Int Adv Econ Res (2011) 17:7788 DOI 10.

1007/s11294-010-9288-6

Towards a Holistic Approach of the Attitude Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumer Behaviours: Empirical Evidence from Spain
Eleni Papaoikonomou & Gerard Ryan & Matias Ginieis

Published online: 9 November 2010 # International Atlantic Economic Society 2010

Abstract This paper explores alternative understandings of the attitude behavior gap, a well documented phenomenon, both in ethical consumer behavior and social research in general. A multi-method, qualitative approach is adopted, aiming at greater internal validity of data. The findings broaden current knowledge on the attitude behavior gap, showing how ethically minded consumers rationalize their inconsistent behavior. The last section of the paper integrates existing knowledge on the attitude behavior gap with the empirical findings of the present study into a conceptual model. Relevant implications for marketers are also discussed. Keywords Attitude behavior gap . Consumer behavior . Ethics JEL M00 . Z13 Introduction Several behavioral models in social psychology, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991), are based on the premise that individuals behave the way they intend to behave. Sheerans (2002) literature review reveals that attitudes have been used to predict a wide range of behaviors, from weight loss to illicit drug use. The use of attitudes has also been commonplace in the context of ethical consumer behaviors such as Fair Trade shopping (Shaw and Shiu 2003). Nevertheless, there is skepticism as to whether attitudes can be considered a valid predictor of an
E. Papaoikonomou (*) G. Ryan M. Ginieis

Universitat Rovira and Virgili, Avinguda Universitat 1, 43204 Reus, Spain e-mail: eleni.papaoikonomou@urv.cat G. Ryan e-mail: gerard.ryan@urv.cat M. Ginieis e-mail: matias.ginieis@urv.cat

78

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

individuals behavior, as attitudes are often not translated into action (Sheeran 2002). This phenomenon has been referred to as the attitude behavior gap (Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000; Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Sheeran 2002). The emergence of the attitude behavior gap has been well documented in the ethical consumer literature with an emphasis on trying to explain why this gap exists (Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000; Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Auger et al. 2004; Chatzidakis et al. 2007). Indeed, to answer this question would provide a significant contribution to existing behavioral models, as the assumption that attitudes determine behavior cannot be taken for granted. In addition, the attitude behavior gap has important implications for the marketers of ethical products. While a number of studies (e.g., Creyer and Ross 1997; Mohr et al. 2001; Fernandez-Kranz and Merino-Castello 2005) suggest that consumers will prefer to buy products from socially responsible firms (i.e., that have adopted Fair Trade practices, do not pollute the environment, prioritize their employees welfare, etc.), the market share for these products is much more limited than what the studies suggest (Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000; Cowe and Williams 2000; Carrigan and Attalla 2001). Cowe and Williams (2000) refer to this phenomenon as the 30:3 syndrome, where 30% of the consumers claim to buy ethical products, but just a niche of 3% actually buys them. Therefore, further research on why ethical attitudes do not always translate into ethical behaviors is of vital interest to both academics and practitioners. By adopting a multi-method qualitative approach to the study of the attitude behavior gap, and an examination of ethical consumer behavior in the context of ethical consumer communities, this research aims to contribute empirically to filling the attitude behavior gap. This paper is divided into four sections. The first section reviews the extant literature on the attitude behaviour gap in ethical consumer decision making. The second section presents the research methodology adopted in this study. The third section outlines the main findings, and the final section presents a conceptual model of the emergence of the attitude behavior gap and examines the implications for marketers. Attitude Behavior Gap in the Ethical Consumer Context
In recent times, much research has been focused on modelling ethical consumer behavior based on existing attitude-behavior models (Shaw and Shiu 2003; Chatzidakis et al. 2007). In this sense, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) is one of the more testable frameworks that has been applied in ethical consumer behavior (Chatzidakis et al. 2007). This framework is based on the assumption that behavioral intentions are defined by an individuals attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral barriers of the respective behavior. Previous research has applied the TPB in the context of Fair Trade shopping, adding the constructs of ethical obligation and self identity to the original conceptual model as explanatory measures of ethical consumer behavior (Shaw and Shiu 2003; Chatzidakis et al. 2007).

