Understanding Consumer Perception towards Sustainable Apparel: A Parallel Mediation Analysis on Satisfaction and Trust

Abstract

Many manufacturing industries today are adopting sustainable production methods in response to environmental regulations and efforts. One of the typical criteria they consider is the United Nations has set global objectives (Sustainable Development Goals: SDGs) designed to address various social, economic, and environmental challenges. “Ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns” (Goal 12) is one of these goals. As a result, not only are manufacturers interested in sustainable products, but consumers are also showing increased interest. Consequently, the market size for sustainable products is also on the rise. This study aims to examine the mechanisms of how to improve customer loyalty of South Korean consumers who have experience purchasing sustainable apparel to vitalize the sustainable product market in Korea. Specifically, this study reveals the impact of perceived value (PV) on loyalty (LY), focusing on the mediating effects of satisfaction (SAT) and trust (TR). The analysis finds that functional value (FV), emotional value (EMV), and green value (GV) have significant direct effects on LY. Additionally, SAT and TR have significant mediating effects between PV and LY, and there is no difference in the strength of the indirect effects of SAT and TR in the relationship between FV, EMV, GV, and LY. This study extends the theoretical background of the mechanisms enhancing loyalty to sustainable apparel through the verification of parallel mediating effects. Furthermore, it is expected that these insights will serve as a direction for the operational strategies of sustainable apparel manufacturing companies.

1. Introduction

Today, growing concerns about the environment are amplified by continuous population growth and industrial development. The waste of resources, increasing product demand, accumulation of industrial waste, and rising satisfaction with disposable products are accelerating environmental problems [1]. To overcome the various crises we face today, including the environmental crisis, the UN has set 17 global goals for sustainable development. Many previous studies have conducted research on responsible consumption and production (Goal 12) across various industries. Among these, the limitations of the traditional linear economy model characterized by “Take → Make → Dispose” are particularly prominent in the apparel industry. Since 2000, the apparel industry has shown a continuous upward trend. Notably, the fast fashion industry has sufficiently met consumer needs and demands, driving the steady growth of the clothing market. Fast fashion is characterized by its ability to rapidly replicate trends and offer clothing products at affordable prices through quick production cycles. This model benefits sellers by improving margins and reducing inventory while providing consumers with fashionable designs at reasonable prices [2]. However, the constant introduction of new styles through rapid production cycles encourages consumption and a throwaway culture, which is criticized for its environmental impact, including high levels of waste, water usage, and carbon emissions.

Today’s consumption patterns, often referred to as the “throw-away society”, lead to excessive resource waste and impulsive buying [3]. Consumers’ purchasing power is steadily increasing worldwide, resulting in a significant rise in global clothing sales. A McKinsey report predicts that, by 2025, 80% of the population in emerging economies will reach clothing consumption levels comparable to those in Western countries, indicating that the apparel industry will become increasingly environmentally inefficient [4]. As one of the essential manufacturing industries, the apparel industry is currently one of the most significant contributors to environmental issues [5].

Numerous studies have been conducted to improve the resource-intensive apparel manufacturing industry. One areas of research focus on the drivers and barriers to sustainable production and consumption. Due to international regulations and changing consumer awareness, many companies are exploring and planning the potential for sustainable operations throughout the production cycle [6]. Considering that only 13% of the annual material input in the textile industry is reused [7], there is significant room for improvement in the utilization of recycled fibers. Moreover, as market interest in sustainable production methods and products increases, the scale of related industries is expanding noticeably. However, unlike the well-developed sustainable apparel markets in Europe or North America, the market in Korea is still in its nascent stage. Given the current trend where the scale of the sustainable apparel market is inevitably expanding due to international regulations and market dynamics, research targeting Korean consumers has significance. The primary consumers of the sustainable apparel market in Korea are currently a niche group interested in environmental and sustainable production practices. In this context, research focusing on Korean consumers holds substantial value. Additionally, considering the evolving consumption patterns of increasingly sophisticated consumers, it is necessary to pay attention to factors beyond just product satisfaction. In this regard, we conduct this research from the following research questions:

RQ 1. What are the underlying motivations for the continuous purchasing of sustainable apparel among Korean consumers?

RQ 2. How important is information sharing about the supply chain process, including reverse logistics and production process, for continuous purchasing?

Therefore, this study attempts an empirical analysis to explain the mechanisms for enhancing the purchasing power of sustainable apparel products.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Sustainable Apparel

There is a growing number of consumers who expect companies to actively contribute to social responsibility, including stability, social equity, and environmental protection. Against this backdrop, companies are increasingly considering production and sales strategies that account for environmental aspects to manage their brand image and reputation. As a result, the keyword “sustainability” is gaining significant attention across both academia and industry [8].

Research on sustainability is diverse and varies depending on the subject and field of study [9]. For instance, in the context of business management, sustainability is often seen as the extent to which waste minimization practices are implemented during the production process. In the health sector, sustainable products are those that minimize negative impacts on human health [10]. In the apparel industry, sustainable products are defined as those that are reproduced through recycling or upcycling of waste fibers [11].

Recycling refers to the series of activities where discarded materials are collected, sorted, and processed for use in the production of new products [12]. Specifically, recycled fibers are textile materials and products manufactured through the physical and chemical processing of textile waste and non-textile waste [13]. Upcycling, a term combining ‘upgrade’ and ‘recycle’, was first introduced by German engineer Reiner Pilz in 1994. Unlike simple recycling, the goal of upcycling is to produce products with higher added value by emphasizing design elements. Braungart et al. [14] referred to simple recycling as ‘downcycling’, noting that this process generates additional waste. In contrast, upcycling is considered a more environmentally friendly manufacturing method as it creates new value by transforming waste into innovative forms and designs [15]. Both recycling and upcycling are sustainable production methods that produce valuable new products through circular processes. These production methods offer not only environmental benefits but also include various sustainable activities of companies, such as job creation [16]. This study defines sustainable apparel as clothing products reproduced through recycling or upcycling manufacturing methods. The aim is to analyze the mechanisms that enhance consumer purchasing power for these products.

2.2. Perceived Value

In management research, value is defined as the subjective assessment perceived by consumers during the process of purchasing products and services, acting as a milestone in the cognitive and behavioral processes [17]. Zeithaml [18] defined value as the evaluation of the trade-off between cost and benefit, while Monroe [19] defined it as the product user’s assessment. Value has been utilized as an important factor in predicting individual behavior and is employed as a variable to understand consumer psychology and behavior in the field of management [20].

Zeithaml [18] defined perceived value as the evaluation of the trade-off between the cost and benefits of a product, while Monroe [19] described perceived value as the consumer’s assessment after acquiring and using a product or service. Values are prioritized based on individual beliefs and perspectives. Various values of individual consumers constitute their overall consumption values, and these values can sometimes conflict depending on the type of product and purchase situation. For predicting consumer behavior, Sheth et al. [21] introduced the theory of consumption values to measure and understand values. Subsequent research by Sweeney & Soutar [22] further developed this by considering the relationships among the sub-dimensions of consumer perceived values, organizing them for advancement.

Several studies have investigated consumer perception by applying the theory of consumption values and reconsidering its sub-dimensions or the relationships between various factors in each research context. For example, in the context of sustainability, Pandey & Yadav [23] described the linkage between perceived value, consumption attitude, and purchase intention in the green apparel context, focusing on the moderating role of generations Z and Y. Jiang & Hong [24] considered green value as one of the independent factors alongside other types of perceived value in the tourism discipline. Yasir et al. [25] attempted to investigate the impact of environmental values on sustainable entrepreneurial intention from the perspective of entrepreneurs.

In this study, the sub-dimensions of perceived value for sustainable apparel were defined and utilized as functional value (FV), economic value (ECV), emotional value (EMV), and green value (GV).

2.3. Satisfaction

Satisfaction is a fundamental concept in consumer behavior, defined as the fulfillment consumers derive from goods or services [26]. According to previous research, consumer satisfaction is a psychological state that considers the difference between what consumers expect to receive from a product purchase and what they actually perceive to have received. Satisfaction influences attitudes following product purchases and ultimately affects intentions for repeat purchases [27].

The concept of satisfaction has been continuously used by several scholars to explain consumer attitudes and behavior in various environments. Recent research by González-Viralta et al. [28] defines satisfaction as the enjoyment customers experience when evaluating a product or service. In their study, satisfaction is used as a precursor to influencing consumer intentions. Similarly, Chaturvedi et al. [29] explored the relationship between consumer satisfaction and revisit intention. They reviewed several previous studies to compile the definition of consumer satisfaction. In summary, satisfaction can be seen as an assessment that compares initial expectations before purchase with the results after purchase.

Specifically, consumer satisfaction can be explained by distinguishing between transaction-specific satisfaction and cumulative satisfaction [30]. Transaction-specific satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction with individual products or services, whereas cumulative satisfaction encompasses satisfaction across past, present, and future interactions with products, services, or brands. This study aims to compare the mediating effects of trust in the relationship between consumer perceived value and loyalty, focusing on satisfaction with the product and trust in the sustainable apparel production process among consumers who have experience purchasing sustainable apparel. In this context, satisfaction (SAT) in this study refers to transaction-specific satisfaction with sustainable apparel, defined as the level of fulfillment consumers derive from their experiences with purchasing sustainable apparel products.

2.4. Trust

Trust refers to the belief in and reliance on another party in a relationship, serving as a foundational condition for establishing connections. Not trusting someone implies adopting a defensive stance focused more on self-protection than on the other party [31]. Recent studies have scrutinized the meaning of trust. Wu & Huang [32] defined trust as one party’s belief that the other party possesses certain beneficial traits. This belief is seen as a logical decision aimed at lowering transaction costs and is a result of modernization. Therefore, trust is essential for successful relationships [33].

In management studies, trust primarily denotes the degree of confidence that consumers feel toward a product or company during the decision-making process of purchasing products or services [34]. Here, trust is defined as the perceived reliability or degree of confidence among stakeholders [35]. Consumers continually assess the production processes before and during purchasing decision-making, with trust playing a pivotal role in this evaluation. In the relationship between businesses as product suppliers and consumers as buyers, trust guides consumer purchasing behavior [36].

In particular, when purchasing products such as sustainable apparel that undergo recycling processes to reclaim raw materials, consumer trust and uncertainty about the production process directly influence purchasing decisions [37]. Companies advocating for sustainability management often exaggerate the benefits of sustainable production methods and products [38]. Issues such as greenwashing underscore the importance of consumer trust in sustainability-related research.

In sustainable supply chain research, trust is closely associated with the visibility and traceability of supply chain information. Supply chain visibility refers to a company’s efforts to gather information about upstream and downstream operations in the supply chain. Traceability, a concept within visibility, refers to a company’s ability to ascertain provenance to consumers or investors [39]. These concepts allow consumers to see a company’s ethical and environmental efforts, thereby increasing confidence in the company. Therefore, investments in supply chain visibility and traceability significantly enhance consumer trust [40]. Consumer trust in the production processes of products is closely related to supply chain visibility and traceability. This relationship is crucial in providing and maintaining consumer confidence in a company’s sustainable practices. Therefore, in consumer-focused sustainability research, these terms are used interchangeably to emphasize their importance in assuring consumers about the sustainability efforts of companies.

In this context, this study defines trust (TR) as the extent to which the production processes of sustainable apparel can be identified and assured across the supply chain [41,42].

2.5. Loyalty

From a business perspective, loyalty is defined by consumers’ attachment and dedication to products, services, or brands [43]. Loyal consumers not only reduce customer acquisition costs for companies but also directly contribute to increased revenue by repeatedly purchasing products or services from a specific company [44]. Thus, consumer loyalty strongly influences company performance and is considered a critical source of competitive advantage among businesses, making it a fundamental goal for strategic market planning [45].

Loyalty plays a significant role in predicting consumer behavior. Loyal customers repeatedly purchase specific products or services and often recommend them to potential consumers [46]. Based on this, many studies consider repeat purchase intention and recommendation intention as key indicators when measuring loyalty [47,48].

Intention is defined as an individual’s willingness to perform a specific action and serves as a mediator between attitudes and actual behaviors [49]. In business studies, it is a widely used concept to explain consumers’ intentions to purchase products and services. Purchase intention is a measure that predicts consumers’ actual purchasing behaviors, while repeat purchase intention signifies favorable behaviors consumers intend to exhibit in future purchasing actions [50]. Repeat purchase intention reflects consumers’ desire to repeat a past purchase based on their previous buying experiences [51]. Moreover, repeat purchase intention typically arises because a product or service meets consumers’ expectations formed prior to purchase, based on satisfaction with the product or service. According to research by Shang and Bao [52], when product attributes align with consumers’ values and expectations, repeat purchase intention increases. Thus, repeat purchase intention indicates consumers’ willingness to continue purchasing based on their past consumption experiences and serves as a metric of their evaluation of those experiences.

Recommendation intention is also a significant indicator for predicting consumer purchasing behavior [53]. Fundamentally, recommendation, also known as word-of-mouth, refers to consumers’ informal, non-commercial conversations based on their purchase experiences with specific products or services [54]. This phenomenon positively influences the purchasing behaviors of both the information provider and the recipient [55], and it is a crucial factor in shaping consumer loyalty [30,53].

Based on this, in this study, loyalty is defined as consumers’ intention to repurchase and recommend sustainable apparel.

2.6. Value–Satisfaction–Loyalty Chain

The value–satisfaction–loyalty chain integrates the concepts mentioned above. This framework is a foundational model in customer behavior research that examines how perceived value influences satisfaction and, in turn, impacts customer loyalty. It is crucial for understanding consumer decision-making and developing strategies to enhance customer retention and loyalty to the company. This framework was notably advanced by the work of Richard L. Oliver [27]. In this chain, high perceived value typically leads to high satisfaction. Consumers who find that the benefits of a product outweigh the costs are more likely to be satisfied. As society and customer awareness becomes more complex, the criteria include diverse elements, not solely price. In recent sustainability research, scholars have examined the linkage of several different values, such as environmental value [56,57]. Satisfied customers are more likely to exhibit loyalty by making repeat purchases and recommending the products to others. Satisfaction enhances the likelihood of forming a strong, positive relationship with the company. Finally, loyal customers often provide valuable feedback and contribute to enhancing perceived value through positive word-of-mouth and company advocacy.

In this paper, we propose our research model based on this framework. We reconsider the sub-dimensions of perceived value tailored to sustainable apparel. Moreover, we need to contemplate the gap between traditional products and sustainable products, which involves the additional progress of material collection and processing. This gap can lead to consumer distrust, so we will examine this aspect by including trust as a mediator.

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Model

The purpose of this study is to understand the mechanisms of consumer perceptions for enhancing the purchasing power of sustainable apparel based on the value–satisfaction–loyalty chain. To achieve this, consumers’ perceived values were categorized into functional, economic, emotional, and green values, and the strength of indirect effects including satisfaction and trust were analyzed comparatively. The proposed research model is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2. Hypothesis Development

3.2.1. The Relationship between PV and LY

In management studies, perceived value has been utilized as a determinant triggering consumer purchasing intention [58]. This concept influences attitudes and intentions towards a product or service, and it has predominantly been employed as a fundamental and comprehensive concept in explaining consumer satisfaction or loyalty processes [59].

In numerous prior studies, the relationship between perceived value and loyalty has been explored. Matsuoka [60] explored the effects of perceived value and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty. The study revealed that perceived value significantly impacts customer loyalty in revenue management settings. Marcos & Coelho [61] investigated how perceived value and satisfaction affect loyalty and word-of-mouth (WOM). In this case, they measured separately loyalty and WOM. Their findings reaffirmed that consumers’ perceptions of value are a fundamental prerequisite for customer loyalty and WOM, consistent with prior research. Yuen et al. [62] identified six antecedent factors of perceived value and demonstrated that the perceived value of crowdsourced delivery services positively influences consumer loyalty. Based on these insights, this study has formulated the following hypotheses:

H1. 

PV of sustainable apparel has a direct positive effect on their LY to sustainable apparel.

H1a. 

FV has a direct positive effect on LY.

H1b. 

ECV has a direct positive effect on LY.

H1c. 

EMV has a direct positive effect on LY.

H1d. 

GV has a direct positive effect on LY.

3.2.2. SAT as Mediator

Satisfaction with a product influences a consumer’s post-purchase attitude, which in turn affects their intention to repurchase the product [27]. Satisfaction is a psychological state that occurs when a product exceeds the consumer’s expectations prior to purchase, leading to repeated purchase behaviors and intentions to recommend [63]. Consumer loyalty, defined by their intentions to repurchase and recommend, represents their attachment to a product or service [43]. Loyal customers, who engage in repeat purchases, significantly enhance a company’s revenue. Therefore, the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, and the mechanisms behind it, have been consistently explored in various management studies.

In many prior studies, satisfaction has been identified as a precursor to enhancing loyalty [30], and its mediating effects have been verified. Pereira et al. [64] confirmed the mediating role of satisfaction in the relationship between purchase factors and e-customer loyalty in online environments. Their analysis revealed that e-customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between purchase factors and e-customer loyalty. Gil & Jacob [65] validated serial mediating effects of green satisfaction and green trust using an extended TPB model and the stimulus–organism–response framework. Their findings indicated that green satisfaction has a mediation effect between green product quality and green purchase intention. Mohd Suki [66] conducted research on green product usage and highlighted that environmental satisfaction partially mediates consumer loyalty towards green products. Based on these findings, this study establishes the following hypothesis regarding the mediating effects of satisfaction:

H2. 

SAT with sustainable apparel mediates the relationship between their PV of sustainable apparel and their LY to it.

H2a. 

SAT mediates the relationship between FV and LY.

H2b. 

SAT mediates the relationship between ECV and LY.

H2c. 

SAT mediates the relationship between EMV and LY.

H2d. 

SAT mediates the relationship between GV and LY.

3.2.3. TR as Mediator

Trust refers to a positive belief in the intentions and actions of others, particularly from the consumer perspective, where trust holds significant sway in the decision-making process for purchasing sustainable products with opaque production processes. When companies transparently provide information about their sustainable supply chain practices to consumers, it motivates trust in the honesty, sincerity, and goodwill of the company. Therefore, trust can be considered a precursor factor to forming continuous relationships between consumers and companies, as well as enhancing consumer [67,68].

Based on the preceding studies on the mediating effects of trust, several key findings are evident. Firstly, Gil & Jacob [65] demonstrated that not only does green satisfaction mediate relationships, but so does green trust, acting as a mediator between green product quality and green purchase intention. Secondly, Yuen et al. [69] explored the relationship between shipper’s sustainable practices and loyalty, confirming the significant mediating effects of trust in this relationship. Lastly, Amin & Tarun [70] investigated the relationship between consumption values of eco-friendly products and purchase intention, finding that green trust statistically significantly mediated the relationship between functional, emotional, and social values and purchase intention. Therefore, based on these insights, the present study hypothesizes the following:

H3. 

TR in the sustainable apparel production process mediates the relationship between the PV of sustainable apparel and their LY to it.

H3a. 

TR mediates the relationship between FV and LY.

H3b. 

TR mediates the relationship between ECV and LY.

H3c. 

TR mediates the relationship between EMV and LY.

H3d. 

TR mediates the relationship between GV and LY.

4. Methodology

4.1. Data Collection and Sample

To analyze the direct effect of PV and the indirect effects of SAT and TR on LY, a survey was conducted. Initially, an online pilot test was performed to identify and correct any errors, yielding a total of 153 responses. Subsequently, the main survey was conducted anonymously from 4 May to 26 May 2024. The onsite mobile survey randomly targeted consumers who had purchased sustainable apparel in the past year and was distributed via QR codes at local department stores and outlets. Among the 379 collected responses, 88 inconsistent, insincere, or duplicate answers were removed. Finally, a total of 291 valid responses were included in the sample. The detailed characteristics of the sample are shown in

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Category and Items		Sample Size (n = 291)	Ratio (%)
Gender	Male	130	51.5
	Female	141	48.5
Age	20s	198	68.0
	30s	44	15.1
	40s	32	11.0
	More than 50s	17	5.8
Monthly Income (KRW)	Under 1 million	138	47.4
	1 million–2 million	37	12.7
	2 million–3 million	41	14.1
	3 million–4 million	33	11.3
	Over 4 million	42	14.4
Manufacture Type	Recycling	189	64.9
	Upcycling	53	18.2
	Both	49	16.8
Monthly Purchase Frequency	2 times or less	225	77.3
	3–4 times	55	18.9
	5 times or more	11	3.8

.

4.2. Measures

To ensure the validity and reliability of the variables used in this study, survey items were developed based on the existing literature and subsequently modified to align with the specific objectives of this research.

