Lillian Spiegl

Fashion is one of the largest and most heavily consumed industries worldwide, but it also carries a significant environmental cost. Large amounts of water and energy are required to make garments, and most shoppers are unaware of how great these hidden impacts are. To address this, researchers and industry experts have suggested diverse approaches like “true-cost” pricing to include an added environmental surcharge to product pricing. Additionally, decentralised governance models such as DAOs (decentralised autonomous organisations), which give consumers more voice in decision-making, are beginning to be explored in the context of fashion. Yet, little research is provided on whether these approaches change how people perceive clothing value.

This study examined the impact of two strategies of true-cost pricing and DAO governance on people’s perceptions of clothing and their willingness to pay, where the DAO governance involved letting participants vote on a hypothetical brand's upcoming sustainability practices. In an online survey with 150 participants, people were randomly assigned to one of four shopping conditions: regular pricing without voting, true-cost pricing without voting, regular pricing with voting, or true-cost pricing with voting. Participants completed a shopping task and then answered questions about their perceived value, sense of ownership, environmental impact, and willingness to pay (WTP) for the clothing they chose. In addition, their general sustainable purchasing behaviour (SPB) was also measured to see whether pre-exisitng attitudes influenced the ratings of the other variables.

Results showed that true-cost pricing and DAO governance did not increase perceived value, ownership, or willingness to pay. However, participants with stronger SPB reported greater willingness to pay and a stronger sense of ownership across all conditions. Therefore, while pricing and DAO structures did not shift consumer ratings, individual sustainability orientation made a significant difference.

These results indicate both future challenges and directions for future sustainable interventions in consumer-facing contexts. True-cost pricing and DAO-style governance may need to be evaluated and measured more in-depth, explaining the process of governance more specifically to consumers. Also, greater educational or cultural efforts to reveal the hidden environmental cost of clothing in the supply chain may assist in consumers appreciating true-cost surcharges more easily. The study suggests that personal sustainability values are a powerful driver of how people evaluate and engage with fashion, and future researchers or industry strategies should take this into account when exploring sustainable interventions in fashion.

Through connecting consumption with a wider scope of symbolic and tangible valuations, this research contributes to the ongoing conversation about how we can rethink clothing prices, co-creation and governance, and consumer engagement to help foster sustainable consumption into everyday fashion choices.