Social sustainability in an evolving circular fashion industry: identifying and triangulating concepts across different publication groups

The global fashion industry causes massive environmental impact and disastrous social mismanagement (e.g., violating several labor laws) in its supply chains (Pedersen and Gwozdz 2014). Various stakeholder groups including consumers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or institutional investors have been exerting pressure on major companies to encourage them to implement proper sustainability and risk management (Jaegler and Goessling 2020). Key drivers to implement circularity in the fashion industry particularly involve recycling and upcycling activities as well as vegan manufacturing principles (Todeschini et al. 2017). Despite differences in the concepts of sustainable development and circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2022) regarding objectives, approaches, and impacts, both emphasize intra- and intergenerational commitment, non-economic drivers for societal change and the pivotal role of companies to advance industry transitions (Bocken et al. 2017; Geissdoerfer et al. 2018; Lahti et al. 2018).

Change is also influenced by multiple stakeholder groups, including industry players, business consultancies and associations, policy-makers, academic scholarship, and media, as well as an increasing environmental awareness in society (Korhonen et al. 2018). Stakeholder activism and an increasingly complex environment of multi-stakeholder governance and bodies affect the corporate management of transitions towards circularity and sustainability (Arenas et al. 2009; Baumgartner et al. 2020; Dawkins 2014). In turn, the companies’ ability and capacity of responding to external pressures and demands by creating sustainable value have become a core prerequisite for corporate success and becoming a socially sustainable organization (Chiappetta Jabbour et al. 2019; Galuppo et al. 2014). Thus, analyzing leading retailers and fashion brands, such as C&A or H&M, can deepen transitory insights in terms of social circularity.

Both companies have been adopting strategies and business model innovations towards circular economy to promote environmental and society-wide benefits of sustainable fashion production and consumption practices (GFA 2018; Saha et al. 2021). For example, while C&A has been pioneering product innovations regarding the concept of cradle-to-cradle (C&A 2018), H&M has been proclaiming its strategy turnaround of becoming 100% circular and renewable by 2030 in April 2017 (H&M 2018). Since governance and legitimization processes are characterized by underlying complex, uncertain and multiple values, embracing a plurality of perspectives relevant to tackling sustainability issues is considered crucial to enable a standardization and institutionalization of norms and practices in business-society relations and responsible business conduct (Grosser 2016).

These aspects also affect social sustainability that is concerned with the identification and management of positive and negative impacts, evoked by corporate activity, on people (United Nations Global Compact 2019). According to Roca-Puig (2019), “social sustainability is a quality of a human system based on a series of values or essential ethical principles (e.g., fairness, trust, equity, justice, cooperation, engagement) that foster lasting conditions for human well-being, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals or groups” (p. 917). However, in the circular economy, the social dimension has been less investigated and elaborated in terms of meaning, objectives and relevant issues (cf., Ajmal et al. 2017; Moreau et al. 2017; Sauvé et al. 2016). It is still unclear how circular economy-related strategies and concepts will promote social equity and provide benefits for society such as improvements in human rights and social justice (Millar et al. 2019).

Previous literature has failed to address the potential relevance of aspects associated with social sustainability and social compliance in a circular fashion industry and their real-world representation by fashion companies. Moreover, a consolidated view on what themes and aspects reflecting social sustainability are embedded in a circular economy is missing in existing literature. Considering social aspects could also help in order to spur further legitimization and institutionalization of the circular economy concept. Indeed, as Murray et al. (2017) stress, there is the imperative of further developing existing concepts from a holistic and integrative perspective. Moreover, the roles of stakeholders, such as NGOs and their engagement in circular transition processes, are also underrepresented (Lüdeke-Freund et al. 2018)—likewise the pressure of external stakeholders and interest groups on fashion companies to implement circular economy principles and strategies in a socially sustainable way. Therefore, a synthesis of the actual state of themes and concepts is essential that relates to social sustainability in selected companies and stakeholders’ eyes—as it is unclear, how the views differ or overlap in a fashion industry increasingly moving towards implementing sustainability and circularity. Our study responds to this gap by identifying, visualizing and elaborating themes and concepts relating to social sustainability in publications across the three different groups of actors, like business related to two specific companies, academia, and the public. We further compare these concepts by discovering similarities and differences of these concepts across the coverage by corporate players, academic outlets and public interest groups, thereby allowing and presenting a multi-perspective and balanced approach.

The research approach chosen in our study appears to be highly relevant since discussions about sustainable development and the circular economy involve discourses between multiple actors with many co-existing motives and interests, perspectives and interpretations, representing ‘constructive ambiguity’ (Hugé et al. 2013, p. 188). While society and knowledge about it is actively constructed by discourses as structured ways of representation, they also filter particular social understandings and actions (Hugé et al. 2013). This may imply opportunities and enablers, but also constraints and obstacles influenced through languages, meanings and interpretations, existing assumptions and perceptions, social structures and interactions or even levels of power. On a meta-level, identifying particular features of discourses among different actors helps to uncover categories and structures that are central and congruent in the representation of social constructs and, thus, mirror their significance. It also detects neglected and less important aspects, yet that could influence the acceptability and further development of such constructs and discourses in society. Our study contributes to this by shedding light on different discourses in an increasingly circular fashion industry to identify key socially related concepts in publications issued by diverse actors. By emphasizing a comparative and comprehensive approach, the study delineates from mainstream research on the circular economy that focuses on the examination of corporate case examples or academic viewpoints. Indeed, studies on stakeholder perspectives in the circular economy for fashion are missing. This needs to be addressed in order to close the gap.

First, we collect and analyze academic, corporate and stakeholder publications concerning concepts, patterns and relations. Second, we aggregate the findings across all groups examined to derive at comparative conclusions. The intention of this article is not to delineate between sustainability and circular strategies in the fashion industry or to elaborate on single fashion companies implementing sustainability approaches (e.g., in the context of fast fashion). Furthermore, it is not the study’s intention to analyze the roles and spheres of influence among stakeholders in the fashion industry independently. The study contrasts themes of circularity and social sustainability of corporate publications of two specific fashion companies and academic as well as stakeholder publications. The results of this triangulation progress further research and practical implementation for further maturing and harmonizing multi-perspectival notions on social sustainability in an industry sector’s movement towards greater sustainability and circularity.

This section focuses on core theoretical streams of our research. We stress key features of the circular economy and existing as well as missing links to social sustainability in general and relating to fashion industry.

The analysis results include concept maps generated by Leximancer™ for each group of the publications and year of investigation. These are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4 and stress themes and concepts questioned in research questions one and two, thereby supplying a descriptive picture of what aspects are relevant in publications of each interest group. Answering research question one ‘What themes and patterns of social sustainability-related concepts are included in the sustainability reports of global fashion companies, represented by C&A and H&M?’, relevant topics provide insights from a primarily corporate and practice perspective and are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Fig. 2. In the concept maps of both companies analyzed here a quite differentiated presentation of social sustainability-related concepts is illustrated. In case of C&A this involves concepts such as “responsibility”/“responsible”, “rights”, “share”, “commitment”/“committed”, “awareness”, “standards” and “fair” while for H&M concepts such as “social”, “diversity” and “transparency” can be retraced. Moreover, as shown in Table 5 in particular, C&A provides a more differentiated and holistic perspective on social sustainability.

Concerning research question two ‘In what way do these themes and patterns deviate from discussions in the academic world and the public?’, our analysis aims at extending the practice view by comparing them with academic and stakeholder perspectives. Based on this triangulation, results show that several concepts such as “migrants”, “poverty”, “unions” or “health” arise exclusively in respective concept maps of stakeholder publications as visualized by Leximancer^TM. This is also presented in Table 5. They symbolize fundamental aspects relevant to structural and institutional antecedents and conditions of social sustainability in the global fashion industry, as well as consequences of their proper implementation along global fashion value and supply chains.

