1

Ethical Purchasing Behaviour in Retail: Food versus Clothes

Rosemary Aldous Anabela Soares

Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK. ___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract Ethical values and purchasing intentions held by consumers often do not match to their ethical purchasing

behaviour, a concept referred to as the ethical purchasing gap. This research project investigates UK consumers ethical purchasing behaviour in the context of two sectors of the retail industry. Primary quantitative

research has been undertaken through a self-administered web survey amongst a convenience sample, which both supports and adds to the findings of existing literature. The findings suggest UK consumers considered

ethics more when purchasing food compared to when purchasing clothes in the retail industry, whilst highlighting differences in consideration towards country of origin and social and environmental ethical

considerations. Differences in demographics with ethical purchasing were also highlighted, concluding age has an effect with the clothes sector yet gender has no effect at all. The research has added value to existing

literature by evidencing the need for de-generalised and industry specific ethical purchasing theory as well as highlighting the need for informative labelling in the retail industry.

Keywords Ethical Purchasing Gap, Retail Industry, Country of Origin, UK Consumers _________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Global capitalism has meant consumers are distanced from production (Morrell and Jayawardhena, 2010), meaning many consumers are unaware of the ethics and Country of Origin (COO) that is associated with the products they purchase (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2011). The majority of clothes found on the United Kingdom (UK) high street are manufactured in low cost economies, mostly in Asia primarily to reduce labour costs (Huq et al., 2016). However, issues can arise from distant COOs (MarketLine, 2016) including lack of adherence to legislation. The Rana Plaza, a clothing factory in Bangladesh used by Western brands collapsed due to illegal extensions which caused the death of over 1,000 people (Chowdhury, 2017; Jacobs and Singhal, 2017; Slack et al., 2016). Yet problems can also arise closer to home. Products of high street retailers have been found to be made in factories in the UK which do not adhere to minimum wage requirements, including the brands; Boohoo.com, New Look and River Island (Dispatches, 2017). Highlighting that unethical practices can happen anywhere in the world. The retail industry can be defined as businesses that trade goods to the public, including online stores. The retail industry is important to the UK economy, accounting for 5% of GDP (UK Trade & Investment, 2014). The UK retail industry is vast, with a wide range of sectors. The apparel sector had a value of $56.3 billion in 2015 (MarketLine, 2016), whilst food retail had a value of $193 billion in 2014 (MarketLine, 2015). Retailers can face adverse publicity following exposure of the COO of their products and unethical practices. Publicity of unethical practices helps to identify other significant problems in supply chains, helping to raise consumer awareness. 76% of consumers feel businesses need to be more transparent in the information they provide about working conditions and wages at factories where they manufacture in (Global Poverty Project, 2013). Social failures are becoming increasingly important to stakeholders, especially in global outsourcing, where the well-being of society can be adversely affected (Huq et al., 2016).

2

Major retailers are facing increasing pressure to work ethically (Davies and Gutsche, 2016), although much of the action is only concerned with regulations and mandatory supplier auditing (Huq et al., 2016). Although there is pressure for firms to act ethically and adverse publicity for those who do not, consumers’ ethical concerns do not always directly translate to purchasing behaviour. In 2005, 30% of UK consumers stated they would purchase ethically, yet only 3% proceeded to do so (Futerra Sustainability Communications Ltd, 2005). Research Aim and Objectives This study aims to better understand UK consumers’ ethical purchasing decisions, through comparing consumers’ purchasing behaviour across two sectors of the retail industry, specifically clothing and food. This aim will be achieved through the following specific objectives; 1. to understand if UK consumers have differing ethical purchasing considerations for different products in the

retail industry 2. to examine if UK consumers’ consideration of COO varies between different retail products 3. to understand if UK consumers’ ethical purchasing decisions in retail vary with demographics A thorough literature review will be undertaken, which will later aid the development of the research hypothesis. The following structure will optimise findings from the research; research methodology, results and findings, discussion and conclusion. Literature Review The literature review will cover a range of key topics to allow for a theoretical overview. The literature will be categorised into; (1) Purchasing Intentions and Behaviour, (2) Ethical Purchasing and Fair-trade Purchasing, and (3) COO and Purchasing Intention. The review will lead to the identification of the research question. Purchasing Intentions and Behaviour Many behavioural theories have been developed to explain purchasing intentions and behaviour, yet many are seminal. Lye et al., (2005) suggested consumers’ decision making process is becoming increasingly complex, with seminal research not encompassing all information nor covering different contexts. Overall, the literature can be categorised into cognitive and social behaviour (O’Keefe, 2002; Bartels and Johnson, 2015; Teng and Laroche, 2007), this review will examine both types of behaviour. Key seminal theories include that put forward by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975), who stated that an intention will not always perfectly result in the action. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) went on to define determinants of purchasing intention, firstly as personal in nature, terming this as ‘attitude towards the behaviour’ and secondly as reflecting social influence, terming this ‘subjective norm’ (p.6). Ajzen and Fishbeins’ (1980) research led to the development of the Theory of Reasoned Action, which can be applied as a framework (Warshaw and Davis, 1985). This argues that intentions lead directly to behaviour with the exception of unprecedented events. External variables can influence behaviour, but only if the relationship is relevant. Critically however intentions can change over time (Ajzen and Fishbeins, 1980). Ajzen (1991) developed the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which suggests that intentions include motivation, which consequently impact behaviour. Intentions are affected by behavioural control, affecting behavioural achievement, in this case purchasing. Yet to criticise the theory, behaviour is also impacted by resource and opportunity availability (Ajzen 1991). Warshaw (1980) also proposed a theory to understand purchasing intentions, arguing that intentions are a result of motivation and capability. Warshaw and Davis (1985) went on to state that behavioural expectation is a more accurate predictor of behaviour than behavioural intention, due to the influence of unreasoned and goal-type behaviours. Warshaw and Davis (1985) also stated that individuals will expect their intentions to change over time.

3

Statt (1997) concluded that buying behaviour is significantly impacted by personality, in which a standard definition of personality is elusive. Statt argues that; ability, opportunity and motivation combine to equate to buying behaviour. It was concluded that incentives to purchase are derived from needs, which will result in the type of purchase behaviour. The study asserts that price affects the consumer’s decision making process, and that consumers respond to promotional pricing. Maslow’s (1970) Hierarchy of Needs theory states that highly ranked needs will outweigh those less important even if they are not fully satisfied. This could be applied to consumers choosing needs of another purchasing cue such as price over ethical factors. Maslow (1970) defined motivation as a combination of physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualisation needs. Although purchasing intentions can be explained through needs (Maslow, 1970), Shields (1992) maintains that there are autonomous consumers who maintain private subjective needs, which have come into existence through the rise of capitalism. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1984) argues that with low elaboration likelihood, where consumers are unable to engage in relevant thought, there is ease of acceptance or rejection of persuasive cues. With high elaboration likelihood, the consumer has high levels of motivation, with the ability to engage in thought. Relevance to the consumer can impact the persuasiveness of a subject. Petty et al., (1983) stated that of all attitude change research, theories to persuasion take the central or peripheral route. The central route postulates that the individual undertakes attitudinal change due to the individual’s consideration of information. The central route allows for cognitive justification. Whilst the peripheral route states that attitude changes that occur are not due to the individual’s consideration but due to cues that are either positive or negative. The peripheral route means an individual’s attitude can be influenced by cues, such as an expert’s opinion. Consumers can also be affected by secondary cues, such as unpleasant images of a country. The consideration of information plays a key role in the purchasing process. Similarly, information availability plays an important role in the consumer decision making process. Schwartz (2004) developed the paradox of choice, whereby as the options to purchase increase, so does the effort required to make the right decision. Due to this, anecdotal consumer reviews are becoming a significant influence in the consumers’ decision process. Cognitive Response Theory developed by Petty et al., (1981) states that a cognitive response is a ‘unit of information pertaining to an object or issue that is the result of cognitive processing’ (p.37). Breckler and Wiggins (1991) stated that there is both affective and evaluative determinants to cognitive responses in persuasion. The study argues that ‘each attitude component may contribute in unique ways to the production of cognitive responses’ (p.181). Ethical and Fair-trade Purchasing Ethical consumption can be defined as purchasing related to the consumer’s level of responsibility towards society (Langen, 2011; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005), with the number of conscious consumers increasing in affluent Western economies (Andorfer and Liebe, 2015). Harrison et al., (2005) noted that the ethical consumer can be either product or company oriented, whilst boycotting unethical firms, positive buying from ethical firms, fully screening, relationship purchasing or consuming sustainably. Ethically minded consumers can have concerns over a wide range of issues including; ‘environmental/green issues, sustainability concerns, workers’ rights, country of origin, arms trade, fair trade and animal welfare’ (Carrington et al., 2010, p.140). However, it has been found many ethically minded consumers rarely purchase ethical products (Carrington et al., 2010). Within ethical consumption, neutralisation can occur in different ways through the denial of; responsibility, injury and victim, condemning the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes and Matza, 1957). Vitell and Grove (1987) found neutralisation can be used to justify unethical actions.

