A Systematic Literature Review of Fashion, Sustainability, and Consumption Using a Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing global awareness of the environmental impact of clothing consumption, there has been a notable surge in the publication of journal articles dedicated to “fashion sustainability” in the past decade, specifically from 2010 to 2020. However, despite this wealth of research, many studies remain disconnected and fragmented due to varying research objectives, focuses, and approaches. Conducting a systematic literature review with a mixed methods research approach can help identify key research themes, trends, and developmental patterns, while also shedding light on the complexity of fashion, sustainability, and consumption. To enhance the literature review and analytical process, the current systematic literature review employed text mining techniques and bibliometric visualization tools, including RAKE, VOSviewer, and CitNetExplorer. The findings revealed an increase in the number of publications focusing on “fashion and sustainability” between 2010 and 2021. Most studies were predominantly conducted in the United States, with a specific focus on female consumers. Moreover, a greater emphasis was placed on non-sustainable cues rather than the sustainable cues. Additionally, a higher number of case studies was undertaken to investigate three fast-fashion companies. To enhance our knowledge and understanding of this subject, this article highlights several valuable contributions and provides recommendations for future research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".