DHM 4151: Sustainable Consumption
Week 4: Reading Report
* Do NOT change the format of this template. Keep the table, type fonts, spacing, and a page margin as they are.
** Unless permitted to directly quote, provide the answers
with your own words
. In other words, a simple copy and paste of the article text will result in the
deduction of points
.
|
Armstrong & Park (2017) |
|
|
How would you define the concept of ‘voluntary simplicity’? Instead of a direct quote, I’d like you to explain this concept with your own words based on your understanding. |
|
|
On page 81, the authors discuss that there are two directions people can take when practicing sustainable consumption. What are those two ways? In your opinion, which direction do you think might contribute to sustainability more meaningfully? (There is no right or wrong answer for this question.) |
|
|
Through interviewing five informants, the authors identified the three levels of voluntary simplifiers: the beginners, the progressive, and the extensive. How are these three types of people different? (Do not simply summarize the authors’ descriptions of interviewees’ profiles. Rather, provide your interpretations of these three levels of voluntary simplifiers in terms of their lifestyles, work behavior, values, etc.) |
The beginners: The progressive: The extensive: |
|
The authors list several values that drive the behavior of voluntary simplifiers. Among those values, which value(s) most resonated with you? Why? |
|
|
One of the key propositions that the authors claim is that voluntary simplicity is “beyond” low-material consumption and “extends” the conventional scope of sustainable consumption. What does this mean and what are the rationales behind this claim? Discuss it. |
Beyond consumption: the promising
contribution of voluntary simplicity
Suthisak Kraisornsuthasinee and Fredric William Swierczek
Abstract
Purpose – Greater contribution of voluntary simplicity to sustainability may extend beyond the scope of
consumption behavior. This paper aims to argue that work behavior is also important and it explores how
and why personal consumption of the voluntary simplifiers relates to the way they work.
Design/methodology/approach – This qualitative study uses in-depth interviews to explore the
consumption–work experience relationship and driving values of voluntary simplifiers. Thailand is the
chosen context, as it represents an emerging economy aiming to converge economic growth and
sufficiency.
Findings – The findings demonstrate that, driven mainly by contentment and integrity, simple living
complements leisurely, meaningful and, most intriguingly, ethical work. In return, such work behavior
provides enough earnings and fulfills the beginners, as well as the progressive and extensive simplifiers.
Research limitations/implications – The consumption–work relationship model of the voluntary
simplifiers provides an alternative starting point for further research and practice to tackle
overconsumption, inequality, inequity and corruption – the critical challenges of sustainability.
Originality/value – This research takes a more complete approach to study the voluntary simplifiers. The
empirical results demonstrate the greater scope of voluntary simplicity literature beyond sustainable
consumption and work–life balance. Based on the consumption–work relationship driven mainly by
contentment and integrity, this paper proposes meaningful and ethical work as the promising contribution
of voluntary simplicity to sustainability.
Keywords Values, Sustainability, Thailand, Voluntary simplicity, Sustainable consumption,
Work behavior
Paper type Research paper
B
esides irresponsible economic growth, personal consumption has recently been
realized as another critical threat to sustainability (Assadourian, 2010; Heath et al.,
2012). A complicated issue of climate change provides a good example. Ecological
footprints correlate with lifestyle consumption, particularly of the rich (Ewing et al., 2009). In
socio-economic terms, the sources of spending power indicate a plausible link between
consumption and work behavior. An empirical study on luxury car sales and income with
different levels of perceived corruption has demonstrated a positive relationship between
the level of corruption and conspicuous consumption (Gokcekus and Suzuki, 2014). The
situation is becoming more prominent in the emerging economies. This urges researchers
to explore a subtle, but critical, influence of consumption over the way one earns a living.
The privileged members in the society are suspected for their ostentatious lifestyle. Yet, not
every high-potential professional values wealth and materialistic living.
Voluntary simplifiers are defined as those people, “choosing out of free will – rather by being
coerced by poverty, government austerity programs or being imprisoned – to limit
expenditures on consumer goods and services and to cultivate non-materialistic sources of
satisfaction and meaning” (Etzioni, 1998, p. 620). Their relatively high socio-economic
background is accepted as a predisposition, as it supports their free will in the chosen way
Suthisak
Kraisornsuthasinee is
Associate Professor at the
Department of Marketing,
Faculty of
Commerce and
Accountancy, Thammasat
University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Fredric William Swierczek is
based at the Faculty of
Commerce and
Accountancy, Thammasat
University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Received 13 February 2017
Revised 22 May 2017
Accepted 23 May 2017
PAGE 80jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018, pp. 80-95, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10.1108/SRJ-02-2017-0029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2017-0029
of life (Craig-Lees and Hill, 2002; Zavestoski, 2002). Their strong credentials also connote
higher potential to influence changes in the economy, environment and society through
both personal consumption and work. However, literature related to the way they work is
underexplored.
Understanding a more complete behavior of the voluntary simplifiers could shed new light
on sustainability. Based on the assumption that work not only influences but is also
influenced by consumption, this study uses a qualitative methodology to empirically
explore:
n how lifestyle of voluntary simplifiers is related to their earning behavior; and
n what values influence their lifestyle and work.
In terms of context, previous empirical research studies of voluntary simplicity were mainly
conducted in developed countries. However, the growth of conspicuous consumption,
corruption and inequality is concentrated in Asia. Thailand was chosen, as it represents an
emerging economy that is aiming to converge growth and sufficiency toward sustainability.
The paper starts from background on voluntary simplicity, work behavior and related
values, followed by methodology and findings. Discussion and contribution are provided at
the end.
Literature background
The concise review in this study begins with the position of voluntary simplicity related to
sustainable consumption followed by classification of different levels of simplified lifestyles.
The section on work behavior discusses the importance of work in human lives before
exploring prominent themes of work likely to fit the simplifiers’ lifestyles and values. This
section is completed by presenting the key values related to voluntary simplicity.
Voluntary simplicity
Sustainable consumption is perceived as a promising approach to cope with
socio-ecological challenges, as it covers various themes such as environmental protection,
quality of life and inequity (Balderjahn et al., 2013; Jackson and Michaelis, 2003). Such
consumer behavior can be separated in two directions (McDonald et al., 2006). One is to
consume differently. The pro-green consumers are willing to switch to green products that
enable them to maintain their materialistic and comfortable lifestyle. The other is to consume
less. The voluntary simplifiers concentrate on necessary consumption.
The concept of voluntary simplicity is, however, elusive and subjective because it depends
on what a person decides to simplify in life (Andrews, 1997). Huneke (2005, p. 528)
aggregates many definitions and summarized as “choosing to limit material consumption in
order to free one’s resources, primarily money and time, to seek satisfaction through
non-material aspects of life.” Voluntary simplicity then covers a broad response to the
exhausting, unethical and environmentally irresponsible living. Based on overlapping
attributes in the literature, this paper classifies voluntary simplifiers in three levels, including
The Beginners, The Progressive and The Extensive.
The Beginners are the simplifiers who start to decrease some of their material consumption
mainly for their health, family or other self-related interests rather than sustainability or the
benefits of others (Shaw and Newholm, 2002). The beginners also include apprentices who
just entered the process of change and the partial simplifiers who intend to adopt only
limited reduction in their consumption (McDonald et al., 2006). Their minor, inconsistent and
limited changes in lifestyle made them popularly termed as “Downshifters” (Etzioni, 1998).
Next, The Progressive simplifiers further control their unnecessary wants and consciously
choose the products for utilitarian purposes or environmental features to balance their
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 81
interests with others. This lifestyle also enables them to trade-off between a high-ranking,
high-paying career for a much-reduced income (McGouran and Prothero, 2016). Other
terms for this group include Conscious Consumers (Szmigin and Carrigan, 2009) and
Strong Simplifiers (Etzioni, 1998).
The Extensive simplifiers strongly reject overconsumption and materialistic lifestyle. They
attempt to live as natural as possible for their own well-being and holistic sustainability. This
group dedicates most to the environment by simplifying their whole living (Elgin and
Mitchell, 2003), making them also Holistic Simplifiers (Etzioni, 1998). Such serious
commitment to simplification is motivated by their strong concerns on environmental and
social justice (Huneke, 2005; McGouran and Prothero, 2016).
Variety of work behavior
People work to earn, spend, live and satisfy. Perceived as instrumental to a better living in
the materialist culture, work-related activities require considerable time in return for
purchasing power to attain material possession and enrich material satisfaction (Huneke,
2005). Work is then conceived as a dominant activity in life that influences and can be
influenced by personal consumption behavior.
Particularly at the managerial level, work life has become highly demanding and
competitive. In any organization with high pay dispersion, a few win and most lose (Bloom
and Michel, 2002). To earn enough to satisfy artificial, excessive needs, materialistic
individuals tend to force themselves to work more, work tediously or even work unethically
(Daoud, 2011; Golden and Wiens-Tuers, 2008; Tang et al., 2008). This is possibly how work
behavior under different stakeholder roles inevitably impact oneself and others.
Choosing a different goal in life requires a different way to work (Randers, 2012). Voluntary
simplicity is a complex set of changes in goals and lifestyle toward satisfaction beyond
material pleasure (Wachtel, 1996). The extended scope of simplicity can then relate
consumption to work. Three prominent themes of work are selected here to complement the
work–lifestyle interface of the voluntary simplicity: leisurely work, meaningful work and
ethical work.
Except for people truly in need, pressure and long work hours are not necessarily worth the
financial rewards. Empirical studies have found a negative association between employees’
materialistic value and well-being (Deckop et al., 2010), as well as limited correlation
between financial wealth gained from work and well-being (Bell and Dyck, 2011). Leisurely
Work by working less and/or flexibly is a preference for the voluntary simplifiers. It is widely
recognized as a solution to reduce the imbalance between work and health, family or
relationship with others (Elgin, 2010; Zavestoski, 2002). Reduction in work hours, and most
likely income, also implies a strong will to reduce material consumption (Etzioni, 2004).
However, some simplifiers require work that fits their higher values. Meaningful Work
reflects work that is more fulfilling than wealth and power (Elgin, 2010; Randers, 2012).
Altruistic people tend to put high value to work that contributes to others (Grant and
Campbell, 2007; Michaelson et al., 2014). Such work is more attractive to the simplifiers
because it is also “a calling” to fulfill their purpose of life (Beadle and Knight, 2012). Serving
the interests of the others, meaningful work also affirms the voluntary simplifiers that they fit
in the society (Michaelson et al., 2014). The altruistic nature of work provides them both the
intrinsic accomplishment of the spiritual well-being [rather than hedonic, material pleasures
(Walsh, 1994)], as well as the extrinsic rewards from the society such as recognition and
esteem (Sayer, 2009).
Under explored in voluntary simplicity literature but promising to sustainability is Ethical
Work, which demonstrates personal preference for morality and integrity in one’s choice of
work (Zhang and Gowan, 2012). Previous research discovered the causes of ethical issues.
PAGE 82jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
People with strong desire for wealth and status tend to be vulnerable to risk themselves for
unethical attempts, such as abuse of power and resources, as well as negligence of
unethical behavior (Daoud, 2011; Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Once the goal is reached,
the materialists tend to demand and push themselves even more. An empirical study found
that expenditure in conspicuous consumption is related to potential to corruption (Gokcekus
and Suzuki, 2014). As the nexus of voluntary simplicity counters excessive consumption,
motivation for excessive earning should be low so is the attempt to breach ethical work
conduct.
Values of the voluntary simplifiers
Values of voluntary simplicity are diverse (Craig-Lees and Hill, 2002), but these can be
classified into two inter-related levels. On the surface, simplifiers are driven by external
physical concerns, particularly the deteriorating ecological condition (Alexander and
Ussher, 2012; Elgin, 2010; Etzioni, 1998; Johnston and Burton, 2003; McDonald et al.,
2012). Environmental concerns are closely linked with the strong utilitarian value of their
purchasing behavior (Ballantine and Creery, 2010) and other attempts to declutter material
consumption (Alexander and Ussher, 2012, Ballantine and Creery, 2010). Some simplifiers
prefer relying on themselves rather than large corporations, such as growing own food
(Alexander and Ussher, 2012, Shaw and Newholm, 2002). Complexity in large living and
work environment also pushes some simplifiers to seek for smaller scale (McDonald et al.,
2006), which further provides more time to enhance well-being and relationship within family
and community (Alexander and Ussher, 2012; Johnston and Burton, 2003).
