Consumer Criteria for an Arm Orthosis

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of Corporate Social ResponsibilityLonginos Marı´n •Pedro J.Cuestas •Sergio Roma´n Received:3October 2012/Accepted:13February 2015ÓSpringer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015Abstract Prior research has found attributions to mediate the relationship between the elements of corporate social responsibility (CSR)activities and consumer responses to firms;however,the question of what variables determine consumer attributions of CSR remains partially unaddressed.This article analyzes why consumers make attributions of CSR that are either positive (values-driven or strategic motives),or negative (stakeholder-driven or egoistic mo-tives).The results obtained from two empirical studies (n =197,n =222)indicate that company–cause fit,cor-porate ability,and interpersonal trust have a positive influ-ence on the motives that consumers attribute to CSR,whereas corporate hypocrisy has a negative effect.This re-search contributes to our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying impactful consumer judgments and provides guidance for organizations in responding to such evaluations.Keywords CSR ÁConsumer behavior ÁAttributions ÁEthicsIntroductionCurrently,companies are undertaking many social initiatives,which usually entail allocating company resources to socialpurposes.A growing interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR)is apparent in both practice and research when dis-cussing how business corporations integrate social demands into their operations to boost stakeholders.The positive link between CSR and consumer patronage has made managers realize that CSR is not only an ideological imperative but also an economic imperative in today’s marketplace (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004;Jia and Zhang 2014).Past research has demonstrated that socially responsible actions enhance corporate reputation and image (Hur et al.2014;Saeidi et al.2015;Turban and Greening 1997).CSR activity can,however,backfire on a company if consumers become suspicious and infer that the company’s true mo-tive for CSR activity is merely to sell more products rather than acting on behalf of its consumers (Cui et al.2003;Yoon et al.2006).CSR activity can also backfire if it is perceived as distracting a company from its ability to produce quality products (Brown and Dacin 1997).In re-cent decades,for example,consumers have learned about the pitfalls of greenwashing,as many environmental claims of green products are neither true nor transparent in the market (Nyilasy et al.2014).One way of considering how consumers view a company’s CSR activities is through attribution theory.This theory provides a well-developed approach for describing how people make causal infer-ences about a company’s behavior (Folkes 1984).Attri-bution is a cognitive process in which people indicate a cause or explain a certain event (Kelly 1973).Research has suggested that certain attributions can directly influence consumers’behavioral intentions and attitudes.Purchase intent (Ellen et al.2006),repeat patronage (Vlachos et al.2009),and recommendation intentions (Walker et al.2010),for example,have all been sig-nificantly influenced by the motives that consumers assign to CSR bining insights from managementL.Marı´n (&)ÁP.J.Cuestas ÁS.Roma ´n Facultad Economı´a y Empresa,Universidad de Murcia,Murcia,Spaine-mail:longinos@um.es P.J.Cuestase-mail:pcuestas@um.es S.Roma´n e-mail:sroman@um.esJ Bus EthicsDOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4and business ethics research,Swanson(1995)proposes three principal motivations for companies to engage in CSR:economic,positive duty,and negative duty.The different motivations in consumer responses to CSR actions have also been analyzed(e.g.,Becker-Olsen et al. 2006;Sen et al.2006;Ellen et al.2006).However,the issue of the‘‘conditions[under which]consumers may perceive a CSR action as self-interested’’remains partially unaddressed(Gao 2009,p.270),and the question of how consumers attribute the motivation for afirm’s CSR activity has received little at-tention(Yoon et al.2006).Yet,it would be relevant to aca-demics and marketers to understand the effects of CSR initiatives on consumers’attributions of CSR and therefore to understand their attitudes and behaviors.Consumers support companies of which they have positive CSR perceptions(or beliefs);for instance,the results of the2013CSR RepTrak100 study show that73%of the55,000consumers surveyed were willing to recommend companies perceived to be delivering on CSR.Thus,the key antecedents of CSR attributions appear to be an important area of research because they provide a better understanding of the psychological mechanisms un-derlying these impactful consumer judgments and provide guidance for organizations on how to respond to them.We propose a framework that analyzes the effect of company–causefit,corporate ability,corporate hypocrisy, and interpersonal trust on consumer attributions of CSR.We follow Ellen et al.’s(2006)typology of attributions as posi-tive—values-driven and strategic—or negative—stakehold-er-driven and egoistic—motives.We predict that company–causefit,corporate ability,and interpersonal trust will have positive effects on consumer attributions of CSR(values-driven and strategic motives).In the case of corporate hypocrisy,we expect a positive effect on negative consumer attributions(egoistic and stakeholder-driven motives).The structure of this article is as follows.First,we present a review of the literature on CSR and attribution theory and propose hypotheses relating to the variables of the study (company–causefit,corporate ability,corporate hypocrisy, and interpersonal trust).Second,we test the model via two experiments:in Study1,we use a2(high/low company–causefit)92(high/low corporate ability)experimental design,and in Study2,we use a2(high/low interpersonal trust)92(high/low corporate hypocrisy)experimental de-sign.Finally,the implications of thefindings are discussed, and avenues for further research are suggested. Determinants of Consumers’Csr AttributionsCSRCSR plays an important role in corporate outcomes,in-cluding reputation,corporate and brand evaluations,purchase intentions,and customer identification with a company(e.g.,Brown and Dacin1997;Gurhan-Canli and Batra2004;Lichtenstein et al.2004;Mohr and Webb 2005;Saeidi et al.2015).CSR can assume many forms, such as philanthropy,cause-related marketing,environ-mental responsibility,and humane employee