Illustrating this comparison, the concept maps of C&A were visually contrasted with those of H&M. In a similar vein, the concept maps of academic publications were juxtaposed with those of stakeholder publications. Each graphic is completed with a brief textual analysis of general patterns and themes deduced from the concept map. Like previous research, using the tool Leximancer™, particular attention is given to peculiar locations of single themes and concepts as well as the tracing of concept spiders and concept paths.

Drawing on previous literature exploring the notion, indicators and criteria of social sustainability in general (Abbasi 2017; Ajmal et al. 2017; Eizenberg and Jabareen 2017; Murphy 2012) as well as in the fashion industry (Dickson and Chang 2015; Dickson and Eckman 2006; Köksal et al. 2018), 114 social sustainability-related concepts within and across all three groups of publications were identified. This initial list was further fine-grained and narrowed down to 83 concepts selected for a later detailed examination in order to ease handling and comprehensibility. In doing so, we consolidated linguistically similar concepts in one category (e.g., “working” and “work”) and erased those that were either not very informative (e.g., “feel”) or that have also other than socially related connotations and meanings (e.g., “group” representing the company structure of H&M).

The authors limited the overall number of concepts based on their prior knowledge of both literature and standards in the field of social sustainability (e.g., ISO 26000; SA 8000). Ultimately, those terms and categories were selected that showed a high degree of conformity between the different theoretical sources. The concepts considered relevant for a subsequent analysis principally represent concepts that are people-centered at their core and that are essentially related to human, social and societal activities, artifacts, interactions or relations. Yet, we acknowledge that, because there is not a single conclusive definition on social sustainability in literature and many approaches co-exist, the list of concepts concerning social sustainability selected for an in-depth analysis in our study as well as our procedure of narrowing them down may also be subject to debate. An overview of the concepts is given in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 also illustrates the temporal distribution of social sustainability-related concepts. Some concepts appear in only one year of investigation either in one group of publications (e.g., “awareness”, “children” and “diversity”) or two groups (e.g., “relations”/“relationships” and “share”). There are several concepts that occur consecutively, yet to a different extent among all three groups of publications and year of investigation. For example, while the concept “consumption” can be retraced consecutively in the group of academic publications, the concept “partners”/“partnership” appears only consecutively in the concept maps of H&M. The concept “social” is visualized only consecutively in the two groups of academic and stakeholder publications. On the contrary, the concept “responsible”/“responsibility” is visualized in all groups of publications, yet, solely in 2014 and 2015.

Similarly, the overall annual number of social sustainability-related concepts for each group of publications is presented. For example, the number of concepts visualized for C&A had risen from 20 concepts in 2014 to 28 concepts in 2018. By referring to academic publications, a decrease in the number of concepts can be retraced from 22 concepts in 2014 to 18 concepts in 2018. A steeper decline of concepts pictured can be seen in the concept maps of the group of stakeholder publications, falling from 28 concepts in 2014 to 17 concepts in 2018.

Table 5 aggregates the results within and across all three groups of publications and, thus, contrasts practice, academic and stakeholder perspectives. While several concepts play a role in each of the three groups (e.g., “circular”, “local”, “responsible”, “standards” and “management”), other concepts appear in two groups or exclusively one group of publications. The concept “women”, for instance, is presented in the concept maps of stakeholder publications only. Table 6 in the Appendix illustrates the concepts reflecting the ecological dimension of a sustainable and circular fashion industry.

Fig. 3 displays a summary of those concepts that are integrated across all three groups of publications in each year of investigation. In total, this includes 12 concepts which are distributed in a different way per year. Across all three years the overall number of social sustainability-related concepts that are relevant to all three groups of publications rises from seven concepts in 2014 to nine in 2018. The absolute decrease of social concepts as shown for 2015 coincides with the temporary emergence of new concepts (e.g., “fair”).

Our analysis of major similarities and differences of social sustainability-related concepts as communicated in three groups of publications related to the fashion industry has revealed that the concepts “fair”, “global”; “life/living”, “local”, “management”, “needs”, “responsibility”, “values” and “work” are constantly presented in all years of investigation. They, hence, appear to be of prime concern to all groups of actors closely linked to a circular fashion industry (see Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 5). These concepts represent the core or shared understanding or basic beliefs of social issues in the textile and fashion context. In the following, we will not elaborate on each theme and concept revealed by our analysis, but summarize and highlight core and peculiar findings pertaining to each research question.

The concepts “communities” and “commitment”/“committed” as well as “partners”/“partnership” only occur in the group of corporate publications. Looking at collaboration through a social capital lens, Leder et al. (2020) underline the role of collaborative activities, new relationships, linkages and social networks in advancing circular business models and innovation processes. Here, the concept “women”—solely addressed by the stakeholders—is of importance. Women represent a comparatively large group of consumers and thus may accept and promote alternative consumptive patterns such as donation of used clothing (Norum 2017). Women also form the major part of workforce in the global fashion industry, bearing great responsibilities in terms of income generation and social care. So, employment opportunities, ethical and safe working conditions in less-affluent production countries need to be addressed.

Stakeholders, external organizations and other key target groups are also to be actively involved in circular strategies to create sustainable value. However, our findings show that even if stakeholders appear to influence corporate activities in the fashion industry, the companies develop and change towards more social sustainability and circularity in their very own, idiosyncratic way. This finding is supported by Jakhar et al. (2019) investigating that even in case of similar pressure by stakeholders, corporate responses appeared to be different reflecting great heterogeneity. Therefore, broadly discussed social sustainability requirements need to be linked to already existing norms and guidelines as well as planned regulatory initiatives to address the minimum standards concerning CSR and ethical business conduct along supply chains (e.g., ISO 26000, German Supply Chain Act). They would require a critical examination whether their provisions go well with a social-oriented circular fashion economy. Vice versa, national, European, and international standard-setting bodies and institutions, as well as other secondary stakeholders with a stake in the circular fashion economy, would-be well-advised shaping and promoting specific provisions that go beyond already existing standards and guidelines in the context of social sustainability.

In this context, the role of non-governmental and non-profit organizations needs to be highlighted, too. The organizations have repeatedly addressed moral and ethical aspects in fashion production (e.g., Clean Clothes Campaign 2020) and put pressure on fashion companies to minimize negative social and environmental impacts (Miotto and Youn 2020; Stringer et al. 2020). Since such interactions and dialogues are socially constructed over time and involve perspectives from multiple actors with different moral categories and perceptions, the movement towards and conceptualization of a social-oriented circular fashion economy should be complemented by debates on (re-)drawing moral boundaries and their presuppositions, especially in (new) media contexts (Shadnam et al. 2020).

Referring to research question three ‘To what extent do these themes and patterns reflect the movement towards sustainability and circular economy in the fashion industry from a theoretical perspective?’, our explorative study shows that several social sustainability-related concepts have been evolving concurrently between H&M and C&A, as well as between the two other groups of publications. Thereby, a mutual influence among all three groups examined is indicated. However, as shown in Fig. 2, there are a substantial number of aspects symbolizing social sustainability that are repeatedly not displayed as themes or concepts in all three groups of publications (e.g., “solidarity”, “participation”, “empowerment”, “engagement”, “appreciation”, “creativity”, “sufficiency”, “inclusivity”, “carefulness”, “culture” and “justice”) and need to be systematically integrated.

This, however, would require a different understanding of (economic) concepts and approaches such as value, citizen, time, market or exchange. It further necessitates considering the interrelatedness and embeddedness of such alternative approaches and actors within other contexts (e.g., cultural, political, ethical or material) in order to facilitate a different realization through daily social practices and routines, habits, norms and institutions (Hobson 2019; Hobson and Lynch 2016; Schröder et al. 2020). This also includes sufficiency, collaborative consumption, sharing, non-ownership and solidarity (Iran and Schrader 2017). The simultaneous occurrence of the concept “share” in the concept maps of academic publications and C&A’s sustainability report in 2018 could also reflect the shift towards discussions on business model innovations for sustainability in both theory and practice.

Social innovations in a circular textile and fashion economy are disregarded in current debates among various interest groups. While this mirrors deficits in the conceptualization of the circular economy, it also illustrates both a pressing need and immense potential for scholars to undertake studies that focus more on social and cultural sustainability-related aspects in circular fashion such as slow design, de-growth, down-scaling and localized economies (Goldsworthy et al. 2018; Hobson and Lynch 2016). Moreover, all stakeholder groups need to be elaborated and evaluated aiming at triple-bottom-line considerations in the circular economy concept. The importance of collaboration, cooperation and exchange of information and knowledge among diverse stakeholders is obvious for advancing a sustainable and circular fashion industry (Todeschini et al. 2017).

Indeed, as highlighted in previous research, in current circular economy discourses an only “curtained and impoverished view of the role of citizens” (Hobson and Lynch 2016, p. 3) is prevailing. This largely de-politicized, passive role is at its core restricted to the acceptance or rejection of new business models within existing norms of greater economic efficiencies, sustained material throughputs and “an unquestioned reliance upon, and uptake of, technologically-mediated forms of social engagement” (p. 3). Thus, in fostering only weak and micro-level approaches to sustainability with an only limited idea on people and their behavior in social contexts, the current framings and narratives of the circular economy lack a debate on reducing absolute consumption levels as well as a critical exploration of antecedents, mechanisms and implications for radical changes and socio-ecological transformations enabling post-capitalist, diverse and localized economies and de-growth.

At the same time, while this could allow for a proactive presentation of changes towards sustainability and circularity, it also implies the risks of social- and greenwashing in sustainability reporting and communication. Against the background of particularly institutional complexity and multiple stakeholders’ interests in the fast fashion context, companies, such as retailers, are increasingly using online communication tools to raise public and other stakeholders’ awareness towards their sustainability practices and to implement reputation-added measures (Naidoo and Gasparatos 2018; Da Giau et al. 2016; Gazzola et al. 2020; Islam and Deegan 2010). While this may legitimize their business operations and promote stakeholder engagement, the success of such measures is dependent on altruistic motives, accountability and transparency in their sustainability communication practices (Miotto and Youn 2020). Yet, it raises questions regarding moral implications and boundaries of an increasing adoption of (social media and online) communication and related technologies. Here, tensions between corporate disclosure and practice become obvious, eventually inhibiting an effective amelioration of sustainability impacts (Cho et al. 2015; Garcia-Sanchez et al. 2014). Nevertheless, promoting a circular fashion economy in a socially sustainable way should imply the development of alternative and innovative business models and corporate strategies based on a holistic and extended view on value proposition and value creation (Bocken et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2017).

Based on our results we suggest the following three propositions for further research on the integration of social sustainability in a circular fashion economy:

The present study investigated the evolution and integration of social sustainability-related concepts in a fashion industry progressing towards circular economy. The results contribute to extant literature and research on the circular economy in general and the circular textiles, fashion and apparel industry by employing a grounded theory approach and seminally identifying, sorting and consolidating themes and concepts with particular regard to social sustainability across three groups of publications. The shared concepts “fair”, “global”; “life/living”, “local”, “management”, “needs”, “responsibility”, “values” and “work” as well as underrepresented ones, for example, “empowerment”, “solidarity”, “sufficiency”, “justice”, “accountability”, “culture” or “well-being” became obvious by employing Leximancer^TM. This outcome confirms previous studies demanding an integration of social sustainability in circular economy and calling for a more holistic framework. The findings emphasize the necessity of mutual exchange of different beliefs and views on social sustainability and circular economy, thus, resolving the plurality of understandings and questioning undefined or neglected issues.

From a theoretical-conceptual perspective, all interest groups reveal the inadequate systemic consideration of social, cultural and ethical norms, principles, beliefs and worldviews. Further research should examine social aspects neglected in the concept maps as discussed above (e.g., “stewardship”, “de-growth”) as well as explore the general role(s), engagement and commitment of the wider public including the salience of their interests and objectives (Thijssens et al. 2015) in a sustained and enduring development towards a socially sustainable and circular fashion industry.