Firstly, PV was based on the consumer perceived value modified by Sweeney & Soutar [22] and was divided into four sub-dimensions: functional, economic, emotional, and green value. FV is defined as the utility derived from the perceived quality and expected performance of sustainable apparel. It was measured using the following five items [22,71,72,73,74]: (1) sustainable apparel has consistent quality, (2) sustainable apparel can be used for a long time, (3) sustainable apparel has attractive designs, (4) sustainable apparel is easy to manage, and (5) sustainable apparel has excellent finishing (cutting, sewing, etc.). ECV is defined as the utility derived from short-term and long-term cost savings associated with sustainable apparel and was measured using the following four items [22,73,75]: (1) sustainable apparel is reasonably priced, (2) sustainable apparel offers value for money, (3) sustainable apparel would be economical, and (4) sustainable apparel is price competitive. EMV is defined as the utility derived from emotions or emotional states generated by sustainable apparel. The five items to measure EMV were as follows [22,72,73,74]: (1) sustainable apparel gives me pleasure, (2) sustainable apparel makes me feel good, (3) sustainable apparel represents the image I pursue well, (4) purchasing sustainable apparel makes me feel like I am contributing to environmental protection, and (5) purchasing sustainable apparel feels morally right because of its environmental performance. GV is defined as the utility derived from the environmental protection performance of sustainable apparel and was measured using the following five items [73,76,77]: (1) it is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment, (2) I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions, (3) I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making my purchase decisions, (4) I would describe myself as environmentally responsible, and (5) I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more environmentally friendly.

Secondly, SAT refers to consumer perceived satisfaction with sustainable apparel, and was measured using five items [30,78,79,80]: (1) my overall satisfaction with sustainable apparel can be attributed to its environmental performance, (2) sustainable apparel makes me happy, (3) overall, sustainable apparel comes up to my expectations, (4) sustainable apparel is good products, and (5) overall, I am very satisfied with sustainable apparel.

Thirdly, TR refers to the extent to which the production process of sustainable apparel can be identified and verified throughout the supply chain. It was also measured using five items [51,78,79,80,81,82,83]: (1) I know the sources of our raw materials, (2) I track the processes involved in producing products throughout our complete supply chain, (3) I trace the origin of our purchases through the entire supply chain, (4) I track the environmental performance of our complete supply chain, and (5) I know what chemicals or elements are in our purchased components.

Lastly, LY means repurchase and recommendation intentions resulting from consumer attachment and dedication to sustainable apparel, and was measured using four items [30,51,78,84,85]: (1) I will continue to use environmentally friendly apparel, (2) if possible, I will repurchase environmentally friendly apparel, (3) I will speak positively about environmentally friendly apparel to those around me, and (4) I will recommend environmentally friendly apparel to those around me. The measurement items are shown in the Appendix A,

Table A1. Questionnaire Items.

Variables	Questionnaire Items	Source
Functional Value (FV)	Sustainable apparel has consistent quality.	Sweeney and Soutar (2001) [22] Forsythe et al. (1996) [71] Oh (2010) [72] Lin and Huang (2012) [73] Wang et al. (2013) [74]
	Sustainable apparel can be used for a long time.
	Sustainable apparel has attractive designs.
	Sustainable apparel is easy to manage.
	Sustainable apparel has excellent finishing (cutting, sewing, etc.).
Economic Value (ECV)	Sustainable apparel is reasonably priced.	Sweeney and Soutar (2001) [22] Lin and Huang (2012) [73] Na and Suh (2008) [75]
	Sustainable apparel offers value for money.
	Sustainable apparel would be economical.
	Sustainable apparel is price competitive.
Emotional Value (EMV)	Sustainable apparel gives me pleasure.	Sweeney and Soutar (2001) [22] Oh (2010) [72] Lin and Huang (2012) [73] Wang et al. (2013) [74]
	Sustainable apparel makes me feel good.
	Sustainable apparel represents the image I pursue well.
	Purchasing Sustainable apparel makes me feel like I am contributing to environmental protection.
	Purchasing Sustainable apparel feels morally right because of its environmental performance.
Green Value (GV)	It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment.	Lin and Huang (2012) [73] Haws et al. (2014) [76] Vlastelica et al. (2023) [77]
	I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions.
	I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making my purchase decisions.
	I would describe myself as environmentally responsible.
	I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more environmentally friendly.
Satisfaction (SAT)	My overall satisfaction with sustainable apparel can be attributed to its environmental performance.	Lam et al. (2004) [30] Chen (2013) [78] Lutfie and Marcelino (2020) [79] Hashish et al. (2022) [80]
	Sustainable apparel makes me happy.
	Overall, sustainable apparel comes up to my expectations.
	Sustainable apparel is good products.
	Overall, I am very satisfied with sustainable apparel.
Trust (TR)	I know the sources of our raw materials.	Resmawati (2023) [51] Chen (2013) [78] Hashish et al. (2022) [80] Chen (2016) [81] Pang et al. (2022) [82] Cousins et al. (2019) [83]
	I track the processes involved in producing product throughout our complete supply chain.
	I trace the origin of our purchases through the entire supply chain.
	I track the environmental performance of our complete supply chain.
	I know what chemicals or elements are in our purchased components.
Loyalty (LY)	I will continue to use environmentally friendly apparel.	Lam et al. (2004) [30] Resmawati (2023) [51] Chen (2013) [78] Aslam et al. (2018) [84] Tan et al. (2023) [85]
	If possible, I will repurchase environmentally friendly apparel.
	I will speak positively about environmentally friendly apparel to those around me.
	I will recommend environmentally friendly apparel to those around me.

.

5. Results

5.1. Analysis Method

The collected data were empirically analyzed using SPSS and PROCESS. Frequency analysis was conducted to understand the characteristics of the sample, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to validate the measurement items of each variable. Additionally, reliability analysis and correlation analysis were conducted.

To theoretically test the research hypotheses and model, bootstrap validation was performed using model 4 of PROCESS [86]. PROCESS model 4 is a parallel multiple mediation analysis that allows for the simultaneous testing of multiple mediators, providing estimates of direct effects, indirect effects, and total effects of the mediation model. This method is considered the most suitable for multiple mediation analysis. The bootstrap repetition was set to 5000 [87], and the indirect effects were estimated with a 95% confidence interval.

5.2. Validity and Reliability

To validate the suitableness of the measurement items presented in this study, validity and reliability were examined. First, EFA was conducted to verify validity. Principal component analysis was performed for all measurement variables to extract the constructs, and the varimax rotation method was employed to simplify the factor loadings. Factor loadings indicate the degree of correlation between each variable and the factors. Therefore, each variable is associated with the factor that has the highest factor loading. Additionally, the eigenvalue represents the standardized variance related to a particular factor. In this study, variables with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and factor loadings of 0.5 or higher were considered significant.

The reliability analysis of the measurement items used in this study revealed that all variables had Cronbach’s α values of 0.7 or higher. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s α values for all items were found to decrease if any item was removed, indicating that the reliability of the measurement items was maintained without the need to eliminate any items.

Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis and reliability verification, each variable used in this study was conceptually distinct and valid. Additionally, all variables demonstrated high internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s α values of 0.7 or above, showing high reliability. Therefore, a total of 33 items were utilized for the analysis in this study. The details are illustrated in

Table 2. EFA and reliability.

Construct		Component							Crb. α
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	If Deleted	α
Trust	TR 4	0.828	0.091	0.089	0.042	0.033	0.005	0.322	0.834	0.869
	TR 1	0.728	0.166	0.233	0.249	0.101	0.072	−0.086	0.842
	TR 3	0.727	0.136	0.071	0.182	0.167	0.271	0.182	0.832
	TR 5	0.705	0.249	−0.016	0.183	0.103	0.260	0.195	0.836
	TR 2	0.620	0.239	0.134	0.284	−0.012	0.125	−0.040	0.864
Functional Value	FV4	0.179	0.768	0.267	0.122	0.123	0.084	0.071	0.816	0.862
	FV 2	0.199	0.758	0.117	0.102	0.101	−0.013	0.122	0.832
	FV 5	0.113	0.727	0.272	0.150	0.117	0.155	0.072	0.822
	FV 1	0.215	0.715	0.172	0.094	0.078	0.090	0.154	0.840
	FV 3	0.040	0.674	0.068	0.204	0.069	0.247	0.058	0.854
Green Value	GV 2	0.081	0.274	0.756	0.193	0.099	0.035	0.231	0.822	0.871
	GV 4	0.114	0.347	0.721	0.291	0.055	−0.059	0.140	0.829
	GV 1	0.190	0.093	0.720	0.120	0.113	0.313	0.026	0.856
	GV 5	−0.031	0.281	0.703	0.313	−0.016	0.131	0.116	0.838
	GV 3	0.254	0.126	0.681	−0.021	0.116	0.222	0.146	0.866
Loyalty	LY 4	0.323	0.190	0.210	0.710	0.085	0.185	0.174	0.870	0.906
	LY 3	0.362	0.229	0.202	0.679	0.149	0.169	0.179	0.870
	LY 1	0.274	0.278	0.328	0.577	0.199	0.307	0.085	0.884
	LY 2	0.447	0.238	0.276	0.559	0.075	0.237	0.110	0.886
Economic Value	ECV 3	0.083	−0.038	0.089	0.052	0.855	0.109	0.011	0.794	0.848
	ECV 4	−0.015	0.111	0.166	0.069	0.836	0.130	0.011	0.792
	ECV 1	0.097	0.190	0.004	0.174	0.798	−0.033	0.056	0.812
	ECV 2	0.150	0.174	0.013	−0.002	0.705	0.226	0.230	0.829
Satisfaction	SAT 4	0.163	0.185	0.045	0.177	0.170	0.756	0.188	0.850	0.868
	SAT 3	0.140	0.277	0.276	0.445	0.096	0.621	0.143	0.815
	SAT 5	0.340	0.221	0.189	0.096	0.236	0.561	0.063	0.858
	SAT 2	0.126	0.186	0.267	0.482	0.118	0.556	0.250	0.824
	SAT 1	0.379	−0.063	0.391	0.251	0.095	0.525	0.154	0.848
Emotional Value	EMV 2	0.210	0.269	0.239	0.350	0.123	0.163	0.665	0.789	0.854
	EMV 1	0.097	0.350	0.241	0.443	0.155	0.106	0.584	0.813
	EMV 4	0.496	0.021	0.261	0.006	0.064	0.329	0.547	0.839
	EMV 3	0.118	0.395	0.169	0.358	0.133	0.217	0.529	0.829
	EMV 5	0.370	0.041	0.248	−0.032	0.114	0.423	0.525	0.846
Eigenvalue		4.200	3.985	3.761	3.174	2.968	2.954	2.268
Distributed Description (%)		12.728	12.077	11.397	9.617	8.994	8.952	6.871
KMO = 0.921, Bartlett’s sphericity test (Significance level) = 0.000

.

5.3. Correlation Analysis

Before testing the hypotheses, a correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between the variables used in this study (

Table 3. Correlation analysis.

Construct		Mean	Standard Deviation	Inter-Construct Correlations
				1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	FV	4.8756	0.9678	1
2	ECV	4.0782	1.2211	0.312 *	1
3	EMV	5.3134	0.8639	0.571 *	0.360 *	1
4	GV	5.0900	0.9785	0.562 *	0.264 *	0.611 *	1
5	SAT	5.1746	0.8139	0.508 *	0.391 *	0.725 *	0.589 *	1
6	TR	5.3471	0.8972	0.473 *	0.271 *	0.614 *	0.423 *	0.594 *	1
7	LY	5.1357	0.9126	0.580 *	0.337 *	0.695 *	0.617 *	0.721 *	0.654 *	1

Note(s): * = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

). The analysis revealed that EV had low positive correlations with all other variables, ranging between 0.2 and 0.4. Additionally, there was a high positive correlation of 0.721 between SAT and LY. Apart from these, the other variables exhibited moderately high positive correlations, ranging from 0.4 to 0.7. All correlation coefficients were significant at the 0.01 significance level.

5.4. Parallel Multiple Mediator Model Analysis

5.4.1. Direct Effect

First, the direct effect of the four sub-dimensions of PV on LY was tested. This is shown in

Table 4. Direct effect of PV on LY.

		$\mathbf{Direct}\mathbf{Effect}\mathbf{of}\mathit{X}$$\mathbf{on}\mathit{Y}$
	Effect	SE	$\mathbf{t}(\mathit{p}$)	LLCI	ULCI
FV	0.209	0.040	5.172 *	0.129	0.289
ECV	0.037	0.030	1.226	−0.023	0.097
EMV	0.272	0.059	4.635 *	0.156	0.387
GV	0.241	0.041	5.875 *	0.160	0.322

Note(s): * = $p<0.05$, Y = Loyalty, X = Perceived value.

. The analysis results indicated that FV (t = 5.172, $p$ < 0.05), EMV (t = 4.635, $p$ < 0.05), and GV (t = 5.875, $p$ < 0.05) had statistically significant positive effects on LY. In contrast, ECV (t = 1.226) did not have a statistically significant effect on LY.

5.4.2. Indirect Effect of SAT and TR

Next, to examine the indirect effects of SAT and TR, the mediating effects of SAT and TR on the relationship between FV and LY were analyzed. The parallel multiple mediation model analysis revealed that the suggested model explained 63.3% of the LY.

When examining the specific indirect effect of $M_1$, the lower and upper levels of the confidence interval (LLCI and ULCI) are [from 0.146 to 0.284]. Since the 95% confidence interval does not include 0 (both confidence intervals are entirely above zero), we can conclude that the indirect effect through $M_1$ is significant. Specifically, the indirect effect $a_1{b}_1$ is 0.209, indicating that, for each unit increase in $X$, the $Y$ value differs by 0.209 units through $M_1$. In other words, consumers who place greater importance on FV are more satisfied with sustainable apparel ($a_1$ = 0.427, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn enhances LY ($b_1$ = 0.427, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.209 ($a_2{b}_2$) higher LY.

The specific indirect effect of $M_2$, shows that the LLCI to ULCI is [from 0.077 to 0.189]. Similar to $M_1$, the 95% confidence interval does not include 0, indicating that the indirect effect through $M_2$ is significant. The indirect effect $a_2{b}_2$ is 0.129, meaning that, for each unit increase in $X$, the $Y$ value differs by 0.129 units through $M_2$. This implies that consumers who place greater importance on the FV of the product tend to trust the production process more ($a_2$ = 0.438, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn improves LY ($b_2$ = 0.295, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.129 ($a_2{b}_2$) higher LY.

Next, to determine which model more influences the effect of FV on LY, considering SAT and TR as mediators, we compared specific indirect effects. Since specific indirect effects are measured purely from the scale perspective of $X$ and $Y$, comparisons of specific indirect effects for the same outcome variable based on different preceding variables retain meaningful interpretation [88,89]. In this study, for comparing the specific indirect effects including each mediator, pairwise contrasts of indirect effects were conducted using PROCESS. The comparison results in

Table 5. Mediation effect of SAT and TR between FV and LY (H2a and H3a).

Antecedent		Consequent
		${\mathit{M}}_1$ (SAT)				${\mathit{M}}_2$ (TR)				$\mathit{Y}$ (LY)
		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$
$X$ (FV)	$a_1$	0.427	0.043	<0.001	$a_2$	0.438	0.048	<0.001	$c^{\prime }$	0.209	0.040	<0.001
$M_1$ (SAT)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_1$	0.489	0.053	<0.001
$M_2$ (TR)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_2$	0.295	0.047	<0.001
Constant	$i_{M_1}$	3.092	0.212	<0.001	$i_{M_2}$	3.210	0.239	<0.001	$i_Y$	0.009	0.233	<0.001
		R2 = 0.258 F(1, 289) = 100.434 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.224 F(1, 289) = 83.173 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.633 F(3, 287) = 164.858 $p$ < 0.001

Note(s): Y = Loyalty, $X$ = Economic value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

indicate that the point estimate of the difference between the indirect effects of $M_1$ and $M_2$ ($a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$) is 0.080. However, the confidence interval for this difference ([−0.012 to 0.178]) includes 0, suggesting that there is no significant difference between these two indirect effects. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no difference between the indirect effect of FV on LY through SAT compared to the effect of TR.

Based on the parallel multiple mediation analysis, the total indirect effect of FV on LY has a point estimate of 0.338, with a bootstrap confidence interval [from 0.256 to 0.427]. In other words, there is 95% confidence that FV influences LY through SAT and TR collectively, with the effect estimated to lie between 0.256 and 0.427. This outcome indicates that SAT and TR collectively mediate the influence of FV on LY. The detailed results can be figure out in

Table 6. Indirect effect of SAT and TR between FV and LY (H2a and H3a).

		$\mathbf{Indirect}\mathbf{Effect}\mathbf{of}\mathit{X}$$\mathbf{on}\mathit{Y}$
		Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total	$a_1{b}_1+a_2{b}_2$	0.338	0.043	0.256	0.427
$M_1$ (SAT)	$a_1{b}_1$	0.209	0.035	0.146	0.284
$M_2$ (TR)	$a_2{b}_2$	0.129	0.029	0.077	0.189
(C1)	$a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$	0.080	0.047	−0.012	0.178

Note(s): $Y$ = Loyalty, $X$ = Functional value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

and Figure 2.

Parallel multiple mediation analysis of ECV and LY shows that the model explains 60.1% of the variance in $Y$. The results can be found in

Table 7. Mediation effect of SAT and TR between ECV and LY (H2b and H3b).

Antecedent		Consequent
		${\mathit{M}}_1$ (SAT)				${\mathit{M}}_2$ (TR)				$\mathit{Y}$ (LY)
		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$
$X$ (ECV)	$a_1$	0.261	0.036	<0.001	$a_2$	0.199	0.042	<0.001	$c^{\prime }$	0.037	0.030	<0.001
$M_1$(SAT)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_1$	0.556	0.055	<0.001
$M_2$(TR)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_2$	0.351	0.047	<0.001
Constant	$i_{M_1}$	40.111	0.154	<0.001	$i_{M_2}$	40.536	0.177	<0.001	$i_Y$	0.225	0.024	<0.001
		R2 = 0.153 F(1, 289) = 52.200 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.073 F(1, 289) = 22.849 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.601 F(3, 287) = 143.895 $p$ < 0.001

Note(s): Y = Loyalty, $X$ = Emotional value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

.

The LLCI and ULCI for the specific indirect effect of $M_1$ are [from 0.094 to 0.204], indicating that the indirect effect through $M_1$ is statistically significant. Particularly, $a_1{b}_2$ is 0.145, meaning that for consumers who place greater importance on ECV, they are more satisfied with sustainable apparel ($a_1$ = 0.261, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn enhances LY ($b_1$ = 0.556, $p$ < 0.001), finally, increasing of 0.145 ($a_1{b}_1$) units in LY.

LLCI and ULCI for the specific indirect effect of $M_2$ are [from 0.034 to 0.111]. Therefore, the indirect effect through $M_2$ is significant. Specifically, $a_2{b}_2$ is 0.070 meaning that, for consumers who prioritize the ECV, they trust the production process of sustainable apparel more ($a_2$ = 0.199, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn enhance LY ($b_2$ = 0.351, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in an increase of 0.070 ($a_2{b}_2$) units in LY.

We compared these indirect effects including SAT and TR to explain the difference strength of the impact of ECV on LY. The point estimate of the difference in indirect effects between $M_1$ and $M_2$ ($a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$) is 0.075 and the confidence interval for this difference [from 0.013 to 0.140] does not include zero. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the indirect effects of $M_1$ and $M_2$. When comparing the influences of $M_1$ (0.145) and $M_2$ (0.070), the indirect effect of $M_1$ is larger than that of $M_2$. Hence, it can be inferred that the indirect effect of $M_1$ is stronger than that of $M_2$ in influencing LY.

The analysis of the parallel multiple mediation effect indicates that the point estimate of the total indirect effect is 0.215, with a bootstrap confidence interval of [from 0.147 to 0.286]. This means that we can be 95% confident that the impact of ECV on LY, mediated collectively through both SAT and TR, falls between 0.147 and 0.286. This result, shown in

Table 8. Indirect effect of SAT and TR between ECV and LY (H2b and H3b).

		$\mathbf{Indirect}\mathbf{Effect}\mathbf{of}\mathit{X}$$\mathbf{on}\mathit{Y}$
		Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total	$a_1{b}_1+a_2{b}_2$	0.215	0.036	0.147	0.286
$M_1$(SAT)	$a_1{b}_1$	0.145	0.028	0.094	0.204
$M_2$(TR)	$a_2{b}_2$	0.070	0.019	0.034	0.111
(C1)	$a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$	0.075	0.032	0.013	0.140

Note(s): Y = Loyalty, $X$ = Economic value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

and Figure 3, suggests that SAT and TR collectively mediate the effect of ECV on LY.

The analysis of EMV, SAT, and TR within a parallel multiple mediation model shows that these variables collectively explain 62.7% of the variance in LY.

The indirect effect considering $M_1$ shows that the LLCI and ULCI are [from 0.191 to 0.388], indicating a significant indirect effect. Additionally, $a_1{b}_1$ is 0.284, meaning that consumers who place greater importance on EMV are more satisfied with sustainable apparel ($a_1$ = 0.683, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn enhances LY ($b_1$ = 0.415, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.284 ($a_1{b}_1$) higher LY.

