Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study

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

Source: Journal of Business Ethics , September 2012, Vol. 110, No. 1 (September 2012),
pp. 113-131
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41684017

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41684017?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2012) 110:113-131
DOI 10. 1007/sl0551-01 1-1 151-z

Ethical Consumers Among the Millenmals:

A Cross-National Study
Tania Bucic * Jennifer Harris * Denni Arli

Received: 17 March 201 1 /Accepted: 13 December 201 1 /Published online: 8 January 2012
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Using two samples drawn from contrastingSuch marketing efforts can be implemented through four
developed and developing countries, this investigationmain approaches: cause-related marketing (CRM), socially
considers the powerful, unique Millennial consumer groupresponsible business practices, corporate social marketing,
and their engagement in ethical consumerism. Specifically,and corporate cause promotions (Kotier and Lee 2005). All
this study explores the levers that promote their ethical Fortune 500 companies accept the value of integrating
consumption and the potential impact of country of resi-ethical marketing with business practices, according to
dence on cause-related purchase decisions. Three distinct their ongoing expressed commitment to CRM (Hall 2009).
subgroups of ethical consumers emerge among Millenniais,As a highly visible form of ethical marketing, CRM refers
providing insight into their concerns and behaviors. Instead
to profit-motivated giving to support an ethical issue, which
of being conceptualized as a single niche market, Millen- may be one of marketing's most significant contributions to
nial should be treated as a collection of submarkets that society (Varadarajan and Menon 1988).
differ in their levels of awareness of ethical issues, consider On the consumer side, ethical consumerism refers to
discrete motives when making consumption decisions, and choices based on social, nontraditional components of
are willing to engage in cause-related purchasing to vary-
products (Auger et al. 2003) and personal and moral beliefs
ing degrees. These findings have several critical implica- (Carrigan et al. 2004). Research states that ethical con-
tions for theory and practice. sumption is growing (Berry and McEachern 2005), how-
ever, the complexity of ethical consumerism and
Keywords Millennial • Ethical consumption • confounded results in prior studies leave understanding of
Two-country sample • Clusters consumers' actual purchase behaviors toward ethical
products limited. Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) sug-
gest that the complexity of ethical consumer choices
Introduction reflects the complicated process of ethical decision making,
which requires detailed evaluations of personal and social
Ethical marketing relies on consumers caring about ethical
benefits and harms derived from products with ethical
components of products, such that their concern leads to attributes. Studies also show that consumers' attitudes
financial implications for firms (Elliot and Freeman 2001).toward ethical products are not consistent with their buying
behaviors (Bray et al. 2011; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005),
such that "segments of consumers exist where ethical
T. Bucic • J. Harris (El) • D. Arli
School of Marketing, Australian School of Business, University
product attributes are valued however, not only are the
of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia characteristics of such consumers are unclear, we do not
e-mail: Jennifer.harris@unsw.edu.au know who those consumers are" (Auger et al. 2003,
T. Bucic p. 285). Thus, despite the notion of ethical consumers
e-mail: t.bucic@unsw.edu.au evolving over the last two decades some researchers sug-
D. Arli gest that there may be reason to doubt that there even exists
e-mail: denni.arli@unsw.edu.au an "average ethical consumer" (e.g., Auger 2006; Carrigan

<£) Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 114 T. Bucic et al.

and Attala 200

Strauss 2000). Millenniais are also often characterized by
their social, cultural, and environmental
however, is consciousnesstha
studies(Sheahan has
2005), and loyalty to family, friends,
heig communi-
of ethical cons
ties, and self rather than to corporate entities (Hira 2007).
ments,Millenniais are distinctive in terms of their perspectives
particula
rent (Weiss 2003), motivations
and (Kim et al. 2009), decision-
futur
et al. 2004).
making rationales and value drivers (Boyd 2010). They are
In thisabout three times the size of Generation X (Palmer 2008)
study,
McGoldrick's
and though the majority are still studying they have high (
discretionary incomes (Foscht et al. 2009) - more than
motivations of any
ation. other
First,
youth grouping in history (Morton 2002). Accord- w
decision balanc
ingly, Millennial exceed all prior generational expenditure
model, (O'Donnell 2006) and make a large direct contribution to
which t
ethicalthe economy (Jang et al. 201 1). Furthermore, because they
decision
DBS also influence the majority
and SOC of family purchase decisions re
in the theyrelativel
have an even larger indirect economic impact (Morton
ond, 2002; Taylor and Cosenza 2002).
most Millennial are thus
prior
solely recognized
to deve
as the most consumption oriented of all gen-
erations (Sullivan and Heitmeyer 2008). This, along with
Bhattacharya a
studiestheir sheer size at approximately 1.8 billion people
reveal
cultureworldwide (United(e.g.,
Nations 2005), Millenniais account for A
and sufficient purchasing power to have a significant current
consumer p
very and future impact on world economies,
few studie and are accordingly
sons of ethical
the most powerful consumer group in the marketplace
(Farris et al. 2002).
Therefore, we e
ennial Yet,
in Millenniais remainboth
poorly understood in general a
this cross-coun
(e.g., Phillips 2007) and have received little attention from
choices
ethical consumptionamong
researchers (Smith 201 1). Our lack of
understanding
accurate might reflect their seemingly conflicting
interp
cally, we: goals: At times, their principal concern is self-gratification,
whereas at other points, it is social improvement (Boyd
1. Explore the extent to which Millennial consumers
2010). Marketers have narrowly defined this market as a
engage in ethical consumerism.
homogenous group (Geraci 2004), even though Millenniais
2. Determine whether personal or social levers are
are diverse and comprise distinctive consumer segments
stronger motivators for ethical behavior among
that likely require unique forms of marketing planning
Millennial.
(Tuomela 2010) and communications (Geraci 2004).
3. Explore the impact of country of residence on ethical
Consequently, while the motivations that influence Mill-
consumerism among Millenniais.
ennial consumption behaviors are unclear (Noble et al.
2009) marketers' efforts to target this market are likely to
be relatively unproductive.
The Millennial Consumer Group

Theoretical Framework
Millenniais are young consumers, born between approxi-
mately 1985 and 1999 (e.g., Pendergast 2007). Differing
Ethical Decision Making
from previous generations, they are the first to be born into
a world that features international interdependence and
Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) demonstrate that consumers'
global engagement (Pendergast 2007). Accordingly, Mill-
motivational attitudes are a function of their stage of ethical
ennial tend to be receptive to ethical issues (e.g., Smith
201 1), value multiculturalism (Zemke et al. 2000), and awareness,
feel concern, and action; social motivators are stronger
comfortable expressing themselves (Tapscott 1998). levers
The of ethical behavior than are personal ones. Their study
thus provides initial support for the DBS and SOC concepts, as
uniqueness of this generation is shaped by technological
forces (Gorman et al. 2004) which allow networked com-embedded in the cross-disciplinary transtheoretical model of
munication and rapid information exchange (Howe behavior
and change (Prochaska and DiClemente 1984).