treatment. Regardless of the form that they take,CSR efforts are generally intended to portray an image of a company as responsive to the needs of the society on which it depends for survival.One of the most fundamentalfindings of previous CSR research is that an organization’s stakeholders(e.g.,em-ployees,customers,investors,and the public)will reward companies that are deeply engaged in CSR causes in dif-ferent ways(Sen et al.2006).Customers represent a sig-nificant stakeholder group whose responses to CSR have attracted much academic attention.In general,consumers applaud altruistic corporate behaviors that are beneficial for all of society in the long term rather than merely benefitting the organization itself,and they tend to reward those efforts (Marin et al.2009).However,research has also shown that CSR may cause negative reactions in consumer behavior, such as skepticism or lower purchase intentions in some scenarios(Sen and Bhattacharya2001;Wagner et al. 2009).In this sense,Carrigan and Atalla(2001)highlight the phenomenon of consumers punishing companies’unethical behavior;however,although consumers may be willing to punish unethicalfirm behavior,they might be less willing to reward ethical behavior,especially if such behavior entails greater costs.Wagner et al.(2009)analyze the effects of the communications strategies thatfirms can use to mitigate the effects of inconsistencies with respect to consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy as well as corporate beliefs and associations regarding afirm’s social responsibility and attitudes toward thefirm.Theirfindings reveal that perceived hypocrisy damages consumers’atti-tudes towardfirms by negatively affecting CSR beliefs. CSR AttributionsConsumers’perceptions of the motives of companies to engage in CSR also play an essential role in their responses to CSR(Ellen et al.2006).Attribution theory proposes that individuals aim to predict and control what occurs around them(Heider1958).In a climate of limited trust,all deeds may be heavily scrutinized,thus yielding more complex assessments of motives.When expectations are not met, people‘‘give much thought to‘why´questions’’(Fein1996, p.165)and generate more sophisticated attributions.Be-cause consumers show little confidence and trust in busi-nesses,CSR efforts to demonstrate‘‘good citizenship’’might promote such attention.While many suggest that inconsistency or duality is difficult for consumers toL.Marı´n et al.reconcile,Williams and Aaker(2002)argue that when consumers are presented with persuasive communications, they are capable of accepting and synthesizing apparently contradictory information when making judgments rather than relying on more simplistic,bipolar views.These au-thors report that positive and negative emotional reactions co-occur when individuals are exposed to ads with mixed emotional appeals.Corporate motives of CSR have been discussed as a major variable explaining consumers’reactions to CSR(Forehand and Grier2003;Menon and Kahn2003;Sen et al.2006; Webb and Mohr1998).Combining insights from the re-search on management and business ethics,Swanson(1995) proposes three principal motivations for companies to engage in CSR:economic,positive duty,and negative duty.Eco-nomic motives usually focus on management researchers and incorporate afirm’s performance objectives,such as sales, profit,and return on investment.The duty-aligned perspec-tives are usually adopted by ethical researchers,and these perspectives focus on corporate moral behaviors and the associated obligations to society.Positive duty recognizes that a company may be involved in CSR to help others, whereas negative duty holds that a company’s motivation may be an exercise in restraint to meet stakeholder expec-tations.Maignan and Ralston(2002)identify motives similar to those highlighted by Swanson(1995)in their review of companies’self-presentation on web reports,renaming them as performance-driven,values-driven,and stakeholder-dri-ven,respectively.Becker-Olsen et al.(2006)also study the various motivations of consumer responses to CSR actions. When motivations are consideredfirm serving or profit re-lated,attitudes toward organizations are likely to be negative; however,when motivations are considered socially moti-vated or society/community focused,attitudes toward such organizations are likely to be enhanced.We follow the classification of companies’motivations proposed by Ellen et al.(2006),who identify four different motivations:(1) egoistic motives related to exploiting the cause rather than helping it,(2)strategic motives that support the attainment of business goals(e.g.,increased market share,creating positive impressions)while benefiting the cause,(3)stakeholder-driven motives related to supporting social causes solely because of pressure from stakeholders,and(4)values-driven motives related to benevolence-motivated giving.Ellen et al. (2006)divide these driving motives into two groups,de-pending on their effect on consumers’purchase intentions. There are two positive motives:values-driven and strategic; and two negative motives:egoistic and stakeholder-driven.In terms of positive motives in the attribution process of consumers’reactions to CSR actions,consumers are likely to accept attributions of values-driven motives because they considerfirms to be acting with sincere and benevolent in-tentions(Vlachos et al.2009).Likewise,consumers believe thatfirms design CSR actions because they care and tend to view CSR activities as deriving from a company’s moral behavior.Values-driven motives affect consumers’recom-mendation intentions;they are sufficient motivation for consumers to speak positively of a company.The Proposed FrameworkTo create a clear and parsimonious framework,we propose the integration of these different factors into one model (shown in Fig.1).Following similar procedures for proposing a model in the company–consumer context(Sheth and Parvatiyar1995),motives that induce positive consumer interpretations of CSR could be derived from company be-havior(corporate ability or company–causefit),the indi-vidual(interpersonal trust),or the context(corporate hypocrisy).We expect that individuals make positive attri-butions(values-driven or strategic)about CSR when a company has expertise and tradition,when thefit between CSR cause and the activity of the company is high,and when the consumer is an individual with a high level of interpersonal trust(i.e.,is not suspicious of the intentions of other people or companies).Moreover,individuals will make negative