HTML

ePub

PDF

1 INTRODUCTION

Consumers have realized they are critical agents in transforming a determined reality (Portilho, 2020; Pérez-Aradros, 2018; Vilela, 2017). They are gradually becoming more conscious about the impacts of their consumption, expressing themselves through choices, worries about production, work conditions, environmental preservation and restoration, and social issues, which surpass simple commercial interests (Portilho, 2020; Merabet & Barros, 2019). Thus, consumer habits change based on political, ethical, environmental, and social justice positions (Portilho, 2020; Pérez-Aradros, 2018; Vilela, 2017). Consumer engagement around common objectives may destabilize sectors or create new consumer markets, directly influencing marketing (Merabet & Barros, 2019).

Purchasing power promotes social change and applies political pressure, influencing the decisions of political institutions and private companies by choosing specific brands, products, producers, or retailers. This process is called political consumerism or political consumption (Portilho, 2020; Pérez-Aradros, 2018). According to Portilho (2020), since 2005, when the work titled “Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation” (Stolle, Hooghe & Micheletti, 2005) was published, the literature about political consumption has addressed questions relevant to production chains and globalized consumption. Political consumption is associated with political interests, education, political mistrust, liberal ideology, and media use (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). Moreover, political consumerism is a form of political activism that may complement or conflict with other forms of activism (Rössel & Schenk, 2018).

In political consumerism there are many movements that consumers may join, such as veganism, organic and agroecological products, slow fashion, among others (Vilela, 2017; Merabet & Barros, 2019; Bellido-Pérez, 2019). Understanding the motivations, influences, and precedents of political consumption in society allows companies to comprehend this type of consumption which has dictated political consumers. Thus, companies can anticipate future changes and strategically attend to an ever-demanding market.

In practical terms, political consumerism has established itself in many countries around the world. In the US, about 35% of the population is engaged in this type of consumerism (Endres & Paganopoulos, 2017), similar to France, Denmark, and Finland (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). In 2009, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil averaged 21,03% of their populations engaged in political consumption (Echegaray, 2012). In a recent study by Earned Brand, 69% of Brazilians bought or boycotted a brand due to their political or social position, while the annual world average is 64% (Melo, 2018). Moreover, Brazilian political consumerism has increased 13 points since 2017, showing the expanse of this consumerism in Brazil (Melo, 2018).

In theoretical terms, the authors question the resource-based political participation model and the importance of the micro-level political participation predictors concerning political consumption (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). Moreover, there are doubts that political lifestyle theories can explain the phenomenon (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). Zúñiga, Copeland, and Bimber (2013) identified that political consumerism is more associated with civic engagement than with a general measure of political participation. Therefore, the lack of theoretical consensus favors reviewing the literature to understand previous discussions, systematizing the main themes, and proposing evolutions.

Considering the evolution of the discussion about political consumption, its various manifestations, and how easy it is for consumers to get information and organize themselves through consumerism, the following questions are proposed: What are the predecessors of political consumerism? What are the personal influences that motivate this type of consumption? How do political consumers act? Therefore, the research aims to compile the literature about political consumerism through an integrative review of Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus, following Torraco’s methods (2016). After, a critical analysis framework of the subject was proposed.

This article is composed of an introduction and four sections. The following section presents the discussion about political consumerism. The methodology shows the integrative review, specifying how the data and articles were selected and how the articles were analyzed. The results and discussion section contains the main results, presenting the characterizations of the articles included in the review, the predecessors of political consumerism, the influences and motivations of these consumers, and how political consumers act. In the end, the critical analysis framework and the final considerations appear, summarizing the study's main results, contributions, and limitations.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Consumers have increasingly noticed the environmental impact of current consumer habits and the effect of government and private sector decisions on social realities, bringing new discussions to consumer studies such as political consumerism. This type of consumption consists of boycotts and buycotts by consumers that look to express their political, ethical (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005), political party (Endres & Paganoulos, 2017), and environmental (Piia, Markus & Mari, 2019; Bossy, 2014) concerns. Although political consumption carries social and political values, it is a more individual participation form (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005).

Consumer boycotting has become more common in the last years (Endres & Paganapoulos, 2017), linked to low institutional trust (Neilson, 2010). Nike and other clothing companies have been exposed to controversy because of child labor and terrible working conditions (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). Moreover, messages and statements to repair reputational damage do not convince political consumers (Neilson, 2010).

On the other hand, consumers support organizations by buying their products because production processes and values match with consumers’ values (Zúñiga & Biember, 2013). For example, the purchase of organic fruits and vegetables aims not to harm the environment (Zúñiga & Biember, 2013). Consumer choices may be made based on impartiality, legal concerns, and governmental and social practices (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). Thus, people who support organizations by buying are influenced by their trust in them, being more receptive to statements that highlight social responsibility (Neilson, 2010).

Consumers use political consumerism to change institutional or market practices (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). Individuals that consume politically recognize that “consumers have the power to influence a fair and moral market” (Neilson, 2010, p. 214). Therefore, political consumerism is connected more to business, organizational, work, and product changes than influencing democratic governments (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005; Portilho, 2020).

In this way, political consumerism has one spectrum that ranges from alter-consumerism (green or ethical consumerism) to anti-consumerism (radical rejection of consumption and capitalism) and another spectrum that involves environmental and social concerns (Bossy, 2014). Thus, political consumers' relation with consumption is complex, transforming the market into an action space (Bossy, 2014). The barriers between citizen and consumer, public and private, and political and economic are blurred. Consequently, discussions about production and consumerism involve cost and benefit analysis and political, ethical, environmental, and social concerns (Portilho, 2020).

Political consumption may be seen as an alternative to traditional forms of political participation in the government (Echegaray, 2012). However, political consumption does not always involve political expression, depending on the context in which it occurs (Halkier & Holm, 2008). As observed by Zúñiga, Copeland, and Biember (2013), political consumerism is not really connected to broad political participation, comparing its association to social, lifestyle, and civil engagement contexts. Thus, the phenomenon may be understood as "(…) a social movement in which a network of individual and collective actors criticizes and try to separate themselves from traditional consumerism, politicizing the act of buying in search of promoting other forms of consumption” (Bossy, 2014, p.179). An example of this is veganism, in which one can observe boycotts and buycotts, discursive strategies, and a lifestyle connected to political consumption (Piia, Markus & Mari, 2019).

Actions within political consumerism have a collective objective, but they can be performed individually or collectively (Bossy, 2014). In this way, political consumerism is a lifestyle choice, but it also involves actions favoring public interests, subject to commentary, sharing, and social influence through social networks (Zúñiga, Copeland, and Biember, 2013). Political consumerism can influence market practices and indirectly signal areas where intervention and government regulations are necessary (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). Finally, once private organizations assume social responsibilities, which were exclusively public interest before, they stimulate consumerism citizenship (Echegaray, 2012). These organizations position themselves as agents of social and cultural change and become exposed to citizens' potential demands (Echegaray, 2012).

3 METHODOLOGY

According to Torraco (2016), integrative reviews can review, criticize, and synthesize the literature about a mature topic, propose (re)concepts, and learn emerging issues and possible contradictions, proposing a preliminary idea of the subject. Thus, the current integrative review focuses on studies that discuss political consumerism, highlighting three bodies of literature: the precedents of political consumerism, the factors influencing and motivating this type of consumption, and political consumers' actions. With all this in view, the structure followed by this review is conceptual (thematic) since it establishes lines of thought present in the literature (Torraco, 2016). The review was conducted considering Torraco’s (2016) orientations.

Since bibliographic quality is vital to a review, as that is the data to be used (Torraco, 2016), this integrative review searched for empirical-theoretical articles and reviews in two databases, aiming to include the largest amount of relevant literature possible. The WOS and Scopus databases provided the articles to gain a reliable panorama of the research field. To consider the variations of the term "political consumerism", the (*) symbol was used, and no other terms were included. Thus, the search term was politic*_consum*, which had to be in the article's title.

The database searches occurred on June 18^th and 19^th, 2021. Articles were not limited by publication language, though all the articles in the search (after the first refining) were in English. The publication period was from 2005 to 2021, considering Stolle, Hooghe, & Micheletti’s (2005) article as the starting point. The starting point meets one of Torraco’s (2016) objectives, which states that an integrative literature review must systematically research recent and old publications.

The articles from the first search were refined by document type and area of knowledge. Only articles and reviews published in journals were included, guaranteeing the double-blind review process. The articles involved social science, business, environmental, and multidisciplinary subjects. After the refining, the following exclusion criteria were applied: i) duplicated articles among the databases; ii) duplicated articles in the database; iii) restricted access articles; iv) articles’ abstracts that did not include the aspects of consumption or consumer behavior in political consumerism; v) articles that only cited “consumerism/consumer behavior” in the abstract but did not reinforce the concepts in the complete text. All of the established criteria were chosen to meet another of Torraco’s (2016) objectives, which states that criteria to include or discard the literature must be consistent with the purpose and aim of the review. Thus, Table 1 shows the search specifications.

As can be observed in Table 1, the search was carried out in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, resulting in 41 and 95 articles, respectively. Since Scopus had the most significant number of articles, it dismissed 39 duplicated articles from WOS. One article was indexed twice in the Scopus database, removing one more duplicated article. Restricted access articles were removed, as well as studies that did not meet the subject requirements, verified after reading the abstract or the whole text. Thus, ten articles in WOS and 26 in Scopus remained, totaling 36 studies in the integrative review.

The next stage organized the data for analysis on Excel. Content analysis of the thematic qualitative type was carried out (Bardin, 1977). The data were categorized using the research questions laid out in the introduction of this article. The analysis followed three stages proposed by Bardin (1997): (i) pre-analysis: fluctuating reading of the articles, familiarizing with the material; (ii) exploration of the material: selection of text fragments for the created categories; and (iii) data treatment and interpretation, which consists of delimitating the category analyses and finding relations between the articles.

Afterward, satisfying Torraco’s (2016) requirement, a synthesis was created, proposing a new conceptual structure in light of the findings of this integrative review. The synthesis can be done in four ways: research agenda, taxonomy, structural concept, or metaphoric concept (Torraco, 2005). Thus, in this review, the structural concept synthesis was chosen using a framework of related knowledge in the literature with significant contributions. According to Torraco (2005), conceptual logic and reasoning are fundamental to explaining the created structure or model followed by this work. The following topics look to integratively examine the problems, leading to a better understanding of political consumerism.

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The following topic presents the characterizations of the selected articles. After, the articles that comprise the integrative review are analyzed and categorized according to the three questions.

4.1 Characterization of the Selected Articles

Based on the established criteria, the review included 36 articles. Most of the articles were found on Scopus (72.2%), proving it is an important search and storage engine about the subject. Among the selected articles, only one was written by Brazilian researchers, which shows it could be a fruitful field to develop research in the national context. Figure 1 presents the evolution of the publications about political consumerism.

Based on the graph above, the publications about the subject are not constant, with periods of growth and decrease in the last 15 years. Since political consumerism is linked to political, economic, and social events, there is the possibility that such periods are justified by those events, which could be the target of future research. Concerning the method used in the publications, most of the research used quantitative methods. Thus, there are possibilities to broaden qualitative research about the subject to understand its subjective issues. Figure 2 presents the methods used in this review's articles.

Figure 3 shows the journals with the most publications about political consumption. Several journals are focused on politics or consumerism. The most prolific authors are Laura Copeland, with four published articles; Dietlind Stole, Marc Hoghe, Michele Michelleti, Lisa A. Neilson, Melissa Goetlieb, and Robert H. Wicks, each with two published articles.

Although this information is broad, it may help researchers who will work with the subject because such descriptions offer researchers information about the field of study, namely, the leading journals, authors, and methods. For further contributions, the following topics present a synthesis of the knowledge about the subject, proposing advances and critical analysis.

4.2 The Precedents of Political Consumerism

The articles that have pertinent contributions to the field are in this section. These articles point out the elements that affect consumerism and consumer behavior leading to political posturing. Thus, the factors that impact the growth of this type of consumerism in society are below.

According to Balsagier (2010), the studies about political consumerism have underestimated the relevance of social movements, such as NGO campaigns, as drivers of political consumerism. In the same way, other studies also point out that social movements can be considered one of the precedents of political consumption (e.g., Michelleti & Stolle, 2008; Balsagier, 2010; Bossy, 2014; Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017). For example, Goetlied and Thorson's (2017) results show that consumers' connections to reference groups linked to civic and political movements may mobilize young consumers, even if they are not concerned with a particular cause. Scruggs et al. (2011) research found that participation in associations, unions, churches, and environmental groups increases political consumerism.

Michelleti and Stolle (2008) affirm that activist networks have looked to use the mobilization power accumulated through consumer consciousness. Goetlieb and Thorson (2017) suggest that the motivation of social identification may lead young consumers to participate in public and organized acts because such participation can show solidarity and connection (Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017). Concerning teenagers, school activities, parental influence, and church attendance lead to greater political participation because such systems favor citizen connection to common causes (Wicks et al., 2013). Thus, it can be inferred that the relationship between consumers, activists, and people connected to social movements greatly influences political consumerism in society. As shown in Brockerhoff and Qassoum’s study, one of the motives that political consumerism has not established itself in Palestine is that the leaders reject boycotts due to their lifestyle, which is different from most of the regional population.

Balsagier (2010) shows that the political consumption of sustainable clothing in Switzerland is not a spontaneous and individual mobilization of consumers but part of a campaign made by the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) with consumers and other agents in their respective roles. Thus, a double role involves social movements linked to NGOs and activists. Balsagier (2010) exemplifies that even if the campaign speaks for consumers, it is through the campaign that consumers are informed and can participate in the political aspects of their consumer behavior.

Consequently, companies have started to consider social justice as a practice (Michelleti & Stolle, 2008), and new actors have emerged, such as certified companies, audit firms, joint business ventures, and social entrepreneurs (Balsagier, 2010). A new form of political consumerism arises here called discursive political consumerism, which involves other company aspects such as image, brand, and reputation (Michelleti & Stolle, 2008). This new form of political consumption involves different tools, especially communication, to create public consciousness, where social responsibility is interesting for the corporate world (Michelleti & Stolle, 2008).

Balsigier (2010) states that consumers and their motivations do not make consumption political, but political business people do. Thus, social entrepreneurs are responsible for creating a successful "ethical market," although its emergence is incentivized by social movements such as campaigns (Balsagier, 2010). On the other hand, Michelleti and Stolle (2008) affirm that companies’ effort comes from competition, which forces them to meet political consumers’ demands because of the capitalist logic – called late-stage capitalism. Concerning this topic, Jacobsen and Dulsurut (2007) observe that commercial interests are present in the market for ethical products since producers seek profits and above-average price margins.

Other questions at the macrosocial level precede political consumption. In other words, some issues precede addressing personal and political problems outside electoral politics, such as the societal changes in industrial and post-industrial economies and expanding educational opportunities (Baek, 2011). Bossy (2014) emphasizes the cultural changes over the last decades as the main factor for political consumers. Thus, changes are occurring with organic foods, just commerce, news habits, and even the idea that infinite growth is impossible (Bossy, 2014).

Therefore, it can be observed that political consumption is treated firstly as an individual movement of political participation (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). After reading the selected texts, they show that other actors contribute to political consumerism, such as activists, NGOs, and social entrepreneurs (Balsagier, 2010; Michelleti & Stolle, 2008). There are also macrosocial changes occurring, involving the cultural aspects of sustainable development of human activity (e.g., Bossy, 2014). Since few articles in this review addressed the precedents of political consumerism, this field is open for future research to investigate and understand.

4.3 Personal Influences and Motivation Factors for Political Consumerism

This category presents the personal influence and motivation factors that drive consumers to political consumption, expressing their demands and discontent. After analyzing the selected articles, the main influencing factors were sociodemography, political ideology, political discontent, the influence of social media, and individualism.

Regarding the sociodemographic factors, higher income, higher education, and an urban residence make consumers turn to political consumerism more (Arckermann & Gundelach, 2020; Copeland & Boulianne, 2020; Hooghe & Goubin, 2020; Nonomura, 2016; Echegaray, 2015; Copeland, 2014; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Neilson & Paxton, 2010). Moreover, the articles point out that women are more likely to consume politically (Hooghe, & Goubin, 2020; Sittler et al., 2020; Nonomura, 2016; Quintelier, 2014; Copeland, 2014; Zúñiga, Copeland, & Bimber, 2013; Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Sandovici & Davis, 2010; Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). Women are more involved in this type of consumerism when they identify with egalitarian gender ideology (Lorenzini & Bassoli, 2015). One explanation for women’s greater involvement is that they know more about the products available in the market (Sandovici & Davis, 2010). Concerning religion, political consumers tend to follow universal religious values, although religious beliefs may vary according to the consumer's type (Wicks et al., 2017). For example, a religious person tends to boycott more (Sandovici & Davis, 2010).

Concerning political ideology in general, consumers with left-leaning preferences are more favorable to political consumerism (Arckermann & Gundelach, 2020; Hooghe & Goubin, 2020; Brockerhoff & Qassoum, 2019). Thus, this consumerism is strongly connected to left-wing parties, such as the green or communist parties (Brockerhoff & Qassoum, 2019). People with political engagement are also more favorable to political consumerism (Neilson & Paxton, 2010). Baek (2010) states that dualcotters, consumers who boycott and buycott, are more politically savvy than people who do only one.

Another factor that influences political consumerism is the discontent about politics (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020; Kyroglou & Henn, 2020; Echegaray, 2015; Copeland, 2014; Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Berlin, 2011; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Scruggs et al., 2011; Baek, 2010). The more one trusts institutions, the less one engages in political consumerism (Neilson & Paxton, 2011). On the other hand, when distrust in political institutions increases, the likelihood of political consumption increases considerably (Copeland, 2014; Newman & Bartels, 2011). Beyond political institutions, political consumerism tends to increase when consumers find themselves unsatisfied with traditional authority institutions such as businesses or the government (Scruggs et al., 2011). In this way, political consumerism is understood as a product of consumers’ dissatisfaction and discontent with traditional authority institutions (Scruggs et al., 2011). These feelings motivate people to search and create new forms of expressing political views (Echegaray, 2015). Scruggs et al. (2011) point out three circumstances that make individuals more inclined to political consumption, being: (i) the perception that current conditions in a given area are bad; (ii) the issue is important to the consumer; and (iii) when consumers directly associate the problem with consumption.

Even if political consumers are involved in political life, they do not entirely trust the government or elected officials (Newman & Bartels, 2011). So, these consumers understand that there are other ways of achieving their political objectives beyond “traditional” means (Newman & Bartels, 2011). Consumer networks are built on general trust to address social problems and meet political goals (Baek, 2010). With this influence factor in mind, the low credibility of political institutions makes individuals seek other ways of being heard and expressing their demands. Thus, they act through consumption because it is feasible for many people.

Another factor that influences political consumerism is individualism since consumers act on an individual level to have their demands recognized by public institutions and companies. This individualism is related to people's political positions, not depending on large institutions but using, for example, online petitions (Barcellos, Teixeira, & Venturini, 2014). However, even if it is individual, political consumerism only reaches its objective of communicating a demand or discontent when individual beliefs are shared by the collective (Kam & Deichert, 2019).

Therefore, political consumerism can be understood as individual collaborative actions (Bossy, 2014) because it depends on groups and alliances of individuals (Jacobsen & Dulsrud, 2007). So, personal responsibility culminates in collective participation to achieve political goals (Johnson, 2019). In light of this, it is worth considering that although political consumerism is collective, it can mean many things at the individual level (Bossy, 2014). For example, vegetarians and vegans are seen as a group, but individually their reasons could be animal rights, the environment, reaching a social status, or health (Vilela, 2017), among other factors.

Lastly, social and digital media also influence political consumerism, strongly connected to obtaining information (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020; Kelm & Dohle, 2018). These media provide consumers with a virtual space to meet and share knowledge and experience (Gotlieb & Thorson, 2017). According to Wicks et al. (2013, p. 12), "(…) online media facilitates people's political engagement". In Brazil's case, social media and the internet as a whole have provided a new structure in which young consumers can debate and mobilize (Barcellos, Teixeira, & Venturini, 2014). Thus, the production of information is as relevant a factor impacting political consumption as obtaining information. Social identification will occur if the information is well made, contributing to consumers' collective actions (Gotlieb & Cheema, 2016). Social and digital media also provide a means of transforming an individual perspective into collective action through intermediated connections (Gotlieb & Thorson, 2017). According to Wicks et al. (2013), greater participation in political consumerism leads to increased social media use for information.

Most of the articles in this review concentrate on personal influences and motives that lead the consumer (individually) to political consumption (see Arckermann & Gundelach, 2020; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Baek, 2010). Most of the studies followed quantitative analyses, so there are likely limitations concerning consumers' cultural aspects and practices. In this way, there are possibilities for future studies that use the qualitative methodology in this field of study. There are also few studies about influences and motives that do not cause political consumerism. Brockerhoff and Qassoum (2019) wrote one of the few articles about the subject, but in a particular context: Palestine.

4.4 Political Consumer Actions

This section lays out the activities and actions carried out by political consumers in relation to purchasing behavior. Moreover, there are similarities and differences between consumers who boycott, buycott, and dualcott.

The first actions connected to political consumption were the boycott and buycott (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005). Both are actions that use the consumer's purchasing power (Jacobsen & Dulsurut, 2007) to stimulate social change and civic engagement (Neilson & Paxton, 2010). Consumers act to preserve the environment, pressure policy and politics, or criticize work conditions (Quintelier, 2014). Consumption becomes a means of political participation where “voting” is done at the cashier, aiming to change the practice of some market agents (Jacobesen & Dulsurut, 2007).

Although Hooghe and Goubin (2020) show that 65% of a survey in Belgium believe that boycotts are efficient, the authors found that a minimal amount of people actually got involved in a boycott on products or services. However, activists have avoided boycotts because they concluded that such actions could be more harmful than helpful since companies can lay off workers and transfer their operations to other countries (Michelleti & Hooghe, 2008). Adding to this, Stolle, Hooghe, and Michelleti (2005) and Neilson (2010) mention that the number of individuals who opt for buycotts is larger than boycotts. On the other hand, Baek (2010) identified more boycotters than buycotters.

Boycotts are related to obtaining online information, which influences people more than offline information (Kelm & Dohle, 2018). It is possible that online information influences boycotts because the success of a boycott depends on collective action (Kelm & Dohle, 2018). Kam and Deichert (2019) add that the decision to boycott is easier when there is a comparable substitute for the product or service. However, buycotts happen easier when similar products are in the same price and quality range (Kam & Deichert, 2019).

Neilson (2010) shows differences and similarities between individuals who prefer boycotts or buycotts. According to the author, both types are altruists, though their trust in institutions varies. Boycotters are linked to lower confidence in institutions while buycotters trust more, so the latter are receptive to corporate statements that address sustainability (Neilson, 2010). According to Michelleti and Hooghe (2008), some NGOs believe buycotts are more constructive for sustainable development. Buycotts do not prohibit anything; they only direct consumption to a specific cause.

Some political consumers opt for both actions, buycotting and boycotting, called dualcotters (Baek, 2010; Copeland, 2014). Baek’s (2010) study reveals that dualcotters outnumber boycotters and buycotters. According to Copeland (2014), dualcotters follow rigid rules, are more educated, and are more involved in traditional politics. Thus, when dualcotters buy a product, they also boycott the competition (Copeland, 2014). Another difference is that dualcotters are relatively more affluent (Baek, 2010).

Therefore, political consumers answer the call for social responsibility, but they distrust political institutions and demand improvements (Berlin, 2011). Consumers adopt constant attitudes once they understand that mass consumption is harmful (Bossy, 2014). With this in light, organic, local, and fair production becomes a rational and ideal choice to promote (Bossy, 2014). It can be affirmed that there is coherence between political consumers’ ideals and practices (Bossy, 2014). Echegaray's (2015) study stated that in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, between 15 and 29% of citizens opt to consume politically to influence the political and social order. Thus, Latin American political consumers believe they hold more influence over large companies than the government, highlighting the market as an area to seek public goods (Echegaray, 2015). Lastly, few studies addressed the effects and influences of consumer action on market reconfiguration, opening the possibility for future research in this area.

4.5 Critical Analysis

Although there is a reasonable number of articles about political consumerism in the Scopus and WOS databases, most concentrate on personal influence factors and political consumer stratification (see Arckerman & Gundelach, 2020; Hooghe & Goubin, 2020; Brockerhoff & Qassoum, 2019; Nonomura, 2016; Becker & Copeland, 2015; Neilson, 2010).

However, this integrative review retrieved other important subjects such as political consumption precedents and consumer actions (see Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017; Bossy, 2014; Balsagier, 2010; Jacobsen & Dulsurut, 2010; Michelleti & Stolle, 2008). Through the precedents, one understands what comes before buycotting and boycotting, not only on the individual level but also in social movements. By understanding consumer actions, one can comprehend how and in what way this political consumption manifests.

With the selected articles in mind, the authors propose a framework showing the phases of political consumerism according to the actions promoted by the actors involved (Figure 4).

Based on Figure 4, it can be understood that discursive political consumption is related to activists and NGOs, which are politically organized and defend certain ideologies (Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017; Balsagier, 2010; Michelleti & Stolle, 2008), with the actors being crucial in this phase. These actors raise individuals’ awareness about their positions and political, ethical, and environmental goals through social movements, campaigns, and online communities (Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017; Balsagier, 2010; Michelleti & Stolle, 2008). In this phase, activists and NGOs also mobilize individuals in favor of the actions they defend (Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017).

These actions from activists and NGOs give rise to political consumerism’s second phase: the boycott. In this phase, the main actor is the consumer, who stakes out a position by rejecting a particular company or product (Goetlieb & Thorson, 2017; Balsagier, 2010). Although boycotting is an individual action, its success or effect is only felt if there is collective mobilization (Kam & Deichert, 2019; Kelm & Dohle, 2018; Balsagier, 2010). That is why discursive political consumerism is relevant and is a precursor of the other phases.

As the consumers obtain information, social identification is generated, contributing to consumers' collective action (Gotlieb & Chema, 2016). There is a lack of consensus about the best way to go about communication between activists, NGOs, and consumers. While Gotlieb and Thorson (2017) affirm that social and digital media transform an individual perspective into a collective action using connections, Kelm and Dohle (2018) state that face-to-face communication influences political consumption more, even though online information is more present in boycotting.

When a consumer's individual boycotting has enough collective engagement, the next phase starts: the buycott. This practice occurs because boycotts show the market consumers' demands and petitions. In other words, this type of political consumerism tells the market what it should not do (Neilson & Paxton, 2010). Companies are the main actors in this phase because their actions make purchasing viable within political consumerism.

Once companies understand consumer complaints, corporate social responsibility actions are established to answer the complaints (Michelleti & Stolle, 2008). Social entrepreneurs who seek to create their companies to meet a certain political positioning or ideology, i.e., new demands, emerge here (Balsagier, 2010). In these cases, consumers buycott to encourage these companies' actions, buying their products and services (Stolle, Hooghe & Michelleti, 2005, Neilson, 2010).

It is worth mentioning that buycotting is not always done by individuals who boycott, but it can happen, called dualcott (Baek, 2010). More people participate in political consumerism once a market niche is created based on social justice, ethics, environmental protection, and politics. Stolle, Hooghe, and Michelleti (2005) and Neilson (2010) show that there are more buycotters than boycotters. That said, buycotting occurs more if the price and quality differences between the products are minor (Kam & Deichert, 2019). Moreover, consumers understand that mass consumerism is harmful, and they constantly and rationally opt for fair, local, and organic production (Bossy, 2014).

The authors doubt that the resource-based model of political participation, the importance of micro-level predictors of political participation, and political lifestyle theories can explain the phenomenon (Copeland & Boulianne, 2020). Furthermore, this integrative review confirmed that political consumption is more associated with civic engagement, rather than a general index of political participation as portrayed by Zúñiga, Copeland, and Bimber (2013), taking into account broader issues such as social justice, ethics, and sustainability (Bossy, 2014; Michelletti and Stolle, 2008). Thus, the theories used to understand political consumption are ineffective in comprehending the phenomenon and its diversity of precedents, influences, actors, and actions. The framework presented here is a new conceptual approach to understanding the phenomenon, such as the Consumer Culture Theory (CCT), the new theoretical method of Constructivist Market Studies, and Dynamic Market Systems, which can provide more contributions to the study of political consumption.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to integrate the literature about political consumerism, highlighting three areas: the precedents of political consumption, personal influences that lead to political consumerism, and how these consumers act. To this end, an integrative review of the literature about the subject was made, in which 36 articles were analyzed. After the analyses, a framework was created which represents the critical analysis of new political consumerism and its inter-relations.

Regarding the precedents of political consumption, it was found that the bonds with organized social groups and campaigns are milestones that usually precede purchasing or not. The mobilization power of these groups is relevant for political consumption to occur; thus, communication plays a prominent role in creating public awareness. The emergence of other actors, such as product and company certification and auditing, which contribute to consumers gaining access to information that can guide their consumption, is also noteworthy.

Personal influences and motivations for political consumption find their basis in sociodemographic factors. It was verified that individuals with higher income and more education are more inclined to political consumerism, and women are more inclined than men. People oriented by a left-wing political ideology are also more inclined to political consumption. However, people with political engagement are generally predisposed to this type of consumption. Discontent with politics and traditional institutions of authority also increase the propensity for political consumption, as does individual willingness to take a political stand.

The way political consumers act is related to the boycott (not buying a product), the buycott (purchasing products and services to encourage specific company actions, and the dualcott (when consumers do both). Although they express different consumer behavior and political participation, they all seek to achieve social change. Finally, digital and social media influence political consumption, mainly by providing information and establishing connections between individuals who have the same position.

This article contributes in three ways. The first contribution is related to the compilation of the primary studies involving the theme, the mapping of the field, and the presentation of the main topics developed. In this sense, creating the framework can help future researchers improve their data collection and analysis and explore the relations between the types of political consumerism. The second contribution refers to the different political consumer profiles and influences, allowing companies to design strategies to offer products/services to this market niche. Last, the third contribution is related to the importance of social movements for social change and political consumption, emphasizing the importance of collectivity and communication between individuals and companies in the third sector.

As to the limitations of this study, it is understood that even though two databases relevant to the social sciences area were used, the initial selection of articles might not have included all articles related to political consumerism. The limitation of this study lies in the fact that it is not possible to affirm that this article covered all the articles already published on this theme. Thus, future studies should integrate other databases, considering their relevance to Administration. The authors also suggest using qualitative analysis software, where it would be possible to validate the analyses performed manually.

REFERENCES

Baek, Y. M. (2010). To buy or not to buy: Who are political consumers? What do they think and how do they participate?. Political Studies, 58(5), 1065-1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00832.x

Balsiger, P. (2010). Making political consumers: The tactical action repertoire of a campaign for clean clothes. Social Movement Studies, 9(3), 311-329.

Barcellos, M. D., Teixeira, C. M., & Venturini, J. C. (2014). Personal values associated with political consumption: An exploratory study with university students in Brazil. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12084

Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Becker, A. B., & Copeland, L. (2016). Networked publics: How connective social media use facilitates political consumerism among LGBT Americans. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1131655

Bellido-Pérez, E. (2019). El consumo político de moda: Buycott y slow fashion en Instagram. Zer, 24(46) 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1387/zer.20551

Berlin, D. (2011). Sustainable consumers and the state: Exploring how citizens' trust and distrust in institutions spur political consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(3), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.603207

Bossy, S. (2014). The utopias of political consumerism: The search of alternatives to mass consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 179-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514526238

Bröckerhoff, A., & Qassoum, M. (2019). Consumer boycott amid conflict: The situated agency of political consumers in the occupied Palestinian territory. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540519882483

Copeland, L., & Boulianne, S. (2020). Political consumerism: a meta-analysis. International Politic Science Review, 43(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120905048

Copeland, L. (2014). Conceptualizing political consumerism: How citizenship norms differentiate boycotting from buycotting. Political studies, 62, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12067

Echegaray, F. (2012). Votando na prateleira: A politização do consumo na América. Opinião Pública, 18(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-62762012000100003

Echegaray, F. (2015). Voting at the marketplace: Political consumerism in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 20(2), 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2015.0032

Endres, K., & Panagopoulos, C. (2017). Boycotts, buycotts, and political consumerism in America. Research and Politics, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017738632

Gotlieb, M. R. (2015). Civic, cooperative or contrived? A functional approach to political consumerism motivations. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 552-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12227

Gotlieb, M. R., & Cheema, S. E. (2017). From consumer to producer: motivations, internet use, and political consumerism. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 570-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1202301

Gotlieb, M. R., & Thorson, K. (2017). Connected political consumers: transforming personalized politics among youth into broader repertoires of action. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(8), 1044-1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1305101

Halkier, B., & Holm, L. (2008). Food consumption and political agency: on concerns and practices among Danish consumers. Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(1), 667-674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00695.x

Hooghe, M., & Goubin, S. (2020). The democratic potential of political consumerism: The effect of visibility bias and social stratification. International Political Science Review, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120935931

Jacobsen, E., & Dulsrud, A. (2007). Will consumers save the world? The framing of political consumerism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(5), 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9043-z

Johnson, O., Hall-Phillips, A., Chung, T. L., & Cho, H. (2019). Are You Connected Through Consumption? The Role of Hashtags in Political Consumption. Social Media+ Society, 5(4), 2056305119883427. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883427

Kam, C. D., & Deichert, M. (2020). Boycotting, buycotting, and the psychology of political consumerism. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 72-88. https://doi.org/10.1086/705922

Kelm, O., & Dohle, M. (2018). Information, communication and political consumerism: How (online) information and (online) communication influence boycotts and buycotts. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1523-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817699842

Kyroglou, G., & Henn, M. (2020). Pulled in and pushed out of politics: The impact of neoliberalism on young people’s differing political consumerist motivations in the UK and Greece. International Political Science Review, 0192512120935521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120935521

Lorenzini, J., & Bassoli, M. (2015). Gender ideology: The last barrier to women’s participation in political consumerism? International journal of comparative sociology, 56(6), 460-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715215625726

Melo, L. (2018). Aumenta o número de brasileiros que compram ou boicotam uma marca por posicionamentos sociais ou políticos. O Globo.

Merabet, D. D. O. B., & Barros, D. F. (2019). Performatividade Crítica e Formação de Mercados: Uma Reflexão Teórica para Investigação do Consumo Político de Produtos Orgânicos e Agroecológicos. Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 43.

Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2008). Fashioning social justice through political consumerism, capitalism, and the internet. Cultural studies, 22(5), 749-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380802246009

Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.313

Neilson, L. A., & Paxton, P. (2010). Social capital and political consumerism: A multilevel analysis. Social Problems, 57(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.1.5

Newman, B. J., & Bartels, B. L. (2011). Politics at the checkout line: Explaining political consumerism in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 803-817. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910379232

Nonomura, R. (2016). Political consumerism and the participation gap: Are boycotting and ‘buycotting’ youth-based activities? Journal of Youth Studies, 20(2), 234-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1206861

Pérez-Aradros, C. G. G. (2018). Externalización de costes y consumo político. Cuaderno Jurídico y Político, 4(12), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.5377/cuadernojurypol.v4i12.11119

Piia, J.; Markus, V., & Mari, N. (2019). Veganism and plant-based eating: analysis of interplay between discursive strategies and lifestyle political consumerism. The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.52

Portilho, F. (2020). Ativismo alimentar e consumo político - Duas gerações de ativismo alimentar no Brasil. Redes (St. Cruz Sul, Online), 25(2), 411-432. https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v25i2.15088

Quintelier, E. (2014). The influence of the Big 5 personality traits on young people’s political consumer behavior. Young Consumers, 15(4), 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-09-2013-00395

Rössel, J., & Schenk, P. H. (2018). How political is political consumption? The case of activism for the global south and fair trade. Social Problems, 65(2), 266-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx022

Sandovici, M. E., & Davis, T. (2010). Activism gone shopping: An empirical exploration of individual-level determinants of political consumerism and donating. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 328-356. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913209X12499527665468

Scruggs, L., Hertel, S., Best, S. J., & Jeffords, C. (2011). Information, choice and political consumption: Human rights in the checkout lane. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(4), 1092-1121. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2011.0062

Sittler, I. C., Bobek, V., Vide, R. K., Justinek, G., & Horvat, T. (2020). Political consumerism in emerging markets: The case of Argentina. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 11(3), 303-323. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2020.10031686

Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053784

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, 4(3), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

Vilela, D. B. L. (2017). Consumo político e ativismo vegano: dilemas da politização do consumo na vida cotidiana. Estudos Sociedade e Agricultura, 25(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.36920/esa-v25n2-7

Wicks, J. L., Morimoto, S., Wicks, R. H., & Schulte, S. R. (2017). Are Religious Factors Associated with Political Consumerism? An Exploratory Study. Journal of Media and Religion, 16(3), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2017.1361701

Wicks, R. H., & Warren, R. (2014). Modeling political consumerism among young consumers: An ecological systems approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(6), 738-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515991

Zúñiga, H. G., Copeland, L., & Bimber, B. (2014). Political consumerism: civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media Society, 16(3), 488-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960

Contextus – Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão

Download

Metadata

GO