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millennial 115

(Schultz 1999). However,

Briefly, this model attempts to gauge Kallgren etandal. (2000)support
suggest
vidual readiness for and progression
that for social through
norms to operate, they first must be promi- a
process. The SOC concept features
nent in the person's fiveother
awareness. In addition, change
research
stages: suggests
precontemplation , that for ethical implies
which decision making, a
personal
lack normsof r
in the period prior to are more significant predictors
developing an of behavior (Th0gersento
intention t
action; contemplation , or
2007). For the
example, period
older consumers when people
express strong senses
an impending change; preparation
of moral responsibility that increases,their
when they
willingness to
become ready for engage and
change in ethicalbegin
purchasing (Carrigan
take et al. 2004).
action, suc
seeing information about and
We note support
that Millennial (e.g., toencoura
appear sympathetic ethical
positive feedback) for issues
their decisions;
(e.g., Gorman et al. 2004), to theaction , whi
degree that they
cates changed will and
behaviors boycott brands that violate environmental or
a commitment to social
stre
ing new actions by norms (BusinessWire
making 2004). Millenniais
appropriate believe they can
choices and
positive about them; make maintenance
and a difference in the world (Lancaster
, or and Stillman
the perio
people focus on the 2002) and that
holistic the big picture is more important
integration of the than cha
their daily life (for more detail,
individual transactions see
(Boyd 2010). TheyProchaska
are active con-
Clemente 1984). Finally, the
tributors DBS well-being
to community construct is
and civic spirit fund
(Howe
for progression through
and Straussthe SOC, they
2000); concurrently, because it
are market savvy, pr
means to identify dichotomous concerns
practical, and financially (e.g.,
conservative, seeking "fair" pri-posi
negative, personal, andcessocial).
and value (Nowak et al. 2006). As a diverse group of
Thus, when making ethical decisions,
young consumers, Millenniais representavarying
consumer
stages in
cates differential the SOC to
weights model,product
though their DBS are unknown. Because it
attributes, de
on his or her SOC and is difficult
DBS to pinpoint
and which levers
these motivate ethicalstruct
weights con-
negotiation between positive
sumption amongand negative
Millenniais, we ask: trade-of
themselves and others (e.g., Janis and Mann 19
RQ2 What are Millennial motivations for making eth-
example, in both public and private sectors, the en
ical purchases, and do these motivations differ by (a) issue
demand for value-for-money (Low and Davenpo
and (b) awareness?
suggests that ethical product attributes cannot
substitute for traditional attributes, such as pr
Country of Residence Impact
quality, which are fundamental to consumer d
making. If consumers believe that ethical attrib
The country of residence - or national culture - influences
being realized at the
expense of price or quality, th
ethical decision making and responses to ethical marketing
product likely provokes a negative response (Bhatt
among both consumers (e.g., Walsh et al. 2010) and
and Sen 2003). Furthermore, if Millenniais perceiv
managers (e.g., Burnaz et al. 2009). Cross-cultural studies
coercion, they are less likely to purchase compared
confirm that significant differences exist in levels of both
other consumers (Henrie and Taylor 2009). Sim
idealism and relativism (Al-Khatib et al. 2005) and the
asking consumers to
purchase large quantities, pay
relationship between perceptions and intentions (e.g.,
or expend greater effort all have negative imp
Oumlil and Balloun 2009). These differences are not lim-
support for CRM campaigns (Folse et al. 2010). The
ited to countries that face unequal economic development;
to gain a better understanding of the extent to
for example, Dubinsky et al. (1991) show that salespeople
Millennial engage in ethical consumerism, we as
with equivalent rankings perceived ethics differently
RQ1 What attributes do Millenniais consider when depending on whether they were from the United States,
making purchase decisions? Japan, or South Korea. Scholtens and Dam (2007) also find
that even among cultures that consider ethics important,
Personal or Social Levers such as Australia, the United States, and Scandinavia,
reactions to ethical situations are diverse. That is, people
Freestone and McGoldrick (2008) demonstrate that in difference nations - hence different cultures - view
from
ethical decision making, social motivations register at differently (Raw was 2001).
ethics
Previous discussions are consistent with Hofstede' s
higher levels than personal motivations, which implies that
social motivators are stronger levers than personal ones.
(2001) five dimensions of cultural values: power distance
This finding is consistent with Cialdini's (2001) suggestion
(i.e., society willingness to distribute power equally);
that people often look to social norms to decide how to
individualism/collectivism (i.e., society willingness to
respond to various social situations, such as recycling
integrate individuals into groups); masculinity/femininity

â Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 116 T. Bucic et al.

(i.e.,
society chara
for comparison. The two countries are geographically rel-
ness or atively
caring,
close to each other, yet there appear to be large lo
cultural differences between
avoidance and the countries (Jones and lon
ness to Hofstede
take risks
2007). Australia is a wealthy, industrialized
dimensions impac
country with a relatively small population of 22.5 million
Kim et people (as of February 2011) (Australian Bureau of Sta-
al. 2002; L
Tan andtistics (ABS) 2011) and ranks seventeenth in terms of
McCullo
2002). Neverthel
purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, at US$41,300
changes(CIA Factbook
in 2011). econom
dynamics. Indivi
This sophisticated and economically advanced country
orientation have
ranks highly on scales that measure ethical concern and the a
economic growth
integration of ethics into business practice (Scholtens and
over Dam 2007). In contrast, Indonesia
time. is the world's fourth
That i
over time, with
most populous nation, with 242.9 million people (as of July i
2010), and ranks 156th in terms of PPP per capita, at
Interestingly, an
the US$4,300 (CIA Factbook 2011). In this economically
Millennial ge
nomic conditions
developing country, approximately one-quarter of compa-
globalization
nies claim to adopt ethical practices - less than in neigh- and
turning to
boring developing economies suchthe
as India, Thailand, and In
and Malaysia (Chappie and Moon 2005).
information
and Ferri-Reed 20
the global comm
awareness of
Data Collection and Sample Characteristics glo
despite growing
and We used a self-completed survey to(2006)
Gupta collect data from
global samples of Millennials in Australia and Indonesia. The
culture. Mi
and their decision
samples were primarily students enrolled at city universi-
(e.g., Sujansky
ties; Millennials are of the age that many of them continue an
arecoming from
to be involved in some form of study (e.g., Jonas-Dwyer
world and Pospisil 2004). To assess the potential forof
views a sample th
tematically
selection bias though, we also ensured that thefrom
Australian
Gupta 2006).
sample included 16% non-university students of the
Thersame
age. Subsequent tests revealed that non-university students
RQ3 How does co
were significantly older (p < .01) but otherwise not sig-
ethical consumpti
nificantly different from students in terms of their behav-
iors or attitudes (p > .05), hence provided some confidence
of limited selection bias.
Methodology
The Australian sample yielded 832 completed ques-
Setting tionnaires, collected at a large Australian university using
quota (age, gender, student status) sampling (Refer
We conduct a cross-country, two-sample study of ethical Table 1). Of these, 25 questionnaires that were incomplete
consumerism, connected specifically to CRM initiatives or revealed dubious response patterns were removed.
and as manifested through cause-related purchasing (CRP) Among the remaining 807 responses, 51% were women;
behaviors among Millennials. Although countries or furthermore, 12% were 18-19 years of age, and 47% were
nations are not the only appropriate units of analysis 20-21 years. Although 18% were international students,
because cultures are not primarily restricted by borders our tests revealed no significant differences between local
(McSweeney 2000), Hofstede (1998) argues that 'national and international students across a range of variables. In
identities are the only means we have of identifying and the student sample, 31% were focused on business-related
measuring cultural differences' (p. 481). Thus, exploring studies, 31% on science-related topics, and 23% on arts or
differences between cultures using this style of cross-sec- social sciences. Finally, 89% of the sample had purchased a
tional analysis was deemed appropriate (Hofstede 1998). CRP.
Australia and Indonesia represent a developed and devel- The Indonesian sample was gathered from three large
oping economy, respectively, to provide a valuable basis universities. Participation was voluntary and promoted in

â Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais

Table 1 Summary of sample characteristics

Australia Indonesia

Gender Gender
Male 49% Male 58%
Female 51% Female 42%
Age Age
16-17 years 0% 16-17 years 5%
18-19 years 12% 18-19 years 66%
20-21 years 47% 20-21 years 21%
22-24 years 41% 22-24 years 8%
Enrollment Enrollment
Local student 66% Local student 100%
International student 18% International student 0%
Not a student 16% Not a student 0%
Major Major
Business 31% Economics and Management 25%
Science 31% Psychology 26%
Arts or Social Science 23% Health and Sport 49%

