Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 158, Issue 3, pp 585–601 | Cite as

The Moral Foundations of Consumer Ethics

  • Rafi M. M. I. ChowdhuryEmail author
Original Paper


This paper applies moral foundations theory in the context of consumer ethics. The purpose of the study is to examine whether moral foundations theory can be utilised as a theoretical framework to explain consumers’ beliefs regarding both ethical and unethical consumption. The relationships among various moral foundations and different dimensions of consumer ethics are examined with a sample of 450 US consumers. The results demonstrate that, among the various moral foundations, only the sanctity/degradation foundation is negatively related to beliefs regarding all forms of unethical consumer actions (actively benefiting from illegal actions, passively benefiting from the mistakes of the seller and actively benefiting from legal but questionable actions) as well as ‘no harm, no foul’ actions. On the contrary, the care/harm, fairness/cheating and authority/subversion foundations are related to positive beliefs regarding ‘doing good’ actions. This indicates that moral motivations for supporting pro-social actions as a consumer are not necessarily the same as moral motivations for condemning unethical actions. The findings also demonstrate that the loyalty/betrayal foundation is positively related to beliefs regarding unethical consumer actions and negatively related to perceptions of pro-social consumer actions. This demonstrates that in-group loyalty leads to supporting unethical actions. Furthermore, the results show that various moral foundations mediate the relationships of idealism with consumers’ ethical beliefs. Hence, various moral foundations can explain the effects of personal variables on consumer ethics.


Moral foundations theory Idealism Consumer ethics 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Arli, D., & Pekerti, A. (2016). Who is more ethical? Cross-cultural compassion of consumer ethics between religious and non-religious consumers. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 16(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, J. (1789/1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  3. Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.Google Scholar
  4. BSA (2016). Global software survey. Retrieved at
  5. Buccafusco, C., & Fagundes, D. (2015). The moral psychology of copyright infringement. The Minnesota Law Review, 100, 2433–2507.Google Scholar
  6. Chowdhury, R. M. M. I. (2017). Emotional intelligence and consumer ethics: The mediating role of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 527–548.Google Scholar
  7. Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., & Fernando, M. (2014). The relationships of empathy, moral identity and cynicism with consumers’ ethical beliefs: the mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 677–694.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M. A., Andersen, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
  9. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Dubinsky, A. J., Nataraajan, R., & Huang, W. (2005). Consumers’ moral philosophies: Identifying the idealist and the relativist. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1690–1701.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In R. J. Davidson & A. Harrington (Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 131–164). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.Google Scholar
  13. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.Google Scholar
  14. Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5), 461–470.Google Scholar
  15. Forsyth, D. R., & Nye, J. L. (1990). Personal moral philosophy and moral choice. Journal of Research in Personality, 24(4), 388–414.Google Scholar
  16. Forsyth, D. R., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). East meets west: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813–833.Google Scholar
  17. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 384–398.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.Google Scholar
  21. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.Google Scholar
  22. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by religion and politics. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognise. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.Google Scholar
  24. Hardy, S. A. (2006). Identity, reasoning and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(3), 205–213.Google Scholar
  25. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hildreth, J. A. D., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132(1), 16–36.Google Scholar
  27. Hume, D. (1777/1960). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  28. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
  29. Jackman, M., & Lorde, T. (2014). Why buy when we can pirate? The role of intentions and willingness to pay in predicting piracy behaviour. International Journal of Social Economics, 41(9), 801–819.Google Scholar
  30. Kant, I. (1785/1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (3rd ed.) (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  31. Khatri, N., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 289–303.Google Scholar
  32. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  34. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture wars attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.Google Scholar
  35. Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Padgett, M. Y., & Morris, K. A. (2005). Keeping it “all in the family”: Does nepotism in the hiring process really benefit the beneficiary? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 34–45.Google Scholar
  37. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended reviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  38. Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Before virtue: Biology, brain, behavior, and the ‘moral sense’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 351–376.Google Scholar
  39. Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The behavioural immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 99–103.Google Scholar
  40. Sidani, Y. M., Ghanem, A. J., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2014). When idealists evade taxes: the influence of personal moral philosophy on attitudes to tax evasion—A Lebanese study. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(2), 183–196.Google Scholar
  41. Simester, A. P. (1995). Why omissions are special? Legal Theory, 1(3), 311–335.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Smithers, R. (2014). Global Fairtrade sales reach £4.4 billion following 15% growth during 2013. The Guardian. Google Scholar
  44. Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 137–155.Google Scholar
  45. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.Google Scholar
  46. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
  47. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103–122.Google Scholar
  48. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behaviour in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780.Google Scholar
  49. Vainio, A., & Makiniemi, J. (2016). How are moral foundations associated with climate friendly consumption? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), 265–283.Google Scholar
  50. Vitell, S. J. (2015). A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Including a selected review of consumer ethics/social responsibility research. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 767–774.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.Google Scholar
  53. Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2003). Consumer ethics: The role of religiosity. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 151–162.Google Scholar
  54. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modelling. The Counselling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751.Google Scholar
  55. Winterich, K. P., Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2012). How political identity and charity positioning increase donations: Insights from moral foundations theory. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 346–354.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bond Business SchoolBond UniversityRobinaAustralia

Personalised recommendations