Tag Archives: food industry

Another German supermarket chain expands its animal welfare policies

Last month Aldi Nord released national and international animal welfare supply chain policies (in German and English language). Aldi Nord operates discount supermarkets in Germany and internationally, for example in Denmark, France, the Benelux countries, the Iberian Peninsula, and Poland. Both Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd also operate in the United States.

The Aldi supermarkets in Germany are owned by the Albrecht family, who split the business in 1966 into two separate legal entities: Aldi Süd (Aldi South) and Aldi Nord (Aldi North). Aldi Australia is owned by Aldi Süd.

I have written about Aldi Süd’s animal welfare supply chain policies previously on The Conversation and this blog. Now it’s Aldi Nord’s turn.

International Animal Welfare Purchasing Policy

ALDI Nord’s buyers are bound by this International Animal Welfare Purchasing Policy when carrying out their tendering and purchasing activities, and animal welfare matters are integrated into contracts.

The aim of the animal welfare commitment of ALDI Nord is the further development of the animal welfare standard when manufacturing our products in the defined scope of application, with the health and well-being of the animals taking top priority. We would like to raise the awareness of our customers and employees with regard to animal welfare matters through transparent information and a proactive dialogue.

The company’s commitments include, for example, the following:

  • the objective of increasing the animal welfare standard beyond the level required by law
  • to offer vegetarian and vegan substitute products as alternatives to animal products
  • certain products, such as real fur goods and angora wool, will not be sold
  • to continuously increase the proportion of animal welfare-friendly products in the product range (is this an acknowledgement that Aldi Nord sells products that are not animal welfare friendly?)
  • transparency along the supply chain and demanding the complete traceability of products, as stipulated by law. Beyond the level required by law, business partners must provide ALDI Nord with this information immediately upon request; for this purpose they must have established suitable information systems
  • simple and clear labelling of products
  • inspections and audits of business partners, including unannounced inspections of for example farms and slaughterhouses.

National Animal Welfare Purchasing Policy

The company’s national policy goes further than its international counterpart. This is most likely due to customer expectations in Germany and keeping up with competitors’ equivalent policies.

Aldi Nord has already implemented the following measures:

  • no meat and no down or feathers from force-feeding and live plucking are supplied or processed in Aldi Nord products
  • no products that involve mulesing in sheep
  • no real fur goods (the company signed the “Fur Free Declaration” in 2015)
  • no products made from angora wool, rabbit meat, quail or their eggs, lobster, eel, or shark.

Aldi Nord has a Fish Purchasing Policy for fish and seafood with a focus on sustainability throughout the entire supply chain for fish and seafood from wild-caught stocks and aquaculture. Only tuna with the “Dolphin Safe” label is sold, and no fish species that are categorised on international species protection lists as “endangered and protected” or “partially protected”.

The company uses the “V-Label” from the registered association Vegetarierbund Deutschland e.V. The label informs customers whether a product is vegetarian, without milk, without eggs or vegan.

In 2004, Aldi Nord was the first food retailing company in Germany to stop selling eggs from hens in battery cages. The company sells eggs only from barn, free-range and organic farming with certification for the alternative hen-rearing systems (KAT certification).

The company requires that all German suppliers of fresh meat are system partners in the QS inspection system (a quality assurance system). The regulations of this system go beyond legal requirements.

The recently released policy has the following, additional objectives:

  • an increase of organic products (with the assumption that organic products are associated with better animal welfare)
  • an expansion of the range of fish products that are certified as sustainable
  • expansion of the V-label products and an own brand for these products
  • a requirement that suppliers refrain from using avoidable small quantities of animal components in products
  • no use of eggs from hens reared in battery cages and small-group housing systems in 100% of the company’s processed egg products with a significant content of eggs.

In 2017, Aldi Nord will cease the sale of eggs from laying hens with trimmed beaks. From 2017, the company will not sell any pork from castrated animals and thus commit to the practice of boar fattening.

Further, Aldi Nord will formulate minimum requirements for products with animal-based raw materials, for example, in regard to husbandry, feeding, transportation, slaughtering and the use of antibiotics, and set down minimum requirements in supplier contracts.

Transparency in the supply chain

Aldi Nord commits to making its supply chains transparent and ensuring complete traceability of products. Products have a QR code and an Aldi Transparency Code (ATC); with the help of these detailed information can be obtained from the company’s website.

Our fresh chicken and turkey products are ‘5D-Ware’ (‘D’ for Germany). This guarantees that all production stages take place in Germany. The animals and their parents must hatch and grow up in Germany, be fed with feed from German feed mills and be slaughtered and processed in Germany.

We only procure fresh meat from Brazil from slaughterhouses that have joined the ‘Cattle Agreement’. We can thus rule out any association with the deforestation of the Amazon, where countless animal species live. Furthermore, social aspects such as the exclusion of forced labour, the respecting of the rights of indigenous people and the ban on land theft are taken into account.

Inspections and audits

The policy lists a range of requirements that suppliers have to follow. Also, the company – or a commissioned third party – makes unannounced on-the-spot visits on a random basis to inspect the required documentation and check compliance with all legal and industry standards as well as Aldi Nord requirements.

Such on-the-spot visits include the inspection of animal husbandry, feeding, housing (farm, slaughterhouse), transportation, stunning and other species-specific requirements.

Contribution to animal welfare

Aldi Nord commits to increasing animal welfare standards “in accordance with what is economically and scientifically feasible.” The company expects business partners to do the same. In collaboration with suppliers, the company pledges to work on animal welfare issues such as slaughtering pregnant cattle, dehorning cattle and docking pigs’ tails.

We will expand our active participation in relevant animal welfare initiatives and animal welfare networks to strengthen our commitment to animal welfare.

We will expand collaboration with suppliers to jointly achieve improvements in animal welfare, e.g. on the topic of slaughtering pregnant cattle, dehorning cattle and docking pigs’ tails.

Proactive dialogue

Aldi Nord promises to boost awareness of animal welfare among its customers and employees. It will do so by indicating its animal welfare commitment on products, its website, in retail outlets and advertising.

 

In Germany, the trend towards a plant-based diet is gaining in popularity resulting in increasing sales of vegetarian and vegan products. At the same time, customers interested in animal products are becoming more and more concerned about animal welfare and the sustainability of food production. The major supermarket chains in Germany have animal welfare supply chain policies and/or an increasing range of foods labelled as suitable for vegans and vegetarians (I wrote about Lidl’s position paper for the sustainable purchasing of animal products here).

Aldi Nord’s policies are available in English. Wouldn’t they make good reading material for Australia’s major supermarkets?

 

 

Advertisements

Happy IYP!

“Paris Agreement Portends A Reckoning For Meat And Dairy” writes Jeff McMahon on the Forbes website. Depending on how it’s calculated, the meat and dairy industries are estimated to contribute between 14.4% and 51% of total greenhouse gas emissions. For the nearly 200 countries who committed to a global emissions target, it will be challenging to achieve their targets unless consumption patterns change. The industry might be able to achieve some emissions reductions through measures such as growing feed on site or better manure management, but this will not be enough. We will have to eat fewer animal products.

The Forbes article quotes Peter Singer:

The kind of secret source of greenhouse emissions that no politicians are talking about at the moment are the emissions that come from the livestock industry

But not just politicians stay mute on the issue, Singer said that even environmental groups have been reluctant to challenge meat consumption:

Some of those organizations are clearly worried that they’ll lose members and supporters who may be prepared to switch to a Prius or maybe even to ride a bike under some circumstances but are not ready to contemplate going vegan or vegetarian

The success of the meat industry’s lobbying is evident in the just released 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Contrary to the guidance provided last year by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a group of experts, reference to sustainable eating patterns for good health is not included. Further, the new guidelines do not reflect the evidence about the harmful health effects of red and processed meat.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) sums up what’s good and what’s bad in the new guidelines:

PCRM_dietary-guidelines-2015

Source: PCRM

The Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is available online. It’s based on evidence and free to use for anyone seeking sound advice on dietary matters.

Despite a lack of government support – and not just in the U.S. – people are slowly getting the message that cutting down on the consumption of animal products is good for the planet and for human health. And it’s the ethical choice. Hence, the meat substitutes market is expected to grow to USD 5.17 billion by 2020, at a compound annual growth rate of 6.4% between 2015 and 2020.

And it’s not only vegetarians and vegans who are cutting down on meat. The market for vegetarian meats is being largely driven by non-vegetarians.

Don Thompson, a former McDonald’s executive, must have seen the writing on the wall. He has joined Beyond Meat, a vegan meat start-up. Bill Gates and other investors are backing Beyond Meat.

 

 

Die Welt, a German newspaper, reports that the first hospital in Hamburg now offers vegan options. At a price. The Schön Klinik in Eilbek offers smoothies as well as completely vegetarian and vegan meals (most other hospitals in Hamburg offer vegetarian, but not vegan meals). In addition, there is now a bistro with vegan snacks. And it’s due to patient demand. Approximately 10% of patients, mostly women, choose the vegan options. Doesn’t it make sense for a hospital to offer healthy foods?

 

IYP_2016

And finally, this year is the International Year of Pulses (IYP). Pulses are a water efficient and affordable source of protein and they enrich the soil where they are grown. The Global Pulse Confederation (GPC) has set several ambitious targets for IYP 2016:

  • To increase pulse production by 10% by 2020
  • To increase pulse consumption by 10% by 2020
  • To improve market access to facilitate local, national and international trade
  • To engage 30 countries as advocates and investors in IYP 2016 targets
  • To engage 50 partners as advocates and investors in IYP 2016.

So let’s keep an eye on how these plans progress. Happy IYP!

 

Further reading

Barnard, Neal (7 Jan 2016). Digesting the 2015 Dietary Guidelines. PCRM.

Heid, Markham (8 Jan 2016). Experts Say Lobbying Skewed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Time.

Sifferlin, Alexandra (7 Jan 2016). Here’s What 10 Experts Think of the Government’s New Diet Advice. Time.

Nestle, Marion (7 Jan 2016). The 2015 Dietary Guidelines, at long last. Food Politics blog.

Duhaime-Ross, Arielle (7 Jan 2016). New US food guidelines show the power of lobbying, not science. Meat and soda execs can breathe easy. The Verge.

Brown, Parker (7 Jan 2016). 2015 Diet Guide Departs From Recommendations. New guidelines add focus on dietary patterns and keep cap on sugar. Medpage Today.

 

 

The food service industry and opportunities for “plant-forward” menus

Source: Flickr/ Vanessa Pike-Russell

Source: Flickr/ Vanessa Pike-Russell

We have now sufficient evidence to conclude that high consumption of meat is bad for human health and that of the planet. The food service industry has an important role to play in enticing consumers towards more plant-based diets. To assist the industry, the Culinary Institute of America and the Harvard School of Public Health have joined efforts to create Menus of Change:

Menus of Change: The Business of Healthy, Sustainable, Delicious Food Choices is a ground-breaking initiative developed by The Culinary Institute of America (CIA) in collaboration with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Together, the CIA and Harvard are working to create a long-term, practical vision for the integration of optimal nutrition and public health, environmental stewardship and restoration, and social responsibility concerns within the foodservice sector and beyond.

Menus of Change holds an annual leadership summit for the food service industry. At this year’s summit, new research was presented that sought to answer these questions:

  • What are some of the most promising ways in which food service operators can both react to changing needs and demands and lead consumers to more plant-centric eating patterns?
  • What gives operators hesitation about making protein-related changes to their menus?

The Culinary Institute of America commissioned Datassential to conduct an industry survey in which 1,013 consumers and 634 operators participated. The survey was conducted between February and March 2015.

The presentation by Maeve Webster is available online, and in the following I’ll highlight some of the results that I find particularly interesting. The charts below are taken from Webster’s presentation.

Consumers and operators agreed (about three fourths of each group) that the food service industry must play a role in addressing broad issues related to public health and the environment.

The research explored the gap between demand and availability of different foods. There was little difference between supply and demand for chicken, beef and egg dishes. But for nut butters, nut flours, legumes and meat substitutes the demand was greater than what was on offer.

Webster3The research found some discrepancies between what consumers are interested in and what food service operators are already offering or planning to offer. For example, more than double the consumers compared to operators were interested in antibiotic/hormone free animal products and the source of the food offered. Smaller differences between both groups were in the demand for high-impact preparations on fruits/vegetables and world cuisine dishes. So these could be meat-free or low-meat options that appeal to consumers and the industry.

Webster1

Webster presented six overall, key lessons from the research:

Webster2

So there are some ideas for the food service industry to make incremental changes towards better health for humans and the planet.


This year’s (Australian) Animal Activists Forum will kick off in Melbourne next weekend (10-11 October). I will be there talking about the ozsheba blog (Sunday 4:15 pm). The program is here.

Food companies and animal testing (2)

Oyster mushrooms. Source: Flickr/ Rosa Say

Oyster mushrooms. Source: Flickr/ Rosa Say

Last month (August 2015) I contacted 30 food and beverage companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and asked them three questions:

  • Does your company conduct or commission research that involves animals?
  • If so, what is the aim of this research, and what species of animals are used?
  • Does your company allocate any funding toward the development and validation of research methods that seek to replace the use of animals?

After sending reminders, I have now received responses from nine companies. None of these conducts or commissions animal testing. The nine companies include the following:

Australian Vintage LTD (AVG)

Bellamy’s Australia Limited (BAL)

Capilano Honey Limited (CZZ)

Coca-Cola Amatil Limited (CCL)

Costa Group Holdings Limited (CGC)

Freedom Foods Group Limited (FNP)

Gage Roads Brewing Co Limited (GRB)

Refresh Group Limited (RGP)

Treasury Wine Estates Limited (TWE)

Additional information can be found in this MS Excel file (19 kb).

I wish to extend a big ‘thank you’ to the nine companies for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Gippsland cow. Source: Flickr/ Andrew Sutherland

Gippsland cow. Source: Flickr/ Andrew Sutherland

The 21 companies that did not respond to my short survey may or may not conduct animal research. So I still do not know whether Australian food and beverage companies, like some of their international counterparts, conduct or commission animal research. But I did recently come across information about new research at the National Dairy Centre, sponsored by a state government.

The ABC reported last month on a new research facility: “Victorian Government opens cow ‘mootel’ at Ellinbank to enable heat stress dairy research”. The Victorian Government contributed $2.5 million to build six isolation chambers where cows will be exposed to heat stress. At the facility’s opening the media were allowed to observe the cows in their chambers, but were asked not to take photos because “the centre did not want to attract animal welfare attention”. That speaks for itself, doesn’t it.

Food companies and animal testing (1)

Source: pixabay/ Unsplash

Source: pixabay/ Unsplash

Last month I wrote:

Information about animal testing carried out or commissioned by ASX listed food and beverage companies is not readily available to the public.

So I’ve contacted 30 food/beverage companies listed on the ASX and asked them three questions:

  • Does your company conduct or commission research that involves animals?
  • If so, what is the aim of this research, and what species of animals are used?
  • Does your company allocate any funding toward the development and validation of research methods that seek to replace the use of animals?

I emailed the companies or contacted them via their website on 20 and 21 August 2015. So far, I have received two responses. Both companies, Cappilano Honey Limited (CZZ) and Coca-Cola Amatil Limited (CCL) advised they do not test their products on animals. CCL also wrote that the company encourages suppliers to use alternatives to animal testing whenever possible.

Source: pixabay/ marymyhina

Source: pixabay/ marymyhina

These are the 30 companies contacted:

Australian Agricultural Company Limited (AAC)

Australian Dairy Farms Group (AHF)

Australian Natural Proteins Limited (AYB)

Australian Vintage LTD (AVG)

Bega Cheese Limited (BGA)

Bellamy’s Australia Limited (BAL)

Buderim Ginger Limited (BUG)

Capilano Honey Limited (CZZ) – No animal testing

Cervantes Corporation Limited (CVS)

Clean Seas Tuna Limited (CSS)

Coca-Cola Amatil Limited (CCL) – No animal testing

Costa Group Holdings Limited (CGC)

Farm Pride Foods Limited (FRM)

FFI Holdings Limited (FFI)

Frankland River Olive Company Limited (FLR)

Freedom Foods Group Limited (FNP)

Gage Roads Brewing Co Limited (GRB)

Graincorp Limited (GNC)

Huon Aquaculture Group Limited (HUO)

Patties Foods Ltd (PFL)

Refresh Group Limited (RGP)

Ridley Corporation Limited (RIC)

Select Harvests Limited (SHV)

Tandou Limited (TAN)

Tassal Group Limited (TGR)

The A2 Milk Company Limited (A2M)

Treasury Wine Estates Limited (TWE)

TW Holdings Limited (TWH)

Warrnambool Cheese & Butter Factory Co.Hold.Ltd (WCB)

Webster Limited (WBA)

Source: pixabay/ Fruchthandel_Magazin

Source: pixabay/ Fruchthandel_Magazin

I’ll send a reminder in a few days to the 28 companies that haven’t yet responded. Last year, when I contacted 117 ASX listed companies in the industry sectors Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences, Health Care Equipment & Services, and Household & Personal Products, one third responded.