At the deeper level, spiritual set of values are dominant. Ethics and morality influence
environmental concern, humanitarian or social justice and engagement with community
(Alexander and Ussher, 2012; Etzioni, 1998; McDonald et al., 2006). Some voluntary
simplifiers also seek for personal growth by spending more time with oneself or living more
mindfully and spiritually. This possibly implies their quests for self-realization (Alexander
and Ussher, 2012; Elgin, 2010; McDonald et al., 2006).
Methodology
This paper explores the experience of the voluntary simplifiers beyond their living toward
their work in a materialistic world. More specifically, it will demonstrate how and why the
voluntary simplifiers’ lifestyle is related to their work. Belk et al. (2013) suggested that
in-depth interview is appropriate to gain insight and explanation of important things in a
person’s life. In-depth interviews were then conducted to capture the meanings and driving
values of their consumption and earning behavior and its interaction.
Thailand is taken as the context for this study. With long and vivid cultures based on
Buddhist values, its socio-economy is directed to converge growth and sufficiency to
balance the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development
(O’Sullivan and Pisalyaput, 2015). Such an ideal mission is challenged by consumerism,
particularly the conspicuous lifestyle of the affluent, as the country is also a rising market of
luxury consumption (Euromonitor International, 2016). Lifestyles and working behaviors of
the people are inevitably diverse and even conflicting in certain areas. Such condition
provides a suitable landscape for this study.
Five informants were recruited from purposive and snowball sampling because the
voluntary simplifiers are very scarce and not easily identifiable in public [difficult to be
segregated from the involuntary simplifiers (Shama, 1981; McDonald et al., 2006) and the
frugal consumers (Pepper et al., 2009)]. Their diverse experiences in voluntary simplicity
are mainly based on occupations and various work-related behavior. There are more male
participants as men play a dominant role to financially support their families. During 2014
and 2015, all interviews were conducted individually, between 1.20 to 1.50 h each; some in
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 83
the participants’ homes. The questions are loosely structured to accommodate emerging
issues. Data are transcribed, coded and analyzed by pattern matching.
Findings on relationship between consumption and work
The findings of these voluntary simplifiers first highlight how their lifestyle relates to their
work. In general, all five participants chose to live simple lives, yet vary in three levels,
including the beginners, the progressive and the extensive. They are all willing to earn lower
than their potential. They see their lifestyle and work complement each other. Their
low-profile lifestyles enable them to work in a mix of distinctive characteristics, including
leisurely, meaningful and ethical.
The beginners
Classified as the beginner, Sak shares his lifestyle similar to typical upper middle-class
consumers in Bangkok. The father of two teenage children lives in the suburb, enjoys simple
noodles, drives an old European sedan and dresses with no luxury brands. Ironically, this
simplifier used to promote material consumption. Work ethics made him stand out in the
advertising business, “It is conscience that defines my work behavior [. . .] There is no
integrity in the industry. What matter are only interests [. . .] I fought so they could not trick or
deceive the consumers. I fought to raise the advertising standard, but it made me a difficult
person to work with [. . .] I might have lost over 90 per cent of the income I could make from
not bending to the clients.”
Earlier dedication to his work brought him money and fame at the cost of his private life. Sak
left a very high-income position as a highly renowned producer of TV commercials with
international award-winning credentials for a lower-paid, freelance job as a voice-over talent
for entertainment programs on a cable TV so he could balance work with family life.
Adapting his home into a mini recording studio enables him to work leisurely. He earns time
to invest in the future of his daughters. “I am not a big spender [. . .] I have earned reputation
and pride [. . .] I don’t expect to have my own empire [. . .] I spend less time on work, just
enough to earn a living, but more on my children so I can design their lives”.
The progressive
Next are the two progressive simplifiers, Dr Chai and Ake, who turned their back on the
materialistic metropolitan lifestyle for rural living with higher purposes. Soon after graduating
from the country’s top medical school in Bangkok, Dr Chai moved out to start his family in a
small, peaceful town in Northern Thailand and practices as a well-respected orthopedic
surgeon. He is determined to serve the underprivileged in a remote, government hospital.
He explains, “I strongly resist working in the private hospital [. . .] There is no standard for
treatment. It varies to the patients’ ability to pay [. . .] Medical care must be equal for
everyone [. . .] You have to separate medical care from other kind of services.” Living with
less material desires also helped him to acquire his dream work, which is meaningful and
ethical. He revealed his faith in his work, “I just had a strong feeling that I wanted to be a
doctor. It is a profession that one can help others while earning a living.” Utilitarianism is
what he sees common in his own consumption and his equal treatment to the patients. Only
necessary shopping, prescriptions and procedures are appropriate. Dr Chai in budget
clothing but quality shoes said, “Value comes first when I buy things [. . .] It is the same
principle in daily-living and work. (From the resources I save) I can create more benefits to
others.”
The only son of an honest, high-ranking technocrat, Ake has recognized inequality since his
childhood in one of Bangkok’s elite schools. Now in his fifties as a father of two children
home-schooled by his PhD wife in a quiet southern town, he sees his work as a journalist
PAGE 84jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
more meaningful than a means to earn income. His gentle manner contrasts with his beard,
a pony-tailed hair and activist appearance. He wants to increase public awareness on the
minority who are deprived by economic development. His strict adoption of professional
ethics and strong disdain for power and politics at work made him left his VP position of a
famous broadcasting news company to become a freelance documentary producer and a
co-host of a talk radio program. Modestly he said, “I don’t think I live simple life by choice
(laugh). I might have some professional talent, but I just lack the big people’s skill [. . .] I am
not keen for corruption.” In his fight for the vulnerable, he revealed his early experiences in a
small studio producing documentary programs. It survives by sponsorship from big
businesses, “The more I worked, the more I felt it was so fake. It was like advertising, trying
to create public image for a corporation.” He keeps traveling all over the country to bring the
concerns of the vulnerable to the public – even at his own expense. He shared what he
learned, “We have passed the financial accident[1] smoothly. It proves the principle that if
we control our needs, things would not be too harsh.”