attributions(egoistic or stakeholder-driven) when they perceive hypocrisy in a company’s behavior.Marketers need to understand how these variables affect consumers’attributions of CSR activities and initiatives as well as the variables affecting their responses and may wish to adapt their CSR strategies if ourfindings suggest changes in their activities and CSR actions.Understanding how cor-porate associations influence consumer product responses would increase marketers’ability to manage crucial deci-sions,such as determining which types of associations to emphasize in the introduction and positioning of new prod-ucts(Brown and Dacin1997).Fig.1Framework of consumer attributions of CSRDeterminants of Consumer Attributions of CSRDevelopment of HypothesesCompany–Cause FitSimmons and Becker-Olsen(2004)define thefit between a cause and a brand as strong when the two are perceived as congruent,where congruity is derived from the mission, products,markets,technologies,brand concepts,or other key associations.Thus,fit is the adaptation of CSR ac-tivities with respect to the principal activity of a company. The issue of company–causefit has been widely discussed in the literature on consumer reactions to cause-related marketing(e.g.,Barone et al.2007;Hoeffler and Keller 2002;Ellen et al.2006).For instance,Barone et al.(2007) show that the effects of retailer–causefit are moderated by consumer perceptions of the retailer’s motive for engaging in cause-related marketing and by the affinity that con-sumers feel toward the social cause component of the campaign.Drawing from the brand extension literature, company–causefit is positively related to evaluations of a firm’s brand(Pracejus and Olsen2004),to the evaluation of cause-related marketing strategies(Boush and Loken 1991)and to the evaluation of the sponsoring company (Rifon et al.2004;Zdravkovic et al.2010).This stream of research is based on cognitive dissonance theory(Festinger1957),which explains that people are motivated to act in ways that are consistent with their be-liefs,values,and perceptions when there is a psychological inconsistency or disagreement between two pieces of in-formation.This inconsistency produces a dissonance that leads people to question their beliefs or values and stimu-lates uncomfortable feelings.Thus,when the company–causefit is strong,the company focuses its CSR strategy on activities and initiatives aligned with its core company values.In this case,it may be easier for a consumer to consider the beneficial effects for society.It is also easier to manage social actions on a level or within an industry that is known and close to afirm’s everyday working business. Individuals tend to associate CSR with the mission,vision, values,and long-term strategy of a company.When the company–causefit is low,the relationship between the core activities of the company is not clear,and individuals may attribute different explanations to CSR.For example,the principle behind the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is to celebrate the natural physical variations embodied by all women and to inspire them to have the confidence to be comfortable with these variations.As part of this cam-paign,Dove started the Dove Self-Esteem Fund,which aims to change the Western concept of beauty from ultra-thin models with‘‘perfect’’features to making every girl (and woman)feel positive about her appearance(www. ).Consumers are likely to attribute this CSR initiative to values-driven or strategic motives(rather than to egoistic or stakeholder-driven motives)in a context of strong company–causefit.Based on this reasoning,we propose the following:H1Company–causefit has a positive effect on positive (values-driven and strategic)CSR motives.Corporate AbilityCorporate ability(CA)refers to a company’s expertise in producing and delivering its output(Brown and Dacin 1997).A company following a CA positioning strategy will focus on the expertise of its employees;the superiority of internal research and development;and the resulting technological innovation,manufacturing expertise,cus-tomer orientation,and industry leadership,among other characteristics.Such a strategy serves to build or reinforce associations related to the company’s products and ser-vices.Consumers might also learn CA associations from prior experiences with a company,word-of-mouth com-munication,or media reports(Brown and Dacin1997).In this sense,CA includes not only product quality but also attributes such as innovativeness and customer orientation. This information has a positive influence on people’s be-havioral intentions regarding a company’s products,stocks, and jobs and moderates the effect of CSR on people’s in-tentions(Berens et al.2007).The marketing literature has also demonstrated that consumers consider both performance-related corporate associations and perceived social responsibility when forming an impression of a company(Winters1988).In particular,a reputation based on corporate ability sig-nificantly influences the overall corporate evaluation (Brown and Dacin1997).Moreover,the contribution of CSR to a company’s attractiveness is much stronger than the contribution of CA(Marin and Ruiz2007),perhaps because of increasing competition in the context of de-creasing CA-based variation in the marketplace.However,the average citizen is facing growing diffi-culty in terms of being able to distinguish between com-panies that are genuinely dedicated to making a difference and those that use a green curtain to conceal dark motives (Munshi and Kurian2005).Greenwashing,for example, means that significant money or time has been spent ad-vertising being green rather than spending resources on environmentally sound practices.Past literature has explicitly studied the conditions under which CSR has a stronger influence on the preferences of stakeholders(e.g.,Backhaus et al.2002;Garcia de los Salmones et al.2005;Orlitzky et al.2003).The experiment of Berens et al.(2007)shows that when information on a company’s CA is personally important to people,such as when they believe that doing business with a company withL.Marı´n et al.poor CA could result infinancial loss and when good CSR is not able to compensate for poor CA.In such a case,CSR has a significant effect on purchase intentions only when CA is high,not when CA is low.Thisfinding suggests that having a good CA is a necessary precondition for positive consumer responses.Based on this reasoning,we expect that CSR initiatives by companies with good reputations and CA will be better understood and will generate positive reactions from consumers.Thus,we propose the following hypothesis:H2Corporate ability has a positive effect on positive (values-driven and strategic)CSR motives. Interpersonal TrustInterpersonal trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive ex-pectations of the intentions or behavior of another person (Rousseau et al.1998).Trust refers to an individual’s re-liance on another party(individual or collective)under conditions of dependence and risk.Because trust develops over time(Lewicki and Bunker1996),the level of trust that an individual has in an object will differ depending on when trust is assessed.According to Bhattacharya et al.(1998),researchers in different disciplines have viewed trust through various di-mensions:personality psychologists tend to view trust as an individual characteristic,whereas social psychologists generally view it from the perspective of the behavioral expectations of others involved in transactions.People may or may not be unsuspecting;people who trust in others are likely to be trusting in allfields of their lives,whereas people who are not trusting tend to mistrust all people and entities in their lives.In an environment of limited trust, people attempt to examine all of the actions of a person or entity,thus yielding more complex assessments of motives (Fein1996).In2006,the General Electric Foundation website an-nounced afive-year grant of$20million to Cincinnati Public Schools(CPS)to improve teaching and learning in math and science().Depending on the personal characteristics of the individuals receiving this message,some people would have thought that GE was genuinely a philanthropic and good company,whereas others might have thought about the true reasons behind the announcement,such as compensating for damage caused in Cincinnati or favoring the public interests of the governors of Cincinnati.Consumers with a high level of interpersonal trust will tend to believe the propositions and offers made by com-panies through advertising,messages,or projects.Con-sumers whose trust is high are more likely to associate CSR with value-driven and strategic motives.However,if an individual has low interpersonal trust in a company,then all of that company’s actions and communications will be treated with suspicion.Hence,the motives inferred about, or behind,the actions could range from selling products and attracting investments to lobbying local governors,for example.Considering this reasoning,we propose one effect of trust on positive attributions and one additional and negative effect on negative CSR attributions:H3a Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on positive (values-driven and strategic)CSR motives.H3b Interpersonal trust has a negative effect on negative (egoistic and stakeholder-driven)CSR motives. Corporate HypocrisyConsumer knowledge about a company includes con-sumers’perceptions and beliefs about relevant company characteristics(e.g.,values,climate)as well as their reac-tions to the company,including emotions and evaluations (Bhattacharya and Sen2003).Research on social cognition and memory has established that people actively organize their perceptions of other persons in their memories using abstract trait categories(Srull and Wyer1979);such ab-stract categories may also be used to classify corporate associations.Similar to perceptions of persons,these categories may correspond to different personality traits (Srull and Wyer1979).We follow Wagner et al.’s(2009)work in defining corporate hypocrisy as the belief that afirm claims to be something that it is not.In this sense,corporate hypocrisy refers to an individual’s assessment of a company based on certain information,experience,or other stimuli.As CSR is related to transparency,accountability,and active compli-ance,consumers who perceive a company as hypocritical will negatively evaluate the company and its CSR practices.Relative to other forms of corporate communications and tactics,CSR messages are more likely to be viewed with suspicion by consumers(Barone et al.2007).Re-search suggests that consumer inferences about the intent underlying a company’s use of CSR can result in percep-tions that the company’s efforts are either cause-beneficial or cause-exploitative(cf.Drumwright1996).In the latter instance,suspicion surrounding the company’s decision to employ CSR campaigns can prompt consumers to question how genuine or sincere the company’s efforts are with respect to helping the cause(Fein et al.1990).In a context of public suspicion and distrust in which discrepancies between CSR talk and action are regarded as sources of hypocrisy and potential threats to organizational credibility and legitimacy,the call for consistency seems toDeterminants of Consumer Attributions of CSRbe an appropriate prescription.Wagner et al.(2009)warn of the negative effect resulting from consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy.Their research suggests that when CSR communications precede revelations of a company’s violation of CSR principles,the negative effect is even stronger than the effect of a more reactive company CSR strategy.Christensen et al.(2013)suggest that differences between talk and action may be essential dimensions of ongoing organizational CSR engagement.In conclusion,when a corporation behaves in a manner that is perceived as socially responsible,consumers are likely to infer that the company has certain desirable traits that resonate with their sense of self(Lichtenstein et al. 2004).These organizations seek to reinforce their le-gitimacy and to embody qualities that they believe are particularly valued by stakeholders.In these situations, consumers will attribute this information to values or strategic behaviors(positive attributions).Thus,organiza-tions,like people,may be perceived as demonstrating hypocrisy in the presence of inconsistent information re-garding their own statements and observed behaviors (negative attributions).Based on this reasoning,we pro-pose the following:H4Corporate hypocrisy has a positive effect on negative (egoistic and stakeholder-driven)CSR motives. MethodologyThe model is tested in the context of a computer service company through two studies;the samples included197 (study1)and222(study2)undergraduate students,re-spectively,from one university in Spain.Fictitious ads for a new branch of a computer and technological company were created to yield the manipulations.In both studies,all participants were asked to imagine that‘‘Your PC Store’’had recently opened a location that was as convenient for them as their current store and offered the same quality, price,and service.Claims were made about high quality, low prices,and modern,convenient locations in the four treatment ads.Study1Design and ProcedureStudy1was a2(high/low company–causefit)92(high/low corporate ability)between-subjectsfield experiment.Each participant was asked to read a scenario and was shown a randomly assignedfictitious ad(shown in Box1in the ap-pendix).Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were ad-ministered to a convenience sample of18individuals,and pretest1results were used to improve the measures and de-sign an appropriate structure for the questionnaire.To minimize product or quality differences,thefirst pretest indicated that‘‘Your PC Store’’met the criteria of providing a frequently purchased product that is a necessity for most consumers and operating in a parity market.We made a second pretest with34individuals and two causes were se-lected from eight causes that were described as important to most of the people who were asked.‘‘Your PC Store’’was perceived tofit best with a cause that provided for‘‘donating second-hand computers to an orphanage in our community’’(M=5.42)and was perceived as a lowfit for a cause seeking to‘‘donate money to save the Iberian lynx’’2 (M=3.99);the t test was significant(t=3.57).High CA was stated as follows:‘‘They care about their products’quality,and they have the skills to commercialize their products,thus obtaining better consumer satisfaction than their competitors.In short,it has an excellent price-quality relationship and a complete service’’(M=7.37).Low CA was represented as follows:‘‘They do not obtain optimal market results through commercializing their products, although they do have an advantage over their competitors. In short,they have a bad price-quality relationship and poor service’’(M=6.65);the t-test was significant(t=2.67). Therefore,manipulation checks confirmed the effectiveness of thefit and corporate ability manipulations.MeasuresWe measured values-driven,strategic,egoistic,and stake-holder-driven attributions with a scale from Ellen et al. (2006).To assess company–causefit,one item from Sen-gupta et al.(1997)was used.To measure CA,we used Berens et al.’s(2007)scale.All items were measured using a10-point Likert scale(see Table3in the appendix).Reliability was tested by examining the Cronbach’s al-pha coefficients.The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were found to range from0.86(values-driven)to0.71(egoist attribution)and thus exceeded Nunnally’s(1978)threshold value(see Table4in the appendix).Following the proce-dures suggested by Fornell and Larcker(1981),convergent and discriminant validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis.A comparison of the average variance ex-tracted by each construct to the shared variance between the construct and all other variables was used to test for discriminant validity.For each comparison,the explained variance exceeded all combinations of shared variance.As a result,the scales showed acceptable discriminant validity. 1The questionnaire pretest showed that it was easier for the respondents to position themselves on a0–10scale than on a1–7 scale.2The Iberian lynx is emblematic of endangered species in Spain.L.Marı´n et al.。

DIRECTIVESCOMMISSION DIRECTIVE2007/29/ECof30May2007amending Directive96/8/EC as regards labelling,advertising or presenting foods intended for use inenergy-restricted diets for weight reduction(Text with EEA relevance)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive89/398/EEC of3May1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses(1),and in particular Article4(1)thereof,Whereas:(1)Regulation(EC)No1924/2006of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of20December2006on nutrition and health claims made on foods(2)shallapply from1July2007.It shall apply to foods intendedfor use in energy-restricted diets for weight reduction butwithout prejudice to the specific rules of CommissionDirective96/8/EC of26February1996on foodsintended for use in energy-restricted diets for weightreduction(3).(2)Directive96/8/EC provides that the labelling,advertisingand presentation of the products covered by thatDirective shall not make any reference to the rate oramount of weight loss which may result from their useor to a reduction in the sense of hunger or an increase inthe sense of satiety.(3)Article13(1)(c)of Regulation(EC)No1924/2006allowsthe use on foods of health claims describing or referringin particular to a reduction in the sense of hunger or anincrease in the sense of satiety under specified conditions.(4)Allowing claims referring to a reduction in the sense ofhunger or an increase in the sense of satiety under thecondition that such claims are based on generallyaccepted scientific evidence and are well understood bythe average consumer reflects the evolution in the rangeand properties of products.(5)This reasoning is all the more relevant to products foruse in energy-restricted diets for weight reduction.Therefore the use of such claims should no longer beprohibited provided that the conditions laid down inArticle13,paragraph1of Regulation1924/2006/ECare fulfilled.(6)The measures provided for in this Directive are inaccordance with the opinion of the StandingCommittee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:Article1In Article5of Directive96/8/EC,paragraph3is replaced by the following:‘3.The labelling,advertising and presentation of the products concerned shall not make any reference to the rate or amount of weight loss which may result from their use.’Article2Transposition1.Member States shall adopt and publish,by30November 2007at the latest,the laws,regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.They shall apply those provisions from1July2007.ENL139/22Official Journal of the European Union31.5.2007(1)OJ L186,30.6.1989,p.27.Directive as last amended by Regulation(EC)No1882/2003of the European Parliament and of the Council(OJ L284,31.10.2003,p.1).(2)OJ L404,30.12.2006,p.9.Regulation as corrected by OJ L12,8.1.2007,p.3.(3)OJ L55,6.3.1996,p.22.When Member States adopt those provisions,they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.2.Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.Article3This Directive shall enter into force on the20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.Article4This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels,30May2007.For the CommissionMarkos KYPRIANOUMember of the CommissionEN31.5.2007Official Journal of the European Union L139/23。

toward a positive theory of consumer choiceToward a Positive Theory of Consumer ChoiceIntroduction:Consumer choice is a fundamental aspect of everyday life. Whether it is choosing which brand of shampoo to buy or deciding which car to purchase, individuals constantly make decisions that determine their consumption patterns. Understanding consumer choice is essential for businesses and policymakers alike as it sheds light on how individuals allocate their resources and make decisions in a market economy.In this essay, we will explore the concept of consumer choice and discuss how a positive theory can provide a better understanding of this phenomenon. We will discuss the traditional economic theory of consumer choice, its limitations, and the need for a positive theory. Furthermore, we will examine factors that influence consumer choice and propose a positive theory that can better explain and predict consumer behavior.Traditional Economic Theory of Consumer Choice:The traditional economic theory of consumer choice is based on the assumption of rational behavior. According to this theory, consumers are assumed to be rational, utility-maximizing individuals who carefully weigh the costs and benefits of different options before making a decision. In this framework, consumer choice is driven by the pursuit of self-interest and the desire to maximize personal welfare.This theory is based on a number of assumptions, including perfect information, perfect competition, and consistent preferences. It suggests that consumers have well-defined preferences and make choices that maximize their utility, given their budget constraints. However, this theory has been criticized for being overly simplistic and not reflective of real-world consumer behavior.Limitations of the Traditional Theory:The traditional theory of consumer choice has several limitations that prevent it from providing a complete understanding of consumer behavior. Firstly, it assumes that individuals have perfect information and can accurately assess the costs and benefits of different options. In reality, consumers are often faced with incomplete or imperfect information, making it difficult to accurately evaluate their choices.Secondly, the assumption of consistent preferences does not hold in many cases. Consumer preferences are often complex and dynamic, influenced by factors such as social norms, cultural beliefs, and personal experiences. This makes it challenging to predict consumer behavior solely based on the assumption of rational decision-making.Furthermore, the traditional theory does not adequately take into account psychological factors that influence consumer choice. Emotions, cognitive biases, and heuristics play a significant role in decision-making, but are not considered in the traditional framework. Neglecting these psychological factors limits ourunderstanding of consumer behavior and the choices individuals make.The Need for a Positive Theory:Given the limitations of the traditional theory, there is a need for a positive theory of consumer choice that can better explain and predict consumer behavior. A positive theory is focused on describing and predicting behavior as it is, rather than how it should be. It takes into account the various factors that influence consumer decision-making and aims to provide a more realistic understanding of consumer behavior.Factors Influencing Consumer Choice:Consumer choice is influenced by a wide range of factors that go beyond the rational utility-maximization assumption. These factors can be broadly categorized into three main types: individual characteristics, external influences, and situational factors.Individual characteristics refer to the demographic, psychographic, and personality traits of consumers. Age, gender, income, education level, and lifestyle preferences all have an impact on consumer choice. For example, marketing messages targeted at different demographic groups are likely to resonate differently and influence consumer decision-making.External influences include social, cultural, and reference group factors that shape consumer behavior. Social norms, peer pressure, and cultural values all play a role in determining what products orservices individuals choose. For instance, certain luxury brands may be perceived as status symbols and can influence consumer choice as individuals strive to conform or differentiate themselves from their social group.Situational factors are the immediate context in which consumer decisions are made. Time constraints, the physical environment, and the presence of other people all influence consumer choice. For example, the layout and design of a store can impact the likelihood of a product being chosen, as can the presence of salespeople or promotional offers.A Positive Theory of Consumer Choice:Drawing on these various factors, a positive theory of consumer choice can provide a more holistic understanding of consumer behavior. This theory acknowledges that consumers are not always rational decision-makers, but are instead influenced by a range of cognitive, emotional, and social factors.In a positive framework, consumer choice is seen as a dynamic and iterative process rather than a one-time decision. Consumers continually reassess their choices based on new information and experiences, leading to changes in their preferences and decision-making. This approach allows for the inclusion of psychological factors such as emotions, cognitive biases, and heuristics, which have been largely overlooked in traditional economic theory. Furthermore, a positive theory acknowledges that consumer preferences are not fixed, but can be shaped by marketing efforts,advertising, and other forms of persuasion. This recognition highlights the importance of understanding how businesses and policymakers can influence consumer choice and promote socially desirable outcomes.Conclusion:In conclusion, consumer choice is a complex phenomenon influenced by a wide range of factors, including individual characteristics, external influences, and situational factors. The traditional economic theory of consumer choice, based on the assumption of rational utility-maximization, has limitations and does not provide a complete understanding of consumer behavior.Moving towards a positive theory of consumer choice allows for a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of how individuals make decisions. This approach incorporates psychological factors, acknowledges the dynamic nature of consumer preferences, and recognizes the influence of marketing and external forces on consumer behavior.By developing a positive theory of consumer choice, we can gain greater insights into the decision-making processes of individuals and provide businesses and policymakers with the tools to better understand and influence consumer behavior.。

Consumers’ preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oilmarketLuisa Menapace, Gregory Colson, Carola Grebitus and Maria FacendolaEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics pp. 1–20(2011).02.06.20161 23Empirical Results 4 Conclusions 5Contents Introduction Experimental Procedures Mixed Logit Model 6 Criticism1. IntroductionGeographical origin labels:: denoting the location oforigination of the product,inputs or production.Geographical origin labels Country Of Origin (COO)The aggregation of many intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes linked to origin.Geographical Indications (GIs)Identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.PDOs and PGIsEuropean GI system specifically distinguishes between 2 types of GIs:•Protected Designation of Origin (PDOs) •Protected GI (PGIs)PDOs stand for the strongerquality–geography link andthe highest qualities.Do consumers value geographical origin labels?If so,Do they value differently for these labels?Consumers’ preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market•Method: stated-choice experiment (face-to-face interview )•Objects: adult Canadians who are current consumers of extra virgin olive oil•Place: 1 gourmet store, 2 medium-sized grocery and 1 farmers market in Toronto ares of Ontario, Canada•Each interview lasts ≈15 minutes•10 product scenarios: Objects are given sets of alternative product descriptions and asked to select the one they would purchase•207 individuals completed the full interview process and provided complete responses•2070 responsesExample of choice setAll olive oil haveCOO labels,but some haveGIs labels.Attributes and levelsThey are allfrom Italy3. Mixed Logit ModelThe Utility of person i (i=1,…,N;N=207)from alternative j (j=1,…,J;J=21), in choice situation t (t=1,…,T;T=10)is specified as:Mixed Logit has different β’s for each person εijt : distributed i.i.d. extreme value over individuals, alternatives and time;P j : the price per litre in CAD of alternative j;Size j: is the size of the bottle in litres;All remaining variables are dummies (Table 3).Advantages of MLM•Mixed Logit Model obviates the 3 limitations of Standard Logit by allowing for random taste variation, unrestricted substitution patterns, and correlation in unobserved factors over time. •Mixed Logit Model can approximate to any degree of accuracy any true random utility model of discrete choice, given an appropriate specification of variables and distribution of coefficients.Dummy variablesTo classify GIvariablesLog-Likelihood FunctionLetting y i = y i1 ,…, y iT denote individual i’s sequence of choices. Conditional on βi=βO,i ,…,βN,i and given the independent error structure, the probability of i’s sequence of choices:But βi is unknown, the unconditional probability is:The Log-Likelihood Function:✓COO Italy: +,significant•Most Canadian consumers prefer Italian olive oils over Spanish and are willing to pay a considerable premium;•Consumers are heterogeneous in their preferences for Italian oils.✓COO Greece and Spain: not significant , the sample of Canadian consumers does not prefer Greek over Spanish oils or vice versa.GIs: +, significant,Consumers respond to and are willing to pay a premium for GI olive oils over non-GI ones.The average WTP for Italian oils istwice that of the additional WTPfor GI labels.While consumers are willing to pay apremium for both the COO and GI labels, theCOO label captures much of the premium.The estimated average WTP for the PDO oils is statistically larger than that for the PGI oil.•sizeable heterogeneity among thesample’s preferences for PDOs.•substantially smaller variance for PGI PGI Tuscany is a more recognizable GI, even thoughthe premium is lower than PDO, which is less recognized but higher geography-quality linked.Taste variation based on consumer shopping location Re-estimated Model 1 using data from 3 subsamples based on consumers‘s shopping location.Gourmet store consumers prefer Italian over organic , and prefer GI over organic (For supermarket and Farmers market consumers, it is the opposite way );The relative preference for Italy versus GI is fairly similar.5. Conclusions•Canadian consumers‘s willingness to pay varies with the oil‘s COO, and they have greater willingness to pay for GI-labelled than non-GI-labelled products from a given country.•They values PDOs more than PGIs, but not as strong as that found for GI and non-GI oils.•Different consumer groups vary to a large degree in their valuations for COO, GI and organic olive oils.6. Criticism•Only explored current valuation for attributes by current customers and not potential customers or potential shifts in valuations that could be achieved via new information-dissemination efforts; •Needs PDOs and PGIs from Greece and Spain to test if consumers value PDOs more than PGIs from a given country (This paper only tests for Italy). •Analysis for Log-likelihood results for 3 models is missed.THANK YOU27。

The Value of Ethical Consumerism Ethical consumerism is a growing movement that encourages consumers to make purchasing decisions based on the ethical and moral implications of their choices. This can include considering the environmental impact of products, the treatment of workers, and the social responsibility of companies. The value of ethical consumerism is a complex and multifaceted issue, with both positive and negative implications for individuals, businesses, and society as a whole. From an individual perspective, ethical consumerism offers the opportunity to align one's purchasing decisions with their personal values and beliefs. By choosing to support companies that prioritize ethical practices, consumers can feel a sense of empowerment and agency in contributing to positive change. This can lead to a greater sense of fulfillment and satisfaction in knowing that their consumer choices are making a difference in the world. Additionally, ethical consumerism can also serve as a form of self-expression, allowing individuals to signal their values and identity through their purchasing decisions. On the other hand,ethical consumerism can also present challenges for individuals, particularly in terms of accessibility and affordability. Ethical products are often more