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

Learn More →

Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption

Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption Purpose – This paper aims to quantify the relative importance of reasons used to explain consumers’ selection and rejection of ethical products, accounting for differences in ethical orientations across consumers. Design/methodology/approach – Reviewing previous literature and drawing on in-depth interviews, a taxonomy of reasons for and against ethical purchasing is developed. An online survey incorporating best–worst scaling (BWS) determines which reasons feature more in shaping ethical consumerism. Cluster analysis and multinomial regression are used to identify and profile segments. Findings – Positively orientated consumers (42 per cent of respondents) purchase ethical products more so because of reasons relating to impact, health, personal relevance, and quality. Negatively orientated consumers (34 per cent of respondents) reject ethical alternatives based on reasons relating to indifference, expense, confusion and scepticism. A third segment is ambivalent in their behaviour and reasoning; they perceive ethical purchasing to be effective and relevant, but are confused and sceptical under what conditions this can occur. Research limitations/implications – Preferences were elicited using an online survey rather than using real market data. Though the task instructions and methods used attempted to minimise social-desirability bias, the experiment might still be subject to its effects. Practical implications – Competitive positioning strategies can be better designed knowing which barriers to ethical purchasing are more relevant. The paper challenges the benefits in altruistic-based positioning and outlines shortcomings in communication about ethical products, including those relating to product labelling. Social implications – Through their purchase behaviours across a number of categories, ethical consumers aim to minimise the harm and exploitation of humans, animals and the natural environment. This research provides insights into the potential reasons why the uptake of ethical products is not being achieved and how it can be addressed to make improvements in making this movement more mainstream. Originality/value – This research examines an extensive list of reasons for and against ethical purchasing used by a general population of consumers. By forcing respondents to make trade-offs, this is the first study quantifying the relative importance of reasons utilised by consumers. It also highlights the value in using cluster analysis on best–worst scores to identify underlying segments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Marketing Emerald Publishing

Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/segmenting-consumers-reasons-for-and-against-ethical-consumption-CJtpW6kvpd
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0309-0566
DOI
10.1108/EJM-06-2013-0294
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to quantify the relative importance of reasons used to explain consumers’ selection and rejection of ethical products, accounting for differences in ethical orientations across consumers. Design/methodology/approach – Reviewing previous literature and drawing on in-depth interviews, a taxonomy of reasons for and against ethical purchasing is developed. An online survey incorporating best–worst scaling (BWS) determines which reasons feature more in shaping ethical consumerism. Cluster analysis and multinomial regression are used to identify and profile segments. Findings – Positively orientated consumers (42 per cent of respondents) purchase ethical products more so because of reasons relating to impact, health, personal relevance, and quality. Negatively orientated consumers (34 per cent of respondents) reject ethical alternatives based on reasons relating to indifference, expense, confusion and scepticism. A third segment is ambivalent in their behaviour and reasoning; they perceive ethical purchasing to be effective and relevant, but are confused and sceptical under what conditions this can occur. Research limitations/implications – Preferences were elicited using an online survey rather than using real market data. Though the task instructions and methods used attempted to minimise social-desirability bias, the experiment might still be subject to its effects. Practical implications – Competitive positioning strategies can be better designed knowing which barriers to ethical purchasing are more relevant. The paper challenges the benefits in altruistic-based positioning and outlines shortcomings in communication about ethical products, including those relating to product labelling. Social implications – Through their purchase behaviours across a number of categories, ethical consumers aim to minimise the harm and exploitation of humans, animals and the natural environment. This research provides insights into the potential reasons why the uptake of ethical products is not being achieved and how it can be addressed to make improvements in making this movement more mainstream. Originality/value – This research examines an extensive list of reasons for and against ethical purchasing used by a general population of consumers. By forcing respondents to make trade-offs, this is the first study quantifying the relative importance of reasons utilised by consumers. It also highlights the value in using cluster analysis on best–worst scores to identify underlying segments.

Journal

European Journal of MarketingEmerald Publishing

Published: Nov 4, 2014

There are no references for this article.