Communications on Sustainability in the Apparel Industry: Readability of Information on Sustainability on Apparel Brands’ Web Sites in the United Kingdom

Abstract

As part of addressing sustainability, consumers’ attitudes and behaviors also depend on their understanding of sustainability issues. This is relevant in the apparel sector, including fast fashion, which faces substantial sustainability challenges and serves a broad consumer base. Apparel brands communicate with consumers about sustainability through various means including their web sites. Whether consumers can understand the information provided is key; consequently, an important issue addressed by this study is whether the information provided has an ease of reading corresponding to the mass consumer base. This study assesses the readability of the information provided on sustainability by brands’ web sites for 13 major apparel brands serving the U.K. market. Based on a range of readability tests, the brands’ web sites average readability is significantly harder than typical thresholds considered (p < 0.001). The substantial variation across brands in ease of reading and information provided includes some brands mostly within or close to the readability thresholds. The overall results indicate a significant barrier for consumers to gain information from brands about sustainability, with the variation across brands indicating the feasibility of achieving easier readability. Addressing this barrier to understanding is important and practicable, given the potential role of consumers in moving towards more sustainable apparel.

1. Introduction

One of the important means to address sustainability challenges is to inform consumers so as to support a transition towards more sustainable consumer behaviors [1,2] and the corresponding business approaches and supply chains. An important context is the apparel industry, including fast fashion, given its mass appeal and sustainability impact. Sustainability in the apparel industry comprises a broad set of issues, including related to materials, working conditions, and animal rights. These issues rapidly become complex, such as the differences in sustainability across fibers and the impact along fragmented cross-border supply chains [3]. Consumers’ understanding of sustainability in apparel is important as may impact perspectives on the overall apparel brand, product choices, as well as consumption patterns. Yet, consumers’ understanding is challenged by the complexity of sustainability issues along the apparel supply chains [4,5]. At the same time, consumers are aware to the potential for greenwashing, with consumers’ trust in how firms address sustainability potentially undermined by difficulty in understanding of how firms address sustainability [6,7]. In addressing the importance and challenges of conveying information on sustainability to consumers, this paper focuses on apparel brands communications of sustainability related information through brands’ web sites. Specifically, this paper addresses consumers’ potential for understanding by assessing the ease of reading of information on sustainability on the web sites of major apparel brands, including fast fashion brands, operating in the United Kingdom. This is an important issue as such communications need to have an ease of reading appropriate for the broad base of consumers reached by such brands. In turn, such potential for consumer understanding is important given the potential for consumers to play a significant role in transitioning towards more sustainable apparel.

Indeed, engaging consumers is an important part of the need to communicate with a range of stakeholders on sustainability, so as to achieve both firm performance and impact on sustainability [8]. Furthermore, as reflected in research evidence [9], addressing sustainability requires significant new business models and innovation. In turn, such innovative practices require engagement of stakeholders to achieve impact, made more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic slowing of progress on the broad range of Sustainable Development Goals [10]. Yet, such communications with stakeholders need to be aligned with firms’ practices to achieve the potential impact or risk raising the concern for greenwashing, as evidenced in corporate reporting of CSR including the readability of such communications [11,12]. Furthermore, corporate CSR communications practices depend on CSR practices, such as in response to COVID-19 [13], leading to heterogeneity in firms’ communications. Additionally, evidence from CSR communications point to the need for materiality in information provided but that materiality differs across stakeholders [14], also for consumers.

There is increasing evidence that sustainability is an important issue for consumers of apparel [7] notwithstanding the attitude–behavior gap [15,16,17,18,19]. Evidence from research includes consumer interest in specific issues, such as eco-friendly fabrics [20], as well as across a breadth set of issues such as including animal rights, environmental impact, and worker welfare [21]. The understanding of a brand’s social responsibility affects attitudes towards and trust in the brand [22] as well as potentially shaping purchase intentions, in particular with regard to animal rights and environmental impact [21]. There is evidence that consumers have low awareness or understanding of corporate initiatives pursued [15,17,22], yet that consumers’ understanding of fast fashion brands’ approaches to sustainability are important to avoid consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy [7], such as green washing. Indeed, evidence points to the cognitive understanding of sustainability being a significant factor, not sufficient but likely necessary, in shaping consumer attitudes to sustainability across affective, behavioral and cognitive domains through appropriate communications [1,16]. In turn, to identify mechanisms for sustainability related information to impact consumers [23], a key issue is to address the extent to which consumers may understand the information provided regarding sustainable practices of apparel brands.

Yet, achieving consumer understanding of sustainability in apparel is challenging, as the issues are complex and dynamic, though urgent and contentious given the magnitude of the industry impact on sustainability [24]. While precise estimates vary, apparel accounts for significant carbon emissions, at 1.3 Gt/year globally, as well as other environmental impacts such as water use [3]. Critical aspects include fiber along the value chain, from production through to potential recycling and reuse, social issues, such as gender in apparel, as well as fair trade and working conditions [22,25,26]. Over time, a patchwork of legal requirements, codes of conduct and voluntary mechanisms has developed to address aspects of sustainability [26,27], reflecting the constraints of cross-border supply chains with heterogeneous players, from very small local firms to large multinationals. Thus, cross-jurisdictional coordination is complex, and firms in the industry face the tension of reconciling potentially collaborating on sustainability with competitors and/or aiming to take a competitively distinctive approach to sustainability [28]. Furthermore, not only does sustainability encompass a broad set of issues, but also there is a corresponding wide range of approaches taken to achieve sustainability, which include new inputs, changes in materials and production processes, as well as novel business models [29,30]. Furthermore, consumers are aware of the risk of ‘green washing’ [25], though face challenges in understanding the apparel production chain [4,5]. Hence, consumers’ face significant potential complexity to understand a company’s approach to addressing sustainability.

Thus, barriers to consumers to purchase sustainably include not only availability of styles, prices and budgets, social factors influencing their decision making but also an understanding of how their choices link to impact on sustainability [25]. To address this potential gap in understanding several communication mechanisms are available [31,32], which include: formal sustainability reports, though considered complex as addressing multiple stakeholders including potentially customers; labels and tags, which face the challenge of condensing relevant information [33]; as well as corporate web sites, which are deemed important not least due to the prevalence of digital marketing. Indeed, there is a gap in understanding specific mechanisms for communication to consumers related to sustainability [23].

The purpose of this study is to address the potential for consumers to understand the information provided by apparel brands on sustainability on their brand web sites. The main research question is to assess the readability of the information provided, as this is a key barrier to understanding. The study’s specific research questions are: how readability differs across brands in relation to typical consumer readability thresholds; whether brands that communicate more information about their sustainability initiatives have better or worse readability; and how brands differ in the organization of the information provided, such as through use of general categorizations related to sustainability, which may be more similar to other brands, or more brand-specific information structures. Readability is relevant as the apparel industry has a mass consumer base, and thus such information has the potential for wide dissemination. Additionally, readability has been a focus in diverse contexts, for instance in health care to assess patients’ ability to absorb information [34,35] as well as in assessing CSR communications [11,12], pointing to the relevance for consumers understanding apparel brands’ approaches to sustainability.

This study is situated in the U.K. apparel market, a relevant context to understand trends in apparel including fast fashion given consumption levels, competitive presence, and prevalence of digital marketing [1]. The analysis is of the websites of 13 leading apparel brands for U.K. consumers; thus, the study is not limited to fast fashion leaders, such as Zara and H&M, as encompassing a broader set of brands. The contribution of the study is to address a key potential barrier in communicating about sustainability to consumers through considering readability, which reflects the importance given to consumers’ understanding of brands’ novel and innovative sustainable practices yet also the potential complexity of sustainability issues along the apparel supply chain. Furthermore, through comparison across a set of major brands, the study sheds light on the potential to ease such a barrier to consumer understanding through the variation in practices across brands.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data

Data collection for each of the brands analyzed started with their URL for U.K. consumers: on this web page, the link to a section related to sustainability was followed, which was considered the first level URL included in the study. Within this first URL on sustainability, all links and sub-links to URLs related to sustainability were included. In practice, this meant up to three levels of URLs were included. For each of these URLs all the text was copied onto a Word file. The collection of text from the URLs was completed between 8 July and 25 August 2022. Each article was then edited to exclude images, videos, figures, and extraneous text such as captions, advertisements, references, links, disclaimers, and acknowledgments. For each brand, the text from the relevant URLs was compiled into one file and analyzed for readability. Furthermore, the number of levels, number of URLs, and total number of words were tabulated.

The list of apparel brands included was built up, as there is no official definitive list, starting with a broader list of companies selling apparel [36], considered at the brand level (i.e., not as a corporate which may have multiple brands), reviewed for updates based on web searches for leading apparel brands in the U.K. (e.g., bankruptcy and M&A). The aim was to form a set of major brands that: exclude brands that are not primarily in apparel (e.g., sportswear brands, department store brands); have mass consumer appeal including fast fashion brands (e.g., excluding luxury brands and niche brands); and operate with store and/or e-commerce sales channels, as these channels are both well-developed in the U.K. This resulted in 13 brands to analyze (

Table 1. Distribution by brand of total number of URLs, levels of URLs and total number of words across URLs.

Brands Sorted by Total Number of Words	Total Number of URLs Included	Levels of URLs	Total Number of Words across URLs
Brand 1	20	3	8792
Brand 2	18	3	4303
Brand 3	6	2	3340
Brand 4	6	2	3108
Brand 5	6	2	2237
Brand 6	8	2	2207
Brand 7	6	2	2144
Brand 8	1	1	1353
Brand 9	1	1	1294
Brand 10	4	2	1275
Brand 11	1	1	648
Brand 12	1	1	482
Brand 13	1	1	304
Average	6.1	1.8	2422
Minimum	1.0	1.0	304
Maximum	20.0	3.0	8792
Standard deviation	6.3	0.7	2250

). As the focus of the paper is the extent of readability of a set of apparel brands, in contrast to a focus on specific brands, the data and results are discussed with reference to generic labels ‘Brand 1’, ‘Brand 2’, as used in Table 1. To support reproduction of the research, the correspondence between the generic labels, ‘Brand 1’, etc., and the brand names is provided in Appendix A. The total number of URLs accessed was 79, ranging from 1 to 20 per brand, which were structured in up to 3 levels, and with text analyzed per brand ranging from 304 to 8792 words.

Additionally, for each brand the main headings used to categorize the information on sustainability were noted. For some brands with multiple URLs and different levels of URLs, the relevant headings reflect the structure of their web pages. For other brands, the main categories are evident in headings within a URL. For the headings identified the correspondence to common sustainability related concepts and frameworks was assessed: for instance, this includes ‘Environment, Social and Governance’ (ESG), or the triple-bottom-line of People, Planet and Profit (PPP).

2.2. Measures of Readability

The readability of the text extracted from the URLs was assessed with five readability tests, namely the Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade level [37]. Each test places emphasis and weight on different aspects that contribute to readability: sentence length (FRE, FKGL, GFI, CLI), number of syllables per word (FRE and FKGL), proportion of difficult words (GFI), number of letters per word (CLI), and proportion of words with three or more syllables (SMOG). As each measure places emphasis on different aspects that may limit readability, studies addressing readability, such as [11,12,34,35], typically use a set of readability measures.

To interpret the measures, the FRE scores are on a 0–100 scale, with a higher score indicating increased readability and scores above 80 indicating ‘easy’ reading. The other four measures provide a score based on U.S. school grades, in which lower grades correspond to younger ages. Thus, lower scores correspond to texts that are easier to read. In terms of age, grade 1 corresponds to ages 6–7 and grade 12 corresponds to ages 17–18. In the U.S., overall guidance is to achieve readability below grade 7, which corresponds to ages 12–13 [38,39]. In studies of readability in a healthcare context, such as for information related to COVID-19, this is typically the threshold used for studies of readability in the U.S. e.g., [34] whereas for one study in the U.K. the threshold used was the equivalent to U.S. grade 8 [35], which corresponds to 13–14 years old. Additionally, for the U.K. there is evidence of literacy being lower for younger adults aged 16–24 years old, more likely consumers of brands in the study, than for older adults aged 55–65 years old [40]. Based on these reference points, the threshold used in the analysis is of U.S. grade 8, such as to investigate the proportion of brands scoring at or below a relevant readability threshold as well as to provide a reference point to compare against the brands’ average readability and the distribution of ease of readability ratings across brands.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance for all analyses. The text from the URLs was compiled in separate Microsoft Word files for each brand, and the results of the readability analysis, number of URLs, levels of URLs and total words was tabulated in Microsoft Excel. The statistical data tests we conducted using STATA (Statistics Data Analysis, Version MP-13.1 for Windows, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

First considering the distribution of readability scores across the 13 brands (

Table 2. Distribution of brands by readability test and difficulty level.

Readability Test * and Difficulty Level	Number of Brands	% of Brands
FRE
Easy (80–100)	0	0%
Average (60–79)	1	8%
Difficult (0–59)	12	92%
FKGL
Up to grade 8	2	15%
Grades 8–10	6	46%
Beyond grade 10	5	38%
GFI
Up to grade 8	2	15%
Grades 8–10	4	31%
Beyond grade 10	7	54%
CLI
Up to grade 8	0	0%
Grades 8–10	2	15%
Beyond grade 10	11	85%
SMOG
Up to grade 8	0	0%
Grades 8–10	1	8%
Beyond grade 10	12	92%

* Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade level.

), for the FRE no brands scored over 80 (‘easy’), one scored between 60–79, (‘average’), and twelve scored under 60 (‘difficult’). Across the other measures, the KFGL, GFI, CLI and SMOG, just 0–15% of brands rated at grade 8 or lower. For the KFGL and GFI, 38–54% of brands rated above grade 10, whereas for the CLI and SMOG 85–92% of brands rated as above grade 10. Thus, most brands’ URLs related to sustainability are suitable for those with reading skills expected of 16 years old and over (i.e., grade 11 and above), which is above the typical recommended thresholds.

The difference between the brands’ readability ratings and the thresholds was tested for statistical significance (

Table 3. Readability test scores of brands (n = 13).

Readability Test *:	FRE	FKGL	GFI	CLI	SMOG
Mean	47.8	10.4	11.8	12.2	12.8
Minimum	31.9	7.5	6.9	9.2	9.7
Maximum	59.8	13.5	16.0	15.4	15.5
Standard deviation	9.0	2.0	2.9	1.6	1.8
p-value **	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

* Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade level. ** Test of difference of mean from threshold for easier readability.

): for all five measures of readability, the mean of the brands is statistically different from the corresponding threshold (p < 0.001 for each of the measures). Thus, on average the brands are far from the threshold.

Considering the range of readability scores, however, some of the brands are within or close to the threshold, which demonstrates feasibility of the thresholds. This is more so for the FKGL and GFI, less so for CLI and SMOG. These four measures, through different formulas, generally rate as harder to read text with multiple syllables and longer sentences. The SMOG index is purely based on polysyllabic words, and hence the rating may be driven up through use of (longer) technical terms associated with sustainability topics.

Part of the difference across brands could reflect the total quantity of text provided, as for instance longer text may more likely encompass detailed technical aspects whereas shorter text could be, say, narrowly focused and detailed or a broad overview. To assess the difference across brands depending on quantity of text provided, the brands were split between those with 2000 or more words (n = 7) and those with below 2000 words (n = 6):

Table 4. Readability test scores with brands split by total number of words in brand URLs.

Readability Test *:	FRE	FKGL	GFI	CLI	SMOG
(a) Brands with 2000 or more total number of words (n = 7)
Mean	43.5	8.0	9.0	10.4	10.7
Minimum	52.5	9.6	11.6	11.6	12.2
Maximum	59.8	12.2	14.9	13.1	14.4
Standard deviation	6.4	1.4	1.7	0.9	1.2
p-value **	<0.001	0.015	0.001	<0.001	<0.001
(b) Brands with under 2000 total number of words (n = 6)
Mean	31.9	7.5	6.9	9.2	9.7
Minimum	42.4	11.4	12.0	12.8	13.6
Maximum	55.1	13.5	16.0	15.4	15.5
Standard deviation	8.6	2.2	3.9	2.0	2.1
p-value **	<0.001	0.009	0.034	0.001	0.001

* Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade level. ** Test of difference of mean from threshold for easier readability.

. For both sub-samples on all five metrics the brands score above the relevant thresholds (with range of p-values from <0.0001 to 0.034). In comparing across the two sub-groups, there is a statistically significant difference in mean FRE (p = 0.047), with the longer text group rated easier to read and having a lower standard deviation in readability ratings. For the other four measures, for which the brands with longer text have higher mean rating and lower standard deviation than the brands with shorter text, there is no statistically significant difference in the means. Thus, overall, across brands with shorter and longer text there are similar patterns of readability prevalent.

Finally, the understanding of the content could also be supported through appropriate structuring, such as through sub-divisions across URLs and headings. Such organization of the content is of potentially greater relevance for brands providing more information. Comparing the brands with 2000 or more words versus brands with under 2000 words, the brands have, respectively 10 URLs versus 1.5 (p = 0.008) that are organized in 2.3 levels versus 1.2 (p = 0.001). Thus, not surprisingly, most brands providing more text organize this in multiple pages nested at different levels. A separate aspect is to consider the labels for the subdivision of content. Focusing on the seven brands with 2000 or more words, there are two main patterns of labels for subsections. One pattern has brands with labels that echo common conceptualization in addressing sustainability: three brands (numbers 2, 3 and 6) include as section headings ‘People’ and ‘Planet’ plus other terms (e.g., ‘Product’) and one brand (number 7) has headings related to Environment, Society and Governance (‘ESG’). In contrast the other three brands (numbers 1, 4 and 5) have distinct labels, such as one brand with sections on environmental issues (e.g., with reference to circularity, climate and biodiversity) and another brand with sections on fabrics (e.g., polyester, cotton, denim). Thus, the brands differ in how the information provided is organized and structured, with some brands taking a more distinctive approach whereas other brands that leverage to some degree more common frameworks related to sustainability.

4. Discussion

The results evidence that the information about sustainability provided by major apparel brands, including fast fashion brands, through their web sites is rated as relatively difficult to read considering thresholds of ease of reading corresponding to the mass appeal of these brands. Given the increasing importance to consumers of sustainability and the relative difficulty of conveying information on sustainability through other means, this is a potentially significant barrier to consumer understanding. This is of relevance to brands seeking to successfully communicate initiatives related to sustainability: for instance, evidence points to the impact of sustainable product ranges on consumer attitudes towards brands [41]. Such effects rely on consumers understanding the relevant communications, which in turn requires appropriate readability. Avoiding readability as a barrier to understanding could contribute to closing the well-documented attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption [15,16,17,18,19], as accessing relevant information is potentially helpful. Most brands have sufficiently difficult readability that for a proportion of consumers the content conveyed may not be readily understandable. Such barriers to understanding may also affect consumers attitudes, as this could range from, say, frustration or confusion through to imputing lack of transparency and ‘green washing’ [5,6]. In turn, to the extent that readability is a challenge not just for brands’ web sites, as studied, but also other sources of information on sustainability, findings on consumer attitudes may in part reflect the difficulty many consumers would face when reading information related to sustainability. Overall, the results suggest readability as a barrier for a broad base of consumers to understand information on sustainability provided by apparel brands.

Such a barrier to consumer understanding is also relevant given the documented patterns of research into business models and innovations to address sustainability [9]. To enable adoption and deployment of the diverse approaches across firms [30] requires broader engagement of stakeholders that each have their own needs in terms of material information [14]. Furthermore, marketing is an enabler for environmental performance to lead to overall organizational performance [8]. Thus, the broader longer term relevance of readability as a barrier to consumers understanding of sustainability in apparel.

Nonetheless, there is substantial variation across brands in ease of reading of the content provided, which includes some brands that achieve readability levels close to thresholds considered suitable for reaching a wide consumer base. Indeed, the documented variation across brands’ included in this study suggests caution in using one or two brands as representative of the whole sector. Furthermore, web sites have the potential to convey relatively lengthy, complex information. Some of the brands that convey more information are those with greater ease of reading: the quantity of information provided is not necessarily per se a barrier to readability. Bearing in mind that measures of readability do not assess the type of content conveyed, which would merit further study, the variation across brands provides evidence of the feasibility to achieve easier readability of the information provided to consumers.

The documented variation across brands may indicate opportunities for differential approaches across the brands. Evidence points to how brands are associated with both common and distinctive terms in relation to sustainability [20]; thus, the similarity and differences in information provision across brands may affect consumer attitudes towards brands. Noting the limitation that the study focused on one means of communication, brands’ web sites, and within these on the text provided (and not, say, images or videos), the results point to the brands analyzed not only differing in quantity and readability but also in how the information is organized. This is in part reflected in the number of URLs related to sustainability nested at different levels in brands’ web sites. Additionally, some brands organize their information in headings very similar to other brands: for instance, headings that relate closely to often used generic categories, such as ‘people’, ‘environment’, ‘circularity’. For these brands, the structured organization of the information conveys that the brand is addressing a similarly broad set of issues as other firms. This could indicate a potential degree of competitive alignment: further study could address whether specific initiatives under these headings are also similar or differ substantially. Additionally, use of such categories may lead to communications structured in a style more akin to corporate reporting: whether the impact on consumers is more towards reassurance from congruence with reporting requirements or triggers concerns for ‘green washing’ is of interest to explore further. In contrast, other brands organize their information in categories with distinctive headings, and these brands also tend to convey more information. This suggests an attempt to communicate a distinctive approach, potentially aligning sustainability messaging to the brand.

This study points to potential avenues for future research. One future research theme would explore further the contribution of readability to the attitude–behavior gap. This study focused on brands operating in the U.K. market, and thus English-language content: understanding the readability in other languages and countries is of interest. Additionally, there is potential for research, such as experimental, to assess the impact on consumers of difficulty in reading, such as whether this leads to confusion, frustration, miss-trust or other effects. A complementary avenue of further research would be to broaden the types of content considered, such as also including videos and images, as well as to consider other sources of information for consumers. A second future research theme would expand upon the variation across and within apparel market segments to provide insights into the adaptation of the apparel sector to addressing sustainability. While this study included a set of major brands in mass apparel including fast fashion, future research could address interesting other segments of apparel brands, such as sportswear brands, luxury brands and niche brands. Additionally, the brands studied are established incumbent brands addressing sustainability: of interest would be the approach of de novo brands focused on sustainable apparel. Furthermore, some brands are part of corporate structures with multiple brands, which points to interest in considering readability for such firms corporate communications (e.g., in relation to CSR and mandatory disclosures) and brands’ communications taking account of different stakeholders’ readability thresholds and materiality interests in relation to sustainability.

Finally, while achieving greater sustainability is important yet complex and contentious, given the range of issues involved and potential scope of solutions, consumer involvement is central, from attitudes through to behaviors. The potential for informed consumers to contribute to addressing sustainability; however, this also depends on accessibility to relevant information, for which improved ease of reading is an important and feasible issue to address.