In terms of the scope of this thesis, whilst it is recognised that there is a body of literature
relating to the unethical practices of consumers (see for example Hunt and Vitell, 1986, Vitell and Muncy 1992 & 2005, Vitell et al., 2001 and Fukukawa, 2002) and that a discussion of ethical consumer behaviour may also consider unethical consumer behaviour, the purpose of this thesis is to focus on the buying attitudes and practices
which may be seen as an evolution of ‘green’ consumerism (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992) which typically includes concern for the welfare and conditions of those in the third world (Strong, 1996) in addition to environmental concerns, and defined by Brinkmann (2004) as those practices in which consumers may or may not take moral responsibility or
co-responsibility. Chatzidakis et al. (2006) classify this as ‘ethical consumption’ as opposed to
‘consumer ethics’; the latter of which focuses on unethical behaviour. Whilst the primary concern of the following discussion is clothing consumption, the wider literature
surrounding ethical consumption will be examined where the underpinning arguments are relevant. For example, the grocery sector is another which has been subject to empirical scrutiny (see for example Memery et al., 2005).
Whilst the social consciousness of customers has long been recognised (Mahoney, 1994, notes that modern business ethics can be traced back to the USA in the early 1970s, with studies of socially concerned consumers also appearing at this time), interest in the ethicality of a number of product and service groups has been increasing in recent years.
Gabriel and Lang (2006: 166) note that consumer organisations focused on green and ethical concerns accelerated in the 1980s after a slow start in the 1970s, but did not
‘achieve’ any real coherence until the last few years of the Twentieth Century; Fuller (In Connolly and Shaw, 2006) terms this the ‘Green 90s’. Gabriel and Lang (2006) term this wave of consumer activism: ‘alternative consumerism’, and note that recent years have seen this wave galvanise into a progressive consumer ‘political activism’ which includes ethical, social and ecological dimensions. However, whilst the late 1990s saw the rise of a reactive activism on student campuses in the United States of America (USA)
(Houghteling, 1999) and attention from linked campaigns such as the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) protests (Boje, 2001), ethics in the fashion industry have only affected the high street and ‘mainstream’ consumers in more recent years. Indeed, Whysall (2000) notes that pioneering studies in marketing ethics focused on the practice of marketers (or the supply-side), whereas studies of consumer attitudes (or the demand side) did not emerge in any meaningful way until the late 1990s. Consequently, studies of the role of ethics in consumer attitudes generally and in clothing purchase specifically were relatively slow to emerge, but have gathered pace from the mid-2000s. However, a number of studies spanning the past thirty years relating to a proactive
pro-environmental consumerism is identified by Connolly and Shaw (2006) in a study on fair trade as a specific dimension of ethical consumption (see figure 1):
Figure 1: Marketing categorisations of ‘concerned consumers’
Responsible consumers Fisk, 1973
The socially conscious consumer Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Webster, 1975;
Brooker, 1976; Mayer, 1976; Antil, 1984;
Osterhus, 1997.
Ecologically concerned consumers Kinnear et al., 1974; Kinnear & Taylor, 1973;
Schwepker & Cornwell, 1991; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Balderjahn, 1988; Bohlen et al., 1993.
Environmentally concerned consumers
Murphy et al., 1978; Berger & Corbin, 1992;
Follows & Jobber, 2000; Brown & Wahlers, 1998.
Green consumers Roberts, 1996; Shrum et al., 1995; Prothero, 1990; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Titterington et al., 1996; Laroche et al., 2001; Peattie, 2001.
Green, ethical & charitable consumer
Schlegelmilch, 1994.
Ethical consumers Strong, 1997; Shaw & Clarke, 1999; Shaw et al., 2000; Shaw & Shiu, 2002.
Semi-ethicals / slavery McDonagh, 2002.
Humane consumers Ger, 1997.
Conserving consumer Pickett et al., 1993.
Ethical simplifiers Shaw & Newholm, 2002.
The voluntary simplifier Shama, 1985; Rudmin & Kilbourne, 1996; Etzioni, 1998; Craig-Lees & Hill, 2002.
Downshifters Schor, 1991, 1998.
Source: Connolly & Shaw, 2006: 355
Schwartz (2010) notes that a consequence of difficulties in regulating business practices which might be considered to be ethically problematic is the emergence of citizens questioning whether they could be culpable for any unethical practices associated with their purchases, and whether a moral conscience can be expressed through purchasing choices. Brinkmann (2004) suggests such moral responsibilities should be viewed as a shared responsibility of businesses and consumers, and a number of authors have
attempted to clarify the forms in which these consumer choices and responsibilities might manifest themselves, and what might therefore be included under the heading of ‘ethical consumer behaviour’. For example, Harrison et al. (2005) propose a typology of five ethical consumer practices:
• Boycotts (refusing to buy certain products/brands)
• Positive buying (for example, buying ‘Fair Trade’)
• Fully screened (using consumer guides and ratings to make choices)
• Relationship purchasing (attempting to change the behaviour of suppliers)
• Anti-consumerism (avoiding unsustainable products such as cars, or pursuing DIY alternatives such as mending rather than replacing clothes, often referred to as
‘voluntary simplicity’).
Newholm and Shaw (2007), in their review of the research around the ethics of
consumption, identify six interlinked ways in which consumers may express themselves in such a way, and associated areas of study: consumer ethics relating to ‘misbehaviour’ (as discussed above); consumer resistance to marketing efforts; individual and
semi-organised projects related to sustainability (such as downshifting or voluntary simplicity);
entrepreneurial efforts in relation to creating ethical consumption opportunities and spaces (perhaps often tied to political action); expert academic perspectives on the ethics of consumption; and ethical consumption as a conscious project. Shaw and Riach (2011) distinguish between those forms of market resistance (such as boycotting, consumer rebellion, counter-cultural movements and non-consumption) and relational interactions with the market, and this relational approach enhances understanding of how consumers negotiate their market choices. This negotiation is key, and will be addressed in the subsequent chapter. Further, Newholm and Shaw (2007) conclude that relocating the consideration of ethical consumption (both individually and collectively) within the cultural ethics of consumption is key to understanding consumer behaviour. This ‘cultural ethics’ of consumption will also be considered in due course. However, it is important to recognise that the categorisations above imply both the consumption practices of ethically engaged or committed consumers, and the consumption of ethically produced products and services more generally. However, it should be recognised that ethically committed individuals may not necessarily be constantly engaged in ethical clothing consumption, but likewise the consumption of ethically produced goods and services may be undertaken by any consumer, whether categorized as ‘ethically committed’ or not. The implications of this for the research will be further explored in chapters five and six.
It should also be noted that the definitions above perhaps overlooks a possible
interaction (and mutual influence) between a reactive kind of ethical awareness amongst
consumers which arise due to ethical failures, versus a proactive concern to influence ethical business practices via consumer choices. A key question therefore arises around whether ethical consumption is a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction against unethical business practices, or something that emerges from consumers’ personal goals. Furthermore, Miller (2012) identifies a third type of moral consumption in relation to the latter; one which is not
‘other’-oriented, but a morality which might be characterised by thrift and duty to the family.
Recent studies have begun to examine specific consumer ethical issues in the clothing industry and others which relate to the practices highlighted by Harrison et al. (2005), such as sweatshop avoidance (Shaw et al., 2007) fair trade (Ma et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2010; Connolly and Shaw, 2006; Shaw et al., 2006; Littrell et al., 2005; Low and
Davenport, 2005; Strong, 1997), the existence of ethical codes of conduct (Iwanow et al., 2005), labour abuses in the supply chain (Hyllegard et al., 2009; Moor and Littler, 2008;
Valor, 2007) and organic products (Lim et al., 2014; Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009).
Connolly and Shaw (2006) argue that despite this apparent diversity in consumer
concerns, there are common motivations across the categories they identify, and therefore propose three broad headings under which these can be grouped: green consumerism, ethical consumerism and voluntary simplicity. However, they contend that the distinction between ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ is ambiguous due to the interconnectivity between the various concerns; in particular environmental and fair trade concerns are often coupled together. They note Connolly’s (in Connolly and Shaw, 2006) previous study which found that ethical consumers were often confused about which was ‘best’; food which had the least environmental impact or which was fairly traded. Likewise, Newholm (2005: 108) argues that: “…specific consumer practices should not be seen in isolation. Animal
welfare, human rights, environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility combine, overlap, conflict and vie for attention”, and Whysall (2000) warns that there is a danger in isolating ethical issues as a single area of ethical complexity will often bring together a number of areas of ethical concern. Whilst Connolly and Shaw (2006) note how these issues can significantly add to the complexity in consumer decision making (as the
interconnectivity and overlaps often arise in the minds of consumers out of a desire ‘to do the right thing’), they can also exist in a palpable sense. For example, the destruction of the Aral Sea in the production of cotton has demonstrated that environmental disasters
are often inseparable from human and social disasters (EJF, 2005). Therefore, whilst initiatives such as fair trade and organic products address separate concerns, the
underpinning issues of human rights and environmental sustainability may be practically linked.
A challenge, therefore, in addressing codes of ethics in the clothing industry is helping consumers to identify ethical issues which relate to their concerns. As previously
discussed, and as noted by Fisher (2004), the terminology surrounding various dimensions of ethics is often used interchangeably. Furthermore, the concept of sustainability is perhaps most often applied by industry and Governments. Sustainability is defined broadly (and arguably most widely) as: “… the principle of ensuring that our actions today do not limit the range of economic, social and environmental options open to future generations.” (Elkington, 1999: 20). This is in accordance with Elkington’s (1999: 70)
‘triple bottom line’, which focuses on: “economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice.” Economic capital is comprised of physical capital, financial capital, human capital and intellectual capital. Thus, organisations must consider not only their economic sustainability in terms of whether demand for products and services and profit margins are sustainable and whether costs are competitive, but also whether the rate of
innovation is competitive and how to ensure that human and intellectual capital remain within the organisation. The environmental ‘bottom line’ is discussed in terms of natural capital; both capital which is essential to the maintenance of life and ecosystem integrity, and capital which can be renewed, repaired, substituted or replaced. The final element, the social bottom line, is the one that Elkington (1999) claims businesses have
traditionally overlooked; this comprises human capital (public health, skills and
education) and wider measures of a society’s health and wealth-creation potential; the trust between organisations and stakeholders is key here in allowing social relationships to prosper. ‘Social accounting’ could cover community relations, product safety (the domain of the ‘original’ wave of consumer activism, according to Gabriel and Lang, 2006), education and training initiatives, charitable donations, employment of disadvantaged groups, poverty alleviation, upholding human rights and employment creation.
The domain of business ethics is considered to lie in the zone between the social and economic bottom lines (and Elkington acknowledges the problems in assessing ethical
behaviours), although it is likely that the scope of business ethics is much wider than considered under the social bottom line of sustainability, but falling within the broader domain of corporate social responsibility (Fisher, 2004) as identified by Carroll (1991) and Schwartz and Carroll (2003). Fisher (2004) cites the work of Davidson and Griffin who suggest that individuals ‘have’ ethics, whereas organisations ‘have’ a social responsibility;
the ethical beliefs of consumers may then ‘cut across’ business ethics, CSR and
sustainability. Thus, organisations can create value in multiple dimensions; in the case of sustainability this value is referred to in terms of environmental, social and economic value-added or destroyed (Elkington, 2006). Indeed, there are parallels to draw between the triple bottom line and with Schwartz and Carroll’s (2003) three domain model of CSR, where the economic responsibilities are defined by the economic bottom line, and issues of environmental and social responsibilities classified under (but not exclusively
contributing towards) Schwartz and Carroll’s ‘ethical’ responsibilities. It should be remembered, however, that Elkington (1999) notes that there are cycles and conflicts in and between each of the three ‘bottom lines’.
As with the discussion above relating to codes and standards, Allwood et al. (2006) claim that consumer choice is the key to reducing these environmental impacts and social problems. However, rather than rely on codes and standards which may appeal to a narrow set of consumer concerns, in relation to clothing they propose a model of ‘ideal consumer behaviour’, in which the ‘ideal consumer’ would (Allwood et al., 2006: 68):
• Buy second-hand clothing and textiles where possible;
• Buy fewer but longer lasting garments and textile products
• When buying new products, choose those made with least energy and toxic emissions;
• Only buy products made by workers paid a credible living wage with reasonable employment rights and conditions
• Lease clothes that would otherwise not be worn to the end of their natural life;
• Wash clothes less often, at lower temperatures and using eco-detergents, hang dry them and avoid ironing where possible;
• Extend the life of clothing and textile products through repair;
• Dispose of used clothing and textiles through recycling businesses who would return them for second-hand sale wherever possible, but otherwise extract and recycle the yarn or fibres.
However, barriers to consumers adopting these behaviours are considered by them to include: inertia, changes in fashion and the desire to appear to be fashionable, higher cost for more durable, environmentally and socially responsible clothes, a lack of recognition of the environmental and social consequences of the purchase of clothes and the problems associated with changes in mass behaviour. Proposed actions to address this behaviour are: consumer education (through campaigns, education or labelling), the promotion of durability as a component of fashion, encouraging customers to pay more for their clothes, new business models (where consumers might pay for repair services, for example), the promotion of repair and the development of technology to reduce the impact of clothing maintenance and recycling. The focus on new business models to improve sustainability (under the broad heading of the ‘circular economy’) is also increasing.
DEFRA (2008b) also identify a number of specific behaviours based upon Madsen et al’s (2007) and Allwood et al’s (2006) analysis which it was envisaged would improve the sustainability impacts of clothing. These are (DEFRA, 2008b): repair or adapt clothing to prolong its life, and return/recycle it at the end of its life/when it is no longer wanted;
wash clothes at 30°C and use eco-friendly cleaning technologies; line dry clothes whenever possible and when using dryers reduce the drying time and separate synthetic and natural fibres; buy clothing that is sustainable and buy clothes that last for longer.
Whilst Allwood et al. (2006) and DEFRA (2008a/b) are therefore arguably focused more on the environmental aspects of sustainability, a wider body of ethical concerns is
represented by Memery et al. (2005) who cite three ethics and social responsibility clusters: quality and safety; human rights and ethical trading; environmental (green) issues, although it should be noted these relate specifically to the grocery market. A wider application again is given by Ethical Consumer [no date] magazine’s product ratings across five dimensions: environment (which includes environmental reporting, nuclear power, climate change, pollution and toxins, and habitats and resources); animals (which
includes animal testing, factory farming and animal rights); people (which includes human rights, workers’ rights, supply chain policy, irresponsible marketing and arms and military supply); politics (which includes political activity, boycott calls, genetic
engineering, anti-social finance and company ethos); product sustainability (which includes the presence of certification schemes such as organic, fair trade, the TCO environmental label, EU Energy label, certification from the Vegan or Vegetarian Societies, or other sustainability features not covered by certification schemes). Each company is scored against each dimension, to produce an overall ‘ethiscore’ on a scale of zero (worst) to fifteen (best). The company ethiscore is calculated by subtracting all the corporate responsibility categories in which the research database holds criticisms from a baseline number of 14. As one of the broadest categorisations of consumer ethical issues, the Ethical Consumer ratings therefore provide a useful framework under which to group the myriad of standards which exist.
It should be noted that both Allwood (2006) and Fisher et al. (2008) recommend the use of product labelling or certification, in the latter case consumers stating that this is something that they would welcome. A further study by Skillfast (see Bond, 2010) found that ‘the vast majority of consumers’ thought that there should be some kind of regulated label or ‘kitemark’ for ‘green’ clothing (although a much smaller percentage stated that this would actually persuade them to buy those clothes), and this principle has been supported by a number of academic studies (see for example Aspers, 2008, Fisher et al., 2008, Joergens, 2006). It should be noted that such consumer concerns attempt to place responsibility on the supplier; arguably a paternalistic approach to ethics, and these issues of responsibility versus paternalism on the part of suppliers may require further examination. For example, Ratner et al. (2008) argue that as consumers often make poor choices due to cognitive bias or limit, emotion or possessing incomplete information, such problems can be solved by ‘libertarian paternalism’; interventions which guide consumers without limiting their choices, although they acknowledge that such an approach will be objectionable to some because it manipulates consumers’ behaviour towards specific outcomes. However, research into consumer attitudes towards such forms of paternalism would clearly be of benefit.
It is therefore clear that whilst a number of codes and standards relevant to the clothing industry exist, these focus on a variety of specific issues. However, it is clear that there is no ‘best’ standard which may account for the breadth of potential concerns. Indeed, whilst issues of human rights have perhaps been the most recognisable ethical issues in
clothing, Carrigan and Attalla (2001) and Joergens (2006) found that animal rights were often viewed as being more important by consumers. This therefore arguably highlights a failure in normative ethics to deal with the numerous and complex cognitive and
affective concerns that consumers may have. In addition, each of the standards has been criticised from various viewpoints; either for failing to enforce the practices they promote, for providing an insufficient ‘level’ of ‘ethicality’, or for ‘displacing’ ethical problems (for example fair trade products causing over-supply, or organic products causing further deforestation). The question, therefore, of how ethics should be approached is therefore critical in undertaking any analysis of ethical consumption; the term ‘ethics’ as it applies to ethical consumption has been interpreted from a number of different standpoints (Shaw and Riach, 2011), and a consideration of how this may be approached by consumers and within the literature will be useful before proceeding. Indeed, Caruana (2007) argues that a clear definition of morality is absent from the consumption literature, and this is especially important where consumption is treated sociologically (and in qualitative studies) and not just as another cognitive factor impacting purchase decisions within the consumer’s ‘black box’.
Ethics and morality: clarifying the concepts
Schwartz (2010) considers there to be two overarching questions in considering a consumer ethic: what (and how serious) are the moral wrongs being committed; and is there a strong moral connection between the act of purchase and this wrongdoing (or the question of culpability)? In attempting to address these questions, at least from the perspectives of the consumers under investigation, it is important to define the key terms
Schwartz (2010) considers there to be two overarching questions in considering a consumer ethic: what (and how serious) are the moral wrongs being committed; and is there a strong moral connection between the act of purchase and this wrongdoing (or the question of culpability)? In attempting to address these questions, at least from the perspectives of the consumers under investigation, it is important to define the key terms