Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Luxury Ethical Consumers: Who Are They?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 30 November 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Building on a model of the biological, socio-psychological, and structural drivers of luxury consumption, this article explores when and why luxury consumers consider ethics in their luxury consumption practices, to identify differences in their ethical and ethical luxury consumption. The variables proposed to explain these differences derive from biological, socio-psychological, and structural drivers, namely, consumers’ (1) age, (2) ethicality, (3) human values, (4) motivations, and (5) assumptive world. A cluster analysis of a sample of 706 U.S. adult luxury consumers reveals five segments of luxury consumers, each reflecting a specific persona, that engage in both ethical and ethical luxury consumption to varying extents. The five segments differ in the extent to which they exhibit features related to four discriminant functions (immorality, ego-orientation, and strain; altruistic-orientation; conservation, in control, and positivity; and youth and luxury savvy), which vary across the biological, socio-psychological, and structural drivers. The findings thus indicate which segments of luxury consumers are most relevant for luxury firms pursuing a long-term sustainability agenda and suggest practical actions to reach those goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Achabou, M. A., & Dekhili, S. (2013). Luxury and sustainable development: Is there a match? Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1896–1903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2018). Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 180–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Costabile, M., & Guido, G. (2017). Sustainable luxury brands: Evidence from research and implications for managers (Palgrave Advances in Luxury). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., & Donato, C. (2021a). The atypicality of sustainable luxury products. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., & Stoppani, A. (2021b). The appeal of sustainability in luxury hospitality: An investigation on the role of perceived integrity. Tourism Management, 83, 104228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athwal, N., Wells, V. K., Carrigan, M., & Henninger, C. E. (2019). Sustainable luxury marketing: A synthesis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(4), 405–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (2010). The difference of being human: Morality. PNAS, 107(Supplement 2), 9015–9022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baghramian, M., & Carter, A. J. (2020). Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). The business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbarossa, C., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2016). Positive and negative antecedents of purchasing eco-friendly products: A comparison between green and non-green consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(2), 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbiroli, G. (2006). Eco-efficiency or/and eco-effectiveness? Shifting to innovative paradigms for resource productivity. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(5), 391–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkan, S. E. (2012). Sociology: Comprehensive Edition. Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociology-comprehensive-edition/index.html.

  • Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges, opportunities, and the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bech-Sørensen, J., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Sex differences in mate preferences: A replication study, 20 years later. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckham, D., & Voyer, B. G. (2014). Can sustainability be luxurious? A mixed-method investigation of implicit and explicit attitudes towards sustainable luxury consumption. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 42, pp. 245–250). Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (1988). Possessions as the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, J. Z., Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., & Small, D. A. (2015). The braggart’s dilemma: On the social rewards and penalties of advertising prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berzonsky, M. D., Cieciuch, J., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). The how and what of identity formation: Associations between identity styles and value orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 295–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuren, F. H., Ferreira, M. G. G., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2013). Product-service systems: A literature review on integrated products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 222–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brangier, E., & Bornet, C. (2011). Persona: A method to produce representations focused on consumers’ needs. In W. Karwowski, M. M. Soares, & N. A. Stanton (Eds.), Human factors and ergonomics in consumer product design methods and techniques (pp. 37–62). CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucic, T., Harris, J., & Arli, D. (2012). Ethical consumers among the Millennials: A cross-national study. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. F., Eckert, C., & Davis, S. (2014). Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2237–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 401–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervellon, M.-C., & Wernerfelt, A.-S. (2012). Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 176–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, J.-L., Laurent, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). Pursuing the concept of luxury: Introduction to the JBR special issue on ‘Luxury Marketing from Tradition to Innovation.’ Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, A., & Schor, J. B. (1998). Empirical tests of status consumption: evidence from women's cosmetics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(1):107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, P. E., & Stumpf, S. A. (2011). Consumer complicity with counterfeit products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, H. R., & Majumdar, S. (2006). Of diamonds and desires: Understanding conspicuous consumption from a contemporary marketing perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catholic Church. (1992). You shall not steal. In Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 7, pp. 2402–2406. The Vatican.

  • Cloutier, D. (2015). The vice of luxury: Economic excess in consumer age. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowburn, B., Moritz, C., Birrell, C., Grimsditch, G., & Abdulla, A. (2018). Can luxury and environmental sustainability co-exist? Assessing the environmental impact of resort tourism on coral reefs in the Maldives. Ocean & Coastal Management, 158, 120–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Arpizio, C., Levato, F., Prete, F., Del Fabbro, E., & de Montgolfier, J. (2019). The future of luxury: A look into tomorrow to understand today. Bain, www.bain.com/insights/luxury-goods-worldwide-market-study-fall-winter-2018/

  • Davies, I. A., & Gutsche, S. (2016). Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical” consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1326–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. A., Lee, Z., & Ahonkhai, I. (2012). Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis, M. D., Adiguzel, F., & Amatulli, C. (2017). The role of design similarity in consumers’ evaluation of new green products: An investigation of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 1515–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Kerviler, G., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2019). Luxury brand experiences and relationship quality for Millennials: The role of self-expansion. Journal of Business Research, 102, 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMarco, A. (2018). The challenges of producing sustainable luxury goods. Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/anthonydemarco/2018/11/26/the-challenges-of-producing-sustainable-luxury-goods/#1ea2896e3e27

  • Desmichel, P., Ordabayeva, N., & Kocher, B. (2020). What if diamonds did not last forever? Signaling status achievement through ephemeral versus iconic luxury goods. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diallo, M. F., Mouelhi, N. B. D., Gadekar, M., & Schill, M. (2020). CSR actions, brand value, and willingness to pay a premium price for luxury brands: Does long-term orientation matter? Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04486-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobewall, H., & Strack, M. (2014). Relationship of Inglehart’s and Schwartz’s value dimensions revisited. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 240–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, B., Czellar, S., & Laurent, G. (2005). Consumer segments based on attitudes toward luxury: Empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters, 16(2), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1998). The new age of luxury living. Financial times mastering management review (pp. 32–35). Lausanne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Jung, S., & Ordabayeva, N. (2021). The psychology of luxury consumption. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 82–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(1), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, J. K., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Perceptions of status consumption and the economy. Journal of Business Economics Research, 9(7), 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, J. K., & Liu, J. (2012). The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: An exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited, or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28(5), 404–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol 5, Personality and social psychology (pp. 159–184). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erffmeyer, R., Keillor, B., & LeClair, D. T. (1999). An empirical investigation of Japanese consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, R., Shiv, B., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influences of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardetti, M. A. (2014). Stories from the social pioneers in the luxury sector: A conceptual vision in sustainable luxury. In M. A. Gardetti & M. E. Giron (Eds.), Sustainable luxury and social entrepreneurship: Stories from the pioneers (pp. 23–34). Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardetti, M. A., & Torres, A. L. (2014). Sustainable luxury: Managing social and environmental performance in iconic brands. Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. (2006). Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5833–5841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goenka, S., & Thomas, M. (2019). The malleable morality of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 562–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantu, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., Thompson, M. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., Sundie, J., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts, and implications. California Management Review, 57(3), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, J. (2012). Millennials: Young, broke, and spending on luxury. The Fiscal Times. Retrieved from https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/15/Millennials-Young-Broke-and-Spending-on-Luxury

  • Hamlin, J. K. (2014). The origins of human morality: Complex socio-moral evaluations by preverbal infants. In J. Decety & Y. Christen (Eds.), New frontiers in social neuroscience (pp. 165–188). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, E. (2016). Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research, 74, 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, A. (2017). Younger consumers drive shift to ethical products. Financial Times. Retrieved from www.ft.com/content/8b08bf4c-e5a0-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

  • Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2011). The abstractness of luxury. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 789–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haski-Leventhal, D., Pournader, M., & McKinnon, A. (2017). The role of gender and age in business students’ values, CSR attitudes, and responsible management education: Learnings from the PRME International Survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriksz, V. (2018). Kering, H&M, Bestseller & more CEOs to tackle 7 crucial sustainable priorities, Fashion United (online). Retrieved from July 30, 2018 from https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/kering-h-m-bestseller-more-ceos-to-tackle-7-crucial-sustainable-priorities/2018032728851

  • Henninger, C. E., Alevizou, P. J., & Oates, C. J. (2016). What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herskovitz, S., & Crystal, M. (2010). The essential brand persona: Storytelling and branding. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, C., & Ames, A. (2000). Ethical consumerism: A research study conducted for the Co-operative Bank. Mori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, C., & Vanhamme, J. (2015). Theoretical lenses for understanding the CSR consumer paradox. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 775–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J., & Leblanc, S. (2015). Should luxury brands shout or whisper? The effects of brand prominence on consumer perceptions of responsible luxury. In K. Diehl & C. Yoon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 43, pp. 574–575). Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., & Lefebvre, C. (2014). The catch-22 of responsible luxury: Effects of luxury product characteristics on consumers’ perception of fit with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N. (1998). Why are we seduced by luxury brands? Journal of Brand Management, 6(1), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing upside down. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5/6), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., & Laurent, G. (2016). Where do consumers think luxury begins? A study of perceived minimum price for 21 luxury goods in 7 countries. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., & Michaut, A. (2014a). Are luxury purchasers really insensitive to sustainable development? In M. A. Gardetti & A. L. Torres (Eds.), Sustainable luxury (pp. 94–107). Greenleaf Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J. N., & Michaut, A. (2014b). Is luxury compatible with sustainability: Luxury consumers’ viewpoint. Journal of Brand Management, 21(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., & Michaut, A. (2015). Luxury and sustainability: A common future? The match depends on how consumers define luxury. Luxury Research Journal, 1(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatzas, S., Kapoulas, A., & Priporas, C. V. (2019). Consumers’ perceptions on complexity and prospects of ethical luxury: Qualitative insights from Taiwan. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(4), 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11(4), 348–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. C., Park, B., & Dubois, D. (2018). How consumers’ political ideology and status-maintenance goals interact to shape their desire for luxury goods. Journal of Marketing, 82(6), 132–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollewe, J. (2015). Global luxury goods market exceeds €1tn. The Guardian, 29 October. Retrieved from March 23, 2019 from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/29/global-luxurygoods-market-exceeds-1tn-euro

  • Kotler, P., & Keller, K. K. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouchaki, M., & Wareham, J. (2015). Excluded and behaving unethically: Social exclusion, physiological responses, and unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leban, M., Thomsen, T. U., von Wallpach, S., & Woyer, B. G. (2021). Constructing personas: How high-net-worth social media influencers reconcile ethicality and living a luxury lifestyle. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In M. J. Lerner (Ed.), The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion (pp. 9–30). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M., & Miller, D. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and looking ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist, J.-E., & Itkonen, J. V. A. (2016). Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist, J.-E., Leikas, S., & Verkasalo, M. (2018). Value change in men and women entering parenthood: New mothers’ value priorities shift towards conservation values. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2015). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, H.-K. (1985). Cross-cultural study of the development of law-abiding orientation. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 967–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N., Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Images of success and the preference for luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N., & Smeesters, D. (2008). The sweet escape: Effects of mortality salience on consumption quantities for high- and low-self-esteem consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massa, I. (2017). Mazars: Ethics in luxury study. Mazars Group. Retrieved from www.mazars.com/Home/News-and-Insights/Our-publications/Surveys-and-studies/Mazars-Ethics-in-Luxury-Study

  • McEachern, M., & Warnaby, G. G. (2012). Improving customer orientation within the fresh meat supply chain: A focus on assurance schemes. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(1/2), 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGue, M., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on human behavioural differences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brand Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millman, M. (1994). The work of love. In G. Handel & G. C. Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family (4th ed., pp. 313–324). Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, V. W., Balabanis, G., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Cornwell, T. B. (2009). Measuring unethical consumer behavior across four countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M., & Carpenter, J. M. (2008). Intergenerational perceptions of market cues among US apparel consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(3), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., Bosangit, C., Ferreira, C., & McGrath, M. (2017). Understanding ethical luxury consumption through practice theories: A study of fine jewellery purchases. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naderi, I., & Strutton, D. (2015). I support sustainability but only when doing so reflects fabulously on me: Can green narcissists be cultivated? Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J., Ginger, C., & Cartier, L. (2016). The sustainable luxury contradiction: Evidence from a consumer study of marine-cultured pearl jewellery. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 63, 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nave, G., Nadler, A., Dubois, D., Zava, D., Camerer, C., & Plassman, H. (2018). Single-dose testosterone administration increases men’s preference for status goods. Nature Communications, 9, 2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norum, P. (2003). Apparel expenditure variation among US households headed by baby boomers. Journal of the Textile Institute, 94(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(2), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (2019). Sustainable luxury: Millennials buy into socially conscious brands. Luxe Digital. Retrieved from https://luxe.digital/business/digital-luxury-trends/millennials-buy-sustainable-luxury/

  • Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2011). Getting ahead of the Joneses: When equality increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordabayeva, N., & Fernandes, D. (2018). Better or different? How political ideology shapes preferences for differentiation in the social hierarchy. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 227–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osburg, V.-S., Davies, I., Yoganathan, V., & McLeay, F. (2021). Perspectives, opportunities and tensions in ethical and sustainable luxury; introduction to the thematic symposium. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palihawadana, D., Oghazi, P., & Liu, Y. (2016). Effects of ethical ideologies and perceptions of CSR on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4964–4969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of the ‘rarity principle.’ Journal of Brand Management, 8(2), 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, D. D., Herter, M. M., Goncalves, D., & Sayin, E. (2019). Can luxury brands be ethical? Reducing the sophistication liability of luxury brands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 233, 1366–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Van Strien, J. W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Merely being with you increases my attention to luxury products: Using EEG to understand consumers’ emotional experience with luxury branded products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 546–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1996). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of the ethical beliefs of Austrian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 1009–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reim, W., Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Product-service systems (PSS) business models and tactics: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisz, J. (2018). The new luxury: How rising global consciousness is killing the old luxury business. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimé, B. (2005). Le partage social des émotions. Presses universitaires de France, coll. Psychologie sociale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2014). Luxury growth at risk as shoppers become more diverse Bain says. Bloomberg. Retrieved from www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-14/luxury-growth-at-risk-as-shoppers-become-more-diverse-bain-says

  • Robinson, G. E. (2004). Beyond nature and nurture. Science, 304(5669), 397–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, S., Caruana, R., Medway, D., & Murphy, P. (2013). Constructing luxury brands: Exploring the role of consumer discourse. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/4), 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudnev, M., & Vauclair, C.-M. (2018). The link between personal values and frequency of drinking depends on cultural values: A cross-level interaction approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schade, M., Hegner, S., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., & Brinkmann, N. (2016). The impact of attitude functions on luxury brand consumption: An age-based group comparison. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 314–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Creating environmental solutions in light of planetary boundaries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2020). Computing Scores for the 10 Human Values. Retrieved from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/ESS_computing_human_values_scale.pdf

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, A. Chasiotis, & S. M. Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463–493). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Butenko, T. (2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 799–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Septianto, F., Seo, Y., & Errmann, A. C. (2021). Distinct effects of pride and gratitude appeals on sustainable luxury brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, H., Eastman, J. K., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2017). The effect of a limited-edition offer following brand dilution on consumer attitudes toward a luxury brand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhart, Y., Ayalon, O., & Puterman, H. (2013). The effect of an environmental claim on consumers’ perceptions about luxury and utilitarian products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 53, 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streit, C.-M., & Davies, I. (2013). Sustainability isn’t sexy: An exploratory study into luxury fashion. In M. A. Gardetti & A. L. Torres (Eds.), Sustainability in fashion and textiles: Values, design, production and consumption (pp. 207–222). Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaidan, Z., Vitell, S. J., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2003). Consumer ethics: Determinants of ethical beliefs of African Americans. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(4), 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., & Mitchell, M. S. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 98–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. S. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trudel, R., Klein, J., Sen, S., & Dawar, N. (2020). Feeling good by doing good: A selfish motivation for ethical choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 246–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen, V., ten Klooster, P. M., van der Aa, N., Smith, A. J. M., Esterhof, G. J., & Glas, G. (2018). Structural validity of the world assumption scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(6), 816–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. B. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, A., Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Jr., & Deschenes, J. (2010). The aesthetics of luxury fashion, body and identify formation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Lipsanen, J., & Helkama, K. (2009). European norms and equations for a two dimensional presentation of values as measured with Schwartz’s 21-item portrait values questionnaire. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 780–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 11(6), 484–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J. (1986). Marketing ethics: Conceptual and empirical foundations of a positive theory of decision making in situations having ethical content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University

  • Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1991). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(5), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals: Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 834–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our Common future. United Nations Documents. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/wced

  • White, K., Argo, J., & Sengupta, J. (2012a). Dissociative versus associative response to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 704–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. (2012b). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, A. (2016). Luxury brands can no longer ignore sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 8, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkowski, T. H., & Reddy, S. (2010). Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(1), 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., & Evans, S. (2019). Product-service system business model archetypes and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 1156–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, L. W., & Chan, R. Y. I. (2019). Why and when do consumers perform green behaviors? An examination of regulatory focus and ethical ideology. Journal of Business Research, 94, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Florian Kock for friendly advice. They also thank the editor and the three reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EDHEC Business School, 24 avenue Gustave Delory, CS 50411, 59057, Roubaix Cedex 1, France

    Joëlle Vanhamme

  2. Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Adam Lindgreen

  3. University of Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of Business Science, 26 Melville Road, Illovo, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Adam Lindgreen

  4. Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Gülen Sarial-Abi

Authors
  1. Joëlle Vanhamme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Lindgreen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gülen Sarial-Abi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Lindgreen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The initial online publication contained a typesetting mistake in the affiliation of author Joëlle VanHamme. The affiliation was incorrectly given as ‘Business School’ but should have been ‘EDHEC Business School’. The original article has been corrected.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Measurement Scales

*Not included.

RQ2: Human Values Measures

Here we briefly describe different people. Please read each description and think about how much that person is or is not like you. For each statement, tick the box that shows …

  • It is important to him/her to form his/her views independently.

  • It is important to him/her that his/her country is secure and stable.

  • It is important to him/her to have a good time.

  • It is important to him/her to avoid upsetting other people.

  • It is important to him/her that the weak and vulnerable in society be protected.

  • It is important to him/her that people do what s/he says they should.

  • It is important to him/her never to think s/he deserves more than other people.

  • It is important to him/her to care for nature.

  • It is important to him/her that no one should ever shame him/her.

  • It is important to him/her always to look for different things to do.

  • It is important to him/her to take care of people s/he is close to.

  • It is important to him/her to have the power that money can bring.

  • It is very important to him/her to avoid disease and protect his/her health.

  • It is important to him/her to be tolerant toward all kinds of people and groups.

  • It is important to him/her never to violate rules or regulations.

  • It is important to him/her to make his/her own decisions about his/her life.

  • It is important to him/her to have ambitions in life.

  • It is important to him/her to maintain traditional values and ways of thinking.

  • It is important to him/her that people s/he knows have full confidence in him/her.

  • It is important to him/her to be wealthy.

  • It is important to him/her to take part in activities to defend nature.

  • It is important to him/her never to annoy anyone.

  • It is important to him/her to develop his/her own opinions.

  • It is important to him/her to protect his/her public image.

  • It is very important to him/her to help the people dear to him/her.

  • It is important to him/her to be personally safe and secure.

  • It is important to him/her to be a dependable and trustworthy friend.

  • It is important to him/her to take risks that make life exciting.

  • It is important to him/her to have the power to make people do what s/he wants.

  • It is important to him/her to plan his/her activities independently.

  • It is important to him/her to follow rules even when no-one is watching.

  • It is important to him/her to be very successful.

  • It is important to him/her to follow his family’s customs or the customs of a religion.

  • It is important to him/her to listen to and understand people who are different from him/her.

  • It is important to him/her to have a strong state that can defend its citizens.

  • It is important to him/her to enjoy life’s pleasures.

  • It is important to him/her that every person in the world have equal opportunities in life.

  • It is important to him/her to be humble.

  • It is important to him/her to figure things out himself/herself.

  • It is important to him/her to honor the traditional practices of his/her culture.

  • It is important to him/her to be the one who tells others what to do.

  • It is important to him/her to obey all the laws.

  • It is important to him/her to have all sorts of new experiences.

  • It is important to him/her to own expensive things that show his/her wealth.

  • It is important to him/her to protect the natural environment from destruction or pollution.

  • It is important to him/her to take advantage of every opportunity to have fun.

  • It is important to him/her to concern himself/herself with every need of his/her dear ones.

  • It is important to him/her that people recognize what s/he achieves.

  • It is important to him/her never to be humiliated.

  • It is important to him/her that his/her country protect itself against all threats.

  • It is important to him/her never to make other people angry.

  • It is important to him/her that everyone be treated justly, even people s/he doesn’t know

  • It is important to him/her to avoid anything dangerous.

  • It is important to him/her to be satisfied with what s/he has and not ask for more.

  • It is important to him/her that all his/her friends and family can rely on him/her completely.

  • It is important to him/her to be free to choose what s/he does by himself/herself.

  • It is important to him/her to accept people even when s/he disagrees with them.

RQ 3: Consumer Ethicality Measures

Idealism/relativism scale (agreement from 1 to 7)

Idealism:

  • A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree.

  • Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.

  • The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits gained.

  • One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.

  • One should not perform an action that might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.

  • If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.

  • Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.*

  • The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.

  • It’s never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.

  • Moral actions are those which closely match ideals of the most ‘‘perfect’’ action.*

  • There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code of ethics.

  • What is ethical varies form one situation and society to another.

  • Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers being moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.

  • Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to rightness.

  • What is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual.

  • Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave, and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.

  • Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to formulate their own individual codes.

  • Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment.

  • No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends upon the situation.

  • Whether a lie is judged to be immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the actions.

To what extent do you believe that the following behaviors are appropriate or inappropriate? (1 = extremely inappropriate; 5 = extremely appropriate)

ACT:

  • Returning damaged goods when the damage was your own fault.

  • Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an unpriced item.

  • Using a long distance access code that does not belong to you.

  • Drinking a can of soda in a store without paying for it.

  • Reporting a lost item as ‘‘stolen’’ to an insurance company in order to collect the insurance money.

PAS:

  • Moving into a residence, finding that the cable TV is still hooked up, and using it without paying for it.

  • Lying about a child’s age to get a lower price.

  • Not saying anything when the waiter or waitress miscalculates a bill in your favor.

  • Getting too much change and not saying anything.

  • Joining a CD club just to get some free CDs with no intention of buying any.

  • Observing someone shoplifting and ignoring it.

QUEST:

  • Using an expired coupon for merchandise.

  • Returning merchandise to a store by claiming that it was a gift when it was not.

  • Using a coupon for merchandise you did not buy.

  • Not telling the truth when negotiating the price of a new automobile.

  • Stretching the truth on an income tax return.

NOH

  • Installing software on your computer without buying the software.

  • ‘‘Burning’’ a CD rather than buying it.

  • Returning merchandise after buying it and not liking it.

  • Spending over an hour trying on clothing and not buying anything.

  • Taping a movie of the television.

RQ 4: Motivations measures

Reasons for purchasing ethical luxury:

  • It helps me fit in with my peers.

  • It helps "make a difference."

  • It can make me an opinion leader.

  • These types of products or services are easy to find.

  • I can save money.

  • These types of products or services are of a higher quality.

  • These types of products or services are healthier for me.

  • It can help me with the creation of my positive identity.

  • I genuinely care about the issues they deal with.

  • They may grant me a higher status.

  • They utilize innovative technology.

  • I am very informed and am able to distinguish between ethical and non-ethical luxury products.

Reasons for not purchasing ethical luxury:

  • There is a monetary risk in trialing them.

  • Their packaging is unattractive or unappealing.

  • They offer no other benefit (or features) other than being ethical.

  • I am skeptical as to how ethical these luxury products or services really are.

  • I do not really care about the consequences of not buying ethical products or services.

  • I do not give them much thought.

  • They are harder to find in stores.

  • You have to go to specialty stores to buy them.

  • I am confused as to what makes a luxury product or service ethical.

  • They are of a lower quality.

  • They are too expensive for the value received.

  • People who buy them are given a negative stigma.

  • I am suffering from ethical overload, I am sick of hearing about it.

RQ 5: Assumptive World Perceptions Measures

World assumptions scale (agreement from 1 to 6):

Benevolence:

  • The good things that happen in this world far outnumber the bad things.

  • There is more good than evil in the world.

  • If you look closely enough, you will see that the world is full of goodness.

  • The world is a good place.

  • People do not really care what happens to the next person.*

  • People are naturally unfriendly and unkind.*

  • People are basically kind and helpful.

  • Human nature is basically good.

Justice-controllability:

  • People will experience good fortune if they themselves are good.

  • By and large, good people get what they deserve in this world.

  • Generally, people deserve what they get in this world.

  • Misfortune is least likely to strike worthy, decent people.

  • People's misfortunes result from mistakes they have made.

  • Through our actions, we can prevent bad things from happening to us.

  • If people took preventive actions, most misfortune could be avoided.

  • When bad things happen, it is typically because people have not taken necessary actions to protect themselves.

Randomness:

  • Bad events are distributed to people at random.

  • The course of our lives is largely determined by chance.

  • Life is too full of uncertainties that are determined by chance.

  • In general, life is mostly a gamble.

Negative self-worth:

  • I often think that I am no good at all.

  • I have a low opinion of myself.

  • I have reason to be ashamed of my personal character.

  • I am very satisfied with the kind of person I am (*).

Self-controllability:

  • I usually behave in ways that are likely to maximize good results for me.

  • I almost always make an effort to prevent bad things from happening to me.

  • I take the actions necessary to protect myself against misfortune.

  • I usually behave so as to bring about the greatest good for me.

Luck:

  • I am basically a lucky person.

  • When I think about it, I consider myself very lucky.

  • Looking at my life, I realize that chance events have worked out well for me.

  • I am luckier than most people.

Other measures

Attitude toward luxury:

  • I do not know much about the luxury world.

  • I rather like luxury.

  • I am not interested in luxury

Morality scale (1 to 7)

To what extent do you feel you are characterized by the following adjectives?

  • Moral–Immoral

  • Nice–Mean

  • Altruistic–Selfish

  • Good–Bad

  • Sincere–Insincere

  • Pure–Impure

Ownership of costly durables (immersion in expensive durables):

  • A laptop worth more than 2900 US dollars

  • A smartphone worth more than 900 US dollars

  • A vacation house or cottage

  • A television worth more than 1500 US dollars

  • A swimming pool

  • A sauna

  • A Jacuzzi

  • A home entertainment system worth more than 3500 US dollars

  • A gym in your house (i.e., a room with various exercise equipment such as rowing machine, treadmill, stationary bike, etc.)

  • A flat or a house worth more than 400,000 US dollars

  • A car worth more than 40,000 US dollars

Possession of luxury:

  • Necklace

  • Ring

  • Pendant

  • Bracelet

  • Earrings

  • Watch

  • Cufflinks

  • Tie clip

  • Pen

  • Diary

  • Key ring

  • Dress

  • Purse

  • Wallet

  • Cardholder

  • Cosmetics

  • Handbag or bag

  • Woman jacket

  • Men suits

  • Glasses

  • Men shoes

  • Women shoes

  • Holidays

  • Exclusive experiences

  • Hotel

  • Restaurant

  • Cars

  • Plastic surgery

How often do you usually buy the following types of products or services? (from 1, never to 7, always)

  • Luxury services.

  • Luxury products.

  • Ethical services.

  • Ethical products.

  • Ethical luxury services.

  • Ethical luxury products.

Appendix 2: Robustness Check

Computing scores for the two dimensions of Schwarz values, rather than four higher-order values (self-transcendence, self-enhancement, conservation, and openness-to-change), may affect the results of the discriminant analysis. To assess the robustness of our conclusions regarding the characteristics of the identified clusters and derived personas, we ran a discriminant analysis using the four higher-order values instead of the two value dimensions. Both analyses reveal four discriminant functions and 14 variables that contribute significantly to the four functions; the variance explained by each function is the same in both analyses. In detail, the first function explains 74 percent of the variance of both analyses and includes the same retained variables (no value dimensions or higher-order value variables appear in this first function). Notably, the Schwarz values do not explain a substantial share of the variance in the data, so the impact of using two versus four variables can only be minimal. For the remaining functions (26 percent of the variance in total, summing 12 percent, 8 percent, and 6 percent in both analyses), we find a few slight differences (see below), mostly pertaining to the ability of some variables to contribute significantly to the discriminant function. These variables all have univariate ability to discriminate among clusters (significant Wilks Lambda); they were not retained, because they correlated with other, retained variables, such that their content already is being taken into account in the function. The slight differences did not change the clusters or personas derived, nor the conclusions drawn.

  • In the analyses reported in the results section, openness-to-change versus conservation is the only dimension retained in the discriminant analysis. It contributes significantly to function 3 (loading of 0.570, potency index of 0.5). In the discriminant analysis with the four higher-order values, conservation contributes significantly to discriminant function 3 (loading of 0.67, potency index of 0.06), and openness-to-change contributes to function 2 (albeit with a very low loading of 0.31 and lower potency index of 0.04). No other higher-order value variable is significant in any analyses. Therefore, conservation is the better predictor in the analysis with the four-higher order values, and it defines function 3 (openness-to-change does not improve the discriminatory power of function 2 much); and, similarly, the openness-to-change versus conservation variable contributes significantly to function 3 in the analyses reported in the results section.

  • In the analysis with four-higher order variables, self-controllability has a high loading on function 3 and the ability to discriminate among clusters (significant Wilks Lambda). However, and in contrast with the analysis involving two value dimensions, it does not contribute significantly to discriminant function 3, due to its correlation with other retained variables.

  • We note a swap between two retained variables: luxury savvy (control variable) and higher quality (motivation variable). In the analysis with four higher-order variables, luxury savvy discriminates among clusters (significant Wilks Lambda) but does not contribute significantly to the function, due to its correlation with other, retained variables. In the analysis reported in the article, luxury savvy replaces higher quality among the variables that contribute significantly to the discriminant functions: higher quality still discriminates among clusters (significant Wilks Lambda), but no longer significantly contributes to the function due to its correlation with other, retained variables.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A. & Sarial-Abi, G. Luxury Ethical Consumers: Who Are They?. J Bus Ethics 183, 805–838 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04981-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04981-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation