Journal of Consumer Marketing

The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?

Marylyn Carrigan, Ahmad Attalla,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Marylyn Carrigan, Ahmad Attalla, (2001) "The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?", Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Issue: 7, pp.560-578, https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263
Downloaded on: 29 January 2019, At: 02:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 160223 times since 2006*
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1997),"The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase behaviour", Marketing Intelligence
&amp; Planning, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 32-37 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509710155642">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634509710155642</a>
(2013),"Business model innovation: coffee triumphs for Nespresso", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 34 Iss 2 pp. 30-37 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661311310431">https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661311310431</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:407354 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 An executive summary for
managers and executive The myth of the ethical
readers can be found at the
end of this issue consumer ± do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour?
Marylyn Carrigan
Lecturer, University of Birmingham, Department of Commerce,
Birmingham, UK
Ahmad Attalla
Graduate, University of Birmingham, Department of Commerce,
Birmingham, UK

Keywords Marketing, Ethics, Consumer behaviour, Social responsibility

Abstract Marketing ethics and social responsibility are inherently controversial, and
years of research continue to present conflicts and challenges for marketers on the value
of a socially responsible approach to marketing activities. This article examines whether
or not consumers care about ethical behaviour, and investigates the effect of good and
bad ethical conduct on consumer purchase behaviour. Through focus group discussions it
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

becomes clear that although we are more sophisticated as consumers today, this does not
necessarily translate into behaviour which favours ethical companies and punishes
unethical firms. The article concludes by some thoughts on how marketers might
encourage consumers to engage in positive purchase behaviour in favour of ethical
marketing.

Controversial issues Issues surrounding marketing ethics and social responsibility are inherently
controversial, and years of research continue to present scholars and
practitioners with conflicting and challenging views on the value of a
socially responsible approach to marketing activities (Laczniak and Murphy,
1993; Smith and Quelch, 1996). An area that causes particular dispute is the
question of the effect of ethical/unethical marketing activity on the purchase
behaviour of consumers. One would like to think that being a ``good
company'' would attract consumers to your products, while unethical
behaviour would see customers boycotting the products of the offender.
Unfortunately, it is neither as simple nor as straightforward. Indeed there are
reasons to believe that there may be very little commercial reward in terms
of consumer purchasing to be gained by behaving as an ethical marketer.
This paper will examine whether consumers do care about marketing ethics,
first, by considering the research to date in societal marketing, and in relation
to consumer attitudes and ethical purchase behaviour. This will be followed
by evidence from focus group discussions conducted with a group of
consumers to elicit their thoughts and opinions on the subject of ethical and
unethical marketing behaviour. Finally, the authors offer some thoughts on
how marketers might engage consumers in favouring ethical behaviour,
while encouraging them to translate this into positive purchase behaviour.

Social responsibility in marketing

The study of marketing ethics evolved in response to what some would term
the ``smugness'' of marketers who believed that their actions were inevitably
in the best interest of the consumer. Theoretically, in the exchange process

The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

560 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001, pp. 560-577, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761
 marketers made a reasonable profit, consumers got the product they desired
and everyone was happy. This simplistic notion has been challenged since
the 1960s, with initially what were lone uncoordinated voices such as Vance
Packard and Ralph Nader criticising the power imbalance that existed
between marketers and consumers. Sheth et al. (1988) point out that until the
1960s marketers either displayed disinterest in issues related to their social
responsibilities or deliberately ignored them. But the higher profile of
consumer activists during this decade served to encourage a more aggressive
stance by some consumers against the shortcomings of marketing tactics.
Today there is a more concerted attack from well-organised activists/
lobbyists in the form of protest groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth or the UK Consumers Association. The Internet has opened up a route
for international groups of consumers and interested bodies to co-ordinate
their activity globally, and this can be seen in Web sites such as
www.saigon.com/nike, the homepage of the Boycott Nike campaign, or
www.mcspotlight.org the homepage of the McDonalds boycott. In response,
large organisations that had previously believed themselves immune from
such activity find themselves now having to defend themselves against their
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

global critics on their own company Web sites.

Social responsibility in Social responsibility in marketing covers a diverse range of issues such as
marketing consumerism, environmentalism, regulation, political and social marketing.
Given the tremendous responsibility marketing has in gathering and
transforming resources into products, it is inevitable that there is
disagreement over how that is achieved (Sheth et al., 1988). According to
Fineman (1999), marketers such as Beardshaw and Palfreman (1990) present
marketing as an ``ethically neutral system or management tool serving an
unequivocal market good''. Apart from the occasional lapse into guns and
pornography, marketing serves society's needs with few ethical strings
attached. However, others Fineman (1999) argues, suggest that marketing is
more profoundly value laden (Smith, 1995; Laczniak, 1993), and manipulate
the consumer in anything but an innocent way. Fineman (1999) states that
the act of purchase and exchange is what interests marketers; it is an end in
itself, remote from its ``relationship to others' interests or concerns ± like
privacy, pollution or resource scarcity''. Thus marketing becomes unhinged
from ``its imperial position in contributing to the apparent good life'' and
becomes guilty of contributing to the destructive and wasteful side of
consumerist society (Fineman, 1999). This conflict within marketing has
given rise to scholarly debate surrounding societal marketing and marketing
ethics, and the rise of the activist school of marketing, representing empirical
research and conceptual thinking related to societal marketing issues, in
particular consumer welfare and consumer satisfaction.
Important issue Kotler (1972) was a key founder of the societal marketing movement, who
recognised that what consumers' desire may not necessarily be good for
them (e.g. tobacco), and although marketers may create a happy customer in
the short term, in the long run both consumer and society may suffer as a
direct result of the marketer's actions in ``satisfying'' the consumer. In later
years a range of scholars have examined various aspects of social
responsibility and societal marketing (e.g. Hunt and Chonko, 1984; Robin
and Reidenbach, 1987; Garrett, 1987; Laczniak and Murphy, 1993; Murphy,
1998; Hunt and Vitell, 1992; Smith 1995). Evidently many marketers
consider social responsibility and societal marketing to be an important issue
within the marketing field, but how does the actual consumer view these
matters?

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 561

 The ``ethics era''
No definitive answer Despite the work in the field over the last 30 to 40 years, there is still no
definitive answer to the question of what exactly is the social responsibility
of marketing. One of the reasons for this may lie in the difficulty of deciding
which stakeholder interests should take priority, and who should make the
final decision if conflict exists between those stakeholder interests. The
current debate over pharmaceutical drug pricing has engaged national
government and drug marketers in litigation in the South African courts
(Haddow, 2001; BBC, 2001). Arguments are being made by governments,
and organisations such as Oxfam and MeÂdecin Sans FrontieÁres on ethical
grounds to allow cheaper access for consumers of drugs such as AZT;
pharmaceutical firms defend their pricing policies based on the consideration
of other stakeholders such as shareholders, employees and the wider
community who can only benefit from new product developments if high
economic returns are made from existing drugs. How do we decide who is
the ``most important'' stakeholder in a situation such as this? The stakeholder
aspect of societal marketing is a complicating factor for those trying to
achieve clear ethical judgements. Often it is difficult to make a consistent
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

ethical judgement that achieves equal ``good'' or avoids harming all

stakeholder interests. In his recent paper Gaski (1999) questions the validity
of marketing ethics, and analyses its contribution to the marketing field. Yet,
even after a cynical debate on what marketing ethics has to offer, Gaski
(1999) contends that there remains an imperative for marketers to continue to
seek to act with social responsibility, for ``without doubt, the ethics of one
day may be the law of the next''.
Establishment of guidelines Rather than be defeated by the continued lack of answers to the many
questions which continue to be posed by the challenges of social
responsibility, there are many marketers who seek to establish acceptable
ethical guidelines and practice, and disseminate that within the industry
(Smith, 1995; Laczniak, 1993; Hunt and Vitell, 1992). Legislation has played
a part in raising consumer expectations of marketing behaviour, and
regulation has also helped move us from the ``caveat emptor'' position of the
1960s to a more socially responsible era in marketing (Smith, 1995). There
are signs that ethics are no longer languishing on the fringes of marketing
activity. In the UK advertisers and print media have had to face
responsibility for their role in promoting ``glamorous'' anorexic body images
(e.g. the Accurist ``put some weight on'' campaign; UK government
anti-drug advertisements); food manufacturers and marketers have had
defend and amend the nutritional content of their products (e.g. McDonald's,
Sunny Delight); cigarette firms have had to admit the carcinogenic qualities
of their products (e.g. Phillip Morris). Scholarly journals such as the Journal
of Business Ethics and Marketing and Public Policy are dedicated to
disseminating research on the subject of social responsibility in marketing;
universities are developing courses in societal marketing and ethics (e.g.
London Business School; Colorado State's Online Business Ethics
Certificate Program, www.e-business.com). Most major multinational firms
have published codes of conduct to demonstrate their commitment to better
business behaviour (e.g. Levi Strauss, The Body Shop), as have professional
marketing organisations such as the Market Research Society or the
American Marketing Association. Globally, there have been hundreds of
organisations and institutes established to research and promote ethical
business behaviour (e.g European Business Ethics Network, Hong Kong
Ethics Development Centre), and marketing ethics/societal marketing are
key tracks at marketing conferences, as well as being priority topics for

562 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 research. For the marketing profession it is clear that social responsibility in
marketing has moved to centre stage as marketing moves into the new
millennium. Laczniak (1993) has argued that as the field of marketing
develops a stronger ethical profile, academically and professionally,
marketers are finding it harder to ignore the ``ethics gap'' between what
society expects and what marketing professionals are delivering. However,
does society expect such behaviour, or at least if it does, will it actually
reward marketers for their ethical behaviour by buying their products, and
boycotting those of unethical firms? Given that this flurry of ethical concern
is driven in some way by the belief that consumers will be attracted to
socially responsible firms, do we have enough evidence to support that
belief?

Consumer response to the ethics era

Buyer side Despite the amount of attention given to marketing ethics in recent years, the
under-researched buyer side of the exchange process remains under-researched (Hunt and
Vitell, 1992). Although consumers are key stakeholders in the marketing
exchange process, there has been little research attention focused on
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

understanding the ethics of consumers, and the buyer behaviour attached to

them (Hunt and Vitell, 1992; Folkes and Kamins, 1999). Smith (1995) argues
that we are now living in the ``ethics era'', whereby society's expectations of
marketers have changed and we face challenges to basic marketing
assumptions.

Consumer sophistication
According to some marketing scholars, this is in part driven by the fact that
consumers are better informed, more educated and awareness is greater of
consumer rights and product requirements at least in Western society
(Hirschman, 1980; Barnes and McTavish, 1983). However, possessing
``consumer sophistication'' is no guarantee that consumers actually
participate in wise or ethical buying practices (Titus and Bradford, 1996).
There is a difference between sophisticated consumer characteristics and
sophisticated consumer behaviour (Titus and Bradford, 1996), a distinction
not always recognised in the marketing ethics literature. It is not enough to
possess the prerequisite knowledge and ability to make efficient consumer
decisions, one must also act according to that knowledge. Sproles et al.
(1978) argued that efficient decision making requires consumers to be fully
informed; are today's consumers fully informed about the ethical behaviour
of marketers, and does it translate into efficient ethical purchasing? There are
those committed ethical consumers who do seek out environmentally-
friendly products, and boycott those firms perceived as being unethical. For
them, information guides ethical purchasing behaviour. Other consumers
possess the same amount of information in terms of ethical and unethical
marketing conduct, but this does not lead them to boycott offenders, nor
reward ethical firms.
Ethical manner Marketers are encouraged to behave in an ethical manner because
information about a firm's ethical behaviours is thought to influence product
sales and consumers' image of the company (Mascarenhas, 1995). Although
it seems obvious that consumers hold more positive attitudes towards
companies that behave than companies which behave unethically, this
information may be combined in complex ways (Folkes and Kamins, 1999).
According to research, information about ethical and unethical actions has an
asymmetrical influence on attitudes, such that vices detract from attitudes
more than virtues enhance them (Reeder and Brewer, 1979; Skowronski and

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 563

 Carlston, 1987). Thus, one might expect consumers to punish unethical
behaviour, but not necessarily reward ethical behaviour. It has been
suggested that many people believe there is a responsibility not to do harm
(e.g. not to use child labour), but do not automatically believe that others
have a right to be helped (e.g. provide education for under-age workers)
(Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Spranca et al., 1991). Ethically minded
consumers, therefore, need not consistently buy ethically.

Evidence of ethical consumption

Conflicting research Past research suggests that negative information influences consumer
attitudes more than does positive information (Herr et al., 1991; Amine,
1996). If this is so, one might expect that consumers' aware of information
on a firm's unethical behaviour should boycott their products, while knowing
about a firm's ethical behaviour would not necessarily persuade a consumer
to buy their products. There is conflicting research to date on the proclivities
of consumers to support or reject the ethical and unethical conduct of
marketing firms. A recent MORI poll commissioned by the Co-operative
Bank in the UK suggests that one-third of consumers are ``seriously
concerned'' with ethical issues (Mason, 2000). Within the past year, over
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

half had bought a product or recommended a company on the basis of its

ethical reputation. This corresponds with earlier research by Forte and
Lamont (1998) who feel that consumers are increasingly making purchases
on the basis of a firm's role in society, and the Cone and Roper study
(Simon, 1995) that found that 85 per cent of respondents had a more positive
image of a company that supported something they cared about. A total of 15
per cent of respondents in the same study stated they would be more likely to
pay more for a product or service associated with a cause important to them.
Creyer and Ross (1997) also found that a company's level of ethical
behaviour is an important consideration during the purchase decision; in the
USA consumers expect ethical behaviour from companies and they were
willing to pay higher prices and reward ethical behaviour. Creyer and Ross
(1997) did discover that consumers would still buy products from unethical
firms, but only at a lower price ± the cost of poor ethics.
Attitude-behaviour gap An attitude-behaviour gap has been identified by Roberts (1996) and Cone
and Roper (Simon, 1995) which tallies with the complex consumer purchase
behaviour identified by Folkes and Kamins (1999). Although consumers had
socially responsible attitudes, only 20 per cent had actually purchased
something in the last year because the product was associated with a good
cause. What seems to be emerging is that although consumers express
willingness to make ethical purchases linked to good reputation, the reality is
that social responsibility is not the most dominant criteria in the their
purchase decision (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). A recent survey by
brand marketer Corporate Edge (Rogers, 1998) found that 57 per cent of
their sample said they would stop buying a brand if they knew child labour
had been employed, and 21 per cent supported action against companies they
perceived as unethical. However, there was a notable difference recorded
between supporting an action and actually carrying it out oneself.
An earlier study by Dragon International (1991), and the Cone and Roper
study (Simon, 1995) have highlighted some important issues in the ethical
purchase behaviour of consumers. These studies suggest that consumers are
interested in ethical behaviour beyond those issues that directly impact on
them, and would be more discriminating in their purchases if they were given
more information about ethically and socially responsible activities.
Although consumers had not been actively linking their purchases with

564 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 social responsibility, there was interest in the link. It was also found that
consumers were more likely to support positive actions than punish unethical
actions; boycotting was unlikely if the product was one they relied on. This
contradicts the findings discussed earlier (Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Spranca
et al., 1991; Reeder and Brewer, 1979; Skowronski and Carlston, 1987)
suggesting that consumers will not reward ethical behaviour, although they
are likely to punish unethical behaviour.
Consumers are relatively In the Dragon International study (1991) only 26 per cent of respondents
uninformed could actually name any socially responsible firms, and only 18 per cent
could name a ``least socially responsible'' firm. This conflicting evidence
does at least tell us something: many consumers remain relatively
uninformed about corporate social responsibility. The argument of the
increasingly sophisticated consumer making ethically discriminating
purchases seems to be erroneous. Despite Caminiti's (1992) view that recent
decades have created ``the sharpest, most educated consumers marketers
have ever faced'', it would appear this knowledge has not always guided
them towards ethically sophisticated purchasing.
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Consumer boycotts and consumer values

There are those who argue that consumer activism is on the increase,
particularly in view of the recent consumer boycotts against petrol retailers
in the UK, as well as boycotts of French imports during the BSE crisis, and
the ongoing global Nestle boycott over infant formula marketing practices.
There is evidence that companies do suffer commercially from boycotts;
Shell were estimated to have lost between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of their
sales during the Brent Spar boycott (Klein, 2000), and the Nestle boycott is
said to have cost the firm $40 million (Nelson-Horchler, 1984). Gelb (1995)
argues the power of consumer boycotts is increasing, with more buyers
refusing to buy a branded product or a class of products to achieve some
socially responsible outcome. The access available to global consumer
populations via the Internet has caused a proliferation of protests against
brand-name products perpetuated by consumer advocacy groups, with
companies such as Gap Inc., Nike and Shell being targeted (Reed, 1999).
Research by GGT Advertising found that two-thirds of the population are
more likely to take some form of action against a company than they were
five years ago, and over half said they would stop doing business with a firm
they believed had behaved unethically. It has also been found that 44 per
cent of the British public have boycotted a product for ethical reasons in the
last 12 months (Mason, 2000).
Response of consumers However, a study by Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) investigated the
response of consumer's to ethical and unethical marketing behaviour. What
emerged was that most consumers lacked information to distinguish whether
a company had or had not behaved ethically; Nestle and Exxon were known
offenders, but there was little awareness of any other socially responsible
behaviour by companies, good or bad. Most respondents agreed that social
responsibility was not an important consideration in their purchasing
behaviour; even with knowledge about unethical activity, some consumers
still bought products from the offending company. Others argued that lack of
information did mean that social responsibility was not high on their
purchasing agenda. If they liked and regularly bought a product they would
find it hard to boycott over unethical behaviour. The most important
purchasing criteria were price, value, quality and brand familiarity;
consumers bought for personal reasons rather than societal ones.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 565

 Purchase behaviour When queried if more information would help, some respondents said it
would make little difference, while others stated it would add to the
confusion and make buying difficult. This suggests a problem for the
so-called sophisticated consumer. Having so much knowledge today on
consumer products can actually detract from, rather than enhance choice.
The additional burden of having to trade off ethical information, alongside
price, quality and other factors seems almost too much for them to deal with.
Respondents in this study were not averse to the publication of information
concerning ethical behaviour by firms, they simply felt it would do little to
change their purchase behaviour. Perhaps it is not that consumers do not
care, but rather they care more about price, quality and value than corporate
ethics (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Ulrich and Sarasin, 1995).
There is also doubt cast over the value of consumer research towards ethical
issues:
One thing is clear, don't do any research. Don't ask the public any questions on
this subject. The answers are never reliable. In instances where the head says one
thing and the heart another, studies are useless if not misleading (Ulrich and
Sarasin, 1995).
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Lack of demand This does call into question past research which has found that ethical issues
affect purchase behaviour, and there are commercial examples of products
launched on the premise of consumer requests for ethical purchase choices
which have struggled in the marketplace through lack of demand (e.g.
Volkswagen Golf Ecomatic diesel engine car). Ulrich and Sarasin (1995)
strongly believe that the demand for change towards more ethical marketing
behaviour is not here, ``because nothing changes and nothing moves''. Their
cynicism stems from their own research that was found to be misleading due
to consumers reporting wants and needs that did not translate into purchase
behaviour. There is gap evident between attitude and behaviour in ethical
purchasing which is illustrated by UK consumer attitudes to financial ethics.
In 1994 Mintel research reported a rise in consumer ethical awareness, with
47 per cent of respondents stating they would not use a financial organisation
they felt to be ethically unsound. Given that 80 per cent of UK consumers
bank with the ``Big Four'' high street banks, and Natwest bank have actually
stated that they are financially involved with animal testing centres, there is a
conflict. This might be explained as follows; either consumers' say one thing
and behave another way with regard to ethics, or they lack knowledge and
awareness with which to make ``ethical'' judgements. It may be that for UK
consumers, as long as the banks operate within the law they are perceived as
being socially responsible. This is significant, as this suggests that for many
consumers ``ethical'' is synonymous with ``legal'', indicating that acting
within the law is sufficient to be perceived by the public as socially
responsible.
Perhaps a key factor which emerged from the Boulstridge and Carrigan
(2000) study was the importance of ethical/unethical behaviour which
directly impacted on the consumer themselves. The level of interest that the
participants showed in corporate activity was characterised by what would
directly impact on them. Thus, if unethical behaviour negatively affected the
consumer, then they would be interested and take action. It may be that
ethics only matter to consumers if they have a vested personal interest in
them, and they would be personally positively or negatively affected by the
behaviour. It was also clear that consumers have little specific knowledge
about individual firms, but rather view ethics on a macro basis in terms of
``general'' business misdemeanours. Without any clear ethical differentiation

566 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 perceived between and among firms, consumers have little on which to make
their judgements.
Ethical consumer behaviour Because of the lack of consensus over consumer attitudes and behaviour
towards social responsibility, the authors undertook further research in an
attempt to develop more definitive answers to the questions surrounding
ethical consumer behaviour. As sophisticated consumers do we behave
with ethical sophistication in our purchase decisions? If not, why do we
ignore ethical behaviour and condone unethical activity through our
purchase choices?

The study
A decade ago, Dragon International (1991) concluded that although at that
time the link between social responsibility and purchase behaviour was
still in its early stages, this was likely to develop in the future. The
following study was carried out to ascertain whether or not that
development has occurred, given that the existing evidence remains
inconclusive and conflicting. The authors decided to conduct focus group
interviews in order to elicit consumer opinions and attitudes towards social
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

responsibility and purchase behaviour. As a qualitative research method,

focus groups allow for preliminary exploration, and are particularly useful
in under-researched areas (Tynan and Drayton, 1988; Goldman and
McDonald, 1987; Greenbaum, 1993). They allow for ideas to be screened
and sorted as the discussion progresses, to explore complex behaviour and
to experience the consumer's ``eye view'' of the world (Tynan and
Drayton, 1988; Krueger, 1994). Their advantage of speed, flexibility,
economy and the rich data generated made them suitable for the topic
under examination. Small group discussions also allow peer interaction to
be observed, while still allowing for individual contributions to be
explored (O'Donohoe and Tynan, 1998).
Group discussions Two group discussions involving five participants were conducted. The
group discussions were taped with the participants' permission, and a
discussion guide was used to encourage topics to be explored. Although the
most widely recommended size for group discussions is between eight and
12 (MacFarlane Smith, 1972; Bellenger et al., 1976; Tynan and Drayton,
1988; Morgan, 1992), if the subject matter is sensitive using fewer
respondents has been advised by several authors (Falconer, 1976; Mendes de
Almeida, 1980). There is the danger that there may be a loss of useful data,
but this must be traded against the requirements for the subject matter. The
respondents were divided by gender, and were aged between 18 and 25
years, and university educated. The respondents were segregated into male
and female groups to avoid any discomfort that may arise from discussing
ethical issues (Morgan, 1993). Whether the sexes interact differently in
mixed groups is a longstanding research question (Thorne and Henley,
1975), and so the authors decided to eliminate any potential bias by gender
segregation. The advantages of homogeneity among the focus groups in
terms of ``community of interests'' and ease of discussion have been
discussed previously (Peterson, 1995; Tynan and Drayton, 1988; Levy, 1979;
Morgan, 1993), although it does create a limitation in that their views may
not be representative of the rest of the population, and thus replication may
not be possible. However, qualitative research of this type does reveal a
richer vein of information not always possible through quantitative routes,
and the interplay between respondents can develop discussions beyond that
of independent contributions.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 567

 The study aimed to investigate several questions raised by the conflicts in
past research. An attitude-behaviour gap has been suggested between
intention and actual ethical purchasing behaviour, and we wished to see if
this could be explored further. It was also considered important to investigate
the awareness consumers had about past or present corporate behaviour in
relation to ethics, and whether or not they considered unethical behaviour
reason to boycott a firm and its products. Finally, the study questions
whether consumers really do care about social responsibility, and how
influential ethical issues are in terms of their purchase decisions compared
with other factors such as price and quality.

Findings
No identifiable differences First, there were no identifiable differences in the responses given by either
focus group. This suggests that gender does not play a part in ethical
attitudes. When asked if they had ever boycotted a product, not one
respondent stated that they had. The moderator specifically mentioned Nike,
and all but one of the respondents were aware of publicity surrounding
Nike's employment practices in the developing world. However, despite
accepting that Nike had a poor ethical record, all respondents stated that they
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

would still buy Nike products. This suggests that a poor ethical record has no
affect on purchase intention.
One female respondent stated:
It is exploitation, but without companies such as Nike, they wouldn't have a job at
all.
Another said:
If someone is clever enough to set up a company in this way, earning huge profits,
then fair enough.
The perspective seems to be that companies such as Nike, are not considered
unethical because economically they provide jobs and profits; providing this
commercial ``good'' would appear to be enough to be seen as socially
responsible behaviour.
The moderator introduced the issue of chocolate production to the groups,
mentioning the low wages of producers. Although respondents stated they
were unhappy at low wages being paid to people producing chocolate for
them, they said they still would not be willing to boycott products over this
issue. They also stated that they would not pay a price premium of around
10-15 per cent for the same chocolate if it were produced in a more socially
responsible way.
Socially responsible firms When asked to identify socially responsible firms, all respondents singled
out the Body Shop, but were quick to point out that they shopped there not to
be socially responsible, but because they liked the products. JCB, Nissan and
the Co-operative Bank came in for recognition for ethical behaviour, but
while trying to think of ``good corporate citizens'', one respondent noted:
There really aren't that many . . . I am sure they are all unethical to some degree . . .
This indicates not only a low awareness of ethical and responsible behaviour
by companies, but also an inherent cynicism among consumers in relation to
such behaviour. Unprompted, the companies who did register as having poor
social responsibility were L'Oreal because of their animal testing, Natwest
due to their financial investment with animal research centres, and Shell and
BP due to their poor environmental pollution and poor employee relations
behaviour in Nigeria.

568 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 Attitude to ``misdeeds'' The respondents' attitude to these ``misdeeds'' was unequivocally
ambivalent:
Most people think, there is not much I can do about it, so why bother?
Other comments included:
When you buy petrol, you do not think of those companies that are or are not
ethical . . . it doesn't even cross your mind . . .. I would only fill up elsewhere if it
caused no inconvenience to me.
One issue that did engage sympathy from the respondents was animal rights,
particularly the idea that animals suffered due to corporate behaviour. In fact,
exploitation of animals seemed to engender more indignation than human
exploitation. This topic did create a lot of debate, and it became clear that the
respondents only cared about certain kinds of social issues. For example, the
rainforest and working conditions were low on their list of ethical priorities,
while the idea of animals, and in particular dolphins, being killed or maimed
did matter to them enough to affect their purchase behaviour. So much so
that it emerged they valued this issue enough to pay a premium and actively
seek out a product that had been produced in an ethical manner:
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

I'd be a lot less inclined to buy if I knew for a fact that companies were harming
animals.
However, again there is the need for convincing of the ethics of the
behaviour in order affect purchase behaviour. It emerged from the
discussions that no respondent had actively sought out or inquired about the
production of any product, and they simply relied on labelling information as
a guide. This suggests that consumers are passive ethical shoppers rather
than active consumer ethicists.
Factors influencing buying When asked what factors most strongly influenced their buying decisions,
decisions they concluded that price, value, brand image and fashion trends were the
four most important factors. However, as the discussion progressed, they did
state that if they were made aware of any unethical or irresponsible corporate
behaviour through media exposure, this would affect their purchase decision:
If it gets a lot of media coverage, then it makes me think twice about what I am
buying.
However, one respondent did say:
We all know about McDonald's cutting down trees and promoting unhealthy food,
but all of us here eat McDonald's.
In response to the Nike issues, one also said:
The people who they are exploiting get paid a pittance, but in their country it is a
reasonable wage.
Given the conflict between these statements, we do have to question the level
of commitment being shown towards ethical purchasing. Does poor ethics
make them uncomfortable, but not enough actually to change their purchase
behaviour? Respondents seem to justify and rationalise their own behaviour
through helplessness, and that of corporations by accepting that poor ethics
has to be viewed in the context of the host nation norms.
When asked outright did a company's record on the environment or social
responsibility influence their purchase decision, almost all respondents said
that it had no influence on their decision, and that they did not care how well
companies behave. One did say that it might affect about ``5 per cent'' of
their purchase decisions. Respondents did seem to consider the media a

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 569

 powerful information source on ethical issues, and believed that if a great
deal of publicity were given to a company behaving badly then this would
affect their purchase intentions. However, when it was pointed out that Nike,
the Gap and McDonald's had all been very publicly exposed for poor ethics,
the respondents acknowledged that in terms of these products it had made no
difference to their purchase behaviour:
I like Gap clothing, McDonald's tastes good, and Nike looks and feels right.
Finally, most participants were keen to point out that if they could financially
afford to discriminate against those unethical companies, then they would
pay the premium for any good quality products that were produced through a
more responsible approach.
Awareness of unethical From the participant responses we can see that, although there was a high
conduct awareness of unethical conduct on the part of companies such as Nike,
awareness was low in relation to ethical conduct. The public may register the
negative behaviour, but positive ethical behaviour is still not recognised to
any great degree. None of our respondents had boycotted any product for
ethical reasons, and their purchases were driven by personal rather than
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

societal reasons; a company's social responsibility had no influence on their

purchase behaviour. It did appear that if they felt they could really make a
difference our respondents would make ethical choices, but this seems to
depend on them having enough information to do so. Consumers are
unwilling to undergo any extra inconvenience in order to purchase ethically,
and price, value, trends and brand image remain the dominant influences
over purchase choice. There does appear to be an attitude-behaviour gap
between ethical purchase intention and actual purchase behaviour at least
among these consumers, and they were willing to justify and accept the
existence of inadequate and unethical employment practices by firms,
although animal rights were an issue that induced more concern.

Discussion
Important anomalies The findings from this research raise important anomalies in relation to past
research studies. Those studies which have suggested that we live in the
ethics era (Smith, 1995), and that consumer purchasing has become more
socially responsible (Mason, 2000; Simon, 1995; Creyer and Ross, 1997)
would seem to be at odds with this research. There are reasons why this may
be so, and we shall now explore them. First, we have to acknowledge the age
of the respondents in this study. Perhaps younger consumers have a different
ethical perspective than other age groups. Ethical purchase behaviour may be
influenced by various demographical characteristics, age being one of them.
We report no gender differences, but it was evident from these discussions
that the importance of image, fashion and price was a strong influencer on
purchase behaviour. It is no secret that young people feel strongly about
wearing the ``right'' clothes and brands. Perhaps the current importance of
brands such as Nike and Gap as youth icons outweighs the ethical message
for this group of consumers. It may be that older or younger consumers
would be more ethically discriminating, and this is a question that future
research should address.
There were contradictions within the responses from the participants when
they stated that a greater awareness of unethical activity would affect their
purchase behaviour. It would seem that in reality it would only affect
behaviour among certain product categories. Rather than behaving ethically
across the board, consumers seem only willing to be selectively ethical. This
may be for several reasons. First, the importance of brand image with

570 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 products such as clothing takes precedence over ethical criteria. Unless they
can buy ethically and still retain fashion status, consumers will not boycott
unethical brand leaders. With food products this is less of an issue, and so
given enough information with which to purchase discriminatingly there is
the chance that consumers will opt for ethical choices. However, there
appears to be a hierarchy of ethical issues that will prompt that
discrimination among this group of consumers; not all unethical activity
affects purchase behaviour. So we have seen that unethical work practices
elicit little sympathetic purchase behaviour, while animal abuse induces
positive discrimination in favour of ethical producers. What emerges from
this study is that the assertion that negative information influences consumer
attitudes more than does positive information (Herr et al., 1991) is not
supported. These participants had negative information on companies such
as Gap and Nike but continued to do business with them.
Unhealthy scepticism It would also appear that consumers do not wish to be inconvenienced, and
ethical purchasing will only take place if there are no costs to the consumer
in terms of added price, loss of quality or having to ``shop around''.
Consumers do seem to be aware of unethical behaviour, but appear to be
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

confused about who is guilty and who is not, and retain an unhealthy
scepticism that there is little to choose from between companies. This may
be influential in maintaining a reluctance to go the ethical purchasing route;
if consumers believe that not only do all companies behave irresponsibly in
some way, but also that consumer purchase behaviour can have little impact
in changing the situation then it is not surprising that they feel ambivalent.
Our investigations seem to suggest albeit that we are dealing with
increasingly sophisticated consumers, this does not necessarily translate into
wise or ethical buying practice. Sproles et al. (1978) argued that efficient
decision making requires consumers to be fully informed. Perhaps the
problem is that, although they are informed to some extent on ethical
matters, they are not fully informed. There was low awareness of good
ethical conduct by corporations, and confusion and cynicism about the level
of unethical conduct. If consumers had clearer information on who is
behaving unethically, and who is not, this may induce them to discriminate
more in their purchasing. The media were cited as the conduit most
consumers received their ethical information from, and it may be that
companies need to disseminate information on their socially responsible
behaviour more widely. At the same time, there is a need for differentiation
among and between companies on ethical grounds if companies are to avoid
being ``tarred with the same unethical brush'' as fellow corporate offenders.
Alternatively, there is a vested interest for everyone to raise corporate ethical
standards to develop a better image all round for business, and encourage
consumers to view corporate social responsibility more benevolently.
Ethical abuses can still Realistically though, we must accept that some consumers will simply not be
continue engaged by issues that do not directly affect them, or with which they feel no
sympathy. The depressing reality is that many ethical abuses can still
continue to be carried out by companies without any negative impact on
consumer buyer behaviour. Thus if you as a firm wish to position yourself on
an ethical platform that encourages positive consumer behaviour towards
your products, you must do so over issues that engage your target market.
We are not arguing that altruism and philanthropy be discarded, simply that
they may offer little payback in consumer purchase terms. Young consumers
seem to find animals more sympathetic than people, while other consumer
groups may champion different issues. This is something else that future

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 571

 research should investigate as it has important implications for the ethical
profile of any company and its products. Consumers may hold ethical
companies in high regard, but they do not necessarily buy their products
because of it (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000), nor do they boycott
irresponsible firms because of their social irresponsibility. It would seem that
unless it is an issue that directly impacts on the buyer him/herself then it may
be irrelevant to their purchase decisions.
Our respondents' comments suggest that firms should be cautious about
acting on the findings of studies that suggest being ethical will attract
consumers to your company and products. Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000)
suggest that the social inappropriateness of stating that you do purchase
unethically may have led consumers in the past to respond with inaccurate
statements in ethical consumer surveys, and this may be the case. Ulrich and
Sarasin (1995) have a point in questioning the validity of consumer research;
price, value, brand image and convenience feature higher up the scale of
consumer priorities than ethics, despite what many surveys have suggested.
These difficulties have led us to develop the matrix shown in Figure 1 as a
categorisation of consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing.
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

A minority Consumers who act on ethical intentions and seek out information on
corporate social responsibility do exist, but they are likely to remain a
minority for the foreseeable future. ``Caring and ethical'' consumers make it
their business to discriminate for and against ethical and unethical
companies, and they are likely to respond positively to genuine ethical
behaviour. This has to be tempered with the knowledge that they may be
selectively ethical ± companies have to identify which ethical issues are
important to these consumers and ensure that they are satisfied with the
company's stance in these matters. For example, young people may choose
to purchase brands that protect the environment, but be less discriminating
on employment abuses. The ``confused and uncertain'' would like to shop
ethically but remain bewildered by the lack of guidance and contradictory
messages about corporate ethical behaviour. Such consumers would benefit
from increased information to raise their awareness of ethical conduct by
companies to allow them to make discriminating purchase decisions. The
``cynical and disinterested'' suffer not from a lack of information, but a lack
of conviction that companies truly are ethical. Even if they were convinced,
it is debatable whether or not this would make them change their buyer
behaviour. Such consumers will only buy ethically if it does not detract from
their value and brand choice, and involves no inconvenience. It is therefore
up to companies to make it easy for such consumers to buy ethically; they

Figure 1. Consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing

572 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 may have to give them reasons beyond social responsibility, and concentrate
on quality, price and brand image as well as ethical marketing. This can be a
tough choice for firms, as ethical marketing policy can often involves added
costs; unless firms absorb those they are unlikely to endear themselves to the
cynical consumer. Finally, the ``oblivious'' consumer is an unknown
quantity; they may or may not be willing to shop ethically, but lack of
knowledge on the issue means that it has not yet entered into their purchase
equation. Raising the awareness of such shoppers to ethical and unethical
behaviour may provoke them into a more ethical purchase intention. Again,
information is the key, as well as targeting the ethical issue to the consumer.
For example, new mothers may have been previously unaware of NestleÂ's
activities in relation to baby food; raising their awareness could lead them to
boycott Nestle products, or seek out more ethical food companies and
brands.
Little interest in ethical Depressing though it may be for us to accept that many consumers in the new
behaviour millennium still have little interest in ethical behaviour, as marketers we
should not be disheartened. One of the problems may be that in this age of
more abundant and accessible information the sophisticated consumer is
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

overwhelmed rather than disinterested in ethical product knowledge (Titus

and Bradford, 1996). Perhaps there is too much of the wrong information and
not enough of the right information coming through to persuade and
convince consumers that ethical purchase decisions make a difference.
Dickson and Wilkie (1985) and Dickson and Sawyer (1990) found that
consumers make little use of important sources of product-related
information such as consumer reports and guides. It may be ethical
information needs to be communicated in a form that breaks through the
clutter, and reaches the consumer without creating any inconvenience or
discomfort for them.
Time pressures Time pressures in their life increasingly lead to consumers being more
harassed and stressed (Robinson, 1991; Cutler, 1990). This leads to
consumers curtailing their informational gathering activities; time pressures
drastically reduce the consumer search activity (Newman, 1977). Although
access to information has increased, time pressures seem to limit its use
(Titus and Bradford, 1996). Consumers simply do not have time to take into
account the ethical aspects of their purchases as they are rushing around a
supermarket or shopping centre. This places the onus on marketers to make it
easier in the future to shop ethically; currently extended cognitive effort is
needed to do so. Time pressures and information overload may actually
diminish the consumer's ability to make accurate judgements of product
quality (Titus and Bradford, 1996). Marketing efforts have become so
complex and refined that it is extremely difficult to compare product value
accurately, let alone ethical integrity. How do you trade off the exploitation
of child labour versus environmental pollution when purchasing a pair of
jeans? A growing number of competing products dramatically increases the
possible brand and attribute comparisons a consumer has to make (Titus and
Bradford, 1996); some simply give up and focus on a few important
attributes such as price or service, ignoring ethical aspects. Rather than
increasing our sophistication as consumers, these pressures may well lead us
to make less discriminating choices. The corporate dilemma is that today's
sophisticated consumer is rewarding unethical behaviour and penalising
ethical business behaviour (Titus and Bradford, 1996). While firms may wish
to behave according to moral and ethical principles, the lack of knowledge
and appropriate consumer purchase behaviour can produce strong incentives
for firms to abandon these principles. Can a company afford to pursue such

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 573

 principles in the face of competition from the undesirable effects of unethical
business practices that continue to be rewarded? Even when ethical abuses
are uncovered and reported, there is no guarantee that consumers will
respond by punishing the offender. Even the most principled and ethical
companies find it difficult to adhere to their standards of ethical business
conduct in the face of consumer disaffection.

Conclusion
Misplaced and misguided This study set out to investigate whether or not consumers care enough about
emphasis marketing ethics to influence their purchase behaviour. What has emerged
from the research is that most consumers pay little heed to ethical
considerations in their purchase decision-making behaviour. One might
conclude from this evidence that the current emphasis on social
responsibility and marketing ethics by academics and practitioners is both
misplaced and misguided. Certainly the link between corporate social
responsibility and consumer purchase behaviour remains unproven. Yet one
should not conclude from this that the development of ethical marketing
policy and corporate social responsibility is a pointless activity for firms.
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

There are more stakeholders than the consumer to be influenced, and

shareholders, governments, employees and the wider community are actively
concerned with good ethical behaviour. It is probably true that at present
good corporate ethics will not be particularly influential in consumer
purchases, but there are ways to improve this situation. It makes sense to
have clear objectives in mind when developing ethical marketing policy; if
consumers are the target, firms should temper expectations with reality. It
may make sense to conduct research into which ethical issues really matter to
consumers, particularly those likely to impact on them. This seems to engage
their sympathy and hard cash more than ethics built around what they
perceive to be irrelevant, hopeless or distant causes. Companies should also
accept that their ethical behaviour may not necessarily win them much more
than good reputation, but this in itself has merit. As time goes by, the
dynamics of business ethics may change this situation, and it may not be too
long before ethical behaviour becomes an imperative rather than a gesture.
Consumers need for It is difficult to draw definite conclusions about the merit of ethical
information behaviour, nor the demerits of unethical behaviour given the contradictory
research evidence. Consumers do seem to need more information to allow
them to make better ethical judgements, and there is a role for firms to
communicate this more effectively through the media. Equally, consumers
need to more easily be able to compare and contrast the ethical behaviour of
different companies and their products if ethical values are to enter into their
purchase decisions. There also seems to be an issue concerning ethical
integrity, and consumer scepticism surrounding corporate ethics will also
require attention. We would never condone unethical behaviour, for there are
legal and economic implications, but whether or not consumers care that
much is another matter. Morally and ethically it is desirable that as marketers
we strive to be more ethical in our business activities; it is just that it may not
always be commercially beneficial. A company with integrity will pursue an
ethical marketing policy despite that limitation, and indeed many have done
so for many years (e.g. Levi Strauss, Johnson and Johnson). Perhaps in time
new generations of consumers will not only think more ethically, but also act
more ethically, and while product value, price and quality will always be key
consumer issues, future consumers may also consider good ethics to be
equally crucial.

574 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 Managerial implications
. Although consumers may express a desire to support ethical companies,
and punish unethical companies, their actual purchase behaviour often
remains unaffected by ethical concerns.
. Possessing knowledge about unethical behaviour does not necessarily
lead a consumer to boycott the unethical firm or its products.
. Most consumers remain uninformed about ethical behaviour by firms,
and have limited knowledge about unethical behaviour. However, to be
effective, future ethical marketing information has to be conveyed in a
manner that does not further confuse or alienate consumers.
. Consumers express willingness to purchase ethically but do not wish to
be inconvenienced in order to do so.
. Many consumers are cynical about differentiation between companies on
ethical grounds. Companies need to find ways to convince consumers
about their ethical integrity.
Price, quality and value outweigh ethical criteria in consumer purchase
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

behaviour.
. Consumers need to be convinced that their purchase behaviour can make
a difference in ethical terms in order to be persuaded to buy.

References
Barnes, J.G. and McTavish, R. (1983), ``Segmenting industrial markets by buyer
sophistication'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 16-33.
BBC (2001), ``Court battle over AIDS drugs'', available at: www.news.bbc.co.uk, 5 March.
Beardshaw, J. and Palfreman, D. (1990), The Organisation in Its Environment, Pitman,
London.
Bellenger, D.N., Bernhardt, K.L. and Goldstucker, J.L. (1976), Qualitative Research in
Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), ``Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap'', Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-68.
Caminiti, S. (1992), ``The payoff from a good reputation'', Fortune, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 74-7.
Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1997), ``The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do
consumers really care about business ethics?'' Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 421-33.
Cutler, B. (1990), ``Where does the free time go?'' American Demographics, November,
pp. 36-8.
Dickson, P.R. and Sawyer, A. (1990), ``The price knowledge and search of supermarket
shoppers'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 42-53.
Dickson, P.R. and Wilkie, W. (1985), ``Consumer information search and shopping behavior'',
working paper, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL.
Dragon International (1991), Corporate Reputation: Does the Consumer Care? Dragon
International, London.
Falconer, R. (1976), ``Group discussion in research'', Marketing, November, pp. 20-3.
Fineman, S. (1999), ``Marketing ethics: commentary'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R.
and Whittington, R. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 183-5.
Folkes, V.S. and Kamins, M.A. (1999), ``Effects of information about firms' ethical and
unethical actions on consumer attitudes'', Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 243-59.
Forte, M. and Lamont, B.T. (1998), ``The bottom line effects of greening: implications of
environmental awareness'', Academy of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 89-90.
Garrett, D.E. (1987), ``The effectiveness of marketing policy boycotts: environmental
opposition to marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 46-57.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 575

 Gaski, J.F. (1999), ``Does marketing ethics really have anything to say? ± A critical inventory
of the literature'', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 315-34.
Gelb, B.D. (1995), ``More boycotts ahead? Some implications'', Business Horizons, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 70-7.
Goldman, A.E. and McDonald, S.S. (1987), The Group Depth Interview: Principles and
Practice, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Greenbaum, T.L. (1993), The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Haddow, I. (2001), ``Brazil in US AIDS drugs row'', available at: www.news.bbc.co.uk,
3 February.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), ``Innovations, novelty seeking and consumer creativity'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-95.
Hunt, S.D. and Chonko, L.B. (1984), ``Marketing and machiavellianism'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 48, Summer, pp. 30-42.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (1992), ``The general theory of marketing ethics: a retrospective and
revision'', in Smith, N.C. and Quelch, J.A. (Eds), Ethics and Marketing, Irwin,
Homewood, IL, pp. 775-84.
Klein, N. (2000), No Logo, Harper Collins, London.
Kotler, P. (1972), ``What consumerism means for marketers'', Harvard Business Review,
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Vol. 50, May-June, pp. 48-57.

Krueger, R.A. (1994), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Laczniak, G.R. (1993), ``Marketing ethics: onward toward greater expectations'', Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 12, Spring, pp. 91-6.
Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1993), Ethical Marketing Decisions: The Higher Road,
Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Levy, S.J. (1979), ``Focus group interviewing'', in Higginbotham, J.B. and Cox, K.K. (Eds),
Focus Group Interviews: A Reader, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 34-42.
Macfarlane Smith, J. (1972), Interviewing in Market and Social Research, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London.
Mascarenhas, O.A.J. (1995), ``Exonerating unethical marketing behaviors: a diagnostic
framework'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 43-57.
Mason, T. (2000), ``The importance of being ethical'', Marketing, 26 October, p. 27.
Mendes de Almeida, P.F. (1980), ``A review of group discussion methodology'', European
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 114-20.
Mintel (1994), The Green Consumer, Vol. 1 and 2, Mintel, London.
Morgan, D.L. (1992), ``Designing focus group research'', in Stewart, M., Tudiver, F.,
Bass, M.J., Dunn, E.V. and Norton, P.G. (Eds), Tools for Primary Care Research, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 194-208.
Morgan, D.L. (1993), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Murphy, P.E. (1998), ``Ethics in advertising: review, analysis and suggestions'', Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 316-19.
Nelson-Horchler, J. (1984), ``Fighting a boycott: image rebuilding, Swiss style'', Industry
Week, Vol. 220, pp. 54-6.
Newman, J. (1977), ``Consumer external search: amounts and determinants'', in Woodside, A.,
Sheth, J. and Bennett, P. (Eds), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, North Holland,
New York, NY, pp. 79-94.
O'Donohoe, S. and Tynan, C. (1998), ``Beyond sophistication: dimensions of advertising
literacy'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 1, November, pp. 467-78.
Peterson, K.I. (1995), ``The influence of the researcher and his procedure on the validity of
group sessions'', in Mazze, E.M. (Ed.), Combined Proceedings, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 146-8.
Reed, M. (1999), ``Wide open to the Web warriors'', Marketing, 4 February, pp. 18-20.
Reeder, G. and Brewer, M. (1979), ``A schematic model of dispositional attribution in
interpersonal perception'', Psychological Review, Vol. 86, pp. 61-79.

576 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001

 Roberts, J.A. (1996), ``Will the socially responsible consumer please step forward?'', Business
Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 79-84.
Robin, D.P. and Reidenbach, R.E. (1987), ``Social responsibility, ethics and marketing
strategy: closing the gap between concept and application'', Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51, January, pp. 44-59.
Robinson, J.P. (1991), ``Your money or your time'', American Demographics, November,
pp. 22-6.
Rogers, D. (1998), ``Ethical tactics arouse public doubt'', Marketing, 6 August, pp. 12-14.
Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D.E. (1988), Marketing Theory: Evolution and
Evaluation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Simon, F.L. (1995), ``Global corporate philanthropy: a strategic framework'', International
Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 20-37.
Skowronski, J.J. and Carlston, D.E. (1987), ``Social judgment and social memory: the role of
cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity and extremity biases'', Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 689-99.
Smith, N.C. (1995), ``Marketing strategies for the ethics era'', Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 85-98.
Smith, N.C. and Quelch, J.A. (1996), Ethics in Marketing, Irwin, Boston, MA.
Spranca, M., Minsk, E. and Baron, J. (1991), ``Omission and commission in judgment and
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

choice'', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 76-105.

Sproles, G.B., Geistfeld, L.V. and Badenhop, S.B. (1978), ``Informational inputs as influences
on efficient consumer decision-making'', Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 12, Summer,
pp. 88-103.
Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (1975), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, Newbury
House, Rowley, MA.
Titus, P.A. and Bradford, J.L. (1996), ``Reflections on consumer sophistication and its impact
on ethical business practice'', Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 170-95.
Tynan, A.C. and Drayton, J.L. (1988), ``Conducting focus groups: a guide for first-time users'',
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-9.
Ulrich, P. and Sarasin, C. (1995), Facing Public Interest: The Ethical Challenge to Business
Policy and Corporate Communications, Kluwer Academic Publications, London.
&

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 7 2001 577

 This article has been cited by:

1. Tae-Im Han. 2019. Objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and prior experience of organic cotton apparel. Fashion and
Textiles 6:1. . [Crossref]
2. Kristie Byrum. 2019. “Hey Friend, Buy Green”: Social Media Use to Influence Eco-Purchasing Involvement. Environmental
Communication 13:2, 209-221. [Crossref]
3. Mercy Mpinganjira, Daniel K. Maduku. 2019. Ethics of mobile behavioral advertising: Antecedents and outcomes of perceived
ethical value of advertised brands. Journal of Business Research 95, 464-478. [Crossref]
4. Kyoko Fukukawa, Monica-Maria Zaharie, Andreea-Ioana Romonţi-Maniu. 2019. Neutralization techniques as a moderating
mechanism: Ethically questionable behavior in the Romanian consumer context. Psychology & Marketing 36:2, 138-149. [Crossref]
5. Helen Tregidga, Kate Kearins, Eva Collins. 2019. Towards Transparency? Analysing the Sustainability Governance Practices of
Ethical Certification. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 54, 1-26. [Crossref]
6. Kedron Thomas. 2019. Cultures of Sustainability in the Fashion Industry. Fashion Theory 6, 1-28. [Crossref]
7. Lisa F. Clark, Ana-Maria Bogdan. 2019. The Role of Plant-Based Foods in Canadian Diets: A Survey Examining Food Choices,
Motivations and Dietary Identity. Journal of Food Products Marketing 86, 1-23. [Crossref]
8. Claire O’Neill, Joan Buckley. 2019. “Mum, did you just leave that tap running?!” The role of positive pester power in prompting
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies 76. . [Crossref]

9. Jacqueline K. Eastman, K. Bryant Smalley, Jacob C. Warren. 2019. The Impact of Cause-Related Marketing on Millennials’
Product Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Promotion Management 78, 1-28. [Crossref]
10. Canan Saricam, Nazan Okur. Analysing the Consumer Behavior Regarding Sustainable Fashion Using Theory of Planned Behavior
1-37. [Crossref]
11. Nazan Okur, Canan Saricam. The Impact of Knowledge on Consumer Behaviour Towards Sustainable Apparel Consumption
69-96. [Crossref]
12. Susana Campos, Alexandra Ribeiro, Micael Santos. Sustainable Agriculture Development: Lacks on Law and Urban Plots 75-84.
[Crossref]
13. Annette Cerne. Introduction 1-17. [Crossref]
14. Kwangho Jung, Seung-Hee Lee, Jane Workman. 2019. Purchasing Counterfeits and Citizenship: Public Service Motivation
Matters. Sustainability 11:1, 103. [Crossref]
15. Harsh Tullani, Raiswa Saha, Richa Dahiya. Green Innovation and Ethical Responsibility 1032-1047. [Crossref]
16. Oriol Iglesias, Stefan Markovic, Jatinder Jit Singh, Vicenta Sierra. 2019. Do Customer Perceptions of Corporate Services Brand
Ethicality Improve Brand Equity? Considering the Roles of Brand Heritage, Brand Image, and Recognition Benefits. Journal of
Business Ethics 154:2, 441-459. [Crossref]
17. Giacomo Del Chiappa, Mariella Pinna, Marcello Atzeni. Barriers to Responsible Tourist Behaviour 314-332. [Crossref]
18. Fred A. Yamoah, Adolf Acquaye. 2019. “Unravelling the Attitude-Behaviour Gap Paradox for Sustainable Food Consumption:
Insight from the UK Apple Market”. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
19. Elizabeth Peberdy, Aled Jones, Dannielle Green. 2019. A Study into Public Awareness of the Environmental Impact of Menstrual
Products and Product Choice. Sustainability 11:2, 473. [Crossref]
20. Patrizia Fanasch. 2018. Survival of the fittest: The impact of eco-certification and reputation on firm performance. Business Strategy
and the Environment 5. . [Crossref]
21. Giordano Ruggeri, Luigi Orsi, Stefano Corsi. 2018. A bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on Fairtrade labelling.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 106. . [Crossref]
22. Kathleen Jacobs, Lars Petersen, Jacob Hörisch, Dirk Battenfeld. 2018. Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical
extension of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy in sustainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production 203, 1155-1169.
[Crossref]
23. Leonard Maaya, Michel Meulders, Nick Surmont, Martina Vandebroek. 2018. Effect of Environmental and Altruistic Attitudes
on Willingness-to-Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Coffee in Flanders. Sustainability 10:12, 4496. [Crossref]
24. Matthew A. Maxwell-Smith, Paul J. Conway, Joshua D. Wright, James M. Olson. 2018. Translating Environmental Ideologies
into Action: The Amplifying Role of Commitment to Beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics 153:3, 839-858. [Crossref]
 25. J P Bernardes, F Ferreira, A D Marques, M Nogueira. 2018. “Do as I say, not as I do” - a systematic literature review on the
attitude-behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
459, 012089. [Crossref]
26. Szu-Tung Lin, Han-Jen Niu. 2018. Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environmental consciousness, social norms,
and purchasing behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment 27:8, 1679-1688. [Crossref]
27. de KlerkHelena M., Helena M. de Klerk, KearnsMadelein, Madelein Kearns, RedwoodMike, Mike Redwood. Controversial
fashion, ethical concerns and environmentally significant behaviour. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Kamel Ben Youssef, Thomas Leicht, Michela Pellicelli, Philip J. Kitchen. 2018. The importance of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) for branding and business success in small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in a business-to-distributor (B2D) context.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 26:8, 723-739. [Crossref]
29. GaurJighyasu, Jighyasu Gaur, ManiVenkatesh, Venkatesh Mani, BanerjeePratyush, Pratyush Banerjee, AminiMehdi, Mehdi
Amini, GuptaRitu, Ritu Gupta. Towards building circular economy. Management Decision, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
30. Yanju Zhou, Yi Yu, Xiaohong Chen, Xiongwei Zhou. 2018. Guanxi or Justice? An Empirical Study of WeChat Voting. Journal
of Business Ethics 109. . [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

31. Hanlin Li, Bodhi Alarcon, Sara Milkes Espinosa, Brent Hecht. 2018. Out of Site. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction 2:CSCW, 1-28. [Crossref]
32. Shou-Lin Yang, Ariana Chang, Yen-Hsun Chen, Yung-Ming Shiu. 2018. Can country trade flows benefit from improved corporate
social responsibility ratings?. Economic Modelling . [Crossref]
33. Hyemi Lee, Yanhong Jin, Hyun Shin. 2018. Cosmopolitanism and ethical consumption: An extended theory of planned behavior
and modeling for fair trade coffee consumers in South Korea. Sustainable Development 26:6, 822-834. [Crossref]
34. Vilma Sandström, Elina Lehikoinen, Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio. 2018. Replacing Imports of Crop Based Commodities by Domestic
Production in Finland: Potential to Reduce Virtual Water Imports. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2. . [Crossref]
35. Urša Golob, Klement Podnar, Mateja Kos Koklič, Vesna Zabkar. 2018. The importance of corporate social responsibility
for responsible consumption: Exploring moral motivations of consumers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 42. . [Crossref]
36. Maria Assunta Barchiesi, Silvia Castellan, Roberta Costa. 2018. In the eye of the beholder: Communicating CSR through color
in packaging design. Journal of Marketing Communications 24:7, 720-733. [Crossref]
37. Ingo Balderjahn, Mathias Peyer, Barbara Seegebarth, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, Anja Weber. 2018. The many faces of sustainability-
conscious consumers: A category-independent typology. Journal of Business Research 91, 83-93. [Crossref]
38. Claudia Cozzio, Ludovico Bullini Orlandi, Alessandro Zardini. 2018. Food Sustainability as a Strategic Value Driver in the Hotel
Industry. Sustainability 10:10, 3404. [Crossref]
39. KoehlerIsabelle, Isabelle Koehler, RaithelSascha, Sascha Raithel. 2018. Internal, external, and media stakeholders’ evaluations
during transgressions. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 23:4, 512-527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Clemens W. Gattringer. 2018. A revisited conceptualization of plastic pollution accumulation in marine environments: Insights
from a social ecological economics perspective. Marine Policy 96, 221-226. [Crossref]
41. Muhammad Ijaz, Jongtae Rhee. 2018. Constituents and Consequences of Online-Shopping in Sustainable E-Business: An
Experimental Study of Online-Shopping Malls. Sustainability 10:10, 3756. [Crossref]
42. Francesco Testa, Silvia Sarti, Marco Frey. 2018. Are green consumers really green? Exploring the factors behind the actual
consumption of organic food products. Business Strategy and the Environment 113. . [Crossref]
43. Oriol Iglesias, Stefan Markovic, Mehdi Bagherzadeh, Jatinder Jit Singh. 2018. Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social
Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics 31. . [Crossref]
44. Anne Sharp, Lara Stocchi, Vaughan Levitzke, Marcia Kreinhold. Chapter 9 Developing Measures for the Waste Management
Hierarchy: A South Australian Case Study 159-175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
45. RomiAndrea, Andrea Romi, CookKirsten A., Kirsten A. Cook, Dixon-FowlerHeather R., Heather R. Dixon-Fowler. 2018. The
influence of social responsibility on employee productivity and sales growth. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal 9:4, 392-421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. JoseSaju, Saju Jose, KhareNilesh, Nilesh Khare, BuchananF. Robert, F. Robert Buchanan. 2018. Customer perceptions of CSR
authenticity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 26:4, 614-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 47. ShiZhuomin, Zhuomin Shi, WuLufang, Lufang Wu, KuangZaoying, Zaoying Kuang. 2018. How face consciousness reverse
pro-self-behavior? A study on ecological consumption from the perspective of social value orientation. Journal of Contemporary
Marketing Science 1:1, 117-144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
48. ZhangYang, Yang Zhang, WangXuhui, Xuhui Wang, ShenYingying, Yingying Shen. 2018. Digging deep? Digging more? A
research on the influence of corporate CSR theme consistency strategy. Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science 1:1, 76-93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
49. Tommi Kumpulainen, Annukka Vainio, Mari Sandell, Anu Hopia. 2018. How young people in Finland respond to information
about the origin of food products: The role of value orientations and product type. Food Quality and Preference 68, 173-182.
[Crossref]
50. Jee-Won Kang, Young Namkung. 2018. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Equity and the Moderating Role
of Ethical Consumerism: The Case of Starbucks. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 42:7, 1130-1151. [Crossref]
51. Zoe Patterson, Morven G. McEachern. 2018. Financial service providers: Does it matter if banks don't behave ethically?.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 1. . [Crossref]
52. Stephen Ukenna, Anayo Nkamnebe, Edwin Idoko. 2018. Inhibitors of sustainable consumption: Insights from university academic
staff in southern Nigeria. Sustainable Development 111. . [Crossref]
53. CodiniAnna Paola, Anna Paola Codini, MinieroGiulia, Giulia Miniero, BoneraMichelle, Michelle Bonera. 2018. Why not promote
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

promotion for green consumption?. European Business Review 30:5, 554-570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. YeoAmy Chu-May, Amy Chu-May Yeo, LeeSky Xiu-Mei, Sky Xiu-Mei Lee, CarterSteve, Steve Carter. 2018. The influence
of an organisation’s adopted corporate social responsibility constructs on consumers’ intended buying behaviour: a Malaysian
perspective. Social Responsibility Journal 14:3, 448-468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Kumju Hwang, Hyewon Kim. 2018. Are Ethical Consumers Happy? Effects of Ethical Consumers' Motivations Based on Empathy
Versus Self-orientation on Their Happiness. Journal of Business Ethics 151:2, 579-598. [Crossref]
56. Celia Sama, Eva Crespo-Cebada, Carlos Díaz-Caro, Miguel Escribano, Francisco J. Mesías. 2018. Consumer Preferences for
Foodstuffs Produced in a Socio-environmentally Responsible Manner: A Threat to Fair Trade Producers?. Ecological Economics
150, 290-296. [Crossref]
57. Guillermina Tormo-Carbó, Elies Seguí-Mas, Víctor Oltra. 2018. Business Ethics as a Sustainability Challenge: Higher Education
Implications. Sustainability 10:8, 2717. [Crossref]
58. Hyun Jung Park, Li Min Lin. 2018. Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and
upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research . [Crossref]
59. Patrick Kraus, Bernd Britzelmaier, Peter Stokes, Neil Moore. Challenging the Business Case Logic for Sustainability as an
Instrument of CSR: Do Consumer Attitudes in Germany Support a Business Case? 181-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
60. LeeJihyun, Jihyun Lee, LeeYuri, Yuri Lee. 2018. Effects of multi-brand company’s CSR activities on purchase intention through
a mediating role of corporate image and brand image. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal
22:3, 387-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Kim Bartel Sheehan, Kati Tusinski Berg. 2018. Thinking pink? Consumer reactions to pink ribbons and vague messages in
advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications 24:5, 469-485. [Crossref]
62. Marie Wiederhold, Luis F. Martinez. 2018. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude-behaviour gap in the green
apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies 42:4, 419-429. [Crossref]
63. Alex Hiller, Tony Woodall. 2018. Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption.
Journal of Business Ethics 6. . [Crossref]
64. BorgesAna Pinto, Ana Pinto Borges, VieiraElvira Pacheco, Elvira Pacheco Vieira, RodriguesPaula, Paula Rodrigues. The perception
of corporate social responsibility of the city of Porto. International Journal of Tourism Cities, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
65. ErtzMyriam, Myriam Ertz, DurifFabien, Fabien Durif, LecompteAgnès, Agnès Lecompte, BoivinCaroline, Caroline Boivin. 2018.
Does “sharing” mean “socially responsible consuming”? Exploration of the relationship between collaborative consumption and
socially responsible consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing 35:4, 392-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. DhandraTavleen Kaur, Tavleen Kaur Dhandra, ParkHyun Jung, Hyun Jung Park. 2018. Mindfulness and gender differences in
ethical beliefs. Social Responsibility Journal 14:2, 274-286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Mohammad Nurunnabi, Yazeed Alfakhri, Demah H. Alfakhri. 2018. Consumer perceptions and corporate social responsibility:
what we know so far. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 15:2, 161-187. [Crossref]
 68. Gavin Hilson, Alvina Gillani, Smirti Kutaula. 2018. Towards Sustainable Pro-Poor Development? A Critical Assessment of Fair
Trade Gold. Journal of Cleaner Production 186, 894-904. [Crossref]
69. M. Sridhar, Ajay Mehta. 2018. The Moderating and Mediating Role of  Corporate Reputation in the Link Between Service
Innovation and Cross-Buying Intention. Corporate Reputation Review 21:2, 50-70. [Crossref]
70. Stacy Wood, Stefanie Robinson, Morgan Poor. 2018. The Efficacy of Green Package Cues For Mainstream versus Niche Brands.
Journal of Advertising Research 58:2, 165-176. [Crossref]
71. Gheorghe Orzan, Anca Cruceru, Cristina Bălăceanu, Raluca-Giorgiana Chivu. 2018. Consumers’ Behavior Concerning Sustainable
Packaging: An Exploratory Study on Romanian Consumers. Sustainability 10:6, 1787. [Crossref]
72. RosenbaumMark S., Mark S. Rosenbaum, Losada-OtaloraMauricio, Mauricio Losada-Otalora, Contreras-RamirezGermán,
Germán Contreras-Ramirez. Understanding black market retailing: the case of Colombia’s San Andresitos. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. JensenBarbara, Barbara Jensen, Annan-DiabFatima, Fatima Annan-Diab, SeppalaNina, Nina Seppala. 2018. Exploring perceptions
of customer value. European Business Review 30:3, 246-271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Michael P. Schlaile, Katharina Klein, Wolfgang Böck. 2018. From Bounded Morality to Consumer Social Responsibility: A
Transdisciplinary Approach to Socially Responsible Consumption and Its Obstacles. Journal of Business Ethics 149:3, 561-588.
[Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

75. Eric Ping Hung Li, Magnum Lam, Wing-Sun Liu. 2018. Consuming counterfeit: A study of consumer moralism in China.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 42:3, 367-377. [Crossref]
76. Winnie Sonntag, Achim Spiller. 2018. Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product
Related Process and Production Methods. Sustainability 10:5, 1375. [Crossref]
77. Marta Pizzetti, Peter Seele, Michael Gibbert. 2018. Unpacking the Unethical Gift: Gift Experience and Unethicality Assessment.
Ethics & Behavior 38, 1-23. [Crossref]
78. ValorCarmen, Carmen Valor, AntonettiPaolo, Paolo Antonetti, CarreroIsabel, Isabel Carrero. 2018. Stressful sustainability: a
hermeneutic analysis. European Journal of Marketing 52:3/4, 550-574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur Ghuman. 2018. What and how to communicate about a corporate brand with the
consumers: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Communications 24:3, 230-249. [Crossref]
80. César Sahelices-Pinto, Ana Lanero-Carrizo, José Luis Vázquez-Burguete. 2018. Social commitment or self-interest? Effect
of responsible practices performance motivations of firms on the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Marketing
Communications 24:3, 304-319. [Crossref]
81. Evmorfia Karampournioti, Nadine Hennigs, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. 2018. When pain is pleasure: Identifying consumer
psychopaths. Psychology & Marketing 35:4, 268-282. [Crossref]
82. Stefan Markovic, Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder Jit Singh, Vicenta Sierra. 2018. How does the Perceived Ethicality of Corporate Services
Brands Influence Loyalty and Positive Word-of-Mouth? Analyzing the Roles of Empathy, Affective Commitment, and Perceived
Quality. Journal of Business Ethics 148:4, 721-740. [Crossref]
83. Alvin Eryandra, Bertina Sjabadhyni, Martina Dwi Mustika. 2018. How Older Consumers’ Perceived Ethicality Influences Brand
Loyalty. SAGE Open 8:2, 215824401877810. [Crossref]
84. Daniel Kuchinka, Szilvia Balazs, Marius Gavriletea, Borivoje-Boris Djokic. 2018. Consumer Attitudes toward Sustainable
Development and Risk to Brand Loyalty. Sustainability 10:4, 997. [Crossref]
85. Nelly Oelze, Andre Habisch. 2018. Responsible supply chain implementation - Are multinational companies gods and small and
medium sized enterprises oxen?. Journal of Cleaner Production 179, 738-752. [Crossref]
86. ParkKendall Cox, Kendall Cox Park. 2018. Understanding ethical consumers: willingness-to-pay by moral cause. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 35:2, 157-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Hyemi Lee, Hyejung Cheon. 2018. Exploring Korean Consumers' Attitudes Toward Ethical Consumption Behavior in the Light
of Affect and Cognition. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 30:2, 98-114. [Crossref]
88. KaraosmanogluElif, Elif Karaosmanoglu, IsiksalDidem Gamze, Didem Gamze Isiksal, AltinigneNesenur, Nesenur Altinigne. 2018.
Corporate brand transgression and punishing the transgressor: moderation of religious orientation. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 27:2, 221-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. PapaoikonomouEleni, Eleni Papaoikonomou, ValorCarmen, Carmen Valor, GinieisMatias, Matias Ginieis. 2018. Looking for
info? Understanding ethical consumer information management using a diary approach. Management Decision 56:3, 645-662.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 90. Sudbury-RileyLynn, Lynn Sudbury-Riley, KohlbacherFlorian, Florian Kohlbacher. 2018. Moral avoidance for people and planet:
anti-consumption drivers. Management Decision 56:3, 677-691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. IshakSuraiya, Suraiya Ishak, KhalidKartini, Kartini Khalid, SulaimanNidzam, Nidzam Sulaiman. 2018. Influencing consumer
boycott: between sympathy and pragmatic. Journal of Islamic Marketing 9:1, 19-35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. PradhanSudeepta, Sudeepta Pradhan. 2018. Role of CSR in the consumer decision making process – The case of India. Social
Responsibility Journal 14:1, 138-158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Moty Amar, Dan Ariely, Ziv Carmon, Haiyang Yang. 2018. How Counterfeits Infect Genuine Products: The Role of Moral
Disgust. Journal of Consumer Psychology 38. . [Crossref]
94. Ardion D. Beldad, Ester van Laar, Sabrina M. Hegner. 2018. Should the shady steal thunder? The effects of crisis communication
timing, pre-crisis reputation valence, and crisis type on post-crisis organizational trust and purchase intention. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management 26:1, 150-163. [Crossref]
95. Andreas Plank, Karin Teichmann. 2018. A facts panel on corporate social and environmental behavior: Decreasing information
asymmetries between producers and consumers through product labeling. Journal of Cleaner Production 177, 868-877. [Crossref]
96. OlivaFabio Lotti, Fabio Lotti Oliva, KellePeter, Peter Kelle. 2018. The ethical gap of firms’ marketing practices. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 31:1, 118-134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. PratihariSuvendu Kumar, Suvendu Kumar Pratihari, UzmaShigufta Hena, Shigufta Hena Uzma. 2018. CSR and corporate
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

branding effect on brand loyalty: a study on Indian banking industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management 27:1, 57-78.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. AbdulrazakSham, Sham Abdulrazak, AmranAzlan, Azlan Amran. 2018. Exploring consumer support for CSR from the perspective
of moral legitimacy. Journal of Global Responsibility 9:1, 41-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Shaun Khoo. 2018. Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?. Animals 8:2,
28. [Crossref]
100. Leanne Johnstone, Cecilia Lindh. 2018. The sustainability-age dilemma: A theory of (un)planned behaviour via influencers.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 17:1, e127-e139. [Crossref]
101. Sooyeon Choi, Richard A. Feinberg. The LOHAS Lifestyle and Marketplace Behavior 1-19. [Crossref]
102. Xu Zu, Weiping Yu. The Sustainable Interaction Analysis of Cause Marketing and Ethical Consumption in Electric Business
Platform: Based on Game Theory and Simulation Analysis 233-244. [Crossref]
103. Sooyeon Choi, Richard A. Feinberg. The LOHAS Lifestyle and Marketplace Behavior 1069-1086. [Crossref]
104. Maria Uzhegova, Lasse Torkkeli, Hanna Salojärvi, Sami Saarenketo. CSR-Driven Entrepreneurial Internationalization: Evidence
of Firm-Specific Advantages in International Performance of SMEs 257-289. [Crossref]
105. Davide Arcidiacono, Ivana Pais. Individual Rewarding and Social Outcomes in the Collaborative Economy 81-93. [Crossref]
106. Ado Ampofo. Marketing 41-66. [Crossref]
107. Marlies Gude. Konsumhandlungen und Nachhaltigkeit: (Wie) passt das zusammen? 135-148. [Crossref]
108. Ruirui Zhang, Chunmin Lang. Application of Motivation-Opportunity-Ability Theory in the Consumption of Eco-fashion
Products: Were Chinese Consumers Underestimated? 119-141. [Crossref]
109. Heejin Lim. Thematic Analysis of YouTube Comments on Disclosure of Animal Cruelty in a Luxury Fashion Supply Chain
75-92. [Crossref]
110. Maxwell Chipulu, Alasdair Marshall, Udechukwu Ojiako, Caroline Mota. 2018. Reasoned Ethical Engagement: Ethical Values of
Consumers as Primary Antecedents of Instrumental Actions Towards Multinationals. Journal of Business Ethics 147:1, 221-238.
[Crossref]
111. Meagan Tyler, Natalie Jovanovski. 2018. The limits of ethical consumption in the sex industry: An analysis of online brothel
reviews. Women's Studies International Forum 66, 9-16. [Crossref]
112. Christie A. Klimas, Ellen Webb. 2018. Comparing stated and realized preferences for shade-grown vs. conventionally grown coffee.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 42:1, 76-92. [Crossref]
113. Róbert Štefko, Vladimira Steffek. 2018. Key Issues in Slow Fashion: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives. Sustainability
10:7, 2270. [Crossref]
114. Isabel Schäufele, Ulrich Hamm. 2018. Organic wine purchase behaviour in Germany: Exploring the attitude-behaviour-gap with
data from a household panel. Food Quality and Preference 63, 1-11. [Crossref]
 115. CYNTHIA DAYANNE MELLO DE LIMA, HUGO RAFAEL CHAVES DA SILVA, ENRICO BERNARD. 2018.
THE DEFESO MORATORIUM SEASON FOR THE UÇÁ CRAB (UCIDES CORDATUS L.): AN ANALYSIS OF
PERCEPTION OF CONSUMERS AND VENDORS. Ambiente & Sociedade 21:0. . [Crossref]
116. Harsh Tullani, Raiswa Saha, Richa Dahiya. 2018. Green Innovation and Ethical Responsibility. International Journal of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility 3:1, 35-52. [Crossref]
117. Azhan Hasan, Rabia Irfan, Zullina H. Shaari, Md. Akhir M Sharif. 2018. Consumers’ Perception of Barriers Effecting Green
Purchase Behavior: Instrument Assessment. SHS Web of Conferences 56, 02008. [Crossref]
118. 宇 宇. 2018. A Literature Review of the Factors Affecting the Consumer’s Intention-Behaviour Gap. Modern Marketing 08:04,
37-44. [Crossref]
119. JaraMagali, Magali Jara, CliquetGérard, Gérard Cliquet, RobertIsabelle, Isabelle Robert. 2017. A comparison between economic
and organic store brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 45:12, 1298-1316. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
120. Felix Martin, Fu Tao-Peng. 2017. Morality matters? Consumer identification with celebrity endorsers in China. Asian Business
& Management 16:4-5, 272-289. [Crossref]
121. Cecilie A. H. Thorslund, Jesper Lassen. 2017. Context, Orders of Worth, and the Justification of Meat Consumption Practices.
Sociologia Ruralis 57, 836-858. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

122. Jörg Lindenmeier, Michael Lwin, Henrike Andersch, Ian Phau, Ann-Kathrin Seemann. 2017. Anticipated Consumer Guilt.
Journal of Macromarketing 37:4, 444-459. [Crossref]
123. El-BassiounyNoha M., Noha M. El-Bassiouny. 2017. The Trojan horse of affluence and halal in the Arabian Gulf. Journal of
Islamic Marketing 8:4, 578-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
124. KautishPradeep, Pradeep Kautish, DashGanesh, Ganesh Dash. 2017. Environmentally concerned consumer behavior: evidence
from consumers in Rajasthan. Journal of Modelling in Management 12:4, 712-738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Riadh Ladhari, Nina Michèle Tchetgna. 2017. Values, socially conscious behaviour and consumption emotions as predictors of
Canadians’ intent to buy fair trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41:6, 696-705. [Crossref]
126. Jin-Myong Lee, Hyo-Jung Kim, Jong-Youn Rha. 2017. Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible
Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation. Sustainability 9:11, 1968. [Crossref]
127. Brahim Chekima, Aisat Igau @ Oswald, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Khadidja Chekima. 2017. Narrowing the gap: Factors
driving organic food consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production 166, 1438-1447. [Crossref]
128. BenoitSabine, Sabine Benoit, ScherschelKatrin, Katrin Scherschel, AtesZelal, Zelal Ates, NasrLinda, Linda Nasr, KandampullyJay,
Jay Kandampully. 2017. Showcasing the diversity of service research. Journal of Service Management 28:5, 810-836. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
129. Yuhosua Ryoo, Na Kyong Hyun, Yongjun Sung. 2017. The Effect of Descriptive Norms and Construal Level on Consumers'
Sustainable Behaviors. Journal of Advertising 46:4, 536-549. [Crossref]
130. Caroline Moraes, Marylyn Carrigan, Carmela Bosangit, Carlos Ferreira, Michelle McGrath. 2017. Understanding Ethical Luxury
Consumption Through Practice Theories: A Study of Fine Jewellery Purchases. Journal of Business Ethics 145:3, 525-543.
[Crossref]
131. Claudia Symmank, Susann Zahn, Harald Rohm. 2017. Visually suboptimal bananas: How ripeness affects consumer expectation
and perception. Appetite . [Crossref]
132. Yu-Hern Chang, Chung-Hsing Yeh. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty in intercity bus services. Transport
Policy 59, 38-45. [Crossref]
133. M Wagner, Y Chen, A Curteza, S Thomassey, A Perwuelz, X Zeng. 2017. Fashion design solutions for environmentally conscious
consumers. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 254, 192017. [Crossref]
134. Bjorn de Koeijer, Jos de Lange, Renee Wever. 2017. Desired, Perceived, and Achieved Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and
Operational Packaging Development. Sustainability 9:10, 1923. [Crossref]
135. Richard Lombard. 2017. It's not easy being green: Difficulties in sourcing sustainable building materials. QScience Connect 2017:2,
10. [Crossref]
136. Sang-Hee Kwon. 2017. Green Can Be the New White for Wedding Dresses. The Design Journal 20:5, 595-616. [Crossref]
137. Andrea K. Eberhart (née Moser), Gabriele Naderer. 2017. Quantitative and qualitative insights into consumers’ sustainable
purchasing behaviour: a segmentation approach based on motives and heuristic cues. Journal of Marketing Management 33:13-14,
1149-1169. [Crossref]
 138. Monica Bedi. 2017. Demographic and Value Orientations as Predictors of Social Responsible Consumption Behavior among Indian
Consumers. Journal of Human Ecology 59:2-3, 169-179. [Crossref]
139. Jeffrey E. Stambaugh, John Martinez, G. T. Lumpkin, Niyati Kataria. 2017. How well do EO measures and entrepreneurial
behavior match?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13:3, 717-737. [Crossref]
140. José Luis Vázquez-Burguete, César Sahelices-Pinto, Ana Lanero-Carrizo. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and consumer
behavior in the cosmetics sector: a study in the Spanish context. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 14:3,
375-390. [Crossref]
141. Nawel Ayadi, Corina Paraschiv, Xavier Rousset. 2017. Online dynamic pricing and consumer-perceived ethicality: Synthesis and
future research. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 32:3, 49-70. [Crossref]
142. , , , . 2017. What about Sustainability? An Empirical Analysis of Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior in Fashion Context.
Sustainability 9:9, 1617. [Crossref]
143. CiveroGennaro, Gennaro Civero, RuscianoVincenzo, Vincenzo Rusciano, ScarpatoDebora, Debora Scarpato. 2017. Consumer
behaviour and corporate social responsibility: an empirical study of Expo 2015. British Food Journal 119:8, 1826-1838. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
144. Sijeong Lim, Aseem Prakash. 2017. Do Economic Problems at Home Undermine Worker Safety Abroad?: A Panel Study, 1980–
2009. World Development 96, 562-577. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

145. HenningerClaudia Elisabeth, Claudia Elisabeth Henninger, AlevizouPanayiota J., Panayiota J. Alevizou, TanJiaoLin, JiaoLin
Tan, HuangQiwen, Qiwen Huang, RydingDaniella, Daniella Ryding. 2017. Consumption strategies and motivations of Chinese
consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 21:3, 419-434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. MagnusonBryce, Bryce Magnuson, ReimersVaughan, Vaughan Reimers, ChaoFred, Fred Chao. 2017. Re-visiting an old topic
with a new approach: the case of ethical clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 21:3,
400-418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
147. Sung-Wook Yoon, Seongyeon Shin. 2017. The role of negative publicity in consumer evaluations of sports stars and their sponsors.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16:4, 332-342. [Crossref]
148. Sojin Jung, Jung Ha-Brookshire. 2017. Perfect or Imperfect Duties? Developing a Moral Responsibility Framework for Corporate
Sustainability from the Consumer Perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24:4, 326-340.
[Crossref]
149. J.V. García-Jiménez, S. Ruiz-de-Maya, I. López-López. 2017. The impact of congruence between the CSR activity and the
company's core business on consumer response to CSR. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC 21, 26-38. [Crossref]
150. Nawel Ayadi, Corina Paraschiv, Xavier Rousset. 2017. Tarification dynamique en ligne et éthicalité perçue par le consommateur :
synthèse et voies de recherche. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition) 32:3, 53-75. [Crossref]
151. C. S. Sharma, Nitika Sharma. 2017. Relationship between Consumers’ Spirituality and Green Purchasing Intentions: The
Mediation Effect of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 6:2, 204-214. [Crossref]
152. TasciogluMertcan, Mertcan Tascioglu, EastmanJacqueline Kilsheimer, Jacqueline Kilsheimer Eastman, IyerRajesh, Rajesh Iyer.
2017. The impact of the motivation for status on consumers’ perceptions of retailer sustainability: the moderating impact of
collectivism and materialism. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34:4, 292-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
153. DekhilFawzi, Fawzi Dekhil, JridiHajer, Hajer Jridi, FarhatHana, Hana Farhat. 2017. Effect of religiosity on the decision to
participate in a boycott. Journal of Islamic Marketing 8:2, 309-328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
154. Johanna F. Gollnhofer, John W. Schouten. 2017. Complementing the Dominant Social Paradigm with Sustainability. Journal of
Macromarketing 37:2, 143-152. [Crossref]
155. 宇宇宇. 2017. Relationship between Consumer Self-Determined Psychological Needs and Brand Equity for Fair Trade Products.
Management & Information Systems Review 36:2, 59-79. [Crossref]
156. Anca Petrescu, Ionica Oncioiu, Marius Petrescu. 2017. Perception of Organic Food Consumption in Romania. Foods 6:6, 42.
[Crossref]
157. S. Kühl, B. Gassler, A. Spiller. 2017. Labeling strategies to overcome the problem of niche markets for sustainable milk products:
The example of pasture-raised milk. Journal of Dairy Science 100:6, 5082-5096. [Crossref]
158. Myriam Ertz, Julien François, Fabien Durif. 2017. How Consumers React to Environmental Information: An Experimental Study.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing 29:3, 162-178. [Crossref]
159. Vera Herédia-Colaço, Rita Coelho do Vale, Sofia B. Villas-Boas. 2017. Does Fair Trade Breed Contempt? A Cross-Country
Examination on the Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity and Consumer Expertise on Product Evaluation. Journal of Business
Ethics 13. . [Crossref]
 160. Shane M. Dixon, Anna-Carin Nordvall, Wendy Cukier, W. Patrick Neumann. 2017. Young consumers’ considerations of healthy
working conditions in purchasing decisions: a qualitative examination. Ergonomics 60:5, 601-612. [Crossref]
161. Yaiza López-Sánchez, Juan Ignacio Pulido-Fernández. 2017. Factors influencing the willingness to pay for sustainable tourism: a
case of mass tourism destinations. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24:3, 262-275. [Crossref]
162. Heeju Chae, Shina Kim, Teona Gogichaishvili, Eunju Ko. 2017. Influence of SPA Brands’ Sustainable Activities on the Consumer's
Ethical Consciousness, Brand Loyalty and Purchase Intention: Focused on H&M Brand (Korea vs. Russia). Fashion & Textile
Research Journal 19:2, 207-220. [Crossref]
163. Rahul Govind, Jatinder Jit Singh, Nitika Garg, Shachi D’Silva. 2017. Not Walking the Walk: How Dual Attitudes Influence
Behavioral Outcomes in Ethical Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 50. . [Crossref]
164. InschAndrea, Andrea Insch, MatherDamien, Damien Mather, KnightJohn, John Knight. 2017. Buy-national campaigns:
congruence determines premiums for domestic products. International Marketing Review 34:2, 239-253. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
165. David Njite, Jeffrey Schaffer. 2017. Revisiting Attributes: How Important Is Green in the Consumer Selection of Hotel Rooms?.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 18:2, 219-244. [Crossref]
166. Lindsay J. Benstead, Megan Reif. 2017. Coke, Pepsi or Mecca Cola? Why product characteristics affect the likelihood of collective
action problems and boycott success. Politics, Groups, and Identities 5:2, 220-241. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

167. ErtzMyriam, Myriam Ertz, DurifFabien, Fabien Durif, ArcandManon, Manon Arcand. 2017. Life after death? Study of goods
multiple lives practices. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34:2, 108-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Chorong Youn, So-young Kim, Yuri Lee, Ho Jung Choo, Seyoon Jang, Jae Im Jang. 2017. Measuring Retailers' Sustainable
Development. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:3, 385-398. [Crossref]
169. Muchazondida Mkono, John Tribe. 2017. Beyond Reviewing. Journal of Travel Research 56:3, 287-298. [Crossref]
170. Michelle Barnhart, Jenny Mish. 2017. Hippies, Hummer Owners, and People Like Me. Journal of Macromarketing 37:1, 57-71.
[Crossref]
171. The Nguyen, Hoang Nguyen, Antonio Lobo, The Dao. 2017. Encouraging Vietnamese Household Recycling Behavior: Insights
and Implications. Sustainability 9:2, 179. [Crossref]
172. Cristina Longo, Avi Shankar, Peter Nuttall. 2017. “It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads
to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
173. May O. Lwin, Augustine Pang, Jun-Qi Loh, Marilyn Hui-Ying Peh, Sarah Ann Rodriguez, Nur Hanisah Binte Zelani. 2017.
Is saying ‘sorry’ enough? examining the effects of apology typologies by organizations on consumer responses. Asian Journal of
Communication 27:1, 49-64. [Crossref]
174. Aristides I. Ferreira, Inês Ribeiro. 2017. Are you willing to pay the price? The impact of corporate social (ir)responsibility on
consumer behavior towards national and foreign brands. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16:1, 63-71. [Crossref]
175. Stephen I. Ukenna, Anayo D. Nkamnebe. 2017. Sustainable Consumption Behavior in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Conceptual
Framework. Thunderbird International Business Review 59:1, 33-50. [Crossref]
176. Charalampos Tziogas, Naoum Tsolakis, Patroklos Georgiadis, Charalampos Yakinthos. The Role of Marketing Interventions in
Fostering the Diffusion of Green Energy Technologies 401-407. [Crossref]
177. Fatima Annan-Diab, Barbara Jensen. Customer Value Perception: Understanding Customer Response to Company’s CSR
Initiatives 53-70. [Crossref]
178. Tudor Edu, Iliuta Costel Negricea. CSR Market Positioning Constructs: From Planning to Action. Evidence from Romanian
Internet Service Providers 117-137. [Crossref]
179. Frank Huber, Cecile Kornmann, Eva Appelmann, Frederik Meyer. Every Silver Lining Has a Cloud: An Empirical Analysis of
the Role of Neutralization Techniques Within the Context of Moral Intensity 589-602. [Crossref]
180. Sheila Malone. Emotion Experience in Ethical Consumption: An Exploratory Study in a Tourism Context 73-76. [Crossref]
181. Joy M. Kozar, Kim Y. Hiller Connell. Barriers to Socially Responsible Apparel Purchasing Behavior: Are Consumers Right?
79-85. [Crossref]
182. Katja H. Brunk. Shedding Light on the Ethical Consumer Debate: Evidence from a Qualitative Investigation of Body Shop
Consumers 292-300. [Crossref]
183. Charlotte Rutter, Kate Armstrong, Marta Blazquez Cano. The Epiphanic Sustainable Fast Fashion Epoch 11-30. [Crossref]
184. Zhen Lai, Claudia E. Henninger, Panayiota J. Alevizou. An Exploration of Consumers? Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion ?
A Qualitative Study in the UK 81-101. [Crossref]
 185. Claudia E. Henninger, Pallavi Singh. Ethical Consumption Patterns and the Link to Purchasing Sustainable Fashion 103-126.
[Crossref]
186. Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek. Investigating the Relationship Between Consumer Attitudes and Sustainable Fashion
Product Development 171-192. [Crossref]
187. Beata Stępień, Michał Młody. Reshoring: A Stage in Economic Development or a False Patriotic Tune? The Case of the Polish
Apparel and Footwear Industry 203-236. [Crossref]
188. Claudia Symmank, Stefan Hoffmann. Leugnung und Ablehnung von Verantwortung 949-973. [Crossref]
189. Andrea K. Moser, Gabriele Naderer, Christian Haubach. Mit qualitativen ?insights? aus der Nische zum Mainstream: Nachhaltiger
Konsum von K?rperpflegeprodukten 23-38. [Crossref]
190. Alana M. James, Bruce Montgomery. The Role of the Retailer in Socially Responsible Fashion Purchasing 1-40. [Crossref]
191. Nadine Hennigs, Evmorfia Karampournioti, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. Anything Worth Doing: The Ambiguity of Values in
Sustainable Luxury 449-466. [Crossref]
192. Ian Phau, Min Teah, Joe Chuah, Johan Liang. Consumer’s Willingness to Pay More for Luxury Fashion Apparel Made in
Sweatshops 71-88. [Crossref]
193. Alana M. James, Bruce Montgomery. Making the Change: The Consumer Adoption of Sustainable Fashion 47-84. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

194. Gianluca Donadini, Sebastiano Porretta. 2017. Uncovering patterns of consumers' interest for beer: A case study with craft beers.
Food Research International 91, 183-198. [Crossref]
195. Fabian Echegaray, Francesca Valeria Hansstein. 2017. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case
of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 180-190. [Crossref]
196. Hugo Guyader, Mikael Ottosson, Lars Witell. 2017. You can't buy what you can't see: Retailer practices to increase the green
premium. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34, 319-325. [Crossref]
197. Janette Habashi. Youth Agency/Activism: The Hidden Outcome 177-198. [Crossref]
198. Cesare Amatulli, Michele Costabile, Matteo De Angelis, Gianluigi Guido. Luxury, Sustainability, and “Made In” 35-96. [Crossref]
199. Ann Hindley, Xavier Font. 2017. Ethics and influences in tourist perceptions of climate change. Current Issues in Tourism 20:16,
1684. [Crossref]
200. Glykeria Theodoridou, Efthimia Tsakiridou, Nikos Kalogeras, Konstantinos Mattas. 2017. Food Consumption Patterns in Times
of Economic Recession. International Journal of Food and Beverage Manufacturing and Business Models 2:1, 56-69. [Crossref]
201. Soo-kyoung Ahn. 2016. Consumer Ethics and Fashion Corporate Social Responsibility -Attributions of Fashion CSR Motives
and Perceptions-. Fashion business 20:6, 1-18. [Crossref]
202. Gianluigi Guido, Giovanni Pino, Alessandro M. Peluso. 2016. Assessing individuals' re-gifting motivations. Journal of Business
Research 69:12, 5956-5963. [Crossref]
203. Zuzanna Pieniak, Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans, Eliza Kostyra, Monique Raats. 2016. Sustainable healthy eating behaviour of young
adults: towards a novel methodological approach. BMC Public Health 16:1. . [Crossref]
204. Sung-Bum Kim, Dae-Young Kim. 2016. The impacts of corporate social responsibility, service quality, and transparency on
relationship quality and customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 1:1, 39-55.
[Crossref]
205. Juan Pulido-Fernández, Yaiza López-Sánchez. 2016. Are Tourists Really Willing to Pay More for Sustainable Destinations?.
Sustainability 8:12, 1240. [Crossref]
206. Rachel LoMonaco-Benzing, Jung Ha-Brookshire. 2016. Sustainability as Social Contract: Textile and Apparel Professionals’
Value Conflicts within the Corporate Moral Responsibility Spectrum. Sustainability 8:12, 1278. [Crossref]
207. Lay Peng Tan, Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lin Yang. 2016. Barriers to green consumption behaviours: The roles of consumers' green
perceptions. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 24:4, 288-299. [Crossref]
208. Isabel Carrero, Raquel Redondo, Maria Eugenia Fabra. 2016. Who is behind the sustainable purchase? The sustainable consumer
profile in grocery shopping in Spain. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40:6, 643-651. [Crossref]
209. Mark Pigors, Bettina Rockenbach. 2016. Consumer Social Responsibility. Management Science 62:11, 3123-3137. [Crossref]
210. 宇宇宇. 2016. The Influence of Consumers' Moral Development on Ethical Consumption Focusing on Moderating Effect of Moral
Development on Ethical Purchase Behavior. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology 17:4, 687-709. [Crossref]
211. T. Mancuso, L. Baldi, L. Gasco. 2016. An empirical study on consumer acceptance of farmed fish fed on insect meals: the Italian
case. Aquaculture International 24:5, 1489-1507. [Crossref]
 212. Longinos Marín, Pedro J. Cuestas, Sergio Román. 2016. Determinants of Consumer Attributions of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 138:2, 247-260. [Crossref]
213. Todd Green, Gary Sinclair, Julie Tinson. 2016. Do they Know it’s CSR at all? An Exploration of Socially Responsible Music
Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 138:2, 231-246. [Crossref]
214. Mobin Fatma, Zillur Rahman. 2016. Consumer responses to CSR in Indian banking sector. International Review on Public and
Nonprofit Marketing 13:3, 203-222. [Crossref]
215. Payam Akbar, Robert Mai, Stefan Hoffmann. 2016. When do materialistic consumers join commercial sharing systems. Journal
of Business Research 69:10, 4215-4224. [Crossref]
216. Fabián Echegaray. 2016. Corporate mobilization of political consumerism in developing societies. Journal of Cleaner Production
134, 124-136. [Crossref]
217. ReimersVaughan, Vaughan Reimers, MagnusonBryce, Bryce Magnuson, ChaoFred, Fred Chao. 2016. The academic
conceptualisation of ethical clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 20:4, 383-399.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
218. MostafaRania B., Rania B. Mostafa, ElSahnFarid, Farid ElSahn. 2016. Exploring the mechanism of consumer responses to CSR
activities of Islamic banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing 34:6, 940-962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
219. . Further Reading 243-258. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

220. Jung, Hyo-Lee, 宇宇宇. 2016. The Effect of Educational Service Quality and Social Responsibility Activity of Private Educational
Institute on Parental Satisfaction and Impression of Private Educational Institute: The Moderation Effect of Parents' Social
Responsibility Consciousness. Journal of Korea Service Management Society 17:3, 179-216. [Crossref]
221. OkoeAbednego Feehi, Abednego Feehi Okoe, BoatengHenry, Henry Boateng. 2016. Assessing the CSR information needs of
Microfinance institutions’ (MFIs) customers. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 14:3, 272-287. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
222. Shawn Pope, Arild Wæraas. 2016. CSR-Washing is Rare: A Conceptual Framework, Literature Review, and Critique. Journal of
Business Ethics 137:1, 173-193. [Crossref]
223. Marie Schill, Deirdre Shaw. 2016. Recycling today, sustainability tomorrow: Effects of psychological distance on behavioural
practice. European Management Journal 34:4, 349-362. [Crossref]
224. Lynn Sudbury-Riley, Florian Kohlbacher. 2016. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation.
Journal of Business Research 69:8, 2697-2710. [Crossref]
225. Andrea Mantovani, Ornella Tarola, Cecilia Vergari. 2016. Hedonic and environmental quality: A hybrid model of product
differentiation. Resource and Energy Economics 45, 99-123. [Crossref]
226. DaviesIain Andrew, Iain Andrew Davies, GutscheSabrina, Sabrina Gutsche. 2016. Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical”
consumption. European Journal of Marketing 50:7/8, 1326-1347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
227. Faical Akaichi, Cesar Revoredo-Giha. 2016. Consumers demand for products with animal welfare attributes. British Food Journal
118:7, 1682-1711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
228. Nawel Ayadi, Alexandre Lapeyre. 2016. Consumer purchase intentions for green products: Mediating role of WTP and moderating
effects of framing. Journal of Marketing Communications 22:4, 367-384. [Crossref]
229. Sojin Jung, Byoungho Jin. 2016. From quantity to quality: understanding slow fashion consumers for sustainability and consumer
education. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40:4, 410-421. [Crossref]
230. Seonaidh McDonald, Caroline J. Oates, Panayiota J. Alevizou. No Through Road: A Critical Examination of Researcher
Assumptions and Approaches to Researching Sustainability 139-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
231. Diane M. Martin, Terhi Väistö. Reducing the Attitude-Behavior Gap in Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical Proposition
and the American Electric Vehicle Market 193-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
232. Ulf Elg, Jens Hultman. 2016. CSR: retailer activities vs consumer buying decisions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 44:6, 640-657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
233. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Stephanie Hooper. 2016. Social influence and green consumption behaviour: a need for greater government
involvement. Journal of Marketing Management 32:9-10, 827-855. [Crossref]
234. Henri Kuokkanen, William Sun. Social Desirability and Cynicism: Bridging the Attitude-Behavior Gap in CSR Surveys 217-247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
235. Nathaniel D. Line, Lydia Hanks. 2016. The effects of environmental and luxury beliefs on intention to patronize green hotels:
the moderating effect of destination image. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24:6, 904-925. [Crossref]
 236. Teresa Heath, Lisa O’Malley, Matthew Heath, Vicky Story. 2016. Caring and Conflicted: Mothers’ Ethical Judgments about
Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 136:2, 237-250. [Crossref]
237. Deirdre Shaw, Robert McMaster, Terry Newholm. 2016. Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the
‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’. Journal of Business Ethics 136:2, 251-265. [Crossref]
238. Robert Caruana, Michal J. Carrington, Andreas Chatzidakis. 2016. “Beyond the Attitude-Behaviour Gap: Novel Perspectives in
Consumer Ethics”: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium. Journal of Business Ethics 136:2, 215-218. [Crossref]
239. Fred Amofa Yamoah, Rachel Duffy, Dan Petrovici, Andrew Fearne. 2016. Towards a Framework for Understanding Fairtrade
Purchase Intention in the Mainstream Environment of Supermarkets. Journal of Business Ethics 136:1, 181-197. [Crossref]
240. Sojin Jung, Byoungho Jin. 2016. Sustainable Development of Slow Fashion Businesses: Customer Value Approach. Sustainability
8:6, 540. [Crossref]
241. HaynesPaul, Paul Haynes, PodobskyStepan, Stepan Podobsky. 2016. Guilt-free food consumption: one of your five ideologies a
day. Journal of Consumer Marketing 33:3, 202-212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
242. Suraksha Gupta. 2016. A Conceptual Framework That Identifies Antecedents and Consequences of Building Socially Responsible
International Brands. Thunderbird International Business Review 58:3, 225-237. [Crossref]
243. Fiona Harris, Helen Roby, Sally Dibb. 2016. Sustainable clothing: challenges, barriers and interventions for encouraging more
sustainable consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40:3, 309-318. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

244. Subhajit Bhattacharya, Arana Kaursar. 2016. Study on Corporate Social Responsibility as Strategic Instrument for Creating
Sustainable Corporate Brand Value: An Analysis with Structural Equation Modelling. Management and Labour Studies 41:2,
88-106. [Crossref]
245. Sonali Diddi, Linda S. Niehm. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Retail Apparel Context: Exploring Consumers'
Personal and Normative Influences on Patronage Intentions. Journal of Marketing Channels 23:1-2, 60-76. [Crossref]
246. Guillermina Tormo-Carbó, Elies Seguí-Mas, Victor Oltra. 2016. Accounting Ethics in Unfriendly Environments: The Educational
Challenge. Journal of Business Ethics 135:1, 161-175. [Crossref]
247. Hee Sun Choi. 2016. RETRACTED ARTICLE: How can SLCA influence change to a product’s life cycle and who listens to
the impacts of an SLCA?. Environment, Development and Sustainability 18:2, 615-615. [Crossref]
248. Michael E. Young, Anthony W. McCoy. 2016. Millennials and chocolate product ethics: Saying one thing and doing another.
Food Quality and Preference 49, 42-53. [Crossref]
249. G. Rejikumar. 2016. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behaviour: An Examination of Moderating Role of Green Wash Fear. Global
Business Review 17:2, 332-350. [Crossref]
250. Rylea Johnson, Evan Fraser, Roberta Hawkins. 2016. Overcoming Barriers to Scaling Up Sustainable Alternative Food Systems:
A Comparative Case Study of Two Ontario-Based Wholesale Produce Auctions. Sustainability 8:4, 328. [Crossref]
251. Ruizhi Yuan, Martin J Liu, Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Kim Hua Tan. 2016. An empirical analysis of consumer motivation towards
reverse exchange. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:2, 180-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
252. Todd Green, Julie Tinson, John Peloza. 2016. Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving.
Journal of Business Ethics 134:1, 29-44. [Crossref]
253. Camilla Barbarossa, Patrick De Pelsmacker. 2016. Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly Products: A
Comparison Between Green and Non-green Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 134:2, 229-247. [Crossref]
254. David Eriksson, Göran Svensson. 2016. The Process of Responsibility, Decoupling Point, and Disengagement of Moral and
Social Responsibility in Supply Chains: Empirical Findings and Prescriptive Thoughts. Journal of Business Ethics 134:2, 281-298.
[Crossref]
255. Mobin Fatma, Zillur Rahman. 2016. The CSR's influence on customer responses in Indian banking sector. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 29, 49-57. [Crossref]
256. Joacim Näslund, Jörgen I Johnsson. 2016. Environmental enrichment for fish in captive environments: effects of physical structures
and substrates. Fish and Fisheries 17:1, 1-30. [Crossref]
257. Michal Jemma Carrington, Detlev Zwick, Benjamin Neville. 2016. The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing
Theory 16:1, 21-38. [Crossref]
258. Eline Poelmans, Sandra Rousseau. 2016. How do chocolate lovers balance taste and ethical considerations?. British Food Journal
118:2, 343-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
259. Amanda Thompson, Xiao Tong. 2016. Factors influencing college students’ purchase intention towards Bamboo textile and
apparel products. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 9:1, 62-70. [Crossref]
 260. Christina W. Y. Wong, Kee-hung Lai, Y. H. Venus Lun, T. C. E. Cheng. Collaborative Environmental Management 73-107.
[Crossref]
261. Francesca Montagnini, Isabella Maggioni, Roberta Sebastiani. Emerging Segments in Ethical Consumption: Young Adults and
Cosmetics 206-215. [Crossref]
262. Malgorzata Koszewska. Understanding Consumer Behavior in the Sustainable Clothing Market: Model Development and
Verification 43-94. [Crossref]
263. Nadine Hennigs, Evmorfia Karampournioti, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. Do as You Would Be Done by: The Importance of Animal
Welfare in the Global Beauty Care Industry 109-125. [Crossref]
264. Andreas Chatzidakis, Minas Kastanakis, Anastasia Stathopoulou. 2016. Socio-Cognitive Determinants of Consumers’ Support
for the Fair Trade Movement. Journal of Business Ethics 133:1, 95-109. [Crossref]
265. Cecilia Ricci, Nicola Marinelli, Lorenzo Puliti. 2016. The Consumer as Citizen: The Role of Ethics for a Sustainable
Consumption. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8, 395-401. [Crossref]
266. Silvana Signori, Francesca Forno. 2016. Closing the Attitude-Behaviour Gap: The Case of Solidarity Purchase Groups. Agriculture
and Agricultural Science Procedia 8, 475-481. [Crossref]
267. John W. Sutherland, Justin S. Richter, Margot J. Hutchins, David Dornfeld, Rachel Dzombak, Jennifer Mangold, Stefanie
Robinson, Michael Z. Hauschild, Alexandra Bonou, Paul Schönsleben, Felix Friemann. 2016. The role of manufacturing in
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

affecting the social dimension of sustainability. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 65:2, 689-712. [Crossref]
268. Yaiza López-Sánchez, Juan Ignacio Pulido-Fernández. 2016. In search of the pro-sustainable tourist: A segmentation based on
the tourist “sustainable intelligence”. Tourism Management Perspectives 17, 59-71. [Crossref]
269. Laurie Giddens, Lazaros Goutas, Dorothy Leidner, Juliana Sutanto. Engaging Consumers in Ethical Consumption: The Effect
of Real-Time Environmental Information on Eco-Friendly Consumer Choice 1020-1029. [Crossref]
270. Daniel Neyland. 2016. Bearing Account-able Witness to the Ethical Algorithmic System. Science, Technology, & Human Values
41:1, 50-76. [Crossref]
271. Carissa J. Morgan, Candace C. Croney, Nicole J. Olynk Widmar. 2016. Exploring Relationships between Ethical Consumption,
Lifestyle Choices, and Social Responsibility. Advances in Applied Sociology 06:05, 199-216. [Crossref]
272. Natalia Maehle, Nina Iversen, Leif Hem, Cele Otnes. 2015. Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic and utilitarian food
attributes. British Food Journal 117:12, 3039-3063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
273. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2015. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour.
Journal of Business Ethics 132:2, 311-328. [Crossref]
274. Xinming Deng. 2015. Understanding Chinese consumers’ ethical purchasing decision-making process: A combination of
qualitative and quantitative study. Geoforum 67, 204-213. [Crossref]
275. Stacy Hyun-Nam Lee, HaeJung Kim, Kiseol Yang. 2015. Impacts of sustainable value and business stewardship on lifestyle
practices in clothing consumption. Fashion and Textiles 2:1. . [Crossref]
276. Rosa Schleenbecker, Ulrich Hamm. 2015. Information Needs for a Purchase of Fairtrade Coffee. Sustainability 7:12, 5944-5962.
[Crossref]
277. Yelena Tsarenko, Dewi Tojib. 2015. Consumers’ forgiveness after brand transgression: the effect of the firm’s corporate social
responsibility and response. Journal of Marketing Management 31:17-18, 1851-1877. [Crossref]
278. Paula Rodrigues, Ana Pinto Borges. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and its impact in consumer decision-making. Social
Responsibility Journal 11:4, 690-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
279. Richard Tresidder. 2015. Experiences Marketing: A Cultural Philosophy for Contemporary Hospitality Marketing Studies. Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management 24:7, 708-726. [Crossref]
280. Chieh-Peng Lin, Yuan-Hui Tsai, Chou-Kang Chiu, Chia-Ping Liu. 2015. Forecasting the purchase intention of IT product: Key
roles of trust and environmental consciousness for IT firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 99, 148-155. [Crossref]
281. Li-Ming Chen. How does a responsible supplier control its production under the opportunity of demand expansion? 955-962.
[Crossref]
282. Won-Moo Hur, Jeong Woo, Yeonshin Kim. 2015. The Role of Consumer Values and Socio-Demographics in Green Product
Satisfaction: The Case of Hybrid Cars. Psychological Reports 117:2, 406-427. [Crossref]
283. Vicenta Sierra, Oriol Iglesias, Stefan Markovic, Jatinder Jit Singh. 2015. Does Ethical Image Build Equity in Corporate Services
Brands? The Influence of Customer Perceived Ethicality on Affect, Perceived Quality, and Equity. Journal of Business Ethics 38. .
[Crossref]
 284. Jon Bertilsson. 2015. The cynicism of consumer morality. Consumption Markets & Culture 18:5, 447-467. [Crossref]
285. Maxwell Winchester, Rachael Arding, Magda Nenycz-Thiel. 2015. An Exploration of Consumer Attitudes and Purchasing
Patterns in Fair Trade Coffee and Tea. Journal of Food Products Marketing 21:5, 552-567. [Crossref]
286. Johanna Gummerus, Veronica Liljander, Reija Sihlman. 2015. Do Ethical Social Media Communities Pay Off? An Exploratory
Study of the Ability of Facebook Ethical Communities to Strengthen Consumers’ Ethical Consumption Behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics 61. . [Crossref]
287. Catherine Janssen, Joëlle Vanhamme. 2015. Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR–Consumer Paradox. Journal of Business
Ethics 130:4, 775-787. [Crossref]
288. Joshua D. Newton, Yelena Tsarenko, Carla Ferraro, Sean Sands. 2015. Environmental concern and environmental purchase
intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of Business Research 68:9, 1974-1981. [Crossref]
289. Emanuele Blasi, Clara Cicatiello, Silvio Franco, Barbara Pancino. 2015. Le filiere corte auto-organizzate dai consumatori: il modello
dei Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale. ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE :2, 33-56. [Crossref]
290. Heekang Moon, Hyun-Hwa Lee. 2015. The effects of brand trust and attributions on the eco-friendly line extension. The Research
Journal of the Costume Culture 23:4, 537-553. [Crossref]
291. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2015. An exploration of environmentally-conscious consumers and the reasons why they
do not buy green products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:5, 804-825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

292. Rayna Elizabeth Slobodian. 2015. Selling space colonization and immortality: A psychosocial, anthropological critique of the rush
to colonize Mars. Acta Astronautica 113, 89-104. [Crossref]
293. Hee-Kang Moon, 宇宇宇. 2015. The effects of brand trust and attributions on the eco-friendly line extension. The Research Journal
of the Costume Culture 23:4, 537-553. [Crossref]
294. Michal J Carrington, Ben Neville, Robin Canniford. 2015. Unmanageable multiplicity: consumer transformation towards moral
self coherence. European Journal of Marketing 49:7/8, 1300-1325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
295. Johannes Stolz, Rafael Bautista. 2015. Corporate sustainability: perception and response by older consumers. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 39:4, 343-351. [Crossref]
296. Mark Peacock. 2015. Market Processes and the Ethics of Consumption. SAGE Open 5:2, 215824401558599. [Crossref]
297. Falko Paetzold, Timo Busch, Marc Chesney. 2015. More than money: exploring the role of investment advisors for sustainable
investing. Annals in Social Responsibility 1:1, 195-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
298. Christian Fuentes. 2015. How green marketing works: Practices, materialities, and images. Scandinavian Journal of Management
31:2, 192-205. [Crossref]
299. Jogita Sorokhaibam Hussain, Jamal Hussain. 2015. A Conceptual Framework on the Power of Consumers in Pushing Corporate
Social Responsibility Towards Sustainable Development. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance 8:1, 68-83. [Crossref]
300. Larissa Schütte, Diana Gregory-Smith. 2015. Neutralisation and Mental Accounting in Ethical Consumption: The Case of
Sustainable Holidays. Sustainability 7:6, 7959-7972. [Crossref]
301. Matthias Lehner. 2015. Translating sustainability: the role of the retail store. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 43:4/5, 386-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
302. Jessica Hill, Hyun-Hwa Lee. 2015. Sustainable brand extensions of fast fashion retailers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 19:2, 205-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
303. Pierre Mazzacano D’Amato, Joseph Falzon. 2015. Why Do Some Consumers Prefer Organic Food? A Discourse Analytical
Perspective. Journal of Food Products Marketing 21:3, 255-273. [Crossref]
304. Maria M. Garcia, Keith Greenwood. 2015. Visualizing CSR: A visual framing analysis of US multinational companies. Journal
of Marketing Communications 21:3, 167-184. [Crossref]
305. Sue Hornibrook, Claire May, Andrew Fearne. 2015. Sustainable Development and the Consumer: Exploring the Role of Carbon
Labelling in Retail Supply Chains. Business Strategy and the Environment 24:4, 266-276. [Crossref]
306. Geoff Dickson, Michael Naylor, Sean Phelps. 2015. Consumer attitudes towards ambush marketing. Sport Management Review
18:2, 280-290. [Crossref]
307. Lisa McNeill, Rebecca Moore. 2015. Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers
and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:3, 212-222. [Crossref]
308. Camilla Barbarossa, Alberto Pastore. 2015. Why environmentally conscious consumers do not purchase green products. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal 18:2, 188-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 309. Britt Denise Lauritsen, Keith J. Perks. 2015. The influence of interactive, non-interactive, implicit and explicit CSR
communication on young adults’ perception of UK supermarkets’ corporate brand image and reputation. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 20:2, 178-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
310. Weng Marc Lim. 2015. Antecedents and consequences of e-shopping: an integrated model. Internet Research 25:2, 184-217.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
311. ANDRÉ OFENHEJM MASCARENHAS, SYLMARA LOPES GONÇALVES DIAS, RODRIGO MARTINS BAPTISTA.
2015. ELEMENTOS PARA DISCUSSÃO DA ESCRAVIDÃO CONTEMPORÂNEA COMO PRÁTICA DE GESTÃO.
Revista de Administração de Empresas 55:2, 175-187. [Crossref]
312. Mónica Pérez-Ramírez, Marco Almendarez-Hernández, Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco, Luis Beltrán-Morales. 2015. Consumer
Acceptance of Eco-Labeled Fish: A Mexican Case Study. Sustainability 7:4, 4625-4642. [Crossref]
313. Marie von Meyer-Höfer, Vera von der Wense, Achim Spiller. 2015. Characterising convinced sustainable food consumers. British
Food Journal 117:3, 1082-1104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
314. Yu Xia, Xingxing Zu, Chunming Shi. 2015. A profit-driven approach to building a “people-responsible” supply chain. European
Journal of Operational Research 241:2, 348-360. [Crossref]
315. Min-Young Lee, Vanessa Jackson, Kimberly A. Miller-Spillman, Erika Ferrell. 2015. Female consumers宇 intention to be involved
in fair-trade product consumption in the U.S.: The role of previous experience, product features, and perceived benefits. Journal
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

of Retailing and Consumer Services 23, 91-98. [Crossref]

316. Sarah Bly, Wencke Gwozdz, Lucia A. Reisch. 2015. Exit from the high street: an exploratory study of sustainable fashion
consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:2, 125-135. [Crossref]
317. 宇宇宇. 2015. The Study of Structural Relationship of Consumer Awareness in Fair Trade Product. Management & Information
Systems Review 34:1, 143-162. [Crossref]
318. Morven G. McEachern. 2015. Corporate citizenship and its impact upon consumer moralisation, decision-making and choice.
Journal of Marketing Management 31:3-4, 430-452. [Crossref]
319. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty: exploring the role of
identification, satisfaction and type of company. Journal of Services Marketing 29:1, 15-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
320. Jihyun Lee, Yuri Lee. 2015. The interactions of CSR, self-congruity and purchase intention among Chinese consumers.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 23:1, 19-26. [Crossref]
321. Jighyasu Gaur, Mehdi Amini, Pratyush Banerjee, Ritu Gupta. 2015. Drivers of consumer purchase intentions for remanufactured
products. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 18:1, 30-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
322. Juan Ignacio Pulido-Fernández, Lidia Andrades-Caldito, Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero. 2015. Is sustainable tourism an obstacle to
the economic performance of the tourism industry? Evidence from an international empirical study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
23:1, 47-64. [Crossref]
323. Geertje Schuitema, Judith I. M. de Groot. 2015. Green consumerism: The influence of product attributes and values on purchasing
intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14:1, 57-69. [Crossref]
324. J.M. Kozar, K.Y. Hiller Connell. Measuring and communicating apparel sustainability 219-231. [Crossref]
325. 宇宇 宇. 2015. Value Creation of Corporate Social Responsibility Drived by Reputation Capital Based on the Experiment Research
of Consume Response. Modern Marketing 05:01, 1-15. [Crossref]
326. Vidisha Gunesh Ramlugun, Wendy Geraldine Raboute. 2015. Do CSR Practices Of Banks In Mauritius Lead To Satisfaction
And Loyalty?. Studies in Business and Economics 10:2. . [Crossref]
327. Paolo Antonetti, Stan Maklan. 2015. How Categorisation Shapes the Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Responsible Consumption.
International Journal of Market Research 57:1, 51-72. [Crossref]
328. 2015. Journal of Marketing & Distribution 17:4, 61-89. [Crossref]
329. Nilanthi Ratnayake, Dushan Chaminda Jayawickrama. Manifestation of Ethical Consumption Behaviour through Five Precepts
of Buddhism 83-104. [Crossref]
330. So-Yun Kim, Jong-Youn Rha. 2014. How Consumers Differently Perceive about Green Market Environments: Across Different
Consumer Groups in Green Attitude-behaviour Dimension. International Journal of Human Ecology 15:2, 43-57. [Crossref]
331. 宇宇宇, 宇宇宇. 2014. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Motivation and Performance on Employees' Relationship Quality
and Job Satisfaction in the Channel Context. Journal of Distribution and Management Research 17:6, 107-119. [Crossref]
332. K. Napompech. 2014. Factors Driving Consumers to Purchase Clothes through E-commerce in Social Networks. Journal of
Applied Sciences 14:17, 1936-1943. [Crossref]
 333. Ellen Quintelier. 2014. The influence of the Big 5 personality traits on young people’s political consumer behavior. Young
Consumers 15:4, 342-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
334. Paul F. Burke, Christine Eckert, Stacey Davis. 2014. Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption. European
Journal of Marketing 48:11/12, 2237-2261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
335. Carmen Valor, Isabel Carrero. 2014. Viewing Responsible Consumption as a Personal Project. Psychology & Marketing 31:12,
1110-1121. [Crossref]
336. Pamela Yeow, Alison Dean, Danielle Tucker. 2014. Bags for Life: The Embedding of Ethical Consumerism. Journal of Business
Ethics 125:1, 87-99. [Crossref]
337. 宇宇宇, 宇宇宇. 2014. Comparison between Fast and Slow fashion-goods consumers’ consumption attitudes and the influence of
Psychographic characteristics. Journal of Korea Design Forum null:45, 171-182. [Crossref]
338. Cosmina Bradu, Jacob L. Orquin, John Thøgersen. 2014. The Mediated Influence of a Traceability Label on Consumer’s
Willingness to Buy the Labelled Product. Journal of Business Ethics 124:2, 283-295. [Crossref]
339. Petya Puncheva-Michelotti, Rod McColl, Andrea Vocino, Marco Michelotti. 2014. Corporate patriotism as a source of corporate
reputation: a comparative multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing 22:6, 471-493. [Crossref]
340. Lindsey Carey, Marie-Cécile Cervellon. 2014. Ethical fashion dimensions: pictorial and auditory depictions through three cultural
perspectives. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 18:4, 483-506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

341. Bin Shen, Jin-Hui Zheng, Pui-Sze Chow, Ka-Yan Chow. 2014. Perception of fashion sustainability in online community. The
Journal of The Textile Institute 105:9, 971-979. [Crossref]
342. Giulia Miniero, Anna Codini, Michelle Bonera, Elisabetta Corvi, Giuseppe Bertoli. 2014. Being green: from attitude to actual
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:5, 521-528. [Crossref]
343. Li-Wei Mai. 2014. Consumers' willingness to pay for ethical attributes. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:6, 706-721.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
344. W. Patrick Neumann, Shane M. Dixon, Anna-Carin Nordvall. 2014. Consumer demand as a driver of improved working
conditions: the ‘Ergo-Brand’ proposition. Ergonomics 57:8, 1113-1126. [Crossref]
345. Inga Hardeck, Rebecca Hertl. 2014. Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and
Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 123:2, 309-326. [Crossref]
346. Guido Berens and, Wybe T. Popma. Creating Consumer Confidence in CSR Communications 383-403. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF]
347. Anastasios Theofilou and, Tom Watson. Sceptical Employees as CSR Ambassadors in Times of Financial Uncertainty 355-382.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
348. Ursula Penney, Caroline Prior. 2014. Exploring the urban consumer's perception of local food. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 42:7, 580-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
349. Tuan Luu. 2014. Paths from leadership to upward influence. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development 10:3, 243-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
350. Denni Arli, Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris, Hari Lasmono. 2014. Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Among Indonesian
College Students. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 15:3, 231-259. [Crossref]
351. Jan Niklas Meise, Thomas Rudolph, Peter Kenning, Diane M. Phillips. 2014. Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer
use of sustainability-related product information. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21:4, 510-519. [Crossref]
352. Rubén Huertas-García, Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad, Jorge Lengler. 2014. Publicidad conjunta marca-causa: el papel de la
implicación del individuo hacia la publicidad en la comprensión y evaluación del mensaje. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía
de la Empresa 23:3, 147-155. [Crossref]
353. George Lekakos, Pavlos Vlachos, Christos Koritos. 2014. Green is good but is usability better? Consumer reactions to
environmental initiatives in e-banking services. Ethics and Information Technology 16:2, 103-117. [Crossref]
354. Kibum Kim, Bongju Jeong, Hosang Jung. 2014. Supply chain surplus: comparing conventional and sustainable supply chains.
Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 26:1-2, 5-23. [Crossref]
355. JASON E. TAYLOR, VIGDIS BOASSON. 2014. Who Buys Fair Trade and Why (or Why Not)? A Random Survey of
Households. Journal of Consumer Affairs 48:2, 418-430. [Crossref]
356. Davina Joanne Stanford. 2014. Reducing visitor car use in a protected area: a market segmentation approach to achieving behaviour
change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22:4, 666-683. [Crossref]
 357. Xueling Li, Chong Wang, Xiaobo Xu. 2014. Rethinking New Venture's Cognitive Legitimacy: An Experimental Study. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science 31:3, 437-446. [Crossref]
358. Noël Palomo-Lovinski, Kim Hahn. 2014. Fashion Design Industry Impressions of Current Sustainable Practices. Fashion Practice
6:1, 87-106. [Crossref]
359. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2014. Customer CSR expectations in the banking industry. International Journal
of Bank Marketing 32:3, 223-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
360. Verena Gruber, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch. 2014. How Techniques of Neutralization Legitimize Norm- and Attitude-Inconsistent
Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 121:1, 29-45. [Crossref]
361. Carmen Berné-Manero, Marta Pedraja-Iglesias, Pilar Ramo-Sáez. 2014. A measurement model for the socially responsible
consumer. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 11:1, 31-46. [Crossref]
362. Annika Lohneiss, Brad Hill. 2014. The impact of processing athlete transgressions on brand image and purchase intent. European
Sport Management Quarterly 14:2, 171-193. [Crossref]
363. Matteo Pedrini, Laura Maria Ferri. 2014. Socio-demographical antecedents of responsible consumerism propensity. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 38:2, 127-138. [Crossref]
364. Michael L. Barnett. 2014. Why Stakeholders Ignore Firm Misconduct. Journal of Management 40:3, 676-702. [Crossref]
365. Maria Grazia Pecoraro, Outi Uusitalo. 2014. Conflicting values of ethical consumption in diverse worlds – A cultural approach.
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Journal of Consumer Culture 14:1, 45-65. [Crossref]

366. . References 305-330. [Crossref]
367. Christian Fuentes. 2014. Green Materialities: Marketing and the Socio-material Construction of Green Products. Business Strategy
and the Environment 23:2, 105-116. [Crossref]
368. Todd Green, John Peloza. 2014. How do consumers infer corporate social responsibility? The role of organisation size. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
369. Witchuta Marchoo, Ken Butcher, Mike Watkins. 2014. Tour Booking: Do Travelers Respond to Tourism Accreditation and
Codes of Ethics Initiatives?. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31:1, 16-36. [Crossref]
370. Ruth Rettie, Kevin Burchell, Chris Barnham. 2014. Social normalisation: Using marketing to make green normal. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 13:1, 9-17. [Crossref]
371. Michal J. Carrington, Benjamin A. Neville, Gregory J. Whitwell. 2014. Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer
intention–behavior gap. Journal of Business Research 67:1, 2759-2767. [Crossref]
372. Mark S. LeClair. The New Philanthropy: The Rise of Nontraditional Giving in the United States 89-130. [Crossref]
373. Lucy Atkinson, Sonny Rosenthal. 2014. Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity,
and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust. Journal of Advertising 43:1, 33-45. [Crossref]
374. Barbara Culiberg. 2014. Towards an understanding of consumer recycling from an ethical perspective. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 38:1, 90-97. [Crossref]
375. Geremy Farr-Wharton, Jaz Hee-Jeong Choi, Marcus Foth. Technicolouring the fridge 48-57. [Crossref]
376. Satoru Tamaki. 2014. Identity and Saving in Ethical Consumption. Journal of Marketing & Distribution 16:3, 25-48. [Crossref]
377. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2013. Measuring CSR Image: Three Studies to Develop and to Validate a Reliable
Measurement Tool. Journal of Business Ethics 118:2, 265-286. [Crossref]
378. Bala Ramasamy, Matthew C.H. Yeung, Junsong Chen. 2013. Selling to the urban Chinese in East Asia: Do CSR and value
orientation matter?. Journal of Business Research 66:12, 2485-2491. [Crossref]
379. 宇宇宇, Sang Hee Sohn. 2013. A Study on Consumer’s Constant Buying Intention of Social Enterprise Products. Journal of
Consumption Culture 16:4, 143-169. [Crossref]
380. Nina Langen, Lucie Adenaeuer. 2013. Where does the Fair Trade price premium go? Confronting consumers' request with reality.
Social Enterprise Journal 9:3, 293-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
381. Martin Grimmer, Timothy Bingham. 2013. Company environmental performance and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of
Business Research 66:10, 1945-1953. [Crossref]
382. Djavlonbek Kadirov, Richard J. Varey. 2013. Neo-structuralist analysis of green-marketing discourse: interpreting hybrid car
manufacturers and consumers. Consumption Markets & Culture 16:3, 266-289. [Crossref]
383. Scott Brenton. 2013. The political motivations of ethical consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:5, 490-497.
[Crossref]
 384. Ingo Balderjahn, Mathias Peyer, Marcel Paulssen. 2013. Consciousness for fair consumption: conceptualization, scale development
and empirical validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:5, 546-555. [Crossref]
385. Andreas Chatzidakis, Michael S. W. Lee. 2013. Anti-Consumption as the Study of Reasons against. Journal of Macromarketing
33:3, 190-203. [Crossref]
386. Christian Fuentes, Johan Hagberg. 2013. Socio‐cultural retailing: what can retail marketing learn from this interdisciplinary
field?. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 5:3, 290-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
387. Matthew Walker, Aubrey Kent. 2013. The Roles of Credibility and Social Consciousness in the Corporate Philanthropy-Consumer
Behavior Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics 116:2, 341-353. [Crossref]
388. Diana Gregory-Smith, Andrew Smith, Heidi Winklhofer. 2013. Emotions and dissonance in ‘ethical’ consumption choices. Journal
of Marketing Management 29:11-12, 1201-1223. [Crossref]
389. Chia-Ju Lu. An Empirical Study on the Antecedents of Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior 654-660. [Crossref]
390. Anne Barraquier. 2013. A Group Identity Analysis of Organizations and Their Stakeholders: Porosity of Identity and Mobility
of Attributes. Journal of Business Ethics 115:1, 45-62. [Crossref]
391. Erifili Papista, Athanasios Krystallis. 2013. Investigating the Types of Value and Cost of Green Brands: Proposition of a Conceptual
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 115:1, 75-92. [Crossref]
392. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Competitive intelligence and other levers of brand performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing 21:3,
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

217-239. [Crossref]
393. Fabrice Etilé, Sabrina Teyssier. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility. Revue
d’Études en Agriculture et Environnement 94:02, 221-259. [Crossref]
394. Joy M. Kozar, Kim Y. Hiller Connell. 2013. Socially and environmentally responsible apparel consumption: knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviors. Social Responsibility Journal 9:2, 315-324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
395. Roberta Sebastiani, Francesca Montagnini, Daniele Dalli. 2013. Ethical Consumption and New Business Models in the Food
Industry. Evidence from the Eataly Case. Journal of Business Ethics 114:3, 473-488. [Crossref]
396. Meagan Wheeler, Anne Sharp, Magda Nenycz-Thiel. 2013. The effect of ‘green’ messages on brand purchase and brand rejection.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 21:2, 105-110. [Crossref]
397. Yelena Tsarenko, Carla Ferraro, Sean Sands, Colin McLeod. 2013. Environmentally conscious consumption: The role of retailers
and peers as external influences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20:3, 302-310. [Crossref]
398. Janet Hoek, Nicole Roling, David Holdsworth. 2013. Ethical claims and labelling: An analysis of consumers' beliefs and choice
behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management 29:7-8, 772-792. [Crossref]
399. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. The role of CSR in clinical governance and its influence on knowledge sharing. Clinical Governance: An
International Journal 18:2, 90-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
400. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Emotional intelligence as the departure of the path to corporate governance. Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society 13:2, 148-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
401. Ingrid Davis. 2013. How (not) to market socially responsible products: A critical research evaluation. Journal of Marketing
Communications 19:2, 136-150. [Crossref]
402. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantinos N. Leonidou, Olga Kvasova. 2013. Cultural drivers and trust outcomes of consumer
perceptions of organizational unethical marketing behavior. European Journal of Marketing 47:3/4, 525-556. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
403. Percy Marquina Feldman, Arturo Z. Vasquez‐Parraga. 2013. Consumer social responses to CSR initiatives versus corporate abilities.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 30:2, 100-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
404. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Corporate social responsibility, upward influence behavior, team processes and competitive intelligence.
Team Performance Management: An International Journal 19:1/2, 6-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
405. Sanjukta Pookulangara, Arlesa Shephard. 2013. Slow fashion movement: Understanding consumer perceptions—An exploratory
study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20:2, 200-206. [Crossref]
406. Eleni Papaoikonomou. 2013. Sustainable lifestyles in an urban context: towards a holistic understanding of ethical consumer
behaviours. Empirical evidence from Catalonia, Spain. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:2, 181-188. [Crossref]
407. Hye Jung Jung, Kyung Wha Oh. 2013. Impacts of Ethical Consumption Beliefs on Attitudes toward Eco-Friendly Faux Leather
Apparel Products and Mediating Roles of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Apparel Environmental Knowledge. Journal of
the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 37:2, 125-137. [Crossref]
 408. Heekang Moon, Ho Jung Choo, Hye Sun Park, Eunsoo Baek. 2013. The Roles of Benefit and Risk Perception in Ethical Fashion
Consumption. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 37:2, 159-173. [Crossref]
409. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Underneath organizational health and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Change Management
26:1, 139-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
410. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Olga Kvasova, Constantinos N. Leonidou, Simos Chari. 2013. Business Unethicality as an Impediment to
Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of Demographic and Cultural Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics 112:3, 397-415.
[Crossref]
411. Luigi Cembalo, Giuseppina Migliore, Giorgio Schifani. 2013. Sustainability and New Models of Consumption: The Solidarity
Purchasing Groups in Sicily. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26:1, 281-303. [Crossref]
412. Ipek Aktar. 2013. Disclosure strategies regarding ethically questionable business practices. British Food Journal 115:1, 162-193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
413. N. Valkila, A. Saari. 2013. Experts' view on Finland's energy policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 17, 283-290.
[Crossref]
414. Evelyn Hendriana, Agustine Puspita Mayasari, Willy Gunadi. 2013. Why Do College Students Buy Counterfeit Movies?.
International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning . [Crossref]
415. Jatinder J. Singh, Oriol Iglesias, Joan Manel Batista-Foguet. 2012. Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter? The Influence of
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics 111:4, 541-549. [Crossref]
416. Katja H. Brunk. 2012. Un/ethical Company and Brand Perceptions: Conceptualising and Operationalising Consumer Meanings.
Journal of Business Ethics 111:4, 551-565. [Crossref]
417. Erik de Bakker, Hans Dagevos. 2012. Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-
Consumer Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25:6, 877-894. [Crossref]
418. Helen Goworek, Tom Fisher, Tim Cooper, Sophie Woodward, Alex Hiller. 2012. The sustainable clothing market: an evaluation
of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40:12, 935-955. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
419. Jörg Hetterich, Sebastian Bonnemeier, Michael Pritzke, Anthimos Georgiadis. 2012. Ecological sustainability – a customer
requirement? Evidence from the automotive industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55:9, 1111-1133.
[Crossref]
420. Kim Y. Hiller Connell, Joy M. Kozar. 2012. Social Normative Influence: An Exploratory Study Investigating its Effectiveness in
Increasing Engagement in Sustainable Apparel-Purchasing Behaviors. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 3:4, 172-179. [Crossref]
421. M. Teresa Pereira Heath, Andreas Chatzidakis. 2012. ‘Blame it on marketing’: consumers' views on unsustainable consumption.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:6, 656-667. [Crossref]
422. David B. Weaver. 2012. Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management
33:5, 1030-1037. [Crossref]
423. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. Social Responsibility Journal 8:4, 547-560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
424. Eleni Papaoikonomou, Mireia Valverde, Gerard Ryan. 2012. Articulating the Meanings of Collective Experiences of Ethical
Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 110:1, 15-32. [Crossref]
425. Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris, Denni Arli. 2012. Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study. Journal of
Business Ethics 110:1, 113-131. [Crossref]
426. 宇宇宇. 2012. Effects of Health-Related Food Labeling on Quality Assessment Before Purchase, Attitudes towards Using and
Purchasing Products, and Purchase Intentions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Consumption Culture 15:3,
67-90. [Crossref]
427. Annamma Joy, John F. Sherry, Alladi Venkatesh, Jeff Wang, Ricky Chan. 2012. Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical
Appeal of Luxury Brands. Fashion Theory 16:3, 273-295. [Crossref]
428. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Corporate social responsibility, leadership, and brand equity in healthcare service. Social Responsibility
Journal 8:3, 347-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
429. Kavisha Jegethesan, Joanne N. Sneddon, Geoffrey N. Soutar. 2012. Young Australian consumers’ preferences for fashion apparel
attributes. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:3, 275-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
430. Joan L. Ellis, Vicki A. McCracken, Nathan Skuza. 2012. Insights into willingness to pay for organic cotton apparel. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:3, 290-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 431. Araceli de los Ríos Berjillos, Mercedes Ruiz Lozano, Pilar Tirado Valencia, Mariano Carbonero Ruz. 2012. Una aproximación a la
relación entre información sobre la responsabilidad social orientada al cliente y la reputación corporativa de las entidades financieras
españolas. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15:3, 130-140. [Crossref]
432. Katherina Glac. 2012. The Impact and Source of Mental Frames in Socially Responsible Investing. Journal of Behavioral Finance
13:3, 184-198. [Crossref]
433. Salma Karem Kolkailah, Ehab Abou Aish, Noha El-Bassiouny. 2012. The impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on
consumers' behavioural intentions in the Egyptian market. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:4, 369-384. [Crossref]
434. Shih‐Jui Tung, Ching‐Chun Shih, Sherrie Wei, Yu‐Hua Chen. 2012. Attitudinal inconsistency toward organic food in relation
to purchasing intention and behavior. British Food Journal 114:7, 997-1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
435. Kyung Ho Kang, Laura Stein, Cindy Yoonjoung Heo, Seoki Lee. 2012. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the
hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 564-572. [Crossref]
436. Percy Marquina, Carlos E. Morales. 2012. The influence of CSR on purchasing behaviour in Peru and Spain. International
Marketing Review 29:3, 299-312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
437. Ting‐yan Chan, Christina W.Y. Wong. 2012. The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:2, 193-215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
438. Bin Shen, Yulan Wang, Chris K.Y. Lo, Momoko Shum. 2012. The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior.
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:2, 234-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
439. Xinming Deng. 2012. Understanding Consumer’s Responses to Enterprise’s Ethical Behaviors: An Investigation in China. Journal
of Business Ethics 107:2, 159-181. [Crossref]
440. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Behind brand performance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 4:1, 42-57. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
441. David B. Weaver. 2012. Psychographic insights from a South Carolina protected area. Tourism Management 33:2, 371-379.
[Crossref]
442. So-Ye You. 2012. Ethical Purchase Gap of the Fair Trade Coffee. journal of consumer policy studies null:41, 1-18. [Crossref]
443. Iain A. Davies, Zoe Lee, Ine Ahonkhai. 2012. Do Consumers Care About Ethical-Luxury?. Journal of Business Ethics 106:1,
37-51. [Crossref]
444. Phil Megicks, Juliet Memery, Robert J. Angell. 2012. Understanding local food shopping: Unpacking the ethical dimension.
Journal of Marketing Management 28:3-4, 264-289. [Crossref]
445. Ruth Rettie, Kevin Burchell, Debra Riley. 2012. Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketing.
Journal of Marketing Management 28:3-4, 420-444. [Crossref]
446. Lynn Sudbury Riley, Florian Kohlbacher, Agnes Hofmeister. 2012. A cross-cultural analysis of pro-environmental consumer
behaviour among seniors. Journal of Marketing Management 28:3-4, 290-312. [Crossref]
447. Thomas Jägel, Kathy Keeling, Alexander Reppel, Thorsten Gruber. 2012. Individual values and motivational complexities in
ethical clothing consumption: A means-end approach. Journal of Marketing Management 28:3-4, 373-396. [Crossref]
448. Elaine L. Ritch, Monika J. Schröder. 2012. Accessing and affording sustainability: the experience of fashion consumption within
young families. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:2, 203-210. [Crossref]
449. NICK LIN-HI, IGOR BLUMBERG. 2012. The Link between Self- and Societal Interests in Theory and Practice. European
Management Review 9:1, 19-30. [Crossref]
450. Silvia Massa, Stefania Testa. 2012. The role of ideology in brand strategy: the case of a food retail company in Italy. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40:2, 109-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
451. Caroline Moraes, Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin. 2012. The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude–behaviour gaps and new
consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management 28:1-2, 103-128. [Crossref]
452. Yoon Jin Ma, Mary A. Littrell, Linda Niehm. 2012. Young female consumers' intentions toward fair trade consumption.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40:1, 41-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
453. Line Schmeltz. 2012. Consumer‐oriented CSR communication: focusing on ability or morality?. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 17:1, 29-49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
454. Carol Padgett. Stakeholders 70-91. [Crossref]
455. Scarlett C. Wesley, Min-Young Lee, Eun Young Kim. 2012. The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Motivational
Attitude on Socially Responsible Purchasing Behavior in South Korea. Journal of Global Marketing 25:1, 29-44. [Crossref]
 456. Bala Ramasamy, Matthew C.H. Yeung. 2012. Ethical Distance and Difference in Bilateral Trade. The Journal of World Investment
& Trade 13:3, 420-441. [Crossref]
457. 宇宇宇, Jung, Hye-Lyun. 2012. The Study on the Effect of Fair Trade Products' Awareness and Franchise Corporate’s Image Using
Fair Trade Products on Purchase Intention. FoodService Industry Journal 8:1, 187. [Crossref]
458. Ingrid Davis. 2011. Englischsprachige Forschung (2000–2009) über Kommunikation und Marketing von Produkten mit
gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 19:3-4, 269-275. [Crossref]
459. Magdalena Öberseder, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, Verena Gruber. 2011. “Why Don’t Consumers Care About CSR?”: A Qualitative
Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 104:4, 449-460. [Crossref]
460. 宇宇宇, 宇宇宇. 2011. A Study on the Purchasing Motivation and Satisfaction towards the Ethical Products for Married Women. Journal
of Consumption Culture 14:4, 95-117. [Crossref]
461. Andrew Murphy, Ben Jenner‐Leuthart. 2011. Fairly sold? Adding value with fair trade coffee in cafes. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 28:7, 508-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
462. Davide Arcidiacono. 2011. Consumer rationality in a multidisciplinary perspective. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40:5, 516-522.
[Crossref]
463. Eun-Sil Hong, Hyo-Yeon Shin. 2011. A Study on Ethical Consumption Behaviors of College Students: Classification and Analysis
according to the Ethical Consumption Behaviors. Korean Journal of Human Ecology 20:4, 801-817. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

464. Jung E. Ha‐Brookshire, Pamela S. Norum. 2011. Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:5, 344-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
465. Anayo D. Nkamnebe. 2011. Sustainability marketing in the emerging markets: imperatives, challenges, and agenda setting.
International Journal of Emerging Markets 6:3, 217-232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
466. Valéry Bezençon, Sam Blili. 2011. Segmenting the market through the determinants of involvement: The case of fair trade.
Psychology and Marketing 28:7, 682-708. [Crossref]
467. Tierney Bondy, Vishal Talwar. 2011. Through Thick and Thin: How Fair Trade Consumers Have Reacted to the Global
Economic Recession. Journal of Business Ethics 101:3, 365-383. [Crossref]
468. Victoria K. Wells, Cerys A. Ponting, Ken Peattie. 2011. Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility.
Journal of Marketing Management 27:7-8, 808-833. [Crossref]
469. Sanjukta Pookulangara, Arlesa Shephard, Jaime Mestres. 2011. University community's perception of sweatshops: a mixed method
data collection. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:4, 476-483. [Crossref]
470. Zhilong Tian, Rui Wang, Wen Yang. 2011. Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in China. Journal
of Business Ethics 101:2, 197-212. [Crossref]
471. Ross Gordon, Marylyn Carrigan, Gerard Hastings. 2011. A framework for sustainable marketing. Marketing Theory 11:2, 143-163.
[Crossref]
472. Subir Bandyopadhyay, Nittaya Wongtada, Gillian Rice. 2011. Measuring the impact of inter‐attitudinal conflict on consumer
evaluations of foreign products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:3, 211-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
473. Marylyn Carrigan, Caroline Moraes, Sheena Leek. 2011. Fostering Responsible Communities: A Community Social Marketing
Approach to Sustainable Living. Journal of Business Ethics 100:3, 515-534. [Crossref]
474. B. Jones, P. Nisbet. 2011. Shareholder value versus stakeholder values: CSR and financialization in global food firms. Socio-
Economic Review 9:2, 287-314. [Crossref]
475. Yam B. Limbu, Marco Wolf, Dale L. Lunsford. 2011. Consumers' perceptions of online ethics and its effects on satisfaction and
loyalty. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 5:1, 71-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
476. Helen Goworek. 2011. Social and environmental sustainability in the clothing industry: a case study of a fair trade retailer. Social
Responsibility Journal 7:1, 74-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
477. Robert James Hanlon. 2011. Engineering corporate social responsibility: elite stakeholders, states and the resilience of
neoliberalism. Contemporary Politics 17:1, 71-87. [Crossref]
478. Jeffery Bray, Nick Johns, David Kilburn. 2011. An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption. Journal
of Business Ethics 98:4, 597-608. [Crossref]
479. Eleni Papaoikonomou, Gerard Ryan, Matias Ginieis. 2011. Towards a Holistic Approach of the Attitude Behaviour Gap in Ethical
Consumer Behaviours: Empirical Evidence from Spain. International Advances in Economic Research 17:1, 77-88. [Crossref]
480. John Peloza, Jingzhi Shang. 2011. How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic
review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39:1, 117-135. [Crossref]
 481. Todd Green, John Peloza. 2011. How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 28:1, 48-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
482. Alejandro Alvarado Herrera, Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, Rafael Curras Pérez. 2011. Perspectivas teóricas usadas para el estudio de la
responsabilidad social empresarial: una clasificación con base en su racionalidad1. Estudios Gerenciales 27:118, 115-137. [Crossref]
483. Douglas A. Schuler, Petra Christmann. 2011. The Effectiveness of Market-Based Social Governance Schemes: The Case of Fair
Trade Coffee. Business Ethics Quarterly 21:01, 133-156. [Crossref]
484. Patrice Cailleba, Herbert Casteran. 2010. Do Ethical Values Work? A Quantitative Study of the Impact of Fair Trade Coffee on
Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 97:4, 613-624. [Crossref]
485. Katherine Kemp, Andrea Insch, David K. Holdsworth, John G. Knight. 2010. Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care?. Food
Policy 35:6, 504-513. [Crossref]
486. Katja H. Brunk. 2010. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions: Reply to Shea and Cohn's commentaries. Journal
of Business Research 63:12, 1364-1367. [Crossref]
487. Yu-qin Chen, Xin Liu. The lacking of social responsibility and countermeasures for marketing of transnational corporations in
China 3275-3278. [Crossref]
488. Ken Peattie. 2010. Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35:1, 195-228.
[Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

489. Giana M. Eckhardt, Russell Belk, Timothy M. Devinney. 2010. Why don't consumers consume ethically?. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 9:6, 426-436. [Crossref]
490. Michal J. Carrington, Benjamin A. Neville, Gregory J. Whitwell. 2010. Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards
a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically
Minded Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 97:1, 139-158. [Crossref]
491. Heribert Meffert, Christian Rauch, Hanna Lena Lepp. 2010. Sustainable Branding — mehr als ein neues Schlagwort?!. Marketing
Review St. Gallen 27:5, 28-35. [Crossref]
492. N. Craig Smith, Guido Palazzo, C. B. Bhattacharya. 2010. Marketing’s Consequences: Stakeholder Marketing and Supply Chain
Corporate Social Responsibility Issues. Business Ethics Quarterly 20:04, 617-641. [Crossref]
493. Leila Hamzaoui Essoussi, Jonathan D. Linton. 2010. New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay?. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 27:5, 458-468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
494. Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, Alejandro Alvarado Herrera, Rafael Currás Pérez, José Javier Rivera Alcami. 2010. Latest evolution of
academic research in corporate social responsibility: an empirical analysis. Social Responsibility Journal 6:3, 332-344. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
495. Alex J. Hiller. 2010. Challenges in researching consumer ethics: a methodological experiment. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 13:3, 236-252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
496. Morven G. McEachern, Gary Warnaby, Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin. 2010. Thinking locally, acting locally? Conscious
consumers and farmers’ markets. Journal of Marketing Management 26:5-6, 395-412. [Crossref]
497. Kirsi Niinimäki. 2010. Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development 18:3, 150-162. [Crossref]
498. Federico Brunetti. 2010. New enterprise models: trial runs of “capitalism with a human face”. The TQM Journal 22:3, 242-259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
499. Jérôme Ballet, Aurélie Carimentrand. 2010. Fair Trade and the Depersonalization of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 92:S2,
317-330. [Crossref]
500. Pat Auger, Timothy M. Devinney, Jordan J. Louviere, Paul F. Burke. 2010. The importance of social product attributes in
consumer purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study. International Business Review 19:2, 140-159. [Crossref]
501. Jennifer Yurchisin, Sara B. Marcketti. 2010. Collectors behaving ethically: an emerging consumption constellation. Social
Responsibility Journal 6:1, 45-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
502. Katja H. Brunk. 2010. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions — A consumer perspective of corporate ethics.
Journal of Business Research 63:3, 255-262. [Crossref]
503. Linda J. Shea. 2010. Using consumer perceived ethicality as a guideline for corporate social responsibility strategy: A commentary
essay. Journal of Business Research 63:3, 263-264. [Crossref]
504. Min-Young Lee, Vanessa P. Jackson. 2010. Consumer Awareness and Evaluation of Retailers' Social Responsibility: An Exploratory
Approach into Ethical Purchase Behavior from a U.S Perspective. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 20:1, 49-58.
[Crossref]
 505. Kyoko Fukukawa, Christine Ennew. 2010. What We Believe Is Not Always What We Do: An Empirical Investigation into Ethically
Questionable Behavior in Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 91:S1, 49-60. [Crossref]
506. Dawn H. Pearcy. 2010. Understanding the role of free-choice environmental education in 'green' consumption behaviour: an
empirical investigation. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 9:1/2/3, 123. [Crossref]
507. S.C. Beckmann. Corporate social responsibility – does it matter to consumers? 517-538. [Crossref]
508. Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Jose-Rodrigo Cordoba-Pachon, Gonzalo Wandosell Fernandez de Bobadilla. 2009. Creating
environmental knowledge through ‘green communities’ in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. The Service Industries Journal
29:12, 1745-1761. [Crossref]
509. Soyoung Kim, Yoo-Kyoung Seock. 2009. Impacts of health and environmental consciousness on young female consumers' attitude
towards and purchase of natural beauty products. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33:6, 627-638. [Crossref]
510. Mi-Hye Park, Lee-Ju Kang. 2009. Study on the Concept and Practice of Ethical Consumption. Korean Journal of Human Ecology
18:5, 1047-1062. [Crossref]
511. Marylyn Carrigan, Patrick de Pelsmacker. 2009. Will ethical consumers sustain their values in the global credit crunch?.
International Marketing Review 26:6, 674-687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
512. Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones, Andrea Perez, Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque. 2009. The social role of financial companies
as a determinant of consumer behaviour. International Journal of Bank Marketing 27:6, 467-485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

513. Hye-Jin Paek, Michelle R. Nelson. 2009. To Buy or Not to Buy: Determinants of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior
and Consumer Reactions to Cause-Related and Boycotting Ads. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 31:2, 75-90.
[Crossref]
514. Janet L. Borgerson, Jonathan E. Schroeder, Martin Escudero Magnusson, Frank Magnusson. 2009. Corporate communication,
ethics, and operational identity: a case study of Benetton. Business Ethics: A European Review 18:3, 209-223. [Crossref]
515. Narendra Singh. 2009. Exploring socially responsible behaviour of Indian consumers: an empirical investigation. Social
Responsibility Journal 5:2, 200-211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
516. Alain d’Astous, Amélie Legendre. 2009. Understanding Consumers’ Ethical Justifications: A Scale for Appraising Consumers’
Reasons for Not Behaving Ethically. Journal of Business Ethics 87:2, 255-268. [Crossref]
517. Pavlos A. Vlachos, Argiris Tsamakos, Adam P. Vrechopoulos, Panagiotis K. Avramidis. 2009. Corporate social responsibility:
attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37:2, 170-180. [Crossref]
518. Rafael Currás Pérez. 2009. Effects of Perceived Identity Based on Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Consumer
Identification with the Company. Corporate Reputation Review 12:2, 177-191. [Crossref]
519. Kirsty Michelle Golding. 2009. Fair Trade's Dual Aspect. Journal of Macromarketing 29:2, 160-171. [Crossref]
520. Will Low, Eileen Davenport. 2009. Organizational Leadership, Ethics and the Challenges of Marketing Fair and Ethical Trade.
Journal of Business Ethics 86:S1, 97-108. [Crossref]
521. Katherina Glac. 2009. Understanding Socially Responsible Investing: The Effect of Decision Frames and Trade-off Options.
Journal of Business Ethics 87:S1, 41-55. [Crossref]
522. Sunmee Choi, Anna S. Mattila, Heungsoo Park, Seongho Kang. 2009. The Effect of Cross-Channel Price Dis/parity on Ethicality
Evaluations and Purchase Intent: The Moderating Role of Price Frame. Journal of Marketing Channels 16:2, 131-147. [Crossref]
523. Isabelle Szmigin, Marylyn Carrigan, Morven G. McEachern. 2009. The conscious consumer: taking a flexible approach to ethical
behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33:2, 224-231. [Crossref]
524. Louise R. Morgan, Grete Birtwistle. 2009. An investigation of young fashion consumers' disposal habits. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 33:2, 190-198. [Crossref]
525. Caroline Josephine Doran. 2009. The Role of Personal Values in Fair Trade Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics 84:4, 549-563.
[Crossref]
526. Ogenyi Omar. Ethics and International Marketing 478-506. [Crossref]
527. Sandro Castaldo, Francesco Perrini, Nicola Misani, Antonio Tencati. 2009. The Missing Link Between Corporate Social
Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products. Journal of Business Ethics 84:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
528. Umezuruike Linus Opara. Quality Management 153-204. [Crossref]
529. Gérard Hoffmann, Jean-Yves Saulquin. 2009. Quand la RSE revisite la chaîne de valeur. Management & Avenir 28:8, 37. [Crossref]
530. Agnès François-Lecompte. 2009. La consommation socialement responsable : oui mais?. Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique
XLVIII:4, 89. [Crossref]
 531. Jonas Nilsson. 2008. Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial
Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83:2, 307-325. [Crossref]
532. Arminda M. Finisterra do Paço, Mário Lino Barata Raposo. 2008. Determining the characteristics to profile the “green” consumer:
an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 5:2, 129-140. [Crossref]
533. Robert Caruana, Andrew Crane. 2008. Constructing Consumer Responsibility: Exploring the Role of Corporate Communications.
Organization Studies 29:12, 1495-1519. [Crossref]
534. Ron Cacioppe, Nick Forster, Michael Fox. 2008. A Survey of Managers’ Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility
and Actions that may Affect Companies’ Success. Journal of Business Ethics 82:3, 681-700. [Crossref]
535. Terje I. Vaaland, Morten Heide, Kjell Grønhaug. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the
marketing context. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10, 927-953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
536. Carmen Valor. 2008. Can Consumers Buy Responsibly? Analysis and Solutions for Market Failures. Journal of Consumer Policy
31:3, 315-326. [Crossref]
537. Lindsey Carey, Deirdre Shaw, Edward Shiu. 2008. The impact of ethical concerns on family consumer decision-making.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:5, 553-560. [Crossref]
538. Joonas Rokka, Liisa Uusitalo. 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices - Do consumers care?.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:5, 516-525. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

539. Tagbata Didier, Sirieix Lucie. 2008. Measuring consumer's willingness to pay for organic and Fair Trade products. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 32:5, 479-490. [Crossref]
540. Karen S. Callen‐Marchione, Shiretta F. Ownbey. 2008. Associations of unethical consumer behavior and social attitudes. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 12:3, 365-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
541. Oliver M. Freestone, Peter J. McGoldrick. 2008. Motivations of the Ethical Consumer. Journal of Business Ethics 79:4, 445-467.
[Crossref]
542. Terje I. Vaaland, Morten Heide. 2008. Managing corporate social responsibility: lessons from the oil industry. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 13:2, 212-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
543. Alain d'Astous, Suzanne Mathieu. 2008. Inciting consumers to buy fairly‐traded products: a field experiment. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 25:3, 149-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
544. Julian Rode, Robin M. Hogarth, Marc Le Menestrel. 2008. Ethical differentiation and market behavior: An experimental
approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 66:2, 265-280. [Crossref]
545. Longinos Marín, Salvador Ruiz. 2008. La Evaluación de la Empresa por el Consumidor según sus Acciones de RSC. Cuadernos
de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 11:35, 91-112. [Crossref]
546. Satyendra Singh. Ethics and Profitability: Can They Coexist? 69-87. [Crossref]
547. Patrick De Pelsmacker, Wim Janssens. 2007. A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour: The Role of Perceived Quantity and
Quality of Information and of Product-specific Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics 75:4, 361-380. [Crossref]
548. Pat Auger, Timothy M. Devinney. 2007. Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained
Ethical Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics 76:4, 361-383. [Crossref]
549. William Low, Eileen Davenport. 2007. To boldly go…exploring ethical spaces to re-politicise ethical consumption and fair trade.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6:5, 336-348. [Crossref]
550. Robert Caruana. 2007. A sociological perspective of consumption morality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6:5, 287-304. [Crossref]
551. Andreas Chatzidakis, Darryn Mitussis. 2007. Computer ethics and consumer ethics: the impact of the internet on consumers'
ethical decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6:5, 305-320. [Crossref]
552. Terry Newholm, Deirdre Shaw. 2007. Studying the ethical consumer: a review of research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6:5,
253-270. [Crossref]
553. Johan Anselmsson, Ulf Johansson. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and the positioning of grocery brands. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35:10, 835-856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
554. Sophie Hadfield-Hill. 2007. The Greening of Project Finance. Geography Compass 1:5, 1058-1075. [Crossref]
555. Daniela Abrantes Ferreira Serpa, Lucelena Ferreira Fourneau. 2007. Responsabilidade social corporativa: uma investigação sobre a
percepção do consumidor. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 11:3, 83-103. [Crossref]
556. Guido Berens, Cees B. M. van Riel, Johan van Rekom. 2007. The CSR-Quality Trade-Off: When can Corporate Social
Responsibility and Corporate Ability Compensate Each Other?. Journal of Business Ethics 74:3, 233-252. [Crossref]
 557. Gillian Rice, Nittaya Wongtada. 2007. Conceptualizing Inter-Attitudinal Conflict in Consumer Response to Foreign Brands.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing 20:1, 51-65. [Crossref]
558. Andreas Chatzidakis, Sally Hibbert, Andrew P. Smith. 2007. Why People Don’t Take their Concerns about Fair Trade to the
Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics 74:1, 89-100. [Crossref]
559. Morven G. McEachern, Monika J.A. Schröder, Joyce Willock, Jeryl Whitelock, Roger Mason. 2007. Exploring ethical brand
extensions and consumer buying behaviour: the RSPCA and the “Freedom Food” brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management
16:3, 168-177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
560. Gi-Du Kang, Jeffrey James. 2007. Revisiting the Concept of a Societal Orientation: Conceptualization and Delineation. Journal
of Business Ethics 73:3, 301-318. [Crossref]
561. Khosro S Jahdi. 2007. Pease Drum and Tank Recycling and Reconditioning: The Impact of Legislation and Limitations on Being
Green. Social Responsibility Journal 3:2, 68-72. [Abstract] [PDF]
562. G. Birtwistle, C.M. Moore. 2007. Fashion clothing – where does it all end up?. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 35:3, 210-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
563. Victoria Vyvyan, Chew Ng, Mark Brimble. 2007. Socially Responsible Investing: the green attitudes and grey choices of Australian
investors. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15:2, 370-381. [Crossref]
564. Michelle Bergadaà. 2007. Children and business: pluralistic ethics of marketers. Society and Business Review 2:1, 53-73. [Abstract]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

[Full Text] [PDF]

565. Pat Auger, Timothy M. Devinney, Jordan J. Louviere. 2007. Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer
Ethical Beliefs Across Countries. Journal of Business Ethics 70:3, 299-326. [Crossref]
566. Kyoko Fukukawa, Christine Ennew, Steve Diacon. An Eye for an Eye: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Perception of
Corporate Unfairness on Aberrant Consumer Behavior 187-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
567. Suzanne C. Beckmann. 2007. Consumers and Corporate Social Responsibility: Matching the Unmatchable?. Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ) 15:1, 27-36. [Crossref]
568. Len Tiu Wright, Simon Heaton. 2006. Fair Trade marketing: an exploration through qualitative research. Journal of Strategic
Marketing 14:4, 411-426. [Crossref]
569. Deirdre Shaw, Gillian Hogg, Elaine Wilson, Edward Shiu, Louise Hassan. 2006. Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade concerns
on clothing choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14:4, 427-440. [Crossref]
570. Deirdre Shaw, Terry Newholm, Roger Dickinson. 2006. Consumption as voting: an exploration of consumer empowerment.
European Journal of Marketing 40:9/10, 1049-1067. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
571. Philip J. Trocchia, Thomas L. Ainscough. 2006. Characterizing consumer concerns about identification technology. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 34:8, 609-620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
572. Patrick De Pelsmacker, Wim Janssens, Ellen Sterckx, Caroline Mielants. 2006. Fair-trade beliefs, attitudes and buying behaviour
of Belgian consumers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 11:2, 125-138. [Crossref]
573. Iris Vermeir, Wim Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention”
Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19:2, 169-194. [Crossref]
574. M. Morand, L. Rayman‐Bacchus. 2006. Think global, act local: Corporate Social Responsibility Management in Multinational
Companies. Social Responsibility Journal 2:3/4, 261-272. [Abstract] [PDF]
575. Sara R. Jaeger. 2006. Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference 17:1-2, 132-144. [Crossref]
576. Ying Fan. 2005. Ethical branding and corporate reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10:4, 341-350.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
577. William Low, Eileen Davenport. 2005. Has the medium (roast) become the message?. International Marketing Review 22:5,
494-511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
578. Patrick De Pelsmacker, Wim Janssens, Ellen Sterckx, Caroline Mielants. 2005. Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically
labelled coffee. International Marketing Review 22:5, 512-530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
579. PATRICK DE PELSMACKER, LIESBETH DRIESEN, GLENN RAYP. 2005. Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness
to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39:2, 363-385. [Crossref]
580. Kirsty Golding, Ken Peattie. 2005. In search of a golden blend: perspectives on the marketing of fair trade coffee. Sustainable
Development 13:3, 154-165. [Crossref]
581. H. Iwanow, M.G. McEachern, A. Jeffrey. 2005. The influence of ethical trading policies on consumer apparel purchase decisions.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33:5, 371-387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 582. Marta De La Cuesta Gonz�lez, Carmen Valor Martinez. 2004. Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility Through Public
Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case. Journal of Business Ethics 55:3, 275-293. [Crossref]
583. Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin, Joanne Wright. 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, 401-417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
584. Michael Getzner, Sonja Grabner‐Kräuter. 2004. Consumer preferences and marketing strategies for “green shares”. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 22:4, 260-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
585. Outi Uusitalo, Reetta Oksanen. 2004. Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28:3,
214-221. [Crossref]
586. Paul Gibbs. 2004. Marketing and the notion of well-being. Business Ethics: A European Review 13:1, 5-13. [Crossref]
587. André Cauduro D'Angelo. 2003. A ética no marketing. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 7:4, 55-75. [Crossref]
588. Nina Urala, Liisa Lähteenmäki. 2003. Reasons behind consumers’ functional food choices. Nutrition & Food Science 33:4, 148-158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
589. 2003. Is there such a thing as an ethical consumer?. Strategic Direction 19:6, 28-30. [Abstract] [Full Text]
590. Anne Broderick, Amandeep Jogi, Tony Garry. 2003. Tickled Pink: The Personal Meaning of Cause Related Marketing for
Customers. Journal of Marketing Management 19:5-6, 583-610. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Auckland University of Technology At 02:59 29 January 2019 (PT)

591. Johanna Kujala. Branding as a Tool for CSR 746-768. [Crossref]

592. Johanna Kujala. Branding as a Tool for CSR 266-287. [Crossref]
593. . Marketing to Children and Ethical Research 1-14. [Crossref]
594. Giacomo Del Chiappa, Mariella Pinna, Marcello Atzeni. Barriers to Responsible Tourist Behaviour 290-308. [Crossref]
595. Ebtihaj A. Al A'ali, Abdul Redha Al-Sarraf. Ethical Consumerism: Contextual Issues of Ethical Decision-Making Processes
133-149. [Crossref]
596. Nilanthi Ratnayake, Dushan Chaminda Jayawickrama. Manifestation of Ethical Consumption Behaviour through Five Precepts
of Buddhism 1591-1611. [Crossref]
597. Isaac Wasswa Katono. Ethically Questionable Behavior and Consumerism in Uganda 334-360. [Crossref]
598. Syaidatina Akila Mohamad Azizan, Norazah Mohd Suki. Consumers' Intentions to Purchase Organic Food Products 68-82.
[Crossref]