Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 75:361–380
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9259-2
A Model for Fair Trade Buying
Behaviour: The Role of Perceived Quantity
and Quality of Information and Patrick De Pelsmacker
of Product-specific Attitudes Wim Janssens
ABSTRACT. In a sample of 615 Belgians a model for
fair trade buying behaviour was developed. The impact of
fair trade knowledge, general attitudes towards fair trade,
attitudes towards fair trade products, and the perception
of the quality and quantity of fair trade information on the
reported amount of money spent on fair trade products
were assessed. Fair trade knowledge, overall concern and
scepticism towards fair trade, and the perception of the
perceived quantity and quality of fair trade information,
influence buying behaviour directly and indirectly
through product attitudes. Interest in fair trade products,
price acceptability and product liking have a significant
impact on fair trade buying behaviour. Product interest is
the most important variable influencing buying behav-
iour. Implications for the campaigns of governments and
for the marketing strategy of fair trade organisations are
offered.
KEY WORDS: attitudes, Belgium, buying behaviour,
fair trade, information
Introduction
Fair trade is an alternative approach to trading
partnerships that aims for sustainable development of
excluded or disadvantaged producers in the Third
World. It seeks to achieve this by providing better
trading conditions, by raising awareness and by
campaigning (Krier, 2001). Fairly traded products
are purchased under co-operative rather than com-
petitive trading principles, ensuring a fair (higher
than free-market) price and fair (better than free-
market) working conditions for producers and
Ó Springer 2006
suppliers in developing countries (Bird and Hughes,
1997; Littrell and Dickson, 1999; MORI, 2000;
Shaw and Shiu, 2003).
Consumers can express their feelings of respon-
sibility towards society and their appreciation of
socially responsible companies and products through
ethical consumption behaviour. Ethical consump-
tion is the purchase of a product that concerns a
certain ethical issue (human rights, labour condi-
tions, animal well-being, environment, etc.), and is
chosen freely by an individual consumer (Doane,
2001; Mintel, 1994). Shaw and Shiu (2002), Shaw
and Newholm (2002) and Shaw et al. (2005) con-
sider buying environmentally friendly and fairly
traded products as the two most typical examples of
ethical buying behaviour. In recent years, there has
been evidence that ethical consumers increasingly
see a direct link between their buying behaviour and
the associated ethical problem (Shaw and Newholm,
2002; Tallontire et al., 2001). According to Hines
and Ames (2000), 51% of the European population
feel that they can make a difference in a company’s
behaviour, and 68% claim to have purchased a
product because of a company’s ethical reputation.
Many European consumers claim to be willing to
pay substantially more for ethical products (CRC-
Consommation, 1998; Loureiro et al., 2002;
MORI, 2000). In the context of fair trade buying
behaviour, a Belgian study has shown that con-
sumers are prepared to pay on average 10% more for
fair trade labelled products (De Pelsmacker et al.,
2005b), and Maietta (2003) has found that Italian
consumers will pay on average 9% more for fair trade
products. Shaw and Clarke (1999) concluded that
fair trade is the most important ethical issue of
362 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens
concern to UK consumers. Despite the positive
attitudes of consumers and their reported willingness
to pay a premium, most ethical brands and ethical-
label products have a market share of less than 1%
(MacGillivray, 2000). Research into the ethical
concern of consumers typically shows a substantial
gap between attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Green-
wald and Banaji, 1995; King and Bruner, 2000;
Maison, 2002; Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Ulrich and
Sarasin, 1995). Therefore, a more thorough under-
standing of the factors influencing buying behaviour
with respect to fair trade products and the structure
of the buying process is necessary.
Studies of ethical consumption in general, and fair
trade buying behaviour in particular, are often
implicitly or explicitly embedded in models of
reasoned action or planned behaviour. Conse-
quently, these studies measure constructs such as
knowledge, attitudes, and buying intentions and
behaviour (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan
and Attalla, 2001; Shaw and Shiu, 2002, 2003; Vitell
et al., 2001). Other factors that have been indicated
as important, such as specific attitudes with respect to
ethical product attributes (De Pelsmacker et al.,
2005a) and the role of information quality and
quantity (Maignan and Ferrell, 2004; Nilsson et al.,
2004; Wessels et al., 1999) have not yet been
incorporated in empirically tested models.
The fair trade issue is relevant, given the global
scope of the issue at hand. The European Fair Trade
Association (EFTA) estimates that more than 800
producer groups worldwide are involved and that
annual sales of fair trade products exceed e500 M,
and are growing strongly: 22% in 2001 and 2002, and
over 42% in 2003 (http://www.worldshops.org,
2005). The study is also relevant for public policy. Fair
trade is typically organized and advocated by NGO’s
that – to a certain extent – rely upon governments for
support such as tax measures, subsidies for cam-
paigning and legislative support in the development
of fair trade brands and labels. A deeper insight into
the mechanisms of fair trade buying behaviour and its
determining factors may lead to suggestions on which
policy measures are most efficient.
This study was conducted in Belgium. In many
ways, the Belgian consumer market represents an
average European Union profile. The country is at
the crossroads of the Latin and Germanic cultures,
and has a strongly internationalized economy.
A survey by MORI (2000) of public attitudes in
Europe to corporate social responsibility and the
ethical aspects of consumption, yielded results for
Belgium that are similar to the European average
with respect to attitudes to companies’ social
responsibilities, the importance of consumers’
commitment to social responsibility in their own
purchasing behaviour and their willingness to pay
for environmentally or socially responsible prod-
ucts. These factors increase the international rele-
vance of this study. In Belgium, fair trade products
are mainly marketed by Oxfam and Max Havelaar.
Oxfam runs approximately 275 World Shops,
operated by about 9000 volunteers and 100 paid
staff, selling food products and handicrafts. Oxfam
also operates small sales outlets in schools, run by
students and supported by teachers (Oxfam Bel-
gium, 2003). In 2001, Oxfam shops had a turnover
of e5 M in food products (30% of which was
coffee) and e2.9 M in handicrafts (Krier, 2001).
Oxfam sells its own brand of fair trade products in
ordinary supermarkets as well as through its chain
of World Shops. Fair trade products are also mar-
keted in Belgium by labelling organizations such as
Max Havelaar. Labelling organizations do not have
their own brands or specialty stores, but license
producers and retailers to sell products under their
fair trade label. In Belgium, Max Havelaar – the
largest labelling organization – is supported by a
coalition of 28 member organizations. It has
contracts with 15 licensees, mainly retailers and
producers who manufacture or sell part of their
production or private label brands with the Max
Havelaar fair trade label. Max-Havelaar-labelled
products are sold in more than 1000 supermarkets
in Belgium, and in World Shops. They retail an
annual e5 M, mainly in coffee and bananas, 55%
of which is outside the World Shops (Oxfam
Belgium, 2003).
The purpose of this study was to build a model for
fair trade buying behaviour in which, besides the
impact of fair trade knowledge and attitudes towards
the fair trade issue, the importance of attitudes
towards fair trade products and the overall percep-
tion of the quantity and quality of information about
the fair trade issue was investigated. Valid and reli-
able scales for each construct in the model were
developed. Implications and policy suggestions are
also discussed.
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
Theory development and model building
Qualitative research and literature review
A theoretical model for fair trade buying behaviour
was developed, based on a review of the literature on
the antecedents of ethical buying behaviour and on a
qualitative exploratory study with Belgian consum-
ers. In November 2002, four focus group discussions
were held with eight Belgian consumers each, two
in the northern (Dutch-speaking) part of the country
(Antwerp), and two in the southern (French-
speaking) part (Liège). Each group consisted of five
women and three men, and all were the main
responsible for buying household groceries. In each
group, half of the participants were supporters of the
fair trade cause and the other half was not. For one
group in each part of the country relatively highly
educated consumers were selected; the other groups
contained relatively less educated individuals. Each
group discussion was chaired by a professional
moderator who was briefed by the research team,
and together with whom an extensive topic guide
was developed. The group discussions took about
three hours. The objective of this qualitative study
was to explore the knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour of Belgian consumers with respect to the
fair trade issue, fair trade products and fair trade
buying, to investigate the relationship between these
antecedents of buying behaviour and to assess the
role of the perception of fair trade information and
product-specific attitudes in this process. The pur-
pose of the group discussions was to inductively
develop a model of fair trade buying behaviour and
to check and refine the relationships and processes
found in previous theoretical and empirical models
of ethical buying behaviour.
The qualitative data were separately analysed by a
staff member of the research agency and by a uni-
versity researcher, and subsequently discussed and
summarized. In general, there were no major dif-
ferences in attitudes and perceptions between
groups, except for the low- and high education
individuals. Although the former appeared to be
equally concerned about the fair trade issue, they
were generally more sceptical about it. The purpose
of the set-up of the focus groups was to explicitly
encourage and stimulate discussion amongst
participants. Therefore, both advocates and sceptical
363
individuals were selected in each group. Obviously,
there were major differences between fair trade
supporters and non-supporters within each group.
There were no other major and systematic differ-
ences between groups or subgroups (e.g. male and
female participants).
Various models of ethical buying behaviour and
its determining factors have been proposed. At the
core of these models, there is typically a ‘reasoned
action’ or ‘planned behaviour’ logic: knowledge or
beliefs lead to general attitudes that in turn lead to
intentions and behaviour. These intentions and
behaviour may also be influenced by subjective
norms and/or behavioural control factors (Hunt and
Vitell, 1986, 1993; Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Shaw
and Shiu, 2002, 2003; Vitell et al., 2001). The Hunt
and Vitell (1986, 1993) model describes the indi-
vidual decision-making process, presenting the
various philosophical frameworks that underlie a
decision-maker’s ethical judgments. In this model,
the individual decision-maker’s perception of an
ethical problem is followed by the perception of
various alternatives that might lead to a solution
(ethical behaviour). Two major ethical evaluations
may occur: deontological and teleological evalua-
tions. In the former, buyers attempt to evaluate the
inherent rightness or wrongness of various alterna-
tives. In the latter, buyers base their assessment on
how much good or bad will result from the alter-
natives. Both constructs reflect different aspects of
attitudes towards the ethical issue: concern or
interest on the one hand, and belief or disbelief/
scepticism in the effectiveness of the ethical buying
behaviour on the other. Vitell et al. (2001) showed
that the deontological approach – with less concern
for consequences – is a more critical (significant)
factor than perceptions of consequences (teleology),
for ethical judgements, intentions and behaviour.
These two aspects of general attitudes are also con-
ceptualized in other work on ethical buying
behaviour, and found in previous empirical studies.
Based on qualitative research, Shaw and Clarke
(1999) proposed a conceptual model in which the
factors that determine beliefs play a more prominent
role. At the core of this model, again, is the beliefs-
attitudes-behaviour logic.
Besides concern about the issue at hand, ‘control
beliefs’ (perceived behavioural control – the extent
to which buyers are convinced that their personal
364 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens
action will lead to a desirable outcome or not) were
explicitly added as a variable that determines inten-
tions and behaviour. Also Shaw and Shiu (2002) in
their empirical model found that both negative and
positive general attitudes had a significant impact on
buying intention. Shaw and Shiu (2003) labelled the
positive and the negative factor as ‘traditional atti-
tude’ and ‘lack of control’. This dual nature of
overall attitudes toward the fair trade issue was
supported by the results of the focus group discus-
sions. Generally speaking most participants had a
very positive attitude towards the issue, but there
was also a substantial amount of scepticism, that also
affected their fair trade buying behaviour. Therefore,
a model of fair trade buying behaviour should
incorporate both the negative and positive compo-
nent of the overall attitude towards fair-trade buying
behaviour.
Shaw and Shiu (2002) estimated a ‘Theory of
Planned Behaviour’ model for fair trade grocery
buying intention based on a sample of ethical con-
sumers. Apart from positive and negative overall
attitudes towards fair trade, the subjective norm and
control beliefs, they also investigated the role of
ethical obligation and self-identity. The subjective
norm appeared to be non-significant. In a more
elaborate model based on the same data set, these
basic conclusions were supported. Shaw and Shiu
(2003) concluded that control beliefs and subjective
norm were less relevant constructs for the modelling
of fair trade grocery buying decisions, implying that
the Theory of Planned Behaviour was probably not
appropriate for low involvement decisions like
buying groceries. This assessment was also supported
by the results of the qualitative study: participants did
not mention significant others or lack of control
beliefs related to fair trade buying. It was therefore
decided not to incorporate these constructs into the
fair trade model.
Empirical research into the determining factors of
ethical buying behaviour and more particularly fair
trade buying behaviour, has focused on measuring
the impact of overall attitudes and personal norms,
values and ethical predispositions towards these is-
sues on buying intention and/or behaviour. On the
one hand, consumer perceptions and attitudes clearly
influence behaviour, as conceptualized and tested in
several models of ethical consumption. On the other
hand, it is well documented that overall attitudes
alone are usually poor predictors of behaviour
(e.g. Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995), especially with
respect to social marketing (Shaw and Clarke, 1999),
and there is often discrepancy between attitude and
behaviour; i.e., consumers do not act according to
their attitudes. Shaw et al. (2005) conclude that a
substantial amount of variance in buying behaviour
remains unexplained by traditional models and that
other relevant variables should be included in these
models. When looking at conceptual models and
other studies of ethical buying behaviour, two
categories of potentially relevant variables can be
identified, i.e. information with respect to fair trade,
and product-related factors.
The role of product-specific attitudes
The Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1993) model identifies
the importance of what is called ‘situational factors’,
and also the conceptual model of Shaw and Clarke
(1999) attributes an important determining role to
situational and product-related factors, such as price,
availability, convenience and time, for ethical buying
behaviour. Other studies of ethical buying behaviour
have also identified similar factors that account for
the fact that overall attitudes often do a poor job in
explaining ethical buying behaviour. Browne et al.
(2000) and Roberts (1996) point at the fact that
ethical products are considered too expensive or that
the consumer does not consider the justification for
the price premium. Other studies show that price,
product quality and shopping convenience often are
the most important decision-making factors despite
the other issues surrounding ethical products
(Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and
Attalla, 2001; CRC-Consommation, 1998; Nor-
berg, 2000; Roberts, 1996; Tallontire et al., 2001,
Ulrich and Sarasin, 1995). De Pelsmacker et al.,
(2005b) Belgian study concluded that the three
major criteria in purchasing decisions with respect to
fair trade-labelled coffee are, in order of importance,
the brand, the taste and the presence of a fair trade
label. Carrigan and Attalla (2001) even state that
ethical purchasing tends to occur only where there
are no costs to the consumer in terms of price pre-
mium, lower quality and a requirement to ‘shop
around’. It is estimated that 80% of the population
would buy ethically if no price premium or additional
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
shopping effort were required (Browne et al., 2000).
Consequently, specific attitudes – involving interest,
perceived quality, and price – towards ethical, or
more particularly, fair trade products may be an
important additional factor in buying behaviour.
Moreover, a generally accepted principle in
behavioural models is ‘attitude specificity’: the more
specific the attitude is related to a particular behav-
iour, the more likely the attitude will correlate with
the behaviour (Hoyer and McInnis, 2001). The
importance of product- and shopping-related atti-
tudes was also explicitly mentioned by most partic-
ipants in the focus groups. More specifically the
excessive price, the effort one has to go through to
find the products and the resulting shopping
inconvenience, the lack of quality of the products
and the fact that they were not interested enough in
these products to break their habits of buying their
usual brands, were most often mentioned. With
respect to these attitudes and suggestions there were
hardly any differences between the various partici-
pants and groups. Most of the participants stressed
that, if they could be made more concerned and less
sceptical about the fair trade issue, this would greatly
enhance their interests in fair trade products, would
lead them to pay less attention to inconvenience and
high prices and would eventually make them buy
more fair trade products. This suggests that product-
specific attitudes should be incorporated in the
model as directly impacting buying behaviour, but
also as mediating the effect of general attitudes. In-
deed, with respect to buying behaviour in general,
and ethical buying behaviour in particular, it can be
conceptualized that general attitudes towards the
issue will lead to more specific consumption-related
attitudes that may, in turn, lead to buying behaviour.
Therefore, in the buying behaviour model, the four
product-specific attitudes mentioned in the focus
groups and in previous research, will be conceptu-
alized as partly mediating the effect of general
attitudes.
Fair trade knowledge and information
The important role of information about ethical
issues in determining buying behaviour has been
highlighted in many studies. Shaw and Clarke
(1999) explicitly recognize the role of information,
365
literature, advertising and labelling for the formation
of attitudes and behaviour. Shaw and Shiu (2002)
found that the processing of information about an
ethical issue determines beliefs, attitudes and
behaviour. Shaw and Shiu (2003) suggest in the
‘limitations’ section of their fair trade modelling
study that the impact of information should be
incorporated in future modelling efforts. Ethical
issues often suffer from low levels of credibility,
confusion in the mind of consumers and a lack of
information available to consumers, or too much
wrong information and not enough high-quality
information concerning ethical products (Carrigan
and Attalla, 2001; Maignan and Ferrell, 2004;
Nilsson et al., 2004; Roberts, 1996; Wessels et al.,
1999). In Europe alone, 240 different ethical labels
are used and more than 500 codes of conduct
(http://www.fairtrade.org.uk, 2005). The number
and complexity of these competing labelling pro-
grams, certifications and organizations may confuse
consumers, undermine credibility and erode con-
sumer confidence (Nilsson et al., 2004; Salzhauer,
1991; Teisl et al., 1999). In some cases, inappro-
priate information or insufficient appropriate infor-
mation is communicated, which may be a factor in
failing to convince consumers that ethical purchasing
decisions make a difference (Carrigan and Attalla,
2001; Titus and Bradford, 1996). A MAFF (2000)
study in the UK revealed that around 50% of con-
sumers want more information on labelling and have
difficulty finding the information they need to make
a purchasing decision. Consequently, previous
research overwhelmingly stresses the importance of
the quantity and quality of information for the for-
mation of attitudes and behaviour. Most participants
in the focus groups – except those who were
extremely well informed about the fair trade issue –
also emphasized the importance of the quality and
quantity of information. They perceived the infor-
mation with respect to the fair trade issue and fair
trade products as too scarce, not widely available
enough, uncontrollable, unprofessional and incredi-
ble if not unjustified. They state that the lack of fair
trade information and the fact that it is uncontrol-
lable and of low quality makes them less interested
and more sceptical about the fair trade issue in
general. It also makes them lose interest in fair trade
products, and creates with them the perception of
unattractive, too expensive and not easy to find
366 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

groceries. The lack of sufficient, credible and
controllable fair trade information does not just lead
to negative attitudes, but also makes them less
inclined to buy these products. On the basis of
previous research and the insights from the qualita-
tive study, the perception of different aspects of the
quality and quantity of information was included in
the model and was hypothesized to have a significant
impact on general attitudes towards fair trade,
product-specific attitudes and buying behaviour in
that more and better information should lead to
more positive attitudes and buying behaviour.
Finally, the role of knowledge should be incor-
porated in the model. In traditional models of
buying behaviour, knowledge has an impact on
attitudes, which in turn have an impact on behav-
iour (see, for instance, Hunt and Vitell, 1986, 1993;
Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Shaw and Shiu, 2002, 2003;
Vitell et al., 2001). Therefore, in our model, the
knowledge construct is hypothesized to have an
impact on both general and product-specific atti-
tudes. Furthermore, knowledge may also have an
impact on the perception of information. Strong
knowledge can be expected to create the impression
that there is enough high quality information. This
was also observed in the focus groups: highly
knowledgeable participants did not complain so
much about the lack of quantity and quality of
information than less informed individuals. This also
appeals to ordinary logic: knowledgeable people
have less reason to have a negative perception about
the adequacy of information. Obviously, knowledge
is also the result of receiving information and of
experience with the issue and the product. How-
ever, what was measured here is actual (not
perceived) knowledge and perceived (not actual)
quantity and quality of information. Therefore, the
impact of information on (perceived) knowledge is
not applicable in this context and is therefore not
studied.
Figure 1 presents the model developed and its
major components.
At the core of the model is the traditional
Knowledge-Attitudes-Behaviour logic. Fair trade
buying behaviour is the dependent variable. Buying
behaviour is determined by the general attitude to-
wards the fair trade issue (representing a positive and
a negative component), which, in turn, is deter-
mined by the level of knowledge about this issue.
Based on the invariably positive reaction to the fair
trade principle by those who know what it is about,
we assume that a better knowledge leads to more
positive attitudes towards the fair trade issue. Positive
attitudes are assumed to lead to more buying, i.e.
behaviour that is consistent with the attitude. The
perceived quantity and quality of fair trade infor-
mation (presented as one dimension in Figure 1) has
an impact on all components and in all stages of the

Information
about FT

Knowledge Attitude to FT
products Buying behavior

General attitude
towards FT

Figure 1. A conceptual model for fair trade buying behaviour. For reasons of clarity, in this figure, the actual constructs
have been replaced by a description of their main overarching dimensions: Information about FT stands for two
constructs: perception of the quantity of fair trade information and perception of the quality of fair trade information.
General attitude towards FT stands for two constructs: concern/interest in fair trade and scepticism/ lack of belief in fair
trade as a principle of doing business. Attitude towards FT products stands for four constructs: product interest, product
likeability, shopping convenience, and price acceptability. Conceptually, ‘Knowledge’ (one construct) is assumed to
load on the two information constructs, the two ‘general attitude’ constructs and the four ‘product attitude’ constructs.
Each of the two ‘information’ constructs is assumed to have an impact on all general and product attitudes, as well as
on buying behaviour. The two general attitude constructs are modelled to load on all four specific attitude constructs as
well as on behaviour directly. Finally, all four product attitudes are assumed to have an impact on buying behaviour.
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
fair trade buying process. Therefore, we assume a
positive perception of this information to have a
positive impact on the general attitude towards the
fair trade issue and towards fair trade products
(representing four dimensions) as well as on fair trade
buying behaviour. For the reasons given, we expect
a positive impact of knowledge on the perception of
the quantity and the quality of information. Finally,
product-related attitude components are assumed to
partly mediate the relation between general attitudes
and behaviour.
Model testing
Data collection and construct development
The main objective of the study was to investigate the
dynamics and structure of buying behaviour on the
basis of the model developed. Based on the focus
group studies discussed in the previous section and on
an extensive literature review of previously used items
in surveys, (e.g. Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000;
Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Crane, 2001; Dhar and
Simonson, 1999; Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Titus
and Bradford, 1996), an item pool was created for each
dimension of the model developed in the previous
section. The items were grouped into the following
main dimensions: fair trade knowledge, overall atti-
tude to fair trade (positive and negative items), attitude
towards the different aspects of fair trade products (the
interest in the products, the price level, product quality
perception and shopping convenience) and percep-
tion of and attitude towards various aspects of the
quality and quantity of fair trade information. Each
item was measured by means of a seven-category
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly
agree) (see Table II for constructs and items). We
measured the fair trade spending pattern of the
respondents as the dependent variable, because we felt
that it was a more specific and concrete proxy for
actual buying behaviour than more general self-re-
ported buying behaviour items. The items and ques-
tions were part of a questionnaire that was developed
and tested in a consumer jury early 2003 and mailed in
June 2003 to 5000 Belgians between 25 and 64 years
old. The sampling frame was a mail-access panel of one
of the major Belgian marketing research agencies. The
agency was instructed to only select individuals who
367
were responsible for day-to-day purchases of groceries
for their household, and to mail to a gross quota sample
that was representative of the Belgian population with
respect to language, gender, age and level of educa-
tion. Consequently, the respondents were not neces-
sarily (dedicated) fair trade or ethical buyers. In total,
615 questionnaires were returned by mid-July 2003,
yielding a response rate of 12.3%. This response rate is
substantially higher than the Belgian average of 8% for
mail surveys. The sample was reasonably representa-
tive of the socio-demographic composition of the
Belgian population. The proportions of the sexes and
French- and Dutch-speaking consumers were almost
identical to the composition of the Belgian popula-
tion. Twenty-nine percent of the sample was younger
than 34 (24.9% in the population), and 17.3% of the
sample was 55 or older (20.3% in the population).
Higher educated were over-represented. In the sam-
ple, 50.9% had a secondary school diploma or less, as
opposed to 77.8% in the population; 14.8% of the
sample had a university degree (7.2% in the popula-
tion). The net monthly household income of 64.6% of
the sample was 2500e or less, which is similar to the
population. (http://www.statbel.fgov.be). Twenty-
eight per cent of the respondents claimed to spend less
than 10 e per year, and 13.7% stated to spend at least
100 e per year on fair trade product purchases. Al-
though there is no external information available on
fair trade spending patterns in Belgium, according to
fair trade professionals, these percentages have rea-
sonable face validity. A descriptive analysis of fair trade
attitudes and buying behaviour (De Pelsmacker et al.,
2006) showed that there are very few differences in
attitudes and behaviours between socio-demographic
categories. All these elements indicate that the sample
studied here is relevant for the issue at hand and that it
is a reasonably fair representation of the population
studied.
For each of the main dimensions (fair trade
knowledge, attitude towards the fair trade issue,
attitude towards fair trade information and attitude
towards fair trade products), a separate exploratory
factor analysis was conducted. Based on the Scree
plot and the Kaiser criterion, the number of factors
was determined. Per factor, items were assumed to
load exclusively on the factor if the factor loading
was higher than 0.50 and lower than 0.30 on all
other factors. This exploratory analysis resulted in
the identification of separate factors for all constructs
368 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

