Review Reports - Motivations for Slow Fashion Consumption Among Zennials: An Exploratory Australian Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts in conducting this study. The paper investigates the motivations and behavioral mechanisms underlying slow fashion consumption among Australian Zennials (aged 23–31), using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as the analytical framework. By exploring attitudes, perceived behavioral control (PBC), and subjective norms, the study provides valuable qualitative insights into how young consumers integrate ethical values, affordability concerns, and peer norms in shaping sustainable fashion choices. The topic is timely and relevant to Sustainability’s focus on sustainable consumption, circular economy, and behavioral transformation. However, from the perspective of academic rigor and journal standards, the manuscript still presents notable weaknesses in theoretical articulation, methodological transparency, and structural coherence.

In Section 1.1, the author devotes extensive space to discussing the environmental impacts of fast fashion and textile waste in Australia but lacks a clear transition from this broad context to the specific research question. The introduction does not specify the central scientific problem of “slow fashion consumption”—for example, whether it focuses on the attitude–behavior gap or the social–psychological drivers of sustainable consumption. It is recommended to end the introduction with one or two concise sentences that explicitly state the research question and logical focus.
In Section 1.2, the definition of the “Zennial” cohort remains vague, and the distinction from Generation Z and Millennials is insufficiently explained. The author should clarify the theoretical and practical significance of choosing this micro-generation as an independent research group, outline its unique socio-psychological characteristics in the Australian context, and justify why previous studies on Gen Z do not adequately capture this segment.
The overall paragraph structure shows redundancy and weak logical transitions. For example, in Section 1.2, statistical data, generational traits, and research gaps are interwoven in a single paragraph without a smooth narrative link. The section’s logical flow should be reorganized for clarity and progression.
Section 2.1 emphasizes the ethical and environmental significance of slow fashion but does not explain why these macro principles are particularly relevant to Zennial consumers. The connection between the concept of slow fashion and the study’s target group is missing. It is suggested to add a linking statement at the end of Section 2.1 to strengthen the coherence between theoretical definition and research focus.
In the “Slow Fashion vs. Fast Fashion” section, the reasoning is somewhat inconsistent. The author claims that “second-hand shopping introduces another sustainable pathway,” but then argues that it “can diminish demand for newly produced slow fashion garments.” This creates ambiguity between substitution and complementarity. The author should clearly define whether the second-hand market functions as a complementary, competing, or conditional mechanism within the slow fashion system to ensure argument consistency.
The discussion on the Circular Economy is conceptually fragmented and insufficiently connected to the main line of slow fashion. Although the paper notes that Zennials prefer “repair, reuse, and resale,” it does not clarify whether circular economy principles constitute an independent analytical dimension or serve as an extension of TPB constructs. The author should specify this theoretical relationship to prevent conceptual overlap and maintain framework coherence.
In Section 3.1.1, although the author defines the sample as “20 Australian Zennials (1993–2001, aged 23–31),” there is no justification for the adequacy of this sample size. The author should explain the data saturation standard or cite supporting literature to validate the sufficiency of 20 participants for this type of research. In addition, “purposive and convenience sampling” are mentioned together without clarification of operational procedures or proportions; the dominant approach and its potential bias should be specified.
The linkage between interview questions and the TPB framework is not clearly established. Although TPB is introduced in the theoretical section, Section 3.1.3 does not explicitly show how the questions correspond to the three constructs (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control). Moreover, the description of data analysis is overly general. Section 3.2 only outlines “thematic analysis” without specifying analytical steps or tools used. More detailed explanations of the coding process and analytical rigor are needed.
In the Results and Discussion section, the author states that four key themes were identified but subsequently lists six (two Attitude themes, two PBC themes, one Subjective Norms theme, and one Mindful Practice theme). This inconsistency between the stated and actual number of themes causes confusion. The author should standardize the theme categorization and clarify whether the discussion is structured around TPB constructs or six substantive themes.
The distinction between results and discussion is blurred, as theoretical interpretation is interwoven with participant quotations. Each subsection mixes descriptive and interpretative content without a clear order. It is recommended to separate these elements—first summarize the empirical findings, then discuss them in relation to TPB theory and prior studies—to improve analytical clarity.
Although participant quotations (P1–P20) are plentiful, the selection criteria and representativeness are not explained. The author should state how quotations were chosen (e.g., typicality, gender balance, or behavioral variation) to enhance methodological transparency and ensure that the excerpts reflect a balanced portrayal of the dataset.
Section 5.1 on theoretical implications is well developed but contains repetitive and conceptually overlapping arguments. The first and second contributions both discuss the theoretical position of the “second-hand economy,” yet one focuses on PBC mechanisms and the other on the slow fashion ecosystem. The author should refine the distinctions between these points to avoid redundancy and highlight the unique theoretical innovation.
The discussion of policy feasibility lacks empirical or comparative support. For example, recommendations such as “reduced VAT/GST” or “5-year wear requirement” are conceptually useful but presented without reference to real-world precedents. The author should include case examples or international policy analogues to strengthen the credibility of these policy suggestions.
The Conclusion section lacks clear structural layering. It currently combines research summary, key findings, theoretical contributions, and practical implications in a single paragraph, making it dense and difficult to follow. The author should divide the conclusion into two paragraphs: the first summarizing major findings and theoretical mechanisms, and the second highlighting academic and policy implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable and slow fashion by providing one of the few empirical explorations of Australian Zennials (young adults aged 23–31) engagement with slow fashion practices but I have noticed some significant flaws.

The section devoted to the literature review is insufficient and needs to be strengthened in order to provide a robust theoretical basis for the entire study. The key concepts on which the research is based (such as Slow Fashion, Ethical Fashion, and Fast Fashion) are not sufficiently explained or theoretically defined. I consider it essential to add explanations of these terms for a proper understanding of the presented study.

Moreover, I think that sample size of 20 participants is insufficient to represent the entire cohort of Australian Zennials, rendering the article's title potentially misleading in this regard. The authors must more emphatically stress in the discussion that the findings are strictly limited to this small sample.

Additionally, the method of participant recruitment via convenience sampling through university networks increases the risk of sampling bias, potentially overrepresenting specific socio-economic or educational groups.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is within the scope of the journal and of interest for the readers. However the manuscript presents several drwabacks related to the methodology:

Since only 20 participants were interviewed, the findings cannot be generalized to the broader Australian Zennial population.
The description of the methodology lacks details and it does not assure a wide diversity (e.g., socioeconomic background, gender balance, or geographic spread), reducing its representativeness.
Selected participants were approach by university networks therefore people already interested in slow fashion were probably more likely to voluntier to participate.
Some questions were open. How were the answers analysed to define for example if the understanding on a given topic was low or high?

The study’s qualitative nature means it provides deep insight but lacks quantitative validation (e.g., cannot measure prevalence or correlation between variables).
Findings are exploratory and cannot establish causal relationships.

With so small number of answers the manuscript lacks the scientific background to be considered for its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a qualitative study on the motivations and consumption behaviours of slow fashion among Australian ‘Zennials’ (young people aged 23–31), using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as an analytical framework. The text is well written, theoretically grounded, and offers a relevant contribution to the field of sustainable consumption and ethical fashion. The main contribution of the study is to reconceptualise the second-hand market as an internal mechanism of the slow fashion system, rather than a parallel practice. It also highlights the importance of Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) as a key factor enabling consumers to overcome the traditional ‘value–action gap’.

It would be beneficial to distinguish more clearly between the conceptual boundaries of slow fashion, circular fashion, and sustainable fashion, as they are sometimes used interchangeably. The comparison could be reinforced with studies on Millennials and Gen Z to highlight the generational differences that justify the ‘Zennial’ category.

Include a more precise description of how data saturation was determined. Expand on the discussion of sampling biases (self-selection, affinity with sustainability). An example of coding or a table illustrating the generation of themes from the quotations could be added.

The section ‘Results and discussion’ could be divided into two separate sections to improve readability. Include a more explicit comparison with international or Latin American studies on second-hand consumption.

Some policy proposals (EPR, tax subsidies) could be supported by examples or previous empirical evidence. The rebound effect is mentioned only in limitations; it would be worth briefly including it in the implications section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your positive feedback and are pleased that the paper has been accepted in its present form.

Best regards,
Carol

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have justified the low number of studies and the limitations of the results. The manuscript as it is cannot be published since it is a very limited axploratory study. However authors are recomended to add new data with a broad study to validate the results and conclussions. In that case authors should be invited to resubmit the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful review and for highlighting the limitations of our study. We appreciate your recommendation to broaden the research and add new data.

Our intention with this manuscript is to present an exploratory study that addresses a significant gap in the literature and provides a foundation for future research. While we acknowledge that a larger study would strengthen the findings, the current work offers valuable preliminary insights that are clearly positioned as exploratory. We have transparently discussed the limitations and justified the scope in the manuscript to ensure readers interpret the results appropriately.

We have added the following under Methodology: "Such depth is critical for theory-building and identifying mechanisms that inform future large-scale studies. This approach aligns with established qualitative standards for early-stage investigations in sustainability research and emphasizes interpretive depth over statistical generalizability."

In Results and Discussion, we have added: "To situate our findings within a global context, we note that similar adaptive strategies have been observed internationally. For example, Chi et al. (U.S.) [22] and Aprianingsih et al. (Indonesia) [24] report second-hand consumption as a key enabler of slow fashion values, while Gomes De Oliveira et al. (Brazil) highlight trust in resale platforms over fast fashion retailers. These parallels reinforce the structural role of second-hand markets globally and validate our interpretation of PBC as a critical determinant."

In the Limitations and Future Research, we have added the following: "While the sample size is small, this is consistent with qualitative research aimed at depth rather than breadth. We have now explicitly acknowledged that the findings are exploratory and not statistically generalizable. Future research should employ stratified quantitative surveys to validate prevalence and test causal relationships. Additionally, longitudinal studies are recommended to examine whether these adaptive behaviors persist as economic conditions evolve."

We believe that publishing this initial work will contribute meaningfully to the field by stimulating further research and discussion. We hope this addresses your concern and respectfully request that the manuscript be considered in its present form.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback.