Voices of the Future: Exploring University Students’ Perceptions of Sustainable Fashion Consumption and Environmental Footprint

Abstract

Background: Despite growing environmental awareness, young adults often show limited engagement in practical sustainability initiatives. This study explored university students’ perceptions, reported practices, barriers, and facilitators across the clothing lifecycle to examine the psychosocial mechanisms underlying the attitude–behavior gap. Methods: Two complementary focus groups were conducted with 7 and 10 students, aged 18–25 years, at a Portuguese private university. Focus group interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, respecting emerging themes to achieve exploratory data sufficiency. Results: Participants expressed positive attitudes toward sustainability, despite their practices being constrained by informational, economic, and contextual barriers. Sustainability was valued but often perceived as ambiguous and difficult to apply. Across the lifecycle, decisions were primarily driven by price, aesthetics, and convenience, with sustainability emerging as secondary. Participants also reported limited knowledge regarding care, repair, and disposal practices, alongside restricted access to sustainable alternatives. Conclusions: Findings from this specific sample suggest that the attitude–behavior gap is sustained by phase-specific constraints, such as information, affordability, and disposal infrastructures. This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating how structural and social in-group barriers override environmental intentions, underscoring the need for collective, capability-building interventions.

1. Introduction

Despite a growing global awareness of environmental crises, younger generations frequently show limited engagement with pro-environmental initiatives, reflecting a well-documented attitude–behavior gap [1,2,3,4]. This gap is particularly relevant in the fashion and textile sector, which is shaped by rapid consumption cycles, aesthetic identity expression, and pervasive informational opacity regarding corporate practices [5,6]. While youth are acutely aware of the current climate and ecological crisis, they seem to simultaneously experience increasing psychological distress and eco-anxiety regarding a sustainable future [7,8,9]. Crucially, younger generations are poised to become key influencers in future market dynamics, business innovation, and policymaking. Effectively promoting sustainable behavior requires transcending traditional awareness-raising campaigns toward holistic approaches that integrate emotional engagement and self-efficacy while providing tangible and meaningful action facilitation. Understanding this behavioral gap is paramount for the long-term orientation of sustainable socio-economic and governmental practices.

Although the attitude–behavior gap is well established, less is known about how young adults experience it at different stages of the clothing lifecycle. Qualitative research can add to survey-based evidence by examining the tensions that arise when young adults try to put sustainable intentions into practice. This study explores how university students conceptualize sustainability, identifying the psychosocial and material barriers and facilitators regarding fashion and clothing consumption. More specifically, it examines how perceived behavioral control, social norms within close social groups, and structural conditions may shape engagement in accessible circular fashion practices.

1.1. Sustainability and Circular Economy

Sustainability is defined as the endogenous capacity of a system to ensure the balanced, dynamic long-term viability of its resources, and is supported by preserving the natural capital harmoniously and managing wealth without jeopardizing the environment and natural assets [10]. Thus, sustainability and the prospect of providing a balanced use of environmental, social and economic resources for future generations have been a major concern in recent decades. Building on previous global initiatives, the United Nations (UN) has developed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the aim of providing a universal framework and joint effort for sustainable development, addressing social, economic and environmental concerns. According to the 2023 UN report, while green investment is rising, environmentally harmful practices still outgrow these efforts, calling for higher government investment in decarbonization, a decrease in fossil fuels, and nature-based solutions. In this same report, the industry is reported as a necessary and key-role stakeholder in transitioning to circular economy models [11].

Despite growing concern and efforts to achieve a “circular/greener economy”, a recent review underlined that current resource consumption patterns threaten the achievement of the SDG deadlines, along with social inertia and general industry resistance to fundamental realignment of corporate practices, new commercial models and governmental initiatives [12]. For several years, the industry, namely the textile and clothing industry, has been known to be one of the largest polluters globally, consuming excessive resources and generating large amounts of waste throughout its lifecycle of production, transportation, and end-of-life processes, further exacerbating climate change [5,13]. While current guidelines have been calling for improved circular processes and economy, the high costs associated with the textile industry, ineffective legislation, and overall lack of government policies and support limit adoption and further implementation of eco-friendly and circular practices [5,14]. On the other hand, the consumer has been recognized as a key stakeholder in supporting long-term change in consumerism patterns. However, cost, functionality, and fashion trends are often prioritized over sustainable factors, for which further education on textiles and associated sustainable practices is warranted, especially considering phenomena like greenwashing and lack of trustworthy and transparent information [9,15,16,17,18].

1.2. The Youth “Green Gap” and the Study Context

Despite increasing awareness of environmental issues, younger populations often show limited engagement in practical sustainability initiatives, such as textile reuse and upcycling. This gap between knowledge, awareness, and actual behavior is especially evident in the textile and clothing sector, a context shaped by fast consumption cycles, identity expression, and limited transparency regarding sustainability practices [6,9,17,19,20]. Sustainable behavior is unlikely to follow from knowledge or favorable attitudes alone. It reflects how cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors come together [3,7,11,20]. To conceptualize this well-documented attitude–behavior gap, behavioral frameworks such as the theory of planned behavior suggest that translating environmental intentions into action relies heavily on perceived behavioral control (e.g., practical skills and perceived resources) and subjective norms [4]. For university students, the social dimension of these norms is particularly critical. Research indicates that young adults’ behaviors can be heavily guided by the established descriptive norms of their proximal social circles (e.g., family, friends, peers), which can strongly influence pro-environmental behaviors [21,22,23]. Recent psychological research demonstrates that purely internalized moral beliefs are often insufficient to drive actual purchase behaviors in the fashion sector. Thus, young adults are highly unlikely to adopt sustainable actions individually unless sustainable actions are visibly modeled, validated, or socially rewarded by peers [24]. While the attitude–behavior gap is widely documented, some studies suggest that in specific contexts, such as thrifting or second-hand digital platforms, young adults actively align their behavior with their values, often driven by affordability, the search for unique styles, and the desire to enhance their social identity, rather than exclusively ecological motives [17,25,26,27,28]. However, in broader circular practices requiring high effort or cost, the gap persists.

