Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 84:549–563
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9724-1
The Role of Personal Values
in Fair Trade Consumption
ABSTRACT. Research in the U.S. on fair trade con-
sumption is sparse. Therefore, little is known as to what
motivates U.S. consumers to buy fair trade products. This
study sought to determine which values are salient to
American fair trade consumption. The data were gathered
via a Web-based version of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)
and were gleaned from actual consumers who purchase fair
trade products from a range of Internet-based fair trade
retailers. This study established that indeed there are signif-
icant interactions between personal values and fair trade
consumption and that demographics proved to be useless in
creating a profile of the American fair trade consumer.
KEY WORDS: Values, SVS, fair trade, ethical con-
sumption, consumerism, web-based SVS, Schwartz Value
Survey
Introduction
Some have grown critical of the overindulgence and
disparity surrounding contemporary consumption
(Borgmann, 2000) and they are voicing their disap-
proval by taking action to counter this (Shaw and
Newholm, 2002). One of the issues of greatest concern
to ethical consumers is the concept of fair trade
(De Pelsmacker et al. 2005b; Shaw and Clarke, 1999).
This increasing interest in the social aspect of produc-
tion is manifested in the growth of the fair trade industry
(Rice, 2001). However, despite the phenomenal
growth of the fair trade movement, from a U.S. research
perspective, there has been little work undertaken to
uncover empirically who buys fair trade products.
Fair trade
Fair trade consumers use their power in the market
to tackle the social and environmental problems of
Ó Springer 2008
Caroline Josephine Doran
the global market (Taylor et al., 2005).These con-
sumers are ultimately dissatisfied with the financial
return earned by disadvantaged producers relative to
the final sale price charged by retailers (LeClair, 2003).
On the other hand, more than 40% of the purchase
price can be returned to the fair trade producer under a
system of fair pricing, due to the shorter, less complex
supply chain (Jaffee et al., 2004). Fair trade opens up
more opportunities to credit and direct sale, which
means that fair trade producers are less dependent on
middlemen (TransFair, 2007). Fair trade can raise the
living standards of producers not only by increasing
their real income, but also through increased accessi-
bility to healthcare, education, and long-term finan-
cial stability (Gould, 2003; Hudson and Hudson,
2003; Nicholls, 2002). More than one million disad-
vantaged producers and over five million people had
been beneficiaries of fair trade consumption by 2006
(FLO-FAQ, n.d).
Bananas, coffee, chocolate, clothes, dried fruit,
fruit juice, honey, sugar products, tea, and textiles
are the most commonly sold fair trade products
(Jones et al., 2003). Fair trade products are now
extensively sold in mainstream retail outlets, so they
no longer belong to the realm of a niche market
(Davies and Crane, 2003; Krier, 2005). In the U.S.,
approximately 35,000 retail outlets distribute fair
trade products (Walsh, personal communications,
January 29, 2006). Fair trade sales internationally
have increased by approximately 20% since 2000
(Krier, 2005). Coffee is the most widely consumed
fair trade product in the U.S. and its sale is growing
at the fastest rate (Raynolds et al., 2004). Within the
coffee market as a whole, fair trade coffee had a 0.2%
market share in 2000, but this market share grew to
2.2% by 2005. In dollar terms, this represented a
change in value from $48 million to $499 million
(TransFair, 2006).
550 Caroline Josephine Doran
Values and fair trade
Organizations selling fair trade products face the
same challenges as all other businesses within the
market system and must deal with those challenges
(De Pelsmacker et al., 2006). They face competition
not only from other fair trade retailers, but also from
the retailers of the non-fair trade product equivalent.
Vital to their success is a deep understanding of their
consumers, who convert what they feel about the
deficiencies of the market into what they buy.
Consumer values are crucial to this knowledge, as
these values define the product attributes that an
individual will seek in a product (Blackwell et al.,
2001). In fact, values are argued to be a more
effective means than demographics to profile con-
sumers and to segment markets (Boote, 1981;
De Pelsmacker et al., 2005a; Kennedy et al., 1988;
Prakash and Munson, 1985).
Theorists believe that values cause behavior (Rohan,
2000). Marketers, too, are of the opinion that values
impact the behavior of consumers (Lowe and Cork-
indale, 1998), and keeping up with societal changes in
values is an imperative for marketers (Kahle et al.,
1988). Nicholls (2002) claimed that in recent years
there has been a shift from self-centric consumption to
values-centric, implying that consumers will seek to
satiate values that encompass the self as well as others.
A significant link has been established in the extant
literature between values and a wide range of consumer
behavior: consumption of genetically modified food
(Honkanen and Verplanken, 2004); energy conserva-
tion (Neuman, 1986); ethical consumption (Shaw et al.,
2005); fashion leadership (Goldsmith et al., 1993); fair
trade consumption (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005a); food
choices (Goldsmith et al., 1995); leisure travel
(Madrigal, 1995); consumption of nutritional food
(Homer and Kahle, 1988); pro-environmental atti-
tudes and behavior (Dietz et al., 2002; Karp, 1996;
Schultz and Zelenzy, 1998; Shean and Shei, 1995);
restaurant choice (Boote, 1981); television viewing
(McCarty and Shrum, 1993); and tourism (Muller,
1991).
The Schwartz value survey (SVS)
The values theory developed by Schwartz (1992) has
been tested on 200 samples in 60 countries (Roccas
et al., 2002) across a wide range of behaviors
(Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). As a result of its far-
reaching efficacy, it was employed as the basis for
this values-related study.
According to Schwartz (1992) and Schwartz and
Bilsky (1987, 1990), humans are biological organ-
isms, but they also have requirements as actors in
social contexts and as group members. These three
requirements serve as the antecedents for human
values. Values as defined by Schwartz and Bilsky
(1987, p. 551) ‘‘are concepts or beliefs, pertaining to
desirable end states, which transcend specific situa-
tions, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and
events, and are ordered by relative importance.’’
There are two aspects to Schwartz’s (1992) theory
of human values: the content of values and the
structure of values. The content of a value is its
source of motivation, and the structure of values is
the relationship between the values. Schwartz’s
theory is based upon 57 single values, which can be
abstracted into 10 value types encompassing similar
motivations (see Table I); similar content. The 10
value types included in the theory are: Universalism,
Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, Security,
Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, and
Self-direction. Schwartz found 45 of the 57 values in
his theory to be universal in nature; that is, they have
similar meanings across all cultures. They may,
however, be more or less prized in different cultures
(Schwartz, 1992). The list of 57 values was also
found to be a comprehensive list of all values across
cultures.
The second component of Schwartz’s theory
describes the relationships among the 10 value
types. The conflict and compatibilities between
these values are such that behavior consistent with
one value may conflict with another value. The
determining factor in the relationship between the
values is whether or not their motivational goals
are compatible (see Table II). Likewise, behavior
consistent with one value may be compatible with
another value; the determining factor here is the
motivational goal that the values represent
(Schwartz, 1992). Schwartz mapped out the rela-
tionship between values in the form of a circum-
plex (see Figure 1). There are 10 wedges in the
circumplex, each representing one of the value
types. The relationships among the wedges are
indicated by the distance between the wedges;
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption 551

