RCCPB Working Paper #36

October 2014

Chinese Consumers’ Ethical Consumption: Between Intent and Behavior

Deng Xinming IU RCCPB Visiting Scholar &

Associate Professor School of Economics & Management

Wuhan University xmdeng@whu.edu.cn

©Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business, 2014

Abstract

Consumers' ethical shopping behavior is very complicated. There is an apparent gap between intent and actual behavior. Through two approaches the paper analyzes the factors preventing consumers from translating their stated ethical intentions into actual ethical buying behavior. The first type of data draws on in-depth interviews and identifies 6 personal consumer and 5 shopping situational factors impeding the transformation from consumer’s stated ethical intentions into actual ethical behavior. The second dataset is based on questionnaires from 1,000 consumers to test the adaptability of those personal and situational factors identified in the interview data, and investigates the moderating effects of these factors on the relationship between intentions and behavior. The findings show that among those personal factors, moral maturity, economic rationality, buying inertia, cynicism, and ethical cognitive efforts all have a significant moderating role on the relationship between ethical intentions and action. All of the situational factors moderate the relationship between intention and action. Finally, the paper develops an overall theoretic framework for consumers’ ethical decision-making process, which can provide insight into how to motivate consumers to support a firm’s ethical behavior and to transfer this kind of support into truly positive purchasing behavior. Dr. Deng Xinming is a visiting scholar at the Indiana University Research Center for Chinese Politics & Business (RCCPB) and Associate Professor in the School of Economics and Management at Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. Prof. Deng may be reached at xmdeng@whu.edu.cn.

  1  

Introduction

In recent years, ethical consumption has been growing rapidly (Bray, Johns, Kilburn, 2010;

Berry&McEachern, 2005; Davis, 2006). In 2007, growth in global sales of products endorsed by

the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (2007) had reached 47%. A longitudinal study

by the Co-operative Bank reports that sales of ethical goods rose between 2004 and 2007 at

around 12% a year, reaching￡35.5 bn in 2007 (Clavin, 2008).

However, empirical evidence suggests that while increasing numbers of consumers have

absorbed and are motivated by the values of ethical consumerism, a change in consumption

behavior is much less apparent (Carrington, Neville, Whitwell, 2010; Chatzidakis et al., 2007;

Arvola et al., 2008; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008). When facing the cash register, stated intention

of ethical consumption seldom translate into actual purchasing behavior (Auger and Devinney,

2007; Carrington, Neville, Whitwell, 2010; Belk et al., 2005; Carrington and Attalla, 2001; Shaw

et al., 2007). For instance, Roberts (1996) and Simon (1995) determined that although consumers

do have a sense of ethical responsibility, no more than 20% engaged in true ethical consumption in

the last year. It was no wonder that Macalister (2007) pointed out directly that such growth

patterns undoubtedly show great potential, but that sales in this area still represent less than 6% of

the overall consumer market of some ￡600 bn. As a matter of fact, the above statements fully

demonstrate that the consumers’ ethical shopping process is very complicated (Nicholls &Lee,

2006; Kim et al., 1997; Bray, Johns, and Kilburn, 2010). Further, in exploring consumer’s

responses to a firm’s ethical actions, Deng (2012) found that about 44% of consumers will

respond to companies’ ethical actions positively. However, only 12% of them will produce real

purchasing action, which means that nearly 32% of consumers will say one thing but do another.

In fact, the gap between intentions and behavior has far-reaching effects on enterprises’

ethical marketing activities. The development of cultures surrounding ethical and/or moral

consumerism will inevitably attract the attention of enterprises seeking to meet the demands of all

stakeholders, including ethical consumers (Carrington, Neville, Whitwell, 2010; Polonsky, 1995).

Therefore, marketing strategies with ethical orientation are widely being adopted to tap into

potentially profitable ethical market segments and to promote the ethically responsible and

environmentally sustainable credentials of products, brands, services and/or corporations

(Carrington, Neville, Whitwell, 2010). However, if firms make production and investment

decisions simply based upon consumers’ ethical purchase intentions, costly failures would likely

result. Therefore, understanding the ethical decision-making process, especially the gap between

what ethically minded consumers intend to do and what they actually do at the point of purchase,

and understanding how to close this gap are an important academic, managerial and social

objectives. Although studies about ethical consumption in recent years have clearly increased in

  2  

number, they have seldom paid attention to the factors leading to this gap (Bray, Johns, Kilburn,

2010; Auger, Devinney, 2007; Carrington, Neville, Whitwell, 2010, etc.). Though a few scholars’

studies did explore this issue such as Areni & Black (2008), and Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell

(2000), their study was still at the exploratory stage and based only on qualitative methods. This

article attempts to make a contribution to ethical decision-making theory in the Chinese context

based on the combination of qualitative and quantitative data. Understanding the

intention-behavior gap of ethically minded consumers offers a rich marketing platform on which

to build an effective strategy. Only when corporations understand these issues can they take more

initiative in relevant marketing activities and be more purposeful in the implementation of ethical

marketing strategies.

Literature Review

Ethical decision-making is a very important issue in the field of corporate ethics. The

emergence of a large number of theoretical models has promoted the development of descriptive

ethics (empirical ethics) (Jones, 1991; Rest, 1986; Trevino, 1986; O’Fallon & Fallon, 2005).

These models are almost based on the four-stage theoretical framework of ethical decision-making

proposed by Rest (1986), and have mainly verified the influencing mechanism of personal factors,

such as moral cognition and demographic characteristics (e.g. gender and education level et al.),

and the effect made by environmental factors including moral code, moral climate and moral

culture on corporate ethical decision-making.

However, within the field of ethical consumerism, theory development is still at its early

stages (Carrington et al., 2010). An established and widely accepted theoretical framework for the

decision making of ethical consumers is yet to be developed (Fukukawa, 2003), among them, the

models most frequently applied and modified to understand the purchase decision-making process

of the ethically minded are the theoretical frameworks of “reasoned action” (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975) and “planned behavior” (Ajzen, 1991; Chatzidakis et al., 2007; De Pelsmacker & Janssens,

2007; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). Because the theory of reasoned action can’t account for those

behaviors without volitional control, Ajzen (1991) proposed the theory of planned behavior (TPB),

positing that behavioral intention will be expressed in behavior only under volitional control. In

their modifications to the TPB, scholars within the ethical consumerism field have sought to

include the influence of ethics, morals and values in this attitude–intention–behavior framework.

For example, Shaw and Clarke (1999 ) developed theoretical models that include the influence of

internal ethics (personal values) on intentions, and did so within the context of fair trade; Arvola et

al. (2008) included moral norms to predict purchase intentions of organic food; Vermier and

Verbeke (2008) integrated the role of personal values within the purchase intentions of sustainable

  3  

food. These studies have tended to accept the theoretical assumption that an individual’s intentions

will directly determine their actual behavior (Fukukawa, 2003). This assumption, however, has

been widely criticized as an oversimplification of the complex transition from intentions to action

(Bagozzi, 2000; Morwitz et al., 2007).

Furthermore, empirical studies in the field of consumer behavior more broadly suggest that

purchase intentions do not translate literally into purchase behavior (Morwitz et al., 2007). Not all

consumers will support the corporate ethical marketing activities, for example, Sen and

Bhattacharya (2001) find that consumers will think poorly of products that announce positive

social responsibility information; Smith and Stodghill (1994) found that many consumers would

question firms’ real intention of doing good, considering their charitable behavior as

business-interests-oriented, call them “corporate hypocrites” and rejecting their products.

In essence, it took a long time for scholars to recognize that intention is an inferior “predictor”

for behavior, and observe that this kind of distance is of great importance for explaining,

predicting, and influencing consumers’ behavior (Bagozzi, 1993). Up to now, particularly in the

study of ethical consumerism, there has not been sufficient cognition on this distance (Auger,

Burke, Devinney, & Louviere, 2003; Belk et al., 2005; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). Auger and

Devinney (2007) think that to investigate consumer’s ethical purchase intention accurately, one

must inspect both the personal characteristics and consumption environment simultaneously. For

instance, some scholars definitely point out that the bias of consumers’ ethical purchase intention

is not only because that consumers want to adhere to social expectation (Auger & Devinney, 2007;

Carrington & Attalla, 2001); but also from the mistaken evaluation of future specific consumption

environment (Carrington et al., 2010). When purchase intention transforms to actual purchase

behavior, individuals interact with the consumption environment, which in turn influences

consumers’ decision-making process (Phillips, 1993).

In addition, some scholars have explored the question of attitude-intention-behavior gap of

consumer decision-making in their ethical decision-making models. For example, Ferrell and

Gresham (1985) proposed a contingency model which emphasize that ethical decision-making

processes start from the social or cultural environment that generate ethical problems; when faced

with ethical problems, individual’s decision-making is affected by personal factors(knowledge,

values and attitude), important relationship (differential contact and role definition), as well as

opportunities. Trevino (1986) proposed a person-situation integrationist model, considering that

both personal factors (such as ego strength, locus of control, et al.) and situational factors (such as

immediate working background, organizational culture, and the nature of work) will moderate the

relationship between cognitive appraisal and behavior. Moreover, situational factors also have a

direct impact on cognitive appraisal. Ferrell, Gresham and Fraedrich (1989) find that ethical

  4  

judgment can directly influence ethical behavior, and that the factors which influence ethical

decision-making contain important relationship, personal factors, situational factors and

opportunities. The scholars mentioned above point out the effects of consumers’ individual

characteristics and specific consumption situation when investigating the factors influencing

individual ethical decision-making; however, these are all from the single perspective. Meanwhile,

much of this research has focused primarily on the seller side of the buyer/seller dyad, and

relatively few studies have examined ethical issues in the marketplace from the perspective of

consumer ethics (Vitell, 2003). So, in order to examine the purchase decision-making mechanism

of ethical consumption, particularly the deep factors that influence the ethical purchase

intention-behavior gap, this paper will conduct two studies by referring to the ethical

decision-making models in ethical marketing mentioned above to integrate the two perspectives,

including the consumer-personal and shopping-environment levels. It means that we focus on not

only the influence of individual characteristics on purchase intention-behavior gap, but also the

influence of specific purchasing situations on ethical purchase decision-making process. Study 1

primarily recognizes the influencing factors that lead to intention-behavior gap through qualitative

method of in-depth interview; then, through large-scale questionnaire survey, study 2 further tests

the recognized factors in study 1 and investigates the moderating effect of each factor on the

relationship between intention and behavior. In following, we will develop an integrated

theoretical framework of consumer ethical decision-making process, aiming at enriching and

promoting the development of the theory of ethical consumerism.

Study #1: Qualitative Interviews

Research approach and Data collection Qualitative methods are considered be most helpful to examine those situations where

claimed attitudes and actual behavior diverge (Belk et al., 2005) and where a real-life context is

important (Sinkovics et al., 2005; Sykes, 1990). Given this, in-depth interviews with consumers

seem to be the most advisable method, as they enable researchers to gain a more accurate and

clear picture of a respondent’s position or behavior (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002) and to clarify

and calmly elaborate on interesting answers.

However, since the investigation of ethics-related topics is subject to social desirability bias,

great care must be taken when collecting data (Brunk, 2010; Mohr et al., 2001; Oberseder et al.,

2011). Hence, to reduce social desirability bias, we took measures as follows: Firstly, face-to-face

interviews are seen as a good approach to minimize self-presentational concerns (Wooten and

Reed, 2000) and to reduce the pressure on the interviewees to “do and say the right thing” (Bristol

and Fern, 2003); Secondly, we tried as much as possible to lead the interviewees to a quieter place

  5  

in order to make them feel comfortable. Moreover, a semi-structural interview is conducted to

produce a relaxing and trustful atmosphere; Thirdly, Before the interview, the respondents were

advised that the focus of the research was to investigate their opinions and beliefs and that there

were no right and wrong answers to the interview questions; Lastly, as for some particularly

delicate questions, the projective technique was used, asking our respondents to interpret the

behavior of other consumers (Fischer, 1993).

The Sample To gain a diverse and interesting interviewee selection, we employed theoretical sampling,

meaning that we chose consumers who could inform us about the research problem addressed in

this study (Creswell 2007; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In the meantime, we also tried to gather a

balanced sample in terms of consumption habits. Hence, our study selected consumers with

different shopping habits, ranging from price-conscious to quality shoppers. Moreover, we chose

those consumers with diverse backgrounds with regards to demographic criteria such as age,

gender, level of education, occupation, and marital status.

A total of 40 respondents were interviewed, and among them, two respondents answered

several phone calls during the interview, thus affecting the interview quality; another respondent

had to finish some work during the interview and had to stop the interview early. Besides these,

there were two respondents who said they had no ethical intentions, but could provide the

interviewer with their actual ethical shopping behaviors. Because this seldom happens in reality,

we thus exclude them in our sample. Therefore, there were 35 respondents as our valid interviews.

The whole interviews were carried out from mid-August to early October in 2011. Each interview

lasted from 30 minutes to 1 hour.

Findings

How Consumers respond to firms’ ethical products

Among 35 respondents, nearly 62% of them stated notable ethical intention, but not any

actual purchasing behavior. 8% of respondents “walk their talk”, meaning that they not only

declare their preference for ethical goods, but also make an effort to actively ethically consume. In

addition, 30% are indifferent to the enterprise’s ethical activities. This result fully proved some

scholars’ opinions about “intention-behavior gap of ethical consumption”, and in reality, there

exists consumers with ethical commitments, but their ethical buying willingness does not

necessarily convert into practical ethical purchasing behavior. (Auger, & Devinney, 2007; Belk et

al., 2005; Carrington, &Attalla, 2001; Jobber, 2000; Shawetal, 2007). Then, what are the factors

impeding the translation from buying intentions to actual purchasing behavior of ethical

consumers? This is just what we’ll investigate in the following sections.

Consumer characteristic variables

  6  

During the interviews, respondents seem to be aware of the relevance between personal

morality and ethical purchasing, and persist in saying that they are bound to participate in ethical

purchase as much as possible. When the interviews go further, however, a contradiction between

words and behavior emerges. Though respondents state that they have a responsibility to take

action, they give many excuses to explain why it is difficult to buy ethical products. For example,

they question the quality of ethical product; dislike enterprises “doing good things” to marketing

themselves; and consider it hard to distinguish ethical products. Some even claim that they don’t

have enough ethical consciousness and only give support to ethical consumption at the emotional

level.

Moral maturity. According to Kohlberg (1969), moral maturity will particularly have an

impact on consumer behavior. Forte (2004) suggests that, when making ethical decisions, a

person’s moral maturity has a significant relationship with a personally formed sense of control.

Those who have an external locus of control tend to believe that an ethical dilemma is beyond

their control, while those with an internal locus of control are more likely to make ethical

decisions under the condition of neglecting conflicts and social rules pressure (Singhapakdi, &

Vitell, 1991). For instance, during the interview, we found many respondents did mention that

they couldn’t accept buying pirated products. On the contrary, others held the view that, even you

insist on buying genuine goods, there are a number of consumers who will still buy pirated. The

former believe that their behavior will have an effect (internal locus of control), whereas the latter

propose the change of their consumption pattern has no influence at all. This example illustrates

that how to use the external locus of control to prove the existing purchase behavior reasonable

(Singhapakdi, & Vitell, 1991). Therefore, consumers who have more moral maturity with an

internal locus of control will be increasingly willing to consider the influence of their own private

consumption behavior on issues of social ethics and thereby attempt to bring about social change

through their purchasing behavior (Webster 1975; Muncy, and Vitell 1992).

Quality consciousness. In the interview, we found out that, partly because of respondents’

distrust on the quality of ethical products, a number showed great interest in ethical products, but

that they still didn’t make an actual purchase, Some respondents, for example, hold the viewpoint

that there was trade-off relationship between corporate social responsibility behavior and

enterprise ability, such that the social responsibility behavior weakened the company’s ability to

provide the best products, while the enterprise’s behavior of using resources in social

responsibility activities would reduce resource inputs in terms of increasing work efficiency. This

seems to verify Folkes and Kamin’s (1999) perspective to a certain degree, they believe that moral

behavior does not take the place of product quality and that ethical marketing responsibility

behavior also can not offset the effect of low-quality products on the consumer. Thus, the

  7  

perceived quality of ethical products is a strong influential factor in the process of ethical

decision-making (Bray, Johns, Kilburn, 2011).

Price sensitivity. When being interviewed, price was always mentioned by respondents. This

indicates that compared with ethical value, what they care more about is financial value, especially

when buying food or other daily goods. One of them once said, “When shopping in the

supermarkets, I don’t take ethical goods into account at all, because you consume them every day,

and you should save money as much as possible”. After consumers have purchased ethical

products, once they have to pay the higher price, they may experience a notable disparity between

pre-purchase and post-purchase process. For instance, a respondent told us ever, “Sometimes I do

feel like buying some particular ethical goods. For example, there were internet friends who

launched an activity called ‘buying up Wanglaoji1’ after Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008. When I

entered the store, however, I found the price for me was too high.”

Buying inertia. Besides quality and price of products we are always focusing on, compared to

consumers’ commitments to ethical purchase, some respondents seemingly stick more to their own

buying inertia. Assuming that consumers are facing a non-price sensitive shopping situation, they

will not choose buying ethical products at once as expected. Though price and quality are

prominent, purchasing inertia is a stronger barrier to consumption, as it ultimately prevents any

change in consumption patterns. At first, price is believed to be the key impeding factor in ethical

consumption. But when requested to neglect it, consumers are apparently influenced by their

buying inertia. In the interview, we found out that we had to admit that consumers’ loyalty to

certain brands would always make them be less likely to make an ethical option. A lot of branded

goods have been accepted by consumers, though these products were not reasonable at the ethical

level.

Cynicism. In our interview, many respondents expressed their disappointment with so-called

“ethical image” of corporations to show that it was reasonable for them not be willing to buy

ethical products. They argued that corporations’ statement of supporting philanthropy was yet just

“making a show of it” in terms of social responsibility behavior, or simply promoting itself, and

the true goal is to gain their own commercial interests. In the meantime, consumers showed

another form of “cynicism”. They hold the viewpoint that ethical behavior of some enterprises do

not matching their economic ability, which doesn’t satisfy consumers’ expectations on them. In

our interview, for example, some respondents angrily mentioned that after the earthquake of China

in 2008, many companies with big size (e.g. Wanke) and overseas enterprises (e,g. Dell) donated

                                                                                                                         1 Wanglaoji is a famous beverage brand in China. In the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake of China, the Wanglaoji

Company made a quick response to this disaster and donated 100 million RMB, which triggered some consumers

to launch an activity named “buying up Wanglaoji”.

  8  

too little money for the earthquake and responded very slowly.

Ethical cognitive efforts. In essence, when Boulstridge and Carrington (2000) investigated

consumers’ responses to ethical and unethical marketing activities, they found that most

consumers did not have enough information to identify whether an enterprise had ever been

engaged in ethical activities or not. In addition, consumers seldom take the initiative to seek

relevant ethics information regarding production when shopping—they simply rely on label

information as guidance (Carrington and Attalla 2001). Just as the findings of Dragon

International (1991) suggest, only 26% of respondents could identify the names of socially

responsible enterprise clearly, while only 18% of them could pick out “the least responsible”

enterprise. In fact, in our investigation, a number of respondents admitted honestly that they are

not provided with enough information to help making a decision ethically. Thus, in reality, society

has created very captious mature consumers who have achieved a high level of education, but it

would appear that the knowledge possessed by these so-called ‘‘mature consumers’’ can not/does

not lead them to buy ethical type products (Deng, 2012).

Situational Variables According to the literature review, the gap between intention and behavior is not solely

caused by the cognitive process of ethical consumers. Some of them will confront a situation

outside of their subjective control that has “a notable effect on current behavior” (Belk, 1975). In

the field of consumer behavior, purchasing surroundings refer to physical and social factors that

consumers will confront in their purchasing process, which is a special kind of environment

mixing with people’s emotions and cognitions (Bryce, 2003). These factors may play an impeding

or promoting role in the transformation from buying intentions into purchasing behavior.

Physical surroundings. Physical surroundings refer to the physical features of marketing

environment which could be readily identified, including tangible factors that take up rooms (e.g.

store address, product placement, inventory information, visibility of competing products and

accessibility of price comparison, etc.) and intangible factors that don’t take up space (e.g. color,

flavor music and lighting etc.). Just as Beatty and Ferrell (1998) found, factors such as the

convenience of a shopping place, the placement of products, pleasant flavor and beautiful colors

will have an impact upon consumers’ product perception. Thereby consumers’ cognition of

products is stimulated and they then make actual purchasing actions. In the interview, we actually

find that physical surroundings do play an important part in the transformation of consumers’

ethical buying intentions into actual behaviors. For example, many respondents said, “Of course, I

would like to buy ethical goods, but I will not walk a long way to purchase ethical products. And

what’s more, it seems impossible to pick out a certain ethical product with difficulty from lots of

goods on the shelf when I arrive at shopping places.” It somewhat seems to indicates that only

  9  

when there’s no increase on extra cost of ethical consumption (e.g. information recognition of

ethical products and inconvenience of shopping), will their purchases become more ethically

oriented.

Social surroundings. Social surroundings refer to the influences that other people or social

norms have upon consumers in their consumption, such as opinions of their friends or colleagues,

expectations of families, and the social mainstream values (Belk, 1975; Bryce, 2003). Pool (1998)

suggests that consumers have motivations of following group norms because they may think that

the behavior of others (especially people who are important for them) are appropriate. Particularly

in some uncertain situation, people tend to obtain information from the society about how to

behave. As a matter of fact, we do feel that respondents really care about what others may think

about their consumption behavior in our interview. For instance, some respondents told us,

“Personally I pretty much support ethical consumption, but most friends around me don’t care

much about this. If I pay too much attention, I will be regarded pedantic and asocial.” Another

example is that a respondent once said, “I think ethical consumption is the issue that only

middle-aged and old people should consider, but for us born after the 1990s, fashion is the most

important factor that matters. If I pursue so-called ‘ethical consumption’, my friends will

definitely laugh at me.” Even there’s no pressure from relatives and friends, indeed, the contact

with shopping guides is dispensable for consumers when they are in the shopping mall.

Consumers will unwittingly listen to marketing personnels’ advice in their purchase of goods, and

these advice and suggestions can improve consumers’ value perception (Hawkins, &Roger, 2003).

For instance, some respondents said, “Sometimes I really choose ethical goods purposely when

shopping, but if strongly recommended to buy other favorable competing products by shopping

guides, I can’t block my temptation to buy them.”

Time. When consumers feel urgency in shopping, they won’t spend much time in collecting

enough information to choose products. Some consumers admitted honestly that they had no time

to consider the ethical associations of their purchasing behavior because they often were in a hurry

in the supermarkets or shopping malls. As Titus and Bradford (1996) pointed out, time pressure

and information burden may actually undermine the consumer’s ability to make an accurate

judgment on product quality. Thus, we think in the shopping environment, consumers’ perception

of information, time, and other factors without volitional control will significantly influence their

ethical shopping decision-making.

Shopping task. Shopping task means the specific reason or purpose for consumers to buy

goods, i.e., purchasing a commodity is for their own use, sharing with family, or to give to others

as a gift (Belk, 1975; Bryce, 2003). We find, in our interview, that under the conditions of

different shopping purposes, consumers also have various opinions about choosing different

  10  

grades, price, and brands of products. For example, some consumers hold the idea, “If I’m going

to buy things to give people as a gift, what I firstly consider the quality and grade. While for my

own use, I think I’ll focus on ethical factors possible. That’s great!” Some other respondents said,

“Ethical goods are perfect. For example, organic food is too expensive for me to buy, but for my

parents, of course I’ll buy them. They can prolong life, of course.” Thus, shopping tasks or

purposes can influence consumers’ value perception of the ethical goods, thereby impeding or

promoting the transformation from ethical buying intentions into purchasing behavior.

Current status. This refers to temporary emotions (e.g. anxiety, hostility and excitement) or

status (e.g. holding cash, shortage of products or a sudden rise in price) of consumers in the actual

consuming context (Belk, 1975; Bryce, 2003). This will change consumers’ emotions, and further

influence their understanding of the value of products. In the interview, we find that even if

current status has some contingency, corporations can’t neglect its impeditive effect on the

transformation from ethical intentions into purchasing behavior. When consumers enter into

shopping places, there exist many kinds of casual factors affecting consumers’ ethical buying

decisions. For instance, they may find it impossible to get their desired ethical goods immediately;

or their money is not sufficient to actually purchase ethical goods. As is stated by a respondent,

“Once I really wanted to buy ‘Wanglaoji’ after seeing the activity of ‘buying up Wanglaoji’ in

internet. However, when I entered the shopping mall, I was told that they had been sold out.”

Another respondent said ever, “To be honest, some products with the concept of green and

environmental consumption are so expensive. I always hesitate to spend so much money on

them.”

Study #2: Quantitative Data

Data Collection and Sampling This part of the research took a sample survey in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan,

Chengdu and Qingdao during March-July 2012. In order to improve the questionnaire recovery

and guarantee the response quality, we used face-to-face method and collected questionnaires on

the spot. At the same time, because researchers don’t know the interviewees and the survey is

conducted anonymously, it is hard for researchers to ask interviewees to spend some time

answering the questionnaires, in order to reduce the probability of being rejected, we provide

some gifts worth RMB 15-20 for every interviewee. We delivered 1,200 questionnaires and

received 1,093, after the consistency check, we delete 64 and finally keep 1,029 valid ones, so the

recovery is 91.08% and the valid rate is 85.75%.

Variable Measurement We adopt the following method to develop consumer characteristic variables and situation

  11  

variables which can moderate the relationship between consumer ethical purchase intention and

behavior in the Chinese situation: (1) In-depth interviews (study 1). We collect and conclude

specific items through the deep interview in study 1, and select items that are mentioned in the

interview more than 10 times, among them 12 items are about consumer characteristics and 8

items are about situation; (2) Referring to related extant researches and questionnaires. We refer to

the definition and measurement of consumer characteristic variables (Carrington, Neville, &

Whitwell, 2010; Deng, 2012) and situation variables (Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010;

Blythe, 2003) which influence the ethical purchase intention-behavior gap in previous literature,

after modifying them, we get 4 items about consumer personality and 5 items about situational

factors. Combining these items and those obtained from interview, we get an initial questionnaire

consisting of 16 items about consumer characteristic and 13 items about shopping situation; (3)

Assess and modify the initial questionnaire. Again, following the deep interview steps in study 1,

we choose 20 respondents (both of these respondents and the 40 respondents in study 1 didn’t

participate in the subsequent formal survey) to assess the degree to which the content described by

the items of initial questionnaire are conform to the reality, then we adjust the expression to make

them understood more easily. By synthesizing these feedback, we delete 4 items and finally get a

measurement scale consists of 25 items.

In the formal investigation, we use the 25-items scale to measure the factors which can

influence the ethical purchase intention-behavior gap. Respondents make self-assessment based on

the 5-point Likert-type scale (0=strongly not degree; 1=not degree; 2=neutral; 3=agree; 4=

strongly agree). In order to test the reliability and validity of the scale, we conduct an exploratory

factor analysis (EFA) for the samples. The results (as shown in Table 1 and Table 2) of EFA show

that: (1) among the factors of consumer characteristic, there are 5 factors whose eigenvalues is

greater than 1, among them “quality consciousness” and “price sensitivity” identified in study 1

merge into one factor named “economic rationality” in EFA; (2) among the factors of shopping

situation, there are 4 factors whose characteristic  root is greater than 1, among them “current state”

and “time perception” identified in study 1 merge into one factor named “current state” in EFA; (3)

factor loading of each item is greater than 0.5; (4) the variance explained by each factor is more

than 70%; (5) the reliability of items of each factor is greater than 0.8.

In addition, the dependent variables in this paper involve ethical purchase intention and

behavior. The measurement of ethical purchase intention is conducted through 2 items: “I will buy

ethical products next time” “I will consider preferentially buying ethical products next time”.

Respondents make assessment based on the 5-point Likert-type scale (0=strongly not degree;

1=not degree; 2=neutral; 3=agree; 4= strongly agree). The measurement of ethical purchase

behavior is conducted through the item “In your memory, how many times have you bought

  12  

ethical products?” Respondents make assessment based on the 5-point Likert-type scale (0=not at

all; 1=quite a little; 2=relatively few; 3=relatively many; 4=quite a lot).

Table 1: Component Loadings for Five-Factor Solution Principal Component Loading—Five-Component Solution

Personal factors Component

Moral maturity Cronbach’s Alpha:0.921 1 2 3 4 5

I always ethically consume 0.779 0.171 0.255 0.446 0.446

I always recommend my friends to buy ethical products 0.723 0.149 0.097 0.184 0.184

I always resolutely resist unethical products 0.697 0.245 0.119 0.281 0.281

I always recommend my friends not to buy unethical products 0.771 0.248 0.149 0.111 -0.001

Economic rationality Cronbach’s Alpha:0.881

I mainly consider cost-performance ratio when buying goods 0.111 0.709 0.122 0.165 0.216

I mainly consider brand awareness when buying commodities 0.261 0.687 0.209 0.132 0.289

I mainly consider shopping convenience when buying goods 0.142 0.745 0.322 0.198 0.177

Buying inertia Cronbach’s Alpha:0.903

I will not change familiar brands easily when buying goods 0.048 0.023 0.645 0.023 0.111

I like to go to the shopping mall I usually go when buying goods 0.111 0.098 0.721 0.098 0.218

Cynicism Cronbach’s Alpha:0.928

Corporate can’t has help-self motivation when doing charities 0.298 0.048 0.244 0.676 0.218

Large corporate must undertake much more ethical responsibility 0.023 0.21 0.087 0.809 0.321

Ethical cognitive effort Cronbach’s Alpha:0.876

I am certain to make clear whether the corporate is genuinely

“philanthropy”, or false “philanthropy” 0.047 0.285 0.176 0.166 0.634

I am certain to identify the ethical information of products 0.216 0.181 0.385 0.378 0.709

I would like to go to many stores or supermarkets to look for my favorite

ethical products 0.177 0.133 -0.007 0.299 0.772

Total variance explained = 73.2%; KMO = 0.887; Bartletts Test Chi-sq =5679.2, p = 0.000

Table 2: Component Loadings for Four-Factor Solution Principal Component Loading—Four-Component Solution

Situational factors Component

Physical surroundings Cronbach’s Alpha:0.865 1 2 3 4

Stores or supermarkets should display the ethical products in such positions which

can easily catch the eye 0.709 0.377 -0.092 0.364

Stores or supermarkets selling ethical products should have good sites 0.711 0.176 0.231 0.144

Stores or supermarkets selling ethical products should have good promotion

atmosphere 0.687 0.201 0.008 0.309

Social surroundings Cronbach’s Alpha:0.877

Most family members/ friends/neighbors/colleagues around me promote ethical

consumption 0.231 0.703 0.211 0.254

The government/media network/consumer groups often call on to buy ethical

products 0.092 0.643 0.067 0.061

  13  

consuming ethical products is a prestigious affair 0.309 0.807 0.321 0.343

Shopping task Cronbach’s Alpha:0.890

If the products are for gifts, quality and grade are the main consideration 0.071 0.021 0.665 0.087

If the products are for self-use, ethical factor will be considered when purchasing 0.085 0.109 0.671 0.113

Current status Cronbach’s Alpha:0.901

When I go to stores or supermarkets, if commodities are suddenly out-of-stock or

rise in price, I will change my idea temporarily 0.023 0.337 0.446 0.801

I am an impulse buyer, and the shopping mood will dominate my purchase choice -0.147 0.092 0.184 0.721

I am too busy, so that I don’t have much time to identify ethical and unethical

products when I am shopping in stores or supermarkets 0.064 -0.119 0.281 0.734

Total variance explained = 69.9%; KMO = 0.903; Bartletts Test Chi-sq =6413.9, p = 0.000

 

Findings Correlation analysis

The correlation between consumer characteristic variables and buying intention and

behavior. The findings figure out that quality consciousness and price sensitivity are significantly

negatively correlated with buying intention, and weakly negatively associated to purchasing

behavior. This result indicates that in reality, there are quite a few consumers that express their

willingness to make ethical purchases, but the reality is that ethical marketing responsibility is not

the most important standard in their purchasing decision process—what they are truly concerned

about are economic factors, such as price, quality, brand, and convenience (Boulstridge, and

Carrington, 2000; Ulrich, &Sarasin, 1995). In addition, the result also suggest that moral maturity

is significantly positively correlated with ethical buying intention, while ethical cognitive efforts

and cynicism have significantly positive correlation with buying intention. This finding is

somewhat surprising. However, after further finding that a significant positive correlation exists

among moral maturity, ethical cognitive effort and social cynicism, we finally make a reasonable

explanation that the more moral maturity the consumers have, the more ethically cognitive efforts

they pay, which will further make consumers more cynical. For example, consumers may perceive

that the fairness degree of most Chinese companies’ ethical activities is not high and more often is

actually “show” charitable behavior base on the helping-self motivations, causing consumers to

questioning and boycott the product, and thereby preventing the transformation from ethical

intentions into behavior. Meanwhile, the findings reveal that buying inertia has a significantly

positive correlation with quality consciousness and price sensitivity but negative correlation with

ethical buying intention and behavior. This result figures out that consumers’ main shopping

decisions are still more concerned about the quality and price of products and ethical consumption

has not yet become a shopping habit. Thereby, shopping inertia acts as a strong barrier to

consumers’ the purchasing behaviors since it finally prevents the change of ethical consumption

  14  

pattern.

The correlation between situational variables and buying intention and behavior. The results

suggest that only social surrounding has a significantly positively correlation with buying

intention and behavior. This finding is essentially accordance with China's collectivist culture.

Compared with Western consumers’ attention on their rational calculation, Chinese consumers

tend to follow the impact of social norms, obeying the expectations of others, group and

themselves. This is because satisfying social expectations can create good feelings and sense of

belonging. As is argued by scholars such as Li and Wu (2009), people are affected by group

mainly because they need to avoid uncertainty, create sense of belonging, keep the satisfying

relationship with group and realize the maximization of their own value. Therefore, individuals’

behavior intention can be easily affected by group pressure within a culture situation such as in

China, which is particular about group orientation and social harmony.

Table 3: Pearson correlation coefficient of variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Buying intention

2 Buying Behavior 0.63***

3 Moral Maturity 0.41** 0.39***

4 Economic Rationality －0.28*** －0.11 －0.13

5 Cynicism －0.45* －0.51** 0.33** 0.02

6 Buying Inertia －0.31*** －0.36** －0.12 0.34** 0.09

7 Ethically Cognitive Efforts －0.44** 0.11 0.37*** 0.10 0.37*** －0.05

8 Physical surroundings 0.12 0.15 －0.09 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.09

9 Social surroundings 0.37 ** 0.51** 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.19 0.04

10 Buying tasks 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.27* 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.05

11 Current status 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.12

* p<0.1；** p<0.05；*** p<0.01

The Moderating effects of consumer personal and situational variables In the regression analysis, purchasing behavior is seen as dependent variables, and the

demographic statistics indices are control variables. In model 1, model 2 and model 4, the finding

indicates that ethical buying intention has a significantly positive effect on ethical purchasing

behavior. In reality, however, ethical buying intention of consumers will not be necessarily turned

into ethical purchasing behavior. So what are those factors moderating the relationship between

ethical buying intention and behavior on earth? To figure it out, we introduce the interaction terms

between consumer personal and situational factors and shopping intention into model 3, model 5,

and model 6, aiming to further investigate the moderating effects of consumer personal and

situational variables on the relationship between ethical buying intention and behavior. The

  15  

finding in model 3 and model 6 indicates that, as of those consumer personal variables, the

relationship between buying intention and behavior is negatively moderated by economic

rationality of the consumers, which demonstrates that even though quite a few consumers express

their willingness to make ethical purchases, but the reality is that ethical marketing responsibility

is not the most important standard in their purchasing decision process—what they are truly

concerned about are economic factors, such as price, quality, brand, and the shopping convenience,

among others. At the same time, there exists a significantly negative moderating effect of buying

inertia on the relationship between intention and behavior, implying that in real shopping context,

though some consumers have made commitments to ethical consumption, under the influence of

buying inertia, it is still likely for them not to “walk their talk”, that is to say they are still inclined

to buy those products without much ethical reputation, but with high consumer brand

identification. Thus the findings in Table 4 indicate as well that both ethical cognitive efforts and

cynicism will moderate negatively and significantly the relationship between intention and

behavior, indicating that though those consumers with higher moral maturity are willing to input

greater ethical cognitive efforts, their cynicism trait finally impedes the transformation from

ethical buying intention to actual behavior. This conclusion is interesting and the explanation we

can provide is that in Chinese context, consumers will question the motivation of ethical activities

and the fairness of companies after they put enough cognitive efforts. What’s more, they may

think that companies are just making use of philanthropy as a “show” to accomplish their

marketing objectives (Smith, &Stodghill, 1994; Yeo, 2003).

Next, we will investigate the moderating effects of situational factors on ethical intention and

behavior. The results in model 5 and model 6 show that situational factors can really help explain

why the gap between buying intention and actual purchasing behavior comes into being. We

discover that physical surroundings significantly has a positive moderating effect, which suggests

that physical surroundings serves as an important factor impeding the transformation from ethical

buying intention into purchasing behavior. This is because the physical characteristics of ethical

products’ marketing environments are not so obvious that it will increase some extra cost of the

ethical purchase. Or to be more precise, these consumers do take ethics into account, but

compared with ethical factors, they care more about fast-identified physical characteristics of

marketing environment such as shopping convenience and the visibility of competitive goods

(Boulstridge, &Carrington, 2000; Ulrich, &Sarasin, 1995).

In addition, the results indicate that social surroundings has a significantly negative

moderating effect on the relationship between intention and action, indicating that consumers will

be less likely to transform their ethical buying intention into actual purchasing behavior if they are

more aware of following social norms. The findings show that ethical consumption hasn’t a

  16  

mainstream behavior of society in Chinese context; at least it has not been accepted commonly by

most consumers. Therefore, how to build an ethical consumption culture and atmosphere remains

an unanswered question. In the meantime, Table 4 reveals that shopping task has a significantly

negative moderating effect, which means shopping task or purpose is a significant factor to

impede the transformation from ethical intention into actual behavior. This conclusion coincides

with some scholars’ points including as Belk (1975) and Bryce (2003). They both believe that,

with different purposes of purchasing goods, consumers will buy different commodities and

brands significantly. For example, the quality of food bought for their own use is apparently

different from that is used to treat others; similarly, if the gifts are for friends, we always do our

best to pursue tastes, brands and high-level grades. Finally, it is found that current status has a

negative moderating influence as shopping task does, which means the terminal shopping

atmosphere and environment are the key factors influencing the successful transformation from

intention to action as well. And this issue is just ignored by those firms who are trying to provide

ethical products. Just as the opinion of Kotler (1978), he asserted that consumers’ emotional

reaction would be provoked by shopping sites, terminal display, and marketers’ operational

atmosphere. Though such emotional reaction is temporal, customer perceived value will be

controlled instantly.

Table 4: The Moderating effects of personal and situational variables

Variables Buying Behavior

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 0.131*** 0.229** 0.234** 0.199** 0.276** 0.237**

Buying Intention 0. 445*** 0.406*** 0.476*** 0.398*** 0.433*** 0.498***

Personal Variables

Moral Maturity 0.043 0.054 0.076

Economic Rationality －0.045 －0.065 －0.041

Cynicism －0.067 －0.065 －0.079

Buying Inertia －0.126 －0.062 －0.099

Ethical Cognitive Efforts 0.021 0.030 0.037

Buying Intention

×Moral Maturity 0.234** 0.209***

Buying Intention

×Economic Rationality －0.223** －0.287**

Buying Intention×Cynicism －0.331** －0.312**

Buying Intention

×Buying Inertia －0.288** －0.266**

Buying Intention

×Ethical Cognitive Efforts －0.254** －0.298**

Situational Variables

  17  

Physical Surroundings 0.016 0.009 0.264*

Social Surroundings －0.034 0.044 －0.205***

Shopping Task

Current Status 0.078 0.069 0.049

Buying Intention

×Physical Surroundings 0.177*** 0.234**

Buying Intention

×Social Surroundings －0.248*** －0.188***

Buying Intention

×Shopping Task －0.253** －0.184**

Buying Intention

×Current Status 0.181** 0.198**

Gender 0.122 0.112 0.101 0.123 0.113 0.145

Age 0.121 0.348** 0.324* 0.286** 0.208** 0.175**

Occupation 0.112 0.309*** 0.356*** 0.289*** 0.256*** 0.331***

Income 0.112 0.309*** 0.324*** 0.267*** 0.276*** 0.299***

Education Level 0.176 0.288*** 0.297*** 0.356*** 0.203*** 0.198***

Adj. R2 0.511 0.587 0.609 0.477 0.621 0.790

F value 11.199** 7.887*** 9.996*** 10.443*** 7.889*** 12.006***

* p<0.1；** p<0.05；*** p<0.01

An Overall Ethical Decision-Making Framework

Based on the description above, a generalized framework of consumer ethical buying

intention-behavior can be developed, with the aim of providing an in-depth description of the

processes and mechanisms causing ethical buying-intention gap (shown in Figure 1). In our

research, the disparity between ethical buying intention and behavior is not only determined by

characteristics of ethical consumers, some consumers may meet some uncontrollable shopping

situations, which have an apparent effect on current consuming behaviors (Belk, 1975; Carrington,

Neville, Whitwell, 2010). Results in this study indicate that moral maturity is the key factor

leading to ethical buying intention, but this kind of intention will not necessarily be converted into

actual purchasing behavior because the relationship between ethical buying intention and behavior

is influenced by some moderating factors. In the aspect of consumer characteristics, buying inertia,

cynicism and ethical cognitive efforts will significantly moderate the relationship between ethical

buying intention and behavior, which mainly lead to consumers’ ethical purchasing gap. This

conclusion suggests that in real shopping situations, though some consumers make commitments

to purchase goods ethically, they will buy some products of widely-accepted brands that are not

reasonable in ethics because of their buying inertia; the moderating effect of ethical cognitive

efforts and cynicism demonstrate that consumers who have more moral maturity will make more

  18  

efforts to ethical cognitive efforts, however, some cynical consumers will perhaps feel a low level

of fairness of most Chinese corporations’ ethical activities. And what’s more, in most cases, they

will use philanthropy as a “show” based on help-self motivation, which will eventually prevents

transforming ethical buying intention into actual purchasing behavior.

At the situational level, all variables including physical surroundings, social surroundings,

shopping task, and current status have significant moderating effects on the relationship between

ethical buying intention and behavior. The results show that when consumers who own ethical

buying intention enter into a real shopping place, they may find that the physical characteristics of

ethical products such as the recognition of information and shopping convenience are not obvious,

which may result in extra efforts or cost for consumers to accomplish their purchase, and

furthermore, lead consumers to give up buying ethical products. The significantly negative

moderating influence of social surroundings suggests that Chinese ethical consumption hasn’t

been the mainstream, and thereby government and corporations should construct a certain culture

and atmosphere of ethical consumption. Meanwhile, we find that current status has a significantly

negative moderating influence, which means that terminal shopping atmosphere and environment

can mainly have an impact on the transition of ethical buying intention into purchasing behavior.

However, such a factor is always neglected by corporations that offer ethical products. Just as

pointed out by Kotler (1978), the emotional response of consumers can be stimulated by shopping

places, terminal display and atmosphere controlled by marketers, and even if such emotional

responses are temporal, it will predominate the value recognition of customers immediately.

                                   

Moral

Economic Rationality

Buying

Ethical Cognitive

Cynicism

Consumer Personality

Purchasing Purchasing Behavior

Physical

Surroundings

Social Surroundings

Current Status

Situational Contexts

Buying

  19  

     

Conclusions and Implications  

The aim of this paper was to explore why consumers will not “walk their talk” when making

an ethical purchasing decision in the Chinese context through the use of a in-depth interviewing

method (study 1) and big-scale questionnaires (study 2) to probe in depth the factors preventing

consumers from translating their stated ethical intentions into actual ethical buying behavior. This

problem is really important, as only when the enterprise understands this issue will it exercise

more initiatively held marketing ethics activities and possibly be more purposeful in implementing

an ethical marketing strategy. The main conclusions are as follows.

Firstly, in Chinese context, consumers exhibit an obvious gap between buying intention and

actual behavior in their purchase of ethical goods. The findings indicate that nearly 62% of

consumers address themselves in one way but behave another, thereby meaning that they have

stated an obvious purchasing intention but do not actually buy ethical products; 8% of them can

“walk their talk”, namely, claiming that they tend to buy ethical goods, and eventually, can

exercise ethical buying actively. Additionally, there exist 30% of consumers who don’t care much

about ethics and are indifferent to ethical consumption, and say honestly that they still mainly

consider more about economic factors such as the quality, price and brand of products rather than

ethics.

Secondly, the formation of ethical buying intention-behavior gap is simultaneously affected

by consumer characteristics and situational factors. The findings suggest that such consumer

characteristic factors as quality consciousness, price sensitivity, buying inertia, cynicism and

ethical cognitive efforts, as well as situational factors like physical surroundings, time perception,

social surroundings, buying task and current status will have a significant moderating influence on

the relation between buying intention and purchase behavior.

Thirdly, the influencing mechanism of consumer characteristic factors is as follows:

consumers who possess more moral maturity will have more intention to buy ethical goods. In

actual purchasing situation, however, though they do make a promise to buy ethical products, it is

possible for them eventually not do as they have stated before due to their buying inertia.

Meanwhile, the more moral maturity they own, the more ethical cognitive efforts they are willing

to input. However, those consumers with cynicism may feel that corporations’ ethical activities are

unfair, that so-called ethical activities are just to ‘‘making a show of it’’ for selfish reasons,

thereby impeding the transformation from stated ethical purchasing intentions into actual buying

Figure 1 Ethical consumption: from intention to behavior

Notice： Dotted arrow stands for moderating effects, which is mainly focused in this study.

  20  

behavior.

Fourthly, the influencing mechanism of situational factors is as follows: consumers owning

ethical purchasing intention may find that the physical elemental characteristics (such as the

identification of information, the shopping convenience, and etc.) of corporations’ marketing

ethical products are not obvious when they go into the shopping mall, thereby causing extra

ethical efforts or cost that consumers have to pay, and eventually urging consumers to give up

buying ethical goods. Meanwhile, the ethical consumption in China still hasn’t been the

mainstream, and advice or suggestions from other people will sometimes lead to consumers’

violating their initial ethical intentions, and not buying ethical products. In addition, time pressure

under modern fast-paced life and the overflow of information make consumers have less time to

make rational considerations of the ethics. At the same time, some causal factors such as the

different buying tasks or purposes, as well as the current emotion or status of consumers are also

critical factors mainly resulting in consumers’ not walking their talk.

There are also important implications of this research on corporate marketing practices. Some

scholars generally hold the idea that intention is undoubtedly a reliable proxy variable for actual

behavior in the discussion of ethical attitude-behavior gap of ethical consumers (Newholm, 2005;

Shaw et al.,2007). Therefore, what most studies mainly focused on is the relationships and

disparities between attitudes and intentions of ethically minded consumers, yet rarely pays close

attention to the critical gap between ethical intentions and buying behavior (Carrington, Neville,

Whitwell, 2010). This article attempts to bridge this gap, aiming to promoting the understanding

and development of ethical consumerism. This research provides a number of insightful

suggestions on how to close the gap between buying intention and actual behavior, and further

formulate efficient ethical marketing strategies.

Firstly, the firm should pay a great deal of attention to the implementation of ethical

marketing strategies. The findings of this study confirm that nearly 58% of consumers will

produce ethical purchasing intention and around 13% will make real purchasing response as

support for the enterprise’s ethical activities. This result clearly indicates that consumers will still

link a firm’s excellent ethical performance with their positive product and social image. Therefore,

enterprises should care about the existence of this specific portion of the consumer population, and

when actively implementing ethical marketing strategies, they should carry out marketing

communications targeted at these consumers as a means to create more market opportunities. In

the meantime, when implementing ethical marketing strategies, the firm should not be too

optimistic and take for granted that consumer’s stated ethical purchasing intention would be

  21  

definitely translated into an actual purchase. The findings confirm that though 58% of consumers

will have intention to purchase ethical goods, their intention will not be necessarily translated into

actual purchase. To some degree, we think this 58% of consumers will play the key role of

“middle voters”, and their intention may therefore be converted into actual purchases or

indifference to ethics, respectively. As of the concrete conversion direction, it will undoubtedly

depend on firm’s ethical marketing strategies.

Secondly, enterprises should try to advocate and lead a trend of ethical consumption through

such media as TV, internet, and etc., or the means of using product image speaker. Just as

mentioned in this study, when shopping ethical goods, Chinese consumers have a strong

conformist mentality. The findings confirm that social surroundings have a significant moderating

influence on the relationship between ethical purchasing intention and actual action. Hence,

enterprises could lead a ethical consumption culture and atmosphere through the medias (such as

TV, internet, and etc.) which could be accessed by consumer usually. In the meantime, Chinese

consumers have a serious face consciousness, to cater to their face needs, firms could use such

marketing strategy as product image speakers to lead an ethical consumption atmosphere, aiming

to let people imitate them actively, and further advocating ethical consumption.

Thirdly, corporations should focus on the retail terminal construction of ethical products,

aiming to help consumers readily achieve (rather than impede) the transformation from ethical

buying intention into purchasing behavior. This could be done by assisting those ethically minded

consumers to image the concrete purchasing situation and their corresponding behaviors, which

will activate their ethical intensions in the shopping aisle and at the cash register. For instance,

using a combination of out-of-store and in-store visual media to remind consumers and shoppers

of their ethical intentions (e.g. remember to buy recycled toilet paper and you really want that!)

can help them impede their automatic shopping, and thereby evoke their ethical purchasing

intentions and change their buying inertia. Meanwhile, firms can make the most use of some

subtle hints of shopping situation to influence consumers, such as arranging the store staff in the

aisle to interact with the in-store ethical consumers; selling the products to ensure their visibility

comparing to competitive products; using price promotion strategies to give the product a trial;

using some visible thing to symbolically and effectively communicate the ethical quality of

products with consumers.

Fourthly, corporations are supposed to focus on the disclosure of social responsibility

report/information. Consumers, in reality, do require more information to make a better ethical

judgment. If they have thought about ethical factors before making purchasing decisions, they

need to be able to easily compare different ethical behavior and products of different companies.

  22  

Research suggests that the important reason why some consumers don’t feel like making an effort

on ethical cognition is that they are facing much more information burden or cost when making an

ethical choice. Besides, there exists a number of wrong information rather than right one in reality

to inspire consumers to make purchasing decisions ethically. Therefore, if corporations could

publish their social responsibility information/report regularly, the cost of identifying information

for consumers would be cut down, which would help consumers to make the right ethical choices.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lahteenmaki, L., & Shepherd, R.

(2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned behavior. Appetite, 50, 443–454.

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. ( 2003). What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features? Journal of Business Ethics,42, 281–304.

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

Bagozzi, R. (1993). On the neglect of volition in consumer research: A critique and proposal. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 215–237.

Bagozzi, R. (2000). The poverty of economic explanations of conumption and an action theory alternative. Managerial and Decision Economics, 21, 95–109.

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122.

Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74, 169–191.

Belk, R., Devinney, T. M., & Eckhardt, G. (2005). Consumer ethics across cultures. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 8, 275–289.

Belk, R. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 157–164.

Berry, H., & McEachern, M. G. (2005).Informing ethical consumers, in R. Harrison, T. Newholm and D. Shaw (eds). The Ethical Consumer, Sage, London, 11–24.

Blythe, J. (2003). Consumer Behavior, Thomson Learning Press. Boulstridge, E., & Carrington, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate

responsibility? High-lighting the attitude-behavior gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 355-–368.

  23  

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

Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions: Reply to Shea and Cohn’s commentaries. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1364–1367.

Carrington, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer- Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 560–577.

Carrington, M., Neville, A., & Whitwell, 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 behavior of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 139–158.

Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. (2007). Why people don’t their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of neutralization. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 89–100.

Clavin, B. (2008).The ethical consumerism report 2008, Co-operative Bank. Http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/assets/uploads/Documents/ECR_2008_Web.pdf.

Clavin, B., & Lewis, A. (2005). Focus groups on consumers’ ethical beliefs”, in R. Harrison, T. Newholm and D. Shaw (eds). The Ethical Consumer, Sage, London.

Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Who are the ethical consumers? Ethical Consumerism Report, Co-operative Bank. http://www.cooperativebank.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?c=Pageandcid=1139903089615andpagename=CoopBank%2FtplPageStandard.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design——Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). US: Sage.

Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 421–433.

De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39, 363–385.

De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behavior: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 361–380.

Deng, X., Tian, Z., Liu, G., Chen, L. (2011). The study on consumers’ responses to firms’ ethical actions in Chinese context. Chinese Soft Science, 2, 31–45.

Deng, X. (2012). The study on consumers’ ethical shopping intention in Chinese context——Based on TPB perspective. Nankai Business Review, 3, 22–32.

Dragon International. (1991). Corporate Reputation: Does the Consumer Care? Dragon International, London.

Elliot, R., & Jankel-Elliot, N. (2003). Using ethnography in strategic consumer research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6, 215–223.

Fairtrade, F. L. O. I. (2007). Annual Report 2007: An Inspiration for Change, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, Bonn, DE.

Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L.G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3): 84-96.

Ferell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., Graedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision model for marketing. Journal of Macro-marketing, 9(2): 55-64.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  24  

Forte, A. (2004). Business ethics: A study of the moral reasoning of selected business managers and the influence of organizational ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 167–

173. Fukukawa, K. (2003). A theoretical review of business and consumer ethics research:

normative and descriptive approaches. The Marketing Review, 3, 381–401. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research, Hawthorne: Aldine Publishing. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A

Meta-Analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 69–119. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. Hall, J. (2007). The ethical opportunity. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 365–367. Hawkins, D., Best, R., Coney, K. (2003). Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Press. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an

issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach,

in T. Lechona (ed.). Moral Development and Behavior: Theory Research and Social Issues, Hall, Rinehart, and Winston, NewYork.

Kotler, P. (1978). Harvesting strategies for weak products. Business Horizons, 21(4), 15-22. Kempton, W., Darley, J. M., & Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological research for the new

energy problems. American Psychologist, 47, 1213–1223. Kim, Y-K., Forney, J., & Arnold, E. (1997). Environmental message in fashion

advertisements: Impact on consumer responses. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15, 147–

154. Li, D., Wu, B., Wu, L. (2009). Chinese consumers’ buying intention model—— the

correction for Fishbein’s reasonable action model. Management World, 1, 24–39. Macalister, T. (2007). Ethical household spending has doubled, but only ￡6 a year is on

green energy. Guardian news and Media, November 30, Green Business, Online Edition, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/23/supermarkets.food1.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Fallon, M. J., Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature:1996–2003.Journal of Business Ethics,59, 375-413.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be

socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 45–72.

Morwitz, V. G., Steckel, J. H., & Gupta, A. (2007). When do purchase intentions predict sales? International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 347–364.

Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24, 297–311.

Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: A review of research. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 252–270.

  25  

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Nicholls, A., & Lee, N. (2006). Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical purchase ‘gap’: Is there a fair trade ‘twix’? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14, 369–386.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O¨berseder, M., Schlegelmilch, 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, 449–460.

Patrick, V., Kristof, D., & Sarah, S. (2003). The relationship between consumers' unethical behavior and customer loyalty in a retail environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 261–278.

Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 135-148.

Phillips, H. (1993). How customers actually shop: Customer interaction with the point of sale. Journal of the Market Research Society, 35, 51–59.

Pool, G. J. (1998). Differentiating among motives for norm conformity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 47–60.

Ricky, Y., & Lau, L. (1998). A test of the Fishbein-Ajzen behavior intentions model under Chinese cultural settings: Are there any difference between PRC and Hong Kong consumers? Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 4, 85–101.

Ricky, Y. (2007). Applying ethical concepts to the study of ‘green’ consumer behavior: An analysis of Chinese consumers’ intentions to bring their own shopping bags. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 66–91.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger. Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the socially responsible consumer please step forward? Business

Horizons, 39, 79–84. Rust, R., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and

implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1–14. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, B. C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?

Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225–

243. Shaw, D., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., Bekin, C., & Hogg, G. (2007). Intending to be ethical: An

examination of consumer choice in sweatshop avoidance. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 31–38. Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: An exploratory

study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17, 109–119. Smith, G., & Stodghill, R. (1994). Are good causes good marketing? Business Week, 3363,

64–66. Simon, F. L. (1995). Global corporate philanthropy: A strategic framework. International

Marketing Review, 12, 20–37. Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (1991). Selected factors influencing marketers’ deontological

norms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 37–42. Sproles, G. B., Geistfeld, L. V., & Badenhop, S. B. (1978). Information inputs as influences

on efficient consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 12, 88–103.

  26  

Snijders, T., & Bosker, T. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trevino, L.K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation integrationist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.

Ulrich, P., & Sarasin, C. (1995). Facing public interest: The ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communications. Kluwer Academic Publications, London.

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

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behavior and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64, 542–553.

Von Eckartsberg, R. (1998). Existential-phenomenological research, In R. Valle (Ed.). Phenomenological Inquiry in Psychology. New York: Plenum.

Webster, K. (2000). Environmental management in the hospitality industry. Cassell, London. Wengraf,T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and

semi-structured method. London: Sage.