While younger generations are aware of environmental challenges, they are also emotionally affected by them, with younger generations reporting increasing distress regarding a sustainable future [3,8,28,29,30]. These emotional responses depend on how individuals appraise environmental threats and their capacity to cope with them [2]. From this point of view, this distress may function both as a motivator and a barrier. While it can promote engagement in sustainable behaviors, it may also lead to avoidance or disengagement when individuals perceive limited agency, lack of in-group supportive norms and/or behaviors, or unclear pathways for action [3,21,24,29]. Moreover, sustainability in the textile and clothing industry domain unfolds across a behavioral lifecycle (acquisition, use, care, and disposal), with different constraints and decision criteria at each stage. A recent systematic review of life cycle assessments in the fashion industry emphasizes that environmental impacts and behavioral challenges vary drastically across these distinct phases, making phase-specific analysis critical [18]. Each phase of this lifecycle presents distinct conceptual challenges. Specifically, the acquisition phase is heavily governed by market pricing, quality, and comfort, while consumers simultaneously struggle with informational opacity and difficulty understanding sustainability labels [16,17]. During the use and maintenance phases, which are frequently identified as major environmental hotspots, consumers require specific functional knowledge that they often lack or ignore [16,18]. Furthermore, repair behaviors rely heavily on local interpersonal trust and the perceived cost-benefit of professional repair services [16]. Finally, the disposal phase is contingent upon localized recycling infrastructure, convenience, and consumer beliefs, highlighting the critical need to transition consumer behavior toward circular, cradle-to-cradle end-of-life solutions [16,18]. Thus, these processes are heavily shaped by structural factors, including access to clear information, affordability, and available infrastructure.

Taken together, this evidence suggests that promoting sustainable behavior requires more than awareness-raising. Emotional engagement and perceived efficacy need to be matched by practical and structural support. Furthermore, younger generations are seen as future market-relevant influencers, namely within business and policymaking areas [9,11], assuming a prominent role in future orientations of sustainable social, economic and governmental practices. As such, the present study was developed as part of a larger project comprising macro-level nationally collected quantitative data on textile consumption patterns [16], as well as practical, skill-oriented initiatives on textile upcycling [31], following a European-funded national circular economy textile-focused project be@t). As part of this project, free and accessible textile upcycling workshops were organized in several settings addressing different populations. Some of these workshop series were aimed at the university campus, focusing on practical techniques to transform end-of-life clothing items provided either by the project’s textile industry partners or brought in by participants. While these workshops successfully engaged the broader external community, there was a substantial lack of engagement from university students in these free and geographically accessible workshops. Despite direct multi-channel outreach, including face-to-face invitations by faculty members and targeted institutional social media and email communication, only a marginal number of students attended. Consequently, the current study leverages an exploratory qualitative design to specifically investigate this distinct phenomenon. Thus, we recruited a total of 17 university students from a private higher education setting located in Porto to explore participants’ main perceptions of sustainability, main barriers, and facilitators in pursuing more sustainable choices, namely within the fashion and clothing industry.

2. Methodology

This exploratory study adopted a qualitative descriptive design to explore university students’ perceptions, motivations, and behaviors regarding sustainability in the fashion and clothing industry. This approach was chosen to capture the nuanced, subjective experiences of participants within their social context, aligning with the principles of thematic analysis within qualitative methodology. Thus, the study specifically sought to achieve the following: (1) understand how students conceptualize sustainability and what motivates sustainable behavior; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to sustainable practices; and (3) examine decision-making processes across the lifecycle of clothing (purchase, use, care, and disposal). Data collection followed deontological and ethical guidelines, ensuring anonymity of the data and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [32]. All participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the study, which was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Psychology, Education, and Sports Sciences Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University (approval reference: 2324008D, date: 1 May 2024).

2.1. Sampling and Procedures

Two focus groups were conducted during the winter of 2025 with undergraduate and master’s students from the Faculty of Education and Psychology at Universidade Católica Portuguesa (FEP-UCP) recruited at the Porto campus. A convenience sampling strategy was employed, and an open email invitation was distributed to the institutional mailing lists of all students currently enrolled in the Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programs in FEP-UCP, totaling an estimated target population between 250 and 300 students across all curriculum years. The inclusion criteria required participants to be actively enrolled in one of these programs and to be aged between 18 and 25 years old. Because recruitment relied on voluntary opt-in responses, our final number resulted in a self-selected sample. Upon acceptance, an email was forwarded to interested students, containing a brief disclosure on the project and focus group goals, time, and participants’ rights, and a forward link to an online consent form and necessary sociodemographic information: gender, age, cycle of studies, and self-reported socioeconomic comfort. Overall, a total of 17 students aged between 18 and 25 years old participated in the study.

Focus groups were selected to answer the study’s main goals to uncover shared social norms, collective tensions, and peer-driven discussion, naturally fostering spontaneous dialogue and debate. This allowed us to observe how collective values and perceived social pressures influence individual attitudes toward sustainable consumption. Two exploratory focus groups were designed and analyzed as complementary datasets, rather than comparable groups. Acting as a qualitative follow-up to the observed lack of student participation in free university upcycling workshops, a split design was chosen. This allowed us to explore both the broad conceptual dimensions of sustainability and current barriers, as well as the detailed, step-by-step behavioral mapping of the clothing lifecycle. The first focus group (n = 7) included a total of five bachelor’s and two master’s students, with a total of two male (29%) and five female students (71%), and they unanimously identified as being “comfortable” with their current socioeconomic status. This first focus group focused on exploring general perceptions of sustainability, motivations, and perceived societal changes needed to support sustainable behavior. For the second focus group, different participants were recruited, counting with a total of 10 participants (n = 10), including eight bachelor’s and two master’s students, two male (20%) and eight female students (80%); seven (70%) declared that they were comfortable with their current socioeconomic status, two (10%) declared that the current income is enough to sustain household expenses, and one (10%) did not answer. This second focus group focused on examining sustainability across the lifecycle of clothing, including acquisition, care, repair, and end-of-life decisions. The sessions were video and audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two peers, who compared themes, sub-themes, and conceptual codes until consensus was reached.

The focus groups followed semi-structured interview scripts, following systematic guidelines [33], and facilitators adopted a passive moderating presence, emphasizing a permissive, nonthreatening environment by fostering and promoting discussion between participants and stressing that the conversation was to explore honest perceptions with no right or wrong answer, in order to foster transparent participant insights. The interview started with a brief disclosure of the focus group goal, participants’ rights and consent to video and audio recording, and general group interviewing rules (e.g., speaking one at a time). The interview began with broad conceptual questions, before progressing to more specific and day-to-day examples (Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2). Participants were not pressured to reach a consensus, as the goal was to explore and capture the diversity of perspectives regarding sustainability and underlying practices, particularly as applied to the fashion industry among university students. Themes and subthemes were organized following recommendations for thematic analysis, following the six-phase reflexive thematic analysis framework [34], to reflect complex and non-linear meanings in the participants’ responses and contributions to the theme’s exploration.

2.2. Data Analysis

The study adopted a constructionist epistemological position, acknowledging that meaning and experience are socially produced rather than solely individual perception. To ensure qualitative rigor and researcher reflexivity, it is central to situate the research team’s background. The core team comprised academics from the behavioral sciences and psychology who are actively involved in a broader national circular economy project (be@t) and its affiliated campus upcycling workshops. This familiarity with the context enriched the analysis but also created expectations about pro-environmental engagement that required critical reflection. Consequently, to minimize this bias and following the research’s main goal of exploring university students’ emerging perceptions, data analysis followed an inductive approach, without imposing pre-existing theoretical constraints.

To ensure methodological rigor, we adopted a systematic thematic analysis process, ensuring interpretative complexity. Following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase reflexive framework [34], the researchers first familiarized themselves with the data through repeated reading of the verbatim transcripts. Second, initial open coding was performed independently by two researchers: a principal investigator invested in the project, and an external, independent research assistant with no affiliation to the overarching project. This investigator triangulation was strategically implemented to continuously challenge subjective assumptions and ensure the initial coding architecture remained objectively anchored in the raw data. Both applied an inductive approach to tag basic descriptive meanings in the text. To ensure procedural consistency between the independent coders, data management, the research log, and the audit trail were maintained meticulously in Microsoft Excel. No dedicated qualitative data analysis software was utilized.

In the subsequent phases, these initial codes were organized, discussed, and abstracted into broader conceptual sub-themes. While no major conflicts arose during the initial independent coding, any minor discrepancies were resolved through a triangulated peer debriefing process involving a third co-author (PRR). This third researcher reviewed the proposed codes and facilitated discussions by integrating insights from previous research, ensuring conceptual clarity, transparency, and the resolution of any disputes until full consensus was reached. Finally, themes were interpreted based on their conceptual significance and relevance to the research questions, rather than on their frequency of occurrence, adhering to the reflexive nature of thematic analysis [35,36]. The final thematic structure illustrates the study’s analytical codebook and thematic mapping, tracing the evolution from conceptual codes to sub-themes and main themes alongside illustrative quotes, detailed in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Thematic analysis of perspectives and behaviors on sustainability.

Theme	Sub-Theme	Conceptual Code	Description
1. Multidimensional Conceptualization of Sustainability	1.1. Meaning of Sustainability	1.1.1. Environmental and Intergenerational Protection	The future as a responsibility. Preservation of limited resources.
		1.1.2 Optimization and Transversality	Sustainability beyond ecology and optimization of resources.
2.Barriers to Sustainable Action	2.1. Systemic and Lifestyle Factors	2.1.1. Accessibility and convenience	Logistical convenience of fast fashion compared to the lack of second-hand store choices.
		2.1.2. Economic Constraints	Economic hegemony of fast fashion and high-priced sustainable options.
		2.1.3. Quality and Illusion of Choice	Quality–cost balance concerns and distrust of the corporate market.
	2.2. Sociocultural and Aesthetic Pressures	2.2.1. Aesthetic Identity and Fast Fashion Variety	Visually generic sustainable fashion, failing to meet trends.
		2.2.2. Informational Opacity	Technical labels vs. clear communication.
	2.3. Psychological Discouragement	2.3.1. Perception of Collective Inefficacy	Demotivation due to peer inaction.
3. Facilitators and Behavior Catalysts	3.1. Sociocultural Dynamics	3.1.1. Social Influence	Role and relevance of close social circles in pro-sustainable behavior engagement.
		3.1.2. Educational Normalization	Narrow conceptualization of sustainability in educational settings (e.g., recycling).
	3.2. State-Level Involvement	3.2.1. State Regulation and Corporate Accountability	Distribution laws and production control.
		3.2.2. Government Investment	Perceived governmental responsibility and need for public campaigns to enhance sustainable choices.
		3.2.3. Public Campaigns	Public health-style campaigns for ecology.
	3.3. Structural and Logistical Support	3.3.1. Proximity of Disposal Options	Need for accessible, physical options for clothing exchange/disposal.
		3.3.2. Circular Infrastructures	Perceived availability of circular alternatives and accessible infrastructures.

Table 2. Thematic analysis of perspectives and behaviors throughout the textile lifecycle.

Theme 1:
Theme	Sub-Theme	Conceptual Code	Description
1. Purchasing Decisions	1.1. Decision Factors	1.1.1. Economy and Convenience	Price-and-cost-benefit ratio is the most relevant criterion for clothing acquisition.
		1.1.2. Aesthetics and Social Influence	Purchases are guided by personal style, fast fashion trends, and social media pressure.
	1.2. Consumer Literacy	1.2.1. Trustworthy and Clear Information	Difficulty in interpreting labels and concerns regarding greenwashing practices.
2.Use, Care, and Repair	2.1. Maintenance Practices	2.1.1. Garment Longevity	Active search for preservation methods.
		2.1.2. Prolonged use	Wearing items down to their physical limit.
	2.2. Barriers to Repair	2.2.1. Loss of Know-How	Generational loss of basic sewing and manual skills.
		2.2.2. Self-Efficacy Perception	Frustration and perceived low self-efficacy, leading to premature clothing disposal.
		2.2.3. Cost and Scarcity of Services	Highly limited and/or pricey occupations such as shoemakers or seamstresses.
3. End-of-Life and Disposal	3.1. Informal Circular Economy	3.1.1. Donation, Exchange, and Selling	Preference for second-hand platforms and intergenerational clothing exchange.
		3.1.2. Upcycling	Preference for transforming old fabrics into useful everyday items.
	3.2. Structural Disposal	3.2.1. Disposal Infrastructures	Disposal motivated by irreversible damage to the product and lack of disposal infrastructures.

To preserve cultural context and authentic meaning, the focus groups, verbatim transcriptions, and the entirety of this coding process were conducted in the participants’ native language (Portuguese). For this publication, some illustrative quotations were translated into English, which are available throughout the Section 3 and Appendix B. To ensure conceptual equivalence, these translations were performed by the lead author (AM) and systematically validated by a bilingual co-author (PRR).

3. Results

The thematic analysis revealed six main domains across the two focus groups, describing how participants understand and engage with sustainability in the textile and clothing industry context, highlighting both convergences and tensions across discourse and practice. As the focus groups were designed as complementary datasets with distinct interview guides, the findings below represent a composite of these explorations. Consequently, broad conceptualizations emerged primarily from the first group, while lifecycle behaviors were mapped exclusively by the second. Across the focus groups, three core thematic clusters emerged from each focus group, with the first focusing on general sustainability within the textile industry, and the second detailing textile lifecycle phases.

Focus Group 1: (i) the multidimensional nature of sustainability, (ii) barriers, and (iii) facilitators to sustainable behavior (Table 1).

Focus Group 2: (i) purchase and acquisition, (ii) maintenance and repair, and (iii) end-of-life of clothing materials (Table 2).

Across the two datasets, the discussions highlighted the complex nature of sustainable behavior applied to the clothing industry, systemic and economic constraints, and informational opacity combined with perceived collective inefficacy. While conceptual definitions and general barriers provided important foundational context, these two dimensions were central and converged across groups.

3.1. Focus Group 1: Sustainability Meaning, Barriers and Facilitators

Firstly, participants expressed a multidimensional conceptualization of what can be perceived as sustainability. This concept was often associated with positive behaviors related to sustainability, such as environmental protection, avoiding waste, and preserving resources without compromising future generations, stretching the definition across ecological, personal, and ethical domains. Sustainability was frequently defined as the active preservation of limited natural resources and the avoidance of waste to secure a viable future, conceptualizing the environment as an intergenerational responsibility and shared collective resources that are currently being mismanaged by overproduction and hyper-consumerism (“…being able to satisfy our present needs without compromising our future in a more general way”, P3). Moreover, participants understood sustainability-related practices as transversal, pragmatic, applied to the optimization of everyday resources, such as time, finances, and project management, rather than limiting it to strictly ecological concerns (“I think sustainability is about making the best use of resources. They don’t necessarily have to be environmental…”, P2). For these university students, the concept of sustainability is heavily intertwined with financial and time sustainability, making the most efficient use of the perceived limited resources they possess. Thus, participants conceptualized sustainability through a dual lens of environmental protection and pragmatic resource optimization, which is consistent with previous research [16,18,20]. Rather than framing sustainability strictly through an ecological paradigm, young adults evaluated it as an efficient allocation of varied personal resources.

Regarding main barriers and facilitators, participants identified several obstacles to pursuing more sustainable choices. Participants reported unanimous and frequent difficulty in identifying genuinely sustainable products, expressing confusion regarding labels, certifications, and pervasive greenwashing practices (“I also don’t know what else to do besides recycling, or turning off the light when I’m not at home”, P1). Thus, the logistical and economic convenience of fast fashion seems to consistently overpower ethical intentions, with “sustainable options” being widely perceived as an expensive luxury. Sociocultural and aesthetic pressures emerged as an additional factor, as the need for personal affirmation through style drove participants toward more accessible and varied options available in fast fashion, while sustainable clothing was frequently deemed to fail to keep up with trends. This aesthetic friction builds upon the previously mentioned informational opacity (greenwashing practices and not knowing how to identify these), leading participants to report difficulty in identifying genuinely sustainable products, and as such opting to pursue clothing that more directly expresses their style and identity (“If it’s a thing, for example: ah I want to buy a sweater because I need it… I don’t need it, but I want a new sweater, well, there you go, maybe I’ll opt, instead of buying a 30 40 euro sweater, to buy 2 or 3 for €15”, P4), an idea also stressed in the second focus group (“Today, there is a great need for personal affirmation through style (…) where it is easiest to find that variety (…) is in fast fashion”, P5). Furthermore, contextual barriers, such as the geographical inaccessibility of second-hand stores compared to the widespread availability of fast fashion, heavily influenced their consumption patterns (“It’s much more practical to go to a fast fashion store than to go to a second-hand clothing store.”, P4). Additionally, a significant psychological barrier emerged with participants reporting a perception of collective inefficacy. Concerning this, participants reported strong feelings of demotivation and frustration due to perceived inaction from close contexts, feeling that their individual sustainable efforts are meaningless if most of society does not reflect the same behavioral patterns, leading to feelings of frustration and a low perception of self-efficacy when attempting more sustainable behaviors (“We can’t put a goal in our heads which is to protect the environment (…) if we don’t see results, and if we don’t see people around us doing it too”, P4; “… most of my friends don’t do it, they don’t even recycle, so, I also have little hope in that environment…”, P5). Overall, participants reported unanimous difficulty in identifying sustainable products, which systematically drove them toward convenience and aesthetic primacy of fast fashion. This reflects previous concerns described in the literature on informational opacity [5,9,17], indicating that consumer choice in the acquisition phase does not reflect an absence of environmental concern. Furthermore, participants perceived collective inefficacy and a lack of supportive peer norms, a major barrier noted in prior research [17,21,23]. Whenever individual pro-environmental efforts felt isolated, participants often mentioned perceived collective inaction and preferred to avoid complex circular behaviors like upcycling.

On the other hand, participants actively suggested several changes and initiatives to facilitate the adoption of more sustainable behaviors. At the foundational level, participants emphasized sociocultural dynamics as a key aspect of sustainable behavior, with participants noting that social influence from family and peers could help normalize sustainability as a trend /or as a rooted behavioral pattern (“At home, it’s sustainable because they are the ones who [instill it in] me (…) it’s not me who has the initiative”, P1). However, they stressed that the current available educational initiatives must evolve beyond the focus on “recycling” in schools to encompass broader, more practical sustainable habits. To achieve systemic change, participants from both focus groups stressed the need for governmental involvement. Rather than relying solely on individual motivation, they advocated top-down structural interventions, including improved legal regulation of sustainability practices in the clothing industry, corporate accountability, and implementation of production limits (More advertising. … Using social media … Since they promote other things, they could also promote this”, P1—focus group 1; “It is somewhat the role of the State to make this investment and show the population that this sustainable bet pays off”, P2—focus group 2). Also, participants expected governments to somehow subsidize sustainable consumer choices and invest in social marketing supported by clear, public health-style campaigns to easily guide consumers (“There could be greater intentionality (…) a governmental issue to guide people…)”, P6). The need for structural and logistical support was highlighted as a critical facilitator by providing proximity to disposal options and infrastructure, such as accessible physical spaces for clothing exchange and structured donation networks (“Creating spaces where this is possible (…) for example, in the university campus, having a space for clothes swapping (…) so it doesn’t just stay as an idea”, P3). Finally, providing a broader range of educational initiatives, based on clear and standardized information on clothing origin, manufacturing processes, and care, could help boost knowledge on sustainable choices and reduce the “opacity” associated with greenwashing practices. These themes are represented below in Table 1.

3.2. Focus Group 2: Clothing Lifecycle

Within the lifecycle phases of textiles and personal clothing, in the purchase phase, choices were predominantly guided by price, aesthetics, convenience, and availability. Sustainability considerations appeared to function as a secondary or conditional factor, becoming more relevant only when information was clear, price differences were minimal, or when products aligned with personal style and fashion trends (“People have a lot of things to do and they just want the cheapest product.”, P1; “If we see someone on social media, for example, wearing a piece of clothing and it looked good on them, then someone else will say ‘ah, I’ll buy it too’.”, P7). Consequently, when applied to clothing purchase, a product is often deemed sustainable if its longevity justifies its financial cost. This multidimensionality also generates internal conflict, as participants realized that different dimensions of sustainability often clash, such as animal welfare and material durability. While some participants argued that buying real leather is more environmentally sustainable because it lasts a lifetime, preventing the continuous disposal of synthetic alternatives, others felt that true sustainability cannot involve animal cruelty, even if the vegan alternative degrades faster and requires more frequent replacement. This reveals that, for young adults, sustainability is not a straightforward option, but a complex matrix contemplating a delicate balance between ecological impact, financial survival, ethical beliefs, and material longevity. Moreover, once more, participants frequently cited a lack of trustworthy, clear information, expressing regular confusion over technical labels and a persistent distrust of brand greenwashing (“I can’t detect and properly interpret what is sustainable or not through what is, hmm, what’s on the labels or tags.”, P7).

