in 2005 [41]. Globally, over 92 million tons of waste are produced yearly [40].
To address the environmental impacts of the fashion industry, a shift in consumer behavior is essential, and transforming the fashion business model is also imperative [40]. Consumer engagement in sustainable consumption, such as utilizing secondhand markets and repurposing used clothing, can contribute to sustainability in the fashion industry [42]. The return of used clothing to brands through take-back programs is another option for sustainable consumption during the disposal phase. Consumers’ active involvement is pivotal to the success of these programs [7].
Consumer engagement in fashion take-back programs may depend on their environmental concerns. Previous research has revealed the positive impact of environmental concern on sustainable consumption behaviors [23,27,43,44]. Environmentally concerned consumers support the environment, and in turn they also support sustainable fashion [38]. Moreover, prior studies have examined how consumer behavior in various environmental sustainability contexts varies depending on their level of environmental concern. For instance, consumers with different levels of environmental concern showed varying levels of effort in recycling programs [45], different perceptions of a brand’s greenness [46], and differences in their willingness to pay a premium for eco-friendly fashion products [47]. Similarly, it can be assumed that consumers may respond differently to participation in fashion take-back programs depending on their level of environmental concern. This study considers environmental concern as a moderating factor, to examine whether it influences the effect of brand loyalty on participation intention in fashion take-back programs by offering perceived benefits. Exploring the moderating role of environmental concern is crucial for understanding differences in motivations to participate in take-back programs and for developing targeted strategies to promote these programs effectively.

3. Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development

This study proposes a research framework based on social exchange theory (Figure 1). The basic premise of the framework is that consumers’ brand loyalty enhances perceptions of the economic (H1a), environmental (H1b), and convenience (H1c) benefits that can be gained through fashion take-back program participation. Perceived economic (H2a), environmental (H2b), and convenience (H2c) benefits, in turn, influence the intention to participate. Therefore, the impact of brand loyalty on participation intention is completely mediated by the perceived benefits (H3). It is also presumed that environmental concern moderates the mediating effects of perceived economic benefits (H4a) and perceived environmental benefits (H4b) on the relationship between brand loyalty and participation intention.

3.1. Brand Loyalty and Perceived Benefits

As discussed earlier, the mutual exchange of benefits is important in social relationships [12,15]. In a consumer–brand relationship, as the emphasis consumers put on the respective benefits changes as the relationship matures, the importance of benefits differs between new and loyal consumers [48]. Consumers often stay loyal to a brand to maximize utility-related benefits while minimizing costs [35]. Previous studies show a positive relationship between brand loyalty and the perceived economic and convenience benefits. Brand-loyal customers were found to favor monetary promotions, such as brand coupons [49]. Research also notes that loyal consumers tend to focus on rewards and convenience as the potential benefits of the relationship [50].
Consumers’ loyalty to a brand may positively influence the perception of the brand’s environmental benefits. Consumers maintain brand loyalty to enjoy personal benefits, such as shared values with the brand [35]. Additionally, brand loyalty influences how consumers interpret information about a brand’s greenness. Brand-loyal consumers were found to more enthusiastically accept green rating information than non-loyal consumers [46]. Based on the above discussion, we expect that the more consumers are loyal to a brand, the greater they will perceive the economic, environmental, and convenience benefits that can be gained from participating in fashion take-back programs to be.
Hypothesis 1.
Brand loyalty enhances the perception of economic (H1a), environmental (H1b), and convenience (H1c) benefits from fashion take-back program participation.

3.2. Perceived Benefits and Participation Intention

Previous studies have identified that consumers’ perceptions of benefits positively influence their behavioral intentions. As for economic benefits, research shows that financial incentives can encourage consumers to adopt pro-environmental actions such as recycling [51]. Consumers’ clothing disposal behavior is also related to economic benefits. People who want to save money resell or reuse unwanted clothing [23]. It was found that economic benefits, such as saving money on shopping, strongly influenced the intention to use fashion rental services [22,52]. Likewise, monetary incentives offered by fashion take-back programs may encourage consumers to participate.
Environmental benefits were found to significantly motivate consumers to engage in environmentally friendly activities. Research shows that consumers are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors when they perceive the environmental benefits of these actions in their daily lives [53]. In the context of fashion take-back programs, McKie et al. [6] revealed that the environmental benefits of the program participation are the primary reason for participants to return their used clothing to brands. Moreover, consumers’ anticipated feeling of warm glow arising from contributing to the environmental common good through a green brand was found to positively influence marketing outcomes, such as purchase intention [27] and brand evaluation [26]. Thus, the environmental contributions expected from participating in fashion take-back programs and the concomitant warm glow feeling could inspire consumers to dispose of their used clothing through these programs.
Convenience benefits at the point of service allow for the easier consumption of services [50]. Even when tasks or actions are related to the environment, individuals tend to engage in them only when minimal effort is required. The advantages of convenience and minimal effort significantly influence their choice of clothing disposal options [29]. For recycling, it was found that making recycling programs easy and convenient and giving consumers access to the programs can definitively determine consumers’ recycling behavior [54,55]. Additionally, consumers’ tendency to discard clothing is closely linked to the convenience of disposal methods [23]. As such, when consumers perceive fashion take-back programs to be easy, they are more likely to return their used branded clothing to these programs.
Considering the reciprocity principle in social exchange, this study posits that the greater consumers perceive the benefits—economic, environmental, and convenience—gained from participating in fashion take-back programs to be, the more willing they are to participate. Thus, we develop the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Perceived benefits—economic (H2a), environmental (H2b), and convenience (H2c)—enhance participation intention in fashion take-back programs.
According to the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, the mutual exchange of benefits is essential in social relationships [12,15]. In consumer–brand relationships, the perceived benefits of fashion take-back programs may be crucial in motivating brand-loyal consumers to reciprocate, namely, participate in the programs. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 3.
Perceived benefits fully mediate the relationship between brand loyalty and participation intention.

3.3. The Moderating Effect of Environmental Concern

It is widely recognized that economic benefits can effectively motivate consumers’ pro-environmental behaviors [56]. However, the effectiveness of economic benefits may depend on individuals’ levels of environmental concern. Specifically, monetary incentives may work better for people with low levels of environmental concern because those less environmentally concerned do not experience a conflict between protecting the environment and financial gains, choosing the latter [57]. Prior research found that monetary incentives led people with fewer concerns to be more willing to exert effort in recycling than those with more concerns [45]. Likewise, consumers with low levels of environmental concern may be more motivated to participate in fashion take-back programs due to the economic benefits offered compared to those with high levels of environmental concern.
In addition, the effectiveness of environmental benefits may depend on individuals’ levels of environmental concern. Since people with more environmental concerns value environmental quality and recognize the environmental impacts of sustainable behaviors [43,58], they may perceive environmental benefits more strongly than those with fewer concerns. Previous studies revealed that highly environmentally concerned consumers are more positively affected by perceived brand environmental performance [59] and perceive the potential positive environmental outcomes of green purchasing products more highly, which in turn enhances their purchase intention from the brand [59,60]. As such, consumers with high levels of environmental concern are more likely to perceive the environmental benefits of fashion take-back programs and thus exhibit greater participation intention than those with low levels of concern. Taking these factors together, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4.
Low levels of environmental concern enhance the indirect effect of brand loyalty on participation intention through economic benefits (H4a), while high levels of concern increase the effect through environmental benefits (H4b).

4. Methods

4.1. Survey for Hypothesis Testing: Sampling and Data Collection

An online survey method was employed to collect data for hypothesis testing. Data were collected from a research firm’s online panels between 2 March and 3 March 2024. The target sample included male and female consumers aged 18 and older residing in the U.S. To ensure that there was a representative sample, participants were evenly distributed by gender and age. After excluding incomplete or straight-lining responses, a total of 467 responses were used for data analysis. The questionnaire began by asking participants several questions about their clothing disposal behaviors and their awareness and experience of fashion take-back programs. Then, participants were provided with a short description of fashion take-back programs. They were also asked to recall the fashion brand they most frequently purchase from and assume that it runs a fashion take-back program.
Among the 467 respondents, 143 were aware of fashion take-back programs, and 44 had prior experience participating in these programs. The participants comprised 55.5% females and 44.5% males, with a mean age of 45.7 years. The marital status distribution was 50.7% single, 42.2% married, and 7.1% other. Most respondents were Caucasian (74.1%), followed by African American (10.1%), Hispanic (6.4%), Asian (6.2%), and others (3.2%). Regarding education, 32.3% had a bachelor’s degree, 20.8% had some college education, and 19.3% were high school graduates. In terms of annual income, the largest group earned between $40,000 and $59,999 (19.7%), followed by $20,000 to $39,999 (18.8%), and $60,000 to $79,999 (15.4%).

