essay about ethical consumption

Consumption Ethics: A Review and Analysis of Future Directions for Interdisciplinary Research

• Editorial Essay
• Published: 18 January 2020
• Volume 168 , pages 215–238, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Michal Carrington 1   na1 ,
• Andreas Chatzidakis 2   na1 ,
• Helen Goworek 3   na1 &
• Deirdre Shaw 4   na1  

5888 Accesses

43 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 13 March 2020

This article has been updated

The terminology employed to explore consumption ethics, the counterpart to business ethics, is increasingly varied not least because consumption has become a central discourse and area of investigation across disciplines (e.g. Graeber, 2011). Rather than assuming interchangeability, we argue that these differences signify divergent understandings and contextual nuances and should, therefore, inform future writing and understanding in this area. Accordingly, this article advances consumer ethics scholarship through a systematic review of the current literature that identifies key areas of convergence and contradiction. We then present the articles in this Journal of Business Ethics Symposium and analyse how these articles fit within the interdisciplinary themes. Subsequently, we develop a transdisciplinary theoretical framework that encapsulates the complexity and contextual nature of consumption ethics. We conclude by outlining how genuinely transdisciplinary research into the intersection of ethics with consumption may develop.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review

Digital technologies: tensions in privacy and data

Change history, 13 march 2020.

In the published article the Acknowledgment section is missing. The following text should have been included:

Abela, A. V., & Murphy, P. E. (2008). Marketing with integrity: Ethics and the service-dominant logic for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 , 39–53.

Google Scholar  

Aguilera, F. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapath, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 32 , 836–863.

Alkon, A. H., & McCullen, C. G. (2011). Whiteness and farmers markets: Performances, perpetuations… contestations? Antipode, 43 , 937–959.

Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2005). What's left? Just the future. Antipode, 37 , 220–238.

Anderson, T., & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36 , 23–31.

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (3), 281–304.

Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (4), 361–383.

Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 70 (3), 299–326.

Baker, A. (2005). Who wants to globalize? Consumer tastes and labor markets in a theory of trade policy beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 49 , 924–938.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39 , 881–898.

Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 , 794–816.

Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N., & Malpass, A. (2005). Consuming ethics: Articulating the subjects and spaces of ethical consumption. Antipode, 37 , 23–45.

Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N., & Malpass, A. (2010). Globalizing responsibility: The political rationalities of ethical consumption . West Sussex: Wiley.

Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2011). Movements, markets and fields: The effects of anti-sweatshop campaigns on U.S. firms, 1993–2000. Social Forces, 90 , 425–451.

Boczar, G. E. (1978). Competition between banks and finance companies: A cross section study of personal loan debtors. The Journal of Finance, 33 , 245–258.

Bolsen, T., Ferraro, P. J., & Miranda, J. J. (2014). Are voters more likely to contribute to other public goods? Evidence from a large-scale randomized policy experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 58 , 17–30.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101.

Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (4), 597–608.

Bregman, R., Peng, D. X., & Chin, W. (2015). The effect of controversial global sourcing practices on the ethical judgments and intentions of US consumers. Journal of Operations Management, 36 , 229–243.

Brockington, D., & Duffy, R. (2010). Capitalism and conservation: The production and reproduction of biodiversity conservation. Antipode, 42 , 469–484.

Brown, G. M. (2000). Renewable natural resource management and use without markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 , 875–914.

Busa, J. H., & Garder, R. (2015). Champions of the movement or fair-weather heroes? Individualization and the (A) politics of local food. Antipode, 47 , 323–341.

Busse, C. (2016). Doing well by doing good? The self-interest of buying firms and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52 , 28–47.

Carpenter, D., & Ting, M. M. (2007). Regulatory errors with endogenous agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 51 , 835–852.

Carrier, J. G. (2010). Protecting the environment the natural way: Ethical consumption and commodity fetishism. Antipode, 42 , 672–689.

Carrier, J., & Luetchford, P. (2012). Ethical consumption: Social value and economic practice . New York: Berghahn.

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Canniford, R. (2015). Unmanageable multiplicity: Consumer transformation towards moral self coherence. European Journal of Marketing, 49 , 1300–1325.

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (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 , 139–158.

Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory, 16 , 21–38.

Caruana, R., & Chatzidakis, A. (2014). Consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Toward a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of the “other CSR”. Journal of Business Ethics, 121 , 577–592.

Case, F. E. (1955). The use of junior mortgages in real estate financing. The Journal of Finance, 10 , 41–54.

Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (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.

Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. P. (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.

Chatzidakis, A., Maclaran, P., & Bradshaw, A. (2012). Heterotopian space and the utopics of ethical and green consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 28 , 494–515.

Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 , 1412–1425.

Connolly, J., & Shaw, D. (2006). Identifying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 , 353–368.

Cook, I. (2004). Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode, 36 (4), 642–664.

Crocker, D. A., & Linden, T. (1998). Ethics of consumption: The good life, justice, and global stewardship . Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Crockett, D., & Wallendorf, M. (2004). The role of normative political ideology in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 , 511–528.

Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54 , 686–699.

D’Astous, A., & Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding consumers’ ethical justifications: A scale for appraising consumers’ reasons for not behaving ethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 (2), 255–268.

De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (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.

Deegan, C., & Shelly, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities: Alternative perspectives about the need to legislate. Journal of Business Ethics, 121 , 499–526.

de Groot, J. I. M., & Thogersen, J. (2013). Values and pro-environmental behaviour. In L. Steg, A. E. Van Den Berg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology . Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwelll/British Psychological Society.

de Neve, G., Luetchford, P., Pratt, J., & Wood, D. C. (2008). Hidden hands in the market: Ethnographies of fair trade, ethical consumption, and corporate social responsibility . Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32 , 901–924.

Devezer, B., Sprott, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Czellar, S. (2014). Consumer well-being: Effects of subgoal failures and goal importance. Journal of Marketing, 78 , 118–134.

Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doran, C. J. (2009). The role of personal values in fair trade consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (4), 549–563.

Dowell, G. W. S., & Muthulingam, S. (2017). Will firms go green if it pays? The impact of disruption, cost, and external factors on the adoption of environmental initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 38 , 1287–1304.

Dowling, R. (2010). Geographies of identity: Climate change, governmentality and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 34 , 488–495.

du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Madsen, A. K., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman . London: Sage.

Edwards, J. M. (2014). Consumer power and market control: Exploring consumer behaviour in affluent contexts (1946–1980). The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21 , 699–723.

Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 , 266–277.

Enderle, G. (2000). Whose ethos for public goods in the global economy? Business Ethics Quarterly, 10 , 131–144.

Etzioni, A. (1958). Administration and the consumer. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3 , 251–264.

Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47 , 1029–1075.

Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis . London: Verso Books.

Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79 (4), 445–467.

Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2014). Consumption practices: A virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24 , 509–531.

Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of Marketing, 79 , 97–110.

Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 , 840–857.

Glac, K. (2012). The impact and source of mental frames in socially responsible investing. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 13 , 184–198.

González, S., & Waley, P. (2013). Traditional retail markets: The new gentrification frontier? Antipode, 45 (4), 965–983.

Graeber, D. (2011). Consumption. Current Anthropology, 52 , 489–511.

Gregson, N., & Ferdous, R. (2015). Making space for ethical consumption in the South. Geoforum, 67 , 244–255.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 814.

Hamilton, T. (2013). Beyond market signals: Negotiating marketplace politics and corporate responsibilities. Economic Geography, 89 , 285–307.

Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer . London: Sage.

Harvey, D. (1990). Between space and time: Reflections on the geographical imagination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 80 , 418–434.

Hawkins, R. (2011). ‘One pack = one vaccine’ = one global motherhood? A feminist analysis of ethical consumption. Gender, Place & Culture, 18 , 235–253.

Henry, P. C. (2010). How mainstream consumers think about consumer rights and responsibilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 , 670–687.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., …, Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research . Heidelberg: Springer.

Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 , 70–90.

Howlett, E. A., Burton, S., Bates, K., & Huggins, K. (2009). Coming to a restaurant near you? Potential consumer responses to nutrition information disclosure on menus. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 , 494–503.

Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2011). Sustainability and consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 , 40–54.

Humphery, K. (2009). Excess: Anti-consumerism in the West . Cambridge: Polity.

Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46 , 234–246.

Jain, V. K., & Sharma, S. (2014). Drivers affecting the green supply chain management adaptation: A review. IUP Journal of Operations Management, 13 , 54.

Karababa, E., & Ger, G. (2011). Early modern Ottoman coffeehouse culture and the formation of the consumer subject. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 , 737–760.

Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40 , 350–367.

King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 , 413–442.

Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50 , 51–84.

Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68 , 92–109.

Kotchen, M. J. (2006). Green markets and private provision of public goods. Journal of Political Economy, 114 , 816–834.

Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75 , 132–135.

Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 , 691–704.

Kravets, O., & Sandikci, O. (2014). Competently ordinary: New middle class consumers in the emerging markets. Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 125–140.

Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76 , 95–102.

Kähr, A., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2016). When hostile consumers wreak havoc on your brand: The phenomenon of consumer brand sabotage. Journal of Marketing, 80 , 25–41.

Lacey, R., Kennett-Hensel, P. A., & Manolis, C. (2015). Is corporate social responsibility a motivator or hygiene factor? Insights into its bivalent nature. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 , 315–332.

Laestadius, L. I., Neff, R. A., Barry, C. L., & Frattaroli, S. (2014). “We don’t tell people what to do”: An examination of the factors influencing NGO decisions to campaign for reduced meat consumption in light of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 29 , 32–40.

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37 , 300–326.

Laran, J., Dalton, A. N., & Andrade, E. B. (2011). The curious case of behavioral backlash: Why brands produce priming effects and slogans produce reverse priming effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 , 999–1014.

Lewis, T., & Potter, D. (2011). Ethical consumption: A critical introduction . London: Routledge.

Lin, Y.-C., & Chang, C.-C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76 , 125–134.

Littler, J. (2008). Radical consumption: Shopping for change in contemporary culture . Berks: Open University Press.

Luedicke, M. K., Thompson, C. J., & Giesler, M. (2010). Consumer identity work as moral protagonism: How myth and ideology animate a brand-mediated moral conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 , 1016–1032.

Mann, H., Kumar, U., Kumar, V., & Mann, I. J. S. (2010). "Drivers of sustainable supply chain management. IUP Journal of Operations Management, 9 , 52–63.

Mansvelt, J. (2008). Geographies of consumption: Citizenship, space and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 32 , 105–117.

Marinova, D., & Singh, J. (2014). Consumer decision to upgrade or downgrade a service membership. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 , 596–618.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26 , 117–127.

Michaelson, C. (2010). Revisiting the global business ethics question. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 , 237–251.

Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism and collective action . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Miller, D. (2012). Consumption and its consequences . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Miller, J., & Stanczak, G. (2009). Redeeming, ruling, and reaping: British missionary societies, the East India company, and the India-to-China opium trade. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48 , 332–352.

Minton, E. A., Kahle, L. R., Jiuan, T. S., & Tambyah, S. K. (2016). Addressing criticisms of global religion research: A consumption-based exploration of status and materialism, sustainability, and volunteering behaviour. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 55 , 365–383.

Moore, G. (2008). Re-imagining the morality of management: A modern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18 , 483–511.

Moragues-Faus, A. (2016). Emancipatory or neoliberal food politics? Exploring the “politics of collectivity” of buying groups in the search for egalitarian food democracies. Antipode, 49 , 455–476.

Murray, K. B., & Montanari, J. B. (1986). Strategic management of the socially responsible firm: Integrating management and marketing theory. Academy of Management Review, 11 , 815–827.

Naoi, M., & Krauss, E. (2009). Who lobbies whom? Special interest politics under alternative electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 53 , 874–892.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook . Los Angeles: Sage.

Newholm, T., Newholm, S., & Shaw, D. (2015). A history for consumption ethics. Business History, 57 , 290–310.

Newig, J., Voß, J.-P., & Monstadt, J. (2008). Governance for sustainable development: Coping with ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power . New York: Routledge.

Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 , 823–839.

Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). A review of the "stern review on the economics of climate change". Journal of Economic Literature, 45 , 686–702.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (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.

Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims and message frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78 , 119–137.

Olson, E. L. (2013). It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 , 171–184.

Olson, J. G., McFerran, B., Morales, A., & Dahl, D. (2016). Wealth and welfare: Divergent moral reactions to ethical consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 , 879–896.

Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77 , 104–119.

Popke, J. (2006). Geography and ethics: Everyday mediations through care and consumption. Progress in Human Geography, 30 , 504–512.

Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2005). Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms' regulatory compliance. American Journal of Political Science, 49 , 235–248.

Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities. Antipode, 37 , 324–347.

Rawwas, M. Y. (1996). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of the ethical beliefs of Austrian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (9), 1009–1019.

Reid, L., Sutton, P., & Hunter, C. (2009). Theorizing the meso level: The household as a crucible of pro-environmental behaviour. Progress in Human Geography, 34 , 309–327.

Ridoutt, B. G., & Pfister, S. (2010). A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environmental Change, 20 , 113–120.

Roberts, W. (1996). Will the socially responsible consumer please step forward? Business Horizons, 39 , 79–84.

Rosol, M. (2012). Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin. Antipode, 44 , 239–257.

Sandlin, J. A., & McLaren, P. (2010). Critical pedagogies of consumption living and learning in the shadow of the “shopocalypse” . New York: Routledge.

Schlegelmilch, B., & Öberseder, M. (2010). Half a century of marketing ethics: Shifting perspectives and emerging trends. Journal of Business Ethics, 93 , 1–19.

Schuler, D. A., & Christmann, P. (2011). The effectiveness of market-based social governance schemes: The case of fair trade coffee. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21 , 133–156.

Schuler, A. A., & Cording, M. (2006). A corporate social performance—Corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31 , 540–558.

Schwartz, D. T. (2010). Consuming choices: Ethics in a global consumer age . Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 , 225–243.

Shaw, D., Carrington, M., & Chatzidakis, A. (2016). Ethics and morality in consumption: Interdisciplinary perspectives . New York: Routledge.

Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37 , 1485–1498.

Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 , 21–39.

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20 , 936–960.

Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 , 123–155.

Singh, V. P., Hansen, K. T., & Gupta, S. (2005). Modeling preferences for common attributes in multicategory brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 , 195–209.

Smith, N. C., Palazzo, G., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2010). Marketing’s consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 , 617–641.

Soper, K. (2007). Re-thinking the good life: The citizenship dimension of consumer disaffection with consumerism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7 , 205–229.

Soper, K., & Trentmann, F. (2008). Citizenship and consumption . Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture: Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21 , 813–822.

Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. (2008). Greening global consumption: Redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change, 18 , 350–359.

Starkey, K., & Crane, A. (2003). Toward green narrative: Management and the evolutionary epic. Academy of Management Review, 28 , 220–237.

Steger, M. B., & Wilson, E. K. (2012). Anti-globalization or alter-globalization? Mapping the political ideology of the global justice movement. International Studies Quarterly, 56 , 439–454.

Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 , 558–575.

Strizhakova, Y., & Coulter, R. A. (2013). The “green” side of materialism in emerging BRIC and developed markets: The moderating role of global cultural identity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30 , 69–82.

Talukdar, D., & Lindsey, C. (2013). To buy or not to buy: Consumers' demand response patterns for healthy versus unhealthy food. Journal of Marketing, 77 , 124–138.

Tate, W. L., Elram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: A thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46 , 19–44.

Uslay, C., Morgan, R. E., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Peter Drucker on marketing: An exploration of five tenets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 , 47–60.

van der Ploeg, F. (2011). Natural resources: Curse or blessing? Journal of Economic Literature, 49 , 366–420.

van der Wal, A. J., Van Horen, F., & Grinstein, A. (2016). The paradox of ‘green to be seen’: Green high-status shoppers excessively use (branded) shopping bags. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 , 216–219.

Varman, R., & Belk, R. W. (2009). Nationalism and ideology in an anticonsumption movement. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 , 686–700.

Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43 (1–2), 33–47.

Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 , 529–567.

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 , 188–196.

Wenell, K. (2009). All consuming Christmas? Religion, culture and challenges of consumption. The Expository Times, 121 , 105–114.

Wenell, K. (2014). A markan ‘context’ kingdom? Examining biblical and social models in spatial interpretation. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 44 , 123–132.

White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48 , 472–485.

White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76 , 103–118.

White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don't) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77 , 78–95.

Williams, E. F., & Steffel, M. (2014). Double standards in the use of enhancing products by self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 , 506–525.

Williamson, T. (2008). The good society and the good soul: Plato's Republic on leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 , 397–408.

Wilson, B. R., & Curnow, J. (2013). Solidarity™: Student activism, affective labor, and the fair trade campaign in the United States. Antipode, 45 , 565–583.

Wood, B. D. (2009). Presidential saber rattling and the economy. American Journal of Political Science, 53 , 695–709.

Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Grønhaug, K. (2015). The role of moral emotions and individual differences in consumer responses to corporate green and non-green actions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 , 333–356.

Yates, M. (2011). The human-as-waste, the labor theory of value and disposability in contemporary capitalism. Antipode, 43 , 1679–1695.

Zhao, X., & Belk, R. W. (2008). Politicizing consumer culture: Advertising's appropriation of political ideology in China's social transition. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 , 231–244.

Zitcer, A. (2015). Food co-ops and the paradox of exclusivity. Antipode, 47 , 812–828.

Download references

Author information

Authors are listed in alphabetical order, all authors contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Michal Carrington

Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

Andreas Chatzidakis

University of Durham, Durham, UK

Helen Goworek

University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Deirdre Shaw

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Carrington .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Michal Carrington declares no conflict of interest. Andreas Chatzidakis declares no conflict of interest. Helen Goworek declares no conflict of interest. Deirdre Shaw is a section co-editor in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Ethical Approval

This manuscript does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Carrington, M., Chatzidakis, A., Goworek, H. et al. Consumption Ethics: A Review and Analysis of Future Directions for Interdisciplinary Research. J Bus Ethics 168 , 215–238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04425-4

Download citation

Received : 08 December 2019

Accepted : 28 December 2019

Published : 18 January 2020

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04425-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinary
• Consumption ethics
• Ethical consumption
• Green consumption
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The rise of ethical consumption: A new era of consumerism

Consumerism changed consumption patterns in the mid- to late-18th century, after the industrial revolution. As economies around the world began to shift their attention towards being more liberalised and opening their trading doors to globalisation, consumerism changed consumption for the normal person.

If you step into the market today to buy an essential product like toothpaste or a luxury product, you will face a plethora of choices ranging from differences in price points to quality, shape, size, etc. With the vast number of products to pick from, from purchasing a pen to a smartphone, it is safe to say that a consumer in the contemporary era today has more choices than a consumer in the 18th century.

Consumerism has become such a principal part of our lives that it is almost impossible to think of or imagine a time before people’s purchasing habits were driven by consumerism. Wide and popular displays of opulence or wealth were only luxuries that a small percentage of people, mostly royalty, could afford.

Under consumerism, however, every ordinary person becomes a consumer. The display of wealth or opulence today is of great importance to attaining social capital. However, the pandemic has really changed how people look at their consumption patterns, and more so, the younger generations are making the choice to be environmentally conscious of their consumption.

Conscious consumption has changed consumer behaviour around the world, with people now being more mindful of their consumption and environmental issues.

Consumerism has long been a driving force in the global economy, with individuals constantly seeking out new products and services to satisfy their wants and needs. It’s crucial to remember that wants, not necessarily needs, are what drive consumerism. Companies that advertise and produce different versions of the same product further amplify this pattern of consumption.

What is ethical consumerism?

In recent years, a new trend has emerged: ethical consumerism. This trend in consumption is characterised by consumers making purchasing decisions based on the ethical and moral values of the companies they support.  

Let us take a closer look at what is driving the shift towards ethical consumption.

Growing awareness of social and environmental issues

Social media platforms have now evolved into more than just spaces for individuals to connect for socialising; activism, especially environmental activism, has sprung up as a sustained trend on all major social media platforms.

This provides a space for every user on said social media platform to easily access news about climate change, which in turn increases awareness of environmental issues.

Independent journalists leverage social media platforms to expose social and environmental issues through documentaries and news coverage that otherwise would drown in mainstream media.

The major factor driving the rising concern for issues such as climate change, human rights, and animal welfare is the autonomy that users have on social media which gives them the liberty to discuss topics of their choice with a wider social network at ease.

Influence of millennials and Gen Z

A Pew research study conducted in 2021 finds that Gen Z and Millennials prioritise social and environmental responsibility. With these generations being an active part of the consumerist culture, we are seeing a growing trend of ethical consumption.

Social media, as explored in the point above, is a useful tool that helps in disseminating and sharing information about environmental news.

Increasingly, social media platforms are also used to bring awareness to brands and companies that are environmentally conscious. Vegan diets, sustainable fashion collections, and tips to lead a sustainable lifestyle, among others, are all trends that are popular and influence many users through social media.

Impact of Corporate Scandals

Being environmentally conscious is not just an individual effort but needs a reform of practices at the systemic level, and this sentiment has been highly emphasised in recent environmental movements.

There is increased scrutiny over corporate practices and with the internet connecting people closer now than ever, brushing these malpractices under the rug is also impossible. High-profile scandals involving unethical business practices are often publicised, and in the online space, these corporate unethical scandals take on a life of their own.

Lack of transparency and greenwashing are common examples of how corporations take advantage of a consumer’s choice to engage in environmentally conscious consumption.

The loss of trust in traditional corporations due to unethical practices is on the rise, and this sentiment is compelling a lot of companies to seek out a strategy that aligns environmentally and aids social development.

It is no surprise that, with the rise of ethical consumption, consumers seek out alternative brands with transparent and ethical practices that align with their environmental and social beliefs. 

To conclude, ethical consumerism is a growing movement that is reshaping the way individuals make purchasing decisions. With increased awareness of social and environmental issues, the influence of younger generations, and the impact of corporate scandals, consumers are demanding more transparency and ethical practices from companies.

While there are challenges and limitations to ethical consumerism, the benefits of supporting ethical brands and making conscious consumption choices are undeniable. As this trend in consumption continues to gain momentum, it has the potential to create a new era of consumerism that prioritises a social and environmental responsibility.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ET Edge Insights, its management, or its members

Related articles.

Bezos’ Blue Origin vs. Musk’s SpaceX in the new space race – Billionaire blast off

IPL’s rise as a global economic powerhouse

Ethical consumption: why should we understand it as a social practice within a multilevel framework?

Sara Karimzadeh Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Magnus Boström Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

This article is included in the Philosophy, Ethics and Religion gateway.

This article is included in the Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) gateway.

This article is included in the Horizon 2020 gateway.

Ethical consumption practices, social practice theory, multilevel perspective, combination approach.

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We would like to appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions that we received from reviewers. As a response to reviewers' comments, this second version provides more clarifications on the following key issues raised by the reviewres: first we have developed more concise arguments explaining why the multilevel perspective can enhance the understanding of the formation of ethical consumption; second, we explain the difference between flat and veritical ontology; and lastly, we have included some suggestions for future research.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kirsten Gram-Hanssen and Line Kryger Aagaard See the authors' detailed response to the review by Philip Balsiger

1. Introduction

Studying consumption as a social phenomenon that represents the fabric of society has opened a broad research space for social practice theory (SPT) in consumption studies in the recent decades. It is well recognized in SPT studies that we ought to lift the sight from the individual as a unit of analysis towards that of social practices in the socio-material surrounding. We agree with this but find that social structure and culture on ‘higher’ levels still often get insufficient attention. In line with this, several scholars have suggested combining the SPT and multi-level perspective (MLP) to advance the understanding of sustainability in general 1 ( el Bilali, 2019 ; Hargreaves et al ., 2013 ; Hinrichs, 2014 ; Keller et al ., 2022 ; Laakso et al. , 2021 ; McMeekin & Southerton, 2012 ; Spaargaren et al ., 2012 ; Watson, 2012 ; Welch & Warde, 2015 ). In one recent systematic review, Keller et al. (2022) point out that the main empirical focuses of such a combined analytical framework to date had included practices in niche innovations, energy, food and agriculture, mobility, water and housing. This method of understanding can be extended to the study of ethical consumption, which is a partly overlapping phenomenon. Ethical consumption 2 refers to a set of consumption practices that are shaped by societal and environmental concerns related to green issues, workers’ rights and conditions, child labour, unfair trade, resource degradation, irresponsible marketing, animal testing, and oppressive regimes ( Berki-Kiss & Menrad, 2022 ; Carrigan et al ., 2004 ; Carrington et al ., 2010 ; de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ; Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008 ; Huddart Kennedy et al ., 2019 ; Wooliscroft et al ., 2014 ). However, it remains contested how the representations of the phenomenon are formed and actualized in different societies and among different people. A great bulk of the literature on ethical consumption, particularly such inspired by marketing and psychological models, has tended to investigate the impacts of individual factors such as values, preferences and motives ( de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ; Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008 ; Shove, 2010 ; and Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ). For example, in a recent study, Berki-Kiss & Menrad (2022) , suggest that consumer knowledge, attitude and emotions are significant factors to push consumers to purchase agricultural non-food (fairtrade cut roses) ethical products ( Berki-Kiss & Menrad, 2022 ). Likewise, through investigating research models on consumption behaviour, Carrington et al. (2010) indicate that ethical purchasing intentions are mainly driven by factors such as personal values, moral norms, mental processes and internal ethics ( Carrington et al ., 2010 ). Can we claim that these factors are merely individual factors? Can we see consumers as autonomous and independent actors in social structures? However, the remarkable “intention-behaviour gap” among ethical consumers’ ( Belk et al ., 2005 ; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001 ; Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ) indicates there might be “various constraints” in society and “competing demands” to hamper consumers from acting ethically ( Carrington et al ., 2010 ). In order to avoid oversimplifying consumer behaviour to linear psychological models ( Bagozzi, 2000 ) (like the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB); and Value-Belief-Norm (VBN)), it is important to understand ethical consumption as a context-dependent phenomenon ( Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ) that is influenced by social structures, technical infrastructures, available knowledge, culture, public policies and social norms (see e.g. Boström et al. , 2019 ; Hysing, 2019 ; Wahlen & Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 ). People, government, and businesses are, according to Stolle & Micheletti (2013) , the pillars of social change through consumption practices, whereas de Moor & Balsiger (2019) highlight the role of social movement organizations for initiating forms of consumption such as ethical consumption. Thus, we suggest placing ethical consumption at the intersection of two analytical frameworks, social practice theory and the multilevel perspective for two reasons: first to take into consideration a set of interrelated elements in different levels (micro, meso and micro) influencing ethically oriented consumption practices; and second to generate deepened understanding of the phenomenon. This is an attempt to uncover why for example, ethical consumption appears more institutionalized, broad-spread and easily available in some societies like north-western European countries ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ) but not in others 3 .

Social practice theory is a theoretical upgrade in consumption studies that would be useful in the study of ethical consumption and in filling gaps in the scholarship. This theory introduces a proper framework for consumption studies by making interconnections between the roles of material, meaning and competencies in the creation of practices ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ). It argues that people’s actions are influenced by their socio-material context, what they understand and receive from their environment, as well as their obligation toward others ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ; Rinkinen et al ., 2020 ). Although by emphasizing mainly everyday life, the SPT has opened a broad theoretical area to consumption studies, key analytical critiques concern its insufficient attention paid to macro- or structural pre-requisite of various consumption forms ( Keller et al ., 2022 ; Greene, 2018 ; Welch, 2020 ), and “supply side dynamics (like firms, innovation systems, technical capabilities” ( Geels et al ., 2015 : p. 10). Also, the power issue and role of macro-scale social inequalities in the formation of daily routines are almost absent in its endeavours to theorize consumption practices ( Geels et al ., 2015 ; van Kesteren & Evans, 2020 ). A greater theoretical lens that gives a broader picture of the formation of ethical consumption will enrich our sociological understanding of the systemic and structural factors that delimit ethical consumption agency or (re)define it according to the specific sociotechnical context. It also helps to shed light on the phenomenon from different angles. The need is even more urgent if we want to address, for instance, firstly the very different conditions for ethical consumption practices in different geographical contexts, and secondly, newly established forms of consumption practices that are mainly associated with the structural attributes of the society in question. Therefore, understanding ethical consumption as practices that come about in multi-level frameworks, this paper provides a deeper conceptual insight into the social (im)possibilities of the formation of ethical consumption. It also contributes attention to how ethical consumption grows due to dialectical processes between levels, which also helps to avoid the tendency of overly individualized perspectives on ethical consumption.

The next section, by introducing the SPT and MLP, briefly discusses some late conceptual developments aiming to broaden the analytical power of SPT; the insufficiency of such development if not a broader analytical lens such as MLP framework is included; and how the SPT and MLP can mutually enrich a developed analytical perspective regarding ethical consumption. Section three provides examples of ethical consumption in different sociotechnical regimes across the world. Section four discusses the configuration of ethical consumption within social regimes and also the dialectics between the levels in forming ethical consumption practices. This section is followed by the conclusion and suggestions for future research avenues.

2. SPT and MLP: a combined perspective to explain the routinization and upscaling process of newly emerged consumption practices

By following insights gained from MLP ( Geels, 2002 ) and recent scholarship, ethical consumption can be considered as a complex multilevel phenomenon “which involves more than an individual’s behaviour and practices” ( Boström et al ., 2019 : p. 4). Applying a multi-level analysis frame is a way to understand how practices are formed within a pre-given set of heterogeneous elements such as norms, conventions, infrastructures, knowledge, technology and other structural conditions like systems of provision associated with consumption practices in different levels of society. Despite the possible conflicts and tensions, practices evolve due to interdependencies and interconnections among these elements ( Boström et al ., 2019 ) and are reflected in social practices like consumption.

To understand social practices as a combination of elements, a useful and much-cited framework in consumption studies is the one suggested by Shove et al. (2012) . They argue that a specific practice occurs through specific connections between three components: 1) materials and technology (artefacts, infrastructures, and hardware); 2) meanings (images, understandings, feelings, mental activities, emotions and motivational knowledge); and 3) competencies and skills (background knowledge, know-how, general understanding) ( Shove et al ., 2012 ). According to this, in the context of ethical consumption, the alignment of the meaning of ethical consumption (a culture of caring for the environment, community and society; that is, caring attitudes), competencies (how to do and develop this protection) and material (infrastructures and technologies that make this opportunity available for people, including market products) navigate this practice. Co-evolution between meaning, material and competencies may lead to a transition in (or transformation of) practices. In the absence of one of these elements, the ethical consumption practice would not be able to attract broader groups of practitioners in society. In other words, an external intervention to bring in new technology (material) or spread new knowledge and education (competence), along with supporting communities of practitioners that try to change conventions and norms (meanings) through niche innovations, may lead to a social shift that eventually is followed up by practice change. In comparison to previous research, social practice theory has undergone gradual conceptual developments to address neglected aspects such as culture, ethics of care, motivations and affectivity to understand the formation of practice (e.g. Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ; Welch, 2020 ). For example, Gram-Hanssen argues that variation in consumer practices and the way that ‘ethics takes part in changing practices’ can contribute to further developing theories of practice (2021: 1). She suggests that socioeconomic and demographic factors such as gender, life course and class must be considered in understanding the elements of practice theories, i.e., material possessions, competency and meaning. She also brings attention to the variety of “general understanding” of ethics among different people and in different fields like food, mobility, housing, or waste. A general understanding can operate on both discursive and more tacit (pre-reflexive) levels of knowing. In the case of ethics and consumption, such understanding may involve both more explicit ethical codes/principles (as “taking care of”) and appear in more mundane situations in everyday life (as “caring for”). Ethics in consumer practices can be seen as a general understanding of “threading through many different practices, depending on the specific context and situation” ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 : 13). Similarly, by introducing the concept of ‘teleoaffective formation’, Welch (2020) offers a configurational concept within the SPT to understand (sustainable) consumption practices in a nexus composed of general understandings of material, economic and aesthetic relationships. And Evans contributes insights into how various material semiotic approaches can link consumer practices to wider economic processes around commodification, production, distribution, and exchange ( Evans, 2020 ). All these insights are welcome development within or close to SPT that help to pay analytic attention to more overarching social phenomena in the area of ethical consumption. Nonetheless, the MLP could progress further as it is not constrained by the ‘flat ontology’ of the SPT and address attention to a further span of factors like that of specific sociotechnical regimes of society. To better cover these too often neglected aspects in the study of ethical consumption, we believe we can better understand the function and interconnectivity of different factors in shaping interlocked practices such as ethical consumption through a multilevel framework. A key problem of combining the two approaches is that SPT is said to be based on a flat ontology whereas MLP relies on a vertical ontology (see Keller et al. , 2022 ). Our argument as regards ontological assumptions is more in line with the latter, but we do not think this would invalidate the core insights from SPT. Rather, as emphasized by Keller et al. (2002) , there are many ways these can be fruitfully combined (e.g. zooming out and zooming out, combining horizontal and vertical analysis; interactions/intersections among regimes/practices).

According to Geels (2002) , the MLP provides a multi-layer analysis that sees sustainable practices as the result of the dialectic interaction between three levels of the micro (niche), meso (sociotechnical regimes), and macro (landscape). In this framework, the micro level refers to the spaces where innovative activities led by niches take place on small scales. The meso level, consisting of regimes, refers to the existing sociotechnical systems including the network of actors and social groups, rules and related technical and material elements. Finally, the macro level or landscape includes a set of external heterogeneous events and trends such as cultural changes, macroeconomic trends, wars and crises, pandemics like COVID-19, climate change, etc . The MLP locates technological and organizational innovations at the center of its analysis and argues that broader sociotechnical, economic and political contexts create more or less favourable circumstances for such innovation ( McMeekin & Southerton, 2012 ). In this perspective, regimes are home to incremental innovations whereas radical innovations are generated in niches. However, change of dominant practices rarely happens without a level of co-evolution of all three levels.

To have a better insight into the gains of applying a combined framework of the social practice theories and the MLP in understanding ethical consumption, in the following paragraph, according to deficiencies of each theory, we shortly discuss why such a combined framework may be a constructive approach to understand how ethical consumption can be developed among broader group of audiences. This heuristic combination also targets critical factors that SPT and MLP lack in their explanations regarding consumption-related practices. Even though practice theorists do speak of how practices are embedded in socio-material arrangements in society, there is arguably insufficient attention paid on larger scales. Welch & Warde (2015; 12–13) raise several criticisms of the SPT, one of those criticisms is particularly the focus of this study: social practice theories fail in relating the “minutiae of everyday performances of practices and the macro-institutional context ”. Considering niche dynamics as fluid novelties that are created at the micro-level and which might be obstructed by incumbent regimes ( Keller et al ., 2022 ), we argue that more attention needs to pay on how dispersed practices are able to expand to a wider range through supportive mechanisms at the meso-level ( i.e . civic groups, environmental groups) and moreover shape and reshape the macro-level setting (while at the same time being shaped by macro-level factors). Furthermore, by locating ethical consumption practices in the social context and considering their interconnectivity to other practices ( e.g . food practices, cleaning practices, commuting, etc .), we argue there is a need to take into consideration different forms and perceptions of the phenomenon that are created in accordance with the specific contextual situations (geography, sector-wise). Broad contextual factors include material and technological development ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ; Warde, 2014 ), economy including production ( Evans, 2020 ), the system of provision ( Fine & Bayliss, 2022 ) and political democratic culture and discourse ( Gundelach, 2020 ; Portilho & Micheletti, 2019 ). The advantage of the combination of the MLP and SPT in this context is to theorize in a deeper sense the structural conditions in terms of market, suppliers and producers’ networks, policies, technology, science and knowledge (MLP), and bring further attention to cultural features such as the importance of meaning and competencies embedded in the immediate social and physical context (SPT).

While the SPT pays insufficient attention to macro-institutional elements, the MLP could be criticized for over-emphasizing them by prioritizing the role of sociotechnical regimes. A critique of the MLP is that it appears to propose a technical-based, mechanistic and over-determined view ( Geels et al. , 2015 ; Hinrichs, 2014 ). However, we argue it is important with a perspective that recognizes that inertia is built into the system, and where nested regimes are stabilized and rarely undergo transformation. Yet, change is not deemed impossible, but we need to be more aware that moving towards sustainable/ethical consumption requires, in addition to technological changes, changes in consumer practices, cultural meanings, infrastructures, and economic practices as well ( Geels, 2019 ). “[T]echnology of itself, has no power, does nothing” ( Geels, 2002 : 1257) and therefore the significance of human agency and organizational structure in moving towards societal transformation must be considered.

3. Ethical consumption in different contexts

By broadly viewing ethical consumption in different contexts, it becomes even clearer how both ‘landscape’ and ‘sociotechnical regimes’ shape conditions for (the organizing of) ethical consumption practices. It is mainly emphasized that ethical consumers “talk” through their consumption choices (read power) to buy or refrain from purchasing goods or services which do or do not meet their ethical criteria when it comes to social and/or environmental standards ( de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ). Although following this argument looks plausible in “open market” in “democratic” countries it is unclear whether this seemingly simple definition is feasible in every socio-political and/or sociotechnical regime.

Figures of ethical consumption in the western contexts reveal that the extent of ethical/political consumption in comparison to both non-Western Europe and non-European contexts is very high ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; Koos, 2012 ). In addition to the explanations raised by the TPB ( Ajzen, 1991 ) and the VBN ( Stern, 2000 ) that generally represent the significance of individual factors ( i.e. consumers’ values, attitudes, subjective norms and knowledge), other plausible explanations, from sociological perspectives, relate to the relatively high level of welfare in the region along with the emergence of post-material values. Moreover, well-educated populations and free access to means of communication are two effective factors according to Boström et al . (2019) . This finding is in line with the Jacobsen & Dulsrud (2007) report that ethical consumption emerges in a more liberal world economy where new consumption forms are supported by non-governmental organizations, promote sovereign consumers’ ideas and provide alternative products and businesses ( Jacobsen & Dulsrud, 2007 ). Contrary to the nature of the phenomenon – which supposedly is to target governmental inefficiency pertaining pro-social and pro-environmental actions - interventions by both governmental and non-governmental actors play supportive role in the expansion of ethical consumption practices in the north-western countries. Examples include eco-labaling ( Boström & Klintman, 2011 ; Dubuisson-Quellier, 2013 ), how ethical criteria is incorporated in public procurement schemes ( Boström & Karlsson, 2013 ) and the encouragement to engage companies in “ethical competition” ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; 447). Erik Hysing (2019) demonstrates a range of different ways in how governments have shaped the institutional context, provided incentives, legitimized, and in other ways facilitated and integrated – and they can obviously also counteract – ethical (political) consumerism. Nevertheless, the west is not the exclusive home of ethical consumption. Comparative studies reveal the importance of historical and geographical factors in the formation of various ethical consumption patterns among different populations (see Boström et al ., 2019 ).

There are some studies uncovering different interpretations of ethical consumption in different geographies. Principles like justice, fairness, environmental protection, social solidarity and sustainability more broadly can appear in different ways and shapes. Hence, ethical consumption is a phenomenon that can be formed, realized, interpreted and demonstrated differently thanks to time, place, and circumstances. For example, in Africa, political/ethical consumption has been a response to the corrupted social and political system while in the MENA 4 region, consumption practices are greatly influenced by rapid economic transition, social development, democratic uprising, wars, political violence and religious contradictions ( Oosterveer et al ., 2019 ). Moreover, Hughes et al. (2015) brought up that in the context of Africa, “localized expression of ethical consumption” is essential in transformations on the supply-side ( Hughes et al ., 2015 ). Oosterveer et al . (2019) yet highlight the significance of the insufficient (social) base to explain the absence of ethical/political consumption in African and MENA countries. As regards Latin America, Portilho & Micheletti (2019) discussed the role of social movement struggles to push for a stronger state to regulate the market and revealed the significance of public policies and state regulation in promoting sustainable products and ethical consumption ( Portilho & Micheletti, 2019 ). In Thailand, there has been rapid industrialization, which has provided opportunities for social movements to encourage Thai consumers to influence consumption-related policymaking and participate in discussions, for instance via social media, about changed social practices ( Kantamaturapoj et al ., 2019 ). In China ( Lei et al. , 2019 ) argue that political/ethical consumption has its own characteristics and “consumer choices remain very much structured by governmental measures” ( Lei et al ., 2019: 599 ). Research indicates in social systems that provide a limited assortment of ethically framed goods and services the creation of such phenomena requires more creative and individualized initiatives ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; Koos, 2012 ). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is also a key factor in the promotion of ethical consumption ( Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016 ) due to its positive role in encouraging producers to produce under ethical standards (even though sometimes targeted for greenwashing and watered-down ethical standards) and facilitating choice infrastructures for consumers. However, the main focus here is associated with more infrastructural supply-side factors. In a social structure with transparent regulations and laws regarding the social responsibilities of cooperation, producers are obliged to reflect the interests of stakeholders like employees, investors and the environment in their actions and policies and it directs, in turn, consumers to ethical decisions ( Adams & Zutshi, 2004 ). Whereby corporations' policy to maximise their interest via CSR facilitates ethical decisions among consumers. From a multi-level perspective, in the lack of an efficient regulatory regime as well as technical and cultural support, CSR will prove insufficient to meet ethical consumers’ demands from the market.

Based on the knowledge of ethical consumption scholarship obtained from different social contexts, it becomes clear that ethical consumption must be considered as an intertwined phenomenon with sociotechnical regimes that shape market structures, laws and regulations, infrastructure and materials as well as culture and norms. Markets, governance structure and the settings of everyday life frame consumers’ decisions and practices ( Jacobsen & Dulsrud, 2007 ). Therefore, niche novelties regarding ethical consumption are created in and influenced by the given situation ( i.e ., available knowledge, systems of provision, alternative markets and democratic governances). Therefore, studying ethical consumption practices in the light of the multilevel perspective brings attention to how everyday practices are formed and changed within particular sociotechnical regimes. It should also be kept in mind that due to the niche’s capacity to fuel changes, any corporation or conflict between the elements of the micro and meso level can act as an assistance or obstacle to expanding niche novelties to more routinized and integrated practices.

4. Configuration of ethical consumption within multi-level interactions

When it comes to ethical consumption, niche innovations are often recognized as resistance to mainstream consumption and markets. Examples include asking for fair-waged, organic, and cruelty-free cosmetic and clothing products (buycotting), creating household initiatives to produce less waste or consume less energy, supporting local agriculture and products, and refusing from buying products or services with unfair work conditions or problematic production and distributing processes (boycotting). Some of these initiatives have become mainstream in some western societies, but appear radical, confrontative and/or illegal in several other contexts. Furthermore, decreasing the volumes of consumption, using second-hand stuff, and trying to challenge public attitudes by criticizing excessive consumerist lifestyles or encouraging other people to support eco-friendly and/or socio-friendly products (discursive ethical consumption) are other examples of mainly niche ethical consumption performances. These niche efforts are linked with efforts to, in the long run, reconfigure existing regimes ( Hargreaves et al ., 2013 ). This indicates that the embodiment of ethical initiatives in everyday life is conducted in sets of interdependencies within the different systems of provision, regimes and practices like eating, commuting, and cleaning. The concepts of zooming in and zooming out ( Keller et al ., 2022 ; Nicolini, 2009 ) can be related to each other as a tool to understand ethical consumption in the cross edge of regimes and embedded practices. While zooming in refers to deeper attention on mundane everyday practices, zooming out by adopting the bird’s eye could entail observing how ‘practices connect with each other’ ( Keller et al. , 2022 : 20) and on how sociotechnical regimes may integrate/separate different practices.

Niche practices, like various trends in ethical consumption, reflect perceived deficiencies in regimes and landscapes. Nevertheless, they are configured and developed within existing regimes’ capacities. Greene indicates that “a complex web of contextual processes including technological change, economic transitions and planning policies” are significant factors in the formation of consumption practices ( Greene, 2018 : 1). Therefore, one question that should be considered seriously relates to how socio-technical regimes constrain and fashion the development of ethical consumption practices. We argue that the formation of collective ethical consumption practices is contingent upon various determinants in sociotechnical regimes (e.i., policy, infrastructures, cultural meanings and conventions, markets, knowledge systems and (semi-) dominant discourse). Thus, ethical consumption practices can be deconstructed into their components by zooming in to better understand how these components are influenced, shaped, and reshaped by different regimes’ components (zooming out). Perceiving ethical consumption practices such as supporting fairtrade or fair paid products, waste segregation, collaborative consumption, ethical lifestyle, etc . as autonomous and independent novelties which are led only by individuals’ decisions and preferences misleads us in understanding the whole story of ethical consumption subject. Oosterveer et al . (2019: 135) indicate that “ethical consumption goes beyond individualistic choices” and relates to sociotechnical systems. This means that although niche innovations germinate separately among detached actors they are still being created inside the social setting and a level of regime support is necessary for their upscaling. For example, a regime may support a niche activity such as a boycott campaign either by providing space for democratic expression and media space for its promotion or by declaring new regulations and policies regarding the production processes that niche actors can rely on 5 . Furthermore, social movement campaigns can take advantage of the social and democratic space and support that is given to their claims and objectives ( Forno, 2019 ). All societies do not provide such opportunities for niches to pursue their novel objective on a bigger scale, but this knowledge is too often taken for granted in theorizing about the opportunities for niche practices to grow. Therefore, we need to be aware that although ethical consumption practices try to make changes in the existing regimes, they are at the same time created within the given opportunities in the same regimes, receiving support and targeting the very same system.

Nevertheless, sociotechnical regimes might have two edges: supportive or deterrent or a mix of both. In this vein, many niche dynamics have been oppressed or marginalized in many social regimes to date or at least had a very small chance to scale up. For example, Marsden (2013) points out some food niche initiatives that are marginalized in the nested food governance regimes and proposes the necessity of policy spaces to facilitate niche paths through multilevel regulations. Similarly, van Kesteren & Evans (2020) argue how socio-economic inequalities through delimiting the capacity of practitioners affect cooking practice in terms of competencies, materials and meaning. Therefore, structural conditions in terms of top-down governance, upstream policies, institutions, actor networks, capabilities and resources should be considered as enablers and constrainers in forming niche initiatives ( Boström, 2020 ; Slingerland & Schut, 2014 ). On the level of sociotechnical regimes, their role to develop ethical consumption on a large scale relates largely to existing structures/relations of power. This regards resource distribution, opportunities to pose new regulations, controlling markets, financial flows and international trade relations, investment in new technologies and materials, controlling media and making room for public debate, and providing public education. All these factors can prevent or enable the normalizing of novel ethical consumption practices.

When it comes to the creation and spread of ethical consumption initiatives, regimes and niches are not the only underlying elements. Geels argues that niche innovations will not spread widely unless external landscape developments create pressures on the regime, destabilize it, and then create space for novelties ( Geels, 2005 ). Therefore, a synergetic mode between macro factors and micro initiatives facilitates the deconstruction of the nested regimes and the construction of new ones. For instance, a landscape change as the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted many conventional practices, has been seen to provide a window of opportunity for more “mindful consumption”, in which issues of health and environmental protection are considered more among broad segments of consumers and less demand for transportation due to the possibilities of a more homebound life ( Boström, 2021 ; Echegaray et al ., 2021 ). However, landscape-level factors can appear as obstacles as well. For example, poverty in all its forms doesn’t allow deprived people to (re)form their consumption practices aligned to the routinized consumption practices or niche novelties. A number of studies moreover indicate that “privileged groups” in terms of higher-income levels and more education are more likely to be ethical/political consumers ( e.g . Salonen, 2021 ).The above discussion shows there is a dialectical process between the levels. That is, to normalize a new practice both niches and regimes need each other, facilitated by broad landscape movements in the early stage, knowledge and information that consumers obtain from formal or informal learning environments are critical to developing niche ethical consumption practices. The perceived meaning of ethical consumption among niches, the skills and competencies that they obtain being an ethical consumer and the materials that are given to equip them in doing ethical consumption practices, are all generated in part through the sociotechnical regimes that surround them as well as by overarching landscape change such as digitalization, democratization and the like. At the same time, gradual or rapid changes in consumption patterns could trigger different forms of reforms within existing regimes to meet those changes. For instance, protein shift 6 , which has increased in popularity recently, either because of ethical concerns (animal welfare) or health issues, could bring changes in sociotechnical regimes to synch policy, regulations, market and norms with this new trend. While such dynamics implicates the interdependencies of ethical consumption practices on one another, it also indicates how they can be embedded in particular sociotechnical regimes ( Keller et al ., 2022 ), including how they are benefited from specific policies. For example, Wahlen & Dubuisson-Quellier (2018: 8) discuss policy instruments that promote consumer awareness through education and information, while at the same time arguing that policy measures should address a collective dimension of sustainability practices, for instance informed by SPT. Geels et al. (2015) argue that dispersed niche practices are less likely to be developed to the broader scale of meso-level unless taking advantage of broad learning processes and social network building ( Geels et al ., 2015 ). In a social structure that through different ways (i.e., media debates, civil society organizations, alternative markets and labaling) make consumers becoming aware and informed regarding consumption-related issues, practitioners are more likely to broadly engage in ethical consumption and have better know-how skills to implement it. This reading also challenges the psychological and marketing approaches that advocate consumer sovereignty to make wide-range changes in unsustainable consumption cultures. Such processes can be referred to as a sort of teleoaffective understanding that makes ethical consumption meaningful. Teleoaffective understanding integrates practices through goals and the meanings that practitioners perceive and carry out. It means that through practical intelligibility, practitioners carry on actions that make sense to them ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ) and are doable. Desires, beliefs and expectations are examples of teleoaffectivity ( Schatzki, 2001 ) that help to create a general understanding of the subject. In the ethical consumption context, practitioners may organize themselves into an overarching cultural formation via development of a common understanding. In the lack of such understanding (culture, teloaffectivity), this phenomenon can only remain as a dispersed practice among individual practitioners and cannot spread to a large scale.

5. Conclusion

This article discusses the importance of a multilevel and intertwined understanding of ethical consumption given its conjunction with other social practices. Social Practice theory, by understanding consumption as a multifaceted practice and interconnected to other social practices offers a promising perspective to studying consumption practices. However, this article argues that although this is a useful approach to theorizing consumption practices, it is not sufficient to shed light on all aspects of a phenomenon such as ethical consumption, which is a very context-related concept. We argue that ethical consumption should be understood as a practice interrelated to other ones and associated with different levels of agency and structure. Therefore, it needs to be analysed by applying a form of multilevel perspective. Even if the role of meso-factors is recognized in various studies, we believe they tend to be too much taken for granted. The different extent, shapes, and ways of ethical consumption practices throughout the world illustrate the importance of not bracketing factors relating to ‘landscape’ and ‘sociotechnical regimes’. Putting ethically oriented consumption into practice requires structural, including infrastructural possibilities. In the literature on ethical consumption, which is mainly West-oriented, there is insufficient attention to social and structural obstacles that make it very demanding and costly (more than in an economic sense) to be involved in such niche innovations. There is great potential for future research to uncover a variety of structural obstacles in different geographic and sector-wise contexts, which limit the spread and upscaling of ethical consumption.

Following the above conclusion, and drawing on recent research ( Keller et al. , 2022 ; Laakso et al. , 2021 ) that refer to the critical role of tensions among niche and regime practices in understanding sustainability transitions, we have suggested that ethical consumption practices are developed and organized through dialectical processes within a multi-level context. That is, although ethical consumption can be perceived in terms of a “general understanding” in a horizontal conjunction with other practices ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ; Welch, 2020 ), the system of practices must also be understood as shaped along a vertical dimension. To put it simply, the structure of sociotechnical regimes in every society and their associated practices open spaces for local forms of ethical consumption, and these local forms may in turn trigger change of structure on ‘higher’ levels in the long run. By acknowledging such interplay, we can better grasp the conditions for organizing and upscaling ethical consumption practices in different sectors/sets of practices (e.g., food, clothing, energy) and countries around the world. Attention to such multi-level dynamics shows that every form of ethical consumption practice can simultaneously challenge and rely on existing regimes. This approach opens up many possibilities for further studies, and we can here end with indicating just a few. For example, the more known forms of ethical consumption (boycotting, buycotting, discursive ethical consumption and ethical consumption lifestyle) could be fruitfully studied within the combined framework of MLP and SPT, which provide a good analytical platform for the study on how ethical consumption both shape and are shaped by contextual circumstances. This apply also to the study how niche initiatives can be upscaled and (or fail to) become mainstream, and even set off change processes on the regime and landscape level. Studies could also focus how these forms of ethical consumption are indirectly affected by other practice changes, for instance in areas such as food, mobility, commuting, housing, shopping, and how these in turn relate to broader changes on the regime or landscape level. Studies can contribute with further insights by studying how landscape change (e.g. the Covid-19 pandemic, political (de)stabilisations, cost crises due to conflicts, digitalization, etc) and sociotechnical regimes in different social contexts (re)generate, hold and/or perish a variety of practices in such consumption areas, which in turn impact on the prospect of integrating ethical consideration in the practices. This also applies to the study of social movements and teleoaffective formation surrounding ethical consumption. Another interesting focus for further studies would be to study how different systems of provision in sectors like energy, mobility, housing, food, etc, here understood as socio-technical regimes, facilitate or obstruct ethical considerations in consumers’ practices (see Boström et al. , 2019 for examples). Finally, we see a great potential for future studies to study the material and non-material costs of developing ethical consumption within specific socio-political regimes; that is, in different countries and regions throughout the world with very contrasting political cultures, economies, welfare arrangements and conditions for democratic dialogue.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability statement

Underlying data.

No underlying data are associated with this article.

1 About similarities and differences between the SPT and MLP and the advantages of co-employing them in consumption-related topics see Keller et al . (2022)

2 similar concept is political consumption. See The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism Edited by Boström et al . (2019) .

3 It doesn’t mean that we overlook the possibility of the creation of different versions of ethical consumption worldwide.

4 Middle East and North Africa

5 Similar to what happened against the Apartheid regime in South Africa, there are also examples of international boycott campaigns that have mobilized people through market-based strategies to act against oppressive regimes (for more examples see Boström et al ., 2019 ).

6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/research_by_area/documents/2020.2057_en_05.pdf

•   Adams C, Zutshi A: Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act Responsibly and Be Accountable. Australian Accounting Review. 2004; 14 (34): 31–39. Publisher Full Text
•   Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50 (2): 179–211. Publisher Full Text
•   Bagozzi RP: The Poverty of Economic Explanations of Consumption and an Action Theory Alternative. Manage Decis Econ. 2000; 21 (3–4): 95–109. Publisher Full Text
•   Belk R, Devinney T, Eckhardt G: Consumer Ethics Across Cultures. Consum Mark Cult. 2005; 8 (3): 275–289. Publisher Full Text
•   Berki-Kiss D, Menrad K: Ethical consumption: Influencing factors of consumer's intention to purchase Fairtrade roses. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy. 2022; 2 : 100008. Publisher Full Text
•   Boström M: The social life of mass and excess consumption. Environmental Sociology. 2020; 6 (3): 268–278. Publisher Full Text
•   Boström M: Take the Opportunity Afforded by the COVID-19 Experiences: Progressive Non-growth Policies for Sustainable Lifestyles. Front Sustain. 2021; 2 : 726320. Publisher Full Text
•   Boström M, Karlsson M: Responsible Procurement, complex product chains and the integration of vertical and horizontal governance. Environmental Policy and Governance. 2013; 23 (6): 381–394. Publisher Full Text
•   Boström M, Klintman M: Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism. London; Palgrave Macmillian, 2011.
•   Boström M, Micheletti M, Oosterveer P: Studying Political Consumerism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press, 2019; 1–24. Publisher Full Text
•   Carrigan M, Attalla A: The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J Consum Mark. 2001; 18 (7): 560–578. Publisher Full Text
•   Carrigan M, Szmigin I, Wright J: Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. J Consum Mark. 2004; 21 (6): 401–417. Publisher Full Text
•   Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ: 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. J Bus Ethics. 2010; 97 (1): 139–158. Publisher Full Text
•   de Moor J, Balsiger P: Political Consumerism in Northwestern Europe. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press, 2019; 434–456. Publisher Full Text
•   de Pelsmacker P, Janssens W, Mielants C: CONSUMER VALUES AND FAIR-TRADE BELIEFS, ATTITUDES AND BUYING BEHAVIOUR. International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing. 2005; 2 (2): 50–69. Reference Source
•   Dubuisson-Quellier S: A Market Mediation Strategy: How Social Movements Seek to Change Firms’ Practices by Promoting New Principles of Product Valuation. Organization Studies. 2013; 34 (5–6): 683–703. Publisher Full Text
•   Echegaray F, Brachya V, Vergragt PJ, et al. : Sustainable Lifestyles after Covid-19. London: Routledge, 2021. Publisher Full Text
•   el Bilali H: The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. Agriculture. MDPI AG; 2019; 9 (4): 74. Publisher Full Text
•   Evans DM: After Practice? Material Semiotic Approaches to Consumption and Economy. Cultural Sociology. 2020; 14 (4): 340–356. Publisher Full Text
•   Fine B, Bayliss K: From addressing to redressing consumption: how the System of Provision approach helps. Consumption and Society. 2022; 1 (1): 197–206. Publisher Full Text
•   Forno F: Protest, Social Movements, and Spaces for Politically Oriented Consumerist Actions—Nationally, Transnationally, and Locally. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press, 2019; 68–88. Publisher Full Text
•   Freestone OM, McGoldrick PJ: Motivations of the ethical consumer. J Bus Ethics. 2008; 79 (4): 445–467. Publisher Full Text
•   Geels FW: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy. 2002; 31 (8–9): 1257–1274. Publisher Full Text
•   Geels FW: Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Elsevier B.V. 2019; 39 : 187–201. Publisher Full Text
•   Geels FW, McMeekin A, Mylan J, et al. : A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change. 2015; 34 : 1–12. Publisher Full Text
•   Geels IFW: The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860-1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2005; 17 (4): 445–476. Publisher Full Text
•   Gram-Hanssen K: Conceptualising ethical consumption within theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2021; 21 (3): 432–449. Publisher Full Text
•   Greene M: Socio-technical transitions and dynamics in everyday consumption practice. Global Environmental Change. 2018; 52 : 1–9. Publisher Full Text
•   Gundelach B: Political consumerism: A comparative analysis of established and developing democracies. International Political Science Review. 2020; 41 (2): 159–173. Publisher Full Text
•   Hargreaves T, Longhurst N, Seyfang G: Up, down, round and round: Connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environ Plan A. 2013; 45 (2): 402–420. Publisher Full Text
•   Heisserer B, Rau H: Capturing the consumption of distance? A practice-theoretical investigation of everyday travel. J Consum Cult. 2017; 17 (3): 579–599. Publisher Full Text
•   Hinrichs CC: Transitions to sustainability: A change in thinking about food systems change? Agric Human Values. 2014; 31 (1): 143–155. Publisher Full Text
•   Huddart Kennedy E, Baumann S, Johnston J: Eating for Taste and Eating for Change: Ethical Consumption as a High-Status Practice. Soc Forces. 2019; 98 (1): 381–402. Publisher Full Text
•   Hughes A, McEwan C, Bek D: Mobilizing the ethical consumer in South Africa. Geoforum. 2015; 67 : 148–157. Publisher Full Text
•   Hysing E: Government engagment with political consumerism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press, 2019; 833–854. Publisher Full Text
•   Jacobsen E, Dulsrud A: Will consumers save the world? The framing of political consumerism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2007; 20 (5): 469–482. Publisher Full Text
•   Kantamaturapoj K, Thongplew N, Wibulpolprasert S: Facilitating Political Consumerism in an Emerging Economy: The Case of Political Consumerism in Thailand. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press, 2019; 603–622. Publisher Full Text
•   Keller M, Sahakian M, Hirt LF: Connecting the multi-level-perspective and social practice approach for sustainable transitions. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 2022; 44 : 14–28. Publisher Full Text
•   Koos S: What drives political consumption in Europe? a multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. Acta Sociol. 2012; 55 (1): 37–57. Publisher Full Text
•   Laakso S, Aro R, Heiskanen E, et al. : Reconfigurations in sustainability transitions: a systematic and critical review. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy. 2021; 17 (1): 15–31. Publisher Full Text
•   Lei Z, Liu W, Oosterveer P: Institutional Changes and Changing Political Consumerism in China. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press, 2019; 582–602. Publisher Full Text
•   Marsden T: From post-productionism to reflexive governance: Contested transitions in securing more sustainable food futures. J Rural Stud. 2013; 29 : 123–134. Publisher Full Text
•   McMeekin A, Southerton D: Sustainability transitions and final consumption: Practices and socio-technical systems. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2012; 24 (4): 345–361. Publisher Full Text
•   Nicolini D: Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organ Stud. 2009; 30 (12): 1391–1418. Publisher Full Text
•   Oosterveer P, Glin L, Micheletti M: Tracing Political Consumerism in Africa and the Middle East. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press, 2019; 558–582. Publisher Full Text
•   Portilho F, Micheletti M: Politicizing Consumption in Latin America. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press, 2019; 538–558. Publisher Full Text
•   Rinkinen J, Shove E, Marsden G: Conceptualising demand: A distinctive approach to consumption and practice. Routledge, 2020. Publisher Full Text
•   Salonen AS: ‘If I could afford an avocado every day’: Income differences and ethical food consumption in a world of abundance. J Consum Cult. 2021. Publisher Full Text
•   Schatzki T: Introduction: practice theory. In: T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina and E. Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory . London: Routledge, 2001; 10–23. Reference Source
•   Shove E: Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A. 2010; 42 (6): 1273–1285. Publisher Full Text
•   Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M: The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012. Publisher Full Text
•   Slingerland M, Schut M: Jatropha developments in Mozambique: Analysis of structural conditions influencing niche-regime interactions. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2014; 6 (11): 7541–7563. Publisher Full Text
•   Spaargaren G, Oosterveer P, Loeber A: Food Practices in Transition Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. In: ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITIONS. 2012. Reference Source
•   Stern PC: New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56 (3): 407–424. Publisher Full Text
•   Stolle D, Micheletti M: Political consumerism: Global resposibility in action. Cambridge University Press. 2013. Publisher Full Text
•   Sudbury-Riley L, Kohlbacher F: Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. J Bus Res. 2016; 69 (8): 2697–2710. Publisher Full Text
•   Toti JF, Moulins JL: How to measure ethical consumption behaviors ? RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise. 2016; 24 (5): 45. Publisher Full Text
•   van Kesteren R, Evans A: Cooking without thinking: How understanding cooking as a practice can shed new light on inequalities in healthy eating. Appetite. 2020; 147 : 104503. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•   Wahlen S, Dubuisson-Quellier S: Consumption Governance Toward More Sustainable Consumption. J Fam Consum Sci. 2018; 110 (1): 7–12. Publisher Full Text
•   Warde A: After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2014; 14 (3): 279–303. Publisher Full Text
•   Watson M: How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J Transp Geogr. 2012; 24 : 488–496. Publisher Full Text
•   Welch D: Consumption and teleoaffective formations: Consumer culture and commercial communications. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2020; 20 (1): 61–82. Publisher Full Text
•   Welch D, Warde A: Theories of Practice and Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015; 84–100. Publisher Full Text
•   Wooliscroft B, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft A, Noone A: The Hierarchy of Ethical Consumption Behavior: The Case of New Zealand. J Macromarketing. 2014; 34 (1): 57–72. Publisher Full Text
•   Zaikauskaitė L, Butler G, Helmi NFS, et al. : Hunt-Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics Predicts "Attitude-Behaviour" Gap in Pro-environmental Domain. Front Psychol. 2022; 13 : 732661. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open peer review.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: consumption and theories of practice

• Respond or Comment
• COMMENT ON THIS REPORT

Reviewer Expertise: Ethical consumption, social movement studies, economic sociology

• First, some improvements could be made in the presentation of the relevant literature. While the authors present evidence for the prominence of studies on ethical consumption using an individual (and often psychological) perspective, there are studies in this realm that are more attentive to context (without using SPT or MLP). For instance, scholars putting forward the importance of social movements as a meso-level context, or the significance of supply. This is discussed widely in de Moor & Balsiger (2019).  
• A second critique concerns section 3 of the article (Ethical consumption in different contexts). This section does show studies from geographically dispersed contexts showing how ethical consumption often follows different logics and functions quite differently. However, the impression appears that sometimes, the differences pointed out are more due to the scholarly interests and foci of the different scholars. For instance, the role of public policies in driving ethical consumption has also been highlighted for European contexts (see Dubuisson-Quellier et al. , 2016 1 and Wahlen and Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 2 ) – not just in Latin America.  
• Third, the paper is quite uneven with regard to its dual objective of advocating for the usefulness of SPT and MLP. It does present both of them in part 2 (without however discussing their compatibility), but then in the more illustrative parts (especially section 4), the discussion concerns almost exclusively the multi-level perspective. It might be better to focus the paper solely on the MLP, since this is already a little bit the case in terms of focus, and since it is theoretically quite dense otherwise.  
• Fourth, in terms of the integration of the MLP in the study of ethical consumption, the paper makes some very valuable suggestions of the potential contributions of this. These could be presented more systematically. There is in particular the double question of a) how socio-technical regimes constrain and fashion the development of ethical consumption practices, and b) how ethical consumption niches can spread and change landscapes and regimes.

Is the topic of the essay discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?

Is the work clearly and cogently presented?

Is the argument persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence?

Does the essay contribute to the cultural, historical, social understanding of the field?

• First, some improvements could be made in the presentation of the relevant literature. While the authors present evidence for the prominence of studies on ethical consumption using an individual (and often psychological) perspective, there are studies in this realm that are more attentive to context (without using SPT or MLP). For instance, scholars putting forward the importance of social movements as a meso-level context, or the significance of supply. This is discussed widely in de Moor & Balsiger (2019).
• A second critique concerns section 3 of the article (Ethical consumption in different contexts). This section does show studies from geographically dispersed contexts showing how ethical consumption often follows different logics and functions quite differently. However, the impression appears that sometimes, the differences pointed out are more due to the scholarly interests and foci of the different scholars. For instance, the role of public policies in driving ethical consumption has also been highlighted for European contexts (see Dubuisson-Quellier  et al. , 2016 1  and Wahlen and Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 2 ) – not just in Latin America.
• Third, the paper is quite uneven with regard to its dual objective of advocating for the usefulness of SPT  and  MLP. It does present both of them in part 2 (without however discussing their compatibility), but then in the more illustrative parts (especially section 4), the discussion concerns almost exclusively the multi-level perspective. It might be better to focus the paper solely on the MLP, since this is already a little bit the case in terms of focus, and since it is theoretically quite dense otherwise.
• Finally, and building on the above point, since the paper advocates for the use of SPT and MLP in the study of ethical consumption, it might be useful to have some kind of a research agenda at the end. To suggest a number of research avenues and questions such a theoretical approach implies.
• First, part of the literature already referenced in the paper has suggested to stay within SPT and from there find ways of including more overarching phenomena, including using the concept of Teleoaffective Formations (Welch 2020), the concept of General Understandings (Gram-Hanssen 2021) or discussions of how SPT relates to wider economic process (Evans, 2020). We think the paper would be highly improved if the authors went more into dialogue with these papers and their different attempts to close the gaps in SPT, before arguing for a move to include MLP.  
• Second, many authors have before this paper sought to combine SPT and MLP, as the authors of this paper also acknowledge. However, we miss a more thorough discussion on what is achieved by this combination and which problems it raises. The paper by Keller et al. 2022, has some relevant discussions on this, which we think this paper should go more into dialogue with.  
• Third, specifically (and related to the Keller et al. paper) a discussion on combining MLP and SPT with each other needs to be included, as most of the leading authors of SPT would argue that SPT is a flat ontology which is not the case with the levels of MLP. This is in our view not an argument for not discussing the gains of combining the approaches, however, the authors need to go into this discussion, at least to show they are aware of it, and how they suggest to overcome it, or work with it.
• First, part of the literature already referenced in the paper has suggested to stay within SPT and from there find ways of including more overarching phenomena, including using the concept of Teleoaffective Formations (Welch 2020), the concept of General Understandings (Gram-Hanssen 2021) or discussions of how SPT relates to wider economic process (Evans, 2020). We think the paper would be highly improved if the authors went more into dialogue with these papers and their different attempts to close the gaps in SPT, before arguing for a move to include MLP.
• Second, many authors have before this paper sought to combine SPT and MLP, as the authors of this paper also acknowledge. However, we miss a more thorough discussion on what is achieved by this combination and which problems it raises. The paper by Keller  et al.  2022, has some relevant discussions on this, which we think this paper should go more into dialogue with.
• Third, specifically (and related to the Keller  et al.  paper) a discussion on combining MLP and SPT with each other needs to be included, as most of the leading authors of SPT would argue that SPT is a flat ontology which is not the case with the levels of MLP. This is in our view not an argument for not discussing the gains of combining the approaches, however, the authors need to go into this discussion, at least to show they are aware of it, and how they suggest to overcome it, or work with it.

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Reviewer Reports

• Kirsten Gram-Hanssen , Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Line Kryger Aagaard , Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
• Philip Balsiger , University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Comments on this article

All Comments (0)

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:

• Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
• You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
• You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
• You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
• You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
• You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
• You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.

Stay Updated

Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles

Register with Open Research Europe

Already registered? Sign in

Not now, thanks

Stay Informed

If you are funded by a Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe or Euratom grant, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Open Research Europe.

For details on how your data are used and stored, see our privacy policy .

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Open Research Europe

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Open Res Eur
• PMC10445865

• PMC10445865.1 ; 2022 Sep 13
• ➤ PMC10445865.2; 2022 Dec 21

Ethical consumption: why should we understand it as a social practice within a multilevel framework?

Sara karimzadeh.

1 School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Örebro, 701 82, Sweden

Magnus Boström

Associated data, underlying data.

No underlying data are associated with this article.

1 About similarities and differences between the SPT and MLP and the advantages of co-employing them in consumption-related topics see Keller et al . (2022)

2 similar concept is political consumption. See The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism Edited by Boström et al . (2019) .

3 It doesn’t mean that we overlook the possibility of the creation of different versions of ethical consumption worldwide.

4 Middle East and North Africa

5 Similar to what happened against the Apartheid regime in South Africa, there are also examples of international boycott campaigns that have mobilized people through market-based strategies to act against oppressive regimes (for more examples see Boström et al ., 2019 ).

6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/research_by_area/documents/2020.2057_en_05.pdf

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 1.

We would like to appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions that we received from reviewers. As a response to reviewers' comments, this second version provides more clarifications on the following key issues raised by the reviewres: first we have developed more concise arguments explaining why the multilevel perspective can enhance the understanding of the formation of ethical consumption; second, we explain the difference between flat and veritical ontology; and lastly, we have included some suggestions for future research.

Peer Review Summary

This article discusses the importance of a multilevel and intertwined understanding of ethical consumption given its conjunction with other social practices. Although the literature on ethical consumption is vast, the role of sociotechnical regimes including technological and cultural elements, infrastructure, market and regulation has been mainly overlooked in this literature. This may be so because ethical consumption practices that refer to other-oriented consumption practices are mainly considered in the view of the motivations and preferences of individual consumers. Due to the insufficiency of individualistic approaches in explaining stimulators and inhibitors of ethical consumption, there might be “various constraints” and “competing demands” in society which limit the formation of "ethical consumption". Therefore, to avoid an oversimplified view of ethical consumption, this paper contributes with a theoretical discussion on combining social practice theory (SPT) with a multi-level perspective (MLP). Although the SPT is a very well-structured framework in consumption studies, the necessity of a combined approach concerns the often-insufficient attention paid to structural prerequisites of various consumption forms in social practice theories. By understanding ethical consumption practices according to a multi-level framework, the paper emphasizes the importance of structural factors at macro- and mesolevels. It also contributes attention to how ethical consumption grows due to dialectical processes between levels, showing that niche practices can simultaneously challenge and rely on existing regimes.

1. Introduction

Studying consumption as a social phenomenon that represents the fabric of society has opened a broad research space for social practice theory (SPT) in consumption studies in the recent decades. It is well recognized in SPT studies that we ought to lift the sight from the individual as a unit of analysis towards that of social practices in the socio-material surrounding. We agree with this but find that social structure and culture on ‘higher’ levels still often get insufficient attention. In line with this, several scholars have suggested combining the SPT and multi-level perspective (MLP) to advance the understanding of sustainability in general 1 ( el Bilali, 2019 ; Hargreaves et al ., 2013 ; Hinrichs, 2014 ; Keller et al ., 2022 ; Laakso et al. , 2021 ; McMeekin & Southerton, 2012 ; Spaargaren et al ., 2012 ; Watson, 2012 ; Welch & Warde, 2015 ). In one recent systematic review, Keller et al. (2022) point out that the main empirical focuses of such a combined analytical framework to date had included practices in niche innovations, energy, food and agriculture, mobility, water and housing. This method of understanding can be extended to the study of ethical consumption, which is a partly overlapping phenomenon. Ethical consumption 2 refers to a set of consumption practices that are shaped by societal and environmental concerns related to green issues, workers’ rights and conditions, child labour, unfair trade, resource degradation, irresponsible marketing, animal testing, and oppressive regimes ( Berki-Kiss & Menrad, 2022 ; Carrigan et al ., 2004 ; Carrington et al ., 2010 ; de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ; Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008 ; Huddart Kennedy et al ., 2019 ; Wooliscroft et al ., 2014 ). However, it remains contested how the representations of the phenomenon are formed and actualized in different societies and among different people. A great bulk of the literature on ethical consumption, particularly such inspired by marketing and psychological models, has tended to investigate the impacts of individual factors such as values, preferences and motives ( de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ; Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008 ; Shove, 2010 ; and Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ). For example, in a recent study, Berki-Kiss & Menrad (2022) , suggest that consumer knowledge, attitude and emotions are significant factors to push consumers to purchase agricultural non-food (fairtrade cut roses) ethical products ( Berki-Kiss & Menrad, 2022 ). Likewise, through investigating research models on consumption behaviour, Carrington et al. (2010) indicate that ethical purchasing intentions are mainly driven by factors such as personal values, moral norms, mental processes and internal ethics ( Carrington et al ., 2010 ). Can we claim that these factors are merely individual factors? Can we see consumers as autonomous and independent actors in social structures? However, the remarkable “intention-behaviour gap” among ethical consumers’ ( Belk et al ., 2005 ; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001 ; Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ) indicates there might be “various constraints” in society and “competing demands” to hamper consumers from acting ethically ( Carrington et al ., 2010 ). In order to avoid oversimplifying consumer behaviour to linear psychological models ( Bagozzi, 2000 ) (like the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB); and Value-Belief-Norm (VBN)), it is important to understand ethical consumption as a context-dependent phenomenon ( Zaikauskaitė et al ., 2022 ) that is influenced by social structures, technical infrastructures, available knowledge, culture, public policies and social norms (see e.g. Boström et al. , 2019 ; Hysing, 2019 ; Wahlen & Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 ). People, government, and businesses are, according to Stolle & Micheletti (2013) , the pillars of social change through consumption practices, whereas de Moor & Balsiger (2019) highlight the role of social movement organizations for initiating forms of consumption such as ethical consumption. Thus, we suggest placing ethical consumption at the intersection of two analytical frameworks, social practice theory and the multilevel perspective for two reasons: first to take into consideration a set of interrelated elements in different levels (micro, meso and micro) influencing ethically oriented consumption practices; and second to generate deepened understanding of the phenomenon. This is an attempt to uncover why for example, ethical consumption appears more institutionalized, broad-spread and easily available in some societies like north-western European countries ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ) but not in others 3 .

Social practice theory is a theoretical upgrade in consumption studies that would be useful in the study of ethical consumption and in filling gaps in the scholarship. This theory introduces a proper framework for consumption studies by making interconnections between the roles of material, meaning and competencies in the creation of practices ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ). It argues that people’s actions are influenced by their socio-material context, what they understand and receive from their environment, as well as their obligation toward others ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ; Rinkinen et al ., 2020 ). Although by emphasizing mainly everyday life, the SPT has opened a broad theoretical area to consumption studies, key analytical critiques concern its insufficient attention paid to macro- or structural pre-requisite of various consumption forms ( Keller et al ., 2022 ; Greene, 2018 ; Welch, 2020 ), and “supply side dynamics (like firms, innovation systems, technical capabilities” ( Geels et al ., 2015 : p. 10). Also, the power issue and role of macro-scale social inequalities in the formation of daily routines are almost absent in its endeavours to theorize consumption practices ( Geels et al ., 2015 ; van Kesteren & Evans, 2020 ). A greater theoretical lens that gives a broader picture of the formation of ethical consumption will enrich our sociological understanding of the systemic and structural factors that delimit ethical consumption agency or (re)define it according to the specific sociotechnical context. It also helps to shed light on the phenomenon from different angles. The need is even more urgent if we want to address, for instance, firstly the very different conditions for ethical consumption practices in different geographical contexts, and secondly, newly established forms of consumption practices that are mainly associated with the structural attributes of the society in question. Therefore, understanding ethical consumption as practices that come about in multi-level frameworks, this paper provides a deeper conceptual insight into the social (im)possibilities of the formation of ethical consumption. It also contributes attention to how ethical consumption grows due to dialectical processes between levels, which also helps to avoid the tendency of overly individualized perspectives on ethical consumption.

The next section, by introducing the SPT and MLP, briefly discusses some late conceptual developments aiming to broaden the analytical power of SPT; the insufficiency of such development if not a broader analytical lens such as MLP framework is included; and how the SPT and MLP can mutually enrich a developed analytical perspective regarding ethical consumption. Section three provides examples of ethical consumption in different sociotechnical regimes across the world. Section four discusses the configuration of ethical consumption within social regimes and also the dialectics between the levels in forming ethical consumption practices. This section is followed by the conclusion and suggestions for future research avenues.

2. SPT and MLP: a combined perspective to explain the routinization and upscaling process of newly emerged consumption practices

By following insights gained from MLP ( Geels, 2002 ) and recent scholarship, ethical consumption can be considered as a complex multilevel phenomenon “which involves more than an individual’s behaviour and practices” ( Boström et al ., 2019 : p. 4). Applying a multi-level analysis frame is a way to understand how practices are formed within a pre-given set of heterogeneous elements such as norms, conventions, infrastructures, knowledge, technology and other structural conditions like systems of provision associated with consumption practices in different levels of society. Despite the possible conflicts and tensions, practices evolve due to interdependencies and interconnections among these elements ( Boström et al ., 2019 ) and are reflected in social practices like consumption.

To understand social practices as a combination of elements, a useful and much-cited framework in consumption studies is the one suggested by Shove et al. (2012) . They argue that a specific practice occurs through specific connections between three components: 1) materials and technology (artefacts, infrastructures, and hardware); 2) meanings (images, understandings, feelings, mental activities, emotions and motivational knowledge); and 3) competencies and skills (background knowledge, know-how, general understanding) ( Shove et al ., 2012 ). According to this, in the context of ethical consumption, the alignment of the meaning of ethical consumption (a culture of caring for the environment, community and society; that is, caring attitudes), competencies (how to do and develop this protection) and material (infrastructures and technologies that make this opportunity available for people, including market products) navigate this practice. Co-evolution between meaning, material and competencies may lead to a transition in (or transformation of) practices. In the absence of one of these elements, the ethical consumption practice would not be able to attract broader groups of practitioners in society. In other words, an external intervention to bring in new technology (material) or spread new knowledge and education (competence), along with supporting communities of practitioners that try to change conventions and norms (meanings) through niche innovations, may lead to a social shift that eventually is followed up by practice change. In comparison to previous research, social practice theory has undergone gradual conceptual developments to address neglected aspects such as culture, ethics of care, motivations and affectivity to understand the formation of practice (e.g. Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ; Welch, 2020 ). For example, Gram-Hanssen argues that variation in consumer practices and the way that ‘ethics takes part in changing practices’ can contribute to further developing theories of practice (2021: 1). She suggests that socioeconomic and demographic factors such as gender, life course and class must be considered in understanding the elements of practice theories, i.e., material possessions, competency and meaning. She also brings attention to the variety of “general understanding” of ethics among different people and in different fields like food, mobility, housing, or waste. A general understanding can operate on both discursive and more tacit (pre-reflexive) levels of knowing. In the case of ethics and consumption, such understanding may involve both more explicit ethical codes/principles (as “taking care of”) and appear in more mundane situations in everyday life (as “caring for”). Ethics in consumer practices can be seen as a general understanding of “threading through many different practices, depending on the specific context and situation” ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 : 13). Similarly, by introducing the concept of ‘teleoaffective formation’, Welch (2020) offers a configurational concept within the SPT to understand (sustainable) consumption practices in a nexus composed of general understandings of material, economic and aesthetic relationships. And Evans contributes insights into how various material semiotic approaches can link consumer practices to wider economic processes around commodification, production, distribution, and exchange ( Evans, 2020 ). All these insights are welcome development within or close to SPT that help to pay analytic attention to more overarching social phenomena in the area of ethical consumption. Nonetheless, the MLP could progress further as it is not constrained by the ‘flat ontology’ of the SPT and address attention to a further span of factors like that of specific sociotechnical regimes of society. To better cover these too often neglected aspects in the study of ethical consumption, we believe we can better understand the function and interconnectivity of different factors in shaping interlocked practices such as ethical consumption through a multilevel framework. A key problem of combining the two approaches is that SPT is said to be based on a flat ontology whereas MLP relies on a vertical ontology (see Keller et al. , 2022 ). Our argument as regards ontological assumptions is more in line with the latter, but we do not think this would invalidate the core insights from SPT. Rather, as emphasized by Keller et al. (2002) , there are many ways these can be fruitfully combined (e.g. zooming out and zooming out, combining horizontal and vertical analysis; interactions/intersections among regimes/practices).

According to Geels (2002) , the MLP provides a multi-layer analysis that sees sustainable practices as the result of the dialectic interaction between three levels of the micro (niche), meso (sociotechnical regimes), and macro (landscape). In this framework, the micro level refers to the spaces where innovative activities led by niches take place on small scales. The meso level, consisting of regimes, refers to the existing sociotechnical systems including the network of actors and social groups, rules and related technical and material elements. Finally, the macro level or landscape includes a set of external heterogeneous events and trends such as cultural changes, macroeconomic trends, wars and crises, pandemics like COVID-19, climate change, etc . The MLP locates technological and organizational innovations at the center of its analysis and argues that broader sociotechnical, economic and political contexts create more or less favourable circumstances for such innovation ( McMeekin & Southerton, 2012 ). In this perspective, regimes are home to incremental innovations whereas radical innovations are generated in niches. However, change of dominant practices rarely happens without a level of co-evolution of all three levels.

To have a better insight into the gains of applying a combined framework of the social practice theories and the MLP in understanding ethical consumption, in the following paragraph, according to deficiencies of each theory, we shortly discuss why such a combined framework may be a constructive approach to understand how ethical consumption can be developed among broader group of audiences. This heuristic combination also targets critical factors that SPT and MLP lack in their explanations regarding consumption-related practices. Even though practice theorists do speak of how practices are embedded in socio-material arrangements in society, there is arguably insufficient attention paid on larger scales. Welch & Warde (2015; 12–13) raise several criticisms of the SPT, one of those criticisms is particularly the focus of this study: social practice theories fail in relating the “minutiae of everyday performances of practices and the macro-institutional context ”. Considering niche dynamics as fluid novelties that are created at the micro-level and which might be obstructed by incumbent regimes ( Keller et al ., 2022 ), we argue that more attention needs to pay on how dispersed practices are able to expand to a wider range through supportive mechanisms at the meso-level ( i.e . civic groups, environmental groups) and moreover shape and reshape the macro-level setting (while at the same time being shaped by macro-level factors). Furthermore, by locating ethical consumption practices in the social context and considering their interconnectivity to other practices ( e.g . food practices, cleaning practices, commuting, etc .), we argue there is a need to take into consideration different forms and perceptions of the phenomenon that are created in accordance with the specific contextual situations (geography, sector-wise). Broad contextual factors include material and technological development ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ; Warde, 2014 ), economy including production ( Evans, 2020 ), the system of provision ( Fine & Bayliss, 2022 ) and political democratic culture and discourse ( Gundelach, 2020 ; Portilho & Micheletti, 2019 ). The advantage of the combination of the MLP and SPT in this context is to theorize in a deeper sense the structural conditions in terms of market, suppliers and producers’ networks, policies, technology, science and knowledge (MLP), and bring further attention to cultural features such as the importance of meaning and competencies embedded in the immediate social and physical context (SPT).

While the SPT pays insufficient attention to macro-institutional elements, the MLP could be criticized for over-emphasizing them by prioritizing the role of sociotechnical regimes. A critique of the MLP is that it appears to propose a technical-based, mechanistic and over-determined view ( Geels et al. , 2015 ; Hinrichs, 2014 ). However, we argue it is important with a perspective that recognizes that inertia is built into the system, and where nested regimes are stabilized and rarely undergo transformation. Yet, change is not deemed impossible, but we need to be more aware that moving towards sustainable/ethical consumption requires, in addition to technological changes, changes in consumer practices, cultural meanings, infrastructures, and economic practices as well ( Geels, 2019 ). “[T]echnology of itself, has no power, does nothing” ( Geels, 2002 : 1257) and therefore the significance of human agency and organizational structure in moving towards societal transformation must be considered.

3. Ethical consumption in different contexts

By broadly viewing ethical consumption in different contexts, it becomes even clearer how both ‘landscape’ and ‘sociotechnical regimes’ shape conditions for (the organizing of) ethical consumption practices. It is mainly emphasized that ethical consumers “talk” through their consumption choices (read power) to buy or refrain from purchasing goods or services which do or do not meet their ethical criteria when it comes to social and/or environmental standards ( de Pelsmacker et al ., 2005 ). Although following this argument looks plausible in “open market” in “democratic” countries it is unclear whether this seemingly simple definition is feasible in every socio-political and/or sociotechnical regime.

Figures of ethical consumption in the western contexts reveal that the extent of ethical/political consumption in comparison to both non-Western Europe and non-European contexts is very high ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; Koos, 2012 ). In addition to the explanations raised by the TPB ( Ajzen, 1991 ) and the VBN ( Stern, 2000 ) that generally represent the significance of individual factors ( i.e. consumers’ values, attitudes, subjective norms and knowledge), other plausible explanations, from sociological perspectives, relate to the relatively high level of welfare in the region along with the emergence of post-material values. Moreover, well-educated populations and free access to means of communication are two effective factors according to Boström et al . (2019) . This finding is in line with the Jacobsen & Dulsrud (2007) report that ethical consumption emerges in a more liberal world economy where new consumption forms are supported by non-governmental organizations, promote sovereign consumers’ ideas and provide alternative products and businesses ( Jacobsen & Dulsrud, 2007 ). Contrary to the nature of the phenomenon – which supposedly is to target governmental inefficiency pertaining pro-social and pro-environmental actions - interventions by both governmental and non-governmental actors play supportive role in the expansion of ethical consumption practices in the north-western countries. Examples include eco-labaling ( Boström & Klintman, 2011 ; Dubuisson-Quellier, 2013 ), how ethical criteria is incorporated in public procurement schemes ( Boström & Karlsson, 2013 ) and the encouragement to engage companies in “ethical competition” ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; 447). Erik Hysing (2019) demonstrates a range of different ways in how governments have shaped the institutional context, provided incentives, legitimized, and in other ways facilitated and integrated – and they can obviously also counteract – ethical (political) consumerism. Nevertheless, the west is not the exclusive home of ethical consumption. Comparative studies reveal the importance of historical and geographical factors in the formation of various ethical consumption patterns among different populations (see Boström et al ., 2019 ).

There are some studies uncovering different interpretations of ethical consumption in different geographies. Principles like justice, fairness, environmental protection, social solidarity and sustainability more broadly can appear in different ways and shapes. Hence, ethical consumption is a phenomenon that can be formed, realized, interpreted and demonstrated differently thanks to time, place, and circumstances. For example, in Africa, political/ethical consumption has been a response to the corrupted social and political system while in the MENA 4 region, consumption practices are greatly influenced by rapid economic transition, social development, democratic uprising, wars, political violence and religious contradictions ( Oosterveer et al ., 2019 ). Moreover, Hughes et al. (2015) brought up that in the context of Africa, “localized expression of ethical consumption” is essential in transformations on the supply-side ( Hughes et al ., 2015 ). Oosterveer et al . (2019) yet highlight the significance of the insufficient (social) base to explain the absence of ethical/political consumption in African and MENA countries. As regards Latin America, Portilho & Micheletti (2019) discussed the role of social movement struggles to push for a stronger state to regulate the market and revealed the significance of public policies and state regulation in promoting sustainable products and ethical consumption ( Portilho & Micheletti, 2019 ). In Thailand, there has been rapid industrialization, which has provided opportunities for social movements to encourage Thai consumers to influence consumption-related policymaking and participate in discussions, for instance via social media, about changed social practices ( Kantamaturapoj et al ., 2019 ). In China ( Lei et al. , 2019 ) argue that political/ethical consumption has its own characteristics and “consumer choices remain very much structured by governmental measures” ( Lei et al ., 2019: 599 ). Research indicates in social systems that provide a limited assortment of ethically framed goods and services the creation of such phenomena requires more creative and individualized initiatives ( de Moor & Balsiger, 2019 ; Koos, 2012 ). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is also a key factor in the promotion of ethical consumption ( Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016 ) due to its positive role in encouraging producers to produce under ethical standards (even though sometimes targeted for greenwashing and watered-down ethical standards) and facilitating choice infrastructures for consumers. However, the main focus here is associated with more infrastructural supply-side factors. In a social structure with transparent regulations and laws regarding the social responsibilities of cooperation, producers are obliged to reflect the interests of stakeholders like employees, investors and the environment in their actions and policies and it directs, in turn, consumers to ethical decisions ( Adams & Zutshi, 2004 ). Whereby corporations' policy to maximise their interest via CSR facilitates ethical decisions among consumers. From a multi-level perspective, in the lack of an efficient regulatory regime as well as technical and cultural support, CSR will prove insufficient to meet ethical consumers’ demands from the market.

Based on the knowledge of ethical consumption scholarship obtained from different social contexts, it becomes clear that ethical consumption must be considered as an intertwined phenomenon with sociotechnical regimes that shape market structures, laws and regulations, infrastructure and materials as well as culture and norms. Markets, governance structure and the settings of everyday life frame consumers’ decisions and practices ( Jacobsen & Dulsrud, 2007 ). Therefore, niche novelties regarding ethical consumption are created in and influenced by the given situation ( i.e ., available knowledge, systems of provision, alternative markets and democratic governances). Therefore, studying ethical consumption practices in the light of the multilevel perspective brings attention to how everyday practices are formed and changed within particular sociotechnical regimes. It should also be kept in mind that due to the niche’s capacity to fuel changes, any corporation or conflict between the elements of the micro and meso level can act as an assistance or obstacle to expanding niche novelties to more routinized and integrated practices.

4. Configuration of ethical consumption within multi-level interactions

When it comes to ethical consumption, niche innovations are often recognized as resistance to mainstream consumption and markets. Examples include asking for fair-waged, organic, and cruelty-free cosmetic and clothing products (buycotting), creating household initiatives to produce less waste or consume less energy, supporting local agriculture and products, and refusing from buying products or services with unfair work conditions or problematic production and distributing processes (boycotting). Some of these initiatives have become mainstream in some western societies, but appear radical, confrontative and/or illegal in several other contexts. Furthermore, decreasing the volumes of consumption, using second-hand stuff, and trying to challenge public attitudes by criticizing excessive consumerist lifestyles or encouraging other people to support eco-friendly and/or socio-friendly products (discursive ethical consumption) are other examples of mainly niche ethical consumption performances. These niche efforts are linked with efforts to, in the long run, reconfigure existing regimes ( Hargreaves et al ., 2013 ). This indicates that the embodiment of ethical initiatives in everyday life is conducted in sets of interdependencies within the different systems of provision, regimes and practices like eating, commuting, and cleaning. The concepts of zooming in and zooming out ( Keller et al ., 2022 ; Nicolini, 2009 ) can be related to each other as a tool to understand ethical consumption in the cross edge of regimes and embedded practices. While zooming in refers to deeper attention on mundane everyday practices, zooming out by adopting the bird’s eye could entail observing how ‘practices connect with each other’ ( Keller et al. , 2022 : 20) and on how sociotechnical regimes may integrate/separate different practices.

Niche practices, like various trends in ethical consumption, reflect perceived deficiencies in regimes and landscapes. Nevertheless, they are configured and developed within existing regimes’ capacities. Greene indicates that “a complex web of contextual processes including technological change, economic transitions and planning policies” are significant factors in the formation of consumption practices ( Greene, 2018 : 1). Therefore, one question that should be considered seriously relates to how socio-technical regimes constrain and fashion the development of ethical consumption practices. We argue that the formation of collective ethical consumption practices is contingent upon various determinants in sociotechnical regimes (e.i., policy, infrastructures, cultural meanings and conventions, markets, knowledge systems and (semi-) dominant discourse). Thus, ethical consumption practices can be deconstructed into their components by zooming in to better understand how these components are influenced, shaped, and reshaped by different regimes’ components (zooming out). Perceiving ethical consumption practices such as supporting fairtrade or fair paid products, waste segregation, collaborative consumption, ethical lifestyle, etc . as autonomous and independent novelties which are led only by individuals’ decisions and preferences misleads us in understanding the whole story of ethical consumption subject. Oosterveer et al . (2019: 135) indicate that “ethical consumption goes beyond individualistic choices” and relates to sociotechnical systems. This means that although niche innovations germinate separately among detached actors they are still being created inside the social setting and a level of regime support is necessary for their upscaling. For example, a regime may support a niche activity such as a boycott campaign either by providing space for democratic expression and media space for its promotion or by declaring new regulations and policies regarding the production processes that niche actors can rely on 5 . Furthermore, social movement campaigns can take advantage of the social and democratic space and support that is given to their claims and objectives ( Forno, 2019 ). All societies do not provide such opportunities for niches to pursue their novel objective on a bigger scale, but this knowledge is too often taken for granted in theorizing about the opportunities for niche practices to grow. Therefore, we need to be aware that although ethical consumption practices try to make changes in the existing regimes, they are at the same time created within the given opportunities in the same regimes, receiving support and targeting the very same system.

Nevertheless, sociotechnical regimes might have two edges: supportive or deterrent or a mix of both. In this vein, many niche dynamics have been oppressed or marginalized in many social regimes to date or at least had a very small chance to scale up. For example, Marsden (2013) points out some food niche initiatives that are marginalized in the nested food governance regimes and proposes the necessity of policy spaces to facilitate niche paths through multilevel regulations. Similarly, van Kesteren & Evans (2020) argue how socio-economic inequalities through delimiting the capacity of practitioners affect cooking practice in terms of competencies, materials and meaning. Therefore, structural conditions in terms of top-down governance, upstream policies, institutions, actor networks, capabilities and resources should be considered as enablers and constrainers in forming niche initiatives ( Boström, 2020 ; Slingerland & Schut, 2014 ). On the level of sociotechnical regimes, their role to develop ethical consumption on a large scale relates largely to existing structures/relations of power. This regards resource distribution, opportunities to pose new regulations, controlling markets, financial flows and international trade relations, investment in new technologies and materials, controlling media and making room for public debate, and providing public education. All these factors can prevent or enable the normalizing of novel ethical consumption practices.

When it comes to the creation and spread of ethical consumption initiatives, regimes and niches are not the only underlying elements. Geels argues that niche innovations will not spread widely unless external landscape developments create pressures on the regime, destabilize it, and then create space for novelties ( Geels, 2005 ). Therefore, a synergetic mode between macro factors and micro initiatives facilitates the deconstruction of the nested regimes and the construction of new ones. For instance, a landscape change as the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted many conventional practices, has been seen to provide a window of opportunity for more “mindful consumption”, in which issues of health and environmental protection are considered more among broad segments of consumers and less demand for transportation due to the possibilities of a more homebound life ( Boström, 2021 ; Echegaray et al ., 2021 ). However, landscape-level factors can appear as obstacles as well. For example, poverty in all its forms doesn’t allow deprived people to (re)form their consumption practices aligned to the routinized consumption practices or niche novelties. A number of studies moreover indicate that “privileged groups” in terms of higher-income levels and more education are more likely to be ethical/political consumers ( e.g . Salonen, 2021 ).The above discussion shows there is a dialectical process between the levels. That is, to normalize a new practice both niches and regimes need each other, facilitated by broad landscape movements in the early stage, knowledge and information that consumers obtain from formal or informal learning environments are critical to developing niche ethical consumption practices. The perceived meaning of ethical consumption among niches, the skills and competencies that they obtain being an ethical consumer and the materials that are given to equip them in doing ethical consumption practices, are all generated in part through the sociotechnical regimes that surround them as well as by overarching landscape change such as digitalization, democratization and the like. At the same time, gradual or rapid changes in consumption patterns could trigger different forms of reforms within existing regimes to meet those changes. For instance, protein shift 6 , which has increased in popularity recently, either because of ethical concerns (animal welfare) or health issues, could bring changes in sociotechnical regimes to synch policy, regulations, market and norms with this new trend. While such dynamics implicates the interdependencies of ethical consumption practices on one another, it also indicates how they can be embedded in particular sociotechnical regimes ( Keller et al ., 2022 ), including how they are benefited from specific policies. For example, Wahlen & Dubuisson-Quellier (2018: 8) discuss policy instruments that promote consumer awareness through education and information, while at the same time arguing that policy measures should address a collective dimension of sustainability practices, for instance informed by SPT. Geels et al. (2015) argue that dispersed niche practices are less likely to be developed to the broader scale of meso-level unless taking advantage of broad learning processes and social network building ( Geels et al ., 2015 ). In a social structure that through different ways (i.e., media debates, civil society organizations, alternative markets and labaling) make consumers becoming aware and informed regarding consumption-related issues, practitioners are more likely to broadly engage in ethical consumption and have better know-how skills to implement it. This reading also challenges the psychological and marketing approaches that advocate consumer sovereignty to make wide-range changes in unsustainable consumption cultures. Such processes can be referred to as a sort of teleoaffective understanding that makes ethical consumption meaningful. Teleoaffective understanding integrates practices through goals and the meanings that practitioners perceive and carry out. It means that through practical intelligibility, practitioners carry on actions that make sense to them ( Heisserer & Rau, 2017 ) and are doable. Desires, beliefs and expectations are examples of teleoaffectivity ( Schatzki, 2001 ) that help to create a general understanding of the subject. In the ethical consumption context, practitioners may organize themselves into an overarching cultural formation via development of a common understanding. In the lack of such understanding (culture, teloaffectivity), this phenomenon can only remain as a dispersed practice among individual practitioners and cannot spread to a large scale.

5. Conclusion

This article discusses the importance of a multilevel and intertwined understanding of ethical consumption given its conjunction with other social practices. Social Practice theory, by understanding consumption as a multifaceted practice and interconnected to other social practices offers a promising perspective to studying consumption practices. However, this article argues that although this is a useful approach to theorizing consumption practices, it is not sufficient to shed light on all aspects of a phenomenon such as ethical consumption, which is a very context-related concept. We argue that ethical consumption should be understood as a practice interrelated to other ones and associated with different levels of agency and structure. Therefore, it needs to be analysed by applying a form of multilevel perspective. Even if the role of meso-factors is recognized in various studies, we believe they tend to be too much taken for granted. The different extent, shapes, and ways of ethical consumption practices throughout the world illustrate the importance of not bracketing factors relating to ‘landscape’ and ‘sociotechnical regimes’. Putting ethically oriented consumption into practice requires structural, including infrastructural possibilities. In the literature on ethical consumption, which is mainly West-oriented, there is insufficient attention to social and structural obstacles that make it very demanding and costly (more than in an economic sense) to be involved in such niche innovations. There is great potential for future research to uncover a variety of structural obstacles in different geographic and sector-wise contexts, which limit the spread and upscaling of ethical consumption.

Following the above conclusion, and drawing on recent research ( Keller et al. , 2022 ; Laakso et al. , 2021 ) that refer to the critical role of tensions among niche and regime practices in understanding sustainability transitions, we have suggested that ethical consumption practices are developed and organized through dialectical processes within a multi-level context. That is, although ethical consumption can be perceived in terms of a “general understanding” in a horizontal conjunction with other practices ( Gram-Hanssen, 2021 ; Welch, 2020 ), the system of practices must also be understood as shaped along a vertical dimension. To put it simply, the structure of sociotechnical regimes in every society and their associated practices open spaces for local forms of ethical consumption, and these local forms may in turn trigger change of structure on ‘higher’ levels in the long run. By acknowledging such interplay, we can better grasp the conditions for organizing and upscaling ethical consumption practices in different sectors/sets of practices (e.g., food, clothing, energy) and countries around the world. Attention to such multi-level dynamics shows that every form of ethical consumption practice can simultaneously challenge and rely on existing regimes. This approach opens up many possibilities for further studies, and we can here end with indicating just a few. For example, the more known forms of ethical consumption (boycotting, buycotting, discursive ethical consumption and ethical consumption lifestyle) could be fruitfully studied within the combined framework of MLP and SPT, which provide a good analytical platform for the study on how ethical consumption both shape and are shaped by contextual circumstances. This apply also to the study how niche initiatives can be upscaled and (or fail to) become mainstream, and even set off change processes on the regime and landscape level. Studies could also focus how these forms of ethical consumption are indirectly affected by other practice changes, for instance in areas such as food, mobility, commuting, housing, shopping, and how these in turn relate to broader changes on the regime or landscape level. Studies can contribute with further insights by studying how landscape change (e.g. the Covid-19 pandemic, political (de)stabilisations, cost crises due to conflicts, digitalization, etc) and sociotechnical regimes in different social contexts (re)generate, hold and/or perish a variety of practices in such consumption areas, which in turn impact on the prospect of integrating ethical consideration in the practices. This also applies to the study of social movements and teleoaffective formation surrounding ethical consumption. Another interesting focus for further studies would be to study how different systems of provision in sectors like energy, mobility, housing, food, etc, here understood as socio-technical regimes, facilitate or obstruct ethical considerations in consumers’ practices (see Boström et al. , 2019 for examples). Finally, we see a great potential for future studies to study the material and non-material costs of developing ethical consumption within specific socio-political regimes; that is, in different countries and regions throughout the world with very contrasting political cultures, economies, welfare arrangements and conditions for democratic dialogue.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Funding Statement

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101022789

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data availability statement

• Adams C, Zutshi A: Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act Responsibly and Be Accountable. Australian Accounting Review. 2004; 14 ( 34 ):31–39. 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2004.tb00238.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50 ( 2 ):179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagozzi RP: The Poverty of Economic Explanations of Consumption and an Action Theory Alternative. Manage Decis Econ. 2000; 21 ( 3–4 ):95–109. 10.1002/mde.975 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belk R, Devinney T, Eckhardt G: Consumer Ethics Across Cultures. Consum Mark Cult. 2005; 8 ( 3 ):275–289. 10.1080/10253860500160411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berki-Kiss D, Menrad K: Ethical consumption: Influencing factors of consumer's intention to purchase Fairtrade roses. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy. 2022; 2 :100008. 10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boström M: The social life of mass and excess consumption. Environmental Sociology. 2020; 6 ( 3 ):268–278. 10.1080/23251042.2020.1755001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boström M: Take the Opportunity Afforded by the COVID-19 Experiences: Progressive Non-growth Policies for Sustainable Lifestyles. Front Sustain. 2021; 2 :726320. 10.3389/frsus.2021.726320 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boström M, Karlsson M: Responsible Procurement, complex product chains and the integration of vertical and horizontal governance. Environmental Policy and Governance. 2013; 23 ( 6 ):381–394. 10.1002/eet.1626 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boström M, Klintman M: Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism . London; Palgrave Macmillian,2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boström M, Micheletti M, Oosterveer P: Studying Political Consumerism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press,2019;1–24. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.44 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrigan M, Attalla A: The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J Consum Mark. 2001; 18 ( 7 ):560–578. 10.1108/07363760110410263 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrigan M, Szmigin I, Wright J: Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. J Consum Mark. 2004; 21 ( 6 ):401–417. 10.1108/07363760410558672 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ: 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. J Bus Ethics. 2010; 97 ( 1 ):139–158. 10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Moor J, Balsiger P: Political Consumerism in Northwestern Europe. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press,2019;434–456. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Pelsmacker P, Janssens W, Mielants C: CONSUMER VALUES AND FAIR-TRADE BELIEFS, ATTITUDES AND BUYING BEHAVIOUR. International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing. 2005; 2 ( 2 ):50–69. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubuisson-Quellier S: A Market Mediation Strategy: How Social Movements Seek to Change Firms’ Practices by Promoting New Principles of Product Valuation. Organization Studies. 2013; 34 ( 5–6 ):683–703. 10.1177/0170840613479227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Echegaray F, Brachya V, Vergragt PJ, et al.: Sustainable Lifestyles after Covid-19 . London: Routledge,2021. 10.4324/9781003162391 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• el Bilali H: The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. Agriculture. MDPI AG;2019; 9 ( 4 ):74. 10.3390/agriculture9040074 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans DM: After Practice? Material Semiotic Approaches to Consumption and Economy. Cultural Sociology. 2020; 14 ( 4 ):340–356. 10.1177/1749975520923521 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine B, Bayliss K: From addressing to redressing consumption: how the System of Provision approach helps. Consumption and Society. 2022; 1 ( 1 ):197–206. 10.1332/KDRH7457 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forno F: Protest, Social Movements, and Spaces for Politically Oriented Consumerist Actions—Nationally, Transnationally, and Locally. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press,2019;68–88. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freestone OM, McGoldrick PJ: Motivations of the ethical consumer. J Bus Ethics. 2008; 79 ( 4 ):445–467. 10.1007/s10551-007-9409-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy. 2002; 31 ( 8–9 ):1257–1274. 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW: Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Elsevier B.V.2019; 39 :187–201. 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW, McMeekin A, Mylan J, et al.: A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change. 2015; 34 :1–12. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels IFW: The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860-1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2005; 17 ( 4 ):445–476. 10.1080/09537320500357319 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gram-Hanssen K: Conceptualising ethical consumption within theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2021; 21 ( 3 ):432–449. 10.1177/14695405211013956 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene M: Socio-technical transitions and dynamics in everyday consumption practice. Global Environmental Change. 2018; 52 :1–9. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gundelach B: Political consumerism: A comparative analysis of established and developing democracies. International Political Science Review. 2020; 41 ( 2 ):159–173. 10.1177/0192512118819211 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves T, Longhurst N, Seyfang G: Up, down, round and round: Connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environ Plan A. 2013; 45 ( 2 ):402–420. 10.1068/a45124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heisserer B, Rau H: Capturing the consumption of distance? A practice-theoretical investigation of everyday travel. J Consum Cult. 2017; 17 ( 3 ):579–599. 10.1177/1469540515602304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinrichs CC: Transitions to sustainability: A change in thinking about food systems change? Agric Human Values. 2014; 31 ( 1 ):143–155. 10.1007/s10460-014-9479-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huddart Kennedy E, Baumann S, Johnston J: Eating for Taste and Eating for Change: Ethical Consumption as a High-Status Practice. Soc Forces. 2019; 98 ( 1 ): 381–402. 10.1093/sf/soy113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes A, McEwan C, Bek D: Mobilizing the ethical consumer in South Africa. Geoforum. 2015; 67 :148–157. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hysing E: Government engagment with political consumerism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press,2019;833–854. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.35 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen E, Dulsrud A: Will consumers save the world? The framing of political consumerism . Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2007; 20 ( 5 ):469–482. 10.1007/s10806-007-9043-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kantamaturapoj K, Thongplew N, Wibulpolprasert S: Facilitating Political Consumerism in an Emerging Economy: The Case of Political Consumerism in Thailand . In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press,2019;603–622. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.28 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller M, Sahakian M, Hirt LF: Connecting the multi-level-perspective and social practice approach for sustainable transitions. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 2022; 44 :14–28. 10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koos S: What drives political consumption in Europe? a multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. Acta Sociol. 2012; 55 ( 1 ):37–57. 10.1177/0001699311431594 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laakso S, Aro R, Heiskanen E, et al.: Reconfigurations in sustainability transitions: a systematic and critical review. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy. 2021; 17 ( 1 ):15–31. 10.1080/15487733.2020.1836921 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lei Z, Liu W, Oosterveer P: Institutional Changes and Changing Political Consumerism in China . In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press,2019;582–602. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.26 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsden T: From post-productionism to reflexive governance: Contested transitions in securing more sustainable food futures. J Rural Stud. 2013; 29 :123–134. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMeekin A, Southerton D: Sustainability transitions and final consumption: Practices and socio-technical systems. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2012; 24 ( 4 ):345–361. 10.1080/09537325.2012.663960 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolini D: Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organ Stud. 2009; 30 ( 12 ):1391–1418. 10.1177/0170840609349875 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oosterveer P, Glin L, Micheletti M: Tracing Political Consumerism in Africa and the Middle East . In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press,2019;558–582. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.25 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Portilho F, Micheletti M: Politicizing Consumption in Latin America . In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism . Oxford University Press,2019;538–558. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rinkinen J, Shove E, Marsden G: Conceptualising demand: A distinctive approach to consumption and practice . Routledge,2020. 10.4324/9781003029113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salonen AS: ‘If I could afford an avocado every day’: Income differences and ethical food consumption in a world of abundance. J Consum Cult. 2021. 10.1177/14695405211051033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schatzki T: Introduction: practice theory . In: T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina and E. Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory . London: Routledge,2001;10–23. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Shove E: Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A. 2010; 42 ( 6 ):1273–1285. 10.1068/a42282 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M: The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes . SAGE Publications Ltd,2012. 10.4135/9781446250655 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slingerland M, Schut M: Jatropha developments in Mozambique: Analysis of structural conditions influencing niche-regime interactions. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2014; 6 ( 11 ):7541–7563. 10.3390/su6117541 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spaargaren G, Oosterveer P, Loeber A: Food Practices in Transition Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity . In: ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITIONS. 2012. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern PC: New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56 ( 3 ):407–424. 10.1111/0022-4537.00175 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stolle D, Micheletti M: Political consumerism: Global resposibility in action. Cambridge University Press.2013. 10.1017/CBO9780511844553 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sudbury-Riley L, Kohlbacher F: Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. J Bus Res. 2016; 69 ( 8 ):2697–2710. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toti JF, Moulins JL: How to measure ethical consumption behaviors ? RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise. 2016; 24 ( 5 ):45. 10.3917/rimhe.024.0045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Kesteren R, Evans A: Cooking without thinking: How understanding cooking as a practice can shed new light on inequalities in healthy eating. Appetite. 2020; 147 :104503. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104503 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wahlen S, Dubuisson-Quellier S: Consumption Governance Toward More Sustainable Consumption. J Fam Consum Sci. 2018; 110 ( 1 ):7–12. 10.14307/JFCS110.1.7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warde A: After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2014; 14 ( 3 ):279–303. 10.1177/1469540514547828 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson M: How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J Transp Geogr. 2012; 24 :488–496. 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welch D: Consumption and teleoaffective formations: Consumer culture and commercial communications. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2020; 20 ( 1 ):61–82. 10.1177/1469540517729008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welch D, Warde A: Theories of Practice and Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing,2015;84–100. 10.4337/9781783471270.00013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wooliscroft B, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft A, Noone A: The Hierarchy of Ethical Consumption Behavior: The Case of New Zealand. J Macromarketing. 2014; 34 ( 1 ):57–72. 10.1177/0276146713508560 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zaikauskaitė L, Butler G, Helmi NFS, et al.: Hunt-Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics Predicts "Attitude-Behaviour" Gap in Pro-environmental Domain. Front Psychol. 2022; 13 :732661. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.732661 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reviewer response for version 2

Kirsten gram-hanssen.

1 Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Line Kryger Aagaard

With the additions and revisions made, I find the paper ready for indexing.

Is the argument persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence?

Is the work clearly and cogently presented?

Is the topic of the essay discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?

Does the essay contribute to the cultural, historical, social understanding of the field?

Reviewer Expertise:

consumption and theories of practice

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Philip Balsiger

1 University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

No further comments.

Ethical consumption, social movement studies, economic sociology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Reviewer response for version 1

This article proposes and offers a critique of studies of ethical consumption from an individual perspective and proposes to enhance understandings of ethical consumption by studying it from a social practice and multi-level perspective. It points at an important short-coming of the literature and presents interesting examples to advocate for the heuristic contribution of SPT and MLP for analyzing ethical consumption, in particular by pointing out the role of socio-technical regimes. I suggest four points for improvement:

• First, some improvements could be made in the presentation of the relevant literature. While the authors present evidence for the prominence of studies on ethical consumption using an individual (and often psychological) perspective, there are studies in this realm that are more attentive to context (without using SPT or MLP). For instance, scholars putting forward the importance of social movements as a meso-level context, or the significance of supply. This is discussed widely in de Moor & Balsiger (2019).
• A second critique concerns section 3 of the article (Ethical consumption in different contexts). This section does show studies from geographically dispersed contexts showing how ethical consumption often follows different logics and functions quite differently. However, the impression appears that sometimes, the differences pointed out are more due to the scholarly interests and foci of the different scholars. For instance, the role of public policies in driving ethical consumption has also been highlighted for European contexts (see Dubuisson-Quellier et al. , 2016 1 and Wahlen and Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 2 ) – not just in Latin America.
• Third, the paper is quite uneven with regard to its dual objective of advocating for the usefulness of SPT and MLP. It does present both of them in part 2 (without however discussing their compatibility), but then in the more illustrative parts (especially section 4), the discussion concerns almost exclusively the multi-level perspective. It might be better to focus the paper solely on the MLP, since this is already a little bit the case in terms of focus, and since it is theoretically quite dense otherwise.
• Fourth, in terms of the integration of the MLP in the study of ethical consumption, the paper makes some very valuable suggestions of the potential contributions of this. These could be presented more systematically. There is in particular the double question of a) how socio-technical regimes constrain and fashion the development of ethical consumption practices, and b) how ethical consumption niches can spread and change landscapes and regimes.
• Finally, and building on the above point, since the paper advocates for the use of SPT and MLP in the study of ethical consumption, it might be useful to have some kind of a research agenda at the end. To suggest a number of research avenues and questions such a theoretical approach implies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Örebro University, Sweden

Dear Philip, Thank you very much for your constructive comments. In the following, we briefly describe changes that we have made in the paper according to your comments.

This article proposes and offers a critique of studies of ethical consumption from an individual perspective and proposes to enhance understanding of ethical consumption by studying it from a social practice and multi-level perspective. It points at an important short-coming of the literature and presents interesting examples to advocate for the heuristic contribution of SPT and MLP for analyzing ethical consumption, in particular by pointing out the role of socio-technical regimes. I suggest four points for improvement:

Response: We agree social movements are very important as well as relevant to highlight more, and we addressed this comment in the introduction section (in the last part of the first paragraph) and also made some changes in section two.

• A second critique concerns section 3 of the article (Ethical consumption in different contexts). This section does show studies from geographically dispersed contexts showing how ethical consumption often follows different logics and functions quite differently. However, the impression appears that sometimes, the differences pointed out are more due to the scholarly interests and foci of the different scholars. For instance, the role of public policies in driving ethical consumption has also been highlighted for European contexts (see Dubuisson-Quellier  et al. , 2016 1  and Wahlen and Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018 2 ) – not just in Latin America.

Response: We understand the previous version could bring this impression, and have, in response to this comment, developed section 3 (mainly the second paragraph) by referring to the mentioned studies and two more studies as well.

• Third, the paper is quite uneven with regard to its dual objective of advocating for the usefulness of SPT  and  MLP. It does present both of them in part 2 (without however discussing their compatibility), but then in the more illustrative parts (especially section 4), the discussion concerns almost exclusively the multi-level perspective. It might be better to focus the paper solely on the MLP, since this is already a little bit the case in terms of focus, and since it is theoretically quite dense otherwise.

Response: We chose to keep the logic of the structure but added pieces on SPT-related work in accordance with Hanssen's comment number 1 and 2.

Response: We agree there is a double question, but they are at the same time always connected. Therefore, we have tried to make some clarifications and added examples in section four (to indicate both Qs), but kept the general structure of the argumentation. This dynamic is also itself a key topic for future research, which we tried to indicate in the concluding section.  

Response: According to our arguments in the paper, we suggested some ideas at the end of the paper.

Thank you for this opportunity to review an interesting and timely contribution on the theoretical foundation for understanding ethical consumption. As the paper writes, theories of practice have been utilized for understanding consumption broadly, and more recently also specifically for understanding ethical consumption. However, as the paper also points out, most consumer studies so far based on theories of practice have been reluctant in studying overarching cultures and structures of consumer practices. For this reason, this paper suggests combining theories of practice, or social practice theory (SPT) with multi-level perspectives (MLP) theories, which we agree is a relevant approach to take.

The present paper references other studies suggesting using SPT in the study of ethical consumption as well as other studies which suggest combining SPT and MLP, however, we miss a more thorough discussion with this literature which is referenced. Specifically, we will suggest that the paper includes the following discussions:

• First, part of the literature already referenced in the paper has suggested to stay within SPT and from there find ways of including more overarching phenomena, including using the concept of Teleoaffective Formations (Welch 2020), the concept of General Understandings (Gram-Hanssen 2021) or discussions of how SPT relates to wider economic process (Evans, 2020). We think the paper would be highly improved if the authors went more into dialogue with these papers and their different attempts to close the gaps in SPT, before arguing for a move to include MLP.
• Second, many authors have before this paper sought to combine SPT and MLP, as the authors of this paper also acknowledge. However, we miss a more thorough discussion on what is achieved by this combination and which problems it raises. The paper by Keller et al. 2022, has some relevant discussions on this, which we think this paper should go more into dialogue with.
• Third, specifically (and related to the Keller et al. paper) a discussion on combining MLP and SPT with each other needs to be included, as most of the leading authors of SPT would argue that SPT is a flat ontology which is not the case with the levels of MLP. This is in our view not an argument for not discussing the gains of combining the approaches, however, the authors need to go into this discussion, at least to show they are aware of it, and how they suggest to overcome it, or work with it.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Dear Kirsten and Line   Thank you very much for your constructive comments. In the following, we briefly describe changes that we have made in the paper according to your comments.

 Thank you for this opportunity to review an interesting and timely contribution on the theoretical foundation for understanding ethical consumption. As the paper writes, theories of practice have been utilized for understanding consumption broadly, and more recently also specifically for understanding ethical consumption. However, as the paper also points out, most consumer studies so far based on theories of practice have been reluctant in studying overarching cultures and structures of consumer practices. For this reason, this paper suggests combining theories of practice, or social practice theory (SPT) with multi-level perspectives (MLP) theories, which we agree is a relevant approach to take.

  Response: We agree. In response to this comment, in section two and paragraph three, we explained recent developments in social practice theory through the mentioned articles/concepts in the comment. We then argued that a multilevel understanding can progress our understanding of the phenomenon.

• Second, many authors have before this paper sought to combine SPT and MLP, as the authors of this paper also acknowledge. However, we miss a more thorough discussion on what is achieved by this combination and which problems it raises. The paper by Keller  et al.  2022, has some relevant discussions on this, which we think this paper should go more into dialogue with.

  Response: We agree Keller et al. have several relevant points, which we could build more on. In response to this comment, we tried to strengthen our argument and the main changes appear in sections one, second and four.

• Third, specifically (and related to the Keller  et al.  paper) a discussion on combining MLP and SPT with each other needs to be included, as most of the leading authors of SPT would argue that SPT is a flat ontology which is not the case with the levels of MLP. This is in our view not an argument for not discussing the gains of combining the approaches, however, the authors need to go into this discussion, at least to show they are aware of it, and how they suggest to overcome it, or work with it.

  Response: We have now explicitly commented on the difference between flat and vertical ontology in section two.  

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The dilemma of ethical consumption: how much are your ethics worth to you?

Everyone, rich and poor alike, should be able to buy the cheapest product with a clean conscience

I n the lead-up to a recent buck’s party, the group chat turned to the age-old question: will there be strippers? After some back and forth (for the record, I was opposed), the groom-to-be stepped in with the veto. “No strippers!” he declared.

His reasoning demonstrated a remarkable level of self-knowledge. He explained that he was planning on the weekend being filled with inhibition-reducing substances and didn’t trust his addled self to make smart decisions.

In doing so, he gave voice to a basic moral principle: better to avoid temptation than to overcome it. From Mufasa to Gandalf – and the Lord’s Prayer – we’re told that while it’s good to be able to resist vice when it calls to us, there’s wisdom in arranging our lives in a way that minimises our exposure to vice altogether.

Unfortunately, that advice is nearly impossible to follow when it comes to participating in the market. Increasingly our decisions around what we buy come with a trade-off: the more sustainable, ethical, fair trade option or the cheaper, potentially dodgier one.

Take an easy example: eggs. Do you want to buy them from the farms that give the chooks the best quality of life (comparably speaking)? Free range, organic and more than twice the price of the quick-and-dirty caged eggs stashed at the bottom of the shelves. For many of us, this is a fairly straightforward choice – the price to put our money where our morals are is relatively low, though even here, the lower your budget, the harder the ethical choice becomes. What happens when we increase the costs?

If we stop thinking with our stomachs, the problems get even larger. I recently informed my financial planner that I wanted to move my superannuation to an ethical investment fund. He did his job and showed me the comparison. If fees and returns for each fund performed as they had been, in 30 years’ time my superannuation would be $300,000 worse off investing in an ethical fund. Lead us not into temptation indeed.

There are a few perversities here. The most galling to me is that pitting money against morality is a regressive dilemma. The people who can most afford to pay their ethical way are the uber rich; those battling against the poverty line don’t have the option but to become complicit in animal wellbeing issues and clothing made in questionable conditions. They certainly can’t justify moving to a higher-fee fund just because it doesn’t invest in coal or tobacco.

There seems to be something uniquely cruel about creating a system that determines ethical seriousness by purchasing behaviour, thereby stigmatising the poor and lightening the load on the wealthy. This only becomes more egregious when you consider the various ways in which wealth is accumulated under capitalism – often on the backs of the same workers who can’t afford not to be complicit in the ethical missteps that often end up lining the pockets of the very same elites who can then afford a clean conscience.

However, the choice remains difficult even for those who ostensibly can afford to take the financial hit for their ethics. It’s easy to compare the immediate, measurable and tangible cost difference of two products. Making a judgement regarding the vague, unquantifiable moral value of not investing in unethical practices or investing in exemplary ones is ambiguous. There’s no obvious benefit, and thanks to the anonymity of the global market, we usually don’t see the harms inherent in the products we’re being offered. That’s a recipe for rationalising the choice that’s better for us and ours, no matter what the costs are to anonymous people, animals and ecosystems.

There appears to be little out for those wanting to be ethical consumers on a budget. Compromises and trade-offs will need to be made. You’ll likely need to benefit from practices that don’t align with what you think is right. However, the lie at the heart of the ethical consumption movement is to tell you this is your fault. It’s not. It’s the fault of a much larger system offering you choices that, in many cases, you simply shouldn’t be permitted to make.

I don’t want to be given the choice between forfeiting hundreds of thousands of dollars and compromising on my values. I don’t want to be offered the opportunity to buy clothes that are cheaper for me because disempowered workers paid the price in underpayment and subjugation. It’s too easy to justify the worse option. It’s too easy to be tempted.

Thinking this way has reframed slightly the way I think about ethical consumption. In the past, I’ve assumed the appropriate emotion to accompany making a good moral purchase is pride. Recently, I’ve started to feel like resentment is a more accurate – and more motivating – emotion.

I resent that the same store from which I’m buying free range eggs is profiting not only from my ethical purchase but from the choice to render others complicit in animal cruelty. I resent that superannuation companies, refusing to divest from unethical and harmful products, are using the promise of a greater retirement fund and more money to pass on to future generations as bribes to make me compromise on my morality. I can’t be proud participating in a system where my ability to make ethical choices is based more on my bank balance than my character.

When the cheapest product, available to rich and poor alike, can also be purchased with a clean conscience? That’s when I think we’ll be able to take pride in our purchases.

• Consumer affairs
• Ethical and green living

Most viewed

Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption Essay (Literature Review)

Introduction, outline of the topic, methodology reflection, literature review, analysis and critical discussion (implications), conclusions, reference list.

The industry of fast fashion offers a wide range of available garments, which makes it attractive for many people around the world. The widespread consumption of cheap clothing is used by companies to maximise their profits and sell as many products as possible. The global apparel market grows rapidly by 3-6% per year (O’Connell, 2019). Chang and Jai (2015) state that this dominant business model promotes greater consumption that is led by the claims for the so-called democratisation of fashion when the latest trends are made available for all consumers. In this context, fast fashion is understood as cheap clothing that was created based on celebrity culture and high street stores (Chang and Jai, 2015). The main idea behind fast fashion is to copy and produce clothing for the mass market as soon as possible, catching the moment of their popularity.

Fast fashion leads to overproduction and overconsumption that compose one of the key problems in the 21st century. Stringer, Mortimer and Payne (2020) emphasise that a lack of sustainable consumption, environmental pollution, and changing consumer preferences compose the adverse consequences of these problems. Considering that globalisation facilitates international relations, fast fashion develops across the countries. Western companies, such as Gap or Walmart, tend to cooperate with the developing countries due to cheap labour; Bangladesh, Cambodia, and China are the leading exporters for fast fashion (Taplin, 2014). A lack of ethical consumption minors global morality and erodes society since those who buy do not think about the influence of their purchasing decisions, while those who produce have to work for minimal wages in dangerous environments.

The environmental impact of fast fashion is another concern that is discussed in the literature. Many retailers use the cheapest fabrics that are produced from fossil fuels, which promote global warming, and the use of microspheres multiplies plastic trash (Zamani, Sandin and Peters, 2017). The use of these materials requires a lot of water and electricity, which can result in soil quality and biodiversity issues. Bowers (2019) reports that the fast fashion industry produces 10% of carbon emissions and causes 20% of water pollution, while 85% of garments is sent to landfills annually. At the same time, fast fashion encourages the culture of throwing away and overconsumption. Such clothing implies rapid obsolesce and the need to constantly buy more products as a way of satisfaction (Kim, Park and Glovinsky, 2018). The pressure on the environment and people is enormous, and it is likely to grow without changing people’s attitudes towards fast fashion. Therefore, it is critical to pay attention to how fast fashion impacts society, understanding the current trends and gaps.

The issue of fast fashion is of contemporary, topical, and academic interest since it should be considered from different perspectives. For academics, research is the main instrument to identify underlying problems and suggest decisions. The organisation and structuring of the existing literature is another beneficial step towards determining the areas to improve the identified situation. For policymakers, the findings of academics seem to be useful to adjust the policies for reducing environmental pollution and making the choices of consumers more deliberate. In turn, practicing managers may gain valuable insights by understanding the buying intentions of customers and the ways to make consumption more sustainable (Li et al. , 2014). A collaborative approach to the solution of the given problem seems to be the most relevant option.

The research shows that society tends to become more and more aware of the need to reconsider purchasing behaviours. The emergence of calls for sustainable consumption and environmental pollution prevention tend to be pronounced within the last decade (Li et al ., 2014). In this connection, both the production end and consumers should transform their approaches to fashion consumption. Consequently, it is important to understand motivations that underpin customers’ choices and also explore the impact of fast fashion on the environment. One of the promising areas for improvement is the concept brand sustainability, which may increase customer loyalty and the perceived value of clothing. By paying attention to how companies build their business models and integrate environmental issues, it is possible to better understand the problem and come up with pertinent solutions. Without further research and practical actions, the identified issues would escalate, leading to disruptive outcomes. In other words, the timeliness of this review is justified by the urgent nature of the mentioned problems.

The main advantage of this narrative literature review is the presentation of a variety of perspectives. As stated by Bhattacharya (2017), reviews encourage scholarly discussions that, in turn, stimulate both scholars and readers to ponder over the target problem. Another benefit is associated with the method of information collection and analysis, which is transparent and reproducible by others. The qualitative nature of the review also allows for detailed explorations of the context, methods, and results of the studies. However, the disadvantages of this narrative review comprise the risk of biased conclusions that can be caused by the subjectivity of a researcher, as well as the potential failure to merely describe data instead of synthesis (Maruyama and Ryan, 2014). The limitations that should be mentioned are the restricted number of articles under the review and the journals included in the ABS list.

A narrative literature review is selected to analyse and synthesise available information on the impact of fast fashion on society. The findings are structured in three tables (streams), each of which focuses on a particular sub-topic, including ethical consumption, environmental impact, and customer preferences and intentions. The investigation of three areas is useful for presenting a broad perspective on the issue being reviewed. Based on the condensed format of data in tables, the details are discussed in a written format. Consistent with Juntunen and Lehenkari (2019), this narrative literature review pulls different pieces of evidence into a readable version. The integration of articles is expected to reveal the gaps, tendencies, and limitations that exist in the contemporary literature.

For this literature review, data is obtained from academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals and enumerated on the ABS list. The use of this academic journal guide ensures that information is of high quality. In addition, all of the reviewed articles are empirical as they include data collection and analysis. The inclusion criteria are the relevance to the target topic, study design, and publication date (2013-2020). Among the exclusion criteria, there are systematic reviews, conceptual papers and outdated sources. Before including a study in the review, the abstracts were thoroughly examined and integrated according to common issues being researched. This allowed the researcher to use the time more effectively, avoiding non-pertinent sources. After that, the full texts of the selected articles were read to make sure that all the necessary details will be noted. In the process of writing this report, some supporting articles were found and cited to make the paper more comprehensive and beneficial to accomplish the goal of clarifying implications for managers, management education and policy makers.

The Discover search engine was used to search the relevant literature and select the articles that fit the inclusion criteria. The key words for the stream of ethical consumption involved such words as “ethical consumption”, “sustainable consumption” and fast fashion consumption. The query returned 9,456 articles, of which 10 were selected due to their potential contribution to the theme of this literature review paper. For the second stream of fast fashion impact on customers’ behaviours, the following search key words were considered: “fast fashion”, “hedonism”, “utilitarianism”, “circular clothing perception”, and “awareness of sustainable clothing”. After filtering 6,254 findings, 11 studies were included in the review. The third stream of the review focuses on the role of fast fashion in environmental pollution. It turned out that this sub-topic included plenty of technologic and environmental studies, but the relations between the mentioned issues were researched insufficiently. The initial return of 12,262 sources was sorted based on both exclusion and inclusion criteria to arrive at 10 articles. The repeated sources were also eliminated, and common sense was applied to avoid out of topic studies.

The fast fashion literature includes a range of academic articles that explore several companies and resources to identify the current tendencies and problems. Considering the nature of collected articles and the themes they highlight, it was decided to organise this literature review according to the following three streams: ethical consumption, environmental impact and customer preferences / intentions. Namely, the streams are summarised in the format of tables.

Ethical Consumption

Ethical customer identification: motivation.

Fast fashion revolutionised the clothing industry by making it more accessible to different categories of customers. This low-cost production is made of cheap materials and rapidly replaced by new models, which creates overconsumption threats (Coskun, Gupta and Burnaz, 2020; Pantano, Giglio and Dennis, 2019). With the emergence and rapid development of sustainable consumption agenda, many researchers turned to focusing on the links between fast fashion and ethical consumption. In their study, McNeill and Moore (2015) employed the developmental theory, which implies that human cognition can be classified to stages, to understand the attitudes of customers regarding sustainable consumption. The data was collected by means of open-ended interviews with 28 participants (Table 1). The authors arrived at the conclusion that there are three types of customers with various values. In particular, “self” consumers are oriented towards hedonistic principles that declare the importance of pleasure (McNeill and Moore, 2015). “Sacrifice” consumers try to decrease their influence on the world, while “social” clients are engaged in social image concerns.

A more detailed customer identification of ethical consumption of clothing is presented by Bly, Gwozdz, and Reisch (2015) and Reimers, Magnuson and Chao (2016). These scholars focused on the research of the so-called sustainable fashion consumption pioneers, who tend to actively engage in the discussion of the need to buy green apparel. Using passive netnography and semi-structured interviews, it was revealed that for them, ethical consumption means decreasing measurable environmental or social impact (Bly, Gwozdz, and Reisch, 2015). In other words, for people valuing green consumption, the concepts of fashion and one’s personal style are much wider compared to average customers, who cannot imagine their lives without the constant purchase of fast fashion clothes. At the same time, Reimers, Magnuson and Chao (2016) add to the evidence by investigating how consumers identify and measure sustainability of fast fashion. They reported that environmental responsibility, animal welfare, employee welfare and slow fashion attributes are the key areas of concern.

Customers’ Perception Patterns

While speaking about how customers perceive ethical consumption, it is beneficial to review several studies that study eco-friendliness in the context of fast fashion. Blasi, Brigato and Sedita (2020) reviewed the accounts of Twitter users to test the hypothesis that greater eco-friendliness improves a brand’s image. The authors applied a novel data mining technology to synthesise social media conversations. Such key words as style, glamour, fashion, ethical business and environment were targeted. As a result, they computed the similarity and found the correlation between luxury brands’ images and positive perceptions of customers. However, this correlation is weaker for fast fashion brands, which indicates the insufficient consideration of ethical clothing from retailers (see Table 1 for details). The potential extension of H&M and Zara was examined by the above authors based on the online survey that was completed by 598 customers (Hill and Lee, 2015). It is essential to note that customers consider that fast fashion can be sustainable.

Another issue discussed by McNeill and Moore (2015) refers to the perceived barriers to ethical consumption of fast fashion. The authors rationally state that the fear to look worse and less fashionable, social conditioning and costs that can be significantly higher. In turn, the barriers that impede customers from ethical consumption are investigated by Wiederhold and Martinez (2018), who focus on 13 participants from Germany (Table 1). In both articles, it is emphasised that green purchasing behaviour is a trend, but there is a gap between customers’ views and their purchasing. The analysis of interviews allowed revealing the following list of barriers: barriers are price, transparency, availability, knowledge, consumption habits, image and inertia. Price and a lack of proper information are regarded as the most widely discussed barriers, which means that better awareness of consumers and more affordable prices would improve the situation. These inhibiting determinants are noted as useful for retailers and managers to consider them while planning new collections and interacting with customers.

A lack of sustainable fast fashion is mentioned by customers as one of the most challenging issues on the way to green apparel purchasing. Consistent with Wiederhold and Martinez (2018), Lundblad and Davies (2015) found that ethical brands are rarely presented in this sector. The interviewees’ concerns refer to the association between trendy designs and synthetic fabrics. More to the point, the majority of ethical brands look non-fashionable, boring, and alternative, as reported by consumers (Wiederhold and Martinez, 2018). This leads to the distorted perceptions of green apparel as of poor image clothing. The means-end approach that was employed by Lundblad and Davies (2015) also showed that the need for self-expression and self-esteem play a critical role in the fact that customers underestimate sustainable fashion consumption. The details of the above study are given in Table 1.

Sustainable Marketing Activities

The study of sustainable marketing activities can be identified as another area of research even though it is not sufficient yet. According to Jung, Kim and Kim (2020), brands’ sustainable approaches improve customers’ satisfaction and trust. This article adopted the quantitative method of data collection and analysis to determine the key characteristics of sustainability increase in the fashion industry. The ethical brand image was confirmed to impact brand loyalty and customer satisfaction, which is also stated by other articles involved in this literature review. Stringer, Mortimer and Payne (2020) and Turker and Altuntas (2014) claim that supplier amenableness with their code of conduct is one of the ways to build a sustainable product. Such values as self-transcendence and openness to changes are two more aspects that make a positive influence on customer awareness. Authenticity and trust were also found to be linked with the purchasing intentions of customers, who are interested in fast fashion ethical consumption (Jung, Kim and Kim (2020). As it can be understood from the last three studies, companies have not yet adopted ethical approaches, while they tend to be increasingly interested in the future changes.

The issue of ethical consumption of fast fashion products is widely explored in the academic literature, which points to the interest among scholars and practitioners. The articles included in this stream are varied in their focus of analysis and areas of coverage. Since these studies reflect the key findings of the recent research, it is possible to state that they are influential regarding the required changes. It becomes transparent that the call for a more ethical clothing consumption contributes to further studies. The awareness of customers’ perceptions, attitudes, motivational factors and barriers allows for understanding how to promote sustainability. The practical implications for managers, policy makers and retailers are clarified in the Analysis and Critical Discussion section of this paper.

Table 1. Fast fashion and ethical consumption

Impact of Fast Fashion Industry on Changing Consumer Preferences and Intentions

Responsiveness to consumer needs.

The increased responsiveness to the demands of customers is one of the key features of fast fashion. The process of developing and launching new products is quite rapid as retailers are likely to present new clothes and accessories weekly or even daily (Gabrielli, Baghi and Codeluppi, 2013; Miller, 2013). This requires involving a range of actors, such as designers, managers, marketers, textile and technical specialists, et cetera. Such a collaborative approach to fast fashion products impacts customers by making them savvy for continuous purchasing. There is a range of ways to interact with customers and collect data regarding their expectations. For example, Payne (2016) listed celebrity styles and magazines, sales data and other brands as the determining factors (Table 2). Accordingly, fast fashion companies strive to support the modern negative trend of overconsumption (Payne, 2016). Although some brands offer recycled clothes, others seem to disregard the calls for sustainable consumption.

Emotional Connection

The loyalty to fast fashion brands is one of the major areas of concern that are presented in the academic literature. According to the mixed method study by Kim, Park and Glovinsky (2018), customer involvement allows for changing their consciousness and improving their trust to the brand. This study included 306 female participants, who were interviewed for collecting the necessary data. The emotional connection is also stressed by Gabrielli, Baghi and Codeluppi (2013), stating that the analysis of fast fashion from the standpoint for a customer is poorly researched, while this approach has a great potential to clarify the preferences of particular consumers. This exploratory study included 64 consumers who were asked to share their attitudes towards fast fashion clothing (Gabrielli, Baghi and Codeluppi, 2013) (Table 2). The main benefit of this article is that it introduces a new perspective on evaluating customers’ intentions. By being aware of this perspective, it is possible to better comprehend their needs and influence their purchasing decisions.

To remain aware of the fast fashion industry, customers visit online sources, celebrity blogs and online stores. The statistical analysis conducted by Payne (2016) showed that consensus was targeted by the companies to gather relevant information from inspiration sources and interpret it with regard to customers’ preferences. This method is mentioned as useful for not only providing customers with a wide choice of options but also motivate them to look better. Embodiment is another method that is applied by fast fashion retailers either deliberately or unconsciously, thus tapping to their interests. The so-called gut feeling is reported by the interviewed designers (Payne, 2016). Linking the above article with the rest of the literature, one can refer to the statement that ephemeral fashion and uniqueness drive customers’ pleasure seeking-activities (Miller, 2013). It is clear that hedonistic consumer responses are caused by the appeal to have fun and enjoyment and develop one’s fantasy. For example, Zara launched the mobile application that allows customers to mix clothes and see prices without visiting their stores.

Hedonistic Consumption and Purchase Urgency

Along with inviting customers to have a pleasant experience, fast fashion creates a sense of urgency for purchasing. In this connection, Mrad et al. (2020) explored the phenomenon of brand addiction, concluding that hedonic consumption is associated with the transfer of symbolic meaning and emotional excitement, a stream of fantasies, feelings and impressions, regardless of the connection with the direct attributes of the purchased product. Su and Chang (2018) also stressed that the fantasy aspect of hedonistic consumption refers to a consumer’s reproduction of emotional images. In turn, by means of focus groups and interviews, Zarley Watson and Yan (2013) pointed to utilitarianism, self-image congruence and remorse avoidance as the driving forces that make customers purchase more (Table 2). As noted by these authors, the continued satisfaction with the purchased product is another issue that was found to be useful for brand loyalty.

The belongingness to the fast fashion trend does not prevent it from the opportunity of being perfectly combined with the clothing of the luxury segment, because it has a rich palette of colours and line-up (Zarley Watson and Yan (2013). Namely, it is not complicated to create such collaboration as fashion brings trends to people, high design is a of peak state, a starting point, and fast fashion is a flow directed specifically towards a consumer. A customer can always come and choose an ultra-fashionable cloth for a special price, depending on his or her preferences. Zarley Watson and Yan (2013) and Shen, Choi and Chow (2017) claim that it is convenient, especially since the choice is always huge, these things are easy to combine with each other and complement, and they are available. The motive of pleasure is becoming more and more important in the consumption of fast fashion and luxury fashion as well (Shen, Choi and Chow (2017). For example, a growing number of jewellery purchases are made by women not for the purpose of long-term investments or the acquisition of symbols of social success, but for the sake of satisfying the desire to pamper and please themselves.

Business Strategies: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

The available literature on the impact of fast fashion on customer intentions is associated with the business strategies. Camargo, Pereira and Scarpin, (2020) compared fast fashion and emerging ultra-fast fashion, which refers to online stores and a focus on social media, to understand the differences in their supply chain management. The authors reported that the new fast fashion trend prevents excess inventory, works with local manufactures and uses a set of lean and agile strategies (see Table 2 for details). On the contrary to fast fashion’s poor stickiness to sustainable consumption, ultra fashion is likely to make customers closer to their preferred clothes, allowing practising ethical purchasing behaviours (Camargo, Pereira and Scarpin, 2020). However, the other side of this trend is even faster production rates and greater overconsumption. These results can be supplemented by the findings of Chang and Jai (2015), proposing that corporate social responsibility of fast fashion retailers can be achieved via proper positioning that prioritises a positive impact on society. The use of the between-subject Web experiment, allowed the authors to find that corporate social responsibility correlates with the intentions of customers to buy clothes, along with brand equity and price value.

Reuse and recycle trends compose one more area of impact fast fashion retailers made on their consumers. The online consumer interviews (Owela) with 83 participants was conducted by Vehmas et al. (2018) with the purpose of examining the changes in customers’ perceptions regarding circular clothing (Table 2). It was discovered that the offers of sustainable clothing lines find responses and activity from consumers, who ask for more information about circular products. Therefore, communication of these issues should be timely and comprehensive, including all the aspects that are of interest for target audiences (Cook and Yurchisin, 2017; Chang and Fan, 2017). In general, research on the impact of companies on customers’ views of recycled clothes is limited. The majority of studies lack the identification of customers being interviewed, while some of them included college students and different age consumers. Therefore, the insights provided in this stream can be used by scholars to conduct further studies for addressing the existing gaps.

Table 2. Impact of Fast Fashion Industry on Changing Consumer Preferences and Intentions

Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion’s negative environmental imprint.

The industry of fast fashion is one of the largest sectors that make a significant negative environmental imprint (Belzagui et al., 2019). The studies by Haseeb et al . (2020) and Zamani et al. (2015) point to the enormous resource consumption and toxic production processes that are the main environmental concerns. In turn, Mukherjee (2015) adds that greenhouse gas emissions impact the air pollution since synthetic textiles are made of polyester and other products. The production of clothing is extremely damaging to the environment. The share of light industry in CO2 emissions is higher than that of aviation and shipping combined (Mukherjee, 2015). Over the past 15 years, fast fashion apparel sales worldwide have doubled, while their average life has dropped dramatically (Haseeb et al ., 2020). The textile industry produces over a billion tonnes of CO2 annually, more than all international air travel and shipping (Shirvanimoghaddam et al. , 2020).

Considering that environmental pollution is a critical problem, fast fashion businesses should contribute to its minimization. It should be added that there is the pollution of the oceans by microplastics from textile fibres and the use of toxic chemicals. Polyester, nylon, acrylic and other synthetic materials are forms of plastic that make up 60% of the material from which clothes are made (Shirvanimoghaddam et al. , 2020). These fibres contribute to the subtle but pervasive plastic pollution of the ocean. A single load of laundry can drain hundreds of thousands of textile from our clothing into the plumbing (Arrigo, 2020). It is a global problem: synthetic fabrics are common in developing countries that do not have powerful treatment facilities; the garments will take hundreds of years to completely decompose.

Ways Businesses Can Improve Their Impact

These commitments indicate that major fashion manufacturers have realised that sustainability is in trend today. However, this is not just a marketing issue as it also concerns production and after use processes. Ganesan et al. (2015) see the transition to sustainable production as inevitable. The global demand for clothing is constantly growing – not least due to the emerging Asian and African markets. At the current rate of apparel production, by 2050, its volume is expected to triple (Arrigo, 2020). According to a study by Mair, Druckman and Jackson (2016), if the textile industry does not change, the environmental impact will be catastrophic. The solution to the problem is waste-free production: one of the actively explored ways to make the garment industry greener is the so-called circular economy. It suggests that the resources used in production should be used as long as possible. Ideally, such a scheme should only work with renewable energy sources. In terms of ethical consumption, Joung and Park‐Poaps (2013) note that donation and resale are the most widely cited opportunities.

Despite the fact that the governments of different countries are already passing laws prohibiting the use of plastic bags and disposable plastic items, the problem is far from being solved. The main result is that the problem has become widely discussed, and the environmental agenda has become relevant not only for small eco-brands, but also for companies of the higher level, such as Zara, Nike, H&M and others (Bick, Halsey and Ekenga, 2018). In contrast to the fast fashion that has emerged in recent decades, slow fashion is rapidly developing – a movement that calls for observing the above rules. The term was coined by the writer and designer Keith Fletcher. The movement rejects mass production and only recognises things that are individually handcrafted. The followers of slow fashion prefer to buy vintage items, boycott the mass market and choose universal clothes that will be stylish regardless of fashion trends and the latest design solutions (Akhter, Rutherford and Chu, 2017; Park and Lin, 2018). The representatives of this direction learn to sew, repair and recycle clothes on their own to buy less.

Speaking of the environmental impact of fast fashion, it is also important to pay attention to the position of workers in textile plants. To reduce costs, fast fashion companies are outsourcing their production to economically developing countries, where labour is much cheaper, and related policies are almost absent (Iran and Schrader, 2017; Niinimäki et al., 2020). Repeated scandals due to poor working conditions, disregard for basic safety measures, low wages, workplace violence and the use of child labour created discussions. For example, in 2013, the explosion occurred at a textile factory on the outskirts of the Bangladesh capital – Dhaka. According to Taplin (2014), citing information from the detailed content analysis of reports, a gas boiler exploded. At the time of the collapse, there were several hundred people inside the building, including workers of the textile factory. The inadequate approach to workers is also mentioned by Mair, Druckman and Jackson (2016), who used a sub-system global multi-regional input output analysis and found that Western European workers have low wages. These studies demonstrated that not only environmental impact but also social footprint of textile factories is negative.

Table 3. Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion

Thus, the literature review revealed that today, customers’ purchasing preferences are driven by a range of factors, including hedonism, sustainable consumption, social image, and so on. In their turn, businesses try to meet and anticipate their customers’ expectations to enrich their experience. Since the industry of fast fashion tends to grow, and its’ environmental impact is adverse, there is a need to formulate recommendations for different stakeholders, such as managers, designers, policy makers, and researchers.

Marketers and Managers

The studies included in this literature review allow for clarifying practical implications for managers who work directly with customers. Speaking more precisely, the motivations and barriers of consumers to follow green purchasing should be understood by companies who decided to shift towards sustainability. Even though the prices of ethical clothing can be higher, it is important to explain to customers that they are more durable and contributing to the environment protection. In this connection, proper sustainability communication is the key recommendation for managers and leaders of fast fashion retails (Wiederhold and Martinez, 2018). For example, the value of unique designs, natural materials and health benefits can be included in the appealing message to customers. In other words, the creation of emotional benefits and application of appropriate communication strategy should be prioritised. Considering the growing digitalisation of society, social media, blogs and other online means of communication can be implemented.

Speaking of the implications that are related to the environment, one should state that manufacturers must take responsibility for the entire supply chain and control the initial stages. Bly, Gwozdz, and Reisch (2015) argue that fast fashion has affected the economies of developing countries, giving people jobs but violating workers’ rights. It is important to do the best to use less water in the production process and definitely share with all our best practices. The ambitious package of solutions also includes a variety of measures to set new standards for manufacturers of fabrics, washing machines and detergents and to stimulate a culture of less consumption through taxes and increased liability of manufacturers and sellers of clothing (Reimers, Magnuson and Chao, 2016). The next direction is to extend the life of clothes through the mutual exchange of used clothing on special websites or the return of old clothing in the store in exchange for a new one at a discount.

To meet the demands of those customers who want to look fashionable and purchase clothes at an affordable price, retailers can change their business models towards ultra-fast fashion. The presentation to local manufacturers and avoidance of excess inventory are likely to be useful to make their products more sustainable to prevent environmental pollution. In addition, such a decision can increase a brand’s image and strengthen customer loyalty (Joung and Park‐Poaps, 2013). For new start-ups, it is also a promising way to use their limited resources and handle the challenges of the highly competitive fashion industry. For practitioners, it seems to be critical to carefully adopt proper positioning strategies so that their customers would be involved. For example, they can be engaged in the process of product creation that is achievable by requesting feedback regarding the existing products and expected new clothing lines (Park and Lin, 2018). The appeal to customers’ creativity and imagination can also be viewed by managers as the potential features to implement in their positioning strategies.

The evidence on brand addiction and customer involvement shows that managers need to pay attention to building trustful relationships with customers. Different communication channels can be applied to reach them, and interact to interpret their needs and design products accordingly, also using inspiration sources such as designers and luxury brands. The cooperation of fast fashion and luxury fashion retailers is another recommendation for practitioners to take into account to create unique products with several price and form options (Shen, Choi and Chow, 2017). As for management education, the analysis of the current cooperation’s can be included in the curriculum so that students better understood this promising strategy. Studies conducted showed that the attitude to fast fashion among the majority of consumers, especially young ones, is ambiguous. For now, most consumers are not ready to give up the benefits of fast fashion, but the attitude towards fashion is becoming more and more conscious.

Fast Fashion Designers

It should be noted that consumer demand is starting to shift, with more focus on products that are less dependent on natural resources. Designers should increasingly respond to this to become an active part of the market. Fashion can be more sustainable, and people in the supply chain can be fairly rewarded (Hill and Lee, 2015). To create this positive effect, it is vital to rethink how design is created, resources are obtained, production operates, and clothing is consumed and distributed. Designers are the source of inspiration for every model they create, and the ethics and sustainability of a product ultimately depend on themselves. In other words, designers and retailers can have a positive impact on the fast fashion industry by sourcing and selecting materials, using different design techniques and choosing a place of production. They can even influence customers at the stage of clothing use, as well as the final disposal methods (Lundblad and Davies, 2015). By looking at the environmental aspect of the production, distribution and post-consumption, it is possible to make environmental protection and sustainability the great sources of inspiration.

Policy Makers

There are calls for the governments to invest in sustainable fashion and develop standards for the durability of garments, and for manufacturers, to become more responsible. According to Gabrielli, Baghi and Codeluppi (2013), consumers need to reconsider their approach to buying clothes to perceive fashion and clothing more as a functional product than as entertainment, and be willing to pay a higher price for clothing, which takes into account the impact of fashion on the environment. At the same time, attention should be paid to the employees working in textile factories to ensure that they have appropriate wages and safe working environments (Druckman and Jackson, 2016). In the stores, managers should be attentive to customers’ requests, being ready to provide information about the place of production and fabrics used in the clothes.

Researchers

Future research is necessary to explore the perceptions and existing knowledge of consumers with the aim of designing appropriate product sustainability communication strategies. One of the extensive areas to explore refers to the extent to which customers are ready to pay more for ethical clothes in the fast fashion market. For those who value fashionable apparel more than a sustainable approach to society, certain measures should be researched to show them that their contribution is critical. In a larger context, overconsumption should be discussed regarding its current amount and expected consequences, as well as the ways to stop unconscious purchasing behaviours. In this connection, there is a need to create the cooperation across countries, governments and companies since only a comprehensive approach can help in resolving the problem of the adverse impact of fast fashion on society and environment.

To conclude, it should be emphasised that this literature review was expected to integrate the relevant evidence and present it to the readers to identify implications for practitioners, policymakers and management education. The use of sustainable fast fashion clothing is not only a tendency that wearing dresses made from recycled materials becomes fashionable and prestigious. Instead, the concept of ethical clothing is slowly but surely shifting towards the concern for the health of the planet and humanity, which is expressed in the increasing interest regarding the protection of the environment. Thus, despite fast fashion overconsumption, a more conscious culture of buying clothes is beginning to form across the world, and a course has been taken to ensure that the concept of fast fashion includes designs as a more meaningful, responsible and environmentally friendly approach to clothing.

The coverage of the literature that is provided in this report is appropriate since it includes more than 30 empirical articles. All of the sources were thoroughly studied and sorted according to their pertinence to the topic being discussed, research methods and high quality. Data collection and analysis are the integral parts of all the articles included. The sample sizes are the weaknesses of this review since many articles focused on a limited number of participants and reports. As for the geographical area of coverage, such countries as Sweden, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Vietnam and Western Europe in general were mentioned. Thus, this review seems to contribute to a wider body of evidence by presenting a detailed review of available academic literature.

Learning Statement

While working on this narrative literature review, I have learned that it is a complex process that requires collecting relevant sources and synthesising them to achieve the stated goal. For this project, the topic of fast fashion’s impact on society was chosen, with such streams as ethical consumption, the impact on customer preferences and intentions and environmental influence. The most challenging issue was related to reviewing the articles and revealing common features, difference and gaps existing in the literature.

A review of sources and literature always began with a description of the relevance of the studied problem. I tried to describe the existing views on the problem, the main representatives and their achievements. The bulk of the review of the literature was created based on publications containing direct research materials. In accordance with the guidelines, the review started with a brief description of the main results and conclusions drawn in the articles, which are applicable to the research topic. I understood that it is not necessary to reproduce all the data in its entirety (tables, conclusions and so on) as it is better to restrict to only individual indicators, facts, results that have the greatest value for research.

The review of sources and literature was analytical, which allowed making the presentation of facts critical, but without personal judgements. In this connection, the literature analysis was established around the problem, not articles. In carrying out the analysis, I emphasised both the similarity in the practical results, along with discrepancies and insufficient coverage of certain issues. Analysing the sources, it is required to identify weaknesses in the works, finding previously unexplored aspects. At the same time, I did not state my vision of the issue since the central task of analysing the literature is to identify problems and familiarise with the present state of the research area.

The use of the tabular analysis was the main issue that contributed to the structuration and organisation of information from the review articles. It is possible to suggest that without this strategy, I would probably spend much more time and efforts to reveal key information and compare it across the articles. Therefore, I believe that the use of this analysis strategy was quite important for the successful completion of this report. Since the tables were created for all three streams, it allowed for keeping data clear and easily finding the key trends of the literature. The analysis and interpretation of the studies were directed towards discussing the current significance of outcomes and their relation to the future research needs.

Considering that there were a lot of articles, the coordination of ideas was the difficulty I faced. The guidelines regarding the content of the narrative literature review imply no specific issues to be included, which made it quite challenging to decide personally. I was confused to start the review as I though it can be incorrect. However, my critical thinking skills allowed me to detect differences and similarities across the articles, which can be found in the report. I have learned that it is critical to constantly review the results of the tabular analysis to remain focused on the ideas being discussed.

After completing this report, I can state that I would organise the process of writing the narrative literature review differently. Although it was not required by the instructions, I would probably identify the connections across the three streams to reflect on the interdependent nature of the topics. In my point of view, such an approach would promote greater awareness of how fast fashion impacts society across various dimensions. I will do my best to make my future literature review would be more elaborate and detailed. I believe that this experience is of great importance for practising organisation, critical review and argumentation skills. Thus, this assignment was significant for me to practice my skills and apply my theoretical knowledge in practice.

Along with my personal benefits that are mentioned above, this narrative literature review will be useful for other students and scholars, who can employ its result to determine the areas for further research. Based on this report, it is possible to understand that the fast fashion retailers should change their business models to make production and clothing sustainable and ethical. The ways to achieve this goal, related challenges and the attitudes of customers are the potential gaps to study. In addition, my future employer seems to benefit as well since this research shows my analytic and critical thinking skills that I can apply in my work.

Akhter, S., Rutherford, S. and Chu, C. (2017) ‘What makes pregnant workers sick: why, when, where and how? An exploratory study in the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh’, Reproductive Health , 14(1), pp. 1-9.

Arrigo, E. (2020) ‘Global sourcing in fast fashion retailers: sourcing locations and sustainability considerations’, Sustainability , 12(2), pp. 508-540.

Belzagui, F. et al. (2019) ‘Microplastics’ emissions: microfibers’ detachment from textile garments’, Environmental Pollution , 248, pp. 1028-1035.

Bhattacharya, K. (2017) Fundamentals of qualitative research: a practical guide . New York: Taylor and Francis.

Bick, R., Halsey, E. and Ekenga, C. C. (2018) ‘The global environmental injustice of fast fashion’, Environmental Health , 17(1), pp. 92-96.

Blasi, S., Brigato, L. and Sedita, S. R. (2020) ‘Eco-friendliness and fashion perceptual attributes of fashion brands: an analysis of consumers’ perceptions based on Twitter data mining’, Journal of Cleaner Production , 244, pp. 1-34.

Bly, S., Gwozdz, W. and Reisch, L. A. (2015) ‘Exit from the high street: an exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers’, International Journal of Consumer Studies , 39(2), pp. 125-135.

Bowers, L. (2019) ‘The fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined. Here are the biggest ways it impacts the planet’, Business Insider. Web.

Camargo, L.R., Pereira, S.C.F. and Scarpin, M.R.S. (2020) ‘Fast and ultra-fast fashion supply chain management: an exploratory research’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , 48(6), pp. 537-555.

Chang, H. J. and Jai, T.-M. (2015) ‘Is fast fashion sustainable? The effect of positioning strategies on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions’, Social Responsibility Journal , 11(4), pp. 853-867.

Chang, S.-W. and Fan, S.-H. (2017) ‘Cultivating the brand-customer relationship in Facebook fan pages: a study of fast-fashion industry’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 45(3), pp. 253-270.

Cook, S. C. and Yurchisin, J. (2017) ‘Fast fashion environments: consumer’s heaven or retailer’s nightmare?’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 45(2), pp. 143-157.

Coskun, M., Gupta, S. and Burnaz, S. (2020) ‘Store disorderliness effect: shoppers’ competitive behaviours in a fast-fashion retail store’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 48(7), pp. 763-779.

Gabrielli, V., Baghi, I. and Codeluppi, V. (2013) ‘Consumption practices of fast fashion products: a consumer-based approach’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journ al, 17(2), pp. 206-224.

Ganesan, P. et al. (2015) ‘Specific energy consumption and CO2 emission reduction analysis in a textile industry’, International Journal of Green Energy , 12(7), pp. 685-693.

Haseeb, M. et al . (2020) ‘Asymmetric impact of textile and clothing manufacturing on carbon-dioxide emissions: evidence from top Asian economies’, Energy , 196, pp. 1-10.

Hill, J. and Lee, H.-H. (2015) ‘Sustainable brand extensions of fast fashion retailers’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Managemen t, 19(2), pp. 205-222.

Iran, S. and Schrader, U. (2017) ‘Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects,’ Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 21(4), pp. 468-482.

Joung, H. M. and Park‐Poaps, H. (2013) ‘Factors motivating and influencing clothing disposal behaviours’, International Journal of Consumer Studies , 37(1), pp. 105-111.

Jung, J., Kim, S. J., and Kim, K. H. (2020) ‘Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion market and brand loyalty’, Journal of Business Research , pp. 1-8.

Juntunen, M. and Lehenkari, M. (2019) ‘A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis’, Studies in Higher Education , pp. 1-13.

Kim, J., Park, J. and Glovinsky, P. L. (2018) ‘Customer involvement, fashion consciousness, and loyalty for fast-fashion retailers’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), pp. 301-316.

Li, Y. et al. (2014) ‘Governance of sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry’, European Management Journal , 32(5), pp. 823-836.

Lundblad, L. and Davies, I. A. (2015) ‘The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), pp. 149–162.

Mair, S., Druckman, A. and Jackson, T. (2016) ‘Global inequities and emissions in Western European textiles and clothing consumption’, Journal of Cleaner Production , 132, pp. 57-69.

Maruyama, G. and Ryan, C. S. (2014) Research methods in social relations . 8th edn. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.

McNeill, L. and Moore, R. (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), pp. 212–222.

Miller, K. (2013) ‘Hedonic customer responses to fast fashion and replicas’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 17(2), pp. 160-174.

Mrad, M. et al. (2020) ‘Brand addiction in the contexts of luxury and fast-fashion brands’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 55, pp. 1-12.

Mukherjee, S. (2015) ‘Environmental and social impact of fashion: towards an eco-friendly, ethical fashion’, International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies , 2(3), pp. 22-35.

Niinimäki, K . et al. (2020) ‘The environmental price of fast fashion’, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment , 1(4), pp. 189-200.

O’Connell, L. (2019) Market growth of the apparel industry worldwide from 2012 t o 2020. Web.

Pantano, E., Giglio, S. and Dennis, C. (2019) ‘Making sense of consumers’ tweets: sentiment outcomes for fast fashion retailers through Big Data analytics’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , 47(9), pp. 915-927.

Park, H. J. and Lin, L. M. (2018) ‘Exploring attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products’, Journal of Business Research , 117, pp. 623-628.

Payne, A. (2016) ‘Inspiration sources for Australian fast fashion design: tapping into consumer desire’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 20(2), pp. 191-207.

Reimers, V., Magnuson, B. and Chao, F. (2016) ‘The academic conceptualisation of ethical clothing: could it account for the attitude behaviour gap?’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(4), pp. 383-399.

Shen, B., Choi, T.-M. and Chow, P.-S. (2017) ‘Brand loyalties in designer luxury and fast fashion co-branding alliances’, Journal of Business Research, 81, pp. 173–180.

Shirvanimoghaddam, K. et al. (2020) ‘Death by waste: fashion and textile circular economy case’, Science of the Total Environment , 718, pp. 1-10.

Stringer, T., Mortimer, G., and Payne, A. R. (2020) ‘Do ethical concerns and personal values influence the purchase intention of fast-fashion clothing?’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal , 24(1), pp. 99-120.

Su, J. and Chang, A. (2018) ‘Factors affecting college students’ brand loyalty toward fast fashion: a consumer-based brand equity approach’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , 46(1), pp. 90-107.

Taplin, I. M. (2014) ‘Who is to blame? A re-examination of fast fashion after the 2013 factory disaster in Bangladesh’, Critical Perspectives on International Business , 10(1-2), pp. 72-83.

Turker, D. and Altuntas, C. (2014) ‘Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: an analysis of corporate reports’, European Management Journal , 32(5), pp. 837-849.

Vehmas, K. et al. (2018) ‘Consumer attitudes and communication in circular fashion’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), pp. 286-300.

Wiederhold, M. and Martinez, L. F. (2018) ‘Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: the attitude‐behaviour gap in the green apparel industry’, International Journal of Consumer Studies , 42(4), pp. 419-429.

Zamani, B. et al. (2015) ‘A carbon footprint of textile recycling: a case study in Sweden’, Journal of Industrial Ecology , 19(4), pp. 676-687.

Zamani, B., Sandin, G. and Peters, G. M. (2017) ‘Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion?’, Journal of Cleaner Production , 162, pp. 1368-1375.

Zarley Watson, M. and Yan, R. (2013) ‘An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , 17(2), pp. 141-159.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 7). Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption. https://ivypanda.com/essays/fast-fashion-and-ethical-consumption/

"Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption." IvyPanda , 7 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/fast-fashion-and-ethical-consumption/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption'. 7 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption." June 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/fast-fashion-and-ethical-consumption/.

1. IvyPanda . "Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption." June 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/fast-fashion-and-ethical-consumption/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Fast Fashion and Ethical Consumption." June 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/fast-fashion-and-ethical-consumption/.

• Textiles Pesticides Problem Analysis
• Art Movements. Textiles in the Bauhaus
• Fast Fashion Business Model Pros & Cons
• Advances in Fiber for Wearable, Durable Nonwovens
• Channel Overview of Kate Spade
• Fashion Clothing Designs: The Golden Mean Ratio
• California Fashion Brand Juicy Couture
• 20th Century Dress and Culture – Punk Fashion

How ‘ethical influencers’ engage their audiences about saving the planet

Assistant Professor of Marketing, HEC Montréal

Postdoctoral Fellow, Management and Marketing, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Aya Aboelenien receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Ai Ming Chow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

HEC Montréal provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA-FR.

HEC Montréal provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

View all partners

Have a quick think back to the last time you scrolled through social media. Maybe it was this morning, last night or a few minutes ago. What do you recall? One thing you’re bound to remember is the continuous stream of influencers showing off their latest content.

These could be videos of influencers discussing the latest skin-care products , the trendiest places to eat , their latest shopping haul or the PR packages they received from various brands.

Much of social media influencing is about getting consumers to buy more products. However, there is a contrasting group of influencers who use their online presence to advocate for changing how people buy and consume.

In our recently published research , we looked into this sub-category of influencers to understand how they use social media to campaign for leading a more sustainable, healthy and ethical lifestyle.

Who are the ethical influencers?

We refer to them as ethical influencers. They include those whose content is dedicated to educating their online audiences about the impact of day-to-day consumption habits on the environment. This can take the form of vegan influencers asking audiences to avoid using animals in eating, clothing or entertainment.

They can also be sustainability influencers asking audiences to reduce their consumption, minimize waste, recycle, buy less and reuse more. In general, they are advocating new ways of living and consuming.

Unlike other lifestyle influencers, ethical influencers face two unique challenges that make it harder for them to build their online profiles.

First, they have to provide a closeup of their everyday life to demonstrate the new lifestyle to their audience. This is different from other influencers who might avoid sharing their personal life and play out a well-curated public persona that can greatly contrast their private life.

Ethical influencers strive to be as personal and authentic as possible by sharing their everyday life, practices and struggles.

Providing that kind of close look at their own lives can sometimes put them at greater risk of scrutiny since online audiences constantly evaluate and interact with their content.

Second, ethical influencers aim to reach out to a diverse audience, some of whom are not necessarily interested in the new lifestyle. Because ethical influencers are fundamentally trying to promote certain lifestyle choices and habits, they need to connect with a wide range of people to convince them to alter their beliefs and behaviour.

This distinction puts them counter to social media algorithms and the norms of para-social relations that favour connections based on similar interests or lifestyles .

Given these challenges, how are ethical influencers navigating their muddy terrain?

Connecting with their online audience

We found that ethical influencers use five strategies: acting, humanizing, framing, pivoting and evangelizing. For those thinking of building a similar online profile, these strategies will help in gathering audience.

Acting is showing step-by-step the expertise and commitment of ethical influencers when it comes to the new consumption practices.

For example, Lauren Singer, an enviromental influencer, posts regularly on her expertise on ways to reduce waste. Singer is most famous for fitting all the waste she produced in two years in a 16-ounce Mason jar . Acting helps ethical influencers establish legitimacy with their audience.

Humanizing is shown through sharing personal stories that might not be directly linked to green consumption. Here, ethical influencers may talk about the latest work gathering, the new addition of a family member or the new hiking trail with their pet. Humanizing aids in fostering some sort of para-social relation with the audience. It shows them as human beings, not just change agents.

Framing spotlights the unwanted consumption practices. For example, ethical influencers talk about the dangers of using detergents packed in plastic containers as they deplete the Earth’s resources. Other posts include ethical influencers discussing the animal abuse in the production of cosmetics. Framing helps their audience delineate the desired versus the undesired practices in their everyday life.

Pivoting is about linking audiences with ethical businesses so they can better navigate the market with its myriad choices. This isn’t so much about brand advertising, nor monetized collaboration, but rather reviews about ethical product performance. Pivoting helps audiences find substitutes to their daily products that are in line with living the new, more sustainable lifestyle.

Finally, evangelizing fuels a sense of community among members. Changing our behaviour and habits can be a daunting journey . Fostering a sense of belonging aids members in their quest and shields them from falling back into their old habits. These strategies, combined together, allow ethical influencers to achieve their ultimate goals.

While ethical influencers are not new, they are increasing both in terms of the number of accounts and in their popularity. They are striving to connect to, engage and educate audiences on living differently and having a positive impact on the planet. Their efforts make them a valuable resource when it comes to championing sustainability, ethical consumption and tackling climate change.

• Social media
• Sustainability
• Social media influencers

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

• Search Menu
• Themed Issues
• High-Impact Collection
• Infographics
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Animal Frontiers
• About the American Society of Animal Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, moral deliberation about meat consumption: the value of ethical assessment, arguments against meat consumption, arguments in defense of meat, is cultured meat a viable alternative, conclusions, literature cited.

• < Previous

Is meat eating morally defensible? Contemporary ethical considerations

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Candace Croney, Janice Swanson, Is meat eating morally defensible? Contemporary ethical considerations, Animal Frontiers , Volume 13, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 61–67, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac097

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Despite growing global demand for protein, the ethical justification for meat consumption is increasingly questioned.

Ensuring human rights to food requires moral deliberation.

The role of meat in addressing growing global needs for food must be considered in the context of food safety, security, quality, access, and affordability. Animal rights, welfare, climate change, and natural resource conservation must also be addressed.

Though natural resource scarcity may limit or eliminate production of meat in future, potential for technological innovation and agroecology approaches to offset animal, environmental, and socio-ethical harms offers a justification for retaining some degree of meat production and consumption 
currently.

Because of the enormous projected growth in the human population, the United Nations has called for significant increases in global food production to meet anticipated demand ( Croney et al., 2018 ; FAO, 2021 ). Consumers are increasingly interested in learning about the food they eat, including where and how it is produced. What form that food should take, however, is increasingly the subject of public debate.

Protein derived from animals has figured prominently in human diets unless constrained by religious or other beliefs. Moreover, demand for animal protein has been demonstrated to increase as people in developing nations begin to experience greater prosperity ( Delgado et al. 2003 ; Croney and Anthony, 2014 ). This dynamic is unsurprising given scientific findings identifying the consumption of meat as a defining factor in the evolutionary development of the human brain ( Burini and Leonard, 2018 and in this issue, Leroy et al., 2023 ) and the role that high quality, easily digestible protein plays in human growth and development ( Klurfeld, 2018 ). Despite these benefits, in developed areas of the world where food security and access are relatively high, the ethical justification for meat consumption is increasingly challenged, resulting in polarized, highly contentious discussions. Frequently cited ethical concerns relate to the rearing and killing of animals for food, animal quality of life in modern large-scale, intensive systems of production, and the related impacts on the environment and human health ( Verbeke and Viaene, 1999 ; Baltzer, 2004 ; Botonaki et al., 2006 ; Croney and Anthony, 2014 ; Croney et al., 2018 ; Godfray, 2018 ).

For those for whom food security and accessibility are assured, these and other ethical dimensions of food production have become more significant. Accordingly, some members of the public in food-secure nations have shifted to “ethical consumerism”, electing to purchase food products they perceive to be less socially and environmentally harmful ( Croney and Anthony, 2014 ), while avoiding those not aligned with their values ( Morgan et al., 2016 ). Evidence of such purchasing shifts was found by McKendree et al. (2014) who reported that 14% of U.S. consumers surveyed had reduced their consumption of pork by 56% on average because of animal welfare concerns. Siegrist and Hartmann (2019) reported that consumers who were more health conscious and those who perceived there to be high environmental impacts of meat were more likely to choose meat substitutes. Further, a 2020 U.S. Gallup poll reported that 23% of Americans had reduced their consumption of meat, with ethical concerns such as those related to environmental and animal welfare impacts influencing their choices ( McCarthy and DeKoster, 2020 ).

Several companies have taken note, resulting in significant investment and effort towards the development of plant-based alternatives to meat, such as Beyond Beef and Impossible Meat products. The proliferation and marketing of these protein sources bolstered the arguments against the necessity of eating meat. Simultaneously, public sentiment relating to meat consumption in western countries appears to be increasingly influenced by social pressure exerted through the high volume of media ( He J. et al., 2020 ), social media, scholars ( Godfray et al., 2018 ), NGOs, and others who advocate for reduced or no meat consumption ( de Boer et al., 2017 ). However, recent reports of the poor performance of alternative meat food offerings, and in some cases removal from menus or dis-investment, strongly hint at issues of consumer acceptance ( Olsen, 2022 ).

Although people in most countries continue to eat meat, the idea that vegetarianism is virtuous and morally responsible is being socially normed. The positioning of meat eating as less virtuous is reflected in studies reporting that those who eat meat appear to be less sensitive to animal and environmental concerns ( Piazza et al., 2015 ). Further, it has been suggested that some meat eaters may adopt thinking that relieves them of any associated cognitive dissonance (discomfort created by behaving in ways that are inconsistent with one’s stated beliefs or values). In other words, people may develop strategies to reconcile having strong social and emotional bonds with animals, and salient knowledge about their sentience and cognitive capacities, while also eating them ( Croney et al., 2004 ; Piazza et al., 2015 ). It is therefore not surprising that especially in the published literature, far fewer individuals and groups attempt to make, or succeed at making, compelling ethical arguments for eating meat. For those who try, their motivation and credibility may be called into question and the visibility of their work (and the related scientific basis for their arguments) may be relatively low. This hints at the current social and ethical challenges of defending meat consumption. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellular biology have added a new wrinkle to the discussion of using animals to produce food, perhaps further weakening the perceived case for continued meat production and consumption.

Given changing consumer preferences and ongoing concerns relating to climate change, environmental pollution, human health, and the eco-preservation of natural resources, including water, the moral case for meat must be revisited. A narrative outline of the scientific arguments for and against meat eating are insufficient to accomplish this goal. This paper therefore examines whether meat eating is ethically defensible using tenets of Campbell’s ethics assessment process ( Campbell and Hare, 1997 ; Croney and Anthony, 2010 ), while considering the need for viable, sustainable sources of protein in developed and developing nations.

Whether or not one should eat meat is inherently an ethical question. While science may help to inform the answers to such questions, science alone is insufficient to address them given their value-laden nature. Expanding the inquiry into whether meat eating, in general, should continue transforms the question into one that has far-reaching socio-ethical implications for a greater number of diverse stakeholders. Under such circumstances, it is essential to ensure that the broadest group of impacts, interests, and values are accounted for and duly considered. Ethical accounting processes, such as that offered by Campbell and Hare ( Campbell and Hare, 1997 ; Croney and Anthony, 2010 ), provide a means by which to incorporate relevant factual information into decision-making about ethical questions. This approach facilitates deliberation rather than debate about the potential courses of action, culminating in an examination of the moral justification for a wider range of options than might otherwise be considered ( Croney and Anthony, 2010 ). Moral deliberation is particularly important when the relevant scientific information available on the topic of interest is lacking to some degree or is ambiguous. In such instances, the values of the decision-makers may become the primary drivers of the solutions proposed. This creates the risk of unjustly disenfranchising many who might be impacted whose priorities and needs might be overlooked. Ethical accounting therefore facilitates both inclusiveness and transparency in decision-making that has significant social impact. Because the ethical justification for meat consumption holds both personal and societal implications, we examine the merits of the arguments using Campbell’s ethics assessment process as outlined by Croney and Anthony (2010) . The process includes: ethical fact finding (review of all relevant scientific or factual information); uncovering of embedded values that may be in conflict; moral imagination (ideation about possible solutions through evaluating the quality of arguments for them and the degree to which each option addresses the social, ethical, scientific, and economic concerns involved); and moral justification and testing of proposed solutions.

As previously stated, the ethical arguments against meat eating have been well detailed on the grounds of animal rights welfare ( Singer, 1975 ; Regan, 1983 ; Francione, 2022 ), environmental impact, and human health ( Gunderson, 2015 ). Given the extensive reviews that argue for plant-based diets based on these concerns, this paper will not offer a retread of the previously published ideas. Readers are encouraged to examine the original publications to fully appreciate their influence on contemporary moral philosophy and public discourse about animal use. However, to facilitate moral deliberation, each of these areas of concern must be included in ethical accounting, requiring at minimum, a brief synopsis of the moral considerations they highlight.

A fundamental question examined within the areas of animal rights, welfare, environmental impact, and justice is whether eating animals does harm. Regan’s (1983) foundational thesis unambiguously concluded that animals meet the conditions for having rights (i.e., they are subjects of lives, they have inherent value and preference autonomy) and therefore they cannot be used as mere means to an end (in this case, food). Depriving animals of their lives is the ultimate harm. Singer’s (1975) seminal work arguing that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, and that human uses that cause them suffering cannot be justified clearly applies to the rearing and killing of animals for food. The sentience of animals and its relationship to animal welfare is scientifically supported and has been formally recognized by the World Animal Health Organization ( OIE, 2017 ). Further, while numerous studies on the welfare of farmed animals have attempted to evaluate and identify ways to minimize distress, pain, and suffering they may experience from rearing to death, it is currently impossible to entirely avoid such negative states ( Dawkins, 2016 ; CAST, 2018 ). As such, some harm (beyond death) is inevitable.

Likewise, scholars focused on environmental impact have linked meat production with degradation of ecosystem quality, including air, soil, and water quality, and depletion of resources, such as water and land ( De Vries and De Boer, 2010 ; Ernstoff et al., 2019 ). Relatedly, environmental justice, which aims to ensure that environmental hazards and their health effects do not disproportionately impact communities that are already disadvantaged (for instance as a result of minority or lower socio-economic status) have suggested that meat production and consumption indeed causes such harms ( Gunderson, 2015 ). Recently, Chamanara et al. (2021) reported that in a study of a major retailer’s supply chain in California, communities living near feedlots were predominantly lower income Latinx who experienced high levels of air pollution and significant health problems related to poor air quality, such as asthma and heart disease. Similar arguments are advanced by Hull et al., (2023) who suggested that because of the animal, environmental, and human-health impacts of meat eating, the medical profession may be morally obligated to promote plant-based diets.

Values that are embedded within each of these areas of ethical concern include protecting others from harm, benevolence (doing good), justice, and fairness. However, especially in the case of the animal rights and welfare arguments, a single-dimension problem focus emerges that prioritizes the interests of a rather limited set of stakeholders (animals). This is unsurprising given that the related philosophies were advanced specifically to center animals as subjects of moral concern. Nonetheless, in the context of contemporary global decision-making about food choices, the limited scope of primary stakeholder consideration inherent to such philosophies presents a problem for ethical decision-making. Significant ethical concerns are raised when public discussions about abandoning meat production and consumption do not adequately consider the broadest group of stakeholders, including people with lower income status and others who might be directly impacted. Such concerns are exacerbated when proposed alternatives fail to address valid socio-ethical, scientific, or economic concerns about moving to a solely plant-based diet, or when the solutions offered cannot yet be practically and equitably implemented. Moreover, in presenting the antimeat arguments, animal, environmental, and human interests are often framed competitively, though all of these must be balanced to achieve just, accessible, sustainable food systems.

Arguments in support of meat consumption are noticeably scant and are therefore more detailed in this paper. First, the historical and cultural significance of eating meat cannot be overlooked. Meat consumption is closely linked with human co-evolution with animals, and throughout history and across diverse cultures, social gathering has often incorporated the sharing of meat ( Monteiro et al., 2017 ). Some have even argued that the cooperation required to procure meat and the act of sharing it despite its scarcity in early human evolution contributed to the development of human morality ( Mameli, 2013 ; DeBacker and Hudders, 2015 ). However, arguments based on tradition are far less compelling when we consider how knowledge, values, and related beliefs have evolved over time, resulting in reduced social acceptability or abandonment of many other long-held traditions and practices.

Proponents of keeping meat in the diet often point to the historical or anthropological record of meat eating by humans, thus, implying its “naturalness,” and the nutritional benefits associated with meat consumption are often cited in support of it. Though these points are scientifically accurate, alone, they present inadequate moral arguments. First, given the degree to which today’s livestock and poultry have been altered through genetic selection and newer developments in genetic engineering ( Croney et al., 2018 ), “dietary naturalness” arguments for commercially produced meats may be questionable to some. The nutritional value of meat makes for a stronger case ( Klurfeld, 2018 ) as the current generation of plant-based meat alternatives still lack equal nutrient value with meat, such as vitamin B12, zinc, and protein ( Harnack et al., 2021 ). However, if new alternative protein sources derived from cell-based technologies can offer the same or equivalent benefits, this argument may be undermined.

Though the case against meat heavily emphasizes the negative environmental and ecological problems created by meat production, there are important and inadequately examined rationales to support meat consumption in these same domains. For example, proponents of regenerative agriculture ( Rowntree et al., 2020 ) have argued that there are significant global limits to arable land for growing crops for protein purposes. This presents very real challenges for those who reside in geographic regions with little to no arable land, which constrains adoption of a primarily or purely plant-based diet. Few philosophical arguments in favor of eliminating meat from human diets engage this concern or offer practical, affordable solutions for those impacted. Further, in many such regions (and in other parts of the world), there is an availability of grasslands that support grazing ruminants. Through the use of regenerative grazing practices, there are significant eco-benefits derived, including improvements to soil health, promoting greater CO 2 sequestration, reduction of greenhouse gases, restoration of biodiversity, and production of high-quality protein for human consumption (see Spratt et al., 2021 and elsewhere in this issue, Thompson et al., 2023 ).

Relatedly, an argument for meat eating that connects both to ecological and animal welfare considerations is that a diet that includes some consumption of grazing animals may cause less harm relative to total numbers of animals killed than one that is vegan ( Davis, 2003 ). Davis argued that the intensive cropping systems required to produce vegan diets potentially lead to the death of 1.8 billion field-dwelling animals. Because pasture-forage production systems that support grazing animals require less harvesting with equipment such as tractors that kill field animals, Davis speculated that less use of such equipment would cause fewer field animal deaths. Even after considering the number of ruminant animals that might be killed for human consumption in a hybrid plant per ruminant diet, Davis estimated that it would still be fewer (1.42 billion) than those lost due to vegan diets. Consequently, he concluded that based on Regan’s (1983) Least Harm Principle, people may be morally obligated to consume at least some meat to reduce the overall harm done to animals.

Given the vast amount of arable land that would be necessary to support vegan diets for all humans, it could be argued that such a diet is neither practical nor ecologically sustainable, further supporting a partially meat-based diet as ethically defensible. However, to date, few philosophers, and others in favor of vegetarian and vegan diets have seriously engaged this point or Davis’ (2003) arguments. Archer (2011) later attempted a similar argument as Davis based on estimated animal field deaths in Australian cropping systems. However, Archer’s claims were challenged by Fischer and Lamey (2018) , who questioned the basis for his (2011) calculations. They also rejected Davis’ (2003) arguments despite noting that he might have underestimated field animal deaths. They concluded that deriving robust estimates of field deaths is difficult due to the variety of animals affected and suggested this challenge as a plausible reason for the lack of engagement on this topic. Nonetheless, they raised the argument that technological innovation might be able to significantly reduce the deaths of field animals and that such pursuits are critical to ensuring humane food choices. Interestingly, an identical argument can be made for those seeking to support meat consumption while also being mindful of the need to mitigate harm caused to animals. Though one might argue that the morally salient difference is intention to kill, the effect on the animals themselves is ultimately what matters if indeed animal welfare, sentience, and protection from harm are high priorities in deliberations about the morality of meat consumption.

Thompson (2021) states that there has been a failure by philosophers engaged in animal ethics to provide guidance to the animal agriculture community that could facilitate improvements to farm animal welfare. He refers to this failure as the “vanishing ethics of animal husbandry”, and claims that a “structural narcissism” has descended on the philosophers who have dominated discussions about livestock and poultry production. Instead of answering the more difficult questions posed by modern animal husbandry practices, they instead offer “oversimplified and rhetorical overstatements” of the practices used in livestock and poultry production. Thompson sees this abandonment by animal ethicists as a missed opportunity to contribute to practical solutions.

Building on Thompson’s (2021) observations, in philosophical debates about the merits of meat consumption, the effects of shifting primarily to plant-based protein sources on local communities and ecosystems, especially in developing countries, are often inadequately explored. In Bolivia, for instance, where quinoa (and llamas) are major agricultural commodities, Jacobsen (2011) reported that the rapid growth in demand for the plant resulted in intensive cultivation practices in parts of the country that led to land degradation in some areas, loss of grazing areas for llamas, and shifts in Andean farmers’ diets to less nutritious food sources. Here, prioritization of the demands, and values of the affluent may have resulted in unintended negative consequences requiring scientific, technological, and educational interventions even though there were economic benefits for Indigenous people. These outcomes underscore the need for deliberation that is inclusive of all stakeholders and facilitates an envisioning of the consequences of shifting to plant-based diets that meet human protein requirements before attempting to advance such transformational food agendas.

Finally, in contemporary discussions about meat eating, there is often insufficient focus on retaining the broadest array of dietary options given the diversity of needs and ability to access food that currently exists globally. It is important to remember that in many parts of the developed and developing world, undernutrition, and inability to access sufficient protein remain ongoing problems for numerous people, especially women and children. For example, the World Health Organization reported that 149 million children under the age of 5 are stunted due to malnourishment and have a 45% death rate attributed to the same cause ( WHO, 2021 ). Micronutrients including iodine, Vitamin A and iron were singled out as deficiencies of global concern. While there are good reasons for deliberating about our eating habits and those of others, it is easy to forget that in both developed and developing nations, many people do not have the luxury of choosing their diets (elsewhere in this issue, Ederer et al., 2023 ). Access to adequate food is a well-established human right ( United Nations, 1999 ) Therefore, any related moral reasoning exercise should consider whether it is just to deny others access to high quality and digestible protein foods, like meat, which could alleviate poor nutritional status, especially for those who subsist on foods of inadequate quality and low nutritional value. This is not to say that we should overlook or diminish the diverse concerns associated with meat consumption. Rather, we should be careful to avoid moral and cultural imperialism and the stigmatizing of others in discussions about what constitutes “good” food choices. The obligation to meet the needs of the growing global population for food suggests it may be ethically problematic to reduce rather than increase the number of options available to people who want and need high quality protein.

Given the ethical and social responsibility concerns related to traditionally produced meat products, it should come as no surprise that innovation in science and technology has been looked to for solutions. Scientific developments in stem cell harvesting and in vitro technology have resulted in the successful production of laboratory-grown meat ( Post, 2014 ; Post et al. 2020 ). Cultured meat shows promise to attain a biological and nutritional equivalency to traditionally harvested meat that plant-based substitutes have yet to achieve. The scientific advancements and benefits related to cultured meat are outlined elsewhere in this issue (see Wood et al., 2023 ).

However, cultured meat, while perhaps offering a means by which to assuage several ethical challenges, may not be the panacea that some envision. Lab-grown meat production still requires animals as a resource for the harvest of stem cells. The conditions under which animals might be maintained and the procedures to which they might be subjected for cell harvesting warrant as much scrutiny relative to their impacts on animal welfare as does traditional farming ( Croney et al., 2018 ). Thus, some concerns about the welfare of animals reared and killed for meat, may be addressed with cultured meat, but they are not entirely erased. In addition, key stakeholders, such as ranchers, who might be displaced or disenfranchised by a shift to cultured meat, should be thoughtfully considered in moral deliberation about this potential option. Far too often, philosophical arguments dismissively suggest that ranchers should “simply find new jobs”. This level of disregard de-prioritizes ranchers and others directly impacted by conclusions that meat consumption should be readily abandoned. This is inconsistent with the notion that moral deliberation should consider the interests of all stakeholders, while transparently prioritizing values and properly accounting for those who are adversely impacted by the resulting decisions.

In short, though cultured meat is very likely to address many of the ethical problems associated with farming animals for meat, new challenges may emerge that are unlikely to be easily addressed. Further consideration must also be given to consumer acceptability (which cannot be presumed) and the impacts of such technological innovation on developed and developing nations with diverse cultural backgrounds, preferences, values, and resources.

Whether and to what extent meat consumption should continue into the future is open to debate. Consumer perceptions studies conducted in developed nations suggest that moving forward, people will continue to eat meat, though it is likely that the frequency and amount of meat eaten may decline depending on individual demographics, knowledge, and values relating to animals, the environment, and human health. The debate about whether meat consumption is ethically defensible , though, remains. Though the available scientific information is equivocal in some areas, as previously outlined, meat production does entail harm to animals and has significant implications for environmental and human health. However, there is also harm in entirely abandoning meat consumption at this point in time, not just for human health, but for food equity, justice, and economic viability for diverse stakeholders, including many of the most vulnerable in society. A purely plant-based diet is not feasible for all given constraints on arable land, and the economic and environmental costs of importing foods into such regions would introduce or exacerbate food security and access issues. Furthermore, plant-based diets clearly contribute to harming vast numbers of field animals whose lives and interests matter as much as animals raised for agricultural purposes. Whether or not the average person has a personal connection to field animals and related investment in their protection is irrelevant if indeed animal rights and welfare are deemed important enough to be factored into ethical assessment of our dietary choices. To argue otherwise is logically and morally inconsistent.However, to deprioritize human rights to food today (especially considering the urgency of meeting global protein needs) in favor of animal rights and current and future environmental protection is neither defensible nor necessary. Instead, alternatives that better protect animals, people, and the environment from foreseeable, avoidable harms should be explored. We therefore support the ideas of Shannon et al. (2015) who suggest taking the approach of combining “the principles of human rights and the values of public health with an agroecological perspective”.

How might this occur? Meat industry members and stakeholders should deliberately and thoughtfully engage the arguments against meat eating. This must be done not just with rhetoric (although effective communication with the public should always be a priority). Instead,  what should occur is more concerted, collaborative effort and investment in the scientific advances needed to address the outstanding ethical problems associated with meat production and consumption, such as animal welfare. Innovation in alternative production, such as cultured meat and meat-alternatives are imperfect but important steps toward meeting changing societal expectations in more affluent countries. In addition, Shannon et al. (2015) propose several policy strategies covering production, marketing, processing, distribution, access, consumption, and overall food systems that could be evaluated in the context of more current science and practice. While some of their recommendations are likely to be contentious, reasonable requirements for greater oversight in areas such as antimicrobial stewardship, natural resource conservation, and protection of farm workers might be incorporated to reduce harms associated with meat eating. Our collective suggestions would permit retaining meat consumption with modifications (e.g., the amount of meat consumed, and the attributes and type of production). This option, while imperfect, and notably infringing on animal rights, benefits the broadest group of stakeholders. It duly considers their interests and the values of protecting others (including animals and the environment) from a more diverse set of harms, promoting more just, sustainable food systems, and reducing inequities in food access and security. Under these specified conditions, some meat consumption could be morally justified and even regarded as ethically preferable as it not only offers a practical option, it also potentially reduces some forms of harm. This is particularly the case if the harms considered include the inequity of allowing those who are affluent, empowered, and food secure to constrain the dietary options available to those who are socially, politically, and economically disempowered.

Moving forward, we must be open to discussing what food availability and security means in the global context, how climate change will impact our natural resources and the food dynamic, and where the ethical boundaries are drawn with respect to what we eat and the multitude of factors that affect our choices and those of others. “Food shaming” in any form must be avoided in discussions of what we eat given the constraints on food security, quality, access, and affordability faced by many who are often the subjects of and rarely the agents of public discussions and decision-making. To that end, we must also be open to discussing current and future natural resource limitations and pro-actively seek solutions that are scientifically sound and ethically supported. This includes actively engaging or discovering new methods to produce high quality food, including meat and not just foods perceived to hold the “moral high ground”. Finally, we must be pro-actively prepared to face the possibility that life-sustaining natural resource scarcity like water may force choices, both social and political, that may cause a reduction or phase-out of using animals to produce some foods, including meat and water intensive crops.

About the Author(s)

Dr. Candace Croney is director of Purdue University’s Center for Animal Welfare Science and professor of animal behavior and well-being in the departments of Comparative Pathobiology and Animal Sciences. Her animal-focused research, teaching, and outreach efforts include enhancing the welfare of companion and agricultural animals through developing and refining noninvasive metrics of welfare, including animal behavior, cognition, and health, and translating these into standards and guidelines. Her scholarship and outreach on the human dimensions of animal welfare examine public perceptions of animal agriculture and welfare, bioethical considerations relating to animal care and use, and their socio-political and practical implications.

Dr. Janice Swanson is a professor in the Departments of Animal Science and Large Animal Clinical Sciences at Michigan State University. Her area of focus is social responsibility in the food system as it relates to farm animal welfare. Dr. Swanson is a member of the MSU Animal Behavior and Welfare Group which conducts research into problems and issues of farm animal behavior and welfare. Her leadership and outreach efforts include the development of evidence-based food industry and commodity level animal welfare policies, standards and guidelines, public policy, and educational programming for the public and other stakeholders in the food system.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Archer ,  M . 2011 . Ordering the vegetarian meal? There is more blood on your hands. The Conversation . https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Baltzer ,  K . 2004 . Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality—the case of eggs . Acta Agric. Scand. C Food Econ . 1 : 78 – 90 . doi: 10.1080/16507540410024506

Google Scholar

Botonaki ,  A. , K.   Polymeros , E.   Tsakiridou , and K.   Mattas . 2006 . The role of food quality certification on consumers’ food choices . Br. Food J . 108 : 77 – 90 . doi: 10.1108/00070700610644906

Burini ,  R.C. and W.R.   Leonard . 2018 . The evolutionary roles of nutrition selection and dietary quality in the human brain size and encephalization . Nutrire . 43 : 19 . doi: 10.1186/s41110-018-0078-x

Campbell ,  C.S. , and J.M.   Hare . 1997 . Ethical literacy in gerontology programs . Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ . 17 ( 4 ): 3 – 16 . doi: 10.1300/j021v17n04_02

Chamanara ,  S. , B.   Goldstein , and J.P.   Newell . 2021 . Where’s the beef? Costco’s meat supply chain and environmental justice in California . J. Clean. Product . 278 : 123744 . doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123744

Council for Agricultural, Science and Technology . 2018 . Scientific, ethical and economic aspects of farm animal welfare. In: C.C.   Croney , J.A.   Mench , and W.   Muir , editors. Task Force Report R-143. https://www.cast-science.org/publication/scientific-ethical-and-economic-aspects-of-farm-animal-welfare/ (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Croney ,  C.C. , and R.   Anthony . 2010 . Engaging science in a climate of values: tools for animal scientists tasked with addressing ethical problems . J. Anim. Sci . 88 (suppl_13 ): E75 – E81 . doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2353

Croney ,  C. , and R.   Anthony . 2014 . Food animal production, ethics, and quality assurance. In P.B.   Thompson , and D.   Kaplan editors. Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics . New York, NY : Springer ; p.  1 – 10 .

Google Preview

Croney ,  C.C. , B.   Gardener , and S.   Baggott . 2004 . Beyond animal husbandry: the study of farm animal cognition and ensuing ethical issues . Essays Philos . 5 ( 2 ): 391 – 403 . doi: 10.5840/eip20045213

Croney ,  C. , W.   Muir , J.Q.   Ni , N.O.   Widmar , and G.   Varner . 2018 . An overview of engineering approaches to improving agricultural animal welfare . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 31 ( 2 ): 143 – 159 . doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9716-9

Davis ,  S.L . 2003 . The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large herbivores, not a vegan diet . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 16 : 387 – 394 . doi: 10.1023/a:1025638030686

Dawkins ,  M.S . 2016 . Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Anim. Prod. Sci . 57 ( 2 ): 201 – 208 . doi: 10.1071/AN15383

De Backer ,  C.J. , and L.   Hudders . 2015 . Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior . Meat Sci . 99 : 68 – 74 . doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011

de Boer ,  J. , H.   Schösler , and H.   Aiking . 2017 . Towards a reduced meat diet: mindset and motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters . Appetite . 113 : 387 – 397 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.007

De Vries ,  M. , and I.J.M.   de Boer . 2010 . Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments . Livest. Sci . 128 (1–3 ): 1 – 11 . doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007

Delgado ,  C.L. , N.   Wada , M.W.   Rosegrant , S.   Meijer , and M.   Ahmed . 2003 . Fish to 2020: supply and demand in changing global markets. International Food Policy Research Institute and WorldFish Center. WorldFish Center Technical Report 62. https://www.worldfishcenter.org

Ederer ,  P. , S.   Tarawali , I.   Baltenweck , J.N.   Blignaut , and C.   Moretti . 2023 . Affordability of meat for global consumers and the need to sustain investment capacity for livestock farmers . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

Ernstoff ,  A. , Q.   Tu , M.   Faist , A.   Del Duce , S.   Mandlebaum , and J.   Dettling . 2019 . Comparing the environmental impacts of meatless and meat-containing meals in the United States . Sustainability . 11 ( 22 ): 6235 . doi: 103390/su11226235

FAO . 2021 . The state of food security and nutrition in the world . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . https://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/2021/en/ (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Fischer ,  B. , and A.   Lamey . 2018 . Field deaths in plant agriculture . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 31 : 409 – 428 . doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8

Francione ,  G . 2022 . Letters to the Editor. Animal welfare and society - part 1. Viewpoints of a philosopher . Anim. Front . 12 ( 1 ): 43 – 47 . doi: 10.1093/af/vfac006

Godfray ,  H.C.J. , P.   Aveyard , T.   Garnett , J.W.   Hall , T.J.   Key , J.   Lorimer , R.T.   Pierrehumbert , P.   Scarborough , M.   Springmann , and S.   Jebb . 2018 . Meat consumption, health, and the environment . Science . 361 : 6399 . doi: 10.1126/science.aam5324

Gunderson ,  R . 2015 . Meat and inequality. In: J.   Emel , and H.   Neo , editors. Political Ecologies of Meat . London: Routledge, p.  101 – 109 . doi: 10.4324/9781315818283

Harnack ,  L. , Mork ,  S. , Valluri ,  S. , Weber   C. , Schmitz   K. , Stevenson ,  J. , and Pettit ,  J . 2021 . Nutrient composition of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States . J. Acad. Nutr. Diet . 121 ( 12 ): 2401 – 2408.e12 . doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2021.05.002

He ,  J. , N.M.   Evans , H.   Liu , and S.   Shao . 2020 . A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes . Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf . 19 ( 5 ): 2639 – 2656 . doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12610

Hull ,  S.C. , J.   Charles , and A.L.   Caplan . 2023 . Are we what we eat? The moral imperative of the medical profession to promote plant-based nutrition . Am. J. Cardiol . 188 : 15 – 21 . doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.10.006

Klurfeld ,  D.M . 2018 . What is the role of meat in a healthy diet? Anim. Front . 8 ( 3 ): 5 – 10 . doi: 10.1093/af/vfy009

Jacobsen ,  S.E . 2011 . The situation for quinoa and its production in southern Bolivia: from economic success to environmental disaster . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 197 ( 5 ): 390 – 399 . doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037x.2011.00475.x

Leroy ,  F. , N.   Smith , A.T.   Adesogan , T.   Beal , L.   Iannotti , P.J.   Moughan , and N.   Mann . 2023 . The role of meat in the human diet: evolutionary aspects and nutritional value . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

Mameli ,  M . 2013 . Meat made us moral: a hypothesis on the nature and evolution of moral judgment . Biol. Philos . 28 ( 6 ): 903 – 931 . doi: 10.1007/s10539-013-9401-3

McCarthy ,  J. , and S.   DeKoster . 2020 . Nearly one in four have cut back on eating meat . Gallup News, Economy . https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

McKendree ,  M.G. , C.C.   Croney , and N.O.   Widmar . 2014 . Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare . J. Anim. Sci . 92 ( 7 ): 3161 – 3173 . doi: 10.2527/jas.2014-6874

Monteiro ,  C.A. , T.M.   Pfeiler , M.D.   Patterson , and M.A.   Milburn . 2017 . The carnism inventory: measuring the ideology of eating animals . Appetite . 113 : 51 – 62 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011

Morgan ,  C.J. , C.C.   Croney , and Widmar ,  N.J . 2016 . Exploring relationships between ethical consumption, lifestyle choices, and social responsibility . Adv. Appl. Sociol . 6 : 199 – 216 . doi: 10.4236/aasoci.2016.65017

OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy . 2017 . Paris, France : World Organisation for Animal Health . http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/Others/EN_OIE_AW_Strategy.pdf (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Olen ,  H . 2022 . Opinion: falling sales suggest plant-based meat maybe all hat, and no cattle . Washington Post , November 7, 2022. 
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/07/plant-based-meat-declining-sales/ (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Piazza ,  J. , M.B.   Ruby , S.   Loughnan , M.   Luong , J.   Kulik , H.M.   Watkins , and M.   Seigerman . 2015 . Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns . Appetite . 91 : 114 – 128 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011

Post ,  M.J . 2014 . An alternative animal protein source: cultured beef . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci . 1328 ( 1 ): 29 – 33 . doi: 10.1111/nyas.12569

Post ,  M.J. , S.   Levenberg , D.L.   Kaplan , N.   Genovese , J.   Fu , C.J.   Bryant , N.   Negowettii , K.   Verzijden , and P.   Moutsatsou . 2020 . Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat . Nat. Food . 1 : 403 – 415 . doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z

Regan ,  T . 1983 . The case for animal rights . Berkeley : University of California Press .

Rowntree ,  J.E. , P.L.   Stanley , I.C.F.   Maciel , M.   Thorbecke , S.G.   Rosenzweig , D.W.   Hancock , A.   Guzman , and M.R.   Raven . 2020 . Ecosystem impacts and productive capacity of multi-species pastured livestock system . Front. Sustain. Food Sys . 4 : 1 – 13 . doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984

Shannon ,  K.L. , B.F.   Kim , S.E.   McKenzie , and R.S.   Lawrence . 2015 . Food system policy, public health, and human rights in the United States . Ann. Rev. Public Health . 36 ( 1 ): 151 – 173 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122621

Siegrist ,  M. , and C.   Hartmann . 2019 . Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes . Appetite . 132 : 196 – 202 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016

Singer ,  P . 1975 . Animal liberation . New York : Random House .

Spratt ,  E. , J.   Jordan , J.   Winsten , P.   Huff , C.   van Schaik , J.   Grimsbo , M.F.   Jewett , J. , Luhman , E.   Meier , and L.   Paine . 2021 . Viewpoint: accelerating regenerative grazing to tackle farm, environmental, and societal challenges in the upper Midwest . J. Soil Water Conserv . 76 ( 1 ): 15a – 23a . doi: 10.2489/jswc.2021.1209A

Thompson ,  P.B . 2021 . The vanishing ethics of husbandry. In: Animals in our midst: the challenges of co-existing with animals in the anthropocene . Cham : Springer ; p.  203 – 221 .

Thompson ,  L. , J.   Rowntree , W.   Windisch , S.M.   Waters , L.   Shalloo , and P.   Manzano . 2023 . Ecosystem management using livestock: embracing diversity and respecting ecological principles . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

United Nations Committee on Economics, Social, and Cultural Rights . 1999 . General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Covenant) . G eneva, Switzerland . http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838c11.htm (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Verbeke ,  W. , and J.   Viaene . 1999 . Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey . Food Qual. Prefer . 10 ( 6 ): 437 – 445 . doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2

Wood ,  P. , L.   Thorrez , J.F.   Hocquette , and D.   Troy . 2023 “Cellular Agriculture”: current gaps between facts and claims regarding “cell-based meat.” Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

World Health Organization . 2021 . Malnutrition. Factsheet . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition (accessed November 8, 2022 ).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2160-6064
• Print ISSN 2160-6056
• Copyright © 2024 American Society of Animal Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Henry Bloomfield ( Flickr Creative Commons )

The ethical arguments against eating meat

A recent BBC comedy written by Simon Amstell imagined life in 2067 when society has become vegan and people flock to support groups to cope with their guilt about their meat-eating past.

The premise might sound far-fetched to many viewers, but there an Oxford University philosopher says there are serious ethical arguments for giving up meat.

In a guest post, Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford, says that cutting down on our consumption of meat and animal products is "one of the easiest things we can do to live more ethically".

Here, he gives five ethical arguments for giving up meat:

1. The environmental impact is huge

'Livestock farming has a vast environmental footprint. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation.

Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This is more than all emissions from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together.

Climate change alone poses multiple risks to health and well-being through increased risk of extreme weather events – such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – and has been described as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.

Reducing consumption of animal products is essential if we are to meet global greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets – which are necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. 

2. It requires masses of grain, water and land

Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 litres of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still.

The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around 30% of the earth’s land surface is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources.

3. It hurts the global poor

Feeding grain to livestock increases global demand and drives up grain prices, making it harder for the world’s poor to feed themselves. Grain could instead be used to feed people, and water used to irrigate crops.

If all grain were fed to humans instead of animals, we could feed an extra 3.5 billion people. In short, industrial livestock farming is not only inefficient but also not equitable.

4. It causes unnecessary animal suffering

If we accept, as many people do, that animals are sentient creatures whose needs and interests matter, then we should ensure these needs and interests are at least minimally met and that we do not cause them to suffer unnecessarily.

Industrial livestock farming falls well short of this minimal standard. Most meat, dairy and eggs are produced in ways that largely or completely ignore animal welfare – failing to provide sufficient space to move around, contact with other animals, and access to the outdoors.

In short, industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification.

5. It is making us ill

At the production level, industrial livestock farming relies heavily on antibiotic use to accelerate weight gain and control infection – in the US, 80% of all antibiotics are consumed by the livestock industry.

This contributes to the growing public health problem of antibiotic resistance. Already, more than 23,000 people are estimated to die every year in the US alone from resistant bacteria. As this figure continues to rise, it becomes hard to overstate the threat of this emerging crisis.

High meat consumption – especially of red and processed meat – typical of most rich industrialised countries is linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and various cancers.

These diseases represent a major portion of the global disease burden so reducing consumption could offer substantial public health benefits.

Currently, the average meat intake for someone living in a high-income country is 200-250g a day, far higher than the 80-90g recommended by the United Nations. Switching to a more plant-based diet could save up to 8 million lives a year worldwide by 2050 and lead to healthcare related savings and avoided climate change damages of up to $1.5 trillion.'

This article takes extracts from a longer article by Professor Savulescu and Francis Vergunst of the University of Montreal, which was first published in The Conversation .

About Arts Blog

The latest news and views in the arts, humanities and culture at Oxford University. Curated by Sarah Whitebloom, Media Relations Manager (Research and Innovation).

Contact: Sarah Whitebloom, [email protected]

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Business Ethics — The Ethics of Meat Consumption

The Ethics of Meat Consumption

• Categories: Business Ethics Genetically Modified Food

About this sample

Words: 854 |

Published: Feb 13, 2024

Words: 854 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Objection and reply.

• Singer, Peter. Animal liberation. Towards an end to man's inhumanity to animals. Granada Publishing Ltd., 1977.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1560 words

3 pages / 1329 words

1 pages / 587 words

6 pages / 2770 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Business Ethics

Purpose of Each of The Sections in a Typic Research Article All research article contain content that is in chronological order that leads from a hypothesis to a conclusion. The chronological order starts with a meaningful [...]

I work for a domestic violence shelter that has been asked by a Latin-American group to offer a domestic violence training seminar. My male coworker accompanies me to the training, during the session a male member of the [...]

Marketing and psychology are extremely interconnected in modern world. It takes some knowledge of basic psychology and human behavior to succeed in marketing. But using psychological methods is not only the single connection. [...]

Our personal lives have been affected by the developing technology in recent years, as well as business environments, business principles, and working arrangements are influenced and shaped by these developments. With [...]

The ethics are principles based on doing the right thing. They are the moral values by which an individual or business operates. The business should act ethically until attaining the ultimate success. The history of doing right [...]

Explanation of the lack of quality integrity as an ethical issue Importance of ethical values in promoting honesty, truthfulness, and professional competence Discussion of integrity as a fundamental ethical issue [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free