Regarding the use, care, and repair phase, participants reported relatively stable practices, often including emotional attachment to clothing and a tendency toward prolonged use. However, knowledge gaps were evident, and repair and reuse behaviors tended to be sporadic and skill-dependent rather than systematic or embedded in routine practices. Participants explicitly highlighted a diminished intergenerational transmission of practical knowledge and skills regarding basic sewing and repair skills, which frequently leads to the premature disposal of clothing items that could otherwise be transformed or reused (“(…) in the past, there were sewing classes (…) I think there are basic things we just don’t learn in school […] Like how to sew? Things that are meant for our daily lives that we just don’t know.”, P2). This lack of know-how directly feeds into frustration, low perceived self-efficacy, and behavioral control, as some participants referred to attempts at manual repairs or upcycling. However, without proper guidance, it often leads to disappointing results, leaving them unable to identify their mistakes and ultimately demotivating further sustainable efforts in this regard (“(…) first I see if there is anything I can do [laughs] (…) I try to do it myself, if I can’t I resort to a seamstress […] and sometimes you just end up giving up...”, P3). This psychological barrier is further exacerbated by the perceived high cost and increasing scarcity of professional repair services, such as shoemakers or seamstresses (“There are few people nowadays who do this kind of manual work (…) I happen to have a shoemaker near my house who does a great job. But the [gentleman] is already 92 years old, and there is no one to replace him…”, P5), driving consumers toward premature disposal. The ’double economic barrier’ was especially salient in the use and maintenance phases, where, alongside the perceived intergenerational loss of practical skills, the extra cost associated with sustainable choices and the high cost and limited availability of professional repair services emerged. This structural market failure, where the high cost of maintenance outweighs the purchase of new fast fashion items, seems to lead consumers into premature disposal, highlighting a critical deficit in perceived behavioral control [4,16,18].

Finally, end-of-life decisions revealed a similar pattern of intention–behavior discrepancy. While participants identified multiple sustainable disposal strategies (e.g., donating, repurposing, or discarding), actual practices were often constrained by convenience, perceived usability of items, and limited access to accessible and structured infrastructure alternatives, such as reliable collection bins or brand programs that seek to take back clothing items that consumers no longer use or that are at the end of their life. However, informal circular practices were frequently reported, such as donating clothes to shelters, selling on second-hand platforms, handing down clothes to family members (e.g., younger siblings and cousins), or repurposing heavily damaged clothes into utilitarian items like cleaning rags (“I always try to see if anyone here at home wants to wear it, because sometimes my sister steals my pants”, P2); “I also use second-hand selling apps a lot, like Vinte.”, P8; “When a sweater gets stained or has holes (…) I cut it up and make cleaning rags”, P1). End-of-life decisions revealed a reliance on informal circular practices as an adaptive mechanism to bypass structural infrastructure deficits. However, formal disposal remained largely restricted to irreversible product damage, driven by the absence of accessible community collection points, something previously discussed as a future investment pathway [25,26]. A comprehensive overview of these perspectives and behaviors throughout the textile lifecycle is presented in Table 2.

4. Discussion

The present study explored university students’ perceptions, motivations, and behaviors regarding sustainability across the textile lifecycle, outlining an intention–behavior gap regarding textile and clothing sustainability among young adults frequenting the higher education context. While participants demonstrated high environmental awareness and concern, the translation of these values into sustained action seems to be disrupted by a complex interplay of systemic deficits, psychological barriers, and informational opacity. Across both focus groups, there was a consistent emphasis on the importance of making sustainability more accessible, intuitive, and actionable, through individual, collective, and governmental levels, rather than relying solely on individual motivation. Nonetheless, participants also consistently described a disconnection between these values and their everyday practices, suggesting that awareness alone is insufficient to sustain behavioral change.

Our findings reveal that young adults operate under a highly multidimensional conceptualization of sustainability. While sustainability is often framed in the literature as managing wealth and natural capital while preserving the environment [10], our participants often understood sustainability as a form of pragmatic resource management, including time and financial sustainability. This resource optimization mindset often directly conflicted with ethical sustainability, as participants often debated the ethical dilemma of purchasing highly durable real leather versus less durable vegan alternatives. This suggests that, for younger consumers, sustainability is not a straightforward pathway, but a complex matrix where ethical beliefs frequently clash with material longevity and financial survival. On the other hand, these findings seem to support the attitude–behavior gap described in the literature [4,9,18,29]. While environmental intentions may be strong, they can be overridden by systemic and psychological barriers, indicating that environmental awareness alone is insufficient to drive consistent action without structural facilitation, economic accessibility, and practical skill-building across the textile lifecycle, which have also been emphasized as needed pathways in previous studies [9,15,16,17].

Notwithstanding, the participants in our focus groups mentioned perceived limited resources, courses of action, and a lack of information regarding the textile industry’s underlying processes and parameters, and highlighted the importance of collective efforts for higher engagement in pro-sustainable behaviors. According to the available literature, when individuals encounter macro-level systemic factors that are perceived as out of their control, such as government policies and infrastructural options, without clear courses of action, it may create disengagement instead of pro-environmental and sustainable action [2,28,29,30]. This is described as the resilience paradox, which demonstrates that individuals with great environmental concern often display fewer pro-environmental behaviors when they feel they have limited resources and perceived efficacy [3]. Our data seem to support this idea, as peer and family pro-environmental action were mentioned as a determining factor for their own involvement in such behaviors. This supports the idea that merely encouraging individual “resilience” is an inadequate solution for younger generations, and sustains the need for more systemic, holistic, and collective efforts that support youth involvement and action.

When mapping behaviors across the distinct lifecycle phases, our younger consumers’ path was constrained by a “double economic barrier”. In line with the previous literature, our participants also valued cost, functionality, or aesthetic trends over sustainable factors [9,16]. However, a recent study on generational differences found that while older generations treat sustainability as an additional requirement secondary to cost, younger generations seem to value eco-friendly choices but are routinely priced out of the market [20]. Our findings stress this at two separate phases. First, in the acquisition phase, the high cost of sustainable clothing garments, and second, via the cost and scarcity of professional services at the maintenance and end-of-life phase. This ‘double economic barrier’ may have profound implications for future circular economy models, stressing the need for commercial models that subsidize repair ecosystems or brand-integrated maintenance services to make circularity viable. Recent systematic reviews corroborate this tension, highlighting that the low price of new fast fashion garments undermines the comparatively high price of professional repair services, rendering sustainable maintenance economically disadvantageous for youth [17]. This is further exacerbated by a perceived loss of skills and knowledge across generations regarding basic sewing, care, and repair manual skills, something perceived as out of reach and leading to perceived low efficacy that may trigger feelings of frustration and disengagement. These practical barriers map directly onto the construct of perceived behavioral control [4], demonstrating that environmental awareness cannot convert into action without the functional skills required to execute it [15,16,17]. Consequently, this leads to premature disposal due to a lack of further options.

Conversely, when youth do successfully engage in circular practices, it is predominantly within second-hand or collaborative markets that actively bypass this economic barrier while simultaneously satisfying their psychological need for social identity and unique self-expression [24,27].To potentially address this issue, participants’ reflections suggest that providing educational initiatives and curricular options could benefit from moving beyond a theoretical focus on recycling. Considering our sample and its specific contextual characteristics, the perceived limited manual skills preceded a need for practical, hands-on circular training provided by educational and industry institutions that might empower consumer agency across the lifecycle, similarly to other studies’ recommendations [15]. Future research on circular consumer behavior should invest in empirically testing how these structural interventions alter young consumers’ price sensitivity and willingness to engage in long-term product maintenance and repair processes. Specifically, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate whether brand-supported infrastructure or community repair hubs can successfully mitigate the economic barrier associated with professional maintenance services and re-engage youth in circular loops.

Participants seemed to indicate the importance of the proximal social circle in the creation of their attitudes and the execution of their behaviors. Participants exhibited a sense of loneliness within the sustainability cause, stating that they feel their sustainable action is futile if the rest of society does not follow suit. However, their proximal social circle’s pro-environmental action was also mentioned as a key factor in maintaining engagement and resilience in their own sustainable efforts. This heavily aligns with Bicchieri’s Social Norms theory perspective [23], which demonstrates how one’s community and social bonds build the norms, perceptions, and attitudes that shape behavior, while adding nuance to the interpretation of results. This feeling of sustainable isolation may reflect a lack of supportive subjective norms within their social circles. Pro-environmental intentions frequently fail to translate into action without social validation, as youth engagement in sustainable fashion is primarily driven by ‘symbolized moral identity’ and the desire for social capital rather than purely private, internalized morals [24]. Specifically, the absence of peer participation reflects a lack of supportive subjective norms, which can present itself as a critical barrier in translating intentions into behavior. It can be understood that the social circle and the prescriptive and descriptive norms set within one’s own community may be a primary mechanism for resilience in sustainable behavior over time, helping to build pro-environmental norms and attitudes [21,22].

Overall, the findings draw attention to a complex and multidimensional conceptual approach, as well as an attitude–behavior gap in sustainability among university students, highlighting that awareness and positive attitudes do not necessarily translate into consistent practices. Thus, sustainability is constructed as a morally valued yet cognitively diffuse concept, seemingly limiting its operationalization in everyday decisions. Across the clothing lifecycle, sustainable behavior emerges as conditional and context-dependent, often secondary to factors such as cost, aesthetics, and convenience. Importantly, the results suggest that this gap reflects not only individual limitations, but also a lack of informational clarity, practical knowledge, and structural support. These findings point to the need to move towards multilevel interventions that integrate clear information, behavioral facilitation, social norms, and accessible infrastructures. In this sense, promoting sustainable engagement requires aligning systems, contexts, and practices in ways that enable individuals to translate intention into sustained and meaningful action. Finally, to effectively translate these environmental intentions into sustained action, practical implications should be addressed across three distinct spheres: (1) university-level actions, such as providing campus-based, hands-on capability-building workshops and peer-led exchange spaces; (2) industry-level actions, including brand-integrated maintenance and circular options, as well as transparent, easily understandable clothing labeling; and (3) public-policy actions, such as offering financial incentives and building supportive community infrastructures to help young consumers overcome the ‘double economic barrier’ and establishing accessible community disposal infrastructures.

Limitations and Future Research

The conclusions drawn from this exploratory research must be evaluated within the scope of several methodological and demographic limitations. First, the sample was restricted to 17 psychology university students from a single private institution in Porto, who mostly self-identified as possessing a “comfortable” socioeconomic status. The disciplinary background and relative sociodemographic homogeneity may foster specific reflections regarding sustainability framed by their immediate context. However, these cost-related barriers highlight the striking finding that price sensitivity and affordability hurdles persist even among financially secure youth. Consequently, these qualitative insights should be interpreted strictly within this sample’s context, avoiding direct inferences or generalizations regarding lower-income demographic groups.

Additionally, while focus groups are excellent for exploring shared meanings, they are inherently susceptible to group dynamics, as the interaction among peers may inadvertently reinforce social desirability bias, leading participants to align their expressed environmental concerns with perceived group norms. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of the socioeconomic and private university context, which leads to a necessary reflection that if consumers with relative financial security already identify high prices and repair costs as obstacles to sustainable pathways, these economic barriers may be exponentially more prominent in other socioeconomically vulnerable groups. Thus, future research should implement stratified sampling to examine these lifecycle choices and main barriers and facilitators across diverse socioeconomic levels.

Regarding the methodological design, it is important to note that the two focus groups were utilized as complementary exploratory datasets rather than comparable groups. We chose to split the data collection in this manner because addressing both of these extensive topics in a single session could have been overwhelmingly lengthy and risked participant fatigue. Consequently, as an inherent limitation of this split design, it should not be implied that all participants discussed all lifecycle phases equally, nor can theoretical saturation be claimed. However, the data gathered provided sufficient depth for an exploratory thematic interpretation, while we acknowledge that conducting further focus groups could reveal additional themes.

Finally, the study relied entirely on self-reported perceptions, exposing the data to potential social desirability bias, where participants may overstate their circular behaviors due to the moral weight of the topic. Although the initial exploration of this topic was specifically catalyzed by a lack of student engagement in free, accessible workshops for upcycling techniques, the resulting findings provide a critical perspective on barriers and facilitators for the textile industry and policymakers to consider when improving engagement in sustainable behavior, particularly among younger, higher education audiences. At present, direct future steps derived from this project involve persisting with targeted literacy and practical, skill-oriented workshops, while scaling these efforts into a broader, systemic intervention focused on promoting sustainable, pro-environmental behavior. Addressing these academic insights requires concrete, applied measures, such as the implementation of institutional capability-building workshops, industry-supported maintenance frameworks, and macro-level governance models. Future investigations could deploy mixed-method, multi-wave longitudinal panel designs or direct observational field data to more accurately monitor real-world purchasing, use, and disposal behavior in real-world environments.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the qualitative findings capture student perceptions, reported practices, and social discourses regarding a pervasive attitude–behavior gap among young adults regarding textile sustainability. Rather than measuring actual, objectively tracked sustainable consumption behavior, our data reflect subjective evaluations and reported intentions. While theoretical awareness and environmental concern are high, the translation of these values into sustained action is heavily disrupted by a complex interplay of systemic deficits, such as high costs and lack of infrastructure, and psychological barriers. Across the entire lifecycle, convenience and economy consistently override environmental intentions, placing “clothing sustainability” as a secondary factor. Furthermore, to directly address the initial lack of student engagement in upcycling workshops, these findings suggest that future campus-based sustainability initiatives should actively integrate peer-led social validation and hands-on initiatives to successfully overcome students’ perceived low self-efficacy and lack of skills. Ultimately, these results suggest that for the young, socioeconomically comfortable consumers in our sample, fostering sustainable fashion behaviors requires moving beyond mere awareness campaigns. The students’ contribution highlights the need for greater reliance on governmental and industry involvement, pointing to a need for structural facilitation, skill-building, and accessible circular alternatives to make sustainable choices more intuitive and actionable.

Appendix A.1. Semi-Structured Script for the First Focus Group: Meaning of Sustainability, Barriers, and Facilitators to Sustainable Decision-Making

1. Meaning of Sustainability

1.1. What does sustainability mean to you?

1.1.1. What does this concept mean regarding the consumption of clothing/fabrics? (Activity using Post-its for participants to write down their ideas related to the topic)

2. Associated Values (20–25 min)

2.1. What motivates you the most to be more sustainable?

2.1.1. And specifically, regarding clothing/fabrics?

2.2. What aspects of sustainability do you value the most?

2.2.1. And particularly in clothing/fabrics?

3. Applied Behaviors (20–25 min)

3.1. What behaviors do you associate with sustainability?

3.1.1. And in clothing/fabrics?

3.2. To conclude, using the Post-its again, what do you think should change in society for people to be more sustainable?

Appendix A.2. Semi-Structured Script for the Second Focus Group: Clothing Lifecycle Phases and Specific Sustainable Behaviors

1. Aspects to consider when acquiring products (PURCHASE)

1.1. Focusing on the first lifecycle phase of our clothing and footwear, what drives you to buy a specific clothing and/or footwear product? What do you value most?

1.1.1. Are sustainability issues relevant when you purchase these products? If so, which ones/what specifically?

1.1.2. Do you feel you have enough information about the “sustainability” of these products? What information do you consider to be most lacking regarding these issues?

2. Product Lifecycle (USE AND MAINTENANCE)

2.1. Continuing with the topic of accessible product information, do you consider the information regarding the washing and care of garments to be accessible/understandable? How could clothing brands improve this communication?

2.2. When a product gets damaged, do you repair it or find ways to restore it?

2.2.1. When is a product “too damaged” to be repaired? Does this differ depending on the product (e.g., denim, T-shirts, footwear, others)?

3. Product end-of-life (DISPOSAL)

3.1. Following up on this, when do you realize you will no longer wear certain pieces of clothing and/or footwear?

3.2. Do you consider certain disposal or end-of-life options to be more sustainable than others?

4. Sustainability Conclusion

4.1. Finally, thinking broadly across all these different lifecycle phases of clothing and footwear we discussed today, how do your social circles—such as family, university, friends, colleagues, groups, social media, or others—influence your decisions and behaviors?

Conclusion and additional impressions