purchase provided an
undergraduate classes by lecturers, indication
with of the loyalty
hard copies level of
of the
these consumers. To measure
survey handed out and completed in classmotivation
by to purchase
intereste
CRPs, we mentioned products
students. Of the 409 questionnaires, 371 associated
werewith four causes
complete and
that might spark motivation:
usable, and 42% of the respondents were "access to clean drinking(Refe
women
Table 1). Regarding their water
ages, in the71%
third world",
were "health", "environmental
16-19 years,dam- and
age", "localized
21% were 20-21 years. These problems (i.e., issues
students were in Australia/Indo-
majoring i
health and sport (49%), economics
nesia)". and
The broad wording of these causes managemen
was in line with
that of Freestone
(25%), or psychology (26%), andand McGoldrick's
93% had (2008) study. How-
purchased a
CRP. Comparison of the ever, it is acknowledged that
Australian and such general wording may
Indonesian sam
elicit
ples indicates a significant responses that are a mix
difference inof self-interest
terms andof
altruistic
age an
enrollment. However, as motives.
the We also collected some with
responses basic demographic
each data.
samp
For the Indonesian
(i.e., within Australia and within survey, the English across
Indonesia), version of thea rang
questionnaire
of behavioral and attitudinal was translated (e.g.,
variables into Indonesian, then back-
frequency of
translated
CRP, type of cause-related to English to
products resolve any possible misunder-
purchased, character
standings and ensure an
istics considered when purchasing, accurate rendering of
awareness the original
and concern
questionnaire.
for causes, motivations for CRP),Ado faculty
notmember with a background
vary in
significantly
linguistics
by age or enrollment status, from one
this of the Indonesian lack
apparent universities
of com-
equiva
lence is not a concern. mented on and modified the Indonesian translation as
necessary.
Instrument All constructs were operationalized using existing
scales. Motivation to purchase CRP was assessed using 19
statements from the DBS (Freestone and McGoldrick
The questionnaire consists of four sections focused on CRP
behavior, awareness of and motivation to purchase CRP 2008), on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree;
7 = strongly agree). We used Freestone and McGoldrick's
and products in general, perceptions of particular brands'
concern for the community, and attitudes toward helping (2008) six-point single-item stages of change (SOC) mea-
sure to determine awareness of and concern for the four
others and conformity (in terms of buying behavior). CRP
behavior was measured in terms of buy/not buy a cause- causes. Attitude toward helping others was assessed using
the Webb et al. (2000) four-item, seven-point scale. Kah-
related product, and frequency of purchasing such products
le' s (1995) seven-item conformity motivation measure
(using seven categories from "only when I feel like it",
"less than monthly", "monthly", up to "daily"). Though
assessed the influence of others on consumption behavior.
there are many other measures of behavioral loyalty (e.g.,A range of analysis techniques were utilised to provide
share of category requirements) capturing frequency ofinsight into the data and research questions. T tests, /2 tests,

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 118 T. Bucic et al.

Table 2 Factor analys

Australian sample Indonesian sample

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

It would help if people bought from firms that address this .82 .8 1
issue

It would be better for everyone in the long run if people .85 .81
favored products that address this issue
People could make fairer choices if they were aware of .71 .55
which companies had high ethical principles regarding
this issue

This is an issue that I like to be associated with .68 .52

People who matter to me would respect me for being .78 .78

concerned about this issue

My friends are concerned about this issue .81 .79

Having to take account of this issue would make .64 .66
shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I had to choose .80 .85
only from products that support this issue
People's choices would be unreasonably restricted by the .74 -
removal of products that disregard this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I had to .68 .79
choose only from products that support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from businesses .63 .62
that do not violate this issue

People are too busy today to be concerned with this issue .83 .83
People might think it was a waste of time to try to .79 .72
influence big business over this issue
Alpha .71 .76 .73 .6a .74 .67 .63 .51a
Variance explained 62% 63%

a Two-item factor, with correlation provided

one-way ANOVA,removed
and items repeated
offered low communality measure
(<.5) or low or
double loadings
vided understanding as to (see Table 2). The percentage of there
whether variance
explained
differences between groupsis acceptable (Hair
of et al.respondents
1998), and all loadings
country or betweenexceed .5 and are significant (p <Understandi
countries. .05, Hair et al. 1998).
of motivations forTheethical
loadings of the items
consumption
are comparable across the Aus- w
ther through tralian analysis
cluster and Indonesian samples. Cronbach's alphas all
(K-means) to
existence of exceed .6 for eachof
sub-groups factor respondents
and each sample. This is in
motivation for acceptable since the research
purchasing CRP. is exploratory (Hair et al.
Compound
motivational 1998). Although
factors and we retained fewer items than Freestone
attitude toward h
served as the bases for
and McGoldrick (2008),the clustering.
the factors align with their results.
clusters was For Millenniais, motivation
determined using to purchasedistance
CRP thus may be be
cluster size, described
and the in terms of personal
ability toand social, positive and
construct d
using significant negative motivations.
mean/percentage differen
clusters. All The tests
analyses of the other constructs
used SPSS revealedv
that attitude
18.
toward others is unidimensional and reliable (aAust = .85;
Scale Validation dindon == -71), whereas conformity motivation consisted of
peer impression (aAust = .68; aIndon = .51) and outward
appearance (Table 3).
The factor analysis (Varimax rotation) of the DBS for both
the Australian and Indonesian samples revealed a four- A CFA of these three scales confirmed a 7-factor
structure with all items loading as expected (Australia:
factor structure, after we removed six items for the Aus-
tralian sample and seven for the Indonesian sample. CMin/df
The = 2.5, CFI = .94, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .04;

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millennial 1 19

Table 3 Factor analysis of other constructs

Conformity motivation Attitude towards

t helping others
Australia Indonesia Australia Indonesia

Peer Outward Peer Outward

impression appearance impression appearance

How elegant and attractive a product is, is as important as how .87 .73
well it works

It is important that others think well of how I dress and look .79 .77
If I were to buy something expensive, I would worry about what .76 .74
others would think of me

I buy brands that will make me look good in front of my friends .78 .53
When I buy the same things my friends buy, I feel closer to them .76 .79
People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate .82 .75
Helping troubled people with their problems is very important to .83 .86
me

People should be more charitable towards others in society .86 .76

People in need should receive support from others .81
Alpha .68 .44a .51 .40a .85 .71
Variance explained 67% 57% 69% 63%

a Two-item factor, with correlation provided

Indonesia: CMin/df = decisions.

purchase 2.3, OneCFI = of
interpretation .8,NFI
this is that con- = .8
.06). Though CFI and NFI
venience may beare slightly
a factor that below
is as important to Indonesian t
off of .9 for the consumers as it is tosample,
Indonesian Australian consumers. However, asthis
again it
given the has already
exploratory been provided for,
nature of it has
thebecome research
a less salient
pound variables of consideration
each in the purchase
factor indecision,
our whereas in Aus-
subsequ
tralia it remains an active and foremost consideration.1 This
aspect may be beneficial for future exploration.
Findings
Motivations for Ethical Purchases
Attributes Considered for Purchase Decision
Positive motivations drive Millennial behavior toward
Price, quality, and convenience drive the purchases of everyday CRP. Social positive motivations exert the
everyday products for Australian Millenniais (see Table 4). strongest influence for both Australian and Indonesian
To a limited extent, they also consider whether the productrespondents, who agree strongly with related statements.
supports a charity and which charity this is. However, weThis factor also is significantly different from other factors
find great variation among respondents, such that a sub- (see Table 5). In contrast, social negative motivations are
group of these Millennial appears to consider charityweak for the Australian sample, and these respondents only
connections more closely. slightly agree with the related statements. Personal nega-
We also find similarities between the Australian and tive statements instead demonstrate the lowest mean for the
Indonesian sample, which implies that overall, social
Indonesian samples, along with some significant differ-
ences. Australians rate price, convenience, and packaging
aspects have a greater impact on Indonesian motivations.
more significantly (p < .01), whereas Indonesians focus onDespite some consistency in Millennial motivations
quality, brand, and convenience. Convenience thus seems(see Table 5), any specific issue produces different results
particularly interesting: For Indonesian Millennial, for
con-the Australian sample. For example, when the cause is a
venience appears less important than it is for Australian
local issue, social negative motivations become stronger
Millenniais (rank of 6 versus 3), which may reflect lifestyle
among Australian respondents than either personal positive
differences between the two countries. For example,or personal negative motivations (Table 5a). The magni-
Indonesia hosts a prevalence of small vendors in neigh-
tude of agreement with social positive statements in this
borhoods, such that everyday goods are easily accessible
and other factors thus may have a greater influence We
on thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 120 T. Bucic et al.

