Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry

Vertica Bhardwaj* and Ann Fairhurst

Retail and Consumer Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

(Received June 2009; final version received October 2009)

The fashion apparel industry has significantly evolved, particularly over the last20 years. The changing dynamics of the fashion industry have forced retailers todesire low cost and flexibility in design, quality, and speed to market, keystrategies to maintain a profitable position in the increasingly demanding market.This article reviews the literature on changes that have happened in the fashionapparel industry since the 1990s, highlighting the emergence of a concept of‘throwaway’ or fast fashion. It describes fast fashion from a supplier as wellas a consumer’s perspective, and draws attention to several potential researchissues.

Keywords: fast fashion; supplier; consumer; quick response; fashion season

The fashion apparel industry has significantly evolved, particularly over the last 20years, when the boundaries of the industry started to expand (Djelic and Ainamo1999). The changing dynamics of the fashion industry since then, such as the fadingof mass production, increase in number of fashion seasons, and modified structuralcharacteristics in the supply chain have forced retailers to desire low cost andflexibility in design, quality, delivery and speed to market (Doyle, Moore, andMorgan 2006). In addition to speed to market and design, marketing and capitalinvestment have also been identified as the driving forces of competitiveness in thefashion apparel industry (Sinha 2006). Franks (2000) suggested ‘sense and respond’as the key strategy to maintain a profitable position in the increasingly dynamic anddemanding market. A key defining characteristic of rapid responsiveness and greaterflexibility, in this context, is to maintain closer relationships between suppliers andbuyers (Wheelright and Clark 1992).

Looking at the basic structure of the fashion industry until the late 1980s,traditionally fashion apparel retailers used their capability of forecasting consumerdemand and fashion trends (known as ready-to-wear) long before the actual time ofconsumption in order to compete in the market (Guercini 2001). However, recentyears have seen fashion retailers compete with others by ensuring speed to marketwith their ability to provide rapidly the fashion trends revealed by fashion shows andrunways. According to Taplin (1999), such retailers could be credited with theadoption of ‘quick fashion’ that is an outcome of an unplanned process on thereduced time gap between designing and consumption on a seasonal basis.

*Corresponding author. Email: vbhardwa@utk.edu

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research

Vol. 20, No. 1, February 2010, 165–173

ISSN 0959-3969 print/ISSN 1466-4402 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09593960903498300

http://www.informaworld.com

Today’s fashion market is highly competitive and the constant need to ‘refresh’product ranges means that there is an inevitable move by many retailers to extendthe number of ‘seasons’, that is, the frequency with which the entire merchandisewithin a store is changed. With the emergence of small collections of merchandise,fashion retailers are encouraging consumers to visit their stores more frequently withthe idea of ‘Here Today, Gone Tomorrow’. This indicates a shorter life cycle andhigher profit margins from the sale of fast selling merchandise, skipping the mark-down process altogether (Sydney 2008). In addition, desire to have variety andinstant gratification with price mavenism is motivating consumers to prefer retailerssuch as Zara and H&M (National Post 2009).

Several studies have examined various aspects of the buyer-supplier relationshipwith quick or fast fashion, such as the apparel design process relative to quickresponse (Forza and Vinelli 1996), the role of the supplier in fast moving fashion(Doyle, Moore, and Morgan 2006), buyer behaviour (Bruce and Daly 2006), andfinancial performance (Hayes and Jones 2006). However, there appears to be a gapin the literature focusing on the overall concept of ‘fast fashion’ that has emerged inthe fashion industry from a consumer perspective. Among numerous studies on fastfashion, only a few studies have focused on the consumer aspects thatdrive the changes in the fashion industry (for example, Barnes and Lea-Greenwood2006).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the changes that have occurred in thefashion apparel industry in the past two decades and attempt to understand how fastfashion emerged to the extent that it is today. Specifically, the study examines thechanges in the fashion apparel industry leading to the evolution of ‘throwaway orfast fashion’. A brief review of the literature serves to systemize and appraise theexisting work. This study further attempts to align the research capabilities withmarket growth potential for fast fashion and proposes different venues forconducting research to acquire a better understanding of fast fashion as aconsumer-driven approach, not only supplier-driven.

Overview of the fashion apparel industry

In the course of the last two decades, the fashion apparel industry across the globehas undergone profound transformation due to various changes in the businessenvironment. To understand the areas for research in fast fashion for the future, it isimportant to consider how it has evolved. The following sections discuss the changesthat have occurred in the fashion industry since the 1990s.

Fading of mass production

Until the mid 1980s, success in the fashion industry was based on low cost massproduction of standardized styles that did not change frequently due to the designrestrictions of the factories, such as Levi’s 501 jeans and a man’s white shirt,although there were exceptional cases of rapid changing haute couture (Brooks1979). Apparently, consumers during that time were less sensitive toward style andfashion, and preferred basic apparel.

Bailey and Eicher (1992) reported a sudden increase in the import of fashionoriented apparel for women as compared to the standardized apparel in the 1980s.

166 V. Bhardwaj and A. Fairhurst

This reduced the demand for classic though simple apparel as consumers startedbecoming more fashion-conscious (Bailey 2001). For instance, the women’s legwearindustry introduced colours and textures to basic hosiery to coordinate with everyoutfit (Donnellan 1996). Unfortunately, this change in fashion oriented apparelcontributed to an increase in mark-downs in the market, which became necessarydue to the failure to sell fashion apparel during the forecasted season (OTA 1987).This argument was further supported by Malone (1998, 1999) who providedevidence that mass production of fashion products was not a solution to gain profitsin the fashion business.

Fashion seasons

As fashion is considered to be a temporary cyclical phenomena adopted byconsumers for a particular time (Sproles 1979), it becomes evident that the life cyclefor fashion is quite small. Since the 1980s, a typical life cycle for fashion apparel hadfour stages: introduction and adoption by fashion leaders; growth and increase inpublic acceptance; mass conformity (maturation); and finally the decline andobsolescence of fashion. Also, the fashion calendar during this time was primarilybased on the fabric exhibitions, fashion shows and trade fairs, that consisted of thebasic pattern of Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter ranges which typically resultedin developing a seasonal range in one full year.

However, towards the beginning of the 1990s, retailers started focusing onexpanding their product range with updated products and faster responsiveness tothe ‘newness’ of the fashion trends; and providing ‘refreshing’ products instead ofonly cost efficiencies for manufacturing (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006; Hines2001; Hoffman 2007). In order to increase the variety of fashion apparel in themarket, the concept of adding more phases to the existing seasons (that is, the periodof time during which fashion products are sold) in a fashion calendar came intoexistence. The addition of 3 to 5 mid-seasons forced immense pressure on suppliersto deliver fashion apparel in smaller batches with reduced lead time (Tyler, Heeley,and Bhamra 2006). For instance, Liz Claiborne developed six seasons instead of justtwo (Bailey 2001). These changes to the number of mid-seasons arose partly from thechanges in consumers’ lifestyles and partly from the need to satisfy consumers’demand for fashion clothing for specific occasions.

Structural characteristics

Towards the late 1980s, the fashion apparel industry was dominated by several largeretailers which increased the competition levels in the market (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006). In order to survive the competition, other fashion apparelretailers switched from product-driven to buyer-driven chains, developed allianceswith suppliers in different markets, and promoted their distinctive brands (Tyler,Heeley, and Bhamra 2006). This resulted in an increase of profits from uniquecombinations of high-value research, design, sales and marketing that would allowthem and the manufacturers to act strategically by linking with overseas factories(Gereffi 1999, 43). Tyler, Heeley, and Bhamra (2006) illustrated that the fashionapparel industry developed an infrastructure around the late 1980s with an emphasison promoting responsiveness (quick response) through reduced lead times, along

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 167

with maintaining low costs. Hereafter, the phenomena of sourcing manufacturingand processes in fashion apparel industry to offshore places with low labour costsbecame a trend, thereby resulting in a substantial cost advantage.

Despite the merits of outsourcing, it led to significantly longer lead times,complicated supply chains due to geographic distances, inconsistency and variabilityin processes at both ends of the chain, and complex import/export procedures(Birtwistle, Siddhiqui, and Fiorito 2003; Bruce and Daly 2006). In fact, the idea ofcost savings through outsourcing manufacturing to low wage nations becamedeceptive as the savings sometimes were significantly low compared with the cost ofobsolescence, forced mark-downs, and inventory carrying costs (Christopher,Lowson, and Peck 2004). Tyler, Heeley, and Bhamra (2006) highlighted productdevelopment as the weakness for the longer lead times to deliver fashion apparel topoint-of-sale to consumers. As further explained, they illustrated that all the keyplayers in a supply chain (that is, fashion and textile designer, retail buyer andmanufacturers) worked in sequence in order to contribute their role, resulting inexcessive costs, lack of effective communication and reworks due to inaccurateproduct developments. Furthermore, instead of translating the trends into themarket quickly, fashion retailers failed to sell the merchandise during theappropriate season, adversely impacting the profits (Fiorito, May, and Straughne1995). Not surprisingly, the situation became worse due to the rapid changinglifestyles and consumers’ choices for fashion and clothing in the market.

All these shortcomings forced the industry toward restructuring in order toimprove their operational performance (Taplin 2006). Some of the examples ofrestructuring that emerged around the 1990s include just-in-time techniques andquick a response with shorter lead times. For example, the number of fashionapparel retailers in the USA that started implementing a quick response (QR)strategy grew from 60% to 72% from 1994 to 1995 (Jones 1995). In recent years,these changes in the fashion apparel industry in the USA in terms of outsourcingmanufacturing to low wage countries and demand-driven flexible supply chains haveshown that quick responsiveness is possible even in the presence of long physicaldistances.

Fast fashion

Fashion is defined as an expression that is widely accepted by a group of people overtime and has been characterized by several marketing factors such as lowpredictability, high impulse purchase, shorter life cycle, and high volatility ofmarket demand (Fernie and Sparks 1998). Thus, in order to be profitable in theindustry, fashion apparel retailers need to take the ‘speed to market’ approach tocapitalize on fashion that is not in the stores of their competitors. It has been furtheremphasized that market responsiveness and agility through rapid incorporation ofconsumer preferences into the design process in product development increases theprofit margins for retailers (Christopher, Lowson, and Peck 2004).

Looking at history, fashion runways and fashion shows were the biggestinspiration for the fashion industry. Along with this, these trend shows wereprimarily restricted to designers, buyers and other fashion managers. However from1999 onwards, fashion shows and catwalks became a public phenomenon, wherephotographs of the recent fashion shows could be seen in magazines and on the webleading to demystification of the fashion process (Sydney 2008). As a result, fashion-

168 V. Bhardwaj and A. Fairhurst

conscious consumers were exposed to exclusive designs and styles inspired fromrunways. Retailers such as Zara, H&M, Mango, New Look, and Top Shop wereadopting such designs rapidly to attract consumers and introduce interpretations ofthe runway designs to the stores in a minimum of three to five weeks (Barnes andLea-Greenwood 2006).

Drawing on the foundations of quick responsiveness, the fashion apparelindustry shifted from forecasting future trends to using real-time data to understandthe needs and desires of the consumers (Jackson 2001). The inability to accuratelyforecast or predict future trends (Christopher, Lowson, and Peck 2004) or failure toquickly imitate and produce fashion apparel as seen on runways (Richardson 1996)can lead to risk associated with longer lead times and hence failure to attract fashion-conscious consumers. Using real-time data can eliminate this possible risk.

United Kingdom retailers

The UK fashion industry has been widely acknowledged to have initiated this uniquestrategy in the fashion industry (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006). Since itsbeginning, the fashion apparel industry has been characterized by high levels ofdominance by large retailers in the UK with inflexible supply chains (Hines andBruce 2001). Around the 1990s, apparel manufacturers and retailers, primarily fromthe UK witnessed price pressure from the strong players in the market. In order tostay in competition, UK retailers such as New Look and George shifted sourcing ofmerchandise to the Far East for a low cost advantage. In doing so, supply chainsbecame more complex due to extensive geographical distance, thereby forcing theseretailers to introduce practices such as just-in-time (JIT), computer integratedmanufacturing (CIM), total quality management (TQM) in manufacturing alongwith emphasis on shorter supply lines and quick response in the market (Bruce,Daly, and Towers 2004).

As an outcome, retailers in the UK started providing increased variety andfashionability to their customers, keeping in mind the low cost of the merchandise.In addition, they also added mid-season purchasing to their previous two-seasoncalendars, resulting in providing high fashion at a low price ‘throwaway market’.Since then the ‘throwaway market’ (now called fast fashion) has become a trend ornorm (Tokatli, Wrigley, and Kizilgun 2008). In sum, the concentrated UK fashionmarket resulted in street fashion as an attempt to gain a competitive edge along withmarket share through speed to market (Birtwistle and Freathey 1998).

The following sections provide supplier and consumer perspectives in regard tofast fashion.

Fast fashion from the supplier perspective

Apparel markets have become more varied and faster-changing in the present retailenvironment. The development of new, quick fashion appears symptomatic of thetransition from a production-driven to a market-driven approach in the fashionapparel industry. Retailers have started realizing that flexibility and rapidresponsiveness to the market are the areas that are most important in today’smarket.

During the past two decades, the fashion apparel industry has received increasedattention in the context of buyer-supplier relationships, and quick response and

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 169

supply chain management to gain a competitive edge in the market (Crewe andDavenport 1991; Fiorito, May, and Straughne 1995; Sohal, Perry, and Pratt 1998;Perry and Sohal 2000). In academic study, fast fashion has been researched from theperspective of a business model with a quick response strategy to reduce productiontimes (Bailey 2001). Literature on fast fashion reflects association with pressure onlead-time reduction in an organization and coordination with various players in thesupply chain (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006; Wensley 1999).

The obsolete long-buying cycles for many fashion retailers has forced them toimprove responsiveness in reduced time, resulting in an introduction of severalpractices in the fashion industry that describe shorter, more flexible supply chainssuch as quick response (Fernie and Azuma 2004), just-in-time (Bruce, Daly, andTowers 2004) and agile supply chains (Bruce, Daly, and Towers 2004; Christopher,Lowson, and Peck 2004). In order to improve efficiency in the demand-drivenmarket, these practices have often been related to vertical integration focusing oncollaboration, information sharing and trust between entities in a supply chain(Birtwistle, Siddhiqui, and Fiorito 2003). In addition, improvements in communica-tion between retailers and producers through technology such as computer-aided-design (CAD) and electronic data interchange (EDI) have contributed to shorteninglead times (Bruce, Daly, and Towers 2004).

Fast fashion from a consumer perspective

Consumers are becoming more demanding and fashion savvy which is forcingfashion retailers to provide the right product at the right time in the market – inother words, provide quick (fast) fashion (The Economist 2005). As the consumermarket is fragmented in terms of consumption patterns, fast fashion is gaining inimportance among consumers. With such developments, researchers should identifythe full spectrum of consumer behaviour towards fast fashion. The literature on fastfashion highlights various aspects of supply chain management, supported by supplychain theory to improve the business model of fashion retailers. It is worth notingthat not many studies have addressed fast fashion as a consumer-driven approach,leaving this an under-researched area.

Information and trends are moving around the globe at tremendous speeds,resulting in consumers’ ability to have more options and thus shop more often(Hoffman 2007). Changes in lifestyle due to sociocultural factors and a need foruniqueness forces fashion retailers to renew merchandise constantly to deal with thegrowing competition in the market (Sproles and Burns 1994). The constant, varyingdemands by consumers has impacted the process of forecasting and productplanning shifting; towards replicating famous designs and styles from fashionmagazines and fashion shows in small quantities more frequently (Christopher,Lowson, and Peck 2004).

The perception of throwaway fashion varies among different generations. Forexample, young people of the population that constitute Generation Y would prefera higher number of low-quality, cheap and fashionable clothes as compared to babyboomers, who would prefer to purchase fewer number of higher quality clothes(Crewe and Davenport 1992). From conservative consumers’ perspective, fastfashion is viewed as a ‘waste’ because rather than buying one high quality item tosatisfy a wardrobe need, consumers buy multiples that are lower quality and thenthrow old merchandise away as quickly as they bring in new ones (Sydney 2008). In

170 V. Bhardwaj and A. Fairhurst

agreement with Barnes and Lea-Greenwood (2006) and based on differentperspectives of consumers toward fast fashion mentioned in this study, it is apparentthat fast fashion is a consumer-driven approach, in addition to a supplier-drivenapproach.

Future research related to fast fashion

Review of existing research on different aspects of fast fashion indicates that the past20 years have seen substantial progress in knowledge generation about the topic, asevidenced by the increasing number of journal publications over time and the varietyof topics addressed, though these are mostly restricted to the supply chain domain.

Literature on fast fashion implies that rapid responsiveness techniques such asjust-in time, quick response, and agile supply chains can be valuable to the fashionindustry because such techniques can create a competitive edge in the market (see,for example, Bruce, Daly, and Towers 2004; Christopher, Lowson, and Peck 2004;Fiorito, May, and Straughne 1995; Sohal, Perry, and Pratt 1998). However, minimalevidence addresses consumer behaviour towards fashion that is quickly changing(see, for example, Barnes and Lea-Greenwood 2006). By knowing how and to whatextent rapid changing fashion affects consumers’ purchase behaviour and satisfac-tion levels, retailers can develop strategies that can lead to improved profitability.

The phenomenon of fast fashion has been extensively discussed in the fashionpress. However, the existing academic literature on fast fashion is somewhat limitedand calls for additional research on aspects such as factors that motivate consumers’purchase intention such as exclusivity, price-consciousness, hoarding merchandisefor future use, consumers’ perceived risk due to trade-off between quality and price,consumer expectation and satisfaction after the consumption process, andconsumers’ efficiency in terms of cost–benefit analysis.

The dramatic change in the fashion apparel industry, coupled with environ-mental concerns giving rise to conscious consumers in terms of fair trade, the greenmarket and organic clothing, implies that researchers will need to broaden, redesignand align their research to match the fashion markets in the twenty-first century.Further research can also examine the pricing strategy used for fast fashion apparelalong with analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay more for environmentallyfriendly and sustainable fast fashion apparel (for example, organic and green cottonapparel used by Zara and H&M) (see Ethical Style 2009). Currently, little is reportedin the literature regarding the segmentation of consumers based on the acceptance offast fashion. Therefore, it is important to conduct research to analyse the acceptanceof fast fashion across different consumer segments. Another area of research interestcould be to see whether consumers perceive fast fashion brands as counterfeit due tolower price and quality offered by the retailers. Also, it will be worth understandinghow consumers differentiate value retailing and fast fashion retailing as both aim tooffer lower prices.

Conclusion

Fast fashion is a concept that will continue to affect the fashion apparel industryover the next decade and will have a direct effect on the way consumers purchase andreact to trends. Although continued research relative to the supply-side of fastfashion is important, emphasis should be placed on examining consumers’

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 171

perception of fast fashion. Empirical understanding of consumer characteristics andtheir motivation to make purchase decisions for throwaway fashion can helpretailers in developing effective marketing strategies to perform more effectively inthe market.

References

Bailey, T. 2001. Organizational innovation in the apparel industry. Industrial Relations 32, no.1: 30–48.

Bailey, T., and T. Eicher. 1992. The North America Free Trade Agreement and the USapparel industry. Report prepared for the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment.

Barnes, L., and G. Lea-Greenwood. 2006. Fast fashioning the supply chain: Shaping theresearch agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10, no. 3: 259–71.

Birtwistle, G., and P. Freathey. 1998. More than just a name above the shop: A comparison ofthe branding strategies of two UK fashion retailers. International Journal of Retail andDistribution Management 26, no. 8: 318–23.

Birtwistle, G., N. Siddhiqui, and S.S. Fiorito. 2003. Quick response: Perceptions of UKfashion retailers. Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 31, no. 2: 118–28.

Brooks, J. 1979. A friendly product. New Yorker, November 12: 58–94.Bruce, M., L. Daly, and N. Towers. 2004. Lean or agile: A solution of supply chain mana-

gement in the textiles and clothing industry? International Journal of Operations andProduction Management 24, no. 2: 151–70.

Bruce, G., and L. Daly. 2006. Buyer behavior for fast fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketingand Management 10, no. 3: 329–44.

Christopher, M., R. Lowson, and H. Peck. 2004. Creating agile supply chains in the fashionindustry. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 32, no. 8: 367–76.

Crewe, L., and E. Davenport. 1991. The puppet-show: Changing buyer-supplier relationshipswithin clothing retailing. Transactions of the Institute for British Geogaphers 17, no. 2:183–97.

Djelic, M.-L., and A. Ainamo. 1999. The coevolution of new organizational forms in thefashion industry: A historical and comparative study of France, Italy, and the UnitedStates. Organizational Science 10, no. 5: 622–37.

Donnellan, J. 1996. Merchandise buying and management. New York: Fairchild Publications.Doyle, S.A., C.M. Moore, and L. Morgan. 2006. Supplier management in fast moving fashion

retailing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10, no. 3: 272–81.Ethical Style. 2009. The surprising top ten buyers of organic cotton. http://ethicalstyle.com/

tag/fast-fashion/Fernie, J., and N. Azuma. 2004. The changing nature of Japanese fashion: Can quick response

improve supply chain efficiency? European Journal of Marketing 38, no. 7: 749–69.Fernie, J., and L. Sparks. 1998. Logistics and retail management, insights into current practice

and trends from leading experts. London: Kogan Page.Fiorito, S., E. May, and K. Straughne. 1995. Quick response in retailing: Components and

implementation. International Journal of Retail and Distribution 23, no. 5: 12–21.Forza, C., and A. Vinelli. 1996. An analytical scheme for the change of the apparel design

process towards quick response. International Journal of Clothing 8, no. 4: 28–43.Franks, J. 2000. Supply chain innovation. Work Study 49, no. 4: 152–6.Gereffi, G. 1999. International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain.

Journal of International Economics 48, no. 1: 37–70.Guercini, S. 2001. Relation between branding and growth of the firm in new quick

fashion formulas: Analysis of an Italian case. Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement 5, no. 1: 69–79.

Hayes, S.G., and N. Jones. 2006. Fast fashion: A financial snapshot. Journal of FashionMarketing and Management 10, no. 3: 282–300.

Hines, T. 2001. Globalization: An introduction to fashion markets and fashion marketing. InFashion marketing: Contemporary issues, ed. T. Hines and M. Bruce, 121–32. Oxford:Elsevier Butterworth-Heineman.

Hines, T., and M. Bruce. 2001. Fashion marketing-contemporary issues. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

172 V. Bhardwaj and A. Fairhurst

Hoffman, W. 2007. Logistics get trendy. Traffic World 271, no. 5: 15.Jackson, T. 2001. The process of fashion trend development leading to a season. In Fashion

marketing: Contemporary issues, ed. T. Hines, and M. Bruce, 121–32. Chapter 7. Oxford:Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jones, J. 1995. Forces behind restructuring in US apparel retailing and its effect on the USapparel industry. Industry, Trade, and Technology Review, March: 23–30.

Malone, S. 1998. Custom foot-falls into bankruptcy, but concept lives on, says founder.Footwear News 54, no. 23: 5.

Malone, S. 1999. Making strides in mass customization. Women’s Wear Daily July: 12.National Post. 2009. Fast fashion. http://trendwatching.com/about/inmedia/articles/2009_

fast_fashion.htmlUS Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. The US textile and apparel industry: A revolution

in progress. Washington, DC: US government Printing Office.Perry, M., and A.S. Sohal. 2000. Quick response practices and technologies in developing

supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30,no. 7/8: 627–39.

Richardson, J. 1996. Vertical integration and rapid response in fashion apparel. OrganizationScience 7, no. 4: 400–12.

Sinha, P. 2001. The machanics of fashion. In Fashion marketing: Contemporary issues, ed. T.Hines and M. Bruce, 165–89. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sohal, A., M. Perry, and T. Pratt. 1998. Developing partnerships and networks: Learning forpractices in Australia. Techovation 18, no. 4: 245–51.

Sydney. 2008. Fast fashion is not a trend. http://www.sydneylovesfashion.com/2008/12/fast-fashion-is-trend.html

Sproles, G. 1979. Fashion: Consumer behaviour toward dress. Minneapolis: Burgess PublishingCompany.

Sproles, G., and L. Burns. 1994. Changing appearances: Understanding dress in contemporarysociety. New York: Fairchild Publications.

Taplin, I.M. 1999. Continuity and change in the US apparel industry: A statistical profile.Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 3, no. 4: 360–8.

Taplin, I.M. 2006. Restructuring and reconfiguration: The EU textile and clothing industryadapts to change. European Business Review 18, no. 3: 172–86.

The Economist. 2005. The future of fast fashion: Inditex. The Economist 375, no. 8431: 63.Tokatli, N., N. Wrigley, and O. Kizilgun. 2008. Shifting global supply networks and fast

fashion: Made in Turkey for Marks & Spencer. Global Networks 8, no. 3: 261–80.Tyler, D., J. Heeley, and T. Bhamra. 2006. Supply chain influences on new product

development in fashion clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10, no. 3:316–28.

Wensley, R. 1999. The basics of marketing strategy. In The marketing book, ed. M.J. Baker.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wheelright, S., and K. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps inspeed, efficiency, and quality. New York: The Free Press.

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 173

Copyright of International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research is the property of Routledge

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.