{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0457516339869281, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04212055192447349, 'mean_word_length': 5.686893203883495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Buying for a Better Tomorrow? – A Literature Review of Fair Trade Consumer Motivations

This research summarizes and analyzes the academic literature on motivations of consumers of Fair Trade products. Basic disciplinary, methodological approaches and thematic emphases are described. Ethical consumption, labeling, and the significance of meaning and identity in consumption of Fair Trade are the three main themes found to predominate in the literature. All three themes are found to be addressed across disciplines. Two major Fair Trade models, referred to in the paper as alternative and mainstream, found in the Fair Trade consumer literature, are shown to be linked to patterned variations in the central concerns of authors about ethical consumers, labeling and identity. The mainstream model favors incorporating Fair Trade products into the current global system in place on a larger mass-produced scale where economic solutions are going to push Fair Trade into a more sustainable path. This model was found to be more prevalent in literature in the Economic (Arnot (2010), Becchetti (2007), De Devitiis (2011), Loureiro (2005), Ozcaaglar-Toulouse (2006)), and Business disciplines (DePelsmacker (2005), Doran (2009), Ferran (2007), Gielissen (2011), Laine (2009), Morrell (2010), Nicholls and Opal (2004)). The alternative models are more concerned with finding different ways to sell and market Fair Trade products compared to the mainstream, and emphasize equity as well as economics as a solution for sustainability of the Fair Trade system. This model was found to be more prevalent in the Social Science litterature (Adams (2010), Brown (2009), Brown (2010), Clarke (2007), Howard (2010), Jaffee (2010), Low and Davenport (2009), Lyon (2006), Raynolds (2002), Soron (2010), Webb (2007), Zick Varul (2008)), Environmental Design and Politics (Fridell (2007)), Political Ecology (Bryant (2004)), Environmental Design and Politics (Political Science (Micheletti (2008)), and Design and Merchandising disciplines (Littrell (1999), Littrell (2010)). This paper contrasts the key differences in analysis of ethics, labeling, meaning and identity in consumer motivations within these two major Fair Trade models and suggests that better communication across disciplinary boundaries is needed. Also recommended is increased recognition and articulation of underlying assumptions of the different models of Fair Trade and acknowledgement of their influence on research questions and conclusions. This research makes evident the need for more empirical research on consumers of Fair Trade and increased integration of broader understandings derived from research across disciplines to increase the capacity of Fair Trade to deliver on its promises.