IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v95y2013icp118-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China

Author

Listed:
  • Cai, Zhen
  • Aguilar, Francisco X.

Abstract

The impacts of disclosed level of corporate social responsibility (CSR), domestic versus imported origin and type of construction on consumers' stated wood product purchasing preferences were examined in the U.S. and China. Hierarchical logit models based on a Bayesian framework were utilized to test the magnitude and statistical significance of each wood product attribute using survey data. Results indicate that U.S. and Chinese respondents: (a) were more likely to choose products from manufacturing companies with a higher level of CSR rating compared with an unknown one; (b) preferred domestically manufactured wood products compared to imported ones; and (c) expressed higher interest in wood products made of solid wood compared with composites. In terms of demographics, respondents' higher education levels corresponded with higher preferences for products from companies with the highest (five-star) CSR rating in the U.S. Statistically-significant income effects were detected only in the Chinese sample when respondents indicated their purchasing preferences for wood products with three-star or five-star CSR levels. Implications for improving wood products companies' managerial performance and suggestions for future studies are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 118-127.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:118-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913002747
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabelle Maignan & David A Ralston, 2002. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses' Self-presentations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 33(3), pages 497-514, September.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Norbert L. W. Wilson, 2012. "How the Cookie Crumbles: A Case Study of Gluten-Free Cookies and Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(2), pages 576-582.
    4. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    5. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen, 2010. "Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 308-316, December.
    6. Zhang, Jian & gan, Jianbang, 2007. "Who will Meet China's Import Demand for Forest Products?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2150-2160, December.
    7. Dmitrovic, Tanja & Vida, Irena & Reardon, James, 2009. "Purchase behavior in favor of domestic products in the West Balkans," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 523-535, October.
    8. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    10. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Vlosky, Richard P., 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1100-1112, May.
    12. Verlegh, Peeter W. J. & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., 1999. "A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 521-546, October.
    13. William Shafer & Kyoko Fukukawa & Grace Lee, 2007. "Values and the Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility: The U.S. versus China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 265-284, February.
    14. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    15. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    16. David A Ralston & David J Gustafson & Fanny M Cheung & Robert H Terpstra, 1993. "Differences in Managerial Values: A Study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC Managers," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 24(2), pages 249-275, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yamamura, Eiji & Managi, Shunsuke & Tsutsui, Yoshiro, 2019. "Male pupils taught by female homeroom teachers show a higher preference for Corporate Social Responsibility in adulthood," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    2. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    3. Li Jie & Lan Qiaoling & Liu Lu & Yang Fang, 2018. "Integrated Online Consumer Preference Mining for Product Improvement with Online Reviews," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 17-36, March.
    4. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Su, Lujun & Pan, Yue & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility: Findings from the Chinese hospitality industry," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 240-247.
    6. Abdu, Nizam & Tinch, Elena & Levitt, Clinton & Volker, Peter & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2022. "Willingness to pay for sustainable and legal firewood in Tasmania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D. & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Griffiths, Steve & Bazilian, Morgan & Kim, Jinsoo & Foley, Aoife M. & Rooney, David, 2022. "Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. Wan, Minli & Toppinen, Anne, 2016. "Effects of perceived product quality and Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) on consumer price preferences for children's furniture in China," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 52-67.
    9. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Woo, JongRoul & Lim, Sesil & Lee, Yong-Gil & Kim, Chang Seob, 2015. "What do customers want from improved residential electricity services? Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 410-420.
    10. Makiko Nakano & Takahiro Tsuge, 2019. "Assessing the Heterogeneity of Consumers’ Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility Using the Best–Worst Scaling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, May.
    11. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    3. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    4. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    6. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    7. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    8. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Meta-analysis of consumer's willingness-to-pay premiums for certified wood products," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 15-31.
    9. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Robert G. Brummett, 2007. "On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    10. Yuki Yamamoto & Kenji Takeuchi & Takayoshi Shinkuma, 2012. "Are There Price Premiums for Certified Wood?Empirical Evidence from Log Auction Data in Japan," Discussion Papers 1209, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—A multiple country test of an oath script," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 105-121.
    12. Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011. "A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    15. Yamamoto, Yuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Shinkuma, Takayoshi, 2014. "Is there a price premium for certified wood? Empirical evidence from log auction data in Japan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 168-172.
    16. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    19. Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky & Jaldell, Henrik, 2008. "Do you do what you say or do you do what you say others do?," Working Papers in Economics 309, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Maurice Doyon & Laure Saulais & Bernard Ruffieux & Denise Bweli, 2015. "Hypothetical bias for private goods: does cheap talk make a difference?," Post-Print hal-01254936, HAL.
    21. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:118-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.