ITC2013M Fashion Marketing

Term paper

How social morality affected the consumption behavior: The

case of Fur fashion

Name: Cheung Kei Yuen

Student Number: 13057799D

1.1 Introduction
1

At 25-28 of February of 2015, the annual International Fur and Fashion Fair held at
the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center, with celebrities attending the
opening ceremony. The Fair attracted over 100 animal rights activists protesting. They
showed photos of dead animals and slogans: No blood for vanity and Life and
justice is inviolable to show their unacceptance for the cruelty of fur industry. This
issue raises the awareness of the public of the fur industry and the morality behind it.
This article analyses how social morality affected the consumption behavior
specifically on fur fashion.

1.2 Definition
Social moralities refers to the set of social-moral guidelines that involve or prohibit act
and so grounds ethical imperatives that we direct to each other to engage in, or refrain
from certain lines of conduct. (Quong, 2013)
Consumption refers to the final purchase of goods and services by individuals.

1.3 History of Fur fashion:

Fur is the first material used for clothing and body decoration. Humankind uses
animal fur and leather as covering of their bodies since the earliest times for protection
from climatic conditions and physical harm.
In early civilizations, the hunters believe that the strength, power, skills, courage of a
particular animal will be transferred to a human being as there are contagious magic in
the dead bodies of animals. For example, hunter will tie a lion skin around the waist
part or on the shoulder to gain the strength and power of a lion. Besides the hunters,
the ruling classes wear luxury fur and leather for showing the social stratification. For
example, in Egypt around 3000-300 BC, only Kings worn leopard and lion skin when
they performed special ceremonies (Hansen, 1956, p. 11; Tortora & Eubank, 2010, p.
37 as cited in Yvette, 2011). Fur was involved in the class divisions in 13th and 14th
Centuries. The ruling classes and royalties restricted the usage for fur. Only nobles,
ruling classes can wear luxury furs like sable and ermine. The middle classes might
wear ermine or vair. The lower classes only can wear foxes, otters fur. There are strict
laws about the usage and applying of fur for different classes. The nobility and the
upper classes demand for the luxury furs led to the well development and new trade
routes of fur industry. But luxury furs still be available only for wealthy or powerful
people, the upper class. For recent centuries, the technology advancements in fur
industry, the fur are having higher quality and more easier for management. Fur and
leather become more accessible for masses in recent years as the cost has been
lowered down. 80% of the fur clothing comes from farmed animals today.

2.1 Discussion
Fur is regarded as a status symbol from the past, but in recent twenty years, the voices
for banning fur trade become more noticeable. The reason behind is the concern of
2

animal rights, which becomes a part of the social morality. Today, abundant fashion
designers and design brands such as Calvin Klein, Gucci, Chanel, Tommy Hilfiger and
Vivienne Westwood are involved in fur industry for their designs. There has been a long
history about the usage of fur in clothing, but it has come to the period people assault
against fur farmers and fur wearers. It is believed that animal with suffer from a
tremendous pain, such as starvation, dehydration, blood loss, mental illness and
frostbite, and being killed for the fur at the very end. Animals in a fur farm spend their
whole life inside cages. In order to lower down the cost, some of the fur farmers use the
cheapest and cruelest means to kill the animals, for example poisoning or gas.
Concerning the animal rights become part of our social moral. People who harm or kill
animals will have a great punishment compare with the situation at the past. This essay
will analyze the effect on consumption with the influence on social morality.
Morality will affect our thought and actions; therefore it gives a considerable effect on
the consuming behaviors. For example, if people believe protecting the environment is
one of our moralities, they will concern about the environmental problems and involve
in an environmentally friendly consumer behavior. They will support green
consumption and green company. Also, they may boycott some companies who do not
support or act green. For the case in fur, it is slightly more complicated as there are no
emission data for us to judge. But it is obvious that the moral standard has affect the
consumption in recent years as the concern of animal rights, which will be explained in
below.
In 1990s, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protested against fur
industry, they brought out some slogans such as:Id rather go naked than wear fur, it
had raised the awareness of the public for the ethical issues behind the fur production.
The approaches used to murder animals are cruel. For the wild animals, death befalls
specially through the use of traps with prolong suffering. For farm animals, they are
forced to live animals in small cages. Animals suffer from mental anxiety, abnormal
movements, boredom and self-mutilation. And wait for the cruel murder after all the
suffering.
In fact, concern for the right treatment of animals has been the subject of legislative
activity since 1800 when the first animal protection Bill was presented to the House of
Commons. Since that time, there has been a growing awareness that there must be legal
constraints on the uses to which animals can be put. There are now a wide range of
measures regulating, or prohibiting, use in almost ever y sphere of human activity that
affects animals. These include the use of animals in commercial trade, in farming, in
research, in entertainment and even as domestic companions. The development on
concerning the animal right has been supported philosophically by a growing sense that
society has a clear stake in protection of animals from acts of cruelty, as it is morally
wrong to make animals suffer unnecessarily.
Fur farmers, fashionistas and fur fans claims that fur is somehow environmentally
friendly and sustainable, and we should accept it as a suitable clothing material. But
people still struggling with the conception of ethical fur production. For animal
righters, it makes no difference if the animals are given an excellent treatment
throughout their entire lives and then murdered without any fear or pain, as the whole
process is completely wrong in principle. At present, there are many protester groups
that fight for and about the unmerited treatment and defense for animals in everyday
3

life.
Fur farmers argue that people who consume meat should not be protesting the use of
fur in fashion as the farm for producing meat also involved killing animals. The
argument stands strong as the animal farms are also killing animals for demand. It does
not have great differences from the fur industry.
The reasons lead to the big differences between the fur industry and the food industry in
consumers eyes and how it related to our social morality will be analyzed. Firstly, the
food industry is considered as something necessary for continuing human life. Animal
meat gives lots of protein most importantly amino acids, which cannot be taken from
vegetables or fruits. But clothing, refers to fur, is regarded as something less important.
Fur can keep us warm and decorate our body, but there are substitutes replacing the
need of fur nowadays, such as synthetic garments. People will see people wearing fur
as immoral as we harms the animals unnecessary. Gooroo (2011) claims that animals
such as cheetahs and grizzly bears are being extinct due to their fur because it takes
around 300 squirrels for only one fur coat. Also, animals make a special moral claim as
they are morally innocent, unable to give or deny their consent, or vocalize their needs,
and because they are wholly defenseless to human mistreatment.
Morality is personal when we limit our action under it. Social morality becomes a
public awareness and pressure towards all individuals. Therefore, when more people
consider using animal fur as clothing, forms a pressure and discussions around the
issue. The moral concept on animal rights split the two protagonists into extremes.
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) suggests seven ways to support furfree action. First, do not support buying real fur products, then designer and trailers will
stop selling and using real fur. Support designers refusing to use real animal fur, Stella
McCartney, Todd Oldham and so on. Join the fur-free action Facebook page to get the
latest information about protecting animals from fur trades. Speak up for fur-free action
through the newspaper or educate local clothing retailers. Donate and help ongoing
campaign of HSUS to stop fur industry. Lastly, share the videos HSUS made to fur
wearers (The Human Society of the United States). If people remember those
suggestions, it will help them support fur-free action.
With all the negative views and protests against fur fashion, lots of company in fashion
industry still use fur as the material in producing fashion items. Even with all those
protests against the fur industry, the 2015 Hong Kong International Fur & Fashion Fair
still successfully opened and attracted lots of celebrities and rich people. Some people
wonder why is fur so indispensable in fashion industry. There are three main points for
fur lovers to love fur: value, beauty and durability. Fur in history is prepared for highclass people and even king and noble. Its expensive value is attractive to people. Fur
can decorate our body well. There are lots of master-piece from fur designers. Also, fur
and leather have a high durability.
Fur lovers and buyers invent the faux fur to avoid the moral disputes. Faux fur has a
same look of real fur without harming animals. It seems ironic that fake fur may have
inadvertently helped contribute to real furs acceptance, especially when the quality of
the fakes has vastly improved in recent years. It seems it can strike a balance between
the morality and fashion. According to Mark Heyes, the answer is no. Its going to be
4

incredibly difficult to ever increase the sale of fur on the high street. Shops are still
terrified of being targeted by animal rights groups. About four years ago, Zara had used
some rabbit fur and there was so much screaming and shouting about it that it was
taken off the shelves immediately and that put the fear of God into high street stores.
(cited in Carpenter, 2012) When faux fur does not oppose the moral standard, it is still
in a narrow market. The growing ethical sensitivity to issues of animal protection has a
great influence on the consumption in fashion industry.
Supporters of fur farming fail to address the central moral issue and frequently provide
exaggerated claims for the necessity of fur. For example, North (2000) accepts that fur
is a luxury item and still defends it. He maintains that There is a powerful case to be
made for the idea that the need for luxury is one of the most fundamental human urges,
as it is one of the most powerful well-springs of activity in the whole animal kingdom.
For the fur farmer and fur lovers fail in the morality test of the masses, as the wearing
of fur whilst conceivably pleasant, fashionable, or even desirable cannot reasonably
be defined as essential.
Some people argue that we eat animals because they taste good. Francione(2014)
believe that people, the society, refused to think critically about institutionalized animal
use as a general matter. It is said that we need to think seriously about our
institutionalized animal use. Most of us accept that imposing "unnecessary" pain,
suffering and death on animals is wrong, which implies that it is wrong to impose
suffering or death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But those are
the only justifications we have for imposing suffering and death on over 56 billion
animals (excepting fish) we kill annually worldwide for food. No one maintains we
need to eat animal products for optimal health, and there is a growing consensus that
animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Sharkey(2015) reported that Karl Lagerfeld
defends use of fur in fashion. He questioned about the unemployment of the people in
the fur industry. "The problem with furFor me, as long as people eat meat and wear
leather, I don't get the message. I'm very sympathetic. I hate the idea of killing animals
in a horrible way, but I think all that improved a lot," he explained. "I think a butcher
shop is even worse. It's like visiting a murder."
The voices from social morality on fur industry are still strong even the problem
mentioned above is not yet answered. The truth is that more people are concerning
about the animals rights. In todays world of virtually unlimited choices, animal
exploitation is simply unacceptable. Animal use in fashion is an unnecessary cruelty
that can easily be fixed. Through recent advancements, faux-furs and faux-leathers can
be found almost everywhere and often have qualities similar to their real counterparts.
Fur and leather do not provide any functional benefits that cant be provided through
other means. It seems that for some, the cruelty towards animals is just the price to be
paid for a fashion statement. The social morality affected peoples mind and directly
affected on their buying behaviors, which affect the fur industry in a huge way.

3.1 Conclusion
From the above analyze, it is commonly believed that the fur industry should stop
using real animal fur as it harms the animal rights. Animal rights are a very hot topic
5

recent years and the social awareness towards it is very considerable. Form the fur
industry case, we can see how morality changes the consumption pattern of consumer
and also the companies. People refused to buy fur products and lots of protests against
the harming animal actions formed a strong power and difficulties on fur industry. The
social morality has restricted our marketing strategy, therefore, company should stop
using animal fur and build up a positive image in the public. They can use faux fur
instead, and stating they use 100% faux fur in their products.

4.1 Reference
Yvette Mahe (2011). HISTORY OF FUR IN FASHION: INTRODUCTION. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.fashionintime.org/history-fur-fashion-introduction/. [Last Accessed 6 April 2015].

Borgmann, A. (2000). The moral complexion of consumption. Journal of Consumer

Research, 26(4), 418-422.
What is Consumption in Economics? - Definition & Theory | Study.com. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9,
2015, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-consumption-in-economics-definitiontheory.html
Quong, J. (2013, May 20). Public Reason. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/public-reason/
Caruana, R. J. (2003). Morality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective.

Protein. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
Carpenter, J. (2010, October 26). Fur: Should you still fake it? Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/207591/Fur-should-you-still-fake-it
Gooroo. (2011, August 27). Fur Is Not a Fashion Statement. Anti Essays. Retrieved April 9, 2015,
from the World Wide Web: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/Fur-Is-Not-A-Fashion-Statement108482.html
Richard D. Nor th,Fur and Freedom: In Defence of the Fur Trade (London: The Environment Unit,
Institute of Economic Affairs, 2000) p. 9.
Francione. (2014, January 16). No Moral Distinction Between Furs and Leathers. Retrieved April
23, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/25/ban-fur-then-why-notleather/no-moral-distinction-between-furs-and-leathers
Sharkey,L.(2015,March5).KarlLagerfeldfightsbackagainstPetaanddefendsuseoffurin
fashion,saying'abutchershopisworse'RetrievedApril23,2015,from
http://www.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/fashion/news/abutchershopisworsekarllagerfeldfights
backagainstpetaanddefendsuseoffurinfashion10087884.html