Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Wearable technologies in the fashion value ecosystem: a conceptual model

Wearable technologies in the fashion value ecosystem: a conceptual model Purpose – The fashion sector is complex. It involves multiple actors with distinct and potentially conflicting interests, forming a value ecosystem. Thus, knowing the interested parties and belonging to the fashion sector may be a means to promote technological innovation, such as products with wearables. The purpose of this paper to identify the participants of the fashion ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies and develop a conceptual model. Design/methodology/approach – The present work aims to identify the participants (actors) and develop a conceptual model of the fashion ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies. The systematic literature review is the recommended method to qualitatively analyze documents and identify the interested parties (actors) in the fashion sector in order to design the proposed conceptual model. Findings – From the studies, the conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was designed, and the wearable product was considered its core business. The studies identified addressed ecosystems of fashion value in general but not specific to wearable products and their relations with other complementary industries. Research limitations/implications – The model was designed using secondary data only. Its validation is relevant through interviews with experts. Originality/value – In terms of relevance, when conducting a systematic literature review, there were no studies that included wearable technologies in the fashion ecosystems discussed and their relations with other industries. The topic of wearables is an emerging subject that needs further research aiming to insert this technology in productive sectors. Keywords Fashion sector, Fashion ecosystem, Wearable technologies, Systematic literature review Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Making products with a short life cycle (Abecassis-Moedas, 2006) is a characteristic of the fashion sector (Boscacci, 2018). Therefore, the need to innovate, produce and sell items is © Rosiane Serrano, Larissa Fortunati and Daniel Pacheco Lacerda. Published in Innovation & Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http:// creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode. The authors are grateful to the IFRS – Campus Erechim (Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul – Campus Erechim) for the financial support for the development of Innovation & Management Review this paper. The authors wish to thank The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development pp. 90-105 Emerald Publishing Limited (CNPq), and The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the 2515-8961 DOI 10.1108/INMR-02-2020-0020 support to conduct this research. € continuous (Tervila, 2015), and the synergies to support the growth and development of the Wearable sector are essential (European Commission, 2019). technologies As an economic sector, fashion employs 75 million people worldwide, and its market value is estimated at 1.7 trillion dollars (Tervila, 2015). The fashion industry’s value surpasses 3.0 trillion dollars (16 trillion Brazilian reais on June 29, 2020), representing 2% of the world GDP (Fashion United, 2020). In the Brazilian market, fashion is an industrial sector with the positive job and income multipliers (Serrano, Rodrigues, Lacerda, & Paraboni, 2018). The direct jobs generated in the textile and clothing sector total 1.5 million distributed in 25,000 formal companies, and other 8 million indirect jobs with income effects (Associaç~ao Brasileira ^ ~ da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT, 2020). However, the fashion sector is complex (Jia, Yin, Chen, & Chen, 2020; Jin, 2004), since it involves multiple actors with distinct and potentially conflicting interests that need to be articulated to generate a co-evolution process (Moore, 1996). Ecosystem participants are interconnected and depend on each other to survive (Iansiti & Levien, 2004), creating value for products. Mapping the fashion sector (textiles and clothing) as an ecosystem is interesting as it enables developing joint actions with all actors (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Thus, knowing the interested parties belonging to the fashion sector may be a means to promote technological innovation, stimulate demand and measure the impacts generated by this sector (European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX, 2017), which shows ever-increasing competitiveness. As pointed out by EURATEX (2004), the fashion sector is formed by several subsectors. Therefore, it is crucial to define which of them will be the object of this study since it aims to map the fashion value ecosystem from the perspective of wearable products. Wearable products have as functionality the user’s interaction with the environment (Wood, 2018; Zhang, Stankovski, Saeed, Saeed, & Zhang, 2020) by placing the technology around the body employing sensors (O’Nascimento, 2020). Wearable devices have achieved fast growth in the electronics market, providing interested buyers with various products to satisfy their needs and desires (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). Besides allowing constant, convenient, continuous and portable access for users (Dehghani & Dangelico, 2018), wearable products seek to enhance reality by superimposing computer-generated images or audio clips over the real world and provide sensitivity to the outside context by informing the users about their environmental and personal status (Billinghurst & Starner, 1999). Wearable devices can be found in different industrial sectors (Mardonova & Choi, 2018), for example, for medical assistance purposes aiming to collect data on patient health (Heintzman, 2016). In the universe of the fashion sector, devices are found in aesthetic accessories combined or not with garments (Cantanhede, Dias, Gammarano, & Arruda Filho, 2018; Lazaroiu, 2012). Their use aims to add value to a piece of clothing by inserting electronic components (Marini, 2016). It is estimated that the sales of smart clothing will increase from 2.9 million pieces in 2018 to 10.5 million by 2022 (Richter, 2018). Patents issued for smart clothing are not a new category in the wearables market (Dehghani & Dangelico, 2018); for example, between the 1960s and the 1990s, efforts concentrated on developing the first clothing with a wearable concept (O’Nascimento, 2020; Wood, 2018). However, information about the presence of such technologies in the production process of the fashion sector is still limited, and uncertainties about the insertion of wearable technologies in the production process are frequent (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). Furthermore, the production flow of fashion is different from conventional processes (Han, Han, & Kim, 2014) in that it includes innovative features, such as the user interaction with the product. Technology, therefore, changes the way work is carried out in organizations (Eidenhammer, 2018). In addition, the development of products with wearable technologies faces difficulties in INMR market positioning, as there is interaction with more than one industrial sector (Wood, 2018). 19,2 For example, there are relations between the fashion and the electronics sectors, which play complementary roles in the complex productive context. Therefore, a valuable ecosystem is formed capable of producing goods with innovative and technological resources resulting from the interaction of different actors. Therefore, in-depth studies that consider the relations between different actors are essential for the competitiveness of the fashion sector (Serrano, Morandi, Veit, Mansilha, & Lacerda, 2020). The present work aims to develop a conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies. The participants of the fashion value ecosystem were identified in previous studies, and the systematic literature review (Morandi & Camargo, 2015) was the working method. It is worthwhile noting that the studies addressed ecosystems of fashion value in general but not specifically to wearable products and their relations with other complementary industries. Based on these studies, a conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was developed about wearable products. In addition, the issue of sustainability was incorporated by analyzing the final destination of the garments. This article is structured into five sections, Section 1 is the Introduction. Then, the theoretical framework, the methodology and the research results are presented in Sections 2–4, followed by the final discussions and considerations of the study in Section 5. 2. Theoretical framework This theoretical framework initially addresses value ecosystems and their relations with the fashion sector, followed by the premises for the insertion of wearable technologies in the fashion sector. 2.1 Value ecosystems and their relations with the fashion sector Ecology is a science that examines complex relations and interactions between members or species of particular communities and their relations with the environment (Mengi, 2017). When addressing this concept in an industrial sector, Moore (1996) considered companies as a network of interconnected organizations and individuals with the objective of generating a process of co-evolution. Thus, ecosystems are a living community of interacting organisms, requiring diversity to function (Oksanen et al., 2018). According to Salonoja (2013), the ecosystem is an important concept as it helps to understand the complex business environment since the ownership and roles of actors belonging to it are identified (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Furthermore, the set of actors, comprising organizations, products and processes, are analyzed as a part of a comprehensive, interdependent system (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017). In the logic of business ecosystems, the health of an organization influences the success and survival of all other participants in the ecosystem (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). In industries formed by subsystems, such as fashion (Mengi, 2017), the network of relations and the subsequent dynamics represented by the different stakeholders are highly complex (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Therefore, the alignment of views and the mutual support of interested parties are crucial (Moore, 1996). The concept of the ecosystem has several interpretations (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017) and structures. It can be composed of eight dimensions, as proposed by Moore (1996) and Serrano (2018); four layers (Baghbadorani & Harandi, 2012); or six categories (Fragidis, 2017). Thus, the object of the study (core business) and the complexity of the environment define the necessary structure of the ecosystem. In this study, the core business is defined by products developed using the concept of wearable technologies. The name of the ecosystem may vary depending on the focus of the study and the Wearable complexity of the sector, such as service ecosystems (Fragidis, 2017), business ecosystems technologies (Moore, 1996)or value ecosystems (Serrano, 2018). We opted for the term “fashion value ecosystem,” which enables identifying professionals, textile manufacturers, wholesalers and retail buyers (Mengi, 2017) as necessary members to create value for the core business and seek its co-evolution. Finally, in the complex fashion value ecosystem, in which competition is related to the development of products with different levels of technology (Serrano et al., 2018), producing competitive products that satisfy the needs of consumers (Kawamura, 2005) without harming the environment (Fletcher & Grose, 2012) is a constant challenge. In this perspective, it is interesting to understand fashion as a value ecosystem that adds economic, social and environmental value as it evolves (Serrano et al., 2018). The following section addresses the theoretical framework of products developed from the concept of wearable technologies. 2.2 Insertion of wearable technologies in the fashion sector In the era of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things (IoT), connectivity between humans and machines grows increasingly (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). As a result, new information and intelligence are generated for the industry (Chen, 2019) and users. Connectivity devices include wearable technologies, which seek interactivity between the environment and the user, assisting in motor and cognitive activities without limiting movements (Donati, 2004). Besides, they are characterized as products controlled by the user, always on and accessible (Mann, 1997). Wearable products are inserted in several industrial sectors (Mardonova & Choi, 2018) and services, like health, agriculture, manufacturing, home automation and public safety (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). Thus, the use of wearable technologies for monitoring the health of employees may become a valuable resource for companies (Lavalliere, Burstein, Arezes, & Coughlin, 2016). For instance, sensors can detect signs of health, social well-being (Stoppa & Chiolerio, 2014) and personal productivity (Fernandez- Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018; O’Nascimento, 2020), providing biometric data on the preferences and lifestyles of each user (Heintzman, 2016). Wearable products are at the boundary between the physical and the digital worlds, where communication with remote objects and servers enables advanced monitoring services (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). They may drastically change the way we live and do business (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). Wearable products have as premise not to attract attention during use, but to dress the body (Eidenhammer, 2018) and provide the user with real-time information and experiences (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). However, due to the need to carry extra equipment to monitor the desired data, 40% of wearable product users tend to put the equipment aside (Lavalliere et al., 2016). Consequently, the initial premise of dressing the body is still not being fully met. Advances are needed for a better user experience with wearable products (Lavalliere et al., 2016), such as joining industries that previously worked separately. With different product development techniques and manufacturing practices, computing, electronics, clothing and textiles could work together to develop such technological products (Wood, 2018). Therefore, technical uncertainties about the manufacture of wearable products are numerous, and changes in production processes are frequent (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). This is a result of the need to define the way of inserting wearable technologies in the production of garments: whether the garment or textile acts as a support for electronic sensors or computing devices, enabling data output; or having all devices integrated at the level of textile production, be it at the fiber, fabric manufacture or finishing stages (Wood, 2018). Thus, making clothing using the wearable concept is still an object of study (Eidenhammer, 2018). The scholars and decision-makers need to determine which new forms of integration INMR connect the various parts of the field as it continues to grow (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). First, 19,2 new technologies arising from the miniaturization of components foster research opportunities, such as incorporating conductors into the fabric thread (Wood, 2018). Second, the functionality of devices and cost reduction of the leading technologies cause the wearable market to grow rapidly (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). This research adopts this perspective, as it proposes to identify the necessary actors for the development of a product with a wearable concept then to propose actions of leverage and perpetuation to this sector. 3. Methodology According to Silva and Menezes (2005), the research seeks ways to solve problems still unanswered; therefore, it is a reflective and critical procedure which, to obtain relevant and well-founded results, must indicate how it was carried out, making it possible to be contested and verified (Dresch, Lacerda, & Antunes, 2015). In this research, the proposed working method combines systematic and rational practices that contribute to obtain the desired results (Collatto, Dresch, Lacerda, & Bentz, 2018; Marconi & Lakatos, 2010). For this research, we applied the systematic literature review method, which seeks to answer a question put forth by the researcher and uses systematic and explicit methods for collecting and analyzing the material found (Morandi & Camargo, 2015). Figure 1 shows how this study was conducted. The definition of the question and the conceptual framework arise from the interest in identifying how wearable technologies are inserted in the fashion value ecosystem, initially detecting who the actors that belong to this ecosystem are. Regarding the conceptual framework, this research is configurative since keywords were searched a priori considering the topic of wearable technologies and their insertion in the fashion value ecosystem. The work team, in turn, comprised the researchers who worked on the project and those who had knowledge about the theme and the methodology used. The strategy was the elaboration of a set of keywords on the proposed topic. Databases were selected to perform the search: Ebsco, Scielo, Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald and gray literature (Google Scholar and reports of funding agencies) (Morandi & Camargo, 2015). Figure 1. Method for the systematic literature review Source(s): Adapted from Morandi and Camargo (2015) Saturation was the selected search strategy, and no timeframe was defined. When entering Wearable the combination of keywords, the Boolean operator “AND” was used, which helped minimize technologies search bias. To select the documents, we performed three analyses: titles, abstracts and studies selected for a full reading. This way, 6,881 titles were found, of which 902 studies (scientific articles, technical reports and journal articles) were selected for summary analysis, and 349 were finally included in our study, as Table 1 shows. Out of the final 349 documents, 15 addressed ecosystems and value or supply chains and were read in full. This way, a second exclusion of titles was carried out: studies not relevant were excluded, leaving 13 documents (see Table 2 in Section 4). The completion of search, eligibility and encoding represented the operationalization of the study. Thus, when conducting the search, adherence and relevance to the theme were considered as inclusion criteria, whereas documents that did not address the studied context were excluded. The evaluation of the quality of primary studies centered on the contents of the documents, that is, whether they addressed value ecosystem, value chain, supply chain, among others, concerning the researched theme. The similarity of primary studies was considered and synthesized in a heterogeneous way. For the synthesis of the results, we applied interpretative criticism. It was performed in three moments: initially by separating materials that discussed value ecosystem, value chain, supply chain, among others. Then, these materials were indexed using the software ATLAS.ti. The second step was also performed in this software, which listed the elements/ actors that composed the fashion value ecosystem. Finally, in the third step, a table was created containing the elements/actors, which was analyzed again in order to reorder the elements/actors the documents presented, excluding or joining similar ones. Using the qualitative data analysis software allows grouping similar data into blocks related to the issue, hypothesis or topic of interest and its relations (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013), thus enabling an efficient, consistent and systematic analysis of data management (Gibbs, 2014). Based on this process, the framework for this research was prepared, and we show the results in the following section. 4. Results This section discusses the data obtained in the systematic literature review, its results and the fashion value ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies. Therefore, as described in Section 3, we selected 13 documents, as Table 2 shows. We selected these documents because they discuss ecosystems, value chains or supply chains of the fabric and clothing sector, defined in this study as fashion. The study of EURATEX (2004) was used as a basis for the development of the ecosystem proposed for this study, as it presents the actors and the interconnections between them, beginning by the presentation of the extraction industry and ending in the reverse chain. The study’s main objective was to plan strategies for the future of the fashion industry, allowing Systematic literature review results – wearables Database Results Analyzed abstracts Included studies Scielo 9 9 2 Web of science 24 24 19 Scopus 41 41 6 EBSCO 56 56 10 Emerald 53 53 17 Gray literature 6,698 719 295 Total 6,881 902 349 Table 1. Source(s): Prepared by the authors Search results INMR No Authors Study title 19,2 01 EURATEX (2004) European technology platform: for the future of textiles and clothing – a vision for 2020 02 Pinar and Trapp (2008) Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and brand ecosystem: the case of Turkish cotton and textiles 03 Strauss, Sundjaja, Johnson, Gandhi, An NYCEDC study Wong, & Yoo (2010) 04 Salonoja (2013) Bridging the equity and entrepreneurial gaps in the Finnish fashion industry 05 Corner & Stride (2015) A local fashion ecosystem, the next step toward an east London fashion cluster 06 Mengi (2017) Reconsidering the knowledge ecology in fashion industry: a metaphorical approach 07 Fontell & Heikkila (2017) Model of circular business ecosystem for textiles 08 Wang (2018) Brief analysis on closed-loop ecosystem of textile and clothing recycling 09 Oksanen et al. (2018) In search of Finnish creative economy ecosystems and their development needs-study based on international benchmarking 10 Sandberg, Pal, & Hemila (2018) Exploring value creation and appropriation in the reverse clothing supply chain 11 Lin (2018) The structural characteristics of the innovation ecosystem: a Fashion case 12 Kaplanidou (2018) Digitalization in the apparel manufacturing process 13 Chen (2019) Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan Table 2. Source(s): Prepared by the authors List of articles access to resources for the development of research and innovations. Thus, that study shows the need to know the actors that belong to the fashion sector to propose future actions, corroborating the objectives of our own study. The other studies discuss other topics, such as the creation of competitive advantages for the fashion sector. Chen (2019) and Mengi (2017) used a local fashion ecosystem to understand the clothing sector; however, Chen (2019) demonstrated the relevance of using technology for the participation of small companies in the fashion supply chain, whereas Mengi (2017) proposed integration between the textile and clothing sectors. Corroborating this stance, Salonoja (2013) noted that the lack of integration and collaboration between clothing companies might result in the ecosystem’s underdevelopment and difficulties in obtaining external capital. Pinar and Trapp (2008) explained that strategies for brand promotion and product differentiation might promote increased competitiveness of textile products. Sandberg et al. (2018) explained value creation and appropriation processes in a reverse clothing chain to demonstrate sustainability in the fashion value ecosystem. Wang (2018) addressed the need for changes in the manufacture and disposal of clothing, pointing