Framing Fashion Sustainability in Fashion
Magazines
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The fashion industry is considered one of the largest and most polluting industries in the
world (Karaosman et al., 2017). To illustrate, the fashion industry is responsible for an estimated 3
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, emitting 850 million tons of carbon per year
(Karaosman et al., 2017). Additionally, the industry is responsible for an estimated 17 to 20 percent
of global industrial water pollution (Laitala et al., 2018). However, there is some debate on the
exact quantification of the fashion industry's contribution to pollution. For now, scholars know that
it’s bad, but aren’t exactly sure how bad.
“Fast fashion” disproportionately contributes to the current climate crisis, in comparison to
other fashion production methods. The fast fashion sector consists of clothing that is mass produced
as quickly and efficiently as possible, leading to short lifespans of the garments, which in turn leads
to an unsustainable amount of textile waste from pre- to post-consumption (Clark, 2008). Fast
fashion has paved the way for brands to produce more clothing than ever before, which contributes
to environmental issues in a multitude of ways.
The fast fashion model is widely popular among consumers because retailers have the
ability to sell apparel for very cheap prices. As McNeil and Moore (2015) suggest, in this model,
what matters most to contemporary consumers is “price, value, trends and brand image” (p. 212).
Fast fashion responds quickly to trends, which change more frequently with the transmission of
fashion communication on social media and through popular fashion media. Despite concern for
environmental issues, fast fashion retailers like H&M and Zara still sell clothing “expected to be
used less than ten times” (Birtwhistle & Moore, 2007, p. 211). In practice, the fast fashion method
of designing for obsolescence lends itself to overconsumption and increasing post-consumer textile
waste. In fact, research indicates that American consumer textile waste increased by 40 percent in
the ten-year span from 1999 to 2009 (Joyner et al., 2016).
Beyond consumer demand for the ever-evolving fast fashion trends, this model is also
lucrative for retailers and fashion houses. For example, Amancio Ortaga, owner of Inditex, the
global fast fashion retailer that owns Zara, Pull&Bear, and more, is the eleventh richest person in
the world with a net worth of $77 billion (Dolan et al., 2021). However, over the course of the past
few decades, the fashion industry has increasingly been criticized by consumers and media outlets
for ongoing unsustainable production and distribution practices that have contributed to the climate
crisis. This pressure has led to some sustainable innovations trickling into luxury fashion. For
example Gucci, founded in 1921, has implemented several eco-friendly design and production
standards across the supply and value chain, including sourcing from ethical farms, using
biodegradable materials and shipping packages with recyclable packaging (Armitage et al., 2017).
However, luxury fashion does not live outside the threshold of criticism with regards to
environmental issues and labor violations. A recent study from Stand Earth Research Group (2021)
suggests fashion conglomerates and brands including Ralph Lauren, Tori Burch, Alexander Wang,
Coach, Kate Spade, Prada, Michael Kors and LVMH have multiple connections to deforestation in
the Amazon rainforest; the cause of deforestation being cattle ranching used to produce leather
goods. According to Cernansky (2021), luxury leather products like handbags and shoes bring in
the highest profit margins for luxury fashion houses. Therefore, luxury fashion depends on the
animal agriculture industry, also a highly polluting industry, for their most coveted pieces (Stand
Earth Research Group, 2021).
Additionally, luxury brands are increasingly taking a page from fast fashion’s book, as
scholars suggest, some luxury brands have been aiming to make themselves more available to the
mass market (Karaosman, 2020). The literature suggests some luxury brands are bending their
traditional rules by making themselves more accessible by lowering their price point, increasing
their product assortment, and by sourcing internationally (Karaosman, 2020). With this in mind, it
was reported in 2017 that Louis Vuitton outsourced their shoe production to Romania, where low-
paid workers constructed the shoes, before shipping them back to Italy where the shoes were
stamped with the classic “Made in Italy” mark; this is a contention in terms of sustainability, as for
a brand to be sustainable, it should also meet the needs of worker’s rights and offer supply chain
transparency (Karaosman et al., 2020). Additionally, children’s clothing produced by Louis
Vuitton,
Hermes, and Dior tested positive for hazardous chemicals; and Dior scored a zero on Fashion
Revolution’s Transparency Index (Karaosman et al., 2020).
In fact, it’s become increasingly common for luxury brands to collaborate with fast fashion
brands. For example, one of the top fast fashion brands, H&M, has collaborated with high fashion
entities like Karl Lagerfeld, Versace, Balmain and Moschino (Leong, 2021). Zara launched its first
luxury collaboration ever, in 2021, with brand KASSL (Goldstone, 2021).
However, luxury brands also highly influence fast fashion in many ways. Yet the main issue
posed here, in terms of environmental issues, is the tendency for brands to intentionally destroy
merchandise. For example, in 2018 Burberry scored a revenue of $3.6 billion, and destroyed $36.8
billion of their own merchandise, to keep their assortment exclusive (Lieber, 2018). The practice of
destroying merchandise has trickled into fast fashion’s methodology as brands like H&M, Urban
Outfitters, Nike, JCPenney and Walmart were also caught for destroying their own merchandise
(Lieber, 2018). Burning, shredding and landfilling are the most common methods brands employ
when destroying their own merchandise, which accelerates the environmental impact of the fashion
industry as clothing is dumped into landfills before consumers even purchase garments (Lieber,
2018). Additionally, 60 percent of clothing is composed of synthetic fibers, like polyester, which
derive from the fossil fuel industry, therefore emitting C02 when burned (Lieber, 2018).
In confluence with environmental issues, the fashion industry is also responsible for
significant labor violations. The fashion industry's use of sweatshops has been under media
microscope throughout the decades. Scholars define a sweatshop as poor exploitative working
conditions, with long working hours, low wages, while often allowing child labor and abusive
treatment (Phau et al, 2015). With this in mind, the literature suggests that the fashion industry is a
trillion-dollar system, where 1 percent of garment production is reportedly made ethically (Phau et
al, 2015). To contextualize, scholars suggest that much of western fashion’s garment production is
outsourced overseas, where garment workers' days are spent in a dirty highly polluted workspace,
with 16-18-hour workdays, for very low wages (Choi et al, 2012). To illustrate, the literature
suggests general wages for garment workers is “$1.70 for workers in Mexico, 86 cents for workers
in China and 23 cents for workers in Pakistan as compared to $12.17 per hour for the US workers''
(Phau, 2015, p. 170). Both luxury and fast fashion brands, from Ralph Lauren to H&M, have
reportedly used sweatshops for their apparel or product production (Phau, 2015). In fact, the fashion
industry’s negligence to provide safe working conditions has led to mass fatalities of garment
workers, most notoriously, The Rana Plaza retail and apparel manufacturing complex collapse
which left over 1,000 dead and injured 2,500 people (Thomas, 2018).
With the aforementioned details of both fast and luxury fashion’s sustainable and ethical
issues in mind, this research examines how fashions’ environmental and social issues are
communicated in fashion media. As some scholars posit, media play an essential role in climate
communication by translating scientific findings in a way that is digestible to an audience (Russill
& Nyssa, 2009), such as the way that innovation in sustainability is communicated by the press.
Scholars suggest the way the media frame the climate crisis can “increase public concern and
engagement” (Appelgren & Jönsson, 2020, p. 654).
Fashion press has been defined in the literature as soft news, or lifestyle journalism, which
works to transmit information in entertaining ways, and it has also been considered entangled with
consumerism (Hanusch, 2017). However, scholars also suggest that lifestyle journalism, such as
fashion press, can extend important information from traditional press, reaching a broader audience,
keeping readers informed and entertained on important issues (Hanusch, 2017). Scholar Hanusch
(2017) suggests, “a range of literature in the recent past has demonstrated the relevance of various
types of lifestyle media content for societal processes” (p. 3). Therefore, the fashion press can, and
do, extend their consumeristic coverage to investigate social and environmental issues facilitated
throughout the fashion industry.
However, even if fashion journalism successfully outlines the detrimental impacts the
industry has on the environment and people, scholars suggest there is an attitude-behavior gap
whereby consumers' awareness of sustainable issues in fashion does not change their buyer
behavior (McKeown & Shearer, 2019). According to Wicker (2020), consumers tend to either
“forget or choose to misremember” that their clothing is not ethically or sustainably produced,
prioritizing low prices and the ease of purchasing an item online over sustainability. This would
explain, in part, why fast fashion has maintained a stronghold on consumers for over 30 years,
despite growing concern for fashion’s detrimental effects on the environment.
To help bridge the attitude-behavior gap, it is critical for media and brands to be transparent
about garment production, while clearly articulating the necessity of sustainable fashion acquisition,
as a means to influence buyer behavior (Cherradi & Tetik, 2020). That being said, the perceived
price of sustainable fashion is a noted barrier in research of sustainable acquisition, lending itself to
the attitude-behavior gap (Cherradi & Tetik, 2020). The perceived high prices of sustainable
clothing may be a derivative notion from media coverage. This confluence of factors highlights the
importance of exploring how the media discusses sustainable fashion as a pathway for improving
both scholarship and practice.