4.2. Measures

Based on the previous literature, measurement items for hypothesis testing were adapted to fit the context of this study. We selected the measurement items for each construct from previous studies, ensuring that they met acceptable reliability thresholds, i.e., a Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.80 and a construct reliability (C.R.) value greater than 0.80. All items of the constructs used in the research model were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Detailed information, including sources and measurement items, is presented in Table 2.

4.3. Reliability and Validity Test

The reliability of the constructs was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The results showed that the values for each construct were greater than 0.80, indicating an acceptable level of reliability (Table 2). Furthermore, in the results of confirmatory factor analysis, model fit indices were acceptable (χ2 = 523.16, df = 228, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.295; CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.964, NFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.053). Convergent validity was confirmed as all factor loadings were above 0.70, each construct’s Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, and each construct’s construct reliability (C.R.) values were greater than 0.80. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, the discriminant validity of the constructs was verified, as all constructs had AVE values greater than the squared correlation coefficients between the constructs.

5. Results

5.1. Results of Structural Equation Modeling

Hypotheses 1–3 were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) through AMOS 23.0 (Figure 2). The model fit indices confirmed that there was a satisfying model fit (χ2 = 487.15; df = 275; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 1.771; CFI = 0.976; TLI = 0.967; NFI = 0.947; RMSEA = 0.041). In the SEM analysis, additional variables that could potentially influence the results were controlled for, including respondents’ age, gender, marital status, education level, income level, clothing retention tendency, and awareness and experience of participating in fashion take-back programs. None of these variables had a significant effect on perceived benefits and participation intent.
The results of the SEM analysis revealed that brand loyalty significantly increased perceptions of economic benefits (β = 0.954), environmental benefits (β = 0.915), and convenience benefits (β = 0.860), supporting H1. The perceived benefits—economic (β = 0.319), environmental (β = 0.299), and convenience (β = 0.242)—positively influenced participation intention in fashion take-back programs. Thus, H2 was supported. In order to test H3, mediation analysis was performed using bootstrapping. The indirect effects of brand loyalty on participation intention through perceived economic (β = 0.350), environmental (β = 0.305), and convenience (β = 0.231) benefits, respectively, were statistically significant, whereas the direct effect of brand loyalty on participation intention was not significant (β = –0.111, p = 0.874), supporting H3.

5.2. Results of Moderated Mediation Analysis

To test H4, a moderated mediation analysis was performed using Model 14 of the SPSS 26.0 PROCESS Macro. The same control variables utilized in the SEM analysis were also incorporated into this analysis. The results of conditional indirect effects are presented in Table 4. First, environmental concern negatively moderated the mediation effect of perceived economic benefits on the relationship between brand loyalty and participation intention (Index = –0.049, BootSE = 0.018, 95% BootCI = [–0.091, –0.020]). This indicates that, as environmental concern increases, the mediation effect of perceived economic benefits decreases. More specifically, the mediation effect of perceived economic benefits was strongest at a low level of environmental concern (Indirect effect = 0.182) and weakest at a high level of environmental concern (Indirect effect = 0.071), thereby supporting H4a.
Second, it was found that as environmental concern increases, the mediation effect of perceived environmental benefits also rises (Index = 0.039, BootSE = 0.018, 95% BootCI = [0.008, 0.079]). That is, the mediation effect of perceived environmental benefits was strongest at a high level of environmental concern (Indirect effect = 0.191). Thus, H4b was supported. Table 5 presents the results of hypothesis testing.

6. Discussion of the Results

Based on social exchange theory, this study investigated the effect of brand loyalty on participation intention in fashion take-back programs through the perceived benefits of the programs. The results indicate that the more consumers are loyal to a particular brand, the greater they are likely to perceive economic, environmental, and convenience benefits to be. The perceived benefits, in turn, enhance their intention to participate in fashion take-back programs. Importantly, the perceived benefits are found to fully mediate the effect of brand loyalty on participation intention, confirming our assumption that the reciprocal exchange is fundamental in take-back programs from the perspective of a consumer–brand relationship. The centrality of benefits in the findings supports Hess and Story’s [35] claim about loyal consumers’ inclination to maximize utility and cost efficiency and to enjoy shared values with a brand.
Regarding the benefits, consumers’ intention to participate was highly motivated by perceived economic benefits, followed by environmental benefits, and then convenience benefits. The finding indicates that even though fashion brands primarily run take-back programs in support of environmental initiatives, consumers are mainly interested in the financial gains from these programs. This may be due to humans’ egoistic nature. Research notes that individuals oriented towards egoistic values focus on self-interest when engaging in pro-environmental behaviors [63]. Hence, our findings support Carter et al.’s [64] claim that emphasizing personal gains is more likely to encourage pro-environmental behaviors, as it demonstrates how benefits outweigh costs. The findings align with Hamari et al.’s [52] research, which shows that consumers’ intention to use collaborative consumption services is more strongly influenced by perceived economic benefits than perceived sustainability.
This study finds noteworthy findings about the moderating effect of environmental concerns. First, the findings showed that the mediation effect of perceived economic benefits on the relationship between brand loyalty and participation intention decreases as environmental concern increases. This indicates that, for brand-loyal consumers with low levels of environmental concern, the perception of economic benefits is more effective in motivating participation intention. This supports Schultz and Oskamp’s [45] study, which found that monetary rewards were more impactful among consumers with low levels of environmental concern in recycling participation. Second, the results revealed that the mediation effect of perceived environmental benefits is stronger for consumers with high levels of environmental concern. This indicates that perceived environmental benefits are particularly effective in encouraging participation intention among brand-loyal consumers who are more environmentally concerned. The results can support Steinhorst and Klöckner’s [56] finding that environmental information framing enhances consumers’ pro-environmental intrinsic motivation for a target pro-environmental behavior.

7. Conclusions

Overall, the findings address our research questions: ‘Why do consumers return their used clothing to brands? What motivates them to do so, and how does it motivate them?’ The results suggest that consumers are primarily willing to return their used clothing to a brand due to brand loyalty. The more loyal consumers are, the more they perceive economic, environmental, and convenience benefits (Why), which increases their willingness to participate in take-back programs (What and how). Specifically, economic benefits are a stronger motivator for loyal consumers with low levels of environmental concern, while environmental benefits are more influential for those with high levels of environmental concern. Based on the findings, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications below. We also discuss the study’s limitations and offer suggestions for future research.

7.1. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the applications of social exchange theory to understand the motivations of clothing disposal behaviors, specifically in the context of the fashion take-back program. In consumer behavior studies, social exchange theory has been adopted to explain the drivers of behavioral intentions within the consumer–brand relationship [65] and commerce [66] settings where exchange transactions between consumers and firms occur. Through the lens of the theory, this study viewed fashion take-back programs in the context of the consumer–brand relationship, assuming that a reciprocal exchange is fundamental. Our findings from the mediation analysis demonstrate the importance of perceived benefits in motivating brand-loyal consumers to dispose of their used branded items through the take-back programs of the loyal brand. Specifically, we identified economic, environmental, and convenience benefits as the primary benefits of fashion take-back programs that enhance brand-loyal consumers’ participation intention as a reciprocating behavior.
The findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge on brand loyalty. As we assumed fashion take-back program participation to be loyalty-driven, the results confirmed the crucial role of brand loyalty in enhancing perceptions of benefits, affecting participation intention. While other studies revealed the significant direct impacts of brand loyalty on behavioral intentions, such as word of mouth [67] and repurchase intentions [31], we found that brand loyalty did not directly affect participation intention, doing so only through perceived benefits. Specifically, this study demonstrates that brand-loyal consumers positively perceive economic benefits due to their preference for branded monetary rewards [49]. Brand-loyal consumers were also found to perceive environmental benefits as they are more receptive to their loyal brand’s environmental performance [46] and seek shared values [35], such as environmental sustainability. Furthermore, this study confirms that brand-loyal consumers perceive convenience benefits. It is assumed that brand-loyal consumers’ commitment to a brand and regular store visits can make them consider take-back programs to be convenient clothing disposal methods. The significant effects of perceived convenience benefits in the research model demonstrate that brand-loyal consumers view fashion take-back programs as advantageous for their convenience, even though these programs may offer fewer monetary gains than other profitable methods, such as reselling online. In summary, this study offers a new perspective on brand loyalty by examining brand-loyal consumers’ engagement with fashion take-back programs and emphasizing the importance of perceived benefits.

7.2. Managerial Implications

In terms of managerial implications, the findings of this study provide insights into how the benefits of fashion take-back programs can encourage loyal consumers to participate. The results suggest that economic, environmental, and convenience benefits should be effectively communicated in advertising, compensating if one type of benefit is relatively weaker. Among the benefits, economic benefits were the most influential, so brands should highlight reward information and carefully consider the reward levels. Prior research indicates that even small rewards can increase the likelihood of returns when consumers are informed about how returned items are repurposed [6]. In addition, clear information about the purpose and size of monetary incentives fosters a positive attitude toward these incentives [36]. Therefore, offering monetary rewards, along with clear communication about how the brand repurposes, recycles, or disposes of the collected items, could effectively increase participation.
Based on the significant moderating effects of environmental concern, brands can consider consumers’ environmental concern levels in tailoring communication messages detailing benefits. In terms of economic benefits, the results imply that loyal consumers with low levels of environmental concern are more strongly motivated by economic benefits than those with high levels of concern when considering take-back program participation. To leverage this in order to attract this customer segment, marketers can emphasize how much money or what percentage of the cost participants can earn or save in exchange for product returns.
Predictably, environmental benefits were found to strongly motivate loyal consumers with high levels of environmental concern to participate more than those with low levels of concern. To appeal to this group while informing people about both economic and environmental benefits, brands can focus on clearly communicating how the brand responsibly processes the collected products and elaborate on environmental impacts, providing specific information such as the amounts or rates of carbon footprint, water, and waste saved by purchasing used items instead of new ones or by recycling them. Alternatively, they can use relevant eco-certifications. In addition, it is essential to emphasize the anticipated pride and good feelings that arise from environmental contributions through participation in take-back programs to enhance intrinsic motivation effectively.
From a business perspective, implementing take-back programs benefits fashion companies. Customers’ in-store drop-offs can positively influence retail sales by increasing foot traffic. After completing a drop-off, consumers are likely to browse the store, which may impact their future purchase decisions or lead to immediate purchases to redeem the rewards received. Consequently, it would be advantageous for fashion brands to actively adopt take-back programs as part of their environmental initiatives.