The extensive
The most extensive simplifiers here are Ton and Nim, the two light-hearted artists. Their slow
rural living with low ecological footprint are, however, full of activities. Grown up in a coconut
garden with his grandfather in the southern island, Ton finished his Bachelor of Architecture
from an elite state university in Bangkok. Later he becomes a self-educated expert in
ecology and domestic architecture who was invited to join academia and consultancy in
many institutions. “I don’t have material desire,” he walks his talk by building and living in a
clay house, wearing used casual clothes, growing medicinal plants, organic food and even
rice, in his backyard, and commuting mostly by bike and public transportation. And yet, he
joyfully expressed his dignity in life, “I never feel small among the rich and materialistic. It’s
their business. But they can’t expect my admiration though.” Full of passion in his work, he
revealed, “I believe I am helping people. I believe living like this is right – simple, healthy,
save, and positive [. . .] I don’t separate working from living. They both are parts of my
mission in life.” Even an aesthetic profession faces ethical issues. He explained why he
promotes natural-comfort condition and building materials, “The public are not well aware of
living in toxic surroundings (in domestic and public areas), misled by some influential
people.” Integrity comes at price, “I keep my standpoint [. . .] sometimes with some
opportunity costs. But that’s okay. If I have to bend too much, this life would be a waste.”
Delicate yet strong, Nim lives quite a colorful life as another extensive simplifier. After
completing her education in Sociology from a radical state university, Nim started working as
a journalist in a small newspaper company until it closed down during the financial crisis.
She moved to the editor position of a famous magazine in health and mindful living, where
she questioned the role of mass media, “In my ideal, a journalist is a person who guides the
society. In reality, mass media is just a kind of business that aims to sell and earn from
advertisement and demands more and more profit –indefinitely [. . .] One day I asked myself
when would be the end (of increasing sales target).” After quitting her employment, she got
a research fund to spend six months with her husband to experience slow living in Japan.
They gradually adopted its heart and soul. Today in simple t-shirt and a sarong, she leisurely
lives in a rural barn house, growing her own food, writing stories and selling her books and
souvenirs in her little shop in a tourist area nearby. She demands meaningfulness more than
income from her work. “Work is something we suppose to choose [. . .] something that fulfills
or completes life [. . .] I want to work as a journalist for a society, for people to live peacefully.
It (living peacefully) is a common goal in my work and private life.”
Findings on values
The further findings reveal inter-related sets of values that drive the consumption and work
behavior of these five Thai voluntary simplifiers. Their basic values, including concerns on
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 85
the environment, self-reliance, smaller scale and relationship, surface on the deeper set.
The most prominent finding here is centered around sufficiency and contentment, which is
embedded deeper in their purpose of life and strong sense of ethics and morality.
Sufficiency and contentment with life
Sufficiency and contentment with life is a critical condition that enables these simplifiers to
actually choose their lifestyles and work as they believe. Rather than forcing themselves to
suppress their material desire, they cognitively develop their self-control against artificial,
excessive desire in consumption and means of earnings. They reveal common contentment
in who they are, what they have, how they live and what they earn and how they earn it.
With his direct experience in the opulent, advertising world, the beginner simplifier like Sak
disclosed, “The rich also suffer, sir. A L-O-T. These conspicuous consumers suffer when
others do not recognize how rich they are.” He found his contentment, “If a person can be
happy with little money, life is so flexible [. . .] I am happy to be with my children. I am not a
big spender. I just want as much as needed. I am satisfied with my condition.”
As for the progressive, Ake, explicated from his experience, “I don’t think happiness
requires much money [. . .] We need basic necessities and reasonable happiness. We also
need economic security other than money, which comes from social or relationship capital
(by helping and sharing within the community). Some say it sounds too romantic, but there
are people actually live like this. They define their own way of happiness.” Dr Chai
concluded, “What I earn is enough. I am happy with what (lifestyle and work) I choose. Now
my life is settled.” He added, “I just do my duty to end suffering. Whether I can or cannot,
it’s ok. It’s karma. Just keep focusing on the present, not the past, nor future.”
Producing food at home, depending very little on amenities and practicing simple livings
and meaningful work satisfy the extensive voluntary simplifiers. Ton, the green architect
says, “I don’t want to change anything in my life even if I could [. . .] I can manage my life
with small earnings because I eat a little.” Nim, the magazine editor-turned freelance writer,
also confirms, “Life here is so good, the most natural, the most truthful form of living, of
being a human [. . .] If knew my life would be like this? I would have quitted (earlier) for sure!
(laugh).”
Implied in their contentment is their self-confidence in their capability to earn income – if
they want to. In terms of making money, Sak revealed, “I feel money is in the air. I can get it
whenever I want because I am capable to do so.” Ake shared the same tone, “I can make
money any time I want to.” High salary, welfare, fame and some financial obligations while
working as a magazine editor caused Nim’s reluctance at the beginning. Even so they do
not bother her now, “Honestly, deep inside I felt so scared when I quitted [. . .] Even though I
don’t have much money now, I think money might be something easiest to earn.” Ton has
gradually earned high recognition in natural architecture. His perseverance also comes
from self-confidence, “I believe since I was young: if we are determined to do something, an
opportunity will come. This is my thinking capital.”
Purpose of life
Consumption and work behavior of these voluntary simplifiers ultimately link with subjective
purposes of the informants. On the surface, their values are typically centered around
well-being and close relationships with family, friends and other people. Tired with
never-stop increasing sales targets and other management issues, Nim found her purpose
of life as, “to live a peaceful life with good physical and mental health. Nothing else [. . .] It
(peaceful life) is the goal in my work and private life.” Close family tie is a priority for those
with children. Sak pointed clearly, “What is the point of having a family but raising them with
only money?” Relationship also goes beyond kinship to strangers. Ton said, “The villagers in
PAGE 86jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
the markets along the road (on his usual bike rides to work) are like relatives to me.” Nim is
still impressed with friendships in Japan, “I like the relationship between people that does
not involve money or status [. . .] It is something so pure that money cannot buy.”
At the deeper level, the influence of the Buddhist philosophy is prominent among some of
the informants. Different depths of understanding reflect different levels of the religious
influences in the informants’ purposes of lives. Nim believes that consciousness is important
to free the mind from desire and other mental disturbances, “I keep monitoring my ‘self’,
particularly my emotion, but it does not mean that I can control it [. . .] Sometimes my mind is
still distracted by some nice products.” Dr Chai’s profound understanding and practices
explain that Buddhism teaches how to reduce greed and selfishness, ultimately to end
suffering. He shared his experience, “We might be conscious of our desire but we cannot
stop it. The power of meditation can help narrow the gap between our conscience and our
deed. Yet, it is not easy at all to practice in daily living and work [. . .] Many people separate
them apart. They join the meditation sessions. But once finished, they enjoy going places for
delicious food.”
The life purpose influenced by the religious belief can drive even the means of earnings.
