IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v74y2007i1p89-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why People Don’t Take their Concerns about Fair Trade to the Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Chatzidakis

    ()

  • Sally Hibbert
  • Andrew Smith

Abstract

This article explores how neutralisation can explain people’s lack of commitment to buying Fair Trade (FT) products, even when they identify FT as an ethical concern. It examines the theoretical tenets of neutralisation theory and critically assesses its applicability to the purchase of FT products. Exploratory research provides illustrative examples of neutralisation techniques being used in the FT consumer context. A conceptual framework and research propositions delineate the role of neutralisation in explaining the attitude-behaviour discrepancies evident in relation to consumers’ FT purchase behaviour, providing direction for further research that will generate new knowledge of consumers’ FT purchase behaviour and other aspects of ethical consumer behaviour. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Chatzidakis & Sally Hibbert & Andrew Smith, 2007. "Why People Don’t Take their Concerns about Fair Trade to the Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 89-100, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:74:y:2007:i:1:p:89-100
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9222-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-006-9222-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberts, James A., 1996. "Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 79-83.
    2. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:74:y:2007:i:1:p:89-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.