4

Ethical and fair-trade purchasing are closely related, as ethical consumption encompasses issues relating to; fair-trade, organic, working conditions and use of natural resources (Bray et al., 2011). Fair-trades’ internationally accepted definition is from FINE (Association of International Fair-Trade Networks), as having trading partnership with suppliers, in which the relationship is transparent and there is equity in international trade (Jones and Williams, 2012; Pedregal and Toulouse, 2011). Littrell and Dickson (1999) found that fair-trade provides empowerment and an improved quality of life. Although identifying ethical and fair-trade products can be complex for consumers, Jones and Williams (2012) found that certification for the apparel industry is only at the stage of conception. Whilst organic and fair-trade labelling is a common occurrence in the food industry (Langen, 2011). Little theoretical attention has been paid to ethical considerations in purchasing behaviour (Bray et al., 2011). A general theory of marketing ethics developed by Hunt and Vitell (1986), suggests that exogenous variables affect the consumer and consequences of behaviour are turned into knowledge. Norris and Gifford (1988) stated that the consumers of the 1980’s had a materialistic view of consumption which led to a lack of appreciation of the value of products. Ethical purchasing gaps have been identified amongst consumers whereby the ethical values and purchasing intentions held by the consumer do not match their purchasing behaviour (Nicholls and Lee, 2006; Davies et al., 2012); Shaw et al., 2016). Davies et al., (2012) suggest the ethical purchasing gaps can be categorised, namely; empirical and cognitive. Nicholls and Lee (2006) suggest the ethical purchasing gap needs to be bridged, with the need for fair-trade brands to have a stronger identity whilst also providing information about the product. The study explored the attitudinal responses of children towards fair-trade products, concluding fair-trade products need to be powerfully branded with product knowledge being integral to the structure of the branding. Other demographics have been researched in relation to ethical purchasing, Morrell and Jayawardhena (2010) suggest that females are more likely to purchase fair-trade products. Carrington et al., (2014) established factors affecting the ethical intention gap were; ‘(1) prioritization of ethical concerns; (2) formation of plans/habits; (3) willingness to commit and sacrifice; and (4) modes of shopping behavior’ (p.2759). However, although consumers are becoming more sophisticated, behaviour is not always seen to correlate to the purchasing of ethical brands or the abandonment of unethical brands (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Joergens, 2006). Yet Carrigan and De Pelsmacker conclude there is a business opportunity available in providing products that are ethically conscious and which equally provide value. Shaw et al., (2016) noted there is a lack of consensus over the factors that contribute to the reasons for an ethical purchasing gap, yet suggest that income and wealth is a constraint when purchasing products that match ethical values. However, Bray et al., (2011) concluded the reasons for lack of ethical consumption include; price sensitivity, personal experience, ethical obligation, lack of information, quality perception, inertia in purchasing behaviour, cynicism towards retailers and retrospective guilt. The gap can be partly explained through religion, as Shaw et al., (2016) found that certain products are consumed at certain times due to principle, for example meat. There are increasing indicators of a move towards ethical consumption, Freestone and Goldrick (2008) found that motivation for ethical consumption is linked to the level of ethical awareness that the consumer has, as well as concern and action for ethics. Davies and Gutsche (2016) suggest that mainstream consumers with low ethics and involvement frequently purchase ethical products due to the motives of; health and well-being, habit, social guilt and self-satisfaction. Yet Langen (2011) found that 27% of ethical consumption is a replacement for ethical behaviour including charitable donations. Ethical purchasing has been researched in several industries, there is a focus on the retail industry with some literature focusing on food products, and in particular on coffee (Andorfer and Liebe, 2015; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). A study conducted by De Pelsmacker et al., (2005) researched fair-trade coffee consumption with Belgian consumers, which found on average consumers were willing to pay an additional 10%, with 10% of respondents being willing to pay an additional 27%. Yet for the fashion industry, ethical beliefs around fashion are based on

5

the perception the consumer holds of the retailer within the industry. The perception the consumer holds influences their support and the importance they place on how socially and environmentally responsible the business should be (Shen et al., 2012). COO and Purchasing Intentions As previously defined, ethical consumption means consumers have a higher level of responsibility towards society in their purchasing. For consumers to take responsibility for their purchasing, there needs to be an understanding of where and how their products are made. Tan and Farley (1987) state that out of consumer behaviour research, the product’s COO is one of the most internationally researched topics. Davies and Gutsche (2016) use COO as an indication of mainstream ethical consumption, whilst ethically minded consumers also have concerns over the COO (Carrington et al., 2010). COO is not something consumers would typically have involvement with in the apparel industry (O’Cass, 2000). Previous research studies have referred to country of; the brand (CBO), design (COD), manufacture (COM) (Ashill and Sinha, 2004) and image (COI) (Diamantopoulos et al., 2011; Li et al., 2009). Al-Sulaiti and Baker (1998) agree upon COO as the country in which the product was manufactured or where the majority of the product was assembled. This study will refer to COO as the country in which the product was substantially manufactured (Liefeld, 2004), often referred to as “made in” (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995). It is becoming increasingly difficult for retail firms to trace their supply chains completely and to identify to consumers the COO of all components in a globalised economy, where materials are sourced from multiple countries (Al-Sulaiti and Baker, 1998). This can make ethical consumption difficult for consumers. Businesses are beginning to increasingly take notice and hone in on the locations that consumers desire (Tate et al., 2014). A substantial quantity of literature has examined the relationship between purchase intentions and COO (Piron, 2000; Cai et al., 2004; Godey et al., 2012; Javed and Hasnu, 2013; Ghalandari, and Norouzi, 2012). The literature is in some cases is divided as to whether COO affects purchasing intentions. Early studies, such as Obermiller and Spangenberg (1989) stated no conclusions can be made about the persuasiveness or validity of the effect of a COO label. Ohmae (1989) asserts that consumers do not worry themselves over the manufacturing location of the product, whilst consumers’ main concerns are for ‘quality, price, design, value, and appeal’ (p.144). Ohmae exemplifies Reebok; with its British branding, American ownership and COO in Korea. Whilst, Ghalandari and Norouzi (2012) investigated how product knowledge affects the extent of purchasing intentions and the COO effect. The study found that individuals who have low product knowledge, have a greater willingness to purchase products based on COO, compared to those with high product knowledge. Some literature opposes the strength of the relationship between purchase intentions and COO. Ashill and Sinha (2004) concluded that brand loyalty is three times as important to the consumer as COO is. Erickson et al., (1984) also opposes the relationship by stating that COO is not seen to affect attitude. Yet Godey et al., (2012), established a relationship between COO and purchase intention and noted the difference for luxury products. Godey et al., (2012) found that COO is the 5th most important factor influencing the purchasing decision for luxury goods, whilst it is 6th for non-luxury goods. Some authors evidence COO affecting purchasing intentions. Peterson and Jolibert (1995) found that purchase intentions are affected by COO. Despite this their meta-analysis concluded that quality and reliability have a greater effect on purchase intentions than COO does. Papadopoulos and Heslop (1993) conclude that COO can aid the consumer in its evaluations, with certain countries having high quality products associated them with such as Germany, and consumers’ using their understanding of the products COO to ‘reinforce, create, and bias initial perceptions of products’ (p.78). Whilst the consumer may use their understanding, they may also make assumptions about the products COO which leads to the consumer not enquiring nor requesting information. Zara is a Spanish fast fashion retailer, and whilst some garments are still manufactured in Spain, consumers may assume all are made in Europe. Unlike reality where 33.74% of Zara’s parent company (Inditex) factories were in Asia in

