markkula 2012 discursive confusion over sustainable consumption

7/31/2019 Markkula 2012 Discursive Confusion Over Sustainable Consumption

1/21

ORIGINAL PAPER

Discursive Confusion over Sustainable Consumption:

A Discursive Perspective on the Perplexityof Marketplace Knowledge

Annu Markkula & Johanna Moisander

Received: 31 March 2011 /Accepted: 8 November 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Abstract This paper works towards a discursive, practice-based perspective on explaining

the knowledge-to-action gap observed in the consumer policy literature on sustainable

consumption. Based on an empirical study that focuses on fashion and clothing markets, the

objective is to elaborate on the nature and implications of the discursive polyphony that

consumers face when striving for more sustainable consumption practices. Overall, it is

concluded that part of the gap can be attributed to the discursive confusion that arises from

a simultaneous existence of multiple, continuously changing and partly clashing discoursesof sustainable consumption as well as the associated discursive struggle that consumers

need to deal with when trying to make sense of their roles and responsibilities in sustainable

development.

Keywords Sustainable development. Sustainable consumption . Ethical consumption .

Environmental knowledge . Discursive struggle

Ever since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED

1992; Valor 2008) nearly 20 years ago, sustainable consumption has been at the top of theagenda in international development. Both at the level of local and global governance

(European Commission 2005, 2007; European Communities 2007; Finnish Ministry of

Trade and Industry 2008), consumers have been given an important role and responsibility

in the pursuit of sustainable development (Autio et al. 2009; Berg 2011; Haunstrup

Christensen et al. 2007; Moisander et al. 2010; Peattie and Collins 2009; Schaefer and

Crane 2005; Thgersen and Crompton 2009). In spite of the initial optimism and

enthusiasm about the transformative potential of sustainable consumption (Fuchs and Lorek

2005), the actual progress made in changing peoples consumption patterns has been

modest (Thgersen and Crompton 2009), essentially boiling down to rather marginal

J Consum Policy

DOI 10.1007/s10603-011-9184-3

A. Markkula: J. Moisander (*)

School of Economics, Department of Communication, Aalto University, P.O. Box 21210 AALTO,

00076 Helsinki, Finland

e-mail: [email protected]


2/21

changes in peoples lifestyles (Berg 2011; Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Haunstrup Christensen et

al. 2007; Thgersen 2005).

In much of the consumer policy studies literature that focuses on this challenge, it is

emphasized that the availability of appropriate knowledge and information about

sustainable consumption is crucially important for empowering consumers to change theirpractices (Rezabakhsh et al. 2006; Thgersen 2005; Valor 2008). Regretfully, however, in

spite of the wide availability of sustainable development-related information and

educational material, rendered easily accessible by the new media technology for example

(Rezabakhsh et al. 2006; Thgersen 2005), a disquieting knowledge-to-action gap still

seems to persist as regards attempts to translate the available information into practice

(Heiskanen 2005; Pape et al. 2011; Valor 2008).

Searching for solutions to this problem, a number of scholars have called critical

attention to the multitudinous external structural and practical barriers and impediments that

consumers regularly face in their immediate consumption environments (Berg 2011;

Moisander 2007; Muster 2011; Pape et al. 2011; Rezabakhsh et al. 2006; Thgersen 2005;

Valor 2008). It has been argued, for example, that for consumers sustainable consumption

practices appear to be generally more time-consuming, costly, and stressful (Valor 2008).

Also, the mere abundance of sustainability-related information has been viewed as a

demanding challenge to consumers, as it is often considerably difficult for individuals to

make sense of the voluminous and sometimes contradictory information, and to learn what

they actually can do, in practice, to take personal responsibility for sustainable development

(Moisander2007). As a result, the need to better educate and empower consumers in taking

active and meaningful roles in sustainable development still remains a major challenge for

environmental protection-related political decision making.In this paper, we set out to respond to these consumer and environmental policy-related

challenges by conceptually elaborating and empirically illustrating the nature and

implications of the discursive polyphony and the perplexity of information and knowledge

that consumers face when striving for ecologically sustainable lifestyles and consumption

practices. It is the thesis of the paper that part of the knowledge-to-action gap discussed

in the literature can be attributed to the discursive confusion that arises from a simultaneous

existence of multiple, continuously changing and partly clashing discourses of sustainable

consumption (Caruana and Crane 2008; Hardy and Phillips 1999; Hardy et al. 2000; Laine

and Vaara 2007; Livesey 2001; Maguire and Hardy 2006) that consumers face and need to

deal with when making sense of their roles and responsibilities in sustainable development.Our point of departure, in building the argument, is the observation that in the practice of

consumers everyday lives, the notions of sustainable development and sustainable

consumption take multiple different and often contested meanings (Berg 2011; Fuchs and

Lorek 2005; Livesey et al. 2009; Hobson 2002; Schaefer and Crane 2005; Seyfang 2005).

Taking a culturalist (Reckwitz 2002), discursive approach to social inquiry, we start with

the idea that the meaning of sustainable consumption is socioculturally constructed,

premised upon, and supported by particular discourses of sustainable development, which

have both material and linguistic, interconnected dimensions (Potter et al. 2007; Hall [1997]

2009) and have different effects. And because of the existence of multiple differentdiscourses on a particular topic, there are always discursive struggles, which shape and

structure the social space within which actors act, through the constitution of concepts,

objects, and subject positions (Hardy and Phillips 1999). This struggle over meanings, we

argue, may result in discursive confusion among consumers, leaving them bewildered and

unclear in their minds about how they should act as responsible, ecologically conscious

citizens.

A. Markkula, J. Moisander


3/21

To empirically illustrate our argument, we report findings from a study that focuses on

discursive struggle over the meanings of sustainable consumption in the empirical context

of fashion and clothing markets. The empirical data of the study consists of qualitative

consumer interviews conducted in Finland, which is one of the leading sustainable

consumption and production (SCP) programme countries (Berg 2011).Overall, the paper contributes to the literature on consumer policy studies (Heiskanen

2005; Pape et al. 2011; Thgersen 2005; Valor 2008) by theoretically elaborating on a

discursive perspective on the complexity and perplexity of sustainable development-related

information and the resulting knowledge-to-action gap observed in the consumers

behaviour. From this perspective, the gap is explained as something that arises from the

discursive polyphony and struggle over the proper meanings of sustainable development

that consumers encounter in the market. By shifting the analytical focus on the discursive

aspects of the perplexity of sustainable development-related knowledge, our analysis sheds

light onto the contested nature of marketplace knowledge and the political and power

struggles that sustainable development entails at the level of consumers everyday realities.

Our study therefore contributes to a better understanding of the ways in which ordinary,

everyday microlevel discursive activity is implicated in complex political struggles where

conflicting macrolevel institutionalized discourses of sustainable consumption (Berg 2011;

Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Schaefer and Crane 2005) are appropriated and contested. It also

illustrates how, as a result of this discursive activity, particular outcomes with empowering

and disempowering effects may arise (Livesey 2001; Livesey et al. 2009; Maguire and

Hardy 2006).

The paper is organized as follows. In the following section, we elaborate on the

theoretical perspective that we build in our paper to study the knowledge-to-action gap asan outcome of discursive struggle and confusion. Then, we present the methodology of our

study and the empirical findings that illustrate our theoretical argument. To conclude, we

briefly discuss the implications of our argument for consumer and environmental policy.

Discursive Perspective on the Complexity and Perplexity of Environmental

Knowledge

In this paper, we approach the complexity and perplexity of sustainable development-

related knowledge and the knowledge-to-action gap discussed in the literature (seeHeiskanen 2005; Pape et al. 2011; Thgersen 2005; Valor2008) from a discursive, practice-

based perspective. Drawing on the culturalist, practice-based approaches to social inquiry

and the discourse theoretic work on the concept of discursive struggle (Caruana and Crane

2008; Hardy and Phillips 1999; Hardy et al. 2000; Laine and Vaara 2007; Livesey 2001;

Maguire and Hardy 2006; Moisander and Pesonen 2002), in particular, our aim is to

articulate a novel theoretical perspective on the knowledge-to-action gap as something that

arises from the discursive struggle over proper meanings of sustainable development that is

continuously going on in contemporary consumer society.

By culturalist perspective, we refer to the epistemological and methodological view thatsocial action needs to be studied and explained by reconstructing the collective structures of

knowledge that enable particular socially shared ways of ascribing meaning to the world.

These collective knowledge structures, codes, or schemes are socially constructed and

provide social actors with interpretive frameworks that allow them to make sense of

themselves and world around them in particular ways as well as to behave in corresponding

ways (Reckwitz 2002). In this paper, we conceptualize these structures of knowledge as

Discursive Confusion over Sustainable Consumption


4/21

discourses, i.e., meaningful codes of knowledge that systematically form the object of

which they speak through social practice (Foucault 1979, p. 49). From this perspective, the

term discursive refers to the signifying practices, both linguistic and material, through

which social actors make sense of objects of knowledge and achieve social order (Hall and

[1997] 2009; Moisander and Valtonen 2006; Potter et al. 2007).Discourses shape thinking and practice in the day-to-day of consumers lives by

suggesting and endowing people with particular meanings, perspectives, and structures of

knowledge that help and guide them to represent the world from particular perspectives

(Maguire and Hardy 2006). In doing so, discourses make some ideas about the world and

its rules of operation seem more real than others (Livesey et al. 2009). Discourses thus

regulate which practices are to be understood as appropriate and desirable in particular

contexts and situations (Foucault [1969] 1972; Hall [1997] 2009), thus privileging and

prioritizing some practices and marginalizing or silencing otherswhich understandably

results in particular concrete and symbolic effects on the conditions of possibility for social

action in different contexts (Caruana and Crane 2008; Denegri-Knott et al. 2006; Maguire

and Hardy 2006). As such, discourses necessarily also embody relations of power and

conflict, and thus entail a specific political dimension in limiting individuals ability to act

in relation to a particular topic (Denegri-Knott et al. 2006; Foucault 1982; see also Hall

1996).

To illustrate, Fuchs and Lorek (2005), among others, have identified two different

approaches to sustainable consumption: A weak and strong approach to sustainable

consumption: approaches prioritizing efficiency and sufficiency respectively (Berg 2011;

Hobson 2002; Princen 2003; Seyfang 2005). While efficiency-based approaches support

principles sensitive to technical and economic aims, sufficiency-based approaches takeissue with establishing consumption and production levels that fall within natural limits

(also Greening et al. 2000). These two approaches to sustainable development and, by

implication, sustainable consumption, can thus be understood as drawing on different

discourses, enmeshed in complex networks of power relations, which offer different

structures of knowledge for people to make sense of sustainable development and to behave

accordingly. In environmental and consumer policy, we suggest, discursive activity

therefore has a significant constituting role in establishing and sustaining the mechanisms

and relations of power that organize and regulate the field of sustainable development

(Hardy and Phillips 1999; Laine and Vaara 2007; Livesey et al. 2009; Maguire and Hardy

2006).The significant role that these questions of struggle, conflict and power play in

sustainable development is illustrated by Hobson (2002), for example, who studied the

ways in which individuals negotiate sustainable consumption practices in the empirical

context of a sustainable lifestyles programme that emphasized the increased efficiency of

household consumption practices. In Hobsons study, the programme participants were

offered environmental information so as to encourage and empower them to change their

daily consumption practices. The programme, however, largely failed to do so because the

participants reportedly felt anger and personally distanced from the project, complaining

that it failed to address important questions about global justice and the practical barriers ofsustainable consumption.

In contemporary consumer society, discursive activity thus takes place in an unstable

polyphonic space where different discourses interpolate one another (Livesey 2001,

p. 63; see also Thompson and Haytko 1997). As a result, discursive practices necessarily

involve contestation, negotiation, and discursive struggle over meaning (Hardy and Phillips

1999; Hardy et al. 2000; Maguire and Hardy 2006). By discursive struggle, we refer here to



5/21

the dialogical struggle (or struggles) as reflected in the privileging of a particular discourse

and the marginalization of others (Hardy and Phillips 1999, p. 3).

In this paper, we wish to focus attention on the implications that this discursive

polyphony and struggle have for the education and empowerment of individuals in

sustainable development. As different discourses create different conditions of possibilityfor consumers to act in a particular context (Denegri-Knott et al. 2006), it would seem

necessary to better understand how the prevalent discourses of sustainable development

currently shape consumers field of possible action in the marketplace (Livesey et al. 2009;

Moisander [2001] 2008; Seyfang 2005). A critical analysis of these different discourses

would seem to help us better understand how the particular social and cultural context in

which consumers currently operate in the market makes available, intelligible, and desirable

particular ways of thinking, and how these discourses guide and constrain the ways in

which consumers are enabled to make sense of their roles and responsibilities in the pursuit

of sustainable development. To illustrate, if the discourses that are available or dominant in

societyor in the immediate sociocultural contexts where consumers make their choices in

the marketrepresent sustainable consumption primarily in terms of efficiency, as

discussed above, individual consumers are not necessarily empowered to engage in the

more sufficiency-based sustainable consumption practices.

It is important to point out, however, that as researchers, we are also inevitably subjects

of power, operating in particular discursive fields and (re)producing its particular relations

of power through our own discursive activity (Moisander [2001] 2008). Therefore, we are

also morally responsible for the kind of social realities we (re)produce through our research

(Moisander and Valtonen 2006). What we can do, however, is to provide people with new

concepts and ideas that open up a number of alternative perspectives on the roles andresponsibilities of consumers in sustainable development (Livesey et al. 2009) and,

ultimately, to raise consciousness (Hacking 1999; Schneider and Ingram 2008). We argue,

therefore, that to empower consumers and to bridge the knowledge-to-action gap, it is

necessary for academic researchers, policy practitioners, non-governmental organizations,

and social movements alike to critically analyse the prevalent discourses and possibly also

actively engage in the discursive struggle over sustainable development that is going on in

contemporary consumer society.

Empirical Context, Methods, and Materials

As an empirical case that illustrates our theoretical argument, we present findings from a

study that focuses on discursive struggle over the meanings of sustainable consumption in

the context of fashion and clothing markets. The study is based on a qualitative, discourse

theoretical analysis of interview data collected in Finland by means of personal, semi-

structured interviews. The aim of the empirical analysis was to explore the discursive

practices through which consumers make sense of their roles and responsibilities as fashion

and clothing consumers in sustainable development, so as to identify the different culturally

standardized or institutionalized discourses that were available to them and the possiblediscursive struggle that the existence of these multiple discourses might involve.

Context: Fashion and Clothing Markets

The fashion and clothing sector makes up a significant part of the global economy and has a

significant impact on sustainable development on a global scale (Allwood et al. 2006;



6/21

Morris and Barnes 2009). In recent years, sustainability concerns in the sector have led to a

number of non-governmental organizations and business-led initiatives towards more

sustainable production and consumption patterns (e.g., Better Cotton Initiative 2011; Clean

Clothes Campaign 2011; DEFRA 2010; Ethical Fashion Forum 2011; Nordic Fashion

Association 2011), and a variety of books, magazines, and web sites have been publishedfor both professionals and consumers (see, e.g., www.ecotextile.com; www.sustainablestyle.

org). Moreover, sustainability issues have also been a subject of thematic issues in journals

(Beard 2008) and books in fashion studies (Black 2008; Fletcher 2008; Hethorn and

Ulasewitz 2008).

As 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 sectors business practices (Iwanow et al. 2005; Shaw et al. 2006),

increasing academic interest has emerged towards topics such as fair trade practices,

corporate social responsibility initiatives, sustainable consumption communication by

businesses, organic cotton, environmental impacts of production, clothing usage and

disposal practices, clothing exchanges, clothing recycling, and second-hand clothing

(Birtwistle and Moore 2007; Iwanow et al. 2005; Joergens 2006; Jones et al. 2010;

Niinimki 2009; Pears 2005; Rudell 2006; Shaw et al. 2006).

This body of research has identified a number of challenges that consumers face when

trying to choose more sustainably produced clothes. An important general problem is, for

example, that clothing markets lack product alternatives, product information, and labels

that inform consumers about production conditions (Birtwistle and Moore 2007; Joergens

2006; Niinimki 2009; Shaw et al. 2006). And the many raw materials and highly complex

production processes that characterize the industry further complicate consumers

sustainability evaluations (Allwood et al. 2006; Fletcher 2008). Despite the general

emphasis placed in todays culture on aspects of design in creating commercial success

(Postrel 2003; Venkatesh et al. 2010), moreover, the selection of ecological and ethical

garments is also often very limited and the products are often perceived as unattractive and

unfitting to some degree (Joergens 2006). And yet, the premium price charged for the more

sustainably produced garments means that they are niche products targeted primarily to

affluent consumers (Beard 2008; Joergens 2006; Shaw et al. 2006). Finally, the judgments

that consumers need to make can also be complex in terms of development goals:

Consumers can face ethical dilemmas when choosing between home country-produced

clothes and fair trade-produced clothes from developing countries (Shaw et al. 2006).Part of the clothing sectors sustainability challenges has been attributed to the

sectors prevalent business strategy, which relies on continuous change (Allwood et al.

2006; Fletcher 2008). Recent years have also seen an increasing interest in the sector to

apply a strategy known as fast fashion (Joy et al. 2011; Morgan and Birtwistle 2009;

Hethorn and Ulasewitz 2008). This strategy relies on 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 (Allwood et al. 2006;

Black 2008).

Although the use of the concept of fashion as a planned, continuous change has beenappropriated across a number of other industrial sectors as well (Blaszczyk 2008; Strasser

2003; see also Tadajewski 2009), continuous change is still applied as a business strategy in

its most accelerated forms in the clothing markets. For these reasons, the fashion and

clothing markets arguably constitute an illuminating empirical context for exploring

contemporary sustainability challenges, practices of over-consumption in particular

(Kjellberg 2008; Shankar et al. 2006; Skln et al. 2007).

http://www.ecotextile.com/http://www.sustainablestyle.org/http://www.sustainablestyle.org/http://www.sustainablestyle.org/http://www.sustainablestyle.org/http://www.ecotextile.com/


7/21

Empirical Data and Methods

The empirical findings reported in this paper are based on qualitative consumer interviews

(Silverman and [1993] 2006; Moisander et al. 2009) conducted in Finland, one of the

leading SCP programme countries (Berg 2011), with 18 young 2535-year-old urbanprofessionals, who lived and worked in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The participant

profiles are presented in Table 1 of Appendix 1.

The interviewees were selected based on a snowball sample (Creswell 1998) of young,

relatively well-educated adults who had full-time jobs. Given the educational background

and potential income levels of the interviewees, there is reason to believe that the sample of

interviewees obtained here represents consumers who have the necessary cultural capital

and economic means to act as ecologically oriented consumers, and thus function as a

powerful positive market force in the pursuit of sustainable development (Joergens 2006).

In line with the theoretical approach adopted in this study, it is also assumed that this

interview material provides us with access to the broader culturally shared meanings and

context in which the interviewees operate (Silverman and [1993] 2006; Thompson 1997;

Thompson and Haytko 1997). Consequently, our analysis can be viewed as illustrative of

the social realities that consumers face in contemporary advanced market-mediated

societies.

The interviews were carried out following the basic guidelines of open-ended interviews

(Thompson et al. 1989). However, to ensure that all relevant topics were covered, the

interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format (Joy et al. 2009). Towards this end,

also textual elicitation material was used (Moisander and Valtonen 2006). The material

consisted of a short news story (

Fashion chains did not excel in an ethics survey

) and aneco-shopping guide (Guide for eco-shopper). The news story dealt with an ethics survey

among fashion retailers, which was published on the website of the leading national

newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. The eco-shopping guide focused on clothing shopping. The

guide was accessible at the website of the Finnish Consumer Agency and it was apparently

designed to encourage individuals to modify their consumption towards more sustainable

practices (Thgersen and Crompton 2009). The translated elicitation materials and the

interview guide are exhibited in Appendices 2 and 3.

The interviews lasted from 30 to 60 min and took place in the interviewees homes and

offices or nearby cafs. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed in verbatim,

resulting in 167 pages of text in Finnish (Times New Roman, 12 pt., single-line spacing).The excerpts presented in this paper were translated into English during the analysis.

To analyse the data, a form of discourse analysis was employed. As discourse analysis

can take various forms (Alvesson and Karreman 2000; Wood and Kroger 2000), it is

important to specify our approach. Inspired by the work of Ian Hacking (2004) as well as

Jaber Gubrium and James Holstein (2003), who suggest combining the seminal work of

Michel Foucault (e.g., Foucault 1972 [1969], 2008 [1979]) and ethnomethodology (e.g.,

Potter et al. 2007), we focused both on the Foucauldian macrolevel culturally standardized

or institutionalized discourses and on the ways in which they are made sense of at the

ethnomethodological microlevel of consumers

everyday discursive realities (see alsoMiller 1997; Moisander and Valtonen 2006).

The analytical focus, in our study, was thus on the ways in which particular accounts of

sustainable consumption were constructed in the interplay of discursive practices and

institutionalized discourses of sustainable development (Moisander and Valtonen 2006).

This perspective is based on a performative view of representation and language as

something that not only reflects objects of knowledge that are out there or provides



8/21

unproblematic access to peoples real intentions and perceptions of reality but also

constitutes particular versions of this reality (Schwandt 2000).

More specifically, to analyse the empirical material, we carefully studied the particular

wordings and categorizations used in the interview texts as well as the explicit and implicit

norms in that these texts involved (Moisander and Valtonen 2006). The analysis was carriedout through a process of close hermeneutic, iterative back-and-forth reading of the

empirical material and the theoretical background literature, in which empirical material and

theoretical concepts were continuously matched up (Thompson and Haytko 1997) to

develop an understanding of the phenomenon at both micro- and macrolevels of discursive

reality (Hacking 2004). Emerging themes were first provisionally labelled and then

scrutinized during subsequent readings. No qualitative data analysis software was used as

we felt that this might have impeded the development of a sufficiently nuanced

understanding and rich description of the phenomenon (Silverman 2000).

Next, we move on to discuss our findings. In the data excerpts that we present, the lines

of the respondents are indicated with R and the lines of the interviewer with I. Words

and texts that have been omitted from the excerpts are marked with [].

Consumer Engagement in Struggles over Sustainable Consumption

To illustrate our argument, we now move on to elaborate on the ways in which the

consumers interviewed for our study refer to and engage in a number of discursive struggles

over sustainable consumption. In making and giving sense to their roles and responsibilities

as ecologically responsible consumers, they cite and engage in three discursive strugglesthat deal with (1) the economic trade-off between material prosperity and sustainable

development; (2) the political debate on the respective responsibilities and possibilities of

individual vs. institutional actors to make a difference by acting upon large-scale social

problems such as sustainable development; (3) the aesthetic dilemma of choosing between

contemporary fashion wear, which are aesthetically pleasing but ecologically unsound, and

used or ecologically produced clothes, which are ecologically sound but aesthetically

unpleasing. The consumers that we interviewed refer to these struggles particularly when

they make sense of the global context of sustainability challenges, negotiate their personal

moral and political responsibilities, and reject the aesthetic and behavioural norms that

prevalent cultural representations of ecological awareness impose on them.

Making Sense of the Global Context of Sustainability Challenges: Struggle

Between the Discursive Logics of Financial Performance and Ecological Sustainability

When talking about the sustainable consumption in the global fashion and clothing markets, the

consumers that we interviewed for the study discuss sustainable development as a global

challenge that necessarily entails conflict of interests between profit-seeking economic actors

and morally responsible, ecologically minded citizens. In making sense of this conflict, the

interviewees come to engage in a well-known discursive struggle that revolves around thedebate on the trade-off between financial and environmental performanceand the associated

discussion on the trade-off between economic growth and sustainable development.

For global fashion and clothing corporations, sustainability and financial performance

are represented as inevitably opposing, mutually exclusive goals. The interviewees take it

for granted, in their talk, that contemporary market-based societies are largely ruled by

corporate interests, and that business organizations are primarilyand quite rightly so



9/21

concerned with their financial performance (see also Jones et al. 2010; Valor 2008). As the

following extract illustrates, from this perspective, corporate goals other than financial

performance may well seem merely amusing:

R: I found it amusing when it was on the news yesterday that Marimekko [a Finnish

designer company] was totally terrified [to learn], thatOh no, we are getting cotton from

iffy sources cotton collected by children! [] And yet, it was only, like, around the

end of last week that they announced their collaboration with Hennes and Mauritz.

I: Well what did you think of it then?

R: OK, they probably take care of their own nest. Like Lets now cut the supplies

coming from these suspicious sources. [] 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 Hennes and Mauritz. Imean, OK, even if [the collaboration] provides tremendous visibility, they [Hennes

and Mauritz] have, in every case, been under all kinds of suspicions as regards the

use of child labour, or unsustainable production in general. 7F

According to this discursive logic, any attempt by the business organizations to pursue

values other than profit-maximization and shareholder value are deemed to fail. The

following extract illustrates, for example, how reports of companies trying to improve their

ecological footprints are discursively discredited through expressions such as trying to

make an effort, and discounted as acts of hypocrisy and image polishing (see also

Joergens 2006), as the following quote further illustrates:R: [] sometimes it just seems hypocritical when some clothing chains try to do

something, make an effort to do something. Its like, well, it feels that they just are

just trying to polish their image, because thats what it is anyway.

I: Do you have any examples of that? Does something come to your mind?

R: I do not even know who has tried to do something Except Hennes and Mauritz

has this, kind of organic some sort of [ecological] collection of clothes. Whatever!

So yes, that is in a way a major effort, that one. But in the middle of all that other crap[they produce] it feels so small, like Lets produce a little bit [more ecological

clothes] for those who want it; Lets produce these clothes just a little bit more

ethically, lets use just a little bit less chemical substances of all sorts. 5F

Here, the seemingly positive sustainability measure of introducing an organic clothing line into

a major retailers collections is dismissed by representing it as production that is based on the use

of just a little bit less chemical substances for a marginal market segment. Using specific

disparaging and dismissive metaphors, vocabularies, and juxtapositions, the interviewees

represent corporate efforts to engage in environmental management as fake, as something

that does not qualify as a genuine or serious effort to contribute to sustainable development.This juxtaposition of financial and environmental performance reflects a more general

currently ongoing discursive struggle that deals with the trade-off between economic growth and

sustainable development (e.g., Joergens 2006; Livesey 2002). By representing financial and

environmental performance as mutually exclusive corporate objectives, the interviewees come

to construct sustainability as a general threat to economic development and prosperity (Jackson

2009), particularly in developing countries where much of the fashion and clothing production



10/21

takes place. On the one hand, according to this logic, business strategies of corporations that

deal in fast fashion may well be regarded ecologically unsound. But on the other hand, the

activities of these corporations stimulate economic growth, providing people with employment

and improving the quality of life in developing countries (also Joergens 2006). And for many,

it is these human needs that come first, as the following quote illustrates:

R: In my worldview, it is people who take the priority. After [considering human needs],

perhaps, one can consider whether a bit more nature is being consumed. Or not necessary

whether more nature has been consumed but resources at a more general level. [] like if

a shirt has an environmental certificate and has been made without using particular

cleaning methods, that does not feel equally important, if you can see my point. 17M

In the discursive struggle over consumers roles and responsibilities in the globalized

marketplace, consumption hence emerges as important for keeping the economy up and

running, for making sure that enough money is being spent so that everybody has a

job, as one of the interviewees put it (9F). From an economic perspective, fashion as the

planned, constant introduction of new styles is instrumental for keeping the economy and

the welfare society up and running, as well as for assuring the happiness of all members of

society (Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Hilton 2007). And this seems to suggest rather

fundamental, persisting constraints for consumers to move towards stronger,

sufficiency-based forms of sustainable consumption. If cutting down the level of

consumption means increasing unemployment and a general reduction in human well-

being, the decision not to consume seems not only unattractive but also irresponsible and

even selfish. As moral and responsible societal actors, consumers are not to be narrow-

minded in being only concerned about the environment but rather focus on promotingprosperity and human well-being, particularly for people in the third world.

Negotiating Consumers Roles and Responsibilities: Struggle Between the Discursive

Logics of Individual and Institutional Change

When negotiating their roles and responsibilities as ecologically responsible consumers, the

interviewees refer to and engage in a discursive struggle that revolves around the political

debate on the respective responsibilities and possibilities of individual versus institutional

market actors to make a difference in the collective pursuit of sustainable development.

While the individualist discourse on sustainable development emphasizes that social changebegins with and is brought about by morally concerned individuals who take personal

responsibility to change the world, the collectivist discourse calls for institutional and

systemic solutions that bring about social change.

In much of the public discussion on sustainable development, consumers are given an

important role as important market actors and key change agents in the path to sustainable

global economy (Moisander [2001] 2008; Seyfang 2005; Schaefer and Crane 2005). But

from the perspective of individual consumers, the idea of tackling large-scale sustainability

challenges by making small, apparently insignificant efforts does not seem particularly

reasonable or even fair. As one of the interviewees sarcastically explains:

R: For quite some time, I washed all [my] tops and knits by hand so that they would

last longer [] [but] then, for a couple of years, I lived with a housemate [who] had

no problem whatsoever throwing all [her] garments in the washer. And for a year I

kept on splishing and splashing, [washing my tops] in that bathroom sink And

typically my housemate would have her garments clean and dry the next day, while I



11/21

would still have mine on the line, dribbling water all over the bathroom. So finally I

said to myself, Hold it! Seriously! A [Hennes and Mauritz] top, should I really be

hand-washing it! Well, perhaps [the top] lasts a bit longer But then again, it fails

to meet every [criterion] in this [eco-shopping guide]! So great! I bought this child-

labour-produced, not-so-long-lasting [garment] and blah, blah, blah But I did hand-wash it: I did try to take responsibility for this unethical world! 13F

As the extract above illustrates, the idea of taking responsibility for the unethical

world by hand-washing unsustainably produced garments as an attempt to deal with large-

scale social and environmental problems is apparently problematic or even ridiculous.

Moreover, considering what has become understood as normal in terms of the pace of

living (Haunstrup Christensen et al. 2007; Shove 2003), the option of expending ones

precious free time on hand-washing garments to be able to use them longerand having

them dribbling water the next day, as the interviewee above complainsseems

increasingly unattractive even for the committed green consumer.The skepticism regarding the possibilities of individual ecologically responsible

consumers to make a difference may also be observed in the ways in which the

interviewees make sense of the significance of eco-labels and environmental information in

sustainable consumption. In the presence of multiple labelling schemes and conflicting

sources of information, consumers are effectively left without institutional support for

making informed and rational decisions, as the following quote illustrates:

R: I do need to say that all those [labeling schemes] and environmental certificates

and the like [] there are too many of them. They have totally lost their significance.

Because they are, of course, one of the ways in which environmental organizationscollect funds. 18M

Overall, the consumers that we interviewed engage with the individualist discourse of

sustainable development by representing themselves as disempowered individuals,

frustrated and unable to perform the roles ascribed to them as powerful market forces

and key change agentsresponsible for not only their own conduct but also for influencing

globally operating corporations and political decision makers to take action in sustainable

development. In the following extract, for example, one of the interviewees illustrates this

disempowerment, attributing the frustration to a lack of power that individual fashion

consumers experience when dealing with the increasingly complex global supply chains:R: Who can control the entire supply chain, [including] the suppliers of the suppliers

suppliers suppliers? One should be able to control [the entire chain of suppliers].

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 [all ethical

throughout the supply chain]. For example, Gap has this [brand called] (PRODUCT)RED. [] I, for example, have bought some [(PRODUCT)

RED] childrens wear and I

think they are wonderful. [] Some of the [profits from that product line] are

donated for the fight against AIDS in Africa [] And, as a consumer, Im happy to

pay a bit more for [these clothes]. But then, on the other hand, we hear the news thatGap uses [child labor]! So, as a consumer, you are lost, in way, if you do not grow

our own cotton and make it into fabric yourself. 11F

As the extract above illustrates, for individual market actors global supply chains that

operate using a long chain of subcontractors constitute a major sustainability challenge

that resides outside the field of their possible action. For instance, a consumer who chooses



12/21

ethically produced alternatives and happily pays a bit more for it is represented as

being lost in the marketplace when confronted by disquieting information about a

allegedly ethically responsible manufacturers multiple conflicting ethical standards for

its production units, of which some are ethically acceptable and some others not.

Similarly, individual decision makers and managers working for transnationalcorporations are represented as unable to control production practices in faraway

production sites that are part of whole chain of subcontractors, as the following

extract illustrates:

R: Well, no wonder that more than 30 European clothing chains are lacking ethical

guidelines [] Obviously, somebody has to decide how the supply chain functions

and who does what. But even when a single manager decides [about these things],

this manager cannot necessarily manage [his/her] counterparts in the chain. Since

cotton is not grown in Finland, these things are difficult to verify. And even if you

went to some place next to Niagara to check the [cotton] fields, how can you knowthat the local boss is not taking you to the wrong field, that they dont, in reality,

cultivate the field using child labor? that they show you some organic field that is

staged there? Or, that the children have been sent out to have a break and some food.

I really am quite skeptical. 9F

Overall, referring to the moral and practical complexities of sustainable consumption,

coupled with the challenges of monitoring practices at distant production sites, the

interviewees thus represent individual consumers as excluded and marginalized actors in

the pursuit of sustainable development. They have essentially no ability to oppose and act

against unethical business practices that take place in global, distant supply chains. Theroles and responsibilities given for consumers to act in sustainable ways simply clash with

the normal and reasonable ways of conducting ones life, i.e., the collective

conventions of everyday life (Shove 2003). From this perspective, rather than depicting

sustainability as something that would come about on its own, sustainability is

represented as something that calls for regulations and strong enforcement or a

different type of large-scale governance (Fuchs and Lorek2005). From this perspective, the

metanarrative of the influence of consumer marketplace choice (Caruana and Crane 2008)

is thus problematized. Green consumers are thus represented as dispersed, disempowered

individuals, who practically lack the support of institutional actors in their attempts to

pursue sustainable development.

Rejecting the Aesthetic Norms of the Green Dress Code: Struggle Between the Discursive

Logics of Fast Fashion and Sustainable Consumption

When making sense of themselves as fashion consumers, the people we interviewed refer to

an aesthetic dilemma; as ecologically responsible consumers, they would need to choose

between contemporary fashion wear, which is aesthetically pleasing but ecologically

unsound, and used or ecologically produced clothes, which are ecologically sound but

aesthetically unpleasing. This dilemma arises from the observation that the aesthetic normsof the green dress code essentially contradict, at least in the Finnish context, with the

aesthetic preferences of the normal consumer, who wants to look good and show good

taste, as the following extract illustrates:

R: But, you know, in my opinion, there is this basic problem, overall, for example, with

organic or Fair Trade products and such I mean I have seen some ethically produced



13/21

clothes and usually they look really [ugly]. In principle, what should be thought

about first is the design. [It is the design] that adds value for normal

consumersof which I consider myself to be one. [] But like some organic

wines, usually [ecological clothes lines] are really awful. So, it is like a false

illusion [to believe] that if something is made out of, lets say, hemp, or ifsomething is produced ecologically, that is enough [for the consumer], and that

[the concrete product] can then be of any kind of [junk]. 4M

Similar constructions of the particularity, unattractiveness, and ugliness of ecological

clothing in stylistic and aesthetics terms are systematically brought up in the material. It is

pointed out that to be ecologically responsible consumer, a person needs to reject the

aesthetic and behavioural norms that the world of fast fashion suggests and even imposes

on them. For sustainable consumption, this is a major challenge since ordinary consumers

do not necessarily feel good about making radical stylistic changes (Joergens 2006) or

accept trade-offs in questions style and taste (Fletcher 2008; see also Postrel 2003;Venkatesh et al. 2010).

In dealing with this aesthetic dilemma, however, the interviewees seek new alternative

modes of being and consuming that help them to overcome the dilemma. An interviewee,

for example, who is interested in ecological clothing but faces the fact that the

contemporary fast fashion chains offer more affordable and aesthetically pleasing products,

presents the following solution to the dilemma:

R: 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 rather put [the clothes] that I have to good use. And I [try not

to] buy an awful lot. Therefore, I am now trying to create a more consistent[wardrobe], because I do not really need a lot. 14F

This solution is based on the idea of establishing a personally satisfying aesthetic

style by rejecting not only unattractive and unfitting ecological and ethical clothes but

also the logic of fast fashion. This alternative strategy for sustainable consumption

thus implies rejecting the idea of being fashionable, trendy, or up to date by

wearing the latest fashion. Sustainable consumption is rather achieved simply by

buying fewer but personally satisfying products, which have a story, for example,

and which last and look good longer, such as what the interviewees refer to as

timeless fashion. In doing so, they thus come to mobilize strategies that draw onthe stronger approaches to sustainable consumption, which advocate changes in

peoples consumption patterns that involve more radical changes than merely starting

to choose eco-modernized products.

From this perspective, both the idea of the ecological consumer as an austere

subject who unproblematically prioritizes environmental concerns over style and

design, and the fashion-oriented consumer who uncritically follows the changing

trends that the fashion system continuously brings about, are rejected as morally

problematic. More sustainable consumption is rather made sense in terms of not only

acquiring fewer products but also with longer and more meaningful relationships with

the material goods. This seems to suggest a different interpretation of materialism and

the material and human relationships, which are interconnected in the practices of

production and consumption (Heiskanen 2005). Consequently, as a result of consumers

dialogical appropriation of the fashion and sustainable consumption discourses (Hobson

2002; Thompson 1997), an alternative reality of more meaningful and potentially more

sustainable consumption practices emerges.



14/21

Conclusions

In this paper, our aim has been to conceptually elaborate and empirically illustrate

the nature and implications of the discursive polyphony and the perplexity of

information and knowledge that consumers face when striving for ecologicallysustainable lifestyles and consumption practices. We have argued that part of the

knowledge-to-action gap discussed in the literature (Heiskanen 2005; Pape et al.

2011; Valor 2008) can be attributed to a discursive confusion that arises from a

simultaneous existence of multiple, continuously changing and partly clashing

discourses on sustainable consumption. By means of an empirical study, we elaborated

on the ways in which consumers deal with this discursive confusion by citing and

engaging in three discursive struggles, which deal with (1) the economic trade-off

between material prosperity and sustainable development; (2) the political debate on the

respective responsibilities and possibilities of individual versus institutional actors in

sustainable development; and (3) the aesthetic dilemma that arises from the conflicting

aesthetic norms of the world of fast fashion and sustainable consumption.

Our study contributes to the literature on consumer policy studies by advancing our

understanding of the ways in which ordinary, everyday microlevel discursive activity is

implicated in complex political struggles (Berg 2011; Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Schaefer and

Crane 2005), and how, as a result of this discursive activity, particular outcomes with

empowering and disempowering effects may arise (Livesey 2001; Livesey et al. 2009;

Maguire and Hardy 2006).

On the one hand, our study suggests that the discursive confusion that arises from these

struggles over appropriate approaches to sustainable development and sustainableconsumption may significantly limit and constrain consumers possibilities to engage in

more sustainable consumption practices. Our findings thus lend support to recent studies

that have argued that sustainability-related messages could become overpowered by

opposing ones (e.g., Fuchs and Lorek 2005). On the other hand, however, our analysis also

illustrates how in the midst of these discursive struggles consumers simultaneously

mobilize alternative strategies for sustainable consumption, in their search for more positive

self-identities as responsible consumers. It illustrates how new discourses and discursive

practices may emerge as different discourses clash in the ongoing discursive struggle

(Livesey 2001).

We acknowledge that our study has focused only on a limited sample of consumers andthat their views of fashion and sustainability are not generally representative of any broader

cohort of people. Regarding the generalizability of our findings, it seems worthwhile to

emphasize that our purpose has been to work towards a better understanding of the ways in

which consumers engage in discursive struggle when making sense of their roles in

sustainable development. Our aim is thus not to say anything about how they think or feel

as individuals or how typical or widespread the discursive practices and struggles that we

identify are within consumer society in general. Rather, our purpose is to offer some

clarification and to raise critical questions about the cultural conditions of possibility for

consumers to take responsibility and action for sustainable development. Nevertheless,there is reason to believe that the views of our participants do emerge from contemporary

ways of understanding and experiencing sustainable consumption and that similar struggles

are being experienced by a wider variety of western consumers.

By way of conclusion, we argue that for bridging the knowledge-to-action gap in

sustainable consumption, it would seem important to provide consumers with

environmental information that makes available multiple different positive ways of



15/21

thinking, talking, and acting upon sustainable development, and to reduce the

discursive confusion that arises from discursive struggle. Policy practitioners would

therefore need to be conscious of and make more explicit the particular version or

versions of sustainable development that underlie the particular policy measures that

they advocate for promoting sustainable consumption practices. When designingenvironmental policy instruments and programmes, it would seem important that

consumer policy makers explicitly consider and elaborate on a number of alternative

approaches to sustainable development and consumption, critically reflecting upon the

political implications and debates that each approach involves. By offering consumers

a number of somewhat different, coherent, and effective options, they might be able

to reduce discursive confusion in the market and help consumers take more active

roles not only as ecologically enlightened shoppers but also politically active citizens,

who take responsibility for sustainable development in a number of different ways.

This might well result in an improved availability of effective practical definitions of

sustainability (Livesey and Kearins 2002) that are based on explicitly acknowledging the

inherently contested nature of sustainable development.

Moreover, it would seem important to realize that different social and cultural contexts

enable and constrain sustainable consumption practices in different ways (Heiskanen 2005)

and that it is therefore important to provide different discursive resources for different

contexts. While in some contexts, it might be necessary to provide knowledge and

information that addresses the trade-off between economic growth and sustainable

development, in other contexts the focus of environmental communication should be

placed on the aesthetic dilemma of choosing between beauty and sustainability that we

discuss here, which style-oriented fashion consumers may experience when trying toengage in ecologically sustainable consumption practices. Moreover, if fashion and clothing

consumers are simply not able to choose the more sustainable products for practical reasons

(e.g., limited assortments, measurements, and styles), they should be offered alternative

ways of contributing to sustainable development (e.g., by buying less and choosing long-

lasting garments). This would also mean that in addition to ethical and environmental

values also aesthetic values, related to product design, for example (Postrel 2003), would

need to be emphasized (Allwood et al. 2006; Birtwistle and Moore 2007; Fletcher 2008).

Overall, there would seem to be a need for consumer policy makers to shift their focus

from simply informing and educating individual consumers to more systemic measures that

are based on acting upon not only consumer perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes but alsoon the broader cultural and political contextsthe field of possible actionwhere

consumers live their everyday lives. Policies and measures that rely on the individual

consumer to initiate and work towards change would seem to be based on a somewhat

unrealistic, over-optimistic view of the cultural and material reality where consumers are to

take responsibility for sustainability. In practice, this might imply more open discussion on

the roles and responsibilities of not only consumers but also other market and societal

actors in sustainable development. In fashion and clothing markets, for example, business

representatives have long tended to deny that the contemporary fashion system had any

significant role in driving overconsumption (Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Jones et al. 2010).However, to empower consumers to take responsibility for sustainable development, it

would seem essential that all parties openly acknowledge the fact that the fashion industry,

through complex networks of cultural mediators and economic actors, has an important role

in shaping the collective conventions of normal practice (Shove 2003) in ways that

constitute a major challenge for sustainable development (Kjellberg 2008; Moisander et al.

2010).



16/21

Appendix 1

Table 1 Participant profiles

Codea Sex Age Profession Clothing shoppingb

1F F 25 Youth counsellor Aleksi 13, Sokos, JC, Stockmann

2F F 25 Social services worker H&M, Only, Vero Moda

3F F 27 Integration and verification

engineer

Tiger of Sweden, Minus, Boutique Deb, Diesel,

Stockmann, Mango, abroad

4M M 25 Marketing manager Bisquit Stush, Popot, Helsinki 10, Beamhill

5F F 26 Social services worker, church

youth worker, theatre student

Anywhere, flea markets

6F F 33 Marketing assistant Vero Moda, from fiends, flea markets

7F F 26 Programming specialist Stockmann, Aleksi 13, KappAhl, Lindex, Sokos, Zio,small shops, and boutiques, young designers, arts and

crafts stores, self-made

8F F 30 Production manager Self-made, flea markets, from friends, abroad, online

9F F 31 Area sales manager Zara, Mango, Vila, Vero Moda, H&M, Moda, Sokos,

Seppl, Aleksi 13, Piccola Donna

10F F 27 Coordinator, part-time post-

graduate studies, entrepre-

neur

Stockmann, H&M, abroad

11F F 31 Project manager From abroad, Zara, Filippa K, Stockmann, H&M, Gant,

showroom sales12F 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, Seppl, 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 Stockmann, Nilson, Jakobsson, Solo, Zara, abroad

frequently

18M M 25 Pricing and procurementcoordinator

Large chains, small boutiques

aThis refers to the codes used in the interview excerptsb The clothes shopping contexts (stores selling new clothing) can be grouped as follows: department stores

(Aleksi 13, Sokos, Stockmann), clothing chains selling retailers in-house brands (H&M, Only, Vero Moda,

Mango, KappAhl, Lindex, Zara, Vila, Seppl, Diesel, Gant, Filippa K, Ralph Lauren), and stores and

boutiques selling multiple brands (Bisquit Stush, Popot, Helsinki 10, Moda, JC, Piccola Donna, Carlings,

Enele, Nilson, Zio, Jacobsson, Solo)



17/21

Appendix 2. Elicitation Materials

Eco-shopping guide

Pivi Talvenmaa: Textilesand the environment. Abasic Finnish guide

published in 1998, also

available online.

Paying attention to clothinguse and care pays off. Most

of a garments

environmental impact

arises in the usage phase,not in production.

Information on

textile dyeing

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

textile-consumptive.

Look for timeless fashion. This way the garment is never out of fashion.

Take good care of the textile, modify it and re-fashion it. This prolongs its

life.

Make use of flea markets. Recycle unnecessary textiles to be re-used.

Favor textiles in natural colors. Artificial colors include colors that are

environmentally harmful.

Favor domestic items. The domestic textile industry has improved in

environmental issues.

Choose an environmentally labeled product. Those can be found, amongothers, in underwear and childrens wear.

Edited by Pauli Vlimki

Extracted from the Finnish Consumer Agencys web site (www.kuluttajavirasto.fi, 10

Oct 2007). Originally published in Finnish.

HS.fi

Clothing chains did not excel in an ethics survey

21.9.2007

STT (The Finnish News Agency)

A study conducted by consumer organizations 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 and Mauritz. However, even the clothes of the top-ranking companies cannot be

considered to be fairly produced.

More on the web:Article published in the magazine Consumer

Extracted from the Helsingin Sanomats web site (www.hs.fi, 10 Oct 2007). Originally

published in Finnish.

http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/http://www.hs.fi/http://www.hs.fi/http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/


18/21

Appendix 3. Interview Guideline

Interview session start: Inform participants about research aims and confidentiality. Explain

the interview format (participants hoped to speak freely and only a few pre-designed

questions).

1. Opening question: Could you tell me about your fashion and clothing consumption?

2. General themes to be covered (general fashion and clothing consumption):

Fashion phenomenon/phenomena: What do you think is fashion? What does it

mean if something is in fashion?

Favourite shopping places: Where do you go for clothing shopping?

Brands: What about brands? Are brands important to you?

3. Themes to be covered with the help of elicitation material:

Consumption, fashion phenomena, and the fashion system: What kind of ideas

these cartoons bring to your mind?

& Cartoon (A): A woman in a shop, selecting trousers, with the caption: Thin pants:

The hottest thing since wide pants

& Cartoon (B): A woman coming home from a shopping spree, saying to a man

sitting in the living room reading a newspaper: Im feeling good about myself

again!

& Cartoon (C): A fashion magazine editor sitting behind her desk with two trays,

entitled: Totally in and SO last season

Ecological and ethical issues: What kind of ideas this cartoon/story/guide brings

to your mind?

& Cartoon (D): Two dogs at the entrance to a flea market, one saying to the other: I

think Ill skip this particular market

& News story Clothing chains did not excel in an ethics survey

& Shopping guide Guide for eco-shoppers

4. Closing the session: Are these some issues that you would like comment upon a bit

further? Is there something else that you would like to add?

References

Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., de Rodrguez, 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., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: on the study of organization through discourse

analysis. Human Relations, 53, 11251149.

Autio, M., Heiskanen, E., & Heinonen, V. (2009). Narratives of green consumers the antihero, theenvironmental hero and the anarchist. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 4053.

Beard, N. (2008). The branding of ethical fashion and the consumer: A luxury niche or mass-market reality?

Fashion Theory, 12, 447468.

Berg, A. (2011). Not roadmaps but toolboxes: analysing pioneering national programmes for sustainable

consumption and production. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 923.

Better Cotton Initiative. (2011). http://www.bettercotton.org. Accessed 10 October 2011.

http://www.bettercotton.org/http://www.bettercotton.org/


19/21

Birtwistle, G., & Moore, C. M. (2007). Fashion clothing Where does it all end up? International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, 35, 210216.

Black, S. (2008). Eco-chic: the fashion paradox. London: Black Dog.

Blaszczyk, R. L. (Ed.). (2008). Producing fashion: commerce, culture, and consumers. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Caruana, R., & Crane, A. (2008). Constructing consumer responsibility: exploring the role of corporatecommunications. Organization Studies, 29, 14951519.

Clean Clothes Campaign. (2011). http://www.cleanclothes.org. Accessed 3 October 2011.

Communities, E. (2007). A sustainable future in our hands. A guide to the EU's sustainable development

strategy. Brussels: European Communities.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

DEFRA. (2010). The sustainable clothing action plan. The third update. http://www.defra.gov.uk/

environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htm Originally published 2008, third update

published 23 February 2010. Accessed 17 December 2010.

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, 950971.

Ethical Fashion Forum. (2011). http://www.ethicalfashionforum.com. Accessed 5 October 2011.European Commission. (2005). Health and consumer protection programme 20072013. 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.

Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2008). Consumer Policy Programme for the years 20082011.

http://www.tem.fi/files/20019/TEMjul_23_2008_konserni.pdf.

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. (1979). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault:

beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208226). Hemel Hempstead: Harvestes Wheatsead.

Foucault, M. (2008 [1979]). The birth of biopolitics. Lectures at the Collge de France 1978

1979.Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. ([1969] 1972). The archeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books

Fuchs, D. A., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and failures.

Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 261288.

Greening, L. A., Green, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect

- a survey. Energy Policy, 28, 389401.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2003). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 214248). London: Sage.

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, 277302.

Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of culturalidentity (pp. 117). London: Sage.

Hall, S. ([1997] 2009). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations

and signifying practices (pp. 1374). London: Sage.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system.

Organization Studies, 20, 124.

Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53, 1227

1248.

Haunstrup Christensen, T., Godskesen, M., Gram-Hanssen, K., Quitzau, M.-B., & Rpke, I. (2007).

Greening the Danes? Experience with consumption and environment policies. Journal of Consumer

Policy, 30, 91116.

Heiskanen, E. (2005). The performative nature of consumer research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 179

201.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, 6681.

Hobson, K. (2002). Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the rationalization of lifestyles

make sense? Environmental Politics, 11, 95120.

http://www.cleanclothes.org/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htmhttp://www.ethicalfashionforum.com/http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/overview/programme_2007-2013_en.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/overview/programme_2007-2013_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/waste/waste_consumer_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/waste/waste_consumer_en.htmlhttp://www.tem.fi/files/20019/TEMjul_23_2008_konserni.pdfhttp://www.tem.fi/files/20019/TEMjul_23_2008_konserni.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/waste/waste_consumer_en.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/youth/waste/waste_consumer_en.htmlhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/overview/programme_2007-2013_en.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/overview/programme_2007-2013_en.htmhttp://www.ethicalfashionforum.com/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htmhttp://www.cleanclothes.org/


20/21

Iwanow, H., McEachern, M. G., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). The influence of ethical trading policies on consumer

apparel purchase decisions. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 33, 317387.

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. London: Earthscan.

Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,

10, 360371.

Jones, P., Comfort, D., Bown, R., & Hillier, D. (2010). Sustainable consumption and the UK's leadingclothing retailers. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6,

244259.

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, 556566.

Joy, A., Sherry, J., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (forthcoming). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the

ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture.

Kjellberg, H. (2008). Market practices and over-consumption. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 11, 151

167.

Laine, P.-M., & Vaara, E. (2007). Struggling over subjectivity: a discursive analysis of strategic development.

Human Relations, 60, 2958.

Livesey, S. M. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria.

Journal of Business Communication, 38, 5891.Livesey, S. M. (2002). Global warming wars: rhetorical and discourse analytic approaches to ExxonMobils

corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 117148.

Livesey, S. M., & Kearins, K. (2002). Open and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by The

Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15, 229254.

Livesey, S. M., Hartman, C. L., Stafford, E. R., & Shearer, M. (2009). Performing sustainable development

through eco-collaboration. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 423454.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2006). The emergence of new global institutions: a discursive perspective.

Organization Studies, 27, 729.

Miller, G. (1997). Building Bridges: The possibility of analytic dialogue between ethnography, conversation

analysis and Foucault. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: theory, method and practice (pp. 24

44). London: Sage.

Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 31, 404409.

Moisander, J. ([2001] 2008). Representation of green consumerism: A constructionist critique. Saarbrcken:

VDM Verlag Dr. Mller.

Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2002). Narratives of sustainable ways of living: Constructing the self and the

other as a green consumer. Management Decision, 40, 329342.

Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative marketing research: a cultural approach. London: Sage

Publications.

Moisander, J., Valtonen, A., & Hirsto, H. (2009). Personal interviews in cultural consumer research -

poststructuralist challenges. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 12, 329348.

Moisander, J., Markkula, A., & Erranta, K. (2010). Construction of consumer choice in the market:

challenges for environmental policy. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 7379.

Morgan, L. R., & Birtwistle, G. (2009). An investigation of young fashion consumers disposal habits.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 199205.

Morris, M., & Barnes, J. (2009). Globalization, the changed global dynamics of the clothing and textile value

chains and the impact on Sub-Saharan Africa, Research and Statistics Branch Working Paper 10/2008.

Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

Muster, V. (2011). Companies promoting sustainable consumption of employees. Journal of Consumer

Policy, 34, 161174.

Niinimki, K. (2009). Consumer values and eco-fashion in the future. In M. Koskela & M. Vinnari (Eds.),

Future of consumer society, 2829 May 2009, (pp. 125134). Tampere: Finland Futures Research Centre

& Turku School of Economics.

Nordic Fashion Association. (2011). http://www.nordicfashionassociation.com/28035/NICE. Accessed 5

September 2011.

Pape, J., Rau, H., Fahy, F., & Davies, A. (2011). Developing policies and instruments for sustainablehousehold consumption: Irish experiences and futures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 2542.

Pears, K. E. (2005). How can socially-constructed attitudes towards fashion consumption be shifted to

encourage a more sustainable approach? International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic

and Social Sustainability, 1, 92103.

Peattie, K., & Collins, A. (2009). Guest editorial: Perspectives on sustainable consumption. International

Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 107112.

http://www.nordicfashionassociation.com/28035/NICEhttp://www.nordicfashionassociation.com/28035/NICE


21/21

Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: how the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce, culture, and

consciousness. New York: HarperCollins.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. ([1987] 2007). Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour.

London: Sage.

Princen, T. (2003). Principles for sustainability: From cooperation and efficiency to sufficiency. Global

Environmental Politics, 3, 33

50.Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. European

Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243263.

Rezabakhsh, B., Bornemann, D., Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (2006). Consumer power: a comparison of the

old economy and the internet economy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 29, 336.

Rudell, F. (2006). Shopping with a social conscience: consumer attitudes toward sweatshop labor. Clothing

and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 282296.

Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. (2005). Addressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of Macromarketing,

25, 7692.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (2008). Social constructions in the study of public policy. In J. A. Holstein &

J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 189211). New York and London: The

Guilford Press.

Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. Interpretivism, hermeneutics andsocial constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.

189213). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Seyfang, G. (2005). Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological

citizenship? Environmental Politics, 14, 290306.

Shankar, A., Whittaker, J., & Fitchett, J. (2006). Heaven knows I m miserable now. Marketing Theory, 6,

485505.

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, 427440.

Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normativity. Oxford and

New York: Berg.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Silverman, D. ([1993] 2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.Skln, P., Fougre, M., & Fellesson, M. (2007). Marketing discourse: a critical perspective. London:

Routledge.

Strasser, S. (2003). The alien past: consumer culture in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Policy,

26, 375393.

Tadajewski, M. (2009). A history of marketing thought. In E. Parsons & P. Maclaran (Eds.), Contemporary

issues in marketing and consumer behavior (pp. 1336). Oxford: Elsevier.

Thgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of

Consumer Policy, 28, 143178.

Thgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental

campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141163.

Thompson, C. (1997). Interpreting consumers: a hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing insights

from the texts of consumer consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 438455.Thompson, C. J., & Haytko, D. L. (1997). Speaking of fashion: consumers' uses of fashion discourses and

the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 1542.

Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B., & Pollio, R. H. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into consumer

research: the philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. The Journal of Consumer Research,

16, 133147.

UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21 and the UNCED proceedings. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications.

Valor, C. (2008). Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions for market failures. Journal of

Consumer Policy, 31, 315326.

Venkatesh, A., Joy, A., Sherry, J. F. J., & Deschenes, J. (2010). The aesthetics of luxury fashion, body and

identify formation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 459470.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: methods for studying action in talk and text.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.


markkula 2012 discursive confusion over sustainable consumption

Documents