ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Moral Consumers and the Moral Economy

Mansour Omeira, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Valéry Bezençon, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland

The concept of moral consumer is typically understood as encompassing those individuals who engage in moral (ethical)
consumption. Drawing on multiple disciplines the paper proposes a broader understanding. It develops theoretical propositions about
what and who moral consumers are, and about their interface with the moral economy.

[to cite]:
Mansour Omeira and Valéry Bezençon (2017) ,"Moral Consumers and the Moral Economy", in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 45, eds. Ayelet Gneezy, Vladas Griskevicius, and Patti Williams, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer
Research, Pages: 787-788.

[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1024786/volumes/v45/NA-45

[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
 Moral Consumers and the Moral Economy
Mansour Omeira, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Valéry Bezençon, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Moral consumers are typically understood as those individuals
who engage in moral (ethical) consumption (Komarova Loureiro et
al. 2016). In the current paper, we develop theoretical propositions
regarding moral consumers and their interface with the moral econo-
my. After considering two aspects of moral persons, as moral agents
and as moral subjects, we identify a first pathway of the moral con-
sumer – moral economy interface, from consumers to the economy.
We then argue that moral consumers include both natural and legal
persons, and identify a second pathway of the interface, from the
economy to consumers, before concluding with research implica-
tions.
Consumers are moral, in the sense of having moral person-
hood, independently of whether their consumption is deemed moral
or immoral. Someone with moral personhood can be seen from two
aspects: as moral agent and as moral subject (Gallagher 2007). As
moral agents, consumers can take responsibility for their actions. As
moral subjects or subjects of moral worth, they have rights and are
owed respect. Is every moral agent a moral subject, and is every mor-
al subject a moral agent? Some moral agents are not moral subjects.
Humans forced into slavery conditions are moral agents who are de-
nied the status of moral subjects. Some moral subjects, like biodi-
versity or culture, are not moral agents. Moral subjects who are also
moral agents can respond to moral transgressions (Xie et al. 2014),
such as product harm crises (Lu et al. 2016), through retaliation.
P1: Ethical (moral) marketing involves the recognition that
consumers are both moral agents and moral subjects
P2: Moral transgressions entail undermining the status of
one or more beings as moral subject(s)
P3: Moral agency can be exercised over oneself (e.g. ethical
consumption) or over others (e.g. retaliation)
Moral consumers are moral; they are also consumers. We can
consider different aspects or dimensions of consumption and other
economic activities, such as the ecological, social, political, or cul-
tural. Although analysis entails separating the different aspects, they
are inseparable in the real world. Assessing the morality of the activ-
ity therefore requires considering its different aspects. For example,
the ecological aspect can be captured in measures such as the ecolog-
ical footprint. Addressing the social aspect can involve investigating
the social practices associated with consumption. The cultural aspect
of consumption can address its relation to value(s) (Graeber 2001),
which are socially constructed. It enables consideration of the strug-
gle between market economy and moral economy from a(n) (inter)
subjective perspective, as a value conflict that may take the form of
psychological tension in the individual (Burroughs and Rindfleisch
2002), or of political conflict in society. More importantly, it permits
investigating how such conflict is managed (Miller 2008).
P4: The morality of consumption, and of the economy more
generally, is multidimensional
787
P5: The difference between market economy and moral
economy relates to the value(s) under consideration
P6: The struggle between market economy and moral econ-
omy relates to value conflict and can be investigated as
such
What kind of persons are moral consumers? The typical focus
is on the final consumption of individuals (natural persons). From a
macro perspective, final consumption is undertaken by institutional
units such as households or the government (European Commission
et al. 2009). In addition to final consumption, intermediate consump-
tion during production can be investigated. Can we consider legal
entities as moral persons? There has been a growing recognition that
corporations have a mind, and alongside it the notion of corporate
crime has increasingly featured in legislation (Tombs 1999).
P7: Both final and intermediate consumers are moral con-
sumers
P8: Moral personhood encompasses both natural and legal
persons
We have already noted that consumers can respond to the moral
transgressions of enterprises. Yet such moral transgressions can also
transform consumer moral norms. A prominent example relates to
the 2007 financial crisis, which came as people engaged in unethical
behavior to receive bigger pay (Lewis et al. 2010). The pay struc-
ture focused on bonuses, which were unequally distributed (Crotty
2009). A bonus structure means that a certain pay is contingent on the
achievement of set goals; such goal-setting increases the likelihood
of engaging in unethical behavior (Schweitzer et al. 2004). A com-
bination of income and status inequality and variable pay is likely to
increase moral transgressions made for higher monetary gain. The
highly visible status rewards and non-punishment of such perceived
transgressions generates a social norm that challenges existing moral
norms, and may eventually lead to habit change. Our approach pro-
vides a new interpretation of the finding that consumers assign less
blame to people who morally transgressed if the transgression was
to gain a large enough sum of money (Xie et al. 2014). That is, the
outcome of the value conflict within a person can be tipped by the
changing incentive structures and related evolution in social norms
around her.
P9: Repeated exposure to the non-punishment of perceived
moral transgressions modifies moral norms
P10: Changes in the incentive structures of the market econo-
my can alter how consumers resolve their value conflicts
Our investigation into what it means to be a moral consumer
has broad implications for furthering the research agenda on morality
in and around markets. When are consumers not moral agents? The
delimitations are important, including for accountability purposes in
cases of consumer rage (Fullerton and Punj 2004). Who (or what)
is or is not to be considered a moral subject? Shedding light on the
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 45, ©2017
788 / Moral Consumers and the Moral Economy
matter has major implications, including about whether to eat ani-
mals (Loughnan et al. 2014), or to protect cultural heritage (Vlasic
and Turku 2016). Our analysis has also identified opportunities for
research into the morality of corporate consumers, such as how con-
sumers treat corporations as moral subjects. Taking corporations as
moral agents, interesting questions include moral disengagement
(Eriksson and Svensson 2016), risk-taking and the diffusion of re-
sponsibility (Wallach et al. 1964), and whistle-blowing (Dozier and
Miceli 1985).
REFERENCES
Burroughs, James E. and Aric Rindfleisch (2002), “Materialism
and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.
Crotty, James (2009). “Structural Causes of the Global Financial
Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the ‘New Financial
Architecture’,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 563-
580.
Dozier, Janelle Brinker and Maria P. Miceli (1985), “Potential
Predictors of Whistle-Blowing: A Prosocial Behavior
Perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823-
836.
Eriksson, David and Göran Svensson (2016), “The Process of
Responsibility, Decoupling Point, and Disengagement of
Moral and Social Responsibility in Supply Chains: Empirical
Findings and Prescriptive Thoughts,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 134(2), 281-298.
European Commission, International Monetary Fund, United
Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, and World Bank (2009), System of National
Accounts 2008, New York.
Fullerton, R. A. and G. Punj (2004), “Repercussions of Promoting
an Ideology of Consumption: Consumer Misbehavior,”
Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239-1249.
Gallagher, Shaun (2007), “Moral Agency, Self-Consciousness, and
Practical Wisdom,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(5-6),
199-223.
Graeber, David (2001), Toward an Anthropological Theory of
Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, New York:
Palgrave.
Komarova Loureiro, Yuliya, Julia Bayuk, Stefanie M. Tignor,
Gergana Y. Nenkov, Sara Baskentli, and Dave Webb (2016),
“The Case for Moral Consumption: Examining and Expanding
the Domain of Moral Behavior to Promote Individual
and Collective Well-Being,” Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 35(2), 305-322.
Lewis, Victor, Kenneth D. Kay, Chandrika Kelso, and James Larson
(2010), “Was the 2008 Financial Crisis Caused by a Lack of
Corporate Ethics?” Global Journal of Business Research, 4(2),
77-84.
Loughnan, Steve, Brock Bastian, and Nick Haslam (2014), “The
Psychology of Eating Animals,” Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(2), 104-108.
Lu, Dong, Yide Liu, Hongfeng Zhang, and Ivan K. W. Lai (2016),
“The Ethical Judgment and Moral Reaction to the Product-
Harm Crisis: Theoretical Model and Empirical Research,”
Sustainability, 8(7), 626.
Miller, Daniel (2008), “The Uses of Value,” Geoforum 39(3): 1122-
1132.
Schweitzer Maurice E., Lisa Ordóñez, and Bambi Douma (2004),
“Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior,” Academy
of Management Journal, 47(3), 422-432.
Tombs, Steve (1999), “Health and Safety Crimes: (In)visibility
and the Problems of ‘Knowing’,” in Invisible Crimes: Their
Victims and their Regulation, ed. Pamela Davies, Peter
Francis, and Victor Jupp, London: Macmillan Press, 77-104.
Vlasic, Mark and Helga Turku (2016), “‘Blood Antiquities’
Protecting Cultural Heritage Beyond Criminalization,” Journal
of International Criminal Justice, 14(5), 1175-1197.
Wallach, Michael A., Nathan Kogan, and Daryl J. Bem (1964),
“Diffusion of Responsibility and Level of Risk Taking in
Groups,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
68(3), 263.
Xie, Wenwen, Boya Yu, Xinyue Zhou, Constantine Sedikides, and
Kathleen Vohs (2014), “Money, Moral Transgressions, and
Blame,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 299-306.