The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why don't consumers consume ethically?
Abstract
Many consumers profess to want to avoid unethical offerings in the marketplace yet few act on this inclination. This study investigates the nature of the rationales and justifications used by consumers to make sense of this discrepancy. The data was collected via in‐depth interviews across eight countries. The respondents were presented with three ethical consumption scenarios, and discussed their views on the consumption issues as well as their consumption behavior. The majority of the discussion focused around their rationalizations for their lack of ethical consumption patterns. Three justification strategies emerged from the data: economical rationalization, institutional dependency, and developmental realism. Economic rationalization focuses on consumers wanting to get the most value for their money, regardless of their ethical beliefs. Institutional dependency refers to the belief that institutions such as the government are responsibility to ethically regulate what products can be sold. Finally, developmental realism features the rationalization that some unethical behaviors on the part of corporations must exist in order for macro level economic development to occur. Consumer resistance in the marketplace is currently limited to small niche groups. This study investigates why resistance is so limited, in spite of survey results which suggest that a much larger group of people are interested in ethical consumption. This is the first study to investigate the nature of consumer rationales, and reinforces the need for non‐survey‐based research to understand nuanced consumer reactions and behaviors in ethical consumerism. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Thompson, C. J. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379703400403 · Cited by 1,142
Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions
Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9287-y · Cited by 665
Self-citation
Cited by
The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23552 · Cited by 3,439
Jacobs, K., Petersen, L., Hörisch, J., & Battenfeld, D. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320 · Cited by 330
Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-10-2015-1560 · Cited by 288
Brandão, A., & Costa, A. G. D. (2021) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-11-2020-0306 · Cited by 168
Attitude toward Consumption and Subjective Well‐Being
Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/joca.12079 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Behaviour
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 426-436
- ISSN
- 1472-0817 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1838
- OpenAlex
- W1986892266
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 35.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why don't consumers consume ethically? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cb.332
- The paper
- Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don't consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.332
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.