Key takeaways
- Research does not support a simple division between ethical European shoppers and purely value-driven Chinese shoppers.
- A 2026 choice experiment surveyed 968 sustainability-engaged urban Chinese consumers; its five preference segments do not describe China’s entire population.
- A survey of 2,694 Italian consumers links environmental concern and perceived value to sustainable-fashion purchase intentions and willingness to pay.
- In both markets, claims have to work with real product desirability, price, trust, technical performance and evidence.
The most useful question for an international fashion business is not which market cares more about sustainability. It is which evidence, product attributes and forms of value persuade a particular consumer to act. National comparisons can suggest differences in language, trust and institutional context. They cannot substitute for understanding buying behaviour within a market.
The familiar argument — European consumers buy sustainable fashion for ethical reasons while Chinese consumers respond only when there is an added personal benefit — is too simple. Sustainability intentions and actual purchases diverge in many markets; price, quality, desire, status, brand credibility and the ability to verify claims interact in different ways. Recent research offers a more sophisticated account, particularly for China. [1][2][3]
Start with the evidence, not the stereotype
A 2026 study published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics examined the preferences of 968 sustainability-engaged urban consumers across five major Chinese cities. Using a discrete-choice experiment around sustainable T-shirts, researchers compared several attributes, including price, material, production method, brand, certification and social responsibility. Within this specific sample and research design, social responsibility had the strongest relationship with willingness to pay among the examined non-price sustainability-related attributes, followed by brand, certification and material; the production-method attribute had the weakest influence. [1]
The same study identified five preference-based segments: price-sensitive (30.3%), brand-oriented (25.6%), rational-pragmatic (20.1%), material-focused (16.7%) and socially responsibility-driven (7.2%). These are segment shares within the surveyed sample, not representative percentages for all Chinese fashion consumers. [1]
This finding matters because it counters two assumptions at once. Chinese demand is not indifferent to social responsibility; and the Chinese market is not a single sustainability audience. The commercial implication is not to repeat the same claim louder, but to align product, proof and storytelling with a defined segment.
A European market is not the same thing as a Western consumer
Europe comprises different retail systems, price structures, consumer generations and levels of familiarity with sustainability labels. The United States adds another regulatory and commercial context. Treating all of these as a single “Western consumer” makes international market strategy less precise.
A 2025 cross-country study of Portugal, Brazil and China found that favourable attitudes towards eco-fashion were a consistent predictor of willingness to pay a premium, with a particularly strong relationship in its Chinese subsample. The researchers also reported limitations, including demographic composition and the cross-sectional design. This is evidence against the claim that interest in environmental or ethical considerations belongs exclusively to Western markets. It is not proof of the same purchasing behaviour among all consumers in either region. [2]
Italian evidence adds an important European benchmark. Dangelico, Alvino and Fraccascia analysed survey responses from 2,694 consumers in Italy in a 2022 paper published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. The research associated both environmental concern and perceived product value with purchase intention and willingness to pay a premium for sustainable clothing. The influence of previous experience varied with the eco-material considered, reinforcing the need to look beyond broad nationality-based assumptions. This is evidence from Italy, not a representative claim about all European consumers. [5]
The 2025 Scientific Reports study by Cascavilla and colleagues provides an additional, product-specific test involving different versions of a leather bag with increasing circularity. Pro-social and pro-environmental preferences were associated with purchase intentions, while perceived production costs and material/visual quality influenced willingness to pay. The study also reported that a more visually polarising design could weaken the willingness to pay for otherwise circular products. This is a useful practical result, not evidence that all categories of fashion behave identically. [3]
Four factors that determine whether sustainability creates market value
1. Product quality must remain visible
Fashion is purchased for use, aesthetic attraction, fit, craftsmanship, comfort, status, belonging or a combination of these. An environmentally preferable material that weakens hand feel, appearance, construction stability or durability can damage the proposition it was meant to improve.
For luxury and premium brands, sustainability should be embedded in what makes a product desirable: a considered fibre choice, a construction that supports long use, thoughtful care and repair services, or a supply chain able to document material quality. The message becomes credible because it is consistent with the product itself.
2. Trust depends on specificity
A generic “responsibly made” statement is difficult to evaluate. A more useful disclosure identifies the material, its relevant characteristics, the scope of a certification or the evidence behind a stated manufacturing practice. Certification can offer reassurance, but its meaning depends on what is certified, by whom, and within which scope.
The EU's evolving Digital Product Passport framework is relevant because it may make certain product information more accessible and comparable for goods on the European market. A future DPP is not, by itself, an international consumer-trust seal or universal sustainability rating. [4]
3. Perceived value changes between segments
A price-sensitive customer may prioritise longevity per use, a low-maintenance garment and a convincing relationship between price and quality. A material-focused customer may respond to composition, touch and performance. A brand-oriented customer may need consistency between public commitments and the brand's recognised identity. For another segment, labour conditions or broader social responsibility may have direct weight.
These are strategic hypotheses to test in local research, not rigid profiles dictated by nationality. A company operating in Shanghai, Milan, Paris or another market should collect its own evidence before selecting propositions and channels.
4. Regulation and consumer demand work on different timescales
European requirements on product design, textile waste, producer responsibility and unsold inventory shape the operating conditions of brands selling into the EU market. Consumer willingness to pay does not determine whether those legal requirements apply. Conversely, meeting an EU requirement does not guarantee a compelling commercial proposition in China or elsewhere.
International businesses therefore need two distinct but connected agendas: compliance for the markets where they operate and value creation for the customers they serve. Confusing the two produces either expensive communication without demand or attractive products with weak substantiation.
What sustainable luxury should communicate in China
There is no evidence-based reason to assume that Chinese luxury consumers must be offered a purely moral narrative or, conversely, an entirely utilitarian one. The better route is a coherent connection between desirability, quality and verifiable responsibility.
For a knitwear, tailoring or accessories business, that could mean a clear account of why a selected fibre or component was chosen; the quality and durability requirements it was developed to meet; the care practices that prolong useful life; and the supplier evidence that supports any claims made. Where appropriate, brands can localise that information through accessible product storytelling and relevant customer-service touchpoints.
Importantly, origin is not a substitute for sustainability. “Made in Italy,” “made in Europe” and “made in China” describe manufacturing geography under applicable origin rules; they do not establish environmental performance or ethical practice without additional evidence. Likewise, calling a product “natural,” “recycled” or “premium” says little about overall lifecycle impact on its own.
The B2B dimension: a stronger claim requires a stronger supplier relationship
The decision to communicate more specific sustainability attributes shifts pressure upstream. Brands need clearer bills of materials, product testing, certified inputs where relevant, meaningful supplier documentation and a process for handling substitutions. Manufacturers need to know which records are requested, why they matter, what may be disclosed and what remains confidential.
That makes the commercial relevance of sustainability partly an industrial-development question. Where claims are planned before product development, technical teams can identify what can be substantiated and what should not be said. Where claims are invented after launch, the organisation may discover that the required evidence was never collected.
Responsible communication begins by narrowing a claim until it is true, useful and documented, not by making it as expansive as possible.
A cross-market testing model for fashion brands
Before scaling a sustainability proposition between Europe and China, management should test four variables:
This framework avoids a false choice between cultural understanding and industrial control. Both are required. Consumer insight tells the business which value proposition to test; product governance determines whether that proposition can be fulfilled.
The next phase is evidence-led, not geography-led
The competitive advantage in sustainable fashion will not come from declaring one region more advanced or more virtuous than another. It will come from understanding how different consumers assign value to responsible products, while building the material, manufacturing and information systems that make those claims credible.
Brands that connect customer research with product development, supplier accountability and disciplined proof can create a proposition that travels across markets without becoming generic. Sustainability then stops being a separate advertising vocabulary and becomes part of the brand's product intelligence.
Frequently asked questions
Are Chinese consumers less interested in sustainable fashion than European consumers?
That broad claim is not supported by the studies cited here. Research identifies important variation within China and shows that attitudes towards eco-fashion can influence willingness to pay. Cross-market comparisons require careful sampling and definition. [1][2]
What drives willingness to pay for sustainable fashion in China?
It depends on the consumer segment and study design. One 2026 experiment with 968 sustainability-engaged urban consumers found meaningful roles for social responsibility, brand, certification and materials, alongside substantial price sensitivity. These results must not be generalised to the entire population. [1]
Can an EU Digital Product Passport help a luxury brand build trust in China?
Potentially, through clearer product documentation, but not automatically. The EU passport addresses specific regulatory and data-access objectives; consumer relevance and admissibility of claims must be tested and reviewed market by market. [4]
Virgili Studio perspective. Sustainable market positioning is credible only when consumer insight, product construction, supplier evidence and the economics of the offer remain coherent. Explore Sustainability & Responsibility and the wider Atlas.
Related Atlas research
- Digital Product Passport for Fashion: EU Rules, Traceability and Product Data
- EU Textile Regulations 2026–2030: Circularity, EPR and Unsold Inventory
References and further reading
[1] Yang, J., Wang, B. and Zhao, S. (2026), What drives green choice for sustainable fashion products? Insights from a discrete choice experiment, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2025-1959
[2] Song, S., Coelho, A. and Bairrada, C. M. (2025), Paying More to Feel Good? Sustainable Fashion in Portugal, Brazil, and China, Journal of International Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2025.2561699
[3] Cascavilla, A., Caferra, R., Morone, A. et al. (2025), Experimental evidence on consumers' willingness to pay in the sustainable fashion industry, Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-23008-9
[4] European Commission, Textile Apparel and the Digital Product Passport. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/digital-product-passport/textile-apparel_en
[5] Dangelico, R. M., Alvino, L. and Fraccascia, L. (2022), Investigating the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention for sustainable fashion products: Evidence from a large survey of Italian consumers, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, 122010; n=2,694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122010