Table 3 A comparison between ethically... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

A comparison between ethically ambivalent consumers and other consumer groups in relation to ethical consumption

Consumer segment	Dominant moral priorities	Common tensions/Barriers	Illustrative references
Committed ethical consumers	Sustainability, environmental impact, social justice	Intention–behaviour gap, scepticism over greenwashing	Shaw et al. (2005), Carrington et al. (2014)
Occasional ethical purchasers	Pragmatism, selective adoption of ethical products	Price sensitivity, convenience, neutralisation	Chatzidakis et al. (2007), Bray et al. (2011)
Mainstream value-driven shoppers	Affordability, fairness, health, functionality	Limited moral salience, focus on practical needs	Auger and Devinney (2007)
Ethically ambivalent consumers (EACs)	Care, responsibility, preservation, fairness, health, sociality, food expertise, reducing waste	Contradictory consumption, Marketplace accessibility, signalling, scepticism	This study

Consumer segment	Dominant moral priorities	Common tensions/Barriers	Illustrative references
Committed ethical consumers	Sustainability, environmental impact, social justice	Intention–behaviour gap, scepticism over greenwashing	Shaw et al. (2005), Carrington et al. (2014)
Occasional ethical purchasers	Pragmatism, selective adoption of ethical products	Price sensitivity, convenience, neutralisation	Chatzidakis et al. (2007), Bray et al. (2011)
Mainstream value-driven shoppers	Affordability, fairness, health, functionality	Limited moral salience, focus on practical needs	Auger and Devinney (2007)
Ethically ambivalent consumers (EACs)	Care, responsibility, preservation, fairness, health, sociality, food expertise, reducing waste	Contradictory consumption, Marketplace accessibility, signalling, scepticism	This study