Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: A fast fashion system allows firms to react quickly to changing consumer demand by replenishing inventory (via quick response) and introducing more fashion styles. In this paper, we study the environmental impact of the fast fashion business model by analyzing its implications for product quality, variety, and inventory decisions. Relevance: Our work establishes a much-needed understanding of the link between the fast fashion business model and its environmental consequences. Methodology: We consider a two-period model in which a firm sells to fashion-sensitive consumers whose preferences are influenced by a random fashion trend. We analyze the effect of fast fashion capabilities (quick response and design flexibility) on the firm’s quality decision, leftover inventory and total environmental impact. Results: We find that a key driver of low product quality in the fast fashion industry is the firm’s incentive to offer variety to hedge against uncertain fashion trends. When variety is endogenous, quality decreases as consumers become more sensitive to fashion or as the cost of introducing new styles decreases. We identify the conditions under which increasing fast fashion capabilities leads to higher environmental impact. Managerial implications: We assess the effectiveness of three environmental initiatives (waste disposal regulations, consumer education, and production tax schemes) in countering the environmental impact of fast fashion. We show that waste disposal policies and production taxes are effective in reducing the firm’s leftover inventory—but may have the unintended consequence of lowering product quality, which may worsen the firm’s environmental impact. We also find that education campaigns that increase consumers’ sensitivity to quality strictly benefit the environment in the long run.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".