Table 4 Consideratio

Attribute considered at purchase Australia Indonesia t Value (p)

Mean (rank) Standard deviation Mean (rank) Standard deviation

Price 4.2 (1) .87 4.0 (2) .95 4.3 (.000)

Quality 4.1 (2) .87 4.4 (1) .80 5.3 (.000)
Convenience 4.0(3) .93 3.0(6) 1.05 16.1 (.000)
Brand 3.6 (4) 1.00 3.7 (3) .93 2.9 (.003)
Packaging 3.3 (5) 1.03 3.2 (5) 1.06 2.6 (.009)
Ingredients 3.3 (6) 1.20 3.7 (4) 1.14 4.5 (.000)
What charity it supports 2.8 (7) 1.19 2.7 (7) 1.07 .7 (.488)
Whether it supports a charity 2.8 (8) 1.17 2.7 (8) 1.01 1.1 (.266)

Five-point scale, 1 = Not considered at all, 5 = Considered to a great extent

Rankings based on means

case declines significantly. The As Freestone characteristics

unique and McGoldrick (2008) indicate,
of motiva-
local issues among Australianstion also differs
also emerge according
intothe
stages lower
of awareness. How-
ever,statements
correlation of the rankings of the for both samples, between
we find that this
localimpact varies
dependingwith
problems and other issues, compared on the type
thatof motivation
between (see Figs.
the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
other issues themselves (see Table 6). Correlations 6, 7, 8). Expressed agreement with social and personal
between the rankings of the statements in the Indonesianpositive motivation statements increase significantly with
case are very high. Though this may be an indication of the stage of awareness and concern regardless of the issue
common method bias, the possibility of this being a (Refer Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6; Table 8). Although it might seem
reflection of the true state cannot be ignored, particularlythat agreement with social and personal negative motiva-
given the close interrelationship between these causes (in tion statements should decrease with stages of awareness
particular health, access to clean water and environmentaland concern, we instead find mixed results. There were no
damage for many people living in Indonesia). significant differences for personal negative statements
Australian and Indonesian Millennial are aware of a rangeexcept for third world issues, and health in the case of
of causes, though most fall in the middle range of the SOCIndonesia, and even in this case, no overall trend was
evident across stages of awareness. For the Australian
scale - the stage of beginning to take action (Table 7). Health
creates the greatest awareness and concern among all respon-sample, agreement with social negative statements
dents (67% (Australia) and 62% (Indonesia) intend to or havedecreased significantly for third world and environmental
taken action in relation to this cause). Local problems prompt damage issues (p < .05), but it significantly increased for
the least concern among Australians, but problems in the thirdlocal issues (p < .05), and we found no difference for
world are of least concern for Indonesians, such that most health (Refer Table 8 for F values). There is no significant
would not take any action. These results may reflect the difference for the Indonesian sample, with the small
developmental divide between Australia and Indonesia: Livingnumber in the final SOC category possibly contributing to
in a less developed country, Indonesian Millennial may be this result (Refer Table 9).
more inward facing and concerned with problems that directly
affect their own life and survival (e.g., access to water, defor-Subgroups of Millenniais
estation), rather than looking outward to other countries. Aus-
tralian people in general do not have the same day-to-dayAmong the various ways available to differentiate groups
worries and can be concerned with issues beyond their ownof Millennial, we explored three characteristics: gender,
survival. prior CRP behaviors, and motivation toward CRP. Women
Australian Millenniais might be expected to have are significantly more aware and more concerned across all
advanced further along the SOC because they live in aethical issues (p < .05), though these gender differences
more developed and economically advanced country, and refer to intensity rather than direction. The impact of past
Table 7 shows this is the case. There is a significant dif- CRP behavior is significant, creating a clear distinction
ference (p < .01) in the proportion of Australian andbetween Millenniais who had versus those who had not
Indonesian respondents across the SOC across all causes,previously purchased a cause-related product (p < .001) in
with a greater percentage of Australian Millennial being interms of awareness, concern, and helping others. Those
the "concerned" categories. who had not undertaken CRP in the past were aware but

â Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 121

Table 5 Comparison of motivational statements across issues

Access to Health Environmental Local F (p) Mean

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

Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank)

a. Australian sample
Personal positives
This is an issue that I like to be associated with 4.73 (5) 5.13 (4) 4.87 (4) 4.32 (9) 67.6 (.000) 4.76 (4)
People who matter to me would respect me for 4.59 (9) 4.81 (5) 4.64 (6) 4.31 (10 47.7 (.000) 4.59 (7)
being concerned about this issue
My friends are concerned about this issue 3.99 (13) 4.63 (7) 4.74 (9) 3.87 (13) 89.7 (.000) 4.31 (10)
Social positives
It would help if people bought from firms that 5.21 (2) 5.45 (2) 5.24 (3) 4.70 (4) 75.5 (.000) 5.15 (2)
address this issue

It would be better for everyone in the long run 5.31 (1) 5.64 (1) 5.51 (1) 4.95 (2) 79.3 (.000) 5.35 (1)
if people favored products that address this
issue

People could make fairer choices if they were 5.15 (3) 5.26 (3) 5.25 (2) 4.95 (1) 24.9 (.000) 5.15 (2)
aware of which companies had high ethical
principles regarding this issue
Personal negatives
Having to take account of this issue would 4.18 (12) 4.19 (10) 4.32 (10) 4.16 (12) 5.4 (.01) 4.21(12)
make shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I 4.87 (4) 4.68 (6) 4.74 (5) 4.75 (3) 6.6 (.000) 4.76 (4)
had to choose only from products that
support this issue
People's choices would be unreasonably 4.65 (6) 4.61 (8) 4.57 (7) 4.56 (6) 2.08 (.102) 4.60 (6)
restricted by the removal of products that
disregard this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I 4.22 (11) 4.17 (11) 4.16 (12) 4.19 (11) .81 (.484) 4.19 (12)
had to choose only from products that
support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from 4.60 (8) 4.46 (9) 4.520 (8) 4.61 (5) 6.53 (.000) 4.33 (9)
businesses that do not violate this issue

Social negatives
People are too busy today to be concerned with 4.63 (7) 4.10 (12) 4.30 (11) 4.47 (7) 44.1 (.000) 4.54 (8)
this issue

People might think it was a waste of time to try 4.54 (10) 4.06 (13) 4.10 (13) 4.37 (8) 46.7 (.000) 4.27 (11)
to influence big business over this issue
b. Indonesian sample
Personal positives
This is an issue that I like to be associated with 4.63 (5) 5.25 (3) 5.24 (3) 4.82 (4) 27.1 (.000) 4.99 (4)
People who matter to me would respect me for 4.44 (7) 4.84 (6) 4.76 (6) 4.56 (7) 11.6 (.000) 4.65 (7)
being concerned about this issue
My friends are concerned about this issue 4.47 (6) 4.87 (5) 4.77 (5) 4.65 (6) 10.6 (.000) 4.69 (6)
Social positives
It would help if people bought from firms that 5.39 (2) 5.49 (2) 5.33 (2) 5.25 (2) 1.7 (.169) 5.37 (2)
address this issue

It would be better for everyone in the long run 5.41 (1) 5.68 (1) 5.62 (1) 5.32 (1) 6.6 (.000) 5.51 (1)
if people favored products that address this
issue

People could make fairer choices if they were 4.80 (3) 5.22 (4) 5.12 (4) 5.05 (3) 11.2 (.000) 5.05 (3)
aware of which companies had high ethical
principles regarding this issue

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 122 T. Bucic et al.

