Discover Sustainability

Research

Sustainable post‑purchase behaviour of consumers of fashion textile

products
Arifa Parvin Kemi1 · Gyula Zilahy1,2

Received: 27 September 2024 / Accepted: 4 February 2025

© The Author(s) 2025  OPEN

Abstract
Sustainable consumption is crucial for advancing the circular economy envisioned by the European Union in its Circular
Economy Action Plan. This framework emphasizes that, alongside corporations adopting more sustainable production
processes, consumers must also contribute to a sustainable future by altering their consumption patterns and lifestyles.
A key aspect of consumer behaviour involves preferences for new versus second-hand products and actions taken post-
purchase. To deepen understanding in this area, our research analyses consumers’ sustainable post-purchase behaviours
related to fashion (textile) products, focusing on the factors influencing their intentions to reuse, repair, and recycle.
We conducted a representative survey of 500 residents in Budapest, Hungary, employing clustering techniques and
structural equation modelling grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Our findings indicate that consumers
who purchase second-hand fashion products are slightly more likely to engage in sustainable post-purchase activities.
We identified and characterized four distinct clusters of fashion consumers based on their post-purchase behaviours.
Moreover, we found that attitudes have a relatively minor influence on repairing and giving away old fashion items,
whereas social norms and perceived behavioural control play a more significant role.

Keywords Sustainable post-purchase behaviour · Fashion industry · Motivation · Reuse · Repair · And recycling

1 Introduction

The fashion industry is among the most environmentally damaging sectors, consuming vast quantities of raw materials
and generating significant harmful emissions. Over recent decades, the production and consumption of clothing have
risen steadily, driven by global population growth and increasing incomes and living standards. [1]. Between 1975 and
2018, the annual per capita production of textiles worldwide grew from 5.9 kg to 13 kg [2] and the industry now gener-
ates over 92 million tons of waste and consumes 79 trillion litres of water annually [3]. The environmental impact of the
textile industry is well-documented, with production processes such as mixing, carding, combing, stretching, and roving
contributing to ecosystem degradation. These stages of production result in noise, air, water, and soil pollution while
consuming vast amounts of natural resources [4].
As a result, companies can no longer ignore environmental concerns and must adopt innovative approaches to
minimize waste, carbon emissions, and other harmful impacts on the natural environment [5]. Fashion companies have

* Arifa Parvin Kemi, [email protected] | 1Department of Environmental Economics and Sustainability, Faculty of Economic
and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem Rkp. 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary. 2Department
of Sustainability Management and Environmental Economics, Institute of Sustainable Development, Corvinus University of Budapest,
Fővám Tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary.

Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

several strategies at their disposal, including reusing and recycling materials such as old garments, manufacturing scraps,
bottles, and tires; promoting vintage and second-hand fashion; and leveraging efficient manufacturing techniques—
both traditional and modern—such as advanced information technologies [6]. These strategies are increasingly being
embraced within the fashion industry. For example, Levi’s has implemented sustainable manufacturing processes, reduc-
ing water consumption by up to 96% [7]. Similarly, Patagonia has become a leader in sustainability by integrating material,
relational, and discursive elements into its social and environmental practices. Its initiatives aim to enhance the flow of
sustainable materials throughout its supply chain and the wider garment industry [8]. H&M, on the other hand, incor-
porates recycled materials into its products and adopts sustainable supply chain management practices, emphasizing
ethical labour standards and responsible sourcing [7].
Despite these advancements, further progress is essential. Increasing the number of garments recycling facilities,
expanding second-hand clothing stores, and adopting more environmentally friendly packaging solutions are critical
steps to amplify the industry’s sustainability efforts [9].
As fashion industries improve their production processes, supply chains, transportation, and other operations to ben-
efit the environment [10], they also develop effective strategies to encourage sustainable consumption patterns among
their customers. For example, Vătămănescu et al. [11] found that fashion companies’ corporate social responsibility (CSR)
strategies and reputations have a direct positive impact on consumers’ inclination to purchase sustainable products.
As a result, in addition to focusing on manufacturing processes, it is crucial to consider the use phase of fashion prod-
ucts, which can involve a range of sustainable behaviours by consumers. This perspective is supported by Goal 12: Ensure
sustainable consumption and production patterns of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [12], which
emphasizes that reducing the impact of industrial processes is insufficient on its own; consumption also plays a critical
role. Furthermore, the concept of the circular economy, advocated by the European Union and others, calls for systemic
changes, including shifts in consumer behaviour [13]. Consumer behaviour related to sustainable consumption is often
studied through examining new product purchases. However, the buying of second-hand products and consumers’
post-purchase behaviours are equally important. According to Nittala & Moturu [14], post-purchase behaviour encom-
passes the use, evaluation, and disposal of products. While there is a wealth of research on fashion textile consumption,
studies that specifically focus on the sustainability aspect of post-purchase behaviour in the fashion industry are scarce.
After exploring this research gap in more detail, our study focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of fashion con-
sumers’ motivations behind various sustainable post-purchase behaviours, including reusing, repairing, and recycling
textile products. The primary research questions guiding this study are:

What are the characteristics of different consumer clusters based on their post-purchase behaviour of fashion prod-
ucts?
What factors influence consumers’ sustainable post-purchase behaviour?

To address these questions, we present the findings of a survey conducted among fashion consumers in Budapest,
the capital city of Hungary. The structure of the article is as follows: first, we review different types of sustainable post-
purchase behaviours and the literature on consumer motivations for engaging in them. Next, we focus on the fashion
industry, providing an overview of the literature related to post-purchase behaviour in this sector. We then present our
hypotheses and research methods, followed by a discussion of the empirical survey results. Finally, we conclude with a
summary of our findings and suggest directions for future research.

2 Literature review and hypotheses development

From small, local businesses, the fashion sector has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar global industry that caters to the
diverse needs of over 8 billion people worldwide. Fashion (clothing) is one of the fastest-growing industries, where com-
petitiveness hinges on constant innovation in both engineering solutions and business models. One such model, fast
fashion, has emerged to deliver affordable clothing to the masses, but at a significant societal cost. It has been widely
criticized for its unsustainable practices—both environmentally and socially—due to the production of low-quality,
non-durable products sold at exceptionally low prices [15, 16]. Fast fashion is characterized by its focus on producing
short-lived products, often made from inexpensive materials, and manufactured under poor working conditions, with
workers receiving low wages [15]. By shortening production times and streamlining supply chain processes, fast fashion
increases the profitability of businesses involved [17].

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

While fast fashion threatens to overshadow traditional fashion, several alternatives, such as slow and sustainable
fashion, have emerged to counter its negative societal impacts. According to Štefko and Steffek [18], traditional fash-
ion informs consumers about the finished product and its origins, while slow fashion emphasizes the heritage of the
product and the methods used in its creation. Slow fashion goes beyond following trends, viewing clothing as a form of
self-expression. It can also be seen as a subset of traditional fashion, which prioritizes long-lasting processes and often
uses recycled or organic materials.
Fast fashion ultimately results in large amounts of waste and harmful emissions. In addition to slow and traditional
fashion, purchasing second-hand products [19] and extending the life cycle of garments through reuse, repair, and
recycling are crucial strategies to mitigate these environmental issues [20]. Herjanto et al. [20] note that the trend of
buying second-hand fashion products is growing annually, and global demand for second-hand clothing is expected to
double in the coming years. Nevertheless, our understanding of consumer behaviour and the factors influencing these
sustainable practices remains limited in this important area.

2.1 Motivations to reuse, repair, and recycle products

According to Mohr et al. [21], responsible consumer behaviour involves acquiring, using, and disposing of products in
ways that minimize or eliminate negative effects while maximizing their long-term positive impact on society. Research
on reusing, repairing, and recycling products to extend their lifespan has gained increasing attention due to its poten-
tial to reduce waste, conserve resources, and promote sustainability. Reuse and repair are highly effective strategies for
extending a product’s lifespan and minimizing the need for new materials. These practices offer significant environmental
and economic benefits by reducing the need to extract, process, and transport raw materials [22] and align with the
principles of the circular economy.
Among the factors motivating product reuse, Nalewajek & Macik [23] identify the desire for self-expression, individual-
ity, and creativity as primary drivers, with environmental concerns often serving as secondary motivators in consumer
decision-making. Saving money is another significant factor. For example, Joung & Park‐Poaps [24] found that economic
considerations strongly influenced reuse behaviour, as consumers are motivated by the potential for cost savings.
Simpson et al. [25] discovered that two psychological tendencies—frugality and attachment—increase the likelihood
of retaining products. They also noted that emotional satisfaction and infrequent product use can reduce ownership
and lead to the disposal of items that could otherwise be reused. Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim [26] explain that
product attachment refers to a consumer’s emotional bond with a product, such as a car. When consumers form stronger
attachments to products, they are more likely to care for and reuse them. Additionally, other motivational factors, such as
psychological bonds with products, can further encourage reuse behaviour [27], offering consumers both benefits and
enjoyment while reinforcing their self-identity [28]. Reusing items can also strengthen social bonds, fostering feelings of
love and connection among family and friends. For example, the joy of seeing children wear clothing that carries cher-
ished memories from relatives or one’s own childhood highlights how used goods can deepen human relationships [29].
According to Musova et al. [30], environmentally conscious consumers are more likely to engage with and support
circular solutions. McLaren et al. [31] emphasize that product repair is a key strategy for promoting waste reduction
and enhancing resource efficiency in many countries. Trust, care, and attachment are crucial factors that drive repair
behaviours. Additionally, repairing and updating products adds value, fosters social creativity, strengthens community
ties, and encourages resistance to consumerism. A survey by Borthakur & Govind [32] found that low-income groups are
particularly inclined towards repair, with 93.7% of respondents expressing a desire to extend the lifespan of their prod-
ucts. This motivation arises from a need to maximize the utility and longevity of possessions, ultimately saving money.
According to K. Laitala et al. [33], repairing items instead of replacing them is often more cost-effective, especially for
individuals or households managing tight budgets or seeking to reduce overall expenses. However, low prices and poor
quality of new products represent significant barriers to repairing old items.
Repairing products offers benefits both for the environment and consumers. Scott & Weaver [34] argue that extend-
ing a product’s lifespan through repair is an often-overlooked opportunity to improve both consumer well-being and
environmental quality. Motivations for repair decisions, therefore, merit further exploration. In their development of a
repair propensity scale, they identified three key factors influencing the willingness to repair: market factors (such as
repair inconvenience and trust in repair efficiency), product factors (including replacement cost, initial item cost, and
attachment), and consumer factors (such as environmental concern, frugality, product retention, innovativeness, and
education). According to McNeill et al. [35], individuals who prioritize fashion tend to dispose of clothing items more
quickly and with less consideration for their environmental impact. Paradoxically, these same consumers are often

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

motivated to repair items that align with their sense of style. This suggests a complex relationship, where fashion-
conscious individuals may demonstrate contrasting behaviours toward consumption and repair, with style preferences
and aesthetic values playing a significant role.
Terzioğlu [22] developed a model of repair motivation and barriers to identify the underlying factors influencing con-
sumer behaviour. He identified three key aspects of repair: technical, value, and emotional. Technical aspects encompass
the required skills, knowledge, time, and effort, as well as the availability of materials and the need to address design
issues. Value aspects include the functional, aesthetic, and symbolic value of the item, as well as financial considerations.
Emotional aspects involve feelings of attachment, perceived pleasure and interest in the repair process, and environ-
mental concerns.
Another key sustainable post-purchase practice is recycling behaviour. Miafodzyeva et al. [36] found that a significant
portion of the population lacks strong awareness about the separate collection of household waste for recycling pur-
poses. According to Berglund [37], legal norms and personal attitudes are crucial in motivating individuals to engage
in recycling, whereas social approval and financial incentives are less influential. He concluded that policies, regula-
tions, and individual beliefs are essential drivers in encouraging recycling practices among the population. Research
by González-Torre & Adenso-Díaz [38] shows that individuals who regularly dispose of general waste are more likely to
recycle certain products at home.
Additionally, as the distance to recycling facilities decreases, the number of waste categories that citizens separate
and collect at home increases. Both economic and moral motivations influence recycling rates in households. Conveni-
ence is a particularly important factor, as the presence of collection points close to residences in multi-family housing
complexes leads to higher recycling rates [39]. Other motivations for recycling include individual commitment, intrinsic
satisfaction [40], self-efficacy [41], conservation practices and knowledge [42], government regulations [43], and envi-
ronmental awareness [44]. Table 1 summarizes the key studies on the motivations behind post-purchase behaviour for
non-textile products.
In summary, recent research has highlighted various motivations behind consumers’ engagement in reuse, repair,
and recycling activities for different types of products. Reuse behaviour is primarily driven by cost-saving intentions and
psychological satisfaction [45]. Repair practices are influenced by factors such as product quality, cost considerations
[33], and environmental benefits [34]. Positive recycling behaviours are shaped by ecological awareness [46], personal
satisfaction [47], economic incentives [48], and the availability of convenient disposal facilities [49]. Based on these
findings, it can be concluded that psychological factors are more strongly associated with reuse than with repair and
recycling, where other factors, such as cost and convenience, play a larger role. Nevertheless, financial considerations
remain an important motivator across all three activities.

2.2 Motivations of sustainable post‑purchase behaviour in the fashion industry

The fashion textile industry plays a crucial role in the economic and social development of many countries. According to
Keane & Te Velde [50], the textile and clothing industries are of significant economic and social importance both in the
short and long term. In the short term, they contribute to revenue generation, employment (particularly for women), and
foreign exchange earnings, while in the long term, they offer nations the opportunity for sustained economic growth.
As a result, researchers have increasingly focused on promoting more sustainable lifestyles by examining the sustain-
ability aspects of fashion textile consumption. Over the past 15 years, there has been a notable rise in research output
regarding the post-consumer behaviour of fashion products [51]. Consumer purchasing behaviour typically unfolds in
five stages: need identification, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and post-purchase behaviour.
As noted by Mugge et al. [52], post-purchase behaviour is a critical phase where consumers assess their satisfaction with
the purchase and determine their attachment to the product.
Reusing, repairing, and recycling textile products can manifest in various ways. Reuse may involve repurposing items
for the same or different uses, passing garments to family or friends, donating to charity, or selling them as second-hand
items. Repairs can be performed by the original owner or through professional repair services, and recycling occurs
through multiple avenues. Upcycling plays a vital role in sustainability by transforming materials that would otherwise
be discarded into new products, thereby extending the lifespan of fashion items [53]. These behaviours are influenced
by a range of factors, some of which have been explored to varying extents in the existing literature (see Table 2).
Joung & Park-Poaps [24] identify economic factors as key motivators for reuse and resale behaviour, while conveni-
ence drives discarding behaviour. Family subjective norms also influence environmentally motivated resale and donation

Vol:.(1234567890)
 Table 1  Summary of key publications regarding the motivation to reuse, repair, and recycle (non-textile)
Activities covered Scope Motivations, other conclusions Authors
Discover Sustainability

Reuse motivations of electronic devices (e.g., Australia, in-depth interviews with consumers of Psychological ownership and attachment, the Simpson et al. [25]
computers) college-level education usefulness of using products by extension, and
frugality influence reuse behaviour
Reuse and recycling patterns and motives of Mexico, direct observations of middle-sized Conservation practices and knowledge influence Corral-Verdugo [42]
radio, TV, newspapers, and books families reuse and recycling behaviour. Higher-income
(2025) 6:94

people can store more (the higher their earn-

ings, the higher their ability to build storage
to keep items but less influence on recycling
behaviour)
Motivations to repair household appliances Norway, a survey of household consumers aged Better quality of products, price, availability of Laitala et al. [33]
18–80 repair service and accessibility of user manuals
motivates repair behaviour
Consumers’ motivation to repair (e.g., techno- UK and Sweden, semi-structured interviews with Environmental concerns and economic benefits Terzioğlu [22]
logical and modern materials) simple random sampling, purposive sampling motivate consumers. Three aspects (techni-
of consumers who are interested in repair cal, value, and emotional) influence repair
motivations. However, some factors, such as
socio-economic perception, lack of knowledge
and skills, and time and effort, are barriers to
repair behaviour
Motivational factors toward recycling (house- Malaysia, interview survey of households of Intrinsic satisfaction and individual commit- Aini et al. [40]
hold garbage, e.g., solid waste) urban residential areas ment influence recycling behaviour the most.
Awareness and education on waste manage-
ment and recycling are needed to overcome
the solid waste crisis
Motivations and frequency of household recy- Spain, interviews and surveys of random con- Environmentally conscious consumers are more González-Torre & Adenso-Díaz [38]
cling sumers in the street in the northern region interested in recycling if bins are near home
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Recycling motivation of packaging waste (i.e., Sweden, a survey of random households in four Economic and moral motives, the convenience Hage et al. [39]
paper, glass, plastic, and metal) different Swedish municipalities of bins motivates recycling
Determinants of recycling behaviour of waste Spain and USA, university students Environmental knowledge, altruistic motivation, Izagirre‐Olaizola et al. [44]
materials: paper/card, plastics/ cans, and glass and actual and perceived knowledge increase
motivation

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
 Table 2  Summary of key publications regarding the motivation to reuse, repair, and recycle textile products
Research

Activities covered Scope Motivations to reuse, repair, and recycling Authors

Vol:.(1234567890)
Motivations of post‑consumer textile waste man- Review articles from 1995 to 2021 Convenience and conditions of clothing influence Abdallah et al. [51]
agement consumers’ disposal behaviour, whereas envi-
ronmental concerns results in positive attitude
towards recycling
Factors influencing clothing disposal behaviour USA, a survey of a representative sample of col- Economic concerns, environmental concerns, fam- Joung & Park‐Poaps [24]
lege students ily subjective norms
Post-consumer textile waste and disposal Florida, USA, a cross-sectional study of publicly Higher incomes, more residential segregation, and DeVoy et al. [64]
available data from 2014 to 2019 more clothing stores have an influence
Drivers influencing reuse and recycling of textile Canada, online survey of consumers (residents of Fashion consumers reduce textile disposal and Weber et al. [56]
products Ontario) engage more in reuse and recycling
Repair behaviour of fashion-sensitive consumers Canada, New Zealand, and the USA, cross-sec- Higher-educated male consumers are more Potdar et al. [60]
of clothing products tional online survey of adult consumers interested in repair than female consumers and
pro-environmental practices encourage fashion-
Discover Sustainability

sensitive consumers to engage in clothing repair

Reuse and recycling behaviour of textile con- USA, self-administered online survey of college Media sources, education, subjective norms Noh [63]
sumption students
Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour China, questionnaire survey of Nanjing citizens Perceived usefulness, attitude, perceived behav- Zhang et al. [62]
ioural control, and subjective norms
Circular fashion consumption Middle East, Iraq New raw materials with lower environmental Shirvanimoghaddam et al. [1]
(2025) 6:94

impact contribute to circular fashion and

sustainable solutions. Therefore, those materials
must be used to reuse and recycle clothing
Repair behaviour Hull City Council, UK Higher education, environmental responsibility, Rogers et al. [58]
Questionnaire survey in the university women consider more repair
Reuse and recycling of clothing Sweden, a qualitative research approach of stake- Information and education, cooperation of char- Ekström & Salomonson [66]
holders and consumers ity organizations, and developing technology
motivate the reuse and recycling of textiles.
For instance, a smartphone app can be created
that shows the location of the closest recycling
centre or charity shop
Motivations of consumers’ social recycling Turkey, online and offline survey of consumers Altruism, the satisfying feeling of generosity Öztürk & Şahin [67]
Motivations for second-hand clothing Norway, a representative sample of Norwegian Uniqueness and style, environmental, and eco- Laitala & Klepp [65]
consumers nomic reasons influence reuse
Motivations toward sustainable disposal and reuse Bangladesh, survey of consumers from various Economic factors have an influence. Other factors Urmi et al. [54]
of textiles regions include environmental concerns, interest in
donating, etc
Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour Norway, survey of young women and students Convenience, donation, gifts to friends Laitala [55]
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

behaviours. Donation is an important form of post-purchase behaviour. For example, Urmi et al. [54] found that in Bang-
ladesh, donating clothes to others is the most popular method for sustainably disposing of used garments, followed by
reuse, recycling, and reduction. Laitala [55] highlights that many consumers discard clothing due to space limitations and
prefer donating items for reuse rather than simply throwing them away. This behaviour is largely driven by convenience.
Abdallah et al. [51] also observed that the convenience and condition of clothing items significantly impact disposal
decisions, with environmental concerns primarily motivating recycling behaviours.
Post-purchase behaviour varies among consumers. A survey by Weber et al. [56] found that consumers with a high
fashion index (fashion consumers) dispose of textile waste differently from those with a low fashion index (non-fashion
consumers). While most participants either donated or discarded unwanted clothing, fashion consumers were more
likely to use alternative disposal methods, such as reselling, swapping, and participating in take-back programs. Domina
& Koch [57] observed a direct link between the frequency of clothing donations and factors like being a young adult or
married. They also noted that resale rates were higher among younger consumers and tended to decline as educational
levels increased.
Gender also plays a role in repair behaviour, with men generally more inclined to repair tools or cars, while women
are more likely to engage in garment repairs. These preferences reflect traditional gender roles and societal expecta-
tions about skills and interests related to different types of repair [58]. Research further suggests that women take on a
larger share of responsibilities in the post-consumer phase of fashion consumption [55]. For instance, McQueen et al. [59]
found that women in Norway were more likely to repair their garments themselves, whereas men were more inclined
to seek assistance. Potdar et al. [60] also noted that more educated consumers showed greater interest in repair, and
women were more engaged in surveys about textile disposal and recycling [61]. Zhang et al. [62] explored how age,
income, and gender influence clothing obsolescence, defined as consumers ceasing to wear or rarely wearing certain
items. Their findings revealed that women and younger individuals experience clothing obsolescence more frequently,
while those with lower incomes tend to hold on to their clothing for longer periods. College students develop a more
positive attitude toward sustainable post-purchase behaviour when exposed to information about reuse and recycling
through media sources [63].
Information, education, and the initiatives of charitable organizations play significant roles in motivating consumers
to reuse their products. DeVoy et al. [64] examined the link between educational attainment, income, and textile waste
generation, finding that individuals with higher education and income levels tend to produce more textile waste per
person. Laitala & Klepp [65] concluded that both economic and environmental considerations influence the decision
to reuse textile products. They also found that the appeal of unique items and specific styles affects the decision to
purchase second-hand clothing. Using a network approach, Ekström & Salomonson [66] highlighted the critical role of
various stakeholders—such as charitable organizations, government bodies, and technological support—in motivating
recycling by collecting used products.
According to Shirvanimoghaddam et al. [1], recycling clothing items can serve as a sustainable solution by reducing
solid waste. To support this, the use of raw materials with lower environmental impact, such as bamboo, hemp, and
natural dyes, should be prioritized during the manufacturing process. Additionally, social recycling—offering unused
products to others for free—can further contribute to sustainability [67]. Öztürk et al. also highlight that altruism and
the sense of satisfaction from generosity play a significant role in motivating recycling behaviour, alongside other socio-
economic benefits [68].
Table 2 presents key publications on post-purchase behaviour of fashion textile consumption.
Our review of the literature reveals that various factors influence consumers’ post-purchase behaviour of fashion
products. However, there is no consensus on which factors are the most important or their relative significance. Many
studies are constrained by sample characteristics, as they often focus on specific social groups, such as university students,
limiting the broader applicability of the findings. To address this gap, we have formulated several research hypotheses
regarding the post-purchase behaviour of fashion consumers.
Building on the findings of Weber et al. [56], which indicate that fashion consumers tend to handle textiles more
sustainably than non-fashion consumers, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Fashion consumers who purchase second-hand products engage in sustainable post-purchase behaviours more
frequently than those who do not or rarely purchase such products.
H2: Fashion consumers can be categorized into distinct clusters based on their sustainable post-purchase behaviours.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Additionally, we applied the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen [69]) to formulate research hypotheses related to two
specific post-purchase behaviours: repairing and giving away fashion products. Based on the work of Izagirre‐Olaizola et al.
[44] and Mugge et al. [52], we propose our third hypothesis:

H3: Environmental knowledge positively influences environmental attitudes regarding fashion products.

While attitude has been explored as a key determinant of post-purchase behaviour, the findings are not entirely consist-
ent. Drawing from the studies of Young et al. [70], Abelson [71], and Nadro et al. [72], we define the following hypotheses
regarding attitudes and perceived behavioural control:

H4a: Attitude positively influences the intention to repair fashion products.

H4b: Attitude positively influences the intention to give away unwanted fashion products.
H5a: Perceived behavioural control positively influences the intention to repair fashion products.
H5b: Perceived behavioural control positively influences the intention to give away unwanted fashion products.

Finally, building on the research by Joung & Park‐Poaps [24], which found that subjective norms influence behaviours
such as reselling and donating, and Lang and Armstrong [73], who revealed a positive correlation between subjective norms
and the intention to adopt sustainable clothing product-service systems, including clothing repair, we propose the following
hypotheses regarding subjective norms:

H6a: Subjective norms positively influence the intention to repair fashion products.
H6b: Subjective norms positively influence the intention to give away unwanted fashion products.

Figure 1 illustrates the research’s conceptual model, which is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

3 Material and methods

To assess our research hypotheses, we conducted a representative survey of the citizens of Budapest, Hungary, a European
capital with a vibrant fashion scene. The quantitative survey was designed to reflect the demographic composition of Buda-
pest, including age, gender, education, income, occupation, and city districts. We employed a random sampling strategy and
reached 500 citizens through telephone interviews conducted in December 2021. After addressing missing values and clean-
ing the data, we retained 452 responses for detailed analysis. Table 3 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample.
The questionnaire was designed to examine both the initial purchase and post-purchase behaviour of fashion product
consumers. It included questions about the types of textile products purchased (new and/or second-hand), the factors
influencing these purchases, and the determinants of various sustainable post-purchase behaviours, such as reusing,
repairing, and recycling textile products.
Our database provided valuable insights into fashion consumers’ behaviour. Initially, we applied descriptive statistical
methods to characterize the sample. Next, we aimed to identify and describe distinct consumer groups using cluster-
ing techniques, which are effective tools for understanding consumer behaviour [74]. We employed both hierarchical
and K-means clustering methods, followed by post-hoc analyses (Welch’s test and Games-Howell test) to validate the
clusters. Finally, correlation analysis was used to further characterize the clusters. To identify the key factors influencing
post-purchase behaviour, we developed a model based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and analysed our data using
SMART PLS (Ringle et al. [75]).
The various research methods employed throughout the study are illustrated in Fig. 2. Detailed information on each
step of the research process, along with the results, is provided in the following section.

4 Results

4.1 Patterns of purchase and post‑purchase behaviour of fashion consumers

Figure 3 illustrates the respondents’ initial purchase behaviour, categorizing the frequency of purchases of new and
second-hand textile products over the course of a year.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

Fig. 1  The research model

using the Theory of Planned
Behaviour

Table 3  Demographic profile of the respondents (N = 452)

Variable Frequency % Variable Frequency %

Gender Age
Male 209 46.2 16–29 96 21.2
Female 243 53.8 30–44 130 28.8
Education 45–59 100 22.1
Lower than the 8th grade of primary school 1 0.2 Over 60 126 27.9
Primary school 8th grade 17 3.8 Monthly Income per capita (EUR)
Secondary school without a high school 40 8.8 < 250 39 8.7
diploma, with professional qualification
High school diploma 216 47.8 250–500 166 36.7
College or bachelor’s degree 71 15.7 500–750 106 23.4
University or master’s degree 98 21.7 750–1000 37 8.2
Postgraduate training (doctoral degree) 9 2.0 > 1000 60 13.3
Don’t know/don’t answer 44 9.7

Regarding annual spending on new and used textiles, 87.8% of respondents spend less than EUR 500 on new prod-
ucts, while 58.8% spend the same amount on second-hand items. A typical consumer (40.3% for new and 48.2% for
used products) spends less than EUR 125 per year on textiles. Notably, 1.8% of respondents do not purchase any new

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Fig. 2  Research methods and

respective research hypoth-
eses

products, and 41.2% do not purchase used items. These figures indicate that, in Budapest, consumers still prefer new
products over second-hand ones.
When categorizing purchase frequency into three groups (frequently, sometimes, and never), the data reveals that
purchasing new and second-hand garments is associated with age, gender, occupation, and education. However, no
significant relationship was found between purchasing new or second-hand garments and income or residential location.
Although the relationships are generally weak to moderate, younger consumers, females, and those with a diploma tend
to buy new garments more frequently than others. Additionally, retired individuals purchase significantly fewer items
than those with employment. These findings are summarized in Table 4.
The questionnaire examined six different types of sustainable purchase behaviours. The results indicate that purchas-
ing durable products is the most commonly practiced behaviour related to sustainability, followed by the preference
for repairable goods and products made from environmentally friendly materials or recyclable items (see Fig. 4). On
the other hand, products that are responsibly manufactured and those made from recycled materials are less popular
among the respondents.
Some demographic variables are associated with different manifestations of sustainable purchase behaviour. Women
are more likely than men to buy goods made from environmentally sound materials (Cramer’s V significant at < 0.05, value:
0.157), products made from recycled materials (Cramer’s V significant at < 0.05, value: 0.166), and items that are repairable

Fig. 3  Frequency of initial

purchase of new and second- More than once a week 0.2
0.4
hand textile products (%)
Once a week 1.1
0.7

Once a fortnight 4.2

1.8

Once a month 20.6

9.7

Few times per year 64.6

35

Only on special occasions 7.5

11.3

Never 1.8
41.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

New products Used products

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

Table 4  Relationship Demographic variable New Used

between initial purchasing
behaviour and demographic Sex 0.120* 0.206***
characteristics (values of
Age 0.251*** 0.161***
Cramer’s V)
Occupation 0.271*** 0.225*
Education 0.134* 0.115*
Income – –

Significance levels: *: < 0.05, **: < 0.01, ***: < 0.001

(Cramer’s V significant at < 0.05, value: 0.161) or recyclable (Cramer’s V significant at < 0.05, value: 0.160). However, there
is no significant relationship between gender and the purchase of responsible or durable products.
Middle-aged and older respondents are more likely to purchase goods made from environmentally sound materials
compared to younger individuals (Cramer’s V significant at < 0.01, value: 0.152). However, none of the other sustainable
purchase behaviours show a significant relationship with age. Additionally, education, place of residence within the city,
and income do not significantly influence sustainable purchase behaviours.
As shown in Fig. 5, the determining factors for purchasing new and second-hand garments are similar. Interestingly,
most factors are rated lower for second-hand purchases, possibly reflecting respondents’ lower expectations for second-
hand products. The most notable difference is in the expectation of a product guarantee, with second-hand buyers
generally not expecting a guarantee to accompany their purchases.
The survey measured a number of sustainable post-purchase behaviours by asking respondents how much they
display each behaviour (Fig. 6). Using products as long as possible tops the list, followed closely by using unwanted
products for another purpose and donating garments to a charity. Interestingly, respondents also keep their garments
for a long time despite not using them.
The association between demographic parameters and sustainable post-purchase behaviours is demonstrated in
Table 5. While the place of living, occupation and income is not associated with sustainable post-purchase behaviours,
there is a clear difference between the behaviour of the two sexes: there is a slight tendency showing that men use their
fashion products for longer periods of time. However, women give away unwanted products to family and friends more
often, donate them to charity and repair them themselves. However, having used products repaired and taking them to
recycling facilities does not distinguish the two sexes.
Age is associated only with two post-purchase behaviours, namely the length of use and having garments repaired:
younger and middle-aged people tend to keep their garments for longer periods of time, and middle-aged people tend
to have their garments repaired more often than other age groups. The level of education is only associated with how
long people keep their garments: those with a university degree tend to keep their garments for longer periods of time.
Our research examined whether buyers of new and second-hand products behave differently during the post-
purchase phase. We hypothesized that buyers of second-hand fashion products are more environmentally conscious,
which would, in turn, lead to more sustainable post-purchase behaviour. Table 6 demonstrates the relationship

Fig. 4  Engagement in dif-

ferent sustainable purchase Buys products which can be recycled
behaviours (average values, 1:
not at all, 5: very much)
Buys repairable products

Buys durable products

Buys responsibly manufactured products

Buys products made from recycled materials

Buys products made from environmentally

sound materials

0 1 2 3 4 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Fig. 5  Determining factors of

Price
new and second-hand prod-
uct purchases Brand
Style and uniqueness
Function
Guarantee
Social status
Environmentally responsible materials
Repairability
Durability

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

New products Second hand products

Fig. 6  Importance of sustain- Use products for a long time

able post-purchase behav-
iours (average values) Use old products for another purpose

Give away to friends and family

Use old products for handicraft

Donate used garme nts to charity

Repair garments

Have garments repaired

Keep garments even though not used

Take unwanted garment to recycling facility

0 1 2 3 4 5

Table 5  The association between demographic parameters and sustainable post-purchase behaviours
Demographic Use for long time Give away to friends Donate to charity Repair Have repaired Take to
variable recycling
facility

Sex 0.151* 0.288*** 0.182** 0.202*** – –

Age 0.142** – – – 0.127* –
Education 0.153* – – – – –

Significance levels: *: < 0.05, **: < 0.01, ***: < 0.001

between initial purchase behaviour and post-purchase behaviour. Values provide the strength of correlation
between the frequency of new and second-hand purchases and post-purchased behaviour assessed.
Table 6 demonstrates that the relationship between the purchase of new fashion products and selected post-
purchase behaviours is either missing or is rather weak. Only the behaviours ‘giving away to friends and family’,
‘donating to charity’ and ‘repair’ increase with increased purchasing frequency. While the relationship between the
frequency of purchasing second-hand garments and sustainable post-purchasing behaviours is still rather weak in
most cases, the relationship is stronger than in the case of new garment purchases. Those who buy second-hand
garments more often tend to give away, use for handicrafts, repair and donate their clothing items more often than
those who do not buy second-hand garments.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

Table 6  Relationship between Post-purchase behaviour New fashion products Second-hand

initial purchase behaviour fashion prod-
and post-purchase behaviour ucts
(values of Cramer’s V)
Use products for a long time – –
Use old products for a different purpose – –
Give away to friends and family 0.107* 0.201***
Use old products for handicraft – 0.171***
Donate used garments for charity 0.099* 0.152**
Repair garments 0.108* 0.135*
Have garments repaired – –
Take unwanted garment to recycling facility – 0.131*

Significance levels: *: < 0.05, **: < 0.01, ***: < 0.001

4.2 Clusters of fashion consumers regarding sustainable post‑purchase behaviour

To better understand the characteristics of consumers engaging in post-purchase behaviour, we carried out cluster
analysis using the variables describing actual post-purchase behaviour. Romesburg [76], describes cluster analysis
as a technique used to identify and group similar objects. Three out of the nine post-purchase variables, namely
‘use products for a long time,’ ‘use old products for handicraft,’ and ‘keep garments even though not used,’ did not
differentiate fashion consumers considerably. Thus, clusters of consumers were sought after using the remaining six
variables: ‘use old products for another purpose,’ ‘give away to friends and family,’ ‘donate used garments to charity,’
‘repair garments,’ ‘have garments repaired’ and ‘take unwanted garments to a recycling facility.’
First, we carried out hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward method), which indicated that two or four clusters of consum-
ers may be identified. K-means cluster was then applied to create and assess the two and four clusters, respectively. The
4-cluster solution turned out to be superior both statistically (higher Eta-squared for each variable) and regarding the
interpretation of the resulting clusters, and it was thus retained for further analysis. Post-hoc analysis (Welsch test and
Games-Howell test) showed that not all, but most, cluster means were significantly different (see Fig. 7).
Interpreting the four clusters based on their means according to the cluster variables resulted in the following clusters:

Cluster 1: Non-engaged fashion consumers: low score in each post-purchase category.

Cluster 2: Committed fashion consumers: high score in each post-purchase category.
Cluster 3: Give away fashion consumers: high score in the giving away categories only, low score in repair and
recycle categories.
Cluster 4: Repair fashion consumers: high score in repair categories only, low to average score in giving away and
recycling categories.

While clusters differ in size, each has a significant number of members: 78, 137, 145, and 92, respectively, with the
smallest number in the ‘Non-engaged fashion consumer’ group and the highest in the ‘Give away fashion consumer’
group. Table 7 demonstrates the major characteristics of the four clusters.
Among the demographic characteristics of the sample, only gender significantly influences cluster membership,
while income, education, profession, and place of living do not have an effect. Males are significantly overrepresented
in Cluster 1 and Cluster 4. While we may expect that they engage less in post-purchase activities than females, it is
rather surprising to find that there are more male respondents among ‘Repair fashion consumers’ than expected based
on sample participation. This is most likely explained by the fact that women who repair their garments also engage
in other post-purchase activities and thus belong to the ‘Committed consumers’ category. Most respondents (in any
cluster) believe that environmental problems pose important challenges to mankind, a notion especially prominent
among ‘Committed fashion consumers.’ However, actual knowledge of environmental and social labels is relatively
low, reaching more than 40% only in the case of ‘Committed fashion consumers.’
Specific environmental and social problems relating to the fashion industry do not seem to divide the four clusters
similarly to the attitudes towards the role of companies. However, there is a small but significant difference between

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Fig. 7  Results of clustering: 5.00

variable means
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
-
Use for other Give to friends Donate to Repair Have repaired Recycle
purpose and family charity

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Table 7  Characteristics of the clusters

Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Cluster 4:
Non-engaged Committed Give away Repair con-
consumers consumers consumers sumers

Gender*** m: 60.3% m: 37.2% m: 40.7% m: 56.5%

f: 39.7% f: 62.8% f: 59.3% f: 43.5%
Income, education, profession, place of living Not significant
Share of cluster members in agreement with the state-
ment:
Environmental problems are important challenges*** 82.1% 92.7% 88.3% 88.0%
The fashion industry is one of the most significant polluters Not significant
The fashion industry causes social problems Not significant
I know several environmental and social labels** 23.0% 44.5% 39.3% 33.7%
Changing consumer behaviour is important*** 82.1% 89.1% 82.1% 84.8%
Companies should produce more durable goods Not significant
Fashion companies should offer repair services Not significant
Giving away garments gives me a good feeling*** 61.5% 95.6% 96.6% 71.7%
By selling/swapping old garments I can help others*** 62.8% 90.5% 80.7% 67.4%
Buying durable, repairable, and recyclable products gives me a good feeling*** 65.4% 89.1% 81.3% 73.9%
Share of cluster members for whom the aspect is impor-
tant/very important:
How much does price matter when buying new?*** 68.2% 80.7% 72.0% 74.4%
How much does the guarantee matter when buying new?*** 39.4% 68.1% 47.5% 45.5%
How much do environmentally sound materials matter when buying new?*** 44.7% 75.5%% 54.5% 58.9%
How much does repairability matter when buying new?*** 35.5% 71.8% 45.5% 52.2%

Significance levels: *: < 0.05, **: < 0.01, ***: < 0.001

how members of different clusters see the role of consumers in reducing the impacts of the fashion industry. Con-
sumers committed to sustainable post-purchase behaviour seem to be more aware of other phases (namely the
purchasing phase) of their consumption since they place higher importance on important decision factors such as
price, guarantee, and especially environmentally sound materials and repairability than members of other clusters.
Clusters 3 and 4, namely give-away and repair-oriented consumers, seem similar in many respects. However, those
who prefer giving away their unwanted garments find more satisfaction in such behaviour than those who rather repair
their textile products. It is interesting to note that cluster membership, which indicates the level of engagement in dif-
ferent sustainable post-purchase behaviours, does not seem to relate to any variables, which characterize the amount

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

of consumption. Thus, there is no significant relationship between cluster membership and whether cluster members
plan to reduce the amount of their fashion consumption in the future or whether they plan to keep their garments for
longer periods of time. This means those engaged in sustainable post-purchase behaviours do not necessarily take a
more sustainable approach when considering their initial purchases.

4.3 Factors influencing post‑purchase intention

To investigate the factors influencing various types of sustainable post-purchase behaviours among fashion consumers,
we applied the Theory of Planned Behaviour as developed by Ajzen [69]. According to this theory, attitudes, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control impact behavioural intentions, which in turn affect actual behaviour. Behaviour
results from a person’s perspective, arbitrary behavioural standards, and perceived behavioural control. The belief in the
consequence of conduct is an attitude that can be positive or negative. Social pressure to conform to behaviour is related
to subjective norms, while perceived behavioural control demonstrates how people can control their behaviour. The TPB
theory is a general theoretical framework for anticipating behavioural intentions in many contexts, including consuming
fashion textiles. When someone acts, their attitudes determine how much they enjoy or dislike something and whether
they are satisfied. A person will have a favourable attitude towards engaging in an activity if they know its beneficial
effects. Therefore, consumer attitudes favourably impact sustainable post-purchase intentions and behaviour [77, 78].
According to Ajzen [69], subjective norms typically convey how significant the individual feels to others (family, friends,
and colleagues) in their social surroundings or how they anticipate them to behave. Perceived behavioural control is the
perception of whether an action is simple or challenging to complete [79]. By adapting the Theory of Planned Behaviour,
this study intended to investigate the determining factors of two sustainable post-purchase behaviours, namely repair-
ing and giving away fashion products.
Table 8 demonstrates the constructs of the research model and the items (indicator variables) of the questionnaire
used to measure the constructs. Indicator variables were adopted from previous research regarding the determinants of
sustainable consumption behaviour. Items describing environmental knowledge were adopted from Chi et al. [80], who
assessed consumer intentions to purchase slow fashion apparel and defined environmental knowledge as the ability to
recognise environmental problems, as well as the causes and consequences of problems. Items regarding attitude were
adopted from Chi et al. [90] and Sreen et al. [82] who assessed the impact of culture, behaviour and gender on green
purchase intention. The construct of subjective norms was developed based on Cialdini et al. [83] who discussed how
normative pressures shape decision making and McNeill et al. [84] who suggested that repairing and extending the
lifecycle of fashion products is a positive practice influenced by social norms. The construct of perceived behavioural
control was adopted from Sreen et al. [82] and Nam et al. [85], who explored factors influencing consumers’ purchase
intention of green sportswear. Finally, the construct of post-purchase intention was adopted from Nam et al. [85] and
Joung [86] who assessed fast-fashion consumers’ post-purchase behaviours.
Items associated with the latent variables were handled according to Hair et al. [87]: items with a loading value below
0.4 were removed while items with loadings between 0.4 and 0.7 were retained if they improved the measurement model
regarding composite reliability and AVE. As a result, in both the ‘repair’ and the ‘give-away’ models three items associated
with ‘environmental knowledge’, namely EK4, EK5 and EK6; two items associated with ‘Attitude’, namely ATT2 and ATT3
were removed. Additionally, two items associated with ‘perceived behavioural control’ were removed to improve the
model leaving only PBC1 in both models.
Results of the analysis of the measurement models are shown in Tables 9 and 10. Indicator reliability refers to the pro-
portion of variance in an observed variable (indicator) that is explained by the underlying latent construct in a measure-
ment model, while composite reliability is used to evaluate the internal consistency of a latent construct. Both measures
exceed threshold values (0.4 and 0.7, respectively) in both measurement models (repair and give-away). Moreover, high
AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values show that the indicators of the constructs are well-correlated and represent the
same underlying concept. These results demonstrate the reliability and validity of the two models.
Discriminant validity was measured using the Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion to confirm that each latent
variable differs from others. According to Henseler et al. [88], a threshold value of 0.90 indicates that the path model
includes constructs that are conceptually very similar, i.e., a lack of discriminant validity. Hair et al. [89] describes discri-
minant validity as acceptable, with an upper limit of 0.90. Tables 11 and 12 demonstrate that the HTMT is lower than
this threshold value in both the ‘repair’ and the ‘give-away’ models and confirm that the constructs are distinct and not
confounded.

Vol.:(0123456789)
 Research

Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 8  Questionnaire items used in the ‘repair’ and ‘give-away’ models
Latent variable Code Item Repair Give away

Environmental knowledge EK1 Environmental problems are among the most critical issues of our age x x
EK2 The fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries x x
regarding water pollution
EK3 The production of fashion products creates social problems x x
EK4 Fashion product producers cannot solve the environmental and social problems of the industry alone x x
EK5 Changing consumer behaviour is an essential element of solving environmental problems x x
EK6 I know several labels and emblems that prove the environmental and social benefits of clothing products x x
Attitude ATT1 Buying too many fashion (clothing) products harms the environment x x
Discover Sustainability

ATT2 Companies should produce longer-lasting fashion products x x

ATT3 Fashion companies should offer repair services x x
ATT4 The burden on the environment can be reduced by repairing and reusing fashion products x x
ATT5 Purchasing fashion products that can be used for an extended period, repaired, or recycled is satisfactory x x
Perceived behavioural control PBC1 If it were entirely up to me, I am confident that I would purchase fashion products that can be used for a long time, x x
(2025) 6:94

repaired, and recycled

PBC2 Purchasing fashion products that can be used for a long time, repaired, and recycled is totally within my control x x
PBC3 In the future, it is entirely up to me whether or not I repurchase fashion products that can be used for a long time, x x
repaired, and recycled
Subjective norm SN1 If I repair and use my fashion products for a long time, most importantly, people agree with my decision x
SN2 It is trendy to repair and use clothes for a long time x
SN3 It is common practice in my family to pass clothing items to each other if we no longer need them x
SN4 I know many people who give away their fashion products to others when they do not need them anymore x
Post-purchase intention PPI1 In the future, I intend to buy fashion products that can be used for an extended period of time x x
PPI2 In the future, I plan to buy fashion products that can be repaired x
PPI3 I intend to repair fashion products after purchasing them x
PPI4 In the future, I plan to buy fashion products that can be recycled x
PPI5 I intend to give away the fashion products I do not need to others who can still use them x
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

Table 9  Evaluation of the Latent variable Loadings Indicator Composite Average

‘repair’ measurement model reliability reliability variance
extracted

Environmental knowledge EK1 0.740 0.548 0.803 0.576

EK2 0.781 0.610
EK3 0.756 0.571
Attitude ATT1 0.753 0.567 0.798 0.568
ATT2 0.746 0.556
ATT3 0.762 0.580
Perceived behavioural control PBC1 1.000 – – –
Subjective norm SN1 0.918 0.842 0.849 0.739
SN2 0.797 0.635
Post-purchase intention PPI1 0.814 0.663 0.864 0.680
PPI2 0.900 0.810
PPI3 0.754 0.569

Table 10  Evaluation of the Latent variable Loadings Indicator Composite Average

‘give-away’ measurement reliability reliability variance
model extracted

Environmental knowledge EK1 0.740 0.548 0.803 0.576

EK2 0.781 0.610
EK3 0.756 0.571
Attitude ATT1 0.744 0.567 0.798 0.568
ATT2 0.747 0.556
ATT3 0.770 0.580
Perceived behavioural control PBC1 1.000 – – –
Subjective norm SN3 0.834 0.696 0.840 0.724
SN4 0.867 0.752
Post-purchase intention PPI1 0.812 0.659 0.779 0.542
PPI4 0.752 0.566
PPI5 0.634 0.402

Table 11  Discriminant Latent variable Attitude Environmen- Perceived Repair intention Subjec-
validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait tal knowledge behavioural tive
Ratio (HTMT)—’repair’ model control norm

Attitude
Environmental knowledge 0.808
Perceived behavioural control 0.543 0.307
Post-purchase intention 0.601 0.302 0.751
Subjective norm 0.470 0.287 0.439 0.662

In Table 11, attitude and environmental knowledge are closely linked with environmental knowledge, but their
connections to the subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are weaker. Perceived behavioural control
has a strong connection with post-purchase intention, highlighting its predictive role. Then, post-purchase intention
is strongly influenced by perceived behavioural control and moderately by attitude. Then, the subjective norm is
moderately associated with post-purchase intention but less influential in other relationships.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

Table 12  Discriminant Latent variable Attitude Environmen- Perceived Repair intention Subjec-
validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait tal knowledge behavioural tive
Ratio (HTMT)—’give-away’ control norm
model
Attitude
Environmental knowledge 0.808
Perceived behavioural control 0.543 0.307
Post-purchase intention 0.769 0.454 0.705
Subjective norm 0.392 0.258 0.329 0.793

Next, we evaluated the structural models to determine the two models’ capability to predict the target constructs,
namely the two post-purchase intentions:’repair’ and’give-away’. First, we checked the collinearity of the predictor con-
structs by analysing VIF values. An inner model VIF exceeding 3.3 is generally seen as a sign of potential standard method
bias. Therefore, if all VIFs in the inner model, determined through a full collinearity test, are 3.3 or lower, the model can
be considered free from common method bias [90]. The results shown in Table 13 indicate that all VIF values are below
the threshold, so collinearity is not a critical issue in either model. This means that each predictor (namely attitude, per-
ceived behavioural control and subjective norm) contributes uniquely to explaining repair and give-away intentions,
which ensures the interpretability and validity of the structural model.
This study adhered to the guidelines proposed by Hair et al. [89] to evaluate the variables’ mediation effect. Path
coefficients for both the ‘repair’ and ‘give-away’ models are provided in Table 14. In the ‘repair’ model, path coefficients
show a strong relationship between environmental knowledge and attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and post-
purchase intention, i.e., repair. At the same time, subjective norms have a moderate effect on post-purchase intention,
while attitude has the weakest effect. In the ‘give-away’ model, the relationship between environmental knowledge and
attitudes has a similar strength since the measurement items related to them are the same in the two models. However,
perceived behavioural control has a much weaker effect on give-away intention. Attitude and subjective norms have a
stronger effect on post-purchase intention (i.e., giving away unwanted fashion products) than in the repair case.
R2 values show the combined effect of the exogenous latent constructs on attitude, repair intention, and giveaway
intention in the two models. According to Hair [87], the ­R2 value of attitude is weak, while the R­ 2 values of post-purchase
intention’repair’ and post-purchase intention’give-away’ are much higher and in the case of repair can be considered
moderate (see Table 15).
Effect sizes (­ f2) on R
­ 2 show if an exogenous construct substantially impacts the endogenous constructs. Effect sizes
determined in the two models are shown in Table 14. According to Cohen [91], ƒ2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respec-
tively, represent small, medium, and large effects of an exogenous latent variable, and effect size values of less than 0.02
Table 13  VIF values ‘Repair’ model ‘Give-
away’
model

Environmental knowledge → attitude 1.257 1.249

Attitude → post-purchase intention 1.000 1.000
Perceived behavioural control → post-purchase intention 1.318 1.263
Subjective norm → post-purchase intention 1.186 1.095

Table 14  Path coefficients, t values, P values, and f­ 2 effect sizes for the two models
‘Repair’ ‘Give-away’
2
Path coeff t value P value f effect size P value Path coeff t value P value f2 effect size P value

EK → ATT​ 0.517 12.733 0.000 0.365 0.000 0.515 12.54 0.000 0.360 0.000
ATT → PPI 0.118 2.668 0.008 0.023 0.208 0.230 5.274 0.000 0.078 0.012
PBC → PPI 0.512 12.478 0.000 0.408 0.000 0.375 8.031 0.000 0.204 0.000
SN → PPI 0.263 6.219 0.000 0.119 0.005 0.305 5.685 0.000 0.155 0.009

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

indicate no effect. In the ‘repair’ model, perceived behavioural control has a large effect size; social norms and attitudes
have a small effect size on repair intentions; however, in the case of attitudes, this small effect size is not significant. In
the ‘give away’ model, perceived behaviour control still has the largest effect, although smaller than in the ‘repair’ model;
social norms have a moderate effect size, and attitude has a small effect size, although statistically significant.

5 Discussion of results

Our survey examined the behaviour and motivations of consumers purchasing second-hand fashion products and engag-
ing in various sustainable post-purchase activities.
In Budapest, Hungary, the majority of fashion consumers purchase new fashion products, with only 58.8% buying
second-hand items. Interestingly, the factors influencing the purchase of new and second-hand products are largely
similar, with the exception of a reduced emphasis on guarantees when buying second-hand products. We hypothesized
that consumers who purchase second-hand fashion products exhibit distinct behaviours during the post-purchase phase
compared to those who buy less frequently or avoid second-hand products entirely. Our findings partially support this
hypothesis, revealing differences in certain post-purchase behaviours. While the relationship between the frequency of
buying second-hand fashion products and engaging in sustainable post-purchase activities is weak to moderate, signifi-
cant patterns emerge. Consumers who regularly buy second-hand fashion are more likely to donate unwanted garments
to charity, repurpose old items for handicrafts, repair their clothes, and take them to recycling facilities. These behaviours
occur more frequently among second-hand buyers than among those who seldom or never buy second-hand products.
However, second-hand buyers do not tend to use their garments for extended periods compared to other consumers.
These findings support our first hypothesis (H1), highlighting a nuanced link between second-hand fashion purchases
and sustainable post-purchase practices.
Among the various sustainable post-purchase options, the most commonly practiced behaviours were using gar-
ments for an extended period and repurposing old garments for other purposes. Giving garments away to friends and
family and donating to charity were also frequent practices, followed by repairing garments and taking unwanted items
to recycling facilities.
Using clustering techniques, we identified four distinct groups of consumers: ‘non-engaged,’ ‘committed,’ ‘give-away,’
and ‘repair’ fashion consumers. ‘Non-engaged’ consumers represented the smallest cluster, while ‘give-away’ consumers
formed the largest group, closely followed by ‘committed’ consumers. Among the demographic variables assessed, only
gender significantly differentiated the clusters, with men being overrepresented in both the ‘non-engaged’ and ‘repair’
groups.
Beyond their engagement in sustainable post-purchase behaviours, the clusters also exhibit differences in their mem-
bers’ attitudes toward the environment, but not their attitudes towards the environmental and social impacts of the
fashion industry. In most areas examined, the ‘repair’ and ‘give-away’ clusters show minimal differences. Nevertheless,
members of the ‘give-away’ cluster stand out for deriving satisfaction from helping others by donating their old gar-
ments. The identified clusters are both statistically significant and meaningful, providing strong support for our second
hypothesis (H2).

Table 15  R2 values in the two models

Attitude Post-
purchase
intention:
‘repair’

R2 0.267 0.512
R2 adjusted 0.266 0.509
Attitude Post-
purchase
intention:
‘give-away’

R2 0.265 0.453
R2 adjusted 0.263 0.449

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

To better understand the motivations driving sustainable post-purchase behaviours among fashion consumers, we
tested two models grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). These models incorporated constructs aimed at
explaining consumers’ intentions to repair garments and give away unwanted fashion products. Our findings confirm
that TPB is a valuable framework for analyzing factors influencing sustainable post-purchase behaviours in the fashion
industry.
Among the constructs examined, attitude toward environmental issues had the weakest impact on intentions to repair
and give away garments. Social norms exhibited a moderate influence, while perceived behavioural control emerged as
the strongest predictor of both sustainable post-purchase intentions. Based on an analysis of path coefficients and effect
sizes, we accepted hypotheses H4b, H5a, H5b, H6a, and H6b. However, we rejected H4a, as the effect size of attitude on
repair intentions was very low and statistically insignificant. These findings contribute to the existing literature on fash-
ion consumer behaviour by analyzing a representative sample of residents from a major European city and employing
multiple, complementary research methods.
Our findings align with those of Weber et al. [58], demonstrating that individuals who frequently purchase both new
and second-hand fashion products (‘fashion consumers’) are more likely to engage in sustainable post-purchase activi-
ties. However, our results do not corroborate the findings of Potdar et al. [60], who reported that older, more educated
male consumers are more inclined to repair clothing than female consumers. While the ‘Repair fashion consumers’ cluster
includes a significantly higher proportion of men, this does not necessarily indicate that men engage in repair activities
more frequently than women, especially considering the higher representation of women in the ‘Committed consumers’
cluster.
When examining gender roles more broadly, women are notably overrepresented in the ‘Committed consumers’ cluster,
which places greater emphasis on textile disposal and recycling. This finding reinforces prior research that highlights
women’s active involvement in these aspects of sustainable fashion consumption. Moreover, our results support stud-
ies [57, 60, 61, 63, 70] showing that women who repair their garments also tend to participate in other post-purchase
activities, thus aligning with the characteristics of the ‘Committed consumers’ category.
Many studies suggest that environmental concerns influence sustainable post-purchase behaviours. However, our
findings indicate that, at least in the context of Budapest, this factor has the weakest—if any—effect on both repair and
give-away behaviours. Instead, other considerations, such as economic and convenience factors (as highlighted by Laitala
& Klepp [66] and Urmi et al. [56]), appear to play a more significant role, particularly in repair activities.
These insights have important implications for practitioners, businesses, policymakers, and NGOs working to promote
more sustainable lifestyles. While purchasing second-hand fashion can help reduce textile consumption, our findings
suggest that second-hand buyers do not necessarily engage in environmentally friendly practices in other areas of their
fashion consumption. Although there is a relationship between the frequency of buying second-hand products and
certain sustainable post-purchase behaviours, the overall sustainability of second-hand fashion consumption cannot
be taken for granted.
It is often believed that fostering positive attitudes toward the environment through consumer education can drive
sustainable consumption patterns. However, our results show that attitudes are the weakest predictors of repair and give-
away intentions. While other post-purchase activities, such as recycling, may be more influenced by attitudes, our find-
ings suggest that education alone may not be sufficient to address the challenges of sustainable fashion consumption.
Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on improving the repairability of products and showcasing practical
examples of sustainable practices. These approaches may have a more substantial impact on encouraging sustainable
fashion consumption and reducing the environmental burden of the fashion industry.

6 Conclusions: limitations and future research directions

While our study provides significant insights for academics and professionals, several limitations should be acknowledged.
First, our research focuses exclusively on consumers in Budapest, without including data from other European regions
or countries. As a result, the findings reflect the behaviour of a large urban population but may not be generalizable to
other contexts. Future research should expand the geographical scope to include diverse regions for a broader under-
standing of sustainable post-purchase behaviour of fashion consumers.
Second, this study concentrates solely on the apparel sector. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of sus-
tainable post-purchase behaviour in general, future studies should explore other product categories, such as food and

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

electronics. Examining these sectors could reveal unique patterns and motivations among consumers of different product
types.
Third, our data collection method, namely telephone-based questionnaires, has inherent limitations. The findings rely
on self-reported data, which may be influenced by response bias or inaccuracies in how consumers perceive their own
behaviours. Future research could employ alternative methodologies, such as in-person interviews, online surveys, or
experimental designs, to uncover deeper insights and validate results.
In this study, we tested aspects of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to explore sustainable post-purchase behav-
iour. Future research should consider integrating alternative theoretical frameworks to better capture the complexities
of consumer behaviour in this context. Scholars could also explore marketing models and experimental approaches
with diverse samples, such as younger or older populations, or specific generational cohorts like Generation Z, to better
understand variations across demographic groups.
Our findings highlight the associations between demographic variables and sustainable post-purchase behaviours.
These insights can inform tailored marketing strategies and policy interventions to promote sustainable practices among
different consumer segments. By building on this research, future studies can deepen the understanding of sustain-
able consumption practices and contribute to developing effective strategies for fostering environmentally responsible
behaviours across a range of consumer contexts.

Author contributions Arifa Parvin Kemi contributed to the manuscript in the following ways: Research gap and conceptualization, exploration
of the research gap. Development of the research questions and objectives of the research. Conducting the literature review. Data analysis
using multivariate statistical methods. Preparation of the introduction, literature review, results, and discussion sections. Gyula Zilahy con-
tributed to the study in the following ways: Development of the research questions and objectives of the research. Validation of study results
with existing literature. Supervision and review of data analysis. Preparation of the results, and discussion sections. Final check of results and
recommendations

Funding Open access funding provided by Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Open access funding provided by Budapest
University of Technology and Economics. Research reported in this article was supported by Project No. 138661 implemented with the sup-
port provided by the Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed
under the OTKA K 2021/1 funding scheme.’

Data availability The database generated and analyzed in the current study are available from the curresponding author upon reasonable
request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate According to the regulation of the Research Ethics Committee of the Corvinus University of Buda-
pest (Provision of the Rector No. 2/2020.) a research ethics permission is not required for the research reported in this article. Consent from
all participants involved in the study was obtained with their full awareness and understanding.

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, 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
1. Shirvanimoghaddam K, Motamed B, Ramakrishna S, Naebe M. Death by waste: fashion and textile circular economy case. Sci Total Environ.
2020;718: 137317. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​137317.
2. Peters GM, Sandin G, Spak B. Environmental prospects for mixed textile recycling in Sweden. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2019;7(13):11682–90.
3. Niinimäki K, Peters G, Dahlbo H, Perry P, Rissanen T, Gwilt A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2020;1(4):189–
200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s43017-​020-​0039-9.
4. Slater K. Environmental impact of textiles: production, processes and protection. Elsevier, 2003.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

5. Camposeco-Negrete C. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing energy consumption in turning of AISI 6061 T6 using Taguchi
methodology and ANOVA. J Clean Prod. 2013.
6. Nieminen E, Linke M, Tobler M, Vander Beke B. EU COST Action 628: life cycle assessment (LCA) of textile products, eco-efficiency and
definition of best available technology (BAT) of textile processing. J Clean Prod. 2007;15(13–14):1259–70.
7. Roy R, Chavan PP, Rajeev Y, Praveenraj T, Kolazhi P. Sustainable manufacturing practices in textiles and fashion. in Sustainable Manu-
facturing Practices in the Textiles and Fashion Sector, Springer, 2024, pp. 1–22.
8. Shourkaei MM, Taylor KM, Dyck B. Examining sustainable supply chain management via a social-symbolic work lens: lessons from
Patagonia. Bus Strategy Environ. 2024;33(2):1477–96.
9. da Costa AG, Soares IM, Pinto BF, Au-Yong-Oliveira M, Szczygiel N. Innovating in the fashion industry for a more sustainable pro-
duction and consumption. Presented at the International conference on innovation and entrepreneurship, Academic Conferences
International Limited, 2018, pp. 285–XXI.
10. Niinimäki K, Hassi L. Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and clothing. J Clean Prod.
2011;19(16):1876–83.
11. Vătămănescu E-M, Dabija D-C, Gazzola P, Cegarro-Navarro JG, Buzzi T. Before and after the outbreak of covid-19: linking fashion
companies’ corporate social responsibility approach to consumers’ demand for sustainable products. J Clean Prod. 2021;321: 128945.
12. Weiland S, Hickmann T, Lederer M, Marquardt J, Schwindenhammer S. The 2030 agenda for sustainable development: transformative
change through the sustainable development goals? Polit Gov. 2021;9(1):90–5.
13. Eisenriegler S, editor. The circular economy in the European union: an interim review. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​50239-3.
14. Nittala R, Moturu VR. Role of pro-environmental post-purchase behaviour in green consumer behaviour. Vilakshan-XIMB J Manag.
2023;20(1):82–97.
15. Clark H. SLOW+ FASHION—an Oxymoron—or a Promise for the Future…? Fash Theory. 2008;12(4):427–46.
16. Pouillard V, Dubé-Senécal V. The Routledge history of fashion and dress, 1800 to the present. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2023. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97804​29295​607.
17. Fernie J, Azuma N. The changing nature of Japanese fashion: can quick response improve supply chain efficiency? Eur J Mark.
2004;38(7):790–808. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03090​56041​05392​58.
18. Štefko R, Steffek V. Key issues in slow fashion: current challenges and future perspectives. Sustainability. 2018;10(7):2270.
19. Dahlbo H, Aalto K, Eskelinen H, Salmenperä H. Increasing textile circulation—consequences and requirements. Sustain Prod Consum.
2017;9:44–57.
20. Herjanto H, Scheller-Sampson J, Erickson E. The increasing phenomenon of second-hand clothes purchase: insights from the literature.
J Manaj Dan Kewirausahaan. 2016;18(1):1–15.
21. Mohr LA, Webb DJ, Harris KE. Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibil-
ity on buying behavior. J Consum Aff. 2001;35(1):45–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1745-​6606.​2001.​tb001​02.x.
22. Terzioğlu N. Repair motivation and barriers model: Investigating user perspectives related to product repair towards a circular
economy. J Clean Prod. 2021;289: 125644. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​125644.
23. Nalewajek M, Skłodowskiej PMC. Exploration of consumers’ behaviours connected with product reuse. Diversity, Technology, and
Innovation for Operational Competitiveness: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Technology Innovation and Indus-
trial Management.
24. Joung H, Park-Poaps H. Factors motivating and influencing clothing disposal behaviours. Int J Consum Stud. 2013;37(1):105–11.
25. Simpson D, Power D, Riach K, Tsarenko Y. Consumer motivation for product disposal and its role in acquiring products for reuse. J
Oper Manag. 2019;65(7):612–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​joom.​1049.
26. Schifferstein HN, Zwartkruis-Pelgrim EP. Consumer-product attachment: measurement and design implications. Int J Des. 2008;2(3).
27. Brough AR, Isaac MS. Finding a home for products we love: how buyer usage intent affects the pricing of used goods. J Mark.
2012;76(4):78–91.
28. Kleine SS, Baker SM. An integrative review of material possession attachment. Acad Mark Sci Rev. 2004;1(1):1–39.
29. Marzella F. The second-hand market: the practice of reusing goods in cultures dominated by the new. Ital Sociol Rev. 2015;5(1):105–105.
30. Musova Z, Musa H, Drugdova J, Lazaroiu G, Alayasa J. Consumer attitudes towards new circular models in the fashion industry. J
Compet. 2021;13(3):111.
31. McLaren D, Niskanen J, Anshelm J. Reconfiguring repair: contested politics and values of repair challenge instrumental discourses
found in circular economies literature. Resour Conserv Recycl X. 2020;8: 100046. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rcrx.​2020.​100046.
32. Borthakur A, Govind M. Computer and mobile phone waste in urban India: an analysis from the perspectives of public perception,
consumption and disposal behaviour. J Environ Plan Manag. 2019;62(4):717–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09640​568.​2018.​14292​54.
33. Laitala K, Klepp IG, Haugrønning V, Throne-Holst H, Strandbakken P. Increasing repair of household appliances, mobile phones and
clothing: experiences from consumers and the repair industry. J Clean Prod. 2021;282: 125349. https://​doi.o ​ rg/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​
125349.
34. Weaver ST. AUTHORS: Kristin A. Scott Associate Professor Department of Marketing and International Business Minnesota State University,
Mankato. no. 26, 2014.
35. McNeill LS, et al. Fashion sensitive young consumers and fashion garment repair: emotional connections to garments as a sustainability
strategy. Int J Consum Stud. 2020;44(4):361–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijcs.​12572.
36. Miafodzyeva S, Brandt N, Olsson M. Motivation recycling: pre-recycling case study in Minsk, Belarus. Waste Manag Res J Sustain Circ Econ.
2010;28(4):340–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​42X09​351331.
37. Berglund C. The assessment of households’ recycling costs: the role of personal motives. Ecol Econ. 2006;56(4):560–9.
38. González-Torre PL, Adenso-Díaz B. Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling. Waste Manag.
2005;25(1):15–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2004.​08.​007.
39. Hage O, Söderholm P, Berglund C. Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: empirical evidence from Sweden. Resour
Conserv Recycl. 2009;53(3):155–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2008.​11.​003.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5
Research

40. Aini MS, Fakhrul-Razi A, Lad SM, Hashim AH. Practices, attitudes and motives for domestic waste recycling. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol.
2002;9(3):232–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13504​50020​94701​19.
41. Tabernero C, Hernández B. Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior. Environ Behav. 2011;43(5):658–75.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00139​16510​379759.
42. Corral-Verdugo V. A structural model of reuse and recycling in Mexico. Environ Behav. 1996;28(5):665–96.
43. Thøgersen J. Monetary incentives and recycling: behavioural and psychological reactions to a performance-dependent garbage fee. J
Consum Policy. 2003;26(2):197–228. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10236​33320​485.
44. Izagirre-Olaizola J, Fernández-Sainz A, Vicente-Molina MA. Internal determinants of recycling behaviour by university students: a cross-
country comparative analysis. Int J Consum Stud. 2015;39(1):25–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijcs.​12147.
45. Möhlmann M. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J
Consum Behav. 2015;14(3):193–207.
46. Miranda Carreño R, Blanco Suárez Á. Environmental awareness and paper recycling. 2010. https://​hdl.​handle.​net/​20.​500.​14352/​41865.
47. Tabernero C, Cuadrado E, Luque B, Signoria E, Prota R. The importance of achieving a high customer satisfaction with recycling services
in communities. Environ Dev Sustain. 2016;18:763–76.
48. Yau Y. Domestic waste recycling, collective action and economic incentive: the case in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2010;30(12):2440–7.
49. Siu KWM, Xiao JX. Design and management of recycling facilities for household and community recycling participation. Facilities.
2016;34(5/6):350–74.
50. Keane J, Te Velde DW. The role of textile and clothing industries in growth and development strategies. Overseas Dev Inst. 2008;7(1):141–7.
51. Abdallah AB, Ray S, Mim SJ, Mahmud TS, Richter A, Ng KTW. Assessment of demographics and motivations of post-consumer tex-
tile waste management using a bibliometric approach. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2024;26(4):2534–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10163-​024-​01994-8.
52. Mugge R, Schifferstein HNJ, Schoormans JPL. Product attachment and satisfaction: understanding consumers’ post-purchase behavior.
J Consum Mark. 2010;27(3):271–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​07363​76101​10383​47.
53. Dissanayake G, Sinha P. An examination of the product development process for fashion remanufacturing. Resour Conserv Recycl.
2015;104:94–102.
54. Urmi SS, Emu AS, Khan S. A study on sustainable disposal behavior of used clothes & motivational factor towards such behavior in Bang-
ladesh. Butex ICTSE-2020. 2022; 57–67.
55. Laitala K. Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour–a synthesis of research results. Int J Consum Stud. 2014;38(5):444–57.
56. Weber S, Lynes J, Young SB. Fashion interest as a driver for consumer textile waste management: reuse, recycle or disposal. Int J Consum
Stud. 2017;41(2):207–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijcs.​12328.
57. Domina T, Koch K. Consumer reuse and recycling of post-consumer textile waste. J Fash Mark Manag Int J. 1999;3(4):346–59.
58. Rogers HA, Deutz P, Ramos TB. Repairing the circular economy: public perception and participant profile of the repair economy in Hull,
UK. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021;168: 105447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2021.​105447.
59. McQueen RH, McNeill LS, Huang Q, Potdar B. Unpicking the gender gap: examining socio-demographic factors and repair resources in
clothing repair practice. Recycling. 2022;7(4):53.
60. Potdar B, McNeill LS, McQueen RH. An investigation into the clothing repair behaviour of fashion-sensitive consumers. Int J Fash Des
Technol Educ. 2024; 1–15.
61. RezaeiArangdad S, Thoney-Barletta K, Joines J, Rothenberg L. Influence of demographics and motivational factors on US consumer cloth-
ing and shoes disposal behavior. Res J Text Appar. 2019;23(3):170–88.
62. Zhang L, Wu T, Liu S, Jiang S, Wu H, Yang J. Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviors in Nanjing, China. J Clean Prod. 2020;276: 123184.
63. Noh M. Understanding the effect of information sources on college students’ recycling/reuse behavior towards clothing and textile
products. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):6298. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su131​16298.
64. DeVoy JE, Congiusta E, Lundberg DJ, Findeisen S, Bhattacharya S. Post-Consumer textile waste and disposal: differences by socioeconomic,
demographic, and retail factors. Waste Manag. 2021;136:303–9.
65. Laitala K, Klepp IG. Motivations for and against second-hand clothing acquisition. Cloth Cult. 2018;5(2):247–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1386/​
cc.5.​2.​247_1.
66. Ekström KM, Salomonson N. Reuse and recycling of clothing and textiles—a network approach. J Macromarketing. 2014;34(3):383–99.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02761​46714​529658.
67. Öztürk E, Şahin A. Encouraging sustainable clothing disposal: consumers’ social recycling motivations in Turkey. J Mater Cycles Waste
Manag. 2023;25(5):3021–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​023-​01739-z.
68. Leal Filho W, et al. A review of the socio-economic advantages of textile recycling. J Clean Prod. 2019;218:10–20.
69. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.
70. Young Lee J, Halter H, Johnson KK, Ju H. Investigating fashion disposition with young consumers. Young Consum. 2013;14(1):67–78.
71. Abelson J. The Duct-Tape Economy. Boston Globe, 2009.
72. Nadro M, Sivarajah U, Charles V, Rana NP, Surucu-Balci E. Fostering sustainable consumer behaviour: unravelling the determinants of
repair intentions for smart appliances. J Environ Manage. 2024;369: 122262.
73. Lang C, Armstrong CMJ. Fashion leadership and intention toward clothing product-service retail models. J Fash Mark Manag Int J.
2018;22(4):571–87.
74. Frades I, Matthiesen R. Overview on techniques in cluster analysis. Bioinform Methods Clin Res. 2010; 81–107.
75. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. 2015.
76. Romesburg C. Cluster analysis for researchers. Lulu. com, 2004.
77. Lobb AE, Mazzocchi M, Traill W. Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour.
Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(2):384–95.
78. Tuu HH. Attitude, social norms, perceived behavioral control, past behavior, and habit in explaining intention to consume fish in Vietnam.
J Econ Dev. 2015;22(3):102–22.
79. Thong NT, Olsen SO. Attitude toward and consumption of fish in Vietnam. J Food Prod Mark. 2012;18(2):79–95.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Sustainability (2025) 6:94 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00888-5

80. Chi T, Gerard J, Yu Y, Wang Y. A study of US consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants.
Int J Fash Des Technol Educ. 2021;14(1):101–12.
81. Hsu C-L, Lin JC-C. Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app stickiness and in-app purchase intention. Technol Forecast
Soc Change. 2016;108:42–53.
82. Sreen N, Purbey S, Sadarangani P. Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. J Retail Consum Serv.
2018;41:177–89.
83. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55(1):591–621.
84. McNeill L, Moore R. Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustain-
ability in clothing choice. Int J Consum Stud. 2015;39(3):212–22.
85. Nam C, Dong H, Lee Y-A. Factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention of green sportswear. Fash Text. 2017;4:1–17.
86. Joung H-M. Fast-fashion consumers’ post-purchase behaviours. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2014;42(8):688–97.
87. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. in Handbook of market research, Springer, 2021, pp.
587–632.
88. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J
Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43:115–35.
89. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Thiele KO. Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural
equation modeling methods. J Acad Mark Sci. 2017;45:616–32.
90. Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int J E-Collab Ijec. 2015;11(4):1–10.
91. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. 2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97802​03771​587.

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

Vol:.(1234567890)