Ethical Consumers Among The Millennials. A Cross-National Study

Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study
Author(s): Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris and Denni Arli

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 110, No. 1 (September 2012), pp. 113-131
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41684017
Accessed: 21-07-2016 19:01 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41684017?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business
Ethics
This content downloaded from 193.226.34.227 on Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:01:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2012) 110:113-131

DOI 10. 1007/sl0551-01 1-1 151-z
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenmals:

A Cross-National Study
Tania Bucic * Jennifer Harris * Denni Arli
Received: 17 March 201 1 /Accepted: 13 December 201 1 /Published online: 8 January 2012
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Using two samples drawn from contrasting

developed and developing countries, this investigation
main approaches: cause-related marketing (CRM), socially
considers the powerful, unique Millennial consumer group
responsible business practices, corporate social marketing,
and their engagement in ethical consumerism. Specifically,
and corporate cause promotions (Kotier and Lee 2005). All
this study explores the levers that promote their ethical
Fortune 500 companies accept the value of integrating

ethical marketing with business practices, according to
consumption and the potential impact of country of resi-
Such marketing efforts can be implemented through four
dence on cause-related purchase decisions. Three distinct
their ongoing expressed commitment to CRM (Hall 2009).
subgroups of ethical consumers emerge among Millenniais,
As a highly visible form of ethical marketing, CRM refers
providing insight into their concerns and behaviors. Instead
to profit-motivated giving to support an ethical issue, which
of being conceptualized as a single niche market, Millen-
may be one of marketing's most significant contributions to
nial should be treated as a collection of submarkets that
society (Varadarajan and Menon 1988).
differ in their levels of awareness of ethical issues, consider
On the consumer side, ethical consumerism refers to
discrete motives when making consumption decisions, and
choices based on social, nontraditional components of
are willing to engage in cause-related purchasing to vary-
products (Auger et al. 2003) and personal and moral beliefs
ing degrees. These findings have several critical implica-
(Carrigan et al. 2004). Research states that ethical consumption is growing (Berry and McEachern 2005), however, the complexity of ethical consumerism and
confounded results in prior studies leave understanding of
consumers' actual purchase behaviors toward ethical
products limited. Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) suggest that the complexity of ethical consumer choices
tions for theory and practice.
Keywords Millennial Ethical consumption

Two-country sample Clusters
Introduction
reflects the complicated process of ethical decision making,
Ethical marketing relies on consumers caring about ethical

components of products, such that their concern leads to
benefits and harms derived from products with ethical
financial implications for firms (Elliot and Freeman 2001).
toward ethical products are not consistent with their buying
which requires detailed evaluations of personal and social
T. Bucic J. Harris (El) D. Arli

School of Marketing, Australian School of Business, University
of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
e-mail: Jennifer.harris@unsw.edu.au
T. Bucic
attributes. Studies also show that consumers' attitudes
behaviors (Bray et al. 2011; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005),

such that "segments of consumers exist where ethical
product attributes are valued however, not only are the
characteristics of such consumers are unclear, we do not
know who those consumers are" (Auger et al. 2003,

p. 285). Thus, despite the notion of ethical consumers
e-mail: t.bucic@unsw.edu.au
evolving over the last two decades some researchers sug-
D. Arli
gest that there may be reason to doubt that there even exists
e-mail: denni.arli@unsw.edu.au
an "average ethical consumer" (e.g., Auger 2006; Carrigan
<) Springer
114
T.
Bucic
and Attala 2001; Devinney et al. 2010). What is clear,

however, is that the limited knowledge derived from prior
et
al.
Strauss 2000). Millenniais are also often characterized by

their social, cultural, and environmental consciousness
studies has heightened the need for a better understanding
(Sheahan 2005), and loyalty to family, friends, communi-
of ethical consumerism among targeted consumer seg-
ties, and self rather than to corporate entities (Hira 2007).
ments, particularly those with potentially significant cur-
Millenniais are distinctive in terms of their perspectives
rent and future social and economic impacts (e.g., Gorman
(Weiss 2003), motivations (Kim et al. 2009), decision-
et al. 2004).
making rationales and value drivers (Boyd 2010). They are

about three times the size of Generation X (Palmer 2008)
In this study, we replicate and extend Freestone and

McGoldrick's (2008) UK-based study by investigating
and though the majority are still studying they have high
motivations of ethical consumers in the Millennial gener-
discretionary incomes (Foscht et al. 2009) - more than any
ation. First, we replicate their implementation of the

decision balance scale (DBS) and stages of change (SOC)
other youth grouping in history (Morton 2002). Accordingly, Millennial exceed all prior generational expenditure
model, which they suggest possess explanatory power for
(O'Donnell 2006) and make a large direct contribution to
ethical decision making. We seek to determine whether the
the economy (Jang et al. 201 1). Furthermore, because they
DBS and SOC remain relevant for ethical decision making
also influence the majority of family purchase decisions
in the relatively narrowly defined Millennial market. Sec-
they have an even larger indirect economic impact (Morton
ond, most prior ethical consumption-related research refers
2002; Taylor and Cosenza 2002). Millennial are thus
solely to developed countries (e.g., Auger et al. 2003;

Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Sen et al. 2006), yet several
studies reveal diverse consumer attitudes depending on
culture (e.g., Auger et al. 2008; Srnka 2004; Viteil 2003)
recognized as the most consumption oriented of all gen-
and consumer perceptions (Vitell et al. 2001). Furthermore,
sufficient purchasing power to have a significant current
very few studies have undertaken cross-country compari-
and future impact on world economies, and are accordingly
sons of ethical consumerism (Newholm and Shaw 2007).
the most powerful consumer group in the marketplace

(Farris et al. 2002).
Yet, Millenniais remain poorly understood in general
Therefore, we extend prior research by focusing on Millennial in both a developed and a developing country. With
this cross-country investigation of ethical consumption

choices among Millenniais, we attempt to gain a more
accurate interpretation of ethical consumption. Specifically, we:
1. Explore the extent to which Millennial consumers

engage in ethical consumerism.
2. Determine whether personal or social levers are

stronger motivators for ethical behavior among
Millennial.
3. Explore the impact of country of residence on ethical

consumerism among Millenniais.
erations (Sullivan and Heitmeyer 2008). This, along with
their sheer size at approximately 1.8 billion people

worldwide (United Nations 2005), Millenniais account for
(e.g., Phillips 2007) and have received little attention from

ethical consumption researchers (Smith 201 1). Our lack of
understanding might reflect their seemingly conflicting
goals: At times, their principal concern is self-gratification,
whereas at other points, it is social improvement (Boyd

2010). Marketers have narrowly defined this market as a
homogenous group (Geraci 2004), even though Millenniais
are diverse and comprise distinctive consumer segments
that likely require unique forms of marketing planning
(Tuomela 2010) and communications (Geraci 2004).

Consequently, while the motivations that influence Mill-
ennial consumption behaviors are unclear (Noble et al.

2009) marketers' efforts to target this market are likely to
be relatively unproductive.
The Millennial Consumer Group

Millenniais are young consumers, born between approxi-
Theoretical Framework
mately 1985 and 1999 (e.g., Pendergast 2007). Differing

from previous generations, they are the first to be born into
Ethical Decision Making
a world that features international interdependence and

global engagement (Pendergast 2007). Accordingly, Mill-
Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) demonstrate that consumers'
ennial tend to be receptive to ethical issues (e.g., Smith
motivational attitudes are a function of their stage of ethical
201 1), value multiculturalism (Zemke et al. 2000), and feel
awareness, concern, and action; social motivators are stronger
comfortable expressing themselves (Tapscott 1998). The
levers of ethical behavior than are personal ones. Their study
uniqueness of this generation is shaped by technological

forces (Gorman et al. 2004) which allow networked com-
thus provides initial support for the DBS and SOC concepts, as
embedded in the cross-disciplinary transtheoretical model of
munication and rapid information exchange (Howe and
behavior change (Prochaska and DiClemente 1984).
Springer
Ethical
Consumers
Among
Briefly, this model attempts to gauge and support indi-
the
Millennial
115
(Schultz 1999). However, Kallgren et al. (2000) suggest
vidual readiness for and progression through a change

process. The SOC concept features five change process
that for social norms to operate, they first must be promi-
stages: precontemplation , which implies a lack of readiness
suggests that for ethical decision making, personal norms
nent in the person's awareness. In addition, other research
in the period prior to developing an intention to take an
are more significant predictors of behavior (Th0gersen
action; contemplation , or the period when people plan on
2007). For example, older consumers express strong senses
an impending change; preparation , when they have
of moral responsibility that increases their willingness to
become ready for change and begin take action, such as by
engage in ethical purchasing (Carrigan et al. 2004).
seeing information about and support (e.g., encouragement,
We note that Millennial appear sympathetic to ethical
positive feedback) for their decisions; action , which indi-
issues (e.g., Gorman et al. 2004), to the degree that they

will boycott brands that violate environmental or social
cates changed behaviors and a commitment to strengthening new actions by making appropriate choices and feeling
positive about them; and maintenance , or the period when
norms (BusinessWire 2004). Millenniais believe they can

make a difference in the world (Lancaster and Stillman
people focus on the holistic integration of the change into
2002) and that the big picture is more important than
their daily life (for more detail, see Prochaska and Di-
individual transactions (Boyd 2010). They are active con-
Clemente 1984). Finally, the DBS construct is fundamental
tributors to community well-being and civic spirit (Howe
for progression through the SOC, because it provides a
and Strauss 2000); concurrently, they are market savvy,
means to identify dichotomous concerns (e.g., positive and

negative, personal, and social).
practical, and financially conservative, seeking "fair" pri-
Thus, when making ethical decisions, a consumer allo-
young consumers, Millenniais represent varying stages in
ces and value (Nowak et al. 2006). As a diverse group of
cates differential weights to product attributes, depending
the SOC model, though their DBS are unknown. Because it
on his or her SOC and DBS and these weights structure the
is difficult to pinpoint which levers motivate ethical con-
negotiation between positive and negative trade-offs for
sumption among Millenniais, we ask:
themselves and others (e.g., Janis and Mann 1977). For

example, in both public and private sectors, the enduring
demand for value-for-money (Low and Davenport 2005)

suggests that ethical product attributes cannot wholly
substitute for traditional attributes, such as price and
quality, which are fundamental to consumer decision
making. If consumers believe that ethical attributes are
being realized at the expense of price or quality, the ethical
product likely provokes a negative response (Bhattacharya

and Sen 2003). Furthermore, if Millenniais perceive sales
coercion, they are less likely to purchase compared with
other consumers (Henrie and Taylor 2009). Similarly,

asking consumers to purchase large quantities, pay more,
or expend greater effort all have negative impacts on

support for CRM campaigns (Folse et al. 2010). Therefore,
to gain a better understanding of the extent to which

Millennial engage in ethical consumerism, we ask:
RQ2 What are Millennial motivations for making ethical purchases, and do these motivations differ by (a) issue
and (b) awareness?

Country of Residence Impact
The country of residence - or national culture - influences
ethical decision making and responses to ethical marketing
among both consumers (e.g., Walsh et al. 2010) and

managers (e.g., Burnaz et al. 2009). Cross-cultural studies
confirm that significant differences exist in levels of both
idealism and relativism (Al-Khatib et al. 2005) and the
relationship between perceptions and intentions (e.g.,

Oumlil and Balloun 2009). These differences are not limited to countries that face unequal economic development;
for example, Dubinsky et al. (1991) show that salespeople
with equivalent rankings perceived ethics differently
RQ1 What attributes do Millenniais consider when
depending on whether they were from the United States,
making purchase decisions?
Japan, or South Korea. Scholtens and Dam (2007) also find

that even among cultures that consider ethics important,
Personal or Social Levers
such as Australia, the United States, and Scandinavia,
Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) demonstrate that in

ethical decision making, social motivations register at
higher levels than personal motivations, which implies that
reactions to ethical situations are diverse. That is, people

from difference nations - hence different cultures - view
ethics differently (Raw was 2001).

Previous discussions are consistent with Hofstede' s
social motivators are stronger levers than personal ones.
(2001) five dimensions of cultural values: power distance
This finding is consistent with Cialdini's (2001) suggestion
that people often look to social norms to decide how to
(i.e., society willingness to distribute power equally);

individualism/collectivism (i.e., society willingness to
respond to various social situations, such as recycling
integrate individuals into groups); masculinity/femininity
Springer
116
T.
Bucic
et
al.
(i.e., society characterization of dominance and assertive-
for comparison. The two countries are geographically rel-
ness or caring, loving, and interdependence); uncertainty

avoidance and long term orientation (i.e., society willingness to take risks). Several studies have found that these
atively close to each other, yet there appear to be large

cultural differences between the countries (Jones and
Hofstede 2007). Australia is a wealthy, industrialized
dimensions impact on individual values and lifestyle (e.g.,
country with a relatively small population of 22.5 million
Kim et al. 2002; Lai et al. 2010; Mooij and Hofstede 2002;
people (as of February 2011) (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011) and ranks seventeenth in terms of
Tan and McCullough 1985; Ward, Pearson and Entrekin

2002). Nevertheless, Tang and Koveos (2008) found that
changes in economic conditions are the source of cultural
purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, at US$41,300

(CIA Factbook 2011).
dynamics. Individualism, power distance and long term
This sophisticated and economically advanced country
orientation have a significant curvilinear relationship with
ranks highly on scales that measure ethical concern and the
economic growth or GDP per capita and tend to change
integration of ethics into business practice (Scholtens and
over time. That is, the norms of a national culture change

over time, with income levels.
Dam 2007). In contrast, Indonesia is the world's fourth
Interestingly, and possibly due to technological forces,
most populous nation, with 242.9 million people (as of July
2010), and ranks 156th in terms of PPP per capita, at
the Millennial generation share common social and eco-
US$4,300 (CIA Factbook 2011). In this economically
nomic conditions and they live in a world dominated by
developing country, approximately one-quarter of compa-
globalization and fast capitalism (Pendergast 2007). By
nies claim to adopt ethical practices - less than in neigh-
turning to the Internet as a main source of communication
boring developing economies such as India, Thailand, and
and information, Millennial feel "connected" (Sujansky
Malaysia (Chappie and Moon 2005).
and Ferri-Reed 2009) and consider themselves members of
the global community, a claim substantiated by their

awareness of global issues (Pendergast 2007). However,
despite growing similarities among Millennial, Bhosale
and Gupta (2006) argue that there will be no uniform
Data Collection and Sample Characteristics
global culture. Millenniais are not a homogeneous group,
We used a self-completed survey to collect data from

samples of Millennials in Australia and Indonesia. The
and their decision making depends on multiple variables
samples were primarily students enrolled at city universi-
(e.g., Sujansky and Ferri-Reed 2009) especially when they
ties; Millennials are of the age that many of them continue
are coming from two distinct economic conditions. The

world views of the underprivileged societies differ systematically from those of affluent society (Bhosale and
Gupta 2006). Therefore, we consider one such variable:
to be involved in some form of study (e.g., Jonas-Dwyer
RQ3 How does country of residence affect Millennials'

ethical consumption decisions?
and Pospisil 2004). To assess the potential for a sample

selection bias though, we also ensured that the Australian
sample included 16% non-university students of the same
age. Subsequent tests revealed that non-university students
were significantly older (p < .01) but otherwise not significantly different from students in terms of their behav-
iors or attitudes (p > .05), hence provided some confidence

of limited selection bias.
Methodology
The Australian sample yielded 832 completed ques-
Setting
tionnaires, collected at a large Australian university using
We conduct a cross-country, two-sample study of ethical
Table 1). Of these, 25 questionnaires that were incomplete
consumerism, connected specifically to CRM initiatives
or revealed dubious response patterns were removed.

Among the remaining 807 responses, 51% were women;
quota (age, gender, student status) sampling (Refer
and as manifested through cause-related purchasing (CRP)
behaviors among Millennials. Although countries or

nations are not the only appropriate units of analysis
furthermore, 12% were 18-19 years of age, and 47% were
because cultures are not primarily restricted by borders
our tests revealed no significant differences between local

and international students across a range of variables. In
(McSweeney 2000), Hofstede (1998) argues that 'national

identities are the only means we have of identifying and
measuring cultural differences' (p. 481). Thus, exploring
20-21 years. Although 18% were international students,
the student sample, 31% were focused on business-related

studies, 31% on science-related topics, and 23% on arts or
differences between cultures using this style of cross-sec-
social sciences. Finally, 89% of the sample had purchased a
tional analysis was deemed appropriate (Hofstede 1998).
CRP.
Australia and Indonesia represent a developed and devel-
The Indonesian sample was gathered from three large

universities. Participation was voluntary and promoted in
oping economy, respectively, to provide a valuable basis

Springer
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais
Table 1 Summary of sample characteristics
Australia
Indonesia
Gender
Male
Gender
49%
Female
Male
51%
Age
58%
Female
42%
Age
16-17 years 0% 16-17 years 5%

18-19 years 12% 18-19 years 66%
20-21 years 47% 20-21 years 21%
22-24 years 41% 22-24 years 8%
Enrollment
Local
Enrollment
student
66%
Local
student
100%
International student 18% International student 0%
Not
student
Major
Business
31%
Science
16%
Not
student
0%
Major
Economics
31%
and
Management
Psychology
25%
26%
Arts or Social Science 23% Health and Sport 49%
survey handed out and completed in class by interested
purchase provided an indication of the loyalty level of

these consumers. To measure motivation to purchase
students. Of the 409 questionnaires, 371 were complete and
CRPs, we mentioned products associated with four causes
usable, and 42% of the respondents were women (Refer
that might spark motivation: "access to clean drinking
Table 1). Regarding their ages, 71% were 16-19 years, and
water in the third world", "health", "environmental dam-
undergraduate classes by lecturers, with hard copies of the
21% were 20-21 years. These students were majoring in
age", "localized problems (i.e., issues in Australia/Indo-
health and sport (49%), economics and management

(25%), or psychology (26%), and 93% had purchased a
nesia)". The broad wording of these causes was in line with
CRP. Comparison of the Australian and Indonesian sam-
ever, it is acknowledged that such general wording may
ples indicates a significant difference in terms of age and

enrollment. However, as the responses with each sample
elicit responses that are a mix of self-interest and altruistic
that of Freestone and McGoldrick's (2008) study. How-
(i.e., within Australia and within Indonesia), across a range
motives. We also collected some basic demographic data.

