nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

03.03.2016

From Bounded Morality to Consumer Social Responsibility: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Socially Responsible Consumption and Its Obstacles

verfasst von: Michael P. Schlaile, Katharina Klein, Wolfgang Böck

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility has been intensively discussed in business ethics literature, whereas the social responsibility of private consumers appears to be less researched. However, there is also a growing interest from business ethicists and other scholars in the field of consumer social responsibility (ConSR). Nevertheless, previous discussions of ConSR reveal the need for a viable conceptual basis for understanding the social responsibility of consumers in an increasingly globalized market economy. Moreover, evolutionary aspects of human morality seem to have been neglected despite the fact that private consumers are undoubtedly human beings. In addition to that, empirical studies suggest that many consumers believe themselves to be responsible but do not act according to their alleged values or attitudes. This raises the question of what deters them from doing so. Therefore, the contribution of this conceptual paper is threefold: we (i) (re-)conceptualize ConSR in terms of a combination of a Max Weber-inspired approach (social action and the ethic of responsibility) with the social connection approach to shared responsibility proposed by Iris Marion Young; (ii) shed light on the previously neglected implications of an evolutionarily induced bounded morality for ConSR, and (iii) identify potential obstacles to socially responsible consumption, particularly against the backdrop of shared social responsibility and bounded morality. In this latter respect, the paper focuses specifically on the obstacles of low moral intensity, moral stupefaction, informational complexity, and the lack of perceived consumer effectiveness. In sum, the paper advances knowledge in the field of ConSR by using a transdisciplinary, literature-based approach.

Vorheriger Artikel Towards an Understanding of Social Responsibility Within the Church of England

Nächster Artikel Synthesising Corporate Responsibility on Organisational and Societal Levels of Analysis: An Integrative Perspective

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Some authors even assert that consumer social responsibility is an “under-researched area” (e.g., Vitell 2015, p. 773).

See, for example, Brinkmann (2004), Brinkmann and Peattie (2008), Devinney et al. (2006, 2012), Hansen and Schrader (1997), Heidbrink (2014, 2015), Schmidt (2016), and Vitell (2003, 2015).

These terminological nuances are, for example, also reflected in the German distinction between Wirtschaftsethik and Unternehmensethik.

Please note that non-German-speaking readers might also want to refer to H. P. Secher’s translation of Weber’s Basic Concepts in Sociology (Weber 1962) on this.

We come back to this in the section ‘With Power Comes Responsibility?’.

In this regard, Heidbrink recently stated that there were constant controversies about the role and status of ConSR in the context of a globalized market economy: “On the one hand, there is the opinion, which is supported by strong ethical and social arguments, that consumers are even responsible for their consumption’s harmful consequences if they have no bad intentions and the harmful contributions of individual consumers are negligible. On the other hand, and with equally strong empirical and psychological arguments, consumers are denied responsibility since they are neither willing nor able to overview the consequences of their actions, and they would also be hopelessly overburdened with taking a stand against the supremacy of corporations and resisting market temptations. Both views are not just wrong due to their one-sidedness but also theoretically narrow” (Heidbrink 2014, p. 2, own translation).

See also Mellema (1985, 1988) and Offe (2011, 2012) on related deliberations.

In this regard, it is also interesting to note that another (practically oriented) approach to operationalize shared social responsibility has been proposed by Gneezy et al. (2010) in Science.

See also alternative concepts and various definitions of ConSR in Caruana and Chatzidakis (2014, p. 582).

Note that we follow the order presented by Heidbrink and Schmidt (2011c, p. 35), whereas Neuner himself often lists the second sphere (of the natural environment) before the sphere of the social environment.

See also Brinkmann and Peattie (2008), Heidbrink (2014, 2015), Heidbrink and Schmidt (2009, 2011a, b, c, 2012), Vitell (2015), and especially Chap. 4.4 in Schmidt (2016).

As Devinney et al. (2010) note, the idea of ConSR can be expanded “to discuss the social responsibility of the citizen … Social consumption then becomes part of the role of the individual in a monitory form of democracy … We can therefore speak about the individual as having a variety of social responsibilities—as consumer, citizen, worker, investor, and so on—each of which gives us a different angle on the complex embodiment of the individual in the different roles and contexts … [L]ooking at consumption is only one window on the individual. But it is a window worth looking through” (Devinney et al. 2010, p. 187).

See, for instance, Heidbrink and Schmidt (2011b) with reference to Kneip (2010) and Lamla (2007). See also Barnett et al. (2011), Brinkmann and Peattie (2008), and Heidbrink (2014, 2015).

According to Anna Coote (2011), “[c]o-production embodies shared responsibility … Co-production extends beyond user involvement and citizen engagement to foster the principle of equal partnership. It is not just consultation, nor even just participation. It is, quintessentially, about shared responsibility between people who are regarded—and treat each other—as having equal worth and being able to make contributions of equal value to a shared enterprise” (p. 291). See also Parks et al. (1981) on a related note.

See also Lusch and Vargo (2006, p. 284) on a possible distinction between those two concepts.

See also Heidbrink and Schmidt (2011b, p. 98) and Schmidt (2016, p. 219) with reference to Shaw et al. (2006).

This connection to the previous domains results from the fact that the element of disposal can have a feedback on the decisions related to (pre-)purchase as well as to usage.

This is due to the prospective ex ante dimension of social responsibility which includes taking into account (and avoiding) the (negative) impact of one’s actions on future generations. Moreover, with respect to the third sphere, we can also identify a social element related to this duty of care for oneself. We can easily imagine cases where unhealthy or unaffordable consumption habits will also be at the expense of others (e.g., family, healthcare system, creditors), not just the respective consumers themselves.

Note that the examples presented in Table 1 are an extension of the ones outlined by Webb et al. (2008) and should be considered non-exhaustive.

According to Schmidt (2016), “it seems important to stress that, basically, consumption serves one’s own interests which should also be its primary goal. It cannot be the objective of an economic or business ethics that individuals consume for moral ends. This would reduce the discussion to absurdity” (Schmidt, 2016, p. 295, own translation with corresponding emphasis). In a similar manner, Neuner (2004) argues that “[t]he motivation in responsible consumer behaviour … exclusively originates from the satisfaction of individual needs” (Neuner 2004, p. 210; see also Neuner 2006, on an ethics of needs (Bedürfnisethik) based approach to consumer ethics).

It should be noted that it may additionally require institutional support (e.g., through consumer education) for consumers to develop the capability for taking on responsibility in some of the ConSR-Domains.

However, note that the power concept used by Rezabakhsh et al. (2006) is based on French and Raven (1959).

As an alternative to boycotts (i.e., punishing certain corporations for unacceptable behavior by not buying their products or services) Friedman (1996) has discussed the “buycott” as a positive strategy of consumer activists trying to “induce shoppers to buy the products or services of selected companies in order to reward them for behavior which is consistent with the goals of the activists” (Friedman 1996, p. 440). Recently, according to Hoffmann and Hutter (2012), “the carrotmob evolved as a new subtype of buycott. … More specifically, a group of consumers swarms a predefined store at a predefined time and collectively buys its products. In return, the company engages in actions the activists ask for” (Hoffmann and Hutter 2012, p. 216, italics in original).

#FitchTheHomeless (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23fitchthehomeless) is the Twitter hashtag of a campaign that went viral in 2013 after a video posted by Greg Karber where he urged “the public to donate any unwanted Abercrombie & Fitch clothes to the homeless, after one of the brand’s district managers said that its collections weren’t intended for ‘poor people’. The company reportedly burns faulty clothing, rather than giving it to charity” (Alexander 2013).

Note that although the focus of this paper lies on private consumption, this does not imply that public and governmental institutions or business organizations could not be change agents in the context of a shared social responsibility.

See also Banerjee et al. (2013) on the diffusion of information on and participation in microfinance in Indian villages and the respective importance of centralities of leaders (in this case especially eigenvector centrality; see also Banerjee et al. 2012).

Nevertheless, despite all criticism (see, for instance, Zimbardo et al. 2012, p. 372 et seq.), it is worth mentioning that Douglas Kenrick and his coauthors have recently proposed a revised version of Maslow’s pyramid of needs based on findings from evolutionary psychology (Kenrick et al. 2010). Although their approach has been rather controversial as well (Ackerman and Bargh 2010; Kesebir et al. 2010; Lyubomirsky and Boehm 2010; Peterson and Park 2010), the pyramid/hierarchy of needs still has its supporters that present valid arguments for a hierarchical approach to human needs (e.g., Schaller et al. 2010).

For another discussion of the basic needs approach as well as its potential weaknesses and its relationship to the capability approach, we would also like to refer to Stewart (2006) and D. A. Clark (2006); for an overview see also van Staveren (2008).

According to Ilse Oosterlaken (2012), “[c]apabilities are often described as what people are effectively able to do and be or the positive freedoms that people have to enjoy valuable ‘beings and doings’. These beings and doings are called ‘functionings’ by Sen” (Oosterlaken 2012, p. 4).

Introductory note: As the primary purpose of this paragraph is to shed light on a new perspective on obstacles to SRC, we include only the major components that can be regarded as obstacles to the altruistic element of the above SRC definition. Obstacles to the ‘economic’ part of SRC are neglected (e.g., pricing, transaction costs, etc.), as are some other ‘obstacles’ (e.g., issues regarding the economic growth imperative, etc.) that other scholars have adequately made the case for (see, for instance, Ahaus et al. 2009, 2011).

For a brief overview of theory, discussions, and findings with regard to cultural evolution, see Mesoudi (2011, 2015) and Mesoudi et al. (2006), including commentaries, as well as the contributions in Richerson and Christiansen (2013).

Moreover, with an eye to the above Weberian paragraph, we may remember that Weber (2013, p. 24 et seq.) states that social action may be oriented in four ways, namely instrumentally rational (zweckrational), value-rational (wertrational), affectual (especially emotional; i.e., determined by the agents’ affects and feelings), and traditional (i.e., determined by ingrained habituation). We could, therefore, argue that bounded rationality may be considered to focus primarily on decision-making related to the first two (ideal) types of social action, whereas bounded morality also leaves room for focusing on affectual and traditional social action.

In an economic context, which is the case when we are studying consumption, this moral issue may also be conceived as what Josef Wieland (2014) has called the moral dimension of an economic transaction (e.g., see Schramm and Seid 2008, p. 225, or Chap. 2 in Wieland 2014, in this regard).

However, although we are inclined to support the ontological assumption that there are no moral facts, we have to acknowledge that various scholars, especially theologians, also adduce good reasons for a position called “moral realism,” that is, the metaphysical point of view that does not regard the universe as being inherently devoid of value and thus argues that morality and virtue cannot solely be treated as some kind of human invention (Schramm 2013). However, we can also see that “despite this moral realism in a theistic ethics, epistemically there is no difference to any other ethical approach. … [Hence,] the point of ‘moral realism’ does not obviate the need for rational deliberation about ethical issues” (Schramm 2013, p. 830, italics in original).

Note that these two evolutionary processes and their interrelation are also the subject of dual inheritance theory or gene-culture coevolution. See, for example, Boyd and Richerson (1985), Richerson and Boyd (2005), and, most recently, Paul (2015) and references herein.

Note that an alternative model of ethical decision-making, which, to a certain degree, also overlaps with Jones’ (1991) model (e.g., especially with regard to the probability and desirability of consequences as well as the relative importance of victims/beneficiaries/stakeholders) has been proposed by Hunt and Vitell (1986, 2006).

For a criticism of this conclusion and arguments against Falk and Szech’s (2013) interpretation of the results see the comment by Breyer and Weimann (2014). For Falk and Szech’s reply to that comment see Falk and Szech (n.d.).

Probably not for those who regard mice as pests and kill them with deathtraps and pesticides; however, this may still be an issue for Neuner’s norm of natural compatibility.

For example, Akerlof (1970) has shown that in a market without informed consumers no optimal decisions can be made.

The term ‘greenwashing’ is often used “to describe the practice of making unwarranted or overblown claims of sustainability or environmental friendliness in an attempt to gain market share” (Dahl 2010, p. 247).

Moreover, it may make sense to differentiate between (a) the case of primarily self-interested SRC, where there is often a direct and immediate gratification in terms of a “warm glow” (Andreoni 1990) or a sense of belonging to a ‘more responsible’ group (cf. signaling/image motivation; Ariely et al., 2009), and (b) the case where the positive impact of genuinely ‘morally interested’ SRC in terms of an observable improvement for others (e.g., of working conditions of exploited workers, or living conditions of future generations, etc.) often remains rather abstract or deferred (which also holds true for many of the negative consequences of non-SRC).

For example, it may often be impossible to avoid ‘bad’ news (thereby ‘avoiding’ moral stupefaction) or increasing spatial proximity, temporal immediacy, or probability of effect (thereby increasing moral intensity).

Batson challenges “the common Western presumption that humans are always motivated by self-interest by providing experimental evidence that altruism does exist, and that it arises from feelings of empathic concern” (Batson 2015, p. 15, emphasis removed). Batson defines “altruistic motivation” as “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare” (Batson 2011, p. 20; and 2014, p. 43, italics in original) and hypothesizes that “empathic concern produces altruistic motivation” (Batson 2011, p. 11). This “empathic concern” is in turn defined as “other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of a person in need” (Batson 2011, p. 11; 2014, p. 41, italics in original).

On a very general level, it can also be argued that “[e]mpathy and moral reasoning have in common that both reflect a concern for others” (Bierhoff 2002, p. 109).

For example, empathy can further be distinguished into (a) cognitive empathy, which is not an emotion but an understanding of others (see also Maibom 2014a, p. 2) that is closely related to Theory of Mind—in fact, according to Rogers et al. (2007), cognitive empathy and Theory of Mind “are often used synonymously” (p. 710), and (b) affective empathy and empathy-related emotions (see also Maibom 2014a, p. 3).

The Paradox of Choice is the title of a book by the American psychologist Barry Schwartz where he argues that people can feel overwhelmed when having too many options to choose from. Hence, Schwartz (2004) argues, for instance, that reducing and prioritizing (consumer) choices may mitigate the problems of anxiety, regret, and dissatisfaction the choices entail.

Other examples that specifically aim at the provision of (reliable) information on labels include smartphone apps such as the German “Label-App” (http://label-online.de/label-app/), which allows consumers to get quick and easy access to information on various labels, as well as websites with information on eco-labels (http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/), among other things.

For example, the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden-Württemberg has published a cookbook that, next to many CO₂-neutral recipes, gives consumers sound information on the relationship between food (production and consumption) and climate change (https://um.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/presse-service/publikation/did/primaklima-kochbuechle-nachhaltig-geniessen-und-co2-sparen/).

If ConSR is implemented and understood in the context of a shared social responsibility, trust-related information problems would be rather irrelevant as the information provider (e.g., corporation) has the responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information to the consumer.

According to Ragin, “[w]hen a causal argument cites a combination of conditions, it is concerned with their intersection. It is the intersection of a set of conditions in time and in space that produces many of the large-scale qualitative changes, as well as many of the small-scale events, that interest social scientists, not the separate or independent effects of these conditions … The basic idea is that a phenomenon or change [nota bene: in our case SRC] emerges from the intersection of appropriate preconditions—the right ingredients for change. In the absence of any one of the essential ingredients, the phenomenon—or the change—does not emerge. This conjunctural or combinatorial nature is a key feature of causal complexity” (Ragin 1987, p. 25).

Ackerman, J. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). The purpose-driven life: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 323–326.CrossRef

Ahaus, B., Heidbrink L., & Schmidt I. (2009). Chancen und Grenzen der Konsumentenverantwortung—Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Working Papers des CRR, No. 6/2009. Center for Responsibility Research. Essen: Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut.

Ahaus, B., Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2011). Der verantwortliche Konsument: Wie Verbraucher mehr Verantwortung für ihren Alltagskonsum übernehmen können. Working Papers des CRR, No. 10/2011. Center for Responsibility Research. Essen: Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut.

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRef

Alexander, E. (2013, May 16). Would you rather go naked than wear Abercrombie? Vogue News. Accessed October 27, 2015, from http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2013/05/16/abercrombie--fitch-homeless-campaign-launched-by-greg-karber.

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.CrossRef

Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18–39.CrossRef

Antil, J. H., & Bennett, P. D. (1979). Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior. In K. E. Henion II & T. C. Kinnear (Eds.), The conserver society (pp. 51–68). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Antoni-Komar, I., Lautermann, C., & Pfriem, R. (2012). Unternehmen und Konsumenten in Verantwortungsgemeinschaft jenseits des Konsumismus: Nachhaltigkeit erfordert, das Zusammenwirken zwischen Produzieren und Konsumieren neu zu denken. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik/Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, 13(3), 297–316.

Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.CrossRef

Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.CrossRef

Aßländer, M. S. (2011). Unternehmerische Verantwortung und die Rolle der Konsumenten. In L. Heidbrink, I. Schmidt, & B. Ahaus (Eds.), Die Verantwortung des Konsumenten. Über das Verhältnis von Markt, Moral und Konsum (pp. 57–74). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.CrossRef

Ayala, F. J. (1987). The biological roots of morality. Biology and Philosophy, 2(3), 235–252.CrossRef

Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2012). The diffusion of microfinance. NBER Working Paper 17743. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.232.1161&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 26 October 2015.

Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2013). The diffusion of microfinance. Science, 341(6144), 1236498(1–7).

Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N., & Malpass, A. (2011). Globalizing responsibility: The political rationalities of ethical consumption. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bartling, B., Weber, R. A., & Yao, L. (2015). Do markets erode social responsibility? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 219–266.CrossRef

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Batson, C. D. (2014). Empathy-induced altruism and morality: No necessary connection. In H. L. Maibom (Ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 41–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Batson, C. D. (2015). The egoism-altruism debate: A psychological perspective. In T. Singer & M. Ricard (Eds.), Caring economics: Conversations on altruism and compassion, between scientists, economists, and the Dalai Lama (pp. 15–25). New York: Picador.

Bayertz, K. (1995). Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In K. Bayertz (Ed.), Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? (pp. 3–71). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Belz, F. M. (2006). Wachsen mit Werten in gesättigten Märkten. In P. Koslowski & B. P. Priddat (Eds.), Ethik des Konsums (pp. 215–234). Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Bennett, A. (2013). Kellogg’s apologizes after offering vulnerable children breakfast in exchange for retweets. The Huffington Post UK. Posted 11/11/2013. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/11/kelloggs-breakfast_n_4253607.html.

Bentley, M. D., & de Leeuw, B. (2009). Sustainable consumption indicators. In K. S. Bawa & R. Seidler (Eds.), Dimensions of sustainable development (Vol. 2, pp. 339–366). Paris: EOLSS.

Berry, H., & McEachern, M. (2005). Informing ethical consumers. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 69–87). London: Sage.CrossRef

Bierhoff, H. W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. Hove/New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

Birnbacher, D. (1988). Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boehm, C. (2012). Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. New York: Basic Books.

Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Breyer, F., & Weimann, J. (2014). Of morals, markets and mice: A comment on Falk and Szech. CESifo Working Paper, No. 4745. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/96823/1/cesifo_wp4745.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2015.

Brinkmann, J. (2004). Looking at consumer behavior in a moral perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 129–141.CrossRef

Brinkmann, J. (2007). Responsibility sharing (elements of a framework for understanding insurance business ethics). In P. Flanagan, P. Primeaux, & W. Ferguson (Eds.), Research in ethical issues in organizations, volume 7: Insurance ethics for a more ethical world (pp. 83–111). Oxford: Elsevier.

Brinkmann, J. (2013). Combining risk and responsibility perspectives: First steps. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 567–583.CrossRef

Brinkmann, J., & Peattie, K. (2008). Consumer ethics research: Reframing the debate about consumption for good. EJBO: Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13(1), 22–31.

Brosnan, S. F. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on morality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(1), 23–30.CrossRef

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.CrossRef

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.CrossRef

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.CrossRef

Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Caruana, R., & Chatzidakis, A. (2014). Consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Toward a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of the “other CSR”. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 577–592.CrossRef

Caruana, R., & Crane, A. (2008). Constructing consumer responsibility: Exploring the role of corporate communications. Organization Studies, 29(12), 1495–1519.CrossRef

Cela-Conde, C. J., & Ayala, F. J. (2004). Evolution of morality. In F. M. Wuketits & C. Antweiler (Eds.), Handbook of evolution, Vol. 1: The evolution of human societies and cultures (pp. 171–189). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Clark, D. A. (2006). Capability approach. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development studies (pp. 32–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Clark, G. (2006). Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) supporting activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 492–498.CrossRef

Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.CrossRef

Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. London: Sage.

Coote, A. (2011). Co-production as a vehicle for sharing social responsibilities. Trends in social cohesion, 23, 291–309.

Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2001). Who are the ethical consumers?. Manchester: The Co-operative Bank.

Cramer, C., Johnston, D., Oya, C., & Sender, J. (2014). Fairtrade, employment and poverty reduction in Ethiopia and Uganda. FTEPR Final Report to DFID, April 2014. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://ftepr.org/wp-content/uploads/FTEPR-Final-Report-19-May-2014-FINAL.pdf.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

d’Astous, A., & Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding consumers’ ethical justifications: A scale for appraising consumers’ reasons for not behaving ethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 255–268.CrossRef

Dahl, R. (2010). Greenwashing: Do you know what you’re buying? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), 246–252.CrossRef

Dávid-Barrett, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2013). Processing power limits social group size: Computational evidence for the cognitive costs of sociality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1151.CrossRef

de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.CrossRef

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

Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. (2012). Can the socially responsible consumer be mainstream? Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik/Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, 13(3), 227–235.

Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G., & Birtchnell, T. (2006). The other CSR: Consumer social responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(3), 30–37.

Dobers, P., & Strannegård, L. (2005). Design, lifestyles and sustainability. Aesthetic consumption in a world of abundance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), 324–336.CrossRef

Dombos, T. (2008). “Longing for the West”: The geo-symbolics of the ethical consumption discourse in Hungary. In G. De Neve, P. Luetchford, J. Pratt, & D. C. Wood (Eds.), Hidden hands in the market: Ethnographies of fair trade, ethical consumption, and corporate social responsibility, research in economic anthropology (Vol. 28, pp. 123–141). Bingley: Emerald/JAI.

Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–735.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Neocortex size and group size in primates: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution, 28(3), 287–296.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(5), 178–190.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(3), 163–181.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Constraints on the evolution of social institutions and their implications for information flow. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(3), 345–371.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. I. M., & Shultz, S. (2007). Evolution in the social brain. Science, 317(5843), 1344–1347.CrossRef

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.CrossRef

Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102–117.

Evers, J. R. (1998). A justification of societal altruism according to the memetic application of Hamilton’s rule. In J. Ramaekers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th international congress on cybernetics (pp. 437–442). Namur: Association Internationale de Cybernétique.

FairPhone. (2013). Company Profile. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/FairPhone-Company-Profile.pdf.

Falk, A., & Szech, N. (n.d.). Experimental evidence on morals and markets. Retrieved from Karlsruhe Institute of Technology website: http://polit.econ.kit.edu/downloads/Reply_to_B_W_Falk_Szech.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2015.

Falk, A., & Szech, N. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340(6133), 707–711.CrossRef

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L. (with Allen, V., Braden, M., Canon, L. K., Davidson, J. R., Jecker, J. D., Kiesler, S. B., & Walster, E.) (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37(2), 24–31.CrossRef

French, J. R. P, Jr, & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Friedman, M. (1996). A positive approach to organized consumer action: The “buycott” as an alternative to the boycott. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(4), 439–451.CrossRef

Gardner, G., Assadourian, E., & Sarin, R. (2004). The state of consumption today. In Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State of the world 2004: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society (pp. 3–21). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gazzaniga, M. S., Heatherton, T. F., Halpern, D. F., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Psychological science (3rd Canadian ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gehlen, A. (1986). Moral und Hypermoral. Eine pluralistische Ethik (5th ed.). Wiesbaden: Aula Verlag.

Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Moral satisficing: Rethinking moral behavior as bounded rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 528–554.CrossRef

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (paperback ed. 2002). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Glazek, C. (2013, June 19). The story behind “Fitch the Homeless”. The New Yorker. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/06/fitch-the-homeless-viral-video-karber.html.

Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Nelson, L. D., & Brown, A. (2010). Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science, 329(5989), 325–327.CrossRef

Göbel, E. (2015). Ist ethischer Konsum möglich? In M. Maring (Ed.), Vom Praktisch-Werden der Ethik in interdisziplinärer Sicht: Ansätze und Beispiele der Institutionalisierung, Konkretisierung und Implementierung der Ethik. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Technik- und Wirtschaftsethik (Vol. 7, pp. 217–236). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

Gonçalves, B., Perra, N., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Modeling users’ activity on Twitter networks: Validation of Dunbar’s number. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e22656. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022656.CrossRef

Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York: Penguin.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20(4), 443–468.CrossRef

Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (2004). Informationsrecht und Informationsverhalten der Konsumenten—zentrale Bedingungen eines nachhaltigen Konsums. In A. Gröppel-Klein (Ed.), Konsumentenverhaltensforschung im 21. Jahrhundert (pp. 341–366). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.

Harrison, T., Waite, K., & Hunter, G. L. (2006). The Internet, information and empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 972–993.CrossRef

Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Heidbrink, L. (2003). Kritik der Verantwortung: Zu den Grenzen verantwortlichen Handelns in komplexen Kontexten. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

Heidbrink, L. (2007). Handeln in der Ungewissheit. Paradoxien der Verantwortung. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos.

Heidbrink, L. (2008). The limits of responsibility in the age of globalisation. Working Papers des CRR, No. 5/2008. Center for Responsibility Research. Essen: Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut.

Heidbrink, L. (2010). Nichtwissen und Verantwortung. Zum Umgang mit unbeabsichtigten Nebenfolgen. Working Papers des CRR, No. 8/2010. Center for Responsibility Research. Essen: Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut.

Heidbrink, L. (2014). Consumer Social Responsibility—Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Verbraucher. forum wirtschaftsethik, 2/2014, 2–6.

Heidbrink, L. (2015). Die moralische Verantwortung der Verbraucher als Bürger. In C. Bala & K. Müller (Eds.), Abschied vom Otto Normalverbraucher (pp. 187–206). Essen: Klartext.

Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2009). Die neue Verantwortung der Konsumenten. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 32–33(2009), 27–32.

Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2011a). Das Prinzip der Konsumentenverantwortung—Grundlagen, Bedingungen und Umsetzungen verantwortlichen Konsums. In L. Heidbrink, I. Schmidt, & B. Ahaus (Eds.), Die Verantwortung des Konsumenten. Über das Verhältnis von Markt, Moral und Konsum (pp. 25–56). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2011b). Konsumenten als verantwortliche Marktakteure. In M. Maring (Ed.), Fallstudien zur Ethik in Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft, Technik und Gesellschaft. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Technik- und Wirtschaftsethik (Vol. 4, pp. 96–104). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2011c). Mehr Verantwortung für den Konsumenten. Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 26(3), 35–38.CrossRef

Heidbrink, L., & Schmidt, I. (2012). Verantwortung und globaler Kapitalismus. Welche Verantwortung tragen wir Konsumenten? Presentation at the “8. Forum Menschenwürdige Wirtschaftsordnung: Internationale Standards für eine humane Ökonomie”, June 23, 2012. Tutzing: Akademie für politische Bildung Tutzing.

Heiß, D. (2011). Verantwortung in der modernen Gesellschaft. Grundzüge einer interaktionsökonomischen Theorie der Verantwortung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Karl Alber.

Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2013). Foundations of economic evolution: A treatise on the natural philosophy of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.CrossRef

Hodgson, G. M. (2013). From pleasure machines to moral communities: An evolutionary economics without homo economicus. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hoffmann, S., & Hutter, K. (2012). Carrotmob as a new form of ethical consumption. The nature of the concept and avenues for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(2), 215–236.CrossRef

Huberman, B., Romero, D., & Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter. Twitter under the microscope. First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v14i1.2317.CrossRef

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.CrossRef

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 143–153.CrossRef

International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2015). World economic outlook: Uneven growth—Apr 2015. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/pdf/text.pdf.

Irlenbusch, B., & Saxler, D. (2015). Social responsibility in market interaction. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 9240. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/114124/1/dp9240.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2015.

Isaacs, T. (2011). Moral responsibility in collective contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the “identifiable victim effect”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235–257.CrossRef

Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung (7th ed., 1987). Frankfurt am Main: Insel.

Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Jonas, H. (1992). Philosophische Untersuchungen und metaphysische Vermutungen. Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.CrossRef

Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314.CrossRef

Kesebir, S., Graham, J., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 315–319.CrossRef

Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–24.CrossRef

Kneip, V. (2010). Consumer Citizenship und Corporate Citizenship: Bürgerschaft als politische Dimension des Marktes. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRef

Knobloch, U. (1994). Theorie und Ethik des Konsums: Reflexion auf die normativen Grundlagen sozialökonomischer Konsumtheorien. Bern: Paul Haupt.

Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach: Theoretical insights and empirical applications. Berlin: Springer.

Kutz, C. (2000). Complicity: Ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Lamb, W. (1817). William Lamb quoted in T. C. Hansard (Ed.), The parliamentary debates from the year 1803 to the present time (Vol. XXXVI). London: T. C. Hansard.

Lamla, J. (2007). Die Autonomie des Verbrauchers und ihre politischen Formen. Bausteine einer Kulturtheorie des Consumer Citizen. In S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip, A. März, & J. Niesyto (Eds.), Politik mit dem Einkaufswagen: Unternehmen und Konsumenten als Bürger in der globalen Mediengesellschaft (pp. 53–80). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Lawrence, F. (2013, February 15). Horsemeat scandal: The essential guide. The Guardian. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-the-essential-guide.

Lee, S., & Ditko, S. J. (1962). Spider-Man! Amazing Fantasy, 1(15), 1–11.

Lewis, P. A., Rezaie, R., Brown, R., Roberts, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size. NeuroImage, 57(4), 1624–1629.CrossRef

Lifton, R. J. (1967). Death in life: Survivors of Hiroshima. New York: Random House.

Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112–126.CrossRef

Lübbe, W. (1998). Verantwortung in komplexen kulturellen Prozessen. Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich: Verlag Karl Alber.

Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.CrossRef

Lyubomirsky, S., Boehm, J. K., et al. (2010). Human motives, happiness, and the puzzle of parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 327–334.CrossRef

Maibom, H. L. (2014a). Introduction: (Almost) everything you ever wanted to know about empathy. In H. L. Maibom (Ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 1–40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Maibom, H. L. (Ed.). (2014b). Empathy and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.CrossRef

May, L. (1992). Sharing responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

McKeon, R. (1957). The development and the significance of the concept of responsibility. Revue internationale de philosophie, 39(1), 3–32.

Mellema, G. (1985). Shared responsibility and ethical dilutionism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(2), 177–187.CrossRef

Mellema, G. (1988). Individuals, groups, and shared moral responsibility. New York: Peter Lang.

Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Mesoudi, A. (2015). Cultural evolution: A review of theory, findings and controversies. Evolutionary Biology (forthcoming/first online: 22 April 2015). doi:10.1007/s11692-015-9320-0.

Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(4), 329–383.

Michaelis, L. (2000). Ethics of consumption. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethics & Society.

Mohr, H. (1987). Natur und Moral. Ethik in der Biologie. Dimensionen der modernen Biologie, Band 4. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mohr, H. (2014). Evolutionäre Ethik. Schriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Band 25. Heidelberg: Springer.

Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.CrossRef

Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24(4), 297–311.CrossRef

Neuner, M. (2001). Verantwortliches Konsumentenverhalten: Individuum und Institution. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.CrossRef

Neuner, M. (2004). A sketch of consumer ethics with particular emphasis on virtual options. In P. Koslowski, C. Hubig, & P. Fischer (Eds.), Business ethics and the electronic economy (pp. 209–222). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Neuner, M. (2006). Terminaler Konsum, instrumenteller Konsum und das gute Leben. Konsumethik unter dem Aspekt einer Bedürfnisethik. In P. Koslowski & B. P. Priddat (Eds.), Ethik des Konsums (pp. 105–120). Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Neuner, M. (2008). Die Verantwortung der Verbraucher in der Marktwirtschaft. In L. Heidbrink & A. Hirsch (Eds.), Verantwortung als marktwirtschaftliches Prinzip: Zum Verhältnis von Moral und Ökonomie (pp. 281–305). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Nida-Rümelin, J. (2011). Verantwortung. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Nolte, K. (2005). Der Kampf um Aufmerksamkeit. Wie Medien, Wirtschaft und Politik um eine knappe Ressource ringen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Nussbaum, M. C., & Sen, A. K. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Offe, C. (2011). Shared social responsibility: The need for and supply of responsible patterns of social action. Trends in social cohesion, 23, 15–33.

Offe, C. (2012). Shared social responsibility—A concept in search of its political meaning and promise. Trends in social cohesion, 24, 29–47.

Oosterlaken, I. (2012). The capability approach, technology and design: Taking stock and looking ahead. In I. Oosterlaken & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), The capability approach, technology and design (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Paine, L. S. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palazzo, G. (2010). Des Kaisers neue Kleider? Kritische Anmerkungen zum CSR-Boom. In M. S. Aßländer & A. Löhr (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in der Wirtschaftskrise. Reichweiten der Verantwortung (pp. 73–82). Munich: Rainer Hampp.

Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., et al. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.CrossRef

Paterson, T. (2013, February 14). Amazon ‘used neo-Nazi guards to keep immigrant workforce under control’ in Germany. The Independent. Accessed October 14, 2015, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amazon-used-neonazi-guards-to-keep-immigrant-workforce-under-control-in-germany-8495843.html.

Paul, R. A. (2015). Mixed messages: Cultural and genetic inheritance in the constitution of human society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2010). What happened to self-actualization? Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 320–322.CrossRef

Pires, G. D., Stanton, J., & Rita, P. (2006). The Internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 936–949.CrossRef

Pitt, L. F., Berthon, P. R., Watson, R. T., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2002). The Internet and the birth of real consumer power. Business Horizons, 45(4), 7–14.CrossRef

Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3–12.CrossRef

Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Use of social network sites and instant messaging does not lead to increased offline social network size, or to emotionally closer relationships with offline network members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 253–258.CrossRef

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), 515–572.

Reed II, A., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286.CrossRef

Rezabakhsh, B., Bornemann, D., Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (2006). Consumer power: A comparison of the old economy and the Internet economy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 3–36.CrossRef

Rha, J.-Y., Widdows, R., Hooker, N. H., & Montalto, C. P. (2002). E-consumerism as a tool for empowerment. Journal of Consumer Education, 19(20), 61–69.

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Richerson, P. J., & Christiansen, M. H. (Eds.). (2013). Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Roberts, J. A. (1993). Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behavior. Psychological Reports, 73(1), 139–148.CrossRef

Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships, 18(3), 439–452.CrossRef

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRef

Rogers, K., Dziobek, I., Hassenstab, J., Wolf, O. T., & Convit, A. (2007). Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 709–715.CrossRef

Schäfers, B. (Ed.). (1999). Einführung in die Gruppensoziologie. Geschichte, Theorien, Analysen (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.

Schaller, M., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicus, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Pyramid power: A reply to commentaries. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 335–337.CrossRef

Schelling, T. C. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. B. Chase Jr (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis (pp. 127–176). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Scherhorn, G. (2000). Geleitwort. In M. Neuner (2001), Verantwortliches Konsumentenverhalten: Individuum und Institution (pp. 5–7). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schmidt, I. (2016). Consumer Social Responsibility: Gemeinsame Verantwortung für nachhaltiges Konsumieren und Produzieren. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRef

Schmidt, I., & Seele, P. (2012). Konsumentenverantwortung in der Wirtschaftsethik: Ein Beitrag aus Sicht der Lebensstilforschung. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik/Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, 13(2), 169–191.

Schramm, M. (2006). Moralische Interessen in der Unternehmensethik. In U. Ebert (Ed.), Wirtschaftsethische Perspektiven VIII: Grundsatzfragen, Unternehmensethik, Institutionen, Probleme internationaler Kooperation und nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, 228/VIII (pp. 13–39). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schramm, M. (2008). Ökonomische Moralkulturen. Die Ethik differenter Interessen und der plurale Kapitalismus. Marburg: Metropolis.

Schramm, M. (2010). Differenziertes Anreizmanagement: Behavioral Law und Wirtschaftsethik. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik—Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 18, 405–418.

Schramm, M. (2013). Christian metaphysics and business ethics: A systematic approach. In C. Luetge (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics (Vol. 2, pp. 825–845). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Schramm, M. (2015). Die menschliche Natur „schubsen“: Moralökonomisches Anreizmanagement in der Behavioral Business Ethics. In R. Neck (Ed.), Wirtschaftsethische Perspektiven X: Wirtschaftsethik nach der Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise. Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, 228/X (pp. 95–128). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schramm, M., & Seid, J. (2008). Not only ‘a simple math equation’: Business organisations as agents for poverty reduction. In E. Mack, M. Schramm, S. Klassen, & T. Pogge (Eds.), Absolute poverty and global justice: Empirical data—Moral theories—Initiatives (pp. 219–231). Farnham (Surrey): Ashgate.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.

Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.CrossRef

Sen, A. K. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Oxford India Paperbacks.

Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: An exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(2/3), 109–119.CrossRef

Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9–10), 1049–1067.CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.

Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 37–72). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. B. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization (pp. 161–176). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality, volume 3: Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress (paperback ed., 2011). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Slovic, P., Zionts, D., Woods, A. K., Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2013). Psychic numbing and mass atrocity. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 126–142). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.CrossRef

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). The devil you know: The effects of identifiability on punishment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(5), 311–318.CrossRef

Stent, G. S. (Ed.). (1978). Morality as a biological phenomenon. The presuppositions of sociobiological research (revised ed., 1980). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stewart, F. (2006). Basic needs approach. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development studies (pp. 14–18). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93–104.CrossRef

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tallontire, A., Rentsendorj, E., & Blowfield, M. (2001). Consumers and ethical trade: A review of current literature. Chatham (Kent): Natural Resources Institute.

Tammelleo, S., & Lombardi, L. G. (2014). Consumer social responsibility? Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 33(1), 99–126.CrossRef

Tarde, G. (1890). Les lois de l’imitation: Étude sociologique. Paris: Félix Alcan.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tschacher, W., Dauwalder, J.-P., & Haken, H. (2003). Self-organizing systems show apparent intentionality. In W. Tschacher & J.-P. Dauwalder (Eds.), The dynamical systems approach to cognition (pp. 183–199). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRef

Tufts, J. H. (1912). Recent discussions of moral evolution. The Harvard Theological Review, 5(2), 155–179.CrossRef

United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). Sustainable consumption and cleaner production: Global status 2002. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.

Uusitalo, O., & Oksanen, R. M. (2004). Ethical consumerism: A view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 214–221.CrossRef

van Staveren, I. (2008). Capabilities and well-being. In J. B. Davis & W. Dolfsma (Eds.), The Elgar companion to social economics (pp. 139–152). Cheltenham, MA: Edward Elgar.

Velasquez, M. G., & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194.CrossRef

Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2), 33–47.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

von Meyer-Höfer, M., & Spiller, A. (2013). Anforderungen an eine nachhaltige Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft: Die Rolle des Konsumenten. In Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL) (Eds.), KTBL-Schrift 500: Steuerungsinstrumente für eine nachhaltige Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft—Stand und Perspektiven: KTBL -Tagung vom 10.-11.04.2013 in Neu-Ulm. Darmstadt. Accessed October 14, 2015, from https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/31df8d0f3e66866309d4d9b8f118c3e2.pdf/Finale%20PDF%20des%20Buchbeitrags%20Druckfassung.pdf.

Wallenborn, G. (2007). How to attribute power to consumers? When epistemology and politics converge. In E. Zaccaï (Ed.), Sustainable consumption, ecology and fair trade (pp. 57–69). Abingdon: Routledge.

Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91–98.CrossRef

Weber, M. (1919/1994). The profession and vocation of politics. In P. Lassman & R. Speirs (Eds.), Weber: Political writings (pp. 309–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Grundriß der Sozialökonomik; Abt. 3). Tübingen: Mohr.

Weber, M. (1962). Basic concepts in sociology. Translated and with an introduction by H. P. Secher, first Kensington printing (2002). New York: Kensington.

Weber, M. (2013). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Edited by G. Roth & C. Wittich, with a new foreword by G. Roth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 188–196.CrossRef

Weng, L. (2014). Information diffusion on online social networks. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Accessed October 20, 2015, from http://lilianweng.github.io/papers/weng-thesis-single.pdf.

Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific Reports, 2, Article number 335. doi:10.1038/srep00335.

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

Wieland, J. (2014). Governance ethics: Global value creation, economic organization and normativity. Cham: Springer.

Williams, A. (2005). Consumer social responsibility? Consumer Policy Review, 15(2), 34–35.

Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and the welfare of others. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of earth (Liveright paperback ed. 2013). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Withers, H. (1920). The consumer’s responsibility. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 87, 225–232.CrossRef

Wuketits, F. M. (1993). Moral systems as evolutionary systems: Taking evolutionary ethics seriously. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(3), 251–271.CrossRef

Wuketits, F. M. (2010). Wie viel Moral verträgt der Mensch?. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

Yeow, P., Dean, A., & Tucker, D. (2014). Bags for life: The embedding of ethical consumerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 87–99.CrossRef

Young, I. M. (2007). Global challenges: War, self-determination and responsibility. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Zhou, W. X., Sornette, D., Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005). Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proc. R. Soc. B., 272(1561), 439–444.CrossRef

Zimbardo, P. G., Johnson, R. L., & McCann, V. (2012). Psychology: Core concepts (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Titel: From Bounded Morality to Consumer Social Responsibility: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Socially Responsible Consumption and Its Obstacles
verfasst von: Michael P. Schlaile
Katharina Klein
Wolfgang Böck
Publikationsdatum: 03.03.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3096-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Managerial Compensation and Firm Value in the Presence of Socially Responsible Investors

Building the Theoretical Puzzle of Employees’ Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda

Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR

Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Executive Succession: An Empirical Examination

Failures in Regulator-Led Deinstitutionalization of Questionable Business Practices

Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Productivity

Premium Partner