Given fashion’s impact on the environment and worker’s rights, and journalists'
responsibility to communicate environmental and social issues, the purpose of this study is to
examine how fashion sustainability is framed in fashion magazines. Using content analysis
methodology, the researcher will look at sustainable fashion coverage in two prominent fashion
magazines: Vogue and Refinery29. This research will focus on what kinds of messages are being
delivered in these publications by using framing theory. The following literature review
demonstrates how this study will expand framing research in this context and the importance of this
work to communication practice.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Research suggests that, historically speaking, Vogue “has held a disproportionate amount of
power in the industry in terms of information molding and dissemination” (Jones, 2020, p.105).
While literature suggests that the power of disseminating fashion information is falling out of the
hands of fashion journalists and gaining capital through social media influencers, Vogue has
managed to maintain cultural capital in contemporary society and through industry connections
(Jones, 2020). This capital lends itself to Vogue’s ability to influence consumers' fashion spending
with Vogue US readers spending “$18.4 billion on apparel mentioned in their publication” (Condè
Nast, 2021).
According to Britannica (n.a.), Vogue was founded in 1892 and covered New York City’s
social elite, high society traditions, and social etiquette, before they were bought by media mogul
Conde Nast in 1909. With the transition, Vogue’s coverage broadened to report on fashion, beauty,
and etiquette. In 2009, The New York Times championed Vogue as “high fashion’s bible.” Vogue
spent 120 years solely living in between glossy print pages, before adding an online platform in
2010 (Somaiya, 2014). Now, Vogue has publications across the world, with different branches of
the publication such as Teen Vogue, and can be found on social media platforms like Instagram and
Youtube (Conde Nast, n.a.). Given Vogue’s historical and modern relevance in fashion media,
Vogue’s coverage will be examined to explore how this major media outlet covers sustainable
fashion.
Refinery29 will also be examined to determine if the publication frames sustainability in
fashion differently. Refinery29 was conceived in November 2005 by Justin Stefano and Philippe
von Borries, who worked in politics and law before starting the online fashion publication
(Shontell, 2013). While Refinery29 is rooted in fashion and commerce media, the literature suggests
Refinery29’s coverage can be considered “thoughtful, balanced journalism” that works to “support
and encourage diversity of race and body shapes and also acknowledge the climate crisis”
(Denisova, 2021, p. 23). While there is a rather dense amount of scholarship on Vogue, Refinery29
is a publication that has not received much attention from scholars. To contextualize, simply
inputting the search term “Vogue magazine” in Google Scholar yields 163,000 results; yet,
inputting “Refinery29” in Google Scholars yields only 2,650 results, and from what the researcher
observed, 3 of those results are scholarly works. This could be because, as previously mentioned,
Vogue has maintained cultural capital throughout the decades and has been relevant since its
conception, whereas Refinery29, conceived online, is relatively new. Therefore, the purpose for
comparing Vogue with Refinery29, is to examine how legacy media, rooted in fashion coverage,
and new fashion media, that has been defined by literature as balanced journalism, could potentially
differ in terms of framing fashion’s sustainability issue.
Additionally, the purpose of comparing Vogue and Refinery29 is that they share a common
demographic being mostly millennial women who are interested in fashion (Condè Nast,
Refinery29, 2021), yet they currently have very different self-prescribed purposes. Vogue defines
their purpose as “always leading readers to what will happen next” in fashion (Condè Nast, 2021),
while defining the “culture of fashion” for the audience. On the other hand, Refinery29 defines
themselves as a “team of researchers, strategists, analysts, and marketers, brought together by our
shared passion for unlocking meaningful connections between brands and young women, while
having a little fun along the way” (Refinery29, 2021). Therefore, if Vogue’s purpose is truly to
always immerse themselves in fashion, then the coverage would potentially illuminate the negative
impacts of the fashion industry described in the introduction section; if Refinery29 considers
themselves a team of researchers, analysts and strategists, bound by the tethers of fashion coverage,
then the publication may offer an impartial investigation into the ways in which the fashion industry
negatively harms both people and the planet. However, this contention would raise the coverage to
the standards of more traditional journalistic practices, which involve communicating to citizens
information “they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities,
their societies, and their governments” (American Press Institute, n.a.).
While these publications have self-imposed differences in purpose, they both fall under the
category of lifestyle journalism. According to Hanusch (2012), lifestyle journalism encompasses
journalistic beats such as, “travel, fashion, style, health, fitness, wellness, entertainment, leisure,
lifestyle, food, music, arts, personal technology, gardening and living” (p. 5). The literature has
defined lifestyle journalism as “softer journalistic content” that “primarily focuses on audiences as
consumers, providing them with factual information and advice, often in entertaining ways, about
goods and services they can use in their daily lives” (Hanusch, 2012, p. 1). Lifestyle journalism,
according to scholarship, consists of coverage that: provides advice to consumers about products,
helps consumers navigate their way through life by offering practical and motivational advice,
investigates and reports on ethical or moral issues, and lastly, works to entertain the reader
(Hanusch, 2012). While lifestyle journalism is becoming increasingly common, scholar Hanusch
(2012) suggests that both journalists and academics tend to discount the role of lifestyle journalism
as “unserious journalism” undeserving “of serious attention” (p. 7). Yet, the literature also points to
how the distinct lines drawn between lifestyle and traditional press are blurring, as the literature
suggests, traditionally hard-news publications like The New York Times and BBC offer lifestyle
coverage (Hanusch, 2012).
Additionally, lifestyle publications also integrate traditional journalistic elements in their
coverage. Both Vogue and Refinery29 have political/news sections, integrating traditional hard-
news coverage amidst their typical lifestyle content. With that in mind, scholarship suggests that
lifestyle journalists typically work five years in traditional journalism before entering the lifestyle
journalism landscape (Hanusch, 2012). Therefore, traditional journalism and fashion press are not
entirely mutually exclusive.
Craig (2016) also suggests lifestyle journalism combines “hard-news” reporting on
environmental issues, conceptualized as green lifestyle journalism. Lifestyle journalism’s
incorporation of green journalism combines the interest of readers, while protecting the
publication’s source of advertising revenue (Craig, 2016). Lifestyle journalism is rooted in
“consumeristic” coverage, thus conflicting how lifestyle journalism conveys the climate crisis to its
audience, given lifestyle publications' tendency to rely heavily on advertising as a means of
revenue.
In conclusion, the fashion press can be considered responsible for reporting on fashion’s
environmental and ethical issues. This research looks at how online fashion publications frame this
issue, given the complexities of lifestyle journalism. Vogue and Refinery29 were chosen for this
study because they have a different approach to their reporting styles and different missions, yet
similar conceptual interests with an overlapping demographic of readers. Their contrasting purposes
could indicate that Refinery29 may frame fashion sustainability with a more critical lens than
Vogue; given that Refinery29 has been defined in the literature as balanced journalism, and that
Refinery29, in part, considers themselves a team of researchers.
Sustainable Fashion
Sustainable fashion can also be referenced as eco or ethical apparel, accessories, and
beauty. The term can be used by brands like H&M for specific eco-lines, or it can define a brand’s
entire ethos regarding their production system like Patagonia, whose brand was founded on
sustainable practices while encouraging consumers to participate in outdoor activities (Hepburn,
2016). However, it's hard to draw conclusions about certain textiles as being greener than others
when they all contribute to environmental issues in a multitude of ways (Laitala, et al., 2018).
Scholars suggest sustainability in fashion is a relatively new concept that some argue is still just an
aspiration (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014).
Thus, sustainability has been defined in the literature as a production system that “would at
worst do no net harm to natural or social systems while still producing a profit over an extended
period of time; a truly sustainable supply chain could, customers willing, continue to do business
forever” (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014, p. 45). Sustainable systems embody the triple bottom line
where brands examine environmental impacts, social welfare, and profits over an extended amount
of time (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014). In other words, sustainable brands will produce clothing as
environmentally friendly as possible, while fostering a healthy work environment across all sectors
of the supply chain, and still make a profit. However, the literature suggests the economic
dimension of sustainability holds more weight than the other two dimensions, suggesting “if a
practice has a negative impact on the economic bottom line, it is not sustainable, no matter how
beneficial it is for environmental or social performance” (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014, p. 46).
Consumers can also contribute to the sustainable fashion model by purchasing clothing
made of sustainable fibers like organic cotton and hemp, or by purchasing clothing secondhand
(Connel, 2010). Fibers like organic cotton and hemp are more sustainable than the traditionally
grown fibers, as organic fibers are certified based on strict adherence to government-defined
agricultural practices including there being less pesticide use. Hemp is a preferred fiber due its
lower water demand used in the production process. By shopping secondhand, life cycles of
clothing are lengthened which leads to less textile pollution.
Brands can contribute to a more environmentally sustainable system by: limiting the use of
synthetic fibers (a derivative of fossil fuels); sourcing organic fibers over traditional fibers; limiting
water consumption and chemical processing; implementing a circular design approach by using
recycled or deadstock materials, while considering how a new garment could be recycled in the
future (narrowing the amount of different fibers put in to a garment); designing clothing with
longevity in mind, which can be measured by a lifecycle analysis (LCA); increasing energy
efficiency in factories, offering the consumer transparency, and so much more (Claxton & Kent,
2020).
To further contextualize the benefits of secondhand shopping, scholars Geegamage et al.