For the Indonesian survey, the English version of the
of behavioral and attitudinal variables (e.g., frequency of
questionnaire was translated into Indonesian, then back-
CRP, type of cause-related products purchased, character-
translated to English to resolve any possible misunder-
istics considered when purchasing, awareness and concern
standings and ensure an accurate rendering of the original
for causes, motivations for CRP), do not vary significantly
questionnaire. A faculty member with a background in
by age or enrollment status, this apparent lack of equiva-
linguistics from one of the Indonesian universities commented on and modified the Indonesian translation as
lence is not a concern.
necessary.
Instrument
The questionnaire consists of four sections focused on CRP
All constructs were operationalized using existing

scales. Motivation to purchase CRP was assessed using 19
statements from the DBS (Freestone and McGoldrick
behavior, awareness of and motivation to purchase CRP
2008), on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree;
and products in general, perceptions of particular brands'

concern for the community, and attitudes toward helping
7 = strongly agree). We used Freestone and McGoldrick's
others and conformity (in terms of buying behavior). CRP
sure to determine awareness of and concern for the four
behavior was measured in terms of buy/not buy a cause-
causes. Attitude toward helping others was assessed using
related product, and frequency of purchasing such products
the Webb et al. (2000) four-item, seven-point scale. Kah-
(using seven categories from "only when I feel like it",

"less than monthly", "monthly", up to "daily"). Though
assessed the influence of others on consumption behavior.
there are many other measures of behavioral loyalty (e.g.,

share of category requirements) capturing frequency of
(2008) six-point single-item stages of change (SOC) mea-
le' s (1995) seven-item conformity motivation measure

A range of analysis techniques were utilised to provide
insight into the data and research questions. T tests, /2 tests,
Springer
118
T.
Bucic
et
al.
Table 2 Factor analysis of motivational statements
Australian sample Indonesian sample

Personal Social Personal Social Personal Social Personal Social
negative positive positive negative negative positive positive negative

It would help if people bought from firms that address this .82 .8 1
issue
It would be better for everyone in the long run if people .85 .81
favored products that address this issue
People could make fairer choices if they were aware of .71 .55
which companies had high ethical principles regarding
this issue
This is an issue that I like to be associated with .68 .52
People who matter to me would respect me for being .78 .78

concerned about this issue
My friends are concerned about this issue .81 .79

Having to take account of this issue would make .64 .66
shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I had to choose .80 .85

only from products that support this issue
People's choices would be unreasonably restricted by the .74 removal of products that disregard this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I had to .68 .79

choose only from products that support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from businesses .63 .62
that do not violate this issue
People are too busy today to be concerned with this issue .83 .83
People might think it was a waste of time to try to .79 .72
influence big business over this issue
Alpha
.71
Variance
.76
.73
.6a
explained
.74
62%
.67
.63
.51a
63%
a Two-item factor, with correlation provided
one-way ANOVA, and repeated measures ANOVA provided understanding as to whether there were significant
differences between groups of respondents within the same
country or between countries. Understanding of the levers
of motivations for ethical consumption was explored further through cluster analysis (K-means) to help uncover the
existence of sub-groups of respondents in terms of their

motivation for purchasing CRP. Compound variables of the
motivational factors and attitude toward helping others
removed items offered low communality (<.5) or low or

double loadings (see Table 2). The percentage of variance
explained is acceptable (Hair et al. 1998), and all loadings
exceed .5 and are significant (p < .05, Hair et al. 1998).
The loadings of the items are comparable across the Australian and Indonesian samples. Cronbach's alphas all
exceed .6 for each factor and each sample. This is
acceptable since the research is exploratory (Hair et al.
1998). Although we retained fewer items than Freestone
served as the bases for the clustering. The number of
and McGoldrick (2008), the factors align with their results.
clusters was determined using distance between clusters,

cluster size, and the ability to construct distinct profiles
For Millenniais, motivation to purchase CRP thus may be
using significant mean/percentage differences between the
negative motivations.
clusters. All analyses used SPSS v 18.
described in terms of personal and social, positive and

The tests of the other constructs revealed that attitude
toward others is unidimensional and reliable (aAust = .85;

Scale Validation
dindon == -71), whereas conformity motivation consisted of
The factor analysis (Varimax rotation) of the DBS for both
peer impression (aAust = .68; aIndon = .51) and outward

appearance (Table 3).
the Australian and Indonesian samples revealed a fourfactor structure, after we removed six items for the Aus-
tralian sample and seven for the Indonesian sample. The
A CFA of these three scales confirmed a 7-factor
structure with all items loading as expected (Australia:

CMin/df = 2.5, CFI = .94, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .04;
Springer
Ethical Consumers Among the Millennial 1 19

Table 3 Factor analysis of other constructs
Conformity motivation Attitude towards

t helping others
Australia Indonesia Australia Indonesia
Peer Outward Peer Outward
impression appearance impression appearance
How elegant and attractive a product is, is as important as how .87 .73
well it works
It is important that others think well of how I dress and look .79 .77
If I were to buy something expensive, I would worry about what .76 .74
others would think of me
I buy brands that will make me look good in front of my friends .78 .53
When I buy the same things my friends buy, I feel closer to them .76 .79
People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate .82 .75
Helping troubled people with their problems is very important to .83 .86
me
People should be more charitable towards others in society .86 .76

People in need should receive support from others .81
Alpha
.68
Variance
.44a
explained
.51
.40a
67%
57%
.85
.71
69%
63%
a Two-item factor, with correlation provided
Indonesia: CMin/df = 2.3, CFI = .8,NFI = .86,RMSEA =
purchase decisions. One interpretation of this is that con-
.06). Though CFI and NFI are slightly below the normal cutoff of .9 for the Indonesian sample, again this is not a concern
venience may be a factor that is as important to Indonesian

consumers as it is to Australian consumers. However, as it
given the exploratory nature of the research. We used com-
has already been provided for, it has become a less salient
pound variables of each factor in our subsequent analyses.
consideration in the purchase decision, whereas in Australia it remains an active and foremost consideration.1 This
aspect may be beneficial for future exploration.
Findings
Motivations for Ethical Purchases
Attributes Considered for Purchase Decision

Positive motivations drive Millennial behavior toward
Price, quality, and convenience drive the purchases of

everyday products for Australian Millenniais (see Table 4).
everyday CRP. Social positive motivations exert the

strongest influence for both Australian and Indonesian
To a limited extent, they also consider whether the product
respondents, who agree strongly with related statements.
supports a charity and which charity this is. However, we
This factor also is significantly different from other factors
find great variation among respondents, such that a sub-
(see Table 5). In contrast, social negative motivations are
group of these Millennial appears to consider charity
weak for the Australian sample, and these respondents only
connections more closely.
slightly agree with the related statements. Personal nega-
We also find similarities between the Australian and
tive statements instead demonstrate the lowest mean for the
Indonesian samples, along with some significant differ-
Indonesian sample, which implies that overall, social
ences. Australians rate price, convenience, and packaging

more significantly (p < .01), whereas Indonesians focus on
quality, brand, and convenience. Convenience thus seems
aspects have a greater impact on Indonesian motivations.
particularly interesting: For Indonesian Millennial, convenience appears less important than it is for Australian
for the Australian sample. For example, when the cause is a
Millenniais (rank of 6 versus 3), which may reflect lifestyle
among Australian respondents than either personal positive
differences between the two countries. For example,

Indonesia hosts a prevalence of small vendors in neighborhoods, such that everyday goods are easily accessible
and other factors thus may have a greater influence on
Despite some consistency in Millennial motivations

(see Table 5), any specific issue produces different results
local issue, social negative motivations become stronger

or personal negative motivations (Table 5a). The magnitude of agreement with social positive statements in this
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Springer
120
T.
Bucic
et
al.
Table 4 Consideration of attributes at purchase
Attribute considered at purchase Australia Indonesia t Value (p)

Mean (rank) Standard deviation Mean (rank) Standard deviation
Price
4.2
Quality
(1)
4.1
Convenience
Brand
3.6
Packaging
(4)
3.7
.80
3.7
4.3
.93
(5)
(4)
(.000)
5.3
1.05
(3)
3.2
1.20
.95
(1)
3.0(6)
1.03
(6)
(2)
4.4
.93
1.00
(5)
3.3
4.0
.87
4.0(3)
3.3
Ingredients
.87
(2)
(.000)
16.1
2.9
1.06
1.14
(.000)
(.003)
2.6
4.5
(.009)
(.000)
What charity it supports 2.8 (7) 1.19 2.7 (7) 1.07 .7 (.488)
Whether it supports a charity 2.8 (8) 1.17 2.7 (8) 1.01 1.1 (.266)
Five-point scale, 1 = Not considered at all, 5 = Considered to a great extent
Rankings based on means
correlation of the rankings of the statements between local
As Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) indicate, motivation also differs according to stages of awareness. However, for both samples, we find that this impact varies
problems and other issues, compared with that between the
depending on the type of motivation (see Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
case declines significantly. The unique characteristics of

local issues among Australians also emerge in the lower
other issues themselves (see Table 6). Correlations
6, 7, 8). Expressed agreement with social and personal
between the rankings of the statements in the Indonesian
positive motivation statements increase significantly with
case are very high. Though this may be an indication of
the stage of awareness and concern regardless of the issue
common method bias, the possibility of this being a
(Refer Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6; Table 8). Although it might seem
reflection of the true state cannot be ignored, particularly
that agreement with social and personal negative motiva-
given the close interrelationship between these causes (in

particular health, access to clean water and environmental
tion statements should decrease with stages of awareness

and concern, we instead find mixed results. There were no
damage for many people living in Indonesia).
significant differences for personal negative statements
Australian and Indonesian Millennial are aware of a range
except for third world issues, and health in the case of
of causes, though most fall in the middle range of the SOC
Indonesia, and even in this case, no overall trend was
scale - the stage of beginning to take action (Table 7). Health
evident across stages of awareness. For the Australian
creates the greatest awareness and concern among all respon-
sample, agreement with social negative statements
dents (67% (Australia) and 62% (Indonesia) intend to or have
decreased significantly for third world and environmental
taken action in relation to this cause). Local problems prompt
damage issues (p < .05), but it significantly increased for
the least concern among Australians, but problems in the third
local issues (p < .05), and we found no difference for
world are of least concern for Indonesians, such that most
health (Refer Table 8 for F values). There is no significant
would not take any action. These results may reflect the
difference for the Indonesian sample, with the small
developmental divide between Australia and Indonesia: Living
number in the final SOC category possibly contributing to

this result (Refer Table 9).
in a less developed country, Indonesian Millennial may be

more inward facing and concerned with problems that directly
affect their own life and survival (e.g., access to water, defor-
Subgroups of Millenniais
estation), rather than looking outward to other countries. Aus-
tralian people in general do not have the same day-to-day

worries and can be concerned with issues beyond their own
Among the various ways available to differentiate groups

of Millennial, we explored three characteristics: gender,
survival.
prior CRP behaviors, and motivation toward CRP. Women
Australian Millenniais might be expected to have

advanced further along the SOC because they live in a
are significantly more aware and more concerned across all
more developed and economically advanced country, and

Table 7 shows this is the case. There is a significant dif-
refer to intensity rather than direction. The impact of past
ference (p < .01) in the proportion of Australian and

Indonesian respondents across the SOC across all causes,
ethical issues (p < .05), though these gender differences

CRP behavior is significant, creating a clear distinction
between Millenniais who had versus those who had not
previously purchased a cause-related product (p < .001) in
with a greater percentage of Australian Millennial being in
terms of awareness, concern, and helping others. Those
the "concerned" categories.
who had not undertaken CRP in the past were aware but
Springer
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 121

Table 5 Comparison of motivational statements across issues
Access to Health Environmental Local F (p) Mean

clean drinking damage problems across
water in the (in Australia) issues

third
world
(Rank)
Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank)

a. Australian sample
Personal positives
This is an issue that I like to be associated with 4.73 (5) 5.13 (4) 4.87 (4) 4.32 (9) 67.6 (.000) 4.76 (4)
People who matter to me would respect me for 4.59 (9) 4.81 (5) 4.64 (6) 4.31 (10 47.7 (.000) 4.59 (7)
being concerned about this issue
My friends are concerned about this issue 3.99 (13) 4.63 (7) 4.74 (9) 3.87 (13) 89.7 (.000) 4.31 (10)
Social positives
It would help if people bought from firms that 5.21 (2) 5.45 (2) 5.24 (3) 4.70 (4) 75.5 (.000) 5.15 (2)
address this issue
It would be better for everyone in the long run 5.31 (1) 5.64 (1) 5.51 (1) 4.95 (2) 79.3 (.000) 5.35 (1)
if people favored products that address this
issue
People could make fairer choices if they were 5.15 (3) 5.26 (3) 5.25 (2) 4.95 (1) 24.9 (.000) 5.15 (2)
aware of which companies had high ethical
principles regarding this issue
Personal negatives
Having to take account of this issue would 4.18 (12) 4.19 (10) 4.32 (10) 4.16 (12) 5.4 (.01) 4.21(12)
make shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I 4.87 (4) 4.68 (6) 4.74 (5) 4.75 (3) 6.6 (.000) 4.76 (4)
had to choose only from products that
support this issue
People's choices would be unreasonably 4.65 (6) 4.61 (8) 4.57 (7) 4.56 (6) 2.08 (.102) 4.60 (6)
restricted by the removal of products that
disregard this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I 4.22 (11) 4.17 (11) 4.16 (12) 4.19 (11) .81 (.484) 4.19 (12)
support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from 4.60 (8) 4.46 (9) 4.520 (8) 4.61 (5) 6.53 (.000) 4.33 (9)
businesses that do not violate this issue
Social negatives
People are too busy today to be concerned with 4.63 (7) 4.10 (12) 4.30 (11) 4.47 (7) 44.1 (.000) 4.54 (8)
this issue
People might think it was a waste of time to try 4.54 (10) 4.06 (13) 4.10 (13) 4.37 (8) 46.7 (.000) 4.27 (11)
to influence big business over this issue
b. Indonesian sample
Personal positives
This is an issue that I like to be associated with 4.63 (5) 5.25 (3) 5.24 (3) 4.82 (4) 27.1 (.000) 4.99 (4)
People who matter to me would respect me for 4.44 (7) 4.84 (6) 4.76 (6) 4.56 (7) 11.6 (.000) 4.65 (7)
being concerned about this issue
My friends are concerned about this issue 4.47 (6) 4.87 (5) 4.77 (5) 4.65 (6) 10.6 (.000) 4.69 (6)
Social positives
It would help if people bought from firms that 5.39 (2) 5.49 (2) 5.33 (2) 5.25 (2) 1.7 (.169) 5.37 (2)
address this issue
It would be better for everyone in the long run 5.41 (1) 5.68 (1) 5.62 (1) 5.32 (1) 6.6 (.000) 5.51 (1)
if people favored products that address this
issue
People could make fairer choices if they were 4.80 (3) 5.22 (4) 5.12 (4) 5.05 (3) 11.2 (.000) 5.05 (3)
aware of which companies had high ethical
principles regarding this issue
Springer
122
T.
Bucic
et
al.
Table 5 continued
Access to Health Environmental Local F ( p ) Mean

clean drinking damage problems across
water in the (in Australia) issues
third
world
(Rank)
Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank)

Personal negatives
Having to take account of this issue would 3.19 (12) 3.38 (12) 3.33 (12) 3.37 (12) 2.7 (.48) 3.36 (12)
make shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I 3.60 (11) 3.68 (11) 3.63 (11) 3.63 (11) .46 (.688) 3.64 (11)
support this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I 3.88 (10) 4.02 (10) 4.04 (10) 3.96 (10) 2.1 (.106) 3.98 (10)
support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from 4.29 (8) 4.38 (8) 4.30 (8) 4.37 (8) .77 (.504) 4.33 (8)
businesses that do not violate this issue
Social negatives
People are too busy today to be concerned with 4.71 (4) 4.76 (7) 4.71 (7) 4.70 (5) .34 (.775) 4.72 (5)
this issue
People might think it was a waste of time to try 4.16 (9) 4.07 (9) 4.11 (9) 4.02 (9) 1.24 (.293) 4.09 (9)
to influence big business over this issue
Table 6 Correlation of motivational statement ranks across issues
Australia
Indonesia
3rd World - clean Health Environmental 3rd World - clean Health Environmental
water Damage water damage
Health
.73
Environmental
.94
.84
.97
.94
.0
damage
Local
problem
.89
.51
.67
.99
.97
.97
Spearman Rank correlations; all significant at .001 level
Table 7 Difference in awareness and concern between countries
Australia
(%)
Indonesia
(%)
x2
ANC ACNA CIA CMinA CMajA (Rank) ANC ACNA CIA CMinA CMajA (Rank)
Health
Environ
Local
23
24
12
36
27
28
22
34
28
13
26
4
(1)
4
(2)
(4)
36
3
12
29
39
51
30
24
29
21
10
3
5
1
(1)
(2)
(3)
29.0*
33.1*
42.8*
3rd world 15 31 21 26 5 (3) 29 47 12 3 1 (4) 151.4*

ANC aware but not greatly concerned, ACNA aware, concerned but not taken action, CIA concerned and intend to take action, CMinA concerned
and taken minor action, CMajA concerned and taken major action (rank based on CIA + CMinA + CMajA percentages)
* p < .01
less likely to have taken action and less open to helping

others. These subgroups did not differ in terms of demographics though, and the vast majority of Millenniais had
undertaken CRP. Therefore, prior CRP behavior offers an
unsatisfactory basis for understanding subgroups.
Instead, we employed cluster analysis to find a simple,

finer, more informative clarification of subgroups in terms
of their motivation toward CRP. This more subtle classi-
fication, compared with either gender or buy/not buy

classifications, entailed four motivation factors (personal
Springer
Ethical
Consumers
Among
Fig. 1 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (social

positive)
Fig. 2 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (per-
the
Millenniais
123
Fig. 3 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (social

negative)
Fig. 4 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (personal negative)
sonal positive)
and social positive and negative), together with attitude

toward helping others, as clustering bases. Three clusters
then emerged for both the Australian and Indonesian
samples (see Table 10).
social and personal positive and negative motivations:

They are aware of the benefits, to both themselves and
society, if they are actively concerned about issues, but
they are also conscious that there could be personal ("make
shopping less convenient") and social ("people are too

busy today to be concerned") drawbacks associated with
Reserved Social Conscience
CRP. Despite their strong awareness of a range of issues,
This cluster is so named because of its multiple motivations
purchasing (i.e., 35% of Australians and 20% of Indone-
their recognition has not yet transformed into frequent

for CRP; it includes 38% of the Australian sample and 42%
sians purchase CRPs at least monthly). Both genders are
of the Indonesian sample. These people have the strongest
equally well represented in this cluster.
Springer
124
T.
Bucic
Fig. 5 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian sample (social

positive)
et
al.
Fig. 7 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian Sample (social

negative)
Fig. 8 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian sample (personal negative)

Fig. 6 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian sample (personal positive)
awareness and concern across the range of issues, including
Indiffrents
charity or which one is significantly lower than that in other
health, their consideration of whether a product supports a
clusters (pAust < 001; pindon < 05). This cluster contains a
Representing 33% (Australia) and 28% (Indonesia) of the

sample, these Millennial are indifferent overall, without
strong views across the full range of motivation statements.
significantly higher proportion of men (Australia 60%,
p <.001; Indonesia 71%, p < .05). In the Australian

sample, Indiffrents largely have not undertaken any CRP
(19%, p < .001). This cluster contains the highest per-
They slightly concur that people should help others, but

their view of this norm is significantly lower than that of
centages of people undertaking CRP only if they feel like it
the other clusters (p < .001). In their early stage of
(Australia 52%; Indonesia 37%).
Springer
Ethical
Consumers
Among
the
Millenniais
125
Table 8 ANOVA results - differences in motivational dimensions across stage of change

3rd
World
Health
Environmental
Local
Australia
Social
positive
Personal
Social
22.4*
positive
negative
Personal
16.7*
30.1*
3.5*
negative
25.3*
25.9*
.5
31.5*
36.6*
35.9*
2.1**
3.0*
3.4*
.8
2.0
1.0
Indonesia
Social
positive
Personal
Social
4.9*
positive
negative
Personal
7.1*
4.5*
negative
3.3*
5.1*
1.1
1.1
2.4*
6.2*
2.8*
4.1*
1.6
3.3*
.5
.3
.8
F statistic shown within table; * p < .01, ** p < .05
Table 9 Sub-sample size by stage of awareness

Aware but not Aware and concerned but Concerned and intend Concerned and taken Concerned and taken
greatly concerned not taken action to take action minor action major action
Australia
3rd
world
Health
118
56
Environmental
Local
182
248
191
94
279
168
219
226
229
181
212
38
285
46
213
103
30
30
Indonesia
3rd
world
Health
15
110
135
Environmental
Local
47
14
170
46
109
149
191
12
108
114
92
11
80
17
38
Committed
CRP (i.e., the Committed purchase most frequently),

whereas the Indonesian clusters appear similar on this
Finally, this group of Millennials is motivated primarily by
aspect. This latter finding is not unexpected, in that many
personal and social positive feelings, and they also express
people in Indonesia still struggle daily to afford basic

necessities. Because almost 50% of their expenses go
the strongest disagreement with personal and social negative statements. Therefore, they know the benefits that
support for causes can bring, and they do not feel that
supporting these causes is less convenient, too much of a
hassle, or a waste of time. The Committed tend to be less
conformist and significantly less concerned about peers'
impressions of their purchases. For Australia, these moti-
toward food and beverages, it is logical for them to buy the
most affordable products, regardless of the company's

involvement in CRM. Ethical issues are not yet a determining factor in actual purchases among Indonesian
Millennials.
vations become manifest in frequent purchases of CRP

(45% undertaking CRP at least monthly). This cluster has
Discussion
the highest percentage of women (59%) and the lowest

percentage of consumers who have not previously undertaken CRP.
Extent of Millennials' Engagement in Ethical

Consumerism
These three clusters appear in both the Australian and
Indonesian samples; however, we also note some differences in the CRP behaviors of the clusters across the two
In line with Freestone and McGoldrick (2008), our findings
support that the DBS and SOC models have explanatory
cultures. For example, for Australian consumers, the three
value in terms of Millennials' ethical consumption. Posi-
clusters differ significantly in the reported frequency of
tive attitudes and motivations are similar across the two
<0 Springer
126
T.
Bucic
et
al.
Table 10 Description of clusters
Australian Clusters F or y2 Indonesian Clusters F or y2

Reserved Indiffrents Committed Reserved Indiffrents Committed
social
social
conscience
conscience
Motivation#
Social, positive motivation 5.7 4.3 5.5 274.4* 5.6 4.4 5.7 97.0*
Personal, positive motivation 5.0 3.7 4.9 206.0* 5.1 3.7 5.3 106.0*
Social, negative motivation 5.1 4.5 3.2 292.5* 5.6 3.8 3.2 27.7*
Personal, negative motivation 5.0 4.6 3.6 144.2* 4.9 3.9 3.9 56.9*
Attitude to helping others*
Attitude to helping others 6 5 6 161.3* 5.9 5.0 6.0 47.9*

Conformity
Peer conformity 3.4 3.4 2.96 11.5* 4.3 4.1 4.1 2.7
Awareness and concern
Health (% aware/% concerned) 22/78 41/59 30/70 42.9a * 36/64 56/44 29/71 29.2a *
Environmental damage (% aware/% 30/70 55/45 36/64 74.9a * 36/64 54/46 42/58 21.3a *
concerned)
Problems in third world (% aware/% 36/64 64/36 38/62 96.4a * 78/22 88/12 86/14 15.8a *
concerned)
Local problems (% aware/% 49/51 72/28 60/40 52.3a * 64/36 70/30 58/42 14.4a *
concerned)
Attributes considered
Ingredients
Price
4.3
3.4
4.1
Convenience
4.1
3.2
3.4
3.2*
4.2
3.4*
3.95
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.5*
3.5
4.0
3.1
3.0
3.8
4.0
3.0
2.5
.1
1.6
If supports charity 3 2.3 3 27.7* 2.8 2.3 2.9 9.7**

What charity supported 3 2.45 2.9 15.9* 2.9 2.3 2.9 14.7*
Behavior and Demographics
Male/female % 47/53 60/40 41/59 17.7a'* 50/50 71/29 57/43 11.7a'**
Not buy/buy % 8/92 19/81 6/94 27.8a'* 6/94 11/89 5/95 2.9a
% Buy monthly or more 35 27 45 16.0a'* 20 22 14 7.8a
% Buy only when feel like it 37 52 36 14.0a * 29 37 35 2.1a
n
301
263
230
161
105
112
* p < 0 .001 level; ** p < .05 level; # used as bases for the clustering
a Chi-square (y2) statistic
countries from which samples were drawn, though such
Attala 2001; Folkes and Kamins 1999). Yet our findings
similarity is not uniformly reflected in purchase behaviors.

In Australia, Millennial are more likely to engage in actual
also are consistent with suggestions that ethical decisions
purchases, whereas in Indonesia, a positive perspective

does not necessarily lead to purchase. For clusters that
sporadically purchase CRP or do not engage in ethical
appear situational or issue-related (Singhapakdi et al.

1996), such that ethically minded consumers may not
consistently buy ethically (Carrigan and Attala 2001).
The findings echo prior research (Carrigan and Attala
consumption, we uncover no specific rationales for their
2001) by demonstrating that for Millenniais, the foremost
behavior, perhaps due to the complexity of the decisioncompeting ethical claims from various ethical offerings and
purchase considerations appear to be traditional factors,

such as price and quality. Despite some minor differences
across cultures, neither group considers cause relatedness
other accumulated issues (Newholm and Shaw 2007). An
as a dominant product attribute in their purchase decision.
overwhelmed consumer might punish unethical behavior,
However, in contrast with prior studies (Bird and Hughes
making environment (e.g., Newholm 2005), which features
out of a sense of responsibility to not support harm, but not
1997), we find that ~ 20-30% of consumers in the sur-
quite be willing to reward ethical behavior (Carrigan and
veyed Millennial market are willing to purchase goods on a
Springer
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 127

reasonably frequent (monthly) basis because of their ethical credentials, and another one-third of the market enga-
Personal and Social Levers for Ethical Behavior
ges in occasional CRP. That is, consumers who never
The relevant SOC model offers insights into ethical con-
engage in CRP actually represent the minority of Millen-
sumption choices by Millennial but does not entirely explain
nial consumers. This may suggest that attributes are
a consumer's progression through the SOC to become a
structured by consumers into "tiers" or groups. Once the

most fundamental considerations are satisfied, additional
steadfast ethical consumer. Our findings imply that greater

awareness does not always lead to greater purchase frequency.
"tiers" may be considered prior to making a purchase

decision. Findings from this study suggest that ethical
consumers do not necessarily use their knowledge to make
Similarly, prior research indicates that the most educated
considerations are not present in the first "tier" of con-
ethical consumption decisions (Caminiti 1992), nor can
sideration, though given that it is the minority of Millen-
greater education explain ethical decisions and moral devel-
niais who do not engage in ethical purchasing, this may

suggest that ethical considerations are present in subsequent "tiers" of consideration. However, formal testing
opment (Krebs et al. 1991). Although the SOC model is useful,
for hierarchical structures within purchase decision criteria
is recommended to confirm this proposition.
Although we could not ascertain a definitive reason for

the behaviors adopted by the Indiffrents and Reserved
Social Conscience segments, we acknowledge Folkes and
Kamins' s (1999) suggestion that some consumers are
affected more by unethical or prosocial behaviors. The
various cause-related products in this study came from
diverse companies with different prosocial agendas, none
of which exhibited publicly obvious unethical behaviors.
Perhaps ethical products thus should be marketed at the
augmented product level, such that the focus is on the
achievement of social goals rather than traditional commercial considerations, such as price and quality (Golding
it thus cannot wholly explain a consumer's progression from
awareness to ethical purchases.
By identifying three consumption clusters within the

Millennial group across diverse samples, we have addressed the question of whether consumers of ethical products
are developing more socially conscious mindsets or if they

simply want to project a socially concerned image (Free-
stone and McGoldrick 2008). For the Committed and

Reserved Social Conscience segments, social, positive
levers, such that the consumers are intrinsically motivated
to make a positive difference to the world, are strongest.

For the Indifferent cluster though, motivations are difficult
to discern: Social and personal negative motivations appear
among Millennial in the Australian sample, but social

positive motivations levers appear strongest among those
from Indonesia.
and Peattie 2005). Our findings are consistent with

Boulstridge and Carrigan's (2000) suggestion that despite
Country of Residence Impacts on Ethical Consumerism
consumers' willingness to make ethical purchases, ethical

product attributes are not the most dominant criteria in
Demographic variables, including gender and ethnicity, are
their consumption decisions because they care more about
significant influences on ethical decision making (Auger
price, quality, and value. The distinction between what

consumers value most when making purchase decisions
and how marketers should market products appears
et al. 2003). However, we find no significant differences

ports claims that employment status does not differentiate
somewhat incongruous.
among ethically conscious consumers (Dickinson 2001).
between student and nonstudent Millenniais, which sup-
The differences between Australia and Indonesia also

Health as the Central Universal Concern
are consistent with prior indications that affluent societies,
in which most consumers are free of worry about meeting
interest in ethical issues, such as more media coverage
their basic needs, become more responsible for their

behavior (Hansen and Schrder 1997). Although Millen-
The study participants cited several reasons for increased
(Roberts 1996) and more information (Berry and
nial possess many similarities across cultures, such as the
McEachern 2005). However, information does not necessarily lead to action, because additional considerations
higher propensity of women to engage in sympathetic CRP,
affect purchase decisions, such as the price and complexity
which issues they perceive as more important.
there are some notable cross-cultural differences, including
of buyers' decision-making efforts (De Pelsmacker et al.
2005; Newholm 2005). Yet we also find that health rates

consistently as a central concern, across both cultures. This
Theoretical Implications
focus could reflect the perceived importance of health

issues for both men and women, awareness, or perceived
Theoretically, this study helps fill a void in existing liter-
opportunities to enable medical progress through individual donations of funds (i.e., through CRP).
from developed and developing countries. In particular, it
ature by presenting a comparative study of Millenniais
Springer
128
T.
Bucic
et
al.
includes Indonesia, the world's fourth largest population,
about specific age groups (Noble et al. 2009); we therefore
which previously had received little or no research atten-
have provided a detailed analysis of Millenniais and their
tion relating to ethical consumerism.
purchases of ethical products in a convenience category.
By defining specific clusters of consumers within the
Millennial market we suggest that traditional views of

narrow niche markets are not complementary when it
comes to young ethical consumers. We confirm prior
This information creates a better understanding of the

Millennial market, which comprises distinctive clusters,
only one of which is readily interested in ethical product
attributes, though purchases by the Reserved Social Con-
suggestions of the lack of an "average ethical consumer"
science cluster could be facilitated by providing both
(Auger 2006; Carrigan and Attala 2001; Devinney et al.

2010); instead, Millennial' ethical consumption approa-
intrinsic and extrinsic compensation to consumers in return
for their economic support.
ches entail three distinct patterns. In addition, rather than

assuming that people who do not engage frequently in CRP
are not aware and do not care about ethical consumption,
Limitations and Directions for Further Research
we find that it is more appropriate to anticipate that these

consumers simply care more about other product attributes,
In this study, there are several limitations worth noting:
First, though ethical marketing includes four main
such as price or quality.

Prior studies of ethical consumerism often have been
confounded by the inability of respondents to report

accurately on relevant, socially sensitive issues (Hume
approaches - CRM, socially responsible business practices,
corporate social marketing, and corporate cause promotions (Kotier and Lee 2005) - we investigate only CRM.
2010; Greenwald and Banaji 1995). We used segmentation
Second, we take a snapshot of behaviors at one moment in
analysis, as also used by Walsh et al. (2010) to generate
time using a self report questionnaire to generate cross-
natural clusters of consumers among Millenniais.
sectional data focused on one generational market across

two diverse countries. We therefore cannot and do not
Practical Implications
propose to monitor behavioral changes over time. Furthermore, though we replicated the survey approach as
used by Freestone and McGoldrick (2008), we acknowl-
We confirm Freestone and McGoldrick's (2008) suggestion
edge the usual issues associated with these methods. Hence
that the DBS and SOC concepts have explanatory value in
monitoring motivations and behavior over time may provide a fruitful direction for future research, since, as
an ethical decision-making context, and we extend this

confirmation to include age- and culturally segmented
Millenials mature, we may expect increasing time and
consumers. For marketers, this effort may be useful for
other constraints to raise salient barriers as they transition
developing appropriate interventions and communications
from study to the workplace and/or family commitments.
to support ethical consumption decisions. That is, noting

three distinct clusters of consumers, marketers should tar-
purchasing behavior may present greater barriers, espe-
get the separate clusters and emphasize distinct messages

relevant for each stage of awareness and commitment.
Among CRP practitioners in particular, messaging
In such circumstances, the negative barriers to ethical

cially for those who are less aware or concerned about an
ethical cause.2
Third, there is some distinction in how each country
because segments that are either more or less receptive to
sample ranked ethical issues. That is, in the Australian

sample there was no concern relating to correlations,
ethical purchasing tend to be stable over time (Walsh et al.
however, for the Indonesian sample there were high cor-
2010). All Millennial are not equally responsive to CRP
relations among issues including access to clean drinking

water, health and environmental issues. As noted in the
Discussion section, this could be an indication of common
should be designed for specific target groups, particularly
marketing, and distinctive clusters that engage in diverse

forms of purchasing behavior exist. One cluster is reasonably committed to ethical product purchasing and receptive
method bias for the Indonesian sample or it could be a true
to ethical marketing, but another does not engage, and a
reflection of the country-specific interrelatedness of these
third cluster may be convinced to change its purchasing
issues for residents of Indonesia. Though this study did not
behavior. Similar to Auger et al. (2003), we posit that this
specifically focus on broad cultural issues, we acknowledge
situation implies many consumers still do not understand
that deep-rooted cultural differences may exist between the
the ethical dimensions of products that they purchase,

though a significant group of consumers simply does not
samples from Australia and Indonesia. For example, in

Australia, Millennial enjoy a level of both income and
value an ethical product position.
freedom that may not be common throughout Indonesia. In
For retailers and marketers to target and position products for customers effectively, they need more information
2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
) Springer
Ethical
Consumers
Among
Indonesia many Millennial may not have access to their
the
Millenniais
129
own discretionary spending money and instead, accompany
behaviors of three consumer subgroups, which remain

consistent across two national cultures that represent
elders on shopping trips, taking on the role of "influencers"
developed and developing countries. In so doing, we have
in shopping situations, and not necessarily of "buyers". To
clarified that instead of being conceptualized as one niche
take into consideration such consumer habits in future
market (Langeland 1998), Millennials consist of submar-
studies, it may be beneficial to include a question about
kets that are amenable to ethical purchasing to varying
income levels. Hence, caution is recommended in inter-
degrees. This distinction is useful for theory development
pretation of results. Furthermore, this study does not

explore the role of religion in consumption because as
and for marketers, and it advances our understanding of

ways to encourage positive ethical behavior.
Perrin (2000) suggests, "religiosity effects are not as sig-
nificant as common wisdom and social scientific theory

might suggest" (p. 537). This view is further supported by
Ramly et al. (2008) who recently found in their Malaysian
study that religiosity is not a positive determinant of young
References
intrinsically religious people do not act in more prosocial
Al-Khatib, J. A., Stanton, A. D., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2005). Ethical

segmentation of consumers in developing countries: A comparative analysis. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 225-246.
behavior though they often think they do, or should do,
Auger, P. (2006). Ethical consumerism: Reality or myth? The
consumers' ethical beliefs. Thus, studies suggest that
hence yielding self-reports that frequently differ from those
of non-religious people (Chaves 2010; Batson and Powell

2003; Leach et al. 2008; Trimble 1997). Nevertheless,
because Indonesia is a country heavily populated by Mus-
lims and whereby Islam is way of life this may impact

consumption and ethical consumption patterns: thus, it may
be beneficial for the role of religion to be investigated in

future studies of ethical consumption.3 Fourth, some studies
suggest that ethical decisions and thus consumption behav-
iors reflect realized morals (Kozinets and Handelman 1998)

and moral intensity (Jones 1991) and that consumers engage
in ethical consumption in part to define themselves

(Langeland 1998). We do not address any aspect of morals
because our primary purpose is to identify and define relevant groups of ethical consumers among Millennials. Fifth,
Melbourne Review , 2(1), 78-83.
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., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do
social product features have value to consumers? International
Journal of Research in Marketins , 25, 183-191.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (201 1). http://www.abs.gov.au/
AUSSTATS/abs@ .nsf/W eb-fPages/Population+Clock?opendocu
ment#from-banner=LN.
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial

behaviour. In T. Milion & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology : Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5,

pp. 463-484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Berry, H., & McEachern, M. G. (2005). Informing ethical consumers.
In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical

consumer (pp. 69-87). London: Sage Publications.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing , 67, 76-88.
the ethical issues included in the survey instrument were

stated in general terms and thus a clear distinction between
self-interest and altruistic motives cannot be drawn.
Bhosale, S., & Gupta, S. (2006, May 16). Tomorrow is a new
Future research may also like to distinguish between
Bird, K., & Hughes, D. (1997). Ethical consumerism: The case of
various local issues as they generate vastly different levels

of interest and concern.4 Furthermore, researchers should
fairly-traded coffee. Business Ethics: A European Review , 6(3),
explore the notion that ethical consumption is not a rational
equation (Newholm and Shaw 2007). Using the clusters we

have defined as a starting point, researchers could connect
Millennial consumer morals to ethical consumerism. A
longitudinal study also would be useful in determining

behavioral changes in the clusters over time.
consumer ! Who is the future Asian consumer? http://my.acniel

sen.com/reports/documents/AsianConsumer.pdf.
159-167.
Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care

about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behavior gap. Journal of Communication Management , 4(4), 355-368.
Boyd, D. (2010). Ethical determinants for generations X and Y.

Journal of Business Ethics , 93, 465-469.
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into
the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business
Ethics , 98 , 597-608.
Burnaz, S., Atakan, M. G. S., Topcu, Y. I., & Singhapakdi, A. (2009).

An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of marketing ethics: The
Case of Turkish, Thai, and American Businesspeople. Journal of
Business Ethics , 90, 371-382.
Conclusion
We have delineated ethical consumer among Millennials

and provided a perspective on the ethical concerns and
3 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.
BusinessWire. (2004, May 13). Editorial: Available for hire: Class of

'04 college grads; with an entrepreneurial spirit, today's grads
want to make an impact on the world, http://static.high

beam.com/b/businesswire/may 1 32004/availableforhireclassof04
collegegradswithanentrepr/index.html.
Caminiti, S. (1992). The payoff from a good reputation. Fortune ,

725(3), 74-77.
Springer
130
T.
Bucic
Carrigan, M., & Attala, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical

consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(1), 560-578.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better
world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical

consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 27(6), 401-417.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2011). The world factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/libraiy/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/
as.html.
Chappie, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in
Asia: A seven-country studies of CSR website reporting.
Business and Society, 44(4), 415-441.

Chaves, M. (2010). SSSR presidential address rain dances in the dry
season: Overcoming the religious congruence fallacy. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 1-14.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers
care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. The
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363-385.
Devinney, T., P. Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the
ethical consumer . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, M. (2001). Utility of no sweat labels for apparel

consumers: Profiling label users and predicting their purchases.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 96-120.
Dubinsky, A. J., Jolson, M. A., Kotabe, M., & Lim, C. U. (1991). A

cross-national investigation of industrial salespeople's ethical
perceptions. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4),
651-670.
Elliot, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2001). White hats of Don Quixotes?

Human rights vigilantes in the global economy. Working paper
8102. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Farris, R., Chong, F., & Dunning, D. (2002). Generation Y:

Purchasing power and implications for marketing. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, 6(2), 89-102.
Folkes, V. S., & Kamins, M. A. (1999). Effects of information about
firms. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243-259.
Folse, J. A. G., Niedrich, R. W., & Grau, S. L. (2010). Cause-related
marketing: the effects of purchase quantity and firm donation
amount on consumer inferences and participation intentions.

Journal of Retailing, doi: 10. 1016/j .jretai.20 10.02.005).
Foscht, T., Schloffer, J., Maloles, C., I. I. I., & Chia, S. L. (2009).
Assessing the outcomes of generation-Y customers' loyalty.
et
al.
Henne, K. M., & Taylor, D. C. (2009). Use of persuasion knowledge

by the Millennial generation. Young Consumers: Insight and
Ideas for Responsible Marketers, /0(1), 71-81.
Hira, N. A. (2007, May 15). Attracting the twenty something worker.
Fortune.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture:

Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 79(3), 477.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenniais rising: The next great
generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Hume, M. (2010). Compassion without action: Examining the young
consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption.
Journal of World Business, 45, 385-394.
Jang, Y. J., Kim, W. G., & Bonn, M. A. (2011). Generation Y

consumers' selection attributes and behavioural intentions con-
cerning green restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/j .ijhm.20 1 0. 1 2.0 1 2.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological

analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: The
Free Press.
Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The Millennial effect :

Implications for academic development. Report for HERDSA,
Australia.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in

organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
Jones, M., & Hofstede, G. (2007). Culturally questionable? In Oxford

business & economics Conference, Oxford, UK, 24-26 June.
Kahle, L. R. (1995). Observations: Role-relaxed consumers: Empirical evidence. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 59-62.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A focus theory of
normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26(8), 1002-1012.

Kim, J. O., Forsythe, S., Gu, Q., & Moon, S. J. (2002). Cross-cultural
consumer values, needs and purchase behavior. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 79(6), 481-502.
Kim, H. J., Knight, D. K., & Crutsinger, C. (2009). Generation Y
employees' retail work experience: The mediating effect of job
characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 62, 548-556.
Kotier, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Doing the
most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (1998). Ensouling consumption:
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(3), 218-241.
A netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting
Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the
behavior. In A. Joseph & H. Wesley (Eds.), Advances in
ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 445-467.

Geraci, J. C. (2004). What do youth marketers think about selling to
kids? International Journal of Advertising and Marketing to
Children, 5(3), 11-17.
consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 475-480). Provo, UT: Associ-
Golding, K., & Peattie, K. (2005). In search of a golden blend:

Perspectives on the marketing of fair trade coffee. Sustainable
Development, 13(3), 154-165.

Gorman, P., Nelson, T., & Glassman, A. (2004). The Millennial
generation: A strategic opportunity. Organizational Analysis,
/2(3), 255-270.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition
research: Attitudes, self esteem and stereotypes. Psychological
Review, 702(1), 4-27.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, H. (2009). Corporate and individual giving: What to expect in
coming months. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 27(9), 3.
Hansen, U., & Schrder, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption
for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20(4),
443-468.
ation for Consumer Research.
Krebs, D. L., Vermeulen, S. C., & Denton, K. (1991). Competence

and performance in moral judgment: From the ideal to the real.
Moral Education Forum, 16, 7-22.
Lai, F. S., Chong, S., Sia, B. K., & Ooi, B. C. (2010). Culture and
consumer behaviour: Comparisons between Malays and Chinese
in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Management
and Technology, 1(2), 180-185.
Lancaster, L., & Stil Iman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who
they are, why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at
work. New York: Collins Business.
Langeland, L. (1998). On communicating the complexity or a green

message. Greener Management International, 25, 81-91.
Leach, M. M., Berman, M. E., & Eubanks, L. (2008). Religious
activities, religious orientation, and aggressive behaviour. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(2), 311.
Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2005). Has the medium (roast) become
the message? The ethics of marketing fair trade in the
mainstream. International Marketing Research, 22(5), 494-511.
Springer
Ethical
Consumers
Among
McSweeney, B. (2000). The fallacy of national culture identification.

In 6th interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting conference,
Manchester.
Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in

consumer behaviour: Implications for international retailing.
Journal of Retailing, 78 , 61-69.
Morton, L. P. (2002). Targeting generation Y: Segmenting publics.

Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 46-48.
Newholm, T. (2005). Case studying ethical consumers. In R. Harrison,
T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp.

107-124). London: Sage.
Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: A
review of research. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 253-270.
Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives

college-age generation Y consumers? Journal of Business
Research, 62 , 617-628.
Nowak, L., Thach, L., & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Wowing the Millennial:
Creating brand equity in the wine industry. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 75(5), 316-323.

O'Donnell, J. (2006, October 11). Gen Y sits on top of consumer food
chain: They're savvy shoppers with money and influence. USA
Today , 3B.
Oumlil, A., & Balloun, J. (2009). Ethical decision-making differences
between American and Moroccan managers. Journal of Business
Ethics, 8( 4), 457-478.
Palmer, D. (2008). Cracking the Gen Y culinary code. Australian
the
Millennial
131
Smith, B. (2011). Who shall lead us? How cultural values and ethical
ideologies guide young marketers' evaluations of the transformational manager-leader. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.
1 007/s 1 055 1 -0 10-070 1 -0).
Srnka, K. J. (2004). Culture's role in marketers' ethical decision

making: An integrated theoretical framework. Academy of
Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-32.
Sujansky, J. G., & Ferri-Reed, J. (2009). Keeping the Millenniais :
Why companies are losing billions in turnover to this generation - and what to do about it. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sullivan, P., & Heitmeyer, J. (2008). Looking at Gen Y shopping

preferences and intentions: Exploring the role of experience and
apparel involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
32, 285-295.
Tan, C. T., & McCullough, J. (1985). Relating ethnic attitudes and

consumption values in an Asian context. Advances in Consumer
Research, 12, 122-125.
Tang, L., & Ko veos, P. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede' s
cultural value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional
stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39,

1045-1063.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital : The rise of the net

generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Taylor, S., & Cosenza, R. (2002). Profiling later-aged female teens:
Mall shopping behavior and clothing choice. Journal of
Pendergast, D. (2007). The MilGen and society. In N. Bahr & D.
Customer Marketing, 19(5), 393-408.

Th0gersen, J. (2007). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social
dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 458-472.
Trimble, D. E. (1997). The religious scale: Review and meta-analysis
Pendergast (Eds.), Being a Millennial adolescent: What do teachers

need to know? Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational
of social desirability effects. Educational and Psychological

Measurements, 57(6), 970-986.
Food News. Retrieved from http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2008/

11/05/cracking-the-gen-y-culinary-code.html#.
Research, http://shop.acer.edu.au/acershop/product/08643 1 6933 .
Perrin, R. D. (2000). Religiosity and honesty: continuing the search

for the consequential dimension. Review of Religious Research ,
41(4), 534-544.
Phillips, C. (2007). The Millennial handbook: A snapshot guide to

everything Gen Y. South Bend, IN: Brand Amplitude.
Prochaska, J., & DiClemente, C. (1984). The transtheoretical

approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Ramly, Z., Chai, L. T., & Lum, C. K. (2008). Religiosity as a
predictor of consumer ethical behaviour: Some evidence from

young consumers from Malaysia. Journal of Business Systems,
Governance and Ethics, 5(4), 43-56.
Rawwas, M. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: a typology of

international consumers' ethical beliefs. International Marketing
Review, 18( 2), 188-211.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and

implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36 ,
217-231.
Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2007). Cultural values and international

differences in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3),
273-284.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback

interventions: A field experiment of curbside recycling. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of

corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Academy of Marketing
Science Journal, 34, 158.
Sheahan, P. (2005). Generation Y: Thriving and surviving with

generation Y at work. Prahan: Hardie Grant Books.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity

and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal
of Business Research, 56(3), 245-255.
Tuomela, S. (2010). Marketing to Millenniais in virtual community- SME

perspective applied. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Aalto University.
http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/EN/ethesis/pdf7 1 2326/hse_ethesis_ 1 2326.
pdf.
United Nations Department of Economic, Social Affairs, Programme

on Youth. (2005). World youth report 2005. Young people today,
and in 2015. New York: United Nations.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A

coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy.
Journal of Marketing, 52, 58-74.
Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and
suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43( 1/2),
33-47.
Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics:

An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of
ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153-178.
Walsh, G., Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., Andrews, J. C., & Hastings, G.
(2010). Segmentation in social marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 44(1/%), 1 140-1 164.
Ward, S., Pearson, C., & Entrekin, L. (2002). Chinese cultural values
and the Asian meltdown. International Journal of Social
Economics, 29(3/4), 205-218.

Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development
and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing

monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299-309.
Weiss, M. J. (2003). To be about to be. American Demographics ,

25(7), 28-36.
Zemke, R., Rained, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work:
Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
your workplace. New York: AMACOM American Management
Association.
Springer

Ethical Consumers Among The Millennials. A Cross-National Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ethical Consumers Among The Millennials. A Cross-National Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Consumers Among The Millennials. A Cross-National Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study

Author(s): Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris and Denni Arli

J Bus Ethics (2012) 110:113-131

Ethical Consumers Among the Millenmals:

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Using two samples drawn from contrasting

main approaches: cause-related marketing (CRM), socially

considers the powerful, unique Millennial consumer group

responsible business practices, corporate social marketing,

and their engagement in ethical consumerism. Specifically,

and corporate cause promotions (Kotier and Lee 2005). All

this study explores the levers that promote their ethical

Fortune 500 companies accept the value of integrating

consumption and the potential impact of country of resi-

Such marketing efforts can be implemented through four

dence on cause-related purchase decisions. Three distinct

their ongoing expressed commitment to CRM (Hall 2009).

subgroups of ethical consumers emerge among Millenniais,

As a highly visible form of ethical marketing, CRM refers

providing insight into their concerns and behaviors. Instead

to profit-motivated giving to support an ethical issue, which

of being conceptualized as a single niche market, Millen-

may be one of marketing's most significant contributions to

nial should be treated as a collection of submarkets that

society (Varadarajan and Menon 1988).

differ in their levels of awareness of ethical issues, consider

On the consumer side, ethical consumerism refers to

discrete motives when making consumption decisions, and

choices based on social, nontraditional components of

are willing to engage in cause-related purchasing to vary-

products (Auger et al. 2003) and personal and moral beliefs

ing degrees. These findings have several critical implica-

tions for theory and practice.

Keywords Millennial Ethical consumption

reflects the complicated process of ethical decision making,

Ethical marketing relies on consumers caring about ethical

benefits and harms derived from products with ethical

financial implications for firms (Elliot and Freeman 2001).

toward ethical products are not consistent with their buying

which requires detailed evaluations of personal and social

T. Bucic J. Harris (El) D. Arli

attributes. Studies also show that consumers' attitudes

behaviors (Bray et al. 2011; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005),

know who those consumers are" (Auger et al. 2003,

evolving over the last two decades some researchers sug-

an "average ethical consumer" (e.g., Auger 2006; Carrigan

and Attala 2001; Devinney et al. 2010). What is clear,

Strauss 2000). Millenniais are also often characterized by

studies has heightened the need for a better understanding

(Sheahan 2005), and loyalty to family, friends, communi-

of ethical consumerism among targeted consumer seg-

ties, and self rather than to corporate entities (Hira 2007).

ments, particularly those with potentially significant cur-

Millenniais are distinctive in terms of their perspectives

rent and future social and economic impacts (e.g., Gorman

(Weiss 2003), motivations (Kim et al. 2009), decision-

making rationales and value drivers (Boyd 2010). They are

In this study, we replicate and extend Freestone and