out solutions to minimize impacts generated in the production of garments. Both authors present a comprehensive view of the actions and the members in the reverse chain. Corner and Stride (2015) and Strauss et al. (2010) addressed the search for the development of the local fashion industry. The evidence shows the relevance of cities as global fashion centers through the promotion of jobs, training and workspaces (Corner & Stride, 2015), helping and informing interested parties regarding the future of the fashion industry (Strauss et al., 2010). In turn, Oksanen et al. (2018) analyzed the ecosystem of the creative economy in three countries and provided recommendations for the fashion industry. Lin (2018) explored technological innovation as a means to expand the image of an innovation ecosystem. Kaplanidou (2018) demonstrated the influence of digital transformation of different companies Wearable on the clothing industry, emphasizing the importance of Greek clothing manufacturers in technologies understanding digital technologies. Finally, Fontell and Heikkil€a(2017) presented a circular business ecosystem for textiles and clothing and explained the circular economy principles in the textile context, the main material flows and the types of actors present in the value chain. Thus, after reading the documents listed in Table 2, the elements/actors present in the models and the subdivision of the products derived from them were extracted, as Table 3 shows. Then, as described in Section 2, a qualitative analysis was performed on the actors, using a qualitative statistics software as a tool and excluding duplicates or conflicting names. Based on data on the actors, the conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was designed from the perspective of wearable technologies, as Figure 2 shows. The proposed ecosystem has as its core business a “technological clothing product.” This definition was adopted because wearable products had different descriptions in the literature review (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). This diversity reflects in the separation carried out by Richter (2018), who pointed out six types of marketed wearable products. In addition, Dehghani and Kim (2019) pointed to clusters of occurrence of terms related to wearable devices and product diversity. Corroborating this stance, O’Nascimento (2020) shows several types and classes of wearable products. As a premise, Moore (1996) stated that for the core business value and leverage ecosystem, there are dimensions defined as extraction industry, textile transformation industry, goods/ clothing industry, retail, customers, reverse chain and electronics. Furthermore, external actors/ support who provide services to the actors directly linked to the core business were added to our model and labeled as distribution, professionals and others. The extraction industry is divided into natural and chemical fibers, as this subdivision determines the fabric to be produced and the other processes they perform. The transformation industry remodels the fibers, converting them into threads and later into fabrics through weaving and improvements that increase the quality of threads, whether chemical, natural, conventional, frictional or technological (EURATEX, 2004). The goods/clothing industry develops and produces the clothing items, technological or not. In the proposed model, this dimension briefly addresses the main actors involved in the clothing manufacture process, namely, development and modeling, cutting and sewing (Kaplanidou, 2018; Mengi, 2017) and improvement (EURATEX, 2004). Thus, because it is a wide-scope, complex sector, other actors are present and vary according to the market segment considered. The retail dimension relates to sales and embodies two possible forms of distribution: physical and online (Chen, 2019; Fontell & Heikkila, 2017; Strauss et al., 2010). The current rise of shopping apps has highlighted online retailing, which now has more followers than ever (Fontell & Heikkila, 2017). The customers, in turn, are divided into conventional, seeking to supply their individual needs, and unconventional, such as medicine consumers, which obtain products intending to supply collective needs (EURATEX, 2004). When reviewing the documents in Table 3, we noticed the presence of reverse chains. They are inserted in the ecosystem and divided into disuse and recycling (EURATEX, 2004; Fontell & Heikkil€a, 2017; Strauss et al., 2010). Finally, electronics is part of the computer and nanotechnology industry that produces componentsandparts.Thus,thisactorsuppliesmaterialstobuildtechnologicalgarmentproducts. Theycanbeinsertedinboththeextractionindustry,thusproducingtechnologicalfabricsthatwill laterbe usedas rawmaterialandthegoods/clothingindustryduringthe finalizationofthe product (Wood, 2018). Therefore, sensors, nanotechnological goods, miniaturization, such as sensing, wireless communication or nanotechnology, become available to the manufacturing and goods/ confectionindustries(Eidenhammer,2018).Currently,wearabletechnologyisconsideredthejoining of electronics/informatics and clothing and accessories (Wood, 2018). Other actors (external/support) may directly or indirectly influence the functioning of the ecosystem, such as intermediaries/negotiators, legislation, infrastructure and education/courses. INMR 19,2 Table 3. Excerpt of the list created from the analysis of studies – actors/products Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkil€a Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Extraction Natural fiber x x x industry Fiber x Transformation Petrochemical x industry industry Chemical x industry Chemical yarnxxx xx industry Weaving xx x factory Processing x Goods/Clothing Seam x x industry Clothes factory x x x x x x Dyeing and x x finishing (embroidery, prints) Distribution Branded x clothing companies Wholesale x Service xX x x providers/ materials (continued) Wearable technologies Table 3. Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkila Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Professionals Human xx resources/ capital Intermediaries X Designs/ xx x x x x creators Fashion editors x Commercial x brokers/ classifiers Entrepreneurs x Fashion xx bloggers Craftsman x Public relations x Hairstylist x Fashion experts X Customers Buyers x x x x x x Public sector/xx x government Old customers x Retail Retail x x x Boutiques x Reverse chains Repair (DIY) X WasteXxx management (continued) INMR 19,2 Table 3. Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkila Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Other Machinery and X equipment producers and suppliers Software X producers and suppliers Other X intermediate services Support X services Operations and x value creation (brand) Value delivery X (brand) Consumer X preferences and desired experiences (brand) Source(s): Prepared by the authors Wearable technologies Figure 2. Conceptual model of fashion value ecosystem Source(s): Prepared by the authors Therefore, these actors comprise an essential dimension in the ecosystem since they disseminate knowledge and legitimize technological product development in different sectors. Distribution and professionals refer to the availability of products or technical services for product development. They are divided into textile/apparel, services, technology providers, content providers, intermediaries/negotiators and transport/logistics. For example, considering distribution, there are software suppliers that permit the reading of the identified data. In the professionals dimension, there is a need for specialized people to analyze this data and insert this technology in the clothing product, including many technological areas, such as fashion, computer science, engineering and the Humanities, like Medicine and Psychology. Therefore, these professionals have joint action, with variable intensity depending on the technological product to be developed. The model shown in Figure 2 represents the reality of the complex fashion value ecosystem, lists the actors and demonstrates their interconnection. Unfortunately, the fashion value ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies is incomplete because, depending on the product, actors need to be inserted or excluded. The following section presents the final considerations of the study. 5. Final considerations Identifying the actors in the fashion value ecosystem enables confirming the complexity in this sector and understanding its functioning. Furthermore, by designing a conceptual model using an ecosystem approach (Moore, 1996), it is possible to verify the interconnection between actors aiming at the sector’s functionality and leverage. Finally, even though organizations, entities, actors and the society in general, which gravitate around as complex a business such as fashion, are not structured and identified, they are part of a value ecosystem (Serrano et al., 2018). Therefore, the proposed objective was achieved, i.e. to identify the participants (actors) and create a fashion ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies. In terms of relevance, in our systematic literature review, no studies included wearable INMR technologies in the discussed fashion ecosystems, nor their relations with other industries. 19,2 However, the use of wearable technologies in numerous industrial sectors is evident (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). Furthermore, these technologies add safety at work by monitoring body data (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). Besides, according to Zhang et al. (2020), wearable technology can be helpful for governments and health departments to control pandemics and track people consistently and precisely. In addition, wearables are an emerging subject that needs further research to insert this technology in productive sectors and enable the development of sensors, information technology, data fusion techniques, material science, communication technologies, flexible batteries and storage facilities (Zhang et al., 2020). Thus, it becomes interesting to systematically identify this sector’s possible limitations and leverage points with the insertion of wearable technologies aiming to increase its competitiveness. Systematically analyzing the sector, it is possible to understand the existing complex relations, which would not be possible to be done linearly (Sterman, 2000). In addition, it is necessary to use different approaches for business effectiveness (Chen, 2019). Although the results of this study are satisfactory, there were limitations to it. The first is that the model considered secondary data, the studies and documents shown in Table 2. Also, the search universe resulted in documents concerning ecosystem models, value chains and supply chains. Thus, many studies had to be excluded. The second limitation refers to the structure of the value ecosystem presented in Figure 2, which followed Moore (1996) and was divided into core business, direct dimensions and external actors/support. Thus, the positioning of the actors may not follow a proper order due to the sector’s complexity. Because of this, we propose for further works the validation of our conceptual model through interviews with experts, making it possible to neutralize the limitations. It is also crucial to identify existing differences in the current processes of product development and production. References Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 23–36. doi: 10.1016/ j.indmarman.2017.08.010. Abecassis-Moedas, C. (2006). Integrating design and retail in the clothing value chain. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,26(4), 412–428. doi: 10.1108/01443570610650567. ~  ^ ~ ^ Associaçao Brasileira da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT (2020). Monitor: Superintendencia de pol ıticas industriais e econ^omicas. In Associaç~ao Brasileira da Industria  T^extil e de Confecç~ao- ~  ^ ~ ABIT. Associaçao Brasileira da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT, Available at: https:// www.abit.org.br/cont/economia. Baghbadorani, M. F., & Harandi, A. (2012). A conceptual model for business ecosystem and implications for future research. IPEDR, 52(17), 82–86. Billinghurst, M., & Starner, T. (1999). Wearable devices: New ways to manage information. Computer, 32(1), 57–64. doi: 10.1109/2.738305. Boscacci, E. (2018). Circular economy in the fashion industry: Turning waste into resources (Master dissertation), Universidade Catolica Portuguesa in Economics and Management of Innovation and Technology. Available at: https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/25917/1/ Dissertation_152116323_Eleonora Boscacci.pdf. Cantanhede, L. R. C., Dias, E. J. P., Gammarano, I. D. J. L. P., & Arruda Filho, E. J. M. (2018). Comportamento do consumidor de tecnologia vestıvel: Caracterısticas que influenciam na intenç~ao de consumo. REAd. Revista Eletr^onica de Administraç~ao (Porto Alegre), 24(3), 244–268. doi: 10.1590/1413-2311.225.85428. Chen, C.-L. (2019). Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 Wearable trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan. Journal of Global Information Technology technologies Management, 22(2), 120–145. doi: 10.1080/1097198X.2019.1603512. Collatto, D. C., Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Bentz, I. G. (2018). Is action design research indeed necessary? Analysis and synergies between action research and design science research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(3), 239–267. doi: 10.1007/s11213-017-9424-9. Corner, F., & Stride, S. (2015). A local fashion ecosystem, the next step towards an East London Fashion Cluster. High-end and Designer Manufacturing Report. Oxford Economics and Glasgow Caledonian University, London. Dehghani, M., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Smart wearable technologies: State of the art and evolution over time through patent analysis and clustering. International Journal of Product Development, 22(4), 293. doi: 10.1504/IJPD.2018.091148. Dehghani, M., & Kim, K. J. (2019). Past and present research on wearable technologies: Bibliometric and cluster analyses of published research from 2000 to 2016. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(1), 1950007. doi: 10.1142/S021987701950007X. Donati, L. P. (2004). Computadores vest ıveis: Conviv^encia de diferentes especialidades the INmobility ~ ~ project view project. In Conexao – Comunicaçao e Cultura (Vol. 3, No. 6), Available at: https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/49591122. Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Antunes, J. A. V. Jr (2015). Design science research. A method for science and technology advancement (1st ed.). Springer, London. Eidenhammer, L. (2018). Wearables conquering the workplace of Generation Y-The opportunities and risks to integrate wearable technology at work (Dissertaç~ao (mestrado)), Escola Brasileira de Administraç~ao Publica  e de Empresas, Centro de Formaç~ao Acad^emica e Pesquisa. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX (2004). European technology platform: For the future of textiles and clothing – A vision for 2020. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX. European Apparel and Textile Organisation, Brussels. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX (2017). Policy brief: Prospering in the circular economy the case of European textile and apparel (p. 6). European Apparel and Textile Organisation, Brussels. European Commission (2019). Support report mapping sustainable fashion opportunities for SMES. In Publications Office of the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion/high-end-industries/eu#report. Fashion United (2020). Global fashion industry statistics – International apparel. Fashion United. Available at: https://fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-statistics/. Fernandez-Carames, T., & Fraga-Lamas, P. (2018). Towards the internet-of-smart-clothing: A review on IoT wearables and garments for creating intelligent connected E-textiles. Electronics, 7(12), 405. doi: 10.3390/electronics7120405. Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Moda and sustentabilidade: Design para mudança (1st ed.). Senac ~ ~ Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo. Fontell, P., & Heikkila, P. (2017). Model of circular business ecosystem for textiles (p. 58). VTT Technica l Research Centre o Finland, Espoo. Fragidis, G. (2017). The user perspective on service ecosystems: Key concepts and models. In Camarinha- Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Fornasiero, R. (Eds), Collaboration in a data-rich world (1st ed., Vol. 506, pp. 368–380). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65151-4_34. Gibbs, G. R. (2014). Using software in qualitative analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 277–294). SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446282243.n19. Han, S. C., Han, Y.-H., & Kim, H. S. (2014). Characteristics and perspectives of wearable smart devices and industrial ecosystem. 2014 20th IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), 2015-April (pp. 911–914). doi: 10.1109/PADSW.2014.7097907. Heintzman, N. D. (2016). A digital ecosystem of diabetes data and technology: Services, systems, and INMR tools enabled by wearables, sensors, and apps. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 19,2 10(1), 35–41. doi: 10.1177/1932296815622453. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Working Paper. Harvard Business School. Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L., & Chen, X. (2020). The circular economy in the textile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120728. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. Jin, B. (2004). Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balance under demand uncertainty. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(12), 1292– 1305. doi: 10.1108/01443570410569056. Kaplanidou, A. (2018). Digitalization in the apparel manufacturing process. Master’s thesis- Master in Innovation Sciences. Kawamura,Y.(2005). Fashionology: An introduction to fashion studies (1st ed.). Berg Publishers, New York. Lavalliere, M., Burstein, A. A., Arezes, P., & Coughlin, J. F. (2016). Tackling the challenges of an aging workforce with the use of wearable technologies and the quantified-self. DYNA, 83(197), 38. doi: 10.15446/dyna.v83n197.57588. Lazaroiu, G. (2012). Communicative functions of smart clothing. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 211(41), 162–167. Lin, S. (2018). The structural characteristics of innovation ecosystem: A fashion case. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 620–635. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-09-2017-0115. Mann, S. (1997). Smart clothing: The wearable computer and wearcam. Personal Technologies, 1(1), 21–27. doi: 10.1007/BF01317885. Marconi, M. D. A., & Lakatos, E. M. (2010). Fundamentos de metodologia cient ıfica (7th ed.). Atlas, S~ao Paulo. Mardonova, M., & Choi, Y. (2018). Review of wearable device technology and its applications to the mining industry. Energies, 11(3), 547. doi: 10.3390/en11030547. ~ ~ Marini, P. S. S. K. (2016). As tecnologias vestıveis de moda e a relaçao entre humano e nao-humano. ModaPalavra, 10(19), 117–134. doi: 10.5965/1982615x10192017117. Mengi, O. (2017). Reconsidering the knowledge ecology in fashion industry: A metaphorical approach. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM (Vol. 2, pp. 683–689). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. HarperBusiness, New York. Morandi, M. I. W. M., & Camargo, L. F. R. (2015). Revis~ao sistematica da literatura. In Design science research: metodo de pesquisa para avanço da ciencia e tecnologia (pp. 141–175). Bookman. € € Oksanen, J., Kuusisto, O., Lima-Toivanen, M., Mantyla, M., Naumanen, M., Rilla, N., Sachinopoulou, A. and Valkokari, K. (2018). In search of Finnish creative economy ecosystems and their development needs-study based on international benchmarking. 50/2018, October (p. 155). Publications of the Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities. Available at: www. tietokayttoon.fi. O’Nascimento, R. (2020). Roupas inteligentes: Combinando moda e tecnologia.Sao Paulo: Editora Senac S~ao Paulo. Pinar, M., & Trapp, P. S. (2008). Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and brand ecosystem. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 20(1), 29–56. doi: 10.1300/j047v20n01_03. Richter, F. (2018). The global wearables market is all about the wrist (p. 1). Statista. Available at: https:// Wearable www.statista.com/chart/3370/wearable-device-forecast/. technologies Salonoja, N. (2013). Bridging the equity and entrepreneurial gaps in the Finnish fashion industry, 130, Available at: www.tcpdf.org. Sandberg, E., Pal, R., & Hemila, J. (2018). Exploring value creation and appropriation in the reverse clothing supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 90–109. doi: 10. 1108/IJLM-10-2016-0241. Serrano, R. (2018). Ecossistema Produtivo do Esporte: Modelagem e analise sistemica a partir do Futebol Brasileiro. Tese de Doutorado, Programa de Pos Graduaç~ao em Engenharia de Produçao e Sistemas da Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos- UNISINOS. Serrano, R., Morandi, M. I. W. M., Veit, D. R., Mansilha, R. B., & Lacerda, D. P. (2020). Generation of value of a Brazil fashion industrial cluster: A systemic analysis. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 15(1), 88–104. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242020000100088. Serrano, R., Rodrigues, L. H., Lacerda, D. P., & Paraboni, P. B. (2018). Systems thinking and scenario planning: Application in the clothing sector. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(5), 509– 537. doi: 10.1007/s11213-017-9438-3. Silva, E. L. D., & Menezes, E. M. (2005). Metodologia da Pesquisa e Elaboraç~ao de Dissertaç~ao (4th ed.). UFSC, Florianopolis. Staicu, D., & Pop, O. (2018). Mapping the interactions between the stakeholders of the circular economy ecosystem applied to the textile and apparel sector in Romania. Management and Marketing, 13(4), 1190–1209. doi: 10.2478/mmcks-2018-0031. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (1st ed.). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Cambridge. Stoppa, M., & Chiolerio, A. (2014). Wearable electronics and smart textiles: A critical review. Sensors (Switzerland), 14(7), 11957–11992. doi: 10.3390/s140711957. Strauss, S., Sundjaja, K., Johnson, E., Gandhi, M., Wong, V., & Yoo, J. (2010). Fashion NYC 2020. New York City Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved available at: www.nycedc.com. Tervila, T. (2015). The lack of private capital in the Finnish fashion ecosystem – A case study of Finnish fashion start-ups and investors. Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration – Master’s ProgrammeinAccountingofAalto University School of Business. Available at: www.aalto.fi. Wang, S. (2018). Brief analysis on closed-loop ecosystem of textile and clothing recycling. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 186, No. 4), 012058. doi: 10.1088/1755- 1315/186/4/012058. Wood, J. (2018). Revolutions in wearable technology for apparel. High-performance apparel (pp. 325– 339). Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100904-8.00016-X. Zhang, M., Stankovski, S., Saeed, R., Saeed, S., & Zhang, X. (2020). Wearable technology and applications: A systematic review. Journal of Mechatronics, Automation and Identification Technology, 5(3), 5–16. Available at: http://jmait.org/jmait-vol-5-no-3-pp-5-16-2020-2/. Corresponding author Rosiane Serrano can be contacted at: rosiane.serrano@erechim.ifrs.edu.br Associate Editor: Leonardo Gomes For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Innovation & Management Review Emerald Publishing

Wearable technologies in the fashion value ecosystem: a conceptual model

Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/wearable-technologies-in-the-fashion-value-ecosystem-a-conceptual-hLdSFAkXG0

References (40)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Rosiane Serrano, Larissa Fortunati and Daniel Pacheco Lacerda