To an extent, these studies explain the existence of word/deed inconsistencies, i.e., the difference between what one says and what one actually does. For

Attitude Behavior Gap

79

instance, consumers claim that price, availability, and convenience are significant barriers to their intention to behave ethically (Shaw and Clarke 1999; Carrigan and Attalla 2001). However, a review of the literature suggests that ethical consumer behavior is more complex and heterogeneous than may at first be apparent (Shaw and Clarke 1999; Cherrier 2007; Newholm and Shaw 2007; Low and Davenport 2007). Indeed, consumers behave in different ways under different circumstances, and their motivations vary. Hence, a whole variety of factors may intervene in the purchase process, from the moment the consumer receives the information about an ethical or unethical product, until the actual moment of purchase. The following section identifies moderating factors in the ethical consumer decision making process that have been discussed in the literature, a need previously highlighted by Chatzidakis et al. (2007). Factors that Intervene in Ethical Decision Making The Issue of Information
On the one hand, consumers mention that one of the main obstacles when buying ethical products is the lack of information about these products (Dragon International 1992). For instance, a number of studies found that consumers would like better product labelling (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004). They complain that information is incomplete and insufficient on business practices. On the other hand, they claim to be overwhelmed when too much information is available (Shaw and Clarke 1999) and tend to question the credibility of the information sources (Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004). Indeed, in the modern production system the significant distance between the producer and the final consumer means that a fully informed consumer is unattainable (Newholm and Shaw 2007: 258).

As well as the availability of information, the nature of the information and how this affects the purchase decision should be considered. For instance, in the impression formation literature (Ahluwalia et al. 2000), researchers highlight the diagnosticity effect of negative information. In other words, consumers tend to believe more easily that companies are unethical rather than ethical (Folkes and Kamins 1999). So, the more extreme the negative information, the more diagnostic it is and the more impact it has on behavior. Skepticism Concerning Companies Motives
This factor is related to the aforementioned issue of information. A number of studies find that, in general, consumers do not know for sure whether companies are actually ethical or not, nor are they aware of the real motives behind companys seemingly ethical actions (Folkes and Kamins 1999; Carrigan and Attalla 2001). Indeed, many consumers consider ethical activities as nothing more than a marketing ploy (FernandezKranz and Merino-Castello 2005), and they tend to develop stereotypical images of ethical (e.g., Body Shop) and unethical firms (e.g., Nike) (Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004). This leads to skepticism and cynicism, especially in the case of certain multinationals that, in spite of their good corporate record, are