Table 5 continued

Access to Health Environmental Local F ( p ) Mean

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

Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank)

Personal negatives
Having to take account of this issue would 3.19 (12) 3.38 (12) 3.33 (12) 3.37 (12) 2.7 (.48) 3.36 (12)
make shopping less convenient for people
It would make shopping less convenient if I 3.60 (11) 3.68 (11) 3.63 (11) 3.63 (11) .46 (.688) 3.64 (11)
had to choose only from products that
support this issue
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I 3.88 (10) 4.02 (10) 4.04 (10) 3.96 (10) 2.1 (.106) 3.98 (10)
had to choose only from products that
support this issue
It would be too much hassle to buy only from 4.29 (8) 4.38 (8) 4.30 (8) 4.37 (8) .77 (.504) 4.33 (8)
businesses that do not violate this issue

Social negatives
People are too busy today to be concerned with 4.71 (4) 4.76 (7) 4.71 (7) 4.70 (5) .34 (.775) 4.72 (5)
this issue

People might think it was a waste of time to try 4.16 (9) 4.07 (9) 4.11 (9) 4.02 (9) 1.24 (.293) 4.09 (9)
to influence big business over this issue

Table 6 Correlation of motivational statement ranks across issues

Australia Indonesia

3rd World - clean Health Environmental 3rd World - clean Health Environmental
water Damage water damage

Health .73 .94

Environmental .84 .97 .94 1 .0

damage
Local problem .89 .51 .67 .99 .97 .97

Spearman Rank correlations; all significant at .0

Table 7 Difference in awareness and concern between countries

Australia (%) Indonesia (%) x2

ANC ACNA CIA CMinA CMajA (Rank) ANC ACNA CIA CMinA CMajA (Rank)

Health 7 24 27 34 6 (1) 4 36 29 29 3 (1) 29.0*

Environ 12 28 28 26 4 (2) 3 39 30 21 5 (2) 33.1*
Local 23 36 22 13 4 (4) 12 51 24 10 1 (3) 42.8*
3rd world 15 31 21 26 5 (3) 29 47 12 3 1 (4) 151.4*
ANC aware but not greatly concerned, ACNA aware, concerned but not take
and taken minor action, CMajA concerned and taken major action (rank
* p < .01

less likely to have taken action and less open to helping
others. These subgroups did not differ in terms of demo-
graphics though, and the vast majority of Millenniais had
undertaken CRP. Therefore, prior CRP behavior offers an
unsatisfactory basis for understanding subgroups.
Instead, we employed cluster analysis to find a simple,
finer, more informative clarification of subgroups in terms
of their motivation toward CRP. This more subtle classi-
fication, compared with either gender or buy/not buy
classifications, entailed four motivation factors (personal

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 123

Fig. 3 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (social

Fig. 1 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample
negative)
positive)

Fig. 4 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (per-

sonal negative)
Fig. 2 Motivation by stage of awareness: Australian sample (per-
sonal positive)
social and personal positive and negative motivations:
and social positive and negative), together with attitude They are aware of the benefits, to both themselves and
toward helping others, as clustering bases. Three clusters society, if they are actively concerned about issues, but
then emerged for both the Australian and Indonesian they are also conscious that there could be personal ("make
samples (see Table 10). shopping less convenient") and social ("people are too
busy today to be concerned") drawbacks associated with
Reserved Social Conscience CRP. Despite their strong awareness of a range of issues,
their recognition has not yet transformed into frequent
This cluster is so named because of its multiple motivations
purchasing (i.e., 35% of Australians and 20% of Indone-
for CRP; it includes 38% of the Australian sample and 42%
sians purchase CRPs at least monthly). Both genders are
of the Indonesian sample. These people have the strongest
equally well represented in this cluster.

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 124 T. Bucic et al.

Fig. 7 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian Sample (social

Fig. 5 Motivation b
negative)
positive)

Fig. 8 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian sample (per-

sonal negative)

Fig. 6 Motivation by stage of awareness: Indonesian sample (per-

sonal positive)
Indifférents
Representing 33% (Australia) and 28% (Indonesia) of the
sample, these Millennial are indifferent overall, without
strong views across the full range of motivation statements.
They slightly concur that people should help others, but
their view of this norm is significantly lower than that of
the other clusters (p < .001). In their early stage of
awareness and concern across the range of issues, including
health, their consideration of whether a product supports a
charity or which one is significantly lower than that in other
clusters (pAust < 001; pindon < 05). This cluster contains a
significantly higher proportion of men (Australia 60%,
p <.001; Indonesia 71%, p < .05). In the Australian
sample, Indifférents largely have not undertaken any CRP
(19%, p < .001). This cluster contains the highest per-
centages of people undertaking CRP only if they feel like it
(Australia 52%; Indonesia 37%).

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 125

Table 8 ANOVA results - differences in motivational dimensi

3rd World Health Environmental Local

Australia

Social positive 22.4* 16.7* 25.3* 31.5*

Personal positive 30.1* 25.9* 36.6* 35.9*
Social negative 3.5* .5 2.1** 3.0*
Personal negative 3.4* .8 2.0 1.0
Indonesia

Social positive 4.9* 7.1* 3.3* 6.2*

Personal positive 4.5* 5.1* 2.8* 4.1*
Social negative 1.1 1.1 1.6 .5
Personal negative 2.4* 3.3* .3 .8

F statistic shown within table; * p < .01,

Table 9 Sub-sample size by stage of awar

Aware but not Aware and concerned but Concerned and intend Concerned and taken Concerned and taken
greatly concerned not taken action to take action minor action major action

Australia

3rd world 118 248 168 212 38

Health 56 191 219 285 46
Environmental 94 226 229 213 30
Local 182 279 181 103 30
Indonesia

3rd world 110 170 46 12 5

Health 15 135 109 108 11
Environmental 14 149 114 80 17
Local 47 191 92 38 5

Committed CRP (i.e., the Committed purchase most frequently),

whereas the Indonesian clusters appear similar on this
Finally, this group
aspect. This latter finding is not unexpected, in thatof
many M
personal and
people in Indonesia social
still struggle daily to afford posi
basic
the necessities. Because almost
strongest 50% of their expenses go
disagreem
tive statements. There
toward food and beverages, it is logical for them to buy the
support for causes
most affordable products, can
regardless of the company's
supporting these
involvement cause
in CRM. Ethical issues are not yet a deter-
hassle, or mining
a factorwaste of
in actual purchases among Indonesian ti
Millennials.
conformist and signifi
impressions of their p
vations become manif
(45% Discussion
undertaking CRP
the highest percentag
percentage of
Extent of consume
Millennials' Engagement in Ethical
taken CRP. Consumerism
These three clusters appear in both the Australian and
Indonesian samples; however, we also note some differ- In line with Freestone and McGoldrick (2008), our findings
ences in the CRP behaviors of the clusters across the two support that the DBS and SOC models have explanatory
cultures. For example, for Australian consumers, the threevalue in terms of Millennials' ethical consumption. Posi-
tive attitudes and motivations are similar across the two
clusters differ significantly in the reported frequency of

<0 Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 126 T. Bucic et al.

Table 10 Descriptio

Australian Clusters F or y2 Indonesian Clusters F or y2

Reserved Indifférents Committed Reserved Indifférents Committed
social social
conscience conscience

Motivation#

Social, positive motivation 5.7 4.3 5.5 274.4* 5.6 4.4 5.7 97.0*
Personal, positive motivation 5.0 3.7 4.9 206.0* 5.1 3.7 5.3 106.0*
Social, negative motivation 5.1 4.5 3.2 292.5* 5.6 3.8 3.2 27.7*
Personal, negative motivation 5.0 4.6 3.6 144.2* 4.9 3.9 3.9 56.9*
Attitude to helping others*
Attitude to helping others 6 5 6 161.3* 5.9 5.0 6.0 47.9*
Conformity
Peer conformity 3.4 3.4 2.96 11.5* 4.3 4.1 4.1 2.7
Awareness and concern

Health (% aware/% concerned) 22/78 41/59 30/70 42.9a * 36/64 56/44 29/71 29.2a *
Environmental damage (% aware/% 30/70 55/45 36/64 74.9a * 36/64 54/46 42/58 21.3a *
concerned)
Problems in third world (% aware/% 36/64 64/36 38/62 96.4a * 78/22 88/12 86/14 15.8a *
concerned)
Local problems (% aware/% 49/51 72/28 60/40 52.3a * 64/36 70/30 58/42 14.4a *
concerned)
Attributes considered

Ingredients 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2* 3.7 3.5 3.8 2.5

Price 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.4* 4.0 4.0 4.0 .1
Convenience 4.1 3.95 3.9 3.5* 3.1 3.0 3.0 1.6
If supports charity 3 2.3 3 27.7* 2.8 2.3 2.9 9.7**
What charity supported 3 2.45 2.9 15.9* 2.9 2.3 2.9 14.7*
Behavior and Demographics
Male/female % 47/53 60/40 41/59 17.7a'* 50/50 71/29 57/43 11.7a'**
Not buy/buy % 8/92 19/81 6/94 27.8a'* 6/94 11/89 5/95 2.9a
% Buy monthly or more 35 27 45 16.0a'* 20 22 14 7.8a
% Buy only when feel like it 37 52 36 14.0a * 29 37 35 2.1a
n 301 263 230 161 105 112

* p < 0 .001 level; ** p < .05 level; #

a Chi-square (y2) statistic

countries fromAttala
which2001; Folk
samples
similarity is also
not are consisten
uniformly refl
In Australia, appear
Millennialsituation
are mor
purchases, 1996), in
whereas such that
Indone
does not consistently
necessarily lead buy
to p
sporadically The findings
purchase CRP ech
or
consumption, 2001)
we by
uncover demonst
no sp
behavior, purchase
perhaps due consider
to the co
making such
environment as (e.g.,
priceNewh
and
competing across
ethical cultures,
claims from n
v
other accumulated
as a issues
dominant (New
pro
overwhelmed However,
consumer in cont
might
out of a sense 1997),
of we find to
responsibility t
quite be veyed
willing to Millennial
reward ethicm

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 127

Personal and Social

reasonably frequent (monthly) basis Levers for Ethical Behavior
because of their ethi
cal credentials, and another one-third of the market enga-
ges in occasional CRP. ThatThe relevant
is,SOC model offers insights intowho
consumers ethical con-never
sumption choices by
engage in CRP actually represent Millennial
the but does not entirely
minority of explain
Millen-
a consumer's
nial consumers. This may progressionthat
suggest through the SOC to become a
attributes are
structured by consumers steadfast
intoethical consumer. Our
"tiers" orfindings
groups.imply that Once
greater the
most fundamental considerations arelead
awareness does not always satisfied, additional
to greater purchase frequency.
"tiers" may be consideredSimilarly, prior research
prior to indicates
making that the most
a educated
purchase
decision. Findings from consumers
this do study suggest
not necessarily that
use their knowledge ethica
to make
ethical consumption
considerations are not present in the decisions
first(Caminiti 1992), norof
"tier" can con-
greater education
sideration, though given that it isexplain
the ethical decisions and moral
minority of devel-
Millen-
niais who do not engage opment
in (Krebs
ethical et al. 1991).purchasing, this ma
Although the SOC model is useful,
suggest that ethical considerations
it thus cannot wholly explain are present
a consumer's in sub
progression from
awareness to ethical purchases.
sequent "tiers" of consideration. However, formal testing
for hierarchical structures By identifying purchase
within three consumption decision
clusters within the criteri
is recommended to confirm Millennial
this groupproposition.
across diverse samples, we have addres-
Although we could not ascertain
sed the question of a definitive
whether consumers of ethicalreason
products for
the behaviors adopted by the Indifférents
are developing more socially conscious mindsets and or ifReserve
they
Social Conscience segments,
simply wantwe acknowledge
to project a socially concerned image Folkes
(Free- an
Kamins' s (1999) suggestionstone and that
McGoldricksome 2008). For the Committed and
consumers are
affected more by unethicalReserved Social
or Conscience
prosocial segments, social, positive
behaviors. Th
various cause-related products
levers, such thatin this are
the consumers study
intrinsicallycame
motivated from
to make a positive difference
diverse companies with different prosocial to the world, are strongest. none
agendas,
of which exhibited publicly
For theobvious
Indifferent cluster unethical
though, motivationsbehaviors.
are difficult
to discern: should
Perhaps ethical products thus Social and personalbenegative
marketed motivations appear
at the
augmented product level, among
suchMillennial thatin the Australian
the focus sample, butis social
on th
achievement of social goals
positive
rather
motivations thanlevers appeartraditional
strongest among thosecom-
from Indonesia.
mercial considerations, such as price and quality (Golding
and Peattie 2005). Our findings are consistent wit
Country
Boulstridge and Carrigan's of Residence
(2000) Impacts on Ethical Consumerism
suggestion that despite
consumers' willingness to make ethical purchases, ethical
product attributes are not the most
Demographic dominant
variables, including criteria
gender and ethnicity, are in
their consumption decisions because
significant influences on they care
ethical decision makingmore
(Auger abou
price, quality, and value. The
et al. distinction
2003). However, between
we find no significant differences wha
consumers value most when making
between student and nonstudentpurchase decision
Millenniais, which sup-
and how marketers should market
ports claims that employment products appears
status does not differentiate
somewhat incongruous. among ethically conscious consumers (Dickinson 2001).
The differences between Australia and Indonesia also
Health as the Central Universal Concern are consistent with prior indications that affluent societies,
in which most consumers are free of worry about meeting
The study participants cited several reasons for increasedtheir basic needs, become more responsible for their
interest in ethical issues, such as more media coverage
behavior (Hansen and Schräder 1997). Although Millen-
(Roberts 1996) and more information (Berry and nial possess many similarities across cultures, such as the
McEachern 2005). However, information does not neces- higher propensity of women to engage in sympathetic CRP,
sarily lead to action, because additional considerations
there are some notable cross-cultural differences, including
affect purchase decisions, such as the price and complexitywhich issues they perceive as more important.
of buyers' decision-making efforts (De Pelsmacker et al.
2005; Newholm 2005). Yet we also find that health rates
Theoretical Implications
consistently as a central concern, across both cultures. This
focus could reflect the perceived importance of health
issues for both men and women, awareness, or perceived Theoretically, this study helps fill a void in existing liter-
ature by presenting a comparative study of Millenniais
opportunities to enable medical progress through individ-
ual donations of funds (i.e., through CRP). from developed and developing countries. In particular, it

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 128 T. Bucic et al.

includes Indonesia
about specific age groups (Noble et al. 2009); we therefore
which previously
have provided a detailed analysis of Millenniais and their
tion relating to
purchases of ethical products in a convenience category.et
By This information creates a better understanding
defining speci of the
Millennial
Millennial market, which marke
comprises distinctive clusters,
narrow niche
only one of which is readily interested in ethical ma
product
comes to young
attributes, though purchases by the Reserved Social Con-
science cluster could be facilitated
suggestions of by providing theboth
(Auger intrinsic
2006; Car
and extrinsic compensation to consumers in return
2010); instead,
for their economic support. M
ches entail three d
assuming that peop
are not Limitations
aware and Directions for Further Research and
we find that it is
In this study, there are
consumers several limitations worth noting:
simply
such as First,
pricethough ethical marketing includes
or four main qu
Prior studies of ethical consumerism often have been approaches - CRM, socially responsible business practices,
confounded by the inability of respondents to report corporate social marketing, and corporate cause promo-
accurately on relevant, socially sensitive issues (Hume
tions (Kotier and Lee 2005) - we investigate only CRM.
2010; Greenwald and Banaji 1995). We used segmentation
Second, we take a snapshot of behaviors at one moment in
analysis, as also used by Walsh et al. (2010) to generate
time using a self report questionnaire to generate cross-
natural clusters of consumers among Millenniais. sectional data focused on one generational market across
two diverse countries. We therefore cannot and do not

propose to monitor behavioral changes over time. Fur-

Practical Implications thermore, though we replicated the survey approach as
used by Freestone and McGoldrick (2008), we acknowl-
edge the usual issues associated with these methods. Hence
We confirm Freestone and McGoldrick's (2008) suggestion
that the DBS and SOC concepts have explanatory valuemonitoring
in motivations and behavior over time may pro-
an ethical decision-making context, and we extend vide
thisa fruitful direction for future research, since, as
Millenials mature, we may expect increasing time and
confirmation to include age- and culturally segmented
consumers. For marketers, this effort may be useful other
for constraints to raise salient barriers as they transition
from study to the workplace and/or family commitments.
developing appropriate interventions and communications
In such circumstances, the negative barriers to ethical
to support ethical consumption decisions. That is, noting
three distinct clusters of consumers, marketers shouldpurchasing
tar- behavior may present greater barriers, espe-
cially for those who are less aware or concerned about an
get the separate clusters and emphasize distinct messages
relevant for each stage of awareness and commitment. ethical cause.2
Among CRP practitioners in particular, messaging Third, there is some distinction in how each country
sample ranked ethical issues. That is, in the Australian
should be designed for specific target groups, particularly
because segments that are either more or less receptive sample
to there was no concern relating to correlations,
ethical purchasing tend to be stable over time (Walsh ethowever,
al. for the Indonesian sample there were high cor-
2010). All Millennial are not equally responsive to CRP relations among issues including access to clean drinking
water, health and environmental issues. As noted in the
marketing, and distinctive clusters that engage in diverse
Discussion section, this could be an indication of common
forms of purchasing behavior exist. One cluster is reason-
method bias for the Indonesian sample or it could be a true
ably committed to ethical product purchasing and receptive
to ethical marketing, but another does not engage, andreflection
a of the country-specific interrelatedness of these
third cluster may be convinced to change its purchasing issues for residents of Indonesia. Though this study did not
behavior. Similar to Auger et al. (2003), we posit that specifically
this focus on broad cultural issues, we acknowledge
that deep-rooted cultural differences may exist between the
situation implies many consumers still do not understand
samples from Australia and Indonesia. For example, in
the ethical dimensions of products that they purchase,
though a significant group of consumers simply does Australia,
not Millennial enjoy a level of both income and
value an ethical product position. freedom that may not be common throughout Indonesia. In
For retailers and marketers to target and position prod-
ucts for customers effectively, they need more information
2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millenniais 129

Indonesia many Millennial may

behaviors of not subgroups,
three consumer havewhich access
remain to
own discretionary consistent
spending across two national
money and cultures that represent
instead, accom
elders on shopping trips,developed
taking on the
and developing countries.role of
In so doing, we "influen
have
in shopping situations, and not
clarified that necessarily
instead of
of being conceptualized as "buyer
one niche
take into consideration such consumer habits in futuremarket (Langeland 1998), Millennials consist of submar-
studies, it may be beneficial to include a question about
kets that are amenable to ethical purchasing to varying
income levels. Hence, caution is recommended in inter-degrees. This distinction is useful for theory development
pretation of results. Furthermore, this study does not
and for marketers, and it advances our understanding of
explore the role of religion in consumption becauseways
as to encourage positive ethical behavior.
Perrin (2000) suggests, "religiosity effects are not as sig-
nificant as common wisdom and social scientific theory
might suggest" (p. 537). This view is further supported by
References
Ramly et al. (2008) who recently found in their Malaysian
study that religiosity is not a positive determinant of young
Al-Khatib, J. A., Stanton, A. D., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2005). Ethical
consumers' ethical beliefs. Thus, studies suggest that
segmentation of consumers in developing countries: A compar-
intrinsically religious people do not act in more prosocial ative analysis. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 225-246.
behavior though they often think they do, or should do, Auger, P. (2006). Ethical consumerism: Reality or myth? The
hence yielding self-reports that frequently differ from those Melbourne Review , 2(1), 78-83.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2003). What
of non-religious people (Chaves 2010; Batson and Powell
will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of
2003; Leach et al. 2008; Trimble 1997). Nevertheless, Business Ethics , 42(3), 281-304.
because Indonesia is a country heavily populated by Mus-
Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do
lims and whereby Islam is way of life this may impact social product features have value to consumers? International
Journal of Research in Marketins , 25, 183-191.
consumption and ethical consumption patterns: thus, it may
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (201 1). http://www.abs.gov.au/
be beneficial for the role of religion to be investigated in AUSSTATS/abs@ .nsf/W eb-fPages/Population+Clock?opendocu
future studies of ethical consumption.3 Fourth, some studies ment#from-banner=LN.
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial
suggest that ethical decisions and thus consumption behav-
behaviour. In T. Milion & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
iors reflect realized morals (Kozinets and Handelman 1998)
psychology : Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5,
and moral intensity (Jones 1991) and that consumers engage pp. 463-484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
in ethical consumption in part to define themselves
Berry, H., & McEachern, M. G. (2005). Informing ethical consumers.
(Langeland 1998). We do not address any aspect of morals In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical
consumer (pp. 69-87). London: Sage Publications.
because our primary purpose is to identify and define rele-
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identi-
vant groups of ethical consumers among Millennials. Fifth, fication: A framework for understanding consumers' relation-
the ethical issues included in the survey instrument were ships with companies. Journal of Marketing , 67, 76-88.
Bhosale, S., & Gupta, S. (2006, May 16). Tomorrow is a new
stated in general terms and thus a clear distinction between
self-interest and altruistic motives cannot be drawn. consumer ! Who is the future Asian consumer? http://my.acniel
sen.com/reports/documents/AsianConsumer.pdf.
Future research may also like to distinguish between
Bird, K., & Hughes, D. (1997). Ethical consumerism: The case of
various local issues as they generate vastly different levels fairly-traded coffee. Business Ethics: A European Review , 6(3),
of interest and concern.4 Furthermore, researchers should159-167.
Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care
explore the notion that ethical consumption is not a rational
about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behav-
equation (Newholm and Shaw 2007). Using the clusters we ior gap. Journal of Communication Management , 4(4), 355-368.
have defined as a starting point, researchers could connect
Boyd, D. (2010). Ethical determinants for generations X and Y.
Millennial consumer morals to ethical consumerism. A Journal of Business Ethics , 93, 465-469.
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into
longitudinal study also would be useful in determining
the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business
behavioral changes in the clusters over time. Ethics , 98 , 597-608.
Burnaz, S., Atakan, M. G. S., Topcu, Y. I., & Singhapakdi, A. (2009).
An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of marketing ethics: The
Conclusion Case of Turkish, Thai, and American Businesspeople. Journal of
Business Ethics , 90, 371-382.
BusinessWire. (2004, May 13). Editorial: Available for hire: Class of
We have delineated ethical consumer among Millennials '04 college grads; with an entrepreneurial spirit, today's grads
and provided a perspective on the ethical concerns and want to make an impact on the world, http://static.high
beam.com/b/businesswire/may 1 32004/availableforhireclassof04
collegegradswithanentrepr/index.html.
3 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. Caminiti, S. (1992). The payoff from a good reputation. Fortune ,
4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment. 725(3), 74-77.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 T. Bucic et al.