ISSN
2515-8961
DOI
10.1108/inmr-02-2020-0020
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The fashion sector is complex. It involves multiple actors with distinct and potentially conflicting interests, forming a value ecosystem. Thus, knowing the interested parties and belonging to the fashion sector may be a means to promote technological innovation, such as products with wearables. The purpose of this paper to identify the participants of the fashion ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies and develop a conceptual model. Design/methodology/approach – The present work aims to identify the participants (actors) and develop a conceptual model of the fashion ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies. The systematic literature review is the recommended method to qualitatively analyze documents and identify the interested parties (actors) in the fashion sector in order to design the proposed conceptual model. Findings – From the studies, the conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was designed, and the wearable product was considered its core business. The studies identified addressed ecosystems of fashion value in general but not specific to wearable products and their relations with other complementary industries. Research limitations/implications – The model was designed using secondary data only. Its validation is relevant through interviews with experts. Originality/value – In terms of relevance, when conducting a systematic literature review, there were no studies that included wearable technologies in the fashion ecosystems discussed and their relations with other industries. The topic of wearables is an emerging subject that needs further research aiming to insert this technology in productive sectors. Keywords Fashion sector, Fashion ecosystem, Wearable technologies, Systematic literature review Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Making products with a short life cycle (Abecassis-Moedas, 2006) is a characteristic of the fashion sector (Boscacci, 2018). Therefore, the need to innovate, produce and sell items is © Rosiane Serrano, Larissa Fortunati and Daniel Pacheco Lacerda. Published in Innovation & Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http:// creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode. The authors are grateful to the IFRS – Campus Erechim (Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul – Campus Erechim) for the financial support for the development of Innovation & Management Review this paper. The authors wish to thank The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development pp. 90-105 Emerald Publishing Limited (CNPq), and The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the 2515-8961 DOI 10.1108/INMR-02-2020-0020 support to conduct this research. € continuous (Tervila, 2015), and the synergies to support the growth and development of the Wearable sector are essential (European Commission, 2019). technologies As an economic sector, fashion employs 75 million people worldwide, and its market value is estimated at 1.7 trillion dollars (Tervila, 2015). The fashion industry’s value surpasses 3.0 trillion dollars (16 trillion Brazilian reais on June 29, 2020), representing 2% of the world GDP (Fashion United, 2020). In the Brazilian market, fashion is an industrial sector with the positive job and income multipliers (Serrano, Rodrigues, Lacerda, & Paraboni, 2018). The direct jobs generated in the textile and clothing sector total 1.5 million distributed in 25,000 formal companies, and other 8 million indirect jobs with income effects (Associaç~ao Brasileira ^ ~ da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT, 2020). However, the fashion sector is complex (Jia, Yin, Chen, & Chen, 2020; Jin, 2004), since it involves multiple actors with distinct and potentially conflicting interests that need to be articulated to generate a co-evolution process (Moore, 1996). Ecosystem participants are interconnected and depend on each other to survive (Iansiti & Levien, 2004), creating value for products. Mapping the fashion sector (textiles and clothing) as an ecosystem is interesting as it enables developing joint actions with all actors (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Thus, knowing the interested parties belonging to the fashion sector may be a means to promote technological innovation, stimulate demand and measure the impacts generated by this sector (European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX, 2017), which shows ever-increasing competitiveness. As pointed out by EURATEX (2004), the fashion sector is formed by several subsectors. Therefore, it is crucial to define which of them will be the object of this study since it aims to map the fashion value ecosystem from the perspective of wearable products. Wearable products have as functionality the user’s interaction with the environment (Wood, 2018; Zhang, Stankovski, Saeed, Saeed, & Zhang, 2020) by placing the technology around the body employing sensors (O’Nascimento, 2020). Wearable devices have achieved fast growth in the electronics market, providing interested buyers with various products to satisfy their needs and desires (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). Besides allowing constant, convenient, continuous and portable access for users (Dehghani & Dangelico, 2018), wearable products seek to enhance reality by superimposing computer-generated images or audio clips over the real world and provide sensitivity to the outside context by informing the users about their environmental and personal status (Billinghurst & Starner, 1999). Wearable devices can be found in different industrial sectors (Mardonova & Choi, 2018), for example, for medical assistance purposes aiming to collect data on patient health (Heintzman, 2016). In the universe of the fashion sector, devices are found in aesthetic accessories combined or not with garments (Cantanhede, Dias, Gammarano, & Arruda Filho, 2018; Lazaroiu, 2012). Their use aims to add value to a piece of clothing by inserting electronic components (Marini, 2016). It is estimated that the sales of smart clothing will increase from 2.9 million pieces in 2018 to 10.5 million by 2022 (Richter, 2018). Patents issued for smart clothing are not a new category in the wearables market (Dehghani & Dangelico, 2018); for example, between the 1960s and the 1990s, efforts concentrated on developing the first clothing with a wearable concept (O’Nascimento, 2020; Wood, 2018). However, information about the presence of such technologies in the production process of the fashion sector is still limited, and uncertainties about the insertion of wearable technologies in the production process are frequent (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). Furthermore, the production flow of fashion is different from conventional processes (Han, Han, & Kim, 2014) in that it includes innovative features, such as the user interaction with the product. Technology, therefore, changes the way work is carried out in organizations (Eidenhammer, 2018). In addition, the development of products with wearable technologies faces difficulties in INMR market positioning, as there is interaction with more than one industrial sector (Wood, 2018). 19,2 For example, there are relations between the fashion and the electronics sectors, which play complementary roles in the complex productive context. Therefore, a valuable ecosystem is formed capable of producing goods with innovative and technological resources resulting from the interaction of different actors. Therefore, in-depth studies that consider the relations between different actors are essential for the competitiveness of the fashion sector (Serrano, Morandi, Veit, Mansilha, & Lacerda, 2020). The present work aims to develop a conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem from the perspective of wearable technologies. The participants of the fashion value ecosystem were identified in previous studies, and the systematic literature review (Morandi & Camargo, 2015) was the working method. It is worthwhile noting that the studies addressed ecosystems of fashion value in general but not specifically to wearable products and their relations with other complementary industries. Based on these studies, a conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was developed about wearable products. In addition, the issue of sustainability was incorporated by analyzing the final destination of the garments. This article is structured into five sections, Section 1 is the Introduction. Then, the theoretical framework, the methodology and the research results are presented in Sections 2–4, followed by the final discussions and considerations of the study in Section 5. 2. Theoretical framework This theoretical framework initially addresses value ecosystems and their relations with the fashion sector, followed by the premises for the insertion of wearable technologies in the fashion sector. 2.1 Value ecosystems and their relations with the fashion sector Ecology is a science that examines complex relations and interactions between members or species of particular communities and their relations with the environment (Mengi, 2017). When addressing this concept in an industrial sector, Moore (1996) considered companies as a network of interconnected organizations and individuals with the objective of generating a process of co-evolution. Thus, ecosystems are a living community of interacting organisms, requiring diversity to function (Oksanen et al., 2018). According to Salonoja (2013), the ecosystem is an important concept as it helps to understand the complex business environment since the ownership and roles of actors belonging to it are identified (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Furthermore, the set of actors, comprising organizations, products and processes, are analyzed as a part of a comprehensive, interdependent system (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017). In the logic of business ecosystems, the health of an organization influences the success and survival of all other participants in the ecosystem (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). In industries formed by subsystems, such as fashion (Mengi, 2017), the network of relations and the subsequent dynamics represented by the different stakeholders are highly complex (Staicu & Pop, 2018). Therefore, the alignment of views and the mutual support of interested parties are crucial (Moore, 1996). The concept of the ecosystem has several interpretations (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017) and structures. It can be composed of eight dimensions, as proposed by Moore (1996) and Serrano (2018); four layers (Baghbadorani & Harandi, 2012); or six categories (Fragidis, 2017). Thus, the object of the study (core business) and the complexity of the environment define the necessary structure of the ecosystem. In this study, the core business is defined by products developed using the concept of wearable technologies. The name of the ecosystem may vary depending on the focus of the study and the Wearable complexity of the sector, such as service ecosystems (Fragidis, 2017), business ecosystems technologies (Moore, 1996)or value ecosystems (Serrano, 2018). We opted for the term “fashion value ecosystem,” which enables identifying professionals, textile manufacturers, wholesalers and retail buyers (Mengi, 2017) as necessary members to create value for the core business and seek its co-evolution. Finally, in the complex fashion value ecosystem, in which competition is related to the development of products with different levels of technology (Serrano et al., 2018), producing competitive products that satisfy the needs of consumers (Kawamura, 2005) without harming the environment (Fletcher & Grose, 2012) is a constant challenge. In this perspective, it is interesting to understand fashion as a value ecosystem that adds economic, social and environmental value as it evolves (Serrano et al., 2018). The following section addresses the theoretical framework of products developed from the concept of wearable technologies. 2.2 Insertion of wearable technologies in the fashion sector In the era of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things (IoT), connectivity between humans and machines grows increasingly (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). As a result, new information and intelligence are generated for the industry (Chen, 2019) and users. Connectivity devices include wearable technologies, which seek interactivity between the environment and the user, assisting in motor and cognitive activities without limiting movements (Donati, 2004). Besides, they are characterized as products controlled by the user, always on and accessible (Mann, 1997). Wearable products are inserted in several industrial sectors (Mardonova & Choi, 2018) and services, like health, agriculture, manufacturing, home automation and public safety (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). Thus, the use of wearable technologies for monitoring the health of employees may become a valuable resource for companies (Lavalliere, Burstein, Arezes, & Coughlin, 2016). For instance, sensors can detect signs of health, social well-being (Stoppa & Chiolerio, 2014) and personal productivity (Fernandez- Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018; O’Nascimento, 2020), providing biometric data on the preferences and lifestyles of each user (Heintzman, 2016). Wearable products are at the boundary between the physical and the digital worlds, where communication with remote objects and servers enables advanced monitoring services (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). They may drastically change the way we live and do business (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). Wearable products have as premise not to attract attention during use, but to dress the body (Eidenhammer, 2018) and provide the user with real-time information and experiences (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). However, due to the need to carry extra equipment to monitor the desired data, 40% of wearable product users tend to put the equipment aside (Lavalliere et al., 2016). Consequently, the initial premise of dressing the body is still not being fully met. Advances are needed for a better user experience with wearable products (Lavalliere et al., 2016), such as joining industries that previously worked separately. With different product development techniques and manufacturing practices, computing, electronics, clothing and textiles could work together to develop such technological products (Wood, 2018). Therefore, technical uncertainties about the manufacture of wearable products are numerous, and changes in production processes are frequent (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). This is a result of the need to define the way of inserting wearable technologies in the production of garments: whether the garment or textile acts as a support for electronic sensors or computing devices, enabling data output; or having all devices integrated at the level of textile production, be it at the fiber, fabric manufacture or finishing stages (Wood, 2018). Thus, making clothing using the wearable concept is still an object of study (Eidenhammer, 2018). The scholars and decision-makers need to determine which new forms of integration INMR connect the various parts of the field as it continues to grow (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). First, 19,2 new technologies arising from the miniaturization of components foster research opportunities, such as incorporating conductors into the fabric thread (Wood, 2018). Second, the functionality of devices and cost reduction of the leading technologies cause the wearable market to grow rapidly (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). This research adopts this perspective, as it proposes to identify the necessary actors for the development of a product with a wearable concept then to propose actions of leverage and perpetuation to this sector. 3. Methodology According to Silva and Menezes (2005), the research seeks ways to solve problems still unanswered; therefore, it is a reflective and critical procedure which, to obtain relevant and well-founded results, must indicate how it was carried out, making it possible to be contested and verified (Dresch, Lacerda, & Antunes, 2015). In this research, the proposed working method combines systematic and rational practices that contribute to obtain the desired results (Collatto, Dresch, Lacerda, & Bentz, 2018; Marconi & Lakatos, 2010). For this research, we applied the systematic literature review method, which seeks to answer a question put forth by the researcher and uses systematic and explicit methods for collecting and analyzing the material found (Morandi & Camargo, 2015). Figure 1 shows how this study was conducted. The definition of the question and the conceptual framework arise from the interest in identifying how wearable technologies are inserted in the fashion value ecosystem, initially detecting who the actors that belong to this ecosystem are. Regarding the conceptual framework, this research is configurative since keywords were searched a priori considering the topic of wearable technologies and their insertion in the fashion value ecosystem. The work team, in turn, comprised the researchers who worked on the project and those who had knowledge about the theme and the methodology used. The strategy was the elaboration of a set of keywords on the proposed topic. Databases were selected to perform the search: Ebsco, Scielo, Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald and gray literature (Google Scholar and reports of funding agencies) (Morandi & Camargo, 2015). Figure 1. Method for the systematic literature review Source(s): Adapted from Morandi and Camargo (2015) Saturation was the selected search strategy, and no timeframe was defined. When entering Wearable the combination of keywords, the Boolean operator “AND” was used, which helped minimize technologies search bias. To select the documents, we performed three analyses: titles, abstracts and studies selected for a full reading. This way, 6,881 titles were found, of which 902 studies (scientific articles, technical reports and journal articles) were selected for summary analysis, and 349 were finally included in our study, as Table 1 shows. Out of the final 349 documents, 15 addressed ecosystems and value or supply chains and were read in full. This way, a second exclusion of titles was carried out: studies not relevant were excluded, leaving 13 documents (see Table 2 in Section 4). The completion of search, eligibility and encoding represented the operationalization of the study. Thus, when conducting the search, adherence and relevance to the theme were considered as inclusion criteria, whereas documents that did not address the studied context were excluded. The evaluation of the quality of primary studies centered on the contents of the documents, that is, whether they addressed value ecosystem, value chain, supply chain, among others, concerning the researched theme. The similarity of primary studies was considered and synthesized in a heterogeneous way. For the synthesis of the results, we applied interpretative criticism. It was performed in three moments: initially by separating materials that discussed value ecosystem, value chain, supply chain, among others. Then, these materials were indexed using the software ATLAS.ti. The second step was also performed in this software, which listed the elements/ actors that composed the fashion value ecosystem. Finally, in the third step, a table was created containing the elements/actors, which was analyzed again in order to reorder the elements/actors the documents presented, excluding or joining similar ones. Using the qualitative data analysis software allows grouping similar data into blocks related to the issue, hypothesis or topic of interest and its relations (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013), thus enabling an efficient, consistent and systematic analysis of data management (Gibbs, 2014). Based on this process, the framework for this research was prepared, and we show the results in the following section. 4. Results This section discusses the data obtained in the systematic literature review, its results and the fashion value ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies. Therefore, as described in Section 3, we selected 13 documents, as Table 2 shows. We selected these documents because they discuss ecosystems, value chains or supply chains of the fabric and clothing sector, defined in this study as fashion. The study of EURATEX (2004) was used as a basis for the development of the ecosystem proposed for this study, as it presents the actors and the interconnections between them, beginning by the presentation of the extraction industry and ending in the reverse chain. The study’s main objective was to plan strategies for the future of the fashion industry, allowing Systematic literature review results – wearables Database Results Analyzed abstracts Included studies Scielo 9 9 2 Web of science 24 24 19 Scopus 41 41 6 EBSCO 56 56 10 Emerald 53 53 17 Gray literature 6,698 719 295 Total 6,881 902 349 Table 1. Source(s): Prepared by the authors Search results INMR No Authors Study title 19,2 01 EURATEX (2004) European technology platform: for the future of textiles and clothing – a vision for 2020 02 Pinar and Trapp (2008) Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and brand ecosystem: the case of Turkish cotton and textiles 03 Strauss, Sundjaja, Johnson, Gandhi, An NYCEDC study Wong, & Yoo (2010) 04 Salonoja (2013) Bridging the equity and entrepreneurial gaps in the Finnish fashion industry 05 Corner & Stride (2015) A local fashion ecosystem, the next step toward an east London fashion cluster 06 Mengi (2017) Reconsidering the knowledge ecology in fashion industry: a metaphorical approach 07 Fontell & Heikkila (2017) Model of circular business ecosystem for textiles 08 Wang (2018) Brief analysis on closed-loop ecosystem of textile and clothing recycling 09 Oksanen et al. (2018) In search of Finnish creative economy ecosystems and their development needs-study based on international benchmarking 10 Sandberg, Pal, & Hemila (2018) Exploring value creation and appropriation in the reverse clothing supply chain 11 Lin (2018) The structural characteristics of the innovation ecosystem: a Fashion case 12 Kaplanidou (2018) Digitalization in the apparel manufacturing process 13 Chen (2019) Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan Table 2. Source(s): Prepared by the authors List of articles access to resources for the development of research and innovations. Thus, that study shows the need to know the actors that belong to the fashion sector to propose future actions, corroborating the objectives of our own study. The other studies discuss other topics, such as the creation of competitive advantages for the fashion sector. Chen (2019) and Mengi (2017) used a local fashion ecosystem to understand the clothing sector; however, Chen (2019) demonstrated the relevance of using technology for the participation of small companies in the fashion supply chain, whereas Mengi (2017) proposed integration between the textile and clothing sectors. Corroborating this stance, Salonoja (2013) noted that the lack of integration and collaboration between clothing companies might result in the ecosystem’s underdevelopment and difficulties in obtaining external capital. Pinar and Trapp (2008) explained that strategies for brand promotion and product differentiation might promote increased competitiveness of textile products. Sandberg et al. (2018) explained value creation and appropriation processes in a reverse clothing chain to demonstrate sustainability in the fashion value ecosystem. Wang (2018) addressed the need for changes in the manufacture and disposal of clothing, pointing out solutions to minimize impacts generated in the production of garments. Both authors present a comprehensive view of the actions and the members in the reverse chain. Corner and Stride (2015) and Strauss et al. (2010) addressed the search for the development of the local fashion industry. The evidence shows the relevance of cities as global fashion centers through the promotion of jobs, training and workspaces (Corner & Stride, 2015), helping and informing interested parties regarding the future of the fashion industry (Strauss et al., 2010). In turn, Oksanen et al. (2018) analyzed the ecosystem of the creative economy in three countries and provided recommendations for the fashion industry. Lin (2018) explored technological innovation as a means to expand the image of an innovation ecosystem. Kaplanidou (2018) demonstrated the influence of digital transformation of different companies Wearable on the clothing industry, emphasizing the importance of Greek clothing manufacturers in technologies understanding digital technologies. Finally, Fontell and Heikkil€a(2017) presented a circular business ecosystem for textiles and clothing and explained the circular economy principles in the textile context, the main material flows and the types of actors present in the value chain. Thus, after reading the documents listed in Table 2, the elements/actors present in the models and the subdivision of the products derived from them were extracted, as Table 3 shows. Then, as described in Section 2, a qualitative analysis was performed on the actors, using a qualitative statistics software as a tool and excluding duplicates or conflicting names. Based on data on the actors, the conceptual model of the fashion value ecosystem was designed from the perspective of wearable technologies, as Figure 2 shows. The proposed ecosystem has as its core business a “technological clothing product.” This definition was adopted because wearable products had different descriptions in the literature review (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). This diversity reflects in the separation carried out by Richter (2018), who pointed out six types of marketed wearable products. In addition, Dehghani and Kim (2019) pointed to clusters of occurrence of terms related to wearable devices and product diversity. Corroborating this stance, O’Nascimento (2020) shows several types and classes of wearable products. As a premise, Moore (1996) stated that for the core business value and leverage ecosystem, there are dimensions defined as extraction industry, textile transformation industry, goods/ clothing industry, retail, customers, reverse chain and electronics. Furthermore, external actors/ support who provide services to the actors directly linked to the core business were added to our model and labeled as distribution, professionals and others. The extraction industry is divided into natural and chemical fibers, as this subdivision determines the fabric to be produced and the other processes they perform. The transformation industry remodels the fibers, converting them into threads and later into fabrics through weaving and improvements that increase the quality of threads, whether chemical, natural, conventional, frictional or technological (EURATEX, 2004). The goods/clothing industry develops and produces the clothing items, technological or not. In the proposed model, this dimension briefly addresses the main actors involved in the clothing manufacture process, namely, development and modeling, cutting and sewing (Kaplanidou, 2018; Mengi, 2017) and improvement (EURATEX, 2004). Thus, because it is a wide-scope, complex sector, other actors are present and vary according to the market segment considered. The retail dimension relates to sales and embodies two possible forms of distribution: physical and online (Chen, 2019; Fontell & Heikkila, 2017; Strauss et al., 2010). The current rise of shopping apps has highlighted online retailing, which now has more followers than ever (Fontell & Heikkila, 2017). The customers, in turn, are divided into conventional, seeking to supply their individual needs, and unconventional, such as medicine consumers, which obtain products intending to supply collective needs (EURATEX, 2004). When reviewing the documents in Table 3, we noticed the presence of reverse chains. They are inserted in the ecosystem and divided into disuse and recycling (EURATEX, 2004; Fontell & Heikkil€a, 2017; Strauss et al., 2010). Finally, electronics is part of the computer and nanotechnology industry that produces componentsandparts.Thus,thisactorsuppliesmaterialstobuildtechnologicalgarmentproducts. Theycanbeinsertedinboththeextractionindustry,thusproducingtechnologicalfabricsthatwill laterbe usedas rawmaterialandthegoods/clothingindustryduringthe finalizationofthe product (Wood, 2018). Therefore, sensors, nanotechnological goods, miniaturization, such as sensing, wireless communication or nanotechnology, become available to the manufacturing and goods/ confectionindustries(Eidenhammer,2018).Currently,wearabletechnologyisconsideredthejoining of electronics/informatics and clothing and accessories (Wood, 2018). Other actors (external/support) may directly or indirectly influence the functioning of the ecosystem, such as intermediaries/negotiators, legislation, infrastructure and education/courses. INMR 19,2 Table 3. Excerpt of the list created from the analysis of studies – actors/products Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkil€a Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Extraction Natural fiber x x x industry Fiber x Transformation Petrochemical x industry industry Chemical x industry Chemical yarnxxx xx industry Weaving xx x factory Processing x Goods/Clothing Seam x x industry Clothes factory x x x x x x Dyeing and x x finishing (embroidery, prints) Distribution Branded x clothing companies Wholesale x Service xX x x providers/ materials (continued) Wearable technologies Table 3. Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkila Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Professionals Human xx resources/ capital Intermediaries X Designs/ xx x x x x creators Fashion editors x Commercial x brokers/ classifiers Entrepreneurs x Fashion xx bloggers Craftsman x Public relations x Hairstylist x Fashion experts X Customers Buyers x x x x x x Public sector/xx x government Old customers x Retail Retail x x x Boutiques x Reverse chains Repair (DIY) X WasteXxx management (continued) INMR 19,2 Table 3. Pinar Corner Fontell and Strauss and and Oksanen EURATEX Trapp et al. Salonoja Stride Mengi Heikkila Wang et al. Sandberg Lin Kaplanidou Chen Actors/products (2004) (2008) (2010) (2013) (2015) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) et al. (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) Other Machinery and X equipment producers and suppliers Software X producers and suppliers Other X intermediate services Support X services Operations and x value creation (brand) Value delivery X (brand) Consumer X preferences and desired experiences (brand) Source(s): Prepared by the authors Wearable technologies Figure 2. Conceptual model of fashion value ecosystem Source(s): Prepared by the authors Therefore, these actors comprise an essential dimension in the ecosystem since they disseminate knowledge and legitimize technological product development in different sectors. Distribution and professionals refer to the availability of products or technical services for product development. They are divided into textile/apparel, services, technology providers, content providers, intermediaries/negotiators and transport/logistics. For example, considering distribution, there are software suppliers that permit the reading of the identified data. In the professionals dimension, there is a need for specialized people to analyze this data and insert this technology in the clothing product, including many technological areas, such as fashion, computer science, engineering and the Humanities, like Medicine and Psychology. Therefore, these professionals have joint action, with variable intensity depending on the technological product to be developed. The model shown in Figure 2 represents the reality of the complex fashion value ecosystem, lists the actors and demonstrates their interconnection. Unfortunately, the fashion value ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies is incomplete because, depending on the product, actors need to be inserted or excluded. The following section presents the final considerations of the study. 5. Final considerations Identifying the actors in the fashion value ecosystem enables confirming the complexity in this sector and understanding its functioning. Furthermore, by designing a conceptual model using an ecosystem approach (Moore, 1996), it is possible to verify the interconnection between actors aiming at the sector’s functionality and leverage. Finally, even though organizations, entities, actors and the society in general, which gravitate around as complex a business such as fashion, are not structured and identified, they are part of a value ecosystem (Serrano et al., 2018). Therefore, the proposed objective was achieved, i.e. to identify the participants (actors) and create a fashion ecosystem model from the perspective of wearable technologies. In terms of relevance, in our systematic literature review, no studies included wearable INMR technologies in the discussed fashion ecosystems, nor their relations with other industries. 19,2 However, the use of wearable technologies in numerous industrial sectors is evident (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018). Furthermore, these technologies add safety at work by monitoring body data (Mardonova & Choi, 2018). Besides, according to Zhang et al. (2020), wearable technology can be helpful for governments and health departments to control pandemics and track people consistently and precisely. In addition, wearables are an emerging subject that needs further research to insert this technology in productive sectors and enable the development of sensors, information technology, data fusion techniques, material science, communication technologies, flexible batteries and storage facilities (Zhang et al., 2020). Thus, it becomes interesting to systematically identify this sector’s possible limitations and leverage points with the insertion of wearable technologies aiming to increase its competitiveness. Systematically analyzing the sector, it is possible to understand the existing complex relations, which would not be possible to be done linearly (Sterman, 2000). In addition, it is necessary to use different approaches for business effectiveness (Chen, 2019). Although the results of this study are satisfactory, there were limitations to it. The first is that the model considered secondary data, the studies and documents shown in Table 2. Also, the search universe resulted in documents concerning ecosystem models, value chains and supply chains. Thus, many studies had to be excluded. The second limitation refers to the structure of the value ecosystem presented in Figure 2, which followed Moore (1996) and was divided into core business, direct dimensions and external actors/support. Thus, the positioning of the actors may not follow a proper order due to the sector’s complexity. Because of this, we propose for further works the validation of our conceptual model through interviews with experts, making it possible to neutralize the limitations. It is also crucial to identify existing differences in the current processes of product development and production. References Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 23–36. doi: 10.1016/ j.indmarman.2017.08.010. Abecassis-Moedas, C. (2006). Integrating design and retail in the clothing value chain. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,26(4), 412–428. doi: 10.1108/01443570610650567. ~  ^ ~ ^ Associaçao Brasileira da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT (2020). Monitor: Superintendencia de pol ıticas industriais e econ^omicas. In Associaç~ao Brasileira da Industria  T^extil e de Confecç~ao- ~  ^ ~ ABIT. Associaçao Brasileira da Industria Textil e de Confecçao – ABIT, Available at: https:// www.abit.org.br/cont/economia. Baghbadorani, M. F., & Harandi, A. (2012). A conceptual model for business ecosystem and implications for future research. IPEDR, 52(17), 82–86. Billinghurst, M., & Starner, T. (1999). Wearable devices: New ways to manage information. Computer, 32(1), 57–64. doi: 10.1109/2.738305. Boscacci, E. (2018). Circular economy in the fashion industry: Turning waste into resources (Master dissertation), Universidade Catolica Portuguesa in Economics and Management of Innovation and Technology. Available at: https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/25917/1/ Dissertation_152116323_Eleonora Boscacci.pdf. Cantanhede, L. R. C., Dias, E. J. P., Gammarano, I. D. J. L. P., & Arruda Filho, E. J. M. (2018). Comportamento do consumidor de tecnologia vestıvel: Caracterısticas que influenciam na intenç~ao de consumo. REAd. Revista Eletr^onica de Administraç~ao (Porto Alegre), 24(3), 244–268. doi: 10.1590/1413-2311.225.85428. Chen, C.-L. (2019). Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 Wearable trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan. Journal of Global Information Technology technologies Management, 22(2), 120–145. doi: 10.1080/1097198X.2019.1603512. Collatto, D. C., Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Bentz, I. G. (2018). Is action design research indeed necessary? Analysis and synergies between action research and design science research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(3), 239–267. doi: 10.1007/s11213-017-9424-9. Corner, F., & Stride, S. (2015). A local fashion ecosystem, the next step towards an East London Fashion Cluster. High-end and Designer Manufacturing Report. Oxford Economics and Glasgow Caledonian University, London. Dehghani, M., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Smart wearable technologies: State of the art and evolution over time through patent analysis and clustering. International Journal of Product Development, 22(4), 293. doi: 10.1504/IJPD.2018.091148. Dehghani, M., & Kim, K. J. (2019). Past and present research on wearable technologies: Bibliometric and cluster analyses of published research from 2000 to 2016. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(1), 1950007. doi: 10.1142/S021987701950007X. Donati, L. P. (2004). Computadores vest ıveis: Conviv^encia de diferentes especialidades the INmobility ~ ~ project view project. In Conexao – Comunicaçao e Cultura (Vol. 3, No. 6), Available at: https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/49591122. Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Antunes, J. A. V. Jr (2015). Design science research. A method for science and technology advancement (1st ed.). Springer, London. Eidenhammer, L. (2018). Wearables conquering the workplace of Generation Y-The opportunities and risks to integrate wearable technology at work (Dissertaç~ao (mestrado)), Escola Brasileira de Administraç~ao Publica  e de Empresas, Centro de Formaç~ao Acad^emica e Pesquisa. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX (2004). European technology platform: For the future of textiles and clothing – A vision for 2020. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX. European Apparel and Textile Organisation, Brussels. European Apparel and Textile Organisation – EURATEX (2017). Policy brief: Prospering in the circular economy the case of European textile and apparel (p. 6). European Apparel and Textile Organisation, Brussels. European Commission (2019). Support report mapping sustainable fashion opportunities for SMES. In Publications Office of the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion/high-end-industries/eu#report. Fashion United (2020). Global fashion industry statistics – International apparel. Fashion United. Available at: https://fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-statistics/. Fernandez-Carames, T., & Fraga-Lamas, P. (2018). Towards the internet-of-smart-clothing: A review on IoT wearables and garments for creating intelligent connected E-textiles. Electronics, 7(12), 405. doi: 10.3390/electronics7120405. Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Moda and sustentabilidade: Design para mudança (1st ed.). Senac ~ ~ Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo. Fontell, P., & Heikkila, P. (2017). Model of circular business ecosystem for textiles (p. 58). VTT Technica l Research Centre o Finland, Espoo. Fragidis, G. (2017). The user perspective on service ecosystems: Key concepts and models. In Camarinha- Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Fornasiero, R. (Eds), Collaboration in a data-rich world (1st ed., Vol. 506, pp. 368–380). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65151-4_34. Gibbs, G. R. (2014). Using software in qualitative analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 277–294). SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446282243.n19. Han, S. C., Han, Y.-H., & Kim, H. S. (2014). Characteristics and perspectives of wearable smart devices and industrial ecosystem. 2014 20th IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), 2015-April (pp. 911–914). doi: 10.1109/PADSW.2014.7097907. Heintzman, N. D. (2016). A digital ecosystem of diabetes data and technology: Services, systems, and INMR tools enabled by wearables, sensors, and apps. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 19,2 10(1), 35–41. doi: 10.1177/1932296815622453. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Working Paper. Harvard Business School. Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L., & Chen, X. (2020). The circular economy in the textile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120728. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. Jin, B. (2004). Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balance under demand uncertainty. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(12), 1292– 1305. doi: 10.1108/01443570410569056. Kaplanidou, A. (2018). Digitalization in the apparel manufacturing process. Master’s thesis- Master in Innovation Sciences. Kawamura,Y.(2005). Fashionology: An introduction to fashion studies (1st ed.). Berg Publishers, New York. Lavalliere, M., Burstein, A. A., Arezes, P., & Coughlin, J. F. (2016). Tackling the challenges of an aging workforce with the use of wearable technologies and the quantified-self. DYNA, 83(197), 38. doi: 10.15446/dyna.v83n197.57588. Lazaroiu, G. (2012). Communicative functions of smart clothing. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 211(41), 162–167. Lin, S. (2018). The structural characteristics of innovation ecosystem: A fashion case. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 620–635. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-09-2017-0115. Mann, S. (1997). Smart clothing: The wearable computer and wearcam. Personal Technologies, 1(1), 21–27. doi: 10.1007/BF01317885. Marconi, M. D. A., & Lakatos, E. M. (2010). Fundamentos de metodologia cient ıfica (7th ed.). Atlas, S~ao Paulo. Mardonova, M., & Choi, Y. (2018). Review of wearable device technology and its applications to the mining industry. Energies, 11(3), 547. doi: 10.3390/en11030547. ~ ~ Marini, P. S. S. K. (2016). As tecnologias vestıveis de moda e a relaçao entre humano e nao-humano. ModaPalavra, 10(19), 117–134. doi: 10.5965/1982615x10192017117. Mengi, O. (2017). Reconsidering the knowledge ecology in fashion industry: A metaphorical approach. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM (Vol. 2, pp. 683–689). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. HarperBusiness, New York. Morandi, M. I. W. M., & Camargo, L. F. R. (2015). Revis~ao sistematica da literatura. In Design science research: metodo de pesquisa para avanço da ciencia e tecnologia (pp. 141–175). Bookman. € € Oksanen, J., Kuusisto, O., Lima-Toivanen, M., Mantyla, M., Naumanen, M., Rilla, N., Sachinopoulou, A. and Valkokari, K. (2018). In search of Finnish creative economy ecosystems and their development needs-study based on international benchmarking. 50/2018, October (p. 155). Publications of the Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities. Available at: www. tietokayttoon.fi. O’Nascimento, R. (2020). Roupas inteligentes: Combinando moda e tecnologia.Sao Paulo: Editora Senac S~ao Paulo. Pinar, M., & Trapp, P. S. (2008). Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and brand ecosystem. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 20(1), 29–56. doi: 10.1300/j047v20n01_03. Richter, F. (2018). The global wearables market is all about the wrist (p. 1). Statista. Available at: https:// Wearable www.statista.com/chart/3370/wearable-device-forecast/. technologies Salonoja, N. (2013). Bridging the equity and entrepreneurial gaps in the Finnish fashion industry, 130, Available at: www.tcpdf.org. Sandberg, E., Pal, R., & Hemila, J. (2018). Exploring value creation and appropriation in the reverse clothing supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 90–109. doi: 10. 1108/IJLM-10-2016-0241. Serrano, R. (2018). Ecossistema Produtivo do Esporte: Modelagem e analise sistemica a partir do Futebol Brasileiro. Tese de Doutorado, Programa de Pos Graduaç~ao em Engenharia de Produçao e Sistemas da Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos- UNISINOS. Serrano, R., Morandi, M. I. W. M., Veit, D. R., Mansilha, R. B., & Lacerda, D. P. (2020). Generation of value of a Brazil fashion industrial cluster: A systemic analysis. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 15(1), 88–104. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242020000100088. Serrano, R., Rodrigues, L. H., Lacerda, D. P., & Paraboni, P. B. (2018). Systems thinking and scenario planning: Application in the clothing sector. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(5), 509– 537. doi: 10.1007/s11213-017-9438-3. Silva, E. L. D., & Menezes, E. M. (2005). Metodologia da Pesquisa e Elaboraç~ao de Dissertaç~ao (4th ed.). UFSC, Florianopolis. Staicu, D., & Pop, O. (2018). Mapping the interactions between the stakeholders of the circular economy ecosystem applied to the textile and apparel sector in Romania. Management and Marketing, 13(4), 1190–1209. doi: 10.2478/mmcks-2018-0031. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (1st ed.). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Cambridge. Stoppa, M., & Chiolerio, A. (2014). Wearable electronics and smart textiles: A critical review. Sensors (Switzerland), 14(7), 11957–11992. doi: 10.3390/s140711957. Strauss, S., Sundjaja, K., Johnson, E., Gandhi, M., Wong, V., & Yoo, J. (2010). Fashion NYC 2020. New York City Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved available at: www.nycedc.com. Tervila, T. (2015). The lack of private capital in the Finnish fashion ecosystem – A case study of Finnish fashion start-ups and investors. Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration – Master’s ProgrammeinAccountingofAalto University School of Business. Available at: www.aalto.fi. Wang, S. (2018). Brief analysis on closed-loop ecosystem of textile and clothing recycling. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 186, No. 4), 012058. doi: 10.1088/1755- 1315/186/4/012058. Wood, J. (2018). Revolutions in wearable technology for apparel. High-performance apparel (pp. 325– 339). Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100904-8.00016-X. Zhang, M., Stankovski, S., Saeed, R., Saeed, S., & Zhang, X. (2020). Wearable technology and applications: A systematic review. Journal of Mechatronics, Automation and Identification Technology, 5(3), 5–16. Available at: http://jmait.org/jmait-vol-5-no-3-pp-5-16-2020-2/. Corresponding author Rosiane Serrano can be contacted at: rosiane.serrano@erechim.ifrs.edu.br Associate Editor: Leonardo Gomes For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Journal

Innovation & Management Review – Emerald Publishing

Published: Mar 29, 2022

Keywords: Fashion sector; Fashion ecosystem; Wearable technologies; Systematic literature review

There are no references for this article.