6

2014 (Inditex, 2014). In contradiction, Hong and Wyer (1989) established that subject interest is created and stimulated through the COO of the product, as opposed to the consumer ignoring the COO. It was concluded the subject interest causes extensive cognition towards information of the product, however that this cognition was not proved to relate to behaviour. Later studies, such as that by Kalicharan (2014) analysed the effect and influence of COO on consumers’ perception of product quality and purchasing intentions, finding that COO does matter for products which are for status or are image orientated, or for ethnocentric consumers. A small amount of literature analyses the COO effect with purchasing intentions with specific countries. Sharma (2011) explored the difference COO has on behavioural intentions between developed and developing countries, finding that consumers in developing economies have favourable behavioural intentions to products with COO in developed economies. Liefeld (2004) investigated American and Canadian consumers after paying for a product, concluding that 93% of consumers were unaware of the COO of the product they had just purchased. Amatulli and Guido (2011) research examined the determinants of purchasing intention in the Italian market for luxury fashion products, yet COO was not found as a determinant of purchasing intention in any way. Research has also explored hostility towards certain COO and how COO does not influence purchasing intentions. Amine (2008) studied anti-Americanism and Francophobia, Amine concluded American Francophobia is greater than French animosity for Americans, yet the findings revealed American consumers do not hold negative views of French products. Demonstrating that although there can be national hostility, it does not necessarily affect consumers purchasing. Research Question Through reviewing the literature, it was found a gap exists in research focusing on ethical purchasing decisions of UK consumers by focusing on specific sectors within the retail industry. The literature is relatively extensive; however, the majority is either seminal or not specific. The literature explores ethical purchasing, nevertheless it is mostly generalised and much of the literature does not focus on specific industry sectors. This provides a need for the following research question in order to fulfil the research gap; How do UK consumers’ ethical purchasing decisions vary between products in the retail industry? The research hopes to test the following hypotheses; H1: The ethical considerations taken when purchasing food are greater compared to when purchasing clothes

H1a: Consumers consider the COO to a greater extent when purchasing food compared to purchasing clothes H1b: Social ethical considerations are greater than environmental considerations when purchasing in the retail industry

H2: In the UK retail industry, ethical purchasing considerations become greater with age H3: In the UK retail industry, ethical purchasing considerations are greater in females Research Methodology Measuring Ethical Consumption A wide range of methodology has been used to conduct research in the field of ethical consumption. Some research, including that by Davies and Gutsche (2016) employed a soft laddered interview, as well as Shaw et al., (2016) who employed an interview approach. Bray et al., (2010) considered ethical consumption through a focus group as the research was exploratory with no particular product focus. Nicholls and Lee (2006) also used a focus group, with the reasoning being that the respondents were children. Yet with COO, Peterson and Jolibert (1995) state that it is potentially context-dependent. As empirical research on ethical purchasing is minimal, interpretive research can be the most appropriate approach (Nicholls and Lee, 2006). The majority of ethical purchasing behaviour studies have been through surveys (Auger and Devinney, 2007). In understanding differences in ethical retail, Norris and Gifford (1998) employed a mail

7

survey with a random sample. For a survey, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) state that it should include; the action, a target class and point in time. De Pelsmacker et al., (2005) also used a survey, in which they assessed consumers’ willingness to pay for a fair-trade retail product. Morrell and Jayawardhena (2010) also used a survey for ethical consumption, which was dispersed amongst a convenience sample. Philosophical Position A positivist philosophical approach was taken to the research. A positivist approach allowed data collection of an observable reality, whilst looking for relationships in data. Existing literature has been critiqued to allow the creation of hypotheses, which were tested. The findings from the research were quantifiable (Saunders et al., 2012). Research Design The research was designed to meet the research aim and to answer the question posed, therefore forming part of a formal study. This study has an ex-post facto design as the researcher did not have control over the variables and the research was reporting on what has been found. The purpose of this study is description-explanatory, as the research was concerned with establishing a relationship between UK consumers ethical purchasing decisions in relation to different retail products. The research was both primary and quantitative. The timing of this study was cross-sectional, as the findings were for a single point in time. The topical scope was statistical, as this study made inferences from a sample about a population. This study was held in the field setting, as opposed to stimulatory. This study required the participant’s perceptual awareness to be actual routine and not modified (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). Amongst data collection, it is found critical to not allow social desirability bias to influence respondents (Bray et al., 2010; Shaw et al., 2016). The research had been designed to minimise the adverse effects of social desirability bias, whereby respondents can feel compelled to provide the answer to a question that they believe is socially acceptable rather than expressing their own views. Biases can also arise from decontextualisation (Shaw et al., 2016). A preamble was used to help the respondent, and to avoid socially desirable responses. The research aimed to prevent both biases. Questions were phrased and positioned consistently across product types, with the same response options to ensure the formatting did not provide bias (Harrison et al., 2005). Peterson and Jolibert (1995) state that the size of the COO effect is not influenced by the research design that is implemented. Data Collection Instrument The data was collected through a self-administered web survey (Appendix 1). The survey was created and administered through anonymous links from Qualtrics (2016). The survey was dispersed on the internet through the researcher’s network via email and social media, minimising research costs. This allowed; a short turnaround of results, for participants to feel anonymous and at no capital cost to the researcher. The consumer survey will allow the research objectives previously listed to be met through directly asking consumers. Throughout the survey, questions were designed to gain three types of data; attributes, behaviour and opinion. The questions were closed to allow quantitative analysis, apart from having an ‘other’ on categorical questions so that data was not excluded (Saunders et al., 2012). The survey asked for the consumer’s age as well as the gender by which they identified themselves, and their geographic location, to potentially identify relationships. The UK geographic regions were taken from the European Union Commission Regulation Nomenclature of Territorial Units (NUTS) Classification (Eurostat, 2017). Sample

8

Convenience sampling was employed, whereby the researcher selected the subset of the population based on ease of access and selection (Groebner et al., 2008). Papadopoulos and Heslop (1993) state that convenience sampling is not a weakness in methodology for COO effects, as the correlation between variables will still be accurate when applied to a larger population. To understand UK consumers ethical purchasing decisions, a large sample size is required, in which a survey is more effective than an interview or focus group. The internet mediated consumer survey also allows access to a larger sample size which is geographically dispersed (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). The research has drawn conclusions about the population from the sample (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). Respondents were UK consumers only, and if answered that they do not live in the UK, the respondent was taken to the end of the survey. The sample size was sufficiently large enough to allow the research question to be addressed (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Although the research used a convenience sample, the aim was to gain an even demographic spread for significant statistical analysis. There was a response target of 75 or greater fully completed surveys (Saunders et al., 2012), with an expected response rate of 10% or less (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Pilot testing Pilot testing was used to detect any weaknesses in the research or survey design, with twenty-five respondents. The pilot survey was also shared with peers to gain feedback on whether the survey was; misleading, ambiguous or poorly worded (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). Feedback from the pilot survey enabled the researcher to adapt some survey questions to be more user-friendly. Research ethics Ethical issues arising specifically with internet-mediated surveys are; scope for deception, the right to withdraw and management of data (Saunders et al., 2012). Deception will not be used in any way to improve response rates (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). The completed data remained within the researchers private account provided by the University of Plymouth, avoiding ethical issues with the privacy of data storage and processing of data. Respondents also have the ethical right to quality research, which has been considered throughout the research. The right to withdraw remained available to respondents until the deadline stated, as if not this could jeopardise the research validity (Saunders et al., 2012). The key ethical issues associated with business research are with respondent anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent (Collis and Hussey, 2009; Farrimond, 2013). These issues have been addressed before the respondent begins the survey. The survey introduction which clearly stated the; reasons, topic and purpose for the research, duration of the survey and privacy and anonymity of answers provided. Following which, the respondent was asked to confirm if they still wish to continue. If respondents chose not to participate, they were taken to the end of the survey, allowing respondents to make an autonomous decision without pressure to participate. Participants were fully informed about the use of the data and were allowed to freely give consent (Saunders et al., 2012). Data analysis techniques The use of Qualtrics (2016) enabled ease of access to the raw data, which was downloaded into Excel to allow statistical analysis using a data analysis add in. The questions were designed to provide quantitative data, through the use of Likert scales for levels of agreement (Table 1) and frequency (Table 2) as well as categorical data (Saunders et al., 2012). Within the results an average mean of 1 signifies respondents strongly agree they consider ethics when purchasing, and with frequency this signifies they purchase ethically every time they shop. All statistics undertaken were tested for significance with a p value of less than 0.05 (Groebner et al., 2008).

Strongly Agree 1 Agree 2

9

Somewhat Agree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Somewhat Disagree 5 Disagree 6 Strongly Disagree 7

Table 1: Likert Scale used for Level of Agreement Table 2: Likert Scale used for Frequency Results and Findings The following section of this study analyses the data collected through the self-administered web survey (Saunders et al., 2016). The number of respondents totalled 237, however 2 responses were completed outside of the UK and 29 were incomplete, and so were disqualified. This equated to 206 valid and complete responses (Table 3). Figure 1 illustrates the age and gender of respondents. Figure 2 illustrates the geographical dispersal of respondents, the greatest number of respondents lived in the South West (88).

Response Target 150 Original Responses 237 Outside of UK (disqualified) 2 Incomplete (disqualified) 29 Response rate 86.92% Total valid responses 206

Table 3: Number of Respondents

Every Time 1 Usually (In about 90% of the chances when I could have) 2 Frequently (In about 70% of the chances when I could have) 3 Sometimes (In about 50% of the chances when I could have) 4 Occasionally (In about 30% of the chances when I could have) 5 Rarely (Less than 10% of the chances when I could have) 6 Never 7

10

Figure 1: The Age and Gender of Participants (N=206)

Figure 2: The Geographical Dispersal of UK Respondents (N=206) UK Consumers Ethical Purchasing Considerations for Different Products in the Retail Industry and UK Consumer’s Consideration of COO Hypotheses H1, H1a and H1b sought to explore differences in UK consumers’ ethical purchasing considerations between the food and clothing retail sectors, through assessing the; ethical purchasing gap, consideration of COO and differences between social and environmental considerations. A T-Test for two samples assuming equal variances was conducted to compare the ethical considerations taken when purchasing food and clothes in the retail industry (N=206) (Table 4). There were statistically significant different results for food (M=3.49) and clothes (M=3.83); t=-2.34, p=0.99 x 10-2.

Food: Ethical consideration

Clothes: Ethical consideration

Mean 3.49 3.83 Variance 2.02661615 2.577504144 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 2.302060147 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat -2.337897977 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.009936337 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.019872674 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

Table 4: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for H1, Testing UK Consumers Ethical Considerations when Purchasing Food Against When Purchasing Clothes

11

To understand if ethical considerations were linked to ethical purchasing, the ethical purchasing gap was analysed. A T-Test for two samples assuming equal variances was conducted to compare ethical purchasing considerations to the frequency of purchasing ethically, with both food and clothes (N=206). For the Food sector, there were statistically significant different results for considerations (M=3.49), compared to frequency of purchasing (M=4.80); t=-10.02, p=1.42 x 10-21(Table 5). There was an ethical purchasing gap of 1.32. For the clothes sector, there were statistically significant different results for considerations (M=3.83), compared to frequency of purchasing (M=5.19); t=-9.69, p=1.95 x 10-20 (Table 6). There was an ethical purchasing gap of 1.35.

Food: Ethical Consideration

Food: Ethical Frequency

Mean 3.49 4.80 Variance 2.02661615 1.526047833 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 1.776331991 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat -10.017483 P(T<=t) one-tail 1.41565E-21 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 2.83E-21 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

Table 5: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for the Ethical Purchasing Gap in Food, Testing Ethical Considerations of UK Consumers When Purchasing Food Against the Frequency Consumers Purchase Ethical Food

Clothes: Ethical Consideration

Clothes: Ethical Frequency

Mean 3.83 5.19 Variance 2.577504144 1.474307364 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 2.025905754 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat -9.691696473 P(T<=t) one-tail 1.94773E-20 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 3.89546E-20 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

Table 6: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for the Ethical Purchasing Gap in Clothes, Testing Ethical Considerations of UK Consumers When Purchasing Clothes Against the Frequency Consumers Purchase Ethical Clothes

12

To test H1a a T-Test for two samples assuming equal variances was conducted to compare the consideration taken towards COO when purchasing food and clothes (N=206). There were statistically significant different results for food (M=3.34) and clothes (M=4.04); t=-4.29, p=1.12 x 10-5 (Table 7).

Food: COO Clothes: COO Mean 3.34 4.04 Variance 2.859578499 2.68588681 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 2.772732655 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat -4.290080047 P(T<=t) one-tail 1.11514E-05 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 2.23028E-05 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

Table 7: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for H1a, Testing UK Consumers’ Considerations of COO When Purchasing Food Compared To Clothes To test H1b a T-Test for two samples assuming equal variances was conducted to compare social and environmental considerations when purchasing in the food and clothes sectors. For the food sector, there were statistically significant different results for social (M=3.40), compared to environmental considerations (M=3.16); t=1.73, p=0.04 (Table 8). For the clothes sector, there were statistically significantly different results for social (M=3.60), compared to environmental considerations (M=4.09); t=-3.13, p=0.9 x 10-3 (Table 9).

Food: Social Ethical Considerations

Food: Environmental Ethical Considerations

Mean 3.40 3.16 Variance 2.066137817 2.141605494 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 2.103871655 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat 1.732255492 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.041990068 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.083980135 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

Table 8: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for Food for H1b, Testing UK Consumers Considerations Towards Social Ethical Considerations And Environmental Ethical Considerations When Purchasing Food

13

Table 9: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances Results for Clothes for H1b , Testing UK Consumers Considerations Towards Social Ethical Considerations And Environmental Ethical Considerations When Purchasing Clothes UK Consumers’ Ethical Purchasing Considerations in Relation to Different Demographics Hypotheses H2 and H3 sought to understand if age or gender affected ethical purchasing decisions across the retail industry. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare ethical considerations across various age groups, with no respondents in the category under the age of 18. For the food sector, there was not a statistically significant difference between ethical considerations and different age groups (p=0.24) (Table 10).

Table 10: ANOVA of UK Consumers’ Ethical Considerations Across Age Groups When Purchasing in the Food Industry

Clothes: Social Ethical Considerations

Clothes: Environmental Ethical Considerations

Mean 3.60 4.09 Variance 2.455410845 2.499644802 Observations 206 206 Pooled Variance 2.477527824 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 410 t Stat -3.12998403 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000936603 t Critical one-tail 1.6485786 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001873207 t Critical two-tail 1.96576684

SummaryGroups Count Sum Average Variance

18 - 24 52 191 3.67 2.2625 - 34 27 104 3.85 1.9835 - 44 36 127 3.53 1.8045 - 54 39 132 3.38 2.1955 - 64 31 105 3.39 2.0565 - 74 15 41 2.73 1.5075 or older 6 18 3.00 0.80

ANOVASource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 16.115432 6 2.6859053 1.3384434 0.2416815 2.1443637Within Groups 399.34088 199 2.0067381

Total 415.45631 205

14

For the clothes sector, there was a statistically significant difference between ethical considerations and different age groups (p=0.6 x 10-2) (Table 11). Ages 18-24 (M=4.38) had the lowest ethical considerations, whilst 75 or over had the greatest level of ethical consideration (M=2.67).

Table 11: ANOVA of UK Consumers’ Ethical Considerations Across Age Groups When Purchasing in the Clothes Industry To test H3 a T-Test for two samples assuming equal variances was conducted, gender was compared to ethical considerations in the food and clothes sectors. Respondents only answered to Female (147) or Male (59), with no responses for Prefer Not to Say (0). For the food sector, there were not statistically significant different results between Female (M=3.53) and Male (M=3.37); (p=0.24) (Table 12). The clothes sector also returned results that were not statistically significant different between Female (M=3.79) and Male (M=3.91); (p=0.31) (Table 13). Table 12: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances on Gender of UK Consumers’ Ethical Considerations When Purchasing in the Food Industry

Female Male

Mean 3.53 3.37 Variance 1.922001677 2.306838106

Observations 147 59 Pooled Variance 2.031415956 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 204 t Stat 0.718072648 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.236767019 t Critical one-tail 1.652357326 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.473534039 t Critical two-tail 1.971660889

SummaryGroups Count Sum Average Variance

18 - 24 52 228 4.38 2.9925 - 34 27 118 4.37 2.4035 - 44 36 129 3.58 2.1445 - 54 39 140 3.59 2.6755 - 64 31 112 3.61 2.2565 - 74 15 47 3.13 1.5575 or older 6 16 2.67 0.67

ANOVASource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 45.176958 6 7.529493 3.1008563 0.0063255 2.1443637Within Groups 483.21139 199 2.4281979

Total 528.38835 205

15

Table 13: Two Sample T-Test Assuming Equal Variances on Gender of UK Consumers’ Ethical Considerations When Purchasing in the Clothes Industry Discussion The discussion is shaped around both the objectives of this study and the hypotheses to fulfil the aim. This study will further investigate the; implications for practice and research, limitations and suggestions for future research (Saunders et al., 2016). UK Consumers Ethical Purchasing Considerations for Different Products in the Retail Industry This study suggests that UK consumers take significantly greater ethical considerations when purchasing food compared to clothes (Table 4), which strongly supports H1. The comparison of ethical purchasing behaviour against two sectors in the UK retail industry fills a gap within the literature. The difference in information availability may be a contributing factor as to why greater ethical considerations are taken when purchasing food. The information available to consumers has a significant impact on the decision-making process (Schwartz, 2004). Yet organic and fair-trade labelling is common with food products (Langen, 2011), however fair-trade certification is not established for the clothing sector (Jones and Williams, 2012). Understanding that ethical considerations taken when purchasing food are greater than when purchasing clothes with UK consumers, may help to refocus or direct marketing and information within the retail industry. Another possible contributing factor is mode of shopping, as Carrington et al., (2014) found the mode of shopping behaviour can cause a lack ethical purchasing. The mode of shopping varies between the food and clothing sectors. 21.8% of clothes are purchased online (MarketLine, 2016), whilst 68.8% of food retail is purchased in supermarkets or hypermarkets (MarketLine, 2015). Online retail sales in general have increased by 19.5% year-on-year, accounting for 15.5% of all UK retail spending (ONS, 2017c). This highlights the need to investigate mode of shopping in the context of ethical consumption, in greater detail in the retail industry. Ethical Purchasing Gap This study indicates that there is a significant ethical purchasing gap present amongst UK consumers, as respondents considered ethics more than they purchased ethical products. The disparity was found to be greater when purchasing clothes (Table 6) compared to food (Table 5). The findings of an ethical purchasing gap are in line with Carrington et al., (2014), Nicholls and Lee (2006) and Davies et al., (2012). The findings can be seen to indicate conflict with Ajzen and Fishbeins’ (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action, as the ethical purchasing intentions

Female Male Mean 3.79 3.91 Variance 2.633305377 2.431034483 Observations 147 58 Pooled Variance 2.576510101 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 203 t Stat -0.500919277 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.308485319 t Critical one-tail 1.65239446 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.616970638 t Critical two-tail 1.971718848

16

held by consumers did not lead to purchasing behaviour. However, this is ground for further research. As an ethical purchasing gap has continued to be found, this will affect brands trying to pursue ethical practices as a competitive advantage. Price sensitivity is a key issue preventing ethical purchasing (Bray et al., 2011). The variation in price for food and clothes (ONS, 2017a), is possibly contributing to the difference of ethical purchasing between sectors. This is supported by De Pelsmacker et al., (2005) who found consumers are willing to bridge the ethical purchasing gap with food. For a pound of Arabica fair-trade coffee sold at the minimum price would be $1.40 (Fair Trade, 2017). However, fair-trade clothes are relatively expensive as a t-shirt is estimated to cost the consumer €30.57 to purchase (Fashion Revolution, 2017). Bray et al., (2011) findings of lack of ethical consumption can further be useful to discuss the differences in findings between sectors. A lack of information regarding the characteristics of products can contribute to the ethical purchasing gap. To reduce the ethical purchasing gap, information needs to be provided about the product (Nicholls and Lee, 2006). There is minimal legislation for clothing labelling (European Commission, 2017a), yet transparent relationships are integral to fair-trade (Jones and Williams, 2012; Pedregal and Toulouse, 2011). Ethical purchasing is also affected by inertia of purchasing behaviour (Bray et al., 2011), in which consumers exhibit brand loyalty (Lin et al., 2000) and therefore may avoid ethical brands. UK Consumer’s Consideration of COO This study suggests that UK consumers consider COO significantly more when purchasing food compared to when purchasing clothes (Table 7), this strongly supports H1a. Retailers within the food retail sector may benefit from opting to source produce from countries that consumers take into consideration. Whilst COO also matters for clothing, as fashion can be used for status in which COO is important (Kalicharan, 2014). Global marketers use COO to influence the value consumers place on brands (Agrawal and Kamakura, 1999), meaning consumers may perceive certain COOs guarantee ethical practices such as the UK, however unethical practices have been found in UK factories (Dispatches, 2017). The findings show that overall consumers consider COO when purchasing, in line with findings by Peterson and Jolibert (1995). However, findings from this study are not in line with research by O’Cass (2000) who concluded consumers do not typically have involvement with COO with apparel. Yet consumers have been distanced from production (Morrell and Jayawardhena, 2010), which could vary between products and may affect consumer’s consideration of COO. Product knowledge in the food and clothes sectors vary which is critical as the level of product knowledge held by consumers can affect their desire to purchase based on COO (Ghalandari and Norouzi, 2012). The food retail sector has stringent EU legislation that dictates commodities including; beef, fish and fresh vegetables, must state the COO information (Food Standard Agency, 2008). This allows consumers to have a high level of product knowledge about the food they wish to purchase and to make an informed decision. Yet, there is no similar legislation regarding COO labelling for clothes (European Commission, 2017a), meaning product knowledge will often not be as superior. However, this study suggests consumers consider COO less when purchasing clothes, in which consumers also have low product knowledge, not in line with findings by Ghalandari and Norouzi (2012), who found consumers with low product knowledge, have previously been found to be more willing to purchase based on COO. Further research is required to understand the strength of the relationship between product knowledge and COO in the retail industry with UK consumers. Social and Environmental Considerations This study sought to understand if either social or environmental ethical considerations were more significant to UK consumers. The findings significantly found that environmental considerations are greater than social when purchasing food (Table 8). However, that social considerations are greater than environmental when purchasing

17

clothes (Table 9). This disproves H1b for the purchasing of food, yet strongly supports H1b when purchasing clothes. This supports research by Carrington et al., (2010), establishing ethically minded consumers have concerns over both the environment and social ethical considerations. This study has provided findings to narrow the gap in the literature through providing an understanding that UK consumers place varying levels of importance, on particular ethical considerations. Consumer awareness can impact the ethical considerations that are taken (Bray et al., 2011). Within the food retail sector, people were found to place greater importance on the environment. Within recent years, there has been a rise in popularity of vegan campaigns which consider the environment and animals (ONS, 2017b). Environmental issues in food production are often in the public eye, such as a petition to ban the discarding of unwanted fish from trawlers into the sea which had 870,000 signatures across 195 countries (Fish Fight, 2014), resulting in change of EU law to landing all catch (European Commission, 2017b). UK consumers place greater importance on social ethical considerations in the clothes retail sector. Many ethical issues raised in the public and governmental domain with the clothing sector are social (EU Parliament, 2014). Brands such as Patagonia (2017), place importance and promote fair labour practices of their garments. Stakeholders are placing increasing levels of importance on social failures within society when outsourcing production (Huq et al., 2016). The findings highlight a need to further understand how UK consumers prioritise their ethical considerations in the retail industry, in able to inform ethical marketing strategies. UK consumers’ Ethical Purchasing Decisions vary with Demographics This study found age has a significant effect on ethical considerations when purchasing clothes (Table 11) however, not when purchasing food (p=0.24) (Table 10). As respondents became older in age, their ethical considerations when purchasing clothes increased. Therefore, strongly supporting H2 for the clothes sector but not for the food sector. This study is partly in line with findings by Morrell and Jayawardhena (2010) for the food sector, who found age bears no significant impact, yet other previous studies are not specific to retail sectors. Within the clothes sector, clothing retailers should consider their age target market with ethical garments. The findings further revealed for both sectors, that gender does not affect ethical purchasing considerations (Table 12; Table 13), disproving H3. The results are not in line with Morrell and Jayawardhena (2010), whose study suggests that females are more likely to purchase fair-trade products, however their study was not for a specific retail sector and focuses on fair-trade products alone as opposed to ethical. This study has expanded upon the literature as it is specific to retail sectors, however the literature still lacks consensus with the impact gender has across varying sectors. De-generalised ethical purchasing theory that is not context driven, may prove to provide varying outcomes and therefore provide evidence that aids contradictory advice to practice. Conclusion This study aimed to better understand UK consumers’ ethical purchasing decisions. This aim was achieved through fulfilling the following objectives;

1. to understand if UK consumers have differing ethical purchasing considerations for different products in the retail industry

2. to examine if UK consumer’s consideration of COO varies between different retail products 3. to understand if UK consumers’ ethical purchasing decisions vary with demographics

This study reveals there are significant differences in ethical purchasing considerations in UK consumers in relation to the retail industry with different sectors. Through directly comparing ethical purchasing behaviour in the food and clothes sectors, it was found that the ethical considerations that UK consumers take when purchasing food were greater compared to when purchasing clothes. This study concludes that within the retail industry, UK consumers consider ethics in different ways with different sectors, with consumers’ awareness and information availability playing an important role. This study supported previous research through finding an ethical

18

purchasing gap amongst consumers, in that consumers’ purchasing behaviours do not always match their ethical values and intentions (Davies et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2016; Carrington et al., 2014). There is still lack of consensus over the factors that contribute to an ethical purchasing gap (Shaw et al., 2016). However, this study has developed the concept that ethical purchasing gaps can be different within the same industry with different sectors. This study has sought to explore a specific context within ethical consumerism, whilst applying existing consumer behaviour knowledge. Social and environmental ethical concerns have previously been noted as considerations that ethically minded consumers take (Carrington et al., 2010), yet this study found UK consumers prioritise ethical concerns dependent on the retail sector. COO has been widely cited to affect purchasing intentions (Kalicharan, 2014; Ghalandari and Norouzi, 2012; Parameswaran and Pisharodi, 1994; Peterson and Jolibert, 1995), yet this study’s results provide a focus on a specific context compared to the literature, through finding COO is considered to different extents with different retail sectors. Implications for practice and research This study contributes a scale that can be used to assess and directly compare ethical considerations of two sectors within the retail industry. The scale may also be applicable to other industries. This study further highlights a potential need for de-generalised ethical purchasing behaviour theory, in ensuring future research takes into consideration that sectors within the same industry may have varying results. In practice, more informative labelling could be considered a requirement for consumers in the clothes retail sector, so that labelling includes informative information about the COO as it is not currently legislated. The labelling should also detail if the products they purchase have been manufactured in an ethical way. Retailers’ marketing strategy should consider which ethical considerations to focus on, as with food products it would be advised they focus on the environment and with clothes to focus on social ethical issues for UK consumers. The product mix offered by retailers may also be affected. This study would suggest that clothing retailers should choose to focus ethical clothing ranges to an older target market, as the greater the age, the greater were the ethical considerations. Limitations The findings developed from this study are still conceptual until empirically tested. Time constraints only allowed for a cross-sectional study as opposed to longitudinal, which could have provided varying results. The study was also limited by the researcher not having access to research funding. The study is further limited by the demographics of the respondents, including the unequal distribution of gender across age groups as well as geographical distribution. Social desirability bias was identified as having a potentially adverse effect in the methodology, and the research design tried to avoid the bias however given the nature of the topic, it is possible some social desirability bias may have prevailed. Suggestions for Future Research Future research could seek to expand upon the key objectives within this study, to explore the reasoning behind differences in ethical purchasing behaviour in relation to sectors within the retail industry. Moreover, future research could explore why UK consumers prioritise certain ethical concerns over another. In addition to this, in order to inform UK retailers merchandisers, future research could try to understand if there is a relationship between ethical purchasing considerations and the geographical location of the consumer in order to inform the product mix required within certain stores. Furthermore, to inform retailers sourcing strategies research could investigate what countries consumers take into consideration when purchasing.

19

References Agrawal, J., and Kamakura, W. (1999) ‘Country Of Origin: A Competitive Advantage?’, International Journal of Research

in Marketing, 16(4), pp.255-267.

Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior, USA; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, 1st ed, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Al-Sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J., (1998) ‘Country of Origin Effects: A Literature Review’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(3), pp.150–199.

Amatulli, C., and Guido, G. (2011) ‘Determinants of Purchasing Intention for Fashion Luxury Goods in the Italian Market: A Laddering Approach’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(1), pp.123-136.

Amine, L. (2008) ‘Country-Of-Origin, Animosity and Consumer Response: Marketing Implications of Anti-Americanism and Francophobia’, International Business Review, 17(4), pp. 402-422.

Andorfer, V. and Liebe, U (2015) ‘Do Information, Price, or Morals Influence Ethical Consumption? A Natural Field Experiment and Customer Survey on the Purchase of Fair Trade Coffee’, Social Science Research, 52, 330-350.

Ashill, N. and Sinha, A. (2004) ‘An Exploratory Study into the Impact of Components of Brand Equity and Country of Origin Effects on Purchase Intention’, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 5 (3), pp.27-43

Auger, P. and Devinney, T., (2007) ‘Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions’, Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), pp.361–383.

Balabanis, G., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2011) ‘Gains and Losses from the Misperception of Brand Origin: The Role of Brand Strength and Country-of-Origin Image’, Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), pp.95-116.

Bartels, D. and Johnson, E. (2015) ‘Connecting Cognition and Consumer Choice’, Cognition, 135, pp. 47-51.

Bray, J., Johns, N., and Kilburn, D. (2011) ‘An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption’, Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597-608.

Breckler, S. and Wiggins, E. (1991) ‘Cognitive Responses in Persuasion: Affective and Evaluative Determinants’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), pp.180-200.

Cai, Y., Cude, B., and Swagler, R. (2004) ‘Country-of-Origin Effects on Consumers' Willingness To Buy Foreign Products: An Experiment in Consumer Decision Making’, Consumer Interests Annual, 50, pp.98-105

Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001) ‘The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behaviour?’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), pp.560-578

Carrigan, M. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2009) ‘Will Ethical Consumers Sustain their Values in the Global Credit Crunch?’, International Marketing Review, 26 (6), pp. 674 – 687.

Carrington, M., Neville, B., and Whitwell, G. (2010) ‘Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), pp.139-158.

Carrington, M., Neville, B., and Whitwell, G. (2014) ‘Lost in Translation: Exploring the Ethical Consumer Intention–Behavior Gap’, Journal of Business Research, 67(1), pp.2759-2767.

Chowdhury, R. (2017) ‘Rana Plaza Fieldwork and Academic Anxiety: Some Reflections: Rana Plaza Fieldwork and Academic Anxiety’, Journal of Management Studies, doi:10.1111/joms.12262

20

Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009) Business Research: A Practical Guide For Undergraduate & Postgraduate Students, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian

Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2008) Business Research Methods, 10th Ed, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2014) Business Research Methods, 12th Ed, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Davies, I., and Gutsche, S. (2016) ‘Consumer Motivations for Mainstream “Ethical” Consumption’, European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), pp.1326-1347

De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., and Rayp, G. (2005) ‘Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair‐Trade Coffee’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), pp.363-385.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. and Palihawadana, D. (2011) ‘The Relationship Between Country-Of-Origin Image and Brand Image as Drivers of Purchase Intentions: A Test of Alternative Perspectives’, International Marketing Review, 28(5), pp.508-524

Dispatches (2017) Undercover: Britain’s Cheap Clothes - Channel 4 Dispatches, 27/01/2017, Channel 4, 30 mins. Available at: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0E4565CB (Accessed: 22/02/2017)

Erickson, G., Johansson, J., and Chao, P. (1984) ‘Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects’, Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), pp.694-699.

EU Parliament (2014) ‘Workers' Conditions in the Textile and Clothing Sector: Just an Asian Affair? Issues at Stake After the Rana Plaza Tragedy’, Briefing, Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/140841REV1-Workers-conditions-in-the-textile-and-clothing-sector-just-an-Asian-affair-FINAL.pdf (Accessed on: 08/05/2017)

European Commission (2017a) ‘Textiles and Clothing Legislation’, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion/textiles-clothing/legislation_en (Accessed on: 08/05/2017)

European Commission (2017b) ‘The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)’, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en (Accessed on: 13/05/2017)

Eurostat (2017) ‘NUTS MAPS’, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/nuts-maps-.pdf- (Accessed on: 27/03/2017)

Farrimond, H (2013) Doing Ethical Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fashion Revolution (2017) ‘Fashion Revolution Fanzine #001 Money Fashion Power’, Available at: http://fashionrevolution.org/resources/fanzine/ (Accessed on: 27/02/2017)

Food Standards Agency (2008) ‘Country Of Origin Labelling Guidance’, GOV.UK, Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/originlabellingguid0909.pdf (Accessed on: 08/05/2017)

Freestone, O., and McGoldrick, M. (2008) ‘Motivations of the Ethical Consumer’, Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), pp.445-467.

Futerra Sustainability Communications Ltd (2005) ‘The Rules of the Game: The Principals of Climate Change Communication’. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Ghalandari, K. and Norouzi, A. (2012). ‘The Effect of Country of Origin on Purchase Intention: The Role of Product Knowledge’, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(9) pp. 1166-1171

Global Poverty Project (2013) ‘Time for the High Street to Come Clean, say UK Consumers’. Available at: http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PRESS-RELEASE-STF-APPROVED.pdf (Accessed on: 22/02/2017)

Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Chan, P., Oh,H., Singh, R., Skorobogatykh, I., Tsuchiya, J. and Weitz, B. (2012) ‘Brand and Country-Of-Origin Effect on Consumers' Decision to Purchase Luxury Products’, Journal of Business Research, 65(10), pp.1461-1470.

21

Groebner, D., Shannon, P., Fry, P., and Smith, K. (2008) Business Statistics, 7th Edn, New Jersey: Pearsons Education Inc

Harrison, R., Newholm., and Shaw, D. (2005) The Ethical Consumer, London: Sage Publications Ltd

Hong, S., and Wyer, R. (1989). ‘Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 175-187.

Hunt, S., and Vitell, S. (1986) ‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), pp.5-16.

Huq, F., Chowdhury, I., and Klassen, R. (2016) ‘Social Management Capabilities of Multinational Buying Firms and Their Emerging Market Suppliers: An Exploratory Study of the Clothing Industry’, Journal of Operations Management, 46, pp.19-37.

Inditex (2014) ‘Annual Report 2014’, Available at: https://www.inditex.com/en/investors/investors_relations/annual_report (Accessed on: 16/02/2017)

Jacobs, B. and Singhal, V. (2017) ‘The Effect of the Rana Plaza Disaster on Shareholder Wealth of Retailers: Implications for Sourcing Strategies and Supply Chain Governance’, Journal of Operations Management, pp.1-15

Javed, A. and Hasnu, S. (2013) ‘Impact of Country-of-Origin on Product Purchase Decision’, Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 1, pp.31-51.

Joergens, C. (2006) ‘Ethical Fashion: Myth or Future Trend?’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10 (3), pp. 360 - 371

Jones, A.R.W., and Williams, G. (2012) ‘Perceptions of fair trade labelling and certification: three case studies’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(2), pp.246–265

Kalicharan, H. D. (2014) ‘The Effect And Influence Of Country-Of-Origin On Consumers Perception Of Product Quality And Purchasing Intentions’, International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13(5), pp. 897-902.

Langen, N. (2011) ‘Are Ethical Consumption and Charitable Giving Substitutes or Not? Insights into Consumers’ Coffee Choice’, Food Quality and Preference, 22 (5), pp.412-421

Li, D., Ahn, J., Zhou, R., & Wu, B. (2009) ‘A Study on the Influence of Country Image on Purchase Intention of Chinese Consumers Based on Fishbein’s Model of Reasoned Action: Focused on USA, Germany, Japan and South Korea’, Frontiers of Business Research in China, 3(4), pp.621-646.

Liefeld, J. (2004) ‘Consumer Knowledge and Use of Country‐Of‐Origin Information at the Point of Purchase’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(2), pp.85-87

Lin, C., Wu, W., and Wang, Z. (2000) ‘A Study of Market Structure: Brand Loyalty And Brand Switching Behaviors For Durable Household Appliances’, International Journal of Market Research, 42(3), pp.277-300.

Littrell, M and Dickson, M (1999) Social Responsibility in the Global Market: Fair Trade of Cultural Products, California: Sage Productions Inc

Lye, A., Shao, W. Rundle-Thiele, S. and Fausnaugh, C. (2005) ‘Decision Waves: Consumer Decisions in Today's Complex World’, European Journal of Marketing, 39(1 2), pp.216-230.

MarketLine (2015) ‘United Kingdom - Food Retail’, Available at: http://advantage.marketline.com.plymouth.idm.oclc.org/Product?ptype=Industries&pid=MLIP1714-0054 (Accessed on: 07/05/2017)

MarketLine (2016) ‘Apparel Retail in the United Kingdom’ [Online] Available at: http://advantage.marketline.com.plymouth.idm.oclc.org/Product?ptype=Industries&pid=MLIP2093-0024 (Accessed on: 22/2/2017)

Maslow, A. (1970) Motivation and Personality, 3rd edn. New York: Harper & Row.

22

Morrell, K., and Jayawardhena, C. (2010) ‘Fair trade, Ethical Decision Making and the Narrative of Gender Difference’, Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(4), 393-407.

Nicholls, A., and Lee, N. (2006) ‘Purchase Decision‐Making in Fair Trade and the Ethical Purchase ‘Gap’: Is There a Fair Trade Twix?’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), pp.369-386.

Norris, D., and Gifford, J. (1988) ‘Retail Store Managers' and Students' Perceptions of Ethical Retail Practices: A Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis (1976–1986)’, Journal of Business Ethics, 7(7), 515-524.

O’Cass, A. (2000) ‘An Assessment of Consumers Product, Purchase Decision, Advertising and Consumption Involvement in Fashion Clothing’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(5), pp.545-576.

O’Keefe, D. (2002) Persuasion: Theory and Research, 2nd Ed, California: Sage Publications

Obermiller, C. and Spangenberg, E. (1989) ‘Exploring the Effects of Country of Origin Labels - An Information-Processing Framework’, Advances In Consumer Research, 16(1) pp.454-459.

Office National Statistics (ONS) (2017a) ‘Consumer Price Inflation Basket Of Goods And Services: 2017’, Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukconsumerpriceinflationbasketofgoodsandservices/2017 (Accessed on: 13/05/2017)

Office National Statistics (ONS) (2017b) ‘Non-dairy milk, gin and cycle helmets added to the inflation basket’, Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/nondairymilkginandcyclehelmetsaddedtotheinflationbasket (Accessed on: 13/05/2017)

Office National Statistics (ONS) (2017c) ‘Retail Sales in Great Britain: Mar 2017’, Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/mar2017 (Accessed on: 07/05/2017)

Ohmae, K. (1989) ‘The Global Logic of Strategic Alliances’, Harvard Business Review, 67(2), pp.143-154

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (1993) Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, New York: International Business Press

Patagonia (2017) ‘Corporate Responsibility’, Available at: http://eu.patagonia.com/enGB/patagonia.go?assetid=67373 (Accessed on: 09/05/2017)

Pedregal, V., and Toulouse, N. (2011) ‘Why Does Not Everybody Purchase Fair Trade Products? The Question of the Fairness of Fair Trade Products' Consumption for Consumers’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(6), pp.655.-660

Peterson, R. and Jolibert, A (1995) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Country-Of-Origin Effects’, Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (4), pp.883-900

Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1984) ‘Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion’, Advances in Consumer Research, 11, pp.668-672

Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., and Schumann, D. (1983) ‘Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement’, Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), pp.135-146.

Petty, R., Ostrom, T. and Brock, T. (1981) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Piron, F. (2000) ‘Consumers’ Perceptions of the Country-Of-Origin Effect on Purchasing Intentions of (in)conspicuous Products’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4) pp. 308-321.

Qualtrics (2016) ‘Qualtrics’. Available at: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (Accessed:17/11/2016)

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business Student, 6th ed, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

23

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016) Research Methods for Business Students, 7th ed, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Schwartz, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Sharma, P. (2011) ‘Country Of Origin Effects in Developed and Emerging Markets: Exploring the Contrasting Roles of Materialism and Value Consciousness’, Journal of International Business Studies, 42, pp.285–306

Shaw, D., McMaster, R., and Newholm, T. (2016) ‘Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’, Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), pp.251-265.

Shen, B., Wang, Y., Lo, C,. and Shum, M. (2012) ‘The Impact of Ethical Fashion on Consumer Purchase Behavior’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(2), pp.234-245

Shields, R. (1992) Lifestyle shopping: The Subject of Consumption, 1st ed, London: Routledge.

Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. and Johnston, R. (2016) Operations Management, 8th Edn., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Statt, D. (1997) Understanding the Consumer: A Psychological Approach, London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Sykes, G. and Matza, D. (1957) ‘Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency’, American Sociological Review, 22 (6), pp.664-670.

Tan, C., and Farley, J. (1987) ‘The Impact of Cultural Patterns on Cognition and Intention in Singapore’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 13(4), pp.540-544.

Tate, W., Ellram, L., Schoenherr, T., and Petersen, K. (2014). ‘Global Competitive Conditions Driving the Manufacturing Location Decision’, Business Horizons, 57(3), pp.381-390.

Teng, L. and Laroche, M. (2007) ‘Building and Testing Models of Consumer Purchase Intention in Competitive and Multicultural Environments’, Journal of Business Research, 60(3), pp. 260-268

UK Trade & Investment (2014) ‘UK Retail Industry – International Action Plan’, GOV.UK Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-retail-industry-international-action-plan (Accessed: 22/02/2017)

Vitell, S. and Grove, S. (1987) ‘Marketing Ethics and the Techniques of Neutralization’, Journal of Business Ethics, 6, pp.433-438

Warshaw, P. (1980) ‘A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein’, Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), pp.153-172.

Warshaw, P. and Davis, F. (1985) ‘Disentangling Behavioral Intention and Behavioral Expectation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), pp. 213-228.

World Bank (2015) ‘GDP per capita (current US$)’, World Bank, Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2015&start=2015&view=map (Accessed: 03/12/2016).

24

Bibliography

Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004) 'Domestic Country Bias, Country-of-Origin Effects, and Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Multidimensional Unfolding Approach', Journal of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 32 (1), pp. 80-95

Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982) ‘Country-Of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations’, Journal of International Business Studies, 13 (1), pp.89-99.

Chao, P. (1998) ‘Impact of Country-of-Origin Dimensions on Product Quality and Design Quality Perceptions’, Journal of Business Research, 42(1), pp.1-6.

Davies, I., Lee, A., and Ahonkhai, Z. (2012) ‘Do Consumers Care About Ethical-Luxury?’, Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), pp.37-51.

Eng, T., Ozdemir, S., and Michelson, G. (2016) ‘Brand Origin and Country of Production Congruity: Evidence from the UK and China’, Journal of Business Research, 69(12), pp.703-5711.

Fazio, R. (1990) ‘Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, pp.75-109

Johansson, J., Douglas, S. and Nonaka, I. (1985) ‘Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective’, Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4), pp.388-396.

Kitchen, P., Kerr, G., Schultz, D., McColl, R., Pals, H. (2014) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique and Research Agenda’, European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), pp. 2033-2050

Lee, J.K. and W.N. Lee. (2009) ‘Country-Of-Origin Effects on Consumer Product Evaluation and Purchase Intention: The Role of Objective Versus Subjective Knowledge’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(2), pp. 137-151.

Parameswaran, R. and Pisharodi, R.M. (1994) ‘Facets of Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment’, (Special Issue on International Advertising), Journal of Advertising, 23(1), pp.43-56

Park-Poaps, H., and Rees, K. (2010) ‘Stakeholder Forces of Socially Responsible Supply Chain Management Orientation’, Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), pp.305-322.

Parkvithee, N and Miranda, N. (2012) ‘The Interaction Effect of Country-Of-Origin, Brand Equity and Purchase Involvement on Consumer Purchase Intentions of Clothing Labels’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(1), pp.7-22.

Prendergast, G., Tsang, A. and Chan, C. (2010) ‘The Interactive Influence of Country Of Origin of Brand and Product Involvement on Purchase Intention’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2), pp. 180-188.

Robinson, P., and Hsieh, L. (2016). ‘Reshoring: A Strategic Renewal of Luxury Clothing Supply Chains’, Operations Management Research, 9(3), pp. 89-101.

Wu, J., and Fu, G. (2007) ‘The Effects of Brand Origin Country and Made-in Country on Consumers’ Product Evaluations and Purchase Intention’, Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1(3), pp.333-350.

Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., and Oates, C. (2010) ‘Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products’, Sustainable Development, 18(1), pp.20-31.

25

Appendix Appendix 1: Survey Questions Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The responses to this survey are aiding research investigating ethical purchasing decisions. The aim of the research is to understand if there are differing ethical purchasing behaviours in UK consumers for different products in the retail industry. This research is being conducted for the University of Plymouth Business School. The questionnaire will take approximately 4 minutes to complete. All answers will remain anonymous. The questions in this survey are solely for the purpose of data analysis for the completion of a bachelor’s degree. If you wish to withdraw your response from this survey at any time, please contact rosemary.aldous@students.plymouth.ac.uk Do you wish to continue with the questionnaire? Yes (1) No (2) Q1 Which gender do you identify yourself as; Female (1) Male (2) Prefer Not to Say (3) Q2 Please select your age range Under 18 (1) 18 - 24 (2) 25 - 34 (3) 35 - 44 (4) 45 - 54 (5) 55 - 64 (6) 65 - 74 (7) 75 or older (8) Q3 Please select the region of the UK that you live in; I do not live in the UK (1) North East (2) North West (4) Yorkshire and the Humber (5) East Midlands (6) West Midlands (7) East of England (8) London (9) South East (10) South West (13) Wales (15) Scotland (16) Northern Ireland (17) Isle of; Man, Jersey or Guernsey (18) Other: Please type (14) ____________________ Q4 The following questions are about food.

26

Ethical produce includes products that are; fair-trade, organic, made in good working conditions and have responsible use of natural resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree with; When buying food, I consider if it has been ethically made Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q5 How often do you buy ethically made food? Every Time (1) Usually (In about 90% of the chances when I could have) (2) Frequently (In about 70% of the chances when I could have) (3) Sometimes (In about 50% of the chances when I could have) (4) Occasionally (In about 30% of the chances when I could have) (5) Rarely (Less than 10% of the chances when I could have) (6) Never (7) Q6 To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When purchasing food, I consider ethical practices that directly affect people (e.g. ethical working conditions, fair pay) Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q7 To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When purchasing food, I consider ethical practices that directly affect the environment (e.g. pesticides, treatment of animals) Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q8 Country of origin is the country in which the product was mostly manufactured in, often referred to as “made in”. To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When buying food, I consider the country of origin Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7)

27

Q9 The following questions are about clothes. Ethical produce includes products that are; fair-trade, organic, good working conditions and responsible use of natural resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree with; When buying clothes, I consider if it has been ethically made Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q10 How often do you buy ethically made clothes? Every Time (1) Usually (In about 90% of the chances when I could have) (2) Frequently (In about 70% of the chances when I could have) (3) Sometimes (In about 50% of the chances when I could have) (4) Occasionally (In about 30% of the chances when I could have) (5) Rarely (Less than 10% of the chances when I could have) (6) Never (7) Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When purchasing clothes, I consider ethical practices that directly affect people (e.g. ethical working conditions, sweatshops) Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q12 To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When purchasing clothes, I consider ethical practices that directly affect the environment (e.g. pesticides) Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) Q13 Country of origin is the country in which the product was mostly manufactured in, often referred to as “made in”. To what extent do you agree or disagree with: When buying clothes, I consider the country of origin Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7)