TABLE I
Schwartz’s 57 single values

Value type Single values

Universalism Broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty, unity
with nature, protecting the environment
Self-direction Creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals, self-respect
Stimulation Daring, a varied life, an exciting life
Hedonism Pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent
Power Social power, authority, wealth, preserving my public image, social recognition
Achievement Successful, capable, ambitious, influential, intelligent,
Security Family security, national security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favors, sense of
belonging, healthy
Tradition Humble, accepting my portion in life, devout, respect for tradition, moderate
Conformity Politeness, obedient, self-discipline, honoring of parents and elders
Benevolence Helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible, true friendship, mature love

Note: inner harmony, a spiritual life, meaning in life, and privacy do not have universal meaning, neither do the values in italics
above. Schwartz (1992, Table IV, p. 28).

TABLE II
Schwartz’s value types and their motivational goals

Value type Motivational goal

Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards
Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Self direction Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploring
Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection, for the welfare of all people and
for nature
Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent
personal contact
Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture
and religion provide
Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate
social expectations or norms
Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self

Note: Schwartz (1994, p. 22).

close proximity indicates shared motivation and
values that are opposite of each other are in
conflict with each other. For example, behavior
undertaken to satiate the power values represents
an individual’s need for ‘‘social status and prestige,
control, or dominance over people and resources’’
(Schwartz, 1994, p. 22). This type of behavior
does not conflict with achievement values, which
are based on motivations related to ‘‘personal
success through demonstrating competence
according to social standards’’ (p. 22). However,
an individual who prizes power and achievement
is unlikely to behave in a manner congruent with
universalism values, because the motivation for
universalism values is ‘‘understanding, appreciation,
tolerance, and protection, for the welfare of all
people and for nature’’ (p. 22), which conflicts
with the motivation behind power values.
552
Self-Transcendence
Universalism Benevolence
Self-direction
Tradition
Openness to Change
Conformity
Conservation
Stimulation
Security
Hedonism
Power
Achievement
Self-Enhancement
Figure 1. Theoretical model of relations among moti-
vational types of values (Schwartz, 1994, p. 24).
Hypotheses
The relationship between values and a construct of
interest is set by Schwartz’s (1992) theory. The theory
indicates that a variable that interacts with a certain
value will also interact with adjacent values. When
positive and negative interactions are identified, the
relationship between the other eight values can be
determined (Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995). That said,
Prince-Gibson and Schwartz (1998) suggested that
relationships between values and external variables
should be hypothesized based on the theory plus
empirical findings from the literature. The hypotheses
in this study were developed in keeping with this
understanding. Research on fair trade from a con-
sumption perspective is sporadic, so much so that the
hypotheses in the research that has been conducted to
date were based on the research findings on other
forms of ethical consumption besides fair trade (see
Auger et al., 2003; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005a, b;
2006; Dickson, 2000, 2001; Dickson and Littrell,
1997; Loureiro and Lotade, 2005; Shaw and Clarke,
1999). A similar stance was taken in this study.
Universalism
The nine universalism values are: Inner harmony, A
world at peace, A world of beauty, Broadminded,
Equality, Protecting the environment, Social justice,
Unity with nature, and Wisdom. The motivating
factor underscoring universalism values is based on
the notion that when individuals and society do not
Caroline Josephine Doran
accept all others unconditionally and do not treat all
people fairly, this will ultimately result in everyone’s
downfall. People who prize this value type also feel
strongly about protecting the natural environment
(Schwartz, 1992, 1994).
De Pelsmacker et al. (2005a) found the universal-
ism values A world at peace, A world of beauty, and
Equality to be influential in the consumption of fair
trade coffee in Belgium. Shaw et al. (2005) established
in an exploratory study that the universalism values A
world at peace, Broadminded, Equality, Protecting
the environment, Social justice, and Unity with nat-
ure influenced ethical consumers when shopping for
groceries. Finally, De Pelsmacker et al. (2006) found
that is was important to fair trade consumers that fair
prices be paid to producers to allow them to live safe
and dignified lives, free from dependence on others.
Therefore the first hypothesis in this study was:
HA1: Universalism values have the strongest influ-
ence on the decision to consume fair trade
products.
Benevolence
Forgiving, Helpful, Honest, Loyal, Mature love,
Responsible, True friendship, Meaning in life, and A
spiritual life are the nine benevolence values. Tran-
scending selfish goals and advancing the welfare of
those in a person’s in-group are at the core of this
value type. Benevolence values have a shared
motivational focus with universalism values, which is
the promotion of the welfare of someone other than
the self. The difference between the two sets of
values is that benevolence values focus only on the
in-group, whereas universalism values do not dis-
tinguish between the in-group and the out-group
(Schwartz, 1992, 1994).
Because benevolence values are compatible with
universalism values, which are hypothesized as being
associated with fair trade, and because of their own
focus on the welfare of the other as opposed to the
self, it is hypothesized that there will be an interac-
tion between fair trade consumption and benevo-
lence values. Additionally, there is empirical support
for this in the ethical consumption literature.
Neuman (1986) established that the value Mature
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption
love is related to energy conservation, while Shaw
et al. (2005) found the values Helpful and Honest to
be related to ethical consumption. Therefore, the
second hypothesis is:
HA2: Benevolence values have a positive impact on
the decision to consume fair trade products.
Self-direction
The self-direction values are: Freedom, Creativity,
Independent, Choosing own goals, Curious, and
Self-respect. The motivations underscoring this
value type are novelty and mastery, and these values
are a manifestation of the individual’s desire to be in
command of his/her reality (Schwartz, 1992). Self-
direction values, like universalism values, epitomize
an individual’s desire to depend on his/her own
judgment and to be at ease with diversity (Schwartz,
1992, 1994).
Theoretically, due to the adjacency of self-direc-
tion values to universalism values, it can be
hypothesized that self-direction values are positively
related with fair trade consumption. Furthermore,
Shaw et al. (2005) found the values Curiosity,
Freedom, Independent, and Self-respect to be related
to ethical consumption in a UK context.
HA3: Self-direction values have a positive impact on
the decision to consume fair trade products.
Power
The power values are: Social power, Wealth,
Authority, Preserving my public image, and Social
recognition. This value type has at its core the desire
to control people and resources and to maintain
hierarchies. Status is important to people who prize
power values.
The power values are at odds with the univer-
salism and benevolence values, which are hypothe-
sized as being positively associated with fair trade
consumption. Empirically, Neuman (1986) found
there to be no association between Accumulation of
personal wealth and Social recognition and the en-
ergy conservation construct. Shean and Shei (1995)
553
found political and value-based values to be unim-
portant to environmentalists. Shaw et al. (2005)
found the power values to be of little relevance to
ethical consumers.
HA4: The power values have the largest negative
impact on the decision to consume fair trade
products.
Security
The seven security values are: Family security,
National security, Social order, Clean, Reciprocation
of favors, Sense of belonging, and Healthy. The
motivations of safety, harmony, and stability
underpin these values. Security’s goal is to prevail
over the uncertainty that arises with the self, rela-
tionships, and/or society (Schwarz, 1992, 1994).
As security values are adjacent to power values,
which are hypothesized as being the values most
negatively associated with fair trade consumption,
security values are likely to have a similar relation-
ship with the external variable. The extant literature
supports this hypothesis. According to Shean and
Shei (1995), pro-environmental behavior has a
negative relationship with the values Belonging,
Being liked, and Being Accepted. Furthermore,
De Pelsmacker (2005a) found the value Clean to be
negatively associated with consumption of fair trade
coffee.
HA5: Security values have a negative impact on the
decision to consume fair trade products.
Achievement
The achievement values are: Ambitious, Influential,
Capable, Successful, and Intelligent. These values are
centered on self-satisfaction and demonstrating
competence to others. Again, behavior consistent
with achievement values would not be congruent
with universalism values, due to the conflict in their
motivational goal (Schwartz, 1992, 1994).
As it is hypothesized that fair trade is congruent
with the self-transcendent universalism and benev-
olence values, it is unlikely that there would be
554 Caroline Josephine Doran
a positive relationship between achievement values
and fair trade consumption given its location on the
circumplex. Achievement values are adjacent to the
power values, which implies that achievement values
would have a negative impact on the decision to buy
fair trade products.
HA6: Achievement values have a negative impact on
the decision to consume fair trade products.
Demographics
De Pelsmacker et al. (2005a), Dickson and Littrell
(1997), Littrell and Dickson (1997), and Roberts
(1996) found there to be a positive relationship
between age and ethical consumer behavior.
HA7: Fair trade consumers are older than non-
consumers of fair trade.
Bhate and Lawler (1997), De Pelsmacker (2005a),
Schwepker and Cornwell (1991), Shrum et al.,
(1995) found that gender had no influence on ethical
consumer behavior. However, other studies found
that women were more likely to engage in such
behavior (see Blend and van Ravenswaay, 1999;
Loureiro and Lotade, 2005; Mainieri et al., 1997;
Roberts, 1996). Due to the conflicting findings, this
hypothesis is non-directional.
H08: There is no difference between fair trade
consumers and non-consumers in terms of
gender.
Auger et al. (2003), Ellen et al. (1991), and Mainieri
et al. (1997) found that Caucasian consumers
were more prone to partake in ethical consumer
behavior.
HA9: Fair trade consumers are more likely to be
Caucasian than any other race.
The literature provided much support for the claim
that educated consumers are more ethical than are
consumers who are less educated (see Blend and van
Ravenswaay, 1999; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001;
De Pelsmacker et al., 2005a, 2006; Dickson and
Littrell, 1997; Roberts, 1995; Roberts, 1996). A dis-
senting finding came from Mainieri et al. (1997).
HA10: Fair trade consumers are more educated than
non-consumers of fair trade.
In terms of the relationship between marital status and
ethical behavior, again the extant literature has pro-
duced mixed results. According to Bhate and Lawler
(1997) and Schwepker and Cornwell (1991), there is no
relationship between marital status and ethical con-
sumer behavior. On the other hand, Auger et al. (2003)
and Roberts (1995) found that married consumers are
more likely to behave ethically, while Dickson (2001)
found ethical consumer behavior to be congruent with
being unmarried. Due to the conflicting findings, this
hypothesis is non-directional.
HA11: Marital status has no influence on consump-
tion of fair trade items.
Methodology
The survey
Respondents to the survey were asked to rate the 57
values on a Web-based version of the SVS as guiding
principles in their lives on a 9-point scale. The first
point on the scale was )1, which was described as
opposed to my values; 0 represented unimportant; 3
represented important; 6 represented very important;
and 7 represented of supreme importance. The 57 val-
ues were listed on two pages, and before rating all 57
values, participants had to choose the two values on
each page that were the most important and least
important values to them.
Validity and reliability
The SVS has been used to predict attitudes and
behaviors surrounding the following concepts:
genetically modified foods, moral behavior, pro-
environmental behavior, trust in institutions, diver-
sity, voting, religiosity, preparedness for out-group
contact, and gender relations (see Barnea and
Schwartz, 1998; Bond and Chi, 1997; Devos et al.,
2002; Dietz et al., 2002; Feather, 2004; Honkanen
and Verplanken, 2004; Karp, 1996; Nordlund and
Garvill, 2002; Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995; Schultz and
Zelenzy, 1998; Schwartz and Huismans, 1995; Shaw
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption
and Clarke, 1999). The SVS has also been used to
predict value differences between different groups of
people (see Prince-Gibson and Schwartz, 1998;
Ryckman and Houston, 2003; Sawyerr et al., 2005;
Schwartz and Rubel, 2005).
A range of reliability scores have been established
in the extant literature regarding the SVS. Different
internal reliabilities – Cronbach’s a – have been
found across the literature: 0.39–0.79 (Schwartz and
Rubel, 2005); 0.43–0.76 (Devos et al., 2002); 0.62
and 0.74 (Feather, 2004); 0.67 and 0.72. (Honkanen
and Verplanken, 2004); 0.70–0.84 (Sawyerr et al.,
2005); 0.76–0.87 (Schultz and Zelenzy, 1998); 0.78–
0.86 (Nordlund and Garvill, 2002).
Samples
Five organizations took part in this study, four of
which were online retailers. The fifth sample was
composed of students. The businesses involved were
Guayaki, Two Hands World Shop, Peace Coffee,
and Just Coffee. The student sample came from
graduate students at Tiffin University. To ensure
anonymity and address the privacy concerns of each
of the businesses involved, a link to participate in this
Web survey was circulated by the organizations in-
volved, rather than by the researcher.
Response rates
A Web-based version was activated online from
March to May, 2007, and returned 809 surveys. The
response rates ranged from 14% to 25% from those
organizations that invited the respondents via an
e-mail. Response rates could not be calculated for
the two samples where the invitation to participate
in the survey was placed in a link on the Web site,
rather than in an e-mail.
Inclusion criteria
All surveys where 15 or more questions were unan-
swered were excluded from the analysis. Based on this
parameter, approximately 30% of the responses were
excluded. All observations where one answer was
chosen 35 or more times were excluded, to control
555
for lack of differentiation between answers by the
respondents. Therefore, if a participant chose the
answer 0, which represented unimportant, 35 or more
times, his/her response was not included in the final
analysis. This led to the rejection of 5% of the
remaining observations. Finally, a large number of
observations were excluded from the study because
contradictions in their answers made it difficult to
establish definitively that they were fair trade con-
sumers. Rather than creating results based on an
unsound set of observations, approximately 200 fur-
ther responses were excluded. The remaining 329
consumers consisted of 208 females and 121 males,
most of whom were Caucasian. The average age of the
participants was 37, with an even distribution of
married and unmarried individuals. The study had a
large number of wealthier consumers.
Tests
Smallest Space Analysis, on centered scores, per-
formed on HUDAP statistical software determined
that the data in this study was a good fit with a priori
theory. The coefficient of alienation in the study was
0.24. This means that the structure of values in this
study was a good fit with the Schwartz study and that
the indexes used to superordinate the single values
into value types were appropriate for use in this study.
Three approaches were used to determine the
relationship between fair trade consumption and
values. When the data were collated, differences in the
demographic breakdown of each of the three groups
appeared; hence, it became necessary to control for
the influence of demographics on values and to ensure
that the results established differences between the
three groups, rather than differences in demographics.
Therefore, a MANCOVA test was used to determine
mean scores, where demographics were entered as
covariates (see Table III). A general linear model –
repeated measures – was used to determine how
respondents ranked their values. As with other com-
ponents of this analysis, it was not possible to create
hypotheses for the tradition, stimulation, and hedo-
nism values due to lack of information in the extant
literature; however, these values were included in the
model. The general linear model built to test ranks was
significant, which implied that there were differences
between the groups as to how they ranked values (see
556 Caroline Josephine Doran

TABLE III
MANCOVAS

Value type MANCOVA

M SD F Sig.

Universalism 0.90 0.93 43.62 0.00

Benevolence 0.83 0.71 0.20 0.82
Tradition )1.16 1.09 1.61 0.20
Conformity )0.07 1.07 4.72 0.01
Security )0.17 0.98 12.58 0.00
Power )2.83 1.10 20.41 0.00
Achievement )0.08 0.94 7.95 0.00
Hedonism )0.71 1.14 5.14 0.01
Stimulation )0.62 1.22 0.15 0.86
Self-direction 0.75 0.84 5.93 0.00
Influential )0.95 1.65 0.29 0.75
Self-discipline )0.15 1.76 0.42 0.66

TABLE IV
Consumers’ values ranks

Rank Non-consumers Intermittent consumers Loyal consumers

Value type M SE Value type M SE Value Type M SE

1 Benevolence 0.87 0.12 Universalism 0.92 0.06 Universalism 1.36 0.08

2 Security 0.59 0.16 Benevolence 0.81 0.05 Selfdirection 0.93 0.08
3 Self-direction 0.43 0.14 Self-direction 0.69 0.06 Benevolence 0.81 0.07
4 Conformity 0.40 0.18 Conformity 0.06 0.07 Conformity )0.23 0.11
5 Achievement 0.39 0.16 Achievement 0.09 0.07 Achievement )0.34 0.09
6 Hedonism )0.19 0.19 Security )0.15 0.07 Security )0.48 0.09
7 Universalism )0.24 0.14 Stimulation )0.63 0.09 Stimulation )0.61 0.12
8 Stimulation )0.78 0.20 Hedonism )0.70 0.08 Hedonism )0.89 0.11
9 Tradition )0.94 0.18 Tradition )1.14 0.08 Tradition )1.24 0.11
10 Power )1.90 0.18 Power )2.76 0.07 Power )3.25 0.10

Table IV). A correlation matrix and regression anal-
ysis were used to determine the relationships between
values and demographics and fair trade construct (see
Tables V and VI).
Results
Values
When the data were returned, they were filtered
according to the frequency of fair trade purchasing
behavior on the part of the respondent. The three
consumer categories used were: non-consumers of
fair trade, intermittent consumers of fair trade, and
loyal consumers of fair trade. The intermittent cat-
egory was chosen by consumers who bought fair
trade occasionally. Loyal fair trade consumers pur-
chased fair trade always when there was a fair trade
product alternative available.
On testing the mean scores attributed to the
universalism values, the F-statistic of 43.62 was
found to be significant. Non-consumers of fair
trade had the lowest mean ()0.27), intermittent
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption 557

TABLE V cantly positively correlated with fair trade con-

Correlations sumption as hypothesized. Rather, it had a negative
correlation, albeit at a non-significant level.
Value type r Sig. In terms of the security values, the differences
between the three groups were significant, with an
Universalism 0.453** 0.000 F-statistic of 12.58. Loyal consumers had the lowest
Benevolence )0.015 0.789 mean ()0.44), intermittent consumers had a higher
Tradition )0.075 0.173 mean score, ()0.16), and non-consumers had the
Conformity )0.155** 0.005
highest mean (0.54). There were also significant
Security )0.289** 0.000
differences between the groups in how they ranked
Power )0.340** 0.000
Achievement )0.213** 0.000 security values. Non-consumers ranked the security
Hedonism )0.162** 0.003 values second, while they were ranked sixth by both
Stimulation 0.032 0.563 fair trade consumer groups. Additionally, security
Self-direction 0.180** 0.001 values were significantly negatively correlated with
fair trade consumption, which explained 8% of the
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). variability in fair trade consumption.
The F-statistic 20.41 was significant for the power
values. Loyal consumers had the lowest mean
consumers had the next highest mean (0.91), and ()3.29), intermittent consumers had a higher mean
loyal consumers had the highest mean (1.32). Uni- ()2.78), and Non-consumers had the highest mean
versalism values were ranked number one of the 10 ()1.88). Power values were ranked 10 out of 10 by
values ranked by fair trade consumers, while it was all consumers in this study. There was also a signif-
ranked in seventh place by non-consumers of fair icant negative correlation between fair trade and
trade. A strong positive correlation was found be- power values. In fact, power values were the values
tween fair trade and universalism values and, alone, it most negatively correlated with fair trade con-
explained 20% of the variability in fair trade con- sumption. Used alone, power values had the ability
sumption behavior. to explain 12% of the variability in fair trade con-
The F-statistic 0.20 for benevolence values was sumption patterns.
not significant. There was no difference in the mean The F-statistic 7.95 for the achievement values
scores between consumers and non-consumers of was significant. Loyal consumers had the lowest
fair trade. However, as the propensity to consume mean ()0.28), intermittent consumers had a higher
fair trade increased, consumers ranked benevolence mean ()0.08), and Non-consumers had highest
values lower. Benevolence values were not signifi- mean (0.50). All three consumer groups ranked the