that were defined as relevant in the model
(Figure 1), thereby confirming the construct defi-
nition developed in the theoretical model and
anticipated in the item pool collection. The result-
ing highly and exclusively loading items per factor
were then used as input for a confirmatory factor
analysis per main dimension. The SPSS module
AMOS was used. AMOS is a confirmatory factor
analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM)
software. SEM is a statistical technique that allows
testing of a set of regression equations simulta-
neously and which incorporates and/or integrates
path analysis and factor analysis (Hair et al., 1998).
Table I shows the resulting constructs for each
main dimension, together with a number of good-
ness-of-fit indicators per model, and the Cronbach’s
a for each construct. In appendix, the mean and
standard deviation for each construct are shown.
According to Browne and Cudeck (1993) a RMSEA
of less than 0.05 is a good fit and of less than 0.08 is
an acceptable fit. In all five models RSMEA is lower
than 0.05. For the ‘knowledge’ construct RMSEA is
0.130, but test-of-close-fit indicates that the null-
hypothesis that RMSEA <0.05 cannot be rejected at
the 99% level, indicating acceptable fit (p = 0.017).
Hair et al. (1998) suggest that a TLI and CFI of
higher than 0.90 is a good fit, while Hu and Bentler
(1999) use the 0.95 cut-off value. In all five mod-
els TLI and CFI are higher than 0.95. In the last
column of Table I the Cronbach’s a for each
construct is shown. All but one as are higher than
0.70, indicating a good reliability, except for the
construct ‘convenience’ (a = 0.54). Given its rele-
vance and importance, it was decided not to remove
this construct from the analysis, but to include it as a
single-item measure. The most general item was
selected (‘buying fair trade products requires an ef-
fort (r)’). In Table II the standardized item loadings
and their level of significance are shown (first col-
umn, heading ‘CFA model’). All item loadings are
higher than 0.50 and significant. In Table III the
correlation matrix between constructs is shown. All
correlations are lower than 0.50, except for the
correlation between product interest and scepticism
(0.54) and product interest and buying behaviour
(0.64). Furthermore, all correlations are significantly
lower than one. The good fit of all models and the
high Cronbach as indicate reliability of the con-
structs and the relatively low correlations between
the constructs indicate acceptable discriminant
validity.
The dimensions, with their respective underlying
constructs, can be described as follows. Respondents
with high scores in the Knowledge of fair trade
dimension knew how to define fair trade accurately.
With respect to Fair trade information, the original
item pool consisted of items reflecting various
aspects of the quality and quantity of information, as
derived from the focus group discussions. The
suggestion of the focus group members that the
information was too scarce and not widely available
enough was captured by items such as ‘there is not a

TABLE I
Fair trade dimensions and constructs

Dimension v2, d.f., v2/d.f., TLI, CFI, RMSEA Construct name Sign a

Knowledge of fair trade 11.305, 1, 11.305, 0.963, 0.988, 0.130 Knowledge + 0.85
Fair trade information 18.213, 8, 2.277, 0.984, 0.991, 0.046 Information quality + 0.73
Information quantity + 0.81
Attitude to fair trade in general 38.435, 17, 2.023, 0.978, 0.985, 0.041 Scepticism ) 0.80
Concern + 0.70
Attitude towards fair trade products 79.253, 48, 1.651, 0.984, 0.988, 0.033 Product interest + 0.75
Product likeability + 0.90
Price acceptability + 0.79
Convenience + 0.54

Six indices (v2, d.f., v2/d.f., TLI, CFI, and RMSEA) are presented for each confirmatory factor analysis model. For each
construct, it is indicated how the sign (positive or negative) with respect to fair trade should be interpreted. The right-
most column shows Cronbach’s as for each construct.
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour 369

TABLE II
Item list per construct and standardized item loadings

Knowledge CFA-model Path analysis

Loading Sign Loading Sign

Fair trade aims at creating better trade conditions for farmers 0.854 <0.001 0.870 0.002
and workers in developing countries
Fair trade strives for paying more honest prices to producers 0.744 <0.001 0.737 <0.001
in developing countries
Fair trade strives for sustainable development of excluded 0.904 0.002 0.828 0.002
and/or disadvantaged producers in developing countries
Information quantity
There is not a lot of information about actions of companies 0.768 <0.001 0.784 <0.001
who sell fair trade products (r)
There is not a lot of information on fair trade (r) 0.924 <0.001 0.887 <0.001
There could be more information on which companies are 0.609 <0.001 0.645 0.002
‘ethical’ or ‘social’ or not (r)
Information quality
The origin of fair trade products often cannot be traced (r) 0.500 <0.001 0.534 <0.001
Fair trade is a not well defined concept that should be 0.741 <0.001 0.745 <0.001
explained concisely and clearly (r)
There is only low-quality information about fair trade (r) 0.845 <0.001 0.816 <0.001
Scepticism
Fair trade is too much like charity: purchasing fair trade 0.820 <0.001 0.793 0.002
products does not solve anything in the long run. It just
eases your conscience
Fair trade products lack credibility 0.634 <0.001 0.670 0.002
Fair trade makes me think of a colonial attitude by means of 0.634 <0.001 0.630 0.002
which we impose our norms to others
The fair trade principle cannot work on a larger scale 0.613 <0.001 0.624 <0.001
Fair trade is not compatible with free-market principles: it is 0.610 <0.001 0.598 0.002
impossible to trade fairly and be profitable
Concern
Fair trade is important 0.859 <0.001 0.828 <0.001
Fair trade ought to be a generalized way of trading (the 0.595 <0.001 0.596 <0.001
benchmark) and not an alternative way (the exception)
I am concerned about the fair trade issue 0.532 <0.001 0.572 <0.001
Product interest
I am not interested to buy fair trade products because I don’t 0.693 <0.001 0.651 <0.001
know anyone who does (r)
I am just not interested in fair trade products (r) 0.767 <0.001 0.747 <0.001
I am not interested in fair trade products because I prefer my 0.672 <0.001 0.717 0.002
usual brands (r)
370 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

Table II
Continued

Product likability CFA-model Path analysis

Loading Sign Loading Sign

Fair trade products are more healthy than other products 0.824 <0.001 0.825 0.002
Fair trade products are more tasty than other products 0.846 <0.001 0.847 <0.001
Fair trade products have a better quality than other products 0.935 <0.001 0.935 0.002
Price acceptability
Fair trade products should not be more expensive than 0.820 <0.001 0.796 0.002
ordinary products (r)
Fair trade products should be less expensive (r) 0.713 <0.001 0.711 <0.001
It is a pity that a ‘fair price’ appears to be a ‘higher price’ (r) 0.659 <0.001 0.660 <0.001
It is strange that you have to pay extra for your good 0.630 <0.001 0.662 <0.001
behaviour instead of being rewarded for it (r)
Convenience
Buying FT products requires an effort (r) n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.

In the first column the standardized item loadings and their significance in the CFA-analysis per main dimension are
given. In the last column the standardized loadings and their significance in the full model (path analysis) are given
n.r.: not relevant.

lot of information on companies who sell fair trade the general item ‘there is not a lot of information on
products’ and ‘there could be more information on fair trade’. The quality aspects of fair trade infor-
which companies are ethical or social’, together with mation were measured by means of items such as

TABLE III
Correlation coefficients between constructs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Knowledge 1
2. Scepticism )0.407 1
<0.001
3. Concern 0.422 )0.325 1
<0.001 <0.001
4. Product interest 0.364 )0.543 0.332 1
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
5. Product likeability 0.145 )0.050 0.297 0.147 1
<0.001 0.211 <0.001 <0.001
6. Price acceptability 0.227 )0.457 0.096 0.310 0.036 1
<0.001 <0.001 0.018 <0.001 0.367
7. Convenience 0.046 )0.163 )0.002 0.292 )0.045 0.180 1
0.254 <0.001 0.966 <0.001 0.269 <0.001
8. Information quality 0.296 )0.497 0.145 0.432 0.059 0.299 0.163 1
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.145 <0.001 <0.001
9. Information quantity )0.104 0.021 )0.310 0.065 )0.171 0.139 0.149 0.248 1
0.010 0.596 <0.001 0.110 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
‘the origin of fair trade products can often not be
traced’ (uncontrollable, incredible), ‘fair trade is not
a well-defined concept that should be explained
concisely and clearly’ (unprofessional), and the
general item ‘there is only low-quality information
about fair trade’. Despite the fact that the original
item pool reflected the diversified and rich depiction
of what ‘information quality and quantity’ meant to
the focus group participants, the items collapsed into
only two reliable and valid general constructs: high
scores on the Information quality dimension indicate
that respondents believed that fair trade information
is sufficient in quality (and professional, controllable
and credible). High scores on Information quantity
indicate that respondents thought that there was a lot
of information about fair trade and about the fair
trade behaviour of companies. Apparently, in the
final sample on the basis of which the model was
built the information-related elements that were
mentioned by the focus group members collapsed
into two broad dimensions, i.e. general information
quantity-related and quality-related issues.
The two expected dimensions arise for Attitude
towards fair trade in general. The negative construct is
labelled Scepticism, reflecting disbelief by respondents
in the concept of fair trade because it is too closely
associated with charity and colonialism, or because
respondents did not believe that fair trade ‘can work
in this world’. The positive construct is defined as
Concern, and measures respondents’ concern about
and support for the fair trade issue. Also in previous
empirical research two separate dimensions of the
general attitudes towards fair trade were found. For
instance, Shaw and Shiu (2003) also found a positive
and a negative factor which they labelled ‘traditional
attitude’ and ‘lack of control’. With respect to the
concept of Attitude towards fair trade products, the four
anticipated constructs could be identified. First,
Product interest measures respondents’ interest in fair
trade products. High scores on Product likeability re-
flect an attitude that fair trade products are healthier,
tastier and have better quality than ‘normal’ prod-
ucts. Low scores on the Price acceptability construct
reflect a desire for fair trade products to be cheaper.
Low scores on the Convenience item indicate that
people feel that buying fair trade products require a
substantial effort.
As indicated, fair trade buying behaviour was
measured by means of self-reported annual
371
amounts spent on fair trade products. Exploratory
pre-tests indicated that respondents were in many
cases not capable of indicating precisely how
much they spend on fair trade products. There-
fore, a six-category scale was developed.
Respondents had to indicate one of the following
six spending categories: 0e, more than 0–10e or
less, more than 10–50e or less, more than 50–
100e or less, more than 100–250e or less, and
more than 250e. In subsequent analysis, the
category indications are recoded into category
means, as follows: 0, 5, 30, 75, 175 and 250e.
Five, 30, 75 and 175 are the category midpoints.
Of course, this is an approximation of actual
spending.
Model fit
The components of the model in Figure 1 were
replaced by the 10 constructs developed in the
previous section, as indicated below Figure 1. The
component ‘information’ was replaced by the con-
structs ‘information quantity’ and ‘information
quality’; the component ‘general attitude towards
fair trade’ was replaced by the constructs ‘concern’
and scepticism’; and the component ‘attitude to fair
trade products’ was replaced by the constructs
‘product interest’, ‘product likeability’, ‘price
acceptability’ and the single-item construct ‘conve-
nience’. The model was estimated as a structural
model, including individual items loading on latent
constructs, again using AMOS. The model, as
conceptualized in Figure 1 did not fit the data well.
Two adaptations were made: the impact of
‘knowledge’ on each of the product-specific attri-
butes was removed, and the impact of the perception
of information quality on the perception of infor-
mation quantity was modelled. The resulting model
fit the data very well. In Table II (last column), the
standardized item loadings and their significance can
be found. All standardized item loadings are larger
than 0.50 and significant. Table IV shows a number
of goodness-of-fit measures: v2/d.f. = 2.196 (lower
than 3, as required) (Bollen and Stine, 1993),
RMSEA = 0.044 (lower than 0.05), TLI = 0.932
and CFI = 0.942 (higher than 0.90 and approaching
0.95).
372 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

TABLE IV scepticism but, unexpectedly, the perception of more

Goodness-of-fit measures for the buying
behaviour model
v2
Degrees of freedom
v2/d.f.
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
Estimation results
In Figure 2 the result of the estimation of the model is
shown. Only direct effects that were significant at the
5% level are depicted. In Table V all standardized
direct effects and their significance are shown.
Table VI gives the total effects of all explanatory
variables (i.e. direct and indirect effects) on buying
behaviour.
The results indicate that the more people know
about fair trade, the more they feel concerned about
it and the less sceptical they are. Increased knowledge
leads to a more positive perception of the quality of
fair trade information, but unexpectedly to a more
negative perception of the quantity of information.
Both the perception of a higher quantity and quality
of information affect consumers’ levels of concern
and scepticism. A more positive attitude towards the
quality of information leads to more concern and less
information leads to less concern. However, the
perceived quantity of information has a small but
significant direct effect on buying behaviour. Con-
759.900 sequently, a good knowledge of the fair trade issue
346 directly and indirectly leads to more concern and less
2.196 scepticism, through the mediating effect of the
0.932 information constructs, especially the perceived
0.942 quality of information.
0.044 The greater the concern about the fair trade issue,
the higher the degree of consumers’ interest in fair
trade products and the more they like these products.
Being less sceptical about fair trade leads to higher
levels of interest in fair trade products, a perception of
more convenience and higher price acceptability.
Three out of four product-related attitude constructs
have a significant positive effect on buying behav-
iour: product interest, product likeability and price
acceptability. The ‘convenience’ construct does not
have a significant impact on reported amounts spent.
In contrast to scepticism, a general concern with fair
trade issues has a direct effect on buying behaviour:
more concern leads to increased buying behaviour.
In conclusion, general attitudes (concern and scep-
ticism) have a direct and an indirect (through product
interest) impact on buying behaviour.
The perceived quantity and quality of information
affect attitudes towards fair trade, and thus indirectly
buying behaviour. Moreover, the higher the
perceived quantity of information is, the higher
product interest, perceived convenience and price

.176
Quality of .414 Quantity of
information information .169

-.198 .161 Convenience

-.361
.324 Product
.162 interest
.241 .460
.289
Knowledge .222 Buying behavior
.446 FT concern
-.205

.348 .214 .106

-.301 Product
-.575 likeability .138
-.528

Price acc-
-.600 eptability
FT skepticism

Figure 2. Estimated behavioural model for buying fair trade products (reported amount of money spent).
Note: Only paths that are significant (at the 95% cut-off value) are shown.
 TABLE V
Standardized direct effects and their significance for the buying behaviour model

Construct 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Knowledge 0.324 (0.002) )0.198 (0.002) 0.446 (0.001) )0.301 (0.001)

2. Information 0.414 (0.001) 0.241 (0.002) )0.575 (0.001) 0.008 (0.901) )0.085 (0.265) 0.124 (0.170) 0.114 (0.170) )0.095 (0.209)
quality
3. Information )0.361 (0.001) 0.162 (0.002) 0.169 (0.011) 0.214 (0.001) )0.121 (0.077) 0.161 (0.015) 0.176 (0.015)
quantity
4. Concern )0.008 (0.900) )0.030 (0.617) 0.348 (0.001) 0.289 (0.001) 0.222 (0.002)
5. Scepticism )0.205 (0.020) )0.600 (0.001) 0.128 (0.103) )0.528 (0.001) 0.159 (0.096)
6. Convenience 0.036 (0.443)
7. Price 0.138 (0.027)
acceptability
8. Product 0.106 (0.017)
likeability
9. Product 0.460 (0.002)
A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour

interest
10.Buying
behaviour

All empty cells are zero, i.e. no paths were modelled between these constructs.
373
374 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

acceptability. Finally, the perception of information Discussion

quantity also has a positive effect on buying behav-
iour directly. The role of the perception of fair trade The results indicate that, although overall knowl-
information is thus both direct and indirect. It edge and attitudes towards the fair trade issue have a
influences buying behaviour through its effect on considerable effect on fair trade buying behaviour,
overall attitudes and product attitudes. Furthermore, previously unexplored factors, such as the perceived
there is a significant relationship between the quantity and quality of information, also have a
perceived quality and the perceived quantity of significant effect on buying behaviour, and product
information: the better the perceived quality of the attitudes mediate the effect of general attitudes and
information, the better the perception of the quan- information factors.
tity of information. If the perceived quality of Fair trade knowledge and overall attitudes towards
information about fair trade is poor, people think the fair trade issue (concern and scepticism) have a
that there is not enough information. This is an substantial effect on buying behaviour directly and
important relationship, because it is required for the indirectly through their effect on product interest,
model to fit the data well. product likeability and the perception of price
In Table VI the total effects (direct and indirect) acceptability. This result confirms earlier findings
of all variables on reported buying behaviour are and suggestions that both overall attitudes towards
shown. Based on the magnitude of these effects, it ethical – and more particularly, fair trade – issues
can be concluded that product interest has the largest (both positive and negative) and more specific
effect on buying behaviour (0.460). The second product-related attitudes have a substantial and sig-
most important determining construct is fair trade nificant effect on buying behaviour (Authors, 2005a;
concern (0.388), followed by fair trade knowledge Hunt and Vitell, 1993; Shaw and Clarke, 1999;
(0.261). Also the perceived quality of information Vitell et al., 2001). The ‘scepticism’ factor is con-
(0.189), scepticism ()0.161), price acceptability ceptually close to what has been called ‘perceived
(0.138) and the perceived quantity of information consumer effectiveness’ or the general belief that the
and product likeability (both 0.106) affect reported behaviour (in this case endorsing the fair trade issue
buying behaviour significantly. Perceived shopping and/or buying fair trade products) is ineffective in
convenience is the only construct that does not have that it will not work and not solve the problem of
a significant total effect on buying behaviour. poverty in third-world countries. The results con-
firm the relevance of these ‘perceived effectiveness’
or ‘control belief’ that was also found or suggested in
earlier studies (Roberts, 1995, 1996; Shaw and Shiu,
2002, 2003). The more important role of the ‘con-
TABLE VI cern’ factor versus the ‘scepticism’ constructs con-
firms the results of Vitell et al. (2001).
Total (direct and indirect) effects and their significance
on buying behaviour
The results convincingly confirm the suggested
importance of product-related attitudes, although
Construct Amount spent there are remarkable differences between the four
on fair trade products product-related attitudes investigated. Surprisingly,
(lack of) shopping convenience does not have any
Knowledge 0.261 (0.001) impact on buying behaviour and also the role of price
Quality of information 0.189 (0.001) acceptability and product likeability is limited. These
Quantity of information 0.106 (0.034) two factors only had a small significant effect on
Concern 0.388 (0.002) buying behaviour. Consequently, our results only
Scepticism )0.161 (0.022) partly confirm the importance of the price variable in
Convenience 0.036 (0.443) developing fair trade buying behaviour, as previously
Price 0.138 (0.027)
suggested by Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000),
Product likeability 0.106 (0.017)
Product interest 0.460 (0.002)
Browne et al. (2000), and Authors (2005c). How-
ever, product interest is a very important determinant
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
of buying behaviour. A remarkable result is the large
impact of fair trade concern and scepticism on
product interest, which in turn has a very strong
effect on buying behaviour. Becoming interested in
the actual products apparently transforms a mere
‘abstract’ interest in the fair trade issue into a more
concrete buying of fair trade products. This ‘product
interest’ effect is substantially more outspoken
than the ‘product likeability’ and ‘price acceptability’
effect on buying behaviour. Apparently, the most
important hurdle to take for fair trade organizations is
to fight the indifference of people towards fair trade
products and not so much the perception of lack of
product quality, high prices and shopping inconve-
nience. Moreover, the general interest in fair trade
will only translate into an interest for specific fair
trade products if consumers are also interested in the
product categories offered. Therefore, communica-
tion on fair trade products should primarily be ad-
dressed to target groups in the product categories in
which fair trade products are offered.
The perception of both the quality and the quantity
of information has a significant total positive effect on
buying behaviour, especially through its effect on
overall attitudes and to a lesser extent on product-
specific attitudes. This confirms earlier research,
mostly in the broader area of ethical consumer
behaviour, that the (perception of) quality and
quantity of information is a vital factor for the credi-
bility of ethical claims by producers and retailers, and
for the attractiveness of ethical products, and indi-
rectly for their commercial success (Nilsson et al.,
2004; Teisl et al., 1999). The impact of the perception
of the quality of information is as expected: it has
positive effects on general attitudes, and thus indi-
rectly on reported buying behaviour. However,
although its effect on product-specific attitudes and its
overall effect on buying behaviour is positive, the role
of the perception of the quantity of fair trade infor-
mation is puzzling: the perception of the availability of
a high quantity of information leads to less concern
and more scepticism. At first sight, this latter seems to
be counterintuitive, unless it is assumed that the fair
trade information provided is counterproductive, or
that consumers react negatively to a large quantity of
information. Support for the latter explanation may be
found in the strong effect of the perceived quality of
information on the perception of information quan-
tity. If the quality of information is high, people think
375
there is enough of it. The subject of this study itself
may explain this. Consumers are usually confronted
with an information overflow. If they are provided
with large quantities of information on a sensitive issue
such as fair trade, they could suspect that the organi-
zation is not pursuing fair trade goals, but rather tries to
ease consumers’ conscience. It is typically not
considered ‘fair’ to overwhelm people with infor-
mation. People prefer high-quality information. This
perceived quality then positively influences their
attitudes and, indirectly, their behaviour. Information
of high quality leads to a perception of ‘a lot of
information’. Given the larger overall effect of the
‘quality of information’ variable, the model primarily
indicates that it is not the quantity of information as
such that leads to positive attitudes and buying
behaviour. The perception of a high quality of
information is much more important. This conclusion
does not confirm the findings by De Pelsmacker et al.
(2006), MAFF (2000) and Wansink (2003), who all
concluded that consumers want more information or
that more information leads to more positive attitudes
and more buying behaviour. However, it confirms
earlier results, e.g., Carrigan and Attalla (2001) and
Nilsson et al. (2004). The latter studies concluded that
too much information is counterproductive, and just
enough ‘good quality’ information is preferable for
efficient decision-making by purchasers. The results
of the present study confirm earlier findings on the
importance of credible ethical labels and label issuers
to the promotion of fair trade. A credible label can
indeed be regarded as a ‘low quantity’ summary of
‘high quality’ information about the ethical qualities
of a product and in that way can be a powerful
incentive for people to buy the product (Caswell and
Padberg, 1992; Caswell and Mojduszka, 1996;
Loureiro et al., 2002; Nilsson et al., 2004; Pant and
Sammer, 2003). Especially for low involvement
products, the credibility and authority of the infor-
mation source – in this case, of the issuer or endorser of
the label – may be more important than correct and
complete factual information (Zadek et al., 1998).
Conclusions, implications and suggestions
for further research
Quantifying the relations between the main
dimensions of fair trade attitudes and other
376 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens
determining factors of fair trade buying behaviour
and their sub-dimensions has identified a number of
crucial factors in the fair trade buying process. First,
the important role of the perceived quality of fair
trade information is highlighted. Better and more
credible information about the fair trade issue and
about fair trade products indirectly stimulates fair
trade buying behaviour. Second, overall attitudes
(concern and scepticism) towards the fair trade issue
have a strong influence on buying behaviour directly
and indirectly through consumers’ attitude towards
products. Product-related attitudes seem to play a
prominent role: especially product interest has a
large impact on buying behaviour.
These results have a number of implications for fair
trade organizations and governments that wish to
promote or help to promote fair trade practices. First,
campaigning for and investing in fair trade knowl-
edge and the building of positive attitudes towards
the fair trade issue in general, and removing scepti-
cism – one of the key activities of the fair trade
movement – remain useful strategies; improving
knowledge and overall attitudes directly and indi-
rectly lead to more buying. Concern should be raised
and scepticism should be reduced. This is an ongoing
concern for fair trade organisations who, indeed,
launch mass media campaigns and more targeted
communication campaigns (for instance in schools)
to raise awareness and improve attitudes. Second, the
focus should shift towards building more positive
product interest, because this has a strong, direct ef-
fect on buying behaviour. Transforming general
positive attitudes into product interest is therefore
important. There are various ways to achieve this.
Fair trade organizations could focus more on building
prominent and highly visible brands with a good
reputation. Instead of mainly focusing on selling their
products in specialty shops, they could invest more in
making fair trade products visible in regular super-
markets. Organizing product-oriented promotion
and communication strategies, and increasing the
trial potential of fair trade products, may also be
helpful. Recently, Oxfam Belgium has decided to
promote its brand more visibly on the shop floor and
to that end attempts to cooperate with major super-
markets to get more shelf space and in-store pro-
motion. Governments could support this ‘customer
contact’ strategy by means of visibly promoting and
organizing contact with fair trade products. The
policy of certain Belgian governmental departments
and schools and universities to only offer fair trade
coffee in their restaurants and vending machines is a
good example of actively developing positive prod-
uct interest and attitudes. Besides convincing the
public that the fair trade price premium is acceptable,
governments could help to close the price gap be-
tween none fair trade and fair trade products by
modifying the tax system to favour fair trade prod-
ucts. Finally, disseminating the appropriate amount
of perceived high-quality information about the fair
trade issue and fair trade products is crucial: it im-
proves overall attitudes and product attitudes, and
indirectly affects buying behaviour positively. A
greater focus on disseminating credible product
information is required. A well-supported fair trade
brand or fair trade label, issued or endorsed by a
highly credible organization, may encourage the
crucial perception of highly credible information that
incites consumers to buy the products. Governments
(both national and supra-national, such as the Euro-
pean Union) could support this process by organizing
the integration of label initiatives, as is currently done
in the case of social and eco-labels. Fair trade or-
ganisations, such as Oxfam and Max Havelaar, have
shifted their strategy towards building more highly
visible brands and labels, and to make these labels
more credible and convincing. Governments are
considering to establish and support national or
European ‘social labels’ in an attempt to reach the
public on the basis of the brand effect that these labels
may have: a trusted brand from a credible source may
be a powerful attribute to convince concerned but
sceptical consumers.
This study focused on a sample of the Belgian
population. Although Belgium appears to be repre-
sentative of Europe in terms of ethical buying
behaviour, further research could explore the dif-
ferences between various European countries and
between the European and North American markets,
and their effect on the marketing of fair trade prod-
ucts. Furthermore, to improve the marketing rele-
vance of this analysis, the model could be applied to
subgroups of the population, to allow for differences
in the role of attitudes, information and control
beliefs in the buying behaviour of various consumer
groups. For instance, people who frequently buy fair
trade products may have different persuasion routes
from those who do not. The sample studied here was
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour 377

(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.201)
(0.001)
(0.001)
too small to enable a more detailed analysis of
separate consumer groups. The scope of the study

10
could be extended to other ethical issues, such as

0.090 (0.014) 0.240 (0.001) 0.175 (0.001) 0.447 (0.001) 0.261

0.174 (0.003) 0.391 (0.001) )0.083 (0.142) 0.362 (0.001) 0.284
)0.030 (0.253) )0.086 (0.013) )0.105 (0.001) )0.190 (0.001) )0.069
0.165
)0.319
environmentally friendly or biological product buy-
ing behaviour, or buying from socially responsible
companies. The qualitative focus group study
revealed a detailed opinion of the impact of various
quality- and quantity-related aspects of fair trade

9
information. However, these different aspects were
not reflected in the quantitative study in which the
respondents only perceived two broad categories of
information aspects: overall quantity and overall
quality. Therefore, the role of information about the

8
fair trade issue and fair trade products should be ex-
plored in more detail: which aspects of the quantity
and quality of information have the strongest impact
on attitudes and behaviour, which types of infor-

Standardized indirect effects and their significance

mation, arguments and media are preferred, to what

7
extent do they influence general and product-specific
attitudes and behaviour, and which type of messages
have more impact than others? Finally, self-reported
ethical attitudes and buying behaviour are susceptible
to social desirability bias. Further research could focus
6
TABLE AII

upon this phenomenon, by explicitly including a

social desirability scale and assessing its impact on the
fair trade buying model.
0.101 (0.001) )0.196 (0.001)
)0.150 (0.001) 0.067 (0.001)
5

Appendix: Means and standard deviations

for model constructs and indirect and total
effects for the buying behaviour model
4

TABLE A1
0.134 (0.001)

Means and standard deviations of model constructs

3

Mean Std. deviation

Knowledge 5.83 0.94

2

Information quality 3.62 1.24

3. Information quantity

Information quantity 2.21 1.00

2. Information quality

8. Product likeability

10. Buying behaviour

7. Price acceptability

Concern 5.37 1.02

9. Product interest

Scepticism 3.39 1.23

6. Convenience
1. Knowledge

Convenience 3.42 1.66

5. Scepticism
4. Concern

Price acceptability 2.73 1.24

Construct

Product likeability 3.87 1.26

Product interest 4.54 1.42

All constructs are positively scaled (except scepticism).

 378

TABLE AIII
Standardized total effects and their significance

Construct 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Knowledge 0.324 (0.002) )0.064 (0.280) 0.547 (0.001) )0.497 (0.001) 0.090 (0.014) 0.240 (0.001) 0.175 (0.001) 0.447 (0.001) 0.261 (0.001)
2. Information 0.414 (0.001) 0.091 (0.128) )0.508 (0.001) 0.182 (0.001) 0.305 (0.001) 0.041 (0.494) 0.476 (0.001) 0.189 (0.001)
quality
3. Information )0.361 (0.001) 0.162 (0.002) 0.139 (0.012) 0.128 (0.026) )0.226 (0.001) )0.029 (0.584) 0.106 (0.034)
quantity
4. Concern )0.008 (0.900) )0.030 (0.617) 0.348 (0.001) 0.289 (0.001) 0.388 (0.002)
5. Scepticism )0.205 (0.020) )0.600 (0.001) 0.128 (0.103) )0.528 (0.001) )0.161 (0.022)
6. Convenience 0.036 (0.443)
7. Price 0.138 (0.027)
acceptability
8. Product 0.106 (0.017)
likeability
9. Product 0.460 (0.002)
interest
Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens

10.Buying
behaviour

The research project ‘A fair and sustainable trade, between market and solidarity: diagnosis and prospects’ was funded by the Belgian federal government
(BELSPO-network project under Part I ‘Sustainable production and consumption patterns of PODO II’, General issues).
 A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour
References
Bird, K. and D. R. Hughes: 1997, ÔEthical Consumerism:
The Case of ‘Fairly-Traded’ CoffeeÕ, Business Ethics:
a European Review 6(3), 159–167.
Bollen, K. A. and R. A. Stine: 1993, ÔBootstrapping
Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation
ModelsÕ, in K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds.), Testing
Structural Equation Model (Sage Publications, Newbury
Park Ca), pp. 111–135.
Boulstridge, E. and M. Carrigan: 2000, ÔDo Consumers
Really Care About Corporate Responsibility? High-
lighting the Attitude-Behavior GapÕ, Journal of Com-
munication Management 4(4), 355–368.
Browne, M. W. and R. Cudeck: 1993, ÔAlternative
Ways of Assessing Model FitÕ, in K. A. Bollen and J. S.
Long (eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (Sage,
Newbury Park), pp. 136–162.
Browne, A. W., P. J. C. Harris, A. H. Hofny-Collins,
N. Pasiecznik and R. R. Wallace: 2000, ÔOrganic
Production and Ethical Trade: Definition, Practice
and LinksÕ, Food Policy 25, 69–89.
Carrigan, M. and A. Attalla: 2001, ÔThe Myth of the Ethical
Consumer—Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behavior?Õ,
Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(7), 560–577.
Caswell, J. A. and E. M. Mojduszka: 1996, ÔUsing
Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for
Quality in Food ProductsÕ, American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics 78(5), 1248–1253.
Caswell, J. A. and D. I. Padberg: 1992, ÔToward a More
Comprehensive Theory of Food LabelsÕ, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(5), 460–468.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., C. A. Ruble and N. Donthu: 1995,
ÔBrand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase IntentÕ,
Journal of Advertising 24(fall), 25–41.
Crane, A.: 2001, ÔUnpacking the Ethical ProductÕ, Journal
of Business Ethics 30(4), 361–373.
CRC-Consommation: 1998, Commerce Ethique: les
Consommateurs Solidaires (CRC, Paris).
De Pelsmacker, P., W. Janssens, E. Sterckx and
C. Mielants: 2005a, ÔConsumer Preferences for
Different Approaches to Marketing Ethical-Labelled
CoffeeÕ, International Marketing Review 22(5), 512–530.
De Pelsmacker, P., L. Driessen and G. Rayp: 2005b, ÔDo
Consumers Care About Ethics? Willingness-to-Pay for
Fair trade CoffeeÕ, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2),
361–383.
De Pelsmacker, P., W. Janssens, E. Sterckx and
C. Mielants: 2006, ÔFair Trade Beliefs, Attitudes and
Behaviour of Belgian ConsumersÕ, International Journal
of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2),
125–138.
379
Dhar, R. and I. Simonson: 1999, ÔMaking Complemen-
tary Choice in Consumption Episodes: Highlighting
versus BalancingÕ, Journal of Marketing Research
36(February), 29–44.
Doane, D.: 2001, Taking Flight: The Rapid Growth of
Ethical Consumeris (New Economics Foundation,
London).
Ferell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ÔA Contingency
Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making
in MarketingÕ, Journal of Marketing 49(Summer), 87–96.
Greenwald, A. G. and M. R. Banaji: 1995, ÔImplicit
Social Cognition Research: Attitudes, Self-Esteem and
StereotypesÕ, Psychological Review 102((1), 4–27.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham and W. Black: 1998,
Multivariate Data Analysis (Prentice Hall International,
London).
Hines, C. and A. Ames: 2000, Ethical Consumerism (A
Research Study Conducted for the Co-operative Bank)
(MORI, London).
Hoyer, W. D. and D. J. MacInnis: 2001, Consumer
Behavior (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston).
Hu, L.-T. and P. M. Bentler: 1999, ÔCutoff Criteria for
Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Con-
ventional Criteria versus New AlternativesÕ, Structural
Equation Modeling 6(1), 1–55.
Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ÔA General Theory of
Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Macro Marketing 8(Spring),
5–16.
Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1993, ‘The General Theory of
marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision’,
in Smith, N. C. and J. A. Quelch (eds,), Ethics in
Marketing (Homewood, Ill Irwin), pp. 775–784.
King, M. F. and G. C. Bruner: 2000, ÔSocial Desirability
Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity TestingÕ,
Psychology and Marketing 17(2), 79–103.
Krier, J.-M.: 2001, Fair Trade in Europe 2001: Facts and
Figures on the Fair Trade Sector in 18 European
Countries. Research report for the European Fair trade
Association.
Littrell, M. A. and M. A. Dickson: 1999, Social Respon-
sibility in the Global Market Fair Trade of Cultural Products
(Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Loureiro, M. L., J. J. McCluskey and R. C. Mittelham-
mer: 2002, ÔWill Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-
Labeled Apples?Õ, Journal of Consumer Affairs 36(2),
203–219.
MacGillivray, A.: 2000, The Fair Share: the Growing Market
Share of Green and Ethical Products (New Economics
Foundation, London).
MAFF: 2000, Consumers Want Action on Food Labels. http://
www.defra.gov.uk/newsrel, accessed 2 February 2005.
380 Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferell: 2004, ÔCorporate Social
Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame-
workÕ, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(1),
3–19.
Maietta, O. W.: 2003, The Hedonic Price of Fair trade Coffee
for the Italian Consumer. Paper presented at the Inter-
national Conference on Agricultural Policy reform and
the WTO: where are we heading? Capri.
Maison, D.: 2002, ‘Using the Implicit Association Test to
Study the Relation between Consumer’s Implicit
Attitudes and Product Usage’, Asia Pacific Advances in
Consumer Research 5, 206–207.
Mintel: 1994, The Green Consumer. Mintel Special
Report, UK.
MORI [Market & Opinion Research International]:
2000, The First Ever European Survey of Consumers’
Attitudes Towards Corporate Social Responsibility. Research
report for CSR Europe (London, MORI).
Nilsson, H., B. Tunçer and A. Thidell: 2004, ÔThe Use of
Eco-Labeling Like Initiatives on Food Products to
Promote Quality Insurance—Is There Enough Cred-
ibility?Õ, Journal of Cleaner Production 12(5), 517–526.
Norberg, H. M.: 2000, ÔUse of Collective Trademarks in
Consumers Choice of Foods—Preliminary ResultsÕ,
Okonomisk Fiskeriforskning 10(2), 144–161.
Oxfam, B.: 2003, Company Information.
Pant, R. and K. Sammer: 2003, Labeling as an Appropriate
Strategy and Instrument for Sustainable Consumption.
Paper presented at the 6th Nordic Conference on
Environmental Social Sciences.
Roberts, J. A.: 1995, ÔProfiling Levels of Socially
Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Cluster Analytic
Approach and its Implications for MarketingÕ, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 3(4), 97–117.
Roberts, J. A.: 1996, ÔWill the Real Socially Responsible
Consumer Please Step Forward?Õ, Business Horizon
39(January-February), 79–83.
Salzhauer, A. L.: 1991, ÔObstacles and Opportunities for a
Consumer EcolabelÕ, Environment 33(November),
10–37.
Shaw, D. and I. Clarke: 1999, ÔBelief Formation in
Ethical Consumer Groups: An Exploratory StudyÕ,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17(2), 109–119.
Shaw, D., E. Grehan, E. Shiu, L. Hassan and J. Thomson:
2005, ÔAn Exploration of Values in Ethical Consumer
Decision MakingÕ, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(3),
185–200.
Shaw, D. and T. Newholm: 2002, ÔVoluntary Simplicity
and the Ethics of ConsumptionÕ, Psychology and
Marketing 17(2), 167–185.
Shaw, D. and E. Shiu: 2002, ÔThe Role of Ethical
Obligation and Self-Identity in Ethical Consumer
ChoiceÕ, International Journal of Consumer Studies 26(2),
109–116.
Shaw, D. and E. Shiu: 2003, ÔEthics in Consumer
Choice: A Multivariate Modelling ApproachÕ, Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 37(10), 1485–1498.
Tallontire A., E. Rentsendorj and M. Blowfield: 2001,
Ethical Consumers and Ethical Trade: A Review of Current
Literature. Policy Series 12 (Natural Resources Institute).
Teisl, M. F., B. Roe and A. S. Levy: 1999, ÔEco-Certi-
fication: Why it May Not Be a Field of DreamsÕ,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5), 1066–
1071.
Titus, P. A. and J. L. Bradford: 1996, ÔReflections on
Consumer Sophistication and its Impact on Ethical
Business PracticeÕ, Journal of Consumer Affairs 30(1),
170–195.
Ulrich, P. and C. Sarasin: 1995, Facing Public Interest: The
Ethical Challenge to Business Policy and Corporate Com-
munications (Kluwer Academic Publications, London).
Vitell, S. J., A. Singhapakdi and J. Thomas: 2001,
ÔConsumer Ethics: An Application and Empirical
Testing of the Hunt-Vitell Theory of EthicsÕ, Journal of
Consumer Marketing 18(2), 153–178.
Wansink, B.: 2003, ÔHow Do Front and Back Package
Labels Influence Beliefs About Health Claims?Õ, Journal
of Consumer Affairs 37, 305–316.
Wessels, C. R., R. J. Johnston and H. Donath: 1999,
ÔAssessing Consumer Preferences for Eco-Labeled
Seafood: The Influence of Specie, Certifier and
Household AttributesÕ, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 81(5), 1084–1089.
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk, accessed 2 February 2005.
http://www.worldshops.org, accessed 2 February 2005.
http://www.statbel.fgov.be, accessed 15 March 2005.
Zadek, S., S. Lingayah and M. Forstater: 1998, Social
Labels: Tools for Ethical Trade (New Economics Foun-
dation., London).
Patrick De Pelsmacker and Wim Janssens
Faculty of Applied Economics,
University of Antwerp,
Antwerp, BE-2000,
Belgium
E-mail: patrick.depelsmacker@ua.ac.be