You Say You Want Sustainable Fashion, But…
Addressing the Intention/Attention Gap
There’s a growing chorus of consumers claiming they care about sustainability. Survey after survey, comment section after comment section, the message is loud and clear: we want fashion to be more ethical, more sustainable, more mindful. People want natural fibers. They say they care about labor practices. They want brands to do better.
And yet… their carts tell a different story.
Fast fashion continues to dominate. Ultra-low prices still win. And secondhand shopping, while rising, is often more about aesthetics, status, or savings than reducing waste. There's no denying that people want to be better, but there's also no denying the gap between what they say and how they buy.
This isn’t a critique of the consumer. It’s a reality check. Because somewhere between good intentions and everyday attention, something gets lost. That gap — between aspiration and action, between stated values and actual behavior — is shaping the future of sustainable fashion more than any trend forecast ever could.
Understanding that gap is the key to meeting consumers where they are, not where we wish they were.
The Contradiction We Can’t Ignore
Take any sustainability survey, and you’ll likely see natural fibers like cotton, linen, and silk ranking high in consumer preference. You'll hear frustrations about greenwashing. You’ll hear people swear off synthetics. And yet, low-cost polyester basics remain the industry’s backbone. Fast fashion brands keep growing. And "vintage" hauls on TikTok sit side-by-side with $8 bodysuits.
What’s happening here isn’t hypocrisy, it’s more complicated than that.
People are operating within the bounds of budget, access, and knowledge. For example, Gen Z often claims sustainability is a priority, but they’re also the most financially constrained generation in the workforce. Many genuinely do prefer natural materials, but don’t understand the cost structure behind them, or the trade-offs that make certain products more expensive and less trend-forward.
There’s also a misunderstanding of what “natural” even means. Cotton is often seen as the hero fiber, while polyester is demonized. But few consumers know the difference between conventional vs. organic cotton, or that some recycled synthetics can have a lower environmental footprint depending on use case. This surface-level understanding fuels the contradiction that what people want doesn’t always align with how they behave, because they’re not making decisions with the full picture in mind.
And when those contradictions aren’t acknowledged, it’s not just consumers who miss out — it’s brands, too.
Why This Happens — Accessibility, Misinformation, and Trend Pressure
To understand the intention-attention gap, we have to look beyond the consumer and examine the system they’re navigating. Because if it were just about desire, the market would already be flooded with slow-made, high-integrity clothing. But people aren’t shopping in a vacuum. They’re shopping in an ecosystem that makes it incredibly difficult to act sustainably even when they want to.
Affordability is the most obvious barrier. It’s easy to say “just buy better, buy less” but that advice collapses under economic pressure. The average consumer isn’t deciding between a $90 ethically made sweatshirt and a $100 one. They’re choosing between a $90 sweatshirt and a $14.99 fast fashion version that ships free and arrives in two days. For someone on a tight budget, one of those options isn’t aspirational — it’s inaccessible.
But cost isn’t the only friction point. Misinformation is everywhere. Social media is full of bold claims: “this fabric is toxic,” “this brand is green,” “polyester is plastic and plastic is bad.” But the reality of textile sustainability is nuanced and full of trade-offs. Recycled polyester might reduce landfill impact but still shed microfibers. Cotton might be natural, but conventional cotton uses water and pesticides at industrial scale. Most consumers haven’t been given the tools to navigate this complexity, so they latch onto absolutes that feel safer even when the absolutes are wrong.
And then there’s the pressure to keep up. Even the most sustainability-minded shopper is still living in a hyper-accelerated trend cycle. New aesthetics, microtrends, and product drops unfold daily across TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. While slow fashion encourages “investment pieces,” social media encourages reinvention. The pressure to stay relevant, even in a thrifted, low-cost way, often overrides values. It’s hard to hold out for the perfect conscious item when dopamine dressing is just a click away.
So yes, there’s aspiration. But there’s also exhaustion. And when people feel overwhelmed, they default to what’s easy like fast, cheap, accessible, and familiar. The gap doesn’t exist because consumers don’t care. It exists because the current system makes caring feel impractical, confusing, and sometimes downright impossible.
The Risk of Aspiration Without Infrastructure
The fashion industry has been operating on the assumption that awareness will drive change. If consumers just know more about emissions, about labor conditions, about greenwashing… they’ll make better choices. But awareness alone isn’t enough when there’s no infrastructure to support follow-through.
We’re now in a moment where aspiration is outpacing access.
Consumers want to shop more consciously, but they’re navigating an environment that doesn’t make it easy to act on that desire. And when intention is met with dead ends, no transparency, no context, no affordable options, the result isn’t just confusion. It’s fatigue. People burn out. They feel like their efforts don’t matter. Or worse, they start to feel like it’s all a scam.
That cynicism is one of the biggest threats to the sustainability movement right now. It’s not driven by apathy, but instead, it’s driven by disappointment. Consumers see brands using the right words but offering no substance. They notice that “green” collections still cost more. They notice that certifications are confusing. They hear about regenerative cotton and then find out their local store doesn’t stock it. Eventually, they stop looking.
And when aspiration fades into skepticism, we lose momentum.
To move forward, we can’t just ask consumers to “do better.” We need to design better systems. Systems that make sustainable options easy to find, fairly priced, and transparently explained. That means investing in infrastructure: resale logistics, recycling programs, circular product design, digital labeling, local manufacturing, and material storytelling that goes beyond buzzwords.
It also means building pathways that acknowledge real-life constraints. A $200 coat might be more sustainable, but if someone can’t afford it, that’s not a solution but a flex. Brands and industry leaders need to think in terms of scale and equity, not just purity and perfection.
Because when aspiration outpaces infrastructure, sustainability becomes a privilege. And if the movement becomes exclusive, it will fail.
The Brand Imperative — Meeting People Where They Are
If consumers are navigating a complex, imperfect system, then brands need to stop pretending sustainability is a clear-cut choice. The expectation that shoppers should be able to decode marketing claims, assess fiber lifecycle impacts, and prioritize ethics on top of price, fit, and style is wildly unrealistic. The burden shouldn’t fall on them.
Instead, the responsibility should shift upstream to the brands, suppliers, and decision-makers with the resources to simplify, clarify, and scale change.
This doesn’t mean dumbing things down. It means being specific. Instead of vague claims like “eco-conscious collection” or “sustainable fabric,” brands need to offer real context:
Why this fiber was chosen.
What makes this process lower-impact.
How labor and sourcing were handled.
Where improvements are still needed.
When brands do this well, they meet consumers in the middle: they respect their desire to know more without demanding an advanced degree in textile science. When brands over share they don’t just sell a product, but they build trust.
It also means brands need to acknowledge the constraints their customers are under. Not everyone can afford slow fashion. Not everyone has access to resale platforms. Not everyone is shopping with the same information or bandwidth. And yet, too often, sustainability marketing is positioned as a moral test. That approach alienates people. It makes sustainability feel exclusive, judgmental, or impossible to get “right.”
A more honest, effective strategy is to design for progress—not perfection.
If your brand is just starting its sustainability journey, say that. If your product isn’t the “most sustainable,” but you’ve made a material improvement, say that too. If your prices are still high, explain the cost breakdown. That kind of communication doesn’t make you look weak; it makes you credible.
The consumers shaping the next decade of fashion aren’t just looking for “green” products. They’re looking for realness. Transparency, even when imperfect, builds more loyalty than perfection hidden behind PR.
Closing the Gap with Empathy + Clarity
The gap between what consumers say and what they do isn’t a failure, but instead it shows us where the system is breaking down and where the message is out of sync. And rather than using that gap to blame, shame, or dismiss the consumer, we can use it to rebuild better paths forward.
For Consumers:
Your desire to shop better isn’t wasted just because you sometimes choose what’s easy. The fact that you care at all in a system designed to make you forget is meaningful. But to turn that care into lasting impact, it’s worth digging deeper. Ask more questions. Read past the label. Understand what different fibers actually mean, and what trade-offs exist in real-world production. Sustainability isn’t just about what’s in your cart but it’s about what kind of industry you’re voting for with each purchase, or pause.
Stay curious. Stay skeptical. But don’t disengage. The industry will only get better if you keep showing up.
For Brands:
Stop asking for perfect behavior in an imperfect world. The average shopper isn’t equipped to solve the sustainability puzzle alone nor should they have to. Your job is to meet them with clarity, not guilt. Replace green marketing with real education. Offer transparency about your materials, your sourcing, and your limitations. Be honest about what’s hard. Be open about what’s next.
Progress won’t come from pushing consumers to shop perfectly. It’ll come from designing systems, products, and communication that make progress possible and inviting everyone in.
Because if we’re serious about closing the intention-attention gap, then the answer isn’t to shout louder. It’s to listen better. And build a fashion industry that doesn’t just reflect people’s values, but actively helps them live them.
🧵 Join the Conversation
Have you ever caught yourself saying one thing and buying another? What do you think is really holding back sustainable shopping, price, information, or something else entirely?
Drop a comment below! I’d love to hear your take on how you navigate sustainability in real life.
🔜 Next Week: The 4 Shoppers Shaping Sustainable Fashion
Not all sustainable consumers are created equal. In the next post, I’ll break down the four key archetypes shaping the market today, from the Performative Purist to the Skeptical Advocate, and what each one teaches us about the evolving tension between values, trends, and trust.
Make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss it.