manuscript FINAL for upload 270211 - Aalto-yliopisto

Department of Marketing
Consumers as
Ecological Citizens
in Clothing Markets
Annu Markkula
DOCTORAL
DISSERTATIONS

Aalto University publication series
DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 22/2011
Consumers as Ecological Citizens in
Clothing Markets
Annu Markkula
Aalto University
Aalto University School of Economcis
Department of Marketing

Aalto University publication series
DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 22/2011
© Annu Markkula and Aalto University School of Economics
ISBN 978-952-60-4065-3 (pdf)
ISBN 978-952-60-4064-6 (printed)
ISSN-L 1799-4934
ISSN 1799-4942 (pdf)
ISSN 1799-4934 (printed)
Aalto Print
Helsinki 2011

Author
Annu Markkula
Name of the doctoral dissertation
Consumers as Ecological Citizens in Clothing Markets
Publisher Aalto University School of Economics
Unit Department of Marketing
Abstract
Aalto University, P.O. Box 11000, FI-00076 Aalto www.aalto.fi
Series Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 22/2011
Field of research Marketing
Abstract
The overall purpose of this study is to participate in the efforts to rethink the individualistic,
market-based conceptualisations of consumers that are prevalent in sustainability and
environmental policy-related social marketing. Contemporary academic discussions and
policy frameworks have both given consumers a central role in the advancement of
sustainable development. This dominant approach has, however, been criticized for relying on
individualistic premises and it has been suggested that sustainable development calls for a
more collective approach. A substantial debate, however, remains over the particular
shortcomings of the prevalent approach and the potential of the concept of citizenship to
remedy them.
Against this background emerges the particular aim of this study: to examine the analytic
utility of the literature of ecological citizenship for developing a better understanding of
consumers as targets sustainability related social marketing. Drawing on the literatures of
social marketing, social sciences, environmental politics and cultural consumer research, the
study develops an alternative theoretical and methodological framework, which is then
applied in the empirical analysis to shed more light on the possible field of action available for
consumers as ecological citizens in contemporary culture. For that end, interviews were
carried among 18 young professional adults in Helsinki, Finland, on clothing markets and
consumption. The interview material is analysed by applying a non-individualistic, mesolevel
focused discourse analytic approach, which draws upon the analytic tools of discourse,
interpretative repertoire and subject position.
The study identifies four interpretative repertoires through which consumers make sense
of their roles and responsibilities in the pursuit of sustainable development. The repertoires
identified focus on marketplace conduct complexities, economically reasonable practices,
making informed efforts and social and personal taste. They illustrate the diversity and
complexity of the positions available for consumers as ecological citizens as well as the
multiplicity of moral orders circulating in contemporary market-mediated environments.
The primary theoretical contributions of this study are to the literature in the fields of social
marketing and cultural consumer research. With regard to social marketing, the study argues
that the utility of the notion of ecological citizenship remains narrow in the absence of
adequate attention to the constitution of the consumers’ possible field of action. In terms of
cultural consumer research, the study provides an alternative, non-individualistic discourse
theoretic approach.
The findings of the study have practical importance for social marketing practitioners in
sustainability and environmental policy-related fields and for business practitioners in
clothing industries as well as in other consumer goods industries seeking solutions to
sustainability challenges.
Keywords Consumer culture, Consumption, Social marketing, Environmental policy,
Ecological citizenship, Sustainable development, Government, Discourse analysis,
Fashion, Clothing
ISBN (printed) 978-952-60-4064-6 ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-4065-3
ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN (printed) 1799-4934 ISSN (pdf) 1799-4942
Pages 204 Location of publisher Helsinki Location of printing Helsinki Year 2011

Tekijä(t)
Annu Markkula
Väitöskirjan nimi
Kuluttaja ekologisena kansalaisena vaatemarkkinoilla
Julkaisija Aalto-yliopiston kauppakorkeakoulu
Yksikkö Markkinoinnin laitos
Sarja Aalto-yliopiston julkaisusarja VÄITÖSKIRJAT 22/2011
Tutkimusala Markkinointi
Tiivistelmä
Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 Aalto www.aalto.fi
Tiivistelmä
Käsillä oleva tutkimus osallistuu pyrkimyksiin pohtia uudelleen kestävän kehityksen ja
ympäristöpolitiikan keskusteluissa sekä näihin liittyvän sosiaalisen markkinoinnin parissa
vallitsevaa yksilö- ja markkinakeskeistä kuluttajien käsitteellistämistä. Viimeaikaisissa
akateemisissa keskusteluissa ja poliittisissa viitekehyksissä kuluttajille on annettu keskeinen
rooli kestävän kehityksen edistämisessä. Tätä hallitsevaa lähestymistapaa on kuitenkin
kritisoitu yksilökeskeisistä perusoletuksista ja on esitetty, että kestävä kehitys vaatii
yhteisöllisemmän lähestymistavan. Näkemykset hallitsevan käsitteellistyksen
ongelmakohdista sekä kansalaisuuden käsitteen mahdollisuuksista korjata näitä
puutteellisuuksia eivät kuitenkaan ole yhteneväisiä.
Tätä taustaa vasten syntyy tämän tutkimuksen erityinen tavoite: tarkastella ekologisen
kansalaisuuden kirjallisuuden analyyttistä hyödyllisyyttä kuluttajien paremmaksi
ymmärtämiseksi kestävään kehitykseen liittyvän sosiaalisen markkinoinnin kohteina.
Tutkimus rakentaa vaihtoehtoisen teoreettisen ja metodologisen viitekehyksen nojaamalla
kulttuurisen kuluttajatutkimuksen, sosiaalisen markkinoinnin, yhteiskuntatieteiden ja
ympäristöpolitiikan kirjallisuuteen. Kehystä hyödynnetään empiirisessä analyysissä, joka
valottaa kuluttajien toiminnan mahdollisuuksien kenttää ekologisina kansalaisina
nykykulttuurissa. Tutkimuksessa haastateltiin 18 nuorta työssäkäyvää aikuista Helsingissä
vaatemarkkinoista ja kuluttamisesta. Haastatteluaineisto on analysoitu ei-yksilökeskeisellä,
mesotason diskurssianalyyttisellä menetelmällä, jonka analyyttiset välineet ovat diskurssi,
tulkintarepertuaari ja subjektiasema.
Tutkimus tunnistaa neljä tulkintarepertuaaria, joiden kautta kuluttajat järkeilevät roolejaan
ja vastuitaan kestävän kehityksen tavoittelussa. Tunnistetut repertuaarit keskittyvät
markkinoiden monimutkaisuuteen, taloudellisesti järkeenkäypiin käytäntöihin,
asiantuntevaan ponnisteluun sekä yhteiseen ja henkilökohtaiseen makuun. Repertuaarit
tuovat esiin kuluttajille tarjolla olevien ekologisen kansalaisen asemien erilaisuutta ja
monimutkaisuutta sekä markkinavälitteisen nyky-yhteiskunnan moraalisten järjestysten
moninaisuutta.
Tutkimuksen pääasiallinen teoreettinen kontribuutio syntyy sosiaalisen markkinoinnin ja
kulttuurisen kuluttajatutkimuksen kirjallisuuksiin. Sosiaalisen markkinoinnin suhteen
tutkimus väittää, että ekologisen kansalaisuuden käsitteen hyöty jää kapeaksi jos kuluttajan
toiminnan mahdollisuuksien kenttään ei kiinnitetä tarpeeksi huomiota. Kulttuurisen
kuluttajatutkimuksen suhteen tutkimus tarjoaa vaihtoehtoisen, ei-yksilöllisen
diskurssiteoreettisen lähestymistavan.
Tutkimuksen tuloksilla on käytännön merkitystä sosiaalisen markkinoinnin toimijoille
kestävän kehityksen ja ympäristöpolitiikan aloilla sekä liike-elämän toimijoille vaatealalla ja
muilla kulutustavara-aloilla, jotka pyrkivät vastaamaan kestävän kehityksen haasteisiin.
Avainsanat Kulutuskulttuuri, Kulutus, Sosiaalinen markkinointi, Ympäristöpolitiikka,
Ekologinen kansalaisuus, Kestävä kehitys, Hallinta, Diskurssianalyysi, Muoti,
Vaatteet
ISBN (painettu) 978-952-60-4064-6 ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-4065-3
ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN (painettu) 1799-4934 ISSN (pdf) 1799-4942
Sivumäärä 204 Julkaisupaikka Helsinki Painopaikka Helsinki Vuosi 2011

Acknowledgements
Kiitokset
During the course of this research I have been helped by many individuals. It
would not have been possible to write this doctoral thesis without their help
and support.
Above all, I would like to thank my principal supervisor Professor Johanna
Moisander and my second supervisor Senior Lecturer Minna Autio for their
support and guidance throughout this study. I am also extremely grateful to
have Professor Annamma Joy and Research Professor Eva Heiskanen for
acting as my pre-examiners and opponents.
Thanks are also due to the Department of Marketing for providing the
institutional support for conducting my postgraduate studies and this research.
I also wish to acknowledge the assistance that I have been given by the Center
of Doctoral Programme during the course of this study and particularly at its
final stage. I am also indebted to my PhD colleagues not only at my home
institution but also to those met during various conferences and seminars in
Finland and abroad.
The University of Leicester School of Management was particularly
welcoming and supportive during my six-month visit. I would specifically like
to thank Stephen Dunne, Campbell Jones, Martin Parker, and Jo Brewis for
their support. Thanks are also due to the School of Management PhD cohort.
In addition, I would like to thank all the participants for their kind help and
co-operation in this project.
I am also grateful for the financial support that I have received for this study
from the Foundation for Economic Education in Finland (Liikesivistysrahasto),
the Helsinki School of Economics Foundation (HSE tukisäätiö), the Finnish
Graduate School of Marketing (FINNMARK), and the Marcus Wallenberg
Foundation.
Last, but by no means least, I thank my family, relatives, and friends for their
support and encouragement throughout this project. Lopuksi haluan kiittää
perhettäni, sukulaisiani ja ystäviäni heidän tuestaan ja kannustuksestaan
tämän hankkeen aikana.
Helsinki, February 2011
Annu Markkula
1

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 5
2
1.1 RESEARCH APPROACH AND OBJECTIVES................................................................... 10
1.2 CLOTHING MARKETS AS A CONTEXT FOR EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION...................... 14
1.3 CONTRIBUTIONS ....................................................................................................... 19
1.4 STRUCTURE............................................................................................................... 20
2 CONSUMER CULTURE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND SOCIAL
MARKETING ................................................................................................................. 22
2.1 CONCEPTUALISING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMERISM IN SOCIAL MARKETING............... 24
2.2 PROBLEMATISING PREVALENT APPROACHES............................................................ 27
2.3 TURN TO CITIZENSHIP............................................................................................... 34
2.4 ECOLOGICAL CITIZENSHIP ........................................................................................ 39
2.4.1 Liberal ecological citizenship ................................................................41
2.4.2 Civic republican ecological citizenship ................................................ 43
2.4.3 Questioning rights- and responsibility-focused approaches............... 46
2.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATING CONSUMERISM AND ECOLOGICAL
CITIZENSHIP IN THE MARKETPLACE.......................................................................... 49
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 50
3.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AS A BACKGROUND PHILOSOPHY .................................. 50
3.2 CULTURAL APPROACH TO MARKETPLACE PHENOMENA ........................................... 52
3.3 PRODUCTION OF RESEARCH MATERIAL .................................................................... 59
3.4 DISCOURSE ANALYTIC APPROACH............................................................................. 64
3.4.1 Analysis and interpretation in practice................................................73
3.4.2 Critique and evaluative criteria of discourse analytic approaches......79
4 CONSUMERISM AND ECOLOGICAL CITIZENSHIP IN THE CLOTHING
MARKETS....................................................................................................................... 82
4.1 MARKETPLACE CONDUCT COMPLEXITIES ................................................................. 84
4.1.1 Multinationals and individuals............................................................ 84
4.1.2 Global supply chains ............................................................................ 88
4.1.3 Corporate conduct and priorities .........................................................91
4.2 ECONOMICALLY REASONABLE PRACTICES ................................................................ 96
4.2.1 Allocating financial resources.............................................................. 96
4.2.2 Immorality of wasting money ........................................................... 100
4.2.3 Supporting the economy .....................................................................104
4.3 INFORMED EFFORT MAKING ................................................................................... 109
4.3.1 Knowledgeable consumers..................................................................109
4.3.2 Marketplace information.................................................................... 112
4.3.3 Convenience of shopping and living ................................................... 115

4.4 SOCIAL AND PERSONAL TASTE ................................................................................ 121
4.4.1 Aesthetics and marginal appearances................................................ 121
4.4.2 Bodily fit and comfort .........................................................................124
4.4.3 Fashion and personal style ................................................................. 127
4.5 MARKETPLACE AS A SITE FOR PRACTICES OF ECOLOGICAL CITIZENSHIP................ 132
5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 142
5.1 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.............................................................................. 142
5.1.1 Social marketing .................................................................................143
5.1.2 Cultural consumer research................................................................149
5.2 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................... 152
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................ 155
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS ....................................................................... 157
5.4.1 Social marketing practitioners ........................................................... 157
5.4.2 Business practitioners.........................................................................160
6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 163
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. DISCOURSE ANALYTIC MAP...................................................................66
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. PARTICIPANT PROFILES......................................................................... 60
TABLE 2. INTRODUCTION TO INTERPRETATIVE REPERTOIRES................................83
TABLE 4. MARKETPLACE CONDUCT COMPLEXITIES ...............................................95
TABLE 5. ECONOMICALLY REASONABLE PRACTICES.............................................108
TABLE 6. INFORMED EFFORT MAKING ................................................................120
TABLE 7. SOCIAL AND PERSONAL TASTE.............................................................. 132
TABLE 8. INTERPRETATIVE REPERTOIRES........................................................... 134
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. SOCIAL MARKETING AS A TOOL FOR PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR
MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................... 181
3

APPENDIX 2. NORMATIVE ETHICS IN CONSUMER EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS FOR
4
SUSTAINABILITY....................................................................................... 183
APPENDIX 3. FOUCAULDIAN ETHICS AND THE PRACTICE OF CRITIQUE .............. 184
APPENDIX 4. METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX .................................................... 186

1 INTRODUCTION
“… successful, progressive practices of citizenship ‘should’ take place through
market-mediated forms in our culture because these are the templates for action and
understanding available to most people.” (Arnould 2007, 105, in Should Consumer-
Citizens Escape the Market?)
“The consumer is now a god-like figure, before whom markets and politicians alike
bow. Everywhere it seems, the consumer is triumphant. Consumers are said to
dictate production; to fuel innovation; to be creating new service sectors in advanced
economies; to be driving modern politics; to have it in their power to save the
environment and protect the future of the planet. Consumers embody a simple
modern logic – the right to choose.” (Gabriel and Lang 2006, 1, in The
Unmanageable Consumer)
The social actor ‘consumer’ has assumed an important societal position in
modern Western societies, in a variety of ways (Heinonen 2000, Gabriel and
Lang 2006, Trentmann 2007, Soper and Trentmann 2008). As Gabriel and
Lang (2006, 1) have remarked, the consumer has become a central actor that
enters a number of fields by virtue of their embodied capacity to choose. By
making choices in the marketplace, consumers are said to possess the power to
shape society, for example in environmental terms. Today, rather than being
advised to seek to escape the markets, modern citizens as well are increasingly
invited to perform their practices in and through market-based forms (Arnould
2007, 105, see also Kozinets 2002) in the pursuit of solving contemporary
environmental challenges (e.g., Uusitalo 2005a, Raftopoulou 2009, Rokka and
Moisander 2009, Prothero et al. 2010).
During recent decades, the unintended public environmental consequences
of private consumption decisions (e.g., Uusitalo 1986), particularly since the
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED
1992), have become the subject of increasing concern and a major objective in
both international and national sustainable development related policy
frameworks (European Commission 2005, 2007, European Communities
5

2007, Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry 2008). Today, primarily enabled
by their capacity to choose, individuals are invited to act as responsible citizens
and practice responsible everyday environmental politics in the marketplace
suggesting a remarkable and powerful role for consumer-citizens in bringing
about sustainable development (e.g., Micheletti 2003, Dickson and Carsky
2005, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Caruana and Crane 2008, Johnston 2008).
6
The ever-increasing concern with sustainability issues has also resulted in a
growing body of sustainable consumption-focused research in the field of social
marketing dating back to the 1970s (Anderson and Cunningham 1972, Webster
1975, Antil and Bennett 1979, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Antil 1984, Peattie
1995, Fuller 1999, see also Prothero et al. 2010). Within this field, consumers
as subjects of inquiry and targets of social marketing interventions have
generally been conceptualised as socially and/or environmentally concerned,
ethically-oriented individuals who express a concern for the common good in
their marketplace choices. These morally committed choices have been
conceptualised as taking place through a range of activities, such as boycotting,
buying non-animal-tested products, avoiding products from sweatshops or
produced by child-labour, choosing fair trade or organic products, reusing and
recycling products, and reducing consumption (Schaefer and Crane 2005,
90n1, Barnett et al. 2005, Caruana 2007b, Moisander 2007, Devinney et al.
2010).
The social marketing related research on sustainable consumption now
comprises a vast, even perplexing body of research in its multiplicity (Peattie
and Collins 2009, see also Belz and Peattie 2009). This literature has
predominantly relied on the premises of neo-classical micro-economics and
cognitive psychology to conceptualise consumers and consumption (Moisander
[2001] 2008, 2007, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Uusitalo 2005a, b).
Accordingly, consumers have been conceptualised as relatively autonomous
choice makers (Moisander [2001] 2008, 72) who act consistently, and hence
rationally, according to their preferences and beliefs (Dickinson and Carsky
2005, Rokka and Uusitalo 2008, Prothero et al. 2010). This view of consumers
has also informed the prevailing representation of sustainable consumption in
both academic and policy discussions as “rational household management”,
which exemplary individuals, guided by informed moral choice, would practice
by meticulously monitoring the sustainability aspects of their consumption
behaviour (Moisander [2001] 2008, 170, Hobson 2002, Seyfang 2005, Evans
and Abrahamse 2009).

This prevalent perspective has also influenced on approaching sustainability
challenges as problems at the level of the individual (Dolan 2002, Schaefer and
Crane 2005, Raftopoulou 2009, 171). In recent years, however, there has been
an increasing level of concern in social marketing and in the wider field of
social sciences regarding the ability of this approach to provide adequate tools
and solutions to broad-scale sustainability challenges (e.g., Maniates 2002,
Burgess et al. 2003, Heiskanen 2005, Evans and Abrahamse 2009). In
particular, the dominant approach has been criticized for relying on overtly
individualistic premises, which has been considered problematic for addressing
social problems such as sustainability challenges. In social marketing as well,
researchers have called for developing a more collective perspective and, in
particular, a less individualistic conceptualisation of consumers (e.g.,
Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Uusitalo
2005a, Schrader 2007, Raftopoulou 2009, Prothero et al. 2010).
The criticism against the predominant, individualistic conceptualisation of
consumers in the context of sustainability challenges, however, has not been
uniform. On the one hand, the individualist view has been associated with the
traditional conceptualisation of consumers as private, self-concerned actors
who maximise their personal utility (e.g., Uusitalo 2005a, see also Dickinson
and Carsky 2005, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Fournier 2008). On the other hand,
the individualist view has been criticised in methodological terms for
representing consumers in asocial, acontextual and apolitical terms (e.g.,
Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997, Moisander [2001] 2008, Hobson 2002, Princen
et al. 2002, Seyfang 2005, Jalas 2006, Autio et al. 2009). Nonetheless, both
lines of criticism have advocated advancing sustainability related research by
approaching consumers as more collective actors and, particularly, as members
of their communities (e.g., Dolan 2002, Heiskanen 2005, Uusitalo 2005a,
Prothero et al. 2010).
The search for alternative approaches in social marketing has led to an
increased interest in the notion of citizenship (Moisander [2001] 2008,
Uusitalo 2005a, Caruana 2007b, Moisander 2007, Markkula 2009,
Raftopoulou 2009, Rokka and Moisander 2009), which during the past
decades has re-attracted attention across a number of academic disciplines
(Isin and Turner 2002, Jubas 2007, Trentmann 2007). Unlike consumers,
citizens have generally been considered more collective-oriented actors who
prioritise the common good over private interests (Gabriel and Lang 2006, 174,
Dickinson and Carsky 2005, Harrison et al. 2005).
7

8
Moreover, in both the academic literature and policy discussions on
sustainability challenges, recent years have seen an escalating interest in the
concept of consumer-citizen (Johnston 2008, Caruana and Crane 2008,
Schrader 2007, Soper 2007, Raftopoulou 2009). This social actor category
generally posits that “consumers think publicly when they make consumer
choices” (Micheletti 2003, 167). Rather than considering citizenship and
consumerism being opposing societal positions, many scholars now tend to
regard the two notions as increasingly porous and overlapping (Micheletti
2003, Arnould 2007, Shah et al. 2007, 7, Trentmann 2007, Soper and
Trentmann 2008, Prothero et al. 2010).
The enfolding nature of consumerism and citizenship has also manifested
itself in discussions on the concept of ecological citizenship in the field of
environmental politics. Terms such as ‘ecological’, ‘environmental’,
‘sustainable’, ‘green’, ‘environmentally reasonable’ and ‘sustainability’
citizenship, as well as ‘ecological stewardship’, have been used to denote this
new type of citizenship (Gabrielson 2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008). 1 In general,
the notion of ecological citizenship has been taken to refer to citizenly type
responsibilities “to promote environmental justice around the world” (Bell
2005, 185), which entails “reducing one’s unsustainable impacts upon the
environment and other people” (Seyfang 2005, 297).
Drawing primarily on the rights and responsibilities focused models of
citizenship, this body of work has sought to understand the utility of the notion
of citizenship in advancing more sustainable societies (e.g., Christoff 1996,
Eckersley 1996, van Steenbergen 1996, Barry 1996, Smith 1998, Curry 2000,
Dean 2001, Curtin 2002, Dobson 2003, Bell 2005, Hailwood 2005).
Consumption, in turn, has been considered being a potential sphere where to
engage in ecological citizenship practices (Barry 2006, 37). In particular, given
the link established between the private consumption practices and public
environmental consequences, as well as the trend of decreasing political
participation in the traditional public sphere, in this body of work there has
been an increasing emphasis on the private realm for its importance and
potential as a site of ecological citizenship practices (e.g., Wissenburg 1998,
Dobson 2003, Bell 2005, Barry 2006, Smith and Pangsapa 2008).
Despite the ecological citizenship literature represents the most extensive
body of research on sustainability and citizenship, only a few social marketers
have so far engaged with this literature (Markkula 2009, Rokka and Moisander
1 The present study uses the term ‘ecological citizenship’ as a general term without
making reference to any particular author.

2009). Recent reviews of the ecological citizenship literature have, however,
suggested that the prevailing rights-focused and responsibility-focused
accounts of ecological citizenship have addressed the concept of citizenship
itself in unnecessarily narrow terms (MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007, Gabrielson
2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008). In particular, the ecological citizenship
literature has been criticised for not sufficiently taking into consideration the
conditions in which individuals are to engage in the ecological citizenship
practices. Whilst these observations bear close resemblance to the social
marketing and social scientific critique against the methodologically
individualistic approaches to sustainability challenges and sustainable
consumption, they also call into question the utility of the concept of
citizenship to approach consumers as targets of sustainability related social
marketing in less individualistic terms.
In addition, despite the entwining aspects of the citizen and consumer
positions, a considerable debate persists across the broad field of social
sciences regarding the extent to which these positions can be considered
compatible (Micheletti 2003, Uusitalo 2005a, Seyfang 2005, Barry 2006,
Gabriel and Lang 2006, Jubas 2007, Soper 2007, Trentmann 2007, Johnston
2008). Moreover, a considerable polemic remains in both the social sciences
and consumer research regarding the power and sovereignty that consumers
hold in the marketplace (Schor and Holt 2000, Holt 2002, Kozinets 2002,
Thompson 2004, Denegri-Knott et al. 2006).
Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the contribution that the
scholarly project of social marketing makes to society. In particular, a number
of social marketers have questioned the potential of the individual-focused
social marketing approaches to bring about long-term social change (Hastings
et al. 2000, Moisander [2001] 2008, Hastings and Saren 2003, Gordon et al.
2007, Saren et al. 2007, see also Raftopoulou 2009). In addition, researchers
have called for more critical questioning of the predominant market-based
approaches to sustainable consumption and how these approaches may rely on
an unnecessarily narrow view of consumption and consumers (Moisander
[2001] 2008, 100-101). Moreover, there have been broad-ranging, inter-
disciplinary concerns about how research on sustainable consumption has
tended to exclude the knowledge and views of consumers themselves
(Heiskanen 2005, 183, see also Moisander [2001] 2008, Hobson 2002,
Schaefer and Crane 2005, Seyfang 2005, Evans and Abrahamse 2009).
The present study aims to address the abovementioned issues. With the
overall purpose of participating in the efforts to rethink the prevalent,
9

individualistic, market-based conceptualisations of consumers as targets of
sustainability and environmental-policy-related social marketing, my specific
aim in this study is to examine the analytic utility of the literature on ecological
citizenship for understanding consumers as targets of social marketing. To this
end, I set out to investigate what sort of new perspectives the concept of
ecological citizenship helps open up for research on consumers as targets of
sustainability-related social marketing. By adopting a cultural approach to
marketplace activity (see Section 1.1) and using the globalised clothing markets
as an illustrative and topical context for empirical inquiry (see Section 1.2), my
aim is to contribute with this study towards a better understanding of the
nature and role of consumers as ecological citizens in contemporary culture.
1.1 Research approach and objectives
In building the theoretical framework for this study, I draw on cultural
consumer research, studies of sustainable consumerism in social marketing
and social sciences, and ecological citizenship in environmental politics. The
study is primarily positioned within cultural consumer research (Arnould and
Thompson 2005, Moisander and Valtonen 2006). This broad body of research
has developed in the fields of marketing and consumer inquiry over the past 25
years (Arnould and Thompson 2005, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, Firat and
Tadajewski 2009). Consumption in this body of work is commonly taken to
refer to “the many human acts that people perform as they interact with the
material world around them” (Kozinets 2002, 22) and it is defined as both
purchase involving market activity and freely available non-market activity
(Schor 2008, 594).
10
Cultural consumer research concerns itself with the phenomena of
consumption in market societies – societies “increasingly dominated in all
[their] aspects by the monetarized exchange of goods” (Slater and Tonkiss
2001, 6). Rather than viewing culture as homogenous or bounded to nation
states, cultural consumer research focuses on the “multiplicity of overlapping
cultural groupings” and studies the dynamic relationships between consumer
actions, the marketplace, and cultural meanings (Arnould and Thompson
2005, 868-869). The concept of culture has therefore a broad meaning; it
commonly refers to “the systems of representation through which people make
sense of their everyday life” in market-mediated societies (Moisander and

Valtonen 2006, 7-8, see also Slater 1997, 8, Arnould and Thompson 2005,
869).
In this literature the marketplace is commonly understood as a joint
accomplishment of different societal actors (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 7).
A central concern for culturally-oriented consumer researchers has been the
question of consumer power in the marketplace (Schor and Holt 2000,
Denegri-Knott et al. 2006). Whereas this broad body of research comprises a
variety of views over the freedom and agency of consumers to take part in
shaping society in the market-mediated cultures (Holt 2002, Kozinets 2002,
Arnould 2007), it is generally understood that the acts of consumption exist in
relation to “the grip of the market’s sign game and social logics”, which largely
excludes the possibility to step outside the logic of the market (Kozinets 2002,
36).
The theory of consumer research has traditionally operated between the two
extremes of structure and agency when seeking to explain agency in the field of
consumption (Uusitalo 1998, 227, Murray 2002, 428). In recent years, the
discursive approach to marketplace phenomena has emerged as one of the
alternatives for transcending the problematic dichotomy of structure-agency
(Denegri-Knott et al. 2006). The discursive approach seeks to surpass the
structure-agency argument by shifting attention to cultural practices
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 7).
The cultural practice oriented approach, which I have adopted in this study,
is founded on a constructionist approach to representation (Burr 1995,
Schwandt 2000, Hall [1997] 2009a). From this perspective, language use as a
practice of representation is understood as constitutive of the cultural reality
(Hall [1997] 2009b, 44, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 195). Rather than
assuming one ‘true’ and essential nature for the phenomena of the cultural
world, the objects of knowledge are understood as being historically
constituted and, therefore, open to different interpretations (e.g., Hall [1997]
2009b, 22, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 191). Implied in this is a
poststructuralist view of subjectivity: the subject and its subjectivity are
constituted in contextual, shifting cultural practices within representational
systems rather than being reducible to one single ‘true’ self (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 197-198, Reynolds and Whetherell 2003).
The empirical material for this study consists of 18 consumer interviews of
24–35-year-old, non-self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers on the subject of
11

clothing consumption that I conducted in 2007–2008 in Helsinki, Finland. 2
Finland is one of the leading countries in developing pioneering sustainable
consumption and production (SCP) programmes, which have emerged as a
result of the 2002 United Nations Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Berg forthcoming). In different countries, however, the field of
clothing has received varying levels of attention in terms of sustainable
development challenges and actions. In the United Kingdom, for example,
clothing is addressed as one of the top ten priority SCP programme areas
(DEFRA 2010). Whereas both the UK and Finland are considered having
developed some of the most comprehensive national SCP programmes in the
world (Berg forthcoming) in Finland corresponding sustainable clothing
initiatives have not been established.
12
The research design was initially inspired by Thompson and Haytko’s (1997)
study of consumers’ appropriation of fashion discourses. The particular sample
was chosen based on the belief that these young adults could be a potential
generation of future ‘sustainable’ consumers. Given their educational
background and potential level of income they could have potential for acting
as powerful market forces (Joergens 2006, 362). In addition, they represented
a group of ‘ordinary’ consumers who have often been excluded from
sustainable consumption investigations (Seyfang 2005, Devinney et al. 2010). 3
The objective of the empirical study was to advance understanding on the
nature and role of consumers as ecological citizens in contemporary culture. A
discourse analytic approach, based on the notions of discourse, interpretative
repertoire and subject position (Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, Burr 1995,
Edley 2001, see also Alvesson and Karreman 2000), was adopted to analyse the
empirical material. The term ‘discourse’ refers in this study to institutionalised
linguistic and material practices, which produce social order and constitute
particular modes of being for people as certain kinds of subjects (Moisander
and Valtonen 2006, 16, Hall [1997] 2009a, 6, Skålén et al. 2007). The concept
‘interpretative repertoire’ refers to more fragmented, meso-level cultural
resources that people use recurrently in everyday language use to characterise
and evaluate actions, events, and other phenomena (Potter and Wetherell
2 The term ‘sustainable’ consumer is not well established in the literature. This term
was chosen for practical reasons, to denote a variety of overlapping ‘green’ and ‘ethical’
dimensions in consumption practices. The terms ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ are used where
more appropriate. ‘Sustainable’ in this study does not refer to or seek to make
arguments about the effective sustainability of particular consumption practices (see
also Chapter 1.2 for sustainable consumption in clothing).
3 The term ‘ordinary’ is employed throughout this study to emphasise that the
participants were non-self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers.

[1987] 2007, 138, Jokinen et al. 1993, Burr 1995, Edley 2001). Discourses and
interpretive repertoires both produce subjectivities or subject positions that
can be defined as “identities made relevant by specific ways of talking” (Edley
2001, 210).
Contrary to phenomenological-hermeneutic research approaches that have
been prevailing in the field of cultural consumer research, the discourse
analytic approach adopted in this study draws on a poststructuralist
conceptualisation of the subject and subjectivity. This perspective shifts
analytic attention from the level of the individual to the level of culture.
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 7, 204). The approach adopted in this research
hence differs from much of the previous discourse analytic cultural consumer
research (e.g., Thompson and Haytko 1997, Belk et al. 2003, Kozinets 2008).
This shift to the level of culture is particularly important given the
aforementioned shortcomings in the methodologically individualistic
approaches to sustainability challenges and sustainable consumption.
In addition, the study uses the conceptual lens of government, which has
been previously used in consumer and marketing research to enhance
understanding of how commercial marketing shapes the “possible field of
action” (Foucault 1982, 221) available for consumers and customers in the
marketplace (e.g., Hodgson 2002, Du Gay 2004a, Binkley 2006, Zwick et al.
2008, Moisander et al. 2010). From this perspective, discursive practices can
be understood as practices or techniques of government (Foucault 1982, 220,
see also Rose 1990, Dean [1999] 2008, Rose 1999); a set of activities that do
not seek to force people into certain practices but direct people in more subtle
ways to conduct themselves in particular manners. In this study, this lens is
used to shed light on the possible field of action available for consumers as
ecological citizens in contemporary culture.
The specific focus of the analysis has been on discerning the interpretive
repertoires that consumers use and produce to make sense of their roles and
responsibilities in the context of sustainability challenges, as well as the kinds
of identities that are available for consumers as responsible societal actors and
ecological citizens in today’s marketplace. These questions are described in
detail at the start of Chapter 4.
13

1.2 Clothing markets as a context for empirical investigation
The clothing markets as the empirical context of this study offers a rich and
topical context of inquiry for enhancing understanding of the consumers’
possible field of action as ecological citizens in contemporary culture. Today,
clothing is a highly globalised sector of industry. Comprising a number of
different phases, from the primary production of raw materials to
manufacturing and retailing, the sector makes up a significant part of the
global economy. According to Allwood et al. (2006, 6), in 2000 clothing and
textiles accounted for seven percent of world exports. Morris and Barnes
(2009, 1) report that in 2007 clothing and textiles were among world’s most
traded products and their global exports were valued at US$628.4 billion. The
total number of registered employees in the clothing and textile industries has
been estimated at 30 million and the number of unregistered employees has
been estimated to be five to ten times as many (ILO 2005).
14
In recent years, sustainability concerns in this sector have led to a number of
initiatives towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns
(e.g., Ethical Fashion Forum 2004, Better Cotton Initiative 2005, Nordic
Fashion Association 2009, Clean Clothes Campaign Finland 2010, DEFRA
2010; see also Domeisen 2006). A variety of books, magazines and web sites
have been published for both professionals and consumers (see, e.g.,
www.ecotextile.com, www.sustainablestyle.org), together with academic
thematic books and journal issues (Beard 2008, Black 2008, Hethorn and
Ulasewitz 2008, Fletcher 2008). Further, new ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ product
alternatives have made their way onto high street retail clothing chains
(Joergens 2006) and corporate responsibility initiatives have started to play a
central role in the sector’s business practices (Iwanow et al. 2005, Shaw et al.
2006).
Clothing is a subject that affects everyone. In addition to its protective
functions, clothing serves as a form of social and cultural communication in all
societies and cultures (Craik [1994] 2000, Barnard 2002). The human social
order is a dressed order, the basis for which is the human body (Joy and
Venkatesh 1994, Entwistle 2001, Corrigan 2008, Venkatesh et al. 2010). As
Turner ([1985] 1996, 1) has made the point: “There is an obvious and
prominent fact about human beings: they have bodies and they are bodies”.
As a part of our social and material appearance, clothing has a considerable
role in our everyday visual experiences (Barnard 2002, see also Schroeder
2002). Although we may not want to, we may be required to look like other

members of our classified social space; for example, in terms of our profession
and gender (Bourdieu [1979] 1984, Wilson 2005). Nonetheless, we also long to
express our individual existence. The personal and social nature of our
appearance makes it the subject of a continuous, tensile negotiation of
belonging and not standing out too much, while also respecting our unique
embodied being (Priest 2005).
Clothing’s communicative role is commonly attached to the phenomenon of
fashion. The terms ‘fashion’ and ‘clothing’ are indeed often used synonymously
although fashion is not limited to just clothing (Solomon 1985, Barnard 2002,
Wilson 2005). This has been summarised by Entwistle (2001, 45) as follows:
“‘fashion’ is a general term which can be used to refer to any kind of systemic
change in social life, architecture and even academia” (see also Craik [1994]
2000, Gronow 1997, Slater 1997). As noted by Simmel ([1906] 1981) and
Blumer (1969), some of the most essential characteristics of this phenomenon
are change and its social, collective nature. From this perspective, fashion is a
socially and culturally constructed phenomenon that can be attached to
material and non-material objects, making them ‘fashionable’ for a certain
period of time. 4 Yet, it is in the context of clothing that this socially constructed
phenomenon appears in its most visible forms.
The clothing sector and the production of fashion within this sector have
been closely associated with the ‘fashion system’. This term generally refers to
“the relationship between manufacturing, marketing and distribution of
clothing into retail outlets” (Entwistle 2001, 45). As most of our clothes are
produced in this system, it follows that even our basic clothing exists in relation
to the phenomenon of fashion in clothing: the production and provision of
clothing in this system is conditioned by the fashions of the moment that
influence what gets produced (Entwistle 2001, 45, see also Davis 1992, Braham
1997, Craik [1994] 2000, Wilson 2005).
As a system of cultural production, the fashion system, with its vast
promotional industries, is generally considered playing a significant role in the
production of visual consumer culture (e.g., Braham 1997). Indeed, the
contemporary consumer society is frequently regarded as an aesthetic society
(Featherstone 1992, Charters 2006, Venkatesh and Meamber 2008, see also
4 The historical nature and instability of the phenomena of the cultural reality that
social constructionism emphasises (e.g., Hall [1997] 2009b, 22, Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 191) becomes quite evident in the case of fashion: the same object may
be fashionable or unfashionable, depending on the cultural context. Hence, this study
does not seek to address either ‘fashion’ or ‘clothing’ but to look at them both as they
appear in the interview material.
15

Venkatesh et al. 2010), in which questions of style and aesthetics are
highlighted as having ever more central importance also in terms of creating
customer value and commercial success (Postrel 2003).
16
In consumer research, the transfer of cultural meaning in the marketplace
has been a subject of a continuous interest. In studying the cultural meaning
transfer, McCracken (1988) observed how meanings created in the fashion
system trickled down to consumers. In more recent studies, consumers have
been found to appropriate the meanings proposed to them in a more dialogic
and active process (Thompson and Haytko 1997). It has also been suggested
that, as a marketing system, the fashion system has dominating tendencies that
direct consumers towards particular types of identity projects (Murray 2002).
Even more recently, attention has been directed towards the cultural co-
production of the marketplace in the interplay between consumers and
producers. Drawing on the concept of ‘interagency’ (Kozinets et al. 2004) for
example Atik (2006) has identified this kind of process in mass fashion
markets. In this process fashion institutions play a major role in fashion
diffusion and inspiring consumer desires and mass market consumers act as
gatekeepers, deciding which styles ultimately become widely accepted.
Despite the central role of clothing in the visual and symbolic consumer
culture (Barnard 2002, Corrigan 2008) and its frequent appearance in
discussions on ethical consumption (Harrison et al. 2005, 7), sustainable
consumption-related issues in clothing have remained under-researched (Pears
2005, Joergens 2006, Shaw et al. 2006). In recent years, however, an
increasing research interest has emerged resulting in a body of research
addressing subjects such as fair trade practices, corporate social responsibility
initiatives, organic cotton, environmental impacts of production, clothing
usage and disposal practices, clothing exchanges, clothing recycling and
second-hand clothing (e.g., Iwanow et al. 2005, Pears 2005, Joergens 2006,
Rudell 2006, Shaw et al. 2006, Birtwistle and Moore 2007, Niinimäki 2009,
Jones et al. 2010).
Similarly to the sustainable consumption research in social marketing, these
studies have applied a variety of definitions to capture the diverse forms and
practices of sustainable consumption in clothing. For example Joergens (2006,
361) has defined ‘ethical fashion’ as “fashionable clothes that incorporate fair
trade principles with sweatshop-free labour conditions while not harming the
environment or workers by using biodegradable and organic cotton”. Shaw et
al. (2006, 428) have suggested that ‘ethical’ concerns would include
“environmental, animal, societal and people issues”. Further, Morgan and

Birtwistle (2009, 192) have emphasised consumer considerations before,
during and after the actual purchase decision underscoring how “sustainable
consumption as an aspect of consumer behaviour involves pre-purchase,
purchase and post-purchase components”.
This body of research has identified various challenges that consumers can
face in their desire to practice choice for more sustainably produced clothes. In
general, the clothing markets seem to lack product alternatives, product
information and labels that could inform consumers about production
conditions (Joergens 2006, Shaw et al. 2006, Birtwistle and Moore 2007,
Niinimäki 2009). In addition, the premium price of more sustainably produced
garments means that they tend to be niche products of more affluent
consumers (Joergens 2006, 369, Shaw et al. 2006, 430, see also Beard 2008).
Moreover, the industry’s various raw materials and highly complex production
processes seem to complicate consumers’ sustainability evaluations (e.g.,
Allwood et al. 2006, Fletcher 2008). The judgements that consumers need to
make can also be complex in terms of development goals. Even “highly
motivated ethical consumers” may face ethical dilemmas when choosing
between home-country-produced clothes and fair-trade-produced clothes from
developing countries (Shaw et al. 2006, 428).
A part of the clothing sector’s sustainability challenges has been attributed to
the sector’s prevalent business strategy, which relies on continuous change
(e.g., Allwood et al. 2006, Birtwistle and Moore 2007, Black 2008, Hethorn
and Ulasewitz 2008, Morgan and Birtwistle 2009). This systemic creation of
change to activate consumer demand – the use of fashion as a marketing tool –
has also been considered central to the historical development of the practice
of marketing (Strasser 2003, see also Tadajewski 2009). While similar
applications of fashion have been observed across a number of other industrial
sectors (e.g., Gronow 1997, Blaszczyk 2008), the continuous, accelerated
change is still applied as a business strategy in its most accelerated forms in the
clothing markets.
In recent years, increasing number of retailers has also adopted another
change-based business strategy, frequently referred to as ‘fast fashion’ or ‘value
fashion’ (Jones et al. 2010). This strategy relies on an increased purchase
frequency of more affordable garments that are expected to be used for shorter
periods, thereby increasing the material output and waste volumes of the sector
(e.g., Allwood et al. 2006, Birtwistle and Moore 2007, Black 2008). Drawing on
Baumann’s (e.g., 2005) concept of ‘liquid modernity’, Binkley (2008)
developing his concept of ‘liquid consumption’ has suggested that short-lived
17

consumer goods manifest aspects of contemporary, increasingly fragmented
society for how these objects are being used in the search for a sort of a balance
between individual freedom, belonging, rootedness, and social mobility.
Binkley (ibid., p. 609) has maintained that the short-lived goods and their
ephemeral symbolic value, which is mediated and promoted in marketing
communications,
18
“express a dynamic fundamental to the condition of liquid modernity itself. … [for
the liquid consumer the] specifically liquid, or liquefying practice of consumption,
distinguished in profound ways from those other more solid or solidifying patterns of
consumer choice … provide[s] a much needed sense of personal mobility,
changeability and fluidity.”
In the field of marketing, however, the application of marketing to promote
forms of material over-consumption in the context of sustainability challenges
has raised concerns about the contribution the discipline is making to society
(Shankar et al. 2006, Skålén et al. 2007, Kjellberg 2008, see also Gordon et al.
2007). In this context, marketing scholars have increasingly questioned how
the theory and practice of contemporary marketing “speaks the language of …
newness, and works on the assumption of unlimited growth and the
accumulation of waste” (Kajzer Mitchell and Saren 2008, 399). Concerned
voices have indeed suggested that there even is a paucity of research on
sustainability issues in the contemporary academic literature of marketing
(e.g., Chabowski et al. 2011, Sheth et al. 2011, see also Prothero et al. 2010).
Such concerns also seem to link with similar worries expressed at policy level
about the current modes and levels of production and consumption. For
instance, the practice of updating and replacing consumer goods at ever-
increasing pace has been addressed a subject of serious concern in the
consumer-citizen education material of the European Union as the following
passage from the publication A sustainable future in our hands: A guide to the
EU’s sustainable development strategy (European Communities 2007)
illustrates:
“From disposable cameras to electrical goods that are cheaper to replace than repair,
throwing things away is part of everyday life. … Our consumption and production
significantly exceeds the carrying capacity of our Earth on which our prosperity and
well-being is based. …We are mining minerals like there is no tomorrow while our
round-the-clock factories pump out ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases.

These are just some examples of the hidden costs behind the low price tag on
intensively farmed meat or the latest techno-gadget.” (p. 29)
Since the clothing markets bring together the global and the local dimensions
of production and consumption and represent a sector characterised by
continuous change with its associated planned obsolescence, these markets
offer a rich context for empirical investigation for considering contemporary
consumption and production challenges also in broader terms across different
industries.
1.3 Contributions
This study contributes primarily to the social marketing and cultural consumer
research literatures. Drawing on social marketing, social sciences,
environmental politics and cultural consumer research literatures, the study
establishes an alternative theoretical approach and methodological framework
to conceptualise consumers as targets of sustainability-related social
marketing. This represents a continuation of efforts to rethink consumers as
targets of sustainability-related social marketing in non-individualistic terms
(Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002, Uusitalo 2005a, Markkula 2009, Rokka
and Moisander 2009, Raftopoulou 2009, Prothero et al. 2010). In so doing, the
study also adds to discussions on the role, nature and potential of consumers in
the marketplace as political actors (Micheletti 2003, Seyfang 2005, Uusitalo
2005a, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Arnould 2007, Schudson 2007, Johnston
2008).
Moreover, the study responds to the criticism raised against excluding the
knowledge and views of consumers themselves over sustainability challenges
from the sustainable consumption research (e.g., Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997,
Moisander [2001] 2008, Seyfang 2005, Evans and Abrahamse 2009). For that
end, the study investigates the interpretative repertoires that consumers use
and produce when making sense of themselves as members of their
communities in the context of sustainability challenges. In particular, shifting
the analytical focus from the level of the individual to the level of culture
enhances the understanding of the cultural context in which consumers and
other societal actors, including social marketers themselves, operate. This adds
to the efforts of social marketers to better understand social marketing’s
potential to contribute to society in the context of sustainability challenges
19

(e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008, Gordon et al. 2007, Saren et al. 2007, see also
Raftopoulou 2009).
20
By addressing sustainability challenges from a cultural perspective, the study
advances knowledge of marketplace ideologies and consumers’ interpretative
strategies (Arnould and Thompson 2005), topics within which relatively little
attention has been placed on sustainable development (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, see also Schaefer and Crane 2005, Caruana 2007b, Prothero et
al. 2010). In particular, the study contributes to discussions on discourse
theoretic approaches (e.g., Moisander and Valtonen 2006, Kozinets 2008) by
developing and applying a non-individualistic meso-level discourse analytic
approach. In so doing, the study also adds to discussions on the government of
consumers (e.g., Zwick et al. 2008, Moisander et al. 2010) in the context of
sustainability challenges.
The findings of this study have practical implications for policy makers,
business practitioners and consumers themselves (see Firat 2001). The
alternative theoretical and methodological framework developed in the present
study for conceptualising consumers can benefit the research and practice of
environmental policy and social marketing. The framework also offers valuable
insights for business practitioners in the clothing industries to better
understand their consumer-customers in the context of sustainability
challenges and advance more sustainable marketplace cultures. For consumers
themselves, the study offers alternative perspectives for thinking about
consumption and sustainability challenges.
1.4 Structure
This introductory chapter is followed by five main chapters. Chapter 2
discusses the relevant literature in social marketing, social sciences,
environmental politics and cultural consumer research. The chapter begins by
establishing links between consumer culture, sustainable development and
social marketing. Sections 2.1–2.3 discuss social marketing research on
sustainable consumption, the shortcomings identified within this research and
the recent interest in the concept of citizenship as a potential solution to
remedy the identified shortcomings. Section 2.4 reviews the literature on
ecological citizenship. Section 2.5 presents a summary of the theoretical
framework.

Chapter 3 discusses the methodological choices made for this study. Section
3.1 addresses the philosophical background assumptions that have guided the
study, while Section 3.2 provides an overview of cultural approaches to
marketplace phenomena, with a specific focus on a discursive approach to
understanding marketplace activities. Section 3.3 discusses the interview
method applied to produce the empirical material. Finally, section 3.4
elaborates on the discourse analytic approach applied to analysing the
interview material.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the empirical analysis. Sections 4.1-4.4 of
the chapter report the four interpretative repertoires that have been identified
in the analytical process. Section 4.5 draws together the findings of the
analysis, discussing the contemporary marketplace as a site of ecological
citizenship practices.
Chapter 5 discusses the contributions and limitations of the study, together
with suggestions for further research and implications for policy and business
practitioners (Sections 5.1–5.4).
21

2 CONSUMER CULTURE,
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND
SOCIAL MARKETING
This chapter presents the theoretical framework of the study. The framework
builds upon the literatures of social marketing, social scientific research on
sustainability and consumption, environmental politics and cultural consumer
research. The chapter provides a literature review that can assist in
understanding the nature, role and conceptualisation of consumers as targets
of sustainability-related social marketing.
22
In order to understand sustainable development challenges in contemporary
world, it is important to consider the cultural developments that have taken
place in the development of market society and consumer culture, in particular,
in the Western developed world. As defined by Slater (1997, 8),
“Consumer culture denotes a social arrangement in which the relation between lived
culture and social resources, between meaningful ways of life and the symbolic and
material resources on which they depend, is mediated through markets”.
Slater and Tonkiss (2001, 6) trace the emergence of market society – a society
“increasingly dominated in all its aspects by the monetarized exchange of
goods” – to at least to the eighteenth century. Closely related to the
development of the market society has been the consumer society’s
development as well the concept of consumerism. For example Schor (2008,
594) remarks that whereas consumption can be about consuming anything (see
also Kozinets 2002, 22), consumerism instead can broadly be understood as a
particular set of values and an ideology related to the late stage of market
capitalism. Overall, the term has commonly been used to refer to diverse
ideologically-laden stances to consumption (see Gabriel and Lang 2006).
In the historical trajectory, consumerism has also been an important societal
position to struggle towards, for the promise it has conveyed to individuals
regarding a better quality of life (Hilton 2007, Trentmann 2007, see also

Arnould 2007). 5 Also today, consumerism is considered an important position
in a number of ways (Heinonen 2000, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Trentmann
2007, Soper and Trentmann 2008). For instance, as consumers individuals
have been given the opportunity as well as the responsibility to participate in
establishing and maintaining the structures of the welfare state by supporting
economic activity by keeping the levels of consumptions up (Heinonen 2000,
Hilton 2007, see also Moisander [2001] 2008, see also Shankar et al. 2006,
Jubas 2007).
However, although the increasing possibilities to consumption have made it
possible for broader number of people to raise their quality of life and
standards of living, the social and political dimensions of consumer society
have also raised continuous concerns among both its detractors and supporters
(e.g., Schor and Holt 2000, Arnould 2007). Particularly due to the unintended
macro-consequences of private consumption decisions (e.g., Uusitalo 1986),
the Western consumer society has become a subject of increasing critique from
the environmental perspective (e.g., Gabriel and Lang 2006).
In 1992, the outcome of the United Nations 1992 Rio Conference on
environment and development, Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992), explicitly stated the
need for lifestyle and consumption pattern changes in the Western world. Since
that time, the political role and potential of consumers in bringing about
sustainability has gained a central, enduring position not only in the debates on
how to advance the transformation into more sustainable societies but also in a
range of sustainability and sustainable development-related policy documents,
both at international and national levels (European Commission 2005, 2007,
European Communities 2007, Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry 2008). 6
The potential of consumers to participate in the common pursuit of
sustainability has also been at the heart of sustainability-related discussions in
the field of social marketing. As a sub-discipline of marketing, social marketing
has been concerned with the use of the tools of commercial marketing for
socially beneficial ends (e.g., Kotler et al. 2002, Andreasen 2006). 7 Particularly
5 In this study, the term ‘consumerism’ is used to denote a social actor position in the
marketplace without making claims about the ideological nature of this position unless
indicated differently.
6 For practical reasons, this study uses the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable
development’ interchangeably. Sustainable development, as per the definition of the
United Nations-nominated Brundtlant Commission, “meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(WCED 1987, 43). It is acknowledged that sustainable development is a highly
contested notion (see, e.g., Fuchs and Lorek 2005, Baker 2006, 7, 28-33).
7 Social marketing hence differs from societal marketing, which focuses upon the
impacts that commercial marketing practices have on society (Kotler 2005, 142). On
23

in contexts where market mechanistic practices have been favoured over
regulatory practices in the management of public behaviour (e.g., Andreasen
1991), social marketing has often been used as an approach to influence the
voluntary behaviour of target audiences, with the aim of improving the target
audience’s welfare as well as the welfare of society as a whole (Andreasen 1994,
110). In the context of sustainability challenges, where market-based
incentives and legislative measures have been seen as insufficient for creating
broad scale social change towards a more sustainable society (Uusitalo 2005a,
129, see also Schaefer and Crane 2005), social marketing has therefore been
seen as a useful approach for promoting socially beneficial behaviours
(Schrader 2007, see also Sargeant 2009). 8
24
In general, it has been suggested that three main groups – consumers,
governments and businesses – influence the sustainability of private
consumption practices (Thøgersen 2005, 144, see also Huang and Rust 2011).
The primary focus of much of the social marketing literature on sustainability
challenges has, however, been on the consumer as the target of social
marketing (Moisander [2001] 2008, 72, Raftopoulou 2009, 171). This has
resulted in a body of research that is addressed below.
2.1 Conceptualising sustainable consumerism in social
marketing
In social marketing, a number of different but overlapping terms, such as ‘pro-
social’, ‘pro-environmental’, ‘green’, ‘ecological’, ‘environmental’, ‘ethical’,
‘conscious’, ‘socially conscious’ and ‘responsible’, have been used to denote the
various forms that sustainable consumption practices can take. 9 These various
forms of consumption and consumerism have been studied in this field since
the 1970s (Moisander [2001] 2008, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Uusitalo 2005a,
Prothero et al. 2010, see also Caruana and Crane 2008).
the other hand, however, both social and societal marketing interventions as well as
other forms of sustainability related marketing such as environmental and green
marketing can be understood to largely share the same target public: societally and/or
environmentally conscious consumers (Belz and Peattie 2009).
8 For a further discussion on social marketing as a tool for public behaviour
management, see Appendix 1.
9 As noted in Section 1.1, this study uses the term ‘sustainable’ for practical reasons as a
general term to denote a variety of overlapping ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ dimensions of
consumption practices.

In general, consumers engaging in forms of socially and/or environmentally
concerned consumption behaviours have been conceptualised as individuals
who exhibit a concern for the common good by expressing their ethical and
moral commitments in the marketplace. Sustainable consumption has been
understood as activities such as boycotting, buying non-animal-tested
products, avoiding sweatshop or child-labour products, choosing fair trade or
organic products, re-using and re-cycling products and reducing consumption
(Schaefer and Crane 2005, 90n1, Barnett et al. 2005, Moisander 2007).
Today, the social marketing research on sustainability and consumerism is a
vast, even perplexing body of research in its multiplicity (Peattie and Collins
2009). This body of research has been dominated by the approaches of micro-
economics and cognitive psychology to consumption and consumers
(Moisander [2001] 2008, Heiskanen 2005, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Uusitalo
2005a, Rokka and Moisander 2009, Prothero et al. 2010). Guided by
disciplinary assumptions regarding the human subject in these fields, attention
with regard to understanding consumer behaviour has been placed at the
individual level. In addition, consumers have been conceptualised as atomistic,
individualistic agents who act upon their private preferences and interests and
maximise their personal utility in the marketplace. Furthermore, consumers
have been approached as subjects who process marketplace information in a
fairly rational manner and would therefore also make corresponding choices in
the marketplace. (Moisander [2001] 2008, 72-73, Dickinson and Carsky 2005,
Uusitalo 2005a, 131, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Prothero et al. 2010). Overall,
this choice-theoretic view of the consumer subject as a rather independent,
rational and goal-driven chooser, who logically and deductively selects the best
possible option among the alternatives, has also reflected the ‘positivist’,
‘positivist-empiricist’ or ‘logical empiricist’ worldview that has also dominated
much of the field of commercial marketing (Moisander [2001] 2008, 6, 50). 10
Accordingly, social marketing researchers concerned with sustainability have
sought to identify criteria that could explain ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ consumer
behaviour. Researchers have focused on consumer variables such as
demographics, attitudes, values and beliefs that could explain how sustainable
consumption takes place (Anderson and Cunningham 1972, Webster 1975,
Antil and Bennett 1979, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Antil 1984, Peattie 1995,
Fuller 1999) and identify sustainable consumers who would embody a concern
10 This view relies on an assumption of objective, detached observation, as a result of
which value-free knowledge would arise (Moisander [2001] 2008, 39; see Section 3.1
for a further discussion).
25

for the environment (Henion 1976). In general, awareness of the
environmental impacts of consumption choices has been conceptualised as an
antecedent to pro-environmental and pro-societal behavioural changes.
Therefore, providing more information has usually been considered central to
advancing behavioural change. For example Ottman (1993, 20, 29; cited in
Schaefer and Crane 2005, 79) has summarised the sustainable consumers’
conceptualisation according to this view as follows:
26
‘[Environmentally conscious consumers make] “decisions [that are] shaped by deep
rooted values,” “have access to more information than any other generation in
history and … know how to use it,” “consider themselves logical and rational and are
attracted to high quality and substance” (p. 20), “make a detailed shopping list,”
“check ingredients” on labels, and “look for useful information” in advertising (p.
29)’.
It has been suggested that part of the popularity of consumers’ psychological
models and micro-economical conceptualisations has been due to the
culturally established position that quantifiable research and its measurable
outcomes have gained in policy informing research (Moisander [2001] 2008,
Heiskanen 2005, Schaefer and Crane 2005, see also Schneider and Ingram
2008). The popularity of these models has also been evident in the broader
field of social scientific sustainable consumption research where it would seem
to be related to the educational background of researchers. Namely,
researchers working on environmental policy and questions of sustainable
consumption have often had natural science backgrounds and have therefore
favoured quantitative methods, even if these methods have not necessarily
been appropriate for studying social phenomena (Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997,
Cohen and Murphy 2001, Schaefer and Crane 2005).
This choice-theoretic information processing view of the human subject has
also largely guided the conceptualisations of sustainable consumption in
sustainability-related policy frameworks (Moisander [2001] 2008, Hobson
2002, Seyfang 2005, Autio et al. 2009). Consequently, sustainable
consumption has mainly been represented in terms of “rational household
management” (Moisander [2001] 2008) and “rationalization of lifestyles”
(Hobson 2002). In these conceptualisations, sustainable consumption has
usually been approached as a set of individual consumer’s informed, fairly
rational choices for ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ products in the marketplace (Seyfang
2005, 294). These choices have been accompanied by meticulous control of

personal consumption practices by well-informed, responsible individuals
(Moisander [2001] 2008, 180).
From one perspective, this prevailing representation of sustainable
consumption as informed choices could be argued to have normalised
environmental issues as this view and discourse now permeates and is
promoted in international and national policy programmes, environmental
education, popular media and popular science (Autio et al. 2009). In this
discourse, environmental challenges are represented as issues that can be
tackled by means of informed, environmentally sound household management
(Moisander [2001] 2008, 180). Environmental issues are hence not denied but
they are ‘normalised’ and individualised as personal, meticulous control of
everyday consumption practices. At a certain level, this view and discourse of
environmentally sound consumption consumerism provides a more socially
acceptable idea and discourse of green consumerism than the more traditional
ideas of environmentally conscious consumers as eco-centric nature-lovers
going off the grid or radical, outrageous environmental activists shouting
slogans at barricades (Moisander [2001] 2008, 174, 182).
This prevalent view of sustainable consumerism, however, has been
increasingly called into question across a number of academic disciplines for its
ability to provide adequate solutions to sustainability challenges. The next
section addresses the major criticisms that have been levelled against this view,
drawing together discussions from social marketing and the broader field of
social sciences.
2.2 Problematising prevalent approaches
In recent years, social marketing researchers have increasingly expressed
concerns over the ability of the prevailing approaches to sustainable
consumption to adequately provide solutions to sustainability challenges. In
particular, the prevalent approaches have been criticised for relying on an
overtly individualist view of the consumer subject. The need for a less
individualistic conceptualisation of consumers has been broadly grounded on
the argument that sustainable development is a common goal that requires the
cooperation of all societal actors. Hence, it has been suggested that sustainable
development calls for a more collective approach, which would need to be
incorporated into the consumers’ conceptualisation in social marketing as well
27

(Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002, Uusitalo 2005a, Schrader 2007, Rokka
and Moisander 2009, see also Raftopoulou 2009).
28
The criticism of the prevalent approaches to sustainable consumption as
being overly individualistic has been twofold. On one hand, the individualist
view of the consumer has been associated with the traditional
conceptualisation of consumers as private, self-focused actors who maximise
their personal utility in the markets (e.g., Dickinson and Carsky 2005, Uusitalo
2005a, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Fournier 2008). This view has been described
as problematic given how the maximisation of individual utility can contradict
broader social goals (Rokka and Uusitalo 2008, 517). In order to remedy the
shortcomings of the prevalent individualistic conceptualisations, therefore, a
more elaborate concept of rationality has been suggested as having the
potential to develop the conceptualisation of consumers into a more collective
direction. In other words, it is argued that a broader concept of rationality
could provide support for more committed and cooperative behaviour in the
marketplace (Uusitalo 2005a, 131).
In addition to developing a more collectively and cooperatively oriented
concept of rationality, the notion of consumer sovereignty has been called into
questions (Uusitalo 2005a, 129, see also Moisander [2001] 2008, 82). To this
end, Uusitalo (ibid., p. 128) has suggested that the power relations between
consumers and companies would need to be revised. Whereas attention in the
past has been on the asymmetric power relations between consumers and
producers, which has legitimated the development of consumer rights,
environmental policy practitioners in the future would need to shift their
emphasis from the responsibilities of companies to those of consumers (ibid.).
As Uusitalo has put it, “the more macro influences of consumption are
recognised the more attention should be paid not only to consumer rights, but
also to consumers’ responsibilities and liabilities” (ibid., p. 129, original
emphasis). Hence, consumer sovereignty would need to be defined so that
consumers would not act without considering the common good.
On the other hand, the individualist view of the consumer has also been
criticised in terms of methodological questions. Critiques in this line have
suggested that the prevalent approaches have tended to conceptualise
consumers in methodologically individualistic terms, producing an asocial,
acontextual and apolitical view of consumers and marketplace practices (e.g.,
Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997, Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002, Hobson
2002, Princen et al. 2002, Burgess et al. 2003, Jalas 2006, Evans and
Abrahamse 2009). From this perspective, the prevalent approaches have been

argued to represent an overly simplified idea of human subjects and their
ability to contribute to broad-scale societal change such as sustainable
development (e.g., Maniates 2002, Moisander 2007, Seyfang 2009)
particularly when proposing that consumers are powerful market forces that
act as the sources of sustainable development (Moisander [2001] 2008, 71, 76).
According to this line of criticism, the prevalent approaches to sustainability
and consumption have relied on problematic a priori definitions of ethical
conduct (Barnett et al. 2005, Caruana 2007a, b, Devinney et al. 2010). By
drawing upon pre-defined frameworks for moral and ethical behaviours,
researchers looking into consumption and sustainability have tended to take
the existence of such universal frameworks for granted without considering
alternative ways of approaching questions of ethics and consumption (e.g.,
Moisander [2001] 2008, 91, Moisander and Pesonen 2002). Despite practical
challenges of operationalisation in research designs (Heiskanen and Pantzar
1997), predefined ethical frameworks that draw on consequentalist and
deontological theories of normative ethics have been favoured in approaches to
ethics and sustainable consumption (see also Moisander [2001] 2008, 259).
However, it has been broadly acknowledged that predefined ethical
frameworks tend to be rather insensitive to the practical everyday realities of
ordinary people (Barnett et al., 2005, 13). 11 In particular, given that even
researchers and experts have different opinions on sustainable consumption
and its meanings, it might be reasonable to consider that consumers might also
have multiple motivations for more sustainable lifestyles and that sustainable
consumption could therefore take many forms (e.g., Heiskanen and Pantzar
1997, Moisander and Pesonen 2002, Heiskanen 2005, Seyfang 2005,
Moisander 2007, Autio et al. 2009). Researchers have emphasised that
individuals in their different roles might have multiple motivations and
meanings for more sustainable consumption practices (Seyfang 2005,
Moisander 2007, Devinney et al. 2010, Prothero et al. 2010). Given the
differences in the contexts and situations in which people find themselves, it
could also be reasonable to expect them to be enabled and constrained
differently in their sustainable consumption practices. Therefore, it would also
be reasonable to question the prevalent assumption that more sustainability-
related information leads to sustainable development (e.g., Moisander [2001]
2008, Seyfang 2005).
11 Appendix 2 provides a more detailed discussion on normative ethics in consumer
education campaigns for sustainability.
29

30
Furthermore, as Harrison et al. (2005, 2), among others, have pointed out,
the term ‘ethical’ is somewhat ambiguous as it can refer to a variety of motives,
including political, religious, spiritual, environmental and social, all of which
can be understood as ethical (also Moisander [2001] 2008, 88, Devinney et al.
2010). The multiplicity of such ethical concerns is also vividly illustrated in
Miller’s (2001) anthropological explorations of shopping in London. In his
study, Miller (ibid., 123-126) has identified how different ethical motives can be
integrated in everyday life’s practical situations in myriad ways. For example,
doing ‘one’s bit for the environment’ by eating less meat can be motivated by a
religious rule about avoiding certain kinds of food. This religious motive, rather
than the concern for the environment, could be the reason for adopting a
vegetarian diet, which is broadly considered environmentally friendly.
In a related manner, shopping at flea markets, for example, can be motivated
by concerns that may not have much to do with others and the common good.
Flea markets can also be chosen for private, if not even selfish concerns, such
as a concern for money rather than for altruistic reasons (Miller 2001, 126,
Prothero et al. 2010). In a related manner, Soper (2007) has pointed out how
the choices of more affluent consumers can be primarily driven by the
consumers’ concerns for themselves and their closest ones. For example,
affluent consumers may choose more sustainable products as well as lifestyles
based on concerns for the health and the quality of life of themselves and their
nearest and dearest. Whilst sustainable forms of consumerism are generally
believed to exhibit concern for others and the common good (e.g., Moisander
2007), these examples also suggest that consumers who engage in practices of
sustainable consumption for reasons other than the common good actually fail
to qualify as sustainable consumers if sustainable consumption implies the
prioritisation of altruistic concerns for others.
Overall, it appears to be challenging to separate private and public concerns
and considerations in consumption practices. When choosing more sustainable
products, consumers may draw on the vocabulary of green or ethical
consumption to explain their choices, or not. Consumers may also be unable to
articulate what influences their choices over different contexts and situations
and how sustainability concerns play a role in these choices. For example,
someone may choose locally grown vegetables based on the taste, while others
may choose this option because they consider locally grown more sustainable
(Miller 2001, 127). People may also explain their choices as being motivated
either by selfish concerns, sustainability concerns or both, which makes it
rather challenging to define what is the predominant motivation behind these

choices (also Seyfang 2005, Moisander 2007). Harrison et al. (2005, 2) have
indeed remarked that consumers tend to combine elements of both self- and
other-directed ethical concerns, both of which may ultimately lead to ethical
and/or sustainable choices and consumption practices.
Moreover, a further tension in the field of consumption has been identified by
Miller (2001, 137) when he proposes that the morality of consumption has been
internalised by people in terms of saving money on behalf of their household.
From this perspective, immoral, unethical consumption is largely understood
as the actions and practices related to wasting money (see also Huttunen and
Autio 2010, 148). It follows that such expressions of sustainable consumption
as the preferences for more expensive products may enter into conflict with the
moral code of not wasting the monetary resources of the household. Harrison
et al. (2005) have also identified this tension, remarking that in considering
price, people tend to evaluate whether the product can ultimately satisfy their
purposes at reasonable cost. Whereas some consumers might prefer to choose
a fair-trade or eco-labelled product because they think that these issues are
important, conflicts can still arise in terms of price, product quality and
disposable incomes. In other words, as Harrison et al. (ibid., p. 2) have noted,
‘ethical consumers’ do not “[o]bviously … choose these types of products if they
cost half a month’s salary or, in the case of foodstuffs, if they taste bad”.
Furthermore, practising sustainable consumption by rigidly choosing, for
instance, more expensive sustainable products could even be considered
selfish. Specifically, a devoted green or ethical shopper may reject out of hand
what might be considered the primary concern for their immediate household
members (Miller 2001, 137, see also Barnett et al. 2005). As Barnett et al.
(2005, 20) have remarked, not taking into account the needs of one’s own
children, for example, could be considered neglect of one’s responsibilities as a
parent. Similarly, refusing to buy presents for friends and family members due
to sustainability concerns might not be highly appreciated. Miller (2001, 137)
has even proposed that “green shopping or a concern with others may
paradoxically be viewed merely as a sign of the selfishness of the individual
shopper” and that individuals who prioritise sustainability concerns and
appear altruistic towards distant others may, paradoxically, be judged and
condemned as “cold and inappropriately calculative by their peers” (see also
Devinney et al. 2010).
Related to the tendency of privileging pre-defined ethical frameworks, the
prevalent approaches to sustainability and consumption have also represent
researchers and other professionals as the kind of experts that can now better
31

than consumers themselves about sustainability challenges and how more
sustainable lifestyles could be brought about (also Caruana 2007b, Caruana
and Crane 2008). This has been criticised for depicting individuals as passive,
waiting for and needing expert information, rather than as active agents whose
views could be considered valuable (e.g., Hobson 2002, Schaefer and Crane
2005). In this way, the prevalent approaches have not appreciated consumers’
practical knowledge and considerations or held them to be important. Instead,
in order to qualify as ethical, consumers have been expected to behave ethically
as per the definition of the researcher (Heiskanen 2005, 183, Devinney et al.
2010).
32
In addition, the prevalent approaches have been criticised for seeking to
explain the social world and its problems in terms of individuals and their
inner worlds (Moisander [2001] 2008, Heiskanen 2005). By seeing the human
subject and the agency of the subject as being independent of social life,
research attention has been focused at the level of the individual. More
specifically, the focus has been on the intrapersonal processes of the mind,
such as the motivations, intentions or subjective experiences of individuals,
which have been considered important for explaining the world. This kind of
approach has been criticised as methodologically limited in its capacity to
provide tools with which to study complex social phenomena such as the
diverse practices in which individuals engage in their everyday lives
(Moisander ([2001] 2008, 58).
Furthermore, among the identified shortcomings of the prevalent approaches
to sustainability challenges has been the lack of a broader perspective (e.g.,
Schaefer and Crane 2005, Raftopoulou 2009, Prothero et al. 2010). By
emphasising the individual, the prevalent sustainable consumption approaches
have tended to exclude considerations of the broader context in which
individuals are embedded (e.g., Dolan 2002, Raftopoulou 2009). This has been
considered problematic in terms of how the overall organisation of society and
its social institutions have been left outside of inquiries despite their inevitable
role in the common pursuit of sustainability (Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997,
Kilbourne et al. 1997, Connolly and Prothero 2003, Hastings 2003, Schaefer
and Crane 2005, Gordon et al. 2007, see also Saren et al. 2007). Such lack of
the broader perspective’s considerations has been seen limiting the potential of
social marketing to bring about long-term social change (Raftopoulou 2009).
For example, Hastings (2003, 10) has maintained that unless social marketing
programmes incorporate an understanding of the macro-environment in which
individuals are embedded, the practice of social marketing may focus

ineffectively on micro-issues at the expense of understanding the wider context
that influences individuals’ opportunities to assume diverse practices (see also
Arnold and Fisher 1996, Hastings et al. 2000).
In recent years, however, alternative approaches have started to be applied to
questions of sustainability and consumption to remedy these shortcomings
(Heiskanen 2005, Caruana 2007b, 293). These approaches have generally
drawn upon sociological and cultural theories of consumption, which rather
than conceptualizing consumption in terms of informed marketplace choice
have approached consumption as a cultural and creative process in which
individuals engage in the construction, expression and communication of self-
identity, social relationships and social and cultural meanings. (Schaefer and
Crane 2005, 83, Uusitalo 2005a, 147, Caruana 2007b). Although this view of
consumption as a productive process may at first be interpreted as a
celebration of consumerist ideologies seeking to promote more consumption
(see Gabriel and Lang 2006), this view of consumption has also been regarded
as having potential for developing a more humane idea of sustainable
consumption practices. In particular, the alternative theorisations have been
considered important for “open[ing] up new alternative views and perspectives
to the human dimension of environmental policy” (Moisander [2001] 2008,
100-101), which the prevailing approaches to sustainable consumption have
tended to exclude (also Hobson 2002, Seyfang 2005).
These alternative approaches to sustainable consumption have addressed
issues such as how individuals, as members of their communities, construct
and negotiate environmental knowledge and practices (e.g., Hobson 2002,
Moisander and Pesonen 2002, Shove 2003, Southerton et al. 2003, Jalas
2006, Autio et al. 2009). For instance, Evans and Abrahamse (2009) have
approached sustainable lifestyles as practices that are embedded in the wider
cultural context. In a similar manner, Rokka and Moisander (2009) have
placed attention on the processes, actions and practices in which consumers
engage when making sense of sustainable development. Further, Jalas (2006,
3) has drawn attention to the construction of temporality in the environmental
debate and the meaningfulness of human life arguing that conceptualizing
human life as a “mere resource to be optimized for the sake of future utility”
provides a narrow view of what it might be to be a human in the first place.
Nonetheless, up to date, research approaches drawing on premises other than
neo-classical micro-economics and cognitive psychology have engaged to a
lesser extent with sustainability questions (Caruana 2007b, Schaefer and Crane
2005, Prothero et al. 2010). In seeking to provide reasons for this, Schaefer and
33

Crane (2005, 85) suggest that many researchers drawing upon the sociological
and cultural theories of consumption have also favoured interpretive methods,
which “[are] not necessarily easy to reconcile with the normative and practical
goals of the environmental movement, which typically include a reduction in
consumption levels” and that it could be for this that scholars working in this
broad tradition “may [have] be[en] unconcerned with – or perhaps even hostile
to – sustainability issues”. On the other hand, hostile attitudes towards
consumption and its potential meanings have also characterised the
environmental movement. As for example Jalas (2006, 26) has remarked:
”modern consumption patterns as sources of meaning have been treated
roughly by environmentalism”.
34
Schaefer and Crane (2005, 85) further suggest that two reasons might have
been underlying the interpretive sociological and cultural research’s tendency
to focus on subjects other than sustainability. First, the realist, logical-
empiricist perspective prevailing in environmental sciences (Cohen and
Murphy 2001) might have been considered conflicting with the interest that
the interpretive research has in meaning. Second, consumption might have
been considered a positive social and cultural force and curbing it has not
therefore been considered desirable (see e.g., Borgmann 2000). In the overall
historical trajectory, consumption has, after all, been centrally tied to ideas
about a better quality of life that could be pursued with means of broader
consumption possibilities (Arnould 2007, Hilton 2007, Trentmann 2007).
In social marketing, in the search for a more collective approach to
sustainable development and consumption challenges, alternatives to the
prevailing approaches’ individualist views of the consumer subject have also
been searched from the field of citizenship studies. As a result, the notion of
citizenship has emerged as another alternative for re-conceptualising
consumers in social marketing more collective terms. This interest coincides
with a broader turn to the theory of citizenship in the field of consumption
studies (Trentmann 2007). This body of literature is addressed next.
2.3 Turn to citizenship
Over the past decade, the notion of citizenship has re-emerged as a subject of
interest across a number of academic disciplines (e.g., Micheletti 2003, Gabriel
and Lang 2006, Schrader 2007, Soper and Trentmann 2008). In general
terms, citizenship is understood as a public status that ensures its holder to

have civil, political and social rights, along with responsibilities towards the
community (Isin and Turner, 2002, see also Prothero et al. 2010). Much of the
recent attraction to the notion has emerged in connection to contemporary
society’s ‘globalised’ and ‘postmodern’ conditions, which have influenced the
conceptualisation of the political subject under these circumstances (Isin and
Turner 2002, 1). 12
The potential of the notion of citizenship has also gained the attention of
social marketers. In the search for alternative, less individualistic approaches
to consumption and sustainability challenges, social marketers have called for
consumers to be seen in more citizenly terms (Moisander [2001] 2008, 2007,
Schrader 2007, Uusitalo 2005a, b, Markkula 2009, Raftopoulou 2009, Rokka
and Moisander 2009, see also Stevenson 2002). Unlike consumers, citizens
have generally been considered more collective-oriented actors and, as such,
active members of their community who consider the common good of the
whole (Gabriel and Lang 2006, 174, Uusitalo 2005a, Schudson 2007, Fournier
2008, Prothero et al. 2010). Therefore, the notion has been seen as having
specific potential to remedy the shortcomings identified with the prevalent,
individualistic approaches to sustainable consumption in social marketing.
For example, Uusitalo (2005a, 128) has suggested that the social and political
dimensions of consumption, such as consumption’s environmental and
cultural consequences and the development towards “globalised network
society” are centrally related to consumers’ influence as citizens. In this kind of
knowledge society, which is characterised by new information technologies that
assist in networking, consumers should not be seen as mere users of products
and services but as citizens who actively participate in collectively-oriented
behaviours, creating common good and innovating new products and their
uses (Uusitalo 2005b, 62).
Turning to social theory to extend the conceptualisation of consumers,
Uusitalo (2005a, 2005b) has further suggested that the perspectives of
postmodernism, communitarianism and public discourse could help overcome
the shortcomings of consumers’ prevalent, individualistic conceptualisations in
social marketing and to assist in treating the complex, macro-level impacts of
12 Globalisation and postmodernism are both contested notions (also Isin and Turner
2002, 1). In broad terms, globalisation refers to diverse processes related to
internationalisation (see Sub-section 2.4.2 for a more detailed discussion).
Postmodernism, in general terms, refers to different processes of fragmentation and
diversification in society (see Section 3.1 for a more detailed discussion).
35

consumption. 13 To start with, the postmodern approach could provide policy
practitioners with useful information about the cultural and social aspects of
consumption (ibid. 2005a, 132-133, 147). Such an approach could be used
when trying to appeal to people to change their behaviours. The
communitarian approach, instead, could be useful to “[reconstruct] the social
sphere by re-inventing ideas of collective consciousness, citizenship, and social
norms” (ibid., p. 134). The public discourse approach, in turn, might be used to
improve democratic public discourse in society. In particular, this approach
could be useful to establish “collectively rational goals” since it requires that
these goals are “defined in an open rational discourse in which social
preferences and demands will have to be justified”. (ibid., p. 140).
36
In addition to consumers’ responsibilities, attention has been placed on
consumers’ rights. For example Schrader (2007, 83) argues that rights would
provide the preconditions of consumers’ citizenly responsibilities. Rights and
responsibilities are interconnected; if provided with enabling rights, informed
consumers would be morally responsible to act for the common good. As
Schrader (ibid., p. 90) puts this: “The moral responsibility of consumers as
citizens consists of fulfilling consumer duties – which correspond to the
established set of consumer rights”.
In approaching the concept of citizenship, social marketers have further
opened up quite diverse perspectives of this notion and its usefulness for the
conceptualisation of consumers. For instance, some researchers have noted
that the citizen, rather than the consumer, is the target of social marketing
(e.g., Raftopoulou 2009, 165). Others have suggested that rethinking
consumers in more citizenly terms could imply “exploring, building and
introducing new subject positions for citizens as consumers” (Moisander
([2001] 2008, 264; emphasis mine). In the broader field of social sciences,
some have also suggested that replacing the ‘consumer’ by the ‘citizen’ would
contribute to erasing the negative social and environmental consequences of
the individualist consumerist ideology, which is frequently associated with
contemporary society (see also Schor 2008, 594), and foment a re-discovered
ethos of community (e.g., Fournier 2008). From this perspective, the call for
developing new subject positions for citizens as consumers could hence give an
impression that citizens would need to engage even more profoundly with the
13 As previously noted, postmodernism is a contested notion (see Sections 3.1 for a
more detailed discussion). See also Section 3.2 for a discussion on different approaches
to consumption.

exercise of consumerist, environmentally problematic lifestyles (Uusitalo
2005b, 81, Gabriel and Lang 2006, 182).
Whereas some consider the terms ‘consumption’, ‘consumer’ and
‘consumerism’ purely ideologically laden concepts despite their multiple
potential interpretations (see e.g., Kozinets 2002, Gabriel and Lang 2006,
Schor 2008), in recent years studies of citizenship and consumerism have
moved into closer discussion in several academic fields and many scholars have
increasingly viewed these notions as porous and overlapping, rather than
opposite or mutually excluding (Trentmann 2007). This has also been
evidenced in the recurrent use of notions such as ‘consumer-citizen’ and
‘consumer-citizenship’, not only in policy discourses but also in academic work
(Micheletti 2003, Arnould 2007, Soper 2007, Caruana and Crane 2008, Autio
et al. 2008, Johnston 2008, Prothero et al. 2010). This social actor category is
generally taken to mean that “consumers think publicly when they make
consumer choices” (Micheletti 2003, 167).
However, the coupling of the citizen and consumer positions seems to be a
more controversial issue than the literature and public discourses emphasising
consumers’ citizenly responsibilities may at first portray (also Thompson and
Coskuner-Balli 2007). A substantial discussion indeed remains across social
sciences regarding the extent to which a consumer’s position can be considered
a citizen’s position (e.g., Gabriel and Lang 2006, Arnould 2007, Soper 2007,
Trentmann 2007, Soper and Trentmann 2008, Johnston 2008, Prothero et al.
2010).
For example, Gabriel and Lang (2006, 182) have contended that emphasising
the consumer’s duty to practice responsible marketplace choice risks
individualising the idea of citizenship: “as if becoming a citizen was a matter of
individual choice alone”. They have further maintained that this stress has
narrowed the notion of citizenship down to a notion of lifestyle and ascribed
consumption with an increasingly important role as a means for political
participation (see also Dolan 2002, 117, Barnett et al. 2005, Micheletti 2003,
Jubas 2007, 251).
In addition, as for example Prothero et al. (2010, 154) drawing on Schudson
(2007) have remarked, even the acts considered those of citizenship may not
necessarily be conducted for the common good. Active participation in public
life, for example, can also be taken up based on purely selfish reasons. As
Prothero et al. (ibid.) have put this: “Those who suggest we should become
better citizens are perhaps, therefore, missing the point in so far as becoming a
better citizen for one person could be about an improved individual life and not
37

a better society for all”. Therefore, rather than replacing the ‘bad’ consumer
with the ‘good’ citizen it would seem to be important to critically investigate the
notion of citizenship and its use in consumption-related discussions.
38
In a related manner, Micheletti (2003, 159) has pointed out that there are a
number a controversies in politicising consumption as an expression of
citizenly participation: “[it] raises a number issues with regard the use of the
market as arena for politics and how this arena enables or constrains forms of
citizen involvement and community building” (see also Thompson and
Coskuner-Balli 2007, 148). Micheletti (ibid., p. 2) has further suggested that
connecting our daily choices with global issues implies not merely a different
idea of citizen engagement in politics but also politicises the choices that have
been up until now considered private. This erodes the division between the
economic and political spheres as the market is considered an arena for politics
(ibid.).
What further complicates the discussion is that the idea of responsible and
active citizen-consumers may not be easy to locate in the continuum of left-
and right-wing politics (Micheletti 2003, Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007).
For some, addressing consumers as responsible citizens is a left-wing
statement seeking to “prohibit free trade and justify increased government
regulation of business” (Micheletti 2003, 3). Yet, it is equally possible to see
this practice as representing “a normative appeal for neoliberalism, economic
globalization, and market capitalism and a call for the rolling back of the state”
(ibid.). In addition, politically charged consumption can be understood as a
political tool, which may have a role in addressing and filling the gaps between
free market and regulatory policies (also Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007,
148).
According to Micheletti (2003, 162-163) the idea of citizen-consumers or
political consumers can, however, be criticized for its accountability,
orientation, and effectiveness. Firstly, no accountability mechanisms exist for
this practice that would ensure that it could be a democratic new form of
regulation. For example, it is difficult to assess the transparency of market-
based political consumer institutions. Secondly, these kinds of concepts tend to
draw on Western standards, which in some cases may be even harmful for
other cultures (ibid.). For instance, can child labour be a better alternative in
some situations than poverty or prostitution? Further, may consumer choices
in the short run even eradicate the conditions of workers in developing
countries if consumers start to boycott some products? This raises a further
question of the effectiveness of forms of political consumerism in regulating

industries. Namely, to what extent and how consumer choice can be an
effective way for managing global environmental and social challenges (also
Jubas 2007, 251)?
Despite these controversies, recent years have seen an increasing focus on
consumer-citizens personal responsibility in globalized politics. As a result,
many researchers have suggested that this focus itself calls for further research
attention for understanding better how political participation may occur and
whether the traditional ideas of politics as centred in the political system of the
nation-state has become outdated. (Micheletti 2003, Shah et al. 2007, Caruana
and Crane 2008, Prothero et al. 2010). Importantly, these different
perspectives on citizenship and consumer-citizens raise the question of the
utility of the concept of citizenship for rethinking consumers as targets of
sustainability-related social marketing in more collective terms.
At the same time, the concept of citizenship has attracted attention in
environmental politics. In the search for solutions to sustainability challenges
in this field, efforts have been made to develop a notion of ecological
citizenship. Although the field comprises the most extensive body of literature
on sustainability challenges and citizenship, only a few consumer researchers
and social marketers have so far engaged with this resource (Markkula 2009,
Rokka and Moisander 2009), which is addressed below.
2.4 Ecological citizenship
Concomitant with the interest in the notion of citizenship in sustainability-
related social marketing and social sciences, endeavours have been made in the
field of environmental politics to develop a concept of ecological citizenship.
Terms such as ‘ecological’, ‘environmental’, ‘sustainable’, ‘green’,
‘environmentally reasonable’ and ‘sustainability’ citizenship, as well as
‘ecological stewardship’, have been used to denote this new type of citizenship
(Gabrielson 2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008). 14 This concept seeks to
14 Green literature often distinguishes between the terms ‘ecologism’ and
‘environmentalism’. For example Dobson (2007, 2-3) has defined these terms as
follows: “Environmentalism argues for a managerial approach to environmental
problems, secure in the belief that they can be solved without fundamental changes in
present values or patterns of production and consumption … [E]cologism holds that a
sustainable and fulfilling existence presupposes radical changes in our relationship
with the non-human natural world, and in our mode of social and political life”.
Neither this distinction, nor a distinction that associates ‘environmentalism’ with
anthropocentrism and ‘ecologism’ with ecocentrism, is reflected in the use of the
39

accommodate the theories of citizenship and green political thought. In
general, the notion refers to citizenly type responsibilities “to promote
environmental justice around the world” (Bell 2005, 185), which “entails
reducing one’s unsustainable impacts upon the environment and other people”
(Seyfang 2005, 297).
40
The idea of ecological citizenship first emerged in policy frameworks in the
1990s (e.g., Szerszynski 2006), which makes it a rather recent addition both to
the academic and political vocabulary (Gabrielson 2008). The interest in the
concept has been fuelled, in particular, due to the transnational and global
nature of environmental challenges. More specifically, it has been argued that
these conditions challenge both the legitimacy and capacity of nation-states to
respond adequately to sustainability challenges (e.g., Christoff 1996, van
Steenbergen 1996, Dean 2001, Jelin 2002, Dobson 2003, Hailwood 2005, Sáiz
2005). For example, nations and their citizens have only limited potential to
influence frontier-crossing environmental issues such as climate change.
Particular attention in this literature has been placed on the private realm
(e.g., Dobson 2003, Bell 2005, Barry 2006). For example, Dobson (2003, 55),
citing Kymlicka and Norman (1994), has maintained that the distinction
between the private and public is outlived in the context of sustainability
challenges: “Consider the many ways that public policy relies on responsible
lifestyle choices. The state cannot protect the environment if citizens are
unwilling to reduce, reuse, and recycle in their own homes”. Therefore, the
traditional separation between the public and private spheres has been
considered inadequate in terms of its capacity to account for the production of
material, everyday practices of citizens outside the traditionally political, public
sphere. In the words of Dobson (2003, 138), ecological citizenship would
indeed be “all about everyday living” (original emphasis).
Furthermore, researchers have approached ecological citizenship as a
promising tool for promoting social change. The concept has often been
described as pointing to the need for individuals to re-think their everyday
practices, “informed by the knowledge that what is good for me as an
individual is not necessarily good for me as a member of a social collectivity”
(Dobson and Bell 2006, 5). As Bell (2005, 167) has remarked, the notion has
raised considerable interest for its potential to provide an alternative to or
complement the regulatory and economic policy strategies that are commonly
corresponding terms in the ecological citizenship literature (also Gabrielson 2008,
Melo-Escrihuela 2008). As previously noted, the present study uses the term
‘ecological citizenship’ as a general term without making reference to any particular
author.

applied to tackle ecological problems and advance environmentally sound
practices (see also Dobson 2007, 134).
In addition, the discussions on ecological citizenship have approached
consumerism as offering a potential yet important forum for ecological
citizenship practices (Barry 2006). As ecological citizens, consumers could
exercise their power of marketplace choice in order to reduce their ecological
footprints and, in so doing, practise transnational citizenship in their everyday
lives (Dobson 2003, Barry 2006, Smith and Pangsapa 2008). In this way,
consumers could act as ecological citizens in the marketplace: by exercising
choice for better products, they could support more sustainable business
practices and help transform the market into a ‘greener’ one (Wissenburg
1998).
In developing the notion of ecological citizenship, researchers have drawn
mainly on the liberal and civic republican frameworks of citizenship. The next
two sub-sections discuss this work respectively.
2.4.1 Liberal ecological citizenship
The liberal citizenship framework has inspired two main lines of inquiry. This
body of literature has sought to develop a notion of ecological citizenship by
problematising the value neutrality of the liberal citizenship model and seeking
to apply the notion of rights to advance ecological citizenship practices (e.g.,
Eckersley 1996, Christoff 1996, van Steenbergen 1996, Stephens 2001a, b,
Wissenburg 1998, Bell 2002, 2004, 2005, Hailwood 2005).
Through critiques of liberalism, scholars working in this tradition have
questioned the value neutrality of the liberal citizenship model for how the
model excludes ecological concerns (e.g., Eckersley 1995, van Steenbergen
1996, Christoff 1996, Stephens 2001a, Wissenburg 1998, Bell 2002, Hailwood
2005). For instance, Eckersley (1996, 214-215) has maintained that this model
systematically under-presents ecological concerns because it only emphasises
present citizens, thereby excluding and externalising ecological issues both in
spatial and temporal terms. Such short-term focus limits the effective political
agency of present citizens. For example, citizens do not have the opportunity to
express their concerns for future generations, citizens of other nations or non-
human species (see also Christoff 1996, Bell 2005).
Moreover, Bell (2005, 183-184) has contended that the conceptualisation of
the environment in the contemporary liberal theory as a mere property is
41

problematic. More specifically, this does not take into account the essential role
that the physical environment plays in supplying basic human needs and
making human life and survival possible in the first place. Citizenship should
therefore be re-conceptualised in a manner that recognises citizens as “citizens
of an environment” (ibid., p. 184). In addition, others have suggested that the
environment’s conceptualisation as mere property is inconsistent with the
liberal ideal of reasonable pluralism. As Hailwood (2005) has explained, it is
reasonable in a democratic society to expect a range of views and respect their
plurality. For example, from this perspective, it would be reasonable to allow
the existence of an “otherness view” of nature. This would imply non-
instrumentalism towards nature and valuing nature for its own sake. (ibid., p.
206).
42
In addition, researchers working in this tradition have focused on how the
notion of rights could be extended to advance more sustainable societies and
ecological citizenship practices. More specifically, the current civil, political
and social rights of citizenship could be extended to include environmental
rights (e.g., Christoff 1996, Eckersley 1996, van Steenbergen 1996, Bell 2005,
Hailwood 2005). Environmental rights could offer a framework of decision
making in favour of the environment, for example, by enabling citizens to claim
rights to the environment (Eckersley 1996, 216). This could be justified by the
historical trajectory of citizenship rights. Citizenship rights have developed
have developed from civil and political, economic and social rights to
development rights and the development rights also include a human right to a
sustainable environment (Eckersley 1996, 218-219, van Steenbergen 1996,
144). 15
In particular, environmental rights could assist the ecological citizenship
practices by offering citizens an active opportunity to influence environmental
decision making. In addition to being able to claim rights to the environment,
environmental rights could enable concerned citizens to defend the rights of
others, such as people living in other countries and those who cannot represent
themselves, such as unborn generations and the non-human world (also
15 The discussions addressing the human rights to a sustainable environment have
emphasised the rights of people currently living in degraded environments. These
discussions have addressed issues such as the right to clean air and clean water, mainly
in developing countries (Bell 2005, 186). Whereas the emphasis in developing a notion
of ecological citizenship has predominantly been on reducing the environmental
impact of people in the developed world (Latta 2007), the environmental justice
movement has generally placed more emphasis on people who are already suffering
environmental injustices (see e.g., Bullard and Johnson 2000, Schlosberg 2004,
Agyeman and Evans 2006).

Eckersley 1996). Moreover, environmental rights could facilitate the ecological
citizenship practices by empowering citizens to participate in policy and
decision making with issues that have environmental importance (Christoff
1996, 167, Bell 2005, 187) .
Moreover, rights could help ecological citizens advance their own views of
environmental issues (e.g., Bell 2005). In addition to voting for the
environment in elections, rights could enable citizens to help solve
environmental challenges by better enabling citizens to persuade others in
different public arenas about the value of the environment (ibid., 185). These
practices could be carried out, for example, in public state-sponsored
discussion spaces (see also Christoff 1996, 159). Rights could also be put into
practice by adopting ecologically sound ways of living. In addition, liberal
ecological citizens could exercise their environmental rights by choosing green
products, thereby contributing to the ‘greening’ of the market (e.g., Wissenburg
1998, 2001).
Despite these insights, researchers working in this tradition have also pointed
out several shortcomings in the rights-based conceptualisations of ecological
citizenship. In particular, because liberalism generally embraces the primacy of
the individual, it should be left up to the citizens to decide the common good.
Problematically, liberal ecological citizens could also choose not to care for the
environment. For the respect for the individual’s primacy, in the liberal
ecological citizenship model even non-existing ecological citizenship practices
would need to be respected (Christoff 1996, Wissenburg 1998, 2001, Bell
2005). As Bell (2005, 185) has put it, “the contemporary liberal citizen c[ould]
choose to be an organic gardener, to ‘get back to nature’, to work to conserve
his local environment or even to campaign on global environmental issues”, or
choose not to do any of these.
2.4.2 Civic republican ecological citizenship
Work inspired by the civic republican framework has emphasised the
responsibility of ecological citizens to contribute to the common good (e.g.,
Barry 1996, 2006, Smith 1998, Curry 2000, Dean 2001, Curtin 2002, Dobson
2003, Smith and Pangsapa 2008). Research that has stemmed from this
tradition has underscored how citizenship is an active process that involves
learning, not a received status (e.g., Barry 2006). Accordingly, this body of
work has placed more attention on citizens’ active and responsible
43

participation in the solution of environmental problems as members of their
communities and the virtues that enhance the citizenly behaviour of
individuals.
44
Among this body of research is the landmark work of Dobson (2003), with
which a number of ecological citizenship scholars have since engaged. In his
account, Dobson (ibid.) has advanced an understanding of ecological
citizenship as a non-territorial, material, asymmetrical and non-contractual
notion (see also Dobson 2005, 216, 225). To start with, the non-territorial
nature of ecological citizenship results from the border-crossing nature of
environmental problems. Whereas the idea of a border-crossing, ‘global’ and
‘international’ citizenship has been previously articulated drawing on
cosmopolitanism, Dobson further contends that the cosmopolitan accounts of
citizenship do not consider the material sides of the cosmopolitan community
and hence ignore the material dimension of environmental challenges (ibid.,
e.g., p. 29). Drawing on Wackernagel and Rees’s (1996) notion of the
ecological footprint, Dobson (ibid., p. 99) has argued that ecological
citizenship, instead, represents a ‘thick’ material account of citizenship and
that it should therefore be understood as a form of postcosmopolitan
citizenship. As Dobson (ibid., p. 30) has put it: ecological citizenship represents
“a thickly material account of the ties that bind, created not by mental activity,
but by the material production and reproduction of daily life in an unequal and
asymmetrically globalising world”. 16
In Dobson’s (2003) conceptualisation, the size of an individual’s ecological
footprint is understood as the source of the obligation that ecological citizens
have towards each other. A citizen’s obligations, therefore, are not based on
contracts. In addition, given the differences in the size of the ecological
footprints these obligations have asymmetrical characteristics: more demands
are placed on citizens who live affluent lifestyles. These citizens would need to
reduce their oversized and unsustainable ecological footprints in order to allow
other citizens, mainly those in the developing world, to meet their basic needs
and have more sustainable livelihoods (ibid., 46).
In general, the work inspired by civic republicanism has emphasised how
citizenship must be understood as a responsibility-bearing practice that is
taken up towards the community (Barry 1996, 2006, Curtin 2002, Dobson
2003). This also implies an understanding of citizenship as an active,
participative process in which essential citizenly virtues can be learned,
16 For an extended discussion on globalisation and cosmopolitanism, see Dobson
(2003, 9-32).

developed and practised (Dobson 2003, 2007). Virtues have been considered
essential for citizenly behaviour that respects others and contributes to the
well-being of the community as a whole (e.g., Smith and Pangsapa 2008, 50).
More specifically, virtuous citizens are seen as acknowledging the public
consequences of their private actions and practising self-restraint in order not
to harm the common good. This point has been summarised, for example, by
Curtin (2002, 296) as follows: “citizenship shapes our public selves, and it
balances our private impulses”. Therefore, for instance moderation has been
considered a centrally important citizen virtue (Curry 2000, Curtin 2002,
Dobson 2003, Barry 2006).
In addition, for example Dobson (2003, e.g., p. 55) has proposed that
‘feminine’ virtues such as care and compassion could qualify as citizenly
virtues. These virtues, which are typically practised in the private sphere and
often by women (hence ‘feminine’) could be included in the set of citizenly type
of virtues insofar as they contribute to the common good. In Dobson’s (ibid.,
66-67) view, the relevant issue to consider when defining citizenly virtues
would be to consider the source of a citizen’s environmental obligation and the
type of virtues that can contribute to meeting the obligation. Accordingly, if
care and compassion can contribute to reducing ecological footprints, that
makes them citizenly virtues.
As with liberal ecological citizenship, civic republican ecological citizenship
has been seen as occurring in both the public and private spheres. The
practices of ecological citizenship could be assumed, for example, by managing
household waste and litter, choosing less resource-consumptive means of
transportation, conserving household energy, reducing consumption, buying
fair trade products, joining environmental groups, participating in non-violent
environmental protests, promoting environmental causes in workplaces and
participating in various activities that aim, for example, to conserve local
biodiversity (Barry 2006, 23, Smith and Pangsapa 2008, 75, see also Barry
1996).
Despite the insights offered by the civic republican citizenship model in terms
of elaborating upon a more communitarian and participative account of
ecological citizenship, also this body of work has been identified with
limitations. In particular, scholar working within this tradition have noted how
the civic republican ecological citizens’ responsibilities might become rather
overwhelming without societal structures and institutions that would support
engaging in the ecological citizenship practices (e.g., Barry 1996, 126, Dobson
and Sáiz 2005, Sáiz 2005, Barry 2006).
45

2.4.3 Questioning rights- and responsibility-focused approaches
In both rights- and responsibility-focused approaches to ecological citizenship,
similar kinds of potential shortcomings have been identified for the emphasis
both these models tend to place on the individual citizen. As Bell (2005, 189)
has summarised this, when commenting on the liberal conceptualisations that
emphasise ecological citizens’ rights with their accompanying responsibilities,
“the duty to promote just arrangements could be utterly all consuming leaving
no space [for ecological citizens]… to do other things or have ‘more rounded’
lives”.
46
Much of the current work on ecological citizenship is based on theoretical
accounts, while empirical investigations remain scarce (Wolf et al. 2009).
Further, in discussing the conditions necessary to support the ecological
citizenship practices, most attention has been placed on the continuum
between citizens and state (Eckersley 1996, van Steenbergen 1996, Bell 2005,
Dobson and Sáiz 2005, Hailwood 2005, Sáiz 2005, Barry 2006). Whereas the
sphere of consumption has been increasingly included among the sites of
ecological citizenship practices via the emphasis placed on everyday living in
the private realm (Barry 2006, see also Dobson 2003), relatively little attention
has been paid on the market-mediated environment as the context where
consumption related ecological citizenship practices were to be carried out.
Furthermore, the empirical accounts have tended to favour investigating the
ecological citizenship practices among environmentally-oriented individuals
such as people living in eco-communes (e.g., Bullen and Whitehead 2005,
Szerszynski 2006) rather than seeking to understand what ecological
citizenship at its “most mundane” among ‘ordinary’ citizens could entail
(Seyfang 2005, 290). Moreover, in order to advance ecological citizenship
among the broader public, primary attention has been placed on the potential
of the formal school system to educate future ecological citizens (Carlsson and
Jensen 2006, see also Dobson 2003). Noteworthy, this has led to the exclusion
of a number of present citizens from the ecological citizenship investigations
(also MacGregor 2006).
The ecological citizenship theorists acknowledge that the notion is still
“under construction” (Sáiz 2005, 165). For many authors, however, the
discussions on ecological citizenship have remained particularly narrow in
terms of the appropriation of the notion of citizenship itself. This might have
unnecessarily narrowed down the potential of the notion of ecological

citizenship in advancing more sustainable societies (MacGregor 2006, Latta
2007, Gabrielson 2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008).
In particular, the theorisations of ecological citizenship have treated rather
narrowly the questions of the quality of life, justice, democracy and political
agency, essential for developing a rounded idea of citizenship (MacGregor
2006, Latta 2007, Gabrielson 2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008). For example
Gabrielson (2008, 441) has maintained that, by primarily emphasising
responsibilities, the ecological citizenship literature has unnecessarily confined
itself to establishing ecological citizenship in terms of “guilt, responsibility and
burden”. As a result, relatively little attention has been placed on the notion of
the quality of life and its potential importance in bringing about and advancing
more sustainable lifestyles. MacGregor (2006) has identified related
shortcomings, criticising the narrow treatment of the concept of justice in the
ecological citizenship accounts. A lot of attention has been placed on how
ecological citizens could engage both in educating others and carrying out
personal lifestyle changes. Less consideration has, however, been accorded to
how this work carried out by exemplary ecological citizens might fall unequally
and hence undemocratically to different citizen groups (also Seyfang 2005,
Gabrielson 2008).
Perhaps most crucially, the prevailing focus on the level of the individual has
tended to exclude more elaborate considerations regarding the contexts in
which individuals were to engage in the ecological citizenship practices as well
as the importance of contexts for enabling and/or restricting the ecological
citizenship practices. Consequently, the theorisations of political agency have
remained rather narrow or inexistent (MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007,
Gabrielson 2008, Melo-Escrihuela 2008). For instance, in the rights-based
accounts the “mere” right to practice ecological citizenship has sometimes been
equated with the individual’s effective agency to take up these practices
(MacGregor 2006, 119, Latta 2007, 384). Further, similar context-insensitivity
has been identified in many accounts emphasising the importance and effects
of information provisioning. In both the rights and responsibilities focused
theorisations the emphasis on individuals and their potential to act as
ecological citizens has often been founded on a rather simplistic idea that once
individuals are properly educated and informed, they are sufficiently equipped
to make behavioural adjustments (MacGregor 2006).
As a result of the context insensitivity, environmental problems have become
to be seen in terms of problems in individuals’ behaviour. In other words,
individuals themselves have been addressed as the primary causes of
47

environmental problems (MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007). From this
perspective, as MacGregor (2006, 115) has put it, “it is uneducated and
irresponsible individuals – rather than unsustainable and unjust social and
economic relationships – who are the root cause of the environmental crisis”
(original emphasis). This has been criticised for privatising the responsibility
for collective problems (see also Darier 1996, Luke 1999). Importantly, such
responsibilisation has been considered problematic for how it tends to
represent individuals as powerful actors in personal and social change despite
excluding the considerations of the contexts in which the ecological citizenship
practices would be assumed. In particular, this kind of emphasis risks
representing ecological citizenship in idealised terms despite the overwhelming
duties ascribed to this practice. Ultimately, this might result in an
unsustainable ecological citizenship since individuals may not be able to take
up or continue engaging in the ecological citizenship practices. (MacGregor
2006, 199).
48
In addition, the emphasis placed on the private sphere, particularly on
household practices, has been criticised for how this might add to women’s
unpaid work in family life (MacGregor 2006). The acknowledgement of the
private sphere as a forum for citizenly practices establishes the private realm
with political characteristics, which beneficially recognises that private
practices can have political dimensions (MacGregor 2006, see also Dobson
2003). Attention would, however, need to be placed on how assuming the
ecological citizenship practices in this realm might fall variably to different
citizen groups. If women perform the role of caretakers at home when taking
care of children and the elderly, as well as everyday household work, the
labour- and time-consuming green lifestyle changes might fall
disproportionally on women. Hence, the ecological citizenship practices would
risk not only falling disproportionately on certain citizen groups but also
excluding – or ‘liberating’ – a number of citizens from the ecological
citizenship practices (MacGregor 2006, 121). Evidently, the practices of private
life also extend beyond the walls of the household. However, this ‘apolitical
public sphere’, in which practices such as travelling, hobbies and shopping are
taken up, has also received relatively narrow attention in the ecological
citizenship literature.
Furthermore, the emphasis placed on the responsibilities of citizens of
industrialised countries has been criticised for how it tends to position the
inhabitants of developing nations as passive counterparts (Latta 2007, see also
Agyeman and Evans 2006, 201). For example Latta (ibid., p. 384),

acknowledging the usefulness of the notion of the ecological footprint in
highlighting environmental responsibilities, has maintained that this kind of
ecological citizenship risks excluding less privileged citizens groups from the
ecological citizenship practices. This could mean that today’s economically and
politically powerful actors would hold their privileged position as the main
actors of sustainable development. In a related manner, ecological citizenship,
in the form of shopping for ecological and ethical products, has been criticised
as a practice of wealthy citizens. This kind of ecological citizenship would
primarily be reserved for affluent citizens whereas less affluent citizens would
be marginalised to the position of semi-citizens (Seyfang 2005, 296).
In many ways, these criticisms align with the shortcomings identified with
the prevailing methodologically individualistic accounts of sustainable
consumption in social marketing and social sciences. In addition, these
criticisms seem to parallel with the various controversies identified with
combining the consumer and citizen positions. Importantly, these similar
shortcomings raise a question the potential of the consumer position as a site
for engaging in and practicing democratic and fully-fledged ecological
citizenship as well as a question regarding the potential of the consumer
position in managing global environmental and social challenges.
2.5 Theoretical framework for investigating consumerism
and ecological citizenship in the marketplace
This chapter has presented the theoretical framework for the study. Drawing
on the social marketing and social scientific research on sustainable
consumption and the ecological citizenship literature in environmental politics,
I have established a framework to enhance the understanding of consumption
and sustainability challenges. This was done with the overall aim of
contributing to efforts to develop an alternative, less individualistic approach
to consumers as targets of sustainability-related social marketing. The
particular aim was to outline the insights that the ecological citizenship
literature can offer for social marketers who are concerned about sustainability.
The following chapter focuses on the methodological framework, which I have
developed for the empirical investigation of consumers as ecological citizens in
the marketplace.
49

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodological choices that were made for this
study. The first section provides an overview of social constructionism as the
background philosophy for the study (Section 3.1). This is followed by a section
on cultural approaches to consumption, with a particular focus on a discursive
approach to marketplace phenomena (Section 3.2). Section 3.3 discusses the
interview method used to generate empirical material and Section 3.4
elaborates upon the discourse analytic approach applied to analyse the
material. This is followed by two sub-sections. Sub-section 3.4.1 focuses on
how the analysis was conducted in practice. Sub-section 3.4.2 addresses
commonly raised criticism against discourse analytic approaches and discusses
ways to evaluate discourse analytic work.
3.1 Social constructionism as a background philosophy
The study draws on a constructionist approach to representation (Burr 1995,
Schwandt 2000, Hall [1997] 2009a). The basic assumptions of social
constructionism have been summarised by Burr (1995, 5–8) as follows:
50
Anti-essentialism. Things, in themselves, do not have meanings; the
meanings are created in the interpretative work that people do.
Therefore, research attention should be placed on the interpretative
work that people do rather than on people themselves.
Anti-realism. Our knowledge of the world is not a transparent and
unproblematic description of ‘reality’. Instead, each person creates
their knowledge and understanding of the world based on their own
interpretations.
Knowledge is historically and culturally contingent and defined.
Thinking presupposes language.

Language is a form of social action. People construct ‘reality’ when they
talk to each other. Thus, language constructs social reality.
The focus of research is in social interaction and practices.
This study reflects these assumptions. Discursive practices, particularly
language use, are understood to organise and shape social reality. Language is
not seen as reflecting objects that are ‘out there’ or providing unproblematic
access to people’s ‘real’ intentions. This implies rejecting both the ‘intentional’
and ‘reflective’ approaches to representation and language (Hall [1997] 2009b,
25). Rather than ‘discovering’ or ‘finding’ things in the world, humans are
understood to construct knowledge creating likenesses rather than ‘true’
representations of the objects of knowledge (Hacking 1983, 132, see also
Schwandt 2000, Chalmers [1980] 1992).
This view of the language also problematises the place of the thinking and
acting subject in the production of knowledge, and questions the position of the
subject as a source of knowledge. This self-sustaining, self-knowledgeable and
self-mastering subject that has been referred to as the Cartesian or the
humanist subject (see e.g., Thompson 1993) has been characteristic of much of
the research conducted in the interpretative or culturally-oriented consumer
research traditions (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 188–189, 204). This view
of the subject has, however, been a target of comprehensive criticism from a
number of perspectives (Burr 1995, 32, 155, Hall 1996). 17 Therefore, the present
study has adopted an approach that reflects these criticisms by shifting
attention from the subject to the cultural practices of representation. Rather
than interviewing individuals with the aim to find out their ‘true’ inner worlds
or ‘true’ intentions, in order to explain or understand the social world, the
focus of inquiry is shifted towards practices of representation that enter into
the very constitution of the social and cultural world (Moisander and Valtonen
2006, 190, 204). This implies a poststructuralist view of subjectivity: the
subject and its subjectivity are constituted in contextual, shifting cultural
practices within representational systems rather than being reducible to a one
single ‘true self’ (ibid., 197-198, Reynolds and Whetherell 2003).
17 The humanist subject draws on the Enlightenment philosophy’s epistemological
commitments that posit humans as rational with a stable and coherent self, the ‘mind’
being separate from the ‘body’ (Thompson et al. 1989, 133-135, see also Thompson
1993). These assumptions of the subject have been subjected to criticism from various
perspectives that have drawn, for example, on postmodern, poststructuralist and
psychoanalytical approaches (Burr 1995, e.g., p. 155).
51

52
This position does not deny the existence of the material world. In ontological
terms, physical things do exist but they get their meanings in cultural practices
(Hall [1997] 2009b, 44, see also Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 195). This
ontological position to the constitution of social and cultural reality (Dreyfus
1991) implies an anti-foundational, anti-essentialist position to epistemology
(Schwandt 2000, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, Hall [1997] 2009a). The
terms ‘perspectivism’ (Schwandt 2000, 197) and ‘postmodernism’ (Moisander
and Valtonen 2006, 208–210) are also used to characterise this position. 18 For
example Schwandt (2000, 197) has defined perspectivism as an approach that
rejects “the naïve realist and empiricist epistemologies’ according to which
there would be a non-mediated, direct perception of the empirical world, and
that the mind would just mirror ‘what is out there’”.
Hence, rather than assuming that there would be one ‘true’ and essential
nature for objects of knowledge, the phenomena of the social and cultural
world are understood to be under constant construction and transformation
and, by implication, to some extent unfixed (Hall [1997] 2009b, 22, Moisander
and Valtonen 2006, 191). Since objects of knowledge could also have meanings
other than those currently attached to them, it is essential in the studies of the
phenomena of the social world to focus attention on the social and cultural
practices that shape and constitute the objects of knowledge. Therefore, social
constructionist approaches have been considered particularly suited for
providing alternative perspectives and new understanding of the phenomena of
the social world (Hacking 1999) and it is for this that they have been
increasingly applied both in contemporary consumer research (Moisander and
Valtonen, 2006) and policy-oriented research (Schneider and Ingram 2008).
3.2 Cultural approach to marketplace phenomena
There has been a growing interest in consumer research in the study of
marketplace phenomena from a cultural perspective (Arnould and Thompson
2005, Moisander and Valtonen 2006). Culturally-oriented consumer research
represents a relatively heterogeneous body of literature that has developed in
the fields of marketing and consumer inquiry over the past 25 years
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 188, Firat and Tadajewski 2009, 128-129, for
18 Here, the term ‘postmodernism’ refers to postmodern philosophy and its
epistemological commitments. In addition to philosophical discussions, the term is
commonly used to refer to an aesthetic movement and the economic, political and
institutional characters of society (see, e.g., McNay 1994, Alvesson 2003).

overviews see e.g., Slater 1997, Arnould and Thompson 2005). Although it has
become common to label the diverse qualitative, phenomenological and
constructionist approaches to consumption with umbrella terms such as
‘qualitative consumer research’ and ‘interpretative consumer research’, it
should be noted that these diverse approaches can draw on rather different
conceptualisations of consumers and consumption (Moisander and Valtonen,
2006, 4). Furthermore, culturally-oriented consumer research can include
quantitative approaches (Arnould and Thompson 2005, 870).
Culturally-oriented consumer research approaches share an emphasis on the
dynamic relationships between consumer actions, the marketplace and cultural
meanings (Arnould and Thompson 2005, 868). Arnould and Thompson (2005,
869) emphasise that this broad body of research generally eschews “viewing
culture as a fairly homogenous system of collectively shared meanings, ways of
life, and unifying values shared by a member of society (e.g., Americans share
this kind of culture; Japanese share that kind of culture)” and instead seeks to
illuminate the heterogeneousness of meanings and “the multiplicity of
overlapping cultural groupings”. In this body of research the term ‘culture’ has
therefore been defined in numerous additional ways. Besides referring to
consumer culture in market-mediated societies in more general terms
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 8-9), the concept has been used in reference
to, for example, national cultures (e.g., Belk et al. 2003), consumer sub-
cultures and communities (e.g., Kozinets 2002).
This study adopts a relatively broad definition of culture. In the present
study, culture refers to “the systems of representation through which people
make sense of their everyday life” (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 8), which in
contemporary Western society are understood as taking place largely through
market-mediated forms (Slater 1997, 8, Arnould 2007, 100) and which have
emerged in relation to the broader sociohistoric frame of the market society’s
development (Arnould and Thompson 2005, 869, see also the start of Chapter
2).
One of the central research areas of culturally-oriented consumer research
has been the constitution of marketplace practices. In their review of
culturally-oriented consumer and consumption studies, Arnould and
Thompson (2005) have denoted this line of inquiry as the research programme
of “mass-mediated marketplace ideologies and consumers’ interpretive
strategies”. This body of research has sought to advance understanding of
consumer culture by investigating the socio-cultural processes and structures
related to dominant marketplace discourses, the shaping of the consumer as a
53

social category, and consumers’ appropriation of marketplace discourses (e.g.,
Murray and Ozanne 1991, Thompson and Haytko 1997, Murray 2002, Kozinets
and Handelman 200o, Thompson 2004).
54
Closely related to this, a central concern for culturally-oriented consumer
researchers has been the question of consumer power in the marketplace
(Schor and Holt 2000, Holt 2002, Thompson 2004, Denegri-Knott et al.
2006). The specific question regards the extent and ways in which consumers
can be seen as free to engage in different practices in the marketplace and to
take part in shaping society in market-mediated cultures.
Traditionally, the theory of consumer research has operated between two
extremes of when seeking to explain agency in the field of consumption (e.g.,
Uusitalo 1998, 227, Murray 2002, 428). This division has also guided work
conducted in the cultural tradition. The theorisations that have drawn their
inspiration from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School (e.g., Adorno and
Horkheimer [1944] 2002, Marcuse [1964] 1991), have understood consumers
as being dominated and oppressed by the cultural ideology of the market and
societal structures (e.g., Ozanne and Murray 1995, Murray and Ozanne 1991,
Murray and Ozanne 2006). At the other end of the cultural theorising
spectrum, inspired by the work of de Certeau (1984) and postmodern
approaches to consumption, researchers have emphasised consumers’ active
agency and liberty from structural constraints and institutional forces (e.g.,
Fırat and Venkatesh 1995, Firat et al. 1995).
An increasing number of researchers, however, tend to agree that these
extreme ends of “structural pessimism” and “heady romanticism” (Du Gay
1996, 7) provide an unnecessarily dichotomous and hence problematic view of
human agency (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 196). In particular, when
approaching questions of agency along this bipolar continuum, consumers tend
to become ultimately understood as either dominated or free. As a result,
consumers are represented as either capable of behaving differently or unable
to change their behaviour. For instance, in sustainable consumption related
research consumers have been largely represented as free and autonomous
subjects and hence capable of behaving differently (e.g., Moisander [2001]
2008, see Section 2.1). 19 Hence, the bipolar view tends to result in overtly
simplifying stances.
19 The view of free agency often implied in the consumers’ representation as powerful
market forces in the sustainable consumption research has been grounded on the
premises of micro-economics and cognitive psychology rather than on postmodernism
though these approaches seem to share an interestingly similar, “romantic” view of
agency.

The discursive approach to marketplace phenomena has emerged as one of
the alternatives for transcending the structure-agency dichotomy. This
approach seeks to surpass the structure-agency argument by shifting attention
to cultural practices (Denegri-Knott et al. 2006, Moisander and Valtonen
2006, 7). 20 Inspiring much of the research conducted in this tradition has been
the work of Michel Foucault (1926–1984) on discursive practices (Denegri-
Knott et al. 2006). Attention is hence shifted from the bipolar continuum to the
field of cultural practices.
A central concept from this perspective is the notion ‘discourse’. Discourses,
as linguistic and material systems of representation, are understood to
influence how a topic or a phenomenon can be talked about and how people
can conduct themselves in relation to that topic (Foucault 1972 [1969], 47). As
defined by Hall ([1997] 2009a, 6]),
“Discourses are ways of referring to or constructing knowledge about a particular
topic or practice: a cluster (or formation) of ideas, images and practices, which
provide ways of talking about, forms of knowledge, conduct associated with, a
particular topic, social activity or institutional site in society.”
Discourses construct social existence to objects of knowledge and, in so doing,
have influence on how people can conduct themselves in relation to a
particular topic or phenomenon (Hall [1997] 2009b, 44). As Foucault (2008
[1979], 18) has explained, a discourse: “On the one hand, constitutes these
practices as a set of bound together by intelligible connection and, on the other
hand, legislates and can legislate these practices in terms of true and false”. For
instance, from this perspective, the discourse of sustainable consumption as
“rational household management” implying meticulous personal control of
personal consumption practices (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008) represents a
particular mode of being with its associated practices as ‘true’. It suggests that
this mode of being is appropriate and that assuming this mode of being bears
particular consequences: it brings about sustainable development. Discourses
hence construct ideal subject positions or subjectivities, which can be
understood as “identities made relevant by specific ways of talking” or as
20 The terms ‘discursive’ (Denegri-Knot et al. 2006) and ‘cultural’ (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, e.g., pp. 8, 196) are both employed for this approach.
55

‘locations’ in which human actors are placed in discursive practices (Edley
2001, 220, see also Alasuutari 2004, 122-123, Hall 1996, 2-6). 21
56
The discursive representation of subjectivities, along with their appropriate
practices, is understood to significantly shape and structure “the possible field
of action” available for individuals as certain kinds of subjects (Foucault 1982,
221). Implied in this understanding of discourse is a specific understanding of
power. Rather than defining power as something that is repressive or practised
in a top-down manner, Foucault conceptualised power as something that is
productive and continuously present in the social reality (Foucault [1977] 1980,
119, see also Ansell-Pearson 1994). Power traverses the entire social world.
Power is also understood as centrally connected to knowledge: it is inherently
involved in the production of knowledge in discursive practices. Power and
knowledge therefore mutually constitute each other; hence the notion of
‘power/knowledge’ (Foucault 1980).
Consequently, discursive/representational practices, in both linguistic and
material forms, are considered having a political dimension because these
practices shape and limit individuals’ ability to act in relation to a particular
subject (Foucault 1982, 212, Denegri-Knott et al. 2006, 964, see also Hall
1996). In developing his discourse theoretic work forward, Foucault indeed
argued that discursive practices can be understood as practices or techniques
of government; as practices that “guid[e] the possibility of conduct” (Foucault
1982, 221, see also Rose 1990, Dean [1999] 2008). 22 The concept of
‘government’ has been defined by Dean ([1999] 2008, 11) as follows:
“Government is any more or less calculated and rational activity, undertaken by
multiplicity of authorities and agencies, employing a variety of techniques and forms
of knowledge, that seeks to shape conduct by working through our desires,
aspirations, interests and beliefs, for definite but shifting ends and with a diverse set
of relatively unpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes.”
In this sense, government differs from state administration (Foucault 1982,
221) and takes a broader, historical meaning referring to “the conduct of
conduct” (Foucault [1978] 2009, 193): a set of activities that do not seek to force
21 The terms ‘subjectivity’, ‘subject position’ and ‘identity’ are used interchangeably
here (cf., e.g., Hall 2004, 3).
22 The term ‘government’ is closely connected to the term ‘governmentality’ that
Foucault used in his work to characterise a particular mentality and political rationality
guiding the organisation of society and the guidance of individuals within it (e.g.,
Foucault [1978] 2009, 109-110, 1991).

people into certain practices but guide them in more subtle ways (Rose 1999,
2000). This concurs with the idea of discursive practices as practices that
shape individuals’ possible field of action as certain kinds of subjects (Foucault
1982, 221). This requires, essentially, that individuals are understood as
subjects with particular possibilities (Rose 2000). For example, individuals can
be encouraged to exercise choice in diverse areas of life by emphasising that
they are ‘free’ to choose and can hence act as powerful actors in both personal
and social change (Foucault 1982, 221, Rose 1990). Further, individuals can be
encouraged to govern themselves as moral and ethical subjects – to practice
ethopolitics – by emphasising the importance of this kind of moral
collaboration for the collective good (Rose 1999, 2000).
Analyses drawing on the conceptual framework of government, the analytics
of government, often consist of four dimensions. These partly overlapping
dimensions focus on visibilities, knowledge, techniques and practices, and
identities that are produced in linguistic and material forms in relation to a
particular object of knowledge (Dean [1999] 2008, 23, 30-33, Miller and Rose
1990, 5-6). This type of analytics has been used, for instance, as a lens to
enhance understanding of how marketplace phenomena are shaped in
discursive practices and how commercial marketing shapes the possible field of
action available for consumers and customers in the marketplace (e.g.,
Hodgson 2002, Atkin 2004, Du Gay 2004a, b, Binkley 2006, Skålén et al.
2007, Zwick et al. 2008, Moisander et al. 2010).
To start with, the dimension of visibilities refers to the diverse visual
representations that make up the cultural reality that is perceivable using the
sense of sight. For example, when marketers try to attract their consumer-
customers, they seek to direct consumers’ purchasing behaviour through visual
representations and visual merchandising, such as store designs and product
displays (Moisander et al. 2010).
Further, the dimension of knowledge focuses on the specific forms of
knowledge, expertise and rationality that are represented as legitimate and
important for defining, understanding and rendering knowable subjects and
their relevant actions in particular contexts. The dimension of techniques and
practices attends to the different means and tactics and their associated
vocabularies, which are applied to direct the actions of individuals in particular
contexts. For example, the knowledge, techniques and vocabularies that are
produced by the marketing discipline provide means for ‘knowing’ consumers
and customers and directing their behaviour accordingly (Zwick et al. 2008).
57

Finally, the dimension of identities refers to the kind of subjectivities that are
proposed to the target audiences as appropriate. For instance, in consumer
goods markets marketers customarily use role models and seek to create ideas
of attractive lifestyles that consumers can aspire for and identity with
(Moisander et al. 2010).
58
As “the conduct of conduct”, government is not only practised towards
others, however; individuals can also internalise modes of being constituted in
discursive practices. This can lead to practising government towards the self,
based on the proposed modes for knowing the self as a certain kind of subject
(Foucault 1982). Hence, government can range from “governing others” to
“governing the self” (Foucault [1978] 2009, 193). For example, in the context of
sustainability challenges concerned consumers may seek to govern themselves
in line with the discourse of “rational household management” and seek to
practice meticulous consumption control for sustainable development to
realise.
Given that this perspective is grounded on the premise that objects of
knowledge are constructed rather than “natural” and/or “self-evident” (e.g.,
Rose 2000), the ‘freedom’ of the subject becomes understood as the subject’s
ability to “mobilize discursive strategies to determine what can be known and
what actions can be undertaken in any particular field of action” (Denegri-
Knott et al. 2006, 964). Consequently, the analytics of government, with its
emancipatory interests, generally focuses on the explication of discursive
practices in which the conditions of possibility for subjectivity and agency are
constituted (Skålén et al. 2007, 4). In the context of sustainability challenges,
this could hence imply problematising the “naturalness” and “self-evidency” of
the modes of being that are proposed for consumers as appropriate to adopt.
Therefore, from this perspective, the moral responsibility of the subject
would be to engage in the practices of problematisation rather than engaging in
uncritical ethopolitics (Rose 1999, 2000). 23 More specifically, the
problematisation of the objects of knowledge would imply elaborating on the
alternative ends towards which particular discourses and practices of
government might work (Foucault [1981] 2000, [1990] 1997). In the context of
sustainability challenges, this could imply, for example, the questioning of how
sustainable consumption practices are constituted in discursive practices. In
other words, rather than suggesting that individuals should accept the
prevalent ideas of sustainable consumption, this perspective hence calls for a
23 For a more detailed discussion on the emancipation of the subject, see Appendix 3 on
Foucauldian ethics and the practice of critique.

questioning of the underlying assumptions of sustainable consumption
discourses in order to shed more light on the ends towards which these
discourses might work (see also Saren et al. 2007, Moisander [2001] 2008,
Firat and Tadajewski 2009).
Whereas this perspective has sometimes been misinterpreted as an invitation
for asocial, self-centred or even anarchist behaviour, this perspective rather
emphasises the importance of critical thinking. As for example Foucault (1984,
343) has explained:
“My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not
exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something
to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.”
Overall, this kind of interest aligns with the broader turn towards more critical
self-reflection in the field of marketing and consumer inquiry (Firat et al. 1987,
Brown et al. 1996, Brownlie et al. 1999), which has been evolving in relation to
a crisis of relevance regarding the societal impact and importance research
conducted in these fields (Moisander [2001] 2008, 23). Such critical
questioning essentially contributes to the efforts to better understand the
constitution of marketplace phenomena; a subject area that has continuously
been addressed as requiring further research attention (Firat and Dholakia
2006, Bradshaw and Firat 2007, Saren et al. 2007, Firat and Tadajewski 2009,
see also Arnould and Thompson 2005).
3.3 Production of research material
In producing the research material for this study, I have primarily drawn on
the methodological guides of Thompson et al. (1989), Thompson and Haytko
(1997), Moisander and Valtonen (2006), Joy, Sherry and Deschenes (2009)
and Venkatesh et al. 2010 and Moisander et al. (2009). In this section, I
provide a short discussion on the research material’s production. The
methodological appendix (Appendix 4) describes in more detail the rationale
for selecting the sample, the interview method and practical issues related to
conducting these research phases.
According to Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 71-72), interviews can be a
fruitful way of generating material on how marketplace phenomena are
represented and produced in cultural practices. Interview material should not,
59

however, be considered epistemologically superior to others forms of research
materials (see also Alvesson 2003, Moisander et al. 2009) or as providing a
more ‘truthful’ or ‘factual’ access to the research phenomena (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 71). The interview method is, essentially, a useful technique for
accessing the cultural world.
60
For this study, I interviewed 18 non-self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers
about clothing consumption. The participants were 25–35-years old, all had
higher education degrees and lived and worked in the area of the Finnish
capital of Helsinki. The interviews were conducted shortly after the start of the
research project between December 2007 and January 2008. Table 1
summarises the participant profiles.
Table 1. Participant profiles
Code 24 Sex Age Profession Clothing shopping
1F F 25 Youth counsellor Aleksi 13, Sokos, JC, Stockmann
2F F 25 Social services
worker
3F F 27 Integration &
verification
engineer
4M M 25 Marketing
manager
5F F 26 Social services
worker, church
youth worker,
theatre student
H&M, Only, Vero Moda
Tiger of Sweden, Minus, Boutique Deb,
Diesel, Stockmann, Mango, abroad
Bisquit Stush, Popot, Helsinki 10,
Beamhill
Anywhere, flea markets
6F F 33 Marketing assistant Vero Moda, from fiends, flea markets
7F F 26 Programming
specialist
8F F 30 Production
manager
Stockmann, Aleksi 13, KappAhl,
Lindex, Sokos, Zio, small shops and
boutiques, young designers, arts and
crafts stores, self-made
Self-made, flea markets, from friends,
abroad, online
9F F 31 Area sales manager Zara, Mango, Vila, Vero Moda, H&M,
Moda, Sokos, Seppälä, Aleksi 13,
Piccola Donna
10F F 27 Coordinator, parttime
post-graduate
studies,
entrepreneur
Stockmann, H&M, abroad
11F F 31 Project manager From abroad, Zara, Filippa K,
Stockmann, H&M, Gant, showroom
sales
24 This refers to the codes used in the interview excerpts presented in the empirical
analysis in Chapter 4.

12F F 27 Accounting
specialist
Abroad, shops, flea markets, from a
friend
13F F 31 Finance manager Mainly from high street chains, Zara,
H&M, shoes and bags abroad, Nine
West
14F F 28 Assistant H&M, Sokos, Zara, Seppälä, Carlings
15F F 31 Consultant Enele, Stockmann, H&M, abroad,
Ralph Lauren, sportswear stores
16M M 29 Sales manager Outlets, airports, city centres
17M M 34 Key account
manager
18M M 25 Pricing and
procurement
coordinator
Stockmann, Nilson, Jakobsson, Solo,
Zara, abroad frequently
Large chains, small boutiques
The research design was initially inspired by Thompson and Haytko’s (1997)
study of consumers’ appropriation of fashion discourses. The sample was made
up of young, relatively well-educated working adults in the belief that they
could represent a potential generation of ‘sustainable’ consumers. Given their
educational background and potential income levels, they could act as powerful
market forces by choosing ecological and ethical products. (Joergens 2006,
362). In addition, many sustainable consumption related studies have focused
on “believers” – individuals that have adopted alternative lifestyles (Devinney
et al. 2010). While this can be interesting, it does not provide insights into the
realities of ‘ordinary’ people who are actually those to whom sustainable
consumption campaigns seek to talk to. Seyfang (2005, 290) has indeed
maintained that is crucial to investigate the possibilities for taking more
sustainable lifestyles at their ‘most mundane’: to study ‘ordinary’ consumption
practices and ‘ordinary’ people. 25 The sample is therefore theoretical in nature.
It should be emphasised, however, that the approach adopted in this study is
also founded upon an understanding that ties the interview material to the
broader cultural context (Silverman [1993] 2006, Alasuutari 1995, Peräkylä
1997, Moisander and Valtonen 2006). This implies that, although other societal
actors were not interviewed, they are also understood to ‘speak’ through the
material when consumers make sense of their cultural context. In other words,
it is understood that interviews articulate broader cultural meanings
(Thompson 1997, Thompson and Haytko 1997, 20).
25 As noted in Section 1.1, the term ‘ordinary’ is employed throughout this study to
emphasise that the participants were non-self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers and the
term ‘sustainable’ is not used to make arguments about the effective sustainability of
particular consumption practices.
61

62
For the recruitment of the participants, I used a snowball technique (Creswell
1998). After having identified a few colleagues at the Department of Marketing
that might know suitable participants, I asked if they could forward my
interview invitation to people that might be interested in taking part in my
study. I conducted the recruiting in parallel to interviewing: the first
participants then referred me to subsequent participants. The interviews were
conducted up until the saturation point (Thompson and Haytko 1997).
The interviews were conducted at the participants’ home, in office meeting
rooms or in cafés, at the participants’ convenience. Despite I initially drew on
guidelines for phenomenological interviewing when conducting the interviews
(Thompson et al. 1989, see also Thompson and Haytko 1997, Joy, Sherry and
Deschenes 2009), I finally conducted the interviews in a semi-structured
format (see also Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007, 140).
Making use of the guidelines of Moisander and Valtonen (2006) for
producing cultural material in interviews, I employed elicitation material to
produce cultural discussion on issues that were relevant to the research
problem (also Venkatesh et al. 2010). Elicitation material, such as vignettes –
short stories related to the topic of interview – can be useful for stimulating
discussion, directing participants to discuss topics relevant for the research
object and generating cultural discussion about morally and ethically sensitive
subjects or topics that people find difficult to talk about (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 79–83). Accordingly, I chose to use vignettes and visual
elicitation materials to prompt discussion on ethical and ecological conduct in
relation to fashion and clothing consumption.
The elicitation material consisted of a short news story, an eco-shopping
guide and four cartoons. The news story dealt with an ethics survey among
fashion retailers, which was published on the website of the leading national
newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, on September 21 st 2007, entitled Vaateketjut
eivät pärjänneet eettisyystutkimuksessa (“Fashion chains did not excel in an
ethics survey”). The eco-shopping guide focused on clothing shopping. The
guide, entitled Eko-ostajan opas (“Guide for eco-shopper”), was accessible on
the website of Kuluttajavirasto (the Finnish Consumer Agency).
The four cartoons used dealt with fashion and clothing: (1) a woman in a
shop, selecting trousers, with the caption: “Thin pants: The hottest thing since
wide pants”; (2) a woman coming home from shopping, saying to a man sitting
in the living room reading a newspaper: “I’m feeling good about myself
again!”; (3) two dogs at the entrance to a flea market, one saying to the other:
“I think I’ll skip this particular market”; (4) a fashion magazine editor sitting

ehind her desk with two trays, entitled: “Totally in” and “SO last season”.
Copies of the elicitation materials are included in visual form in the
methodological appendix of this study (Appendix 4).
Although the interview approach in this study was influenced by the
guidelines for phenomenological interviewing (Thompson et al. 1989, see also
Thompson and Haytko 1997, Joy, Sherry and Deschenes 2009), I departed
from this form of interviewing for two main reasons. Firstly, as noted, I needed
to include particular topics in the interviews in order to produce discussion
that was relevant to my research problem. Secondly, I encountered practical
challenges with this method.
Based on my understanding of the phenomenological interviewing, I tried to
avoid using ‘leading’ questions in order to avoid introducing topics, concepts or
words that had not been spontaneously mentioned by the participant
(Thompson and Haytko 1997, Belk et al. 2003, 333). Therefore, I also tried to
avoid forcing the participants to comment on the elicitation material. I believed
this would be inappropriate because it could have severely influenced the
participants’ descriptions and their quality (see e.g., Belk et al. 2003).
Moreover, I tried to avoid ‘why’ questions (Thompson et al. 1989).
This kind of technique, however, did not prove to be a fruitful approach for
generating cultural material for a study where the research attention is placed
at the level of culture and the unit of analysis is not the individual (Moisander
et al. 2009, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 204). On the contrary, the
emphasis that phenomenological interviewing places on the participants’
‘freely’ produced networks of meanings and participants’ authentic expressions
(see also Moisander et al. 2009) tended to limit my ability to pose further
questions and, in particular, ask more provocative questions that might have
been also more productive (cf. Belk et al. 2003, 332). Such questions might
have offered more informative material and insights into the research
phenomena (Gubrium and Holstein 2002, 15, Rapley 2004, 16, see also
Moisander and Valtonen 2006). Yet, although I encountered challenges with
the interview format, the material generated did also speak to the purposes of
this study as it allowed me to access the subject area relevant for the research
problem.
The interview encounters lasted between half an hour and one hour. All of the
interviews were recorded and the tapes were transcribed, resulting in 167 pages
of text in Finnish (Times New Roman, 12 pt., single-line spacing). The excerpts
presented in the empirical analysis were translated into English during the
63

analytical process. The following section focuses on the analytics applied for
the interpretation of the transcribed material.
3.4 Discourse analytic approach
In developing the discourse analytic approach applied in this study, I have
primarily drawn on the methodological guides of Potter and Wetherell ([1987]
2007), Jokinen et al. (1993), Burr (1995), Jokinen and Juhila (1999), Alvesson
and Karreman (2000), Edley (2001) and Moisander and Valtonen (2006).
64
‘Discourse analysis’ has become an increasingly popular approach in social
scientific research. However, this has also led to conceptual and practical
confusion and misunderstandings (Torfing 1999, Alvesson and Karreman
2000, Kozinets 2008). Since this kind of analysis can take many forms, the
term ‘discourse analysis’ is better understood as a general term (e.g., Potter and
Wetherell [1987] 2007, Wood and Kroger 2000). Many discourse analytic
approaches, such as the approach applied in this research, are not theoretical
frameworks or methods and are therefore better referred to as ‘analytics’
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 190).
While there are various possibilities for conducting a discourse analytic
study, Alvesson and Karreman (2000, 1129-1135) suggest that the different
forms of discourse analysis can be differentiated from each other along two
main dimensions: (1) the connection between discourse and meaning and (2)
the formative range of discourse. 26 The first dimension deals with discourse
determination and discourse autonomy. Discourse determination refers to a
post-structuralism influenced understanding where discourses are understood
to determine meaning and subjectivity to varying degrees. Discourse autonomy
refers to an understanding where discourse is considered analytically distinct
from or only loosely coupled to broader social phenomenon. This means
rejecting the idea of “fragile subjects constituted by and/or within strong
discourse” that can be the case in discourse determination (ibid., p. 1132-1133).
The second dimension, the discourse’s formative range, refers to a continuum
between macro- and micro-levels: the scope and scale of discourse (Alvesson
and Karreman 2000, 1133). At the micro-level end, discourses are considered
local achievements. At the macro-level end, discourses are seen as “rather
universal, if historically situated, set of vocabularies, standing loosely coupled
26 In the following, the term ‘discourse’ takes a number of meanings and the term is
used as a general term.

to, referring to or constituting a particular phenomenon” such as “consumption
in affluent society” (ibid.). In addition to these macro- and micro-levels, a
discourse analytic inquiry can also focus on different meso-levels (ibid., p.
1126). In general, the macro-level emphasises cultural and institutionalised
discourses, seeking to provide answers to ‘what’ questions, while the micro-
level analytics focuses on the ‘how’ questions of everyday social reality
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 190).
Alvesson and Karreman (2000, 1133-1134) map the dimension dealing with
the discourse’s formative range further into four categories: (1) micro-
discourse approach, (2) meso-discourse approach, (3) Grand Discourse
approach, and (4) Mega-Discourse approach. A micro-discourse approach
studies language use – ‘discourse’ – in a specific micro-context. This kind of
approach can, for example, take the form of conversation analysis (also Potter
and Wetherell [1987] 2007, 7, 80-81). A meso-discourse approach keeps an
interest in language use but also seeks to find broader patterns and generalise
to other contexts (Alvesson and Karreman 2000, 1133). Further, a Grand
Discourse approach refers to “an assembly of discourses, ordered and
presented in an integrated frame”. It can refer to or constitute, for example, an
ideology. (ibid., p. 1133-1134). Finally, a Mega-Discourse approach focuses on
rather standardised ways of addressing a certain type of phenomenon, such as
for example globalization (ibid., p. 1134). Figure 1 below summarizes this field,
including both main dimensions.
65

Figure 1. Discourse analytic map
66
(Alvesson and Karreman 2000, 1135)
Although it can be challenging to combine different levels of analysis (Alvesson
and Karreman 2000, 1134, Kosinetz 2008, 866), a number of authors (e.g.,
Miller 1997, Gubrium and Holstein 2003, Hacking 2004) have argued for the
importance of including diverse analytical levels in a discourse analytic study.
For instance, understanding how macro-level discourses are put into use and
negotiated in everyday discursive practices has been considered beneficial for
enhancing understanding of how social order is constituted in the interplay of
different discursive levels (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 190).
Given how popular the term ‘discourse’ has become in social scientific
research, Alvesson and Karreman (2000, 1135) suggest that it would, however,
be appropriate to use some care when using this term: “In many cases,
employing this label does not add anything new and simply brings confusion to
the study of topics that can be addressed through the use of other, although
perhaps less fashionable, concepts, like, for example, ideology”. This is also the

criticism of Kozinets (2008) who identifies a number of ways how the concept
has been used in cultural consumer research.
Previous discourse analytic work in cultural consumer research has
addressed, for instance, such different forms of discourses as cultural
discourses and the conventional ways of talking of consumers (Thompson and
Haytko 1997, Murray 2002), the mediated representations of mass culture
texts (Holt and Thompson 2004), the everyday speech and writing acts of
consumers and contemporary institutions and their associated values (Belk et
al. 2003), mass media and mythic marketplace discourses and the
conversational discourses of consumers (Thompson 2004), popular culture
discourses and consumer narratives (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007) as
well as ideology, mass cultural representations and consumer narratives
(Kozinets 2008).
Kozinets (2008, 866) suggests that it could be useful to make a clear
separation between ideological and institutional abstractions and “their actual
representations in mass cultural texts of all kinds and consumer’ writing and
speech acts”. Whereas the point made seems valid, a further observation can,
however, be made as regards this body discourse analytic work including
Kozinets’ study. Namely, despite different appropriations of the concept of
discourse, these discourse analytic studies largely share an interest not only in
the narrative construction of the interview account but also in the narrative
construction of the subjectivity/identity of the consumer articulating the
account.
Narrative research is indeed another form of analysis in the broader field of
discourse analytic studies (e.g., Hinchman and Hinchman 2001, Murray 2003,
Kohler Riessman 2004). In particular, it has been used to shed more light on
the construction of the self: of a particular interest are the articulated
subjectivities/identities and their possibilities as well as temporal aspects
(Mishler 1986, Holstein and Gubrium 1995). Although narrative analyses can
take many forms, there are common elements that these approaches share: a
storied form, sequence and consequence (Kohler Riessman 2004, 705). For
example Hinchman and Hinchman (2001, xvi) define a narrative in the
following manner:
”Narratives (stories) in the human science should be defined provisionally as
discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for a
definite audience and thus offer insights about the world and/or people’s experiences
of it.”
67

Murray (2003) emphasizes that a narrative is not just any kind text or
discourse, but such that gives a logical explanation to events, has a narrative
plot and has both a causal and temporal dimension (see also Gergen 1998).
Two issues are hence of a particular importance here: sequence and people’s
experiences (Langdridge 2007). This also implies that a narrative has a
narrator: a subject producing the narrative. Consequently, the focus of research
tends to be, by necessity, at the level of the individual. As Mischler (1999, 11)
puts this: “The distinctive feature of this approach, and its fundamental
requirement, is that individual trajectories of change are retrained through all
stages of analyses”. Hence, it is participants and their stories are the cases
studied (see also Elliott 2005, 98-99).
68
It is indeed possible to detect this kind of analytic focus on individual
trajectories, changes in the trajectories as well as causal and temporal
dimensions in the previous discourse analytic cultural consumer research. For
example, in Kozinets (2008, 872) we find a participant called Daphne of whom
Kozinets concludes: “… her subject position and subsequent evaluative
standards shift through the course of the interview, spurred by my questions,
her goals, and her consideration of the ideologies’ inner contradictions”.
Similarly, Thompson and Troester (2002, 561), drawing attention on how
consumers articulate transformative insights in their narratives, report on their
participant John: “John is a working class male… As John describes it, the
emotional and spiritual discoveries he gained through these natural health
experiences enabled him to change the self-destructive course of his life”. This
kind of analytical interest bears close resemblance to narrative analysis as
narratives are understood as forms of discourse that tend to create coherence
into life and that can also be ideological (Polkinghorne 1988, 14).
Many of these studies rely on an interpretive case method, which Thompson
and Haytko (1997, 20) define as follows: “[t]his mode of analysis assumes that
the particular (or microlevel) case represents an instantiation of macrolevel
cultural processes and structures”. Hence, it is understood that interviewees
are not merely expressing subjective views but are also articulating broader
cultural meanings (Thompson 1997). This is suggested to lead to the following
methodological implication: “the underlying meaning system is the focus of
analysis rather than the particularities of a given participant’s life world”
(Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007, 140).
However, it is further possible to detect a particular phenomenological-
hermeneutic interest in these studies, which does place attention on the
participant’s life world. According to this view, research attention needs to be

placed on the meanings that individuals articulate with the attempt to
understand what is experientially real for the subject (Moisander and Valtonen
2006, 199, 204). For example, in Kosinetz (2008, 872) we find a description of
the previously mentioned participant Daphne who “feels ambivalent about
technology, tending to see it as a necessary evil” and “feels strongly about the
Green Luddite ideology of technology, seeing technology undermining
relationships and causing her emotional pain, reminding her of deficiencies”.
We also have Roger who “[s]parked by the moral obligation word should,
confesses a guilty attraction to the pleasurable aspects of technology” (ibid., p.
876). In a similar vein, Thompson and Coskuner-Balli (2007, 142) report on
their participant Betsy how “[t]hrough [an] ideological alignment, [her] sense
of autonomy and personal sovereignty is also enhanced through activities that
she believes help to keep this CSA [community-supported agriculture] farm
free from corporate dependencies”.
In social interaction, people usually seek to represent themselves as credible
and logically thinking subjects (Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, 61, Burr
1995, 117). This also applies to interview encounters. Interviews can indeed be
understood as sites of “active narrative production” (Holstein and Gubrium
1995, 39). However, this production can be analysed in different ways. From
the phenomenological-hermeneutic perspective, it is possible to consider
interviews a particularly suitable means to gather data on the participants’
authentic experiences and feelings (Thompson, Locander, and Pollio 1989,
138). However, from the perspective adopted in this study, interviews are
understood as a fruitful way of generating material on how marketplace
phenomena are represented and produced in cultural practices (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 71-72). They are not considered epistemologically superior to
others forms of research materials: they do not provide access to ‘truer’
representations of social and cultural phenomena, nor do they provide a means
for understanding what people ‘really think’. (also Alvesson 2003, Moisander
et al. 2009).
Similarly to the previous discourse analytic cultural consumer research (e.g.,
Thompson and Haytko 1997, Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007), also this
study relies upon a hermeneutic approach to interpret the material. In this
mode of analysis theory and empirical material are put in a dialogue and the
interpretation emerges through an iterative back- and forth process of
matching up the material and theory (Arnold and Fischer 1994, Murray 2002,
Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 105).
69

70
However, in this study, the analytical unit is understood differently from the
previous discourse analytic cultural consumer research, which has relied on
interview materials. Namely, the case is not the individual interviewed or the
individual interview account produced but the shared cultural resources that
participants produce and use during the interview encounters. As Moisander
and Valtonen (2006, 204) explain: “The analytical focus thus shifts from
‘tapping into people’s minds’ as if to reveal their true feelings, thoughts and
views, to the specific ways those phenomena [cultural and social practices] are
represented and produced discursively in text, talk, images and behaviour”.
The point is also put as follows by Potter and Whetherell ([1987] 2007, 178):
“[The] focus is exclusively on discourse itself: how it is constructed, its
functions, and the consequences which arise from different discursive
organization”.
This departure from the level of the individual is important given the
shortcomings identified in the previous sustainable consumption related
research, which has prevailingly taken the individual as the analytical unit (see
Section 2.2). Further, as reflected in the philosophical positioning of this study
(Section 3.1), it is understood that there is no natural, single, continuous or
universal mode of being for the subject (also Moisander and Valtonen 2006,
198). Therefore, in this study I am not interest in what kinds of subject
positions particular/individual participants occupy, whether there is one
dominant subject position from which a given participant talks or how
coherent self-identities particular participants construct for themselves during
the encounters. Rather, I am interested in the shared cultural resources as
explained above.
Moisander and Valtonen (2006) outline a discourse analytic approach called
analytics of cultural practice (ACP), which focuses on institutionalised
discourses and everyday discursive practices. I have chosen to use in this study
a discourse analytic approach that places more attention to a meso-level
between these ends (see also Figure 1). The approach adopted is founded upon
the notions of discourse, interpretative repertoire and subject position, which
can be understood as discourse analytic tools (e.g., Edley 2001, Jokinen and
Juhila 1999, Jokinen et al. 1993).
The notion of discourse in the present study refers to the historically
constituted, institutionalised practices that have both linguistic and material
dimensions (see Section 3.2). The concept of interpretative repertoire refers to
“a lexicon or register of terms and metaphors drawn upon to characterize and

evaluate actions and events” (Potter and Whetherell ([1987] 2007, 138). 27
Interpretive repertoires are “relatively coherent ways of talking about objects
and events in the world” (Edley 2001, 198) and cultural ways of interpreting
phenomena in social practices, which serve as social resources that people use
recurrently to characterise and evaluate the phenomena of the social world
(Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, 149, Jokinen and Juhila 1999, 63, Burr
1995, 118).
This positions the present study in the centre area of the discourse analytic
map proposed by Alvesson and Karreman (2000; see Figure 1); in the interplay
between meso-discourses and Grand Discourses and in the area between
discourse autonomy and discourse determination. Ontologically and
epistemologically the discourse analytic approach applied in this study is
founded upon the social constructionist background philosophy (Schwandt
2000; Moisander and Valtonen 2006, Burr 1995) as discussed in Section 3.1.
Discourses and interpretative repertoires both refer to cultural systems of
signification (e.g., Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 210). In this study, however,
interpretative repertoires are understood to be ‘smaller’ and more fragmented
than discourses (see also Burr 1995, 174). For example, Jokinen et al. (1993,
27) has maintained that the notion of ‘interpretative repertoire’ can be more
appropriate for studying everyday language use and the linguistic resources
that people draw upon than the notion of ‘discourse’, which is often associated
with ideological and political characteristics.
In addition, Burr (1995, 176) has explained that interpretative repertoires
allow greater contextual flexibility for humans as language users: “the moves
can be put together in different ways to suit the occasion (a feature not present
in the idea of discourses as coherent, organised sets of statements)” (see also
Edley 2001, 202). From this perspective, as Edley (2001, 198) has put it,
conversations such as interview accounts on a certain subject can be seen as
“made up of a patchwork of ‘quotations’ from various interpretative
repertoires”. Indeed, people not only use one repertoire but draw on different
repertoires that suit the situation (Juhila 2009, 130, see also Reynolds and
Wetherell 2003).
Like discourses, interpretative repertoires describe social actions from a
certain perspective (Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, 146, Burr 1995, 177). As
social resources, interpretative repertoires can be used to explain events that
27 According to Edley (2001, 197), the notion of interpretative repertoire was first
introduced by Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) and was later popularised by Potter and
Whetherell (1987) in their influential publication Discourse and social psychology:
Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
71

take place and to justify different phenomena and the actions taken by social
actors in a particular context (e.g., Burr 1995, 117). Repertoires therefore
enable “people to justify particular versions of events, to excuse or validate
their own behaviour, to fend off criticism or otherwise allow them to maintain
a credible stance in an interaction” (ibid.). As Burr (1995, 120) has explained, it
is typical for studies investigating interpretative repertoires to see respondents
as being “concerned to position themselves acceptably with respect to the
moral rules and expectations of their culture”. For these reasons, the notion of
interpretative repertoire offers a useful tool with which to try to understand
how social reality is produced and what kind of cultural tensions consumers
may be faced with when making sense of their roles and responsibilities in
sustainable development.
72
Discourses and interpretative repertoires both produce subject positions (see
also Sections 3.1 and 3.2 for subjectivity and identity). According to Edley
(2001, 210), the notion of subject position “connects the wider notions of
discourses and interpretative repertoires to the social construction of particular
selves”. As noted previously, these ‘selves’ are positions with which people can
identify and which are social and historical accomplishments rather than
permanent, self-evident or inevitable characteristics of individuals (e.g., Edley
2001, 222; Hall ([1997] 2009b, 48).
Since the notion of subject position is closely linked to individuals’ freedom
and agency to engage in certain practices (Hall 1996, 2–3, see also Section 3.2),
an inquiry into the interpretative repertoires that consumers use and produce
to represent themselves as reasonable members of their culture can offer
insights into the possible field of action available for consumers as ecological
citizens in contemporary culture. Understanding this field better seems
particularly essential given how the knowledge and views of consumers, as
members of their culture and community, have often been excluded from
sustainable consumption research (e.g., Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997,
Moisander [2001] 2008, Heiskanen 2005).
In addition to these discourse analytic tools – the tools of discourse,
interpretative repertoire and subject position – I have used the basic analytical
procedures for analysing cultural material as suggested by Moisander and
Valtonen (2006, 114–118). This means that I have focused upon
categorisations, vocabulary, stereotyping and production of ‘otherness’ and
explicit and implicit norms in the material (see also Alasuutari 1995, Potter
1996). These are discussed below.

To start with, categorisation is a process that orders human interaction by
valorising certain points of view and silencing others (Bowker and Star 2000,
321). As Potter (1996, 176) has emphasised, categorisation is used to constitute
an action, object, event, person or group as having a specific and distinctive
character that is suitable for a certain action. During verbal discussions, people
continuously engage in comparisons between themselves and others, thereby
discursively producing subjectivities and identities with categorising effects.
Different privileges and status – such as social, political and economic – and
associated capacities to ‘know’ are associated with different identities (ibid., p.
132). Categorisations are indeed used to make up certain kinds of human
subjects (Hacking 2004, Hall [1997] 2009b).
Therefore, categorisations cannot be treated as innocent. This is also pointed
out by Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 117) who have noted that attention
should also be given to how stereotypes, differences and generalisations are
produced in discursive practices. In addition, attention in analyzing cultural
material needs to placed vocabularies and metaphors as central parts of the
discursive production of social reality (Potter 1996, 180). Whereas particular
vocabularies can evoke different meanings, metaphors serve to condense
meanings of an issue. They work performatively: different metaphors evoke
different meanings and therefore also have categorising effects (Joy, Sherry,
Venkatesh et al. 2009).
Further, normative statements imply that a social norm is being involved in a
description (Alasuutari 1995). Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 115) have
suggested that paying attention to social norms and normative statements can
be a useful way to try and understand the overall, broader moral and political
themes in cultural materials (see also Silverman [1993] 2006, 82). Normative
statements can include, but should not be limited to, ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ codes.
For example, social norms can apply to a variety of culturally established and
accepted ways for social action, such as appropriate ways to cover and adorn
the body and appear in social encounters (e.g., Craik [1994] 2000, Entwistle
2001, Venkatesh et al. 2010).
3.4.1 Analysis and interpretation in practice
In conducting the analysis, I have primarily drawn on the methodological
advice of Burr (1995), Taylor (2001), Wood and Kroger (2000), Joy et al.
(2006) and Moisander and Valtonen (2006).
73

74
Basically, I followed the advice of applying discourse analytics tools to
evaluate whether they are appropriate for the analytical task (Edley 2001, 198,
Burr 1995, 163). In practice, this meant several readings of both the material
and methodological guides and previous discourse analytic research, as well as
making several tentative analyses and interpretations. This mode of analyses
means that it also often occurs that earlier interpretations need to be
abandoned (Wood and Kroger 2000, 87). As Potter and Whetherell ([1987]
2007, 168) have described this, “often it is only after long hours struggling with
the data and many false starts that a systematic patterning emerges”.
Conducting such analytical work may be somewhat daunting. This was
actually the case in the course of this study when I sought to find a balance
between the voice of the material and the voice of the theory against which I
was seeking to understand what might be going on in the material. Although I
was informed about the discussions on reflexivity when conducting research
(see Joy et al. 2006), I had hardly expected to develop my own crisis of
reflexivity during the analysis. Reflexivity, in general terms, refers to “a means
for critical and ethical consideration of the entire research process” (ibid., p.
345). I had sought to practice this whilst planning and conducting the
interviews. However, it was only during the analysis that I encountered more
profound challenges. I began to question the ways in which I had conducted my
analysis, which almost prevented me from continuing the work.
My initial aim had been to investigate discourses of ecological citizenship in
the clothing markets. For two rounds of analysis, by drawing on environmental
politics and social scientific and social marketing literatures on sustainable
consumption, I sought to identify discourses of ecological conduct, nature and
consumption that would explicate the subjectivities available for consumers as
ecological citizens. After this point, however, I ended up abandoning this
endeavour and the approach.
In particular, my unease was based on the challenges I experienced as I
sought to mould the material into coherent discourses (also Burr 1995, 174). In
addition, I felt uncomfortable with the idea that I might also be imposing
discourses on the material that might not ‘be there’. In other words, I thought I
might be forcing a particular reading upon that material.
Obviously, discourses are not ‘found’ in the material (see also Jokinen et al.
1993, 28) and those discourses identified would have been my interpretations
despite being grounded in the theoretical understanding that I had gained. Yet,
by discerning particular cultural discourses in the material, I would have

nevertheless been making a statement about the cultural existence of such
discourses. In other words, I would have been producing social reality.
Clearly, this is inevitable as all research is performative: changing research
tools or research approach does not erase the fact that research produces social
reality (see Heiskanen 2005). But is my role as a researcher is to reveal ‘hidden’
political agendas? Am I supposed to identify them in the everyday language
that people use? Am I, as a researcher, somehow more able to know how to
emancipate others or would I just simply be emancipating myself whilst
innocently suggesting that I was simply elaborating upon the possibility that
things could be otherwise? These were the questions I was struggling with
when seeking to discern the ecological citizenship discourses. And all this
seemed to lead to another normalising and disciplinary practice in which I felt,
as a researcher, I would be participating by reducing my material into coherent
discourses.
There are, arguably, many ways to approach and interpret these questions.
However, having struggled with my material, I tend to share points made by
Burr (1995). She has, for example, remarked how the study of discourses as
institutionalised ways of representing a phenomena, ultimately aims “to take a
critical, progressive and political stance to the truth claims made by discourses
which help maintain oppressive power relations, and to increase the ‘voice’ of
marginalised discourses” (ibid., p. 172, see also Section 3.2). Burr (ibid., p. 173)
criticises this for potentially including the idea that some people are truly
oppressed. I first considered particularly problematic how the researcher could
be accorded with authority to tell the ‘oppressed others’ that they are being
taken advantage of; or, put bluntly, that those others are deluded if they do not
see their oppressed state. Later I came to think that problematising the truth
claims of dominant discourses might, however, might be quite reasonable for it
could make space for alternative ways of understanding the phenomena of the
social reality. It may indeed be the researcher’s task and responsibility to
suggest alternative ways of seeing the world (see also Moisander and Valtonen
2006, 201-202). Yet, I found it quite challenging to step into these shoes in this
study without re-establishing polarising arguments for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or
‘emancipated’ and ‘oppressed’ conduct.
As a result of these reflections and practical challenges, I also felt rather
overwhelmed by my material and by its multiple potential political and
oppressive agendas that could be discerned against the body of literature I had
familiarised myself with during the research process. In particular, reading
75

environmental politics can be, at times, rather consuming for the occasionally
excessive emphasis on personal guilt and looming ecological catastrophe.
76
Because of these diverse challenges, I ended up taking a few months off from
the analytical work. The pause, in practice, meant returning to the library and
re-discovering some books that I had abandoned when I had decided to focus
on the macro-level institutionalised discourses of ecological citizenship. I also
discovered Miller’s anthropological explorations of shopping in London, which
provided me with a much needed non-judgemental way of approaching the
phenomena of the social world. The break also allowed me to re-discover the
notion of interpretative repertoire and to redefine my discourse analytic tools.
The break and the re-definition of my analytic tools also changed the aim of
the empirical study, which then became to explore the interpretive repertoires
through which consumers make sense of sustainable development and their
roles and responsibilities in this pursuit. To this end, I chose to address the
following set of sub-research questions:
• What kind of interpretative repertoires can be discerned in consumers’
interview discussions regarding sustainable and responsible consumer
choices?
• How do consumers positions themselves and others as responsible and
reasonable societal actors in their discussions and what kinds of subject
positions are available for consumers as ecological citizens?
• How do consumers make sense of the roles and responsibilities of
different societal actors in the globalised marketplace in the context of
sustainability challenges?
In addition, I decided to use the atlas.ti programme. I had previously rejected
the use of qualitative data analysis programmes (CAQDAS) as I felt they were
inappropriate for the kind of discourse analytic work that I was conducting (see
Appendix 4 for a more detailed discussion). In fact, the programme provided to
be quite useful for data management purposes.
Despite focusing upon discerning interpretative repertoires rather than
institutionalised discourses, I nevertheless kept the notion of discourse in my
analytical work. I used this concept when seeking to understand the type of
interpretative repertoires that consumers draw upon when talking about the
dominant discourse of sustainable consumption (e.g., Seyfang 2005).
In addition, I applied to the analytics of government (Dean [1999] 2008,
Moisander et al., 2010), in order to focus my attention on the dimensions of

government that could provide information about the cultural constitution of
the possible field of action available for consumers as ecological citizens in the
marketplace. Firstly, I sought to identify the identities and subjectivities that
were available for consumers as ecological citizens in the material. In practice,
this meant using the atlas.ti-programme to tag relatively long passages in the
material, which dealt with environmental issues with the ‘environment’ tag.
However, whilst I was tagging these passages, it became clear that it was not
possible to separate the ‘environment’ and the ‘ethical’ issues from each other
since these issues seemed to overlap (also Miller 2001, Moisander 2007,
Devinney et al. 2010). Therefore, I also tagged the passages that dealt with
‘ethical’ issues, such as working conditions in developing countries, with the
‘environment’ label.
Overall, I sought to tag meaningful entities. I deliberately tagged relatively
long passages in the text so as not to lose the context of the passage or the
intertextual nature of the passage (Taylor 2001, 38). I also made notes about
how the speaker referred or might have referred implicitly and/or explicitly to
a topic or a view expressed earlier during the interview. This sometimes
involved returning to the start of the entire interview in order to better
understand the context in which a particular sustainability-related description
had been produced (ibid.).
During the tagging process, I also encountered a few practical challenges. If
interviews are transcribed verbatim without the transcription symbols that are
typically used for conversation analysis, such as pauses, talking speed and use
of intonation (see e.g., Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007), the text can consist
of rather large chunks, which may be challenging to tag in a meaningful way.
However, transcribing interviews verbatim using transcription symbols can
also produce an equally challenging task for tagging passages of text that are
meaningful yet not impractically long (also Taylor 2001, 36-37). Here, I drew
on the guidelines of Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 114–118) for close reading
of cultural texts: rather than focusing at the micro-level of conversation
analysis, I tagged the texts paying specific attention to the categorisations,
vocabulary, stereotyping and production of ‘otherness’ and explicit and implicit
norms.
Having coded the text, I pulled together the passages tagged with the
‘environment’ label. The next step was to look at these passages to identify
what kinds of identities were available for consumers as ecological citizens,
how these identities were accepted and/or rejected and how the self as a
reasonable social actor was constructed in these descriptions. In practice, I
77

started by reading the passages that I had pulled together and then manually
sketched keywords, metaphors and typical ways of talking (e.g., Murray 2002).
After this, I started to draft potential interpretative repertoires that could be
used to represent culturally reasonable practices in the marketplace. I then
scrutinised my interpretation in order to gain a better understanding of the
cultural meanings in these repertoires and their variations by mapping further
metaphors and other linguistic expressions as well as the main actors of
repertoires. It appeared that the participants predominantly used four
interpretative repertoires, which I tentatively named ‘economic’, ‘complexities’,
‘effort’ and ‘taste’.
78
I then returned to use the atlas.ti programme and re-tagged the document
that consisted of the ‘environment’ tags with the four new tags I had named
according to the repertoires’ tentative titles. This made it possible to analyse
the overlapping and boundaries of repertoires (Juhila 2009) and their typical
features, as well as the subject positions that were ascribed to the self and
others in these repertoires (Edley 2001). I then returned to consider the
dimensions of the analytics of government (Dean [1999] 2008), which made it
possible to discern different perspectives into the material and its cultural
meanings.
Finally, I combined the analysis of repertoires with examples of ‘ordinary’
clothing consumption practices. This meant that I returned to the material in
order to search for similar patterns in the context of ‘ordinary’ consumption
practices. This return to the entire material produced the realisation that the
same repertoires were drawn upon when negotiating ‘ordinary’ consumption
practices. An example of this kind of parallel was how the subject positions of a
‘slave of fashion’ and a person who is ‘extremely green’ were both represented
as unattractive alternatives for ‘ordinary’ consumers to occupy.
Overall, the analytical process involved hermeneutic, iterative back-and-forth
reading of the material and the theoretical background literature (Moisander
and Valtonen 2006, 111, 129). As previously explained, in this type of reading,
previous readings and interpretations inform the subsequent reading and
analytical phases (Thompson and Haytko 1997, 20–21). In discourse analytic
work, this also involves moving between micro- and macro-levels of the
discursive reality (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 111). In the context of the
present study, this has involved moving between the level of interpretative
repertoires and that of the level of institutionalised discourses. The iterative
back-and-forth reading also took place when shifting between theory and

interpretation in writing up the numerous research drafts that preceded this
version (also Murray 2002).
3.4.2 Critique and evaluative criteria of discourse analytic
approaches
Despite the variety of discourse analytic approaches, some common criticisms
are regularly raised against this broad field of analytics. These criticisms also
relate to questions of validity and reliability in discourse analytics studies.
Therefore, in order to evaluate a discourse analytic study it is essential to
review these issues.
Criticism against discourse analytic studies often emphasises how focus
language use fails to acknowledge the material world. As Potter and Wetherell
([1987] 2007, 180–182) have noted, it is generally suggested that discourse
analysis focuses only on a linguistic realm and, in so doing, ignores the
material world. Many discourse analysts, however, have explicitly emphasised
the inseparable linguistic and material dimensions of discursive practices.
From this perspective, language use is not a separate field that exists without
connection to pragmatic actions and material reality (e.g., Hall [1997] 2009b).
In addition, it has also been suggested that the subject position or identities
involved in discourses are somewhat arbitrary and free-floating positions that
subjects might occupy without any logic, consistency or morality (see, e.g.,
Torfing 1999, 95–96). Hence, critiques have suggested that discourse analytic
studies might not be appropriate for addressing social problems such as
sustainable development. However, this reading of subject positions or
subjectivities, as Hall (2004, 126) has remarked, could be described as “sloppy
reading” because it misses the point of subjectivity as constituted differently. It
is the idea of a coherent, single identity that is problematised and this does not
render the subject immoral or asocial.
A further criticism of discourse analytic approaches is the view of the subject
as determined by discourses and, therefore, lacking agency or being somewhat
over-determined by discourses (e.g., Alvesson and Karreman 2000, Hall
2004). This has been a common criticism of the Foucauldian notion of
discourse, for example. Many researchers indeed tend to share the view that
the agency of the subject implied in the Foucauldian view tends to remain “at a
basic level defined and over-determined by the social context” as McNay (1994,
175) has put it (see also Ransom 1993, 128, Hall 1996, 13, Edley 2001, 190, 209,
79

Alvesson 2003, 23). 28 On the other hand, however, other researchers drawing
on the Foucauldian premises such as Skålén et al. (2007, 5), for example, have
emphasised how “discourse does not, however, determine ‘real’ subjectivity”
and that the identities suggested within a particular discourse are not
necessarily the same as people end up being (see also Dean [1999] 2008).
Skålén et al. (2007, 5) have recommended focusing on the possibilities that are
suggested to people as appropriate ways for conducting themselves as certain
kinds of subjects within a particular discourse as this can shed more
understanding on the cultural context. To this end, I chose to draw upon the
notion of interpretative repertoire, which seemed to be a particularly useful
concept for taking into account the organising possibility of institutionalised
discourses as well as allowing for creativity in positioning the self and others as
reasonable social actors in the given cultural context.
80
Furthermore, discourse analytical studies are commonly criticised for their
sample size and issues of generalisation. As Wood and Kroger (2000, 80–81)
have noted, the important issue to evaluate is not how many people
participated the study but whether the analysed sample of discourse is
extensive enough to answer the research question (also Potter and Whetherell
[1987] 2007, 161). If the material is understood as representing a sample of
culture and, hence, culturally shared ways of understanding experiencing and
talking about a specific topic (Burr 1995), the findings of the analysis can be
reasonably taken as an illustrative sample of the broader cultural context
rather than merely describing the individuals taking part in the study
(Silverman [1993] 2006, Peräkylä 1997, Alasuutari 2004, Rapley 2004,
Moisander et al. 2009).
Overall, the traditional criteria of validity and reliability are not considered
well-suited as such for analysing the quality of a discourse analytic study
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 23-31, see also Taylor 2001, 12). The idea of
validity as “the truth or accuracy of the representations and generalisations
made by the researcher” is problematic since discourse analytic research often
draws on a constructionist approach to representation, which questions the
potential for objective knowledge of the social world (Moisander and Valtonen
2006, 24). Furthermore, the notion ‘reliability’ as the replicability of research
results is problematic since cultural knowledge is constituted in historical and
contextual practices and is therefore always contextual and difficult, if not
impossible, to replicate (ibid., p. 27).
28 For a more detailed discussion on the subject and its relation to discourse, see
Appendix 3 on Foucauldian ethics and the practice of critique.

Among others, Moisander and Valtonen (2006) suggested that the quality of
a discourse analytic study might be better evaluated by focusing on the
theoretical and methodological transparency of the study (see also Joy et al.,
2006). This means making the theoretical perspective from which the
interpretation is made more explicit. It also means making the empirical
material production, analytical procedures, principles and development of
interpretations, as well as the conclusions drawn, as transparent as possible.
(Moisander and Valtonen, 2006, 32). By including a more detailed discussions
on the methodological choices made during this study (see also Appendix 4), I
have sought to specify how this research was conducted. In so doing, I have
also aimed to provide a more transparent interpretation of the material and
describe how I reached the findings of the empirical analysis, which are
presented next.
81

4 CONSUMERISM AND ECOLOGICAL
CITIZENSHIP IN THE CLOTHING
MARKETS
The theoretical framework of this study (Chapter 2) examined the analytical
utility of the literature on ecological citizenship for understanding consumers
as targets of sustainability-related social marketing. Chapter 3 then presented
the methodological framework of the study. This chapter presents the findings
of the empirical analysis, which I have conducted in order to advance
knowledge of the possible field of action available for consumers as ecological
citizens in contemporary culture.
82
The empirical investigation was carried out in the context of clothing
markets. In the analysis, I have sought to answer the following sub-questions:
• What kind of interpretative repertoires can be discerned in consumers’
interview discussions regarding sustainable and responsible consumer
choices?
• How do consumers positions themselves and others as responsible and
reasonable societal actors in their discussions and what kinds of subject
positions are available for consumers as ecological citizens?
• How do consumers make sense of the roles and responsibilities of
different societal actors in the globalised marketplace in the context of
sustainability challenges?
As a result of the analytical work, I have discerned four interpretive
repertoires: (1) the repertoire of marketplace conduct complexities, (2) the
repertoire of economically reasonable practices, (3) the repertoire of informed
effort making and (4) the repertoire of social and personal taste. I have
summarised the central elements of the repertoires in table 2 below. The table
first illustrates the primary spheres and central discursive objects of the
repertoires. This is followed by sections that exemplify the rights and

esponsibilities ascribed to consumers in the marketplace in the context of
sustainability challenges.
Table 2. Introduction to interpretative repertoires
Main
discursive
objects
Consumer
rights
Consumer
responsibilities
Marketplace
conduct
complexities
- Mass
production
- Globalisation
- Multinationals
- Supply chains
- Clothing
factories
- Cotton fields
- Choice of the
scale and
objects of
ethical concern
- Personal
inspection of
factories and
cotton fields
- Questioning
globalisation
and taking part
in activist
organisations
- Believing in
individuals’
power to
influence
corporate
conduct
- Acting on
global supply
chains
Economically
reasonable
practices
- Financial
household
management
- Prices
- Economy
- Employment
- Allocation of
financial
resources
- Keeping money
in circulation
- Helping
support
economic
activity,
employment
and happiness
of others by
consuming
Informed
effort making
- Certificates
- Ecoinformation
- Promotional
practices
- Retail stores
and flea
markets
- Access to
information,
service and
sustainable
products
- Actively
searching for
information,
product and
store
alternatives
- Renouncing
the comforts of
ordinary
shopping
- Developing
expert
knowledge and
new skills for
shopping
- Devoting more
time to
consumption
and shopping
Social and
personal taste
- Individuality
- Social life
- Retail stores,
brands and
assortments
- Appreciation
of aesthetics,
taste and
physical
comfort
- Acceptability
and success in
social life
- Appreciation
of individuality
- Willingness to
self-sacrifice
- Prioritisation
of
environmental
issues
- Trading off
comfort and fit
of clothes
- Ignoring
appearances’
influence on
success in
social life
- Denying
individuality
and aesthetics
The following chapters explicate the interpretative repertoires in more detail.
This includes presenting the subject positions available for reasonable
consumers and consumers as ecological citizens in the clothing markets. Each
of the following analytical sections (Sections 4.2–4.4) starts with a short
introduction to the repertoire in question. I then elaborate on the central
discursive themes of the repertoire, which are also presented in table format at
the end of the repertoire sections. In the final section (Section 4.5), I then
discuss these findings, elaborating further on the possible field of action
83

available to consumers as ecological citizens in the marketplace in the context
of sustainability challenges.
84
In presenting these excerpts, I have indicated the lines of the participants
with ‘R’ (respondent) and my own lines with ‘I’ (interviewer). The repertoires
are presented as analytically distinct. Where appropriate, the existence of
different repertoires within an excerpt is identified with ‘[]’ as follows:
[Economical] for the repertoire of economically reasonable practices,
[Complexities] for the repertoire of marketplace conduct complexities, [Effort]
for the repertoire of informed effort making and [Taste] for the repertoire of
social and personal taste. Passages that have been removed from excerpts in
order to keep the excerpts reasonably short are marked with an ellipsis (‘…’).
Bold text is used to highlight central discursive elements and moves in the
excerpts. Where appropriate, reference to the elicitation materials (see Section
3.3 and Appendix 4) is indicated with ‘[]’. For example, a description produced
in relation to the eco-shopping guide is identified at the beginning of the
excerpt as follows: [Reading eco-shopping guide]. As explained previously (see
Sections 1.1-1.2), the terms ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, ‘ethical’ and ‘ordinary’ are
used as general terms for practical reasons and not to make judgements of the
consumption practices in question.
4.1 Marketplace conduct complexities
The repertoire of marketplace conduct complexities operated primarily in the
sphere of markets describing social action from the perspective of global
marketplace. In this repertoire, given the challenges that individuals seemed to
face when seeking to act on large-scale, global problems, the reasonable
consumer was represented as sceptical and cynical towards her possibilities to
make a difference. The central topic areas of this repertoire evolved around the
dimensions of multinationals and individuals (Sub-section 4.1.1), global supply
chains (Sub-section 4.1.2) and corporate conduct and priorities (Sub-section
4.1.3).
4.1.1 Multinationals and individuals
To start with, the repertoire enabled consumers to fend off criticism against not
having taken action on sustainability challenges. In this use of the repertoire,

various discursive constructions of hopelessness and disempowerment were
repeatedly presented in the descriptions of the individuals’ cultural context.
For example, the expression “pain in your heart” and the term ‘sad’ were used
to represent the position of a sustainability-concerned consumer and
individuals’ opportunities to act on large-scale sustainability problems, as
illustrated in the following excerpt.
R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] These are precisely the kinds of things that
make you feel a kind of pain somewhere in your heart. Like environmentally
labelled textiles. There is an awful lot of talk nowadays of global warming and the like
and that one should pay more attention to all these things. But still … one just
gets somehow numb, that, after all, we won’t save the Earth. 1F
Environmental themes have become a subject of permanent public discourse
(e.g., Autio et al. 2009). However, simply increasing the amount of public
discussion on sustainable development does not, in any straightforward
manner, imply improved conditions in which individuals can contribute to
sustainability. Rather, the increased awareness of sustainability challenges,
coupled with the awareness of the increasing globalisation of economic
activities, seems to convey a rather disempowering message of individuals’
potential to make a difference; this is also illustrated in the use of the term
“numb”.
In this repertoire, sustainability challenges were primarily located in
globalised supply chains (e.g., Evans and Abrahamse 2009). Abstract and
distant production sites and complex production chains were commonly
represented as the central locations of sustainability challenges. In the
following excerpts, for instance, the potential of individuals to make a
difference in a world commanded by “supranational monstrous
gigacorporations” is represented as rather insignificant.
R: …It is so sad that all these chains conduct their systems in a similar
manner … That is, all that ethics, there are so many sides to it … it is a
problem probably in the mass-production of everything. …. In relation to
everything possible, like child labour and jobs … they are somewhere other than
in Finland … Now, if the world was a good place then every country would
produce its own things and this kind of supranational monstrous
gigacorporation would not even exist. But such a world is probably not in
view. 5F
85

Sustainability challenges were commonly represented in this repertoire
generalising them across a number of industrial sectors. The association of
sustainability challenges with globalised production offered a means for
reducing consumers’ personal responsibility for the existence of sustainability
challenges (e.g., Evans and Abrahamse 2009) and for representing
sustainability challenges as consequences of globalised production practices
driven by corporate interests (see also Section 4.2 for the repertoire of
economically reasonable practices).
86
The representation of sustainability challenges as widespread, large-scale
problems both externalised sustainability challenges outside consumers’ field
of action (see also Caruana and Crane 2008) and provided a resource with
which to justify not acting on these problems by changing consumption
practices. The refusal to change consumption practices was represented both in
connection to generalised examples of others not engaging in similar acts, as
well as to the other ‘non-environmentally friendly’ practices regularly taken up
by individuals. This is illustrated for example in the following excerpt.
R: This applies to everything – whether it is about groceries or clothing or
oil or anything else. The same thing everywhere. If you want to, it is possible
to consider what one wants to do and how one wants to consume. In my opinion,
there is a certain limit in everything to what one, as an individual, can do
and influence. So it is basically good that those companies are investigated. But
that does not quite influence my consumer behaviour because, in every case, I fly,
I drive and then if I don’t buy, then someone else will. I don’t know whether
this is a good thing, but … 15F
The prevalent conceptualisations of social marketing represent sustainable
consumers as hardy individuals who engage in consistent, meticulous and rigid
environmentally sound practices (Moisander [2001] 2008, 171). In the above
excerpt, occupying this position seems to pose a challenge given how this
position requires the abandonment of a set of practices that other individuals’
might continue pursuing. This is represented as questioning a single
individuals’ potential to influence on a global scale.
In social marketing, the lack of interest from the part of consumers in
engaging in more environmentally friendly practices has commonly been
approached as a social dilemma situation; consumers may be tempted to
practice free riding given that the short-term effects of behaviour seem
insignificant. The internalisation of collectively rational moral norms has been
suggested as a solution to consumers’ lack of commitment to common goals.

(Moisander [2001] 2008, 79–82, see also Uusitalo 1990). This explanation has
also been criticised for ignoring the everyday realities, the cultural nature and
the role of consumption, as well as the practical complexities and
contradictions that emerge in everyday choice situations (e.g., Moisander
2007, Seyfang 2005, see also Miller 2001).
The following excerpt again represents individual consumers’ practices as
having a debatable influence on the broader context. Suggesting that
sustainability challenges are industry-crossing, large-scale problems,
consumers’ moral responsibilities are located in a narrower and closer sphere.
R: I understand that the world is not becoming any better with this consumption
hassle. But somehow, in my opinion, there are much bigger issues. That
does not mean that I would be pardoned for my sins, that I would be pardoned
because I could not care less. But seriously, there are really big issues that
can be intervened and influenced … Like air traffic [emissions] ... How, in
general, energy is being produced. And the world is not very equal in other
respects either. Somehow I have reached the conclusion that I can take
care of my family and others can take care of those things that they are
interested in. It is not a very socially recommendable attitude but I do not find this
eco-shopping guide very close to me. 13F
Other societal actors, who are involved in developing more sustainable ways for
producing energy and traffic emissions, are represented as having more impact
on sustainable development than consumers’ clothing consumption practices
(see also Autio et al. 2009). The above excerpt, by locating global sustainability
challenges within more institutionalised and powerful actors than individual
consumers, also illustrates how it is suggested that consumers have a right to
choose a manageable sphere for moral practices. Individual consumer are
supposedly better equipped to act on the most local level – for example, on
their own family (e.g., Barnett et al. 2005) – rather than on spatially distant
global level such as inhabitants of other nations (see also Szerszynski 2006).
Many of the accounts that drew upon this repertoire also involved claims of
double-standards and short-sightedness regarding overall sustainability
discussions on marketplace and consumption practices. This cultural context
seemed to make cynical and sceptical consumer positions somewhat normal
and reasonable, as the following excerpt illustrates.
R: Like if you think about child labour. It is often quite short-sighted in that sense
that you are criticising Nike and you are wearing Adidas shoes, which is
87

88
equally bad or even worse. Like, I do not know whether it is a cynical or
nihilist attitude that everybody is a bastard so let’s just follow them … 4M
Overall, the widespread nature of misconduct was frequently presented as a
discursive resource with which to justify not trying to change the world by
changing consumption practices (see also Section 4.3 for the repertoire of
informed effort making).
4.1.2 Global supply chains
The repertoire consistently represented consumers as disempowered from
performing the responsibilities ascribed to them as powerful market forces
supposedly able to influence global marketplace practices (see also Caruana
and Crane 2008). This disempowerment seemed to be related both to the
consumers’ singleness and practical abilities to make ‘better’ choices (see also
Section 4.3 for the repertoire of informed effort making). For example, the
following excerpt shows a consumer choosing an ethically labelled product
being ironised for believing in extensive improvement of production conditions
in global manufacturing.
R: Who can control the whole chain? When you use the suppliers of
suppliers’ suppliers’ suppliers? One should be able to control that. That should
absolutely be the goal at which to aim. And I would personally be willing to pay X
Euros more for clothes if I could be guaranteed that it is [ethical]. For example, Gap
has this (PRODUCT) RED. Or, well, there are many others that take part in it. But,
for example, I have bought some [(PRODUCT) RED] children’s wear and I think they
are wonderful. … Some of them [profits] go to the fight AIDS in Africa … and they
also look really cool [Taste]. There you have, in my opinion, a successful example of
how this kind of thing can be branded and done well. And, as a consumer, I
happily pay a bit more for it. [Economic] And yet, at the same time, arrives the
news that Gap uses [child labour]. In a way, as a consumer, you are a kind of
lost if you do not personally cultivate your own cotton and make it into
cloth [Effort]. 11F
In this repertoire, global supply chains that operate using “the suppliers of
suppliers’ suppliers’ suppliers” represented a typical sustainability challenge
residing outside the consumers’ field of action. A consumer choosing ethically
produced alternatives and “happily pay[ing] a bit more for it” was represented
as being “lost” in the marketplace when facing conflicting information on the

manufacturer’s production practices, which were simultaneously used for
other, ordinary product lines (see also Niinimäki 2009). In this contradictory
situation, consumers seemed to have to contend with their own means for
finding trustworthy information, such as personally visiting cotton fields and
overseeing cloth production (see also Section 4.3 for the repertoire of informed
effort making).
In the following excerpt as well, cotton fields and supply chains figure again
as the central sites of sustainability challenges. In this passage, supply chains
are presented as sites where committing marketplace ‘sins’ is quite inevitable.
R: [Reading the ethics survey] Yes, this reminds me right away of how H&M is being
chided for using child labour. If it is about this ethicality … then, also Nike and –
was it Reebok? – have also been criticised for using child labour in the factories. I
mean, I really think that, at certain phases in the production chain, many
companies commit that sin, whatever that then is. But if, like many are
saying, they buy branded goods and expensive clothes and justify it by saying that
they are ethically produced and they can be sure that no cheap labour has been used
in any phase … But how can they [consumers] be sure? They [consumers] do
not personally go and investigate the whole chain from its very
beginning. Like, who, for example, planted cotton in the fields? The
consumer cannot know that by any means! [Effort] If it is not made in Finland from
the very beginning – it [the consumer] cannot [know]. … So, I think that those who
buy brands and say that “these are ethically perfect”, are deluding
themselves and others. 9F
In the above excerpt, consumers are metaphorically sent to the cotton fields
after reliable and trustworthy production condition information. Debatable
corporate practices are encapsulated in the metaphorical expression of
“committing that sin”, which is also represented as characteristic of the
globalised marketplace. The repertoire is used here both to fend off criticism
against corporations and to discredit businesses’ position as trustworthy or
beneficiary societal actors (see Crane 2005). Consumers who trust brands’
ethics claims are depicted as living in a sort of false consciousness, suggesting
that company brands cannot provide any particular guarantee of ethical
conduct (also Shaw et al. 2006, 436, Joergens 2006).
A common feature of this repertoire was also accusing others for their
conduct. One example of this was the frequent representation of ethically
sound conduct as conduct that would be “100 percent ethical”. Such conduct
was frequently represented a rather idealised view of the everyday realities of
not only consumers but also of companies (also Miller 2001). Hence, the
89

epertoire also provided a means to sympathise with companies operating with
global supply chains, as the following excerpt illustrates.
90
R: Yesterday there was an item on the news that the factory that Marimekko uses in
Estonia had bought – it was not from Uzbekistan but from some similar part of the
former Soviet Union – cotton that had been collected by children. So, in a way, you
should have sanctions that are wide enough. Always. But I don’t know; this is
a really difficult question and an issue that should be solved within a certain
scale of time. But then … it is precisely the same thing with whatever kind of
electronics to which components are supplied. Like China is a really
horrendous place in many senses. One cannot release companies from that
responsibility but they must try to do all they can for these things. In a way, I also
understand that is not always 100 percent possible. The chain just comes
on the way at a certain point. 11F
Overall in this repertoire, the difficulties that companies may have in acting
responsibly when outsourcing were frequently justified by making reference to
global supply chains as somewhat incontrollable entities dictating marketplace
practices. The representation of global supply chains as challenging to manage
also provided a discursive resource upon which to draw to justify companies’
inability or challenges to practice more sustainable marketplace conduct. In
addition, this located the power for changing marketplace practices in abstract,
unanimous and incontrollable supply chains. As previously noted, these kinds
of challenges were commonly represented as industry-crossing issues rather
than being illustrative of clothing industries in particular.
On the other hand, supply chains were also represented as entities that
emerged out of companies’ strategic decision making. As the following excerpt
illustrates, sustainability challenged in supply chains are also associated with a
lack of international collaboration and control.
R: Well, no wonder that more than 30 European clothing chains are
lacking ethical guidelines. Well, guidelines … that is a different kind of thing.
Obviously, somebody has to decide how the supply chain functions and
who does what. But although one manager decides it, that manager
cannot necessarily manage other counterparts of the chain. Since cotton is
not being cultivated in Finland, it is difficult to verify. And even if they would go
to some place next to Niagara to check the fields, how can one know that
the local boss is not taking you to the wrong field? That they don’t, in reality,
cultivate the field using child labour? But then when they go to show [the field], it is
like some organic field that is staged there? Or, children have been sent to have a

eak and some food. I really am quite sceptical ... And I am not saying that
those locals are unreliable but there is always someone who is. And
especially in some communist countries like China, where the decision-making
power is held only by a few. So perhaps one [Europeans] should be more involved in
it. 9F
The above excerpt reveals the sceptical, cynical consumer position based on the
practical impossibilities for both European consumers and managers to verify
production conditions in distant locations in developing countries (see also
Moisander [2001] 2008, 215). The lack of ethical guidelines is represented here
as another widespread phenomenon that characterises the contemporary
marketplace. This is also suggested to be a somewhat understandable state of
affairs given the challenges of operating on a global scale. In this way, in
addition to being used to validate individual consumer’s behaviour in the
marketplace, the repertoire also served to fend off criticism against the
practices of a single manager; the single manager is disempowered for he or
she cannot monitor all the counterparts of global supply chains and cannot
even trust the ethics of distant business partners.
4.1.3 Corporate conduct and priorities
The repertoire was also used to justify consumers’ scepticism and mistrust of
other marketplace actors. The reasonable consumer within this repertoire was
not only represented as sceptical but also as well-informed and media-literate,
capable of collecting, receiving, searching and comparing marketplace
information (see also Section 4.3 for the repertoire of informed effort making).
This reasonably sceptical consumer was also represented as not only critically
evaluating businesses’ recent practices but also as judging current business
practices against the historical background. As a result, the long-established
reputation of clothing industries as participating in exploitative labour
practices (e.g., Beard 2008), coupled with the clothing industries’ perpetual
appearance in the media regarding child labour (Shaw et al. 2006), seemed to
challenge the clothing industry’s ability to appear capable of making advances.
As noted, it was typical for this repertoire for sustainability challenges to be
consistently represented as broadly spread. As the following excerpt illustrates,
this also seemed to question criticism of only one company for unsustainable
marketplace practices.
91

92
R: It surprises me that Hennes & Mauritz has ranked the best [in the ethics survey of
clothing chains]. Then, on the other hand, that makes one think that they must have
put quite a lot of effort into it. That is, that their conduct would look good.
So, it could well be that it [the rank] does not necessarily tell the truth. They have
quite a lot of resources to put into this kind of positive PR. But, then, it also says here
that, “… even those cannot be considered being produced in a fair way”. So does
that mean that a wrong party is then being chided if it is always H&M that is
being chided? One should also chide others that make even higher gross
margins? … And it is, of course, also kind of an issue of trust. Although it was said
somewhere that “These have been produced there and there”, and you could presume
that it is then ethical conduct in all respects – whatever is understood by
ethicality in that context… [but] how you can be sure about it?… So, I do not
know whether there is, then, enough trust in those [claims] then … just because of
the negative publicity that the clothing industry has made for itself. … it would really
require thorough brand-building from the beginning when the reputation has
been lost. 18M
The repertoire was often drawn upon to represent globally-operating
corporations as uncommitted to pursuing sustainability. The previous excerpt
illustrates this with the expression of “positive PR”, which is used to
characterise companies’ sustainability efforts. Rather than emerging from
corporations’ ethical stances, which could prompt them to improve production
conditions (Crane 2005), sustainability efforts were frequently associated with
practices at a linguistic level that aimed primarily to polish the company’s
image (also Micheletti 2003). Similarly, Joergens (2006, 363) has observed
that consumers treat information about ethical conduct from the company
itself with doubt and scepticism.
In the use of this repertoire, frequent reference was also made to the myriad
possibilities for defining ethical conduct in the globalised marketplace (e.g.,
Moisander [2001] 2008, 217–218). In this respect, consumers were also
ascribed with a responsibility to know about globalisation and development
priorities as the following excerpts illustrate.
R: Of course, there are a lot of people who vote – who are noble in that sense
that they do not buy anything from Zara or Hennes & Mauritz ... But then
again … you have this never-ending debate about whether one should operate in
China, in Burma, and what it is that should be prioritised. Is it better if one
enters some country and kind of shows the locals that there are also other ways of
doing things and brings a new culture there? Or should one completely stay away and
let them live their own lives? This is therefore a broader question, one that is related

to globalisation. Personally, I think it is better that companies enter these countries
and possibly offer conditions that – although they are bad – are still often better than
the local company offers. Somebody would probably criticise me now for this,
that I am completely wrong. This is my opinion. 17M
R: … But in my opinion it is a little misguided to criticise H&M because I think
that those who have sent the children to the cotton fields are the parents
of the children, not H&M. If the children were not there harvesting cotton then
they would be in some factory and I would rather have my children harvest cotton
than sit in some carpet factory for 20 hours a day with bad air-conditioning. So, yes, I
think everybody can be blamed for not being able to be 100 percent
ethical. It is different, however, if they send their children to sew clothing
with a half-penny salary per hour. That is unethical. Even though, in that case,
too, parents in a way give children permission. But then again, better working
in a cotton field than in a factory. 9F
The repertoire was also used for recrimination in order to absolve Western
business practitioners from responsibility for misconduct that occurs in distant
production sites. The responsibility for bad working conditions and children
working in cotton fields and factories, for example, was located within local
business practitioners and the parents of child workers in developing countries
(see also Micheletti 2003). People in developing countries were also presented
as having an important role in making global production practices more
sustainable. This also served to absolve consumers from their responsibilities
to change consumption practices in order to make a difference in globalised
manufacturing practices. For example Joergens (2006, 362) has remarked that
consumers tend to represent the activities of clothing companies in developing
countries in a positive light due to the economic and employment aspects.
However, consumers also tend to reject the role ascribed to them to decide
what counts as ethical conduct in distant contexts: consumers question their
expertise to evaluate and judge company practices in developing countries
(ibid., 369). These diverse shades of ethical conduct are also illustrated in the
above excerpt, for example in the suggestion that ‘unethical’ conduct would be
to not pay children enough, given that children in some developing countries
may not be able to avoid working (see also Devinney et al. 2010).
In this repertoire, business practice improvements were also discredited with
expressions such as “trying to put some effort”, and further discounted with
such terms and expressions as “hypocrisy” and “image polishing” (also
Micheletti 2003). The following excerpt, for example, suggests that the
seemingly positive introduction and inclusion of an organic clothing line into a
93

major clothing retailer’s selections represents another “image polishing”
practice given the proportion of this line in the retailers’ selections.
94
R: … sometimes one just gets such a hypocritical feeling when some clothing
chains try something, put effort into something. Then it is just like, well, they
just try to polish that image because it is like that anyway.
I: Do you have any examples of that? Does something come to your mind?
R: I do not even know who has tried anything … Except that Hennes
[Hennes&Mauritz] has this kind of organic… some sort of clothing collection.
Whatever. So yes, that is a kind of great effort, that. But in the middle of all
that other crap it feels so small, like “Let’s produce a little bit for those
who want it; Let’s produce these clothes just a little bit more ethically,
let’s use just a little bit less of any kind of substances”. 5F
Although the emergence of the organic product line seems to represent an
improvement that facilitates ecological citizens’ rights and responsibilities to
practise choices for more sustainably-produced clothes, the passage also
represents an ironic description of consumers seeking to make better choices
among the limited range of products offered to them (see also Niinimäki
2009). Producing only a few styles with “just a little bit less of any kind of
substances” does not seem to qualify as a genuine or serious effort to take part
in advancing sustainability given how these clothes, which are produced “just a
little bit more ethically”, appear “in the middle of all that other crap”. For
instance Miller (2001, 132) has remarked that consumers and producers may
face similar challenges: neither group of societal actors tends to be solely
driven by goodwill and concern for a common, societal good.
Overall, the various tensile constructions of the relationship between
consumers and companies seemed to place consumers as ecological citizens in
a rather marginal position in the marketplace (see also Moisander [2001]
2008, Autio et al. 2008). The marginal and isolated position of a single
consumer was, for example, referred to by making different ironic remarks.
One example of this is illustrated in the following excerpt, where a company’s
material practices contradict its linguistic practices.
R: I found it amusing when the news yesterday said that Marimekko was totally
terrified, that “Oh no, we are getting cotton from iffy sources – cotton
collected by children!” or something like that. And then, nevertheless, it was
just like around the end of last week that they announced their
collaboration with Hennes and Mauritz. When you contrast it against that

ackground, like the kind of reputation that HenkkaMaukka [Hennes&Mauritz] has
had in the past … it was kind of an amusing observation.
I: Well … what did you think then?
R: OK, they probably take care of their own nest. Like “Let’s now cut the
supplies coming from these doubtful sources”. But then … those kind of
collaboration projects … Let’s say, if I had been responsible for corporate social
responsibility at Marimekko, I would have, at the least, raised quite a lot of
discussion there about whether to start collaboration with some HenkkaMaukka. I
mean, OK, even if it gives tremendous visibility, they [Hennes&Mauritz[
have, in every case, been under all kinds of suspicions in terms of the use
of child labour or unsustainable production in general terms as well. 7F
Companies as societal actors are represented here as being primarily
concerned with economic performance. As such, they are also depicted as
somewhat self-concerned societal actors when cutting supplies from dubious
sources in order to “take care of their own nest”. Further, companies are also
represented here as being indifferent to potential associations with
unsustainable production practices, which might follow from establishing
collaboration projects with corporations that are frequently associated with
unsustainable production practices. Consumers in this context seem to be
relegated to the role of outsiders: the visibility that a collaboration project with
a global mass clothing retailer can offer seems to outrank in business priorities
the potential sustainability concerns of consumers.
Table 3. Marketplace conduct complexities
Marketplace conduct complexities
Main discursive objects - Mass production
- Globalisation
- Multinationals
- Supply chains
- Clothing factories
- Cotton fields
Reasonable consumer - Cynical sceptic
‘Others’ against which the
reasonable consumer
position is presented
Reasonable consumer’s
rights
Ecological citizen’s
responsibilities
- Short-sighted people
- Consumers trusting brands
- People believing in the power of the
individual
- Choosing the scale and objects of ethical
concern
- Personally inspecting factories and cotton
fields
95

96
- Questioning globalisation and taking part
in activist organisations
- Believing in the power of the individual to
influence corporate conduct
- Acting on global supply chains
Discursive elements in text - Mass production, supply chains,
gigacorporations
- Sins, committing sins, being pardoned for
sins
- Cotton fields, clothing factories
- Numb, sad, feeling pain in your heart
- Individual, bigger issues
- Globalisation, leaving Finland
- Criticising others
- Everybody is a bastard and can be blamed
- Nihilist, cynical, two-sided, short-sighted,
paradoxical
4.2 Economically reasonable practices
The repertoire of economically reasonable practices operated primarily in the
sphere of markets. This repertoire provided consumers with a means to
represent different marketplace practices as responsible and reasonable by
taking financial resources and economic perspectives into account. The
repertoire evolved around the following central topic areas: allocating financial
resources (Sub-section 4.2.1), immorality of wasting money (Sub-section 4.2.2)
and supporting the economy (Sub-section 4.2.3).
4.2.1 Allocating financial resources
To start with, this repertoire enabled consumers to validate financial resource
allocation decisions. The terms “quality” and “price” were frequently used to
explain reasonable shopping practices, tying these terms together from an
economic point of view. An example of this is illustrated in the following
excerpt, where investing in quality is represented as an economically
reasonable practice.
R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] I remember having read something similar in a
newspaper but I think it was more focused on the quality aspect, that it pays to
invest in quality; that one should rather buy less so that they will last longer
and keep their fit; so that they are not all stretched out after one year or something

like that. That is, I may have seen less of these things presented from an
environmental point of view. 14F
In many accounts that drew upon this repertoire, the relationship between
economic and environmental aspects of consumption appeared either as
emerging or non-existent. In some cases, for example, the economic
perspective represented the most or the only credible stance for validating
marketplace practices. This applied to individual consumers’ practices as well
as to business practices. In the following excerpt, for example, investing in
more expensive clothes, which are also associated with an elevated quality, is
represented as reasonable, primarily from the economic perspective, also
making a separation from environmental causes.
R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] At least for me these are quite new things. I
haven’t thought about these from this perspective. In general, in my opinion, people
should take better care of their clothes. Buying some cheapo clothes and then
not taking care of them is, in my opinion, totally senseless. If someone
wants to look good [Taste] then why wouldn’t they take care of their clothes so that
the clothes look much better, instead of just buying new and buying cheap? That is to
say, I do not favour buying this kind of cheap clothing. But that is not for the
ecological causes; in general, that is about wasting resources. In general,
resources are being wasted. But OK, those do go hand-in- hand.
Sometimes. 17M
Overall, “wasting resources” from an economic perspective represented a
somewhat more legitimate cultural reasoning than “ecological causes”. Whilst
buying cheap clothes is represented here as a practice of poor economic
resource management, the potential relationship with economic and
environmental aspects manifests itself as a rather tensile one, as illustrated in
the remark “But OK, those do go hand-in-hand. Sometimes.” From an
economic point of view, as the above suggests, a totally senseless practice of
household management would be to buy cheap clothes and replace them with
new, cheap items rather than taking care of them. The following excerpt
illustrates a similar cultural reasoning.
R: I think that, in principle, quality costs. And, in a way, on the other hand, I think
that a poor person cannot afford to buy cheap. And that is really the reason
why I don’t ever go to H&M or Zara; because I think those clothes are, or I have this
criteria that clothes should last in use and those clothes of H&M and others
do not. 4M
97

The Finnish saying, “a poor person cannot afford to buy cheap”, suggests that
investing in quality would pay in the long run. The following quote challenges
this sentiment, however, for its material and practical applicability in the
contemporary marketplace.
98
R: ... I have tried to buy good quality. … On the other hand, it is confusing that
what lasts and what does not does not depend on price or quality or a
brand even. That is, it is just luck. For example, I have had a knit that cost 10
[Euros] from Zara that has lasted really well. And then some [knit], of better quality
and five times more expensive [that I have bought], let’s say for example from French
Connection, has kulahtanut [lost its form and colours] right away. It is kind of
curious that one should feel it from the quality of the knitwear, but that the brand or
label or price does not say anything about it [Effort]. 11F
Quality has traditionally held a central position in consumer education on
economically reasonable household management practices (e.g., Autio 2006).
In addition, in the Finnish context, consumer policy has emphasised
economically rational household-keeping practices, for example, by focusing on
prices or price-quality ratios of shopping baskets (Huttunen and Autio 2010,
148). In the use of this repertoire reference was also made to differences in
consumers’ financial means, suggesting that trade-offs between price and
quality might better characterise individuals’ practical realities. This also
positioned those consumers who had somewhat limited financial resources in a
marginalised position, as the following quote illustrates.
R: Well, I do understand that a person that does not have an awful lot of money –
like when you are a student – just buys what they can afford. 11F
With regard to more sustainably produced clothing, Shaw et al. (2006), for
example, have remarked how consumers with tight budgets are often forced to
trade off potential interests in fairly produced clothing. Hence, the financial
position of a consumer seemed to place consumers as ecological citizens in the
marketplace in somewhat unequal positions, which were primarily defined by
their affluence (see also Seyfang 2005, MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007). Whereas
this marginalised position was sometimes associated with being a student or a
young person in general, such association was also called into question, as the
second excerpt below shows.

R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] Then again, if you think how people consume
fashion in general … Like it says here: “Look for timeless fashion”. Well, young
people often buy the latest thing and change their style every six months. Well,
in that sense, that is not very wise considering your finances. Or considering
having a personal style that you like [Taste]. But, presumably, these things will
develop when a person becomes more mature. 17M
R. ... Even though I have graduated, my incomes are not really spectacular
enough yet that I could afford [to buy more expensive clothing] ... Of course, it is a bit
like – that one always has to shame a bit – if one buys something really
cheap, you know.
I: But then ... if you cannot afford it?
R: ... then you have no choice. 10F
In these ways, the repertoire enabled consumers to validate particular
marketplace practices and to fend off criticism. In so doing, the repertoire
provided consumers with a means to explain how certain practices related to
shopping take place. Whereas consumption practices and skills for managing
household finances are represented above as practices that develop hand-in-
hand with maturing (Autio et al. 2009, Autio 2006; see also Niinimäki, 2009),
the limited financial resources still seem to place consumers as ecological
citizens in different positions (Seyfang 2005, Latta 2007). In addition, buying
cheap seems to also be associated with shameful practices that bear some sort
of stigma, with which consumers buying more affordable products must live,
even when practicing ‘ordinary’ consumption.
The repertoire also enabled consumers to justify the potential for more
sustainably produced goods in the marketplace. For example, the following
quote represents the market for more sustainably produced clothing as one
that has already emerged and exists, given that people have reached a certain
level of affluence.
R: If you spend some 130 Euros on sneakers, then you can be totally sure that
money is not an issue anymore. Because that is really a totally senseless
amount of money to be spent on ordinary shoes, which are not even like running
shoes that are at least functional … so, based on that, I see an awful lot of potential
for things like ecologically produced jeans … even if they were ecological, like
organic, they would be really cool-looking [Taste] … If you think of some
American Apparel; they make blank t-shirts but still it is much cooler to have that
one than if you make a print t-shirt. You make it on American Apparel, not on Fruit
of the Loom. I think there would be potential since we have already reached a
99

point where people spend an awful lot of money on fashion things and
the like. 4M
Overall, consumers’ different financial positions located them as ecological
citizens in rather different groups when ecological citizenship as a marketplace
practice required the purchase of more expensive items (Seyfang 2005, Latta
2007, see also Dolan 2002, Gabriel and Lang 2006). When accessing ecological
citizens’ position required a choice of more expensive products, consumers
with limited incomes might, in addition to being excluded from ecological
citizenship practices, also seemed to be forced to bear shame for their financial
and inferior social position.
4.2.2 Immorality of wasting money
Whilst the repertoire enabled consumers to validate spending money on
quality, it also enabled them to deflect criticism for not paying a lot for a single
item and to validate buying cheaper items in order to buy more items for the
same amount of money. In this context, higher prices were associated with
wasteful and immoral consumption practices and with irresponsible allocation
of financial household resources (Miller 2001, see also Huttunen and Autio
2010). From this perspective, investing more money on a single item becomes
a somewhat unreasonable practice.
R: They were quite interesting garments, made of some natural materials. ... I bought
pantyhose and a knit … But then … even if I was satisfied with that knit and those
pantyhose and those others that I bought … the prices were still so high so I
kind of thought that one could put one’s money to other ends as well. So,
since then, I have not bought from that store.
I: So where would put your money then?
R: I don’t know. In every case, money comes and goes. That is, it is meant to be
that way; one should not get too attached to it. But paying 70 Euros for a knit … that
is somehow an awful lot compared with how many knits one could have
bought from some other store. So it is always off from something else. So,
one has to think about that, too. 1F
As a practice of wasteful consumption, spending higher amounts of money was
also associated with unsustainable and non-environmentally friendly
consumption. For example, in the following excerpt saving money for months
100

in order to buy one designer label bag is associated with non-ecological
practices.
R: … China did not even agree to sign that [Kyoto] agreement, so they do not have to
[consider the environment]. And the focus of people there is not on being
environmentally friendly, although maybe quite a few people there do think about
that. [Complexities] If you think about that, too, that people in Hong Kong are
willing to pay four months’ salary for some Luis Vuitton hand bag [Taste].
So, in my opinion, that is not a sign of very environmentally friendly
behaviour. Instead, they could focus on buying environmentally friendly
products. 9F
The above quote represents environmentally sound consumption practices and
spending a lot of money on one single item as rather distinct categories,
making hence a clear separation between more sustainable and ordinary
products. Hence, a consumer who spends “four months’ salary” on a luxury
designer bag is excluded from being “environmentally friendly”. On the other
hand, however, for example Autio (2006, 96–97) has remarked how spending
more money on a single item can also be justified as a practice that contributes
to more sustainable consumption practices because it can reduce the amount of
items purchased. This is because consumers have limited financial resources.
A parallel can be drawn here with Miller’s (2001) London-based explorations
of shopping and the moral duty of consumers to save money on the behalf of
their household. Miller (ibid., p. 134) for example remarks that when
consumers legitimise shopping practices in terms of money saved, consumers
consider having behaved in a morally correct manner. Similarly, spending with
moderation has a culturally established position as reasonable management of
household resources in the Finnish context (Autio 2006, 90, Huttunen and
Autio 2010, 148). From this perspective, purchasing more expensive products
can indeed represent an immoral activity, as the following excerpt illustrates.
R: So when I have wanted to make those kind of impulse purchases, I have bought
clothes from flea markets. It is like: “I do not know whether I like this so much
… but it does not cost much”. So it is, then, this kind of my [impulse purchase],
you know.
I: Tell me a bit more about flea markets – what have you found there? What kinds of
purchases have you made there?
R: Oh, from one end to the other! I would like to forget half of them. Luckily I
have not paid much for them but … it is just like … well, perhaps some people
when they want some renewal in their lives, some excitement in their lives, perhaps
101

they travel or go and get drunk. So perhaps for me it is clothes. … that is a kind of
safe way. Like, well, a small amount of money … And sometimes you find real
treasures there, too. But most often it is that you use them a couple of times and then
you go back to the flea market to sell them ... 1F
Flea-market shopping is generally believed to signal sustainable shopping
practices. On the other hand, however, for instance Miller (2001, 131) has
remarked how the use of flea markets can bring personal pleasure and that the
personal, ‘selfish’ reasons may even outweigh the altruistic ideals attached to
flea-market shopping (see also Soper 2007, Prothero et al. 2010). In the use of
this repertoire as well, the private, ‘selfish’ aspects were closely associated with
the use of flea markets, as is illustrated in the following excerpt.
R: … I have been buying from flea markets lately because one can get totally new
clothing. So this helps with my “I do not buy anything” decision. That is, I do buy
from stores – I buy from flea markets!
I: How does it help?
R: Well, OK, one does not waste so much money when buying some totally
new clothes there with only a few Euros… Then it is also about recycling
and that kind of thing. 5F
Making use of the clothes available at flea markets can, arguably, be reasonable
from an environmental point of view. However, it also seems reasonable to
consider Miller’s (2001, 131) remark that the use of charity shops, for example,
may not solely be evidence of shoppers’ concern for the common good since it
can be done at a reduced financial cost (see also Prothero et al. 2010).
Nevertheless, the repertoire also provided consumers with a way to tie the
saving of their household’s financial resources with more environmentally
sound consumption practices. In addition to bringing flea-market purchases
and economic household management together, the repertoire was also used to
call into question the sustainability of current modes of consumption, as
illustrated in the following excerpt.
R: I just personally feel sometimes that a little less money could be [spent]. That
is, if it is all splashed out, the money.
I: So why you should you [spend] less?
R: Well, it just feels that one could get by with a lot less. That is, in my
opinion, people in general consume far too much of everything on this
planet. Quite a lot of it is about that, too, that one does not want to wear the
same clothes at weekends but needs new clothes [Taste]. Does that then
102

make any sense at the end of the day? Probably not … So like now, I have now just
been collecting [some savings] and I have been thinking whether I should spend
now or later. Later, that is, like save it for a rainy day. And that rainy day,
that is not like some new pair of shoes or similar. 3F
The position of an economically reasonable consumer is here constructed with
reference to not wasting money and the cultural conventions that guide
appearance in social encounters. Whereas the act of saving money for a ‘rainy
day’ arguably again emphasises private concerns rather than altruistic concerns
(see Prothero et al. 2010), the common good and the ‘selfish’ practice of
securing one’s own financial position are also represented as mutually
contributing towards more sustainable consumption practices (also Miller
2001, 127, Soper 2007).
Overall, the idea of morally sound financial management of household
resources appeared to be somewhat flexible. This relative nature is also
illustrated in the following excerpt, where the morality of spending comes
down to the amount of money that the consumer has at their disposal.
I: So tell me a bit more … what would a real need be?
R: Well, perhaps it would be a real need … if one would really thoroughly think about
it, one would need warm clothes and shoes on their feet and things like that. But then
it is just easy to think that I need to have jackets of every kind that would be nice to
wear, and jeans in every colour. And all [kinds of garments] in all shapes and sizes.
So … it is kind of difficult to define whether it is right or wrong and so on
… on the other hand, there is no need to make an issue about it if one just
has money. So, then, why not? But then, if one does not have money, it becomes a
kind of a problem, that one is wasting money, spending the last of their
money. 5F
The practices of morally sound economical household-keeping are represented
here as existing in a relationship with consumers’ disposable incomes. The
wastefulness of consumption practices is defined both against the provisioning
of different product alternatives in the markets and the consumer’s ability to
spend reasonably without “spending the last of their money”. In this context, it
may not always be that obvious whether it is morally correct to reject or
identify with the culturally established conventions for consumption practices.
For example, since promotional messages make a significant part of the
everyday field of visibilities of consumers in contemporary culture (also
Moisander et al. 2010), it could be argued that it is morally acceptable to adopt
103

the lifestyles that are widely proposed in advertising and other promotional
practices.
4.2.3 Supporting the economy
The repertoire also enabled consumers to justify and explain how different
marketplace practices, including the practices represented as unsustainable,
were also reasonable practices from an economic point of view. The terms
‘price’ and ‘quality’ also figured centrally in this respect in this repertoire.
Cheap products, which in the previous section were associated with some sort
of social stigma, as well as being products that financially aware consumers
should avoid, were also represented as in demand by the consumer masses. For
example, in the following excerpt cheap prices are somewhat ironically
attributed to an unanimous consumer economy commanded by consumer
demand.
R: [Reading the ethics survey of clothing chains] On the other hand, the amount of
Euros in the price tag could increase if everything was manufactured in Finland.
I: Right …
R: This is a consumer economy that very much wants products that are
cheaper and faster and of a better quality. And then some company always
goes and takes this kind of extreme measures. 16M
In addition to demanding cheaper products, the consumer economy calls for
faster provisioning and better quality. In this respect, companies seem to be at
the mercy of demanding consumers (e.g., Schor and Holt 2000) and forced to
engage in susceptible business practices. This also seems to locate remarkable
power in the marketplace, not only in the hands of any type of consumers but,
in particular, in the hands of (low income) consumers demanding cheaper and
buying cheap products (Caruana and Crane 2008). It is the “consumer
economy” that makes companies “take extreme measures” in the marketplace.
From this perspective, consumers themselves seem to be calling for abuses to
take place, or at least having a significant influence on marketplace
misconducts when they “want” “cheaper” products.
On the other hand, however, Shankar, Whittaker et al. (2006, 490), among
others, have suggested that representing consumers and demand in this way
also absolves businesses from any potential negative consequences of their
practices (see also Caruana and Crane 2008, Kjellberg 2008). In this
104

epertoire, the commanding position of consumers was also called into
question, particularly in relation to the provision of ecologically and ethically
produced clothing, as the following excerpt illustrates.
R: Yes, well, this [ethical and ecological clothing] is, in fact, a subject that interests
me a lot. You have this kind of contradiction … that there are clothing chains; they
have nice clothing [Taste], they have cheap clothing … that I basically can afford
to buy them … So one thing that I have personally tried to aim at is that I do not
want to have an awful lot of clothes. I would rather put those that I have to good use.
And I would not buy an awful lot. Therefore, I am now trying to create a more
consistent [wardrobe], because I do not really need a lot. 14F
The position offered to less affluent consumers in the context of sustainability
challenges is represented here again as a marginalised one. If a ‘poor’
consumer is unwilling to trade off questions of taste (see Section 4.4 for the
repertoire of social and personal taste), their alternative seems to be to
continue shopping for less sustainably produced clothes and cut down
consumption volume in terms of pieces purchased. In this respect, the less
affluent consumer is again positioned as a second-class ecological citizen
(Seyfang 2005) and is also excluded from the possibility of supporting
businesses on their way to sustainability (see also Latta 2007).
The manufacturing and existence of cheap products was also represented as
characteristic of contemporary society and its overall mentality. Expressions
such as “throwaway mentality” were used to explain the existence of cheap and
short-lasting products. This is illustrated in the following excerpts, which use
the examples of short-lasting clothing products and short-lived furniture and
electronics to exemplify this mentality.
I: So when you dig around those baskets for reduced price items, can it also be at
H&M or …?
R: No, I don’t know why but I just do not go there at all. It is like IKEA for me … It’s
like something that communicates very strongly that this product is made … to be
disposable. 1F
R: If you think about the fashion industry or the clothing industry … if you think
about H&M. So, those clothes they are not even meant to be worn for long periods …
So I do not consider that [buying those clothes] very ethical consumption. Because
they are often big brands, they are cheaply manufactured in some distant locations.
[Complexities] On the other hand, this also applies to other products. That is, in a
similar manner, all products, I mean, neither the mobile phones of Nokia
105

or Samsung are meant to be used for long periods or manufactured so
that they would last. So, that is, basically, of course, about this society’s
throwaway mentality. And this probably applies to many other things as
well. That is, that new is good and old is, perhaps, bad. 4M
In this context, consumers as ecological citizens emerge as individuals who
avoid purchasing “big brands” (also Moisander [2001] 2008). These brands are
associated with outsourcing production to “some distant locations” in order to
cut down production costs. Rather than representing clothing industries as
particularly divergent, other industrial sectors are represented as similar
because they rely on similar business strategies (Blaszczyk 2008). A
characteristic of this mentality seems to be the goodness of what is “new” and
the badness of what is “old”, as well as a preference for a short-term
attachment to material goods.
The repertoire also allowed consumers to justify the societal importance of
replacing old items with new ones. In this context, the phenomenon of fashion
also seems to appear as a useful tool for marketers seeking to persuade people
to engage in purchasing and replacing practices (Strasser 2003, see also Craik
[1994] 2000, Slater 1997). This is illustrated in the following excerpt, where
consumption as purchase making is represented as crucially important for
maintaining welfare society and the happiness of its members.
R: I do not really know where they [fashions] come from. Probably some designer
invents them half a year in advance; what the next spring season must include. And
then someone uses the grapevine and other designers do the same. I don’t know. But
it is about new styles that have come into being based on the happenings of the world
... And then of course there has to be new fashion all the time so that
people would buy new clothes. Because otherwise many would not buy
and they would be wearing the same clothes all the time [Taste]. And I do
not think that is wrong either. But this is about keeping the economy up and
running: everybody has a job, enough money is being spent. But that is also
a kind of nice that there is always a good reason to buy something new. 9F
From this perspective, continuous stylistic change as a marketing tool (Strasser
2003) seems to play an important role in engaging people in purchasing
practices, for example by updating their appearances into new ones, which
people might not make frequently enough if they are not stimulated (see also
Tadajewski 2009). The societal position of consumers as responsibility-bearing
economic citizens (Hilton 2007) also poses a number of challenges for
consumers as ecological citizens. If purchasing is a means for securing jobs and
106

if “having a job” brings psychological well-being and happiness for other
people, then not buying seems to represent a somewhat ‘selfish’ and
irresponsible act. This also places such practices of ecological citizens as
reducing, re-using and re-cycling (e.g., MacGregor 2006) in a tensile position,
given how such practices seem to imply a reduction of consumption, which
may not contribute to welfare society’s economic base.
The broader cultural context also seemed to convey rather contradictory
messages in terms of the opportunities of businesses to support exemplary
ecological citizens’ practices of reducing, re-using and re-cycling. For example
the business strategies that are based on continuous stylistic change seemed to
communicate or advance rather contrary marketplace practices, as the
following excerpts illustrate.
R: All those clothing chains selling cheap and fast fashion, like Hennes
[Hennes&Mauritz] and other similar ones … it is somehow just so – well,
incomprehensible – how much people are being pushed ideas of how much
they need and how they need everything … and then, when the prices are
cheap, then people buy without thinking whether they need those things
or not … OK, well, it is also nice, too, that there are new clothes coming …
But, somehow … people then, suddenly, increasingly think that they need to find
clothes in newer and newer styles. And trends keep on changing and that one must
keep up with them. 5F
R: What I also have seen, personally, is that people buy just for the sake of
buying. Perhaps they think that “Maybe I will use this at some point”, and
then they don’t. Like items of clothing have been found in the wardrobes of my
friends, both males and females, with price tags still attached. That is, they have been
purchased, have not been used, and then afterwards it has been said, “Well, this is
not as nice as I thought ” and then it has been put away. Maybe for recycling, or,
alternatively, to the garbage bin … I do not practise this kind of shopping of
disposable clothing … it is like, “If this is this cheap, I’ll take two of these”.
Or, likewise, if some items are just so cheap that one does not have to think much
when making the purchase decision. That is, “Shall I take this? Or shall I take
the other shirt that I saw in the previous shop? Well, I can take both of
them – and possibly also another shirt from that previous shop!” 16M
A number of researchers have raised concerns over the sustainability aspects of
the increasingly popular phenomenon of ‘fast fashion’ which relies on the
increased purchase frequency of affordable clothes (e.g., Allwood et al. 2006, 2,
Birtwistle and Moore 2007, 211, Jones et al. 2010). This phenomenon is
107

commonly suggested to run even more contrary to sustainability efforts than
ordinary, slower stylistic change in clothing. Prices, particularly affordable
prices, are represented here as enabling “buying without thinking’, given the
low financial cost and risk to consumers. This practice of buying was also
associated with consumption of ephemeral, “disposable” products, which could
be thrown away without being used. It is in this context that concerns have also
been raised about recycling centres and flea markets as destinations to “get rid
of old clothes in an ethically correct manner” (Moisander [2001] 2008, 200),
where ‘fast fashion’ items that have been used a few times can be disposed
‘sustainably’ in order to acquire new ones (Allwood et al. 2006, Birtwistle and
Moore 2007).
Table 4. Economically reasonable practices
108
Economically reasonable practices
Main discursive objects - Financial household management
- Prices
- Economy
- Employment
Reasonable consumer - Economically reasonable
‘Others’ against which the
reasonable consumer
position is presented
Reasonable consumers’
rights
Ecological citizens’
responsibilities
- Throw-away consumers
- People wasting monetary resources
- Allocation of financial resources
- Keeping money in circulation
- Supporting economic activity
- Supporting employment and happiness of
others by consuming
- Reducing consumption
Discursive elements in text - Price, quality, to afford
- Common sense, senseless, it pays to invest in
quality
- Wasting resources and money, splashing out
money
- Throwing away, throwaway society,
consumer economy
- Cheap, cheapo, disposable
- Spending, putting money to some ends,
money comes and goes
- Buying new, keeping the economy up and
running

4.3 Informed effort making
The repertoire of informed effort making operated primarily at a level closer to
the everyday practical realities of consumers. This repertoire evolved around
the additional efforts that consumers as ecological citizens needed to make in
the marketplace, both physically and cognitively, in order to perform well in
their role. The central discursive topic areas in this repertoire focused upon the
fields of knowledgeable consumers (Sub-section 4.3.1), marketplace
information (Sub-section 4.3.2) and the convenience of shopping and living
(Sub-section 4.3.3).
4.3.1 Knowledgeable consumers
To start with, the repertoire enabled consumers to defend ‘ordinary’ consumer
behaviour in the marketplace. Various additional efforts were repeatedly
associated with the position that consumers as ecological citizens were
supposed to occupy. In order to present a culturally acceptable explanation for
not partaking in such practices, for example, the term “interested” was
frequently used, which also justified how some people could be concerned
about sustainability issues while others might not. This is illustrated in the
following excerpt.
R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] Well, let’s see the extent to which this
will have effects. But, of course, today it is fashionable to be green. In that
sense, that, too, has become a kind of fashion thing. So I could well imagine
that it could have influence …
I: “To be green” … What does that mean in your opinion?
R: Being a kind of “eco”: that you know about those things and you are
interested in them. 1F
Ecological issues today can be likened to ‘fashionable’ phenomena. This also
illustrates how environmental questions have become a more normalised
subject in contemporary society (Autio et al. 2009). On one hand, the
trendiness of ecological issues erases the previous marginal image of
environmental issues as being the concern only of radical activists and
spiritually-oriented hippies (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008]. On the other hand,
however, the very same fashionableness can also suggest a degree of group-
specificity and transience, as well as superficiality, which is generally
109

associated with fashion as a social phenomenon (Braham 1997, Entwistle
2001). For example, in the following excerpt the awareness of ecological
products in the Finnish context is represented as scarce.
110
R: [Reading a news story on ‘green’ clothing in the US] So does this mean that
people wouldn’t [act] ecologically?
I: Wait …
R: … or what does this mean …?
I: Mmm … it says that the demand of those [green] products would be increasing in
the US.
R: Well, I don’t know whether that is the case in Finland. At least, thinking about
myself, I can say that this kind of thing has not come to my mind. 2F
In this repertoire, expressions such as “has not come into my mind” served not
only to legitimise consumer behaviour in the marketplace but also to refer to
the representation of ecological issues in contemporary society as matters that
only concern specific interest groups. This is also illustrated in the following
excerpt.
R: Well, they speak about environmentally labelled products here. I do not
remember ever hearing about anything like that, that clothes would have an
environmental label. In a way, if there had been more information about that
labelling, then perhaps people would then know to search for them. 14F
In this repertoire, consumers as ecological citizens were consistently
represented as active individuals who would engage in a number of additional
efforts in the marketplace in order to perform their role (e.g., MacGregor
2006). A frequently used, action-oriented term for characterising these active,
environmentally exemplary individuals was “to search”. Instead, ordinary
consumers were commonly represented as individuals who expected socially
important matters to be brought forward by other societal actors to enable lay
or less active people to become more aware of them without personal efforts.
The following excerpt provides an example of this, describing the broader
cultural context of consumers in urban surroundings.
I: You mentioned that [advertising] might have some influence …?
R: What I remember best are those outdoor advertisements. But those [spaces]
are kind of occupied by H&M, all of them. And now that we have the underwear
season [before Christmas] you cannot actually even escape them … Perhaps it
[ecological clothing production] could be spoken about more. Or those

companies that really invest in it would bring themselves forward more. So that
tavalliset kaduntallaajatkin [lay people] would also become aware of
what they are doing.
I: Right.
R: Because I am not that active that I would go to some company’s web site and
investigate what they are up to. 9F
In this repertoire, the ordinary consumer was commonly represented as
someone who would come across socially relevant information in everyday life
by “hearing” of culturally relevant subjects, which were widely “spoken” or
widely present in the visual environment of consumers (see also Moisander et
al. 2010). Occupying the ecological citizen’s role instead called for more active
personal engagement in practices of searching for information and
investigating what companies “are up to” (see also Joergens 2006, 363). In the
following excerpt as well, consumers are ascribed with responsibilities to make
active personal efforts in the marketplace.
R: Well, I guess it all starts from the decisions of the individual … but then …
perhaps one [referring to herself with ‘one’] could like start to make more
effort in these kinds of questions if … maybe one feels a bit ashamed about how little
one thinks of these questions.
I: Where do you hear about those things then – if one is to hear about them?
R: Well, probably somewhere … if one would actively find out and would belong
to some organisations and would think about this craziness of living more. So
probably there would be a lot of information available but … If one would think with
one’s own brain. But that is not exactly the case. It is not being imposed on
you in some promotional magazines that these are, by the way,
unethically produced clothes. 5F
The idea of goal-oriented, effort-making consumers who “actively find out” has
been characteristic of much of the sustainability-related research in social
marketing (Moisander [2001] 2008, 171). Common features of this repertoire
were indeed various action-oriented expressions that characterised the
practices in which individuals were to engage in order to occupy the position of
an ecological citizen. Also, when the repertoire was put into use to represent
oneself as an environmentally conscious person, the practices of ecologically-
minded individuals were associated with personal efforts.
R: I do look for eco information … I have often noticed that it is quite difficult to
find information, like when you really start to look for it. So, one would
111

112
hope that these kinds of things would somehow jump immediately in
front of people, especially this kind of important thing. About clothing, this is
really important; more information should be given to people… 6F
In many ways, consumers in this repertoire were represented as being put to
work in the marketplace (Zwick et al. 2008). This was particularly illustrated in
the action-oriented vocabulary associated with environmentally sound
consumption practices. Overall, in this repertoire, consumers as ecological
citizens were represented as actively engaging in a number of efforts in order to
perform their role in sustainable development.
4.3.2 Marketplace information
The repertoire was also used to explain the challenges involved in making
sense and use of available marketplace information in practical shopping
situations. In so doing, the repertoire enabled consumers to defend themselves
from criticism for not having purchased more sustainably produced clothing.
Ordinary consumers were depicted again as individuals who expected to be
adequately informed about relevant alternatives, as the following excerpt
illustrates.
R: … I do not search and search for a piece of clothing of which that I am sure that
it has been made – legally and legally – but like ethically right, correctly. Of course, it
is in a way condemnable, [Complexities] but I presume that it would be the case only
when there would be some label, you know, that this product is, somehow,
produced according to some ethical label and this one is not; so then I
could think about that subject. But as long as it is not, for me that kind of
subject that I am aware of when shopping for that piece of clothing, then it is
unlikely that I will be asking more about backgrounds, I’m afraid. Maybe one
should try to find out more about it but … if I had an alternative, if I was
really aware, I do not know how I had been informed, then I would probably
think twice about it. 16M
As typical for this repertoire, the sustainably behaving consumer is again
positioned as someone who actively “searches and searches” and “asks about
backgrounds” (see also Moisander [2001] 2008, 170). Instead, the ordinary
consumer is represented as someone who would wait for a label to emerge to
guide their shopping choices. In many other instances as well, prior

investigations on production conditions were represented as necessary
practices for consumers to qualify as environmentally conscious individuals.
In general, clothing markets seem to lack labels that could assist consumer
choice in more sustainably produced garments (Shaw et al. 2006, Niinimäki
2009). On the other hand, however, it has also been suggested that a
proliferation of labels could lead to an equally confusing situation since
consumers would have to re-engage in comparisons in order to understand
what the labels stand for (Joergens 2006). This is illustrated in the following
excerpt, which refers to the amount of labels that exist already in other sectors.
R: ... I do need to say that all those Key symbols [refers to the Key Flag (Avainlippu),
a trade mark that proves the Finnish origin of a product] and environmental
certificates and the like … Well, I do not know if are they are used for clothes like they
are for many other things. But there are too many of them. They have totally
lost their significance. Because they are, of course, one of the ways in which
environmental agencies collect funds. [Economic] So, therefore, nobody has any
interest in a collective label. 18M
The lack of a collective label that would provide consumers with a consistent
and simple form of support for choice is associated here with the
commercialisation of labelling schemes. Rather than assisting consumers, the
proliferation of labels is associated in this case with ineffectiveness and
uselessness. Instead of helping consumers choose more sustainable products,
more choice in labels may actually be counterproductive as it can fail to provide
consumers with useful tools for practical situations (Shaw et al. 2006, 348; see
also Seyfang 2005, Moisander 2007) and result in a sort of choice paradox (see
Shankar et al. 2006). Furthermore, this kind of situation seems to require
consumers to be knowledgeable and skilful enough to evaluate and compare
labels.
The repertoire also included frequent reference to the kind of knowledge that
consumers as ecological citizens would need to master in order to perform their
role well. This kind of knowledge included information about production
conditions and the environmental performance of products, which consumers
could process in order to arrive at environmentally sound and, therefore,
collectively rational choices in the marketplace (see, e.g., Moisander 2007).
However, as the following excerpt illustrates, this kind of consumer position
may not be practically achievable for ordinary consumers.
I: What was it … “Made of natural materials” you said? What did you mean by that?
113

114
R: They [the garments] had been treated with natural colours … and what was it?
There were long litanies about it. That how it is like, that ecological
production, what it includes … I do not know more about them; what it
means in practice.
I: OK. Does it have some importance, the production?
R: It is a bit sad … that I would like to say that it has. But, then, it is just that,
after all, I do not know what it is. One would need to be much more
acquainted with that subject to say something about it. Like where they
[garments] are being produced and with what kind of labour and what else
there is [involved]… how much natural resources are being used in it. 1F
This position, characterised by the effort-making and environmental expertise
required to make sense of ‘long litanies’, does not suggest a particularly
attractive or reasonable position to which the ordinary consumer could strive.
Despite information being offered to consumers, it is up to the consumers to
digest and evaluate this information and its relevance. Based on the examples
provided by Allwood et al. (2006, 3, 13), similar evaluation situations could
also start by assessing how different phases of clothing production and
consumption should be weighted in environmental terms. This could include
estimating the impacts of primary production, as well as the impacts of
different phases of clothing production, such as yarn dying, spinning, weaving,
knitting, printing, cutting, sewing, surface finishing, pressing and packaging
and verifying whether the information provided by the producer is correctly
presented. Further considerations might include making sense of the
environmental aspects of logistics and incorporating usage- and disposal-
related calculations without excluding labour questions and their
environmental dimensions.
This repertoire also made frequent reference to the broader cultural
representation and presence of sustainability-related information within it.
Reference was also often made to the non-existence of such information as is
illustrated in the following.
I: Where should one talk about those things [mentioned in the eco-shopping guide]?
R: They could be on the walls of each and every shop. Well, no-no-no, that
would probably not promote sales terribly. [Economic] Probably no one
wants to talk about that, particularly some industry. I don’t know, it just should
somehow be … like now there have started to be these natural disasters and … they
have somehow been brought forth a lot more, so… I mean, that this is somehow a
very important thing, this. Just like that it would be pushed forward from

somewhere and with regulations. I don’t know, it just does not come about
on its own … So it should therefore be done with strong enforcement. 12F
Here the lack of information in retail environments where purchases are made
is associated with economic interests (see also Section 4.2 for the repertoire of
economically reasonable practices). Namely, eco-shopping guides “on the walls
of each and every shop” would seem to challenge contemporary practices of
retailing as they “would probably not promote sales”. This seems to narrow
down the opportunities of retailers to partake in solving sustainability
challenges. On the other hand, however, Thøgersen (2005, 144), for example,
has maintained that three major groups – consumers, business and
governments – must be taken into account when seeking to empower
consumers in sustainable consumption practices. Here, rather than depicting
sustainability as something that would “come about on its own”, sustainability
is ultimately represented as something that calls for “regulations” and “strong
enforcement”.
4.3.3 Convenience of shopping and living
The repertoire also enabled consumers to deflect criticism for engaging in
additional marketplace practices that involve physical efforts. In this context,
the term “effort” was associated with the store’s physical location and product
assortments. For example, the following excerpt represents ordinary mass-
market retailers as rather convenient shopping destinations.
I: So where do you go when you go shopping? Can you mention some stores?
R: Well, Carlings, for instance.
I: Can you say why do you like to go there?
R: Well, in a way, it’s a concept that I am familiar with. If you are, like, looking for an
example …
I: Right… what else then?
R: Is the aim here to ask, in a way, something about backgrounds? Like does one, for
instance, check the background, from where it has been sourced or where
it has been produced or the principles upon which the store operates?
That is, did you have this kind of perspective incorporated here at all? Something
like this ethical consumption thing? … Well, I do believe that money has some
influence [Economic]. That, of course, it is easier to buy from H&M and not
question the origin if you cannot afford to buy ethically produced [clothing]. And
it is probably the money and the effort, too. It basically takes more effort to
115

116
find and go to some smaller shop to try and so on. Plus all the assortment
issues and the like in shops like H&M and others; of course, there is more change,
that the rotation of products is probably something like a million or so … 18M
For example Miller (2001) has pointed out that, rather than representing an
enjoyable pastime, shopping is often considered an effort. Consumers as
ecological citizens, however, had to assume a number of additional shopping
efforts on the top of the ordinary efforts of shopping. These additional efforts
included practices such as checking backgrounds, finding alternative products
and visiting numerous stores. In practical terms, these increased efforts
implied greater investment of time in consumption practices (also Dolan
2002). Rather than turning their backs on consumption and consumerism,
consumers as ecological citizens were, perhaps paradoxically, supposed to
increase the role of consumption and its importance in their lives in order to
lead more sustainable lifestyles (see also Micheletti 2003, Gabriel and Lang
2006, Jubas 2007).
A parallel situation emerged in the use of this repertoire with regard to
clothing produced in Finland. On many occasions, searching for clothing that
was made in Finland was described as requiring more effort than the ordinary
practice of shopping at mass-market chains and large department stores
offering primarily globally produced clothing. Also in this context, reasonable
or preferable shopping practices were associated with convenience and
comfort.
I: Probably in Punavuori [quarter in Southern Helsinki], one can find some [Finnish
fashion], if you make some effort.
R: Yes, that is probably the key word. Effort and clothes shopping, those do
not go hand-in-hand in my opinion … For me, that going around in the city
and visiting every store and making a lot comparisons, is kind of like a
fatiguing thing. I know that some people really enjoy it, that it is relaxing for
people. And for me it is precisely the opposite. I can go, like, to a couple of shops and,
in particular, if I know that there could be something for me. But if I would go
Punavuori to look and wonder, I could really soon be fed up with it. 16M
R: [Reading the eco-shopping guide] Finnish products ... yes, one should try to
favour. If there were any. But these are not even sold at Stockmann! Or, if you think
about department stores and what is, after all, Finnish. Like if you want your clothes
to be Finnish, then you have to search in those little boutiques in some
Freda [street with small clothing shops in Southern Helsinki] or something. It is just
that when it is cold and freezing then you just do not bother to walk very

far. One does seek comfort, after all. 12F
As previously noted, the practices of eco-shopping were predominantly
associated with devoting an increased amount of time to shopping. The
following excerpts illustrate this with reference to the time spent searching for
items in different kinds of clothing-acquisition environments.
R: … It feels that I do not find [clothes] from flea markets. Maybe I prefer going to
vintage shops in which it is somehow a bit easier. It always takes time and
one is usually quite short on time. 4M
R: Me too, I would like to be an eco-shopper. And I have sometimes visited
UFF or something. But I just have not found anything there; it is not about me.
That is, maybe I should visit them more … But I am just that kind of shopper. I
just walk through quickly. 3F
In addition to enabling consumers to deflect criticism for not engaging in
additional marketplace practices that involve physical efforts, the repertoire
also enabled consumers to defend themselves by referring to additional
aesthetics efforts that were associated with environmentally sound
consumption practices. In the following excerpt, for example, the consumer
who engages in flea market shopping is represented as giving up all the
comforts, conveniences and visually enjoyable aspects of consumption, which
are customarily provided by ordinary retail environments.
R: I was just in one where there happened to be a flea market and I had a terrible
desire to get out of that room. My mother was there, happily digging through
those piles and [saying] “How about this shirt?” [and] I said “Put it away!” I can
give my garments to be sold here, that is not an issue, but I do not want to buy from
there for myself … It is not an issue of whether it has been used by someone else or
not … But somehow it lacks that feeling of shopping. And, in addition, you do
not get a nice paper bag to carry with you either. Then you just take home those
fancy things that you have bought in some bag of Alepa [a discount supermarket
chain]. That is not the same thing. So, no. Plus they [garments at flea markets] are
not displayed in any organised manner. I feel it is nicer to take a look in
that kind of environment where attention has been paid to the colours
and the total display and lighting and … [Taste] Those kinds of things. Plus [I
prefer] trying on clothes in the kind of fitting rooms where things usually
look good on you. Often you try on some t-shirt [in flea markets] in some sports
hall’s men’s locker room … 13F
117

Flea markets are represented here primarily as disorganised sites that involve
“digging through the piles”. After this activity, which may involve trying clothes
on in a “men’s locker room”, consumers as ecological citizens can take their
“fancy” shopping back home in a bag from the local supermarket. The ordinary
consumer instead seems to be entitled to a rather different consumption
experiences. In addition to having a visually appealing “nice paper bag”, this
consumer is also entitled to shop for clothes in environments where attention
has been placed on the organisation of product displays, lighting and fitting
rooms in order to assist consumers and create customer value (see Postrel
2003) .
118
In common parlance, the use of flea markets and second-hand stores tends to
be associated with sustainable consumption practices. Flea market shopping
today is also represented as an admirable form of consumption behaviour (e.g.,
Autio et al. 2009). Occupying this admirable position, however, requires
consumers to engage in additional efforts also in terms of practical shopping
skills that flea market shopping seems to require. The following excerpt, for
example, suggests that consumers shopping at flea markets have developed
greater visual skills and skills of orientation than ordinary consumers.
R: I would like it if I could find something in UFF and similar places. I just think that
is something that either one should start training. Or then it is like, you know,
that you have a sort of a greater sense of orienteering. That you either have
that talent or not. I would love to have that … maybe if I had some really personal
style of my own [Taste], then probably I would be more experienced at this, but then
I just know that I find my clothes faster and easier from stores. 11F
R: I have a couple of friends who always find some really awesome things from flea
markets; they probably have talent. I do not ever have energy to dig. So that is
maybe the biggest flea market problem for me, going through those massive
piles. 14F
In this repertoire, shopping in flea markets was commonly associated with a
particular set of skills, which the ordinary consumer might need to “start
learning” in order to make successful buys in a flea-market environment. This,
along with the effort needed to learn these skills, as well as the additional
energy required to “dig … through those massive piles” resulted in a rather
unattractive idea of more sustainable consumption practices. Moreover,
against the speed and effortlessness of shopping in ordinary stores, these time-

consuming additional efforts seemed rather unreasonable (also Shaw et al.
2006, 347).
In the use of the repertoire, the term “effort” was also associated with the
practices of taking care of clothing. Although falling outside the marketplace, to
some extent, these practices also made part of the set of activities that
consumers as ecological citizens were supposed to take up in order to
contribute to sustainable development. In the following excerpt, however,
contemporary technological advances seem to have a counter-productive effect
on the attractiveness of time-consuming clothing care practices.
R: For quite some time, I hand-washed all these kinds of different tops
and knits so that they would last longer … Then I lived for a couple of years
with a housemate … and that [housemate] just, without any sorrow, threw all [her]
garments into the washing machine. And for one year I kept on lotrata [washing
slowly by hand] in that sink … When my housemate always had garments
clean and dry the next day, I still had mine hanging and dribbling water
all around the bathroom. Then I just thought, “Back off!” Seriously, some
top of Hennes – hand-washing that! Well, perhaps it lasts a bit longer … But
then, on the other hand, it contradicts everything else in this [eco-shopping guide]! [I
thought:] Great that I bought that child-labour-produced, not-so-long-
lasting [garment] and blah blah blah – BUT I DID hand-wash it: I DID try
to take care of the unethical world! Right. [Complexities]… I could imagine
that, later in my career, when I have a better income, or if I would live with someone,
if I had a boyfriend, then my living expenses would fall and I would have extra
money. Then I could imagine buying better quality products. [Economic] But under
the current circumstances I am very satisfied with my buys at Zara, with very many of
them. 13F
Against the convenience offered by modern washing machines and tumble
driers (Shove 2003), the time spent hand-washing garments in order to
prolong their lives and having them “dribbling water” the next day become less
attractive alternatives to pursue. This represents another paradox for
consumers as ecological citizens in the clothing markets: in an increasingly
busy world (see also Jalas 2006), how to find time to care for clothes by hand-
washing them and how to be able to wait for laundry to dry if modern
technological alternatives are being developed to assist consumers in their busy
lives? Furthermore, the position of a consumer “taking care of the unethical
world” by hand-washing a child-labour-produced garment represents another
paradox for consumers to make sense of. If a consumer cannot afford
ecologically and ethically produced clothes, the consumer might bear shame for
119

eing less well-off and feel guilt for trading off potential concerns for
sustainability in production (Joergens 2006, 369, Shaw et al. 2006, 430, see
also Beard 2008), despite the practical impossibility of doing otherwise (see
Section 4.2 for the repertoire of economically reasonable practices). A further
paradox emerges here too: the extent to which caring for the “unethical world”
by hand-washing garments and having them “dribbling water in the bathroom”
are to be considered compatible (see also see Section 4.1 for the repertoire of
marketplace conduct complexities).
Table 5. Informed effort making
120
Informed effort making
Main discursive objects - Certificates
- Eco-information
- Promotional practices
- Retail stores and flea markets
Reasonable consumer - Habitual choice maker
‘Others’ against which the
reasonable consumer
position is presented
Reasonable consumer’s
rights
Ecological citizen’s
responsibilities
- Effort making, active consumers
- Consumers who have extra time
- Consumers not minding service or
comfortable shopping environments
- Access to information, services and
sustainable products
- Active search for information, product and
store alternatives
- Renouncing the comforts of ordinary
shopping
- Developing expert knowledge and new skills
for shopping
- Devoting more time to consumption and
shopping
Discursive elements in text - To come into mind, to hear, to remember
- To search, to look for, to make efforts, to
actively seek, to be active, to investigate, to
check backgrounds, to question the origin
- To know, to be informed, to be aware of
- To be interested, to be enthusiastic, to find
out
- Labelling, certificates, eco-information
- To bring forward, to come about on its own,
to push forward, to speak about more,
tavalliset kaduntallaajat [lay people]
- To have talent , to have a greater sense of
orienteering
- To have time
- To dig flea market piles

4.4 Social and personal taste
Like the previous repertoire, the repertoire of social personal taste operated
primarily in the sphere of consumption at a level closer to the consumer. This
repertoire described social action from the perspective of social and personal
taste, evolving around questions of aesthetics, visual appearances and the
body. The central discursive topic areas in this repertoire focused on the
following fields: aesthetics and marginal appearances (Sub-section 4.4.1),
bodily fit and comfort (Sub-section 4.4.2), and personal style (Sub-section
4.4.3).
4.4.1 Aesthetics and marginal appearances
This repertoire enabled consumers to fend off criticism against not having
chosen a supposedly ecological style. Here, the terms “style”, “look” and
“aesthetic” were frequently used as justification (Joergens 2006, 364; see also
Moisander [2001] 2008, Autio 2006). The repertoire was often articulated into
being when describing the physical appearance of clothes that were supposed
to be or were marketed to consumers as ecologically and/or ethically produced.
These articulations illustrated a number of trade-offs that ordinary consumers
were supposed to make in order to qualify as ecological citizens.
To start with, the articulations of visual difference led to marginalisation in
two ways. Firstly, clothing that was ecologically and/or ethically produced was
consistently associated with ugly appearance (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008,
199–201). As a result, it was represented as an unattractive choice in aesthetic
terms as well as having stigmatising effects. For example, the following excerpt
associates sustainably produced clothing with a grandmother’s underwear.
R: I did not know that underwear can be eco-labelled but … Now I probably know to
look for them, but I am a bit suspicious that the kind of underwear that I
use would have an eco-label ...
Q: So what kind of [underwear] you expect those ones [with eco-labels] to be then?
R: Granny pants. Perhaps some pantyhose or winter long johns. One could,
perhaps, consider wearing those and they could be eco-labelled, but I do not
believe that some lace strings have eco-labels. 9F
“Granny pants”, as opposed to “lace strings”, associate ecologically produced
clothing with a particular sex appeal. Also, given the particular function of
121

pantyhose and long johns in the Finnish climate to provide an additional layer
of warmth rather than to provide attractiveness, association with these items
does not seem to tie ecological clothing with a particularly appealing look
either.
Similar constructions of the particularity, unattractiveness and ugliness of
ecological clothing in stylistic and aesthetics terms (also Joergens 2006, 364)
were frequently brought up in the use of this repertoire. Moreover, the
aesthetic particularity of more sustainably produced products seemed to
prevent ordinary consumers from occupying the ecological citizen position not
only in the clothing markets but also in other consumer goods markets. This is
illustrated in the following:
R: But, you know, in my opinion, there is this basic problem, overall, for
example, in organic or Fair Trade products or similar ones. I mean, you
think that the person producing the goods would then have decent rights in principle
… Well, I have seen some ethically produced clothes and usually they look
really puro [kind of ugly]. In principle, what should be considered first is ... the
design. That that is taken into account. And that adds value. Normal consumers,
of which I consider myself one, for me it is not even a question of money
[Economic]. But like some organic wines, usually they are really awful. So it is
like a false illusion that if something is done, let’s say, of hemp, or that
something is produced ecologically, that that would be enough, and then
that [product] can be any kind of tryffy [junk]. 4M
Taste, whether in the sense of visual or gastronomic experiences, has a central
position in the aesthetics of consumption experiences and for understanding
consumers as aesthetic and bodily agents (Joy and Venkatesh 1994, Venkatesh
et al. 2010, see also Gronow 1997). Accordingly, the closely related matters of
design that contribute to customer satisfaction are today considered having
central importance for developing customer value and creating commercial
success in contemporary culture (Postrel 2003). Nonetheless, this seems not be
the case in the markets of more sustainably produced goods, which are
associated here with ugliness and inferior quality through use of the
expressions “puro” and “tryffy”, which are represented as characteristic for the
value propositions of many sustainably produced goods varying from clothing
to foodstuffs. Here, the exclusion of aesthetics and taste is represented as “a
false illusion” that narrows consumers’ possible field of action as ecological
citizens in material terms. In order to qualify as ecological citizens, ordinary
consumers are asked to trade off questions of taste, transform themselves into
122

tasteless and non-aesthetic agents and to believe that it is necessary to give up
considerations of aesthetics pleasures in the name of sustainability (Shaw et al.
2006, 347, Harrison et al. 2005, see also Soper 2007).
The second type of marginalisation occurred in relation to the greater supply
of sustainably produced goods. Ecologically and ethically produced garments
have emerged in mass market clothing chains in recent years (e.g., Joergens
2006, Niinimäki 2009). However, these products seemed to be made available
only for particular use occasions, which again narrowed down consumers’
possibilities to contribute to sustainable development in the marketplace.
R: In their [Hennes and Mauritz] mail order catalogue there was a section … I do not
remember whether it was about – organic cotton or was it Fair Trade, or was it
perhaps both? I cannot recall exactly. I was like “Oh, cool, they are also doing
this kind of thing”. The first thought that came to my mind was that “Why aren’t
they all like that?” That is, it was just a few pages of them … I think there were
some basic tops, t-shirts. Perhaps some college jogging suit or something like that. I
cannot remember exactly. There was nothing special. I mean, I did not get any
kind of “I must buy these” feeling from those garments. I was a bit annoyed
that the range was not broader. 14F
In this way, ordinary consumers as ecological citizens in the clothing markets
were positioned in another marginal position: if hoping to buy their favourite
brands or something other than basic tops, t-shirts and jogging suits,
consumers were effectively offered the possibility of trading off more
sustainable production conditions, given that jogging does not quite suit for
every occasion (Shaw et al. 2006, 434; Joergens 2006, see also Sub-section
4.4.3 in this repertoire).
Furthermore, similar trade-off situations were associated with the position of
an ordinary consumer not keen on making radical stylistic changes (also
Joergens 2006, 363).
R: But then, you know, it is so difficult then to choose the clothes based on it
[ethicality]. Because those who produce ethically do not necessarily offer
the kind of items that fit you. This is the kind of contradiction, that you
need to choose either one or other … Those [ethical and ecological clothes] are
so not my kind of clothes. Perhaps [they are] ... too fashionable or too eccentric.
Or too, like, classical that I do not feel like they are mine either. Probably, in the
future, however, there will be more of them and it is good to notice that this is an
issue that people have become aware of. This will certainly broaden out so that
123

those brands that I wear or clothes of a certain style will possibly be like
that too. 6F
R: So far it has been so eco-kind of stuff, tree huggers kind of stuff. One
needs to be extremely green in order to get excited about them. I am pretty
sure that they could do, well – this is not a nice thing to say, but – like, stylish
clothes. They are somewhat exotic creations, to say the least, those that I
have seen up until now. Of course, once again I have to say that I have not been
looking for them much either [Effort]. So, it can be that they have incredible
creations. But I do not really believe that in some Oscar galas anybody has
been wearing some eco gala dress … 16M
In this repertoire, ordinary consumers were represented as being offered the
choice of adopting more sustainably produced styles, which were the “tree
huggers kind of stuff” of spiritually-oriented hippies and environmental
radicals (see Moisander [2002] 2008, e.g., pp. 187, 199–201) or “too
fashionable”, “too eccentric” and “too classical”. Hence, in order to qualify as
ecological citizens, consumers were supposed to give up wearing “items that
fit” and “stylish clothes”. This illustrates another paradox: the paradox emerges
of aesthetic appearance. Whereas the majority of more sustainably produced
clothing in this repertoire was associated with a particular visual appearance,
ordinary consumers as ecological citizens were consistently represented as
having a right to appear visually as they appear today. In addition, with
reference to future, more sustainably produced clothing was associated with
ordinary and even stylish looks.
4.4.2 Bodily fit and comfort
The repertoire was also used to fend off criticism for not choosing a more
sustainably produced item due to its poor physical fit. In this context, the idea
of taste and aesthetics extended to satisfying and comforting the human body
(Venkatesh et al. 2010, see also Entwistle 2001, Joy and Venkatesh 1994). In
this use of the repertoire, bodily fit was tied to aspects of product satisfaction.
The body was also represented as limiting the access to particular consumption
practices. This implied, for example, being restricted from choosing a more
sustainably produced item as the following excerpt illustrates.
124

R: I went to see them … these ‘No Sweat’ sneakers. But then they did not fit my
feet. The model is different. So I did not then [buy them] … I went there all
excited, like “Oh yes, I am going to buy this kind of ethical Converse!” but
then they did not fit my feet. I did not then feel like buying them just for
that reason. But, in fact, the best sneakers that I have had were not from Converse.
I bought them on sale many years ago for five pounds. [Economic] … They are in
totally horrendous shape now; terrible holes, they are just about all holes, but I just
cannot part with them, because they are the most comfortable shoes that
I have ever had. I have sometimes still worn them in bars. My friends have laughed
that “You have punk shoes; we can see your foot!“. I do not know whether they could
even be repaired anymore. 14F
Questions of fit were another subject of the trade-offs that consumers as
ecological citizens were facing in the clothing markets. These questions have
not, however, gained much attention in previous research. Despite being the
centre of all human practices, body has been an under-researched subject in
consumer inquiry (Joy and Venkatesh 1994, Venkatesh et al. 2010) and even
less addressed in sustainable consumption related research as well as in social
marketing. Whereas clothing is used for cultural communication and human
social order (Entwistle 2001, Corrigan 2008), these practices actually take
place upon the body. This also makes the body an important site for the
practices of ecological citizenship.
In the use of this repertoire, the body was also tied to consumption practices
with regard to the relationship between the body and the materials used in
clothing. With regard to materials, the social marketing’s conceptualisations of
sustainable consumers have generally emphasised areas such as consumers’
tendency to check the materials or ingredients of products produced for
environmental reasons (see Schaefer and Crane 2005, 79, Moisander [2001]
2008, 171). In the use of this repertoire, however, emphasis was placed on
materials with reference to bodily comfort.
R: I was really flying high last week when I bought a Finnish hat. Made by Costo, with
‘C’ … really cool hats; they are made of recycled materials… But I think the
final reason why I bought it was that that is was Finnish …
I: … those hats from Costo, they made are of recycled materials ...
R: Yeah.
I: So ... how does that feel?
R: Not particularly bad, no. Like, it is, once again … it is not some criteria for me as
such, but a kind of an additional thing. After all, it is quite the same for me whether it
125

is made of some ecological hemp or something. It just depends on how it feels,
you know. 4M
The bodily comfort of garments was presented in this repertoire as
contributing to experiencing humane sensory satisfaction. As the following
excerpts illustrate, the body both posed constraints and made it possible to
engage in particular consumption practices, commonly associated with more
sustainable consumption practices.
R: Yes, flea markets, yes … Well, one always finds something, I think. But then
again, it is this size thing that I have. So it is rare for me to find. 9F
I: I wanted to ask more about … when you mentioned at the beginning
something about recycling, sustainable consumption, I wanted to ask, what
has led to these things?
R: At least … purely my own, selfish reasons. That my skin does not take
artificial fibres. And natural fibres are longer lasting than the artificial ones. And
then also human rights issues and environmental changes. The ecological point of
view has also influenced me quite a lot. 8F
R: And I try to find those kind of clothes that I think I can use in the next, well, two,
three years, maybe even longer, if I don’t lose my figure. 16M
The body thus enabled consumers in their consumption practices in different
ways. The body set diverse limits and provided different possibilities for
consumers as ecological citizens in the marketplace. This also placed
consumers in different positions as ecological citizens. For example, having a
particular body size or shape could exclude consumers from practices that were
supposed to be carried out by environmentally conscious consumers. On the
other hand, however, the body could direct consumers to consume in particular
ways; for instance, if allergic reactions occurred to particular fibres. With
regard to such ‘selfish’ concerns, a parallel can again be drawn with Harrison et
al. (2005, 2), who have observed how self- and other-directed ethical
considerations can both be present in practical situations at the same time and
lead to more sustainable choices and consumption practices (see also Miller
2001, Moisander 2007, Devinney et al. 2010).
In the use of this repertoire, bodily comfort was also associated with the
practices of ordinary clothing consumption. This is illustrated in the following
excerpt, which represents mass-produced clothing as existing in a somewhat
126

agonised relationship with consumers’ individual bodies in terms of bodily
comfort.
R: Personally, I have been thinking quite a lot about clothes shopping … I mean,
things that annoy me really a lot. That one might like to buy clothing that
would be of quality, long-lasting, timeless. Like the kind of clothing that
would not be tied to the latest fashion ... And sometimes I have been dreaming
that I would have enough money that they could be made to measure. [Economic]
That they would really fit. And not like almost or something like, ”Well, it
straggles there and is too tight here”. … It feels somehow foolish, that all
people are being placed in some scale of from some 34 to some 40 or
something. That is, how is it possible, how on Earth?! It feels… that if not anything
else, then at least it needs to be, at least, always modified from some part. Very few
clothes really fit. 10F
I: You said something about customisation… what did you mean by that?
R: It is more like refitting clothes … It is more about improving how they fit or
about making the clothes look more like you or making them more
comfortable. Not like doing some radical modifications. And also that I am
relatively tall, so it is kind hard for to find nice things. 7F
The inevitable bodily differences were represented as providing reasonable
rationale for respecting the uniqueness of each individual. However, as has
been illustrated in this section, the prevailing ideas of sustainable consumption
in the clothing markets seemed to be rather insensitive towards consumers as
embodied agents.
4.4.3 Fashion and personal style
The repertoire also enabled consumers to validate the importance of
developing, maintaining and not giving up their personal style. In this context,
the repertoire served, for example, to fend off criticism against being either a
fashion or environment obsessed fanatic and to represent oneself a reasonable
individual, characterised by the use of common sense.
R: I am not some passionate freak who follows the latest fashions. But then
again, when you look at people at our work or our customers, perhaps I am more
than an average engineer interested in the subject and surely, thus, I also consume
fashion ... But I am not like some kind of a freak who follows the hottest
127

and latest fashion. But of course that, in a way, influences. I think it is
jeesusteluu [somewhat hypocritical] to say that I would not, in any way, care
about fashion trends because one just has to buy what the shops are
offering. That is, I do adhere, to some extent, to my own style, to my so-called own
style … but then again, I do also have some influences too … Although I do maintain
that probably I am not, not in that sense, like someone who supports a
throwaway culture, I am not a kind of a tight-arsed viherpiipertäjä [a
pejorative term for an environmentalist] either. 7F
Rather than being a rigid “viherpiipertäjä” who, for example, endorses green
political radicalism (Moisander [2001] 2008, 175) or a “passionate freak” who
follows the “hottest and latest fashion”, the ordinary consumer here is
represented as one who seeks to maintain their individuality while
simultaneously fitting in to social situations (see also Priest 2005). Ignoring
fashion completely, however, seems also rather illusory for the ordinary
consumer given the intimately woven relationship between the phenomenon of
fashion and mass clothing manufacturing (e.g., Entwistle 2001, 45).
In many ways, this repertoire reproduced the idea of how clothing serves as a
form of social and cultural communication (Barnard 2002, Craik [1994] 2000).
Particular ways of dressing for particular social encounters have power
implications in associating appearances with particular forms of knowledge
and expertise (e.g., Entwistle 2000, 39). This is illustrated in the following
excerpt that focuses on the role of clothing in producing aesthetic culture and
creating at the same time social orderliness.
R: I think quite a lot about what I wear. That is, clothes are, in that sense, an
important part of everyday life.
I: How are they an important part of your life?
R: Well, overall, I think about what I put on. Some people think about it less, some
more. I think about it more.
I: OK. Do you know why it is that you think about it more?
R: Because aesthetics means a lot to me.
I: Yes.
R: Secondly, in professional life it has quite a big influence, at least in my
opinion, how you look, at least in what I do. 17M
In consumer research, clothing consumption has been studied in relation to the
fashion system, addressing how this system of production, marketing and
distribution (Entwistle 2001, 45), along with its promotional industries such as
advertising, directs consumers towards particular identity projects and how
128

consumers appropriate the meanings proposed to them (Thompson and
Haytko 1997, Murray 2002). In the use of this repertoire, the fashion system
was frequently represented as seeking to direct consumers towards continuous
change by only providing particular styles at any one time.
R: One thing that makes me furious is that when something is in fashion,
then it feels that it is not possible to find anything else. Like colours, they are
really difficult. Like some eggplant violet; it is the kind of colour that I do not want
and then it feels that you cannot find anything else. So then you are like at the edge of
becoming hopping mad, like ”WHY? WHY does everything have to be the
same?!” … It is nice to be trendy but I do not understand that if I do not like
something ... then I just don’t go along, even if I am forced with an axe ...
Like there are some nice things in fashion, but I am probably more like irritated
about that kind of hustling that “You must have precisely this kind of
shoes!” I don’t know, maybe I just don’t get it, the idea of fashion … Or it is, like,
people usually, after all, want to be individuals. If you just go along, then
everybody just looks the same. 14F
A parallel can be drawn here with the set of colours that have been proposed as
appropriate for consumers as ecological citizens. Whereas in the above excerpt
fashionable egg plant colour is rejected, in the following excerpt a similar
reasoning is applied to reject the natural, earthy colours that sustainably
behaving consumers are supposed to prioritise.
R: Well ... this “Favour textiles with natural colours” does not quite work for me
because those colours do not suit me. But I do usually buy environmentally
labelled products in everything else. Like in detergents and the like. 6F
Here the repertoire is used to fend off criticism against not conforming to the
visual appearances proposed in fashion or sustainable consumption discourses
particularly in terms of colours (see Sub-section 4.4.1). This also illustrates
what Atik (2006) has identified as the hidden power of mass market
consumers in the ‘ordinary’ fashion and clothing markets: consumers may
reject stylistic changes that are proposed to them if these styles diverge too
much from what consumers ordinarily wear.
The emphasis in the use of this repertoire was on maintaining a personal
style. On the other hand, however, ordinary fashion in this repertoire was
associated with homogenising tendencies in directing consumers to adopt the
latest styles.
129

R: This is this kind of quarter economy; “Totally in, so last season” [Economic]. … I
do not pay much attention to these kind of trends that arrive all the time. Because if I
did, I would basically have to change the contents of my wardrobe, like... [Effort]
How long do they last? Half a year, a year? As long as any trend, after all, can be the
latest thing. So I do not believe in that. I would rather look perhaps a bit more
conservative and boring than all those who have those new things but that
is not my thing. 16M
The consumer searching to maintain a timeless personal look was associated
both with a culturally unexciting appeal and material struggles involved in
establishing the timeless, long-lasting style. In the use of this repertoire,
personal taste guiding the individual, timeless style was also represented as
existing in close relationship with more enduring, and therefore meaningful,
relationships with items of clothing.
I: So tell me about those old clothes of yours ... is there something that they have in
common?
R: Well, I don’t know. Maybe they all have a story … It is kind of curious how you
cannot know right from the beginning how you can get attached to something
… It is like, even if you buy clothes and you have a lot of stuff in wardrobe, they are
not to be thrown away … I do not know if this explains it better but it feels that
the garment that you buy at H&M, which is fluffy after one wash … it is the kind
of idea there that you can then throw it away in good conscience and return to the
shop and buy new clothes. So, in a way, you are not allowed to get attached to
those clothes very much because they start to look like “Is THIS what I
bought?!” 1F
These enduring relationships with material goods were, in turn, associated
with more sustainable consumption practices, as the following excerpts show.
R: I am a kind of interested, in a way, in what those type of people who create fashion
think, what do they think about these sustainability issues. I don’t just throw
something away, like based on whether something was ‘in’ or not. And, actually, I
do save clothes and re-use them. I have used my mother’s clothes a lot and I am
thinking that perhaps my children could also wear [mine]. It is that one experiences
it like that they are being put in circulation. Since those original ones, they are always
better. 12F
R: Nowadays we are trying to return back to sustainable consumption … so
that one would not need to throw things away … I have also re-fashioned my
mother’s old clothes that she has done herself in the past … Then often I think, that
130

is, when we have visited my boyfriend’s grandmother’s … how they have saved.
That is, that is so awesome, how they use clothes. They have used the same
clothes and sports equipments for decades. 8F
Overall, attachment to material goods was associated with more meaningful
forms of sustainable consumption as well as with the practice of caring for
material items so that they would last longer (see also Jalas 2006). In this
context, two further paradoxical situations emerge; one is related to recycling
and the other to an alternative historical background of sustainable
consumption practices. Firstly, contrary to the idea that material attachment is
condemnable and shameful, the concept appears here as enabling more
sustainable consumption practices. Secondly, rather than representing
sustainable consumption as a recent or particularly deviant phenomenon, such
practices are associated with the consumption practices of previous
generations. Brought together, these situations also point to a different idea of
recycling: recycling in a more meaningful manner from generation to
generation or within the household.
In a related manner, the meaningfulness of consumption practices emerges
in the use of this repertoire with reference to a greater appreciation of material
goods and the humans skills used to make them. These aspects are illustrated
in the following.
R: It is really awesome when someone says, “Well, I actually made this pullover by
myself”. Yes. But, on the other hand, those are the kind of things that one has kind of
forgotten. Like printing your own t-shirts. Then your friends are like, “Wow, you
are a miracle man, or woman!” It is kind of the same when you were with your
dad when you were younger and you were baking bread with him, real bread and you
made the dough yourself. I think these kinds of things that you do by yourself
have increased quite a lot. And it is cool … not everything is the same … Like
you give much more value to that kind of things than if you have all your
products coming from Gucci or Versace or the like. 4M
In these ways, in the use of this repertoire, questions of taste were also bound
together with human creativeness and skilfulness and being in relationships
with others (also Jalas 2006). These associations also linked the
representations of sustainable consumption practices with more humane
dimensions (Moisander [2001] 2008, 100–102) illustrating what consumption
practices’ meaningfulness could entail and how it could assist in advancing
more sustainable lifestyles.
131

Table 6. Social and personal taste
132
Social and personal taste
Main discursive objects - Individuality
- Social life
- Retail stores, brands and assortments
Reasonable consumer - Personally and socially taste-conscious
‘Others’ against which the
reasonable consumer
position is presented
Reasonable consumer’s
rights
Ecological citizen’s
responsibilities
- Granny-pant wearers
- Tree-huggers, extreme greens and
environmental enthusiasts
- Fashion freaks
- Supporters of throwaway culture
- Appreciation of aesthetics, taste and
physical comfort
- Acceptability and success in social life
Appreciation of individuality
- Willingness to self-sacrifices
- Prioritisation of environmental issues
- Trading off comfort and fit of clothes
- Ignoring the influence of appearances on
success in social life
- Denying individuality and aesthetics
Discursive elements in text - Granny-pants, winter long johns
- Tree-hugger stuff, extremely green
- To get excited: ‘I must have these’
- Exotic creations, puro, tryffy
- Too fashionable, too eccentric, too classic
- Not my kind of clothes
- To change your image with clothes, to have
influence in professional life, opinions of
others
- To feel comfortable with yourself
- Better looking, to fit my purposes, size, to fit
perfectly
- Liking and re-using, liking and saving
clothes
- Fashion freaks
4.5 Marketplace as a site for practices of ecological
citizenship
As a result of the analytical work, the following interpretive repertoires
perspective were discerned: (1) the repertoire of economically reasonable
practices, (2) the repertoire of marketplace conduct complexities, (3) the
repertoire of informed effort making and (4) the repertoire of social and

personal taste. These are summarises next before moving on to discussing the
findings further.
The repertoire of marketplace conduct complexities often came to
represent knowledge about the supposedly widespread nature of marketplace
misconduct and the inability of a single individual to act on large scale, global
problems. Sustainability challenges were primarily located in global supply
chains, which were represented as somewhat unmanageable entities. Common
features of this repertoire were constructions of pessimism and scepticism,
which also produced the cynical and sceptical consumer position for
consumers as the reasonable ecological citizen position to occupy. The
repertoire was typically used to account for and make accusations for not being
ethical. Individuals within this repertoire were represented as lacking power to
have influence on the actions of others in a manner that might result in a large
scale changes towards more sustainable societies.
The repertoire of economically reasonable practices was used to
position consumers and other individuals in the marketplace as reasonable
social actors from the perspective of economic action. Rather than representing
a single set of economically reasonable practices, a variety of culturally
reasonable economic practices were articulated into being in the use of this
repertoire. Within this repertoire, consumers as ecological citizens were placed
in different positions, which were largely conditioned by their spending power.
Consumers also existed in a rather contradictory position: they were supposed
to support the economy by maintaining their consumption while also reducing
their consumption levels for the sake of the environment.
The repertoire of informed effort making evolved from the additional
efforts that consumers as ecological citizens were supposed to take up in order
to perform their role. The repertoire constructed a picture of consumers as
ecological citizens who are employed in free labour in the marketplace.
Consumers were offered the choice of trading off the conveniences of ordinary
shopping to develop expert skills and work away in their marketplace
assignment, predominantly on their own. Paradoxically, these various
additional efforts involved investing more time for shopping and consumption.
As ecological citizens, consumers were hence placed in different positions,
conditioned by their possibilities to engage in additional efforts in the
marketplace.
The repertoire of social and personal taste was often drawn upon when
accounting for the impossibility of choosing ecologically and ethically produced
items based on their peculiar aesthetic appearance. Issues of taste, extending to
133

questions of aesthetics experiences, design and bodily fit, were represented as
both personal and social. They guided people’s physical appearances in social
situations both as unique individuals and as social actors performing their
culturally defined roles. Ecological and extremely fashionable styles were both
associated with certain unattractiveness: paradoxically, an attractive and
sustainably produced style was associated with ordinariness and a resemblance
to current, mainstream ways of dressing.
The analysis of repertoires has illustrated how social phenomena can be
approached from diverse, yet culturally reasonable perspectives. The
repertoires provided consumers with a variety of means with which to
represent themselves and others as reasonable societal actors in the context of
sustainability challenges. This kind of variation is typical for repertoires (Juhila
2009, 130, see also Burr 1995, Edley 2001, Reynolds and Wetherell 2003). The
usefulness of highlighting such variation is precisely in making more space for
a more nuanced and pluralistic understanding of sustainable consumption and
its conditions of possibility in contemporary society. The main elements of the
repertoires are summarised in the table below.
Table 7. Interpretative repertoires
Primary
sphere
Main
discursive
objects
Reasonable
consumer
‘Others’
against
which the
reasonable
consumer
position is
presented
134
Marketplace
conduct
complexities
Economically
reasonable
practices
Informed
effort making
Social and
personal taste
Markets and economy Consumption and everyday life
- Mass
production
- Globalisation
- Multinationals
- Supply chains
- Clothing
factories
- Cotton fields
- Financial
household
management
- Prices
- Economy
- Employment
- Cynical sceptic - Economically
reasonable
- Short-sighted
people
- Consumers
trusting brands
- People
believing in the
power of the
individual
- Throw-away
consumers
- People
wasting
monetary
resources
- Certificates
- Ecoinformation
- Promotional
practices
- Retail stores
and flea
markets
- Habitual
choice maker
- Effort-making
active
consumers
- Consumers
with spare
time
- Consumers not
minding
service or
comfortable
shopping
environments
- Individuality
- Social life
- Retail stores,
brands and
assortments
- Personally and
socially taste
conscious
- Granny-pant
wearers
- Tree-huggers,
extremely
greens
- Fashion freaks,
supporters of
throwaway
culture

Reasonable
consumer’s
rights
Ecological
citizen’s
responsibilities
- Choice of the
scale and
objects of
ethical care and
concern
- Pardoning and
understanding
marketplace
sins of others
- Believing in
individual’s
power to
influence
corporate
conduct
- Allocation of
financial
resources
- Keeping
money in
circulation
- Taking part in
supporting
economic
activity,
employment
and
happiness of
others by
consuming
- Access to
information,
service and
sustainable
products
- Active search
for
information,
product and
store
alternatives
- Renouncing
retail services
and comforts
- Developing
expert
knowledge and
new skills
- Devoting more
time for
consumption
and shopping
- Appreciation
of aesthetics,
taste, comfort
and
individual’s
uniqueness
- Being accepted
and
appreciated in
social life
- Willingness to
make selfsacrifices
- Prioritisation
of
environmental
issues
- Trading off
comfort, fit,
social success,
individuality,
personality
and aesthetics
- Ignoring the
influence of
appearances
on social
success
The analysis has illustrated a number of rights and responsibilities that are
ascribed to consumers. On the one hand, consumers are expected to change
global marketplace practices by changing their private consumption choices
(e.g., Gabriel and Lang 2006, Caruana and Crane 2008). However, they are
also supposed to understand corporations’ sustainability challenges against
global supply chains, pardon the marketplace sins of others and accept that
ethical corporate conduct may have different meanings depending on the
context. Corporations, for example, can participate in bringing about
employment in developing countries (e.g., Micheletti 2003). On the other
hand, however, consumers are also ascribed with the right to choose a scale of
ethical concerns. Overall, individual consumers seem to be ascribed with an
immense and overwhelming task: to seek act on global challenges. Therefore,
given the overwhelming nature of this task, individuals are also represented as
better equipped and empowered to act on the local level (Evans and
Abrahamse 2009). Hence, consumers are ascribed with the right to choose a
manageable scale to express ethical concerns in their everyday practices.
In addition, consumers are expected to continue consuming in order to carry
out their duty as economically responsible citizens contributing to
employment, the financial well-being of others and the welfare state’s
structures (e.g., Hilton 2007). By choosing more sustainable products,
135

consumers are also supposed to support ‘greening’ the businesses and support
more sustainable production in developing countries. However, because
consumers differ in their degree of affluence, they are also ascribed with the
right to decide how to allocate their limited financial resources. Furthermore,
as ecological citizens, consumers are supposed to reduce consumption. In
addition, as household keepers, consumers are supposed to minimise their
household expenses (e.g., Huttunen and Autio 2010) at the same time as they
are supposed to pay a premium for more sustainable products (e.g., Latta
2007). Moreover, consumers are supposed to make the best out of having less
expensive items in the markets by maximising the amount of items they buy. In
so doing, consumers are also practicing economically responsible citizenship:
consumers support retailers by shopping what they offer. However, consumers
are also ascribed with the right to have better quality products that last longer.
Nonetheless, consumers are also supposed to not to get attached to their goods:
they are supposed to buy new items and dispose old ones.
Moreover, consumers are also expected to develop a deep-seated interest in
sustainability issues. They are supposed to invest more of their time on
consumption in order to properly implement their sustainability concerns. For
instance, they are supposed to investigate company backgrounds, compare
labelling schemes and develop expert skills in processing information about
environmental production conditions. In addition, they are supposed to invest
more time in both finding stores that sell sustainable products, visiting these
dispersed locations and searching products in these potentially less organised
locations. (Schaefer and Crane 2005, Moisander 2007, Caruana and Crane
2008, Devinney et al. 2010). They also have the responsibility of belittling the
efforts of marketers who seek to provide ordinary customers with extensive
assortments, service, comfort and convenience. Hence, consumers as ecological
citizens are supposed to ignore the efforts and investments of others. On the
other hand, however, consumers are also attributed with the right to
information about socially important issues, the right to have convenient
access to services and products and to spend less time in purchasing-related
practices.
In addition, consumers are expected to adopt and appreciate sustainably
produced goods regardless of their aesthetic appearance or product quality. On
the other hand, however, aesthetic values and design are seen as increasingly
important criteria in the creation of commercial success in contemporary
culture (Schroeder 2002, Postrel 2003). Nonetheless, as ecological citizens,
consumers are expected to adopt any styles that are proposed as ecological and
136

ethical. Consumers who reject these styles based on their poor fit and/or
aesthetics are accused of being superficial and selfish (e.g., Caruana 2007b,
Devinney et al. 2010). On the other hand, consumers are not supposed to
follow fashions blindly for risk of being called superficial. Therefore,
consumers have both rights and responsibilities to maintain their individuality
within socially acceptable limits, taking into account cultural codes for social
success (e.g., Thompson and Haytko 1997). Furthermore, consumers are
attributed with the right to meaningful, longer relationships with material
goods and to be able to enjoy human skilfulness and creativity in making
material, aesthetic objects (e.g., Jalas 2006).
By illustrating the diverse rights and responsibilities are ascribed to
consumers, the analysis has shown how the subject positions and identities
involved in discourses are not somewhat arbitrary and free-floating positions
that subjects might occupy without any logic, consistency or morality (see, e.g.,
Torfing 1999, 95–96). The analysis has shed light on the multiplicity of moral
orders of which consumers need to make sense of and consumers’ practical
challenges involved in seeking to occupy one ‘most moral’ subjectivity across
different contexts. In so doing, the analysis has illustrated how subjectivity is
constituted in contextual, shifting cultural practices within representational
systems and can hardly be reducible to one single self (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 197-198, Reynolds and Whetherell 2003). Overall, the analysis
has illustrated how this kind of understanding of subjectivity can inform
studies focusing on social problems such as sustainable development. In
particular, this mode of analysis has allowed shifting attention to the culture’s
level rather than sought to explain sustainable development by focusing on the
individual as the analytical unit.
In addition, the analysis has also illustrated how linguistic and material
dimensions are interconnected (Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, 180–182,
Hall [1997] 2009b). For instance, the geographical distances between
consumers and overseas production sites, complex manufacturing phases,
disorganised flea markets and consumers’ limited financial resources are not
merely linguistic phenomena or mental events taking place in consumers’
heads. They can be produced in linguistic practices in a variety of ways but this
does not mean that they would not have ‘real’ material dimensions. The
distances, for instance, are not merely linguistic.
Previous sustainability-related social marketing research has expressed
concerns that over-emphasising consumers and their responsibilities to bring
about large-scale change may not provide adequate solutions to sustainability
137

challenges (Dolan 2002, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Caruana and Crane 2008,
Raftopoulou 2009, Prothero et al. 2010). This concern seems justified, given
the myriad and sometimes contradictory moral orders in consumer culture
(Seyfang 2005, Moisander 2007, Devinney et al. 2010), as well as consumers’
different opportunities to engage in the practices of ecological citizenship
(MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007, Gabrielson 2008).
It may not be simple for consumers to make sense of their role and
responsibilities in contemporary society in the common pursuit of
sustainability, given the unavoidable differences between individual
consumers. Because of consumers’ inevitably different financial, temporary
and cognitive resources, the conditions in which different consumers can
occupy the position of an ecological citizen vary. With regard to financial
aspects, consumers as ecological citizens are differently situated due to their
disposable incomes and, as a result, are differently enabled to choose among
different ecological citizenship practices. Relatively affluent consumers may be
entitled to more sustainably produced goods, whereas less affluent consumers
may effectively be excluded from this kind of ecological citizenship and placed
in the position of semi-citizens (Latta 2007, Seyfang 2005, also Soper 2007).
Arguably, both less affluent and more affluent consumers may use flea markets
and other second-hand outlets. However, these choices may also occur for
private household management concerns (Miller 2001, Schudson 2007,
Prothero et al. 2010). Nonetheless, if less affluent consumers are excluded from
choosing more sustainably produced products, these consumers will also be
excluded from supporting industries on their way to sustainability. In addition,
as economic citizens, consumers may also consider it important to support
economic activity at local and global level and find themselves in a
contradictory situation in terms of what end they should promote or favour
through their consumption choices. Moreover, these ends may also imply an
overall reduction of consumption, which may further question the potential of
consumers to advance sustainability (Hastings 2007, see also Shankar et al.
2006).
With regard to temporary aspects, consumers as ecological citizens are placed
in a different position in terms of their opportunities to invest more time in
consumption practices in order to perform the role of ecological citizens who
seem to be characterised by making a number of additional efforts in the
marketplace. This illustrates another of the paradoxes of the contemporary
market-based conceptualisations of sustainable consumers and consumption:
as ecological citizens, individuals who seek to practice ecological citizenship in
138

the marketplace are supposed to dedicate more time to consumption (also
Dolan 2002, 117). This paradox lies in the contested nature of consumption,
specifically sustainable consumption. Whereas the marketplace-based
conceptualisations of sustainable consumption tend to define consumption as a
consumer choice, researchers who have called for alternative views have
emphasised consumption as a more meaningful practice that also includes the
notion of the quality of life essential for humane living (e.g., Moisander [2001]
2008). When called to invest more time for consumption, consumers as
ecological citizens are also called upon to make adjustments in other areas of
their personal lives, which may effectively reduce their quality of life. Whereas,
in the long run, reducing the quality of life risks producing an unsustainable
concept of both sustainable consumption and ecological citizenship
(MacGregor 2006, 119, Dolan 2002), emphasising marketplace choice also
ascribes consumer choice with an increasingly important role as a means for
political participation (Barnett et al. 2005, Gabriel and Lang 2006, Jubas
2007). Given that they have varying financial positions, consumers not only
have different amounts of votes at their disposal (Dickinson and Carsky 2005)
but they may also ‘vote’ in different venues as well as in radically different ways
(also Micheletti 2003).
In addition, practising choice for better products also places a number of
demands on consumers in cognitive terms. Consumers are expected to develop
new consumption skills to make sense of the increasing body of environmental
information, product eco-performances and different labelling schemes.
Consumers who are unable to interpret this information may not be able to
exercise choice for these products. Moreover, not all consumers have
temporary resources at their disposal to engage in such further informal
education. Even if they do have the time, consumers as ecological citizens are
differently positioned in terms of their skills and abilities to absorb and make
sense of this information. In addition, even environmental professionals and
academics themselves offer different interpretations and opinions of what
counts as sustainable (see also Moisander 2007).
Moreover, as embodied beings, consumers as ecological citizen are not
merely embedded in the physical environment but also in social relationships
(e.g., Heiskanen 2005). In this study, the particular empirical context of
clothing markets has shown how consumers as embodied agents can be both
constrained and enabled by their unique embodiment in different consumption
practices. Therefore, as bodily agents (Joy and Venkatesh 1994), consumers as
ecological citizens may be positioned in different positions. As culturally
139

embedded, bodily agents, consumers do not merely act upon private
preferences; they also seek to fit in and respect the cultural norms and rules
established for communicating particular meanings and maintaining social
order (Thompson and Haytko 1997). These situations put consumers, as
ecological citizens, in a variety of positions that may not be equal.
Given the different positions in which consumers as ecological citizens are
situated, the extent to which consumers can practice ecological citizenship in
the marketplace is debatable (Gabriel and Lang 2006, Arnould 2007, Johnston
2008), as is the extent to which market-based forms of ecological citizenship
can be considered democratic (Seyfang 2005, Latta 2007). This raises the
question of the possibilities of the marketplace to offer alternatives for more
reasonable and meaningful practices of ecological citizenship. Although for
example Arnould (2007, 137) has noted that the market-mediated
arrangements in contemporary culture are those contexts that are accessible to
most people and Kozinets (2002, 36) contends that escaping the markets is
also an impossibility, the various trade-offs, complexities and paradoxes as
illustrated herein do suggest that market-mediated arrangements have their
limits in enabling democratic and meaningful practices of ecological
citizenship.
In addition, in consumer society, where the well-being of society and people
is at a certain level inevitably produced through economic action in the market
(e.g., Hilton 2007), responsible consumers and citizens are also tied to their
economy and society supporting role as consuming citizens (also Moisander
[2001] 2008, 216). Ordinary consumers and citizens may wish to support, for
example, employment. They may not wish to occupy such socially challenging
subject positions as a radical environmental anarchist or a spiritual nature
lover (Moisander [2001] 2008) or may consider these positions inadequate or
inappropriate as solutions to global as well as local challenges. Similarly, in
developing societies, individuals may also wish to partake in market-mediated
arrangements as in the historical trajectory, these arrangements have
undeniably also improved the quality of life up to a certain level (Arnould
2007, Hilton 2007, Trentmann 2007).
In particular, whilst the proposition of self-sacrificial identities for consumers
as ecological citizens may initially appear normal, and even inevitable given the
sustainability challenges that need to be tackled, it would seem to be important
to critically question the obviousness of this understanding of sustainable
consumption. To this end, it seems essential to engage in efforts that seek to
broaden the understanding of consumption and sustainable consumption in
140

particular and how more sustainable ways of living could be established.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to continue seeking alternatives for
developing new, more meaningful subject positions for citizens as consumers
as suggested by Moisander ([2001] 2008, 102).
This seems crucial for developing not only a more attractive idea of
sustainable consumption (e.g., Autio et al. 2008) and its potential to bring
about a better quality of life, but also to offer individuals more democratic
opportunities to partake in the practices of ecological citizenship (e.g., Seyfang
2005, MacGregor 2006, Latta 2007). As for example Seyfang (2005, 298) has
remarked, the development challenges laid down at the Rio conference
(UNCED 1992) emphasised, in addition to greater efficiency in resource use,
“to consider the possibilities of lifestyles founded upon values other than
material consumption”. It seems that herein lay also a number of opportunities
to develop an alternative understanding of more sustainable lifestyles: drawing
lessons from the meaningfulness of consumption practices to better
understand the context, relationships and practices in which more sustainable
lifestyles could be brought about in both personally or collectively beneficial
terms.
141

5 CONCLUSIONS
By carrying out this study, I have sought to participate in the efforts to rethink
consumers’ conceptualisation in sustainability and environmental policy-
related social marketing. This final chapter starts by addressing the theoretical
contributions of the study, primarily to social marketing and cultural consumer
research literatures. This is followed by a section that discusses the limitations
of the study and suggestions for further research. The final section presents the
practical implications of this study for policy practitioners in environmental
and consumer policies and business practitioners primarily in the clothing
industries.
5.1 Theoretical contributions
This study has attempted to answer the following question: What sort of new
perspectives does the concept of ecological citizenship help open up for
research on consumers as targets of sustainability-related social marketing?
Consumers have prevalently been conceptualised in sustainability-related
social marketing by drawing on the premises of micro-economics and cognitive
psychology. This approach has been broadly criticised for being overly
individualistic and providing an inadequate approach to sustainability
challenges, which as social problems seem to call for more collective
approaches. The notion of citizenship has been approached in social marketing
to develop an alternative, more collective approach for re-conceptualising
consumers.
In this study, however, I have identified different ways in which the notion of
citizenship has been used in social marketing literature. In addition, a
considerable debate exists in the broader field of social sciences regarding the
extent to which the consumer position can be considered a citizen position. As
a result of this controversial situation, I set out to investigate the potential of
the notion of ecological citizenship for social marketers to approach consumers
142

as members of their communities. To date, only a few social marketers have
engaged with this recently emerged line of literature.
By drawing on the literatures of social marketing, culturally-oriented social
scientific research of sustainability and consumption, environmental politics
and cultural-oriented consumer research, I developed an alternative theoretical
and empirical framework with which to approach questions of sustainability
and consumption. This framework was applied in the empirical investigation,
which sought to advance understanding on the nature and role of consumers as
ecological citizens in contemporary culture.
The following sections address the study’s theoretical contributions with
reference to social marketing and cultural consumer research literatures. It
should be noted, however, that some of these contributions have overlapping
characteristics.
5.1.1 Social marketing
The study makes two main contributions to social marketing literature. Firstly,
it contributes to the discussions on consumers’ conceptualisations in
sustainability-related social marketing. Secondly, it adds to discussions about
the role and potential of social marketing in advancing more sustainable
societies.
Firstly, by incorporating the ecological citizenship literature with the social
marketing literature, the study has developed consumers’ conceptualisation in
the context of sustainability challenges in political terms. A frequently
addressed shortcoming with regard to consumers’ conceptualisation in the
sustainable consumption discussions has been the conceptualisation’s asocial,
acontextual and apolitical nature (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002,
Heiskanen 2005, Rokka and Moisander 2009, see also Raftopoulou 2009). The
ecological citizenship literature illustrates how consumers as ecological citizens
are members of a community. This establishes consumers as ecological citizens
as social actors who exist in relationships with other members of the
community. Furthermore, the ecological citizenship literature shows how the
community’s members exist in relationships, in both social and political terms.
In addition, the ecological citizenship literature shows how the membership
of the community is a contested subject (also Latta 2007). Researchers have
debated whether to define the community in ecocentric or anthropocentric
terms in order to establish an account of human-nature-relationships that
143

could help solve contemporary environmental challenges. This illustrates the
challenges that consumers as ecological citizens may face and suggests that it
may be reasonable to allow for a plurality of perspectives to exist as even
researchers and scientists themselves are not able to agree on how to approach
these questions (Seyfang 2005, Moisander 2007, Autio et al. 2009, Devinney et
al. 2010, Prothero et al. 2010). Moreover, the ecological citizenship literature
illustrates that the community can be defined not only in global and local terms
but also in temporal terms that refer not only to the present but also the future
as well the past (e.g., Dobson 2003).
In the broader field of citizenship studies, citizenship with its associated
rights and responsibilities is widely recognised as bearing a promise of an
egalitarian membership of the community towards which the practices
associated with citizenship are taken up (MacGregor 2006, Gabrielson 2008).
Previous research in social marketing has emphasised consumers’
responsibilities (e.g., Uusitalo 2005a, 128–129). This study lends support to
Schrader (2007, 80) in the sense that consumers as ecological citizens also
have rights. As the ecological citizenship literature illustrates, such rights can
include the right to a sustainable environment, the right to a sustainable future
and opportunities to take part in solving environmental problems as egalitarian
members of the community (e.g., MacGregor 2006). However, the more
specific contribution that this study makes to the social marketing and the
related literature on sustainable consumption is the finding that both the rights
and responsibilities focused approaches may, nonetheless, imply an
individualistic understanding of the subject.
The empirical analysis investigated the possible field of action that is
available for consumers as ecological citizens in the marketplace and identified
interpretative repertoires that consumers use when making sense of their roles
and responsibilities in sustainable development. In particular, the repertoires
of marketplace conduct complexities and informed effort making illustrate that
consumers as ecological citizens are ascribed with extensive responsibilities.
This questions the egalitarian dimensions (MacGregor 2006) of the consumer
position as a position from which to take part in the solution of contemporary
environmental challenges. In other words, it problematises the role and
potential ascribed to consumers in terms of guiding the society towards a more
sustainable one for the ways in which sustainability-concerned consumers
seem to have to contend with a position of semi-citizens (Seyfang 2005, see
also Latta 2007). By suggesting that it may therefore be unfair to place
responsibility for sustainability in the marketplace primarily on the shoulders
144

of consumers this study lends support to a number of previous studies, which
have reached the same conclusion (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002,
Hobson 2002, Caruana and Crane 2008, Autio et al. 2009, Evans and
Abrahamse 2009, Prothero et al. 2010).
As briefly noted above, emphasising consumers’ rights as environmentally
responsible citizens may perpetuate an individualistic understanding of the
subject. As the ecological citizenship literature also shows, rights- and
responsibilities-focused approaches both tend to emphasise the individual
(MacGregor 2006, Melo-Escrihuela 2008): once equipped with an enabling set
of rights, individuals should act as morally responsible actors and bear their
citizenly responsibilities (see also Schrader 2007). This turns the attention
back to the individual and risks again leading back to the asocial, acontextual
and apolitical conceptualisation of the subject, which has been found
underlying the prevailing approaches to sustainable consumption (e.g.,
Moisander [2001] 2008, Dolan 2002, Schaefer and Crane 2005). As discussed
in the theoretical framework of this study, these dominant approaches have
been identified with a number of short-comings in terms of providing adequate
solutions to contemporary sustainability challenges.
Therefore, this study sought to approach consumers as ecological citizens in
the marketplace from an alternative, non-individualistic perspective. To this
end, I adopted a discursive approach to marketplace phenomena that seeks to
understand cultural reality as constituted in the joint interaction of different
marketplace actors (Moisander and Valtonen 2006). In so doing, I adopted a
methodological framework that could provide an alternative to the structure-
agency dichotomy characterising much of the research on consumers and
consumer power in the marketplace (Schor and Holt 2000, Holt 2002,
Thompson 2004, Denegri-Knott et al. 2006) and that would focus on the
meso-level of discursive reality (Potter and Wetherell [1987] 2007, Jokinen et
al. 1993, Edley 2001, Burr 1995, see also Alvesson and Karreman 2000).
With this framework, I also sought to respond to the calls to develop a more
social, contextual and political understanding of consumers in the context of
sustainability challenges (e.g., Heiskanen 2005, Schaefer and Crane 2005,
Prothero et al. 2010). By analysing consumer interviews, my particular aim was
to respond to the criticism raised against excluding the knowledge and views of
consumers themselves over sustainability challenges from research on
sustainable consumption (Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997, Moisander [2001]
2008, Heiskanen 2005, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Caruana 2007b).
145

The utility of the theoretical and methodological framework developed was
illustrated in the empirical analysis. Overall, the analysis has shed light on how
consumers use and produce different interpretative repertoires to make sense
of their roles and responsibilities and those of other societal actors in the
common pursuit of sustainability. The findings of the analysis illustrate the
nuanced nature of the possible field of action for consumers as ecological
citizens in contemporary culture. In the analysis, I have identified a variety of
different ways and contexts in which to engage in the diverse potential
ecological citizenship practices in the marketplace. In so doing, I have
highlighted sustainable consumption’s motivational complexity, the diverse
moral orders that circulate in consumer culture and the porous and
overlapping nature of self- and other-concerned dimensions of consumption
practices (Miller 2001, Seyfang 2005, Moisander 2007, Caruana 2007b,
Devinney et al. 2010) and how the ecological citizenship practices can be
sometimes contradictory with other contemporary societal goals, which can
complicate consumers’ possible field of action as ecological citizens.
In particular, I have drawn attention to the different ways to practise
responsible citizenship in the marketplace. The traditional role of a consumer
has been to support economic activity (Heinonen 2000, Shankar et al. 2006,
Hilton 2007). The present study, however, suggests that practising ecological
citizenship and economic citizenship might not be mutually compatible. The
consumer’s position in the marketplace in the context of sustainability
challenges is therefore a rather paradoxical one: consumers may have to trade
off their responsibilities as economically responsible citizens or their
responsibilities as ecological citizens. How are caring consumer-citizens –
“consumers think[ing] publicly when ... mak[ing] consumer choices”
(Micheletti 2003, 167) – then supposed to think and act?
Equating ecological citizenship with choices for ‘better’ products does seem to
exclude a number of consumers from such a ecological citizen position.
Becoming a citizen by making consumption choices seems indeed to
individualise the idea of citizenship, narrow it down to a lifestyle choice and,
paradoxically, ascribe consumption with an increasingly important role as a
means for political participation (Dolan 2002, 117, Barnett et al. 2005, Gabriel
and Lang 2006, 182, Jubas 2007, 251). However, the emphasis placed on
private consumption in academic and policy discussions suggests that rather
than excluding consumption as a site of ecological citizenship practices more
attention could further be placed on understanding better such forms and
conditions of political participation in contemporary market-mediated culture
146

(Micheletti 2003, Shah et al. 2007, Caruana and Crane 2008, Prothero et al.
2010).
All this implies also that there seems to be a need to incorporate better the
notion of the quality of life into the sustainable consumption discussions.
Namely, an overwhelming set of responsibilities leads ultimately to a low
quality of life and risks producing unsustainable forms of ecological citizenship
and sustainable consumption (e.g., Dolan 2002, see also MacGregor 2006). As
suggested herein, understanding better such meanings of consumption that
can contribute towards more sustainable consumption practices could indeed
provide fresh perspectives for research on sustainable consumption. This kind
of focus could indeed make it possible to approach sustainable lifestyles
without ignoring and excluding the concept of the quality of life (see also Soper
2007).
Overall, this study lends support the view expressed by a growing number of
scholars that, rather than focusing upon individuals’ characteristics,
motivations and intentions, more attention would need to be placed on the
cultural context, practices and relationships in which more sustainable
lifestyles could be brought about (Heiskanen 2005, Autio et al. 2008, Evans
and Abrahamse 2009, Rokka and Moisander 2009). This also leads to my
conclusion as regards the utility of the notion of ecological citizenship for social
marketing and sustainable consumption research. Whereas the concept of
ecological citizenship helps approach consumers as political and collective
actors in the marketplace, the absence of adequate attention to the cultural
context means that the utility of the notion may remain unnecessarily
narrow, which could risk reproducing an apolitical, acontextual and asocial
understanding of individuals and unsustainable ideas of more sustainable
lifestyles.
With regard to discussions on the role and potential of social marketing in
advancing more sustainable societies, this study has illustrated how shifting
the attention from the level of the individual to the level of culture provides a
useful approach for remedying the shortcomings that are commonly associated
with social marketing programmes and associated interventions. Previous
research on the role and potential of social marketing has suggested that focus
at the individual level has reduced the effectiveness of social marketing and its
potential to bring about social change (Moisander [2001] 2008, Hastings
2003, Gordon et al. 2007, Raftopoulou 2009).
In this study, I have elaborated on social marketing as a technique of
government (Dean [1999] 2008) approaching social marketing as a practice
147

that seeks to shape the possible field of action available for consumers in the
context of sustainability challenges. Previous studies on the government of
consumers (e.g., Du Gay 2004a, b, Binkley 2006, Zwick et al. 2008, Moisander
et al. 2010) have focused on commercial marketing and how marketers seek to
shape the possible field of action available for consumers and customers.
Using the conceptual tools of government helped shift research attention to
the level of culture in a manner that made it possible to consider how the
practices of different social actors shape the possible field of action, not only of
consumers but also of social marketers themselves. In addition, the focus on
the level of culture made it possible to examine the variety of different subject
positions that circulate in consumer culture with which consumers can identify
(e.g., Rokka and Moisander 2009).
Moisander et al. (2010) have illustrated theoretically how marketers seek to
guide consumer behaviour in the clothing markets and how these normal
business practices can also pose challenges for environmental policy
practitioners who are seeking to advance sustainable development. I have
suggested in this study that both commercial and social marketing can be
conceptualised as techniques of government: both can shape and construct the
cultural context of sustainability challenges and emphasise particular practices
as reasonable, whilst excluding and marginalising others. Consequently, these
practices and techniques shape the possible field of action available for
consumers as ecological citizens and direct them towards particular practices
and identity projects.
The current study complements that of Moisander et al. (2010) by empirically
illustrating a number of visibilities and identities offered to consumers as both
ordinary consumers and as ecological citizens in contemporary culture and
how, against this cultural context, the practices associated with sustainable
consumption may represent themselves as either unattractive, unreasonable or
unintelligible. For example, in the analysis I have identified how ecological
citizens’ subject position, characterised by extensive effort making and
particular visual appearance, represented unattractive alternatives for ordinary
consumers performing their everyday lives as members of their culture.
Proposing unattractive subject positions for consumers as ecological citizens
can therefore have unintended consequences by alienating people from the
project of sustainability, particularly if these positions seem unfair and
undemocratic.
Therefore, seeking to mobilize consumers in sustainable lifestyles by
proposing them to make additional efforts by engaging in free affective,
148

aesthetic, cognitive and physical work (Zwick et al. 2008, see also Du Gay
2004b) may not represent itself as an appealing alternative. In particular, if the
rest of society simultaneously engages in activities that largely seem to
contradict sustainability ends, this call may seem rather perplexing. For that
reason, in order to better enable and empower individuals in the common
pursuit of sustainability, it seems crucially important to continue the efforts to
introduce more attractive subjectivities for consumers (e.g., Autio et al. 2009,
Rokka and Moisander 2009). In other words, to engage in “exploring, building
and introducing new subject positions for citizens as consumers” (Moisander
([2001] 2008, 264) seems essential for developing more meaningful,
egalitarian and democratic contexts and situations in which individuals could
engage in the pursuit of sustainability. This seems crucial also for improving
the potential of social marketing to contribute to sustainability challenges
(Moisander [2001] 2008, Hastings 2003, Gordon et al. 2007, Raftopoulou
2009).
5.1.2 Cultural consumer research
This study’s primary contribution to cultural consumer research literature is
the discourse theoretic contribution that it makes to the discussions on
marketplace ideologies and consumers’ interpretative strategies. In addition,
the study contributes to discussions on interview methods and adds to research
on consumers as bodily agents. These contributions are elaborated upon below.
Firstly, the study contributes to the discussion on discourse analytic
approaches in cultural consumer research by developing and applying an
alternative discourse theoretic approach to study marketplace ideologies and
consumers’ interpretative strategies (Arnould and Thompson 2005, Moisander
and Valtonen 2006). Previous discourse analytic cultural consumer research
has addressed diverse versions of discourses (e.g., Thompson 2004, Thompson
and Haytko 1997, Belk et al. 2003, Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007,
Kozinets 2008). This study adds that in addition to different appropriations of
the concept of discourse (Kozinets 2008, 866), these discourse analytic studies
largely share a common interest in the narrative construction of the interview
account and the narrative construction of consumer identity/subjectivity
during the interview encounter. This study suggests that this bears indeed close
resemblances to narrative analysis (e.g., Hinchman and Hinchman 2001,
149

Murray 2003), which can be understood as one form of analysis in the broader
field of discourse analytic studies (Kohler Riessman 2004).
In addition, this study identifies a phenomenological-hermeneutic interest in
the previous discourse analytic work in cultural consumer research. Although
this approach does assume that research participants are not merely expressing
subjective views but are also articulating broader cultural meanings
(Thompson 1997) and seeks to uncover the underlying meaning-systems rather
than the specificities a given participant’s life world (Thompson and Coskuner-
Balli 2007, 140), it does place attention on understanding the individual and
her/his experiences (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 199, 204). While this kind
of approach can be appropriate for certain research problems, in the context of
sustainability challenges and particularly in sustainable consumption related
research it seems somewhat problematic for how it takes the individual as the
case and unit of analysis.
Moisander and Valtonen (2006) present a discourse analytic approach that
focuses on institutionalised discourses and everyday discursive realities and
that shifts the research attention to the level of culture. I have chosen to use in
this study a meso-level discourse analytic approach that is founded upon the
notions of discourse, interpretative repertoire and subject position, which can
be understood as discourse analytic tools (e.g., Edley 2001, Jokinen and Juhila
1999, Jokinen et al. 1993). As noted in the previous section, the study also used
the conceptual lens of government (Dean [1999] 2008) to enhance
understanding of how the consumers’ possible field of action can be shaped
(e.g., Hodgson 2002, Atkin 2004, Du Gay 2004a, Binkley 2006, Zwick et al.
2008, Moisander et al. 2010). In addition, as discussed in the previous section
on the study’s contributions to the social marketing literature, I approached
both commercial and social marketing as practices of government. In this way,
I developed an alternative approach for investigating marketplace ideologies
and consumers’ interpretative strategies (Arnould and Thompson 2005) in the
context of sustainability challenges (see also Moisander and Valtonen 2006).
The notion of interpretative repertoire provided a useful tool for shedding
light on the marketplace phenomena at a meso-level (Burr 1995, also Alvesson
and Karreman 2000). It helped to understand how the phenomena of the
social world can be rendered intelligible and reasonable from a number of
different, even contradictory perspectives and what kind of limits and
possibilities can characterise consumers’ possible field of action as ecological
citizen in contemporary culture. In so doing, it proved useful for providing a
more nuanced understanding of the marketplace as a site of cultural practices.
150

In addition, the concept of interpretative repertoire provided to be useful for
approaching marketplace realities from an alternative perspective that seeks go
beyond the structure-agency dichotomy (Denegri-Knot et al. 2006, Moisander
and Valtonen 2006). Previous research has emphasised consumer activeness
and agency in the marketplace (Thompson and Haytko 1997) and how
institutional agents influence the discourses that circulate in the marketplace
(Murray 2002). More recently, Atik (2006) has illustrated how consumers and
producers jointly constitute marketplace phenomena in a process of
interagency (Kozinets et al. 2004). This study finds support for the co-
production argument of the marketplace (also Moisander and Valtonen 2006)
in the context of sustainability challenges.
In particular, in the empirical analysis I have shed more light on how
producers can materially propose unattractive styles and functionally
inappropriate products to consumers and social marketing practitioners may
reproduce these ideas in linguistic practices and how consumers may reject
them on both personal and social grounds. In so doing, producers, social
marketing practitioners and consumers all take part in the production of
‘unsustainable’ marketplace cultures. In this context, I have also drawn
attention to the similarities in contesting and accepting dominating
marketplace discourses. I have specifically highlighted how both the ‘ordinary’
dominating fashion discourse that interpellates consumers to appear in latest
fashions (Thompson and Haytko 1997, Murray 2002) and the prevailing
‘sustainable’ fashion discourse that calls consumers to trade off aesthetic
questions for the sake of sustainability (e.g., Fletcher 2008, Black 2008, see
also Joergens 2006, Moisander [2001] 2008) can both be rejected on similar
grounds. Various interpretative repertoires can indeed be drawn upon in quite
similar ways to contest and accept marketplace discourses in the search for a
culturally reasonable balance between questions individuality and conformity.
Secondly, the study makes methodological contributions to discussions on
phenomenological interviews in consumer research (Thompson et al. 1989,
Thompson and Haytko 1997, Moisander et al. 2009, Joy, Sherry and
Deschenes 2009). Moisander et al. (2009) have suggested that consumer
researchers would benefit from transcending the assumptions that underlie the
phenomenological interviewing, which is commonly used in consumer
research. This study supports the argument of Moisander et al. (ibid.) that,
rather than focusing on individuals as a source of authentic knowledge,
consumer researchers can gain valuable information about their research
subject by shifting analytical attention to the level of culture.
151

152
In addition, the study founds support for Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 71,
79, 81–83), who have suggested using elicitation materials in interview
encounters to produce more cultural material for analysis (also Moisander et
al. 2009). This kind of approach seems to be particularly useful for discourse
analytic studies that seek to understand the cultural context (Skålén 2010).
Moreover, in order to produce more cultural material for discourse analytic
work, it would seem to be useful to pose ‘leading’ questions and make ‘why’
questions rather than avoid such questions (also Moisander and Valtonen
2006) and possibly adopt a more pro-active or provocative interview style in
order to shed more light on culturally shared understandings (Silverman
([1993] 2006, Rapley 2004, Moisander et al. 2009).
Finally, the findings of the empirical analysis add to previous research on
consumers as bodily agents (e.g., Joy et al. 1994, Venkatesh et al. 2010). In
particular, the study establishes the central importance of the body for studies
of consumption in the context of sustainability challenges. The empirical
analysis conducted in the clothing markets illustrates, for example, how
individuals have different body shapes and physical necessities. This means
that bodily fit and product satisfaction in terms of physical comfort become
important notions also for studies of sustainable consumption. The body can
both enable and constrain consumers in terms of leading more sustainable
lifestyles and it is therefore also tied to assuming more meaningful sustainable
consumption practices.
5.2 Limitations
This section addresses the limitations of this study with regard to the research
methods and theoretical framework. First among these was my choice to
conduct the study among young, relatively well-educated, working adults who
were non-self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers and lived in the capital region of
Finland. Although this decision was theoretically grounded (Seyfang 2005,
Joergens 2006, Devinney et al. 2010), the cultural approach that I applied
could be argued to be somewhat at odds with the sampling rationale. The study
adopted a view according to which the “interview-talk speaks to and emerges
from the contemporary ways of understanding, experiencing and talking about
that specific interview topic” (Silverman ([1993] 2006, 137, original emphasis).
At a certain level, this does imply that a particular group of participants would
not produce particularly different descriptions of culture (see also Peräkylä

1997, Rapley 2004, Moisander et al. 2009). However, it is reasonable expect
that another participant group would have produced slightly different or less
elaborate descriptions (also Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 27). The
participant group chosen for this study may indeed have represented quite
literate and verbally talented members of the culture. This could be considered
useful when applying a discourse analytic approach to draw insights from
spoken text.
On the other hand, however, although the participants arguably shared a
similar profile, it is hardly feasible to presume neither that different kinds of
participants would have produced completely different descriptions. For
instance, it is unlikely that other kinds of participants would have suggested
that economically reasonable practices are irrelevant in the marketplace, that it
is easy or non-controversial to put ethical or environmentally-sound
marketplace conduct into practice, that consumers practicing sustainable living
or engaging in lifestyles changes do not even make initial efforts, and that
questions of taste are irrelevant. On the whole, however, if I were to conduct a
similar study again, I would probably seek to find participants with less strict
selection criteria to avoid the above explained controversy in the sampling
rationale.
Secondly, it is possible that the interview techniques chosen, particularly the
use of elicitation materials, produced more talk on particular subjects. For
example, the frequent reference to the global retailer Hennes and Mauritz
(H&M) was probably influenced by the appearance of the retailer’s name in the
elicitation materials. This company was indeed the only retailer addressed by
name in the short news piece on the survey of ethical conduct among clothing
chains, which I had included among the elicitation material. It might have been
useful to keep to the longer version of the survey. I had excluded this version
because longer materials tended to produce more silence rather than more
discussion.
On the other hand, however, it also seems to me that Hennes and Mauritz
was also mentioned as a case in point that epitomises contemporary mass
market clothing retailing (see also Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004, Autio 2006)
and that it was a discursive, even metaphorical resource (Potter 1996, Joy,
Sherry, Venkatesh et al. 2009) upon which to characterise contemporary
practices in mass markets. Having been restricted by the phenomenological
interviewing guidelines, I was not able to explore this further during the
interviews as I could not figure out a way how to prompt more talk on the
153

subject without “cueing” participants on particular vocabularies or networks of
meanings (Belk et al. 2003, 333).
154
Hence, I do feel that the format of phenomenological interviewing that I
sought to apply did limit the production of my empirical material since I tried
not to interfere too much. I let the participants articulate their networks of
meanings (Thompson and Haytko 1997), which unfortunately prevented me
from posing further questions that might have enriched the material by
providing more information on the research phenomena.
Thirdly, my representation of consumers in this study might paint an overtly
innocent picture of consumers in the marketplace. My approach may even
represent consumers as lacking agency in the marketplace, given that the study
has also emphasised the cultural context of consumers. How can social
phenomena be investigated in a manner that does not represent social actors as
being over-determined by culture? How can human subjects be conceptualised
in a manner that could contribute to their empowerment? Finding an approach
that is sensitive enough to account for both the existence of environmentally
‘evil’, non-caring consumers and ‘catastrophic’, all-caring consumers (Jones
2010), as well for the existence of other societal actors, such as policy
practitioners and businesses (Thøgersen 2005), remains a challenge. The
present study has made an attempt in that direction.
Fourthly, this study has focused on consumption while also emphasising
consumer choices. In a sense, this focus could be criticised for re-directing the
focus of inquiry back to the level of individual as consumption has been
traditionally understood as private: something that private individuals
undertake for their own good. In addition, by focusing on choices in the
marketplace, I have also contributed to reducing consumption to mere
purchase decisions, while excluding various other aspects and dimensions of
consumption that could be essential to consider when addressing sustainability
challenges in consumer culture. Although the accounts produced by the
participants of this study have illustrated a number of practices in which
consumers engage, more explicit attention could have been placed in the
analysis in the contexts and situations enabling and constraining the practices
of ecological citizenship. Nevertheless, the analysis did illustrate the complexity
of the possible field of action available for consumers as ecological citizens for
which it can be considered having adequately responded to the set research
objectives.
Finally, although gender is a frequently addressed consideration in terms of
sustainable consumption (e.g., Moisander [2001] 2008, Micheletti 2003, Autio

et al. 2009) and clothing (e.g., Thompson and Haytko 1997, Venkatesh et al.
2010), I have not discussed gender issues in this study. Similarly, the ecological
citizenship literature has paid relatively little attention to gender (cf.
MacGregor 2006). In addition, the study’s relatively highly educated urban
participants might have represented a group of people who were skilful at
producing gender-neutral descriptions of contemporary culture and
consumption practices in the clothing markets. Moreover, the focus at the level
of culture may have challenged my own sensibilities to identify potentially
relevant gender related issues in the material. However, clothing, dressing up
and adornment are still, arguably, most associated with women and the
clothing markets do make more styles and alternatives for stylistic change
available for women and hence also direct women to take issue with keeping
their appearances up to date regardless whether they actually do so or not
(Wilson 2003, 13, 228). At hindsight, it might have been useful to prompt more
cultural discussion during the interviews about women and men as consumers
of both fashion and clothing rather than on consumers overall.
5.3 Suggestions for further research
The limitations identified in the previous section also offer possibilities for
further research. The following suggests four potential venues for further
research, focusing on marketplace co-constitution, marketplace practices,
gender and sustainable lifestyles.
Firstly, this study has approached marketplace co-constitution by analysing
consumer interview material. Although the study’s approach rests on the
premise that other societal actors ‘speak’ through cultural materials such as
interview material, despite not being directly interviewed (e.g., Rapley 2004),
further research could seek to enhance understanding of marketplace co-
constitution in the context of sustainability challenges by incorporating the
voices of other societal actors. This study has only briefly addressed the
possible field of action that is available, for example, to managers and business
practitioners in contemporary culture. Therefore, further research could seek
to gain a better understanding of the constitution of the possible field of action
available for other societal groups as ecological citizens. Such inquiries could
also include social marketing practitioners. This kind of inquiry could
contribute to a greater understanding of the kind of practices and situations in
155

which more sustainable lifestyles could be brought about (Heiskanen 2005,
Rokka and Moisander 2009).
156
Secondly, as discussed in the previous section, this study may have over-
emphasised consumer choice. Because of this, further research could focus
more explicitly on practices and seek to identify the kind of practices in which
consumers make sense of themselves as actors of sustainable development.
While this study has drawn on a discursive approach, future research could
seek to draw further inspiration from other practice-focused approaches (see
e.g., Schatzki 2001).
Thirdly, as the limitations section also noted, clothing and sustainable
consumption are commonly discussed in relation to gender issues. Further
research could therefore place more attention on the gendered practices of
ecological citizenship. For example, could it be argued that social marketing
could be understood as a gendered practice when putting consumers to work
for sustainability? For example Fischer and Bristol (1994), using a
poststructuralist-feminist view to deconstruct marketing terminology, have
suggested that rather than being as customer-oriented as it claims, marketing
theory and practice rely on rather opposite premises. In other words,
marketing would be about production-orientation: What has been produced,
needs to be ‘marketed’ (i.e., imposed by ‘males’) to the market and customers
(i.e., ‘females’). Fischer and Bristol (ibid.) further suggest that this orientation
results in ignoring the notion of community and mutually constituting
relationships (i.e., that marketers are also consumers, and also consumers can
act as marketers). As also remarked, gendered practices could also be
investigated by placing more attention on gender when choosing a research
context and producing the empirical material.
Finally, with regard to the potential contribution of social marketing and
consumer research to sustainable development, future research could seek to
build bridges between existing studies of consumption, the quality of life and
sustainability challenges. In particular, future research could seek to establish
links between inquiries on sustainable lifestyles and a good quality of life in
order to develop a more rounded notion of sustainable consumption. One
potential field of research that could be incorporated in such investigations
could be the field of happiness studies for sustainability (see, e.g., O’Brien
2008). Such inquiries could also seek to unmask the assumptions underlying
approaches that conceptualise sustainable lifestyles primarily in such self-
sacrificial terms as renunciations, austerity and meticulous other-concerned
choices. This kind of research would also offer insights and transformative

potential for research that could benefit consumers themselves (Firat 2001)
and combine aspects of personal and collective well-being (Mick et al.
forthcoming).
5.4 Implications for practitioners
This section outlines the study’s implications for social marketing practitioners
in environmental and consumer policy and for business practitioners seeking
solutions to sustainability challenges, primarily in clothing industries.
5.4.1 Social marketing practitioners
This sub-section summarises the implications for social marketing
practitioners with reference to the controversies in consumers’ economic and
environmental role and nature, consumers’ different possibilities to practice
ecological citizenship in the marketplace, and alternative understandings of
sustainable consumption. These implications are relevant for environmental
and consumer policy practitioners including practitioners in consumer
organisations, environmental NGOs and other institutions engaged with
environmental and consumer education.
Firstly, the traditional role of consumers as economic citizens (e.g., Hilton
2007) may contradict the more recent role given to consumers as ecological
citizens who are supposed to practice environmentally sound choice in the
marketplace. This creates challenges for consumers making sense of
themselves as reasonable and responsible citizens in the context of
sustainability challenges. In particular, reducing consumption seems to
contradict the traditional role of consumers as supporters of the economy and
welfare society. Therefore, calls to reduce consumption may not represent
themselves always intelligible or logical.
Moreover, different consumers have different levels of spending power.
Consequently, if ecological citizenship is to be practiced by choosing more
expensive products, consumers become placed in different, non-egalitarian
ecological citizen positions (Seyfang 2005). Not all concerned consumers may
be able to choose a more sustainably produced product for financial reasons.
However, spending more money may also contradict the traditional idea of
morally responsible household keeping, which emphasises saving money and
157

paying as little as possible. Hence, there are multiple positions that consumers
as ecological citizens can and/or may have to occupy.
Moreover, consumers may be concerned about sustainability questions but
may lack the means and resources to partake in solving these challenges.
Merely emphasising consumers and their responsibilities seems to contribute
to anxiety, hopelessness and irritation rather than to the empowerment of
consumers. Unfortunately, this emphasis often involves neglecting consumers’
own views (Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997, Moisander [2001] 2008, Heiskanen
2005, Schaefer and Crane 2005, Caruana 2007b). Rhetoric may suggest that
sustainable lifestyles are easy to adopt now that more information is available
to consumers (Evans and Abrahamse 2009). However, in practice this not
necessarily always the case as is evidenced in this study, for example, in the
practices that consumers themselves have to take up in the marketplace in
order to find alternatives to ordinary products. More sustainably produced
products are not often easily available to consumers or, at least, finding their
‘ordinary’ counterpart takes less effort, which can discourage consumers.
Overall, consumers seem to be left on their own to make sense of marketplace
alternatives and their sustainability in various use situations and contexts.
Therefore, an important issue to take into account seems to be how
environmental and consumer policy could better support consumers in the
common pursuit of sustainability. In order to assist consumers as ecological
citizens in the marketplace, practical tools such as a simple, practical and
trustworthy labelling scheme could be developed (e.g., Moisander 2007).
Alternatively, the evaluation of labelling schemes and environmental
performances could be taken up by a specialist body that could also provide
consumers with other relevant information. Whereas labelling in clothing is
rare, the multiplicity of different schemes in other product categories has
already contributed to another confusing situation for consumers, who now
need to evaluate the labels and environmental information. Consumers could
be given advice that has been tested for its practical applicability in real life
contexts as well as for its importance in advancing sustainability. Therefore, in
developing labelling, attention could be placed on developing labelling that is
relevant for leading more sustainable lifestyles and simple enough to use in
practical situations. In this respect, practitioners could also seek to develop
new services for consumers and, in so doing, share some of the work that
consumers currently seem to be forced to take up on their own in order to
make better choices.
158

Despite the overwhelming body of information and the limited capacity of
consumers to collect, absorb, compare and make use of this information, more
information on sustainability issues could be provided. For instance, it might
be useful to involve some consumers in the development of information
provision and dissemination practices (e.g., Heiskanen 2005). Rather than
departing from the premise that all sustainable consumers would behave
similarly or that it would be important to engage sustainably behaving
consumers as consumer experts, it could be useful to consider the knowledge
and views of ‘ordinary’ consumers, as illustrated in this study. In addition, it
could be useful to convey sustainability-related information to consumers with
reference to broader historical developments and include also information on
the debates over development alternatives in order to provide broader
information and understanding on sustainability challenges (Fuchs and Lorek
2005). Whereas the formal education system can offer possibilities for teaching
future consumers and citizens, this emphasis unfortunately excludes the vast
majority of present citizens and consumers.
Finally, it remains important to continue to develop and apply alternative
conceptualisations of sustainable consumption, which can better accommodate
the meaningfulness of human practices present in consumption (e.g.,
Moisander [2001] 2008). Such approaches could also draw beneficial insights
from the notion of the quality of life (MacGregor 2006, see also Soper 2007).
When making sense of their roles and responsibilities in the common pursuit
of sustainability, consumers situate themselves in the broader cultural context.
It is against this background that they judge what can be reasonably expected
of them and how the suggested lifestyle changes can be incorporated into their
everyday lives in meaningful ways. In order to engage and empower consumers
in more sustainable lifestyles, it seems important to understand how the idea of
a good quality of life could assist in advancing sustainability. This calls for the
incorporation of human dimensions such as happiness and satisfaction into the
concept of sustainable consumption. In practical terms, this could involve, for
instance, emphasising such dimensions of material products as quality and
design. These issues are important for contemporary consumers not only in
general terms but also with reference to possibilities for longer usage periods
and product satisfaction (e.g., Flecther 2008).
159

5.4.2 Business practitioners
This sub-section outlines the implications for business practitioners, with
reference to aesthetics and design in creating customer value, corporate
responsibility initiatives and labelling schemes. These implications primarily
apply to the clothing industries but are also relevant for other consumer goods
industries seeking solutions to sustainability challenges.
Firstly, whereas aesthetic questions and design have become increasingly
important for commercial success (Postrel 2003), the provisioning and
merchandising of ecologically and ethically produced clothing does not seem to
reflect this general trend. In mass market environments, consumers who are
potentially interested in more sustainably produced clothing seem to face a
lack of choice. Sustainably produced clothes tend to be offered either in
unattractive styles or in limited ranges. However, consumers are not merely
looking for more sustainable t-shirts and jogging suits; they also working
individuals who may need to look ‘smart’ in their professional life, for example.
Rather than changing their personal style, consumers expect to have their
ordinary clothing produced in a more sustainable manner (Joergens 2006).
This was illustrated in the analysis, when consumers rejected both the latest
fashions and peculiar looking eco-styles because these styles did not match
with their own styles, which may have been more moderate.
This also poses challenges for the marketing of more sustainably produced
clothing. Firstly, consumers seem to associate promotional practices with
unsustainable marketplace cultures: generally speaking, promotional practices
are understood to promote more consumption and can therefore be of suspect.
This suggests that the marketing of more sustainably produced clothing cannot
simply follow traditional sales promotion practices. Secondly, the fact that
ordinary clothing is visually similar to sustainably produced clothing makes it
more difficult to distinguish between differently produced clothing in
marketing communications.
Furthermore, aesthetics and design questions relate not only to the visual
appearance of products but also to store atmospherics (e.g., Schroeder 2002).
When developing the sales of more sustainably produced garments and other
products, attention could therefore be placed on creating well-organised and
aesthetically pleasing shopping environments. This could include proper
lighting, comfortable fitting rooms, organised and coordinated product
displays, as well as service personnel to assist consumers and organise
160

merchandise. Similar considerations apply to the development of the sales of
recycled clothing, for example in second-hand stores.
Moreover, attention could be directed towards the physical design of the
clothes (Flecther 2008). Mass-marketed clothing is produced for a
standardised human body. Whereas this can make economic sense at a certain
level, from the ergonomic and sustainability point of view this would seem to
make less sense. Even when searching for ordinary clothes, consumers seem to
have difficulties finding clothes that fit them well. This creates both challenges
and opportunities for businesses. One on hand, the limited supply of
sustainably produced clothes means that consumers have fewer opportunities
to find garments that fit well, which may reduce the sales potential of more
sustainably produced ready-to-wear clothes. On the other hand, however,
developing clothing that fits better and could be adjusted to individual
consumers could offer potential for developing new business and establishing
new sustainability-focused brands.
In addition, it could be useful to consider the re-introduction of services such
as clothes repair and tailoring that could prolong the usage periods of clothing
(Allwood et al. 2006). Longer usage periods would necessitate greater
emphasis on materials, their quality and durability in use. This would also
imply taking aesthetic questions into account. Longer-lasting products could be
more expensive, which would also reduce the material impact of the sector in
terms of purchased items without compromising revenues (see Allwood et al.
2006). In addition, by producing longer-lasting products, more attention could
also be placed on details and the quality of manufacturing and finishing. This
could offer business and employment opportunities for professionals in design-
and craft-related fields.
Contemporary green and ethical product alternatives are often established as
part of corporate responsibility initiatives (Crane 2005). The clothing sector
has been associated with unsustainable and unjust production practices and
corporate initiatives have attempted to inform consumers of efforts are now
being taken at a certain level. However, brands and corporations do not seem
to be broadly considered trustworthy in terms of their ethical claims. There
seem to be a number of reasons for this. Firstly, ethical conduct is associated
with trust; misconducts can damage not only a company’s but also an
industry’s reputation and trustworthiness with long-term consequences.
Secondly, the marginal share of more sustainably produced items may
communicate a message of image-polishing practices and that retailers may
not take sustainability issues or consumer concerns seriously. Thirdly,
161

prioritising sales, especially by promoting more material consumption in terms
of items bought, seems to communicate to consumers that retailers are not
making serious efforts towards sustainability. Finally, outsourcing production
to distant locations and the use of complex supply chains can also be associated
with prioritising profits over sustainable development. These issues are
important to consider, for example, when retailers plan to establish in-house
ecological and ethical brands or start new sustainability focused businesses.
162

6 REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W. & Horkheimer, M. ([1944] 2002) The culture industry:
Enlightenment as mass deception. In Schor, J. B. & Holt, D. (Eds.) The
consumer society reader, New York: The New Press, 3-19.
Agyeman, J. & Evans, B. (2006) Justice, governance, and sustainability:
Perspectives on environmental citizenship from North America and
Europe. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.) Environmental citizenship,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 185-206.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Alasuutari, P. (1995) Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural
studies, London: Sage.
Alasuutari, P. (2004) Social theory and human reality, London: Sage.
Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., de Rodríguez, C. M. & Bocken, N. M. P. (2006)
Well dressed? The present and future sustainability of clothing and
textiles in the United Kingdom, Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Institute for Manufacturing.
Alvesson, M. (2003) Beyond neopositivists, romantics and localists: A
reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research, Academy of
Management Review, 28 (1), 13-33.
Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of
organization through discourse analysis, Human Relations, 53 (9), 1125-
1149.
Anderson, T. W. & Cunningham, W. H. (1972) The socially conscious
consumer, Journal of Marketing, 36, 23-31.
Andreasen, A. R. (1991) Consumer behavior research and social policy. In
Robertson, T. S. & Kassarjian, H. H. (Eds.) Handbook of consumer
behavior, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 459-506.
Andreasen, A. R. (1994) Social marketing: Its definition and domain, Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing, 13 (108-114).
Andreasen, A. R. (2006) Social marketing in the 21st century, Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Ansell-Pearson, K. (1994) An introduction to Nietzsche as political thinker,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antil, J. H. (1984) Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for
public policy, Journal of Macromarketing, 4, 18-39.
Antil, J. H. & Bennett, P. D. (1979) Construction and validation of a scale to
measure socially responsible consumption behavior. In Henion, K. H. &
Kinnear, T. C. (Eds.) The conserver society, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 51-68.
Arnold, M. J. & Fisher, J. I. (1996) Counterculture, criticisms and crisis:
Assessing the effects of the sixties on marketing thought, Journal of
Macromarketing, 16 (1), 118-133.
Arnold, S. & Fischer, E. (1994) Hermeneutics and consumer research, Journal
of Consumer Research, 21, 55-70.
163

Arnould, E. J. (2007) Should consumer citizens escape the market? , The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611,
96-111.
Arnould, E. J. & Thompson, C. (2005) Consumer culture theory (CCT):
Twenty years of research, Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4), 868-
882.
Atik, D. (2006) Consumer desires in fashion: Interagency of consumers and
producers, Milan, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi. PhD thesis.
Atkin, D. (2004) The culting of brands: When customers become true believers,
New York: Penguin.
Autio, M. (2006) Kuluttajuuden rakentuminen nuorten kertomuksissa (The
construction of consumerism in young people's narratives), Helsinki,
University of Helsinki. PhD thesis.
Autio, M., Heiskanen, E. & Heinonen, V. (2009) Narratives of ‘green’
consumers – the Antihero, the Environmental Hero and the Anarchist,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8 (1), 40-53.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable development, New York: Routledge.
Barnard, M. (2002) Fashion as communication, London: Routledge.
Barnett, C., Cafaro, P. & Newholm, T. (2005) Philosophy and ethical
consumption. In Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds.) The
ethical consumer, London: Sage, 11-24.
Barry, J. (1996) Sustainability, political judgement and citizenship: Connecting
green politics and democracy. In Doherty, B. & De Geus, M. (Eds.)
Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and
citizenship, London: Routledge, 115-131.
Barry, J. (2006) Resistance is fertile: From environmental to sustainability
citizenship. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.) Environmental citizenship,
Cambridge: MIT Press, 21-48.
Baumann, Z. (2005) Liquid life, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beard, N. (2008) The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: A luxury
niche or mass-market reality? , Fashion Theory, 12 (4), 447-468.
Belk, R. W., Ger, G. & Askegaard, S. (2003) The fire of desire: A multisited
inquiry into consumer passion, Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 316-
51.
Bell, D. (2002) How can political liberals be environmentalists? , Political
Studies, 50 (4), 703-724.
Bell, D. (2004) Creating green citizens? Political liberalism and environmental
education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38 (1), 37-54.
Bell, D. (2005) Liberal environmental citizenship, Environmental politics, 14
(2), 179-194.
Belz, F.-M. & Peattie, K. (2009) Sustainability marketing: A global
perspective, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Berg, A. (forthcoming) Not roadmaps but toolboxes: Analysing pioneering
national programmes for sustainable consumption and production,
Journal of Consumer Policy, published online 29 April 2010.
Binkley, S. (2006) The perilous freedoms of consumption: Toward a theory of
the conduct of consumer conduct, Journal for Cultural Research, 10 (4),
343-362.
164

Binkley, S. (2008) Liquid consumption: Anti-consumerism and the fetishized
de-fetishization of commodities, Cultural Studies, 22 (5), 599-623.
Birtwistle, G. & Moore, C. M. (2007) Fashion clothing – Where does it all end
up? , International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35
(3), 210-216.
Black, S. (2008) Eco-chic: The fashion paradox, London: Black Dog.
Blaszczyk, R. L. (Ed.) (2008) Producing fashion: Commerce, culture, and
consumers, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Blumer, H. (1969) Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection,
The Sociological Quarterly, 10 (3), 275-291.
Borgmann, A. (2000) The moral complexion of consumption, Journal of
Consumer Research, 26 (4), 418-422.
Bourdieu, P. ([1979] 1984) A social critique of the judgment of taste, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (2000) Sorting things out. Classification and its
consequences, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bradshaw, A. & Firat, A. F. (2007) Rethinking critical marketing. In Saren, M.,
Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R., Shankar, A. & Catterall, M.
(Eds.) Critical marketing: Defining the field, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 30-43.
Braham, P. (1997) Fashion: Unpacking a cultural production, London: Sage.
Brown, S., Bell, J. & Carson, D. (Eds.) (1996) Marketing apocalypse –
Eschatology, escapology and the illusion of the end, London:
Routledge.
Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. & Whittington, R. (1999) Rethinking
marketing: Towards critical marketing accountings, London: Sage.
Buchanen, D. R., Reddy, S. & Hossain, Z. (1994) Social marketing: A critical
appraisal Health Promotion International, 9 (1), 49-57.
Bullard, R. D. & Johnson, G. S. (2000) Environmental justice: Grassroots
activism and its impact on public policy decision making, Journal of
Social Issues, 56 (3), 555-578.
Bullen, A. & Whitehead, M. (2005) Negotiating the networks of space, time,
and substance: A geographical perspective on the sustainable citizen,
Citizenship studies, 9 (5), 499-516.
Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G. & Harrison, C. (2003)
(Un)sustainable consumption. In Berkhout, F., Leach, M. & Scoones, I.
(Eds.) Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social
science, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 261-91.
Burr, V. (1995) An introduction to social constructionism, London: Routledge.
Carlsson, M. & Jensen, B. B. (2006) Encouraging environmental citizenship:
The roles and challenges for schools. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.)
Environmental citizenship, Cambridge: MIT Press, 237–261.
Caruana, R. (2007a) Morality and consumption: Towards a multidisciplinary
perspective, Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (3/4), 207-225.
Caruana, R. (2007b) A sociological perspective of consumption morality,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6 (5), 287-304.
165

Caruana, R. & Crane, A. (2008) Constructing consumer responsibility:
Exploring the role of corporate communications, Organization Studies,
29 (12), 1495-1519.
Chabowski, B. L., Mena, J. A. & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011) The structure
of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis for future
research opportunities, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
39 (1), 55-70.
Chalmers, A. F. ([1980] 1992) What is this thing called science? , Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Charters, S. (2006) Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: A review,
Consumption Markets & Culture, 9 (3), 235-255.
Christoff, P. (1996) Ecological citizens and ecologically guided democracy. In
Doherty, B. & De Geus, M. (Eds.) Democracy and green political
thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship, London: Routledge, 151-
169.
Cohen, M. J. & Murphy, J. (2001) Consumption, environment and public
policy. In Cohen, M. J. & Murphy, J. (Eds.) Exploring sustainable
consumption: environmental policy and the social sciences, Amsterdam:
Pergamon, 3-17.
Connolly, J. & Prothero, A. (2003) Sustainable consumption: Consumption,
consumers and the commodity discourse, Consumption, Markets and
Culture, 6, 275-291.
Corrigan, P. (2008) The dressed society: Clothing, the body and some meanings
of the world, London: Sage Publications.
Craik, J. ([1994] 2000) The face of fashion: Cultural studies in fashion,
London: Routledge.
Crane, A. (2005) Meeting the ethical gaze. In Harrison, R., Newholm, T. &
Shaw, D. (Eds.) The ethical consumer, London: Sage, 119–232.
Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Curry, P. M. (2000) Redefining community: Towards an ecological
republicanism., Biodiversity and conservation, 9, 1059-1071.
Curtin, D. (2002) Ecological citizenship. In Isin, E. F. & Turner, B. S. (Eds.)
Handbook of citizenship studies, London: Sage.
Darier, É. (1996) Environmental governmentality: The case of Canada's green
plan, Environmental Politics, 5 (4), 585-606.
Davis, F. (1992) Fashion, culture, and identity, Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
de Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life, Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Dean, H. (2001) Green citizenship, Social Policy and Administration, 35 (5),
490-505.
Dean, M. ([1999] 2008) Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society,
London: Sage.
Denegri-Knott, J., Zwick, D. & Schroeder, J. E. (2006) Mapping consumer
power: An integrative framework for marketing and consumer research,
European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 950-971.
166

Denzin, N. (2002) The cinematic society and the reflexive interview. In
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.) Handbook of interview research:
Context and method, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 833-849.
Devinney, T. N., Auger, P. & Eckhardt, D. (2010) The myth of the ethical
consumer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, R. A. & Carsky, M. L. (2005) The consumer as economic voter. In
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds.) The ethical consumer,
London: Sage, 25-36.
Dickson, R. A. & Carsky, M. L. (2005) The consumer as economic voter. In
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds.) The ethical consumer,
London: Sage, 25-36.
Dobson, A. (2003) Ecological citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dobson, A. (2005) Citizenship. In Dobson, A. & Eckersley, R. (Eds.) Political
theory and the ecological challenge Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 489-561.
Dobson, A. (2007) Green political thought, London: Routledge.
Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (2006) Introduction. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.)
Environmental citizenship, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1-
18.
Dobson, A. & Sáiz, A. V. (2005) Introduction, Environmental Politics, 14 (2),
157-162.
Dolan, P. (2002) The sustainability of “sustainable consumption”, Journal of
Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170-181.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991) Reflections on the Workshop on "The Self",
Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly, 16 (1), 27-31.
Du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and identity at work, London: Sage.
Du Gay, P. (2004a) Devices and dispositions: Promoting consumption,
Consumption, Markets and Culture, 7 (2), 99-105.
Du Gay, P. (2004b) Self service: Retail, shopping and personhood,
Consumption, Markets and Culture, 7 (2), 149-163.
Eckersley, R. (1995) Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle
for inclusion, Environmental Politics, 4 (4), 169–98.
Eckersley, R. (1996) Greening liberal democracy: The rights discourse
revisited. In Doherty, B. & de Geus, M. (Eds.) Democracy and green
political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship, London:
Routledge, 212-36.
Edley, N. (2001) Analyzing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological
dilemmas and subject positions. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S.
J. (Eds.) Discourse as data. A guide for analysis, London: The Open
University Press and Sage, 189-228.
Elliott, J. B. (2005) Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches, London: Sage.
Entwistle, J. (2001) The dressed body. In Entwistle, J. & Wilson, E. (Eds.)
Body dressing, Oxford and London: Berg, 33-58.
Evans, D. & Abrahamse, W. (2009) Beyond rhetoric: The possibilities of and
for 'sustainable lifestyles', Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 486-502.
167

Featherstone, M. (1992) Postmodernism and the aesthetization of everyday life.
In Lash, S. & Friedman, J. (Eds.) Modernity and identity, Oxford:
Blackwell, 265-290.
Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N. & Bagozzi, R. (Eds.) (1987) Philosophical and
radical thougth in marketing, Lexington: Lexington Books.
Firat, A. F. & Tadajewski, M. (2009) Critical marketing - Marketing in critical
condition. In Tadajewski, M., Stern, B., Saren, M. & Maclaran, P. (Eds.)
The SAGE handbook of marketing theory, London: Sage.
Firat, F. A. (2001) Consumer research for (the benefit of) consumers, Journal
of Research for Consumers 1,www.jrconsumers.com/.
Firat, F. A. & Dholakia, N. (2006) Theoretical and philosophical implications
of postmodern debates: Some challenges to modern marketing,
Marketing Theory, 6 (2), 123-62.
Firat, F. A., Dholakia, N. & Venkatesh, A. (1995) Marketing in a postmodern
world, European Journal of Marketing, 29 (1), 40-56.
Fırat, F. A. & Venkatesh, A. (1995) Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment
of consumption, Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 239-
267.
Fischer, E. & Bristol, J. (1994) A feminist post-structuralist analysis of the
rhetoric of marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
11 (4), 317-331.
Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys, London:
Earthscan.
Foucault, M. (1972 [1969]) The archeology of knowledge, New York: Pantheon
Books.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. In Gordon, C. (Ed.) Power/knowledge -
Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977, Brighton: Harvester
Press.
Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power. In Dreyfus, H. L. & Rabinow, P.
(Eds.) Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Hemel
Hempstead: Harvestes Wheatsead, 208-226.
Foucault, M. (1984) On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in
progress. In Rabinow, P. (Ed.) The Foucault reader, New York:
Pantheon, 340-372.
Foucault, M. (1988) The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An
interview. In Bernaur, J. & Rasmussen, D. (Eds.) The final Foucault,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1-20.
Foucault, M. (1991) Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. & Miller, P.
(Eds.) The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 87-104.
Foucault, M. (2008 [1979]) The birth of biopolitics. Lectures at the Collège de
France 1978-1979: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. ([1977] 1980) Truth and power. In Gordon, C. (Ed.)
Power/Knowledge, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 109-133.
Foucault, M. ([1978] 2009) Security, territory, population. Lectures at the
Collège de France 1977-1978: Palgrave Macmillan.
168

Foucault, M. ([1981] 2000) So is it important to think? In Faubion, J. D. (Ed.)
Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, Vol. 3, New York: New
Press, 454-458.
Foucault, M. ([1984] 1990 ) The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality.
Volume 2., New York and Torondo: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. ([1990] 1997) What is critique? In Lotringer, S. & Hochroth, L.
(Eds.) Foucault, The Politics of Truth, New York: Semiotext(e), 27-9.
Fournier, V. (2008) Escaping from the economy: The politics of degrowth,
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28 (11), 528-545.
Fuchs, D. A. & Lorek, S. (2005) Sustainable consumption governance: A
history of promises and failures, Journal of Consumer Policy, 28 (3),
261-288.
Fuller, D. A. (1999) Sustainable marketing: Managerial-ecological issues,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. & Lang, T. (2006) The unmanageable consumer: Contemporary
consumption and its fragmentation, London: Sage.
Gabrielson, T. (2008) Green citizenship: A review and critique, Citizenship
Studies, 12 (4), 429-446.
Gergen, K. (1998) Narrative, moral Identity and historical consciousness: A
social constructionist account,
http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/faculty/gergen/Narrative_Mora
l_Identity_and_Historical_Consciousness.pdf.
Gordon, R., Hastings, G., McDermott, L. & Siquier, P. (2007) The critical role
of social marketing. In Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott,
R., Shankar, A. & Caterall, M. (Eds.) Critical marketing: Defining the
field, London: Butterworth-Heineman, 159-177.
Gronow, J. (1997) The sociology of taste, London: Routledge.
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. (2003) Analyzing interpretive practice. In Denzin,
N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) Strategies of qualitative inquiry,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (2002) From individual interview to interview
society. In Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.) Handbook of
interview research: Context and method, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3-
32.
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the
philosophy of natural science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999) The social construction of what? , Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Hacking, I. (2004) Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between
discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction, Economy and
Society, 33 (3), 277-302.
Hailwood, S. (2005) Environmental citizenship as reasonable citizenship,
Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 195–210.
Hall, D. E. (2004) Subjectivity, New York and London: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1996) Introduction: Who needs identity? In Hall, S. & du Gay, P.
(Eds.) Questions of cultural identity, London: Sage, 1-17.
Hall, S. ([1997] 2009a) Introduction. In Hall, S. (Ed.) Representation: Cultural
representations and signifying practices, London: Sage, 1-12.
169

Hall, S. ([1997] 2009b) The work of representation In Hall, S. (Ed.)
Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices,
London: Sage, 13-74.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (2005) Introduction. In Harrison, R.,
Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds.) The ethical consumer, London: Sage,
1-8.
Hastings, G. (2003) Relational paradigms in social marketing, Journal of
Macromarketing, 23, 6-15.
Hastings, G. (2007) The potential of social marketing: Why should the devil
have all the best tunes? , Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hastings, G., MacFadyen, L. & Anderson, S. (2000) Whose behaviour is it
anyway? The broader potential of social marketing, Social Marketing
Quarterly, 6 (2), 46-58.
Hastings, G. & Saren, M. (2003) The critical contribution of social marketing:
Theory and application, Marketing Theory, 3 (3), 305-322.
Heinonen, V. (2000) Näin alkoi ‘kulutusjuhla': Suomalaisen
kulutusyhteiskunnan rakenteistuminen (So started 'consumption binge':
The structuration of Finnish consumer society). In Hyvönen, K., Juntto,
A., Laaksonen, P. & Timonen, P. (Eds.) Hyvää elämää: 90 vuotta
suomalaista kuluttajatutkimusta (Leading good life: 90 years of Finnish
consumer research), Helsinki: Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus &
Tilastokeskus, 8-22.
Heiskanen, E. (2005) The performative nature of consumer research, Journal of
Consumer Policy, 28 (2), 179-201.
Heiskanen, E. & Pantzar, M. (1997) Toward sustainable consumption: New
perspectives, Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 409-442.
Henion, K. E. (1976) Ecological Marketing, Columbus, Ohio: Grid Inc.
Hethorn, J. & Ulasewitz, C. (Eds.) (2008) Sustainable fashion: Why now? A
conversation about issues, practices, and possibilities, New York:
Fairchild Books.
Hilton, M. (2007) Consumers and the state since the Second World War, The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611
(1), 66-81.
Hinchman, L. P. & Hinchman, S. K. (Eds.) (2001) Memory, identity,
community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences, Albany NY:
State University of NY Press.
Hobson, K. (2002) Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the
‘rationalization of lifestyles’ make sense? , Environmental Politics, 11
(2), 95-120.
Hodgson, D. (2002) "Know your customer": marketing, governmentality and
the "new consumer" of financial services, Management Decision, 40 (4),
318-328.
Holstein, J. & Gubrium, J. F. (1997) Active interviewing. In Silverman, D.
(Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, London: Sage,
113-29.
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1995) The active interview, London: Sage.
Holt, D. (2002) Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer
culture and branding, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 387-412.
170

Holt, D. B. & Thompson, C. J. (2004) Man-of-action heroes: The pursuit of
heroic masculinity in everyday consumption, Journal of Consumer
Research, 31 (2), 425-440.
Huang, M.-H. & Rust, R. T. (2011) Sustainability and consumption, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (1), 40-54.
Huttunen, K. & Autio, M. (2010) Consumer ethoses in Finnish consumer life
stories – agrarianism, economism and green consumerism, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 34 (2), 146-152.
Isin, E. F. & Turner, B. S. (2002) Citizenship studies. In Isin, E. F. & Turner, B.
S. (Eds.) Handbook of Citizenship, London: Sage, 1-9.
Iwanow, H., McEachern, M. G. & Jeffrey, A. (2005) The influence of ethical
trading policies on consumer apparel purchase decisions, Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 33, 317-387.
Jalas, M. (2006) Busy, wise and idle time: A study of the temporalities of
consumption in the environmental debate Helsinki, Helsinki School of
Economics. PhD thesis.
Jelin, E. (2002) Towards a global environmental citizenship, Citizenship
Studies, 4 (1), 47-62.
Joergens, C. (2006) Ethical fashion: Myth or future trend? , Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 10, 360-371.
Johnston, J. (2008) The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the
case of Whole Foods Market, Theory and Society, 37 (3), 229-270.
Jokinen, A. & Juhila, K. (1999) Diskurssianalyyttisen tutkimuksen kartta (A
map of discourse analytic studies). In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K. &
Suoninen, E. (Eds.) Diskurssianalyysi liikkeessä (Discourse analysis in
move), Tampere: Vastapaino, 56-81.
Jokinen, A., Juhila, K. & Suoninen, E. (1993) Diskursiivinen maailma:
Teoreettiset lähtökohdat ja analyyttiset käsitteet (Discursive world:
Theoretical premises and analytical tools). In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K. &
Suoninen, E. (Eds.) Diskurssianalyysin aakkoset (Discourse analytic
alphabets), Tampere: Vastapaino, 17-47.
Jones, C. (2010) The subject supposed to recycle, Philosophy Today, 54 (1), 30-
39.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Bown, R. & Hillier, D. (2010) Sustainable consumption
and the UK's leading clothing retailers, World Review of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6 (3),
244-259.
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F. J. & Deschenes, J. (2009) Conceptual blending in
advertising, Journal of Business Research, 62, 39-49.
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F. J., Deschens, J. & Troilo, G. (2006) Writing it up, writing
it down: Reflexivity-in accounts of consumer behavior In Belk, R. W.
(Ed.) Handbook of qualitative methods in marketing and consumer
behavior, Northampton, MA: Elgar Press, 345-360.
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F. J., Venkatesh, A. & Deschenes, J. (2009) Perceiving
images and telling tales: A visual and verbal analysis of the meaning of
the internet, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 556-566.
171

Joy, A. & Venkatesh, A. (1994) Postmodernism, feminism, and the body: The
visible and the invisible in consumer research, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 11 (333-357).
Jubas, K. (2007) Conceptual confusion in democratic societies: Understandings
and limitations of consumer citizenship, Journal of Consumer Culture, 7
(2), 231-254.
Juhila, K. (2009) From care to fellowship and back: Interpretative repertoires
used by the social welfare workers when describing their relationship
with homeless women, The Bristish Journal of Social Work, 39 (1),
128-143.
Kajzer Mitchell, I. & Saren, M. (2008) The living product - Using the creative
nature of metaphors for sustainable marketing, Business Strategy and
the Environment, 17 (6), 398-410.
Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P. & Prothero, A. (1997) Sustainable consumption
and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant
social paradigm, Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4-24.
Kjellberg, H. (2008) Market practices and over-consumption, Consumption
Markets & Culture, 11 (2), 151-167.
Kohler Riessman, C. (2004) Narrative analysis. In Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman,
A. & Liao, T. F. (Eds.) The Sage encyclopedia of social science
research methods, London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 705-709.
Kotler, P. (2005) FAQ’s on marketing, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish
Business.
Kotler, P. & Levy, S. (1969) Broadening the concept of marketing, Journal of
Marketing, 33, 10-15.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N. & Lee, N. (2002) Social marketing: Improving the
quality of life, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kotler, P. & Zaltman, G. (1971) Social marketing: An approach to planned
social change, Journal of Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002) Can consumer escape the market? Emancipatory
illuminations from Burning Man, Jounal of Consumer Research, 29 (1),
20-38.
Kozinets, R. V. (2008) Technology/Ideology: How ideological fields influence
consumers' technology narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(6), 865-881.
Kozinets, R. V., Sherry, J. F. J., Storm, D., Duhaheck, A., Nuttavuthisit, K. &
Deberry-Spence, B. (2004) Ludic agency and retail space, Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (3), 658-672.
Langdridge, D. (2007) Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research, and
method, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Latta, A. P. (2007) Locating democratic politics in ecological citizenship,
Environmental politics, 16 (3), 377-393.
Luke, T. (1999) Environmentality as green governmentality. In Darier, É. (Ed.)
Discourses of the environment, Oxford: Blackwell, 121-151.
MacGregor, S. (2006) No sustainability without justice: A feminist critique of
environmental citizenship. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.)
Environmental citizenship, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press,
101-126.
172

Maniates, M. (2002) Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?
In Princen, T., Maniates, M. & Conca, K. (Eds.) Confronting
Consumption, London: MIT Press, 43–66.
Marcuse, H. ([1964] 1991) One dimensional man. Studies in the ideology of
advanced industrial society, London: Abacus.
Markkula, A. (2009) “Kun paholainen tuli kylään” - Ekologisen kansalaisuuden
neuvottelua verkkokeskustelussa (“You just called them the devil” -
Negotiating ecological citizenship in online discussion forums),
Kulutustutkimus.Nyt, (1).
McCracken, G. (1988) Culture and consumption: New approaches to the
symbolic character of consumer goods and activities, Bloomington &
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
McNay, L. (1994) Foucault and feminism: Power, gender and the self,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Melo-Escrihuela, C. (2008) Promoting ecological citizenship: Rights, duties
and political agency, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical
Geographies, 7 (2), 113-134.
Micheletti, M. (2003) Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism,
and collective action, New York: Palgrave.
Mick, D. G., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C. C. & Ozanne, J. L. (forthcoming) The
origins, qualities, and envisionments of transformative consumer
research. In Mick, D. G., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C. C. & Ozanne, J.
L. (Eds.) Transformative consumer research for personal and collective
well-being, New York: Routledge.
Miller, D. (2001) The dialectics of shopping, London and Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Miller, G. (1997) Building bridges: The possibility of analytic dialogue
between ethnography, conversation analysis and Foucault. In Silverman,
D. (Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, London:
Sage, 24-44.
Miller, P. & Rose, N. (1990) Governing economic life, Economy and Society,
19 (1), 1-31.
Mishler, E. G. (1986) Research interview: Context and narrative, Cambridge,
MA and London: Harvard University Press Mishler.
Mishler, E. G. (1999) Storylines: Craftartists’ narratives of identity,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Moisander, J. (2007) Motivational complexity of green consumerism
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (4), 404-409.
Moisander, J. ([2001] 2008) Representation of green consumerism: A
constructionist critique, Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Moisander, J., Markkula, A. & Eräranta, K. (2010) Construction of consumer
choice in the market: Challenges for environmental policy International
Journal of Consumer Studies, (34), 73-79.
Moisander, J. & Pesonen, S. (2002) Narratives of sustainable ways of living:
Constructing the self and the other as a green consumer, Management
Decision, 40 (4), 329-342.
Moisander, J. & Valtonen, A. (2006) Qualitative marketing research: A
cultural approach, London: Sage Publications.
173

Moisander, J., Valtonen, A. & Hirsto, H. (2009) Personal interviews in cultural
consumer research - poststructuralist challenges, Consumption, Markets
& Culture, 12 (4), 329-348.
Morgan, L. R. & Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion
consumers' disposal habits, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
33 (2), 199-205.
Murray, J. (2002) The politics of consumption: A re-inquiry on Thompson and
Haytko’s (1997) “Speaking of fashion”, Journal of Consumer Research,
29 (3), 427-40.
Murray, J. & Ozanne, J. L. (2006) Rethinking the Critical Imagination. In Belk,
R. W. (Ed.) Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Murray, J. B. & Ozanne, J. L. (1991) The critical imagination: emancipatory
interests in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2),
129-44.
Murray, M. (2003) Narrative psychology and narrative research. In Camic, P.
M., Rhodes, J. E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) Qualitative research in
psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design,
Washington, DC: APA Books, 111-131.
Niinimäki, K. (2009) Consumer values and eco-fashion in the future. In
Koskela, M. & Vinnari, M. (Eds.) Future of consumer society, 28-29
May 2009, Tampere, Finland. Finland Futures Research Centre & Turku
School of Economics, 125-134.
O’Brien, C. (2008) Sustainable happiness: How happiness studies can
contribute to a more sustainable future, Canadian Psychology, 49 (4),
289-295.
Oksala, J. (2008) How to read Foucault, New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Ozanne, J. L. & Murray, J. B. (1995) Uniting critical theory and public policy
to create the reflexively defiant consumer, American Behavioral
Scientist, 38 (4), 516-25.
Pears, K. E. (2005) How can socially-constructed attitudes towards fashion
consumption be shifted to encourage a more sustainable approach? , The
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social
Sustainability, 1 (4), 92-103.
Peattie, K. (1995) Environmental marketing management, London: Pitman.
Peattie, K. & Collins, A. (2009) Guest editorial: Perspectives on sustainable
consumption, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (2), 107-
112.
Peattie, S. & Peattie, K. (2003) Ready to fly solo? Reducing social marketing’s
dependence on commercial marketing theory, Marketing Theory, 3 (3),
365-385.
Peräkylä, A. (1997) Reability and validity in research based on tapes and
transcripts. In Silverman, D. (Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method
and practice, London: Sage, 201-20.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences,
Albany: State University of New York.
174

Postrel, V. (2003) The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is
remaking commerce, culture, and consciousness New York:
HarperCollins.
Potter, J. (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social
construction, London: Sage.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. ([1987] 2007) Discourse and social psychology.
Beyond attitudes and behaviour, London: Sage.
Priest, A. (2005) Uniformity and differentiation in fashion, International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 17 (3/4), 253-263.
Princen, T., Maniates, M. & Conca, K. (2002) Confronting consumption In
Princen, T., Maniates, M. & Conca, K. (Eds.) Confronting consumption,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1-20.
Prothero, A., McDonagh, P. & Dobscha, S. (2010) Is green the new black?
Reflections on a green commodity discourse Journal of
Macromarketing 30 (2), 147-159.
Raftopoulou, E. (2009) Social marketing and consumer citizenship. In Parsons,
E. & Maclaran, P. (Eds.) Contemporary issues in marketing and
consumer behavior, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, 161-176.
Ransom, J. (1993) Feminism, difference and discourse: The limits of discursive
analysis for feminism. In Ramazanoglu, C. (Ed.) Up againt Foucault:
Explorations of some tensions between Foucault and feminism, London
and New York: Routledge, 123-146.
Rapley, T. (2004) Interviews. In Seale, C., Giampieto, G., Gubrium, J. F. &
Silverman, D. (Eds.) Qualitative research practice, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 15-33.
Reynolds, J. & Wetherell, M. (2003) The discursive climate on singleness: The
consequences for women’s negotiation of a single identity, Feminism
and Psychology, 13 (4), 489-510.
Rokka, J. & Moisander, J. (2009) Environmental dialogue in online
communities: negotiating ecological citizenship among global travellers,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (2), 199-205.
Rokka, J. & Uusitalo, L. (2008) Preference for green packaging in consumer
product choices - Do consumers care? , International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 32, 516-525.
Rose, N. (1990) Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self, London:
Routledge.
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. (2000) Community, citizenship and the third way, American
Behavioral Scientist, 43 (9), 1395-1411.
Rothchild, M. L. (1999) Carrots, stick and promises: A conceptual framework
for the management of public health and social issue behaviors, Journal
of Marketing, 63 (24-27).
Rudell, F. (2006) Shopping with a social conscience: Consumer attitudes
toward sweatshop labor Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24 (4),
282-296.
Sáiz, A. V. (2005) Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and ecological citizenship,
Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 163-178.
175

Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R., Shankar, A. & Catterall, M.
(2007) Introduction In Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R.,
Shankar, A. & Catterall, M. (Eds.) Critical marketing: Defining the
field, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, xvii-xxiii.
Sargeant, A. (2009) Marketing management for nonprofit organizations,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schaefer, A. & Crane, A. (2005) Addressing sustainability and consumption,
Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (1), 76-92.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001) Introduction: Practice theory. In Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-
Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (Eds.) The practice turn in contemporary
theory, London: Routledge, 1-14.
Schlosberg, D. (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements
and political theories, Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 517-40.
Schneider, A. L. & Ingram, H. (2008) Social constructions in the study of
public policy. In Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (Eds.) Handbook of
constructionist research, New York and London: The Guilford Press,
189-211.
Schor, J. (2008) Tackling turbo consumption, Cultural Studies, 22 (5), 588-598.
Schor, J. B. & Holt, D. (2000) Introduction. The consumer society reader, New
York: The New Press, vii-xxiii.
Schrader, U. (2007) The moral responsibility of consumers as citizens,
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2
(1), 79-96.
Schroeder, J. E. (2002) Visual consumption, London: Routledge.
Schudson, M. (2007) Citizens, consumers, and the good society, The ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 236-249.
Schwandt, T. (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry.
Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N.
K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed.,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 189-213.
Seyfang, G. (2005) Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption
promote ecological citizenship? , Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 290-
306.
Seyfang, G. (2009) The new economics of sustainable consumption. Seeds of
shange Palgrave Macmillan.
Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Friedland, L. & Nelson, M. R. (2007) The politics
of consumption/The consumption of politics, he ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611 (1), 6-15.
Shankar, A., Whittaker, J. & Fitchett, J. (2006) Heaven knows I’m miserable
now, Marketing Theory, 6 (4), 485-505.
Shaw, D., Hogg, G., Wilson, E., Shui, E. & Hassan, L. (2006) Fashion victim:
The impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice, Journal of
Strategic Marketing 14, 427-440.
Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K. & Srinivas, S. (2011) Mindful consumption: A
customer-centric approach to sustainability, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39 (1), 21-39.
Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social
organization of normativity, Oxford and New York: Berg.
176

Silverman, D. ([1993] 2006) Interpreting qualitative data, London: Sage.
Simmel, G. ([1906] 1981) Fashion. In Sproles, G. B. (Ed.) Perspectives on
fashion, Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
Skålén, P. (2010) A discourse analytical approach to qualitative marketing
research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13
(2), 103-109.
Skålén, P., Fougère, M. & Fellesson, M. (2007) Marketing discourse: A critical
perspective, London: Routledge.
Slater, D. (1997) Consumer culture and modernity, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Slater, D. & Tonkiss, F. (2001) Market society: Markets and modern social
theory, Cambridge: Polity.
Smith, M. (1998) Ecologism: Towards ecological citizenship, Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Smith, M. & Pangsapa, P. (2008) Environment & citizenship. Integrating
justice, responsibility and civic engament, London: Zed Books.
Solomon, M. (1985) The psychology of fashion, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Soper, K. (2007) Re-thinking the “good life”: The citizenship dimension of
consumer disaffection with consumerism, Journal of Consumer Culture,
7 (22), 205-229.
Soper, K. & Trentmann, F. (2008) Introduction. In Soper, K. & Trentmann, F.
(Eds.) Citizenship and consumption, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Southerton, D., Warde, A. & Hand, M. (2003) The limited autonomy of the
consumer: Implications for sustainable consumption. In Southerton, D.,
Chappells, H. & van Fliet, B. (Eds.) Sustainable consumption: The
implications of changing infrastructures of provision, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 32-48.
Stephens, P. H. G. (2001a) DEBATE - Green liberalisms: Nature, agency and
the good, Environmental Politics, 10 (3), 1-22.
Stephens, P. H. G. (2001b) DEBATE - The green only blooms amid the Millian
flowers. A reply to Marcel Wissenburg, Environmental Politics, 10 (3),
43-47.
Stevenson, N. (2002) Consumer culture, ecology and the possibility of
cosmopolitan citizenship, Consumption Markets & Culture, 5 (4), 305-
319.
Strasser, S. (2003) The alien past: Consumer culture in historical perspective,
Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (4), 375-393.
Szerszynski, B. (2006) Local landscapes and global belonging: Toward a
situated citizenship of the environment. In Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (Eds.)
Environmental citizenship, The Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 75-
100.
Tadajewski, M. (2009) A history of marketing thought. In Parsons, E. &
Maclaran, P. (Eds.) Contemporary issues in marketing and consumer
behavior, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, 13-36.
Taylor, S. (2001) Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. J. (Eds.) Discourse as data,
Milton Keynes: Open University and Sage, 5-48.
Thøgersen, J. (2005) How may consumer policy empower consumers for
sustainable lifestyles? , Journal of Consumer Policy, 28 (2).
177

Thompson, C. (1993) Modern truth and postmodern incredulity: A hermeneutic
deconstruction of the metanarrative of "scientific truth" in marketing
research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 325-338.
Thompson, C. (1997) Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for
deriving marketing insights from the texts of consumer consumption
stories, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 438-55.
Thompson, C. & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007) Countervailing market responses to
corporate co-optation and the ideological recruitment of consumption
communities, Jounal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 135-152.
Thompson, C. J. (2004) Marketplace mythology and discourses of power,
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 162-180.
Thompson, C. J. & Haytko, D. L. (1997) Speaking of fashion: Consumers' uses
of fashion discourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural
meanings, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 15-42.
Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B. & R., P. H. (1989) Putting consumer
experience into consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 16,
133-147.
Thompson, C. J. & Troester, M. (2002) Consumer value systems in the age of
postmodern fragmentation: The case of the natural health microculture,
Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 550-571.
Torfing, J. (1999) New theories of discourse. Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Trentmann, F. (2007) Citizenship and consumption, Journal of Consumer
Culture, 7, 147-158.
Turner, B. S. ([1985] 1996) The body and society: Explorations in social
theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
UNCED (1992) Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings, Dobbs Ferry, NY:
Oceana Publications.
Uusitalo, L. (1986) Environmental impacts of consumption patterns, Aldershot:
Gower.
Uusitalo, L. (1998) Consumption in postmodernity - Social structuration and
the construction of the self. In Bianchi, M. (Ed.) The active consumer,
London: Routledge, 215-235.
Uusitalo, L. (2005a) Consumers as citizens – three approaches to collective
consumer problems. In Grunert, K. G. & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.)
Consumers, policy and the environment. A tribute to Folke Ölander,
New York: Springer, 127-150.
Uusitalo, L. (2005b) Oma ja yhteinen hyvä – ovatko kuluttajat myös
kansalaisia? (Private and common good – are consumers also citizens?).
In Niiniluoto, I. & Sihvola, J. (Eds.) Nykyajan etiikka (Contemporary
ethics), Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 66-98.
Uusitalo, O. & Oksanen, R. (2004) Ethical consumerism: A view from Finland,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28 (3), 214-221.
van Steenbergen, B. (1996) Towards a global ecological citizen. In van
Steenbergen, B. (Ed.) The condition of citizenship, London: Sage, 141-
152.
178

Venkatesh, A., Joy, A., Sherry, J. F. J. & Deschenes, J. (2010) The aesthetics of
luxury fashion, body and identify formation, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, (forthcoming).
Venkatesh, A. & Meamber, L. (2008) The aesthetics of consumption and the
consumer as an aesthetic subject, Consumption Markets & Culture, 11
(1), 45-70.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report), Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Webster, F. E. (1975) Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious
consumer, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188-196.
Wiebe, G. D. (1951-52) Merchandising commodities and citizenship in
television, The Public Opinion Quarterly, (15), 679-691.
Wilson, E. (2005) Adorned in dreams. Fashion and modernity, New York: I. B.
Tauris.
Wissenburg, M. (1998) Green liberalism. The free and the green society,
London: UCL Press.
Wissenburg, M. (2001) DEBATE - Liberalism is always green on the other side
of the Mill. A reply to Piers Stephens, Environmental Politics, 10 (3),
23-42.
Wolf, J., Brown, K. & Conway, D. (2009) Ecological citizenship and climate
change: perceptions and practice, Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 503-
521.
Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2000) Doing discourse analysis: Methods for
studying action in talk and text, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K. & Darmody, A. (2008) Putting consumers to work:
'Co-creation' and new marketing govern-mentality, Journal of
Consumer Culture, 8, 163-196.
Other sources cited in text
Better Cotton Initiative (2005). http://www.bettercotton.org.
Clean Clothes Campaign Finland (2010). http://www.puhtaatvaatteet.fi/.
DEFRA (2010) The Sustainable Clothing Action Plan. The third update. The
UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA). Originally published 2008, the third update published 23
February 2010.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/cloth
ing/index.htm.
Domeisen, N. (2006) Why is the United Nations working in fashion?
International Trade Forum. Issue 3/2006.
Ecotextile News. http://www.ecotextile.com/.
Ethical Fashion Forum (2004). http://www.ethicalfashionforum.com/.
179

European Commission (2005) Health and Consumer Protection Programme
2007-2013.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/overview/programme_2007-
2013_en.htm.
European Commission (2007) Consumer choice. Environment for young
Europeans.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/waste/waste_consumer_en.html.
Accessed 19 September 2010.
European Communities (2007) A sustainable future in our hands. A guide to the
EU's sustainable development strategy. European Communities.
http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sds_guide_en.pdf.
Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry (2008) Consumer Policy Programme
for the years 2008-2011.
http://www.tem.fi/files/20019/TEMjul_23_2008_konserni.pdf.
Nordic Fashion Association (2009). Nordic Initiative Clean and Ethical (NICE).
http://www.nordicfashionassociation.com/28035/NICE.
Sustainable Style Foundation (SSF). http://www.sustainablestyle.org/.
References not cited in text
Ahola, E.-K. (2007) Producing experience in marketplace encounters: A study
of consumption experiences in art exhibitions and trade fairs. Helsinki
School of Economics. Department of Marketing and Management. PhD
thesis.
Järvensivu, P. (2010) Constructing a service-dominant strategy: A practicetheoretical
study of a start-up company. Aalto University School of
Economics. Department of Marketing and Management. PhD thesis.
180

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Social marketing as a tool for public behaviour management
Social marketing is considered a well-established sub-discipline of marketing
(e.g., Kotler et al. 2002, Andreasen 2006). Whereas marketing is traditionally
perceived in commercial terms as practices aiming at selling goods and services
to consumers and customers, in 1950s Wiebe (1951-52) writing about
consumers and citizens noted that the tools and principles of commercial
marketing could be extended to other fields to promote social change for the
collective good. In their seminal article, Kotler and Levy (1969) proposed that a
variety of institutions outside the commercial realm were already applying
marketing to promote services and ideas. The term “social marketing” was then
coined by Kotler and Zaltman (1971, 5), who defined it as “the design,
implementation, and control of programmes calculated to influence the
acceptability of social idea and involving considerations of product planning,
pricing, communications and marketing research”.
In general terms, social marketing can be used by societal actors such as
foundations, government agencies and nonprofits (e.g., Andreasen 2006, viii)
to promote planned social change, such as more sustainable consumption
practices. For example, market-based environmental policy programmes can
be understood as involving the use of the practice of social marketing, as these
programmes often seek to persuade individuals to change their behaviour
(Moisander ([2001] 2008, 71). A practical example of the application of social
marketing is the following excerpt from the European Union publication
entitled A sustainable future in our hands: A guide to the EU’s sustainable
development strategy (European Communities 2007), which seeks to promote
more sustainable consumption behaviour:
“From disposable cameras to electrical goods that are cheaper to replace than repair,
throwing things away is part of everyday life. Think of everything you buy and
use daily and then consider the other 1.7 billion people who make up our
consumer society – they are all doing exactly the same thing. Over the last
few decades we have been enjoying higher standards of living with more and more
people making use of goods and services not available to them in the past. But at the
same time, the way we consume and produce these products and services are the
main sources of the pressures we put on the environment. Our consumption and
production significantly exceeds the carrying capacity of our Earth on
which our prosperity and well-being is based. These pressures continue to
increase as the world population keeps on growing. The result? Urban sprawl, the
quality of our soil falls away, watercourses run dry or are polluted and there’s a
constant challenge to find ways to dispose of all the things we throw away. We are
mining minerals like there is no tomorrow while our round-the-clock factories pump
181

out ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. These are just some examples of
the hidden costs behind the low price tag on intensively farmed meat or the latest
techno-gadget.” (p. 29) … “You buy, you vote, you have power. When shopping
you make choices. The decisions you make when you travel, choose what to eat and
live in your home will have an environmental impact. Price should not be the
only element of your choice. By adding a few other criteria to your list
you can make a difference”. (p. 33) (emphasis added)
Social marketing campaigns generally include the following elements,
borrowed from commercial marketing: (1) consumer orientation, (2) exchange,
(3) competition, (4) long-term planning and (5) marketing mix (Grier and
Bryant 2005, cited in Raftopoulou 2009, 165, Peattie and Peattie 2003,
Sargeant 2009). In order to develop a consumer orientation, it is essential to
understand the target audience. Since behavioural change implies changing
some practices, it is crucial to consider what the target audience is exchanging
when it adopts new behaviours in order to create an attractive value
proposition for the target audience. This implies understanding the social
marketing ‘product’ (i.e., the behaviour or idea promoted) and its ‘competitors’.
This understanding is crucial for successful social marketing since behavioural
change also has a ‘price’, which includes its potential transactional costs. It is
also important to understand the context or ‘place’ in which the intended
behaviour is to take place and what kind of ‘promotional practices’ could be
used to successfully promote the ‘product’ to the target audiences.
There are, however, a number of interpretations for the social marketing
concept, also among social marketers themselves (e.g., Raftopoulou 2009, 162,
see also Hastings and Saren 2003). In general, the concept of social marketing
is considered close to education (e.g. Raftopoulou 2009). Compared with other
approaches to socially beneficial behaviour, such as education and laws, social
marketing is generally likened to the practices of commercial marketing and
hence seen as a form of persuasion. For example, Sargeant (2009, 218) has
maintained that social marketing differs conceptually from education because
the goal of (social) marketing is behavioural change, whilst the goal of
education is knowledge. According to Rothchild (1999), social marketing offers
alternatives, education seeks both to inform and persuade and law is used
basically when the costs of anti-social behaviour to society are too high to
ignore and be left to the potential willingness of people to act for the common
good.
The social marketing terminology that has been borrowed from commercial
marketing has been considered posing challenges for the adaptation and
implementation of social marketing (e.g., Peattie and Peattie 2003). Critics
have also pointed out that social marketers have also manipulated vulnerable
people into certain behaviours and that social marketing as a tool of
behavioural change faces therefore ethical dilemmas (e.g., Buchanen et al.
1994, see also Hastings and Saren 2003, Raftopoulou 2009). On the other
hand, however, the distinction between practices that aim to inform people and
182

those that aim to persuade them to behave in particular ways may be
problematic, for various reasons. For example, as Raftopoulou (2009, 170) has
remarked, real life situations are not often very clear cut and different
behavioural management approaches, such as education, social marketing and
laws, often overlap (see also Rothchild, 1999). An integrated campaign to bring
about behavioural change can also include various approaches (Sargeant 2009,
217–221). In addition, it may not be viable to regard education as value-free
either: in education as well, certain issues and subjects are prioritised.
Appendix 2. Normative ethics in consumer education campaigns for
sustainability
In their study of approaches to questions of ethics and consumption, Barnett et
al. (2005) have illustrated how consumer education campaigns that seek to
advance ethically-oriented consumer behaviour often rely on consequentalist
and deontological moral theories. Together with virtue ethics, these represent
the prevailing theories of normative ethics, which can often be found guiding
the campaigns that seek to inform and convince people to consume more
sustainably.
Consequentalist ethical theories focus on the outcomes of action by defining
an end (telos) towards which to strive. These theories are also referred to as
teleological or utilitarian because their main emphasis is on the general
outcome. For example, if ‘sustainability’ is considered an important outcome,
all actions taken towards that end are morally acceptable. According to
consequentalist reasoning, “ethical decision making works through the rational
calculation of ethical obligations, for which the provision of knowledge, advice
and information is an essential pre-requisite” (Barnett et al. 2005, 12). From
this perspective, it is essential to provide consumers with more information so
that they can modify their behaviour accordingly.
Deontological ethical theories define the goodness of actions based on duties
that people should perform. These theories are also referred to as rules-based,
non-consequentalist or non-teleological approaches. An ethical consumption
campaign based on the deontological or duty-based approach would, for
example, emphasise a moral, universal obligation of people to care for others
(Barnett et al. 2005, 12–13). In the context of sustainability challenges,
consumers could therefore be called upon to express care for the environment
and future generations by making different choices.
Consequentalist and deontological approaches have both been criticised as
being insensitive to the practical everyday realities of ordinary people For
example, the consequentalist argument tends to assume that people are able to
“collect, collate and calculate all sorts of information and chains of causality
183

prior to, or even after, action”, producing unrealistic models for ‘complete’
personal choice (Barnett et al. 2005, 13). Deontological approaches, for their
part, have been criticised for relying on unrealistic pictures of rational
individuals judging their actions against abstract principles of universalisation
(ibid.).
While these two moral theories generally argue for the importance of
altruism against self-interest, virtue ethics seeks to establish and re-define selfinterest
in a manner that also includes the dimension of caring for others by
asking “What is the good life and how can we go about living it?” (Barnett et al.
2005, 17) Nonetheless, also virtue ethics can risk ending up in paternalist
judgement of how others should be living their lives and being counterproductive
when “[seeing] the main problem in terms of unchecked hedonism
and desire for pleasure by selfish unethical consumers” (ibid., p. 18). Hence,
also virtue ethics drawing consumer education approaches may thereby
alienate people from ideas that are being advanced.
Appendix 3. Foucauldian ethics and the practice of critique
The emancipatory interests of Foucauldian approaches (Skålén et al. 2007, 4)
tie research that is conducted in this tradition to efforts to understand the
limits of human freedom (Oksala 2008, 90). In order to understand these
efforts, it is important to consider Foucault’s work on ethics. Along with
Nietzsche, Foucault defined power as being productive. He further developed
the Nietzschean idea of “an aesthetic of existence” in his work on ethics in
order to problematise the way ‘ethics’ had come to be understood (Ansell-
Pearson 1994, 5).
In Foucault’s work, the “aesthetic of existence”, referred to “those intentional
and voluntary actions by which men not only set themselves rules of conduct,
but also seek to transform themselves, to change themselves in their singular
being, and to make their life into an oeuvre that carries certain aesthetic values
and meets certain stylistic criteria” (Foucault [1984] 1990 , 10-11). In his work,
the conception of ethics, in turn, had three aspects. Firstly, “morality” as “a set
of values and rules of action that are recommended to individuals through the
intermediary of various prescriptive agencies such as the family (in one of its
roles), educational institutions, churches and so forth” (ibid., p. 25). Secondly,
the “morality of behaviours” as the “behaviour of individuals in relation to the
rules and values that are recommended to them” (ibid.). Thirdly, the reflexive
work on and by oneself about “how one ought to ‘conduct oneself’” (ibid., p.
26).
This work on and by oneself implies engaging in critical questioning of the
accepted ways of thinking (Foucault [1981] 2000, 456). For the contingent
184

nature of knowledge and the inseparableness of knowledge from forms of
power, Foucault ([1984] 1990), 28) also came to argue that in order for an
action to be ethical, “it must not be reducible to an act or a series of acts
conforming to a rule, a law or a value”. In other words, for an action to be
ethical, a subject must engage in problematising forms of knowledge rather
than uncritically conforming to the ideas proposed by others as ‘true’. Foucault
([1981] 2000, 456) therefore suggested questioning what seems ‘normal’, ‘true’
or ‘inevitable’:
“A critique does not consist in saying that things aren’t good the way they are. It
consists in seeing on what type of assumptions, of familiar notions, of established
unexamined ways of thinking the accepted ways of thinking the accepted practices
are based.”
Overall, a central concern in Foucault’s work was the constitution of objects
and subjects of knowledge in discursive practices and how this could limit the
possible field of action for individuals as certain kinds of subjects (e.g., McNay
1994). His work on the “aesthetics of existence” reflected his later interest in
developing a more agentic account of the subject. Foucault (1988, 11) explained
the development of his thinking as follows:
“If I am now interested … in the way in which the subject constitutes himself in an
active fashion, by the practices of the self, these practices are nevertheless not
something that the individual invents by himself. They are patterns that he finds in
his culture and which are proposed, suggested and imposed on him by his culture, his
society and his social group.”
This account, which remained under construction due to Foucault’s premature
death, has been criticised for returning to the humanist, agency-emphasising
tradition that it sought to escape (Ransom 1993, 128) as well as for remaining
“at a basic level defined and over-determined by the social context” (McNay
1994, 175; see also Alvesson 2003, 23). The latter was the case in Althusser’s
original work on ideology, which inspired Foucault’s work on the subject (e.g.,
du Gay 1996, Edley 2001). In addition, as the subject and its relation to the
‘other’ remained under-developed (McNay 1994, 166, 171), the self-fashioning
subject has also been criticised as being overtly focused on oneself only.
Despite these criticisms, Foucault’s work on ethics provides a useful
perspective for developing alternative ways of seeing and understanding.
Rather than proposing an account of an immoral and irresponsible subject
incapable of considering others or the common good, as is sometimes
suggested, Foucault invited to engage in the practice of critique to understand
the limits of our thought and how these limits can disempower both others and
ourselves. The usefulness of the Foucauldian approach to ethics lies precisely
in Foucault’s emphasis on questioning whether people are as free as we would
like to think.
185

Appendix 4. Methodological appendix
Chapter 3 presented the methodological choices made for this study. This
appendix discusses the applied interview method in more detail.
Interviews for material generation
Interviews are a widely used method in social sciences; this method was also
used to produce the primary empirical material for this research. According to
Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 71-72), interviews can be used to generate
material about topics that may not be casually topical and to understand how
marketplace phenomena are represented and produced in social and cultural
practices. Interview material should not, however, be viewed as
epistemologically superior to other forms of cultural materials (Alvesson 2003,
Moisander et al. 2009). Therefore, the interview material is not to be
approached as providing a ‘truer’ representation of social and cultural
phenomena, nor does it provide a means for understanding what people ‘really
think’. Rather, interviews are points at which social and cultural meanings and
social order are negotiated. As Silverman ([1993] 2006, 137) has put it,
“interview-talk speaks to and emerges from the contemporary ways of
understanding, experiencing and talking about that specific interview topic”
(original emphasis; see also Peräkylä 1997, Rapley 2004, Moisander et al.
2009).
The interview method was selected for this study because it made it possible
to produce cultural material on sustainable consumption among consumers
who were not self-defined ‘sustainable’ consumers. Although the interview
material was the main material used in the empirical analysis of this study,
during the research process I also sought to gain a better understanding of the
research phenomena in additional ways. For example, I observed how people
dress and how they shop for clothing. Moreover, I casually followed discussions
on sustainable consumption in internet forums and read newspaper and
popular press articles on sustainable development and consumption. In
addition, I discussed sustainable fashion and clothing consumption with
journalists and participated in academic, policy and business conferences, such
as the summit of the Nordic Initiative for Clean and Ethical Fashion Industries,
which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009, simultaneously with the
United Nations Climate Summit (COP 15). Further, I took part in international
consumer citizenship and transformative consumer research (TCR)
conferences. Further, I intentionally provoked discussions on ‘responsible’
choices when discussing consumption with people in everyday life. In addition,
I sought to make ‘responsible’ choices in the marketplace and to put myself in
the position of those interviewed for this project. My own status as an
186

embodied, dressed, consuming human being meant that I could not really
escape my research subject in my day-to-day life either. Moreover, I drew upon
the professional knowledge I had acquired in my working life and in
educational institutions with regard to sustainable development, fashion and
clothing marketing as well as marketing research. Furthermore, I engaged
myself with practitioners who re-fashion clothing in order to extend its
lifespan, as well as practitioners offering more ordinary types of dress-making
and tailoring services. I also visited draperies and applied my own sewing
skills. Finally, I visited places selling used clothing, including flea markets and
second hand stores.
Whereas this background work was interesting and insightful, it does not
make this study an ethnographic one. I was neither aiming for triangulation or
comparative research in which the use of different sources could help argue
that the study can be generalised (see Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 24-25).
Hence, the interview method was the method used to produce the primary
empirical material for this research.
Sampling for interviews
This study was originally inspired by Thompson and Haytko’s (1997) study of
fashion discourses and consumers’ appropriation thereof. That study
interviewed 20 consumers. Murray’s (2002) re-inquiry of Thompson and
Haytko interviewed 14 consumers. For the present study, 18 consumers were
interviewed. Table 1 presents the full participant profiles.
187

188

189

190

This particular sample was chosen based on the belief that these young adults
could be a potential generation of future ‘sustainable’ consumers. Given their
educational background and potential level of income they could have potential
for acting as powerful market forces and convince retailers to change their
practices. (Joergens 2006, 362). In addition, many studies of sustainable
consumption have focused on “believers” – individuals that have adopted
alternative lifestyles (Devinney et al. 2010). While this can be interesting, it
does not provide insights into the realities of ‘ordinary’ people who actually are
those to whom sustainable consumption campaigns seek to talk to. Seyfang
(2005, 290) has indeed maintained that is crucial to investigate the
possibilities for taking more sustainable lifestyles at their ‘most mundane’: to
study ‘ordinary’ consumption practices and ‘ordinary’ people. Therefore, the
sample is theoretical in nature.
Having defined the kinds of participants that I wanted to interview, I decided
to use the snowball technique (Creswell 1998) to sample the interviewees (see
also Venkatesh et al. 2010). Essentially, snowball sampling means identifying
initial contact(s) that are considered appropriate for the particular research
project and can then refer the researcher to subsequent participants. I
identified three initial contacts among my colleagues at the Department of
Marketing. These colleagues then referred me to people that they thought
might be interested in taking part in my study. I had prepared an email
invitation, which I then sent to these initial participants. The initial
participants then referred me to subsequent participants either by forwarding
my invitation to their contacts or by sending me the contact details of further
potential participants.
I started interviewing while still seeking for further participants as my plan
was to conduct interviews up until a saturation point (Thompson and Haytko
1997). The saturation point basically means that when people start to produce
similar descriptions, producing more material would not provide an in-depth
understanding of the research subject (see also Wood and Kroger, 2000).
Altogether 18 young adults were interviewed. Given that a total of 14 women
and four men were interviewed, the sample could be described as having a
gender bias. From the point of view of analysis, however, I do not perceive this
as a problem given that the descriptions produced by the participants, as
samples of cultural talk addressing the broader social and cultural context
(Silverman [1993] 2006, Alasuutari 1995, Peräkylä 1997, Moisander and
Valtonen 2006), do not have to be connected with the sex or gender of those
articulating the description. In retrospect, I also personally helped creating the
bias in my sample by expressing in the invitation that I was looking to
interview heterosexual people. I made this specification because I was
concerned about having a sample that I would have to seek to justify as not
representing a niche market. In retrospect, this would probably not have been a
problem as the material had still emerged from and spoken of the same
consumer culture.
191

When recruiting the participants, I informed them that my research dealt
with their fashion and clothing consumption. I was aware that it can be
complex to study issues with moral considerations (e.g., Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 82) – although clothing consumption is by no means among
the most delicate topics. Because of this, I chose not to explicitly address my
interest in sustainability issues in the invitation. I anticipated that doing so
might have influenced the type of participants who would volunteer to
participate and the talk produced on clothing consumption. Because my aim
was to study how ecological and ethical issues would be represented in the
context of fashion and clothing consumption, I came to the conclusion that this
research brief was adequate and along the ethical lines used to conduct
research such as the informed consent model (Taylor 2001, 20-21). The crucial
point for me to consider here was the ends to which the material was intended
to be used. Since I was not interested in profiling the participants and my
overall aim was to participate in discussions of sustainable consumption in
consumer culture, I considered having provided the participants with sufficient
information.
My prediction that moral and ethical issues related to questions of
consumption would be somewhat delicate and complex to study came true
during the interviews. As noted, I had recruited young adults to talk about their
fashion and clothing consumption. Later during the interviews I came to
realise that the moral and ethical considerations in relation to consumption
were indeed quite topical at that time because some of my first contacts at the
Department of Marketing, who had been remotely aware of my interests in
ethical conduct, had considered it important to pass this information on along
with the interview invitation. It is quite likely that this had also influenced the
type of people identified as appropriate participants by my initial contacts.
This unintended bias came evident when one of the participants asked me,
without any provocation, whether I wanted to move on to talk about ethical
production conditions as he had understood that I am interested in such issues.
However, I do not consider this bias being a serious limitation. Firstly, having
several initial contacts allowed me to recruit some participants along my initial
plan. Secondly, and retrospectively, the abovementioned potential bias actually
made the sample richer and broader. Moreover, considering the possibility that
one would seek to produce particular kind of material to support one’s research
hypothesis or personal agendas, it is certainly advisable to take better care
when selecting initial contacts.
Preparation for interviews
The practical carrying out of the interviews was informed by the guidelines for
phenomenological interviewing (Thompson et al. 1989, see also Thompson and
Haytko 1997, Joy, Sherry and Deschenes 2009), which have been widely
appropriated in consumer research for data production purposes (Moisander et
192

al. 2009). As Thompson, Locander, and Pollio (1989, 138) have explained,
phenomenological interviews are a form of open-ended interviews that seek to
have respondents describe their experiences and feelings on a specific subject
without using a set of predefined questions. However, considering the objects
of the project, I also needed to make sure I covered some specific areas of
interest during the interview; therefore, my approach represents a form of
semi-structured interviewing (see also Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007,
140).
The themes that I sought to cover during the interviews were fashion
phenomena (e.g. “What do you think is fashion?”), favourite shopping places
(e.g., “Where do you go shopping?”) and branding (e.g., “What about brands?
Are brands important to you?”). In addition, I needed to stimulate discussion
about sustainability issues; for this end, I chose to use elicitation materials.
Moisander and Valtonen (2006, 79) have maintained that elicitation material
can be useful for eliciting comments and other verbal accounts from
participants (see also Venkatesh et al. 2010). It can stimulate discussion and
direct participants to discuss topics that are relevant for the research object.
Elicitation material, such as vignettes – short stories related to the topic of
interview – can also be useful for generating cultural discussion about morally
and ethically sensitive subjects or topics that people find difficult to talk about
(Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 79–83).
Accordingly, I chose to use vignettes and visual elicitation materials to
prompt discussion on ethical and ecological conduct in relation to fashion and
clothing consumption. In order to select the elicitation material, I conducted a
range of internet searches using the following search terms, among others:
‘ethical fashion’, ‘fashion consumption’, ‘sustainable fashion’, ‘responsible
fashion’ and ‘fashion shopping’. These searches were conducted in both
Finnish and English for both text and images.
I first chose a broader set of elicitation material that was narrowed down
based on the experiences I gathered during the first two interviews. The final
set of elicitation materials consisted of four fashion cartoons and two vignettes.
The cartoons were chosen as a form of visual material because I hoped they
would create a more relaxed atmosphere (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 82).
Some of the cartoons dealt with the fashion phenomena and shopping in more
general terms and they were intended to provoke more general discussions
about consumption and fashion. Cartoons often address topical issues and look
ironically at certain aspects of culture (ibid.); I felt this made them appropriate
for provoking conversations about how social and cultural phenomena are
made sense of. The cartoons are presented below.
193

194

(Re-printed with the permission of Cartoonstock.com and Conde Nast
Publications/The Cartoon Bank)
195

The vignettes – a short news story and a short eco-shopping guide – dealt
explicitly with ecological and ethical questions related to fashion and clothing
consumption. The news story, which dealt with an ethics survey among fashion
retailers, was originally published in Finnish on the website of the leading
national newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, on September 21 st 2007 with the title
Vaateketjut eivät pärjänneet eettisyystutkimuksessa (“Clothing chains did not
excel in an ethics survey”). The eco-shopping guide for clothes shopping, which
was published in Finnish and was entitled Eko-ostajan opas (“Guide for ecoshoppers”),
was extracted from the website of Kuluttajavirasto (the Finnish
Consumer Agency). The vignettes are presented below with my own
translations into English (Finnish originals were used in the interviews).
Clothing chains did not excel in an ethics survey
196
HS.fi
Clothing chains did not excel in an ethics survey
21.9.2007
STT (The Finnish News Agency)
A study conducted by consumer organisations has revealed that clothing chains
could improve their ethics.
The survey of more than 30 European clothing companies revealed that one in
three companies seems to lack adequate ethical guidelines.

According to the Consumer Agency, the cleanest sheet among the 12 chains
operating in Finland was given to the Swedish company Hennes & Mauritz.
However, even the clothes of the top-ranking companies cannot be considered
being fairly produced.
More on the web:
Article published in the magazine Consumer
Guide for eco-shoppers
Eco-shopping guide
Päivi Talvenmaa:
Textiles and the
environment. A basic
Finnish guide
published in 1998,
also available online.
Paying attention to
clothing use and care
pays off. Most of
List for clothing shopping
Choose long-lasting quality. Cheap textiles have
often been produced in environment-consumptive
ways.
Do not demand unnecessary finishings in
textiles. They are environment- and textileconsumptive.
Look for timeless fashion. This way the garment
is never out of fashion.
197

198
a garment’s
environmental impact
arises in the usage
phase, not in
production.
Information
on textile
dyeing
Take good care of the textile, modify it and refashion
it. This prolongs its life.
Make use of flea markets. Recycle unnecessary
textiles to be re-used.
Favour textiles in natural colours. Artificial
colours include colours that are environmentally
harmful.
Favour domestic items. The domestic textile
industry has improved in environmental issues.
Choose an environmentally labelled product.
Those can be found, among others, in underwear
and children’s wear.
Edited by Pauli Välimäki
A total of five additional vignettes were eliminated because the participants
seemed somewhat intimidated by and distant from the stories presented,
which resulted in a very few comments. Some of these vignettes were also
relatively long and included more detailed factual text. In particular, the texts
in English original language did not seem to produce much discussion. The
eliminated material in English included the social responsibility home page of
Gap Inc. and the following short news stories: Forget black: Fashion’s going
green (Financial Times, issue 14 May 2007); Cheap fashion, fast fashion
(online article at bbc.co.uk, accessed on 19 October 2007); Green jeans: Why
designers are late to eco game (The Wall Street Journal, issue 19 April 2007).
The fifth additional piece of elicitation material, a web article in Finnish
entitled Eettinen pikamuoti – lähes mahdoton yhtälö (“Ethical fast fashion –
Almost an impossible equation”) was published on the website of the Finnish
Consumer Agency’s magazine Kuluttaja (“Consumer”). This web article was a
longer version of the short news story Vaateketjut eivät pärjänneet
eettisyystutkimuksessa (“Clothing chains did not excel in an ethics survey”),
which was used as elicitation material.
In addition to this set of elicitation materials, I had brought with me one
fashion magazine (Plastique, Issue 2, Autumn 2007) and a mail order
catalogue of a major fashion retailer (H&M Rowells Finland [Hennes &
Mauritz], Autumn 2007). These were kept on the table as back-up elicitation
material but were finally not presented to the participants or used during the
interviews.
Conducting interviews
Following the advice for phenomenological interviewing (Thompson et al.
1989), I initiated the interview session by informing participants about the
aims of the research and explaining that I hoped they could speak freely about
anything that came to their mind, as there would not be many pre-designed

questions to which they had to respond (also Thompson and Haytko 1997). The
initiative question of the interviews was loosely formulated around the topic of
fashion and clothing consumption. I generally initiated the session with the
question “Could you tell me about your fashion and clothing consumption?” I
then covered the themes of fashion phenomena, favourite shopping places and
branding. After these topics, the elicitation material was presented to the
participants one by one. I also re-informed the participants that they were free
to express whatever comments came to their mind when browsing the cartoons
or reading the texts (see also Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh et al. 2009).
Although the themes of the fashion phenomena, favourite shopping places
and branding did not initially feel particularly relevant for understanding
sustainability challenges and the clothing markets, I felt they were important
for producing a particular atmosphere. My selection of these themes was
indeed a cultural one; I felt I was expected to ask about these topics. So as not
to focus solely on pro-environmental and pro-social consumption issues, which
might have upset the participants, I considered these themes being appropriate
for making sense of the culturally constructed nature of fashion and clothing
consumption in more general terms (also Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 82).
However, despite my initial doubts, this material proved to be useful when I
later noted similarities in the repertoires discerned across different contexts.
The interviews were all conducted in Finnish and recorded for transcription.
The lengths of the interviews varied between half an hour and one hour. I
conducted all the interviews personally.
The interviews took place at the participant’s home, in office meeting rooms
or in cafés, and it was up to the participant to choose the location. As Joy,
Sherry and Deschenes (2009, 42) have explained, this procedure is typical for
phenomenological interviewing. It aims to create a comfortable context in
which participants can express their views, feelings and ideas (Thompson and
Haytko 1997). The interviews ended by asking the participant to fill in a
background information form. I also offered a small gift voucher as a reward.
As noted, the interview approach was influenced by the guidelines for
phenomenological interviewing (Thompson et al. 1989). However, as
previously explained, I departed from this form of interviewing by drafting a
few topics that I wanted to address during the interviews (Thompson and
Coskuner-Balli 2007, 140). My subsequent departures from this interviewing
format occurred in the interview situations when practical difficulties with the
method occurred.
For the purposes of material generation, I had framed my research question
as follows: How do consumers discursively construct and negotiate perceptions
and meanings of consumption in fashion and clothing markets and how are
ecological and ethical issues addressed in this context? Based on my
understanding of the phenomenological interviewing, I sought to allow each
participant to articulate the network of meanings that constituted their
personalised understanding of fashion and clothing phenomena (Thompson et
199

al. 1989, Thompson and Haytko 1997) and to find out whether and how
ecological and ethical issues were represented in this articulation.
In addition, I tried to avoid using ‘leading’ questions in order to avoid
introducing topics, concepts or words that had not been spontaneously
mentioned by the participant (Belk et al. 2003, 333). This also led me to
address the participants in the interview encounters as ‘consumers’; this
seemed to be a rather neutral term to employ in everyday language use to
denote the position of a private individual in the contemporary marketplace. In
addition, I had employed this term when recruiting the participants. I had
addressed them as consumers when explaining in my e-mail that I am looking
for consumers to be interviewed. In the interviews, therefore, I sought to stick
to this vocabulary that I had already introduced as the subject of the study. For
example, I deliberately employed expressions such as “What do you, as a
consumer, think of …?” and “What do you think other consumers think …?”
Further, I was convinced that I should acknowledge when topics were
spontaneously introduced by the participant into interviews as I had learned
about the importance of distinguishing between topics of discussion induced by
the researcher and participant induced topics of discussion (e.g., Thompson
and Haytko 1997). Therefore, I tried to avoid forcing the participants to
comment on the elicitation material. I believed this would be inappropriate
because it could have severely influenced the participants’ descriptions and
their quality (see e.g., Belk et al. 2003). Applying the same initiative question
was also informed by the same understanding (see Thompson et al. 1989).
Similar principles are often applied when conducting interviews in cultural
consumer research (Moisander et al. 2009). For example, in their study on
consumer desire Belk et al. (2003, 333) explain their application of these
principles and their underlying assumptions and rational as follows:
“We are aware of the problems of cueing the informants directly on consumer desire,
since desire may not be part of the vocabulary that consumers use to categorize their
lived experiences. However, when cued on desire, almost all informants responded
immediately and talked about consumption desires and the desired objects. They also
freely associated desire with other constructs such as admiration, intense wanting,
and longing. We take our informants' descriptions and projections as the best way
they are able to account for their feelings and thoughts on consumer desire.”
Further, Belk et al. (2003, 332) also report how the projective techniques used
in their study on consumer desire, in particular consumer journals and
phenomenological depth interviews, were “especially useful for obtaining
descriptions of what and how desire was experienced”. They argue that
projective techniques such as collage constructions were particularly useful
when “… informants found it difficult to elaborate on their private desires or
did not want to reveal these desires” and that projective techniques would be
therefore be a useful method for consumer researchers “to evoke fantasies,
dreams, and visual imagination in order to bypass the reluctance, defence
200

mechanisms, rationalizations, and social desirability that seemed to block the
direct verbal accounts of some of those studied” (ibid.).
This kind of technique, however, is not particularly useful when the research
attention is placed at the level of culture and the unit of analysis is not the
individual (Moisander et al. 2009, Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 204).
During the first interviews, I indeed realised that the phenomenological
interview method that I was trying to apply in a quite strict sense also by
avoiding ‘why’ questions (Thompson et al. 1989) was rather impractical and
did not allow conversations to progress. I also felt quite restricted in terms of
posing further questions as I was limited to what the participant had said
rather than being able to introduce other angles. For example, as regards the
use of the visual elicitation material, I could not prompt more talk by offering
alternative interpretations, which might have produced more material to study
at the level of culture (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, 204) and more insights
into how social and cultural meanings and social order are negotiated at this
level (Silverman [1993] 2006, 137, Peräkylä 1997, Rapley 2004, Moisander et
al. 2009). This would have been useful since the visual material tended to
produce less discussion than the textual material, which readily offered views
and perspectives to comment upon.
In hindsight, although I encountered challenges with the interview format, I
do not see problems with the material produced for this study. The material
generated spoke to the purposes of this study as it allowed me to access the
subject area in which I was interested.
From a practical point of view, although some of the interviews took place in
noisy surroundings, which later created some challenges in the transcription
phase, I would still consider casual places such as cafés appropriate and
productive sites for conducting interviews. They can be quite convenient and
appropriate contexts for interview encounters that deal with the phenomena of
consumer culture. In addition, the people and surroundings can work as
additional elicitation material and they can prompt more cultural talk.
Unfortunately, I realised this only after having conducted the interviews.
On the whole, despite having experienced challenges with my somewhat nonparticipative
interview method and despite sympathising with calls for more
collaborative forms of interviewing (e.g., Denzin 2002), I consider the
interview encounter being located somewhere in-between these ends.
According to Denzin (2002, 839), the collaborative interview format turns the
encounter into a conversation, causing the identities of interviewer and
participant to disappear. Although I am basically positive about this kind of
approach, as it seems to allow for more vivid conversations, I also see some
limits in it. In the context of this study, the participants seemed to have a
particular, culturally established ides of the interview encounter and how it
should be performed; they had been invited to an interview and they seemed to
expect to be the side that offered opinions. For instance, the few overtly active
opinions from my part were met, for example, with silence.
201

On the other hand, the idea of collaboration in interview encounters can also
be understood in terms of a mutual negotiation taking place during the
interview. This also means that interview data – or material – is unavoidably
collaborative (Alasuutari, 1995). Both the participants and the interviewer
should be seen as collaborative constructors and as historically and locally
situated co-producers of meanings and knowledge (Holstein and Gubrium
1997, 114, Moisander et al. 2009, see also Moisander and Valtonen 2006). This
view draws on a hermeneutical understanding of the cultural world: the
researcher and the participants are always situated (Arnold and Fischer 1994,
Thompson 1997). From this perspective, interview encounters as sites of
meaning-making also tie these encounters to the broader cultural context. They
can be seen as sites where versions of reality that have also been partly
constructed by other societal actors, who are not physically present at the
encounter, are negotiated.
Transcribing, reading and translating interview materials
The recorded interviews resulted in 167 pages of transcribed text (Times New
Roman, 12 pts., single-line spacing). The interviews were first transcribed in
Finnish by a professional transcriptionist, after which I listened to the recorded
interviews and checked the transcriptions for accuracy and added details where
necessary. This procedure also helped achieve a better sense of what was going
on in the material (Rapley 2004, 26–27). The material was first analysed in
Finnish. I later translated the interview quotes from Finnish to English at the
level required for conducting the analytics of discourse (Taylor 2001,
Moisander and Valtonen 2006).
Overall, the translation of the interview material was a somewhat daunting
task. Translation challenges aside, spoken language can be messy and does not
always consist of full sentences. Spoken communication in transcribed form
may even seem as though it makes no sense at all. (Taylor 2001, 37). In
addition, verbal communication is not just about what is said aloud; part of the
communication seems to be based on the assumption that there is a mutual
understanding (also Potter and Whetherell [1987] 2007). When reading the
transcriptions, I was almost shocked how ‘bad’ spoken language can be: it
consists of random words and sounds put one after each other so illogically
that it makes one wonder whether the speakers do even share a common
language.
There is no simple way to organise the material in a format that would make
it easy to manage for a discourse analytic study. Although labelling the material
can be useful, it can also direct the analysis in a way that disables seeing new,
interesting instances in the material before the researcher has a good idea of
what is going on in the material. It was basically due to this that I initially
abandoned the idea of using a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis
software (CAQDAS).
202

For example Silverman (2000, 823) has advised caution when using
CAQDAS. The danger in the case of discourse analytics lies in using this kind of
programme to extract discourses from the material: labelling the material,
running the programme to organise the discourses into neat groups of labelled
instances and then running a subsequent round in order to arrive to the ‘grand’
discourses. This can be done, of course, and it may produce valid results.
However, considering the kind of analytics of discourse chosen for this study,
such an approach would not have been appropriate.
For these reasons, I was slightly apprehensive about using CAQDAS and
decided to rely on a normal word processing programme. This was the
approach that I applied in the analysis until I faced problems with the
discourse analytic approach I was initially trying to apply in order to discern
discourses of ecological citizenship. While re-doing my analysis and seeking to
discern the interpretative repertoires, I decided to make use of the atlas.ti
programme to organise my material. This was helpful since organising material
manually takes a considerable amount of time and the CAQDAS programmes
can be of a great assistance in this. However, it is still important to understand
the limits of these programmes with regard to the analytic method chosen and
to specify how the programme has been used, even if only for data
management purposes.
Analysing the material
Having abandoned the initial idea of identifying discourses in my material, I
re-discovered the concept of interpretative repertoire as my analytic tool.
Overall, the entire interpretation process, including these two rounds with
different discourse analytic tools, cohered with the ideas of hermeneutic circle
and understanding (Thompson 1997). This means putting theory and empirical
material in a dialogue and developing understandings that emerge through an
iterative process of matching up the material and theory (Moisander and
Valtonen 2006, 105). This dialogical view to material also creates a circular
view of the interpretation process: the emerging interpretations, the
preliminary findings, the theoretical perspective chosen and even the entire
research design must be critically reflected upon, evaluated and modified as
necessary (Arnold and Fischer 1994, Murray 2002). In my case, this also meant
redefining my discourse analytic tools.
The table below provides a working version of the interpretative repertoires
that I discerned with my re-defined analytic tools during the analytical process.
During the subsequent rounds of analysis, this table was developed further to
increase its level of abstraction.
203

Appendix table 2. Interpretative repertoires (working version)
Discursive
elements
Subject
position for
the consumer
as a
reasonable
social actor
Subject
positions for
the 'others'
against which
the
reasonable
consumer
position is
presented
204
Interpretative repertoire
Economically
reasonable
practices
Price
Quality
To afford
Wasting
resources
Wasting out
money
Splashing out
money
Throwing away
Cheap
Cheapo
Disposable
Throwaway
society
Spending
Putting money to
some ends
Keeping the
economy up and
running
Buying new
Consumer
economy
Money comes and
goes
Common sense
Senseless
It pays to invest
in quality
Economically
reasonable
Throw-away
consumers
Consumers
splashing out
money
Marketplace
conduct
complexities
Supply chains
Gigacorporations
Sins
Committing sins
To be pardoned
for sins
Mass production
Cotton fields
Clothing factories
Numb
Sad
To feel pain in
your heart
Individual
Globalisation
Leaving Finland
Bigger issues
Nihilist
Chiding
Everyone is a
bastard
Cynical
Two-sided
One-sighted
Paradoxical
Informed effort
making
To come to mind
Hearing
Remembering
Labelling
To search
To be aware of
To be informed
Certificates
Knowing
Being interested
Eco-information
To look for
To be enthusiastic
To make effort
Finding out
To actively seek
To come about on
its own
To push forward
To speak about
more
To investigate
To check
backgrounds
To question the
origin
To have talent
To have a greater
sense of
orienteering
To have time
To dig piles
Cynical sceptic Habitual choice
maker
One-sighted
people
Consumers who
trust brands
deluding
themselves and
others
Consumers handwashing
an
unethical world
Consumers
actively making
additional efforts
Consumers digging
piles
Consumers
investigating
backgrounds
Social and
personal taste
Granny-pants
Winter long-johns
Tree-hugger stuff
Extremely green
To get excited
Exotic creations
Puro, tryffy
False illusion
“I must have these”
To be annoyed
To have
contradiction
Too fashionable
Too eccentric
Too classic
Not-my-kind-ofclothes
To change your
image with clothes
To have influence in
professional life
To feel comfortable
in yourself
Opinions of others
Fashion freak
Better looking
To fit my purposes
Size
To fit perfectly
Individualism
Liking and re-using
Liking and saving
clothes
Personally and
socially taste
conscious
Granny-pant
wearers
Tree-huggers
Extremely greens
Enthusiasts
Fashion freaks

9HSTFMG*aeageg+
ISBN: 978-952-60-4065-3 (pdf)
ISBN: 978-952-60-4064-6
ISSN-L: 1799-4934
ISSN: 1799-4942 (pdf)
ISSN: 1799-4934
Aalto University
Aalto University School of Economics
Department of Marketing
aalto.fi
BUSINESS +
ECONOMY
ART +
DESIGN +
ARCHITECTURE
SCIENCE +
TECHNOLOGY
CROSSOVER
DOCTORAL
DISSERTATIONS
Aalto-DD 22/2011