80

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

considered unethical to some degree and more interested in looking to boost profits (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Shaw et al. 2005) than operating in an ethical manner. Brand Loyalty as a Moderating Factor A number of studies suggest that brand loyalty to a product can be the overriding factor in the final purchasing decision, even in cases of unethical corporate behavior (Ahluwalia et al. 2000; Ingram et al. 2005). It can lead to selective processing of the information about the company and the product. For instance, Ingram et al. (2005) examine the effect that sweatshop practices have on committed consumers of a specific company. The results indicate that a high level of brand loyalty can lower the threshold of what is considered as fair and ethical, so that these same practices are not seen as so bad. Ahluwalia et al. (2000) refer to this as the information processing bias, saying that loyal consumers tend to believe positive information about their favorite brand and ignore the negative information. Customers Support of Ethical Practice and the Elativity of Ethics According to the postmodern view of ethics what seems good or ethical for one [consumer] may not be so for another Cherrier (2007: 322). Hence, it is important to consider what ethical issues each individual consumer supports and whether there is congruence between the morality/immorality of a company and the self perception of a consumer (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Low and Davenport (2007: 340) provide an interesting segmentation of ethical consumers as animated, clean, triple bottom line and whole earth consumers according to the ethical issues (animal welfare, environmental welfare, societal welfare) that they set as their bottom line. For instance, whole earth consumers will avoid products when the producing company disrespects animals (e.g., animal testing) and the environment (e.g., no returnable packaging). Other consumers might concentrate on single issues like anti-child labor, what Uusitalo and Oksanen (2004:220) call the practice of selective ethics. Traditional Purchasing Criteria Come First The complexity of ethical consumer behavior increases when we take into account that the purchasing decision involves the evaluation of a bunch of different attributes. So, when the decision involves a trade-off between ethics and traditional purchasing criteria (price, quality, and availability), consumers might compromise on ethics. The evidence on the importance of price in ethical consumer decisions is inconclusive. Creyer and Ross (1997) found that the respondents would pay a price premium for an ethical product. Mohr and Webb (2005) claim that information on CSR can influence purchase intentions more strongly than price. However, De Pelsmacker et al. (2005), who used the more sophisticated conjoint analysis, conclude that the appreciation of the ethical attribute was not sufficient for consumers to pay a price premium. The evidence on product quality as a trade-off attribute is quite clear. Consumers do not accept ethical company behavior as a substitute for product quality (Folkes

Attitude Behavior Gap

81

and Kamins 1999; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). According to Folkes and Kamins (1999), virtuous behavior is not a substitute for product quality, while Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) claim that a good social profile cannot compensate for inferior quality. On the availability factor, Creyer and Ross (1997) and Bhate (2001) found that consumers claimed that they would change their retail store if there were no ethical alternatives. However, other research has raised availability as an impeding factor for ethical consumerism, when consumers wish to buy ethical alternatives, but they dont find the alternatives (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). Consequences of Consumer Action An issue that has been frequently raised as inhibiting ethical consumer behavior is the societal impact that it is perceived to have. Low effectiveness of consumer actions is commonly mentioned in the ethical consumer literature (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Mohr et al. 2001; Carrigan et al. 2004) in that ethical consumers feel that their efforts make little real effect. Moreover, the consequences of action are considered as relative according to the context they impact. Auger et al. (2004) and Devinney et al. (2006) suggest that, although sweatshops are frowned upon in western countries, they are more acceptable in Asian countries because workers would not have any kind of income otherwise. Research Methodology There is some disagreement as to the most suitable methodological approaches when studying ethical consumer behavior, as it is argued that consumers will give misleading answers and hide their true opinions on ethical purchase behavior (Newholm and Shaw 2007). Some authors are critical of the use of specific research methods when examining ethical consumer behavior. For example, Auger et al. (2004) heavily criticize the traditional survey methods, which, as they mention, have been employed in nearly all studies of consumers willingness to engage in ethical behavior. The problems related to the survey method are the emergence of the social bias and the limited ability of numerical and rating scales to express consumer opinions.
This study adopts a multi-method, qualitative approach based on four methods of data collection: focus groups, in-depth interviews, traditional and online observation, and documentary analysis. This approach has the advantage of giving depth and richness of data, whereas the combination of different techniques triangulates data in order to increase the internal validity of the study. Like previous research on the ethical consumer (Shaw and Clarke 1999; Newholm 2005; Chatzidakis et al. 2007), purposive sampling was preferred, since it could provide richer insights for the phenomenon under study. In this study the units of observation are members of ethical consumer communities, located in the Spanish region of Catalonia. In total, 4 focus groups with 32 participants were conducted resulting in approximately 7 h of recording and 96 pages of transcribed text. Nine in-depth interviews were also carried out, resulting in approximately 9 h of recording and 246

82

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

pages of transcribed text. Traditional observation lasted 24 months with visits to ethical consumer communities, including various informal unrecorded interviews. Also, online observation took place by subscribing to the mailing lists of two ethical communities. This took place over 26 months for the first group and 12 months for the second group, with a total of 178 mails and 85 mails, respectively. Finally, 300 pages of a magazine written and published by the members of the communities were also analyzed. To minimize the possibility of error and to increase data visibility, N-Vivo software facilitated the data analysis process. In line with Newholm (2005), this study aimed to reverse the attitude-behavior gap and place emphasis not on the attitudes, but on the actual behaviors of ethical consumers. In other words, consumers were not asked about future, specific behavior (e.g., Do you intend to purchase Fair Trade coffee?). Instead, the focus was on identifying past situations where the participants did not act accordingly to their ethical attitudes and on understanding why this happened. The objective was to get a more holistic view of the attitude behavior gap in the ethical consumer context with real life examples. Findings This section presents the main findings of this study, explaining why an ethically minded consumer might not behave according to his or her ethical concerns. The concepts are categorized under two main groupings according to what factors consumers attribute the blame for their reported attitude behavior gaps. These categories are labelled as perceived external and internal limitations. For each theme, representative quotations from the qualitative data are included. Perceived External Limitations This category includes all those factors that participants perceive as obstacles that prevent them from behaving in their desired ways. In the TPB, the constructs of this category would constitute the control beliefs that impede participants from consuming ethically in certain situations. All these constructs are further explained in detail. Lack of Availability of Ethical Alternatives Most participants find that there is a very limited range of ethical alternatives. The lack of offers becomes an inhibiting factor that does not allow them to buy according to their principles. Therefore, they end up buying one of the alternatives that the market offers. Silvia (Interview VII): When we go out, we often go to a restaurant! But you cannot find ecological beer! Or in a bar... So, how can you be responsible in that case? Previous research in other cultural contexts, such as the UK (Carrigan and Attalla 2001) or Finland (Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004) also point to a lack of ethical

Attitude Behavior Gap

83

alternatives. Nevertheless, available empirical evidence from other contexts mostly dates from the beginning of the decade, and the ethical market is so dynamic and changing that this evidence may now be considered outdated. For example, the UK market for ethical products grew by 15% in 2008 alone (Ethical Consumerism Report 2008). Therefore, for more proper comparisons, more actualized data are necessary. For most participants, the Spanish ethical market is still developing when compared to Northern European countries. They claim to be surprised by the variety of ethical products when traveling to other countries such as Germany or the U.S., whereas some intend to buy certain products abroad since they cannot find them in the local market. For the participants, Spain is perceived as one of the low gear ethical markets when compared to Northern European countries or the U.S. Lack of Transparency of Information and Concerns about its Legitimacy Another important obstacle to purchase ethically is the difficulty of obtaining information about the production process of the products. Some participants find it complicated to answer questions such as how the product was fabricated and where it come from? They feel unable to make an informed and responsible decision either because there is no easy access to information on how products are made or because the existing ethical companies listings and rankings are incomplete. Judith (Interview VIII): It is purely a matter of how the market works. There is a big market and you intend to be ethical, but one way or another you have to compromise... Because of the price or because you dont know... I dont know! If you know something, if you have information, tell me Tell me and Ill join, Ill try it. Furthermore, the marketplace, as Newholm (2005) also points out, is dynamic and constantly changing. Given that businesses change hands and products change specifications (p. 108), the participants desire to make an informed and conscious consumer decision requires constant search and information updates. Nevertheless, it seems that the biggest problem is not the lack of information, but the quality and credibility of the existing information. Some consumers experience it as an overload of information which makes them unsure of what is really true. Others feel they dont have enough information to decide. Nevertheless, in both cases the problem is located in that the existing information comes from nonreliable sources. So the main concern is whether the information is credible or just urban myths. Therefore, besides the lack of information, they raise, as a more important issue, the legitimacy of the existing information. This argument was previously raised by Berry and Mc Eachern (2005), and the findings of this study provide the empirical ground to support it.
Rebecca (Interview V): Also, you hear so many things but there is nobody really knows which companies are ethical and which are unethical. You get online and find information. So you have to make sure that the information you find is true and decide whether you can use it as a criterion to make decisions!

84

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

Limited Budget and High Prices The high prices of the ethical alternatives in the market have been raised as an issue in previous studies (e.g., Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004). Most participants confirm this by arguing that some of the ethical products and services are too expensive for them, and they have a limited budget to spend. They consider that ethical alternatives tend to be expensive because they represent a marginalized sector, so there are few offers that result in high prices.
Joan (Focus Group IV): For instance there was an exhibition show in Manresa and there were all type of products, from solar panels to things for the house, beds.. But this sector is still in the margin. There is not a lot of information and there are not a lot of products. And even if you want to buy them they are expensive, because they are still a few of them!...It is expensive, still very expensive!

Inefficient Ethical Alternatives

Another problem mentioned by some of the participants is their dissatisfaction with the existing ethical alternatives. The main concern is that there is such limited offer that if a consumer wants to buy ethically, he/she has to compromise with the existing ethical choices. While these choices satisfy the ethical requirements of the consumers, they do not meet other criteria that are also seen as important, such as functionality or style and design. Previous research has found that consumers do not accept ethical company behavior as a substitute for product quality (Folkes and Kamins 1999). Nevertheless, existing empirical evidence is based on experiments with fictitious stimuli, whereas in this study they are real life examples from participants experiences.

Judith (Interview VI): (about how she buys clothes) Because fair trade clothes are so few and they are..hmm..so..There is no variety. I only know one shop in Gracia with fair trade clothes, but I dont like them! Maybe I bought a top onceAnd a bank account with Triodos, which is currently the ethical bank with the most services, hmm, well, it wouldnt work out anyway because you can only find it in Barcelona and they dont give you a debit card and they only provide limited services. So at the moment I am not using it. Keeping Up with Social Obligations
The participants of this study have chosen to participate in ethical consumer groups, so they are ethically concerned. But they are not extremists leading alternative lifestyles and living in isolated communities like the members of the New Consumption Communities of Bekin et al. (2007). They are leading mainstream lives and do not always interact with people that share their principles. This makes them compromise when they sometimes have to comply with their social obligations.

Ferran (Magazine Winter 2003): sometimes from laziness or tiredness I was eating things that, even if I knew that they didnt cover my basic ecologic quality criteria, I felt like to eat them because my friends were eating them and they were so happy

Attitude Behavior Gap

85

Pester Power
Pester power is defined as the influence that children exercise on their parents purchase behavior by nagging and demanding specific products (Gunter and Furnham 1999). Pester power has been discussed previously in general consumer research and ethical consumer research (Carey et al. 2008). Some of the consumers refer to it as a reason of their inconsistencies, either because their children refuse to consume ethical products, or because they insist and persuade their parents to buy unethical products.

Antonia (Focus Group III): And about cutting down on consumption! Uf! With a teenager daughter and a small son, this throws us against! Now we were coming over here with my son and he wanted me to buy him something from the One euro shop. Whatever! It didnt matter! Something that costs one euro! A blackmail! Well, I didnt fall. But I almost did!
The concept of pester power emerged from the data. This shows that it is important to keep in mind that an important part of daily consumer decisions are not taken individually. Instead they are the result of negotiations among all the members of a household. Differences in the attitudes and desires among the family members can lead to inconsistencies in the purchase behavior of the ethically minded member.

Perceived Individual Limitations In other cases, participants simply accept their individual responsibility and discuss their inconsistencies. Opting for the Easy Choice Besides their strong ethical orientation and awareness of existing alternatives, some of the participants might not prefer it because it requires more time and energy to carry out. They prefer the easiest and more conventional option. Tony B (Focus Group III): I dont have time to think about certain things. Or to go and look for an energy-efficient alarm clock. I will just put batteries! All the time batteries! Because it is the easiest thing for me to do. Compromise in Everyday Life In various cases, the consumers accept their individual limitations and the fact that they simply cannot be ethical all the time with all type of purchases. Indeed, consumer decisions take up much of an individuals time, since nowadays consumption is much of our life. Therefore, they assume their inconsistencies as an unchangeable reality, given that a constant effort to be ethical might turn them paranoid. Marti (Focus Group I): There are many products that I dont even think about..hmm... Such as CDs. It has never occured me to think: Who has made it?

86

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

Change Takes Time

One of the most frequently emerging concepts is that becoming an ethical consumer is a slow process that takes time. For some of the interviewees, the starting point of their change was becoming members in the ethical consumer group. Then, they started realizing the alternative options and looked for ways to adopt them as habits. Nevertheless, they claim that such change cannot be immediate. Smaller steps are taken towards a greater consciousness. In the meanwhile, inconsistencies take place.

Jordi (Focus Group III): I suppose it is about evolving slowly, no? First, you slowly start to think about things that they seem more real to youYou get in this process slowly. Previous research (Mohr et al. 2001; Freestone and McGoldrick 2008) also accepts that ethical consumers usually undergo a slow change process. It is argued that while consumers may be interested in ethical issues, they do not change their behavior at once, but in definable stages. Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) claim that individuals are gradually developing more socially conscientious mindsets (p. 461). Therefore, whether consumers take ethical action largely depends on the stage in this development. Nevertheless, previous research has not examined this in relation to the attitude behavior gap emergence. Discussion and Implications
Existing behavioral models have been traditionally based on the premise that attitudes predict behavior. Nevertheless, this has generated discussion, since attitudes

Receiving Information Processing information and forming attitudes Taking action

Stimulus

Knowledge

Attitudes

Behavio r
Uusitalo & Oksanen, 2004).

9. 35.
61.

Lack of available information

(Dragon, 1992; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001;

9.

Skepticism about corporate motives when companies behave ethically

(Mohr & Webb, 1998; Folkes & Kamins, 1999; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Fernandez Kranz & MerinoCastello, 2005;

35.

Relativity of ethics
(Sen & Bhattacharya , 2001; Uusitalo & Oksanen, 2004; Shaw et al., 2005; Low & Davenport, 2007; Cherrier, 2007).

Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Carrigan et al., 2004; Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004)

Confusion from too much information

Lack of the transparency of information and concerns about the legitimacy of existing information

(Shaw & Clarke, 1999)

IV. IV. Full and symmetric information is impossible (Shaw & Newholm, 2007) 22. Negative information about corporate behavior has more impact than positive information (Folkes & Kamins, 1999; Ahluwalia et al., 2000)

III. Consequences of consumer action: 1) Low Perceive

d Effectiveness
2004)

(Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Mohr & Webb, 2001; Carrigan et al.,

1)

Opting for the easy choice,

2)

Context Dependent Consequences (Auger et al. 2004; Devinney et al., 2006)

IV. Brand loyalty may lead to selective processing of information for favorite company (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Ingram et al., 2005)

I. External limitations for enacting ethical behavior

1) Limited offer on ethical
& 2001; &

lack of time, putting first traditional purchasing criteria such as price, quality, availability of products* (Creyer & Ross, 1997; Strong, 1997; Folkes & Kamins, 1999; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Bhate, 2001; Sen & Bhacattacharya, 2001; Mohr &Webb, 2001; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005).

alternatives*
(Carrigan Attalla, Uusitalo

Oksanen, 2004).

2)

Expensive ethical products and limited budget

(Uusitalo

*
&

Oksanen, 2004).

2)

3)

Inefficient ethical alternatives. Social context; Social obligations and pester power. 3)

Unavoidable compromise in everyday life . Slow proces s of change to adopt ethical consu mer habits.

4)

II. Internal Limitations for enacting ethical behavior

Fig. 1 The attitude behavior gap in ethical consumer decision making

Attitude Behavior Gap

87

are often not translated into action. This issue is often brought up in the context of ethical consumer decision-making. Following a different methodological path than previous research, this study intends to shed new light on the attitude behavior gap. Instead of predicting future behavior on the basis of attitudes like previous research, this study seeks to identify and understand the consumer situations where attitudes were not transformed into behavior. The qualitative techniques used have yielded rich, in-depth data. Some of the findings confirm what previous empirical evidence suggests, but new explanations of the attitude behavior gap also emerge from the data.
In order to facilitate understandings, previous knowledge on the attitude behavior gap was integrated with the empirical findings of the present study into a conceptual model (see Fig. 11). This model presents the different factors that might interfere in ethical consumer decision making and lead to word/deed inconsistencies.

A challenge for future research would be to fully recognize and explore how the interaction with the social context can be a source of inconsistencies in the everyday lives of ethical consumers. Also, further research may wish to delve deeper into the process of adopting more ethical lifestyles in relation to the emergence of the attitude behavior gap. In addition, findings suggest that a main cause of the attitude behavior gap in the context of this study is not the lack of real demand for ethical products, but that the ethical market in Spain is still in an early phase of development. Marketers could take under consideration the existence of this consumer niche and target it by broadening the offer of ethical alternatives maintaining basic quality standards and by providing clear information on how they produce their products and encourage the establishment of independent ethical companies rankings. References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203214. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211. Auger, P., Devinney T., & Louviere J. (2004). Consumer social beliefs: An international investigation using best-worst scaling methodology. Working Paper, Melbourne Business School. Bekin, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Beyond recycling: commons-friendly waste reduction at new consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 271286. Berry, H., & Mc Eachern, M. (2005). Informing ethical consumers. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer. London: Sage. Bhate, S. (2001). One world, one environment, one vision: are we close to achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental behaviour across three countries. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2 (2), 169184. Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4(4), 355368. Carey, L., Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2008). The impact of ethical concerns on family consumer decisionmaking. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 553560.

We have underlined the new concepts that are based solely on the empirical findings of the present study. For concepts that have emerged before in the literature and are further confirmed by our findings, we place an asterisk besides the respective construct.

88

E. Papaoikonomou et al.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer-do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560577. Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 401417. Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. (2007). Why people dont take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: the role of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89100. Cherrier, H. (2007). Ethical consumption practices: co-production of self-expression and social recognition. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(5), 321335. Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Who are the ethical consumers? UK: Cooperative Bank. Creyer, E., & Ross, W. (1997). The influence of firm behaviour on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421432. De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., & Mielants, C. (2005). Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. International Marketing Review, 22(5), 512530. Devinney, T., Eckhardt, D., & Belk, R. (2006). Why dont consumers behave ethically? The social construction of consumption. Working Paper, Australian Graduate School of Management. Dragon International. (1992). Corporate reputation: Does the consumer care? London: Dragon International. Ethical Consumerism Report. (2008). The UK ethical consumerism report. UK: Cooperative Bank. Fernandez-Kranz, D., & Merino-Castello, A. (2005). Existe disponibilidad a pagar por responsabilidad social corporativa? Percepcin de los consumidores. Universia Business Review, 7, 3853. Folkes, V., & Kamins, M. (1999). Effects of information about firms ethical and unethical actions on consumers attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243259. Freestone, O., & McGoldrick, P. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445467. Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1999). Children as consumers: A psychological analysis of the young peoples market. London: Routledge. Ingram, R., Skinner, S., & Taylor, V. (2005). Consumers evaluation of unethical marketing behaviors: the role of customer commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 237252. Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2007). To boldly goexploring ethical spaces to re-politicise ethical consumption and fair trade. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(5), 336348. Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121147. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 4573. Newholm, T. (2005). Case studying ethical consumers projects and strategies. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer. London: Sage. Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: a review of research. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(5), 253270. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225243.
Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: an exploratory study.

Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(2), 109119. Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 14851498. Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., & Thomson, J. (2005). An exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(3), 185200. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 136. Uusitalo, O., & Oksanen, R. (2004). Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 214221.

Copyright of International Advances in Economic Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. PDF to Word