SOLUTION: tackle the issue of the Ethical Consumer | My Assignment Tutor

Ethical Consumer – Towhat extent do ethicsinfluence consumerbehaviour and their groceryshopping.Filipe MenesesStudent Number: 12058476 Project Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BA (Hons) Business ManagementLONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITYMay 20151AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank my first and secondyear lecturers, Doug Smith and FarukMerali, PhD for channelling their passionfor the subject to me with their ever soengaging teaching methods.Furthermore, I would like to thank for theguidance of Bettina Coleman-SchoelsMSc, without which this year longresearch project would have not been asenjoyable as it was.2ContentsAbstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51.2 Research Problem …………………………………………………………………………………….. 51.3 Aims and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………….. 51.4 Dissertation Outline……………………………………………………………………………………. 62. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. 62.2 Ethical Consumer………………………………………………………………………………………. 72.3 Consumer Decision Making ………………………………………………………………………… 82.4 Attributes of Grocery Product Choice……………………………………………………………. 92.5 Other Considerations……………………………………………………………………………….. 102.6 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113 Research Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………… 113.1 Research Design …………………………………………………………………………………….. 113.2 Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 123.3 Instrument………………………………………………………………………………………………. 133.4 Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133.5 Reliability ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 143.6 Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………… 143.7 Demographic Characteristics …………………………………………………………………….. 154 Data analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 164.1 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………….. 164.2 Research Results…………………………………………………………………………………….. 174.3 Analysis and Relationship with existing research ………………………………………….. 215 Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 235.1 Summative Findings and Relationship with Literature ……………………………………. 235.2 Managerial Implications and Recommendations …………………………………………… 255.3 Limitations and Further Research ………………………………………………………………. 256 Reference List……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2737 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 307.1 Consumer decision process model …………………………………………………………….. 307.2 Framework for analysis of grocery shopping decisions ………………………………….. 307.3 Framework for analysis of consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing………………… 317.4 Questionnaire …………………………………………………………………………………………. 327.4 Table of identifying ethical supermarkets …………………………………………………….. 357.5 Table of product pairing ……………………………………………………………………………. 357.6 Table of average of price willing to pay for ethical version………………………………. 357.7 Figure of the distribution of price willing to pay for ethical version ……………………. 367.8 Table of the average per age group of price willing to pay for ethical version…….. 367.9 Table of reasons behind shopping decision making………………………………………. 377.10 Table of reasons behind location of weekly shopping ……………………………………. 377.11 Table of relationship between Top-Up shop frequency and Ethical Scores. ………. 377.12 Table of summary statistics of ethical scores. ………………………………………………. 387.13 Table of average ethical scores per gender …………………………………………………. 387.14 Table of average ethical scores per age group …………………………………………….. 387.15 Table of average ethical scores per income group………………………………………… 397.16 Table of location of main grocery shopping………………………………………………….. 39List of TablesTable 1 – Gender Distribution ………………………………………………………………………………… 15Table 2 – Age Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………. 15Table 3 – Income Distribution …………………………………………………………………………………. 16Table 4 – Boycotting a brand based on ethics …………………………………………………………… 17Table 5 – Average of ethical scores per deciding factor………………………………………………. 21Table 6 – Frequency of visits to local shops………………………………………………………………. 22Table 7 – Ethical profiles distribution………………………………………………………………………… 23List of FiguresFigure 1 – Consumer Decision Model ………………………………………………………………………… 9Figure 2 – Reasons behind shopping decisions…………………………………………………………. 18Figure 3 – Frequency of Top-up Shop ……………………………………………………………………… 19Figure 4 – Ethical Awareness and Ethical Purchasing Intention……………………………………. 204AbstractThis paper attempts to tackle the issue of the Ethical Consumer and their decisionmaking regarding grocery shopping. It seeks to analyse if, when consumers decidewhich company or brand to buy from, ethical issues are taken into consideration, and ifso, to what extent.This research is inserted in the study of Ethics from a consumer perspective, as well asconsumer decision-making, which may have an impact on marketing strategies andbusiness management decisions.This study was conducted on 88 respondents who were approached through surveys.The age and income distributions are reflective of the age and income groups whichwere most easily accessible to the researcher, with future research potentially gainingfrom a more normally distributed group of respondents.This research has provided evidence of the existence of four different profiles ofconsumers, with varying degrees of attitude towards Ethical Awareness and EthicalPurchasing Decision. It has also uncovered that, for products to be a part of aconsumer’s consideration set due to their ethical nature, a company or brand must firstensure that other requirements are met, namely, convenience, price and quality. Thisresearch also suggests that, the 41-54 age group and the £33.301-£45,000 incomegroup possess, on average, a higher Ethical Awareness, although no indication of higherEthical Purchasing Intention is found. This research has also provided evidence of thedecline of the single weekly grocery shopping trip, with the vast majority of therespondents shopping twice or more every week.This study has evidenced that despite previous studies portraying older consumers asmore likely to boycott unethical brands, there is no perceivable variance in EthicalPurchasing Intention across the different age groups.The findings of this research lead to the conclusion it arrives at being perhaps a lessthan ethical one. From a managerial perspective, it suggests that a company or brandshould concern themselves to a greater extent with not being overly unethical, ratherthan striving to be the ethical leaders amongst their competitors.It provides evidence and attempts to answer the research problem providing the readerwith relevant information regarding managerial implications and possiblerecommendations. However, the research could have gained from undertakingqualitative research, namely focus groups and interviews.51. Introduction1.1 BackgroundWhen, in the 1990’s, Nike was targeted by consumer boycotting, it denied any