The specific indirect effect through $M_2$ shows that the LLCI and ULCI are [from 0.107 to 0.255], indicating a significant indirect effect. The value of $a_2{b}_2$ is 0.179, meaning that consumers who place higher value on the emotional aspects of the product are more likely to trust the production process ($a_2$ = 0.634, $p$ < 0.001). This increased trust, in turn, enhances LY ($b_2$ = 0.281, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.179 ($a_2{b}_2$) higher LY.

The comparison of the specific indirect effects of SAT and TR on the relationship between EMV and LY shows that the point estimate of the difference in indirect effects ($a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$) is 0.105. However, since the LLCI and ULCI [from −0.025 to 0.242] include 0, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between the two indirect effects. Therefore, the indirect effect of EMV on LY through SAT is not different from the indirect effect of EMV on LY through TR.

The total indirect effect of the model including SAT and TR has a point estimate of 0.463 with a bootstrap confidence interval ranging from [0.352 to 0.579]. This indicates that SAT and TR collectively mediate the effect of EMV on LY.

Table 9. Mediation effect of SAT and TR between EMV and LY (H2c and H3c).

Antecedent		Consequent
		${\mathit{M}}_1$ (SAT)				${\mathit{M}}_2$ (TR)				$\mathit{Y}$ (LY)
		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$
$X$ (EMV)	$a_1$	0.683	0.038	<0.001	$a_2$	0.634	0.048	<0.001	$c^{\prime }$	0.272	0.059	<0.001
$M_1$(SAT)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_1$	0.415	0.061	<0.001
$M_2$(TR)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_2$	0.281	0.048	<0.001
Constant	$i_{M_1}$	1.544	0.205	<0.001	$i_{M_2}$	10.959	0.260	<0.001	$i_Y$	0.042	0.235	<0.001
		R2 = 0.526 F(1, 289) = 320.987 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.377 F(1, 289) = 174.877 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.627 F(3, 287) = 160.490 $p$ < 0.001

Note(s): $Y$ = Loyalty, $X$ = Emotional value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

and

Table 10. Indirect effect of SAT and TR between EMV and LY (H2c and H3c).

		$\mathbf{Indirect}\mathbf{Effect}\mathbf{of}\mathit{X}$$\mathbf{on}\mathit{Y}$
		Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total	$a_1{b}_1+a_2{b}_2$	0.463	0.059	0.352	0.579
$M_1$(SAT)	$a_1{b}_1$	0.284	0.051	0.191	0.388
$M_2$(TR)	$a_2{b}_2$	0.179	0.037	0.107	0.255
(C1)	$a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$	0.105	0.067	−0.025	0.242

Note(s): $Y$ = Loyalty, $X$ = Emotional value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

and Figure 4 summarize and shown these results.

Examining the mediating effects of SAT and TR in the relationship between GV and LY reveals that the model with ${X,M}_1,\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}{M}_2$ explains 64.2% of the variance in $Y$.

LLCI and ULCI of the confidence interval for the specific indirect effect of $M_1$ are [from 0.145 to 0.284], indicating that the indirect effect is significant. Examining the mediating effect of $M_1$, we find that $a_1{b}_1$ is 0.208, meaning that, through $M_1$, the difference in $Y$ between two individuals differing by one unit in $X$ is 0.208. Consumers who place greater importance on GV are more satisfied with sustainable apparel compared to those who do not ($a_1$ = 0.490, $p$ < 0.001), which in turn enhances LY ($b_1$ = 0.425, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.208 increase LY ($a_1{b}_1$).

The specific indirect effect of $M_2$ is significant, with the LLCI and ULCI at [from 0.075 to 0.183]. The value of $a_2{b}_2$ is 0.126, indicating that consumers who place a higher value on the environmental aspects of a product are more likely to trust the production process ($a_2$ = 0.387, $p$ < 0.001). This increased trust, in turn, enhances LY ($b_2$ = 0.325, $p$ < 0.001), resulting in a 0.126 ($a_2{b}_2$) increase in LY.

Comparing the indirect effects of SAT and TR, the point estimate for the difference in indirect effects between $M_1$ and $M_2$ ($a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$) is 0.082. However, since the confidence interval for this difference [from −0.004 to 0.177] includes 0, there is no significant difference between the two indirect effects. Therefore, we can conclude that the indirect effect of GV on LY through SAT does not differ significantly from the indirect effect of GV on LY through TR.

Analyzing the parallel multiple mediation effects, the point estimate for the total indirect effect is 0.334, with a bootstrap confidence interval of [from 0.255 to 0.425]. This means we can be 95% confident that the impact of GV on LY, mediated simultaneously through SAT and TR, lies between 0.255 and 0.425. These results indicate that SAT and TR collectively mediate the effect of GV on LY. The detailed results are visualized in

Table 11. Mediation effect of SAT and TR between GV and LY (H2d and H3d).

Antecedent		Consequent
		${\mathit{M}}_1$ (SAT)				${\mathit{M}}_2$ (TR)				$\mathit{Y}$ (LY)
		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$		Coeff.	$\mathit{S}\mathit{E}$	$\mathit{p}$
$X$ (GV)	$a_1$	0.490	0.040	<0.001	$a_2$	0.387	0.049	<0.001	$c^{\prime }$	0.241	0.041	<0.001
$M_1$(SAT)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_1$	0.425	0.056	<0.001
$M_2$(TR)		–	–	–		–	–	–	$b_2$	0.325	0.045	<0.001
Constant	$i_{M_1}$	2.680	0.205	<0.001	$i_{M_2}$	3.375	0.253	<0.001	$i_Y$	−0.028	0.230	<0.001
		R2 = 0.347 F(1, 289) = 153.774 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.178 F(1, 289) = 62.815 $p$ < 0.001				R2 = 0.642 F(3, 287) = 171.308 $p$ < 0.001

Note(s): $Y$ = Loyalty, $X$ = Green value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

and

Table 12. Indirect effect of SAT and TR between GV and LY (H2d and H3d).

		$\mathbf{Indirect}\mathbf{Effect}\mathbf{of}\mathit{X}$$\mathbf{on}\mathit{Y}$
		Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total	$a_1{b}_1+a_2{b}_2$	0.334	0.044	0.255	0.425
$M_1$(SAT)	$a_1{b}_1$	0.208	0.036	0.145	0.284
$M_2$(TR)	$a_2{b}_2$	0.126	0.027	0.075	0.183
(C1)	$a_1{b}_1-a_2{b}_2$	0.082	0.046	−0.004	0.177

Note(s): $Y$ = Loyalty, $X$ = Green value, $M_1$ = Satisfaction, $M_2$ = Trust.

, and Figure 5.

5.4.3. Results of Statistical Analysis

The summary of hypothesis testing results is in

Table 13. Hypotheses and results.

Hypothesis	Variables			Confidence Interval		Results
	$\mathit{X}$	M	$\mathit{Y}$	Low Level	Upper Level
H1a	FV	-	LY	0.129	0.289	Supported
H1b	ECV	-	LY	−0.023	0.097	Not Supported
H1c	EMV	-	LY	0.156	0.387	Supported
H1d	GV	-	LY	0.160	0.322	Supported
H2a	FV	SAT	LY	0.146	0.284	Supported
H2b	ECV	SAT	LY	0.094	0.204	Supported
H2c	EMV	SAT	LY	0.191	0.388	Supported
H2d	GV	SAT	LY	0.145	0.284	Supported
H3a	FV	TR	LY	0.077	0.189	Supported
H3b	ECV	TR	LY	0.034	0.111	Supported
H3c	EMV	TR	LY	0.107	0.255	Supported
H3d	GV	TR	LY	0.075	0.183	Supported

Note(s): Level of Confidence for all Confidence Intervals in output = 95%, Number of Bootstrap Samples for Bootstrap Confidence Intervals = 5000.

.

6. Discussions

In recent years, as a response to the global emphasis on addressing environmental issues, numerous regulations have been implemented to minimize the negative impact of corporate activities on the environment. Various manufacturing industries, in particular, are subject to these regulations. Consequently, companies are advocating for sustainable business practices that address environmental concerns, aiming to persuade consumers. The fashion industry, characterized by its sensitivity to trends and short product life cycles, is at the forefront of these environmental issues. Consumers are increasingly recognizing the importance of sustainability, and this awareness significantly influences their purchasing patterns. This study aims to analyze the intrinsic motivations driving consumer purchasing behavior towards sustainable apparel, and the findings are as follows.

First, it was confirmed that FV, EMV, and GV have significant effects on LY. The higher consumers perceive the quality of sustainable apparel, the more positive their purchase experiences are, and the more they believe their purchases contribute to environmental protection, the more likely they are to repurchase and recommend sustainable apparel. Numerous studies on consumer perception of sustainable products have identified perceived value as a key antecedent of product loyalty [6,90]. The results of this study further corroborate that FV, EMV, and GV significantly impact on loyalty toward sustainable apparel. This indicates that consumers do not intend to repurchase or recommend sustainable apparel based on price competitiveness. Given that sustainable apparel includes additional processes, such as collection, sorting, and reprocessing, product prices tend to increase. Therefore, consumers inclined to purchase sustainable apparel tend to be those who have a greater interest in environmental issues compared to general consumers [91]. For these consumers, other intrinsic motivations beyond product price have a greater influence on their decision-making.

Second, SAT and TR in sustainable apparel mediate the relationship between FV and LY. This suggests that the more consumers perceive the functional quality of sustainable apparel, the more satisfied they are with the product and the more they trust the production process. This, in turn, enhances their intention to repurchase and recommend sustainable apparel. Additionally, it was found that there is no significant difference in the influence of SAT and TR in mediating the effect of FV on LY.

Third, SAT and TR in sustainable apparel mediate the relationship between ECV and LY. As consumers perceive greater economic utility in sustainable apparel, their satisfaction and trust in the product increase, thereby enhancing their loyalty. However, the mediating effect of SAT and TR in the relationship between ECV and LY shows a significant difference. For price-sensitive consumers, improving satisfaction with the product itself is more effective in enhancing loyalty than providing transparent information about the production process.

Fourth, SAT and TR in sustainable apparel mediate the relationship between EMV and LY. The more consumers experience positive emotions from purchasing sustainable apparel, the more satisfied and trusting they become, which in turn enhances their loyalty. Similarly, no significant difference was found in the mediating effects of SAT and TR in the relationship between EMV and LY.

Lastly, SAT and TR in sustainable apparel mediate the relationship between GV and LY. The more consumers believe that sustainable apparel has a positive impact on the environment, the more satisfied and trusting they become towards the product and its production process, leading to increased intentions to repurchase and recommend sustainable apparel to others. Similarly, no significant difference was found in the impact of SAT and TR in the relationship between GV and LY.

In summary, to enhance consumer loyalty towards sustainable apparel, it is crucial not only to improve satisfaction with the product but also to share information about the production process to build consumer trust. The primary customer base for sustainable apparel consists of young adults in their 20s and 30s who are highly responsive to trends and social contexts and tend to trust companies less than previous generations [92]. To address this, companies should make information about sustainable apparel and supply chain operations accessible online, improving supply chain visibility and traceability. By sharing and emphasizing their efforts toward environmental and social sustainability, companies can secure consumer trust.

7. Conclusions

In today’s market, consumers’ purchasing decisions are driven by different intrinsic motivations and mechanisms compared to those of traditional consumers. While traditional purchasing decisions primarily focused on the fundamental value of the product, contemporary consumers’ decisions are increasingly influenced by evolving perceptions and social dynamics. The rising importance of social and environmental sustainability has made the responsible production processes of finished goods a crucial factor in consumer decision-making. This is especially pertinent in the context of sustainable apparel, where the nature of recycled products introduces uncertainty regarding their production processes. This study tried to explain these changes in the context of Korean customers.

As theoretical implications of this study, the proposed research model extended the value–satisfaction–loyalty chain, commonly used in consumer research within business studies, to the context of sustainable products. By doing so, the model incorporated trust in the sustainable supply chain as a mediating variable to address consumer uncertainty about recycled and upcycled products. This extended model will provide valuable insights for future research on sustainable products and sustainable supply chain management. Additionally, the study utilized parallel mediation effect analysis to offer a comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms through which PV impacts LY. We compared the mediating effects of satisfaction with the product and trust in its production process on purchasing decisions for sustainable apparel. From this perspective, we can reaffirm the impact of information sharing from the customer side. This means that the scope of visibility and traceability in sustainable supply chains is broadening to include customers, rather than focusing solely on business relationships as in previous studies.

In terms of practical implications, this study suggests that companies producing sustainable apparel need to prioritize visibility and traceability. By sharing information, companies can not only secure consumer trust but also gain operational advantages such as managing supply chain risks, reducing reputational damage, and improving supply chain efficiency. In other words, enhancing visibility and traceability through information sharing is critical for building trust and a positive corporate image, making it an essential consideration for companies from a long-term perspective. Additionally, companies should develop strategic approaches to enhance the efficiency of reverse supply chains and logistics through internal policies. Prior research indicates that warranty policies, including preventive maintenance practices, improve both the sustainability and the efficiency of reverse supply chains [93]. These approaches help minimize industrial waste, reduce negative environmental impacts, and optimize resource recovery. Along with information sharing, companies can further enhance the performance and reliability of products in reverse supply chains through these internal efforts. It is crucial to focus on developing strategies to adapt to the textile industry in future research.

The data utilized in this study were collected during a specific period and location from Korean consumers who had purchased sustainable apparel through a survey. Consequently, the results of this study have limitations in terms of generalizability. Testing the suggested model and methods in other emerging markets would contribute to broader generalization. Moreover, we considered loyalty to sustainable apparel with respect to product satisfaction and trust in production processes. However, there is a gap between loyalty and actual performance because loyalty reflects repurchase and recommendation intentions, not their actual behavior. For a company’s sustainable growth, as well as environmental sustainability, sustainable practices must translate into real performance. Therefore, future research needs to compare the financial performance among companies with varying levels of visibility and traceability in their sustainable practices.

Through this study, we hope to offer valuable insights into the mechanisms for improving loyalty to sustainable apparel and promoting customer satisfaction and trust in these products. By securing visibility and traceability, as well as ensuring the quality of sustainable apparel, companies can strengthen their sustainable supply chain practices including their profits. Furthermore, this study and the subsequent research will provide insights towards achieving the 12th goal of the SDGs, which is responsible consumption and production.