IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2554-d756166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of Product Sustainability Claims to Mitigate Negative Electronic Word of Mouth (N-eWOM)

Author

Listed:
  • Rizal Edy Halim

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta 10560, Indonesia)

  • Shinta Rahmani

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta 10560, Indonesia)

  • Gita Gayatri

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta 10560, Indonesia)

  • Asnan Furinto

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Bina Nusantara, Jakarta 10560, Indonesia)

  • Yudi Sutarso

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Hayam Wuruk Perbanas, Surabaya 60118, Indonesia)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of negative electronic word-of-mouth (N-eWOM) messages on attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavior control (PBC), and the intention to purchase sustainable dairy products. This study also investigates the moderating role of product sustainability claims to reduce the effect of N-eWOM on customers. It comprises two experiments on college students ( n = 120; 90) who have at least two accounts on different social media platforms. We use both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The model was developed and tested on data collected from questionnaires. The results of Study 1 suggest that N-eWOM reduces purchase intentions, attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC. High N-eWOM reduces purchase intention more than the low N-eWOM. Study 2 found that with high N-eWOM, product sustainability claims (congruent or incongruent) moderate the effect of N-eWOM on attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, and purchase intention. Purchase intention is higher when a product sustainability claim is congruent. These novel findings contribute to our understanding of ways to mitigate the impact of N-eWOM by taking preventive actions, such as making product sustainability claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Rizal Edy Halim & Shinta Rahmani & Gita Gayatri & Asnan Furinto & Yudi Sutarso, 2022. "The Effectiveness of Product Sustainability Claims to Mitigate Negative Electronic Word of Mouth (N-eWOM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2554-:d:756166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2554/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2554/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wesley Malcorps & Richard W. Newton & Silvia Maiolo & Mahmoud Eltholth & Changbo Zhu & Wenbo Zhang & Saihong Li & Michael Tlusty & David C. Little, 2021. "Global Seafood Trade: Insights in Sustainability Messaging and Claims of the Major Producing and Consuming Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. M. Joseph Sirgy, 2018. "Self-congruity theory in consumer behavior: A little history," Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 197-207, April.
    3. Yamna Erraach & Fatma Jaafer & Ivana Radić & Mechthild Donner, 2021. "Sustainability Labels on Olive Oil: A Review on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Muhammad Amad Saeed & Ammara Farooq & Wolfgang Kersten & Semah Ibrahim Ben Abdelaziz, 2019. "Sustainable product purchase: does information about product sustainability on social media affect purchase behavior?," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Rainer Haas & Alina Schnepps & Anni Pichler & Oliver Meixner, 2019. "Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    8. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    9. Sparks, Beverley A. & Browning, Victoria, 2011. "The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1310-1323.
    10. Chetna Kudeshia & Amresh Kumar, 2017. "Social eWOM: does it affect the brand attitude and purchase intention of brands?," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 310-330, March.
    11. Natalia Muñoz López & Jose Ignacio Valero Martín & Anna Biedermann & Jose Luis Santolaya Sáenz & Aranzazu Fernández-Vazquez, 2021. "Projecting More Sustainable Product and Service Designs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Yamna Erraach & Fatma Jaafer & Ivana Radić & Mechthild Donner, 2021. "Sustainability labels on olive oil: A review on consumer attitudes and behavior," Post-Print hal-03476649, HAL.
    13. Stayman, Douglas M & Alden, Dana L & Smith, Karen H, 1992. "Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(2), pages 240-255, September.
    14. Yixuan Wang & Xingle Long & Liang Li & Qinglin Wang & Xiping Ding & Sijia Cai, 2021. "Extending theory of planned behavior in household waste sorting in China: the moderating effect of knowledge, personal involvement, and moral responsibility," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7230-7250, May.
    15. Diana Maria Ilie & Georgiana-Raluca Lădaru & Maria Claudia Diaconeasa & Mirela Stoian, 2021. "Consumer Choice for Milk and Dairy in Romania: Does Income Really Have an Influence?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.
    16. Annika Carlsson Kanyama & Björn Hedin & Cecilia Katzeff, 2021. "Differences in Environmental Impact between Plant-Based Alternatives to Dairy and Dairy Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    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. Akbari, Morteza & Foroudi, Pantea & Zaman Fashami, Rahime & Mahavarpour, Nasrin & Khodayari, Maryam, 2022. "Let us talk about something: The evolution of e-WOM from the past to the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 663-689.
    2. Tyrone T. Lin & Yu-Qi Yeh & Shu-Yen Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of the Effects of Perceived Value, Price Sensitivity, Word-of-Mouth, and Customer Satisfaction on Repurchase Intentions of Safety Shoes under the Consideration of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Nathalie Peña-García & David van der Woude & Augusto Rodríguez-Orejuela, 2022. "Recommend or Not: Is Generation the Key? A Perspective from the SOR Paradigm for Online Stores in Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, December.

    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. Colmekcioglu, Nazan & Marvi, Reza & Foroudi, Pantea & Okumus, Fevzi, 2022. "Generation, susceptibility, and response regarding negativity: An in-depth analysis on negative online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 235-250.
    2. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:48:p:373 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Rishikesh Bhaiswar & N. Meenakshi & Deepak Chawla, 2021. "Evolution of Electronic Word of Mouth: A Systematic Literature Review Using Bibliometric Analysis of 20 Years (2000–2020)," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 10(3), pages 215-231, September.
    4. Rajković, Borislav & Đurić, Ivan & Zarić, Vlade & Glauben, Thomas, 2021. "Gaining trust in the digital age: The potential of social media for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(4).
    5. Choi-Meng Leong & Alexa Min-Wei Loi & Steve Woon, 2022. "The influence of social media eWOM information on purchase intention," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(2), pages 145-157, June.
    6. Koji Ishida & Lisa Slevitch & Katia Siamionava, 2016. "The Effects of Traditional and Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Destination Image: A Case of Vacation Tourists Visiting Branson, Missouri," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Loureiro, Sandra M.C. & Cavallero, Luisa & Miranda, Francisco Javier, 2018. "Fashion brands on retail websites: Customer performance expectancy and e-word-of-mouth," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 131-141.
    8. Jinghui (Jove) Hou & Xiao Ma, 2022. "Space Norms for Constructing Quality Reviews on Online Consumer Review Sites," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1093-1112, September.
    9. Plotkina, Daria & Munzel, Andreas, 2016. "Delight the experts, but never dissatisfy your customers! A multi-category study on the effects of online review source on intention to buy a new product," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Deszczyński Bartosz, 2017. "Word-Of-Mouth in Social Media. The Case of Polish Tourist Industry," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 53(4), pages 93-114, December.
    11. Maria del García-de los Salmones & Angel Herrero & Patricia Martínez, 2021. "Determinants of Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Social Networking Sites About Negative News on CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 583-597, July.
    12. Filieri, Raffaele & Alguezaui, Salma & McLeay, Fraser, 2015. "Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and word of mouth," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 174-185.
    13. Jiayu Qian & Jee-Sun Park, 2021. "Influencer-brand fit and brand dilution in China’s luxury market: the moderating role of self-concept clarity," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(2), pages 199-220, March.
    14. S. Cicognani & P. Figini & M. Magnani, 2016. "Social Influence Bias in Online Ratings: A Field Experiment," Working Papers wp1060, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    15. Rasa Pauliene & Virginijus Tamasevicius & Silvestras Gaivenis, 2020. "Recommendations' Impact on Customer Behavior and Visiting Catering Organizations," Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Richtmann Publishing Ltd, vol. 9, January.
    16. Kim, Molan & Lee, Seung Min & Choi, Sanghak & Kim, Sang Yong, 2021. "Impact of visual information on online consumer review behavior: Evidence from a hotel booking website," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Juan Pedro Mellinas & Eva Martin-Fuentes, 2019. "Does hotel size matter to get more reviews per room?," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 165-180, June.
    18. Paul A. Pavlou & David Gefen, 2005. "Psychological Contract Violation in Online Marketplaces: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderating Role," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 372-399, December.
    19. Babajide Abubakr Muritala & Maria-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull & Ana-Beatriz Hernández-Lara, 2020. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Online Reviews Research in Tourism and Hospitality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    20. Rosa Maria Fanelli & Luca Romagnoli, 2020. "Customer Satisfaction with Farmhouse Facilities and Its Implications for the Promotion of Agritourism Resources in Italian Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, February.
    21. Ramos, Célia M.Q. & Casado-Molina, Ana-María, 2021. "Online corporate reputation: A panel data approach and a reputation index proposal applied to the banking sector," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 121-130.

    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:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2554-:d:756166. 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.