Microsoft Word - V14.2 McGregor.docx Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 140 Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 ISSN 2578-6857 http://www.infactispax.org/journal Consumer Moral Leadership Sue L. T. McGregor Abstract Despite conceptualizations of moral leadership, the literature is silent on consumer moral leadership proposed herein as a new intellectual construct. This conceptual paper reframes consumers as marketplace leaders grounded in a moral imperative. An overview of the moral leadership construct is provided from which sprang a collection of genitor constructs integrated into a new understanding of moral leadership in the consumer context: moral intelligence, discipline, integrity, courage, self-transcendence, intensity, and authority. Reasoning and argumentation strove to convince readers of the conceptual merit of the consumer moral leadership construct, which is, as yet, abstract anticipating theoretical verification. Keywords: consumer moral leadership, moral leadership, morality, moral efficacy, ethical and moral consumerism Introduction The problem addressed in this paper is the need for consumer leadership in the marketplace to augment the fallout of consumerism perpetuated by consumer management. This paper challenges the longstanding assumption that consumer’s efficient management of resources is enough. It tenders a new construct called consumer moral leadership, which is predicated on people being self-efficacious moral leaders in their consumption practices. Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 141 141 Consumerism Ideology “The role of consumption and the ideology of consumerism are key elements in modern global cultures and societies” (Hinkins, 2007, p. 44). Although consumerism can mean different things to different people (Gabriel & Lang, 1995), in this paper, consumerism connotes an ideology with an attendant belief system, and consumption refers to behaviour stemming from the ideology. In more detail, Sklair (2010, p. 136) described the ideology of consumerism as “a set of beliefs and values, integral but not exclusive to the system of capitalist globalization, intended to make people believe that human worth is best ensured and happiness is best achieved in terms of our consumption and possessions.” The consumerism ideology (cultural blueprint) “shapes the very assumptions that consumers hold about power relationships, preferred market dynamics, presumed rights and responsibilities and how people make sense of their role as a consumer” (McGregor, 2013, p. 6). Consumers as Efficient Managers Hand in hand with this problematization of consumerism is the longstanding notion of efficient consumer managers instead of moral leaders in the marketplace. The notion of consumers as efficient managers arose from the home economics discipline at the turn of the twentieth century (Berger, 1984; Key & Firebaugh, 1989; McGregor, 2009). Founders of the profession reasoned that bringing scientific principles to the study of the home, at a time when consumerism was gaining ground, would empower individuals and families to fight back against the pitfalls of industrialization and capitalism. Efficient management of scarce resources to improve well-being and quality of life was the mantra of the day (Brown, 1993). She explained that home economists strove to improve economic and consumer well-being “through efficiency in management” (Brown, 1993, p. 49). This “efficiency is exercised by ... the management of economic resources” (p. 50) with management meaning handling things – Latin manus, ‘hand’ (Harper, 2020). Consumers were to ensure efficiency in their behaviour (i.e., handlings resources to meet needs and wants with minimum waste) by privileging competitive self-interest, individualism, and consumer rights. Over time, it became evident that a focus on consumer efficiency when managing resources compromised social efficacy and caring for others and the planet (Brown, 1993). She maintained that consumers were distracted from the larger issue of whether the economic and political systems, which are dependent on consumerism (an ideology) and consumption (a behaviour), had threatened their ability to fulfill Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 142 142 human and societal needs beyond their own self-interest. Brown thus argued that such a heavy focus on being efficient consumer managers had led to “a lack of moral responsibility within the family” (1993, p. 52). Home economics has since enhanced its approach to consumer and family well-being with global perspectives, sustainability and consumers as global citizens (see McGregor, 2002), but this initial awareness coincided with the ethical consumerism movement and its concern for ethics and morality in consumer decisions. The 1980s decade of the ‘green consumer’ lead to the ethical consumerism movement, which, “by the early 1990s, was starting to gain attention ... as an exciting innovation” (Anderson, 2015, p. 108). But despite its innovative nature, consumers were simply expected to shift from being efficient managers to sustainable, efficient managers, and always with the expectation that consuming is their major contribution to the economy and thus society (Brown, 1993). Requisite Paradigm Shift With ethical consumption, the “concern is primarily for others, distanced by geography, class, species or generality” (Newholm, Newholm, & Shaw, 2015, p. 301). But the concept of leadership was never explicit in the equation for transforming consumption to an ethical imperative (McGregor & Shaw, 2006). Not surprisingly, conceptualizing people as moving from efficient managers to moral leaders will require a paradigm shift, because despite there being an ongoing “consumption ethic” since Adam Smith’s work in the 1750s (Newholm et al., 2015, p. 290), the uncritical assumption has been that consumers will be ethical and efficient managers of their own resources not leaders in the marketplace for the benefit of others and the Earth. Peace Educators and Consumerism Some people in the peace education field have acknowledged that consumerism is not peaceful, because it reinforces and depends on structural violence and hinges on people being efficient managers of scare resources, so they can meet their own self-interests when consuming (McGregor, 2010, 2016). Fellow peace educators also interested in non-violent, just, responsible and accountable consumption may be looking for alternative ways to reorient people to engage in consumer decisions that are moral, ethical and inflict nominal harm. This type of peace education would require teaching people how to be consumer moral leaders not just efficient managers. Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 143 143 Such an approach to peace education is necessary, because consumers often encounter moral situations and grapple with morally irresponsible and morally risky behaviour. Such behaviour can lead to exploitation, oppression, marginalization and disadvantaged scenarios for fellow humans (Neilsen & McGregor, 2013). In his seminal paper Consuming Morality, Wilk (2001) posited that “consumption is in essence a moral matter” (p. 269). Put simply, consumers are “subjects of moral obligation” (Cherrier, 2006, p. 515). Moral consumers are “motivated by desire to be better people” (Jelovac & Rihtaršič, 2014, p. 87) in the marketplace for the betterment of everything. To respect the moral imperative at play (with imperative meaning a strongly felt principle that compels people to act), this conceptual paper focuses on the consumer moral leadership construct.1 As noted, this new conceptualization is intended to augment the longstanding consumer management construct. To elaborate, unlike management, leadership has normative connotations of a higher moral purpose (Safty, 2003). Morality pertains to harm arising from actions (Rozycki, 1993). Normative pertains to ‘What should be done or ought to be?’ rather than ‘What is being or can be done?’ Normative statements express a value judgement (i.e., taking one’s value system into account) about a situation (Wong, 1987). For clarification, this paper is not about moral management, which is a construct developed to study how well business managers apply the moral maximization principle when handling their workforce (Sikula, 1996). It concerns whether they went “against the grain, [took the] elevated ethical ground [and] walked the high road” while striving for profit (Sikula, 2009, pp. 253, 261). Consumer Accountability Imperative The premise of normatively focusing on consumers as moral leaders in the marketplace is deceptively complex. That said, if consumers are to assume accountability for the impact of their marketplace choices, they must move from viewing themselves as efficient managers to also being self-efficacious moral leaders. It is not unreasonable to ask consumers to assume this role, because they spend trillions of dollars annually on products that are not ethically sourced and produced (Assadourian & Mastny, 2017). Compared to businesses and governments, consumers spent two thirds (62.87%) of the global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2018 (Global Economy, 2019). With this spending power comes undeniable responsibility whether desired or not (McGregor, 2017). 1. An earlier version of this paper was published as a book chapter in McGregor (2010). Any overlapping material contained herein is used with copyright permission from Brill/Sense Publishing. Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 144 144 As a caveat, some take issue with this stance (e.g., John Broome, Slavoj Zizek), arguing instead that vulnerable consumers do not exert power through their shopping decisions, because they are powerless in the marketplace. Instead, the moral responsibility principle should be relegated to the nation state to make up for the lack of personal moral responsibility of the masses. It is governments, not consumers, that have the power to alter global hierarchies and structural inequalities that perpetuate unethical economies and markets (Peer Reviewer, personal communication, December 9, 2020). Albeit respectful of this counterpoint, the cumulative power of billions of consumers takes precedence in this paper. Dearth of Consumer Moral Leadership Literature As noted, implementing the new intellectual construct introduced in this paper will require an immense paradigm shift. To further explain, although moral leadership has received attention in the literature (Anello, 1992; Gini, 1996; Tamang, 2013; Vaduva, Alistar, Thomas, Lupiţu, & Neagoie, 2016), virtually nothing exists about consumer moral leadership proposed herein as an additional marketplace responsibility and opportunity. From a moral leadership perspective, people are paradigmatically being asked to rethink their consumer role by augmenting ‘managing for efficiency’ with ‘leading for moral efficacy.’ The latter is the ability to both “deal positively with ethical issues that arise . . . and overcome obstacles to developing and implementing ethical solutions” (May, Luth, & Schwoerer, 2014, p. 68). The moral imperative (i.e., guiding principle) is to mitigate harm thereby lessening the gravity or culpability of one’s marketplace actions (Rozycki, 1993). Conceptual Clarification While appreciating that these aligned constructs are interrelated, the consumer moral leadership construct purposefully deals with (a) leadership not management, (b) morality not ethics and (c) moral consumerism not ethical consumerism. Each is differentiated. Leader versus manager. Leaders work on changing the system, while managers work within it. Leaders proactively adapt and draw on principles to provide direction for transformation. Managers react to situations by gaining control of resources to efficiently maximize benefits (Covey, 1992). Consumer management pertains to people, in varying degrees, taking control of and regulating the use of their finances and other resources to meet needs (essential) Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 145 145 and wants (desirable) by using and disposing of goods and services procured from the marketplace. These management decisions represent varying degrees of ethical consumption. Asking people to make ethical consumption decisions in their management role is not the same thing as asking them to be moral leaders when confronting an ethically intense purchase situation with leadership intimating service (Anello, 2006; McGregor, 2010; Tamang, 2013). Morals versus ethics. The consumer moral leadership construct deals more so with morality than ethics appreciating their philosophical connection and frequent conflation. Put simply, morals are what people consider to be normative (should and ought to – right and wrong) and affect their thought and reasoning process. Ethics are standards used to judge the goodness and badness of one’s behaviour. Ethics are external codes (standards) that guide personal and collective behaviour, while morals are internal normative principles (i.e., a moral compass) that influence personal thoughts and decisions (e.g., “doing the right thing, living honourably, leading with high character”) (Weinstein, 2018, para. 1). Ethics (codes and standards) are developed purposefully over time, while morals are something people feel intuitively. Ethics guide and map decisions, but morals are used to normatively judge decisions – What should be done? (Weinstein, 2011, 2018). In effect, morals exemplify the idiom – think before you act. Moral versus ethical consumerism. Ethical consumerism was already introduced. “Moral consumerism has arisen [in conjunction with] the ethical consumerism trend [and involves taking] moral considerations into account [when purchasing]” (Tang et al., 2016, p. 152). Ethical consumerism is a type of external consumer activism (Giesler & Veresiu, 2014), while moral consumerism is internal and concerns whether purchase decisions are principled (i.e., morally correct) (Brinkman, 2004). Cain (2019) concurred that moral consumerism is principle based. Ethical consumerism is about freedom of choice, but moral consumerism is about actions and behaviour based on personal, principled integrity and thought processes (Jelovac & Rihtaršič, 2014). Method: Conceptual Integration The consumer moral leadership construct herein was developed through a research process called conceptual integration; that is, the intermixing of previously segregated, abstract ideas (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). The result is the articulation of definitions of contributing constructs along with posited systematized relations among them and between the new construct and the phenomenon in question (McGregor, 2018; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). The construct of consumer moral leadership frames consumers Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 146 146 as leaders in the marketplace acting from a position of morality. Morality comes into play when there is a chance that harm will result from an action (Rozycki, 1993). Conceptual papers such as this one report the results of integrative research (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). As in this paper, most new ideas presented this way are abstract and not theoretically proven; yet, they are considered valuable contributions to the literature if well argued (McLean, 2011; Saunders, 2018). The abstraction is usually expressed through word models, pictorial models or both (O’Toole, 2013; Smyth, 2004). A word model is a clear statement and description of all elements and any processes that link them to the research phenomenon (Kimmins, Blanco, Seely, Welham, & Scoullar, 2010). Also, conceptual papers are discursive in that they involve reasoning and argumentation to convince others of the conceptual merit (McGregor, 2018; McLean, 2011; Saunders, 2018). The discursive narrative shared in this paper includes an overview of the moral leadership construct from which sprung a collection of genitor constructs (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015) that were integrated into a new understanding of moral leadership in the consumer context – consumer moral leadership. This empirically untested abstraction and its supportive argument (developed using logic and rhetoric) are presented herein for scholarly consideration, debate and dialogue (Saunders, 2018). After explaining the moral leadership construct (including moral leaders in general), the discussion shifts to an elaboration of the new idea of consumer moral leadership. Moral Leadership Construct Although all leadership is irrevocably tied to morality (Safty, 2003), moral leadership is different from leadership in general (Sucher, 2007). Moral leaders strive to serve rather than be followed (Tamang, 2013). Lead is Old English lædan, ‘go before as a guide; show the way’ (Harper, 2020). Leadership in general is a process that enables people to achieve their goals by guiding and inspiring others. A leader brings a clear and compelling sense of the future as well as any actions needed to get there. The intent is to effect change (Covey, 1992). Morality is Latin moralite, ‘virtuous thought or conduct’ (Harper, 2020) with virtuous meaning of high moral standard. Morality is a concern for creating and mitigating harm (Rozycki, 1993). Until relatively recently, little attention was paid to the moral dimension of leadership (Gini, 1996; Safty, 2003). Consequently, a universally accepted definition of moral leadership is still Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 147 147 evolving (Johnson, 2003). Although moral leadership is hard to define (Gini, 1996; Johnson, 2003), leading from a moral perspective is basically about service to others, society and the world. This service, in turn, leads to personal empowerment and agency that enable people to contribute to societal transformation (Anello, 2006; Tamang, 2013). Moral Leaders By serving the needs and well-being of others, moral leaders strive to preserve human honour and dignity, which leads to a more deeply caring civilization and less harm to each other. To that end, moral leaders aspire to release each person’s potential and do so concurrently protecting the latter’s rights and freedoms while safeguarding the whole community’s welfare (Anello, 1992; Gini, 1996). Moral leaders act from a deep sense of ethics (e.g., consciousness and integrity). They are driven by core, moral ideals (e.g., justice and a respect for humanity) and motivated by the pursuit of a higher purpose than self-interest (Safty, 2003; Tamang, 2013). They are deeply certain about their moral beliefs and scrupulous in their efforts to use morally justifiable means to pursue their moral goals (Colby & Damon, 1992). In effect, “moral leaders are the conscience (i.e., the moral compass) of an enterprise . . . and the glue that holds it together” (Tamang, 2013, para. 4). Grounded in this conscience or moral voice, moral leaders demand and exercise transparency, accountability, and they expect behaviour of the highest ideals (Goode, 2010). They know how to temper their ego, manage themselves and act with morally correct behaviour (rectitude) to right or prevent moral wrongs. In the marketplace, they are expected to overcome selfishness, materialism and consumerism-driven ambition (Goode, 2010; Tamang, 2013). They can be effective in this role, because they “have the ability to see ‘the end in the beginning’” (Tamang, 2013, para. 11). This means they tend to step back and ponder the consequences of their actions before acting, knowing that these actions “are tested against values and not [just] . . . results” (Tamang, 2013, para. 12). “Moral leaders are not heroes of morality, but individuals . . . that strive to do things ethically, trying not to have a negative impact on stakeholders and pushing others to behave the same” (Vaduva et al., 2016, p. 2). In summary, people assuming a moral leadership role will have (a) a service orientation for the common good, (b) the intent to ensure personal and social transformation, (c) a moral responsibility to investigate and apply the truth, (d) a belief in the essential nobility of human nature, (e) personal transcendence Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 148 148 through vision (i.e., putting the welfare of others first) and (f) to develop moral capabilities (Anello & Hernandez, 1996). Operating on ethical principles, moral leadership is inspirational, morally uplifting, and it mobilizes people (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Gini, 1996). Given the unjust and unpeaceful nature of the 21st century global marketplace, a concern for consumer moral leaders is well placed and needs to be mobilized. To that end, the next section introduces the consumer moral leadership construct scaffolded with supportive argumentation of its intellectual merit. Consumer Moral Leadership Construct As noted, a new construct can arise from the integration of existing constructs related to the phenomenon in question (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). Part of this creation process involves the development and articulation of possible relations among these ideas as they pertain to the new construct (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). To that end, this section identifies, explains and weaves together the relationships among seven moral leadership-related constructs as they pertain to consumers assuming the role of a moral leader in the marketplace: moral intelligence, discipline, integrity, courage, self-transcendence, intensity, and moral authority. In the consumer moral leadership construct, these seven elements are interrelated via a connecting logic (see Figure 1). Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 149 149 Logic is a method of reasoning used to build and substantiate arguments and draw conclusions (McGregor, 2018). The logic set out in Figure 1, which traces the connections and associations (not causation) among these seven ideas, supports the argument herein pursuant to consumers assuming the mantle of moral leader in the marketplace. This assertion is tempered with an acknowledgement that consumers will be in different stages of readiness and willingness to assume this responsibility. What matters is the rigour of the presentation herein of this new construct for scholarly consideration. As a caveat, Figure 1 represents a process model (as will become evident) rather than linear, causal relationships. Moral Intelligence Intelligence is Latin intelligere, ‘capacity for understanding and comprehending general truths; ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills’ (Harper, 2020). Any interest in others, and how one’s actions impact them, involves moral intelligence (Jordan, 2005). Borba (2001) defined this as the capacity to understand right from wrong and comprehend when this understanding is required. It means having strong ethical convictions and acting on them so that one behaves in the right and honourable way. Lennick and Kiel (2005) concurred, asserting that moral intelligence is both the possession of a strong moral compass and the ability and inclination to follow it; this disposition is tantamount to moral integrity (to be discussed). Also, people can draw on their moral intelligence to persuade others to behave in morally justifiable ways (Sama & Shoaf, 2008), which relates to moral authority (to be discussed). Lennick and Kiel’s (2005) conceptualization of moral intelligence comprises four competencies: (a) integrity (conscience and fairness), (b) responsibility (self-control and respect), (c) compassion (empathy and kindness) and (d) forgiveness (tolerance). A morally unintelligent person would lack the ability to vary their response when confronting morally bound situations; they would struggle with drawing on these four competencies. Their struggle makes sense in that “moral intelligence is grounded in emotion and reason. Mature moral functioning relies on [their] integration” (Narvaez, 2010, p. 77). Thus, when faced with a moral quandary in the marketplace, consumers must know how to bring both reason and emotion into equal participation. Immature moral functioning manifests in not possessing adequate Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 150 150 measures of moral intelligence. Intelligence in general includes aspects of cognition (knowing and thinking), affection (valuing and emotions), and conation (ethics) (Clarken, 2009). Moral intelligence is no exception. Respectively, morally intelligent consumers would be informed, understand how they think when acting in the marketplace, bring their values to bear, be aware of their emotions, and apply a sense of right and wrong (ethics) to their consumer decisions. Moral Discipline Discipline is Latin disciplina, ‘instruction (to train); to correct’ (Harper, 2020). Moral discipline is the best check and balance against not fulfilling moral obligations to each other. It “means self-discipline based on moral standards” (Christofferson, 2009, p.1). Exercising moral discipline entails using social norms, rules, customs and laws to personally develop moral reasoning, self- control and a general respect for others (Denton, 1999). Moral discipline entails confronting moral and ethical choices by developing skills in moral reasoning, moral analysis and moral judgements (Sucher, 2007). Self-discipline based on moral standards increases feelings of moral obligation and reinforces the need for moral leadership (Denton, 1999; Johnson, 2003). This self-discipline is “the consistent exercise of agency to choose the right thing because it is right, even when it is hard” (Christofferson, 2009, p. 1). In a consumer society especially, too many people lack internal control that is grounded in moral values. The attendant decline of self-regulated behaviour leads to unprincipled conduct (Anello, 2006). But this unregulated behaviour can be ameliorated by anchoring oneself to an internal moral compass to support the exercise of moral discipline. In order to both self-discipline based on moral standards and exercise moral agency, people must have the truth of things as they really are, otherwise they cannot be expected to understand and evaluate their choices (Christofferson, 2009). This truth sentiment applies especially to consumer choices that are often riddled with moral implications, which are difficult to discern because the truth of production, manufacturing, marketing and retailing is often not readily accessible. This is one factor making it so unpeaceful. Moral Integrity Integrity is one of the primary principles of moral leadership (Quick & Normore, 2004). It is Latin integritas, ‘intact, whole, complete’ (Harper, 2020). Moral Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 151 151 integrity refers to the complex notion of moral wholeness or unit of the self (Ascension Health as cited in McGregor & Gentzler, 2009). Integrity as a character trait refers to the quality of being morally upright (Anderson, 2014). It is a consistency between values and beliefs and attendant actions: people ‘walk their talk.’ This idiom refers to standing for something, having a significant commitment to it and exemplifying this commitment in one’s behaviour. People ‘practice what they preach’ (Lennick & Kiel, 2005; Quick & Normore, 2004). If people do not act from a position of integrity, their actions cannot be trusted (Laundauer & Rowlands, 2001). Acting in accordance with one’s beliefs (Quick & Normore, 2004) builds moral character, which is then reflected in a commitment to searching out moral excellence. This moral character is a key component of moral leadership (Gini, 1996). To act without integrity means others may become mistrustful, because one’s actions are not predictable (Laundauer & Rowlands, 2001). Fortunately, moral character and integrity can reinforce the use of a moral compass that reads true. A moral life of integrity rests upon the foundations of virtuous individuals (i.e., being of morally sound character). Once people become virtuous within a community, they can become virtuous for the community. They can transform others and the social environment for the good of humanity (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). This sentiment resonates with a consumer society as well and contributes to more peaceful and inclusive consumption. Moral Courage Next to integrity, courage is the other primary principle of moral leadership (Quick & Normore, 2004). Courage stems from Latin cor, ‘heart’ (Harper, 2020). It is defined as digging deep and finding strength to act in the face of pain, grief or fear (Anderson, 2014). Moral courage (i.e., dealing with rightness and wrongness) manifests when people act in service of their values (Kidder, 2005). This act entails moral discernment and then taking responsibility for the consequences of any actions (Costa, 1998). It also means “stand[ing] up for what is right even in the face of adverse personal outcomes” (May et al., 2014, p. 68). Moral courage involves acting with integrity in moments with moral consequence (i.e., harm might ensue). It requires “lifting values from the theoretical to the practical and carries us beyond ethical reasoning to principled action” (Kidder, 2005, p. 2). Moral courage does not always produce immediate benefits however, because it is one thing to have values and another to live by those values (Kidder, 2005). And, “a morally courageous person often goes against the grain, acting contrary to the accepted norm” (Kidder, 2005, p. 7). As Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 152 152 threatening as this is, with moral courage, consumers can buck the consumerism ideology and materialistic paradigm thereby shifting to a moral imperative. This ideological and paradigmatic pushback is not easily done. Rhode (2006) identified three major obstacles to moving beyond the violent-inducing emotions of fear and guilt: self-interest, impaired judgement, and the psychology of power. Moral courage is the quality of mind and spirit that enables people to firmly and confidently face up to ethical dilemmas and moral wrongdoings. Without it, people cannot take persistent and firm actions while not flinching or retreating in the face of persuasion and resistance – holding their moral ground (Kidder & Bracy, 2001). Finally, moral courage, a virtue that enables people to be effective when they face ethical challenges (including consumer decisions), is a necessary element in the ethics equation and involves overcoming fear, cowardice and weakness through practical (morally grounded) actions. Possessing a sense of core moral values means little without the courage to see things through (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kidder & Bracy, 2001). Moral Self-transcendence Transcend is Latin transcendere, ‘go beyond the range or limits to a new space; to surpass’ (Harper, 2020). Only self-transcendence (i.e., movement to a new mental and perceptual space) can lead to moral leadership (Carey, 1992; Jordan, 2005; Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy, 2003). When people transcend their self-interest, they become focused on the other rather than themselves (Cardona, 2000). Cardona (2000) called this transcendent motivation and defined it as a concern for others, an incentive to both do things for others and contribute. When people have self-transcended, they reach out to others and strive to meet the latter’s needs and ensure their well-being and development. This other-directed behaviour is exactly what is called for to ensure consumer moral leadership. People’s genuine interest in the welfare of others creates a sense of responsibility, whereupon conscious choices emerge (Cardona, 2000) intimating a moral imperative to ‘do no harm.’ People who have achieved self-transcendence have deep integrity and the capacity to sacrifice some aspect of their lives for others. In a consumer world, this sacrifice would translate to ethical and moral consumer purchasing behaviour informed by justice, security, peace and equity. People who have achieved self-transcendence have learned to create habits of serving the needs of others, habits that ensure consistent behaviour (Cardona, Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 153 153 2000). People who have gained the habit of consuming with others’ interests at heart are truly able to contribute to a more sustainable, just and peaceful world (McGregor, 2016; Sanders et al., 2003); they would be true consumer moral leaders. Transcendent moral leaders are mindful having learned to move beyond their unexamined inner dialogue by creating an informed self-conversation based on compassion, hope and self-knowledge (Downing, 2008). Consumer moral leaders who have achieved self-transcendence can contribute richer and deeper understandings of the relationships and responsibilities to each other and the world – and shop accordingly. Moral Intensity Intensity is Latin intensus, ‘extreme situations, strained, serious.’ Intense refers to an extreme depth of feeling (Harper, 2020). Building on Jones’ (1991) idea, marketplace transactions can be characterized as having high moral intensity (McGregor, 2008). Izzo (1997) clarified that moral intensity refers to the degree to which consumers perceive that a purchase demands the application of ethical principles. The moral intensity of a consumer issue, linked with the ethical intentions of a person, truly influences that person’s moral judgements and ethical decision-making process. Their perception of moral intensity affects their evaluation of the ethical content of a purchase situation and their subsequent choices. Jones (1991) proposed several factors that can come into play when consumers are assessing the moral intensity of a purchase situation including their beliefs about the (a) magnitude of the consequences and (b) the possibility of the latter happening (causing harm), (c) number of people affected and (d) time between their purchase and any consequences. Other factors include (e) any attachment to or closeness with those affected by their decision (e.g., cultural, social, psychological, physical); and (f) the level of societal agreement about the unethicalness of the specific purchase (see also McGregor, 2008). Jones (1991) theorized that an increase in any one factor will increase moral intensity, and they may have an interactive effect as well. Given the magnitude of the consequences of moral lapses when consuming in the 21st century, it is imperative that people have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a moral consumer and how ‘morally intense’ most of their consumption decisions really are (Izzo, 1997). Consumer moral leaders have the option and obligation to live by moral principles. Once Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 154 154 learned, an appreciation of moral intensity can empower consumers to act with moral imperative. This principled action involves self-evaluation, self-reflection and self-discipline in conjunction with systems thinking, taking initiative, and perseverance (Mona Foundation, 2009; Sanders et al., 2003) especially in marketplace decisions. Moral Authority Finally, authority is Latin auctor, ‘originator’ (Harper, 2020). People with authority have the right to exercise power and make decisions, while appreciating that to be effective, others must recognize that authority – that it originates with them (Rozycki, 1993; Souza, 2018). Generic discussions of leadership are always intertwined with issues of power and authority (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The quest for moral leadership is the quest of reconciling power with moral authority (Rozychi, 1993), which is understood to involve convincing others of how the world should be rather than how it is with the latter called epistemic authority (Labinger, 2009). People derive moral authority from their connection to values, ideas and ideals shared by the larger community. This connection helps them feel an obligation and duty to each other and instills the imperative of being self- managed (i.e., morally self-disciplined). When exercising moral authority, people “place all others subordinate [to the aforementioned values and ideals and ask others] to respond morally by doing their duty, meeting their obligations, and accepting their responsibilities” (Sergiovanni, 2007, p. 27). They do this through the exercise of moral persuasion using authority to protect rights and distribute the benefits and burdens of society. The greatest threat to people neglecting moral authority is internal not external. Society is only as good, decent and moral as its citizens (Denton, 1999, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2007). Respecting the Latin meaning of authority - originator - consumers acting with moral authority are presenting behaviour that others can choose to model. Moral consumers are the source (origin) of preferred marketplace conduct. Their representations of moral authority and moral judgements can serve as inspiration for others to follow their lead. They serve as leadership examples of how people in their consumer role can effectively reconcile their power in the marketplace with moral obligations to those who can be harmed by unethical and immoral consumer decisions. Discussion and Conclusions Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 155 155 Peace educators are encouraged to consider bringing this perspective to their practice. Pinker (2008) proposed that having a moral sense is such an innate part of being human, that people may actually have a moral gene. He reasoned that moralizing is a distinctive mindset that must be nurtured, so it can be accessed for moral deliberations. More compelling is his suggestion that this psychological state can be turned on and off like a light switch by using this moral gene, which distinguishes between right and wrong and rights and obligations. Pinker bolstered his argument that everyone holds this gene (i.e., the potential to be moral leaders) by referring to a proven collection of universal moral concepts and emotions held by all humans (see also the Mona Foundation, 2009). Pinker (2008) further asserted that, for people to appreciate that moral judgements differ from other kinds of judgement, they need to realize how important moral values are in their consumer decisions. Moral judgements are not just opinions. They are decisions arrived at through judgments of what is right or wrong against some standard of good. Consumers cannot arrive at a moral judgement without calling on their morality – their internal system of values and moral principles. Operating from this moral compass, consumers can begin to move from being just a manager to a marketplace leader. They can judge each ethically contentious purchase situation and act accordingly. Upon witnessing this behaviour (i.e., recognizing another’s moral authority), others can choose to switch on their moral gene and become leaders as well. If there really is “a universal morality... a moral instinct” (Pinker, 2008, p. 5), it is not farfetched to propose that anyone can be a consumer moral leader, if we all have this gene. People can be socialized into these roles and responsibilities, just like they have learned how to be efficient consumer managers. In that spirit, this paper tendered a new intellectual construct (with supportive argumentation) that can better ensure this eventuality – consumer moral leadership. Its seven elements were woven together with their own connective logic and rhetoric (see Figure 1): moral intelligence, discipline, integrity, courage, self-transcendence, intensity, and authority. This conceptual paper served to synthesize previous works on a particular topic into a new construct thereby providing a springboard to new research. As with any conceptual paper, this one served to “show how moving beyond the current norm will enhance knowledge” (Saunders, 2018, para. 2). Per any new construct, it is an abstraction that has not been theoretically tested (O’Toole, 2014; Smyth, 2004). But as required for conceptual papers, the pictorial model (see Figure 1) and word model herein were designed to sufficiently describe each element and convincingly, using logic and rhetoric, develop links (i.e., connecting Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 156 156 logic) among them relative to the consumer moral leader phenomenon (Kimmins et al., 2010; McLean, 2011). In closing, this paper reported integrative, conceptual research that reframed consumers from managing for efficiency to leading for moral efficacy. Because this is a conceptual paper, readers are encouraged to judge “how the argument [supporting the construct] is built [and decide if the] argument is a valid contribution to the literature” and, by association, the construct itself (Saunders, 2018, para. 10; see also McGregor, 2018). Consumer moral leadership readily aligns with ethical, conscious and sustainable consumption thereby opening doors for complementary scholarship and theorization. The conceptual argument herein serves to encourage consumer and peace scholars, educators and policy analysts to engage with the idea and eventually animate the consumer moral leadership construct and use it in their research and practice. References Anderson M. (2015). A history of fair trade in contemporary Britain. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Anderson, S. (Ed.). (2014). Collins English dictionary (12th ed.). Glasgow, Scotland: Harper Collins. Anello, E. (1992). Moral leadership. New York, NY: Bahá’ì International Community. Anello, E. (2006). The capabilities of moral leadership. Maharashtra, India: Bahá’ì Academy. Anello, E., & Hernandez, J. B. (1996). Moral leadership. Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Universidad Nur. Assadourian, E., & Mastny L. (Eds.). (2017) WorldWatch state of the world. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. Berger, P. S. (1984). Home management research: State of the art 1909-1984. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 12(3), 252-264. Borba, M. (2001). Building moral intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Brinkman, J. (2004). Looking at consumer behavior in a moral perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 129-141. Brown, M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Basic ideas by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Cain, E. (2019). “We used to be patrons- now we are pickets!”: The League of Women Shoppers, the picket line, and identity formation. Journal of Women’s History, 31(3), 35-56. Cardona, P. (2000). Transcendental leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 201-206. Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 157 157 Carey, M. R. (1992). Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for self transcendence. Leadership Quarterly, 3(3), 217-236. Cherrier, H. (2006). Consumer identity and moral obligations in non-plastic bag consumption: A dialectical perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 515-523. Christofferson, T. (2009, October 3-4). Moral discipline. Paper presented at 179th Latter- day Saints Semi-annual General Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. Clarken, R. H. (2009, March 20). Moral intelligence in schools. Paper presented at the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters Annual Conference, Detroit, MI. Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care. New York, NY: Free Press. Costa, J. D. (1998). The ethical imperative. Toronto, ON: Harper Collins. Covey, S. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Denton, R. E. (1999, October 9). Editorial commentary: Public morality and moral leadership. The Roanoke Times. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from www.roanoke.com Denton, R. E. (2000). Constitutional authority and public morality. In M. Kennedy, R. G. Hoxie, & B. Repland (Eds.), The moral authority of government (pp. 108- 112). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction. Downing, S. (2008, September 11-12). Developing transcending leaders for sustainability. Paper presented at the European Academy for Business in Society Colloquium, Bedford, England. Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. San Francisco, CA: Sage. Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 849-867. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editor’s comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Groups & Organization Management, 40(2), 127-130. Gini, A. (1996). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics and leadership working papers (Chapter 5). Chicago, IL: Loyola University Academy of Leadership Press. Global Economy. (2019). Household consumption, percent of GDP - Country rankings. Retrieved from Global Economy website: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/household_consumption/ Goode, F. K. (2010). Moral leadership. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press. Harper, D. (2020). Online etymology dictionary. Lancaster, PA. https://www.etymonline.com/ Hinkins, J. (2007). Biting the hand that feeds you. Papers: Explorations into Children’s Literature, 17(1), 43-50. Izzo, G. (1997, May). A theoretical perspective of the effects of moral intensity on consumers’ ethical judgements of marketers’ non-normative methods. Paper presented at South Western Marketing Association Conference, Conway, Arizona. Jelovac, D., & Rihtaršič, T. (2014). Social entrepreneurship and fair trade. Innovative Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 158 158 Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, 7(1), 82-99. Johnson, J. A. (2003). Education: The journey to moral leadership and moral citizenship. CDTL Brief, 6(4), 9-12. Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395. Jordan, D. A. (2005). A phenomenological study of transcendent leadership in health care (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Medical University of South California, Los Angeles, California. Key, R. J., & Firebaugh, F. M. (1989). Family resource management: Preparing for the 21st century. Journal of Home Economics, 81(1), 13-17. Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: W. Morrow. Kidder, R. M., & Bracy, M. (2001). Moral courage: A white paper. Camden, ME: Institute for Global Ethics. Kimmins, H., Blanco, J., Seely, B., Welham, C., & Scoullar, K. (2010). Forecasting forest futures. Axon, England: Earthscan. Labinger, J. A. (2009). Individual or institutional authority in science? Tradition and Discovery, 36(3), 17-19. Laundauer, J., & Rowlands, J. (2001). Integrity. Retrieved from Importance of Philosophy website: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Integrity.html Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Wharton School Publishing, and Pearson. May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The influence of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi- experimental study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 67-80. McGregor, S. L. T. (2002). Consumer citizenship: A pathway to sustainable development? Keynote address at International Conference on Developing Consumer Citizenship. Hamar, Norway: University of Hedmark. http://consultmcgregor.com/documents/keynotes/norway_keynote.pdf McGregor, S. L. T. (2008). Conceptualizing immoral and unethical consumption using neutralization theory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 36(3), 261-276. McGregor, S. L. T. (2009. Integral metatheory: Beyond specializations, theoretical pluralism and conventional metatheory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38(2), 142-157. McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Consumer moral leadership. The Netherlands: Sense. McGregor, S. L. T. (2013). Fostering ideological awareness for consumer professionals [McGregor Monograph Series No. 201301]. Seabright, NS: McGregor Consulting Group. http://www.consultmcgregor.com/documents/publications/ideological- reframingfor-consumer-professionals.pdf McGregor, S. L. T. (2016). Non-violent consumption. In Factis Pax: Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice, 10(1), 8-28. McGregor, S. L. T. (2017). Consumer responsibilities. In G. Emilien, R. Weitkunat, & Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 159 159 F. Lüdicke (Eds.), Consumer perception of product risks and benefits (pp. 527- 545). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McGregor, S. L. T., & Gentzler, Y. S. (2009). Preserving integrity: University program changes. International Journal of Home Economics, 2(1), 15-29. McGregor, S. L. T., & Shaw, D. (2006). Transforming consumption. In Transformative practice (pp. 389-413). East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu. McLean, G. N. (2011). Writing theory, conceptual, and position articles for publication. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 209-221). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass. Mona Foundation. (2009). Developing moral capabilities. Kirkland, WA: Author. Narvaez, D. (2010). The emotional foundations of high moral intelligence. In B. Latzko & T. Malti (Eds.), Children’s moral emotions and moral cognition (pp. 77-94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nielsen, L., & McGregor, S. L. T. (2013). Consumer morality and moral norms: An emergent conceptual framework. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 473-480. Newholm, T., Newholm, S., & Shaw, D. (2015). A history for consumption ethics. Business History, 57(2), 290-310. O’Toole, M. (Ed.). (2013). Mosby’s medical dictionary (9th ed.). Toronto, ON: Elsevier Canada. Pinker, S. (2008, January 13). The moral instinct. NY Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology- t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Quick, P. M., & Normore, A. (2004). Moral leadership in the 21st century. Educational Forum, 68(4), 336-347. Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (2006). Moral leadership. Somerset, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. Rozycki, E. G. (1993). Is moral leadership possible? In A. Thompson (Ed.), Philosophy of education yearbook (pp. 266-274). New Orleans, LO: Philosophy of Education Society. Safty, A. (2003). Moral leadership: Beyond management and governance. Harvard International Review, 25(3), 84-85. Sama, L. M., & Shoaf, V. (2008). Ethical leadership for the professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1-2), 39-46. Sanders, J. E. III, Hopkins, W., & Geroy, G. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21-31. Saunders, M. (2018, June 21). How to review a conceptual paper? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2018/06/21/how-do-you- review-a-conceptual-paper/ Volume 14 Number 2 (2020): 140-160 http://www.infactispax.org/journal 160 160 Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007). Rethinking leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sikula Sr., A. (1996). Concepts of moral management and moral maximization. Ethics & Behavior, 6(3), 181-188. Sikula Sr., A. (2009). Moral management methodology/mythology: Erroneous ethical equations. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 253-261. Sklair, L. (2010). Iconic architecture and the culture-ideology of consumerism. Theory, Culture & Society,27(5), 135-159. Smyth, R. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool. Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 167-180. Souza, J. (2018). Moral authority and artificial intelligence. Retrieved from Carroll College Scholars website: https://scholars.carroll.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12647/3593/Final_Paper_Jac ob_Souza___Dec_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Sucher, S. M. (2007). The moral leader. London, England: Routledge. Tamang, B. (2013, August 13). What do you mean by Moral leadership? [Web log post]. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from https://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/what-do-you-mean-by- moral-leadership Tang, S., Arciniegas, C., Yu, F., Han, J., Chen, S., & Shi, J. (2016). Taste moral, taste good: The effects of Fairtrade logo and second language on product taste evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 50(June), 152-156. Vaduva, S., Alistar, V. T., Thomas, A. R., Lupiţu, C. D., & Neagoie, D. S. (2016). Moral leadership in business. Chan, Switzerland: Springer. Weinstein, B. (2011). Ethical intelligence. Novato, CA: New World Library. Weinstein, B. (2018, February 27). Is there a difference between ethics and morality in business? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceweinstein/2018/02/27/is-there-a-difference- between-ethics-and-morality-in-business/#7ff6118f2088 Wilk, R. (2001). Consuming morality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1(2), 245–260. Wong, S. (1987). Positive economics. In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., & Newman, P. (Eds.), New Palgrave dictionary of economics (3rd ed.) (pp. 920-921). Palgrave Macmillan.