expensive than their conventional counterparts, making it difficult for some consumers, especially those on a tight budget, to consistently prioritize ethical considerations in their purchasing decisions. Additionally, the lack of transparency and greenwashing in the marketplace can make it difficult for consumers to accurately assess the ethical credentials of products, leading to feelings of confusion and skepticism. From a business perspective, ethical consumerism presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, companiesthat prioritize ethical practices can gain a competitive edge by appealing to the growing segment of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for ethically produced goods. This can lead to increased brand loyalty and positive brand image, ultimately driving long-term profitability. Furthermore, ethical consumerism can also incentivize businesses to improve their supply chain practices and corporate social responsibility, leading to positive social and environmental impacts. However, ethical consumerism can also pose challenges for businesses, particularly in terms of cost and operational complexities. Implementing ethical practicesthroughout the supply chain often requires significant investments in sourcing, production, and distribution, which can impact profit margins. Additionally, the growing demand for transparency and accountability from consumers and stakeholders means that companies are under increasing pressure to uphold ethical standards, which can be a daunting task for many businesses, especially smaller ones with limited resources. From a societal perspective, ethical consumerism has the potential to drive positive change by promoting sustainable and responsible consumption patterns. By encouraging consumers to consider the broader impacts of their purchasing decisions, ethical consumerism can help reduce the environmental footprint of consumerism, promote fair labor practices, and support social causes. This can contribute to a more equitable and sustainable global economy, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. However, ethical consumerism also has its limitations in terms of its ability to drive systemic change. While individual consumer choices can certainly have an impact, they are not sufficient to address the root causes of unethical practices in the marketplace. Structural issues such as corporate greed, regulatory loopholes, and systemic inequality require collective action and policy interventions to effectively address. Therefore, while ethical consumerism is a valuable tool for promoting ethical practices, it should be complemented by broader efforts to create a more just and sustainable economy. In conclusion, the value of ethical consumerism is a complex and multifaceted issue that has implications for individuals, businesses, and society as a whole. While ethical consumerism offers the opportunity for individuals to align their purchasing decisions with their values and beliefs, it also presents challenges in terms of accessibility and affordability. From a business perspective, ethical consumerism can drive positive brand image and social impact, but it also poses challenges in terms of cost and operational complexities. From a societal perspective, ethical consumerism has the potential to drive positive change, but it also has limitations in terms of its ability to drive systemic change. Ultimately, ethical consumerism is a valuable tool for promoting ethical practices, but it should be complemented by broader efforts to create a more just and sustainable economy.。

第四章消费者动机Innate Needs（先天需要）Physiological needs for food, water, air, clothing, shelter, and sex. Also known as biogenic or primary needsAcquired Needs（习得需要）Needs that are learned in response to one’s culture or environment (such as the need for self-esteem, prestige, affection, or power). Also known as psychogenic or secondary needs.Generic Goals ( category )（类目标）the general categories of goals that consumers see as a way to fulfill their needsProduct-Specific Goals ( brand )（特定产品目标） the specifically branded products or services that consumers select as their goalsSubstitute Goal（替代目标）A goal that replaces an individual’s primary goal when the goal cannot be achieved or acquired.Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs（马斯洛需求理论）1、Physiological Needs(Food, water, air, shelter, sex)2、Safety and Security Needs(Protection, order, stability)3、Social Needs(affection, friendship, belonging)4、Ego Needs(Prestige, status, self esteem)5、Self-Actualization(Self-fulfillment)第五章个性和消费者行为Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory（佛洛伊德理论）A theory of motivation and personality that postulates that unconscious needs and drives, particularly sexual and other biological drives, are the basis of human motivation and personality.The human personality consists of 3 interacting systems: the id（basic physiological needs）, the superego(individual’s internal expression of society’s moral and ethical codes of conduct.), and the ego(individual’s conscious control that balances the demands of the id and superego).Neo-Freudian Personality Theory（新佛洛伊德理论）A school of psychology that stresses the fundamental role of social relationships in the formation and development of personalityThat individuals be classified into 3 personality groups: 1xpliant(温顺型)individuals are those who move toward others(they desire to be loved,wanted,and appreciated).The Ad should stress the feeling of belonging.2.Aggressive(好胜型) individuals are those who move against others(they desire to excel and win admiration). The Ad should focus on the superiority of the product3.Detached(特立独行) individuals are those who move away from others(they desire independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency,and individualism or freedom from obligations).The Ad should emphasis the unique feelingTrait Theory（特质理论）A theory of personality that focuses on the measurement of specific psychological characteristics.Quantitative approach to personality as a set of psychological traitsTrait theorists concerned with the construction ofpersonality tests that enable them to pinpoint individual differences. A trait is defined as “any distinguishing, relatively enduring way in which one individual differs from anotherConsumer innovativeness（消费者的创新性）how receptive a person is to new experience.Consumer materialism(物质性)the degree of the consumer’s attachment to worldly possessions Consumer ethnocentrism(民族主义)the consumer’s likelihood to accept or reject foreign-made products。