IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5219-d270047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees

Author

Listed:
  • Makiko Nakano

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

Abstract

Many previous studies on consumer choice have examined consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes related to environmental issues. In Japan, long working hours have caused many problems, including death through overwork. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there are no previous studies examining WTP for the attribute related to long working hours in Japan. Therefore, this study aims to examine whether consumers prefer products without involving employees’ working long hours and to demonstrate the difference in WTP between the attribute of environmental issues (the product is made from organically grown raw cotton) and the attribute of long working hours in order to reveal Japanese consumers’ preference. The research methodology is a choice experiment using a questionnaire survey in Japan. The results indicate that the use of organically grown raw cotton can increase the WTP by JPY (Japanese yen) 121 on average. When an overworked employee who works more than 80 h of overtime per month is present, the WTP decreases by JPY 230 on average. The contribution of this study is to reveal WTP and show that consumers are interested in employees’ working hours in addition to the environmental issue. Preference heterogeneity is also examined.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5219-:d:270047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5219/
    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. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    3. Mizobuchi, Kenichi & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2013. "The influences of financial and non-financial factors on energy-saving behaviour: A field experiment in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 775-787.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    6. Basu, Arnab K. & Hicks, Robert L., 2008. "Label Performance and the Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Cross-National Perspective," Discussion Papers 44336, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    7. Rode, Julian & Hogarth, Robin M. & Le Menestrel, Marc, 2008. "Ethical differentiation and market behavior: An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 265-280, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Uchida, Hirotsugu & Onozaka, Yuko & Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2014. "Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-76.
    10. Giovanni Ferri & Marco Pini, 2019. "Environmental vs. Social Responsibility in the Firm. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Mizobuchi, Kenichi & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2016. "Replacement or additional purchase: The impact of energy-efficient appliances on household electricity saving under public pressures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 137-148.
    12. Shareen Hertel & Lyle Scruggs & C. Patrick Heidkamp, 2007. "Human Rights and Public Opinion: From Attitudes to Action," Economic Rights Working Papers 3, University of Connecticut, Human Rights Institute, revised Apr 2008.
    13. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    14. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    15. Wencke Gwozdz & Kristian Steensen Nielsen & Tina Müller, 2017. "An Environmental Perspective on Clothing Consumption: Consumer Segments and Their Behavioral Patterns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-27, May.
    16. Ramon Casadesus‐Masanell & Michael Crooke & Forest Reinhardt & Vishal Vasishth, 2009. "Households' Willingness to Pay for “Green” Goods: Evidence from Patagonia's Introduction of Organic Cotton Sportswear," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 203-233, March.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    18. Jiyun Kang & Gwendolyn Hustvedt, 2014. "Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 253-265, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Su-In Kim & Hyejeong Shin & Heejeong Shin & Sorah Park, 2019. "Organizational Slack, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Integrated Reporting: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    21. 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.
    22. Kesidou, Effie & Demirel, Pelin, 2012. "On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 862-870.
    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. Maria Elena Saija & Sara Daniotti & Diego Bosco & Ilaria Re, 2023. "A Choice Experiment Model for Sustainable Consumer Goods: A Systematic Literature Review and Workflow Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Makiko Nakano, 2023. "Examining Preference for Energy-Related Information through a Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.

    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. 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.
    2. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Choi, Andy Sungnok & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "A Critique of Conventional Non-market Valuation: Attitudes and Action," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174461, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    8. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    10. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. 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.
    12. Balogh, Péter & Török, Áron & Czine, Péter & Horváth, Péter, 2020. "A fogyasztói magatartás elemzése feltételes választási modellekkel - a mangalicakolbász példáján [Analysing consumer behaviour with conditional choice models, with Mangalica sausage as an example]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 474-494.
    13. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    14. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    15. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Llewellyn, Rick S., 2013. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of weed decision support tools," Working Papers 147031, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
    17. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    18. Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan, 2014. "Environmental attitude and the demand for green electricity in the context of supplier choice: A case study of the New Zealand retail electricity market," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 188376, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    20. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    21. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    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:19:p:5219-:d:270047. 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.