Pondering the ethically minded consumer

Source: Flickr/ Putneypics

Source: Flickr/ Putneypics

A recent Mintel survey of 1500 UK consumers explored people’s views on the ethical claims made by food and drink companies. Concerns about animal welfare topped the list. Below are some of the concerns, ranked according to importance to consumers (As I do not have access to the full report, the following is taken from Mintel’s website and report brochure. I do not know the exact wording of the questions and response options):

  • meat coming from animals which are looked after well (74%)
  • a company that guarantees the ingredients used in its products are responsibly sourced (60%)
  • a company that guarantees good worker welfare (57%)
  • a company that guarantees to improve the environment (42%)
  • a company that guarantees to limit its carbon footprint (32%)
  • a company that guarantees it has not avoided payment of its taxes (30%).

Almost three in four consumers (72%) remarked they expect food products to meet adequate ethical standards without having to pay more for them, and half (52%) said they would stop buying products from a company if they found out it was acting unethically. Just over a third (37%) thought ethical standards were compromised in low-priced food. And over two in five (45%) said that buying ethical groceries makes them feel good about themselves.

But:

  • just one in four people is confident the extra money paid for fair trade goes to producers
  • over half of organic buyers observed it’s too expensive to buy regularly.

Finally, one in six consumers (17%) said that meat grown from animal cells, also called lab-meat or in-vitro meat, is a good solution to help feed the world.

A May 2015 Gallup poll in the U.S. also found that people are concerned (“very/ somewhat concerned”) about animal welfare:

  • Animals in the circus (69%)
  • Animals used in competitive animal sports or contests (68%)
  • Animals used in research (67%)
  • Marine animals at amusement parks and aquariums (62%)
  • Animals in the zoo (57%)
  • Livestock and other animals raised for food (54%)
  • Household pets (46%)

Almost a third of people who participated in this poll (32%) wanted animals to have the same rights as people.

So it’s not surprising that many companies now use a sustainability and/or animal welfare label as part of their marketing (I have written about this here).

Source: Flickr/ Gemma Billings

Source: Flickr/ Gemma Billings

Attitude versus behaviour

But do attitudes translate into actual behaviour? Do ethically minded consumers walk their talk? It appears that’s not always the case. Researchers have identified an attitude-behaviour gap in ethical consumption.

I looked at several studies to gain an insight into this phenomenon. So, what are the factors that lead to this gap, how can it be explained? The short answer is that there is no consensus among researchers. Or, as one research group concluded after reviewing existing studies,

The literature is, therefore, extensive, complex and contested.

Too extensive and too complex to summarise here. Hence, just some food for thought. Below is a summary of two articles that I picked randomly. The first, by Bray and colleagues, provides a review of the literature on the attitude-behaviour gap, together with the results of the authors’ own focus group research. The authors identified seven key factors that impede ethical consumption:

Price sensitivity — Consumers care more about price than ethical values, in particular in regard to food and other frequently purchased items, as well as items where the price difference between ethically branded and conventionally produced items is large. However, price is a lesser issue for locally produced foods.

Personal experience — Consumers may not recognise the ethical consequences of their purchasing choices. Negative stories in the media affect purchasing decisions much more than positive stories. For example, people who had generously donated to the 2005 Tsunami relief later read that the money did not reach those in most need. They switched their ethical purchasing behaviour from Fair Trade goods to local produce, where they felt their money was making a greater difference.

Ethical obligation — Individuals see the relevance of personal values to ethical purchasing and want to make a difference. But although they feel the obligation to “do one’s bit”, they also see many reasons why it is too difficult to always be an ethical consumer. People’s perception of what is ethical varies, and while some people believe their ethical choices make a difference, others are convinced their ethical choices have no impact.

Lack of information — Many people feel they do not have sufficient information to make ethical choices. Thus, avoiding unethical products or companies exposed in the media is easier than proactively seeking out information.

Quality perception — Some people perceive Fair Trade branded products as lower in quality, while others find that some ethical products taste better. Also, people feel that food produced in an unethical way would not be harmful, because government regulations ensure food safety. Overall, this study found in whatever way the quality of ethical food was perceived, this influenced purchasing behaviour.

Inertia in purchasing behaviour — Brand loyalty is a strong obstacle to changing to an overtly ethical option. People accept these attachments to brands, although they are not necessarily considered ethically correct.

Cynicism — Some people feel that retailers’ ethical claims are just another marketing ploy. Many people involved in this research believed that most of the extra premium they paid did not reach the end beneficiary and that much of it was intercepted by corporate or governmental organisations.

Interestingly, many participants in this study described post-purchase feelings of guilt if they were aware that they had not made the ethically optimal choice. However, they also tended to suppress their feelings of guilt by expressing doubt whether their purchase would have actually made a difference.

Source: Flickr/ Tony Webster

Source: Flickr/ Tony Webster

The second article presents a model that seeks to explain motivations for responsible purchases. Antonetti and Maklan identify four types of responsible purchase:

Altruistic purchase — Consumers interpret this type as an altruistic choice aimed at helping others or the environment. It is perceived as private and mostly motivated by personal ethical beliefs.

Socially responsible purchase — Consumers acknowledge their social responsibilities but still frame the decision as a self-interested choice in a private situation. The responsible alternative is selected if it maximises the perceived benefits to the consumer.

Conspicuous responsible purchase — Social reputation is at the centre of this type of motivation. Consumers buy responsible products to acquire the associated social benefits. Although these benefits arise from the product being perceived as altruistic, the motivation is self-interested.

… as you might want to buy your Calvin Klein because it makes you feel better … in the same way this product would make you feel better because you’re doing the ethical thing.

Political purchase — A political purchase is one that is public, based on responsible beliefs and framed as an altruistic choice. This type of purchase is motivated by support for social causes and personal gain is secondary. It is different from an altruistic purchase because the behaviour is lived publicly and seen as part of a collective experience that can lead to political change. It is about supporting a political cause and a sense of consumer empowerment.

…it is like voting and every time you spend … every time you spend is like voting for the world you want really.

Below is an illustration of Antonetti and Maklan’s model:

A motivational typology of responsible purchases. Antonetti & Maklan (2015), p. 64

A motivational typology of responsible purchases. Antonetti & Maklan (2015), p. 64

 Will things change?

The gap between ethical purchase intentions and actual consumer behaviour has been widely studied. We can say with confidence that it exists and that different studies have come to different conclusions as to the causal factors for this gap.

I found both articles contributed to my understanding of the topic. The barriers identified by Bray and colleagues make sense, though I was somewhat surprised by the strength of brand loyalty they found. The model presented by Antonetti and Maklan provided further insight into understanding the motivations behind consumer behaviour.

Source: Flickr/ G-lish Foundation

Source: Flickr/ G-lish Foundation

But could things be changing? Will an increase in people concerned about the welfare of animals and the planet make this attitude more mainstream and influence companies to pay greater attention to ethical production of food and other consumer goods?

In Australia, ethical investing is on the rise (and helped by strong returns). As I’ve written elsewhere, the current level of production and consumption of meat is harmful to the environment and human health, and creates much suffering for the animals that end up on our dinner plates.

While Australia is still a top meat eating country, citizens and companies elsewhere have seen the writing on the wall. For example, Edeka in Germany offers advice on a vegan diet on its website, complete with vegan food pyramid. Edeka is a network of some 11,500 independently owned stores. Germany also has the world’s first vegan supermarket chain.

 

References and further reading

Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597-608.

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2015). How categorisation shapes the attitude-behaviour gap in responsible consumption. International Journal of Market Research, 57(1), 51-72.

Unfortunately, both articles are behind a pay wall. But here are a few suggestions for further reading of articles available in full text:

Michal Carrington, Ben Neville, Gregory Whitwell (2009) Ethical intentions, unethical shopping baskets: Understanding the intentions-behaviour gap of ethically-minded consumers

Timothy Devinney, Pat Auger, Giana M. Eckhardt (2011) Value vs. values: The myth of the ethical consumer

Judith Friedlander (2013) Selling ethical consumption

Deng Xinming (2014) Chinese consumers’ ethical consumption: Between intent and behavior

Isabella Maggioni, Francesca Montagnini, Roberta Sebastiani (2013) Young adults and ethical consumption: an exploratory study in the cosmetics market.