No. 23-2004 ICCSR Research Paper Series - ISSN 1479-5116

No. 24-2004 ICCSR Research Paper Series - ISSN 1479-5124

Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective

Robert J. Caruana

Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility

ISSN 1479-5116

Editor: Dirk Matten

International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School

Nottingham University Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road

Nottingham NG8 1BB United Kingdom

Phone +44 (0)115 95 15261 Fax +44 (0)115 84 66667 Email dirk.matten@nottingham.ac.uk

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR

Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective

Robert J. Caruana Abstract Keywords: Morality, ethics, consumption. The multidisciplinary perspective forwarded in this paper demonstrates that the notion of morality is inherently contestable and needs careful consideration before it can contribute to developing an understanding of consumption. At present, studies into ‘fair-trade’ and other forms of ostensibly moral practices such as ‘ethical consumption’ are largely informed by a psychological perspective which views morality as a process of individual, rational decision-making. Grounded in this approach, existing research into environmental concern (Minton and Rose, 1997), social responsibility (Strong, 1997) and consumer boycotting (Smith, 1990) has contributed significantly to the characterisation of moral decision-making in the market. Yet in practice the inability of this approach to successfully reconcile consumer’s ‘rational’ moral concerns with their market behaviour clearly suggests the need to examine more closely the notion of morality on which such research is founded. Indeed, the notion of morality itself is often an assumed force and is rarely confronted within these interpretations. This may be problematic. For if we look at the diversity of opinion regarding the notion of morality both across and within disciplines such as philosophy, economics, sociology and psychology there appears to be no evidence of a general answer to the question “What is morality?” Within psychology, for instance, morality is presumed to develop in line with cognitive maturation towards the final realisation of an ‘ethical self’. Alternatively, for the moral agent of philosophy, there is a universal basis for deciding the ‘good’ which serves as a means for establishing an ethical existence. Then, for the ‘rational, self-interested man’ of economics, who in contrast cannot know the consequences of his own individual actions, the market system assumes the role of moral agent. Certainly, there appear to be some quite alternative answers to the question “What is morality?” between disciplines. Yet, there is even evidence of considerably diverse answers within some disciplines. Indeed, for sociologists the notion of morality has been depicted as an objective, regulatory structure at the centre of social action, as a dialectic process of rule-construction and even as the more subjective impulse of a ‘pre-social man’. Given this inherent diversity, both between and within disciplines, it is argued in this paper that interpretations of what are essentially moral consumption phenomenon will become more insightful having first considered the contestability of that reoccurring question - “What is morality?” This paper has two parallel agendas reflected in the structure of table 1. The first is to characterize the ‘field’ of available answers to the question “What is morality?” offered by sociology, psychology and economics as well as ‘enlightenment’ and ‘post-enlightenment’ philosophy. Here, particular attention will be paid to the components that help construct a coherent version of morality within each discipline such as the nature, locus, purpose and ontological status of morality. Discussing these components will help to elucidate important conceptual boundaries that exist between perspectives, whilst simultaneously highlighting some significant inter-

disciplinary relationships. Secondly, whilst characterizing the range of available moral perspectives and in so doing challenging the existence of a single, uncontested conception of morality, this paper will consider the implications of such contestability for developing an understanding of consumption. Ultimately, the multidisciplinary perspective forwarded in this paper will allow academics, marketing practitioners and public policy-makers to re-examine the way in which morality in consumption is both conceived and communicated. The Author: Robert Caruana did his undergraduate degree in 'Business Administration' at Cardiff Business School 1997-2000 and started his PhD at Nottingham in October 2002 with ESRC funding. His current research focuses on the influence of morality in the context of consumption and is linked to the growing literature on ethical consumption. Address for correspondence: Robert Caruana, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham University, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, United Kingdom, Email: lixrjc@nottingham.ac.uk .

1

Introduction

Fundamental to the organisation of human life itself, consumption is a

phenomenon with a significant moral dimension. Indeed, a relationship

between morality and consumption has surfaced in a number of different

practical and theoretical genres. Economists and government politicians, for

instance, have long theorised and to some extent propagated consumption as

a key factor in securing a nation’s economic and social welfare. In an equally

‘systemic’ abstraction, both the human and physical strains of geography

continue to be concerned with the pressures on human and ecological

systems of rising levels of economic and consumption power. Here,

problematic notions of ‘over-consumption’ have served to question the moral

legitimacy of the prevailing capitalist model. On a more micro-level, acts of

‘gift-giving’ during major consumption events such as Christmas, birthdays

and weddings can be seen to represent manifestations of reciprocity and even

altruism. Less positively, consumption has been associated with the violation

of both consumer’s and more recently producer’s rights. In the former,

perceived moral infringements have given rise to consumer protection

organisations like BBC’s Watchdog and the Consumer Association, whereas

the latter has seen the construction of an entirely new international ‘fair trade’

market. Consumption has even provided a potent point of leverage for the

political interests of civil society. The early twentieth century prohibition

movement in the US and more recent incidents of boycotting and other non-

consumption forms of resistance and protest are all significant examples here.

Evidently, morality in consumption is a phenomenon of substantial theoretical

and practical interest on both a micro and macro level. However, despite its

2

apparent breadth and complexity the development of a correspondingly

intricate understanding of this subject has so far been restricted.

Current studies into ‘ethical’ and sustainable consumption as well as

consumer boycotting are fundamentally underpinned by a conception of

morality. That is, they develop understandings of consumption which

implicitly rely upon notions of right and wrong, good and evil. Most

significantly, the underlying notion of morality, on which such knowledge

implicitly rests, has taken on different and often contrasting meanings across

the various core and functional disciplines. This is not a problem in itself.

What is more problematic is the propensity for current understandings about

morality in consumption to become entrenched within one particular discipline,

preventing consideration of significant insights from other fields. The key

issue here is that disciplines, as they must of course discipline, inherently

shape and therefore constrain the way in which moral consumption

phenomenon can be conceived. For example, the notion of ‘ethical

consumption’, where it is subsumed into a micromarketing discourse, primarily

considers the cognitive dimension of individual agents as constituting the

‘boundaries of knowledge’ surrounding morality in consumption. Such a

framework necessarily denies, for instance, consideration of the importance of

economic systems and socio-political structures in which the practice of

‘ethical consumption’ has developed. Consequently, it is argued in this paper

that the generation of theory from single disciplinary perspectives in this way

is problematic for the generation of a broader, more integrated picture of this

complex and intriguing subject.

3

As a necessary theoretical contribution, the multidisciplinary perspective

forwarded in this paper demonstrates that the notion of morality is inherently

contestable and needs careful consideration before it can contribute to

developing an understanding of consumption. For example, present studies

into ‘fair-trade’ and other forms of ostensibly moral practices such as ‘ethical

consumption’ are largely informed by a psychological perspective which views

morality as a process of individual, rational decision-making. Grounded in this

approach, existing research into environmental concern (Minton et al, 1997),

‘fair trade’ (Strong, 1997) and consumer boycotting (Smith, 1990) has

contributed significantly to the characterisation of moral decision-making in

the market. Yet in practice the inability of this approach to successfully

reconcile consumer’s ‘rational’ moral concerns with their market behaviour

clearly suggests the need to examine more closely the notion of morality on

which such research is founded. Indeed, the notion of morality itself is often

an assumed force and is rarely confronted within these interpretations. This

may be problematic. For if we look at the diversity of opinion regarding the

notion of morality both across and within disciplines such as philosophy,

economics, sociology and psychology there appears to be no evidence of a

general consensus regarding a notion of morality.

Within psychology, for instance, morality is presumed to develop in line with

cognitive maturation towards the final realisation of an ‘ethical self’.

Alternatively, for the moral agent of philosophy, there is a universal basis for

deciding the ‘good’ which serves as a means for establishing an ethical

existence. Then, for the ‘rational, self-interested man’ of economics, who in

4

contrast cannot know the consequences of his own individual actions, the

market system assumes the role of moral agent. Certainly, there appear to be

some quite alternative answers to the question “What is morality?” between

disciplines. Yet, there is even evidence of considerably diverse answers

within some disciplines. Indeed, for sociologists the notion of morality has

been depicted as an objective, regulatory structure at the centre of social

action, as a dialectic process of rule-construction and even as the more

subjective impulse of a ‘pre-social man’. Given this inherent diversity, both

between and within disciplines, this paper undertakes to formally examine the

key question “What is morality?”, and importantly, considers the implication of

its contestability for an understanding of consumption. First, though, it is

important to consider why it has been necessary to know what morality is in

the first place and further, why its contestability matters for the development of

an understanding of consumption.

The question “What is morality?” represents an attempt to make sense of how

seemingly abstract notions of right and wrong, good and evil fit into

established theoretical and epistemological conventions. Essentially, the

question helps to construct a coherent version of morality that accords with a

discipline’s perspective or ‘world-view’. In turn, this furnishes the notion of

morality with a discernable composition - nature, locus, purpose and

ontological status – that is facilitative for the subsequent generation of

knowledge. However, there is a problem. It is in the very structure of the

question “What is morality?” to provide an absolute answer - “It is this!”

Significantly, whilst it is useful for the task of developing discipline-specific

5

understandings this key question has not provided the universal answer it

promises. Indeed, in the presence of multiple sets of competing answers

noted above, the question “What is morality?” must be considered inherently

contestable. This is an extremely significant consideration for developing new

understandings of moral consumption phenomenon. For, in the absence of

one unifying and uncontested notion of morality, it can be argued that those

interpretations of morality in consumption which are entrenched in one

discipline cannot convincingly claim to have a monopoly on the truth. Instead,

they can be seen as constituting only a segment of a wider, multi-disciplinary

arrangement of knowledge. In sum, given the contestable status of the

question “What is morality?” it then becomes appropriate, even necessary, for

new understandings of moral consumption phenomenon to consider the

influence, not of one, but of multiple fields of knowledge.

Why a multidisciplinary perspective?

As the title of Yannis et al’s (1995) provocative book The Unmaneagble

Consumer suggests, there is no one singular paradigm that can claim to have

the dynamics of consumption entirely ‘pinned down’. There are, instead, only

a variety of extremely useful lenses through which this complex and intriguing

phenomenon can be known.

This section highlights the potential for and relative advantages of a

multidisciplinary perspective and considers the implications of this approach

for developing an understanding of morality in consumption.

6

Despite sharing a common ‘theme’, notions such as ‘gift-giving’, ‘ethical

consumption’, ‘consumer rights’ and other ostensibly moral consumption

phenomenon have remained largely unidisciplinary. By this it is meant that

the entire scope of academic outputs, from teaching and consultancy to the

generation of new theoretical frameworks is bound, as if by centripetal forces,

to the conventional assumptions of an identifiable discipline. Currently, most

studies of consumption in a moral key are unidisciplinary in nature. One of

the main advantages of locating studies within a discernable discipline is that,

in the presence of a single, explicit epistemological and theoretical structure,

making sense of potentially complex phenomenon is a relatively unambiguous

and therefore unproblematic task. That is, what can constitute ‘truth’ and how

such truths can come to be known is widely recognized and accepted.

Moreover, unidisciplinarity can be advantageous, not only in terms of sense-

making and knowledge construction but also in terms of communication.

Undoubtedly, where there is general agreement regarding the constitution of

knowledge and ‘truth’, unidisciplinarity facilitates the dissemination of

concepts and theories through common language. There are then some clear

benefits of unidisciplinary approaches. Yet, whilst not wishing to diminish the

potential contribution offered by ‘distinct’ disciplinary areas, there are some

compelling arguments for moving towards a multidisciplinary perspective.

Perhaps the most appropriate way in which to build an argument for

multidisciplinarity is by questioning the need for an argument in the first place.

Indeed, in addressing the ‘possibility’ of multidisciplinarity in management

research Brown (1997) remarks:

7

“Multi-disciplinary research into management is, as it were, the only game in

town….management research and multi-disciplinarity are inseparable, by

reason of the fact that management is, in its very essence, multi-disciplinary,

rather than mono-disciplinary, in nature.” (pg. 23)

The same inference can be readily made for consumption. ‘Ethical

consumption’, for example, whilst subsumed into a micromarketing discourse,

is at the same time, a product of a range of functional as well as traditional

academic discourses from consumer behaviour, social-psychology, green and

societal marketing, economics and of course moral philosophy. By definition,

then, whist it remains mostly subverted, a substantial degree of

multidisciplinarity is inherent.

A strong epistemological argument for multidisciplinarity can also be made.

Indeed, whilst it has been noted as beneficial, being locked-in to one

dominant way of knowing phenomenon can simultaneously constrain the

generation of theory. The problem is that, given the hegemony of a single

‘world view’, other potentially profitable ways of knowing are necessarily

obscured. For example, as Crane (1999) has argued, the prevalence of

positivist research within business ethics, to the exclusion of other important

epistemological traditions such as interpretivism, has limited the types of

questions researchers can ask and so too the types of answers that might

ensue. This charge can also be levelled against studies that forward

discipline-specific understandings of consumption and morality.

8

The popularity of positivist, survey-based methodology in the emergent

‘ethical consumption’ literature has lead to a heavy theoretical bias towards

the cognitive dimension of individual agents. Whilst this approach is not

insignificant, the overemphasis on individual agency has allowed little

consideration of the external structures through which such consumer action

is given legitimacy. Thus, in the absence of a multidisciplinary approach, a

more vivid picture of the complex nature of phenomenon under investigation

is too easily forgone, leaving only partial accounts. This is a point echoed in

Watson’s (1997) argument for the adoption of a pluralist approach to

theorising. Reflecting on the limitations of the ‘dualistic mentality’ present in

structure/agency debates, Watson argues that a combined focus upon the

subjective ‘thoughts, feelings, values and assumptions’ of individual agents

and on the more objective ‘social, political and economic structures’ external

to them can lead to a ‘fuller picture’. Ultimately, understandings of morality in

consumption, where they foster only one method of knowledge generation,

will necessarily obscure from the researcher’s ‘gaze’ other important and

complementary insights. Accordingly, it is the task of the next section to

consider the multiple ways in which morality in consumption can be known.

This paper has two parallel agendas reflected in the structure of table 1. The

first is to characterize the ‘field’ of available answers to the question “What is

morality?” offered up by sociology, psychology and economics as well as

‘enlightenment’ and ‘post-enlightenment’ philosophy. Whilst the more

functional disciplines can cast some light on the alternative notions of

morality, it is in these core areas that the question has most formally been

addressed and from which those functional disciplines are wholly informed. In

9

examining these five disciplinary ‘homes’ to the question “What is morality?”

particular attention will be paid to the components that help construct a

coherent version of morality within each discipline such as the nature, locus,

purpose and ontological status of morality. Discussing these components will

help to elucidate important conceptual boundaries that exist between

perspectives, whilst simultaneously highlighting some significant inter-

disciplinary relationships. Secondly, whilst characterizing the range of

available moral perspectives and in so doing challenging the existence of a

single, uncontested conception of morality, this paper will consider the

implications of such contestability for developing an understanding of

consumption. Ultimately, the multidisciplinary perspective forwarded in this

paper will allow academics, marketing practitioners and public policy-makers

to re-examine the way in which morality in consumption is both conceived and

communicated.

10

Table 1. A multidisciplinary perspective on morality.

What is Morality? Nature Locus of morality Presumption Nature of Man Purpose Implications for consumption

Ontological status of morality

Proponents

Sociology

-Norms, values, and beliefs embedded in social process and structures which define right and wrong -Social rules of right and wrong are constructed by individual agents

This largely depends on the degree to which morality is assumed to derive from social constructs as opposed to individual agency

-Social structures frame right and wrong for individuals -Right and wrong is framed at an individual level

-‘Social Man’ -‘Pre-social Man’

-Guiding social interactions -Ordering individual conduct

Moral discourse surrounding products embedded in social norms e.g. ‘family’: ‘My husband likes to chose those kinds of goods so I let him decide’

-Objective -Subjective

-Durkheim, -Bauman

Economics Outcome of systematic processes

Systems

Man is legitimately a self- interested individual who cannot know the social consequences of his actions [which the market assumes]

‘Rational, self-interested Man’

Sanctioning of individualism for collective interest

Individual purchases are linked to macro-social outcomes: ‘I buy local produce in support of regional farming industry’

Objective Smith, Friedman

Psychology

Developmental and Hierarchical: [Moving from non-moral, to stimulus-response then to ethical]

Individuals

Starting from a non-moral position morality develops in line with cognitive maturation

‘Conscious Man’

Realising final article of an individual ‘ethical self’

Increasing levels of information leads to truly ‘Good’ purchases: ‘Because I know x, y, and z about company ‘a’ I will only buy petrol from company ‘b’’

Objective Piaget, Kohlberg

Philosophy ‘enlightenment’ view

Metaphysical rules Metaphysics There is a universal basis

for deciding the ‘good’ ‘Ethical Man’

Means of evaluating and creating an ethical existence

Strict adherence to specified moral rules: ‘Can I wish it that every man would also wish this purchase to be truly good?’

Objective Locke, Kant, Mill

Philosophy ‘post-enlightenment’ View

Existential moral disposition

Contextually situated moral agent

Developing a moral character; ‘dispositions’

‘Ambivalent Man’

Developing consistent moral conduct and character in the face of moral flux.

Ethical practice in the face of moral fragmentation: ‘Even though I can’t be sure this purchase is morally right I must decide’

-Subjective -Relative

Satre, McIntyre, Lyotard

Enlightenment philosophy. Ethical Man

The ancient discipline of philosophy represents the first significant attempt to ask the

question “What is morality?” Before this, a notion of morality was generally

prescribed by the particular religious institution to which a community was subject. In

most instances, adherence to divine laws governed the patterning of practices such

as consumption and any formal notion of morality remained largely undeveloped.

Then, sometime after the ‘birth’ of philosophy a period of ‘enlightenment’ thinking was

ushered in that, in contrast to religious interpretations of the time, conceived Humans

and not Deities as the original force of morality. In this dramatic turn away from

traditional doctrines of external divine rule, philosophy sought instead to formally

consider the moral agency of a corporeal, rational Man (Locke, 1959, Mill, 1992).

Here, the question “What is morality?” commonly provoked answers that sought to

ground man’s actions in his innate rational powers. Starting from this metaphysical

disposition the purpose of morality, then, was to provide all individuals with the

means for evaluating and creating an ethical existence here on earth. Importantly,

this could be achieved, it was argued, by man’s obligation to a set of metaphysical

rules that were grounded in pure reason:

“Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to hold morally, i.e., as a ground of obligation,

must imply absolute necessity; he must admit that the command, ‘Thou shalt not lie,’

does not apply to men only, as if other rational beings had no need to observe it.

The same is true for all other moral laws properly so called. He must concede that

the ground of obligation here must not be sought in the nature of man or in the

circumstances in which he is placed, but sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure

reason.” Kant (1969, pg. 5)

12

In this, Kant reflects the central project of enlightenment philosophy: to establish a

universal basis from which all individuals can judge the rules to which they are

obligated in any given context. Importantly, this would imply that morality is not a

phenomenon that can be interpreted differently from person to person or place to

place; it is clearly given an objective ontological status. Consequently, this

‘metaphysical morality’ has a firm, determinable hold on the actions of ‘Ethical Man’.

This perspective has some important implications for developing and understanding

of consumption.

The notion of consumer rights mentioned in the introduction explicitly draws upon

enlightened philosophical thinking about morality. It suggests that each consumer

should have access to ‘equal entitlements’ to which other moral agents have the duty

to respect and protect. A reading of Kant, for example, suggests that the

establishment and maintenance of such rights is achieved entirely through an

individual’s access to innate rational powers. In the case of consumer rights, then, it

would be rational deliberation alone that set out what constitutes a right and therefore

that which every consumer would wish to become a universally binding law. The

moral question for ‘Ethical man’, then, would be; ‘Can I wish that every man would

also wish the universal administration and preservation of my right to expect ‘x’ from

the market?’ This seems an extremely pertinent question for contemporary

consumer society given the massive power imbalances that exist between global

organisations and their inherently atomised consumer constituents. Indeed, the

recent, high profile collapse of the pension industry in the UK has left thousands of

British citizens in doubt as to the level of quality of life they are to expect in the future.

Given the vital role consumption played here in administering people's right to

13

participate in society, an enlightenment philosophical perspective on morality can

provide a useful, if not crucial contribution. However, it is far from being the only

useful source in developing understandings of morality in consumption. In fact, there

are other important insights to be gleaned from another branch of inquiry within

philosophy.

Post-enlightenment philosophy. Ambivalent man

‘Post-enlightenment’ inquiry, broadly speaking, represented a substantial

epistemological shift in the way philosophers conceived the world, and importantly,

man’s actions within it. As a consequence, the meaning of the question “What is

morality?” also changed and so too the types of possible answers it could generate.

In a very real sense, the post-enlightenment view of morality obtains much of its

character from its oppositional stance towards the conventions of the previous

‘enlightened’ epoch. In stark contrast to the teachings of Kant, for instance,

philosophers such as Satre, MacIntyre and Lyotard developed far less objective

understandings. Indeed, in the absence of a governing metastructure the purpose of

morality under the post-enlightenment view becomes a matter developing a set of

moral dispositions that reflect the more subjective ‘social and cultural particularities’

of existence. In this sense, ‘Ethical Man’ is replaced by the notion of an ‘Ambivalent

Man’ who strives to cultivate a sense of what is right in the face of social-cultural flux

but whom cannot know for certain the absolute moral ‘truth’ of her actions (MacIntyre,

1985, Bauman, 1993, 1995). In this way, Lyotard (1994) views morality as being

more like a problem, rather than an answer, on which to reflect:

14

“Whereas the problem that faces us, even if it is put in terms of Idea and reflective

judgement, is that it is no longer a matter, for us, of reflecting upon what is just or

unjust against a horizon of a social totality, but, on the contrary, against the horizon

of a multiplicity or of a diversity.” (pg. 87)

It is important here to consider what implications this subjective notion of morality has

for developing an understanding of consumption.

Facing a life-world of moral fragmentation and uncertainty, post-enlightenment

philosophy's ‘Ambivalent man’ would be likely to ask something like the following

question: ‘Even though I cannot be sure for certain that this purchase is just, fair and

right, I must still make a decision here.’ This is indeed a relevant question when we

consider the moral complexity of certain consumption events. For example, whilst an

individual might be concerned that her consumption of private transport may

culminate in environmental pollution, increased levels of traffic and lower revenue for

an already under-funded public transport network, she may, on balance, decide that

moral responsibilities to her work and family take precedence. Importantly, here, our

hypothetical consumer has had to make a morally problematic decision in a complex

and uncertain situation.

As evidenced, both here and under the ‘enlightenment’ epoch, philosophical inquiry

can contribute significantly towards developing understandings of consumption in a

moral key. However, despite being the disciplinary ‘home’ of moral inquiry, the

question “What is morality?” has been broached in a number of different ways by

15

other fields outside of philosophy. Therefore, in order to assess their potential

contribution these will now be considered.

Psychology. Conscious Man

Largely responsible for current micromarketing understandings of ethical

consumption practice, psychology has also asked itself the question “What is

morality?” Although there are several different branches of inquiry within psychology

such as social learning theory, psychoanalysis and cognitive psychology there are

some central, common themes with which to characterise a general perspective.

Unlike philosophy, a search for the fundamental basis of morality is precluded from a

psychological approach and an individual’s rational status is treated as an

assumption rather than a central, formal question. Upon this assumption, Man, or

rather ‘Conscious Man’ is considered to develop a set of moral dispositions through a

process of cognitive development. This key presumption holds that, starting from a

non-moral position (as a child) morality develops in line with cognitive maturation.

Largely influenced by the early works of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg is

responsible for much of the direction and constitution of this developmental thesis

(Hersh, 1979). In fact, he undertook to ‘unpack’ this process of cognitive moral

development into no less than six discernable stages, with each stage representing a

significant advancement in an individual’s ability to rationalise the ‘proper course of

action’. Significantly, this widely shared developmental thesis depicts the common

purpose of moral development as the eventual realisation of an individual ‘ethical

self.’ This ‘ethical’, or more aptly, ‘Conscious Man’ can now rationalise the correct,

moral course of action in any given situation. Therefore, not unlike the ‘Ethical Man’

of enlightenment philosophy, a psychological perspective also lends morality an

16

objective ontological status. Having considered here the notion of morality, as

shaped by prevailing psychological convention, it is necessary to consider what

implications this view has for developing an understanding of consumption.

The psychological perspective outlined above suggests that morality in consumption

is the product of an individual’s cognitive capacity to make rational choices.

Accordingly, we might expect our ‘Conscious Man’ to address the moral problems he

faces in his consumption activities by rationalising them along the following lines:

‘Because I know ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’ about the ethical practices of company ‘a’ I now only

buy my petrol from company ‘b’ and company ‘c’. Crucially, rather than being bound

to a particular code or rule, in this situation, moral action is seen to follow a logical

sequence in which critical information is cognitively processed. This thesis has found

much expression within micro-marketing studies into ‘ethical consumption’ which, like

psychology, predominantly conceptualise morality as a process of individual, rational

decision-making (Shaw, 2002, Strong 1997). As a consequence the micro-marketing

thesis commonly argues that increased levels of information about the ‘ethicality’ of

commodities will allow consumers to make ‘better’ moral judgements in the

marketplace:

“Translating fair trade principles into consumer behaviour involves devising a social

and consumer system which ensures the objectives of fair trade are understood and

believed on a global scale, with consumers understanding their role in the attainment

of an ecologically sound consumer society” Strong (1997, pg 36)

The psychological perspective outlined in this section can and has contributed

significantly to the development of knowledge surrounding ostensibly moral

17

phenomenon in consumption. Again however, whilst this moral perspective clearly

adds a significant additional layer of theory on which to develop an understanding of

consumption, it is not the only area from which to strengthen such knowledge.

Economics. Rational, self-interested man

Economics has principally been interested in explaining how macro-phenomenon

such as consumption, production, government and the environment fit into a systems

framework. It is not surprising, then, that an economic perspective views the nature

of morality as the outcome of systematic processes. Here, the basic presumption is

that it is in Man’s nature to be a rational, self-interested individual. That is, because

he cannot possibly know (in order to judge) the consequences of his individual

actions, it is considered natural and thus legitimate for him to pursue only his own

interests. On its own, however, this does not constitute a moral perspective.

Crucially, it is argued that ‘hidden’ market processes would serve to effectively

redistribute ‘the good’ to a social collective. The foundation of this systems approach

to morality was laid out by Adam Smith and is famously encapsulated in the words:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we

expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” Smith (1970,

pg.119)

A key principle, echoed much in later economic thought (Friedman et al, 1980), this

statement can be seen to define the purpose of morality as the sanctioning of

individualism for collective interests. That is, on the premise that ‘goodness’ will

ensue, not from the benevolence of the individual alone but as a residual ‘goodness’

of the sum of parts, one is encouraged, if not impelled, to endorse a moral role for the

18

market system. Essentially here, a notion of morality is abstracted from the locus of

individual agents and is ‘systemised’ at a macro-level. This, significantly, serves to

provide morality with an objective ontological status in that it leaves no room for

interpretation at the level of the individual subject. Again, it is important to consider

here the implications an economic perspective has for developing an understanding

of morality in consumption.

Given the role of the market as a legitimate distributor of morality, the implication is

that individual consumer purchases will culminate in beneficial macro-social

outcomes. Consequently, presented with a situation of some moral complexity, our

‘Rational, self-interested man’ would be expected to rationalise his actions in the

following way: ‘I tend to buy my groceries from the local farmer’s market in support of

the regional farming industry.’ Significantly, although a direct role for the market is

overtly implicated here, even forms of indirect market morality can be drawn under

this perspective. Smith (1990), for example, has conceptualised consumer

boycotting behaviour as a macro-systems feature of ‘morality in the market’. In this

case, the following question must also be considered appropriate: ‘I will continue to

boycott firm ‘x’ because they source much of their agricultural produce from disparate

international suppliers rather than from national or local areas.’ So, either directly or

indirectly, the market is upheld as the ultimate channel of morality. From this, it is

evident that an economic perspective has much to contribute towards the

development of an understanding of morality in consumption. Yet, as we have seen,

it is not the only authority in this area. In fact, the discipline of sociology must first be

considered for its contribution until this treatise can be considered properly

exhausted.

19

Sociology. [Pre-] Social Man?

Like philosophy, psychology and economics the discipline of sociology has also

undertaken to ask the question “What is morality?” However, characterising the

overall meaning of this question is a more problematic task than it is for the other

disciplines. Indeed, the locus, purpose and nature of morality within sociology all

largely depend upon the degree to which morality is assumed to derive from social

constructs or from individual agency. This is an important distinction. As discussed

earlier, the former, ‘structuralist’ perspective essentially regards the norms, values,

and beliefs embedded in social processes and structures to define what is right and

wrong for a society. Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists to presume that

morality had structural force in this way:

“Durkheim understood that a society's morality was closely related to, indeed, was an

expression of what was collectively perceived to be sacred.” Stivers (1996, pg. 2)

Importantly, the structuralist perspective reflected here in Durkheim gives rise to a

‘Social Man’ whose actions are largely predetermined by an objective structural

force. In this, the purpose of morality can be seen to guide, or rather, ‘fix’ all social

interactions for an identifiable collective. However, a structuralist perspective, whilst

representative of early sociological thought, does not represent the only answer to

the question “What is morality?” offered by sociology. Indeed, this has evolved

somewhat.

20

There are some sociologists who view the nature of morality as a set of rules about

right and wrong that are constructed by individual agents. The central proposition

here is that morality, rather than being a ‘guiding arm’ of social structure, is regarded

as a 'pre-social' impulse to take responsibility for social ‘Others’ (Levinas, 1987).

This gives rise to a ‘Pre-social Man’ who, instinctively urged to be ‘For the Other’, is

left to manage the moral problems that he encounters without reference to a

determinable, regulatory structure. This more complex, subjective view of morality

has much resonance with recent sociological commentary on postmodernity. Indeed,

according to Bauman (1993,1995), in this time of social disengagement from

traditional sources of moral guidance, such as the church and the community,

unconditional responsibility ‘For the Other’ leaves individual decision-making at best

a highly uncertain task:

“We know now that we will face forever moral dilemmas without unambiguously

good (that is, universally agreed upon, uncontested) solutions, and that we will be

never sure where such solutions are to be found; not even whether it would be good

to find them.” Bauman (1993, pg. 31)

Therefore, the seemingly near-relativist account of morality present here in Bauman,

suggests that whilst the purpose of morality can be seen as helping to ‘guide’

individual conduct, it is not a function that necessarily leads to a satisfactory, final

solution.

21

Together, the two contrasting perspectives presented here offer important insights

into a sociological view of morality. Necessarily, their contribution to an

understanding of morality in consumption must now be considered.

By way of extension, ‘Social Man’ is driven in his consumption activities by an

obligation to the structurally embedded moral rules that define what is ‘good’ and

‘proper’ for his community. For example, the codification of social categories such as

‘family’ would predetermine the ‘right’ course of action for mothers/fathers,

wives/husbands, sons/daughters etc. In this case, the following question, or more

aptly, statement is implicated:

‘Apart from items of food and drink, it is the husband’s role to choose what we

purchase for our households’.

Essentially here, social roles and their associated moral rules for consumption would

be inflexible throughout the community. However, quite the reverse is true for ‘Pre-

social Man’. The following sentence encapsulates the contrasting thesis:

‘I find it incredibly difficult at times to know whose needs come first whilst shopping

for my family and whether or not I should be the only person responsible for this

activity.’

This is certainly an important statement when we consider the fragmentation of

traditional social roles articulated in contemporary, postmodern commentary.

Certainly, at a time where markets are communicating with increasingly well defined

22

sub-factions of society, the structuralist moral theses that proclaim a relatively fixed

‘Social Man’ are necessarily contested, or at least, reconstructed.

Despite the contradistinctive meaning of the question “What is morality?” it is evident

that a sociological perspective has much to contribute towards the development of an

understanding of morality in consumption. In fact, both in theoretical and practical

terms, all of the disciplines outlined here appear to have much to contribute to the

growth of knowledge in this area. Yet, as we have seen, the meaning of the question

“What is morality?” and the subsequent answers it can generate are generally limited

to a specific discipline, denying the possibility of a fuller, multifaceted understanding

of morality in consumption. Significantly, it is the task of the rest of this paper to

address this important issue.

Discussion.

Let us start out by questioning the ‘possibility’ of a multidisciplinary understanding of

morality in consumption. Rather ironically, this task can be best achieved by

challenging the possibility of an existing unidisciplinarity in this literary field. Although

table 1. appears to represent five divergent perspectives on morality with adjacent

implications for consumption there are in fact some important interrelationships

present. First, the enlightenment philosophical view of morality produced an ‘Ethical

Man’ who, through rational reflexivity, was able to know the objective moral truth of

his consumption decisions. Notably, the notion of an objective, rational actor

presented here is not confined to this discipline. Indeed, psychology, whilst not

formally engaged in a philosophical discussion, relies implicitly on the notion of a

rational agent who, with the correct training, can also come to know the proper way

23

to act in all situations. In turn, the ‘Rational, self-interested man’ of economics, whilst

embedded in macro-systems theory, does also assume to some degree an objective,

rational morality. Furthermore, the structuralist ‘Social Man’ of sociology, whose

actions are governed by a law-like structure at the centre of society, also embodies

this notion to a great extent. However, an objective rational morality is not the only

shared conception that exists between disciplines. Indeed, a post-enlightenment

philosophical view of morality has much in common with a post-structuralist

sociological account. For instance, both disciplines conceived of an existentially

subjective individual who, in the absence of governing social or metaphysical

structures, attempts to act morally in the face of socio-cultural flux and uncertainty

(Bauman, 1993, Levinas, 1987). Yet, there are, of course, some important

theoretical clashes here too. For instance, the economic notion of a ‘self-interested’

individual agent is diametrically opposed to the ‘ethical self’ of psychology whilst, with

their focus on individual agency, both are simultaneously at odds with the structurally

guided ‘Social Man’. Similarly, the morally unsure ‘Ambivalent Man’ of post-

enlightenment philosophy stands in stark contrast to the morally certain ‘Conscious

Man’ of enlightenment philosophy. Overall though, whilst recognising the existence

of some significant theoretical clashes between the disciplines, there is a

corresponding measure of ontological ‘boundary hopping’ or multidisciplinarity.

Significantly, given the existence of certain similarities across ostensibly distinct

disciplines, there is, then, a platform on which a multidisciplinary understanding of

morality in consumption can develop. In fact, there are strong epistemological and

theoretical arguments for pursuing this more pluralist approach.

24

In accordance with the structure of table 1, attempting to generate understandings of

consumption that accord solely with a single discipline’s perspective on morality will

logically constitute part of the available knowledge. What the table demonstrates

most poignantly is that, despite shared ontological assumptions, the question “What

is morality?” has a different meaning from discipline to discipline and that depending

upon what meaning is attributed to this question, different types of answers will

ensue as different types of research questions will be asked. As a result, the first

point to note is that the question “What is morality?” , because it is epistemologically

bound to provoke the answer “It is this!” (social norms, systemic processes etc), can

be considered inherently contestable. There are clearly multiple regimes of truth

here. Indeed, the table itself characterises the various, seemingly concrete,

understandings about the nature, locus, purpose and force of morality that reflect the

theoretical and philosophical conventions of each identifiable discipline. Significantly,

following a positivist tradition, these are taken to be true and so when economists

answer the question “What is morality?” the epistemological boundaries dictate that it

is only ever the outcome of systematic processes. However, where disciplines offer

up such ‘truths’ about morality in consumption, in the presence of adjacent sets of

competing ‘truths’, they can only ever, by definition, be considered ‘truth claims’.

This is, in itself, a very strong argument for pursuing multidisciplinary understandings

of morality in consumption. For, by challenging the authority of single, absolute

claims to truth, one is impelled to consider instead how the various competing

arguments offered across a range of different perspectives can contribute to a

broader, more integrated understanding of morality in consumption.

25

The epistemological argument for multidisciplinarity offered here is supported by

Gilligan (1993) who has criticised the dominant objective rational agent thesis within

psychology:

“When one begins with the study of women and derives developmental constructs

from their lives, the outline of a moral conception different from that described by

Freud, Piaget or Kohlberg begins to emerge and informs a different description of

development.” (pg. 19)

Given the dominant positivist tradition within psychologically informed ethical decision

making literature (Crane, 1999), there is indeed support here to question the

appropriateness of constraining new understandings to the narrow individual, rational

decision making thesis.

This observation leads straight into considering the theoretical argument for a

multidisciplinary approach to morality in consumption. As the principle currency with

which academic institutions can continue to claim a legitimate role in society, the

argument for richer, integrated, multidimensional theory is a highly significant one.

Yet, as evident in marketing and management’s overemphasis on cognitive decision-

making processes, present theoretical insight into moral consumption phenomenon

can be considered weak currency at best. For, as table 1. demonstrates, whilst

entrenched within a single ‘knowledge stream’, attempts to build theory concerning

ostensibly moral consumption phenomenon must necessarily constitute only a part of

the available picture. For example, due to its epistemological approach, an economic

perspective on morality in consumption can only generate certain types of macro-

systems theory (Smith, 1990). Whilst this may be sufficient for the dissemination of

26

knowledge through certain economic papers, textbooks and student modules,

economists preclude from their understanding of morality in consumption, for

instance, the important role that social structures and consumer cognition might play

in explaining complex market systems. Likewise, in focussing only upon the

cognitive aspects of ethical decision-making, studies into ethical consumer behaviour

necessarily ignore the impact of significant external factors. Indeed, consideration of

a number of contextual factors may go a long way to account for how certain

consumption practices have come to be morally legitimate and others not (Kilbourne

et al, 1997). This can also be applied to the philosophically grounded notion of

consumer rights. By considering in conjunction the import of social, political and

economic frameworks as well as consumer cognition a fuller picture, of what, how

and why certain consumer rights, as they stand alongside broader social, civil and

political rights, may be developed. Therefore, whilst acknowledging the various

political, institutional and symbolic barriers (Knights et al, 1997) that might prevent

academics from considering the contributions of other disciplines, the potential for

multidisciplinarity to add extra theoretical dimensions to current fields of knowledge is

a tantalising prospect. The theoretical implications of dogmatic unidisciplinary

approaches are, however, less promising. Where the ardent sociologist, economist

or psychologist continues to answer the question “What is morality?” in line with the

conventions of his or her familiar discipline, they impose certain constraints on the

way in which subsequent knowledge can be generated and importantly, used.

Conclusion.

The multidisciplinary perspective forwarded in this paper has demonstrated that the

notion of morality is itself inherently contestable and needs careful consideration

27

before it can contribute to developing an understanding of consumption. It was

argued that interpretations of what are essentially moral consumption phenomenon

will become more insightful having first considered this contestability. This was

achieved by a concise exposition of five distinct disciplinary fields that have each

attempted to ask and answer the question - “What is morality?” Having discussed

the implications that each individual version of this question has for an understanding

of morality in consumption the possibility for and benefits of a multidisciplinary

approach were then put forward. Here, it was argued that due to the mainly positivist

epistemological traditions in each field, the question “What is morality?” acted to

constrain the types of possible answers that might be generated. This was deemed

to be a significant problem for the principle academic role of creating insightful and

facilitative knowledge. Finally, it was argued that by simultaneously considering

contributions from a number of perspectives, rather than a singularly contestable

one, a broader, more integrated understanding of complex moral consumption

phenomenon may be achieved.

Whilst it is likely that the prospect of enhancing knowledge of morality in consumption

through multidisciplinary approaches will be ignored by some, it should be taken

extremely seriously. For, not only does this paper indicate the benefits to the

academic community in terms of advancing the scope and depth of theory, but it also

considers other audiences to which we are responsible. Students, whether they are

undergraduates or MBAs, currently live, and will eventually go on to work, in

complex, changing environments where over-simplified cause-effect ‘nuggets’ fail to

account for the intricate problems they encounter. In this way, unidsciplinary

understandings of moral consumption phenomenon do not reflect the fragmented,

28

multi-role lifeworlds in which certain audiences exist. Indeed, whilst confining the

communication of knowledge to this or that particular perspective, it is no wonder

that, as academics, we are sometimes accused by our publics of not existing in the

‘Real World.’ Yet it is not just our students to whom we owe, for want of a better

word, more ‘realistic’ knowledge offerings. Managers and public policy makers, for

example, are often awkwardly positioned between the multi-functional structures

internal to their organisations and at the same time a spectrum of stakeholder

demands on the outside. Making decisions or even sometimes just making sense is

a far more complex and involved process than a unidisciplinary approach can allow

for. Ultimately, where a multidisciplinary perspective of morality in consumption

appears most ‘capable’, is in its potential to facilitate broader and more integrated

understandings of the inherently complex worlds in which we and our various

audiences actually exist.

29

References Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in fragments: essays in postmodern morality. Oxford:

Blackwell. Brown, R. B. (1997). You can’t expect rationality from pregnant men: reflections on

multi-disciplinarity in management research. British Journal of Management, 8, 23-30.

Crane, A. (1999). Are you ethical? Please tick yes or no on researching ethics in

business organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(3), 237-248. Durkheim, E. (2001). The elementary forms of the religious life. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1965). Fact and fiction in psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguine

Books Ltd. Friedman, M. and Friedman, R. (1980) Free to choose: a personal statement.

London: Secker and Warburg. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s

development. London: Harvard University Press. Hersh, R. H. (1979). Promoting moral growth: from Piaget to Kohlberg. London:

Longman. Kant, I. (1969). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-

Merrill. Kilbourne, W. and Weeks, S. (1997). A socio-economic perspective on gender bias in

technology. Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(3), 243-261. Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997). The hype and hope of interdisciplinary

management studies. British Journal of Management, 8, 9-22. Lévinas, E. (1987). Time and the other. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Locke, J. (1959). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Dover

Publications, Inc. Lyotard, J-F. (1994). Just gaming. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

30

MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: a study in moral theory. London: Duckworth. Mill, J. S. (1992). On liberty; and, Utilitarianism. London: David Campbell. Minton, A. and Rose, R. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on

environmentally friendly consumer behaviour: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40, 37-48.

Sartre, J-P. (1957) Existentialism and human emotions. Secaucus, N.J.: Castle. Schouls, P. A. (1992). Reasoned freedom: John Locke and enlightenment. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press. Shaw, D. and Shiu, E. (2002). The role of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26(2), 109-116. Smith, A. (1970). The wealth of nations: books 1-3. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Smith, C. N. (1990). Morality and the market: consumer pressure for corporate accountability. London: Routledge. Stivers, R. (1996). Towards a sociology of morality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16(1/2), 1-14. Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(1), 32-37. Watson, T. J. (1997). Theorizing managerial work: a pragmatic pluralist approach to interdisciplinary research. British Journal of Management, 8, 3-8. Yannis, G. and Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. London: Sage.

Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility

ISSN 1479-5116

Editor: Dirk Matten The ICCSR Research Papers Series is intended as a first-hand outlet for research output of ICCSR. These include papers presented at symposiums and seminars, first drafts of papers intended for submission in journals and other reports on ongoing or completed research projects. The objective of the ICCSR Research Papers Series is twofold: First, there is a time goal: Given the quality of ICCSR publication, the targeted journals normally require large time spans between submission and publication. Consequently, the ICCSR Research Papers Series serves as a preliminary airing to working papers of ICCSR staff and affiliates which are intended for subsequent publication. By this, research output can be made available for a selected public which will not only establish ICCSR’s lead in advancing and developing innovative research in CSR but will also open the opportunity to expose ideas to debate and peer scrutiny prior to submission and/or subsequent publication. Second, the ICCSR Research Papers Series offers the opportunity of publishing more extensive works of research than the usual space constraints of journals would normally allow. In particular, these papers will include research reports, data analysis, literature reviews, work by postgraduate students etc. which could serve as a primary data resource for further publications. Publication in the ICCSR Research Paper Series does not preclude publication in refereed journals. The ICCSR Research Papers Series consequently is interested in assuring high quality and broad visibility in the field. The quality aspect will be assured by establishing a process of peer review, which will normally include the Editor of the ICCSR Research Papers Series and one further academic in the field. In order to achieve a reasonable visibility the ICCSR Research Papers Series has full ISSN recognition and is listed in major library catalogues worldwide. All papers can also be downloaded at the ICCSR website.

Published Papers No. 01-2003 Wendy Chapple & Richard Harris

Accounting for solid waste generation in measures of regional productivity growth No. 02-2003 Christine Coupland

Corporate identities on the web: An exercise in the construction and deployment of ‘morality’

No. 03-2003 David L. Owen

Recent developments in European social and environmental reporting and auditing practice – A critical evaluation and tentative prognosis

No. 04-2003 Dirk Matten & Andrew Crane

Corporate Citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization No. 05-2003 Karen Williams, Mike Geppert & Dirk Matten

Challenges for the German model of employee relations in the era of globalization No. 06-2003 Iain A. Davies & Andrew Crane

Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies No. 07-2003 Robert J. Caruana

Morality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective

No. 08-2003 Edd de Coverly, Lisa O’Malley & Maurice Patterson Hidden mountain: The social avoidance of waste

No. 09-2003 Eleanor Chambers, Wendy Chapple, Jeremy Moon & Michael Sullivan

CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting No. 10-2003 Anita Fernandez Young & Robert Young

Corporate Social Responsibility: the effects of the Federal Corporate Sentencing Guidelines on a representative self-interested corporation

No. 11-2003 Simon Ashby, Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann

Industry self-regulation: A game-theoretic typology of strategic voluntary compliance

No. 12-2003 David A. Waldman, Donald Siegel & Mansour Javidan

Transformational leadership and CSR: A meso level approach No. 13-2003 Jeremy Moon, Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten

Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society (2nd Edition)

No. 14-2003 Anita Fernandez Young, Jeremy Moon & Robert Young

The UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: a phenomenological approach

No. 15-2003 Andrew Crane

In the company of spies: The ethics of industrial espionage No. 16-2004 Jan Jonker, Jacqueline Cramer and Angela van der Heijden

Developing Meaning in Action: (Re)Constructing the Process of Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Companies

No. 17-2004 Wendy Chapple, Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Richard Harris

Manufacturing and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Cost Implications of Voluntary Waste Minimisation

No. 18-2004 Brendan O’Dwyer

Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributions from Accountancy No. 19-2004 James A. Fitchett

Buyers be Wary: Marketing Stakeholder Values and the Consumer No. 20-2004 Jeremy Moon

Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective

No. 21-2004 Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten

Questioning the Domain of the Business Ethics Curriculum: Where the Law ends or Where it Starts?

No. 22-2004 Jem Bendell Flags of inconvenience? The global compact and the future of United Nations No. 23-2004 David Owen and Brendan O’Dwyer Assurance Statement Quality in Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting: a Critical Evaluation of Leading Edge Practice No. 24-2004 Robert Caruana Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective