Ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases were studied among urban and rural consumers in Scotland. All subjects perceived at least some ethical issues in relation to animal production systems, in particular, systems keeping animals in close confinement. Welfare‐friendly production systems were viewed as adding value to a food, but this value was not necessarily realizable to producers if purchases occurred only when foods were on special offer. Statements made by individuals were often contradictory, revealing ambivalence, unresolved value conflicts and a general lack of involvement in the nature of meat production. A number of barriers to the establishment of stable attitudes and behaviours in relation to the ethical treatment of food animals were also identified. A key finding of the study is that individuals can hold two views on animal welfare. On the one hand, they may think as citizens influencing societal standards, and on the other, as consumers at the point of purchase. As citizens, they support the notion of animals being entitled to a good life; as meat consumers, they avoid the cognitive connection with the live animal. This paper explores both the citizen–consumer relationship and purchase strategies used by consumers to resolve value conflicts. Lessons for public and commercial policy are highlighted in the context of the Curry Report (2002) which advocates more effective market segmentation where markets are finely attuned to their customers, with the development of a number of assurance schemes discussed in the article.

PurposeAims to investigate the effect of communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to young consumers in the UK on their fast‐food purchasing with reference to McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC).Design/methodology/approachFocus groups were conducted to clarify themes and inform a questionnaire on fast‐food purchasing behaviours and motives. Attitude statements were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis.FindingsMost respondents (82 per cent) regularly purchased fast food from one of the companies; purchases were mostly impulsive (57 per cent) or routine (26 per cent), suggesting relatively low‐level involvement in each case. While there was scepticism regarding the CSR activity being promoted, expectations about socially responsible behaviour by the companies were nevertheless high. Four factors were isolated, together explaining 52 per cent of the variance in fast‐food purchasing behaviour. They were brand value, nutritional value, ethical value and food quality.Research limitations/implicationsThe research was conducted with students, and while these represent a key‐target market, any further research should target a more diverse public.Practical implicationsThere are important implications for global fast‐food companies in terms of protecting and developing their brand value; they need to respond to the wider food‐related debates in society, in particular, those concerning healthy eating and food ethics. They also need to ensure that their business practices are fully consistent with the values expressed in their CSR initiatives.Originality/valueThe special value of the paper lies in its joining together of current perspectives on CSR and consumer value in the UK food industry as it explores both through the perceptions of young consumers of fast food.

Despite the ever increasing levels of fashion consumption, neither retailers nor consumers have as yet implemented sustainability principles to a significant degree. This is despite the fact that sustainability principles are increasingly understood and will be applied by consumers, as long as affordable alternatives in mainstream fashions are available. In a highly competitive fashion retail sector, there exists an opportunity for UK high street fashion retailers to differentiate their brand image through aligning products with consumers' moral frameworks. Using phenomenological interviews, this research explores the fashion consumption experiences of professional women with young children and living in or near Edinburgh, with particular focus on their expression of their own sustainability concerns in their day‐to‐day practices. The findings reveal that in the absence of suitable products, information and labelling, consumers apply heuristics to their choices, especially price. They refer to the more familiar ethical food market which serves as a metaphor for fashion‐related practices. They talk about trustworthy retailers and about how they deal with and rationalize their own practices where they reveal an obvious attitude‐behaviour gap. The women's role of providing for the family adds further complexity in a sector which provides affordable alternative options.

No abstract

Perception of country of origin and purchasing habits for beef were examined for urban and rural Scottish consumers. Origin was identified as being as important as intrinsic quality cues of colour and leanness, with rural consumers giving more weight to origin than urban ones. Most consumers interpreted ‘Scotch Beef’ and ‘British Meat’ label logos as evidence that the beef animals were ‘born, raised and slaughtered in Scotland or Britain’ respectively. The logos were taken as indicators of quality and safety. Both urban and rural respondents had higher agreement levels with Scotch beef as a safer, higher quality and more expensive commodity than British meat. Rural consumers made more use of butcher shops for purchase, but both groups sought butcher beef for quality reasons and supermarket sources because of convenience.