Carrigan, M.,
Henne, K. M., & Taylor, D. &
C. (2009). Use of persuasion knowledge A
consumer by the Millennial - generation.doYoung Consumers: eth
Insight and
Consumer Marketi
Ideas for Responsible Marketers, /0(1), 71-81.
Hira, N. A. (2007,
Carrigan, M., May 15). Attracting the twenty something worker.
Szmig
world? Fortune.
An interp
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational
consumption with culture:
Marketing,Disentangling the concepts. Organization
27(6), Studies, 79(3), 477.
Central Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values,
Intelligen
behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thou-
https://www.cia.gov
as.html.sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chappie,Howe, N., W.,
& Strauss, W. (2000). Millenniais& rising: The nextMo
great
Asia: A generation.
seven-cou
New York: Vintage Books.
BusinessHume, M. (2010).and Socie
Compassion without action: Examining the young
Chaves, M. (2010).
consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption.
season: Journal of World Business, 45, 385-394.
Overcomin
for the Jang, Y. J., Kim, W. G., & Bonn, M. A. (2011). Generation Y
Scientific
Cialdini, consumers' selection
R. attributes and behavioural
B. intentions con- (20
Boston: cerning Allyngreen restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality & B
De Pelsmacker,
Management, doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/j .ijhm.20 1 0. 1 2.0 1 2. P.
care Janis, I. L., & Mann, L.ethics?
about (1977). Decision making: A psychological W
Journal analysisof of conflict, choice Consum
and commitment. New York: The
Devinney, Free Press. T., P. Aug
ethical Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The Millennial effect :
consumer .
Dickinson, M.
Implications for academic development. (20
Report for HERDSA,
consumers:Australia. Profilin
JournalJones, T.
of M. (1991). Ethical decision-making
Consum by individuals in
Dubinsky, organizations: An issue-contingent
A. model. Academy
J., of Manage- J
ment Review, 16, 366-395.
cross-national inv
perceptions. Jones, M., & Hofstede, G. (2007). Culturally Journ
questionable? In Oxford
651-670. business & economics Conference, Oxford, UK, 24-26 June.
Kahle, L. R. (1995). Observations: Role-relaxed consumers: Empir-
Elliot, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2001). White hats of Don Quixotes?
Human rights vigilantes in the global economy. Working paper ical evidence. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 59-62.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A focus theory of
8102. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Farris, R., Chong, F., & Dunning, D. (2002). Generation Y:normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior.
Purchasing power and implications for marketing. Academy of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26(8), 1002-1012.
Marketing Studies Journal, 6(2), 89-102. Kim, J. O., Forsythe, S., Gu, Q., & Moon, S. J. (2002). Cross-cultural
Folkes, V. S., & Kamins, M. A. (1999). Effects of information about consumer values, needs and purchase behavior. Journal of
firms. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243-259. Consumer Marketing, 79(6), 481-502.
Kim, H. J., Knight, D. K., & Crutsinger, C. (2009). Generation Y
Folse, J. A. G., Niedrich, R. W., & Grau, S. L. (2010). Cause-related
marketing: the effects of purchase quantity and firm donation employees' retail work experience: The mediating effect of job
amount on consumer inferences and participation intentions.characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 62, 548-556.
Journal of Retailing, doi: 10. 1016/j .jretai.20 10.02.005). Kotier, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Doing the
Foscht, T., Schloffer, J., Maloles, C., I. I. I., & Chia, S. L. (2009).
most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Assessing the outcomes of generation-Y customers' loyalty. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (1998). Ensouling consumption:
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(3), 218-241. A netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting
Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the behavior. In A. Joseph & H. Wesley (Eds.), Advances in
ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 445-467. consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 475-480). Provo, UT: Associ-
Geraci, J. C. (2004). What do youth marketers think about selling toation for Consumer Research.
Krebs,
kids? International Journal of Advertising and Marketing to D. L., Vermeulen, S. C., & Denton, K. (1991). Competence
Children, 5(3), 11-17. and performance in moral judgment: From the ideal to the real.
Moral Education Forum, 16, 7-22.
Golding, K., & Peattie, K. (2005). In search of a golden blend:
Lai, F. S., Chong, S., Sia, B. K., & Ooi, B. C. (2010). Culture and
Perspectives on the marketing of fair trade coffee. Sustainable
Development, 13(3), 154-165. consumer behaviour: Comparisons between Malays and Chinese
Gorman, P., Nelson, T., & Glassman, A. (2004). The Millennial in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Management
generation: A strategic opportunity. Organizational Analysis,and Technology, 1(2), 180-185.
/2(3), 255-270. Lancaster, L., & Stil Iman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who
they are, why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition
research: Attitudes, self esteem and stereotypes. Psychologicalwork. New York: Collins Business.
Review, 702(1), 4-27. Langeland, L. (1998). On communicating the complexity or a green
message. Greener Management International, 25, 81-91.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate
Leach, M. M., Berman, M. E., & Eubanks, L. (2008). Religious
data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, H. (2009). Corporate and individual giving: What to expect inactivities, religious orientation, and aggressive behaviour. Jour-
coming months. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 27(9), 3. nal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(2), 311.
Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2005). Has the medium (roast) become
Hansen, U., & Schräder, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption
for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20(4), the message? The ethics of marketing fair trade in the
443-468. mainstream. International Marketing Research, 22(5), 494-511.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethical Consumers Among the Millennial 131

McSweeney, B. (2000). The Smith, B. (2011). Who

fallacy ofshall national
lead us? How culturalculture
values and ethical ident
In 6th interdisciplinary perspectives on evaluations
ideologies guide young marketers' accounting of the transfor- confe
Manchester. mational manager-leader. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.
Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in 1 007/s 1 055 1 -0 10-070 1 -0).
consumer behaviour: Implications for international retailing. Srnka, K. J. (2004). Culture's role in marketers' ethical decision
Journal of Retailing, 78 , 61-69. making: An integrated theoretical framework. Academy of
Morton, L. P. (2002). Targeting generation Y: Segmenting publics. Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-32.
Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 46-48. Sujansky, J. G., & Ferri-Reed, J. (2009). Keeping the Millenniais :
Newholm, T. (2005). Case studying ethical consumers. In R. Harrison, Why companies are losing billions in turnover to this genera-
T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. tion - and what to do about it. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
107-124). London: Sage. Sullivan, P., & Heitmeyer, J. (2008). Looking at Gen Y shopping
Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: A preferences and intentions: Exploring the role of experience and
review of research. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 253-270. apparel involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives 32, 285-295.
college-age generation Y consumers? Journal of Business Tan, C. T., & McCullough, J. (1985). Relating ethnic attitudes and
Research, 62 , 617-628. consumption values in an Asian context. Advances in Consumer
Nowak, L., Thach, L., & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Wowing the Millennial: Research, 12, 122-125.
Creating brand equity in the wine industry. Journal of Product Tang, L., & Ko veos, P. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede' s
and Brand Management, 75(5), 316-323. cultural value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional
O'Donnell, J. (2006, October 11). Gen Y sits on top of consumer food stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39,
chain: They're savvy shoppers with money and influence. USA 1045-1063.
Today , 3B. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital : The rise of the net
Oumlil, A., & Balloun, J. (2009). Ethical decision-making differences generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
between American and Moroccan managers. Journal of Business Taylor, S., & Cosenza, R. (2002). Profiling later-aged female teens:
Ethics, 8( 4), 457-478. Mall shopping behavior and clothing choice. Journal of
Palmer, D. (2008). Cracking the Gen Y culinary code. Australian Customer Marketing, 19(5), 393-408.
Food News. Retrieved from http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2008/ Th0gersen, J. (2007). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social
11/05/cracking-the-gen-y-culinary-code.html#. dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 458-472.
Pendergast, D. (2007). The MilGen and society. In N. Bahr & D. Trimble, D. E. (1997). The religious scale: Review and meta-analysis
Pendergast (Eds.), Being a Millennial adolescent: What do teachers of social desirability effects. Educational and Psychological
need to know? Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Measurements, 57(6), 970-986.
Research, http://shop.acer.edu.au/acershop/product/08643 1 6933 . Tuomela, S. (2010). Marketing to Millenniais in virtual community- SME
Perrin, R. D. (2000). Religiosity and honesty: continuing the search perspective applied. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Aalto University.
for the consequential dimension. Review of Religious Research , http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/EN/ethesis/pdf7 1 2326/hse_ethesis_ 1 2326.
41(4), 534-544. pdf.
Phillips, C. (2007). The Millennial handbook: A snapshot guide to United Nations Department of Economic, Social Affairs, Programme
everything Gen Y. South Bend, IN: Brand Amplitude. on Youth. (2005). World youth report 2005. Young people today,
Prochaska, J., & DiClemente, C. (1984). The transtheoretical and in 2015. New York: United Nations.
approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Home- Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A
wood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy.
Ramly, Z., Chai, L. T., & Lum, C. K. (2008). Religiosity as a Journal of Marketing, 52, 58-74.
predictor of consumer ethical behaviour: Some evidence from Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and
young consumers from Malaysia. Journal of Business Systems, suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43( 1/2),
Governance and Ethics, 5(4), 43-56. 33-47.
Rawwas, M. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: a typology of Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics:
international consumers' ethical beliefs. International Marketing An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of
Review, 18( 2), 188-211. ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153-178.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Walsh, G., Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., Andrews, J. C., & Hastings, G.
implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36 , (2010). Segmentation in social marketing. European Journal of
217-231. Marketing, 44(1/%), 1 140-1 164.
Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2007). Cultural values and international Ward, S., Pearson, C., & Entrekin, L. (2002). Chinese cultural values
differences in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), and the Asian meltdown. International Journal of Social
273-284. Economics, 29(3/4), 205-218.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development
interventions: A field experiment of curbside recycling. Basic and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing
and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36. monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299-309.
corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stake-Weiss, M. J. (2003). To be about to be. American Demographics ,
holder relationships: A field experiment. Academy of Marketing 25(7), 28-36.
Science Journal, 34, 158. Zemke, R., Rained, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work:
Sheahan, P. (2005). Generation Y: Thriving and surviving with Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
generation Y at work. Prahan: Hardie Grant Books. your workplace. New York: AMACOM American Management
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity Association.
and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal
of Business Research, 56(3), 245-255.

Springer

This content downloaded from

85.115.60.202 on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:22:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms