COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS MODELS IN RETAIL: FAST CYCLE VS. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS MODELS IN RETAIL: FAST CYCLE VS. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62304/ijse.v1i2.141

Keywords:

Fast Fashion, Slow Fashion, Sustainable Retail, Business Models, Consumer Behavior, Supply Chain

Abstract

This study conducts a comprehensive comparative analysis of fast-cycle and long-term sustainability business models in the retail industry. Through a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data, this research examines the key characteristics, underlying mechanisms, and impacts of these two contrasting models. The findings reveal stark differences in supply chain structures, design and production processes, marketing strategies, and consumer behavior. While fast-cycle models excel in speed, affordability, and trend responsiveness, they are associated with environmental degradation, ethical concerns, and a culture of disposability. Conversely, sustainable models prioritize ethical sourcing, environmental responsibility, and long-term value creation, but face challenges related to cost, scalability, and the need to balance timelessness with trend relevance. The implications for retailers, policymakers, and consumers are discussed, with a focus on the potential for hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on sustainable business practices and provides valuable insights for retailers seeking to navigate the complex landscape of consumer preferences and sustainability demands.

 

Author Biography

Md Rohul Amin, Graduate Researcher, Master of Business Administration and Management, King Graduate School, Monroe College, The Bronx, New York, USA

 

 

 

Downloads

Published

2024-05-13

How to Cite

Md Rohul Amin. (2024). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS MODELS IN RETAIL: FAST CYCLE VS. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY. International Journal of Science and Engineering, 1(02), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.62304/ijse.v1i2.141
Loading...