7.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The limitations of this study suggest avenues for future research. First, because fashion take-back programs are relatively new, participants were recruited regardless of prior experience and answered questions based on hypothetical scenarios involving their loyal brands. Future research should focus on experienced consumers to obtain more realistic responses.
Second, the sampling method employed in this study, utilizing a research firm’s online panels, is non-probabilistic. However, to enhance representativeness, we ensured an even distribution of participants by gender and age, as the panels provide broad coverage of the general population. To further improve the representativeness of the sample and minimize bias, future studies should consider incorporating random sampling techniques.
For new lines of research, we propose several suggestions. This study highlighted the importance of the perceived economic, environmental, and convenience benefits of loyal consumers’ program participation. In this regard, future research could manipulate information about these benefits to examine their varying effects on participation intention. For instance, experiments could explore different monetary rewards, specific environmental impacts (e.g., carbon footprint, water, and waste savings), and return options (e.g., in-store drop-offs or mailing), providing more detailed assessments of practical implications. Furthermore, while this study identified environmental concern as a significant moderator, future studies could explore additional personal traits as moderating variables. This could provide valuable insights into individual differences in benefit perceptions and participation intentions, helping to develop tailored promotional strategies for take-back programs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S. and B.E.J.; methodology, H.S.; validation, H.S.; formal analysis, H.S.; data curation, H.S.; writing—original draft, H.S.; writing—review and editing, B.E.J.; supervision, B.E.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of North Carolina State University (protocol code 26826, approved on 6 February 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data are part of an ongoing study. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Li, M.; Zhao, L. Exploring global fashion sustainability practices through dictionary-based text mining. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2023, 41, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Thorisdottir, T.S.; Johannsdottir, L. Sustainability within fashion business models: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. The Recommerce 100. ThredUp. Available online: https://www.recommerce100.com/ (accessed on 22 October 2023).
  4. Tommy Remixed. AMK Atelier. Available online: https://www.amkatelier.com/remixed (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  5. 15 Fashion Brands That Recycle, Resell, or Upcycle Your Old Clothes. Marie Claire. Available online: https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/clothing-brands-that-recycle-resell-reuse/ (accessed on 20 November 2023).
  6. McKie, E.C.; Saez de Tejada Cuenca, A.; Agrawal, V. Does less result in more? The role of information and rewards in take-back programs for clothing. SSRN Electron. J. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kant Hvass, K.; Pedersen, E.R.G. Toward circular economy of fashion: Experiences from a brand’s product take-back initiative. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2019, 23, 345–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. A Slew of Countries Are Asking Fashion Companies to Pay for Recycling Programs as Clothing Waste Becomes Overwhelming. Fortune. Available online: https://fortune.com/2023/05/30/fashion-waste-recycling-programs-epr-proposed-laws/ (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  9. Budijati, S.M.; Subagyo; Wibisono, M.A.; Masruroh, N.A. Influence of government and economic drivers on consumers’ intentions to participate in a take back program. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2016, 23, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soyer, M.; Dittrich, K. Sustainable consumer behavior in purchasing, using and disposing of clothes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  12. Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958, 63, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bagozzi, R.P. Social exchange in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1975, 3, 314–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shore, L.M.; Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.; Chen, X.P.; Tetrick, L.E. Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2009, 5, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jin, B.; Park, J.Y.; Kim, H.S. What makes online community members commit? A social exchange perspective. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2010, 29, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Gremler, D.D. Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. J. Serv. Res. 2002, 4, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tang, F.; Dai, Y.; Ma, Z.J.; Choi, T.M. Trade-in operations under retail competition: Effects of brand loyalty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2023, 310, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yi, Y.; La, S. What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty. Psychol. Mark. 2004, 21, 351–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shore, L.M.; Tetrick, L.E.; Lynch, P.; Barksdale, K. Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 36, 837–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mishra, M.; Mund, P. Fifty-two years of consumer research based on social exchange theory: A review and research agenda using topic modeling. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2024, 48, e13074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Helinski, C.; Schewe, G. The influence of consumer preferences and perceived benefits in the context of B2C fashion renting intentions of young women. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Joung, H.M.; Park-Poaps, H. Factors motivating and influencing clothing disposal behaviours. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, N.L.; Jin, B.E. Why buy new when one can share? Exploring collaborative consumption motivations for consumer goods. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shirvanimoghaddam, K.; Motamed, B.; Ramakrishna, S.; Naebe, M. Death by waste: Fashion and textile circular economy case. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, J.; Lobo, A.; Leckie, C. The role of benefits and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bakış, S.; Kitapçı, H. Why do consumers purchase green clothing? Investigating symbolic meanings beyond social status and the role of consumer mindset. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2023, 27, 710–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Koch, K.; Domina, T. Consumer textile recycling as a means of solid waste reduction. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 1999, 28, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wernerfelt, B. Brand loyalty and market equilibrium. Mark. Sci. 1991, 10, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bloemer, J.M.; Kasper, H.D. The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. J. Econ. Psychol. 1995, 16, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giovanis, A.N.; Athanasopoulou, P. Consumer-brand relationships and brand loyalty in technology-mediated services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 40, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Johnson, A.R.; Matear, M.; Thomson, M. A coal in the heart: Self-relevance as a post-exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. J. Consum. Res. 2011, 38, 108–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hess, J.; Story, J. Trust-based commitment: Multidimensional consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 2005, 22, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thøgersen, J. Monetary incentives and environmental concern. Effects of a differentiated garbage fee. J. Consum. Policy 1994, 17, 407–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Thieme, J.; Royne, M.B.; Jha, S.; Levy, M.; Barnes McEntee, W. Factors affecting the relationship between environmental concern and behaviors. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015, 33, 675–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Minton, A.P.; Rose, R.L. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 40, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. The State of Fashion 2017: McKinsey & BoF Report. McKinsey & Company. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/The%20state%20of%20fashion/The-state-of-fashion-2017-McK-BoF-report.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  40. Niinimäki, K.; Peters, G.; Dahlbo, H.; Perry, P.; Rissanen, T.; Gwilt, A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nondurable Goods: Product-Specific Data—Clothing and Footwear. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/nondurable-goods-product-specific-data#ClothingandFootwear (accessed on 19 October 2024).
  42. Claudio, L. Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, A448–A454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gam, H.J. Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2011, 15, 178–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B.; Kumar, S. Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schultz, P.W.; Oskamp, S. Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1996, 59, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kwon, W.S.; Englis, B.; Mann, M. Are third-party green–brown ratings believed?: The role of prior brand loyalty and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yadav, S.; Xu, Y.; Hergeth, H. Walking the talk: Unraveling the influence of the sustainability features of leather alternatives on consumer behavior toward running shoes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mittal, V.; Katrichis, J.M. Distinctions between new and loyal customers. Mark. Res. 2000, 12, 26–32. [Google Scholar]
  49. Manzur, E.; Olavarrieta, S.; Hidalgo, P.; Farías, P.; Uribe, R. Store brand and national brand promotion attitudes antecedents. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Umashankar, N.; Bhagwat, Y.; Kumar, V. Do loyal customers really pay more for services? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 807–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abila, B.; Kantola, J. The perceived role of financial incentives in promoting waste recycling—Empirical evidence from Finland. Recycling 2019, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van Der Werff, E.; Steg, L. Spillover benefits: Emphasizing different benefits of environmental behavior and its effects on spillover. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Derksen, L.; Gartrell, J. The social context of recycling. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1993, 58, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Halvorsen, B. Effects of norms and opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Steinhorst, J.; Klöckner, C.A. Effects of monetary versus environmental information framing: Implications for long-term pro-environmental behavior and intrinsic motivation. Environ. Behav. 2018, 50, 997–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wyss, A.M.; Knoch, D.; Berger, S. When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 79, 101748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Grimmer, M.; Bingham, T. Company environmental performance and consumer purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1945–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kleijnen, M.; De Ruyter, K.; Wetzels, M. An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail. 2007, 83, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Kim, H. When and how does customer engagement in CSR initiatives lead to greater CSR participation? The role of CSR credibility and customer–company identification. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1878–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Carter, K.; Jayachandran, S.; Murdock, M.R. Building a sustainable shelf: The role of firm sustainability reputation. J. Retail. 2021, 97, 507–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lee, J.J.; Capella, M.L.; Taylor, C.R.; Gabler, C.B. The financial impact of loyalty programs in the hotel industry: A social exchange theory perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2139–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Degutis, M.; Urbonavičius, S.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Anselmsson, J. Consumers’ willingness to disclose their personal data in e-commerce: A reciprocity-based social exchange perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10031 g001
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 16 10031 g001
Sustainability 16 10031 g002
Figure 2. Results of structural equation modeling.
Figure 2. Results of structural equation modeling.
Sustainability 16 10031 g002
Table 1. Examples of existing fashion take-back programs.
Table 1. Examples of existing fashion take-back programs.
Brand
(Start Year)		Eileen Fisher
(2009)		Patagonia
(2013)		H&M
(2013)		Madewell
(2014)		Levi’s
(2020)		Lululemon
(2021)
Brands AcceptedEileen FisherPatagoniaAny brandAny brandLevi’sLululemon
Monetary Incentive TypeStore creditStore creditDiscount• Discount 3
• Store credit 4		Gift cardGift card
Levels/Amounts
Fixed for each item$5 $5 1$20 3
Item type-specific $10–100 3–80% of the sell price 4$5–30$5–25
Collection Method
In-store drop-off
Mail-in		BothBothDrop-off onlyDrop-off
only		Drop-off onlyBoth
Resale Section on the Brand’s WebsiteEileen Fisher RenewPatagonia Worn WearMultiple channels 2Madewell ForeverLevi’s SecondHandLululemon Like New
Geographic ScopeU.S.U.S.GlobalU.S.U.S.U.S.
Source: information collected by the author. 1 $5, £5, or €5 (or equivalent in local currency) in exchange for a bag of unwanted clothing items. 2 resale channels: in-store in Barcelona and London, online via Sellpy in Germany and Sweden, via Reflaunt in Canada, and via ThredUp in the U.S. 3 discount coupon ($20) in exchange for jeans. 4 store credit in exchange for non-jeans items sold on ThredUp within a 45-day consignment period.
Table 2. Reliability and validity estimates of constructs.
Table 2. Reliability and validity estimates of constructs.
Constructs and Items (Source)Factor LoadingCronbach αC.R.
Brand loyalty [31]
I will buy this brand next time.0.7390.8430.810
I intend to keep purchasing this brand.0.895
I am committed to this brand.0.798
Economic benefits [22]
I can save money if I participate in the brand’s take-back program.0.9380.8780.865
My participation in the brand’s take-back program would benefit me financially.0.852
Participating in the brand’s take-back program would improve my economic situation.0.825
Environmental benefits [22,27]
Participating in the brand’s take-back program
   helps to save natural resources.0.8470.9460.919
   is a sustainable option for clothing disposal.0.811
   is efficient in terms of reducing waste.0.835
   is environmentally friendly.0.828
Participating in the brand’s take-back program would make me feel good because it helps protect the environment.0.853
With the brand’s take-back program, I would have the feeling of contributing to the well-being of humanity and nature.0.813
Participants in the brand’s take-back program would feel better because it does not harm the environment.0.862
Convenience benefits [61]
It will likely be easy to participate in the brand’s take-back program.0.8980.9060.841
It likely will not require much effort to understand how to return my used clothing to the brand.0.821
I believe it will be easy to learn how the brand’s take-back program works.0.837
Intent to participate in take-back programs [62]
I am willing to participate in the brand’s take-back program.0.9160.9520.922
I would consider participating in the brand’s take-back program.0.881
It is probable that I will be involved in the brand’s take-back program.0.914
My involvement in the brand’s take-back program is likely.0.903
Environmental concern [44]
The balance of nature is very gentle and can be easily upset.0.7890.8960.840
Human beings are severely abusing the environment.0.802
Humans must maintain the balance with nature to survive.0.861
Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences.0.862
Table 3. Testing discriminant validity.
Table 3. Testing discriminant validity.
ConstructsBLECBENBCBECPI
BL0.767
ECB0.4370.826
ENB0.4030.7780.786
CB0.4240.7320.7200.799
EC0.2820.4760.6250.4180.753
PI0.3830.7250.7400.7030.5240.865
Note: The square root of the AVE value for each construct is on the diagonal; values below the diagonal represent the correlation coefficient between the constructs. BL = brand loyalty; ECB = economic benefits; ENB = environmental benefits; CB = convenience benefits; EC = environmental concern; PI = participation intention.
Table 4. Results of the conditional indirect effects: testing H4a and H4b.
Table 4. Results of the conditional indirect effects: testing H4a and H4b.
MediatorCondition for Environmental ConcernIndirect EffectBoot SEBoot 95% CI
LLUL
Perceived economic benefitsLow (4.49)0.1820.0440.1040.278
Mean (5.61)0.1260.0310.0690.193
High (6.74)0.0710.0290.0200.132
Perceived environmental benefitsLow (4.49)0.1030.0400.0280.188
Mean (5.61)0.1470.0380.0810.227
High (6.74)0.1910.0450.1110.288
Note: Independent variable = brand loyalty; dependent variable = participation intention. The bootstrap sample size was 5000. Conditions for the moderator (environmental concern) were the mean and mean ± standard deviation from the mean. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
HypothesisPath Relationship (SEM)ResultPath Coefficient t-Value
H1aBrand loyalty → perceived economic benefitsAccepted0.9548.630 ***
H1bBrand loyalty → perceived environmental benefitsAccepted0.9158.533 ***
H1cBrand loyalty → perceived convenience benefitsAccepted0.8608.424 ***
H2aPerceived economic benefits → participation intentionAccepted0.3194.637 ***
H2bPerceived environmental benefits → participation intentionAccepted0.2994.825 ***
H2cPerceived convenience benefits → participation intentionAccepted0.2424.010 ***
H3Brand loyalty → participation intentionAccepted–0.111–0.159 (n.s.)
HypothesisPath RelationshipModerator
(Moderated Mediation)		Result
H4aBL→ PECB → PIEnvironmental concernAcceptedThe results of moderated mediation analysis are presented in Table 4.
H4bBL→ PENB → PIEnvironmental concernAccepted
*** p < 0.001, n.s. = not significant. SEM = structural equation modeling; BL = brand loyalty; PECB = perceived economic benefits; PENB = perceived environmental benefits; PI = participation intention.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seo, H.; Jin, B.E. Engaging in Fashion Take-Back Programs: The Role of Loyalty and Perceived Benefits from a Social Exchange Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210031

AMA Style

Seo H, Jin BE. Engaging in Fashion Take-Back Programs: The Role of Loyalty and Perceived Benefits from a Social Exchange Perspective. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):10031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seo, Hyesim, and Byoungho Ellie Jin. 2024. "Engaging in Fashion Take-Back Programs: The Role of Loyalty and Perceived Benefits from a Social Exchange Perspective" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 10031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210031

APA Style

Seo, H., & Jin, B. E. (2024). Engaging in Fashion Take-Back Programs: The Role of Loyalty and Perceived Benefits from a Social Exchange Perspective. Sustainability, 16(22), 10031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop