Social Indicators Research (2024) 175:1155–1171

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03328-5

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase

Sustainable Clothing?

Lucio Masserini1 · Matilde Bini2 · Marica Difonzo1

Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published online: 23 March 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Increasing clothing (over)consumption, supported by the fast fashion industry, has caused
a significant reduction in clothing costs, raised major sustainability challenges, and high-
lighted the need for engaging in more sustainable consumption behaviour to mitigate
the negative environmental, social, and economic consequences. Although green purchase
behaviour is now well understood, extant literature still lacks a comprehensive approach
to explain consumers behaviour (especially that of the younger generations) with respect
to sustainable clothing. Using survey data collected through a structured questionnaire,
this study aims to assess whether Generation Z is more inclined to buy sustainable or
eco-friendly clothing than Generation Y. Given the non-random selection of respondents,
analysis was conducted using propensity score matching to correct for potential bias based
on a set of observable confounders. The results show that Generation Z is more likely to
buy second-hand clothing, whereas Generation Y is more interested in clothes made of
organic and eco-sustainable fabrics.

Keywords Generation Y · Generation Z · Organic and eco-sustainable clothing ·

Propensity score matching · Second hand clothing · Sustainable clothing consumption

Lucio Masserini
[email protected]
Matilde Bini
[email protected]
Marica Difonzo
[email protected]
1
Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
2
Department of Human Sciences, European University of Rome, Rome, Italy

13
1156 L. Masserini et al.

1 Introduction

Over the last few decades, many clothing brands favoured by globalisation have utilised
fast fashion business models that entail shifting manufacturing to low-cost countries and
emerging economies with poor working conditions (Goworek et al., 2012). Fast fashion is a
clothing supply chain model that is intended to respond quickly to the latest fashion trends
and fast-changing consumer preferences by frequently updating the clothing products avail-
able in stores (Zamani et al., 2017), with production characterised by poor quality of materi-
als, low pricing, and trendy styles. The significant growth of the fast fashion industry, with
mass production and a shift in the life cycle of garments from seasonal collections to new
(almost) weekly collections, has inevitably led to increasing consumption of and demand
for clothing industry products (Rausch & Kopplin, 2021). In particular, fashion goods pro-
duction doubled from 2000 to 2014, with an average increase of 60% in sales per consumer.
Consequently, the (fast) fashion industry is now one of the most significant contributors to
clothing overconsumption, with serious environmental and societal effects. Furthermore,
all these factors have a significant negative environmental impact on both production and
consumption. The abundant use of natural resources during manufacturing and the pollution
and waste created during the consumption phase are detrimental to the environment (Kozar
& Connell, 2010). Throughout the product life cycle, clothing releases harmful chemicals
and pollutants into the air and water. In addition, the production of synthetic materials (such
as polyester, nylon, and acrylic) is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts
of fossil fuels (petroleum, gas, and carbon) and releases volatile particulate matter and acids
such as hydrogen chloride. High water and energy consumption, the use of pesticides and
chemicals that pollute the soil, and the final waste of the enormous amount of clothing
that must be disposed of make the textile industry one of the most polluting industries on
the planet, responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions. Furthermore, it is estimated
that only 20% of clothes are recycled or given to someone else while the remaining 80%
are dumped in landfills or incinerated in a non-eco-sustainable manner (Barbero-Barrera
et al., 2016). Excessive usage of valuable natural resources also has a large environmental
footprint; in 2030, 118 billion cubic metres of water are expected to be utilised for global
clothing production (Rausch & Kopplin, 2021).
The alarming growth in the overconsumption of fashion products caused by a significant
reduction in clothing costs also reflects the disposable product culture in society. In addition,
poor working conditions in the (fast) fashion industry have raised ethical issues. It is well
known that clothes are often made in countries where workers have limited or non-existent
rights and work under unacceptable conditions, such as in unsafe buildings and places with
no ventilation, breathing in toxic substances, and inhaling fibre dust or blasted sand. In this
regard, the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, which killed 1134 garment workers in Dhaka, Ban-
gladesh, turned the spotlight on the unacceptable working conditions in the fashion industry.
Globally, increasing clothes (over)consumption and related problems have raised major
sustainability challenges and underlined the need for more sustainable consumption behav-
iour to mitigate negative environmental, social, and economic impacts. This mitigation
can be achieved by reducing the frequency of purchases, extending product life by repair-
ing or reusing materials and products, upcycling and recycling materials, and increasing
the consumption and purchase of eco-friendly or green products (Kumar & Yadav, 2021),
which have a lower environmental impact than conventional products (Elliott, 2013; Mont

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1157

& Plepys, 2008; Ritter et al., 2015). In this regard, sustainable fashion first appeared in the
1960s, when people became aware of the environmental impact of this industry (Henninger
et al., 2016); however, it has become widespread as a solution to environmental issues in
the clothing industry only in recent years (Park & Lin, 2020). Sustainable fashion implies
that every stage of a garment’s life, from the acquisition of raw materials to actual pur-
chase, should be conducted from a pro-environmental perspective that encompasses stor-
age, usage, maintenance, and disposal (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2012). Therefore, sustainable
fashion refers to clothing production characterised by fabric containing organically grown
raw materials (e.g., organically grown cotton), biodegradable or recycled materials, and
fibres dyed using natural dyes, etc. (Joergens, 2006) as well as fair working conditions,
regional production, and small clothing lines. It is also associated with consumers being
aware of the origins of the garment and engaging in long-term use of high-quality products
(Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013). As a facet of sustainable fashion, slow fashion emerged
in response to the ‘unsustainable’ business model of fast fashion to enhance sustainability
in the fashion industry. Slow fashion promotes ethical conduct, reduced fashion produc-
tion, prioritising quality over quantity in clothing (Ertekin & Atik, 2014; Fletcher, 2010),
and vintage clothes. It also educates consumers to buy clothing created to last over time,
made with quality and eco-sustainable materials by fairly compensated labour. Therefore,
the keywords for sustainable fashion and slow fashion are reuse, recycle, donate, second-
hand, upcycle, and organic. Examples include second-hand clothing and clothing made with
organic and eco-sustainable fabrics.
While green purchase behaviour is generally well understood, as numerous studies
have covered this topic (Casalegno et al., 2022), the literature still lacks a comprehensive
approach to explaining consumer purchase behaviour with respect to sustainable clothing
(Rausch & Kopplin, 2021), especially the behaviour of the younger generations. Among
these, Generation Y (individuals born between 1981 and 1996), also known as ‘Millen-
nials’, and Generation Z (individuals born between 1997 and 2012), also known as ‘Post-
Millennials’ or the ‘Internet Generation’, make up a considerable portion of those becoming
increasingly interested in sustainable behaviours and ethically minded. Despite both these
generations acknowledging the importance of consuming in a ‘green’ manner, members of
Generation Z seem to be more sustainability-oriented and highly educated consumers than
Generation Y and to have a sound understanding of environmental issues and eco-friendly
products (Adnan et al., 2017). This study aims to assess whether Generation Z (hence-
forth, Gen Z) is more inclined to buy sustainable or eco-friendly clothing than Generation Y
(henceforth, Gen Y) from two different but related perspectives: a) purchase of second-hand
clothing and b) purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics. Data
were collected via a web survey. To address the problem of potential selection bias, propen-
sity score matching (PSM) was employed.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a brief literature
review, and Sect. 3 illustrates the material and methods. Section 4 describes the results,
including a robustness check, and Sect. 5 is devoted to a discussion and concluding remarks.

13
1158 L. Masserini et al.

2 A Brief Literature Review

In the existing literature on the predictors of consumption and purchase of sustainable cloth-
ing, some studies show that these are affected not only by factors such as style, trend, or fit,
but also by social and environmental awareness (Kumar et al., 2021). According to Connel
(2010) and Joergens (2006), sustainable clothing is perceived as unfashionable or unattract-
ive and thus, not aligned with consumers’ aesthetic needs. Numerous consumers feel that
expensive, higher-quality clothes are not trendy; this perceived lack of style in eco-friendly
clothing inhibits demand for these green products. Furthermore, rapidly changing fashion
trends imply that consumers’ desire for new clothes is constantly growing, and buying fewer
clothes with higher prices and quality is not a desirable option (Diddi et al., 2019). Eco-
nomic factors are always essential in the purchase of any product. However, these are a
barrier for green products because sustainable fashion attempts to fight the mass produc-
tion of clothes, making it difficult to reduce production costs. Thus, consumers perceive
these prices as unaffordable, making fast fashion more attractive because of its lower prices
(Joergens, 2006). Many consumers prefer buying clothing at lower prices, mostly because
of their limited budget that does not allow them to buy many different garments made from
organic or recycled fibres to satisfy their wide fashion needs (Diddi et al., 2019). Moreover,
a positive correlation has been found between knowledge and behaviour (Hoch & Deighton,
1989; Park et al., 1994). In our context, environmental knowledge is essential to the inten-
tion to purchase sustainable products. In this regard, perceived environmental knowledge
refers to an individual’s perceived awareness of environmental issues and the consequences
of human actions on the environment (Jaiswal & Kant, 2018). Therefore, good environmen-
tal knowledge can positively impact responsibility and encourage a sustainable lifestyle
and therefore, engagement in eco-conscious consumption. Knowledge allows individuals
to recognise the attributes and environmental impact of sustainable products, leading to a
more positive attitude towards these products (Ansu-Mensah, 2021). Empirical evidence
supports a strong relationship between environmental concerns and purchase intention for
sustainable products. Environmental concern can be explained as an interest in environmen-
tal threats and thus, protection of the environment (Rausch & Kopplin, 2021). In particular,
this factor is essential for the evaluation of environmental issues and for forming a sense
of responsibility towards the environment. It seems to be a significant variable influencing
buying intention by affecting attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control
(Chen & Tung, 2014; Paul et al., 2016). Thus, it can be an important predictor of purchase
intention for sustainable clothing.
Greenwashing has recently emerged as an important theme in sustainable consumption.
Specifically, greenwashing indicates the communication strategy (e.g. green claims) that
certain organisations use for building a positive, albeit deceptive, image in terms of envi-
ronmental impact of their products and practices to promote their public reputation as envi-
ronmentally friendly and convey a green image while withholding negative information
(Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Individuals’ greenwashing concerns can negatively impact their
green purchasing behaviour because of their scepticism about product evaluation. Thus,
consumers can doubt many organizations’ green claims, as those positive green claims
could be false or hide negative environmental impacts. Moreover, consumers cannot be
certain whether their concerns are legitimate. Experts have stated that sustainable fashion
promoted through fast fashion retailers could be misleading, as these brands still produce

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1159

new lines with an average turnover of 60 days, thereby going against sustainable fashion
principles. The fashion industry is based on fast stock turnovers and fashion consumption,
which contradicts aspects of slow fashion (Henninger et al., 2016).
Another important concept in this context is pro-environmental behaviour, which refers
to individual conduct that consciously seeks to minimise the negative impact of one’s actions
on the natural world (e.g. minimising resource and energy consumption, and reducing waste
production) (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Many studies have also tried to connect gen-
der to green products purchase. It was found that females show more pro-environmental
behaviour and higher inclination towards sustainable consumption (Chekima et al., 2016;
Kalamas et al., 2014). However, other studies argue that males have more information about
environmental issues and act accordingly (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). Males are less
emotional than females, and along with other differences between the two sexes, this is
reflected in their sustainable practices. Kumar and Yadav (2021) showed that gender sig-
nificantly moderates the relationship between the antecedents of motivation in the green
apparel context. Thus, gender is an important variable, and we include it in our study. The
level of education is another key demographic variable related to the purchase of green
products and is an important factor in social or environmental consumption (Park & Lin,
2020). Further research suggests that there may be a positive relationship between educa-
tion level and the search for information regarding environmental problems, which may
drive reduction of one’s own environmental footprint (Ritter et al., 2015). Consumers with
higher education levels have more knowledge of sustainable practices and are more com-
mitted to sustainable behaviours. Owing to the lack of knowledge about clothing disposal
in a responsible manner, many consumers simply throw away unwanted clothing, which
is finally dumped in landfills (Joung, 2014). Consumers who pay attention to their clothes
disposal practices may have better knowledge of environmental issues and thus, a more
positive attitude towards sustainable clothing purchases.
The two most prominent generations of consumers in the clothing industry are Gen Y and
Gen Z (Abrar et al., 2021). Previous studies have found that Gen Y is caught up in fashion
products, especially apparel clothing (Hill & Lee, 2012; Williams & Page, 2011) and spends
a large part of its income on apparel products (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003). Many studies
have pointed out the ethical paradox facing Gen Y which pits the increasing importance and
attention this generation pays to sustainability and eco-friendly products against their fash-
ion needs. Although they are positive towards sustainability, their attitudes do not translate
into action (Chaudhary & Bisai, 2018). According to Vuong and Nguyen (2018), for Gen Y,
self-image typically has more importance than sustainability concerns when taking purchase
decisions. For Gen Y, sustainable product purchase is typically an unintentional process,
rather than an intentional behaviour, suggesting primarily a hedonistic choice. However,
Gen Z seem to be more ‘green’, sustainability-oriented, and highly educated with a sound
understanding of environmental issues and eco-friendly products (Adnan et al., 2017). They
are also more inclined towards sustainable brands and more willing to pay a higher price for
these products than other generations (Chaturvedi et al., 2020).

13
1160 L. Masserini et al.

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Data and Variables

This study uses data gathered from a web survey conducted in 2021 on a non-random sam-
ple of Italian individuals through a structured questionnaire administered via the web app
Limesurvey. Data collection lasted over a month, beginning on August 10 and closing on
September 20, 2021. Of the 480 respondents, 172 were from Gen Z while the remaining
308 were from Gen Y. The questionnaire consisted of the following four sections: (a) behav-
iours and attitudes towards sustainable clothing; (b) clothing purchasing and use habits;
(c) sustainable behaviours and attitudes in daily life; and (d) the sociodemographic char-
acteristics of respondents. Before data collection was begun, the questionnaire underwent
a pre-test phase, which was useful for improving its comprehensibility and arriving at the
final wording.
The list of variables, their values, and some descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
Overall, two outcome variables and 25 control or matching variables were utilised in this
study. Specifically, two binary outcome variables were considered to evaluate the respon-
dents’ sustainable clothing purchasing behaviour: Purchase of second-hand clothing (0 = No
and 1 = Yes) and Purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics (0 = No
and 1 = Yes). Furthermore, control or confounding variables of such purchase behaviours
were obtained from various sections of the questionnaire, some of which were in the form
of multi-item scales while others were closed-ended questions. In the multi-item scales,
answers were rated on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,
3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. As regards behaviours con-
cerning and attitudes to sustainable clothing, two multi-item scales were considered. The
first scale was Greenwashing concern (GWC), which aimed to assess whether respondents
were concerned about the possibility that companies engage in deceptive ecological or envi-
ronmental behaviour and that their products and practices are not sustainability-oriented
(Rausch & Kopplin, 2021; Cronbach’s α = 0.865). It included the following three items: (1)
I am concerned that sustainable clothes are not made using eco-friendly materials; (2) I am
concerned that clothes are not made under sustainable conditions; and (3) I am concerned
that companies are only pretending to have a green image. The second scale was Subjective
or social norms (SN), which aimed to assess the perceived social pressure on respondents
to perform or not engage in a particular behaviour (Rausch & Kopplin, 2021; Cronbach’s
α = 0.852). It included the following three items: (1) My friends expect me to buy sustain-
able clothes; (2) My family expects me to buy sustainable clothes; and (3) People who are
important to me expect me to buy sustainable clothes. Regarding clothing purchasing and
usage habits, the following closed-ended questions were asked, with the relative responses
indicated in brackets: What are you looking for when you buy your clothing? (style, qual-
ity, economy, brand); Where do you usually buy clothes? (buy mainly on the Internet, buy
mainly in stores); How many times do you buy new clothing items? (several times a month,
once a year); What are the reasons that you no longer wear some of your clothes? (no longer
reflect my style, no longer fashionable, I have too many); What do you do with the cloth-
ing you no longer wear? (I give it to charity, I leave it in the closet, I throw it away, I sell it
on the Internet). For sustainable behaviours and attitudes in daily life, the multi-item scale
Pro-Environmental behaviour (PEB) was used. It was derived from the pro-environmental

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1161

Table 1 Variables, values and descriptive statistics

Variable Values Mean Std.
Dev.
Purchase of second-hand clothing 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.619 0.486
Purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.748 0.437
fabrics
Gen Y 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.562 0.497
Gen Z 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.438 0.497
Males 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.110 0.308
Middle school diploma Fraction (ranging 0 − 1) 0.043 0.209
Bachelor’s degree Fraction (ranging 0 − 1) 0.555 0.498
Greenwashing concern 3-item scale (ranging 11.66 3.05
3 − 15 points)
Subjective or social norms 3-item scale (ranging 5.13 2.29
3 − 15 points)
When I buy clothing, I look for style 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.272 0.446
When I buy clothing, I look for quality 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.453 0.498
When I buy clothing, I look for economy 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.338 0.474
When I buy clothing, I look for brand 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.010 0.071
Pro-environmental behaviour 5-item scale (ranging 28.69 4.41
7 − 35 points)
I usually buy clothes on the Internet 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.125 0.331
I usually buy clothes in stores 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.519 0.500
I buy new clothes several times a month 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.125 0.331
I buy new clothes once a year 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.229 0.421
I dispose of my clothes when they no longer reflect my style 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.461 0.499
I dispose of my clothes when they are no longer fashionable 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.025 0.158
I dispose of my clothes when I have too many 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.160 0.367
Clothes I no longer wear remain in the closet 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.099 0.299
I give clothes I no longer wear to charity 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.633 0.482
I throw clothes I no longer wear into the appropriate recycling 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.308 0.462
bins
I sell clothes I no longer wear on the Internet 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.231 0.422
I am concerned about the unethical working conditions in 5-point scale (1 = ‘totally 4.40 0.904
companies disagree’… 5 = ‘totally
agree’)
I always try to fill my washing machine, or I wash my clothes 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.789 0.409
by hand
Source: our data analysis

behaviour scale proposed by Markle (2013) (Cronbach’s α = 0.852) and aimed to assess the
possible behaviours of respondents who consciously try to limit the negative impact of their
actions on the natural world with the following seven items: (1) I try to avoid single-use
products; (2) I am willing to encourage others to engage in more sustainable activities; (3)
I always separate waste; (4) I often leave the TV on without watching it; (5) I often talk to
my friends about environmental issues; (6) I leave the tap running when I brush my teeth;
and (7) When I purchase products, I consider how their use impacts the environment. More-
over, a multi-response question investigating the washing habits of respondents was asked

13
1162 L. Masserini et al.

(I always try to fill my washing machine; I wash my clothes by hand). Finally, sociodemo-
graphic characteristics, such as age, gender, and educational level, were also considered.

3.2 Propensity Score Matching Approach

To answer the research questions, the problem of potential selection bias due to non-random
assignment of respondents to the compared groups (Gen Z and Gen Y) was addressed by
employing PSM (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). PSM is frequently used in evaluation studies
to estimate the average treatment effects when selection is based on observables. However,
its applicability is not confined to estimating treatment effects (Frölich, 2007). In this study,
PSM was applied outside the realm of treatment evaluation to remove or reduce potential
selection bias due to the structure of the sampled data and obtain reliable estimates to com-
pare behaviour data in terms of the sustainable clothing purchasing of Gen Z and Gen Y
after balancing for the covariates that characterise the two groups. Using PSM, selection
bias can be reduced after matching respondents of the two groups to ensure that they are
similar with respect to a set of confounding observed covariates summarised by the propen-
sity score (𝑃𝑆); subsequently, the matched groups are compared for each outcome variable.
Here, the PS was estimated through a logistic regression model using a binary dependent
variable that takes the value 1 for members of Gen Z group and 0 for those of Gen Y, with
the confounding variables as covariates. Specifically, borrowing the terminology used in the
treatment evaluation context, respondents of Gen Z were considered as the treated group
while respondents of Gen Y formed the control one. The latter group was obtained by select-
ing only respondents that are similar to the treated group in all key characteristics except for
gender, based on the PS.
The goal was to identify whether there exists a statistically significant difference and
its magnitude between these two similar groups in the following sustainable behaviours:
(a) purchase of second-hand clothing; and (b) purchase of clothing made with organic and
eco-sustainable fabrics. For this purpose, the average treatment effect for treated (ATT) was
estimated. Following the conventional notation under the potential outcomes framework
(Rubin, 1974), Yi1 indicates the response variable for respondent i belonging to Gen Z,
Yi0 the response variable for respondent i belonging to Gen Y, and Ti a variable that takes
the value of 1 for Gen Z respondents and 0 for Gen Y respondents. Subsequently, ATT was
defined as follows:

AT T = E (Yi1|Ti = 1) − E (Yi0|Ti = 1)

where E (Yi1|Ti = 1) is the expected value of the response variable for respondents of Gen
Z. E (Yi0|Ti = 1) is the counterfactual, which represents the expected value of the response
variable that would have occurred if the same respondent were not in Gen Z, that is, if they
were in Gen Y. Given that the counterfactual is an unobserved outcome, a kernel-based
matching approach (Heckman et al., 1998) was employed to estimate the ATT. In particular,
this algorithm was used to ensure that all the respondents of the Gen Z group were matched
with a weighted average of all the respondents of the Gen Y group with weights that are
inversely proportional to the distance between the PS of the two groups:

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1163
 
N
1 0 N
1  Yi1 −

AT T = wij Yj0
N1 i=1 j=1

where N1 is the number of Gen Z respondents, and N0 is the number of Gen Y respondents.
Moreover, wij is the weight defined as follows:
 
P S(Xi )−P S (Xj )
K h
wij =  
N0 P S(Xi )−P S (Xj )
j=1 K h

Here, weights depend on the distance of PS between the treated and matched controls, band-
width (or smoothing) parameter h , and kernel function K(•) . Consequently, the choices of
kernel function and bandwidth size are fundamental in kernel-based matching. In this study,
the Epanechnikov kernel function was used. Moreover, to take into account the trade-off
between the variance and bias of the estimates, different bandwidths (0.01, 0.03, and 0.06)
were considered. Evidence suggests that the kernel approach to matching is more precise
than the most common alternatives, such as radius and one-to-one matching (Frölich, 2004).
The key assumptions behind PSM are that conditional independence is given to the PS
(also known as selection on observables or unconfoundedness) and overlap or common
support (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). The first requires that beyond the included covariates
in PS estimation, there are no (unobserved) characteristics that are associated with both the
outcome variables and membership of the two groups being compared, thus ensuring that
selection into one of the two groups is based only on observed characteristics. The second
requires that for each value of observed characteristics, there is a positive probability of
being either in the Gen Z or Gen Y group, thus ensuring a sufficient overlap in the character-
istics of Gen Z and Gen Y observations that an adequate match can be found.

4 Results

4.1 PS Estimation, Evaluation of Covariate Balance, and Common Support

The PS was estimated using the variables described in Subsection 3.1 as control or matching
covariates. As the p-value of the Wald chi-square test of the overall model was smaller than
0.0001, we can conclude that the set of selected covariates was ‘significant’. Furthermore,
the value of 0.18 of McFadden’s pseudoR2 was quite satisfactory, confirming a good model
fit, despite the presence of some non-significant covariates. The results of the parameter
estimates are shown in Table 2. The PS values ranged from 0.044 to 0.969, with a mean of
0.436 and standard deviation of 0.236.
A balance test was subsequently performed by comparing the covariate means of the Gen
Z and Gen Y groups before and after matching, using a t-test. Furthermore, standardised
percent bias (SB) before and after matching and percent bias reduction (PBR) after match-
ing were calculated to ensure that the two groups were effectively comparable with no or
negligible bias. All the results are shown in Table 3 for the same set of covariates used for PS

13
1164 L. Masserini et al.

Table 2 PS score estimates

Coefficient Std. Err. z p > |z|
Male 0.620 0.423 -1.47 0.143
Middle school diploma -0.079 0.595 -0.13 0.894
Bachelor’s degree -1.233 0.253 -4.88 0.000
Greenwashing concern (GWC) 0.030 0.046 0.66 0.508
Subjective or social norms (SN) 0.142 0.054 2.63 0.009
When I buy clothing, I look for style 0.443 0.273 1.62 0.105
When I buy clothing, I look for quality -0.883 0.258 -3.42 0.001
When I buy clothing, I look for economy 0.143 0.000 -1.68 0.093
When I buy clothing, I look for brand -1.012 1.511 -0.67 0.503
Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) 0.065 0.031 2.08 0.038
I usually buy clothes on the Internet 0.059 0.388 0.15 0.880
I usually buy clothes in stores 0.310 0.269 1.15 0.250
I buy new clothes several times a month -0.403 0.374 -1.08 0.281
I buy new clothes once a year 0.196 0.300 0.65 0.514
I dispose of my clothes when they no longer reflect my style 0.287 0.251 1.14 0.253
I dispose of my clothes when they are no longer fashionable 0.401 0.746 0.54 0.591
I dispose of my clothes when I have too many 0.028 0.334 0.08 0.933
Clothes I no longer wear remain in the closet 0.104 0.430 0.24 0.809
I give clothes I no longer wear to charity -0.523 0.298 -1.76 0.079
I throw clothes I no longer wear into the appropriate recycling bins 0.952 0.308 -3.09 0.002
I sell clothes I no longer wear on the Internet 0.508 0.342 -1.70 0.090
I am concerned about the unethical working conditions in companies -0.674 0.161 -0.42 0.675
I always try to fill my washing machine, or I wash my clothes by -1.325 0.321 -4.13 0.010
hand
Constant -0.492 1.121 -0.44 0.661
Source: our data analysis

estimation. Before matching, five of 23 covariates showed significant differences between

the two groups at the 1% level whereas another covariate presented a significant difference
at the 10% level. Moreover, the overall mean and median SB were fairly large, with values
of 16.5 and 12.6, respectively. Conversely, after matching, SB was evidently reduced, and
no covariates showed a significant difference between the two groups. Bias reduction was
also confirmed by the mean and median SB, which decreased considerably, to 4.2 and 2.8,
respectively. This finding confirms that the PSM is useful for removing selection bias.
Furthermore, to ensure that there was an overlap in the PS distributions across the two
groups, a graph was constructed (Fig. 1). On inspecting the graph, we can observe that the
area of common support is fairly large, confirming a favourable condition for the PSM to
produce valid estimates.

4.2 Comparison of Purchasing Behaviour

Based on the extant literature, which indicates that Gen Z is more sustainability-oriented
than Gen Y, a comparison was made by evaluating whether Gen Z was more inclined than
Gen Y to undertake the following two behaviours: (a) purchase of second-hand clothing
and (b) purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics. The analysis
was performed with kernel matching using the Epanechnikov kernel function and different

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1165

Table 3 Covariate means, standardized percent bias (SB) in treated and control groups before and after
matching, and percent of bias reduction (PBR)
Covariate Before matching After matching PBR
Gen Z Gen Y SB (%) p > |t| Gen Z Gen Y Bias (%) p > |t| (%)
Male 0.095 0.114 -6.4 0.537 0.097 0.103 -1.8 0.868 71.6
Middle school 0.058 0.032 12.8 0.202 0.061 0.052 4.0 0.747 68.7
diploma
Bachelor’s degree 0.395 0.679 -59.1 0.000 0.408 0.412 -0.7 0.954 98.9
Greenwashing con- 11.605 11.701 -3.2 0.755 11.701 11.421 9.2 0.395 -
cern (GWC) 189.8
Subjective or social 5.506 4.833 29.5 0.004 5.448 5.578 -4.0 0.734 86.6
norms (SN)
When I buy clothing, 0.314 0.240 16.6 0.102 0.300 0.298 0.1 0.993 99.4
I look for style
When I buy clothing, 0.326 0.552 -46.7 0.000 0.342 0.331 2.3 0.834 95.2
I look for quality
When I buy clothing, 0.372 0.312 12.6 0.214 0.378 0.442 -13.4 0.243 -6.2
I look for economy
When I buy clothing, 0.006 0.004 1.8 0.859 0.006 0.007 -1.2 0.924 34.1
I look for brand
Pro-environmental 28.657 28.710 -1.2 0.905 28.646 28.491 3.5 0.755 -
behaviour (PEB) 190.7
I usually buy clothes 0.110 0.136 -7.7 0.453 0.110 0.089 6.4 0.523 16.4
on the internet
I usually buy clothes 0.558 0.489 13.9 0.172 0.555 0.577 -4.5 0.685 68.0
in stores
I buy new clothes 0.098 0.145 -14.1 0.172 0.104 0.152 -14.8 0.189 -5.7
several times a
month
I buy new clothes 0.256 0.208 11.3 0.266 0.250 0.254 -1.0 0.929 91.0
once a year
I dispose of my 0.512 0.421 18.2 0.073 0.500 0.497 0.5 0.961 97.0
clothes when they
no longer reflect my
style
I dispose of my 0.035 0.018 10.4 0.296 0.030 0.029 1.0 0.930 90.2
clothes when they are
no longer fashionable
I dispose of my 0.139 0.174 -10.1 0.323 0.146 0.139 2.0 0.854 80.7
clothes when I have
too many
Clothes I no longer 0.122 0.081 13.4 0.182 0.110 0.087 7.4 0.496 44.7
wear remain in the
closet
I give clothes I 0.622 0.642 -4.2 0.677 0.628 0.574 11.3 0.316 -
no longer wear to 166.1
charity
I throw clothes I no 0.227 0.371 -31.8 0.002 0.238 0.250 -2.8 0.790 91.2
longer wear in the
appropriate recycling
bins
I sell clothes I no 0.238 0.226 2.9 0.778 0.244 0.244 -0.1 0.991 95.5
longer wear on the
Internet

13
1166 L. Masserini et al.

Table 3 (continued)
Covariate Before matching After matching PBR
Gen Z Gen Y SB (%) p > |t| Gen Z Gen Y Bias (%) p > |t| (%)
I am concerned about 4.354 4.439 -9.2 0.360 4.348 4.341 0.7 0.950 92.2
the unethical work-
ing conditions in
companies
I always try to fill my 0.692 0.864 -42.3 0.000 0.713 0.725 -2.8 0.817 93.3
washing machine, or
I wash my clothes
by hand
Mean bias 16.5 4.2
Median bias 12.6 2.8
Source: our data analysis

Fig. 1 Density distribution of the propensity scores in the Gen Y and Gen Z groups. (Source: our data
analysis)

bandwidths (0.01, 0.03, and 0.06) to take into account the trade-off between the variance
and bias of the estimates. The estimates were carried out over the common support. The
results in Table 4 show the mean values for Gen Z and Gen Y, their differences, standard
errors (SE), and p-values for each outcome variable for both the unmatched and matched
samples. They indicate no significant difference between the two generations before match-
ing with respect to the purchase of second-hand clothing. Conversely, after matching, a
significant difference was found in favour of Gen Z, which seems more oriented towards
buying these clothing items than Gen Y for all considered bandwidth values. The opposite

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1167

Table 4 Comparison of purchasing behaviour: unmatched and Kernel Epanechnikov matched estimates
Matching technique Gen Z Gen Y Difference SE p-value
Purchase of second-hand clothing
Unmatched 0.675 0.603 0.072 0.049 0.145
Kernel Epanechnikov
bandwidth = 0.01 0.682 0.458 0.224 0.067 0.001
bandwidth = 0.03 0.681 0.506 0.175 0.064 0.006
bandwidth = 0.06 0.683 0.505 0.178 0.065 0.006
Purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics
Unmatched 0.657 0.836 -0.179 0.043 0.000
Kernel Epanechnikov
bandwidth = 0.01 0.657 0.761 -0.105 0.058 0.022
bandwidth = 0.03 0.662 0.807 -0.144 0.055 0.004
bandwidth = 0.06 0.658 0.813 -0.154 0.055 0.003
Source: our data analysis

Table 5 Comparison of purchasing behaviour using 3:1 nearest neighbours and radius matching with
radius = 0.01
Matching technique Gen Z Gen Y Difference SE p-value
Purchase of second-hand clothing
3:1 nearest neighbours 0.675 0.511 0.164 0.072 0.012
radius = 0.01 0.682 0.472 0.210 0.067 0.001
Purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics
3:1 nearest neighbours 0.659 0.808 -0.149 0.057 0.009
radius = 0.01 0.658 0.813 -0.154 0.054 0.005
Source: our data analysis

result was found with respect to the purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sus-
tainable fabrics; Gen Y showed a greater inclination than Gen Z to buy clothing made with
organic and eco-sustainable fabrics at all bandwidth values. The opposite result was found
with respect to the purchase of clothing made with organic and eco-sustainable fabrics since
a preference of Gen Y over Gen Z was observed at all bandwidth values. In this case, the
results after matching agreed with those before matching although the magnitude of the dif-
ference was reduced.

4.3 Robustness Check

To ensure that the findings outlined above were not affected by the matching algorithm, the
analysis was repeated, and the results were compared with those obtained using 3:1 near-
est neighbours and radius matching with a radius of 0.01. To make this evaluation and the
resulting discussion more concise, we decided not to consider different numbers of neigh-
bours or different values of the radius in this robustness check. Table 5 shows the results for
each outcome variable. As seen in Table 4, these estimates are consistent with those obtained
using kernel matching, confirming robustness and reaffirming our trust in our results.

13
1168 L. Masserini et al.

5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The fast-fashion business model that has developed in recent decades, owing to the rise of
an increasingly globalised market, has shifted production to low-cost countries with poor
working conditions. This new fashion business model has not only affected the way cloth-
ing is produced but also the preferences of consumers, who have found frequently updated
clothing products available in stores with trendy styles, low prices, poor quality of materials,
and short life cycles. Environmentally, fast fashion has negative effects as it requires the use
of a large amount of natural resources during manufacturing and creates pollution and waste
during the consumption stage. Slow fashion has emerged in response to the unsustainable
business model of fast fashion to improve sustainability in the fashion industry. It is associ-
ated with ethical conduct, reduction in fashion production, purchase of quality garments
rather than a greater number of garments, and vintage clothing. While green buying behav-
iour is well studied, much less is known about consumer purchase behaviour with respect
to sustainable clothing, especially that of the younger generations. This study aims to com-
pare the sustainable clothing purchasing behaviour of two specific generations, Gen Y and
Gen Z, who represent a considerable portion of the population that is recognised as being
sustainability-oriented. This study focused on two specific and different attitudes of these
generations: purchasing second-hand clothing and purchasing clothing made of organic and
eco-sustainable fabrics.
The PSM approach was proposed to deal with the problem of potential selection bias due
to the non-random assignment of respondents to the compared groups. In other words, PSM
made it possible to reduce the selection bias after matching respondents of the two groups
and consequently to create two comparable generations that have different behaviours, with
all other conditions being equal.
More specifically, Gen Z seems more likely than Gen Y to purchase second-hand cloth-
ing, while Gen Y seems to be more inclined than Gen Z to purchase clothing made with
organic and eco-sustainable fabrics. This last result shows that for Gen Y there is a coher-
ence between attitude and purchase of such goods, differently from what stated in some
cited literature which suggests that the attitude of Gen Y for purchasing eco-friendly cloth-
ing does not always correspond to its actions. A possible explanation for this could be the
interest of Gen Y for the use of eco-friendly products favouring the purchase of organic
garments that are generally more expensive and maybe perceived as more suited to their
fashionable and brand-sensitive behaviour than second-hand clothing. This has also been
suggested in the cited literature.
The results obtained lead us to make further considerations. The survey was carried out
through the use of a structured questionnaire and on a large scale; however, it could be
reconducted on a larger number of members of Gen Y and Gen Z and with the addition of
more variables that could affect people’s purchasing behaviours. Finally, this study could be
deepened by developing separate analyses according to specific variables, such as gender
or level of education.
If these results were confirmed on a larger sample, firms that produce organic and eco-
sustainable clothes could benefit by considering how to orient their production so it aligns
with the preferences and tastes of Gen Y. At the same time, such firms could adopt advertis-
ing and differentiated pricing policies to match the interests of Gen Z. Moreover, second-
hand purchasing is a fundamental characteristic of the circular economy, extending the

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1169

lifecycle of products, and those interested in trading in this market could also enhance their
sales policies to align with the interests of Gen Z.

Funding Open access funding provided by Università di Pisa within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Abrar, M., Sibtain, M. M., & Shabbir, R. (2021). Understanding purchase intention towards eco-friendly
clothing for generation Y & Z. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/233119
75.2021.1997247.
Adnan, A., Ahmad, A., & Khan, M. (2017). Examining the role of consumer lifestyles on ecological behav-
ior among young Indian consumers. Young Consumers, 18(4), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/
yc-05-2017-00699.
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ansu-Mensah, P. (2021). Green product awareness effect on green purchase intentions of university students’:
An emerging market’s perspective. Future Business Journal, 7(48), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s43093-021-00094-5.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550310461994.
Barbero-Barrera, M. D. M., Pombo, O., & Navacerrada, M. D. L. A. (2016). Textile fibre waste bindered
with natural hydraulic lime. Composites Part B: Engineering, 94, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2016.03.013.
Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2012). Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: A comparative study. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01011.x.
Casalegno, C., Candelo, E., & Santoro, G. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable pur-
chase behaviour: A comparison among different generations. Psychology and Marketing, 39(5), 1007–
1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21637.
Chaturvedi, P., Kulshreshtha, K., & Tripathi, V. (2020). Investigating the determinants of behavioral inten-
tions of generation Z for recycled clothing: An evidence from a developing economy. Young Consum-
ers, 21(4), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-03-2020-1110.
Chaudhary, R., & Bisai, S. (2018). Factors influencing green purchase behavior of millennials in India. Man-
agement of Environmental Quality, 29(5), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2018-0023.
Chekima, B., Chekima, S., Wafa, S. A. W. S. K., Igau, O. A., & Sondoh, S. L. Jr. (2016). Sustainable con-
sumption: The effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographics.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 23(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13504509.2015.1114043.
Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2014). Developing an extended theory of Planned Behavior model to predict con-
sumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 221–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R., & Bohlen, G. (2003). Can Socio-demographics still
play a role in Profiling Green consumers? A review of the evidence and empirical investigation. Journal
of Business Research, 56, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7.
Diddi, S., Yan, R. N., Bloodhart, B., Bajtelsmit, V., & McShane, K. (2019). Exploring young adult consum-
ers’ sustainable clothing consumption intention-behavior gap: A behavioral reasoning theory perspec-
tive. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.009.
Elliott, R. (2013). The taste for green: The possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation through green
consumption. Poetics, 41(3), 294–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.03.003.

13
1170 L. Masserini et al.

Ertekin, Z., & Atik, D. (2014). Sustainable markets: Motivating factors, barriers, and remedies for mobilization
of slow fashion. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146714535932.
Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion Practice, 2(2), 259–266. https://
doi.org/10.2752/175693810X12774625387594.
Frölich, M. (2004). Finite-Sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting estimators. The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 77–90.
Frölich, M. (2007). Propensity score matching without conditional independence assumption—with an appli-
cation to the gender wage gap in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Econometrics, 10(2), 359–407.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00212.x.
Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., & Hiller, A. (2012). The sustainable clothing market:
An evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 40(12), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211274937.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection Bias using Experimental
Data. Econometrica, 66(5), 1017–1098. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999630.
Henninger, C. E., Alevizou, P. J., & Oates, C. J. (2016). What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 20(4), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2015-0052.
Hill, J. T., & Lee, H. H. (2012). Young Generation Y consumers’ perceptions of sustainability in the
apparel industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16, 477–491. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13612021211265863.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing,
53(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251410.
Jaiswal, D., & Kant, R. (2018). Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical inves-
tigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, 41, 60–69. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.008.
Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: Myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
10(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679321.
Joung, H. M. (2014). Fast-fashion consumers’ post-purchase behaviours. International Journal of Retail
Distribution Management, 42, 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2013-0055.
Kalamas, M., Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2014). Pro-environmental behaviors for Thee but not for me:
Green Giants, Green gods, and External Environmental Locus of Control. Journal of Business Research,
67, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.007.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504620220145401.
Kozar, J. M., & Connell, K. Y. H. (2010). Socially responsible knowledge and behaviors: Comparing upper
vs. lower classmen. College Student Journal, 44(2), 279–293.
Kumar, S., & Yadav, R. (2021). The impact of shopping motivation on sustainable consumption: A study in
the context of green apparel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126239.
Kumar, A., Prakash, G., & Kumar, G. (2021). Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter
for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. Journal of Retail-
ing and Consumer Services, 58, 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102270.
Lyon, T., & Maxwell, J. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal
of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x.
Markle, G. (2013). Pro Environmental Behavior: Does it Matter how it’s measured? Development and vali-
dation of the Pro Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41(6), 905–914. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8.
Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? Journal
of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009.
Park, H. J., & Lin, L. M. (2020). Exploring attitude behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison
of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research, 117(C), 623–628. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025.
Park, C. W., Motherbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 21, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/209383.
Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior
and reasoned action. Journal of Retail and Consumer Service, 29, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.11.006.
Pookulangara, S., & Shephard, A. (2013). Slow fashion movement: Understanding consumer percep-
tions: An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 200–206. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.002.

13
Is Generation Z more Inclined than Generation Y to Purchase Sustainable… 1171

Rausch, M. R., & Kopplin, C. S. (2021). Bridge the gap: Consumers’ purchase intention and behavior
regarding sustainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123882.
Ritter, A. M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G. L. R., Pereira, G. M., & Almeida, F. (2015). Motivations for pro-
moting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian con-
sumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. P. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for
causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335942.
Vuong, H., & Nguyen, M. (2018). Factors influencing millennials’ purchase intention towards fast Fashion
products: A Case Study in Vietnam. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 235–240.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2018.V8.967.
Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Busi-
ness, 3, 1–17.
Zamani, B., Sandin, G., & Peters, G. M. (2017). Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: Can collabora-
tive consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion? Journal of Cleaner Production, 162,
1368–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.128.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13