Advertisement

Green Fashion pp 109-125 | Cite as

Do as You Would Be Done by: The Importance of Animal Welfare in the Global Beauty Care Industry

  • Nadine HennigsEmail author
  • Evmorfia Karampournioti
  • Klaus-Peter Wiedmann
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)

Abstract

Nowadays, the concept of sustainability is discussed in almost every product category. In this context, companies commit themselves to advancing good social, environmental, and animal-welfare practices in their business operations, including sustainable sourcing practices. Nevertheless, even if many companies in the global beauty care industry have embraced such claims, common practices such as water pollution, the use of pesticides in the production of fibers, poor labor conditions, and animal testing are omnipresent. According to the European Commission, 11.5 million animals were used in the European Union for experimental or scientific purposes in 2011. Worldwide this figure rises to 115 million animals annually (Four Paws International2013). In the rising tension between “greenwashing” and the use of ethical/environmental commitments that are nothing more than “sheer lip service,” the question arises of the role of the consumers with regard to sustainable practices in the cosmetics industry. Are consumers increasingly conscious of the adverse effects of ethical and environmental imbalances? And what effect does this knowledge have on their buying behavior? On the divergent poles of hypocrisy and true commitment, to advance current understanding of sustainability and related links to consumer perception and actual buying behavior related to ethical issues, the aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive framework of animal welfare in the personal care industry. Based on existing theoretical and empirical insights it becomes evident that psychological determinants, such as personality traits, empathy, ethical obligation, and self-identity, as well as context-related determinants in terms of one’s ethical value perception of products, the trade-off between ethical and conventional products, and an individual’s involvement, represent antecedents of ethical consumer behavior, which can be expressed through the avoidance of specific products and brands and/or consumer boycott and buycott towards cosmetics using animal-tested ingredients. Our concept provides a useful instrument for both academics and managers as a basis to create and market successfully cosmetics that represent ethical and environmental excellence.

Keywords

Animal welfare Ethical and environmental practices Global beauty care industry 

References

  1. Aaker JL (1999) The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. Mark Res 36:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahtola OT (1984) Price as a ‘give’ component in an exchange theoretic multicomponent model. Adv Consum Res 11(1):623–636Google Scholar
  3. Apostol L, Rebega OL, Miclea M (2013) Psychological and socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward animals. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 78:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ et al (2008) Do social product features have value to consumers? Int J Res Mark 25(3):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ et al (2010) The importance of social product attributes in consumer purchasing decisions: a multi-country comparative study. Int Bus Rev 19(2):140–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banister EN, Hogg MK (2004) Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem. Eur J Mark 38(7):850–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batson CD (1998) Altruism and prosocial behavior. In: Lindzey, G, Gilbert, D, Fiske, ST (eds) The handbook of social psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 282–301Google Scholar
  8. Bezençon V, Blili S (2010) Ethical products and consumer involvement: what’s new? Eur J Mark 44(9/10):1305–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2004) Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif Manage Rev 47(1):9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broida J, Tingley L, Kimball R et al (1993) Personality differences between pro-and antivivisectionists. Soc Anim 1(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Browne A, Harris P, Hofney-Collins A et al (2000) Organic production and ethical trade: definition, practice and links. Food Policy 25(1):69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL (2014) Trolls just want to have fun. Pers Indiv Differ 67:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell J, Schermer JA, Villani VC et al (2009) A behavioral genetic study of the Dark Triad of personality and moral development. Twin Res Hum Genet 12(02):132–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrigan M, Attalla A (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer—do ethics matter in purchase behavior? J Consum Mark 18(7):560–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. J Consum Mark 21(6):401–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Celsi RL, Olson JC (1988) The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. J Consum Res 15(2):210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cervellon MC, Hjerth H, Richard S et al (2010) Green in fashion? An exploratory study of national differences in consumers concern for eco-fashion. In: Proceedings of 9th international marketing trends conference, Venice, 20–21 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  18. Cowe R, Williams S (2000) Who are the ethical consumers. Co-operative Bank, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Crane A (2001) Unpacking the ethical product. J Bus Ethics 30(4):361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crane A, Matten D (2004) Business ethics: a European perspective: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis MH (1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue Sel Doc Psychol 10:85Google Scholar
  22. De Pelsmacker P, Janssens W (2007) A model for fair trade buying behaviour: the role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. J Bus Ethics 75(4):361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delacote P (2006) Are consumer boycotts effective? Paper presented at the 6th IDEI-LERNA conference on environmental resource economics—environment, finance and corporate behavior, Toulouse, May 2007Google Scholar
  24. Dholakia UM (2001) A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. Eur J Mark 35(11/12):1340–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilchh BB, Sinkovics RR et al (2003) Can sociodemographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empiricalinvestigation. J Bus Rev 56(6):465–480Google Scholar
  26. Diermeier D, Van Mieghem J (2005) A stochastic model of consumer boycotts. Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences (MEDS), Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  27. Doane D (2001) Taking flight: the rapid growth of ethical consumerism, the ethical purchasing index 2001. New Economics Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Ehrich KR, Irwin JR (2005) Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. J Mark Res 42(3):266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisenberg N, Strayer J (1987) Critical issues in the study of empathy. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer J (eds) Empathy and its development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  30. Englis BG, Soloman MR (1997) Special session summary: I am not therefore, I am: the role of avoidance products in shaping consumer behavior. Adv Consum Res 24:61–63Google Scholar
  31. FDA (2000) Animal testing, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Cosmetics and Colors Factsheet. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 14 Mar 1995, Revised 24 Feb 2000Google Scholar
  32. Ferrell OG, Gresham L (1985) A contingency frame work for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. J Mark 49(3):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Folkes VS (1984) Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach. J Consum Res 10(4):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Four Paws International (2013) World day for laboratory animals, 24 Apr 2013.http://www.four-paws.org.uk/news-press/news/world-day-for-laboratory-animals-24thapril-2013-/. Accessed 11 June 2015
  35. Freitas A, Kaiser S, Chandler J et al (1997) Appearance management as border construction: least favourite clothing, group, distancing, and identity…Not! Sociol Inq 67(3):323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friedman M (1985) Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: contemporary events in historical perspective. J Consum Aff 19(1):96–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Friedman M (1996) A positive approach to organized consumer action: the “buycott” as an alternative to the boycott. J Consum Psychol 19(4):439–451Google Scholar
  38. Furnham A, McManus C, Scott D (2003) Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoos 16(2):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Furnham A, Richards SC, Paulhus DL (2013) The Dark Triad of personality: a 10 year review. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 7(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garcia D, Sikström S (2014) The dark side of Facebook: semantic representations of status updates predict the Dark Triad of personality. Pers Indiv Differ 67(September):92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Glenn AL, Iyer R, Graham J et al (2009) Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? J Pers Disord 23(4):384–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goldsmith RE, Clark RA, Lafferty B (2006) Intention to oppose animal research: the role of individual differences in nonconformity. Soc Behav Personal 34(8):955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Greenwald AG, Leavitt C (1984) Audience involvement in advertising: four levels. J Consum Res 11(1):581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grubb EL, Grathwohl HL (1967) Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior: a theoretical approach. J Mark 31(4):22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hawkins RA (2010) Boycotts, buycotts and consumer activism in a global context: an overview. MOH 5(2):123–143Google Scholar
  46. Hirschmann AO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: response to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoffmann S, Hutter K (2012) Carrotmob as a new form of ethical consumption. The nature of the concept and avenues for future research. J Consum Policy 35(2):215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hogg MK, Cox AJ, Keeling K (2000) The impact of self monitoring on image congruence and product/brand evaluation. Eur J Mark 34(5/6):641–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hogg MK, Banister EN (2001) Dislikes, distastes and the undesired self: conceptualising and exploring the role of the undesired end state in consumer experience. J Mark Manage 17(1–2):73–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. HIS (2012) Animal use statistics. Humane Society International.http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/facts/statistics.html. Accessed 19 July 2015
  51. Hunt Shelby D, Vitell Scott M (1992) The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. Ethics in marketing. Irwin, Homewood, pp 775–784Google Scholar
  52. Hunt SD, Vitell S (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics. J Macromark 6(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hustvedt G, Dickson MA (2009) Consumer likelihood of purchasing organic cotton apparel: influence of attitudes and self-identity. J Fashion Mark Manage: Int J 13(1):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jackson T (2006) Challenges for Sustainable Consumption Policy. In: Jackson T (ed) The earthscan reader on sustainable consumption. Earthscan, London, pp 109–128Google Scholar
  55. Jonason PK, Baughman HM, Carter GL et al (2015) Dorian without his portrait: The psychological, social, and physical health costs of the Dark Triad traits. Pers Indiv Differ 78:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Karanika K, Hogg MK (2010) The interrelationship between desired and undesired selves and consumption: the case of Greek female consumers’ experiences. J Mark Manage 26(11–12):1091–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kassarjian HH (1971) Personality and consumer behavior: a review. J Mark Res 8(4):409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kavanagh PS, Signal TD, Taylor N (2013) The Dark Triad and animal cruelty: Dark personalities. Pers Indiv Differ 55(6):666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee MS, Motion J, Conroy D (2009) Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. J Bus Rev 62(2):169–180Google Scholar
  60. Littrell MA, Dickson MA (1999) Social responsibility in the global market: fair trade of cultural products. Sage Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Low W, Davenport E (2007) To boldly go. Exploring ethical spaces to re-politicise ethical consumption and fair trade. JCB 6(5):336–348Google Scholar
  62. Luchs M, Naylor RW, Irwin JR et al (2007) Is there an expected trade-off between a product’s ethical value and its effectiveness? Exposing latent intuitions about ethical products. J Int Mark 11(2):101–111Google Scholar
  63. Lucintel (2012) Global Beauty Care Products Industry 2012-2017: trend, profit, and forecast analysis, Sep 2012Google Scholar
  64. Manaktola K, Jauhari V (2007) Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards greenpractices in the lodging industry in India. Int J Contemp Hosp M 19(5):364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Markus H, Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. Am Psychol 41(9):954–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McNeal KR (2005) Death: the price of beauty: Animal Testing and the Cosmetics Industry, American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, Law Student Division, Spring 2005.http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/lawstudents/pdf/mcneal.pdf. Accesses 22 June 2015
  67. McPhedran S (2009) A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggress Violent Beh 14(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mintel (1994) The green consumer. Mintel Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Mittal B (1989) Measuring purchase-decision involvement. Psychol Market 6(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Monroe KB, Krishnan R (1985) The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. In: Jacoby J, Olson J (eds) The perception of merchandise and store quality. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 209–232Google Scholar
  71. Munch JM, Albanese PJ, Mayo MA et al (1991) The role of personality and moral development in consumers ‘Ethical Decision Making’. In: Proceedings of American marketing summer educator’s conference, pp 299–308Google Scholar
  72. Newholm T, Shaw D (2007) Studying the ethical consumer: a review of research. J Consum Behav 6(5):253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nicholls AJ (2002) Strategic options in fair trade retailing. Int J Retail Distrib Manage 30(1):6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Öberseder M, Schlegelmilch B, Gruber V (2011) Why don’t consumers care about CSR?: a qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions. J Bus Ethics 104(4):449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ogilvie DM (1987) The undesired self: a neglected variable in personality research. J Pers Soc Psychol 52(2):379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res 17(4):460–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Organic Monitor (2010) CSR & Sustainability: How the Beauty Industry is Cleaning up, 18 May 2010.http://www.organicmonitor.com/r1805.htm. Accessed 11 June 2015
  78. Paladino A (2006) Understanding the green consumerism: an empirical analysis. J Consum Behav 4(1):69–102Google Scholar
  79. Papadopoulos I, Karagouni G, Trigkas M et al (2009) Green marketing: the case of timber certification, coming from sustainable forests management, promotion. In: Annual international Euro med conference proceedings, vol 2. The Research Business Institute, SalemoGoogle Scholar
  80. Paulhus DL, Williams KM (2002) The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. J Res Pers 36(6):556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Peck D, Whitlow D (1975) Approaches to personality theory. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Pervin LA (1990) A brief history of modern personality theory. In: Pervin LA (ed) Handbook of personality theory and research. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  83. Peter JP, Olson JC (2009) Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Prothero A, McDonagh P (1992) Producing environmentally acceptable cosmetics? The impact of environmentalism on the United Kingdom cosmetics and toiletries industry. J Mark Manage 8(2):147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosenbaum M (1993) Trading Standards: Will customers now shop for fair play?: Group plans to flag products that are Third World-friendly. The Independent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/trading-standards-will-customer-now-shop-for-fair-play-group-plans-to-flag-products-that-are-third-worldfriendly-1489932.html. Accessed 13 July 2015
  86. Rothschild ML (1984) Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions. Adv Consum Res 11(1):216–217Google Scholar
  87. Sen S, Gürhan-Canli Z, Morwitz V (2001) Withholding consumption: a social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. J Cons Res 28(3):399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pudaruth S, Juwaheer TD, Seewoo YD (2015) Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of female customers. Soc Responsib J 11(1):179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shaw D, Shiu E (2002) An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach. Int J Consum Stud 26(4):286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shaw D, Shiu E, Clarke I (2000) The contribution of ethical obligation and self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour: an exploration of ethical consumers. J Mark Manage 16(8):879–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL (1991) Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J Bus Rev 22(2):159–170Google Scholar
  92. Signal T, Taylor N (2007) Attitude to animals and empathy: comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoos 20(2):125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sirgy JM (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. J Consum Res 9(3):287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Smith JB, Colgate M (2007) Customer value creation: a practical framework. J Mark Theory Pract 15(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Solomon MR (1983) The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective. J Consum Res 10(3):319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sparks P, Guthrie CA (1998) Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: a useful addition or an unhelpful artifice? J Appl Soc Psychol 28(15):1393–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Starr MA (2009) The social economics of ethical consumption: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. J Socio-Econ 38(6):916–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2001) Consumer-perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Transparency Market Research (2015) Organic Personal Care Products Market—Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2014–2020.http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/organic-personal-care-products.html. Accessed 11 Aug 2015
  100. Triandis HC (2001) Individualism-collectivism and personality. J Pers 69(6):907–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tsakiridou E, Boutsouki C, Zotos Y et al (2008) Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: an exploratory study. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 36(2):158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. USDA (2015). Annual report animal usage by fiscal year. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.http://www.aphis.usdAgov/animal_welfare/downloads/7023/Animals%20Used%20In%20Research%202014.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2015
  103. Varman R, Belk RW (2009) Nationalism and ideology in an anticonsumption movement. J Consum Res 36(4):686–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vitell SJ, Muncy J (1992) Consumer ethics: an empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. J Bus Ethics 11(8):585-597Google Scholar
  105. Wright ND, Claiborne CB, Sirgy MJ (1992) The effects of product symbolism on consumer self-concept. Adv Consum Res 19(1):311–318Google Scholar
  106. Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M (1990) The origins of empathic concern. Motiv Emot 14(2):107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zaichkowsky JL (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res 13(3):341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zanoli R, Naspetti S (2002) Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. Br Food J 104(8):643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Hennigs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evmorfia Karampournioti
    • 1
  • Klaus-Peter Wiedmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Marketing and ManagementLeibniz University of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations