(2011) Blue Mountain Coffee and Ethical Consumption

‘Blue Mountain Coffee and Ethical Consumption’ The term ‘ethical consumption’ or ‘consuming ethically’ refers to how consumers purchase products that concern an ethical issue (Doane, 2001). These ethical issues can be related to a range of existing ideas such as Fair-Trade products, organic-clothing and recycling to name a few. Blue Mountain Coffee from Jamaica can be seen in relation to ethical consumption as it involves consumers thinking about the effects of purchasing the product on the agricultural workers, even though it is not part of the Fair-Trade movement. According to Sayer (2003) ethical consumption refers to the consideration of morality, ethics and responsibility that is attached to consumption practices. In this way ‘the ethical consumer feels responsible toward society and expresses these feelings by means of his or her purchasing behaviour’ (De Pelsmacker et al, 2005). De Pelsmacker goes on to say that it is through ethical buying and consumer behaviour that consumers are able to express their concern about the ethical behaviour of the corporations distributing the products. Littler (2009) argues how ethical consumption as a choice of consumerism has become more and more common in recent years, though the idea has been around for the past three decades. This analysis of Blue Mountain Coffee intends to establish how coffee is consumed ethically in Britain today, as well as discuss consumer’s views with regard to the product. Also, the case study plans to reveal how consumers make sense of issues surrounding Blue Mountain Coffee and what the contradictions of ethical consumption are. Past research has relied ‘heavily on stated preference measures elicited through surveys that utilize hypothetical market choices’ (Arnot et al, 2006), however this case study is more qualitatively based focusing on participant’s actual relationships with the product. The aim of this case study is to provide a detailed, theoretically informed analysis of ethical consumption and its relationship with coffee, in particular the Blue Mountain brand. It is important to understand the relationship between coffee and ethical consumption as the ideas and beliefs that come into play during this analysis; reveal how such cultural choices impact on the everyday lives of both the consumers and the producers of the product. This study will look at two participant’s views on Blue Mountain coffee and ethical consumption and attempt to apply these in relation to existing theories. Both participants are from a working class area and background. The data has been collected in the hope of gaining a further insight into some of the values and beliefs that underlie ethical consumption. Firstly and most importantly it is worth mentioning that what counts as ethical behaviour is open to debate, as everyone has alternate views of what it means to be ‘ethical’ (Barnett et al, 2005; Littler, 2011). Cowe and Williams (2001) argue that ethical consumers are influenced by environmental or ethical considerations when choosing products. However Strong (1996) adds that ethical consumerism is when a person encompasses all of the principles of environmental consumerism and more, then tailors their buyer behaviour based on this. The criteria needed in order to be an ethical consumer then can differ between individual beliefs, values and morals. ‘I don’t know whether I am an ethical consumer. I think of the people who have made the product if that’s what you mean’ (Participant 2). ‘Yes I am an ethical consumer because I buy my coffee from those small shops that give you a certain weight in a paper bag, cutting out packaging and saving on recycling. Plus I’m contributing less to the major global brands...helping out small businesses instead. But I don’t do this for everything’ (Participant 1). The differing views between the participants considering themselves as ethical or not shows how ethical consumption is a complex idea that has various beliefs and attitudes in relation to consumerism. Participant 2’s reply can be seen in relation to Littler (2011), who states that ethical consumption is a very broad concept in which it is hard for anyone to define themselves as being truly ethical. There is no clear yes/no answer to the question ‘are you ethical’; it is rather a continuum in which a consumer sits on a scale of ethical behaviour. This scale shows how there are different levels and approaches consumers can take to ‘being ethical’. Participant 1’s reply can be seen in relation to this as he states that he does engage in ethical consumption but only on certain products, showing that engaging in ethical consumption is much more complex and multifaceted than it first appears. This also fits with Carrigan et al (2004), who state that the term ‘ethical consumer’ carries various meanings, the fact that consumers can be ethical when buying one product but not adhere to the same choices when buying another reinforces how difficult it is to define oneself as being ’ethical’. Although the Blue Mountain coffee brand is not defined as a fair-trade product or classified under the fair-trade movement, it still appears to charge an ethical premium and brand itself in relation to its geographical location of production. As the name of Blue Mountain coffee explicitly states that it comes from the Blue Mountains in Jamaica, consumers automatically know where their money will filter to. In this way consumers can purchase the Blue Mountain product in the hope of providing good trade to the agricultural workers producing the coffee. However, this was somewhat misleading as my participants assumed it was part of the fair trade movement. ‘I buy Blue Mountain because it is a fair trade product and I know that paying that little bit extra for it will go to the farmers’ (Participant 1). The misleading name of the coffee brand shows how consumers find difficulties in distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ethical products (Carrigan et al, 2004) as participant 1 believed the brand to be fair-trade. This supports Guthman (2003) and the notion that the origins of produce are not always as innocent as they seem. The fact that Blue Mountain coffee has been advertised using its geographical location of production and the product website was plagued with images of farmers on the coffee plant (Blue Mountain Coffee, 2011), made consumers believe the brand was financially supporting the underdeveloped country, though this is clearly not the case. Scrase (2011) argues that this form of advertising seeks to entice more customers through the commodification of poverty, as the coffee plant workers are exploited for the profitable gain of the major corporations distributing Blue Mountain. In addition to this, the cost of Blue Mountain coffee automatically made consumers think the produce was a fair-trade product because its price is a lot higher than other brands, a characteristic of most fair-trade brands. This is in line with Carrigan et al (2004) who found that consumers felt they had paid an ethical premium, understanding the ethical premium would be used to benefit the manual labourers of the coffee plants. Though this was found to not be the case as the higher price of Blue Mountain coffee did not reflect a fairer deal to the farmers of the coffee plants. The issues around purchasing Blue Mountain coffee as an ethical product then, can be seen to almost trick consumers into thinking they are being ethical and purchasing a fair-trade product, when actually they are contributing to a global brand and doing the complete opposite of their intensions. ‘I tend to stay away from fair trade products unless they state what percentage goes to the farmers, it’s more of a trick to get you to buy them I think. But if Blue Mountain was part of fair-trade and it stated what the workers would earn, I would definitely buy it cause I’d know where my money was going’ (Participant 2). Participant 2’s response materialises these claims made above, as he is aware of how misleading advertisers attempt to publicize their products. His awareness in that what appears to be good when a product is advertised is not always as innocent as it seems, again supports Guthman (2003). Participant 2’s choice to avoid these kinds of products unless they display how much money benefits the workers; shows that he is anti-consuming certain produce based on his beliefs. Binkley and Littler (2008) define anti-consumerism as consumer’s avoidance of global brands in favour of produce that offer a fairer-trade. However, here participant 2 can be seen to reject Binkley and Littler’s theory on anti-consumerism as some fair trade products form part of his anti-consumption practices. Carrigan et al (2004) found that consumer resistance is now deemed a legitimate form of consumer empowerment. By refusing to pay for brands that do not show the distribution of profits, participant 2 is empowering himself as a consumer and tailoring what he sees as ‘ethical behaviour’ to his own beliefs and values. Again supporting De Pelsmacker’s theory that through consumer behaviour, or in this case anti-consumerism behaviour, consumers are able to express their concern about the ethical behaviour of the corporations distributing the products (De Pelsmacker et al, 2005). Barnett et al (2005) describe ethical consumption as ‘caring at a distance’. This is because the behaviour of consumers only counts as ethical behaviour if someone at a distance (the manual labourers) are benefiting from them. For consumer behaviour to be considered ‘ethical’ the agricultural workers have to be seen as getting a fairer deal based on ‘that’ behaviour. Greenfield and Williams (2011) support this view; also describing ethical consumption as a form of caring at a distance. In this way, buying Blue Mountain coffee intending to benefit of the coffee farmers describes my participant’s consumer behaviour as being ethical behaviour. ‘Global brands rape farmers who work so hard. I’d rather get my granddad to buy coffee directly from the farmers and send it over or bring it over when he visits. I know this costs more in sending price, but at least I have the satisfaction of helping out my people, my money goes directly to them’ (Participant 1). For Barnett, Greenfield and Williams, the fact that the consumer behaviour of my participant can be seen to directly help those producing Blue Mountain coffee would place my participant as an ethical consumer. Participant 1’s beliefs and actions have shown him to ‘care at a distance’, reinforcing his behaviour as ‘ethical’. The only intention of this act, according to my participant, is to cut out the ‘middle man’ (global businesses) and make more money for the farmers producing the coffee. However, in opposition of this, the reality in producing more air-miles when getting his granddad to send some Blue Mountain coffee over, equally describes participant 1 as being unethical. Yet again this reinforces the complexity and difficulty in being an ethical consumer (Carrigan et al, 2004; Cowe and Williams, 2001; Littler, 2011, Strong, 1996). In giving a better deal to agricultural workers of the coffee plant, participant 1 can be described as unethical for increasing the air miles of Blue Mountain coffee. This causes geographical distance to be viewed a problematic (Barnett et al, 2005), as both product-consumption and sending-consumption cannot share the same ethical motives at the same time. Indulging ethically in one will almost always forfeit in lacking ethically in another. Another issue that came about during this analysis was the price of the product. As stated earlier, the participants thought they were involved with paying an ethical premium (Carrigan et al, 2004), as the misleading name and packaging of the coffee made consumers believe it was part of the fair-trade movement. Under this belief, one of my participants revealed his feelings towards to price. ‘They price ethical products so high. Sometimes I think can I really afford it’ (Participant 1). Langley (2002) argues that ethical investment is only a choice for those who have enough capital to invest in such products, as the ethical premium added on to certain products places them out of the financial reach of some consumers. ‘Sometimes I think can I really afford it’ (Participant 1) shows how the price of being ethical is an issue within itself. This finding shows that in order to engage in ethical consumption consumers have to pay more, refocusing the choice of consumption to almost a brand for those who are willing and can afford to pay (Littler, 2011). Littler further describes ethical consumption as a form of class distinction that distances working-class consumers based on price. This was disproved in the case of my participants as both were of a working class background and both felt they paid ethical premiums for Blue Mountain coffee. Though in saying this, the struggle to keep up with the price of Blue Mountain coffee does reflect that forms of ethical consumption are only available for those who have enough capital to purchase them, and can be demonstrated by those who wish to show they lead an alternate lifestyle to the working classes (Gregson and Crewe, 2003). Humphrey (2011) theorises that ethical consumption has become more of a fashion to present oneself as moral. This is supported by Littler (2009) who states that ethical consumption has become a ‘popular’ practice to engage in within the middles-classes. This was disproved with my participants, as they are not part of the middle-classes, and argued their consumption choices were not for people in the supermarket to congratulate them on being ethical. ‘I never buy Blue Mountain to look good. Most people wouldn’t even recognise that you’re doing good anyway, they’re just not aware of the issues around what they buy’ (Participant 1). ‘Buying stuff that’s ethical isn’t a fashion, I buy Blue Mountain cause I’m helping someone out by choosing that particular product’ (Participant 2). Humphrey’s (2011) idea that a performance of oneself is part of ethical consumption seems to be contradicted here; as both participants claim that their consumption of Blue Mountain coffee is irrelevant to how others see them. Instead they argue that consuming ethically satisfies their desire to help out manual labourers, so part-take in it as a form of consumer satisfaction (Soper, 2004). To conclude, this case-study analysed how coffee is consumed ethically in Britain today and discussed consumer’s views in relation to this. It found that based on price and advertising of the product consumers thought it was part of the fair-trade brand, and so Blue Mountain coffee maintained a relationship with ethical consumption through this belief. In addition to this, the case study found that consumers made sense of issues surrounding Blue Mountain coffee by attempting to be ethical to the agricultural workers harvesting the beans, showing consumers care at a distance, though often this is in sacrifice of being unethical by producing more air-miles of the product. Also, the case-study revealed that another contradiction of ethical consumption is the price, and that it is harder for working class consumers to purchase ethical products. All of this showed how complex and difficult it is to be considered an ethical consumer within Britain today, and highlighted how cultural choices impacted on the everyday lives of both the consumers and producers of the product. Wood-Wallace, D (2011) ‘Blue Mountain Coffee and Ethical Consumption’ Unpublished Media Coursework (Undergraduate). Nottingham Trent University. PAGE 2 Wood-Wallace, D (2011) ‘Blue Mountain Coffee and Ethical Consumption’ Unpublished Media Coursework (Undergraduate). Nottingham Trent University.