TABLE VI
Model summary

Model R R2 Adj. R2 SE est. DR2 Df df1 df2 DSig. f

1 0.453a 0.205 0.203 0.541 0.205 85.154 1 330 0.000

2 0.466b 0.217 0.212 0.538 0.012 5.008 1 329 0.026
3 0.479c 0.229 0.222 0.535 0.012 5.284 1 328 0.022
4 0.489d 0.239 0.230 0.532 0.010 4.299 1 327 0.039
5 0.500e 0.250 0.239 0.529 0.011 4.772 1 326 0.030
a
Predictors: (Constant), Universalism.
b
Predictors: (Constant), Universalism, Power.
c
Predictors: (Constant), Universalism, Power, Benevolence.
d
Predictors: (Constant), Universalism, Power, Benevolence, Security.
e
Predictors: (Constant), Universalism, Power, Benevolence, Security, Hedonism.
558 Caroline Josephine Doran
achievement values in fifth place. Achievement
values were found to have a significant weak negative
correlation with fair trade consumption. Achieve-
ment values, when used alone, had the ability
to explain 5% in the variability of fair trade
consumption.
The F-statistic of 5.93 for the self-direction values
was significant. Non-consumers had the lowest
mean (0.40), intermittent consumers had the next
highest mean (0.70), and loyal consumers had the
highest mean (0.98). Self-direction values were
ranked third by the non-consumer and intermittent
fair trade consumer groups, while they were ranked
second by loyal fair trade consumers. There was also
a weak positive correlation found between fair trade
and self-direction values; used alone it explained 3%
of the variability in fair trade consumption.
Because there were no links between hedonism
values and ethical consumer behavior evident from
the extant literature, no hypotheses were created for
these values. That said, the statistical analysis estab-
lished that there was a link between these values and
fair trade consumption. The motivational goal
underscoring hedonism values is ‘‘pleasure and sen-
suous gratification for oneself’’ (Schwartz, 1992,
p. 22). Hedonism values meet the human require-
ment of the organism, rather than social interaction
or group survival (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Hedonism
and stimulation values share a common lack of
interest in others (Schwartz et al., 2000). Hedonism
values were ranked sixth by non-consumers, which
was consistent with other value-based research
(Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). What is inconsistent
with other findings is that both fair trade consumer
groups ranked hedonism values in eight place; so,
the lower individuals rated hedonism values the
more likely they were to consume fair trade
products. The negative correlation between hedo-
nism values and fair trade consumption was signifi-
cant; hedonism values, used alone, contributed
to explaining 3% of the variability in fair trade
consumption.
No hypotheses were developed for the confor-
mity values, but they were included in the analysis
nonetheless. The F-statistic 4.72 for the conformity
values was significant. Loyal consumers had the
lowest mean ()0.27), intermittent consumers had a
higher mean ()0.07), and non-consumers had the
highest mean (0.41). Conformity values were ranked
in fourth place by all three groups. Conformity was
found to be negatively correlated with fair trade
consumption.
Demographics
When testing for differences in the mean among the
three groups in terms of their demographic charac-
teristics the chi-square statistics established that there
were no differences between the groups (see
Table VII). Contrary to the hypotheses that were
created, fair trade consumers were not older than
non-consumers, and there was no difference
between consumers and non-consumers in terms of
gender or marital status. Fair trade consumers were
not more educated than non-consumers, and fair
trade consumers were not more likely to be Cau-
casian. Furthermore, when demographic data were
entered into a regression model to determine their
predictive power, it was not found to be significant.
In summary, from the regression analysis,
consumption universalism, power, benevolence,
security, and hedonism values explained 25% of fair
trade consumption (see Table VI). However, the
incremental benefit of adding values other than
universalism values to the model was only an addi-
tional 5%, implying that universalism values could be
used alone to explain the variability in fair trade
consumption.
TABLE VII
Chi-Square statistics
Demographic Value Sig.
Sex .408a 0.815
Race 1.921b 0.383
Marital status .231c 0.891
Age 1.277 0.528
Education 3.883 0.144
a
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 12.50.
b
2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.55.
c
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 16.56.
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption
Discussion
Universalism values were ranked as the most
important values by loyal fair trade consumers. Some
of these values are focused on nature and the envi-
ronment – Unity with nature, A world of beauty,
and Protecting the environment, which confirms
Schwartz’s (1992) argument that concern for nature
is closely linked to the concern for the welfare of all
humankind. One of the more interesting results
from this study was not what separated the non-
consumers from the fair-trade consumers, but rather
what differentiated the two fair trade consumer
groups. Loyal fair traders ranked benevolence values
lower than did intermittent consumers. Both uni-
versalism and benevolence values are focused on
supporting others; however, the focus of universal-
ism values is on all people and nature, whereas
benevolence values focus on the in-group. This is an
important distinction in this study, as consumers
who are loyal to the concept of fair trade ranked
benevolence values lower than consumers who
consume fair trade intermittently. Thus, as con-
sumers become more involved with fair trade as
a means of consumption, they become less involved
with supporting the in-group. So, intermittent
consumers subordinate the needs of everybody
in favor of those in their in-group, whereas, loyal
consumers subordinate the in-group to prioritize the
needs of all people.
Self-direction values are consistently found to be
some of the most important values across cultures
(Schwartz and Bardi, 2001), and the findings in this
study were no different. However, loyal fair traders
ranked self-direction values higher than both non-
consumers and intermittent consumers. This form of
consumerism promotes breaking from convention
and paying higher prices for products that are often
hard to find; it might be described as a manifestation
of the Independent and Freedom values. Further-
more, self-direction values may also be congruent
with fair trade consumption because of the very
nature of the products. Many of them are ethnically
inspired, which appeal to the Curious and Creative
self-direction values. In fact, Bhate and Lawler
(1997) established that ethical consumers like to buy
innovative products and Dickson and Littrell (1997)
found that fair trade consumers were influenced by
the ethnic appearance of apparel.
559
Non-consumers of fair trade ranked the security
values in second place. This finding was inconsistent
with existing values research where, across cultures,
security values are most commonly found mid-range
between the lowest and highest (Schwartz and Bardi,
2001). Because this value type contains Social Order,
Family security, and National Security, it makes
sense that the financial, health, and educational
security of foreign producers is not of paramount
importance to non-consumers.
Not surprisingly, all respondents ranked power
values as the least important of all values, as they
have been found to be some of the least important
values across cultures (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001).
Power values promote dominance over others and
the preservation of a dominant position in society
(Schwartz, 1992). Helping the disadvantaged pro-
ducer in a foreign country hardly supports main-
taining a position of advantage in the home country.
Moreover, there is also the issue of wealth. As one of
the values of this value type is Wealth, the expensive
nature of many fair trade products is not congruent
with this value.
From this study it is evident that it is no longer the
case that younger consumers are more ethical than
older individuals as proposed in earlier studies by
Anderson and Cunningham (1972), Berkowitz and
Lutterman (1968), and Van Liere and Dunlap
(1980). This may be due in part to the fact that
ethical products are no longer confined to the
domain of the niche markets of the activist youthful
consumer, but instead are widely available in
mainstream distribution channels. Therefore, these
products are readily accessible to all consumers, not
just to younger activists who took the time to voice
their opinions through their consumption patterns.
The traditional role of women may have caused it to
appear fallaciously that women were more ethical in
what they consumed than were men. This phe-
nomenon has changed in contemporary society and
the gender roles are less defined with men more
frequently shopping for the family. This change in
consumption patterns might have led to the findings
in this study that women are no more ethical than
men in terms of their consumption behavior than
was previously found to be the case. Additionally,
fair trade products were originally available only in
craft and apparel stores, prior to the widespread
employment of fair trade logos. The popular fair
560 Caroline Josephine Doran
trade products at this time were crafts, jewelry, and
apparel, which appeal more to women than to men.
But since products such as tea, coffee, bananas, sugar,
and cocoa are now sold under the fair trade logo, fair
trade is likely more appealing to males than was
previously the case. Education was also expected to
be influential in the decision to consume fair trade
products in this study, but this did not turn out to be
the case. This may simply be due to more
widespread marketing and availability of fair trade
products.
Recommendations
Values are increasingly important in applied fields
such as business (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004). In
establishing the values that are important to people,
researchers can forecast their attitudes and behavior
(Kamakura and Novak, 1992). Specifically in the
area of fair trade, this information could be invalu-
able, as selling fair trade can provide a source of
competitive advantage to marketers (Strong, 1997).
The pragmatic applications of these findings
would be to use them in marketing efforts, because
when businesses know the values of their customers,
they are in a better position to generate new interest
in their products (Durgee et al., 1996). With this
information, marketers should frame their commu-
nications more appropriately to speak consumers’
values, given that consumers use values in their
purchasing decisions (Allen, 2001, Blackwell et al.,
2001). Communications with widespread appeal are
ineffective for the complex contemporary consumer
(O’ Connor, 1997); therefore, based on the findings
of this study, businesses should focus their attention
on messages that speak to universalism or self-
direction values when communicating with fair
trade consumers. Converting the non-consumer is a
more complex task. Consumers who prize power
and security values are least likely to buy fair trade
products; therefore, building campaigns congruent
with the power and security values will be effective.
An easier group of non-consumers to convert to fair
trade consumption is those who hold conformity
and hedonism values in high esteem.
One of the main findings of this study is that
marketing based on demographic consumer charac-
teristics is futile. Therefore, it is recommended that
businesses not focus their attention on these con-
sumer characteristics.
Recommendations for future research
Approximately 14% of respondents from the control
group answered ‘‘rather not say’’ to the question
about how frequently they purchased fair trade
goods. This might be an indicator of the presence of
social desirability bias (SDB) in this study, where
people did not want to admit that they did not buy
ethically produced products. Determining the role of
SDB in ethical consumption and value-based
research would be useful.
Few value-based studies have utilized a Web-
based version of the SVS. No research has been
undertaken to compare the efficacy of the web-
based SVS to the paper pencil version of the survey.
This is an area that needs further attention.
References
Allen, M. W.: 2001, ‘A Practical Method for Uncovering
the Direct and Indirect Relationships Between Human
Values and Consumer Purchases’, The Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing 18, 102.
Anderson, W. T. and W. H. Cunningham: 1972, ‘The
Socially Conscious Consumer’, Journal of Marketing 36,
23–31.
Auger, P. B., T. M. Devinney and J. J. Louviere: 2003,
‘What will Consumers Pay for Social Product Fea-
tures?’, Journal of Business Ethics 42, 281–304.
Barnea, M. and S. H. Schwartz: 1998, ‘Values and Vot-
ing’, Political Psychology 19, 17–40.
Berkowitz, L. and K. G. Lutterman: 1968, ‘The Tradi-
tional Socially Responsible Personality’, Public Opinion
Quarterly 32, 169–185.
Bhate, S. and K. Lawler: 1997, ‘Environmentally Friendly
Products: Factors that Influence Their Adoption’,
Technovation 17, 457–465.
Blackwell R. D., P. W. Miniard and J. F. Engel: 2001,
Consumer Behavior, 9th Edition (Harcourt, New York).
Blend, J. R. and E. O. van Ravenswaay: 1999, ‘Mea-
suring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples’,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 1072–
1078.
Bond, M. H. and V. M.-Y. Chi: 1997, ‘Values and Moral
Behavior’, Psychologia 40, 251–264.
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption
Boote, A. S.: 1981, ‘Market Segmentation by Personal
Values and Salient Product Attributes: Demographics
Only Tell Part of the Story’, Journal of Advertising
Research 21, 29–35.
Borgmann, A.: 2000, ‘The Moral Complexion of Con-
sumption’, Journal of Consumer Research 26, 418–422.
Carrigan, M. and A. Attalla: 2001, ‘The Myth of the Ethical
Consumer—Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behaviour?’,
Journal of Consumer Marketing 18, 560–577.
Davies, I. A. and A. Crane: 2003, ‘Ethical Decision
Making in Fair Trade Companies’, Journal of Business
Ethics 45, 79.
De Pelsmacker, P., L. Driesen and G. Rayp: 2005a, ‘Do
Consumers Care About Ethics? Willingness to Pay for
Fair-Trade Coffee’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 39, 363–
385.
De Pelsmacker, P., W. Janssens, E. Sterckx and C.
Mielants: 2005b, ‘Consumer Preferences for the
Marketing of Ethically Labelled Coffee’, International
Marketing Review 22, 512–530.
De Pelsmacker, P., W. Janssens, E. Sterckx and C.
Mielants: 2006, ‘Fair-Trade Beliefs, Attitudes and
Buying Behaviour of Belgian Consumers’, International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 11,
125–138.
Devos, T., D. Spini and S. H. Schwartz: 2002, ‘Conflicts
Among Human Values and Trust in Institutions’,
British Journal of Social Psychology 41, 481–494.
Dickson, M. A.: 2000, ‘Personal Values, Beliefs,
Knowledge, and Attitudes Relating to Intentions to
Purchase Apparel from Socially Responsible Busi-
nesses’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 18, 19–30.
Dickson, M. A: 2001, ‘Utility of No Sweat Labels for
Apparel Consumers: Profiling Label Users and Pre-
dicting Their Purchases’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs
35, 96–120.
Dickson, M. A. and M. A. Littrell: 1997, ‘Consumers of
Clothing from Alternative Trading Organizations:
Societal Attitudes and Purchase Evaluative Criteria’,
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 15, 20–33.
Dietz, T., L. Kalof and P. C. Stern: 2002, ‘Gender,
Values, and Environmentalism’, Social Science Quarterly
83, 353–364.
Durgee, J. F., G. C. O’ Connor and R. W. Veryzer:
1996, ‘Observations: Translating Values into Product
Wants’, Journal of Advertising Research Jan-Feb, 90–100.
Ellen, P. S., J. L. Wiener and C. Cobb-Walgren: 1991,
‘The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in
Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors’,
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10, 102–117.
Feather, N. T.: 2004, ‘Value Correlates of Ambivalent
Attitude Toward Gender Relations’, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 30, 3–12.
561
FLO-FAQ: n.d., ‘FAQ’, Retrieved August 1, 2006, from
http://www.fairtrade.net/figures.html?and0=.
Goldsmith, R. E., J. Freiden and K. V. Henderson: 1995,
‘The Impact of Social Values on Food-Related Atti-
tudes’, The Journal of Product and Brand Management 4,
6–14.
Goldsmith, R. E., J. B. Freiden and J. C. Kilsheimer:
1993, ‘Social Values and Female Fashion Leadership: A
Cross-Cultural Study’, Psychology and Marketing 10,
399–412.
Gould, N. J.: 2003, ‘Fair Trade and the Consumer In-
terest: A Personal Account’, International Journal of
Consumer Studies 27, 341–345.
Hitlin, S. and J. A. Piliavin: 2004, ‘Values: Reviving a
Dormant Concept’, Annual Review Sociology 30, 359–
393.
Homer, P. M. and L. R. Kahle: 1988, ‘A Structural
Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hier-
archy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54,
638–646.
Honkanen, P. and B. Verplanken: 2004, ‘Understanding
Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food: The
Role of Values and Attitude Strength’, Journal of
Consumer Policy 27, 401–420.
Hudson, I. and M. Hudson: 2003, ‘How Alternative is
Alternative Trade?: Alternative Trade Coffee in the
Chiapas Region of Mexico’, Retrieved September 10,
2006, from http://fairtraderesource.org/HudsonHow
AlternIsAlternTrade.pdf#search=%22hudson%22.
Jaffee, D., J. R. Kloppenburg and M. B. Monroy: 2004,
‘Bringing the ‘‘Moral Charge’’ Home: Fair Trade
Within the North and Within the South’, Rural
Sociology 69, 169–196.
Jones, P., D. Comfort and D. Hillier: 2003, ‘Retailing
Fair Trade Food Products in the UK’, British Food
Journal 105, 800–810.
Kahle, L. R., B. Poulos and A. Sukhdial: 1988, ‘Changes
in Social Values in the United States During the Past
Decade’, Journal of Advertising Research 28, 35–41.
Kamakura, W. A. and T. P. Novak: 1992, ‘Value-System
Segmentation: Exploring the Meaning of LOV’, Jour-
nal of Consumer Research 19, 119–132.
Karp, D.: 1996, ‘Values and Their Effect on Pro-
Environmental Behavior’, Environment and Behavior 28,
111–133.
Kennedy, P. F., R. J. Best and L. R. Kahle: 1988, ‘An
Alternative Method for Measuring Value-Based
Segmentation and Advertisement Positioning’, Current
Issues and Research in Advertising 11, 139–155.
Krier, J. M.: 2005, ‘Fair Trade in Europe 2005’, The
Heinrich Boll Foundation, Retrieved August 1, 2006,
from http://www.ifat.org/downloads/marketing/Fair
TradeinEurope2005.pdf.
562 Caroline Josephine Doran
LeClair, M. S.: 2003, ‘Fighting Back: The Growth of
Alternative Trade’, Development 46, 66–73.
Littrell, M. and M. A. Dickson: 1997, ‘Alternative Trading
Organizations: Shifting Paradigm in a Culture of Social
Responsibility’, Human Organization 56, 344–351.
Loureiro, M. L. and J. Lotade: 2005, ‘Do Fair Trade and
Eco-Labels in Coffee Wake up the Consumer Con-
science?’, Ecological Economics 53, 129–138.
Lowe, A. C.-T. and D. R. Corkindale: 1998, ‘Differ-
ences in ‘‘Cultural Values’’ and Their Effects on
Responses to Marketing Stimuli’, European Journal of
Marketing 32, 843–867.
Madrigal, R.: 1995, ‘Personal Values, Traveler Person-
ality Type, and Leisure Travel Style’, Journal of Leisure
Research 27, 125.
Mainieri, T., E. G. Barnett, T. R. Valdero, J. B. Unipan
and S. Oskamp: 1997, ‘Green Buying: The Influence
of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior’,
Journal of Social Psychology 137, 189–204.
McCarty, J. A. and L. J. Shrum: 1993, ‘The Role of
Personal Values and Demographics in Predicting
Television Viewing Behavior: Implications for Theory
and Application’, Journal of Advertising 22, 77–101.
Muller, T. E.: 1991, ‘Using Personal Values to Define
Segments in an International Tourism Market’, Inter-
national Marketing Review 8, 57–58.
Neuman, K.: 1986, ‘Personal Values and Commitment to
Energy Conservation’, Environment and Behavior 18,
53–74.
Nicholls, A. J.: 2002, ‘Strategic Options in Fair Trade
Retailing’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management 30, 6–17.
Nordlund, A. M. and J. Garvill: 2002, ‘Value Structures
Behind Proenvironmental Behavior’, Environment and
Behavior 34, 740–756.
O’ Connor, I. J.: 1997, ‘Using Attitudinal Segmentation
to Target the Consumer’, in L. R. Kahle and
L. Chiagouris (eds.), Values, Lifestyles and Psychographics
(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NY), pp. 231–246.
Prakash, V. and J. M. Munson: 1985, ‘Values, Expectations
from the Marketing System and Product Expectations’,
Psychology and Marketing (pre-1986) 2, 279–296.
Prince-Gibson, E. and S. H. Schwartz: 1998, ‘Value
Priorities and Gender’, Social Psychology Quarterly 61,
49–67.
Raynolds, L. T., D. Murray and P. L. Taylor: 2004, ‘Fair
Trade Coffee: Building Producer Capacity Via Global
Networks’, Journal of International Development 16,
1109–1121.
Rice, R. A.: 2001, ‘Noble Goals and Challenging Ter-
rain: Organic and Fair Trade Coffee Movements in
the Global Marketplace’, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 14, 39–66.
Roberts, J. A.: 1995, ‘Profiling Levels of Socially Re-
sponsible Consumer Behavior: A Cluster Analytical
Approach and Its Implications for Marketing’, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice 3, 97–117.
Roberts, J. A.: 1996, ‘Green Consumers in the 1990s:
Profile and Implications for Advertising’, Journal of
Business Research 36, 217–231.
Roccas, S., L. Sagiv, S. H. Schwartz and A. Knafo: 2002,
‘The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 789–801.
Rohan, M. J.: 2000, ‘A Rose by any Name? The Values
Construct’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 4,
255–277.
Ryckman, R. M. and D. M. Houston: 2003, ‘Value
Priorities in American and British Female and Male
University Students’, The Journal of Social Psychology
143, 27–138.
Sagiv, L. and S. H. Schwartz: 1995, ‘Value Priorities and
Readiness for Out-Group Social Contact’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 69, 437–448.
Sawyerr, O. O., J. Strauss and J. Yan: 2005, ‘Individual
Value Structure and Diversity Attitudes: The Moder-
ating Effects of Age, Gender, Race, and Religiosity’,
Journal of Managerial Psychology 20, 498–521.
Schultz, P. W. and L. Zelenzy: 1998, ‘Values and
Proenvironmental Behavior’, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 29, 540–558.
Schwartz, S. H.: 1992, ‘Are There Universal Aspects in
the Structure and Content of Human Values?’, in
M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology 25 (Academic, Orlando, FL), pp. 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H.: 1994, ‘Are There Universal Aspects in
the Structure and Contents of Human Values’, Journal
of Social Issues 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. and A. Bardi: 2001, ‘Value Hierarchies
Across Cultures: Taking a Similarities Perspective’,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33, 268–290.
Schwartz, S. H. and W. Bilsky: 1987, ‘Toward a Uni-
versal Psychological Structure of Human Values’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 550–562.
Schwartz, S. H. and W. Bilsky: 1990, ‘Toward a Theory
of the Universal Content and Structure of Values:
Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 5, 878–891.
Schwartz, S. H. and S. Huismans: 1995, ‘Value Priorities
and Religiosity in Four Western Religions’, Social
Psychology Quarterly 58, 88–107.
Schwartz, S. H. and T. Rubel: 2005, ‘Sex Differences in
Value Priorities: Cross-Cultural and Multimethod
Studies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89,
1010–1028.
Schwartz, S. H., L. Sagiv and K. Boehnke: 2000, ‘Worries
and Values’, Journal of Personality 68, 309–346.
 Values and Fair Trade Consumption
Schwepker, C. H. and T. B. Cornwell: 1991, ‘An
Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers
and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Pack-
aged Goods’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10,
77–101.
Shaw, D. and I. Clarke: 1999, ‘Belief Formation in
Ethical Consumer Groups: An Exploratory Study’,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 17, 109.
Shaw, D., E. Grehan, E. Shiu, L. Hassan and J. Thomson:
2005, ‘An Exploration of Values in Ethical Consumer
Decision Making’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4,
185–200.
Shaw, D. and T. Newholm: 2002, ‘Voluntary Simplicity
and the Ethics of Consumption’, Psychology and Mar-
keting 19, 167–179.
Shean, G. D. and T. Shei: 1995, ‘The Values of Student
Environmentalists’, Journal of Psychology 129, 559–564.
Shrum, L. J., J. A. McCarty and T. M. Lowrey: 1995,
‘Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and
Their Implications for Advertising Strategy’, Journal of
Advertising 24, 71–82.
563
Strong, C.: 1997, ‘The Problems of Translating Fair
Trade Principles into Consumer Purchase Behavior’,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15, 32.
Taylor, P. L., D. L. Murray and L. T. Raynolds: 2005,
‘Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the
Fair Trade Coffee Initiative’, Sustainable Development
13, 199–208.
TransFair: 2006, ‘Fair Trade Almanac’, Transfair USA,
Retrieved September 2006, from http://www.trans
fairusa.org/pdfs/2005FTAlmanac3.17.06.pdf.
TransFair: 2007, ‘Frequently Asked Questions-Basic’,
Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.trans
fairusa.org/content/resources/faq.php.
Van Liere, K. D. and R. E. Dunlap: 1980, ‘The Social
Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hy-
potheses, Explanations, and Empirical Evidence’,
Public Opinion Quarterly 44, 181–197.
New York, NY 11378, U.S.A.
E-mail: carolinedoran@aol.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.