IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/corsem/v26y2019i1p97-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer behavior and corporate social responsibility: An evaluation by a choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Flavio Boccia
  • Rosa Malgeri Manzo
  • Daniela Covino

Abstract

The relationship between corporate social responsibility and consumer's behavior is more and more strong today: so it influences management of ethical and social effects of companies. The aim of the study is to investigate to what extent the socially responsible behaviors of companies influence consumer purchasing decisions and, moreover, the possible willingness to pay higher prices for good practice products. A choice experiment was conducted in Italy for this purpose on ready‐made foods, where socially responsible initiatives of companies are compared with four levels of price and the presence or absence of a known brand. The analysis shows a positive relationship between socially responsible initiatives of companies and attitudes of consumers towards them and their products. However, by investigation, only few people adopt corporate social responsibility as choice criterion for purchases still, because traditional purchasing criteria continue to prevail, in particular the price. The conclusions are also a matter for thought for further discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Flavio Boccia & Rosa Malgeri Manzo & Daniela Covino, 2019. "Consumer behavior and corporate social responsibility: An evaluation by a choice experiment," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 97-105, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:26:y:2019:i:1:p:97-105
    DOI: 10.1002/csr.1661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/csr.1661?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Nadhem Mtimet & Luis Miguel Albisu, 2006. "Spanish wine consumer behavior: A choice experiment approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 343-362.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    6. Laura Sierra‐García & Ana Zorio‐Grima & María A. García‐Benau, 2015. "Stakeholder Engagement, Corporate Social Responsibility and Integrated Reporting: An Exploratory Study," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 286-304, September.
    7. Baker, Gregory A., 2003. "Food Safety And Fear: Factors Affecting Consumer Response To Food Safety Risk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11.
    8. Pasquale Sarnacchiaro & Flavio Boccia, 2018. "Some remarks on measurement models in the structural equation model: an application for socially responsible food consumption," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(7), pages 1193-1208, May.
    9. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    13. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2018. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Preference: A Structural Equation Analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 151-163, March.
    14. Han Lin & Saixing Zeng & Liangyan Wang & Hailiang Zou & Hanyang Ma, 2016. "How Does Environmental Irresponsibility Impair Corporate Reputation? A Multi‐Method Investigation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 413-423, November.
    15. Elena G. Irwin & Sathya Gopalakrishnan & Alan Randall, 2016. "Welfare, Wealth, and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 77-98, October.
    16. Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2013. "Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preference for food transport footprint with a stated choice study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-18.
    17. José M. Agudo‐Valiente & Concepción Garcés‐Ayerbe & Manuel Salvador‐Figueras, 2015. "Corporate Social Performance and Stakeholder Dialogue Management," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 13-31, January.
    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. Jinhua Li & Yongyi Chen & Qiankai Qing, 2021. "Differentiated consumer responses to corporate social responsibility domains moderated by corporate social responsibility perceptions: A Kano model‐based perspective," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1606-1619, November.
    2. Egle Jakunskiene & Egle Kazlauskiene, 2022. "The Evaluation of Business Tools for Encouraging Social Responsibility in Older Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Andrée Marie López-Fernández, 0. "Price sensitivity versus ethical consumption: a study of Millennial utilitarian consumer behavior," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-12.
    4. Ye Sang & Eunkyoung Han, 2023. "A win‐win way for corporate and stakeholders to achieve sustainable development: Corporate social responsibility value co‐creation scale development and validation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1177-1190, May.
    5. repec:bbs:prospe:v:9:y:2022:i:5:p:xpx is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Tarek Abid & Marie‐Aude Abid‐Dupont & Jean‐Louis Moulins, 2020. "What corporate social responsibility brings to brand management? The two pathways from social responsibility to brand commitment," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 925-936, March.
    7. Marcelo Royo-Vela & Jonathan Cuevas Lizama, 2022. "Creating Shared Value: Exploration in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    8. Arturo Luque & Noelia Herrero‐García, 2019. "How corporate social (ir)responsibility in the textile sector is defined, and its impact on ethical sustainability: An analysis of 133 concepts," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1285-1306, November.
    9. Tian Zeng & Anne‐Françoise Audrain‐Pontevia & Fabien Durif, 2021. "Does corporate social responsibility affect consumer boycotts? A cost–benefit approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 796-807, March.
    10. Andrée Marie López-Fernández, 2020. "Price sensitivity versus ethical consumption: a study of Millennial utilitarian consumer behavior," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(2), pages 57-68, June.
    11. Hongsha Wang & Qihui Chen & Bhagyashree Katare, 2023. "Nudging Chinese consumers to embrace sustainable milk consumption: How should information be provided?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(S1), pages 1512-1534, December.
    12. Haywantee Ramkissoon & Felix Mavondo & Vishnee Sowamber, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility at LUX* Resorts and Hotels: Satisfaction and Loyalty Implications for Employee and Customer Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    13. Dang, Van Thac & Nguyen, Ninh & Pervan, Simon, 2020. "Retailer corporate social responsibility and consumer citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of perceived consumer effectiveness and consumer trust," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    14. Fang, Yingkai & Asche, Frank & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Can ecolabel certifications for restaurants influence consumer choices away from home?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304268, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Naveed Ahmad & Miklas Scholz & Zia Ullah & Muhammad Zulqarnain Arshad & Raja Irfan Sabir & Waris Ali Khan, 2021. "The Nexus of CSR and Co-Creation: A Roadmap towards Consumer Loyalty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2020. "Chi‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1143-1151, March.
    17. Danielle Lyssimachou & Pawel Bilinski, 2023. "Does corporate social responsibility affect the institutional ownership of firms in the hospitality and tourism industry?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(4), pages 853-879, June.
    18. Jonathan Luffarelli & Panos Markou & Antonios Stamatogiannakis & Dilney Gonçalves, 2019. "The effect of corporate social performance on the financial performance of business‐to‐business and business‐to‐consumer firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1333-1350, November.
    19. Shuchi Gupta & Nishad Nawaz & Abhishek Tripathi & Saqib Muneer & Naveed Ahmad, 2021. "Using Social Media as a Medium for CSR Communication, to Induce Consumer–Brand Relationship in the Banking Sector of a Developing Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Camila Kolling & José Luis Duarte Ribeiro & Donato Morea & Gianpaolo Iazzolino, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility and circular economy from the perspective of consumers: A cross‐cultural analysis in the cosmetic industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1226-1243, May.
    21. Jiyun Kang & Tiffani Slaten & Woo Jin Choi, 2021. "Felt betrayed or resisted? The impact of pre‐crisis corporate social responsibility reputation on post‐crisis consumer reactions and retaliatory behavioral intentions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 511-524, January.
    22. Yuan Tian & Chiako Hung & Peter Frumkin, 2020. "An experimental test of the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers' purchasing behavior: The mediation role of trust," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2972-2982, 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. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2020. "Chi‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1143-1151, March.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    4. Chiara Paffarini & Biancamaria Torquati & Tiziano Tempesta & Sonia Venanzi & Daniel Vecchiato, 2021. "Rural sustainability and food choice: the effect of territorial characteristics on the consumers’ preferences for organic lentils," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. 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).
    6. Kikulwe, Enoch & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, José, 2009. "A latent class approach to investigating consumer demand for genetically modified staple food in a developing country: The case of GM bananas in Uganda," IFPRI discussion papers 938, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    8. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    10. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    11. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Fabio Boncinelli & Andrea Dominici & Francesca Gerini & Enrico Marone, 2021. "Insights into organic wine consumption: behaviour, segmentation and attribute non-attendance," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    14. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    16. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    17. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    19. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    21. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:corsem:v:26:y:2019:i:1:p:97-105. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1535-3966 .

    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.