Consumer Moral Hypocrisy - Coursework Example

Consumer Moral Hypocrisy Name Course Name and Code Date Introduction Consumers purchases products that fulfill and satisfies their respective needs and requirements. The customers use numerous cues to determine the effectiveness of a product and whether to acquire the product. For example, consumers easily acquire basic needs and think more when it comes to secondary needs. For instance, purchasing sugar is easier compared to determining a vacation destination. However, the decision of the customers and customer behavior are guided by different principles and perspectives. The customer may be guided by opportunity or moral principle. In making decisions and taking actions, a consumer may make inappropriate decisions because of self-expectations without considering an individual’s beliefs and understanding. It creates an aspect of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when individuals do things that the individuals continuous advise others not to do. For example, parents asking their children to follow rules and regulations but the parent does not follow road rules while driving. Therefore, how does the parent expect the child to follow rules and regulations? The paper discusses numerous examples of consumer hypocrisy. Some of the areas of discussion include child labor, price vs. values, environmental sustainability, and consumerism. Opportunities come in different forms and consumers capitalize on these opportunities. Sometimes, the customers neglect their values and expectations in advancing or achieving specified goals and expectations. Therefore, the use of numerous examples in discussing consumer hypocrisy improves the understanding of consumer behavior in eliminating inappropriate practices in the business environment and in the society. Cases Study and Examples Child Labor Child labor is ethically and morally wrong (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). However, consumers are happy when they purchase cheap goods without considering the significance of children in the entire supply chain (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). Are the customers hypocrites? Although responsibilities and roles are important in the child’s development, child’s work is extensively considered as an impediment in preventing the children from enjoying their youth and restriction on playtime and education (De Vries 2008). Child labor has existed for a long time even though developed countries abolished it; the developing countries have been reported or are being reported to embrace the behavior (Romani and Grappi 2014). The world is changing, and the needs and requirements of the children are integrated into the processes and operations in the society (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). Growing international mobilization and presence of consensus on eradication of child labor has been discussed and embraced extensively; however, child labor contributes to or plays a part in energy production and development of goods in the third world countries or developing countries. These developing countries lack effective regulations to address child labor and also may lack enough resources to implemented policies (Szmigin, Carrigan and McEachern 2009). The developed countries then acquire these products (from developing countries) without questioning the supply chain. The world is operating in a globalized environment meaning it becomes difficult to trace the chain of production and supply chain (Romani and Grappi 2014). Therefore, the consumers, in such situations, state different regions have responsibilities in implementing regulations on child labor and these countries have the prerogative to determine the minimum working ages (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). In a real sense, it becomes a challenge to understand the common practices and legal frameworks in these countries, which is commonly used by consumers to advance their hypocrisy (Romani and Grappi 2014). However, the silence on these matters can be seen as hypocrisy or a form of hypocrisy (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). Responsible consumption is important and real, and acquiring products and services without tracing the origin may be seen as ignorance (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). For example, if a consumer wants to address child labor, the solution is checking the origin of the products and search information regarding the policies of that country (Paharia, Vohs and Deshpandé 2013). The consumers also have the capacities to advance practices, which encourages implementation of actions against child labor (Steg et al. 2014). For example, the customers can stop acquiring products made using children labor and also to shame the companies and countries that use child labor. However, the silence illustrates hypocrisy because consumers understand the problem, but the consumers do want to take action because the consumers benefits from the child labor (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). In a different perspective, companies that have overseas subcontractors have continuously used child labor for production (Romani and Grappi 2014). When complaints are raised about the issue, the companies perform an audit and develop controls to address the problem or prevent the problem from occurring (Kreps and Monin 2011). For example, a young child may have been employed, and the individual (child) is a sole breadwinner of the family. When auditing is done, child labor problem is realized, and the child is fired (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). It means that the entire family will lack food, and the child may decide to go and work in dumpsites to sell metals or plastic bottles (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). The question is whether the company was right to fire the underage child and was it right in the first place to employ the underage child (Jackson, Ward and Russell 2009). These approaches, for example, are reactionary, and such companies have to be penalized and forced to seek an alternative source of income for the concerned families according to some people (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). These individuals acquire that the families sleeping without food is against human rights but the children working is right because the food will be available (Irwin and Naylor 2009). It is the highest level of hypocrisy because a mundane excuse is used to limit the capability of the child. The child should be allowed to develop based on cognitive and developmental requirements (Romani and Grappi 2014). The parents and the society should be held responsible since it is the role of the family to provide for the child. In such instances, the parent is wrong even if the aim is to provide food for the family (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). Children should not be seen as a source of income rather individuals who require motivation and encouragement to achieve their respective dreams and expectations. Sweatshops and Modern Slavery Sweatshop is a workshop or a factory that operates mostly in the clothing industry whereby the employees work long hours and earn very low wages while working in poor conditions (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The modernization of the workplaces and implementation of numerous work related requirements include occupational safety and health are integral to the success of the society and community. However, the working conditions in making cloths and shoes are disastrous because the employees work as if they were slaves (Romani and Grappi 2014). It is a modern form of slavery but some consumers support these things even though from a moral perspective are wrong. The customers are ready to acquire the cheap products or good products without consideration the working conditions of the employees. The customers argue that the sweatshops should not be closed because it is the main source of the working in those conditions. Others state that without the opportunities, the economic conditions of the workers and society would not be favorable. In general, these arguments exist because the customers want to benefit from the products without considering the working conditions (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The customers should understand the working conditions and the modern slavery before acquiring some of these products and seek to know the methods and approaches in production of the products. However, the customers are after benefiting themselves through the products. Factors that Contributes to Consumer Hypocrisy The aspect of price and values (morals) explore the behavior of customers while seeking for products and services while also illustrating the hypocrisy of the customers (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). Determining the right price of a product is a major problem because numerous variables have to be incorporated (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). For example, the economic valuation of ecosystems is one of the approaches but raises concerns about “commodification of nature”. To end the destruction and un-sustainability of the environment, the appropriate strategy is determining values and moral obligations (Sharma et al. 2014). The aspect of commodification incorporates economic concepts, such as privatization in society, rationality and profit maximization. These economic terms are frequently used without considering the significance of the price of a product versus the values of the customers (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). It also raises aspects of demand and supply because it determines the amount of quantity that the consumers have to consume. Getting the right prices is important because consumers will be required to rethink their decisions and actions. However, the current situation is of wastage and disposing things without consideration. The consumers do not query the prices of products, but purchase products that they do not need while complaining the economy is not performing well (Ehrich and Irwin 2005). The customers argue the economic instability is related to other variables without considering their consumerism and championing prices rather than values (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). The consumers should think about the impact of the prices and the values derived from the processes (Romani and Grappi 2014). The hypocrisies lie on the fact that the customers continue to complain about the prices without considering the wastages and disposal. Consumers usually have values and values guide their operations and moral directions (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). However, some customers may embrace the pricing without considering the factors affecting the pricing strategy. Some customers purchase products that have lower prices because the customers can afford. However, the customers do not think about the production and factors contributing to the cheapness of the product (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). For example, two pairs of clothing may exist with varying prices. The customer may not incorporate the values and decide to acquire the product without thinking of the labor costs and other costs associated with the productions (Thøgersen 2004). Customers who think about values may question the origin of the products and seek to know why the products are cheaper compared to others (Romani and Grappi 2014). For example, products from China are said to be cheaper compared to products from Germany, which are seen to be expensive (Sharma et al. 2014). However, the customers do not want to seek to understand the reasons for the price difference. One component that the customers can base their respective decision is quality and durability of the product (Romani and Grappi 2014). Therefore, why should a customer purchase a cheaper product knowingly the product will not last and later complain about the poor quality of the product. The price usually illustrates the quality of the product and customers continue to acquire the product. If the same customer acquires an expensive and a product of good quality, the product will last longer and benefit the user (Sharma et al. 2014). Thus, if the values of a customer are durability and quality, the pricing should be right and reflects the fundamentals of the product (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The hypocrisy lies in the need to acquire a cheaper product and, later on, complaining that the product is not durable. Conscientious consumption is also another issue that is associated with value and the price (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). The value of giving is crucial, and the society employs different approaches to achieving the requirement of giving. For example, customer purchase green products to champion the environment purchase greeting cards from charities and purchasing a pink ribbon during cancer awareness periods, which are often unwanted products (La Cour and Kromann 2011). The customers do not think about the cost of the ribbon or the card relative to the expectation of the consumer (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). The effectiveness of the process and procedure are important and the customers should interrogate processes and ideas behind the approach to determine the successful nature of plan (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). For example, the breast cancer awareness is important but if the ribbon and giving a cash donation to the organization, which will yield more benefit. The ribbon may be seen as a worthless object but giving cash donation may benefit the intended mission easily (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The price and determining whether the price is fair is important in reducing wastage and acquiring products that are worthless, such as gift cards (Greene and Low 2014). The customer has to review the price of making the ribbon and the use of the ribbon after the campaign e.g. after the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). Therefore, giving cash may benefit the program because an individual can receive free medical assistance rather than purchasing a “worthless” ribbon (Laurent et al. 2014). Furthermore, customers continuously seek products that are cheaper without considering the value chain. For example, the cheaper the products, the easier the manner in which the product are produced (Greene and Low 2014). The mass produced products such as Colgate and Soda are cheap because robots and machines produce them. The Ford Company introduced the manufacturing machines to improve the production of cars and mechanization of the cars. The strategy is appropriate from the perspective of the producers and the customers (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). However, the customers’ benefits do not incorporate the values. The values of most humans are to avail job opportunities and create an environment to advance economic development (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The use of machines reduces job opportunities, which translated in difficulties in the society and community (Laurent et al. 2014). The consumers (by extension society) start to a complaint of lack of opportunities without thinking of the replacement of human labor with the use of machines (Laurent et al. 2014). The customers have to understand action results in a reaction in which the customers want cheap products but do not understand the consequences of their respective actions (Sharma et al. 2014). Therefore, the customers have to choose between cheaper products that are produced by robots and expensive products that are produced by human labor. Environmental Sustainability, Ethics and Regulations of Supply Chain Environmental sustainability is taking effective decisions that consider the requirements of the economy, society and environment. The actions should not work against the environment, the society and the economy (Greene and Low 2014). Numerous countries are using the aspect of environmental sustainability to engage the customers (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The customers understand the environment has to be preserved, and embracement of effective, sustainable practices is important (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). However, while the consumers understand the requirement of environmental sustainability, the consumers contributes to worsening the situation (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). For example, plastic bags are among the worst products that are dumped into the environment. Consumers are requested to dispose products responsibly and also to recycle some of the byproducts. However, the consumers continue to dump the products while complaining there are no effective policies to address climate change or climatic changes (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). For example, consumers are acquiring wood/timber products without questioning whether the cycle chain of forests is maintained. Consumers are using products from ivory without considering that animals died before acquiring the rings and earrings. Therefore, the consumers’ complaints on one end while using the products on the other end (Romani and Grappi 2014). Until that moment an individual is affected directly is when the individual embraces the environmental sustainability measures (Sharma et al. 2014). Therefore, the companies and consumers contribute to worsening environmental situations through ineffective practices and ignorance. Ecotourism is important because it is targeted towards preserving and sustaining the environment, which translates to economic and social development. Tourisms camps are created in reserves and other environments that are sensitive while the developers are stating that there are effective measures to sustain the environment (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). The tourists seek leisure and enjoyment meaning that the tourists require unique and memorable places (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). Therefore, the tourists sometimes targets areas that are environmental susceptible. The tourists and other stakeholders do not see the hypocrisy associated with ecotourism and sustainable tourism (Greene and Low 2014). These eco-tourists and persons encouraging environmental sustainability use planes and other means of transportations, which are unsustainable (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). These methods of transportation emit gasses, which are not friendly to the environment and it also depletes the ozone layer (Sharma et al. 2014). The ideological on ecotourism may be seen appropriate, but the processes used to accomplish these requirements raise additional complications. Therefore, if the tourists want to sustain the environment, the tourists have to acknowledge the role of planes and means of transportation on the environment (Sharma et al. 2014). The source of raw materials and processes associated with the production are important (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The green label has been continuously used to illustrate that the products and goods were produced in an environmentally friendly manner (Brown et al. 2011). These products are given stars to indicate the effectiveness of the supply chain and supportive processes (Sharma et al. 2014). However, the actual product and transportation has not been questioned and also the source of the raw materials. For example, the common source of energy and raw material is fossil fuel (Greene and Low 2014). Even if a product indicates that it is environmentally friendly, the customers should question whether the environmentally friendly source of energy was used to make the product (Sharma et al. 2014). Just looking at the product label is not enough rather the entire supply chain. Ethical/ Unethical Moral Decisions: Moral Hypocrisy and Consumer Behavior Consumers determine the usefulness or benefits of a product and continuously campaign against a product or a given destination (Callen-Marchione and Ownbey 2008). The consumer uses numerous platforms to advocate against a given product, but the customer does not “practice what they preach.” For example, a given destination may be inappropriate because according to the individual, it does not support environmentally sustainable processes (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). The consumer criticizes individuals visiting the location (Sharma et al. 2014). However, when the individual gets the opportunity to visit the destination, the individual readily accepts without remembering what he said about the location (Rai and Holyoak 2011). Such individuals want to see other people embracing their ethical and moral perspective without considering they may be in the same situation in the near future (Greene and Low 2014). The hypocrisy of the customer is satisfaction and achieving personal gratification (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). The customer is ready to go beyond their values and moral obligations to justify their decisions and actions. Use of animals in research is a debatable topic and use of animal products in the production of products is also a debatable issue. Animal research is practiced in developing new drugs and creating products, which reflects the requirements of consumers (Greene and Low 2014). Self-esteem, self-satisfaction, and self-gratification are associated with wearing animal products; for example, animal leather shoes or Kangaroo leather shoe (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). Harvesting the skin from the animals is the biggest problem, the transportation of the animals and the processes involved in producing the products from the animals are debatable (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). If a research institution uses the appropriate frameworks and approaches to doing research premised on ethical and moral directives is seen appropriate (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). Advocacy groups and activists have campaigned and engaged different stakeholders against the use of animal products or use animal processes, such as drugs research. However, the consumers are ready to wear products made from the animal skin without questioning the harvesting of the skin from the animal (De Bock and Van Kenhove 2011). Consumers are ready to acquire medicine without considering whether ethical and moral approaches were integrated during the production of the medicine (DeScioli and Kurzban 2009). On the other hand, the customers continue to advocate for the rights of animals and encouragement of ethical and moral obligations when it comes to the use of animal products (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). However, any chances the customers get to use the products; the customers capitalize the opportunity prophesying that the skin may have been harvested from a dead animal. Moreover, the customers may present different arguments in authenticating their decisions to use animal products (Sharma et al. 2014). It can be seen as a double-speak in which the customers’ advocates for one thing and later embraces for their own selfish needs and requirements (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). On a different perspective, consumers continuously complain about their health (Polman and Ruttan 2012). The customer’s beliefs on healthy eating to check their weight and also to avoid food that can cause certain medical conditions or health complications are common and commendable (Merritt, Effron and Monin 2010). In the presence of others, the individual concentrates on healthy eating but when other people are not around, the individual starts consuming unhealthy food. Others are saying they do not mind the size of an individual but looks negatively “fat people” or start stereotyping the “fat people” (Greene and Low 2014). Criticizing and advising are appropriate, and inherent human practices but limits exist, and the manner in which the processes are accomplished are also important. A general approach should not be employed during complaining or suggesting otherwise, but an individual internal perspective should play an important role (Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010). Other reasons apart from diet exist why people become “fat” and use the derogatory terms may worsen the situation (Gibson 2000). An individual may use the approach because of jealousy or seeking a specific end goal. Therefore, what an individual champions is important and should define their decisions and actions even if, nobody is looking or thinking about the issue (De Bock, Vermeir and Van Kenhove 2013). Conclusion In conclusion, the behavior of customers does not reflect their beliefs and moral obligations. Child labor is inappropriate and global activism against child labor is continuous. Corporations and governments audit businesses to determine whether the businesses use child labor. In addition, consumers are against child labor, but the consumers do not check the product labels to determine the origin of the product. Moreover, information can be accessed easily on regions that do not embrace child protection measures. Thus, the customers’ lack of checking the products while complaining about child labor is hypocrisy. Customers normally want cheaper products. The cost of production is based on numerous factors including the government restrictions and processes in place. However, the price should reflect the values of an individual. Economic valuation is one tool that can be used to determine the right price of the product to prevent dumping and ineffective use of the products. The customers are ready to speed provided it fulfills their expectations without incorporating self-beliefs. Companies are advocating for environmental sustainability while consumers are purchasing products that are environmental friendly. However, the customers’ uses mode of transportation to champion environmental measures which further weakens the requirements of sustainability. Consumers frown when their friends participate in activities, which are not environment-friendly, but the individuals are ready to participate if given the opportunity. Consumer behavior determines the products to be purchased and the price of the product. Consumers usually are against practices that affect animals and continuously advocate companies using animal products. For example, the customers are against companies that use Kangaroo skin to produce shoe. However, the same customers if give opportunity are ready to wear the shoes from Kangaroo skin. In addition, customers require modern drugs, but the customers do not remember or incorporate the aspect that animals are used for testing purposes. Therefore, customer’s moral hypocrisy is evident in numerous actions and decisions of the customers. References Brown, R.P., Tamborski, M., Wang, X., Barnes, C.D., Mumford, M.D., Connelly, S. and Devenport, L.D., 2011. Moral credentialing and the rationalization of misconduct. Ethics & Behavior, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.1-12. Callen-Marchione, K.S. and Ownbey, S.F., 2008. Associations of unethical consumer behavior and social attitudes. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 365-383. De Bock, T. and Van Kenhove, P., 2011. Double standards: The role of techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 283-296. De Bock, T., Vermeir, I. and Van Kenhove, P., 2013. “What’s the Harm in Being Unethical? These Strangers are Rich Anyway!” Exploring Underlying Factors of Double Standards. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 225-240. De Vries, J., 2008. The industrious revolution: consumer behavior and the household economy, 1650 to the present. London: Cambridge University Press. DeScioli, P. and Kurzban, R., 2009. Mysteries of morality. Cognition, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 281-299. Ehrich, K.R. and Irwin, J.R., 2005. Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 266-277. Gibson, K., 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 245-257. Greene, M. and Low, K., 2014. Public integrity, private hypocrisy, and the moral licensing effect. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 391-400. Irwin, J.R. and Naylor, R.W., 2009. Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 234-246. Jackson, P., Ward, N. and Russell, P., 2009. Moral economies of food and geographies of responsibility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 12-24. Kreps, T.A. and Monin, B., 2011. “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 31, pp. 99-123. La Cour, A. and Kromann, J., 2011. Euphemisms and hypocrisy in corporate philanthropy. Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 267-279. Laurent, S.M., Clark, B.A., Walker, S. and Wiseman, K.D., 2014. Punishing hypocrisy: The roles of hypocrisy and moral emotions in deciding culpability and punishment of criminal and civil moral transgressors. Cognition & Emotion, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 59-83. Luedicke, M.K., Thompson, C.J. and Giesler, M., 2010. Consumer identity work as moral protagonism: How myth and ideology animate a brand-mediated moral conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.1016-1032. Merritt, A.C., Effron, D.A. and Monin, B., 2010. Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 344-357. Paharia, N., Vohs, K.D. and Deshpandé, R., 2013. Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 81-88. Polman, E. and Ruttan, R.L., 2012. Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 1, pp.129-139. Rai, T.S. and Holyoak, K.J., 2011. The rational hypocrite: Informal argumentation and moral hypocrisy. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Romani, S. and Grappi, S., 2014. How companies’ good deeds encourage consumers to adopt pro-social behavior. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 48, no. 5/6, pp. 943-963. Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B., 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 225-243. Sharma, E., Mazar, N., Alter, A.L. and Ariely, D., 2014. Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards and compromises moral decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 90-100. Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K. and Perlaviciute, G., 2014. An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 104-115. Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. and McEachern, M.G., 2009. The conscious consumer: taking a flexible approach to ethical behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 224-231. Thøgersen, J., 2004. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 93-103. Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K. and Sachs, O., 2013. For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, vol. 57, pp.160-171. Read More