Dr Chai said, “There is a little chance to be born as a human with moral conscience to
decide what to do in life. I just had a strong feeling since I was in a junior high school that I
wanted to be a doctor [. . .] It is a profession that one can help others while earns a living.”
He added, “Some doctors may work for themselves. But a thought of attaining the purpose
of my life (to end suffering) enables me to work for others. It naturally detaches me from
selfishness.” The influence of Buddhism in Ton’s work is also explicit. He said, “Like what
Buddhadasa[2] taught, work flourishes life [. . .] Work is a mission of people’s lives, no
matter what the profession [. . .] It is more meaningful than the means to raise kids and get
sick after retire.” Buddhism also guided him through the hard time at the beginning of his
career. He said, “I could not choose my clients that much when I started [. . .] The
conventional jobs I took were what I called ‘my kid’s tuition fee sort of work.’ Yet, I kept my
goal. I didn’t feel too uncomfortable. From the Buddhist perspective, I let it go [. . .] But I
accepted only small houses and buildings, not country clubs, though.”
A short lifetime
Realizing that life is short partly influences their lives as the simplifiers. Nim values her time
more than income. She said, “The longer we live, the less time we have [. . .] Money might
be the easiest thing to make, but not time. You can earn indefinitely, but your time is
definite”. Sak literally realizes this fact from his health condition. It explains his work at home
studio and value on his family. He disclosed, “I had a heart operation. I can die anytime
(laugh). But staying at home is too miserable, I still want to contribute.”
Interpretations of limit of life vary. Dr Chai sees it through a Buddhist perspective, “It takes
time to realize the application of the Buddha’s teaching in life, though [. . .] The sudden loss
of my first wife from stroke early in my life made me realize that nothing is permanent. That
loss was an accelerator.” Ake shared his past, “My parents were quite old when they had
me. They passed away when I was young [. . .] The most important thing is that life is not
that long. Surely there is an end”. He further connected short lifetime with the ecology, “It is
easy to calculate – how long a car lasts, how long I think I will live, how many cars do I need.
In one life, I need just one house and perhaps three cars. That’s it. Everybody should not
waste too much of the world’s resources [. . .] There is no reason to accumulate wealth –
even for inheritance.”
Ethics and morality determination in work and consumption
Very distinctive findings are their strong sense of morality, which grounds their serious
standpoints in issues, including integrity and equality, anti-corruption, anti-unfair
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 87
competition, anti-inequality and anti-nepotism. These values are reflected their mature
interpretations of the worldly sense of socio-economic achievement and the privileged
class.
In terms of integrity, Sak disclosed his fight in the gray business, “Defending my work
means defending my dignity, which also means defending for all stakeholders, including
the consumers.” Refusing higher promotions in media corporations, Ake finally chose to be
a freelance documentary producer and environmental activist. He explained, “The world of
‘the big people’ requires flexibility [. . .] I ran away from the center (of authority) [. . .] Some
people thought I wanted public recognition by acting hero – so pure, so honest. They never
understand the moral distress to work in a high position.” Dr Chai revealed the issue hidden
in the health care service, “Over there (private hospitals) we cannot treat the patients
appropriately [. . .] There are (business) interests involved in every single process.”
Their integrity relates to their values of fairness and equality. Sak explained, “In reality, the
economy should not be free. Otherwise, the big fish will eat all the small fish.” Ake shared
his view, “I could not stand when the big people stopped me (as one of the management)
from presenting the fact that the villagers had to sacrifice for a big (corporate/public)
project.” With background in journalism, Nim took part in the movement. She said, “My
husband and I spent so much time gathering and providing the information on the impact of
the mega projects to the affected (and poor) villagers in our community.” Ton’s concern on
fairness extends beyond human interest, “The building materials devastate lots of lives. The
fact that these products could come from natural resources was omitted (in corporate
communication).” Determining to work in a public hospital, Dr Chai explained, “I treat my
patients equally, no matter rich or poor [. . .] My concern is not on the social gap, but the
best treatment needed for the patients. Once it is the best, it automatically is equal [. . .] I
definitely cannot accept inequality (in healthcare service)”. Equality is also a foundation for
anti-nepotism. Born in a high-position technocrat family, Ake, however, resents any abuses
of the inheritance. He elaborated, “I never used my last name to get or access to anyone or
anything as people might have thought.”
Strong standpoints in equality also imply their attitudes toward the different classes and
partly help explaining why they voluntarily simplify their lives. They expressed their cynical
view about the rich. Sak criticized, “To become super rich, a person must have ‘the guts’ to
take advantage of others [. . .] People hungry for fame and fortune tend to have inferiority
complex in their background. But I don’t.” Ake supported, “Many upper-class people are
keen with corruption [. . .] I am just too afraid to get caught (laugh). Maybe it’s because I am
middle class. We don’t dare to break the law.”
Discussion
Conventional literature in marketing and consumer behavior mainly studies the effect of
work (in terms of earnings and social status) on lifestyle. Concerning the greater impact of
consumption on sustainability, the findings from the voluntary simplifiers here suggest that
the opposite is also important. The way a person consumes also defines the way (s)he
earns a living. Under a certain set of values, consumption and work keep determining one
another dynamically. This paper generates the proposition that lifestyle and work are
mutually constitutive, driven by a common set of values (Figure 1). The following discussion
then features two major areas – the consumption–work relationship and its underlying
values.
First, the consumption–work relationship model projects the voluntary simplifiers in a more
holistic perspective. From the interviews, utilitarian value and self-reliance activities are
dominant in their low-resource consumption living, whereas work–life balance,
meaningfulness and ethics are distinctive in their decent work. Different levels of
the voluntary simplifiers express different focuses, which reflect on their chosen lifestyle and
PAGE 88jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
work. The beginner like Sak mainly focuses on well-being and family, the progressive
Dr Chai and Ake on inequity and the extensive Ton and Nim on nature and holistic
sustainability. Nevertheless, no informant aims to step up to a higher level of simplified
living. Like choosing the way they live, they also choose the way they work deliberately.
Influenced by lifestyle, working behavior connects these simplifiers with others in different
ways. Sak and Nim now prefer flexible working hours basically to cherish family and friends
(Elgin, 2010; Zavestoski, 2002). Contribution of the voluntary simplifiers to sustainability by
switching the consumer to stakeholder roles is clearer in meaningful and ethical work, which
supports why sustainability at the macro level relies on overall behavior of an individual
contributor (Kraisornsuthasinee, 2012). Simplifiers like Dr Chai, Ake and Ton find their work
meaningful when it benefits others, which fulfills their purpose of life (Elgin, 2010; Randers,
2012). Such altruistic work choices also enhance their spirits (Walsh, 1994) and bonding
with the communities (Sayer, 2009). But more importantly, this study also discovers their
preferences on an ethical way to earn a living. Expense on conspicuous consumption
relates with a potential to corrupt (Gokcekus and Suzuki, 2014). This is probably because a
strong desire for wealth and status tempts people to abuse power and resources, which
ultimately demote sustainability (Daoud, 2011; Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Seeing the
adverse impact of this critical flaw in their professions, these voluntary simplifiers seriously
determine to work for the greater good. The findings crucially explain that a sufficiency
lifestyle enables all informants to choose and sustain their choices of work characteristics
even with lower income. Such a limited earning is, however, enough for simple living. This
mutually stimulating relationship creates a dynamic force that nurtures voluntary simplifiers
in both work and living.
The second area to discuss highlights the values driving all levels of the voluntary simplifiers
and explaining why their consumption complements their work and vice versa. With an
attempt to converge sufficiency and growth, Thailand serves as a valid context to determine
how simplicity co-exists in one of the opulent markets and high inequality countries in Asia.
The study found values in both basic and deeper levels. On the surface or behavioral level,
the values of these Thai simplifiers are consistent with literature, including environmental
concern (Elgin and Mitchell, 2003; McGouran and Prothero, 2016), de-material
consumption (Etzioni, 1998; Huneke, 2005; McDonald et al., 2006), self-reliance
(Rich et al., 2017), relationship (Elgin, 2010; Zavestoski, 2002) and human scale (McDonald
et al., 2006). More intriguing is further discussion on the deeper and arguably spiritual level,
including contentment, integrity, purpose of life and perspective of a short life time.
Contentment that these voluntary simplifiers gained from their living and work is more
fulfilling than monetary income or materialistic lifestyle and connotes their attainment of
Figure 1 The consumption–work relationship model
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 89
self-actualization. The findings also imply the broader scope of hedonism, which covers
satisfaction beyond material desire, (Alexander and Ussher, 2012; Soper, 2008; Kasser,
2009). They learned that simple living from lowering their demand in consumption pleasure
and return from work simply made them satisfied with their lives. Such feelings are more
pronounced among those with experiences in the opulent societies, like Sak in
the advertising industry and Nim in the magazine business. Besides their own interest, the
“dividend” from their investment in simpler living also doubles when passing on to the
environment (Jackson, 2005) and even multiplies to other people. The commitment of
Dr Chai, Ake and Ton, is evident via the way they work in health care, environmental
movement and green architecture. Consistent to the study of Weinstein and Ryan (2010),
their pro-social behavior by helping others also enhances their own well-being. This helps
explain how the voluntary simplifiers build their self-esteem and ultimately contentment,
which contradict to the materialistic consumers who gained satisfaction from excessive and
addictive consumption possibly via tedious or even unethical earnings.
Besides, their contentment also arguably reflects a need to escape from not only the way of
living but also working in the consumer society. Simplified living becomes a preference and
a critical condition that enables these simplifiers to avoid the unpleasant environment. On
the surface, it seems that Dr Chai and Ton escape from competitive and hectic city lives,
whereas Nim from increasing management targets. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate
to judge their escapism merely as a leisure way out for work–life balance (Bekin et al., 2005)
or self-centered purpose (Segal, 1999). Explanation follows in the deeper level of their
values.
The deeper values are central to their strong ethical concerns, including association with
abuse of power in media (for Ake), manipulation in advertising business (for Sak) and
unequal treatment in healthcare (for Dr Chai). Morality is their prominent core value that
connects with humanitarian, social justice and environment, consistent to the global
voluntary simplicity movement (Alexander and Ussher, 2012). As a society is socially
constructed, satisfaction from becoming voluntary simplifiers relies on socio-cultural role
and attitudes of others (Ballantine et al., 2011; McGouran and Prothero, 2016). The issues
on inequity and integrity then emerge remarkably here as Thailand is among the world’s
luxury markets, while ranked around mid-range in the corruption perception index. To
distance oneself from consumerist and nepotistic society is a challenge. However, their
strong sense of integrity is explainable as sufficiency is primarily rooted in the Thai cultural
values. Resistance to consumption culture is found in behavior and attitudes (Penaloza and
Price, 2003). Unlike the mainstream consumers, these Thai simplifiers, especially Sak and
Ake, reveal negative impressions against conspicuous lifestyles of the rich and the means
and sources of their earnings.
The ethical values of these simplifiers clearly reflect their work, which connects their private
lives as consumers with public lives as different stakeholders. More than working less for
their personal benefits, they work altruistically and ethically to ameliorate environmental and
social problems. These Thai simplifiers are different from those in the West who express
de-consumption as their political resistance to the uncontrollable world (Cherrier, 2009). The
Thai simplifiers modestly intend to help others and find their own inner peace. Social
responsibility on the individual basis as such reflects their low emphasis on socio-economic
status or material wealth for their own “selves.” Here in Thailand, the concept of detachment
from selfishness in terms of “me” (ego) and “mine” (possession) generally refers to the core
Buddhist insight is a means to eradicate suffering of an individual with a ripple effect on the
society at large (Kraisornsuthasinee, 2012).
Simplicity of the informants also reflects the purposes of their lives. Consistent with previous
research (Alexander and Ussher, 2012; Miller and Gregan-Praxton, 2006), a variety of
motivations to live as a simplifier here include family, health, connectivity with community,
spirituality, environmental and ethical concerns. The purposes can be basic like time with
PAGE 90jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
family for Sak and personal physical and mental well-being for Nim tend to answer what
they value most in life. Broader purposes of life like environment, humanitarian and social
justice for Ton, Ake and Dr Chai tend to concentrate on their work. Simple living defines
work, whereas work as a life mission frames the way of overall living. The complementary
nature between lifestyle and work is necessary and creates dynamic relationship.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the purposes of life are not necessarily single. People
can be motivated by more than one, but some are more influential than others. Ton and Nim
also enjoy connecting with the community and other people, although it is not their main
driver for voluntary simplicity. The environment is clear for Ake and Ton, but the ethical
concern is common among all of the informants.
Perceptions of limited life time is worth noting. In materialistic society, the thought of death
increases the tendency of materialistic people to consume excessively, luxuriously and
impulsively while they can (Arndt et al., 2004; Heine et al., 2002; Friese and Hofmann,
2008). Partly consistent with the empirical study of the anti-consumption lifestyles in the
West (Nepomuceno and Laroche, 2016), all Thai simplifiers here see that life is short.
Nevertheless, such mortality salience does not affect their propensity to consume. Instead,
short lifetime affirms no reason for them to waste public resource for excessive personal
consumption and accumulation.
Conclusion
Voluntary simplicity contributes to sustainability beyond low-material consumption. This
study extends the scope of sustainable consumption by exploring how and why lifestyles of
the voluntary simplifiers interact with the way they work. The insights from in-depth
interviews in Thailand provide early evidence that, driven by certain values, lifestyle and
work behavior of the voluntary simplifiers are mutually constitutive. Simple living allows the
beginner, and especially, the progressive, and the extensive simplifiers to choose and
sustain their choices of work behavior. In return, flexible, meaningful and ethical work
behaviors provide sufficient income to support different simple lifestyles. In terms of values,
contentment is profound in their living. Integrity is prominent in their work. Turning their
focuses away from self-interests toward higher purposes of life makes them satisfied with
simple living and enables them to work for their families, environment and society at large.
The above findings provide scholarly and practical contributions. From the theoretical
perspective, this qualitative study supports voluntary simplicity theory primarily by
presenting insights to confirm different characteristics of the voluntary simplifiers (Huneke,
2005; McGouran and Prothero, 2016; Shaw and Newholm, 2002). More importantly, the
findings on the dynamic relationship between their living and working behavior suggest a
more complete perspective of voluntary simplicity conventionally limited within consumption
domain. Such complementary relationship provides a critical foundation to understand how
a socially responsible person behaves consistently as a consumer and a stakeholder via
the means to earn a living. Low material demand in life benefits not only health of the
simplifiers and relationship with their families and friends via flexible work as previously
focused but also well-being of broader stakeholders and society at large via meaningful
and ethical work. More specifically on the theoretical contribution, it is their preference for
ethical work that adds to the literature of voluntary simplicity. This can be explained by
additional findings on a more elaborate exposition of the values behind voluntary simplicity
behavior (Alexander and Ussher, 2012). Contentment is an essential foundation for their joy
of living beyond material pleasure. Low material demand further supports their value in
integrity which is integral to their commitment for meaningful and ethical work.
From a practical dimension, the findings support the voluntary simplicity movement. These
informants are positive models of how to live and work to pursue higher purposes of life and
contribute to sustainability of the economy, environment and society at large. Individuals
who are tired of excessive material pleasure and seriously aim to make a change in
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 91
overconsumption, inequity, inequality and corruption should consider the mutual influences
of their lifestyle on their earning behavior. Curbing one would affect the other. The values
guiding both are critical. Contentment and integrity are the crucial conditions that refrain
these voluntary simplifiers from excessive material temptation and over-ambition. As this
simplicity movement is on voluntary basis, social marketing initiatives would be beneficial to
convince the privilege as their consumption and earning behavior make more profound
impact than others in the society. The public and private sectors would benefit from
voluntary simplicity by developing products and services with an emphasis on practical
minimalism and respecting work–life balance and, most importantly, creating the working
environment with strong commitment to responsibility and sustainability.
Future research can use an ethnographic approach and increase number of participants
and diversity of high-impact professions, including business, investment and governance.
Further opportunities are open for large-scale investigation and application of the
consumption–work relationship and its driving values not only on voluntary simplicity and
other sustainable consumption approaches but even in the contrasting behaviors such as
conspicuous consumption. How we live determines how we earn and vice versa. Values are
important. It takes all to pursue sustainability.
Notes
1. His documentary series was pulled out of the TV program after airing only the first few episodes.
2. The Thai monk highly revered by the UNESCO as one of the world’s important persons.
References
Alexander, S. and Ussher, S. (2012), “The voluntary simplicity movement: a multi-national survey analysis
in the theoretical context”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Andrews, C. (1997), The Circle of Simplicity: Return to the God Life, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T. and Sheldon, K.M. (2004), “The urge to splurge: a terror management
account of materialism and consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 198-212.
Assadourian, E. (2010), “Transforming cultures: from consumerism to sustainability”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 186-191.
Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Pyer, M., Seegebarth, B. and Wiedmann, K. (2013),
“Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic
dimension of sustainability”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 181-192.
Ballantine, P. and Creery, S. (2010), “The consumption and disposition behavior of voluntary simplifiers”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Ballantine, P., Arbouw, P. and Ozanne, L. (2011), “Learning to resist: the challenges faced by beginner
voluntary simplifiers”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 39, pp. 404-408.
Beadle, R. and Knight, K. (2012), “Virtue and meaningful work”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 433-450.
Bekin, C., Carrigan, M. and Szmigin, I. (2005), “Defying marketing sovereignty: voluntary simplicity at new
consumption communities”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 413-429.
Belk, R., Fischer, E. and Kozinets, R. (2013), Qualitative Consumer & Marketing Research, Sage
Publication, London.
Bell, G. and Dyck, B. (2011), “Conventional resource-based theory and its radical alternative: a less
materialist-individualist approach to strategy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 99 No. S1, pp. 121-130.
Bloom, M. and Michel, J.G. (2002), “The relationships among organizational context, pay dispersion, and
managerial turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Cherrier, H. (2009), “Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 181-190.
PAGE 92jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
Craig-Lees, M. and Hill, C. (2002), “Understanding voluntary simplifiers”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 187-210.
Daoud, A. (2011), “The modus vivendi of material simplicity: counteracting scarcity via deflation of
wants”, Review of Social Economy, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 275-305.
Deckop, J.R., Jurkiewicz, C.L. and Giacalone, R.A. (2010), “Effects of materialism on work-related
personal well-being”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 1007-1030.
Elgin, D. (2010), Voluntary Simplicity, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Elgin, D. and Mitchell, A. (2003), “Voluntary simplicity: a movement emerges”, in Doherty, D. and Etzioni,
A. (Eds), Voluntary Simplicity: Responding to Consumer Culture, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford,
pp. 145-174.
Etzioni, A. (1998), “Voluntary simplicity: characterization, select psychological implications, and societal
consequences”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 619-643.
Etzioni, A. (2004), “The post affluent society”, Review of Social Economy, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 407-420.
Euromonitor International (2016), Luxury Goods in Thailand, available at: www.euromonitor.com/luxury-
goods-in-thailand/report (accessed 24 November 2016).
Ewing, B., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., Moore, D. and Wackernagel, M. (2009), The Ecological
Footprint Atlas, Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
Friese, M. and Hofmann, W. (2008), “What would you have as a last supper? Thoughts about death
influence evaluation and consumption of food products”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1388-1394.
Gokcekus, O. and Suzuki, Y. (2014), “Is there a corruption-effect on conspicuous consumption?”,
Margin-The Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-235.
Golden, L. and Wiens-Tuers, B. (2008), “Overtime work and wellbeing at home”, Review of Social
Economy, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 25-49.
Grant, A.M. and Campbell, E.M. (2007), “Doing good, doing harm, being well, and burning out: the
interactions of perceived pro-social impact and anti-social impact in service work”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 665-691.
Heath, M., Pereira, T. and Chatzidakis, A. (2012), “Blame it on marketing’: consumers’ views on
unsustainable consumption”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 656-667.
Heine, S.J., Harihara, M. and Niiya, Y. (2002), “Terror management in Japan”, Asian Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Huneke, M. (2005), “The face of the un-consumer: an empirical examination of the practice of voluntary
simplicity in the United States”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 527-550.
Jackson, T. and Michaelis, L. (2003), Policies for Sustainable Consumption, Sustainable Development
Commission, London.
Jackson, T. (2005), “Live better by consuming less? Is there a double dividend in sustainable
consumption?”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-36.
Johnston, T.C. and Burton, J.B. (2003), “Voluntary simplicity: definitions and dimensions”, Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Kasser, T. (2009), “Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being and ecological sustainability”,
Ecopsychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 175-180.
Kraisornsuthasinee, S. (2012), “CSR through the heart of the Bodhi tree”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 186-198.
McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Young, C.W. and Hwang, K. (2006), “Toward sustainable consumption:
researching voluntary simplifiers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 515-534.
McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Alevizou, P., Young, C.W. and Hwang, K. (2012), “Individual strategies for
sustainable consumption”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 445-468.
McGouran, C. and Prothero, A. (2016), “Enacting voluntary simplicity: exploring the consequences of
requesting consumers to intentionally consume less”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 Nos 1/2,
pp. 189-212.
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 93
http://www.euromonitor.com/luxury-goods-in-thailand/report
http://www.euromonitor.com/luxury-goods-in-thailand/report
Michaelson, C., Pratt, M.G., Grant, A.M. and Dunn, C.P. (2014), “Meaningful work: connecting business
ethics and organization studies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Miller, S. and Gregan-Praxton, J. (2006), “Community and connectivity: examining the motives underlying
the adoption of a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity”, in Pechmann, C. and Price, L. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN, Vol. 33, pp. 289-290.
Nepomuceno, M.V. and Laroche, M. (2016), “Do I fear death? The effect of mortality salience on anti-
consumption lifestyles”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 124-144.
O’Sullivan, P. and Pisalyaput, N. (2015), “The sufficiency economy: a Thai response to financial
excesses”, in O’Sullivan, P., Allington, N. and Esposito, M. (Eds), The Philosophy, Politics, and
Economics of Finance in the 21st Century: From Hubris to Disgrace, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 300-309.
Penaloza, L. and Price, L. (2003), “Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview”, Advances Consumer
Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. pp.123-128.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. and Uzzell, D. (2009), “An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious
and frugal consumer behaviours”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 126-136.
Randers, J. (2012), 2052: A Global Forecast in the Next Forty Years, Chelsea Green Publishing, White
River Junction, VT.
Rich, S.A., Hanna, S. and Wright, B.J. (2017), “Simply satisfied: the role of psychological need satisfaction
in life satisfaction of voluntary simplifiers”, Journal of Happiness Study, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 89-105.
Robinson, S. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multi-dimensional
scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 55-572.
Sayer, A. (2009), “Contributive justice and meaningful work”, Res Publica, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Segal, J. (1999), Graceful Simplicity: Toward a Philosophy and Politics of the Alternative American
Dream, H. Holt, New York, NY.
Shama, A. (1981), “Coping with stagflation: voluntary simplicity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 120-134.
Shaw, D. and Newholm, T. (2002), “Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 165-185.
Soper, K. (2008), “Alternative hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic revisioning”, Cultural
Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 567-587.
Szmigin, I. and Carrigan, M. (2009), “The conscious consumer: taking a flexible approach to ethical
behavior”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 224-231.
Tang, T., Chen, Y. and Sutarso, T. (2008), “Bad apples in bad (business) barrels: the love of money,
Machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and unethical behavior”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 243-263.
Wachtel, P.L. (1996), “Simplifying voluntary simplicity”, in Belk, R., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (Eds),
Consumption and Marketing: Macro Dimensions, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH,
pp. 225-231.
Walsh, A. (1994), “Meaningful work as a distributive good”, Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 233-250.
Weinstein, N. and Ryan, R.M. (2010), “When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior
and its influences on well-being for the helper and the recipient”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 222-244.
Zavestoski, S. (2002), “The social–psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Zhang, L. and Gowan, M. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and
organizational attraction: a person-organization fit perspective”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 345-362.
About the authors
Suthisak Kraisornsuthasinee is Associate Professor in Marketing at Thammasat Business
School, Thammasat University. He is responsible for courses in Corporate Governance and
PAGE 94jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALjVOL. 14 NO. 1 2018
Social Responsibility, Sustainability Marketing and Consumer Behavior. His publications
and research interests are on consumer behavior, corporate governance, corporate social
responsibility and sustainability. He has been working with many organizations to promote
sustainability practices in Thailand. Suthisak Kraisornsuthasinee is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: suthisak@tbs.tu.ac.th
Dr Fredric William Swierczek is Research Professor in Thammasat Business School,
Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. His expertise is in Cross-cultural Management,
International Business and Business Sustainability.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 jSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNALj PAGE 95
mailto:suthisak@tbs.tu.ac.th
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
Literature background
Voluntary simplicity
Variety of work behavior
Values of the voluntary simplifiers
Methodology
Findings on relationship between consumption and work
The beginners
The progressive
The extensive
Findings on values
Sufficiency and contentment with life
Purpose of life
A short lifetime
Ethics and morality determination in work and consumption
Discussion
Conclusion
References