responsibilityover its suppliers unethical behaviour. This global boycott campaign was so successful thattwenty years on, Nike operates with a level of openness and transparency which earns thempraise amongst ethical campaigners (Birch, 2012).A further example of how ethical consumerism plays a part in businesses of today is that ofthe Body Shop. Its ethical stance was received with great praise amongst the most ethical ofconsumers, however, some of these consumers called for a boycott on the brand when itwas bought off by L’Oreal, a long term unethical presence in the cosmetics industry (Booth,2006).When UK retailers were warned by the government to do more on human rights and ethicalproducts, some singled out Marks & Spencer for its good ethical policy. The messageconveyed was that customers should have open access to information about retailers’supply chains, with the potential penalty being loss of custom (Smithers & Mason, 2014).1.2 Research ProblemThis research seeks to investigate to what extent ethical issues contribute to consumerdecision making and their grocery shopping decisions. It addresses the concept of ethicalconsumers, and attempts to quantify the effects of ethical factors in relation to other factors,such as monetary, in regard to grocery shopping decisions. This research attempts toidentify to what extent ethical consumers can be observed empirically, if at all.In the context of grocery shopping decisions, a multitude of shopping occasions as well asdestinations have to be considered, as any issues regarding consumer decision making maybe of directly applicable relevance to small and big businesses operating within the groceryretail market.1.3 Aims and ObjectivesThis research project will allow for a better understanding of the ethical consumer. It willbenefit anyone with an interest in how ethics may influence consumer decision making. Any6conclusions drawn will contribute towards the study of what defines an ‘ethical consumer’and how influential ethics are when consumers do their grocery shopping. This is an area ofparticular interest to the author, as it raises issues which are significant to most areas ofretail management. This significance will continue to grow, as ethical information becomesmore widely available to consumers.This research aims to ascertain to what degree consumers are influenced when doing theirgrocery shopping by how ethical or unethical different companies are. Other objectivesrelated to the investigation are:• What determinant factors are there, if any which may help to categorise ethical andunethical consumers;• What determinant factors are there, if any which may help to better target ethicalconsumers.1.4 Dissertation OutlineThis paper will start with a critical literature review of the issues regarding the ethicalconsumer and consumer decision making. It will draw upon two key frameworks: the first willallow for an analysis of grocery shopping decisions, whilst the second will enable theanalysis of consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing. The study will then provide the readerwith an overview of the research methodology, including demographic characteristics. An indepth analysis and discussion of the research findings will follow. Finally, conclusions will bepresented, including recommendations stemming from the study and for future research.2. Literature Review2.1 IntroductionMarket studies indicate that ethical consumerism has grown in both volume and value overrecent decades. Consumers are focusing on ethical processes and subsequently the varietyof products available has expanded continuously (Keynote, 2013). Despite this, littleresearch has been done on how ethics impact consumers’ decision-making.According to the Office for National Statistics (2014), supermarkets accounted for 38.6% ofthe 2013 UK retail expenditure and a variety of ethical issues exist within the industry. TheEthical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) argues that companies in the UK should atleast make public information about environmental, employment and welfare policies and7practice (Ethical Consumer Research Association, 1993). Despite the growth in ethicalconsumerism, Keynote (2013) studies, which measured seven major supermarkets againstfive green and ethical indicators: environment, animals, people, politics and productsustainability, found that only three of these supermarkets scored higher in 2013 than theyhad in 2011.The growth in ethical consumerism, the significance of ethical issues in the grocery sectorand its’ large share of UK retail expenditure, mean that research in this area is bothnecessary and timely.This literature review seeks to provide the reader with the appropriate background and willcover the issues of: ethical consumer, consumer decision making, grocery product choice,as well as two frameworks which are relevant for the research conducted.2.2 Ethical ConsumerEthics is the study of morality, it attempts to identify which standards are correct and thenreaches conclusions about moral right and wrong, and moral good and evil (Velasquez,2012). Organisations, like consumers, have values and principles which they are guided by.Those underlying preferences are what are here seen as ethics, a universal set of principleswhich, for the purpose of this research, does not mean that every person accepts them, butmost cultures would consider them to be valid (Wood et al, 2006).When considering what to buy, economists tell us that consumers will buy the product whichrepresents the greatest benefit over the cost for the person making the decision, this can bedescribed as ‘traditional purchasing’ (Parkin et al, 2014). However, consumers may basetheir decision on ethical grounds, or the lack of them. ‘Ethical purchasing’ may take place inone of two ways: when a consumer decides to buy from a particular brand or companybased on the ethical nature of said brand or company; or, when a consumer decides not tobuy from a particular brand or company due to the unethical nature of said brand orcompany (Harrison et al, 2005).The ethical consumer seeks to include ethics in his decision-making process. It meansbuying products ethically produced, which are not harmful to the environment or society (TheGuardian, 2001). However, this does not mean that consumers will ignore price and quality,but rather apply some additional criteria in the decision-making process (Harrison et al,2005).82.3 Consumer Decision MakingThe decision making process takes place when a consumer makes a series of choices inorder to buy something, these may involve choices on product, brand, model, item and pricerange, amongst others (Dubois, 2000). The way in which the decision is formulated hasbeen studied extensively by the field of behavioural decision theory (BDT), and the economicview accepts the process known as ‘mental accounting’, which assumes that consumersdecide on the basis of potential gains or losses for themselves. It also states that, in general,people are more sensitive to losses than to gains (Dubois, 2000).However, current research on consumer behaviour proposes that a variety of factors shouldbe considered, not only the purchase as suggested by the early theorists, and therefore acognitive view should be adopted. “No-one buys a product unless they have a problem, aneed, or a want” (Blackwell et al, 2006, pp.70), and in order to best understand exactly howthe decision on which product to buy takes place, the consumer decision process (CDP)model (see appendix 7.1) identifies seven major stages: need recognition, search forinformation, pre-purchase evaluation, purchase, consumption, post consumption evaluationand divestment (Blackwell et al, 2006).This contemporary research offers the notion that consumer behaviour has evolved and nowtakes into consideration a more complete set of premises that may influence the consumerdecision making process when purchase takes place. The Consumer Decision Model iswidely accepted as a clear outline of influences on consumer behaviour (see Figure 1)(Blackwell et al, 2006).9Figure 1 – Consumer Decision Model(Adapted from Blackwell et all, 2006)2.4 Attributes of Grocery Product ChoiceOnce the decision to buy a particular product class is made, the consumer has to thendecide on what specific item or brand to buy. The product must first be a part of theconsumer’s consideration set; this might take place through marketing, previous knowledgeof the brand name or through word of mouth. However, a consumer may also prefer aproduct or brand after purely seeing it inside the store, in which case, a consumer’s decisionmay be made based on packaging, shelf layout, shelf facings, pricing patterns and forcedcomparisons (Khan & McAlister, 1996).The manner in which brands seek to capture consumer’s choice through marketing has beenthe subject of extensive study. For the purpose of this research it is important to understandthe emergent marketing philosophy which is utilised to capture and retain ‘ethical consumers’as they become more aware of the businesses’ ethical commitment to society. Thiscorporate social responsibility (CSR) focused marketing strategy, concerns itself withportraying the marketed company as a reputable and trustworthy organisation, one thatgives something back to society as it does business (Brassington & Pettitt, 2013).10Williams’ et al (2010) research study identified the increased interest on ethical and socialresponsible (ESR) grocery shopping and suggests the distinction between intrinsic ethicalfactors, such as product provenance, and extrinsic ethical factors when consumers choosewhich particular product or brand to buy.2.5 Other ConsiderationsResearch previously conducted on the UK grocery market and its relationship with ethicalconsumers, established that in order to analyse the decisions made by shoppers, it isnecessary to understand the situation specific elements of choice which influence thedecision making process. It offers the notions of a ‘Main Shop’ situation, where a scheduledvisit to a store for planned shopping takes place, and that of a ‘Top-Up Shop’ situation,where consumers will be visiting a store for immediate needs or specific requirements. In anESR context, some consumers may also choose to do their grocery shopping in a smallerindependent store, resorting to bigger branded stores less often. These decisions can beanalysed with the framework presented on appendix 7.2 (Megicks et al, 2008).Carrigan et al (2004) conducted research addressing consumer ethics and the olderconsumer; it evaluated reports which claimed older consumers were more likely to be ethicalconsumers and investigated this claim by conducting focus group interviews. This researchconcluded that consumers in an older age bracket are willing to boycott brands which theybelieve to be unethical. Moreover, research into consumer willingness to pay for products’ethical attributes suggests that consumers are willing to pay more for ethical products, but donot always agree with the products being more expensive (Mai, 2014). It is worth noting atthis point, that according to statistics released by HM Revenue & Customs (2012), themedian income is highest in the age band between 35 and 39 years of age, with those aged65 or over earning substantially less.Carrigan & Attalla’s (2001) research on the ethical consumer suggested a framework withwhich to analyse a consumers’ attitude to ethical purchasing, as seen on appendix 7.3. Itfound that as well as the ‘ethical consumer’ which other studies identified, there is a type ofconsumer that may decide to buy ethically, but only if such choice does not detract from theirvalue and brand choice. This ‘cynical and disinterested’ type of consumer presents achallenge for companies, as the ethical marketing needed to gain this consumer’spreference often has an associated cost.112.6 SummaryDespite the increasing ethical consumerism trend, some large UK supermarkets do notscore higher in green and ethical markers. Consumers may be adopting a ‘traditionalpurchasing’ approach to their decision making process, however there are theoretical viewssupporting ‘ethical purchasing’.This research will look to expand on existing research in order to establish if thesetheoretical views can be seen in practice. In order to do so, the consumer decision makingprocess will be analysed, with the goal to understand if the consumer can be an ‘ethicalconsumer and utilise a cognitive view or if the consumer applies purely an economic view tohis decision making process.Existing research into the decision making process when focusing on grocery productsidentifies the existence of a ‘consideration set’ and the possibility of a product or brand beinga part of it. This means a consumer may identify a product or brand and have both positiveand negative issues on said product or brand which may impact on what is ultimatelypurchased. If these intrinsic and extrinsic ethical factors are considered on the formulation ofthe questions for this research, a more accurate view of how consumer behaviour isinfluenced will be achieved.This research will draw upon Megicks’ et al (2008) framework for analysis of groceryshopping decisions and Carrigan & Attalla’s (2001) framework for analysis of consumerattitudes to ethical purchasing, and will look to provide a snapshot of what is taking place atan empirical level. It will seek to provide an answer to the research question, but also todraw from the data collected in an inductive manner in order to obtain a general conclusion.3 Research Methodology3.1 Research DesignThis research was conducted utilising positivism assumptions, which states that knowledgecan be developed by researching the social reality through the observation of facts(Blumberg et al, 2005).This research has been conducted following quantitative scientific research methods. Forthis purpose surveys were chosen as the instrument, as it allowed for a greater ability toobserve groups rather than an individual in a relatively quick and inexpensive manner(Maylor & Blackmon, 2005).12This research has utilised both inductive and deductive reasoning in a process Dewey (1910)describes as “the double movement of reflective thought”. Existing frameworks have beenutilised in a deductive manner to conduct the research. Once consumers were profiledbased on existing frameworks, this research raised an inductive hypothesis as an attempt todraw out a conclusion on exactly what factors may impact on consumers decision making.In order to find the answer to the research question and subsequent questions which stemfrom the original question, primary research data collection was required. Information whichthis research has collected was based on consumers and their grocery shopping habits andincludes: gender, age group, income group, location and frequency of grocery shopping,decision-making factors on grocery shopping, ethical perception and relevant controlquestions.3.2 Data CollectionFor the purpose of this research, data was collected via surveys, both in person and via web.These surveys were designed in a manner in which the burden on participants wasminimised by being easy to read and offering clear response directions. This method issuitable as it allowed for a short turnaround of results, it allowed for respondents to feelanonymous and it has the ability to be compared with other surveys done over time(Blumberg et al, 2005).It is presumed that rigorous use of proven research methods on large enough samplesprovides information which is representative of the whole (Knight, 2002).For the purposes of this research, nonprobability sampling has taken place, specifically,convenience sampling. It can be defined as obtaining information from people who are mostconveniently available (Zikmund, 2003). For this study, people were approached on thebasis of where they were geographically located, due to resources constraints. The data istherefore limited to those living in London and Lincoln, albeit with some online contributionsfrom others living across the UK.A total of 88 surveys were conducted, with 29 of the participants being male and 59 beingfemale. Further demographic data on participants is available below.This research also incorporates secondary data analysis, as it represents a low resourcemethod of expanding and adding value to primary data, via comparative analysis (Bryman &Bell, 2007).133.3 InstrumentThe survey was comprised of twenty questions, for the most part answerable by tickingboxes, as seen on appendix 7.4.The research seeks to calculate a participant’s ethical awareness and ethical purchasingintention via a point scoring system which allowed for answers of unethical nature topenalise the participant’s overall ethical score.When considering the survey questions and how they measured Ethical Awareness, a pointscoring system was utilised. The purpose of this system was to attribute positive points to arespondent who systematically correctly identified the most ethical answers, whilst allowingfor negative points to be attributed to the participants who failed to do so. The existence ofcertain two-parted questions allowed for Ethical Awareness to be measured in relation tobehaviours stated by the respondents.When considering the survey, and how its questions measured Ethical Purchasing Intention,a similar point scoring system was utilised. It allowed to measure not only how eachrespondent perceived themselves in regards to how ethical or unethical they deemed theirshopping intention to be, but also if any ethical shopping would potentially take place if aparticipant were to be faced with the choice, knowingly or unknowingly.3.4 ValidityGiven that ethics is a very complex and delicate issue, participants are less likely to wish thattheir real ethics be directly measured (Trevino, 1986). In order to better understand theimportance of the point scoring system utilised within this research, it is important to considerthe concept of Validity. It addresses the issue of whether what has been measured is whatwas intended to be measured in the first place (Zikmund, 2003).As this research attempts to quantify the participant’s ethical views, questions were designedto obtain the participant’s actual views on ethics. The instrument utilised was created for thisresearch. It was based on the work of Megicks et al (2008) regarding shopping occasionsand the work of Carrigan & Attalla (2001) regarding ethical consumers.143.5 ReliabilityIn order to better understand the concept of Reliability, the following definition is considered:“When the outcome of the measuring process is reproducible, the measuring instrument isreliable” (Zikmund, 2003, p. 279).When considering the instrument utilised, the key point was measuring ethics withoutvolunteering that fact too obviously to participants. At a first glance, most respondentsattributed the survey as being one solely concerned with shopping decision-making. The keycomponents of ethical behaviour do not become obvious until the final part of the survey, atwhich point participants are still entitled to withdraw from the study, preventing any ethicalissues arising from this.Such a not overly expansive method was necessary, in order to ensure the respondents didnot attempt to portray themselves differently regarding their own ethics. This ensured resultsfree from bias, as well as of a valid and reliable nature. The survey was based on the work ofMegicks et al (2008) and of Carrigan & Attalla (2001), and further research could be done byre-using the same instrument, replicating this study.3.6 Ethical ConsiderationsThere is no conflict of interest between the researcher and the research being conducted, asthere is no brand or company affiliation, nor any subjective stance on the research topic.This study has gained the approval of the Faculty of Business and Law Research Ethics ReviewPanel of London Metropolitan University.Access to the subjects was obtained by approaching people at random on the streets ofLondon and Lincoln and asking them to complete a survey. An online version of the surveywas also created which was shared across the web. The online version included a questionregarding country of residence of the respondent in order to ensure all data utilised wasregarding UK residents.The research has been conducted on volunteers, whose consent was obtained andanonymity preserved. No names or identifying data have been collected.153.7 Demographic CharacteristicsTable 1 – Gender DistributionAs seen on Table 1, the frequency of males versus females shows a greater percentage offemale respondents, with females representing 67% and males 33% of the total respondents.Such a high representation of females in relation to males could possibly be explained by thenature of the topic, as it considers a form of shopping, which could have raised less interestamongst the male population, resulting in a greater agreeability from females to participate inthe study when approached by the researcher. These findings match the underlyingassumption that shopping is a gendered activity, with female:male ratio 2:1, as suggested byDholakia (1999).Table 2 – Age DistributionThe age groups which are represented the most are the 18-25 age group and the 26-40,each accounting for around 40% of the sample. Respondents aged between 41 and 54accounted for around 10%, with the older age groups having a smaller representation. Thiscan be explained by the fact that the data was primarily collected by a researcher who isinserted in one of the younger age group subsets.16Table 3 – Income DistributionIt is possible to see the respondents’ income group distribution, with each of the groupsbetween £0 and £45,000 being well represented. However, there is a small percentage ofrespondents whose income is higher than £45,001. This can be explained by the relativedifficulty in accessing higher income group segments by the researcher, opposed withrelative ease in accessing lower income group segments.4 Data analysis4.1 Data AnalysisIn order to process the data gathered, numerical values were attributed to each answer ofthe respondents. The answers were coded with positive or negative values, depending onwhether the answer had a positive ethical connotation or a negative ethical connotation.The statistical analyses were achieved by utilising Microsoft Excel and its statisticalcapabilities in order to better interpret and analyse quantitative data. For the purpose of thisresearch, it was used to create frequency tables, descriptive statistics and a multitude ofgraphs and charts, as detailed below: Frequency tables were used to determine the number of responses that eachquestion received, which allowed for a better understanding of the empiricaldistribution of variables.Descriptive and basic statistics such as means, medians, and percentages contributed to extracting and summarising information present on the frequencytables. Its main purpose was to enhance the ability to summarise and compareinformation in a precise and concise manner. Graphs and Charts such as bar graphs, scatter graphs and pie charts greatlyenhanced the understanding of the available data, as it allowed for a clear visualrepresentation of the results. In particular, Figure 4 is of great importance, as it allowsfor a direct visual comparison with Carrigan & Attalla’s (2001) framework for analysisof consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing (see appendix 7.3).174.2 Research ResultsWith the aim of better understanding the results of the research, data analysis has beenconducted as stated above. This section will seek to interpret the tables and figures whichare considered relevant in terms of their value or usefulness towards enhancing the ability tointerpret the research results.As seen on appendix 7.4, only around 15% of the respondents were able to fully identify thesupermarkets which score high on ethical indicators. Around 20% of the respondents notonly failed to identify ‘ethical supermarkets’, but actually identified supermarkets that havethe lowest ethical scores as being the ones they perceived to be ethical.Table 4 – Boycotting a brand based on ethicsWhen considering what to buy and ethics, over 70% of participants said they would considerboycotting an unethical brand, whereas less than 30% said they would not, as evidenced onTable 4. However, as seen on Appendix 7.5, when exposed to a widely known brand of cola(Coca-Cola), and asked to decide between that and a relatively unknown brand of cola(Ubuntu Cola) with a clear ethical emphasis, only 24% of the respondents opted for the moreethical choice. Also significant is the fact that nearly 90% of participants in the age group of18-25 said they would consider boycotting a brand based on ethical issues, whereas in theage group of 26-40 45% said they would not, as also seen on Table 4. However, andperhaps surprisingly, the amount the participants would be willing to pay, on average, for anethical version of the same product is around £1.30 regardless of whether they wouldboycott an unethical brand or not, as seen on Appendix 7.6, with the distribution seen onAppendix 7.7, and the average per age group seen on Appendix 7.8.18Figure 2 – Reasons behind shopping decisionsAs seen on Figure 2 and Appendix 7.9, there are a multitude of reasons the respondentshighlighted as being a key factor when deciding where to shop for their groceries. Whenconsidering supermarkets, the participants identified the ability to shop for the majority of thenecessary food items in one shopping trip as the predominant reason for choosing to shopthere. Convenience or the lack thereof is seen as a determinant factor when deciding whereto shop or not shop. Equally, product range or the lack thereof, greatly impacts theparticipant’s decision making. It is perhaps important to highlight that the respondents onlytook ‘price’ into consideration when considering why they would shop less often or not at allin Local Food Shops and Wholefood Shops, with no respondent arguing that ‘price’ played apart when deciding whether to shop at a supermarket or not. Furthermore, as seen onAppendix 7.10, when deciding which shop to buy from, more than half of the respondentsidentified ‘convenience’ as being the deciding factor, with ‘product range’ and ‘price’accounting for the remaining share.19Figure 3 – Frequency of Top-up ShopWhen considering shopping habits and the amount of trips which are made in addition to theidentified main weekly grocery shopping trip, nearly 30% of the respondents have an indexof 2 ‘Top-Up’ shopping trips, meaning anywhere between 2 and 4 additional shopping tripsper week. Roughly another 25% of respondents have an index of 3 ‘Top-Up shopping trips,meaning anywhere between 3 and 6 additional shopping trips per week, as seen on Figure 3.However, Appendix 7.11 allows the reader to understand that there does not seem to be acausal link between frequency of ‘Top-Up’ shopping trips and Ethical Awareness or EthicalPurchasing Intention.20Figure 4 – Ethical Awareness and Ethical Purchasing IntentionAs presented on Appendix 7.12 and particularly on Figure 4, each respondent has beenscored with regard to Ethical Awareness and Ethical Purchasing Intention. It is evidence ofthe existence of four different profiles, as suggested by Carrigan & Attalla’s (2001)framework for analysis of consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing (see appendix 7.3).Furthermore, Appendix 7.13 to Appendix 7.15 exhibit the scoring average for both of theseattributes in regards to Gender, Age Group and Income Group. No clear difference exists inthe scoring between Male and Female respondents, and most of the scores are fairlyhomogenous throughout age and income groups. However, perhaps the most noticeabledifference is the particularly high Ethical Awareness score for the 41-54 age group as well asfor the £33,301-£45,000 income group.21Table 5 – Average of ethical scores per deciding factorAs seen on Table 5, ethical scores in relation to the key factors behind choices consumersmade when deciding which shop to go to demonstrate that participants who identified‘Product Range’ as being their key deciding factor score, on average, slightly higher onEthical Purchasing Intention than those who identified ‘Convenience’ or ‘Price’ as their keyfactor, with the latter scoring the lowest.4.3 Analysis and Relationship with existing researchIn order to provide a clear analysis, it is essential to consider the findings of this paper andhow they relate to existing research.This research has uncovered issues regarding consumer ethical awareness in relation tomajor supermarkets. When only 16% of respondents can successfully identify whichsupermarkets are the ethical leaders, it perhaps should come as no surprise that studieshave shown only three out of seven of the major supermarkets have improved their greenand ethical indicators (Keynote, 2013). Such information is even more pertinent whenconsidering the fact that any expenditure required to undergo green and ethicaltransformation will be thoroughly scrutinised, as some of the industry’s largest companiesare faced with decreasing profits. Such is the case of Sainsbury’s (Felsted, 2015), whichreported a 1.7% year on year decline in sales, Asda, which reported a 2.6% decrease in likefor like sales (Felsted, 2015), Morrison’s, which reported a 4.89% decrease in revenues (FT,2015), and, above all, Tesco, which reported a £6.4bn annual loss (Felsted & Oakley, 2015).When analysing the participant’s willingness to consider boycotting a brand based on itsethical behaviour, there is clear evidence of other factors being taken into considerationwhen making such a decision at an empirical level. If the choice was to boycott or not toboycott, without having to take other factors into consideration, the vast majority ofrespondents claimed they would. However, as suggested by Harrison et al (2005), oncefactors such as quality or price were taken into consideration, participants did exhibit a22different agreeability rate towards ethicalness. For instance, a known brand of cola (CocaCola) will prevail in most observed cases, despite known health and ethical issues. As forprice, £1.30 is the average price which respondents are willing to pay for an ethical versionof a product which would normally cost £1.00, with only 11% of respondents stating theywere prepared to pay £1.60 or more.Furthermore, this study has allowed for determinant factors on decision making to behighlighted. The participants identified a variety of reasons due to which they would shop ornot shop at a supermarket, local food shop or wholefood shop. Of these, the main trendfocuses on convenience, either due to the location of the shop, or due to their ability to findall required items in the same shop or not. When considering wholefood shops, around 40%of respondents argued that the lack of convenience was the determinant factor in notshopping in one often, if at all.Table 6 – Frequency of visits to local shopsAs seen on Appendix 7.16, roughly 90% of the respondents identified supermarkets as theirmain grocery shopping place. This, however, does not mean participants make no use ofother shopping places as, for instance, only around 20% said they never visit a local shopwhen doing their shopping, as seen on Table 6. These findings concur with existing studieswhich state that only 20.2% of adults shop for groceries once a week, whilst 50% shop forgroceries between 2 and 3 times a week, with as many as 13.9% of adults doing groceryshopping daily (Keynote, 2014). This provides further evidence of the existing decline of theweekly grocery shop (Hope, 2014).23As proposed in chapter 2, the findings drew upon Carrigan & Attalla’s (2001) work in order toclassify the respondents regarding their ethical awareness and ethical purchasing intention.Table 7 – Ethical profiles distributionAs seen on Table 7, 34% of respondents scored high on both of these categories, whilst 19%scored high on Awareness and low on Purchase Intention, and 18% scored low on EthicalAwareness and high on Purchase Intention. Furthermore, 28% scored low on bothcomponents, but it is almost certain that a percentage of participants who scored as high oneither or both of the components, are in fact of the ‘Oblivious’ type but scored higher bychance, as suggested by the author. Figure 4 allows for a clear visual representation of thisinformation.5 Conclusions5.1 Summative Findings and Relationship with LiteratureThis research seeks to discover to what extent ethics influence consumer behaviour andtheir grocery shopping decisions.When taking into consideration Ethical Purchasing Intention, over half of participants showeda strong intention to purchase ethically. There is, then, a strong reason to believe that ethicsdo influence consumer behaviour and their grocery shopping decisions.Despite the indication that ethics do influence consumer decision making, as suggested byBlackwell et al (2006), other premises must also be taken into consideration. Evidencesuggests that a majority of consumers are prepared to boycott a brand for ethical reasons,as long as other premises are not negatively affected. For instance, a consumer may decidenot to boycott a brand, if such action would mean that a problem, a need or a want would gounmet or unresolved. Furthermore, consumers may wish to boycott a brand, but whenconsidering additional criteria, such as price and quality, conclude that such a boycott is notin their best interest. Evidence suggests that consumers are prepared to pay, on average,roughly 30% more for an ethical version of the same product.24When attempting to categorise ethical consumers, there is very little evidence of any causallinks between demographics and ethical awareness or ethical purchasing intention. The 41-54 age group has shown the highest ethical awareness out of every age group, and the£33.301-£45,000 income group has shown the highest ethical awareness out of everyincome group. However, neither of these groups score significantly higher in ethicalpurchasing intention, suggesting that despite being, on average, more aware of ethicalissues, they are not more likely to purchase ethically.Such results challenge those put forward by Carrigan et al (2004), who pinpointed olderconsumers as being more willing to purchase ethically. The fact that Carrigan’s et alresearch was conducted in a qualitative manner, based on interviews, perhaps brings to lightthe issue of social conformity. A theory which suggests that one’s behaviour is in manycases shaped by what is understood that other people do (Burchell et al, 2012). When beinginterviewed directly regarding ethical issues, a participant may be more inclined to ‘conform’to what they believe to be expected of them.When targeting consumers, evidence suggests that ethics play a small role when decidingwhere to shop. Roughly 60% of participants stated that convenience was the determinantfactor in decision making, whereas around 20% stated it was product range, as seen onAppendix 7.10. From a brand perspective, when choosing which retailers will stock theethical products, picking the retailers which are located in the most convenient locations,may play a vital role in ensuring the ethical product is a part of the consideration set of theconsumer, as suggested by Khan and McAlister (1996). If brands which seek to target theHigh Ethical Awareness and High Ethical Purchase Intention consumer are to succeed indoing so, it is paramount that issues such as convenience and price are addressed, as anyattempt made outside the perceived average boundaries may be deemed to have anopportunity cost which is too high, even for the most ethical consumers.This study has analysed Carrigan and Attalla’s (2001) framework for analysis of consumerattitudes to ethical purchasing, reinforcing it by means of empirical quantitative findings. Itprovides further evidence of the existence of four different sets of consumers with regard toethics. It also reinforces the authors’ view on companies and the reason behind their ethicalbehaviour – “Companies should also accept that their ethical behaviour may not necessarilywin them much more than good reputation, but in itself has merit” (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001,p. 16), as despite the efforts by some of the major supermarkets, only a small percentage ofrespondents successfully identified the most ethical ones.255.2 Managerial Implications and Recommendations Consumerswithethicalpurchasingintentionareequallypresentacrossdemographics with no clear emphasis on a gender, age or income groups.Consumers’ ethical awareness and ethical purchasing intention is often onlyconsidered once more important determinant decision making factors have been met(e.g. convenience, quality, and price).Around 45% of consumers have low Ethical Awareness, so any efforts made bybrands towards becoming more ethical may go largely unnoticed.Willingness to boycott a brand based on unethical behaviour does not necessarily mean such a boycott will always take place – in most cases a combination of factorsmust exist: the consumer must be aware of unethical practices, and the opportunitycost must be deemed acceptable.It is important not to condone unethical behaviour, however, the findings of this study seemto direct towards less than ideal ethical recommendations. It seems to be more important fora brand not to be so unethical that its’ behaviour would be more unethical than most.Furthermore, there seems to be very little to gain from being the leading ethical brand in thesector, when such big percentages of decision-making determinant factors are unrelated toethics.There is, arguably, the potential to target consumers through ethical factors, however, for abrand to do so, it must first be convenient, have appropriate quality, and adequate price.With such value propositions, it can be argued, consumers would likely be enticed to buyinto the ethical brand. However, whether such proposition would have any viability in theeconomic sense of a business looking for profit margins, remains to be seen, and could bethe subject for further research.5.3 Limitations and Further ResearchWhen considering the findings of this study, it is important not to expand any attainedconclusions to areas outside the scope in which this research took place. The size of thesample, as well as the demographic distribution are key issues which further emphasise theneed to accept the results with a degree of caution and avoiding any generalisation. Theutilisation of surveys allowed for a better understanding of certain issues, by making use ofpercentages, means and trends. However, due to time constraints, qualitative primary datacollection did not take place. This research could have benefited from it, as any qualitative26data would have allowed for a more in-depth exploration of certain decision making issuesand how they relate with ethics.This study could be repeated at a different point in time and could be utilised to measure anytrends in ethical behaviour of consumers and their decision making when consideringgrocery shopping. Further work could focus on certain demographics, in particular the aboveidentified 41-54 age group and the £33.301-£45,000 income group in order to perhaps to tryand explain why, despite the perceived higher average ethical awareness, no perceivedincrease on ethical purchasing intention exists. Such a study could provide usefulinformation for use in academic research, and also in a business setting.276 Reference ListBirch, S. (2012). How activism forced Nike to change its ethical game . Available:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2012/jul/06/activism-nike. Lastaccessed 20th April 2015.Blackwell, R., Miniard, P. and Engel, J. (2006). Consumer behavior. Mason: Thompson.Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2005). Business Research Methods. 2nd ed.Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.Booth, R. (2006). Activists call Body Shop boycott . Available:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/mar/17/retail.animalrights. Last accessed 20thApril 2015.Brassington, F. and Pettitt, S. (2013). Essentials of Marketing. 3rd ed. Harlow: PearsonEducation.Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. 2nd ed. New York: OxfordUniversity Press Inc.Burchell, K., Rettie, R., and Patel, K. (2013). Marketing social norms: Social marketing andthe ‘social norm approach’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 12, pp. 1-9.Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter inpurchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing. 18 (7), pp. 560-578.Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. and Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An interpretivestudy of the potential for ethical comsuption within the older market. Journal of ConsumerMarketing. 21 (6), pp. 401-417.Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath. p.79.Dholakia, R. (1999). Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behaviors andmotivations. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 27 (4), pp. 154-165.Dubois, B. (2000). Understanding the Consumer. A European perspective. Harlow: PearsonEducation Limited.Ethical Consumer Research Association (1993). The Ethical consumer guide to everydayshopping. Manchester: ECRA Publishing Ltd.Felsted, A. (2015). Asda chief Andy Clarke warns of more turmoil for supermarkets.Available: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22c99026-b85a-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html. Lastaccessed 20th April 2015.Felsted, A. (2015). Sainsbury third-quarter sales fall 1.7%. Available:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48d5a684-963f-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html. Last accessed20th April 2015.Felsted, A and Oakley, D. (2015). Tesco slides to record £6.4bn annual loss. Available:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba06f878-e8b8-11e4-b7e8-00144feab7de.html. Last accessed20th April 2015.FT. (2015). Equities: WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC. Available:http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=MRW:LSE. Last accessed20th April 2015.28Harrison, R., Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. London: SagePublications.HM Revenue & Customs. (2012). Distribution of median and mean income and tax by agerange and gender. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/distribution-ofmedian-and-mean-income-and-tax-by-age-range-and-gender-2010-to-2011. Last accessed26th Nov 2014.Hope, K. (2014). The death of the weekly supermarket shop. Available:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29442383. Last accessed 21st April 2015.Keynote (2013). Green & Ethical Consumer Market Update 2013. Available:http://www.keynote.co.uk/market-intelligence/view/product/10854/green-%26-ethicalconsumer?highlight=ethical+consumerism&utm_source=kn.reports.search. Last accessed18th Nov 2014.Keynote. (2014). ABC1 Consumer. Available: https://www.keynote.co.uk/marketassessment/lifestyle/abc1-consumer?full_report=true. Last accessed 21st April 2015.Khan, B. and McAlister, L. (1996). Grocery Revolution. The New Focus on the Consumer.United States: Addison-Wesley.Knight, P. (2002). Small-Scale Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd. p.43;Mai, L. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for ethical attributes. Marketing Intelligence &Planning. 32 (6), pp. 706-721.Maylor, H. and Blackmon, K. (2005). Researching Business and Management. London:Palgrave Macmillan.Megicks, P., Memery, J., and Williams, J. (2008). Influences on ethical and sociallyresponsible shopping: evidence from the UK grocery sector. Journal of MarketingManagement. 24 (5-6), pp. 637-659.Office for National Statistics. (2014). Retail sales index categories and their percentageweights in 2013. Available: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rsi/retail-sales/october-2014/rftretail-sales-index-categories-and-their-percentage-weights-in-2013.xls. Last accessed 21stNov 2014.Parkin, M., Powell, M. and Matthews, K. (2014). Economics. Harlow: Pearson Education;Smithers, R. and Mason, R. (2014). Ministers warn UK retailers to do more on human rightsand ethical products. . Available:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/25/government-uk-retailers-ordered-improvehuman-rights. Last accessed 20th April 2015.The Guardian. (2001). Ethical consumerism. Available:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2001/feb/22/ethicalmoney1. Last accessed 18th Nov2014.Trevino, L. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-SituationInteractionist Model. Academy of Management Review. 11 (3), pp. 601-617.Velasquez, M. (2012). Business ethics. Concepts and cases. 7th ed. United States: PearsonEducation.29Williams, J., Memery, J., Megicks, P. and Morrison, M.. (2010). Ethics and socialresponsibility in Australian grocery shopping. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement. 38 (4), pp. 297-316.Wood, D., Logsdon, J., Lewellyn, P. and Davenport, K. (2006). Global business citizenship.A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism. London: M.E.Sharpe.Zikmund, W. (2003). Business research methods. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.307 Appendices7.1 Consumer decision process model(Adapted from Blackwell et all, 2006)7.2 Framework for analysis of grocery shopping decisions(Source: Megicks et al, 2008).317.3 Framework for analysis of consumer attitudes to ethical purchasing(Source: Carrigan & Attalla, 2001)327.4 QuestionnaireEthical Consumer – To what extent do ethics influence consumer behaviour and theirgrocery shopping decisions.You are being invited to take part in a study investigating how ethics influence consumerbehaviour and their grocery shopping decision making. Before you decide whether or not totake part, please take time to read the following information carefully.All information obtained from this questionnaire is confidential and will be used solely forresearch purposes. No personal or identifiable information will be collected from you.If at any time you decide you do not wish to continue to take part in this study, you are freeto withdraw. The responses are all anonymous, but there is the option to leave a memorableword on your questionnaire that allows you to withdraw at a later date. If you wish to do so,please write a memorable word here (optional):_______________________________________________________;This study will require you to fill in a questionnaire; it will take __ minutes to complete andcontains 20 questions in total, most of which are answerable by ticking a box, and theremaining by means of a short answer (one to five words).Should you wish to discuss anything with the researcher before proceeding, please contactthe researcher Filipe Meneses by email (fim0144@londonmet.ac.uk).This study has gained the approval of the Faculty of Business and Law Research EthicsReview Panel (RERP) and any queries you have can be passed to the chair of the EthicsReview Panel on r.bennett@londonmet.ac.uk.Thank you for reading the information sheet and participating in the research study.33GenderMaleAge Group18 – 2555-64Gross Income Group£0 – £14,500£33,301 – £45,000 Rather not sayFrom 1 to 6, How ethical do you consider your shopping to be?1 being not ethical at all, and 6 being extremely ethical.1 2 3 4 5 6Where do you do your weekly grocery shopping?SupermarketHow often do you shop in a supermarket per week?Less than once a week 1 – 2 3-4 NeverWhy ?How often do you shop in a local shop per week?Less than once a week 1 – 2 3-4 NeverWhy ?How often do you shop in a wholefood shop per week?Less than once a week 1 – 2 3-4 NeverWhy ?Consider your average shopping basket, roughly, how many products out of 10 would you say are ethical?Of these supermarkets, which ones do you consider to be ethical?Tesco WaitroseAsda Sainsbury’sWhen having coffee, which coffee shop do you normally go to?Costa Other, Specify:Would you consider boycotting a brand or product based on their unethical behaviour?YesMarks & Spencer LidlCo-Op AldiNoNero Starbucks5+5+Why do you choose to shop there?5+Female Rather not say25-40 41-5465+£14,501 – £21,300 £21,301 – £33,300Please specify which supermarket, local corner shop or wholefood shop:£45,001 – £60,000 £60,001+Local Corner Shop Wholefood Shop34Considering ethical behaviour, assuming a product costs originally £1,how much would you be willing to pay for an ethical version of the same product?(Circle correct value)From each of the following pairing of products, which would you be likely to purchase if given the choice?1 2 3 4 5In a scale from 1 to 6, as a consumer, how much would you say ethics affect your shopping habits ?Not at all – 1 2 3 4 5 6 – A lot357.4 Table of identifying ethical supermarkets7.5 Table of product pairing7.6 Table of average of price willing to pay for ethical version367.7 Figure of the distribution of price willing to pay for ethical version7.8 Table of the average per age group of price willing to pay for ethical version377.9 Table of reasons behind shopping decision making7.10 Table of reasons behind location of weekly shopping7.11 Table of relationship between Top-Up shop frequency and Ethical Scores.387.12 Table of summary statistics of ethical scores.7.13 Table of average ethical scores per gender7.14 Table of average ethical scores per age group397.15 Table of average ethical scores per income group7.16 Table of location of main grocery shopping