IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i10p2995-d234663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Heterogeneity of Consumers’ Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility Using the Best–Worst Scaling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Makiko Nakano

    (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan)

  • Takahiro Tsuge

    (Faculty of Economics, Konan University, Kobe 658-8501, Japan)

Abstract

The promotion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is important for achieving sustainability. The interest of stakeholders is one factor promoting CSR activities. Consumers are one of the major stakeholders. The aim of this study is to quantify Japanese consumers’ preference for 13 CSR activities using the best–worst scaling (BWS) approach. We conducted an online survey in February 2015 and 633 individuals responded. Counting analysis and econometric analysis were used to analyze the BWS data. The results of the counting and MaxDiff analyses show that “Product safety and immediate recall in the case of defects” was identified as the most highly evaluated activity that makes respondents most strongly think that they want to buy a product from a company implementing the CSR activity. The results of the random parameter logit model and latent class model show preference heterogeneity. Some classes prioritize activities that do not generate a private benefit for them, such as environmental issues abroad and the working conditions of employees.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2995-:d:234663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2995/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2995/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
    5. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney & Jordan Louviere, 2007. "Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs Across Countries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 299-326, February.
    6. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kverndokk, Snorre & Nyborg, Karine, 2003. "An economic model of moral motivation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 1967-1983, September.
    7. Chun-Chu Liu & Chu-Wei Chen & Han-Shen Chen, 2019. "Measuring Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Coffee Certification Labels in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    9. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    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. White, Mark H., 2021. "bwsTools: An R package for case 1 best-worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. 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.

    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. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    2. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Vásquez Lavin, Felipe & Barrientos, Manuel & Castillo, Álvaro & Herrera, Iván & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Firewood certification programs: Key attributes and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    6. Julia Blasch & Mehdi Farsi, 2012. "Retail demand for voluntary carbon offsets - A choice experiment among Swiss consumers," IED Working paper 12-18, IED Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich.
    7. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    8. Glenk, Klaus & Eory, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: An analysis of dairy farmers' perceptions and adoption behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 49-58.
    9. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2013. "Dairy Farmer Policy Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    11. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    12. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    13. Schleich, Joachim & Alsheimer, Sven, 2024. "The relationship between willingness to pay and carbon footprint knowledge: Are individuals willing to pay more to offset their carbon footprint if they learn about its size and distance to the 1.5 °C," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    14. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    15. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    17. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    19. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    20. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2995-:d:234663. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.