(2021) suggest, “thrift shopping helps the environment by reducing the new clothing manufactures,
decreasing the landfill waste, inspires environmentally sustainable lifestyle and boost community
developments as the most of thrift shops stands for charity” (p. 2). A report conducted by a platform
developed to facilitate second-hand and consumer-to-consumer fashion purchasing, thredUP
(2021), suggests that by the year 2030, it is estimated that secondhand consumption will grow twice
as much in comparison to fast fashion (Thredup, 2021). This could be a very positive advancement,
as the fashion industry produces an estimated 80 to 150 billion new clothing items each year
(Wicker, 2020). The exact figure of garment production per year remains unknown; scholars just
know it is a lot. However, if fast fashion is unsustainable considering its mass scale, then
secondhand clothing doubling the consumption rates of fast fashion could also prove to be
unsustainable. To reiterate, sustainable fashion is still considered just an aspiration. Yet, at the very
least, used clothing is still a more sustainable option than buying new clothing considering fast
fashion brands’ tendency to design for obsolescence. ThredUP (2021) credits COVID-19 as the
catalyst for the boom in secondhand shopping. According to thredUP (2021), more than 33 million
consumers purchased secondhand for the first-time, and 76% of those first time shoppers plan to
continue buying secondhand during the pandemic.
Additionally, The British Fashion Council, Council of Fashion Designers of America, and
Business of Fashion have suggested that COVID-19 could be the catalyst to “a completely new,
slower, fashion system” (Brydges et al., 2020, p. 300). During early stages of quarantine,
consumers purchased exponentially less fashion than they did before, “with clothing sales in the
United States down 89% in April 2020 compared to April 2019 and down 50% in the UK over the
same period” (Brydges et al., 2020, p. 301). The literature suggests a reimagined, more sustainable
fashion system in post-COVID-19, would be “based upon fewer trends, seasons, fashion weeks, and
collections” (Brydges et al., 2020, p. 300). The impact of the pandemic on the fashion industry are
easy to render, as COVID-19 caused the cancelation of fashion weeks, brought fashion production
to a halt, and forced retail storefronts to close (Brydges et al., 2020). While it would seem like
fashion companies are forced to be more sustainable in wake of COVID-19 lockdowns, scholars
have seen “incremental shifts occurring across the supply chain during the pandemic, both toward
and away from improving social and environmental sustainability” (Brydges et al., 2020, p. 304).
To contextualize, this anti-consumption trend may depend on where the consumer is
shopping from. For example, Shein’s annual sales tripled during the pandemic making them the
biggest online retailer in the world, valued at $30 billion (Rai et al., 2021). Shein is an ultra-fast
fashion e-tailer from China, gaining momentum from Gen-Z consumers on TikTok and Instagram
(Rai et al., 2021). Shein’s recent spike in sales is attributed to shoppers in quarantine, who may
have been enticed by their labyrinth of trendy clothing options and low prices (Rai et al., 2021).
Additionally, COVID-19 exacerbated the labor violations brought on by the fashion
industry. In the early stages of the pandemic, an unknown number of orders (estimated to be in the
billions of dollar’s worth of merchandise) were canceled by brands, devastating global garment
workers, as some workers were not paid for the work they did pre-pandemic (Brydges et al, 2020).
The Worker Rights Consortium (2021) suggests that garment workers fortunate enough to keep
their jobs lost significant hours, contributing to financial anxiety as they already work for low
wages. Additionally, millions of garment workers were fired. As garment workers work for very
low wages, most did not have savings to cushion the blow of job loss; countries with high rates of
garment workers typically do not offer unemployment benefits, yet some require severance
payments for workers who lose their jobs (The Worker Rights Consortium, 2021). Yet, many
garment workers were denied their severance pay from fashion brands, resulting in wage theft (The
Worker Rights Consortium, 2021). To illustrate, The Worker Rights Consortium (2021)
investigated 31 garment factories in nine countries that closed during COVID-19, and found that,
“the wage theft at these 31 facilities robbed 37,637 workers of $39.8 million.” Scholars suggest that
online movements like #Payup pressured brands into paying in full for the “$15 billion of orders
that were already produced pre-pandemic” (Brydges et al., 2020, p. 300).
To summarize, scholarly work suggests fashion consumption post-COVID has gone down,
leaving some brands in the industry and consumers to think critically about their environmental
impact, making a shift towards sustainability (Brydges et al., 2020). However, some fast fashion
brands, like Shein, could have looked at the declining consumption of clothing as a challenge to
produce more clothing, cheaper than before, to successfully drive consumer demand. COVID-19
resulted in an economic crisis within the fashion industry, leading brands to violate workers rights,
meaning COVID-19 negatively impacted the economic and social dimensions of sustainability.
Scholars suggest, “With ever-changing cycles of media coverage, it remains to be seen whether the
pandemic will have a lasting effect, or whether the industry will move on to the next crisis, leaving
behind the lessons learned here so far” (Brydges et al, 2020, p. 304). Therefore, when analyzing
coverage, this research will sample articles from before and after COVID-19 to explore how
sustainability in fashion is framed before and after the start of the pandemic.
Framing
Keeping in mind the definition of sustainable fashion, this study uses framing theory to
assess how media outlets, Vogue and Refinery29, are reporting on sustainable fashion. Colistra and
Johnson (2019) suggest, “the way an issue is framed in the news media can have an influence on
the way that it is perceived by the audience” (p. 90). In other words, how messages are conveyed by
the media affects audience perceptions of the importance, or lack thereof, of an issue. This
framework supports the idea that fashion magazines can influence buyer behavior and consumer
perceptions of sustainable fashion, thus potentially narrowing the attitude-behavior gap.
Framing theory was first postulated by Gregory Bateson in 1972 in cognitive psychology
research (Arowolo, 2017), and further conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1974 for the purpose
of communication studies (Ardèvol-Abreu, 2015). According to scholars, “Goffman refers to a
frame as a social framework and as a mental schema that allows users to organize experiences”
(Ardèvol-Abreu, 2015, p. 428). Betts (2016) suggests, Goffman considered framing analysis an
interpersonal theory allowing an individual to make better sense of the world around them. Entman
(2007), suggests that frames “introduce or raise the salience or apparent importance of certain ideas,
activating schemas that encourage target audiences to think, feel, and decide in a particular way” (p.
164). Thus, the salient nature of frames shapes an audience's perception of what’s important in
media coverage.
Therefore, framing theory will be applied to examine what kinds of messages about
sustainability are reaching Refinery29 and Vogue’s audience. First, by using a content analysis
methodology to explore coverage over three time periods. Additionally, this study builds upon
previous literature by exploring concepts eco-chic and triple bottom line, operationalizing these
concepts as frames. Finally, the author examines tone to ascertain the positive, negative and neutral
balance of sustainable fashion coverage.
Eco-chic frame
The eco-chic frame is defined as coverage that is trend-oriented, encouraging the
consumption of new environmentally-conscious fashion goods that are tailored to the upper class
(Lundahl, 2014). Other scholars conceptualize eco-chic as: “a combination of lifestyle politics,
environmentalism, spirituality, beauty, and health, combined with a call to return to simple living”
(Barendgret & Jaffe, 2014, p.1). While this definition is seemingly a wholesome way of
consumption, scholars suggest eco-chic works to connect “the fields of ethical, sustainable, and
elite consumption” (Barendgret & Jaffe, 2014, p.1). Scholars note that purchasing organic locally
grown food, sustainable fashion, and partaking in eco-travel are a means of consumers adhering to
class distinctions (Barendgret & Jaffe, 2014). Therefore, eco-chic consumers may be considered
less interested in sustainable consumption, as they are interested in presenting their affluence and
political affiliation through their clothing (Barendgret & Jaffe, 2014).
Additionally, scholars suggest that eco-chic as a concept includes conscious or unconscious
mentions of celebrities or aristocrats (Berendgret & Jaffe, 2014). Scholar Lundahl (2014) who
conceptualized the eco-chic frame, suggests that celebrities, like A-list Hollywood stars, are now
considered major promoters of sustainable practices. The promotion of sustainable practices by
celebrities includes sustainable fashion acquisition. Scholarly work suggests celebrities are
considered fashion opinion leaders, meaning they represent “a significant target market with high
sales potential for the fashion marketer and furthermore, beyond their individual purchase capacity,
they represent important change agents in disseminating fashion information to others during the
fashion season” (Weisfeld-Spolter & Thakkar, 2011, p. 137). Scholars Mckeown and Shearer
(2019) researched the effects of celebrity endorsement of sustainable fashion brands, finding the use
of a celebrity endorsement heightens a consumer’s awareness of the environmental issues within
the fashion industry, but consumer barriers such as price and accessibility hinders a consumer's
ability to purchase sustainable fashion. Thus, the eco-chic frame encompasses elite fashion
spending, which therefore means coverage in this frame may highlight how celebrities and
aristocrats participate in sustainable fashion acquisition.
Scholarship suggests the eco-chic frame manifests in three ways: by using ambiguous
abstract language when covering sustainable fashion, by persuading consumption of eco-products
combining eco-consumption with achieving beauty inside and out, and by emphasizing there is a
superior level of taste gained through sustainable fashion acquisition (Lundahl, 2014). To exemplify
eco-chic framing in media coverage, Vogue (2021) published a piece on reusable designer water
bottles, stating “If you haven’t already, it’s time to say so long to single-use plastics and opt for a
reusable water bottle.” The most expensive water bottle referenced in the article is made by the
brand Fendi costing $770, meaning there is a level of wealth required to obtain the eco-friendly
reusable bottles listed in Vogue’s coverage.
Since eco-chic combines concepts of spirituality, beauty, and health, this frame suggests
sustainable fashion acquisition lends itself to inner and outer beauty by stating things like, “nature
power–eco beauty products for the spring pampering of the body and for maintaining inner peace”
(Lundahl, 2014, p. 344). This concept has a seemingly holistic message, as sustainability and
personal wellness are words with positive connotations. Additionally, these concepts are not
mutually exclusive from each other, as Lygnou (n.a.) suggests sustainability and personal wellness
are linked and complete each other. Pfizer (n.a.) defines wellness as “the act of practicing healthy
habits on a daily basis to attain better physical and mental health outcomes, so that instead of just
surviving, you’re thriving.” However, under capitalism, ‘wellness’ has been commodified, and the
fashion industry has cashed in. According to Tolentino (2019), the wellness movement has led
consumers to “always be optimizing” (p. 82). Tolentino (2019) argues the optimization marketing
disproportionately impacts women, shaping the modern ideal women as one who “steps into a
stratum of expensive juices, boutique exercise classes, skin-care routines, and vacations,” and does
so, in expensive athletic wear shaping the narrative that a protagonist woman heavily invests in self-
care. Tolentino (2019) states, “women attribute implicit moral value to the day-to-day efforts of
improving their looks, and failing to meet the beauty standard is framed as not a local or partial
failure, but a failure of the self”’ (p. 79). With this, the athleisure market has spiked, worth $97
billion in 2016 (Tolentino, 2019). Therefore, eco-chic framing blending elite spending and personal
wellness, through a sustainable lens, works to disguise unnecessary consumption as self-
improvement.
While this frame suggests the movement towards simple living, messages in this frame do
not encourage less consumption, nor do they effectively inform the audience about the
consequences of fashion consumption. One way to encourage consumption is to make consumption
easier by including links to fashion products in an article. Coverage in this frame will
disproportionately cover luxury sustainable fashion. Past research found this frame present in all
articles they examined in three Finnish magazines (Lundahl, 2014).
Triple bottom line frame
As illustrated in the definition of sustainable fashion, truly sustainable brands will embody
the triple bottom line, which aims to value people, profit, and the planet equally (Pagell &
Shevchenko, 2014). The conceptualization of modern sustainability, first published by the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986, signifies the triple bottom
line framework as being composed of three dimensions (Park & Kim, 2016). First, the
environmental dimension emphasizes the businesses aim to do the least harm to natural resources
by limiting resource depletion and environmental degradation (Park & Kim, 2016). Next, the
economic dimension suggests the business will earn enough profits to stay afloat, ensuring long
term employment (Park & Kim, 2016). Finally, the social dimension works to establish the well-
being of workers with regards to working conditions and wages (Park & Kim, 2016).
Patagonia is one of the main brands that differentiates itself from other brands by
embodying this business model. Scholars suggest Patagonia aims to reject “any taint of ‘fashion’
and they would prefer to be seen as creating eco-dress, that is, clothing that does the job with the
least damage” (Hepburn, 2013, p. 641). Patagonia has set a trend of advertising less or using
nontraditional means to promote their products. According to The Harvard Business Review
(2012), Patagonia ran an ad in The New York Times during Black Friday sales which stated, “Don’t
Buy This Jacket.” Patagonia (n.a) responded to this ad stating:
“Everything we make takes something from the planet we can’t give back. Each piece of
Patagonia clothing, whether or not it’s organic or uses recycled materials, emits several
times its weight in greenhouse gasses, generates at least another half garment’s worth of
scrap, and draws down copious amounts of freshwater now growing scarce everywhere on
the planet.”
With this, Patagonia detailed how they aim to be environmentally sustainable, but could never be
perfectly sustainable selling new clothing under a capitalist system. Patagonia (n.a.) goes on to state
they are a growing business, opening new store fronts, aiming to offer long term employment, while
producing clothing as sustainably as possible, thus adopting the triple bottom line framework. It’s
also worth noting Patagonia also encourages the consumer to buy less and buy better, as illustrated
through their “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign.
Secondhand consumption may also be highlighted in this framework, as secondhand
clothing is more environmentally, financially, and socially responsible than newly produced
fashion. Beyond the positive environmental impacts of this clothing acquisition method, the
secondhand market is growing exponentially, projected to triple in value in the next 10 years,
reaching $89 billion in the US alone by 2029 (Khusainova, 2021). This economic longevity speaks
to the financial element of the triple bottom line. In addition, secondhand clothing can be sold by
consumers themselves on sites like eBay, Depop, Poshmark, and more, speaking to the social
welfare element in the triple bottom line framework, as consumers can now operate as retailers
setting the price of their merchandise; meaning, secondhand retailers control their working
conditions.
This frame is the antithesis of the eco-chic frame, by considering the clothing acquisition of
middle-to-lower class consumers (Svensson et al., 2018). The triple bottom line frame in this study
uses less abstraction, clearly defining how much more sustainable the production system is in
comparison to others, and or, the coverage will work to signify a multi-step approach a brand is
taking to be more sustainable by explicitly stating nuanced lateral processes a brand is
implementing. This distinction is important, as few brands embody the triple bottom line
framework and no brand is truly sustainable. Abstraction is defined as, “the act of considering
something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or
actual instances” (Dictionary, 2021). In other words, this frame incorporates direct impacts the
fashion industry has on the environment and workers in their sustainable fashion coverage.
Tone
While assessing framing, this research will also examine the overall tone of the coverage.
Scholarship defines tone as “the attitude of the media within a story that uses words and imagery to
create a desired emotion” (Betts, 2016, p. 32). Tones will be coded by positive, negative, or neutral.
Positive tone in this content will include discourse that is ultimately optimistic about the future of
fashion sustainability, championing even the most minimal efforts. Negative tone in this context
will include discourse covering the consequences of the fashion industry. Neutral tone will refer to
coverage with neither a positive nor negative connotation.
Since Vogue defines their purpose as “always leading readers to what will happen next”
(Condè Nast, 2021), while defining the “culture of fashion” for the audience, Vogue therefore
seemingly has more of an obligation to the brands they partner with than encouraging sustainable
consumption and practices. By always leading the reader to what will happen next, the discourse
encourages a consumer's next purchase. What’s next is often what’s new. Past research suggests
Vogue’s sustainable fashion coverage was overwhelmingly optimistic (Jones & Hawley, 2016).
Researchers found that Vogue’s positive tone suggests that eco-products are presented as “less bad”
than other options on the market ” (Jones & Hawley, 2016, p. 296), thus further encouraging
unnecessary consumption.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
As previously mentioned, Vogue and Refinery29 share a common demographic being
millennial women interested in fashion, however the two publications have very different purposes
behind their coverage. While there is a rather dense amount of scholarly works on Vogue,
Refinery29 has not gotten much attention from scholars, making them a publication of interest in
this work. As Refinery29 considered themselves a team of researchers, and has been defined in the
literature as balanced journalism, this research seeks to better understand if this is concurrent with
the way they frame their sustainable fashion coverage. With the contrasting purposes of these
publications, coupled with similar content and demographics, the following research question is
presented:
RQ1: What are the most commonly occurring sustainable fashion frames in Vogue and Refinery29?
Additionally, scholars found that COVID-19 lockdowns led to a significant decline in
fashion consumption. However, while consumption overall may have gone down, fast fashion
brands may have ramped up their merchandise assortment to drive consumer demand, pushing
further away from sustainability. With this in mind, the following research questions is presented:
RQ2: Does sustainable fashion coverage in Vogue and Refinery29 change after COVID-19?
Past literature has suggested that the price of sustainable fashion is a known barrier leading
to the attitude-behavior gap. The seminal work that conceptualized the eco-chic frame, which
upholds the notion that sustainable fashion acquisition is for the upper class, found it present in
every article they sampled in their content analysis of three women’s Finnish magazines, Kakplus,
Eeva, and Anna (Lundahl, 2014), leading to the following hypothesis:
H1: The eco-chic frame will be the most used frame.
Jones and Hawley (2016) found that Vogue’s tone surrounding sustainable fashion coverage
was mostly positive. With this in mind, and given the details of how Refinery29 and Vogue
stylistically differ, the following hypothesis is presented below:
H2: Vogue’s tone will be more positive than Refinery29.
CHAPTER 4: METHOD
As the result of mounting evidence clarifying how harmful the fashion industry is to the
environment and garment workers, sustainable fashion coverage in the media has begun to gain the
attention of scholars. As a result, this study builds on past research that explored sustainable
fashion coverage in media by performing a content analysis and using framing theory, while
examining Vogue and Refinery29’s sustainable fashion coverage.
Abdullah (2018) indicates that the content analysis method dates to 1952, when scholar
Berelson produced seminal work defining content analysis “as a research technique for the
objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (p.
25). A more recent definition suggests content analysis examines “important characteristics of
communication messages, trends in communication messages, and relationships between
communication messages and people’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors” (Zhou & Sloan, 2015, p.
136). In other words, this method provides the opportunity to systematically and quantitatively
analyze communication messages (Zhou & Sloan, 2015). Or, as Neuendorf (2002) states, content
analysis allows a researcher to summarize what is present in coverage, rather than reporting “all the
details concerning a message set” (p. 15). For this reason, it provides an appropriate methodological
approach for this study that examines the frequency of frames, dominant frame, and tone in media
coverage related to sustainable fashion.
According to Slakoff (2013), “Content analysis can be viewed “as a ‘survey’ of some documents
or other records of prior communication,” and it allows for the in-depth exploration of both latent
and manifest content” (p. 26). Stated another way, exploring manifest content allows for an
observation of texts on the surface, and latent content allows for an in-depth observation of what
the texts mean (Slakoff, 2013). Content analysis differs from other kinds of methodologies because
this method should meet the standards of the scientific method (Neundendorf, 2002). Thus, the
author will demonstrate “concern for objectivity-intersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability,
validity, generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing” (Abdullah, 2018, p. 25), all
hallmarks of content analysis.
Sample Selection
The sample frame for this study was compiled by searching “sustainable” in Refinery29 and
Vogue’s search tab. With this, Vogue yielded over 1,600 stories under the search tab, and
Refinery29 yielded approximately 300 stories. Given the vast amount of Vogue articles and the
significantly smaller number of Refinery29 articles, the sample compilation of Vogue articles was
larger than the compilation of Refinery29 articles, which will be addressed in the limitation portion
of this manuscript.
The compilation of the sample frame depended on an essential aspect of this study, which
measured whether COVID-19 affects sustainable fashion coverage. According to The Center of
Disease Control and Prevention (2020), it is hypothesized that the first case of COVID-19 in the
United States was on January 15, 2020, when a man traveled from Wuhan, China to Seattle,
Washington, and became ill four days later. However, COVID-19 wasn’t declared a pandemic by
the World Health Organization until March of 2020, and lockdowns across the US didn't officially
start until April 2020 (Katella, 2021). According to Dean (2020), between April and May of 2020,
brands began canceling orders from their manufacturers. As a result, according to Ilichi (2020),
Centric Brands, Brooks Brothers, J.C Penny, J. Crew, Neiman Marcus, and more filed for
bankruptcy in the summer months of 2020. When vaccinations rolled out in 2021, retailers noticed
a shift in how consumers were buying apparel, switching from loungewear to going-out ensembles,
making this time period informally known as “Hot Vax Summer,” which has been compared to the
roaring 20’s (Hartmans, 2021). Therefore, to measure if coverage is affected by the emergence of
COVID-19, the sample was split into three periods, consisting of articles from summer months
(May to August) over the years: 2019 (pre-COVID), 2020 (COVID lockdowns), and 2021 (How
Vax Summer).
During the compilation process, omissions were necessary to ensure the coverage was
reporting on fashion-related issues. Vogue’s online platform displays the section the article would
fall in; to assure content is related to fashion content, articles categorized as “fashion,” “runway,”
“designer,” “celebrity style,” “voices of Vogue,” “denim” and “magazine” were compiled as part of
the sample frame. Articles categorized as “beauty,” “wedding,” “travel,” “food,” “sponsored
content,” and “home” were excluded from the sample frame. The same process of limiting the
sample compilation to include articles pertaining to fashion was taken for Refinery29.
As a result, 198 Vogue articles and 37 Refinery29 articles were compiled.
Table 1
Selection of sample by time period
Publication 2021 2020 2019 Total
Vogue 81 92 25 198
Refinery29 13 18 6 37
Total 94 110 31 235
The compilation of Vogue articles from 2019 was truncated, as the compiling of articles
from 2019 proved inaccessible. To contextualize, during the sample compilation of that time period,
Vogue’s website crashed, froze, and reset countless times over the duration of three weeks. The
researcher decided the truncation of the time period would not take away from the data analysis, as
the sample for Refinery29 in 2019 was also significantly smaller than the rest of the Refinery29
sample. To reiterate, the purpose of this study, in part, is to compare Vogue’s sustainable fashion
with Refinery29’s; therefore, both samples from 2019 are robust enough to do just that. The
truncation of Vogue’s (2019) sample will be further clarified in the limitations section of this
manuscript.
Coding Procedure
The unit of analysis for this study was the full article. To answer the RQs and explore the
research hypotheses, the author used a binary measure to indicate the presence or absence (1=
present, 0=not present) of each frame in each article in the sample. Then, the author coded for the
dominant frame, which is defined as “the predominant, or most frequently mentioned theme or
central organizing idea within the article” (Colistra & Johnson, 2019, p. 98). With this, only one
frame of the two could have been selected as a dominant frame. This stage required that the author
read each article in its entirety to properly gain an understanding for the overarching theme. In
addition to coding two frames, the tone of the coverage was also coded (1= positive, 2=negative,
0=neutral). The coding procedure also categorized the date the article was published, as well as
which publication the article came from. Each frame is operationalized below. The full code book
with coding instructions can be found in Appendix B.
Operationalization of Variables
The literature indicates that a frame is “a certain pattern in a given text that is composed of
several elements” (Matthes & Kohring, 2008, p. 263). To this end, this study used the following
operational definitions to remove subjectivity in the identification of patterns in the text that reflect
each frame.
The eco-chic frame is defined as eco-consumption that is trend-oriented, encouraging the
consumption of new products (Lundahl, 2014). It combines elite spending power with sustainable
fashion acquisition (Barendgret & Jaffe, 2014). This frame manifested in at least one of three ways:
by using ambiguous abstract language that fosters a perception that sustainable fashion acquisition
is for wealthy people, by encouraging consumption of eco-products to achieve beauty inside and
out, and also by emphasizing there is a superior level of taste gained through sustainable fashion
acquisition. Part of coding this frame required an understanding that a brand referenced is
considered a luxury brand. Therefore, the researcher compiled a list of luxury brands, sourced from
BusinessNES (2020), which can be found in Appendix A. If the coder suspected the brand
mentioned in the coverage is a luxury brand, but was not on the list, the coder looked at the brand’s
“About” page to see how the brand defines themselves. Coverage in this frame may also make it
easier for an audience to shop while reading the coverage by linking products in their articles.
The Triple bottom line frame highlighted a lateral process a brand took to achieve a more
sustainable system. The triple bottom line framework was composed of three dimensions
emphasizing the welfare of garment workers’ and the environment, while also highlighting
economic longevity. This frame was found when the coverage: clearly articulated the
environmental impacts of the fashion industry, mentioned the need for worker welfare, and or
touched on the economic state of sustainable brands. This frame was built from the
conceptualization of the triple bottom line from scholars Pagell and Shevchenko (2014). Coverage
did not need to include all three elements for the frame to be present. However, it needed to include
a multi-step approach process, and or articulates quantitative impacts the fashion industry has on
the environment.
Story Focus
Coders were instructed to account for the frames that make up the story, as well as coding
for the story focus. As the frames are multi-dimensional, the different elements were coded
separately to find what aspects of the frames were most commonly occurring. The story focuses,
stemming from the dimensions of the frames, are: celebrity/socialite/aristocrat sustainable fashion
acquisition, sustainability and wellness, luxury sustainable fashion, environmental welfare, worker
welfare, economic longevity, and other. Using “other” as a story focus allowed the coder to account
for articles that were not made up of the aforementioned foci, or articles that combine multiple story
foci that could not be pulled apart to account for one story foci. See codebook for more instructions.
Dominant frame
In addition to coding for the presence or absence of frames, the researcher also coded the
dominant frame. Scholars have defined the dominant frame as the selection of one frame that best
captures the overarching theme of the coverage (Betts, 2016). While the first part of this study
allowed for the presence of multiple frames, the author also wanted to determine the primary focus
of each article. Thus, to code for the dominant frame, the coders read the article in its entirety and
indicate the frame that best represented the coverage.
Tone
Tone of coverage was also measured in this study. Tone was coded positive, negative, or
neutral. To get a sense of tone it was necessary to read the entire article. Positive tone in this
context referred to coverage that was overly optimistic about the fashion industry’s contribution to
sustainable innovation. Negative tone in coverage referred to articles that clearly signified the
fashion industry's environmental degradation. Neutral tone was coded as balanced between positive
and negative coverage that clearly signified the fashion’s impact on the environment, but positively
reported on sustainable innovation in the same article.
Inter-coder Reliability
Content analysis should establish objective results, meaning it’s necessary to produce
reliability (Villa, 2015). Inter-coder reliability is an essential component of content analysis
imitating the scientific method, as inter-coder reliability allows replicability (Zhou & Sloan, 2015).
To accomplish this, the researcher and an independent coder performed the analysis process,
measuring whether the author and the coder reach the same or similar conclusions. According to
scholarship, inter-coder reliability is a “widely used term for the extent to which independent coders
evaluate a characteristic of a message or artifact and reach the same conclusion” (Villa, 2015, p.
33). Therefore, to achieve inter-coder reliability, 20% of articles from each sample were coded.
Random sampling was used to select the 20% of articles for the independent graduate student to
code, following the steps of past scholarship (Betts, 2016).
The Krippendorff alpha statistic was used to measure reliability, using SPSS software.
According to Villa (2015), “Krippendorff’s alpha is a reliability measure created by Klaus
Krippendorff to establish how reliable the analysis for each variable is, the reliability scale runs
from 0 to 1” (p. 32). The closer the reliability score is to 1, the closer the agreement is between the
two coders (Villa, 2015). Krippendorf’s alpha was used because it works to “provide a single
reliability coefficient for each variable across coders simultaneously” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 161).
The level of agreement should not be under 0.70, as past scholars have defined acceptable KA
range as 0.7 or higher (Song et al., 2020).
Intercoder reliability was achieved by talking through disagreements, while adding written
clarifications to conceptual and operational definitions in the codebook. Therefore, after three
rounds of coding, the level of agreement was 0.825, signifying agreement between the two coders.
The level of agreement ranged from 0.70 to 1.
Data analysis
Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics were used to test the first
hypothesis in this study, which sought to understand which frames occurred most frequently. Chi-
square was used to explore the research questions, looking at the presence of frames comparatively
in Vogue and Refinery29, differences by time period, and to test the second hypothesis, comparing
Vogue and Refinery29’s tone.
Specifically, the frequency of the frames were counted using descriptive statistics.
Descriptive statistics provided a measurement for nominal level data, finding the mode, or most
occurring frame. Chi-square was used to measure if there was a significant relationship between the
framing of the two magazines and the two time periods. Chi-square testing is a bivariate analysis
involving crosstabulation, “in which the occurrences of attributes on one variable are tabulated
across, or are said to be contingent on, the attributes of a second variable” (Zhou & Sloan, 2015, p.
214). Chi-square is defined as a “test of how the distributions of categorical variables differ from
each other” (Brittan, 2013, p. 608). The University of Southampton (n.a) defines the purpose of chi-
square testing as determining if “a difference between observed data and expected data is due to
chance, or if it is due to a relationship between the variables you are studying” This statistic
requires that “no more than 20 percent of cell frequencies may be less than five” (Brittan, 2013, p.
603). To determine the significance of the tested relationship, the p-value of .05 was used, which is
the conventional level found in literature (Zhou & Sloan, 2015).
Hence, descriptive statistics were used to test the first hypotheses, and the frequency of story
foci. Chi-square was used to answer research questions, and to test the second hypothesis.
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS
This content analysis analyzed the framing of sustainable fashion coverage in two
publications, Refinery29 and Vogue, measuring if there was a significant difference in the framing
of the two publications, and whether the framing changed before and after the emergence of
COVID-19. This research also sought to understand which of the frames were most frequently
occurring across publications. Additionally, this research measures the overarching tone of the
sustainable fashion coverage in both magazines, and the frequency of story foci across publications,
adding additional layers of depth to the analysis.
The sample compilation for Vogue yielded more articles than Refinery29. However, 28
articles from Vogue and one article from Refinery29 were omitted from the final analysis, as the
researcher found neither frame present in the coding process. The omitted articles were discussed
when establishing intercoder reliability; both the researcher and the outside coder agreed that the
frames were not present. Articles from Vogue that were omitted touched on race relations and body
inclusivity, without referencing sustainability in any way; or upon closer look, they did not fit in the
designated time frames. Omissions were also necessary for a portion of coverage in Vogue that
discussed senior thesis collections whereby students constructed multiple garments to complete
their class requirements. Vogue interviewed the top graduates on their process and what they hope
to change in the fashion industry post-graduation. Coverage of this nature made up less than 4%
(n=8) of the total sample. The researcher concluded that the omission of these kinds of articles was
necessary, as there was no way for eco-chic to be present if the coverage could not encourage
consumption of clothing that is not on the market; triple bottom line could not be present, as the
students do not have access to the resources to establish a systematic approach to tackling
sustainability. Therefore, Vogue made up 83% of the sample (n=170), whereas Refinery29 made up
17% (n=36).
Descriptive statistics and chi-squares tests were used to analyze the data, depending on the
nature of the research questions and hypotheses. The data was analyzed using SPSS software.
RQ1: What are the most commonly occurring sustainable fashion frames in Vogue and
Refinery29?
To answer the first research question, both the presence of frames and the dominant frame
were analyzed, using chi-square statistics to test for statistical significance. First, a chi-square test
was used to analyze if there was a statistically significant difference between the presence of frames
in both publications. The p-value 0.05 was used to determine if the difference was statistically
significant, which is the typical p-value used in social science scholarship (Zhou & Sloan, 2015). In
other words, p-values less than 0.05 will indicate statistical significance. As previously mentioned,
initial coding allows for the presence of more than one frame, so the percentages add up to be more
than 100%. With this, the findings indicate a significant difference in the framing by publication
type for eco-chic (𝑥2 =4.267, p=0.039) and triple bottom line (𝑥2=3.736, p=0.053). In Vogue, eco-
chic was present 89.4% (n=152) of the time, and triple bottom line was present in 58.8% (n=100) of
the sample. In Refinery29, eco-chic was present 76.5% (n=26) of the time, and triple bottom line
was also present 76.5% (n=26) of the time.
Table 2
Frames used by each publication
Publication Vogue Refinery29 Total
Eco-chic* 89.4%
(n=152)
76.5%
(n=26)
87.3%
(n=178)
Triple Bottom Line** 58.8%
(n=100)
76.5%
(n=26)
61.8%
(n=126)
*𝑥2 =4.267, p=0.039; **𝑥2=3.736, p=0.053
Additionally, the findings suggest that there is a significant difference in dominant framing
of the two publications, (𝑥2=6.662, p=.010), as shown in Table 3. More specifically, eco-chic was
the most occuring dominant frame in Vogue, occurring 70% (n=119) of the time; the triple bottom
line was the dominant frame 30% (n=51) of the time. However, the triple bottom line was the most
commonly occurring dominant frame in Refinery29, occurring 52.9% (n=18) of the time. Eco-chic
was the dominant frame in Refinery 29 47.1% (n=16) of the time.
Table 3
Dominant Framing in Vogue and Refinery29
Frames Vogue Refinery29 Total
Eco-chic 70%
(n=119)
47.1
(n=16)
66.2%
(n=135)
Triple Bottom
Line
30%
(n=51)
52.9%
(n=18)
33.8%
(n=69)
𝑥2=6.662, p=.010
RQ2: Does sustainable fashion coverage in Vogue and Refinery29 change after COVID-19?
A chi-square test was also conducted to analyze if the sustainable fashion frames changed
over time, before and after the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020. The sample was split into three
time periods, consisting of a sample compilation from the summer months (May-August) over three
years: 2019, 2020, and 2021. The first time frame, 2019, made up 15.1% (n=31) of the sample, the
second time frame, 2020, made up 46.1% (n=94), and the third time frame, 2021, made up 38.7%
(n=82) of the sample.
The results suggest that there was no statistically significant difference in the framing over
time (shown in Table 4). Across all three time periods, eco-chic was the most frequently coded
frame (𝑥2= 4.000, p= 0.135). The chi-square test also indicated that triple bottom line was not
significantly different when compared by time periods (𝑥2= 0.783, p=0.676).
Table 4
Framing over time
Frame 2019 2020 2021 Total
Eco-chic* 13.7%
(n=24)
39.2%
(n=80)
34.3%
(n=70)
87.3%
(n=178)
Triple Bottom
Line**
9.8%
(n=20)
29.9%
(n=61)
22.1%
(n=45)
61.8%
(n=126)
𝑥2*= 4.000, p= 0.135; 𝑥2**= 0.783, p=0.676
However, it can be said that the presence of both frames rose substantially from 2019 to 2020. This
could be because there were fewer articles from 2019 compiled into the sample, due to either lack
of access, in the case of Vogue, or because there was not very much coverage on sustainable fashion
from that time period, in the case of Refinery29. It is worth noting, when compiling a sample of
Refinery29’s sustainable fashion coverage, the amount of sustainability coverage from 2019 to 2020
tripled from 6 articles (2019) to 18 articles (2020). Therefore, it does appear that sustainability in
fashion was more prevalent in Refinery29 after 2019. The same analysis cannot be a consideration
for Vogue, as the researcher did not have access to the entire sample from 2019.
H1: The eco-chic frame will be the most commonly used frame.
To test the first hypothesis, descriptive statistics were used to measure which frame most
frequently occurred in the total sample. The results suggest that eco-chic was the most commonly
occurring frame, present 87.6% of the time (n=178). Additionally, the eco-chic frame was the most
commonly occurring dominant frame, present 66.2% (n=135) of the time. The triple bottom line
frame was present 61.8% (n=126) of the time and was found to be the dominant frame 33.8%
(n=69) of the time. Thus, the first hypothesis is supported.
H2: Vogue’s tone will be more positive than Refinery29
To compare Vogue and Refinery29’s tone, a chi-square test was conducted. The findings
suggest that Vogue’s tone is not significantly more positive than Refinery29’s, (𝑥2=1.662;
p=0.463). Both Vogue and Refinery29’s tone was positive disproportionately more frequently than
it was negative or neutral. Vogue’s tone was positive 83.5% (n=142) of the time; Refinery29’s tone
was positive 82.4% (n=28) of the time. However, Vogue’s tone was negative more frequently than
Refinery29’s, as the presence of negative tone in Vogue occurred 3.5% (n=6); of the time, whereas
the findings suggest Refinery29’s tone was negative 0% (n=0) of the time, as shown in Table 5.
Therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected.
Table 5
Comparison of tone by publication
Tone Negative Neutral Positive Total
Vogue 3.5%
(n=6)
12.9%
(n=22)
83.5%
(n=142)
83.3%
(n=170)
Refinery29 0% 17.6% 82.4% 16.7%
( n=0) (n=6) (n=28) (n=36)
𝑥2=1.662; p=0.463
Story Foci
As the frames are multi-dimensional, story foci were measured to analyze which elements of
the frames occurred most frequently. Hence, the researcher developed a post-hoc analysis intended
to add nuance and depth to the understanding of sustainable fashion coverage. First, descriptive
statistics were used to analyze which of the story foci were most frequently occurring in both
publications. Overall, out of the seven story foci, environmental welfare and other were the most
commonly occurring story foci across publications, both equally making up 26.5% (n=54) of the
total sample; luxury was the second most occurring story foci, making up 22.5% (n=46) of the total
sample. Celebrity made up 14.2% (n=29), wellness contributed to 4.5% (n=10), worker welfare
made up 2.9% (n=6), and economic longevity made up 2.5% (n=5), of the total sample. Therefore,
the element of the triple bottom line, environmental welfare, was covered more frequently in the
media coverage than any other dimension of that frame. Whereas luxury was the element of eco-
chic that occurred most frequently.
Additionally, chi-square statistics were used to compare story focus and the publications
(See Table 6). The findings indicate that there is a significant difference when comparing story foci
by publication (𝑥2=27.993, p=0.001). The most common story focuses in Vogue were luxury
(21.6%, n=44), other (28.8%, n= 49), environmental welfare (21.2%, n= 36), and celebrity
sustainable acquisition (15.9%, n=27). Whereas, the most common story focus in Refinery29 was
environmental, occurring 52.9% (n=18) of the time and other occurring 14.7% (n=5) of the time.
The story foci other consisted of coverage that did not overarching represent any of the six story
focuses, or the coverage represented a cluster of story focuses that were deeply intertwined and
could not be pulled apart to represent one focus. For example, one coded Vogue article “Can a
Closet Cleanse Change Your Life? In Lockdown, One Writer Takes the Plunge” detailed the
writer's closet clean out process, stating “Obviously, the most sustainable item in your closet is a
piece you already own” (Elwick-Bates, 2020). However, the article only mentions sustainability
once, and focuses more on cleaning; therefore, it was coded as “other.”
Table 6
Frequency of story focus by publication
Story Foci Environment Worker Economic Celebrity Luxury Wellness Other Total
Vogue
(n=36)
2.9%
(n=5
)
1.2%
(n=2
)
15.9% (n=27) 25.9
%
(n=44)
4.1%
(n=7
)
28.8%
(n=49
)
100%
(n=170
)
Refinery29
(n=18)
2.9%
(n=1
)
8.8%
(n=3
)
5.9% (n=2) 5.9%
(n=2)
8.8%
(n=3
)
14.7%
(n=5)
100%
(n=36)
𝑥2= 27.993,
p=0.001
Vogue’s coverage was more likely to cover fashion sustainability with an emphasis on
luxury and celebrity sustainable acquisition, than Refinery29. Over half of Refinery29 coverage
focused on environmental welfare with 52.9% (n=18) of stories including this focus. Conversely,
environmental welfare was the story focus in Vogue’s coverage 21.2% (n=36) of the time. Hence,
Refinery29 emphasized environmental welfare at a higher percentage than any other story focus,
and the publication emphasized environmental welfare at a higher percentage than any other story
focus emphasized in Vogue.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS
This study was conducted to better understand how Vogue and Refinery29 frame their
sustainable fashion content, measuring if these publications take different approaches to framing
their coverage, and if that framing changed after the emergence of COVID-19. The purpose for
exploring the framing of sustainable fashion in media, was in part, due to the egregious
environmental and social impact of the fashion industry. Scholars have suggested the fashion
industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world (Karaosman et al., 2017). Additionally,
the literature suggests that the fashion industry is a trillion-dollar industry, where only one percent
of garment production is reportedly made ethically (Phau et al., 2015). The fashion industry’s lack
of empathy for garment workers has led to catastrophic events like the Rana Plaza retail and apparel
manufacturing complex collapse, which resulted in over 1,000 deaths (Thomas, 2018). Despite
these issues, scholars also suggest there is an attitude-behavior gap whereby a consumer's
awareness of fashion related issues does not change their buyer behavior (McKeown & Shearer,
2019), sparking the interest in researching how sustainable fashion is covered in fashion magazines.
This study fills a gap in the literature in a couple of ways. First, the researcher found no
evidence of research comparing Refinery29 and Vogue, fashion publications with overlapping
demographics, different purposes, that have remained relevant despite the rise in fashion influencers
on social media. The most significant contribution this study provided in addressing the gap in the
literature is by measuring how sustainable fashion coverage could have changed overtime with the
emergence of COVID-19.
Additionally, the researcher applied framing theory to the concepts eco-chic and triple
bottom line, measuring the frequency of the frames and dominant framing, found in the
aforementioned publications sustainable fashion coverage. The use of these frames expands framing
research, as the eco-chic was only operationalized in one known study prior to this. Therefore, this
frame, rich in multifaceted ways, received limited attention from previous scholars. Future scholars
can therefore adopt the eco-chic framework in future studies. While the concept of the triple bottom
line has been heavily investigated in scholarship, the researcher found no evidence of the concept
triple bottom line operationalized as a frame for the purpose of fashion communications
scholarship. Therefore, the expansion of the use of these frames offers theoretical implications to
future scholars, who can build on the operational definitions in their future contributions to
academic literature. Additionally, as the frames are multi-dimensional, the researcher broke the
frames up into story foci to see which dimensions of the frames were most prominent and if the
story foci differed between the two publications. The researcher found no evidence that these
frames had been broken up into story foci, adding an additional layer of depth to this work's
expansion on framing research.
The findings suggest there is a difference in the way Refinery29 and Vogue cover
sustainable fashion. Past research found the eco-chic frame present in nearly every article from their
sample (Lundahl, 2017), which is consistent with the findings in this study. Eco-chic was present in
the majority of Vogue and Refinery29 articles coded in this study. However, eco-chic was found in
a greater percentage of Vogue articles than Refinery29. Additionally, the dominant framing differed
between the two publications. The most occurring dominant frame in Refinery29 was triple bottom
line, whereas the findings suggest that the dominant frame in Vogue most frequently occurring was
eco-chic. This finding is consistent with the goals of each publication. As previously mentioned,
Refinery29 has been defined in the literature as a publication showcasing balanced and thoughtful
journalism (Denisova, 2021), whereas Vogue has been considered “high fashion’s bible” (Somaiya,
2014). Therefore, Refinery29’s coverage was less ambiguous in their messages on sustainable
fashion; they were more likely to cover brands who have employed a multi-step lateral approach
towards sustainability, and they were less likely to report on sustainable fashion in a way that is
tailored to the upper-class. Of the 36 Refinery29 articles sampled, only two focused on luxury
brands, Gucci and The RealReal. It’s worth noting that The RealReal is a luxury consignment brand
(The RealReal, 2022), meaning it’s secondhand clothing at a lower price point than new luxury
commodities. To exemplify Refinery29’s use of indicating a multi-step lateral approach to
sustainable fashion, they wrote an article “What is a Zero Waste Brand?” stating:
“Unlike the catch-all "sustainability" bucket, zero-waste promotes a more focused way of
producing and living. As opposed to working toward the overarching goal of sustainability
— which could involve anything from switching to organic cotton to forsaking the use of
plastic bags, tags, and shipping materials — fashion businesses that are zero-waste have one
simple yet sweeping goal: to eliminate textile waste in every facet of production” (Huber,
2021).
The coverage informs their audience to be wary of a brand that capitalizes on being “sustainable,”
while highlighting brands who operate using a zero or low-waste approach to design and the steps
they took to do so.
In confluence with the differences in the framing of sustainable fashion, there was also a
difference in the story foci emphasized in the publications. Vogue’s coverage was significantly
more likely to cover fashion sustainability with an emphasis on luxury and celebrity sustainable
acquisition than Refinery29. This is an important distinction to make, as previously mentioned, one
aspect of the attitude-behavior gap is the perception that sustainable fashion is far more expensive
than traditional clothing (Cherradi & Tetik, 2020). It’s important to note that this perception is at
least somewhat grounded in reality. Gerdhart et al. (2020), suggests that sustainable products do
tend to be more expensive in comparison to traditional commodities. However, the perceived high
price of sustainable fashion goods is easily rendered when brands like Shein currently sell tops for
as low as $2.75 (Shein, 2022). Additionally, according to one Vogue article, “What’s the Right
Price for Fashion?” inform readers that the current low cost of fashion is only made possible by the
exploitation of garment workers (Farra, 2020). The coverage highlighted that garment production
requires a lot of resources and time consuming labor, from farming cellulose fibers, to
“pattern-making, sampling, trims, sewing, handwork, packaging, duties, shipping” (Farra, 2020).
The only reason a t-shirt can be sold for $5 is by underpaying the person who constructed it.
The literature suggests that fast fashion brands design for obsolescence, meaning top fast
fashion retailers like H&M and Zara sell items expected to be worn less than 10 times (Birtwhistle
& Moore, 2007). Therefore, fast fashion certainly costs less up front, but the garments are not built
to last; meaning consumers may have to buy more clothing, spending more money over time, in
order to meet their needs. It’s important to address that mass produced garments, sold for incredibly
cheap prices, are made possible by the exploitation of garment workers (Leach, 2020). Yet, as of
2022, 64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (Dickler, 2020), meaning they may have
to shop fast fashion out of necessity. Therefore, sustainable fashion coverage that works to promote
the consumption of luxury goods, highlighting celebrity sustainable acquisition, works to exclude
the majority of readers from participating in sustainable fashion.
Additionally, if coverage on sustainable fashion mainly focuses on the luxury sector's
contribution to eco-design, non-luxury sustainable brands are left out of the discourse; which also
works to widen the attitude-behavior gap. There are plenty of conscious brands that do not have
luxury price tags. Also, sustainable fashion practices can be achieved when consumers can purchase
secondhand clothing, buy less clothing, maintain their clothing at home, etc., all of which can be
done, for the most part, on a low budget. The coded coverage mentioned a few of these practices.
For example Huber (2020), wrote an article for Refinery29 about sustainable consumption stating,
“While buying from eco-friendly brands can help lessen the fashion industry’s impact on the
environment, the most sustainable way to shop is to buy clothes that already exist.” Yet, the
coverage mainly focused on sustainable fashion as a process a consumer needs to buy into.
In confluence with the aforementioned findings, Refinery29’s coverage focused
disproportionately on environmental welfare, making up more than half of the coded coverage.
Meaning, Refinery29 covered brands like Girlfriend Collective, PANGAIA, Zero-Waste Daniel, or
secondhand retailers, far more frequently than they covered luxury brands like Gucci. According to
Refinery29, PANGAIA’s line was made with “100% GOTS-certified organic cotton, natural dyes,
and a recycled water system” (Huber, 2020). Girlfriend Collective’s line referenced in Refinery29
was made with recycled water bottles, or biodegradable materials, and the garments can be sent
back to the brand once the consumer is done wearing it so that the brand can recycle the garments
through the ReGirlfriend program (Randone, 2021).
While environmental welfare was found in 56 articles, worker welfare was the story focus of
just six articles across the sample of 206 articles. This is a key finding especially when considering
the given time period sampled. As previously mentioned, COVID-19 lockdowns resulted in wage
theft for garment workers sparking a social media campaign #Payup (Brydges et al., 2020), which
would be relevant newsworthy information. This does not mean that the publications did not cover
the #Payup movement, or garment worker related issues; it was simply not found in a significant
portion of the sample from the time periods. It’s worth noting that Vogue’s coverage focused on
worker welfare at a higher percentage than Refinery29. For example, an article from Vogue “This
Hashtag Unlocked $15 Billion of Lost Wages Due to Canceled Orders From Gap, Levi’s, and Other
Brands'' stated, “Millions of garment workers lost their jobs and were never paid for the completed
orders that were ultimately canceled;” the article called out brands by name who didn’t pay their
workers until this social movement pressured them to do so (Bobb, 2020). However, both
Refinery29 and Vogue covered Zara 2020’s Sustainability pledge; Vogue championed Zara’s
environmental goals, while Refinery29 highlighted that workers’ were not mentioned in their
pledge. Hargrove (2019) suggested that Zara workers are timed when sewing garments, and that
consumers have found notes in their clothing at Zara retailers written by “disgruntled workers,” in
one of Refinery29’s coded articles.
Recent literature also suggested COVID-19 could be a catalyst to a slower more sustainable
fashion system (Brydges et al., 2020). Therefore, this study explored if there was a difference in the
framing compared to the time period. The findings suggest that coverage on sustainable fashion did
not change after the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, as the framing remained relatively consistent
across all three time periods. Yet, it is worth noting that the sample compilation of Refinery29
articles between the years 2019 to 2020 tripled in the amount. Therefore, there is some evidence
that sustainable fashion coverage, in Refinery29, was more prominent after the pandemic started.
The same consideration, as previously mentioned, cannot be considered for Vogue as the researcher
did not have access to the total number of articles from that time period.
Additionally, past scholars Jones & Hawley (2016) found that Vogue’s tone was positive the
majority of the time, consistent with the findings in this study. As an example of a positive tone,
one Vogue article stated, “these dresses are not only a mood lifter but a completely guilt-free
indulgence,” and linked the garment below (Lindley, 2020). However, it was hypothesized that
Vogue's tone would be more positive than Refinery29’s, which was rejected. Refinery29’s coverage
was also disproportionately positive. One key finding of this study was that Vogue’s coverage was
more negative than Refinery29, as negative tone was not present in any article in the coded
Refinery29 sample. For example, one Vogue article showcased disbelief for the fashion industry's
labeling of “sustainable” products stating, “Your supply chain is 100% organic? Show me. You say
you pay a living wage to your factory workers. Can you prove it? You claim to be aware of how
climate change affects the communities around you… but what are you doing to support them?”
(Farra, 2020). However, neutral coverage was found at a greater percentage in Refinery29 than
Vogue. Meaning, Refinery29 was more balanced in their coverage on the issues, in line with the
aforementioned scholarship stating the publication is balanced journalism.
Overall, the findings reveal that there was a significant difference in the ways the
publications Refinery29 and Vogue cover fashion sustainability. However, this study did not find
that the framing of sustainable fashion coverage changed significantly with the emergence of
COVID-19. Both publications described fashion’s contribution to sustainability with an
overwhelmingly positive tone, according to these media outlets, which works to suggest that the
fashion industry is moving in the right direction, free from criticisms of how the fashion industry
currently, or historically, conducts itself.
The fashion industry’s environmental impact is contributing vastly to the climate crisis. As
sea levels rise, weather patterns change, and landfills grow, it is important for both consumers and
the fashion industry to shift towards a more sustainable fashion system. Considering the challenges
the media has faced in climate change communication, this study may offer practical implications
for fashion journalists who aim to properly inform their audience about fashion sustainability.
Additionally, this study aims to demonstrate how price point of goods covered may affect
readership’s perception on their ability to participate in sustainable fashion acquisition; therefore,
fashion journalists should consider how exclusions can manifest with the nature of the brands they
cover. Lastly, fashion journalists should consider those affected by unsustainable fashion, garment
workers, as they were significantly glanced over in the media coverage observed in this study.
CHAPTER 6: LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
While this study is grounded in research, limitations still exist. The first limitation is that
this study is the first to operationalize the triple bottom line as a frame for fashion communication
scholarship. Therefore, this frame’s lack of grounding in academic scholarship makes the
operational nature of the frame more nebulous compared to the eco-chic frame. Yet, from what the
researcher observed, there was an absence of framing research embodying the nature of this study.
Still, the researcher looked to literature in order to operationalize the frame in a way that was
consistent with its conceptual definition.
Additionally, the eco-chic frame has not gained the attention of many scholars. Using these
concepts as frames in analysis of sustainable fashion coverage opens the door for future research,
however more scholarship investigating these concepts as frames would help to add to the
operationalizations in different contexts (e.g., fashion bloggers, social media discourse).
Second, this study is limited to magazines that are disproportionately read by women.
Therefore, this study could be considered as framing sustainable fashion as a burden that women
are suggested to fix; yet sustainable fashion cannot be considered a matter of personal
responsibility, since the fashion industry is one of the largest industries in the world. Meaning,
fashion sustainability is an institutional systemic problem that individuals can play a role in
bettering, but overall, should not be considered an issue of personal responsibility. Still, future
scholars can analyze how fashion sustainability is framed to a disproportionately male audience,
building off this study to assess the intersection of gender and sustainable fashion acquisition.
Additionally, using content analysis methodology allows the researchers to examine the
frequency of frames, but does not analyze the effects these frames have on the audience. Future
researchers may use survey, experiment or interview methodology to better understand how
sustainable fashion coverage in media affects its readers. Using qualitative interviews could provide
a richer understanding of individuals' perceptions of sustainable fashion coverage, and whether they
feel sustainable fashion is accessible to them given the contention of class issues raised in this
study. Further, interviews with publishers and editors could provide insight on how decisions are
made regarding sustainable fashion coverage. Future scholars may also be interested in doing a
content analysis of sustainable fashion coverage, analyzing the amount of advertising in the articles;
or, they could be interested in looking further into the price points of goods referenced in
sustainable fashion coverage.
Another limitation occurred when coding a brand as “luxury sustainable fashion,” as there’s
no finite definition of what constitutes a luxury brand. Therefore, this study was limited to looking
to see how a brand defined themselves, or if they were considered a luxury brand in the list found in
Appendix A.
Lastly, the sample size is a significant limitation of this study. As previously mentioned,
Vogue has disproportionately more sustainable fashion coverage than Refinery29, making the
comparison of coverage a challenge. Additionally, the Vogue 2019 sample was truncated, due to
lack of access to the media coverage from that time period. The researcher does not believed
truncated 2019 compilation impacted the findings, as the total sample compilation of Vogue articles
was robust enough; there was also a limited number of Refinery29 articles from 2019, and
truncating the 2019 compilation was the only solution in order to investigate how the publication
framed fashion sustainability before COVID-19. However, future scholars could assess if the
framing of sustainable fashion coverage in other publications changed overtime with the emergence
of COVID-19.
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
This research sought to understand how popular fashion magazines, Refinery29 and Vogue,
frame their sustainable fashion coverage, seeking to understand if these publications frame the issue
differently, and if the framing changed overtime with the emergence of COVID-19. This research
helps to build on framing research, by operationalizing the triple bottom line as a frame for
communication scholarship, and by operationalizing the eco-chic frame, which is a relatively new
framework that has not gained much attention from past scholars. The findings suggest that there is
a difference in the ways Vogue and Refinery29 frame fashion sustainability; yet the results found
that the framing did not change overtime with the emergence of COVID-19. Both publications were
overwhelmingly positive in their coverage of sustainable fashion. Meaning, rather than critically
analyzing the ways in which the fashion industry has contributed to environmental and social
issues, the publications mainly cheered on fashion brands for their efforts in the sustainable
movement. Future scholars can build from this framework to explore how the intersection of class
and gender play a role in one’s perception of sustainable fashion.
