Political Consumerism at the Country Level

  • Carolin V. Zorell


This chapter explores why involvement in buycotting and boycotting reveals varying patterns across countries. Based on a study of 20 European democracies, the author shows that the different development of boycotting and buycotting is closely related to the degree to which guidelines are available which provide citizens with information about the political background of their purchasing options, namely, labelling schemes and/or a firm’s involvement in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The comparative dominance of either of the two types of guidelines shows to be linked to the way in which coordination problems in interactions are typically solved in a country, or ‘concept of the state’. The study thus illustrates that the mechanism of why boycotting and buycotting develop unequally across countries is related to macro-societal patterns in attitudes and the availability of CSR and labelling schemes.


  1. Atkinson, Lucy, and Sonny Rosenthal. 2014. Signalling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust. Journal of Advertising 43 (1): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartl, Jasmin, Ann-Kathrin Boderius, Manfred Kiy, Wiltrud Terlau, and Jana Voth. 2014. A Comparison of Fair Trade in Selected European Countries. NIL Research Paper 1/2014, Cologne University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, C.B., and Sankar Sen. 2004. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review 47 (1): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosius, Felix. 1998. SPSS 8: Professionelle Statistik unter Windows. Bonn: MITP-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission. 2011. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2011) 681 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility. National Public Policies in the European Union, Compendium 2014. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  9. Everitt, Brian S., Sabine Landau, Morven Leese, and Daniel Stahl. 2010. Cluster Analysis. 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Fairtrade International. 2012. For Producers, with Producers. Annual Report 2011–2012. Accessed 03.06.2013.
  11. ———. 2017. Building Fairtrade Markets. Annual Report 2016–2017. Accessed 07.03.2018.
  12. Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hicks, Alexander, and Lane Kenworthy. 2003. Varieties of Welfare Capitalism. Socio-Economic Review 1: 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann, Stefan. 2008. Boykottpartizipation: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Erklärungsmodells durch ein vollständig integriertes Forschungsdesign. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  15. Koos, Sebastian. 2012. What Drives Political Consumption in Europe? A Multi-Level Analysis on Individual Characteristics, Opportunity Structures and Globalization. Acta Sociologica 55 (1): 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindén, Anna-Lisa. 2005. Private Food Strategies and Political Consumerism. In Political Consumerism: Its Motivations, Power, and Conditions in the Nordic Countries and Elsewhere, ed. Magnus Boström, Andreas Føllesdal, Mikael Klintman, Michele Micheletti, and Mads P. Sørensen, 203–224. TemaNord 2005:517, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  17. MacGillivray, Alex, John Sabapathy, and Simon Zadek. 2003. Responsible Competitiveness Index 2003. Aligning Corporate Responsibility and the Competitiveness of Nations. AccountAbility and the Copenhagen Centre. Accessed 03.06.2013.
  18. Nielsen. 2013. Deutschland 2013. Handel, Verbraucher, Werbung. Frankfurt: Nielsen.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2015. Deutschland 2015. Handel, Verbraucher, Werbung. Frankfurt: Nielsen.Google Scholar
  20. Nölke, Andreas, and Arjan Vliegenthart. 2009. Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe. World Politics 61 (04): 670–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD. 2012. Ersparnis der privaten Haushalte. Die OECD in Zahlen und Fakten 2011–2012: Wirtschaft, Umwelt, Gesellschaft. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2015. Gross Household Adjusted Disposable Income Per Capita, US Dollars, Current Prices and Current PPPs. National Accounts at a Glance, 5 (Household). Accessed 02.09.2015.
  23. Rousseau, Sandra, and Liesbet Vranken. 2013. Green Market Expansion by Reducing Information Asymmetries: Evidence for Labeled Organic Food Products. Food Policy 40: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schröder, Martin. 2013. Integrating Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare State Research: A Unified Typology of Capitalisms. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stolle, Dietlind, and Michele Micheletti. 2013. Political Consumerism. Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Valor, Carmen. 2007. The Influence of Information about Labour Abuses on Consumer Choice of Clothes: A Grounded Theory Approach. Journal of Marketing Management 23 (7–8): 675–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. World Bank Group. 2018. World Development Indicators. Accessed 24.02.2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin V. Zorell
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations