Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Consumer inferences of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims on MARK

packaged foods
Wei Weia, Gaeul Kimb, Li Miaoc,d,⁎, Carl Behnkeb, Barbara Almanzab
a
Hospitality Services Department, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Office 284C, 9907 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL 32819, United
States
b
School of Hospitality & Tourism Management, College of Health and Human Sciences, Purdue University, 900 W. State St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States
c
School of Economics and Management, Chongqing Normal University, China
d
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 365 Human Sciences, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Food packages have emerged as an important Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) communication tool. This
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) study examined the effect of on-package CSR claims on consumers' health benefits perceptions, taste perception,
Consumer inferences attitude and behavioral intentions toward the food company. A 4 (CSR claims: none, food manufacturing, em-
Business strategy ployee welfare, and eco-friendly packaging) by 2 (type of food: essential vs. indulgent) factorial experimental
Health benefits
study was conducted to test the hypotheses. The findings demonstrate that consumer-oriented CSR claim (food
Taste
Food package
manufacturing) is most strongly associated with consumers' health benefits perception, whereas employee-or-
iented CSR claim (employee welfare) is most strongly linked to taste perception and attitude toward the com-
pany. All CSR claims were found to positively influence consumers' intentions to purchase and willingness to pay
premium. Additional content analysis of the textual data indicated that the employee welfare CSR was most
positively perceived. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction
Imagine that you are in a grocery store. While browsing the frozen
food aisle, you are tempted by a pint of ice cream. You read on its
package that the company uses non-GMO (genetically modified or-
ganism) ingredients and makes the package out of 100% recycled ma-
terials. You decide to buy it and you feel good about yourself for
choosing a healthy food product and for being environmentally con-
scious. Then you find a box of pasta and its package description in-
dicates that the company strives to protect employee rights and provide
fair treatment. Ethical food companies make quality food, you believe.
Both ice cream and pasta go into your shopping cart and it feels like you
are part of a good cause.
This scenario demonstrates consumers' increasing desire for healthy
options and socially responsible business practices. Such a trend has
compelled the food industry to develop more socially responsible in-
itiatives under the umbrella of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
CSR is generally defined as pro-social corporate endeavors
(Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) and has become one of the key business
priorities in the global retail and consumer goods sector (Hartmann,
2011). The food sector's high dependency on natural resources, low
supplier power, and generally large societal and environmental impacts
accelerate the urgency for food manufacturers to engage in CSR in-
itiatives (Hartmann, 2011). For example, Coca-Cola decided to no
longer use an ingredient linked to a flame retardant, after a consumer
claimed that the ingredient was not approved in the European Union or
Japan (Feeney, 2014). Among a variety of communication channels,
marketers have greater control over the information displayed on the
package (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Packaging is perceived to
have the ability to draw consumers' attention to the product and to
establish distinctive positive associations that would differentiate the
product from its competitors and further create value for consumers
(Chandon, 2013). Therefore, food packaging has become a popular
marketing tool to communicate CSR initiatives to consumers and build
a favorable reputation and image.
Despite the increasing importance of packaging as a CSR commu-
nication channel, surprisingly insufficient research has been conducted
on consumers' information processing of CSR claims displayed on food
packages. Due to rising concerns about foods' relationship with obesity
and diseases, academic researchers, along with years of governmental
efforts, have prioritized studying consumers' information processing of
nutrition labels and/or health-related packaging claims (e.g., Chandon,
2013). Traditionally, CSR has been viewed from the company's or sta-
keholder's perspectives in terms of direct profitability, financial

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Wei.Wei@ucf.edu (W. Wei), autumngkim@gmail.com (G. Kim), lm@okstate.edu (L. Miao), behnkec@purdue.edu (C. Behnke), almanzab@purdue.edu (B. Almanza).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.046
Received 25 October 2016; Received in revised form 17 October 2017; Accepted 20 October 2017
0148-2963/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
W. Wei et al.
performances, and/or value creation. However, CSR in the food in-
dustry is more complex, since food is fundamental to basic human
needs and the entire food supply chain encompasses a wide range of
stakeholders (Hartmann, 2011). Considering the prevalence of CSR
practices in the food sector and the communication of CSR activities
through food packaging, it is important for scholars and practitioners to
understand how consumers process CSR claims conveyed on food
packages, and how such claims influence consumer inferences, and
ultimately, purchase decisions.
To fill in the abovementioned research gaps, this study focused on
the effects of different domains of CSR claims (i.e., food manufacturing,
employee welfare, and eco-friendly packaging CSR) on consumers'
perceptions of food products and attitude as well as behavioral inten-
tions toward food companies. In addition, this study examined whether
these effects would vary depending on the types of food (i.e., essential
vs. indulgent food). Specifically, the objectives of this study were to
investigate the differential effects of three domains of CSR claims on
consumers' (1) perceptions of food products, (2) attitudes toward
company, (3) behavioral intentions, and (4) the potential moderating
effects of food types on the tested relationships.
2. Literature review
2.1. CSR communications in the food industry
CSR has been broadly defined as pro-social corporate endeavors
(Murray & Vogel, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), ranging from com-
panies' social, economic, and environmental obligations to protections
of ethical human rights and consumer concerns related to business
operations and core strategy (European Commission, 2011). In modern
society, as concerns of social welfare and general well-being evolve,
CSR initiatives have extended to eco-friendly practices, employee and
community support, equal opportunities, corporate philanthropy,
transparency in social information, as well as representation of women
and minorities (Assiouras, Ozgen, & Skourtis, 2013). Compared to other
industries, the food sector faces greater criticisms from the public for
responsible and ethical business practices due to its high dependency on
natural resources (Hartmann, 2011). Various CSR initiatives are ac-
tively developed and communicated in the food sector
(Maloni & Brown, 2006). Since the food industry consists of a “complex,
labor-intensive nature of food supply chain” (Maloni & Brown, 2006, p.
38), its impacts on human health, environment, and society are far-
reaching. CSR issues in the food industry also concern the ethical
business practices and efforts toward consumer health such as labor
rights, food safety related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
and the antibiotic drug misuse in animal husbandry (Hartmann, 2011).
With the growing concerns of obesity, alcohol abuse, and packaging
management (Cuganesan, Guthrie, & Ward, 2010), food companies and
manufacturers are driven to focus on the development of CSR initiatives
related to environmental protection and the well-being of society.
Researchers have found that CSR communication is crucial to
building corporate reputation, strengthening stakeholder-company re-
lationships, enhancing stakeholders' advocacy behaviors, and raising
awareness of companies' good deeds (Du et al., 2010). One of the first
constructive theoretical models of CSR and consumer responses was
introduced by Brown and Dacin (1997), who referred to CSR as “the
character of the company, usually with regard to important societal
issues” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 70). Researchers have revealed that
consumers draw inferences about missing product attributes from cor-
porate information to which they are exposed (Brown & Dacin, 1997;
Wansink, 1989). The importance of CSR communication has rapidly
grown. Among a variety of channels to share CSR activities, such as
press releases, official corporate websites, and TV commercials (Du
et al., 2010), food packages reach consumers at the most critical mo-
ments of purchase and consumption (Chandon, 2013) and thus is per-
ceived as one of the most effective CSR communication tools for many
187
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
food companies. Purchase of packaged foods inherently involves con-
sumers' uncertainty about the products because they cannot be ex-
perienced before purchase (Darby & Karni, 1973). Consumers' de-
pendency on on-package information may thus be inevitably high at the
point of decision-making. While nutrition and health information on
food packages are found to influence how consumers make health in-
ferences (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003;
Wansink & Chandon, 2006a, 2006b), little research has been conducted
in relations to non-nutrition related health claims, such as CSR activ-
ities on packaged foods, despite their growing prevalence in the market
place. Consequently, theoretical foundations of how consumers develop
inferences related to packaged food products warrant further explora-
tion.
2.2. On-package CSR claims and consumer inferences
2.2.1. Information processing of on-package CSR claims
To understand how CSR claims on food packages influence con-
sumer inferences, this research drew upon Elaboration Likelihood
Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the notion of the Halo Effect
(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Petty and Cacioppo (1986)’s Elaboration
Likelihood Model (ELM), broadly known as dual process, outlines two
basic routes (central vs. peripheral) of information processing. ELM
primarily explains the attitude change via persuasive communications
with high or low cognitive elaborations based on the availability of
one's motivation and ability. According to ELM, if consumers are poorly
involved, lack of motivation, or do not have sufficient cognitive abilities
to process the information, it is assumed that they are less likely to
spend a significant amount of conscious cognitive efforts on informa-
tion processing. Moreover, consumers become more susceptible to a
change in attitude via “peripheral cues”, and vice versa (Petty,
Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1997).
Many variables are known to affect the onset of central or peripheral
route of elaboration. Frequent and repeated buying situations make
consumers familiar with the products and purchase situations (Park,
Iyer, & Smith, 1989); when the importance of the choice is low and the
product is purchased frequently (e.g., buying cereals), consumers ex-
pend low degrees of cognitive effort and commitment (Hoyer, 1984);
thus heuristic processing dominates consumers' judgments. In a gro-
cery-shopping context, the selection of a packaged food product is in-
herently characterized by a series of buying with low-involvement level
and low financial importance that requires limited cognitive efforts
(Park et al., 1989). Limited time to absorb information and to make
purchase decisions in this context may result in more rapid cognitive
processing, where consumers likely have a relatively low motivation or
sufficient ability to engage in effortful processing of all available in-
formation at the point of purchase. Consequently, consumers become
more vulnerable to collectively integrate information and/or selectively
recognize certain attributes on packages with effortless attention, en-
gaging in a heuristic processing by using salient and familiar informa-
tion such as CSR claims displayed on packages to form inferences of
product attributes (Kardes, Posavac, & Cronley, 2004). These claims
“selectively trigger consistent beliefs or associations, thereby biasing
their inferences toward confirming the claims made” (Chandon, 2013,
p. 9). Following this line of thoughts, it is reasonable to assume that
CSR claims displayed on packaged food are expected to serve as per-
ipheral cues influencing consumers' inferences of food products and
food companies in grocery shopping.
2.2.2. The halo effect of on-package CSR claims: Global or discrete?
Consumers' evaluation of products is often influenced by the halo
effect (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). The halo effect has been widely defined
as the cognitive bias that occurs when individuals' evaluation of one
attribute strongly biases their perceptions of other attributes of that
entity (Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013). These inferences are
non-analytic and logically irrelevant to the facts, involve little cognitive
W. Wei et al.
effort, and rely on the heuristic associations between the known and the
inferred facts (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Prior studies showed that
unrelated claims can sometimes incorrectly bias consumers' calorie
judgments. For instance, Schuldt and Schwarz (2010) found that con-
sumers perceived an organic-labeled cookie as having fewer calories
than a non-labeled one, and indicated an intention to consume organic
cookies more frequently. While health and nutrient-related claims are
legally regulated, there are an increasing number of non-regulated on-
package claims communicated in the market, such as descriptions about
a company's food production techniques or community support. Based
on the discussion above, although the on-package claims are not di-
rectly related to healthfulness or calories, consumers may be vulnerable
to making product evaluations as they positively view a company's CSR
activities. Favorable information that conveys a company's good deeds
for consumer health, the environment, and society as a whole may bias
consumers to think that the food is healthful and nutritious, and to
underestimate its calorie counts. Thus, this research proposed that
consumers tend to use CSR attributes communicated on food packages
as a peripheral route to make inferences.
CSR initiatives might differ in their visibility to customers and the
immediately visible information may influence their perceptions about
the products and the company (Pino, Amatulli, De Angelis, & Peluso,
2016). CSR claims on the package are such visible information that
might influence consumer inferences. The tenets of ELM suggest that
purchases of packaged food products are characterized by a low ela-
boration mode and are susceptible to the halo effect of peripheral cues
such as the CSR claims on the package. The halo effect of CSR has been
well documented in the literature. However, the current research on the
“CSR halo” has almost universally treated the halo effect of CSR as a
global effect and has yet to distinguish the conceptually distinct and
potentially independent domains of the inferences. For example,
Hoogland, de Boer, and Boersema (2007) found that animal welfare and
organic claims resulted in beliefs that were not only better for nature
and safe food production, but also the overall healthiness. Similarly,
Klein and Dawar (2004) showed that CSR halo effect might extend
beyond product evaluations, into unrelated types of consumer in-
ferences such as attributions. While the theoretical treatment of “CSR
halo” as a global effect appears to prevail, there is empirical evidence,
albeit fragmented and sporadic, that suggests the salience of the CSR
halo effect can be domain-specific and the congruence between the CSR
domain and the consumer inference domain seems to produce the most
potent CSR halo effect. Larceneux, Benoit-Moreau, and Renaudin
(2012) showed that an organic label makes the environmentally
friendly attribute more salient than other attributes. Smith, Read, and
López-Rodríguez (2010) suggested that the manifestation of the CSR
halo effect within the same domain (Environmental CSR claims influ-
ence perception on the CSR performance on environment) is more po-
tent than that across domains (Environmental CSR claims influence
perception on the CSR performance in relation to the local community).
While the empirical evidence exists, the domain-specific and discrete
view of CSR halo effect received scant research attention. In addition,
while the CSR halo effect is generally believed resulting from heuristic
information processing, little is known about exact heuristics con-
sumers use that lead to the overt manifestation of the CSR halo effect.
To fill this research gap, this study was among the first to system-
atically explore the hypothesis of domain-specific and discrete CSR halo
effect and to empirically test whether the congruence between the CSR
domain and the consumer inference domain accentuates the CSR halo
effect.
2.2.3. On-package CSR claims and product inferences
Prior studies have suggested the presence of different types of CSR
claims. Carroll (1979) included four types of responsibilities in the CSR
model, namely: economic, ethical, legal, and philanthropic responsi-
bility. Jones, Comfort, and Hillier (2007) conducted an exploratory
study in ten retail stores and identified principal CSR themes including
188
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
support for local food producers, fair trade, healthy living and eating,
commitment to organic products, waste management and recycling,
representing food manufacturing, employee welfare, and eco-friendly
packaging CSR being practiced in the retail food industry. Mueller
Loose and Remaud (2013) focused on the impacts of CSR claims re-
garding social and environmental responsibility on consumer choice
and willingness to pay. Among many classifications of CSR claims
identified in the literature, the present study particularly focused on
three domains of CSR claims due to their prevalence in the packaged
foods, including food manufacturing CSR, employee welfare CSR, and
eco-friendly packaging CSR.
Food manufacturing CSR includes CSR efforts related to the devel-
opment of manufacturing techniques, prevention of food borne dis-
eases, and avoidance of scientifically controversial manufacturing
practices and/or nutrients. In this study, food manufacturing CSR was
operationalized as a company's endeavors in practicing safe food
manufacturing methods to ensure consumers' health benefits. Support
of local farmers, growers, and employee welfare have been widely used
as CSR initiatives of food companies (Hartmann, 2011;
Maloni & Brown, 2006). In this study, employee welfare CSR claims
refer to the provision of competitive wage, health care support, and fair
treatment and support. Based on the existing CSR reports of food
companies, eco-friendly packaging CSR denotes a company's commit-
ment to using recycled materials for packaging.
The food sector is a leader in implementing product safety-related
CSR initiatives with food manufacturing CSR claims such as non-GMO
or antibiotic free ingredients. Since safe food is often linked to human
health (Hartmann, 2011), consumers are likely to use food manu-
facturing CSR claims as a heuristic to make inferences of health benefits
of the packaged food with food manufacturing CSR claims. The in-
ference about the health benefits of the packaged food with food
manufacturing CSR claims is likely to subject to a salient halo effect, in
that the domain of the food manufacturing CSR claims is congruent
with the domain of consumer inference of health benefits of such pro-
ducts. While certain health benefit inferences such as perceived overall
healthiness (Provencher, Polivy, & Herman, 2009) and potential
chronic disease concerns (Kozup et al., 2003) are likely to have rea-
sonable connections with the safe food manufacturing CSR initiatives
such as antibiotic free ingredients, the link of other health benefits in-
ferences such as nutritional value (Kozup et al., 2003) and the esti-
mated calories (Van Kleef, Shimizu, & Wansink, 2012) to the safe food
manufacturing CSR initiatives is less apparent. However, given that CSR
initiatives in the domain of food manufacturing describe the commit-
ment to practicing safe food manufacturing methods, food manu-
facturing CSR claims such as non-GMO or antibiotic-free ingredients are
more congruent to the consumer inference domain of food and its
health benefits than other CSR claims, we predicted that the halo effect
of food manufacturing CSR claims would be more salient in the con-
sumer inferences about health benefits of the products than other types
of CSR claims. This prediction is based on Ross Jr and Creyer (1992)'s
finding that, when an attribute is missing, consumers reply on other
information within the same category to make inferences. In the present
research, four commonly studied constructs were selected to represent
the perceived health benefits, including the perceived overall healthi-
ness (Provencher et al., 2009), nutritional value (Kozup et al., 2003),
potential chronic disease concerns (Kozup et al., 2003), and the esti-
mated calories (Van Kleef et al., 2012).
H1. The effect of CSR claims on perceived health benefits (i.e.
healthiness, nutrition value, potential chronic disease concerns, and
estimated calories) is more pronounced in the packaged food products
with food manufacturing CSR claims than in those with employee
welfare or eco-friendly packaging CSR claims.
Sensory perception is another critical part of consumers' decision
making process related to packaged foods (Chandon, 2013), yet this is
one of the unknown attributes that consumers have a hard time
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

evaluating with packaged food products, especially in the absence of H3. The effect of CSR claims on consumers' attitudes toward the
explicit information or evidence. Based on the Elaboration Likelihood company is more pronounced in the packaged food products with
Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), CSR claims communicated on food food manufacturing CSR claims than in those with employee welfare or
packages can serve as a heuristic cue influencing consumers' sensory eco-friendly packaging CSR claims.
perception of the food, such as the taste associated with the food con-
Companies hope that their CSR efforts not only generate long-term
sumption. Prior researchers argued that consumers tend to believe that
benefits such as positive image or reputation, but also short-term ben-
healthy foods normally taste bad (Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013). One of the
efits like financial outcomes. However, few studies have linked a
most widely known theoretical foundation for this claim is the “un-
company's CSR claims to consumers' behavioral intentions such as
healthy = tasty” intuition defined by Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer
purchase intentions. Consumers' willingness to pay premiums for the
(2006). The concept states that the less healthy a food item is portrayed
product is an explicit behavioral intention in response to the product
to be, “the better is its inferred taste” and “the more it is enjoyed during
values, which reflects their inclination to reward the company (Creyer,
actual consumption” (Raghunathan et al., 2006, p. 170). The authors
1997). Companies hope to leverage these opportunities to differentiate
further maintained that consumers have a tendency to believe that the
themselves from competitors by communicating their CSR activities to
healthiness and tastiness of food are negatively correlated, meaning
consumers. To examine the relationship between CSR activities and
consumers trust that healthy foods normally taste bad. Schuldt and
consumers' behavioral intentions, much research has focused on CSR
Hannahan (2013) also demonstrated that, while organic foods were
events specific to green practices (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008), organic
perceived as more healthful than conventional foods, they were rated as
foods (Voon, Ngui, & Agrawal, 2011), and fair trade (Castaldo, Perrini,
less tasty. Therefore, when food manufacturing CSR claims are com-
Misani, & Tencati, 2008). These studies seem to center on the monetary
municated on food packages, it is possible that consumers may sub-
values that consumers can obtain, the presence of halo effect of CSR
scribe to the idea that healthy food would not taste well. In contrast,
claims on purchase behaviors was not purposively conceptualized and
based on the halo effect, when employee welfare CSR or eco-friendly
empirically explored. The downstream halo effect of CSR claims on
packaging CSR claims are conveyed, one is more likely to form positive
purchase behaviors is theoretically important to explore in that such
evaluations of the food company, resulting in a belief that companies
behaviors are overt outcomes of the CSR claims' impact on consump-
that treat their employees (i.e., employee welfare CSR claims) or the
tion, the ultimate goal of any business. In addition, previous studies
environment well (i.e., eco-friendly packaging CSR claims) also make
examined the monetary value of the CSR claims in a piece-meal manner
good foods. This could eventually lead to favorable taste perception of
and such monetary value was context-specific. This study allowed the
the food, unconsciously or consciously justifying previously formed
downstream halo effect of CSR claims to be explored theoretically in
judgments. Following this logic, the current study predicted that as
one context and conceptualized different types CSR claims as different
compared to packaged food with employee welfare or eco-friendly
domains of CSR claims rather than different contexts. In doing so, the
packaging CSR claims, those with food manufacturing CSR claims
presence of halo effect of CSR claims, regardless of the domains they
would be perceived less tasty, thus:
represent, can be empirically examined. There is no theoretical basis to
H2. Consumers' taste perception of packaged foods with food predict that such halo effect (if any) is domain-specific.
manufacturing CSR claims are expected to be the lowest compared to Few studies have been conducted in the context of CSR information
employee welfare or eco-friendly packaging CSR claims. displayed on packaged food products. One exception is the study by
Hoogland et al. (2007), which tested how consumers reacted to the on-
package information about sustainable food production methods and
how they made purchase decisions. Drawing upon the aforementioned
2.2.4. On-package CSR claims, consumer attitude, and behavioral
ELM and the notion of halo effects, in the context of the present re-
intentions
search, on-package information about a company's CSR practices may
Research showed that supporting a CSR activity enhances con-
function as a potential cue for consumers to justify their choices. CSR is
sumers' evaluation of the company (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Con-
used to promote the image and reputation of the company, and these
sumers generally have a favorable attitude toward companies that en-
socially responsible business activities presumably help consumers to
gage in socially responsible business practices (Bhattacharya & Sen,
feel better about their food choices, more socially-conscious, and even
2004). From the perspective of the food industry value chain, since food
proud of the company's benevolence. The information of a favorable
production necessarily involves the environment, employees and sup-
corporate business practice communicated on food packages could be
pliers, safe manufacturing methods and ethical business practices, in
used by consumers to justify their behavioral intentions. For example,
the consumers' mind these attributes will translate to better food con-
Hoogland et al. (2007) found that the on-package information about
sumption. Therefore, food manufacturing, employee welfare, and eco-
animal welfare standards led to consumers' overgeneralizations of the
friendly packaging CSR practices in food sector are closely associated
associations between animal welfare, safety, environmental issues, and
with food products, are highly demanded, and are expected to promote
expected prices, and that foods perceived as better for nature and en-
positive consumer evaluations of a food company.
vironment were most influential in consumers' behavioral intentions.
Company evaluations are moderated by the congruence of products
Mueller Loose and Remaud (2013) found similar awareness of social
and the cause that the company supports (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001).
and environmental responsibility CSR claims; although environmental
For instance, a calculator manufacturing company was more positively
CSR claims were found to lead to a higher marginal willingness to pay
evaluated when it supported fair overseas trade practices than when it
than did social CSR claims, the difference was marginal. This study
supported gender equality (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006);
suggests that, since food manufacturing CSR claims, employee welfare
however, a company with bad reputation (e.g., a tobacco company)
CSR claims, and eco-friendly CSR claims all communicate a company's
supporting the congruent social issues (e.g., non-smoking environment)
efforts for a better/healthier life, society, and environment, consumers'
may encourage public criticisms and undesirable consequences. In the
exposure to CSR claims on packaged food, regardless of the specific
context of this study, consumers' positive corporate evaluations are also
domain they represent, will increase consumers' purchase intentions
influenced by the congruence between the product and the cause
and willingness to pay a premium for the product. The following hy-
(Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). The high congruence of food manu-
potheses are proposed:
facturing CSR claims with packaged food products suggests that the
relationship between this CSR domain and consumers' attitude toward H4. Consumers' purchase intentions for packaged food products with
the food company is stronger than other domains, thus: CSR claims are higher than for those without CSR claims.

189
W. Wei et al.
H5. Consumers' willingness to pay premiums for packaged food
products with CSR claims is higher than for those without CSR claims.
2.3. The moderating effects of food type on the relationships between CSR
claims and consumer inferences
Food type is an important factor in food choice, as consumers' ex-
pected goals differ by the inherent values of the food. Food is widely
regarded as either utilitarian or hedonic due to its importance in life
and the values it conveys to consumers (Wansink & Chandon, 2006a).
Essential foods are expected to meet utilitarian goals, while indulgent
foods support consumers' hedonic goal orientations. Specific decision
processes may lead to explicit choices for goods with either pre-
dominantly utilitarian or hedonic aspects (Antonides & Cramer, 2013).
The distinction between utilitarian and hedonic product types is
conceptually rooted in the notion of hedonic consumption introduced
by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) in their seminal work. Hedonic
consumption is defined as “those facets of consumer behavior that re-
late to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspect of product usage”
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; P92). The hedonic perspective includes
the psychological experiences such as emotional involvement asso-
ciated with product usage (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Emotional
involvement is tied to the consumption of even simple products such as
food (Levy, 1959). For example, in contrast to the low involvement
experienced in consuming cereal every morning, the experience in
eating ice cream is probably more emotionally intense. Hirschman and
Holbrook (1982) used the notion of hedonic consumption as an impetus
for product classification. They argued that selection decisions con-
cerning utilitarian products such as washing machines would be best
predicted based on the objective attributes and utility the product can
deliver while hedonic products such as a vacation are selected based on
the subjective experiences the product can deliver. The seeking of he-
donic experience is posited to be a major motivation for the con-
sumption of hedonic product classes (Holbrook, 1980). In other words,
emotional desires dominate utilitarian motives in the choice of hedonic
products (Maslow, 1968). Accordingly, selection decisions regarding
hedonic products are based primarily on the sensory and emotive ele-
ments of the product rather than their tangible and functional attributes
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). The conceptual distinction between
hedonic foods and utilitarian food has commonly been used in the lit-
erature (e.g.,Antonides & Cramer, 2013; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000;
Ramanathan & Menon, 2006; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999;
Wansink & Chandon, 2006a).
Based on a panel discussion involving four food experts, the food
classification in this study was contextualized and operationalized into
two types: indulgent food and essential food. The food expert panel's
argument was that all food can be best thought of being on a utilitarian-
hedonic spectrum rather than a utilitarian-hedonic dichotomy. In ad-
dition, food perception is highly idiosyncratic based on personal pre-
ference. However, there is a general understanding as to what kinds of
food are considered as necessity food while others more for indulgent
purpose. This study selected two types of food to represent each food
category based on the results from a pilot study.
Why does the food type (essential vs. indulgent) matter in the
context of this study? Consumption of essential food such as daily bread
accomplishes a functional or practical task (Dhar & Wertenbroch,
2000), while consumption of indulgent food provides immediate grat-
ification but may be detrimental in the long run (Wertenbroch, 1998).
Previous research show that specific decision processes may be asso-
ciated with consumption either predominately hedonic or pre-
dominately utilitarian. For example, grocery shopping involving re-
peated and routine purchases is characterized by low-involvement level
and is more conducive to the influence of peripheral cues such as CSR
claims (Kardes et al., 2004; Petty et al., 1997). Following this line of
thoughts, it can be predicted that essential food type would be more
190
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
susceptible to the halo effect of CSR claims on the package. However,
previous research suggests another process in which anticipated feel-
ings of guilt and excuse typically associated with consumption of in-
dulgent food may influence the halo effect of CSR claims (Baumgartner,
Pieters, & Bagozzi, 2008). The halo effect of CSR claims may be used as
a cue to justify an indulgent choice and mitigate the anticipated feelings
of so-called “guilty pleasure” of the difficulty of quantifying the benefits
of indulgent food (Baumgartner et al., 2008). As such, there seems to be
two competing processes predicting the moderating effect of the food
type of CSR claims on package. The empirical test of the moderating
effect of the food type is therefore of both theoretical and practical
significance.
This study predicted that food types (i.e., essential vs. indulgent)
would play an important role in influencing how consumers react to
and make inferences from different CSR claims on food packages.
Consumption of essential/utilitarian goods is more cognitively driven,
instrumental, and goal oriented than that of hedonic goods, and
achieves a practical task (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). In contrast,
consumption of indulgent/hedonic goods can be characterized as an
affective multi-sensory emotional experience, which is far more sub-
jectively than objectively oriented (Antonides & Cramer, 2013). In the
context of purchasing packaged foods in grocery stores, it is likely that
the external information communicated on food packages (i.e., CSR
claims) could be more effective in influencing consumers' cognitive
information processing when purchasing essential foods than pur-
chasing indulgent foods. Conversely, as people associate indulgent food
more with hedonic values such as pleasure and joy, they are less in-
fluenced by external information, which becomes less influential for
consumers' inferences of indulgent foods. For example, Wansink and
Chandon (2006a), in their study of “low-fat” claims, found that the
influence of “low-fat” claims was more pronounced in utilitarian foods
(granola) than in hedonic foods (M & M chocolate). Thus, the impact of
CSR claims on consumer inferences is proposed to be more pronounced
for essential packaged foods than for indulgent packaged foods:
H6. The effect of CSR claims on the studied consumer inferences is
more pronounced in the essential packaged food products than in the
indulgent packaged food products.
Fig. 1 visualizes the relationships proposed above, which demon-
strates the main effects of CSR claims on consumer inferences as well as
the moderating effect of food types on the relationships between CSR
claims and consumer inferences.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design, sample and procedure
A pilot study was conducted to develop the experimental stimuli. An
online survey was launched with a convenience sample of 30 partici-
pants. Participants were asked to select the top five important CSR in-
itiatives from a list of 14 common CSR initiatives (e.g., restrictions of
the use of antibiotics in livestock, ethical sourcing, and prevention of
soil erosion) representing the three CSR domains. Based on the fre-
quencies, initiatives related to non-GMO (for grain-based food)/anti-
biotics-free (for dairy products) manufacturing (n = 15), employee
welfare (n = 20), and package recycling (n = 16) were selected to re-
present food manufacturing CSR, employee welfare CSR, and eco-
friendly packaging CSR respectively. In order to minimize confounding
effects, CSR claims were strictly designed around the underlying CSR
motives, commitments, and impacts (Du et al., 2010). The wording of
CSR claims was based on information sourced from real food products
as well as those located on corporate websites (see Appendix A). In
addition, participants were asked to list the essential and indulgent food
items from their grocery shopping. Consequently, bread (n = 9) and
milk (n = 11) were selected to represent essential food, while cookies
(n = 15) and ice cream (n = 6) were chosen to represent indulgent
W. Wei et al.
food in the experimental stimuli. Based on the characteristics of the
ingredients, bread and cookies represented grain-based food products,
while milk and ice cream represented dairy-based food products. The
inclusion of both grain-based and dairy-based food products was to
improve the robustness of the results.
Based on the pilot study results, the main study employed a 4
(Domain of CSR Claims: food manufacturing, employee welfare, and
eco-friendly packaging CSR vs. no claim) × 2 (Type of Food: essential
vs. indulgent) between-subjects factorial experimental design. Two food
items (essential: bread & milk; indulgent: cookies & ice cream) were
included in each food type, resulting in a total of 16 experimental
conditions. Questionnaires were distributed via an online survey plat-
form, Amazon Mechanical Turk website (MTurk). Participants earned a
small financial incentive ($1.00) for completing the online ques-
tionnaire. There were 553 responses, 33 of which were excluded from
data analysis due to significant missing values, outliers, and duplicates,
resulting in 520 valid responses across the 16 conditions.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the 16 experimental
conditions. In all conditions, participants were shown an image of a
food package produced by a fictitious food company named “Tadd's
Food Company”, as well as the product name, total weight, and single
serving size. For participants in the experimental conditions with CSR
claims, they read a title followed by a detailed description about one of
the three CSR claims. For control groups, to make it neutral yet com-
parable to other experimental conditions, a description of typical con-
sumer service information, such as a 1–800 call number and storage
temperatures, was provided with a title, “Tadd's Food Company” (see
Appendix A). Then, participants completed the questionnaire.
3.2. Questionnaire and measurements
3.2.1. Health benefits perceptions
Participants were instructed to indicate their perceptions of the
food's health benefits on seven-point Likert scales, including perceived
overall healthiness (three items from Provencher et al., 2009); Cronba-
ch's alpha = 0.818), nutritional value (four items from Kozup et al.,
2003; Cronbach's alpha = 0.941), potential chronic disease concerns (one
item from Kozup et al., 2003, where 1 = higher concern; 7 = lower
concern), and the comparative calories in their estimation on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = fewer calories; 7 = more calories) (Van Kleef et al.,
2012).
3.2.2. Taste perception
To test the taste perception, participants were asked to rate the an-
ticipated tastiness and enjoyment of the product on two items using
seven-point Likert scales (r = 0.776, p < 0.05; Provencher et al.,
2009; Raghunathan et al., 2006).
191
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the effect of CSR claims on
consumer interferences.
3.2.3. Attitude and behavioral intentions
Attitude toward the company was assessed (three items from Kozup
et al., 2003; Cronbach's alpha = 0.967) using a seven-point Likert scale
anchored at 1 = bad, and 7 = good; 1 = unfavorable, and 7 = favor-
able; 1 = negative, and 7 = positive. In order to elicit richer informa-
tion regarding participants' attitude, in an open-ended question, they
were instructed to provide three words that can describe how they think
about Tadd's food company. Purchase intentions (Kozup et al. (2003);
Cronbach's alpha = 0.869) and willingness to pay a premium price
(Perrini, Castaldo, Misani, & Tencati, 2010; Cronbach's alpha = 0.925)
were each measured with three items using a seven-point Likert scale.
3.2.4. Manipulation checks
To check the effectiveness of manipulations for the domains of CSR
claim and the types of food, participants were asked to indicate what
the CSR claim they just read on the food package was about and which
food type the food in the experimental stimuli belonged to. To ensure
consistency among the experimental condition, the present study also
checked the perceived ease of understanding (one item), realism of the
stimuli (two items adapted from Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013, cred-
ibility of the claims (one item from Andrews & Shimp, 1990, as well as
the level of package appeal (one item from Andrews and Shimp (1990).
3.2.5. Individual differences and demographic variables as control variables
Previous literature identified several variables that have significant
effects on consumer inferences, such as subjective nutrition knowledge
(Raju, Lonial, & Mangold, 2015), nutrition involvement
(Chandon & Wansink, 2007), diet restraint behaviors (Irmak,
Vallen, & Robinson, 2011), and perceived importance of a firm's socially
responsible behaviors (Creyer, 1997). These variables were difficult to
control experimentally and thus were included as covariates in the data
analysis. Subjective nutrition knowledge was assessed with five items
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.906) based on Flynn and Goldsmith's (1999)
subjective knowledge measure. Nutrition involvement
(Chandon & Wansink, 2007) was determined by participants' responses
to five statements (Cronbach's alpha = 0.878). Participants' diet re-
straint behaviors were measured with five items (Cronbach's
alpha = 0.819) modified from the Restraint Scale (Martz,
Sturgis, & Gustafson, 1996). Participants' perception of the importance
of a firm's CSR activities was evaluated by a 10-item scale (Cronbach's
alpha = 0.844) developed by Creyer (1997). The present study further
measured liking of food using one item from Raghunathan et al. (2006)
to control the effect of preference for a food item. The seven-point
Likert scale was anchored at 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly
agree. Lastly, demographic information such as age, gender, income,
education, and ethnicity questions was collected. All measurement
items are presented in Appendix B.
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

Table 1 p < 0.001), indicating that participants considered both bread and
Estimates of mean and standard error by CSR claims. milk as essential foods, and ice cream and cookies as indulgent foods.
Furthermore, ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine the potential
Dependent variables CSR Mean Std. error
difference in the perceived food type between bread and milk within
Healthiness Control 3.241 0.093 the essential food type, and between cookies and ice cream within the
Employee welfare 3.475 0.087 indulgent food type. Results showed no significant difference between
Eco-friendly packaging 3.422 0.090
the two food items (bread vs. milk) within the essential food type (F (1,
Food manufacturing 3.947 0.089
Nutrition value Control 3.323 0.097 255) = 0.919, p = 0.339) or the two food items (cookies vs. ice cream)
Employee welfare 3.511 0.090 within the indulgent food category (F (1, 258) = 1.924, p = 0.167). As
Eco-friendly packaging 3.450 0.094 such, the two food items in each type were combined for further data
Food manufacturing 3.797 0.093 analysis. The perceived ease of understanding (M's ≥ 5.430), cred-
Chronic disease concerns Control 4.292 0.145
ibility of the claims (M's ≥ 4.570), realism of the stimuli (M's ≥ 4.044),
Employee welfare 4.282 0.135
Eco-friendly packaging 4.194 0.140 and the package appeal (M's ≥ 4.020) were consistently high across all
Food manufacturing 4.669 0.139 experimental conditions.
Calorie estimation Control 4.288 0.080
Employee welfare 3.992 0.074
4.2. Hypotheses testing
Eco-friendly packaging 4.125 0.077
Food manufacturing 3.791 0.076
Taste perception Control 5.034 0.101 4.2.1. Impacts of CSR claim on health benefits perceptions
Employee welfare 5.454 0.095 Hypothesis 1 stated that the packaged foods with food manu-
Eco-friendly packaging 5.259 0.100 facturing CSR claims are perceived more beneficial for health than
Food manufacturing 5.000 0.099
those with employee welfare or eco-friendly packaging CSR claims.
Attitude Control 4.270 0.109
Employee welfare 5.743 0.104 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on
Eco-friendly packaging 5.420 0.109 perceived overall healthiness, nutrition value, chronic disease concerns,
Food manufacturing 5.495 0.108 and calorie estimation. CSR claim domains and food types were treated
Purchase intention Control 3.838 0.111
as independent variables. The subjective nutrition knowledge, nutrition
Employee welfare 4.979 0.105
Eco-friendly packaging 4.728 0.110
involvement, diet restraint behaviors, perception of the importance of a
Food manufacturing 4.703 0.110 firm's CSR activities, liking, as well as demographic variables (i.e., age,
Willingness to pay premiums Control 2.451 0.134 gender, ethnicity, education, and income) were included as control
Employee welfare 3.531 0.127 variables.
Eco-friendly packaging 3.212 0.134
The MANCOVA results revealed a significant main effect of CSR
Food manufacturing 3.703 0.134
claims on consumers' perceived health benefits (Wilks' λ = 0.899, F
(12, 1193) = 4.083, p < 0.001). The effects of CSR claims on each of
3.3. Data analysis the four dependent variables were then examined. Significant effects
were detected for perceived overall healthiness (F (3, 454) = 11.033,
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to p < 0.001), nutritional value (F (3, 454) = 4.489, p < 0.05), and
test the effects of CSR claims and food types on perceived health ben- calorie estimation (F (3, 454) = 7.223, p < 0.001). The main effect of
efits and behavioral intentions. Univariate Analysis of Covariance CSR claims on chronic disease concerns was marginally significant (F
(ANCOVA) was conducted to examine the impacts of CSR claims and (3, 454) = 2.279, p = 0.079). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni's
food types on taste perception and attitude toward the company. For tests were performed to test the differences among CSR claims. As
both analyses, subjective nutrition knowledge, nutrition involvement, shown in Table 1, the mean scores for healthiness (M = 3.947) and
diet restraint behaviors, perception of the importance of a firm's CSR nutrition value (M = 3.797) with food manufacturing CSR claim were
activities, liking, as well as demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, both significantly higher than those of the employee welfare CSR claim
ethnicity, education, and income) were included as control variables to (M = 3.475, M = 3.511; p's < 0.05) and the eco-friendly packaging
rule out their potential influence on the dependent variables of interest, CSR (M = 3.422, M = 3.450; p's < 0.05). Furthermore, when food
in order to test the real impact of CSR claims and food type. The manufacturing CSR was presented, food was perceived to have the
Bonferroni adjustment was used to perform pairwise comparisons as it lowest chronic disease concerns (due to the nature of data coding,
controls the overall error rate and is more effective in detecting sig- higher value for chronic disease concerns indicates lower concern;
nificance when the number to pair is relatively small (Montgomery, M = 4.669) than when the employee welfare (M = 4.282, p < 0.05)
2008). Statistical analyses for quantitative data were performed with and eco-friendly packaging CSRs (M = 4.194, p < 0.05) were pre-
the IBM SPSS Package 23. Participants' responses to the open-ended sented. Pairwise comparison tests further revealed that the mean of
question about attitude toward the company were coded and analyzed calorie estimation was lowest when food manufacturing CSR claim was
using MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis software. present (M = 3.791) and was marginally significantly lower than when
employee welfare packaging CSR (M = 3.992, p = 0.059), eco-friendly
packaging CSR (M = 4.125, p < 0.05) and no-claims (M = 4.288,
4. Results p < 0.001) were presented. Taken together, Hypothesis 1 was sup-
ported.
4.1. Demographics and manipulation checks
4.2.2. Impacts of CSR claim on taste perception
Among the 520 participants, 52.9% were male and 67.9% were at Hypothesis 2 predicted a more pronounced, negative impact of food
the age of 25 to 44. Nearly 80% were Caucasian and 57.9% reported manufacturing CSR claims on consumers' taste perception; the pack-
their annual income in the range of $25,000 to $80,000. Chi-square aged foods with food manufacturing CSR claims were expected to be
tests were performed to examine the effectiveness of CSR domains and perceived as less tasty and enjoyable than the foods with other CSR
food types manipulations. As intended, domains of CSR claim manip- claims. ANCOVA analysis demonstrated a significant effect of CSR
ulations were perceived significantly different in each condition (X2 (4, claims on taste perception (F (3, 470) = 4.660, p < 0.05). As pre-
N = 393) = 632.751, p < 0.001). The perceived food types differed dicted, the results of pairwise comparisons further indicated that the
significantly between the two food types (X2 (1, N = 517) = 293.812, taste perception of packaged foods with food manufacturing CSR claim

192
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

was rated significantly lower (M = 5.000) than those with employee
welfare CSR claim (M = 5.454, p < 0.05) and marginally lower than
those with eco-packaging CSR claim (M = 5.259, p = 0.068). In sum-
mary, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported (as shown in Table 1).
4.2.3. Impacts of CSR claim on attitude toward the company
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the effect of CSR claims on consumers'
attitude toward the food company would be more pronounced when a
food manufacturing CSR claim is presented. ANCOVA results revealed
that the main effect of CSR claims on attitude toward the food company
was statistically significant (F (3, 471) = 36.190, p < 0.001). The re-
sults of pairwise comparisons (Table 1) showed that the mean of atti-
tudes was significantly higher for packaged foods with employee wel-
fare CSR claim (M = 5.743) than eco-friendly packaging CSR claim
(M = 5.420; p < 0.05) and control group where no CSR claims were
presented (M = 4.270; p < 0.001). Although the difference between
employee welfare CSR claim (M = 5.743) and food manufacturing CSR
claim (M = 5.495) was marginally significant (p = 0.098), the direc-
tion of the difference consistently showed that participants' attitude
toward the company was more favorable when employee welfare CSR
claim was presented. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
While it was not a main focus of this study, a mixed method ap-
proach was taken by adding an open-ended question in the ques-
tionnaire to ask respondents to list three words to describe the company
after they were exposed to the different types of CSR claims. In doing
so, we intended to contextualize the quantitative results and triangulate
them to strengthen their robustness. The structure of the textual data
was straightforward with a pool of adjectives respondents used to de-
scribe the company. A qualitative data analysis software MAXDQA was
used to group the words into meaningful categories and automatically
calculate their respective frequencies. As shown in Table 2, semanti-
cally similar words were grouped together. For example, words
“friendly” and “kind” were grouped together to form a sub-category
labeled as “Friendly”. As a result of this process, eleven sub-categories
were formed.
To make the sub-categories theoretically more meaningful and ea-
sier to interpret, the eleven sub-categories were further grouped into
three major categories following the conceptualizations in line with the
CSR literature. The three major categories are “benevolent”, “func-
tional” and “credible”. The use of the “benevolent” label is derived from
the CSR literature that makes a connection between CSR and perceived
benevolence of the company (N'Goala, 2007; Vlachos, Krepapa,
Panagopoulos, & Tsamakos, 2013). Benevolent behavior is defined as
the behavioral tendency to preserve and enhance the welfare of people
with whom the company is in frequent contact and to avoid doing
things that might be detrimental to consumers (N'Goala, 2007;
Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Behaviors such as “helpful”, “honest”,
“forgiving” and “loyal” were thought to represent benevolent behavior
(Vlachos et al., 2013). Accordingly, subcategories in this study such as
“caring”, “fair”, “respectful”, “friendly”, “honest”, “competent” and
“honorable” were grouped under the category “benevolent”. The use of
the “functional” label is based on the perceived benefits and values
attached to the products and the company in the CSR literature
(Verboven, 2011). The “functional” dimension refers to the company or
the product's attributes that consumers perceive as distinctively
meeting the purposes of the purchase or consumption. Accordingly,
sub-categories describing the functionalities of the company were
grouped under the category “functional”. Such sub-categories include
“good” (good, nice) and “unique” (unique, special, different, new and
innovative). Credibility is a concept frequently associated with CSR
(Hur, Kim, & Woo, 2014; Moratis, 2017). The company's character of
being “credible” is defined as the company's perceived underlying
personality of being responsible and trustworthy (Peloza & Shang,
2011). Accordingly, sub-categories such as “responsible” and “ethical”
(ethical and moral) were grouped under this category.
Table 2 illustrates the frequencies of words used to describe the
company, which were categorized as benevolent, functional, and
credible. In general, when any domain of CSR claims was present, the
company was perceived as more benevolent (n's = 50, 161, 65) and
credible (n's = 43, 33, 60) than when no CSR claims (n's = 24, 4) were
present. The analysis showed that the company advertising the em-
ployee welfare CSR was most positively evaluated (n = 219), followed
by that promoting the eco-friendly packaging CSR claim (n = 146), the
food manufacturing CSR claim (n = 134), and that with no CSR claim
(n = 63). Specifically, among the three domains of CSR claims, the
employee welfare CSR-oriented company was most frequently asso-
ciated with “benevolent” (n = 161), manifested by words such as
“caring” (n = 75), “friendly” (n = 15), and “sincere” (n = 14). Fur-
ther, the company advertising the employee welfare CSR claim was
found to be the only one that was saliently associated with “fair”
(n = 24) and “respectful” (n = 19). In contrast, the company with the
food manufacturing CSR claim was most frequently associated with
“functional” (n = 41), captured by words like “good” (n = 29) and
“unique” (n = 12). The eco-friendly packaging CSR-oriented company
was most strongly associated with “credible” (n = 60), which can be
demonstrated by words including “responsible” (n = 40) and “ethical”
(n = 20).
4.2.4. Impacts of CSR claim on behavioral intentions
Hypotheses 4 and 5 stated that consumers' behavioral intentions
toward the company including purchase intentions and willingness to
pay premiums would be higher for the packaged food with CSR claims
than those without claims, regardless of the specific domain that each
CSR claim represents. The results of a two-way MANCOVA revealed a

Table 2
Content analysis of attitude toward the food company.

Category Sub-category Examples Control (no claim) Food manufacturing Employee welfare Eco-friendly packaging

Benevolent Helpful Dedicated, committed, considerate, caring thoughtful 12 33 75 36

Fair Fair, transparent 1 1 24 –
Respectful Respectful, dutiful, humble 1 1 19 1
Friendly Friendly, kind 1 2 15 14
Honest Honest, sincere, dependable, reliable, 7 11 14 7
Competent Competent, competitive 2 2 8 3
Honorable Honorable, reputable, proud – – 6 4
Total 24 50 161 65
Functional Good Nice, good 20 29 23 19
Unique Unique, special, different, new, innovative 15 12 2 2
Total 35 41 25 21
Credible Responsible Responsible 4 29 20 40
Ethical Ethical, moral – 14 13 20
Total 4 43 33 60

Numbers in bold each represent the highest frequency in each row.

193
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

Table 3 Table 4
The estimated means of chronic disease concerns by CSR claims and type of food. The estimated means of willingness to pay premium by CSR claims and type of food.

Dependent variable CSR Food Mean Std. error Dependent variable CSR Food Mean Std. error

Chronic disease Control Essential 4.704a 0.216 Willingness to pay Control Essential 2.661a 0.194
concerns Indulgent 3.880a 0.191 premium Indulgent 2.241a 0.184
Employee welfare Essential 5.230a 0.193 Employee welfare Essential 3.781a 0.181
Indulgent 3.334a 0.190 Indulgent 3.281a 0.180
Eco-friendly Essential 5.262a 0.200 Eco-friendly Essential 3.645a 0.191
packaging Indulgent 3.126a 0.199 packaging Indulgent 2.779a 0.188
Food manufacturing Essential 5.060a 0.194 Food manufacturing Essential 3.628a 0.189
Indulgent 4.277a 0.201 Indulgent 3.778a 0.193

a a
Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following
values: Mean_NutritionKnowledge = 4.7881, Mean_NutritionInvolvement = 5.0195, values: Mean_NutritionKnowledge = 4.7975, Mean_NutritionInvolvement = 5.0327,
Mean_CogDiet = 3.8195, Mean_ImportanceResponsibility = 4.6629, Liking = 5.37, Mean_CogDiet = 3.8303, Mean_ImportanceResponsibility = 4.6744, Liking = 5.37,
Age = 2.62, Gender = 1.47, Ethnicity = 1.50, Education = 3.79, Income = 2.54. Age = 2.61, Gender = 1.46, Ethnicity = 1.50, Education = 3.79, Income = 2.54.

Fig. 2. Interaction plot of chronic disease concerns by CSR domains and type of food.
Fig. 3. Interaction plot of willingness to pay premium by CSR domains and type of food.

significant main effect of CSR claims on behavioral intentions (Wilks'

λ = 0.852, F (6, 940) = 13.031, p < 0.001). The effects of CSR claims
on each of the two dependent variables were then examined. Significant
main impacts of CSR claims were detected for both purchase intentions
(F (3, 471) = 20.319, p < 0.001) and willingness to pay premiums (F
(3, 471) = 16.819, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparison demonstrated
that the mean scores of purchase intentions in all conditions with CSR
claims were significantly higher than that of the control group
(p's < 0.001); the mean score of purchase intentions in the employee
welfare CSR claim condition (M = 4.979) was the highest, followed by
that of the eco-friendly packaging CSR claim condition (M = 4.728),
food manufacturing CSR claim condition (M = 4.703), and the control
group (M = 3.838). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Pairwise
comparison results also demonstrated that the mean scores of will-
ingness to pay premiums in the conditions with food manufacturing
CSR claims (M = 3.703), employee welfare CSR claims (M's = 3.531),
and eco-friendly CSR claims (M = 3.212) were all significantly higher
than those of control groups (M = 2.451, p's < 0.001). Hypothesis 5
was supported. Additionally, the group exposed to food manufacturing
CSR claim showed the highest willingness to pay premium, which was
significantly higher than the group exposed to eco-friendly packaging
CSR claim (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found
between food manufacturing CSR claim and employee welfare CSR
claim (p = 0.35) and a marginally significant difference was found
between employee welfare CSR claim and eco-friendly packaging CSR
claim (p = 0.08).
Interaction effects of CSR claims and food types on consumer in-
ferences.
Hypothesis 6 posited that the effect of CSR claims on the studied
consumer inferences is more pronounced in the essential packaged food
products than in the indulgent packaged food products. Results of
MANCOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect of CSR
claims and food types on health benefit perceptions (Wilks' λ = 0.948,
F (12, 1193) = 2.022, p < . 05). The further tests of between-subject
effects showed that the significant interaction effect was primarily
driven by the variable of chronic disease concerns (F (3, 471) = 6.414,
p < 0.001). Specifically, as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2, the effect of
CSR claims from all three domains on chronic disease concerns was
more pronounced for the essential packaged food products than for the
indulgent packaged food products (M's_essential = 5.060, 5.230, 5.262
vs. M's_indulgent = 4.277, 3.334, 3.126).
Further, results of MANCOVA showed a marginally significant in-
teraction effect between CSR claims and food types on behavioral in-
tentions (Wilks' λ = 0.976, F (6, 940) = 1.935, p = 0.072). The tests of
between-subject effects showed that the interaction effect was primarily
driven by the variable of willingness to pay premiums (F (3, 471)
= 2.466, p = 0.062). Specifically, as shown in Table 4 and Fig. 3, the
effects of employee welfare (M = 3.781) and eco-friendly (M = 3.645)
CSR claims on willingness to pay premiums were more pronounced for
the essential packaged food products than for the indulgent packaged
food products (M's_indulgent = 3.281, 2.779). No significant difference
was found between essential food and indulgent food when food
manufacturing CSR claims were presented.
The results of ANCOVA analysis showed that the interaction effect
between CSR claims and type of food was not significant on taste per-
ception (F (3470) = 0.445, p = 0.721) or attitudes (F (3, 471)
= 1.158, p = 0.325). Therefore, the proposed moderating effects of
food type on the relationships between CSR claims and taste perception
and attitude were not supported. Overall, statistically significant

194
W. Wei et al.
interaction effect of CSR claims and food types was found for health
benefits perceptions and marginally significant interaction effect for
behavioral intentions. Taken together, Hypothesis 6 was partially sup-
ported.
5. Conclusions and discussions
5.1. Conclusions
The present study provided empirical support for the application of
ELM theory and the halo effect to the context of grocery shopping of
packaged foods. Specifically, the findings suggest the salience of halo
effects of on-package CSR claims on consumers' inferences and beha-
vioral intentions; CSR claims displayed on food packages could serve as
a heuristic cue and influence consumers' perceptions of health benefits,
taste, attitude toward the company and behavioral intentions upon
their point of purchase. Such halo effects of CSR claims were further
found to be domain-specific: different CSR claims (i.e., food manu-
facturing, employee welfare, and eco-friendly packaging) on food
packages have different impacts on consumers' inferences of product-
related attributes, their attitude toward the food company, and will-
ingness to pay premiums. Specific results further suggest that the halo
effect of consumer-oriented food manufacturing CSR claims is most
pronounced in relation to health-related perceptions. Schuldt, Muller,
and Schwarz (2012) emphasized the positive impact of a company's
social ethics claims on food packaging (i.e., fair trade and ethical
treatment of their employees) on consumers' health perceptions (i.e.,
calorie estimation) of chocolates. This study not only provides em-
pirical support for this line of research, but also extends it by identifying
the predominant halo effect of food manufacturing CSR claims on a
broader range of health-related inferences (i.e., healthiness, nutritional
values, chronic disease concerns, and calorie estimation) in the context
of grocery shopping.
The halo effect of employee-oriented employee welfare CSR claims
was found to be salient in relation to consumers' taste perception of
packaged food. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) stated that a company's
CSR actions in certain CSR domains (e.g., labor relations, employee
working conditions) could have a direct effect on the attractiveness of
the company's products. Indeed, this study found that when employee
welfare CSR claims were communicated on food packages, consumers
may more likely translate employee-oriented CSR claim to the good
taste of the company's food products. A possible explanation concerns
the emotional nature of employee welfare CSR claim used in the present
research. The employee welfare claim used in the experimental study
(see Appendix A) focused more on promoting the company's philosophy
of providing competitive wages and excellent benefits in order to make
sure that their happy employees work in a positive, fun, and friendly
work environment. Such claim may be more emotional than the other
CSR claims, thus is more conducive to hedonic thinking or sensory re-
sponse such as taste perception. This explanation is further supported
by the evidence from the content analysis of textual data, which sug-
gests that when the employee welfare CSR claims were presented,
consumers tended to associate the food company with “benevolent”
using words such as “caring”, “fair”, “respectful”, and “honorable”. In
contrast, when a food manufacturing CSR claim was presented, parti-
cipants' rating of the perceived tastiness was the lowest. Food manu-
facturing CSR was operationalized in this study as a company's en-
deavors in treating consumers' health benefits as their top priority
through practicing safe food manufacturing methods. This finding thus
provides empirical evidence that it is likely that participants' tendency
of using the “healthy = less tasty” heuristic clue is more salient when
food manufacturing CSR claim was provided, as compared to when
employee welfare or eco-friendly packaging CSR claims were provided.
The presence of on-package CSR claims from all three domains
significantly increased consumers' purchase intentions and willingness
195
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
to pay premiums as compared to the scenario when no CSR claim was
present. Further, the analysis indicated that eco-friendly packaging CSR
claim resulted in the lowest willingness to pay premiums. This finding
differs from that of Mueller Loose and Remaud's (2013) study, which
found that environmental CSR claims are associated with a marginally
higher willingness to pay than social CSR claims. Sen and Bhattacharya
(2001) pointed out that consumers' behavioral intentions are influenced
by the congruence between the product and the cause. Following this
line of thought, the unique finding of this study could be caused by the
consumption context under the investigation: when it comes to food-
related decision making, the high congruence of food manufacturing
CSR claims with packaged food products suggests that the halo effect of
food-related CSR claims is more pronounced for consumers' willingness
to pay premiums for packaged foods than are environment-related CSR
claims.
In addition, the results demonstrate that the distinction of the food
type is relevant to the halo effects of CSR claims explored in this study
by showing how the food type may lead to different manifestation of
the halo effect of CSR claims. Specifically, the halo effects of CSR claims
on consumers' chronic disease concerns and willingness to pay premium
are more pronounced for essential packaged foods than for indulgent
packaged foods. While competing viewpoints seem to be implied in
prior research in regards to whether essential foods (Kardes et al., 2004;
Petty et al., 1997) or indulgent foods (Baumgartner et al., 2008) are
more conducive to the halo effects of peripheral cues such as CSR
claims on the package, the findings of the present study offer empirical
evidence that in a grocery shopping setting, the essential food type is
more susceptible to the halo effect of CSR claims on the food package.
5.2. Theoretical implications
This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by de-
monstrating that the halo effect of on-package claims is domain-spe-
cific. Previous research on the effect of on-package claims is pre-
dominantly based on a specific domain of CSR and one or two specific
domains of consumer inferences (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Hoogland
et al., 2007; Schuldt et al., 2012). Due to the specific focus of either CSR
claims and/or consumer inferences, the documented halo effect of CSR
claims is categorical in nature and not domain-specific for either CSR
claims or consumer inferences. The present study extends the literature
on the halo effect of CSR claims by simultaneously examining multiple
domains of CSR claims and multiple dimensions of consumer in-
ferences. This study included three most prevalent domains of CSR
claims (i.e., food manufacturing, employee welfare, and eco-friendly
packaging) and provides valuable insight into the impacts that each of
them exert on product-related (i.e., health benefits, taste perception)
and company-related (i.e., attitude, behavioral intentions) consumer
inferences.
In addition to the finding that the halo effect of on-package CSR
claims is domain-specific, this research further extends the literature by
uncovering the congruence effect of the on-package CSR claims on
consumer inferences. Specifically, the magnitude of the halo effect of
on-package CSR claims is the strongest when the domain of a CSR claim
is congruent with a particular aspect of the consumer inference. For
example, the results of this study demonstrated that consumer health-
focused CSR claims (i.e., food manufacturing CSR) are more strongly
associated with health-related consumer inferences including the per-
ceived healthiness, nutrition values, chronic disease concern, and cal-
orie estimation. Unlike food manufacturing CSR, employee-focused CSR
claims (i.e., employee welfare CSR) had the strongest halo effect on
sensory inferences (i.e., taste and enjoyment) and company-oriented
inferences (i.e., attitudes toward the company). Green and Peloza
(2011) categorized the employee welfare support as ethical business
practice and/or philanthropic efforts. The findings of this study pro-
vided empirical support that consumers tend to link employee welfare
W. Wei et al.
CSR claims to a company's socially altruistic deeds, as manifested by
their expressed favorable attitude toward the company when employee
welfare CSR claims are present.
This study also identified the differential effect of on-package CSR
claims on consumer inferences of different types of food. Prior research
suggested the potential impact of contextual factors on consumers'
food-related inferences (Raghunathan et al., 2006). This study advances
this line of research by adding the food type as a potential contextual
factor and empirically tested the moderating effect of the type of food
on the CSR claims' effect on consumer inferences. In general, this re-
search shows that the effect of CSR claims is more salient for consumer
inferences of essential food as compared to indulgent food. Specifically,
the results showed that CSR claims displayed a more pronounced halo
effect on consumers' health-related inferences (i.e., chronic disease
concerns) and company-oriented inferences (i.e., willingness to pay
premiums) for essential food than those for indulgent food. This study
calls for future research to explore and incorporate other situational
factors in their framework in an effort to generate a more complete
understanding of the impacts of external stimuli on consumer in-
ferences.
5.3. Practical implications
The present study yields important practical implications for food
manufacturers, marketers, policy makers, as well as consumers. First,
the findings revealed that all three CSR claims communicated on
packaged foods have positively influenced consumer inferences in-
cluding health benefits perceptions, taste perception, attitude toward
the company, and behavioral intentions. This study thus provides em-
pirical support that food package is an effective and relatively in-
expensive channel for companies to promote CSR initiatives and to
influence consumer inferences. Despite the advantage of commu-
nicating CSR endeavors on food packages to influence consumer in-
ferences, consumers' awareness of the company's control over the
content may trigger their skepticism. According to the analysis results
of the textual data, some participants were cynical or skeptical about
the companies' motives of CSR initiatives by using words like “manip-
ulative” to describe the company. Crafting genuine and credible CSR
messages is thus vital in successful CSR communication. In order to
display greater sincerity or commitment and to avoid creating the im-
pression of manipulating or bragging, marketers should consider se-
lecting and communicating CSR activities that are perceived as more
credible and more congruent with the company's product attributes and
image.
This study further finds that consumers react differently to different
domains of CSR claims. For example, the food manufacturing-focused
CSR claims (e.g., non-GMO) increased the perceived healthiness of
foods but decreased the perceived tastiness and enjoyment. On the
contrary, employee welfare CSR claims were found to increase the
perceived tastiness of food and to effectively promote consumers' po-
sitive attitude toward the company. Depending on what goals compa-
nies want to achieve, they should carefully select the CSR initiatives to
be communicated on food packages so that these CSR claims align with
the company's positioning strategy. For example, if a company's stra-
tegic goal is to promote consumers' perception of their food products'
healthiness and nutritional values, the company should advertise their
CSR efforts related to the protection of food manufacturing; if a com-
pany's business priority is to raise consumers' favorable attitude in order
to improve its image, it may be more effective to communicate em-
ployee-related CSR initiatives on food packages. Taken together, it is
recommended that food companies should set priorities and strategi-
cally communicate CSR information on packaged food to achieve de-
sirable outcomes of CSR initiatives.
Additionally, this study found that the halo effect of on-package CSR
claims was stronger for essential food than for indulgent food on two
aspects of consumer inferences: chronic disease concerns and
196
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
willingness to pay premiums. This finding suggests that, as compared
with companies that produce indulgent foods, those producing essential
foods may find on-package CSR claims work better in promoting
healthy food products and increase consumers' willingness to pay pre-
miums. Given consumers' more acute response to CSR claims commu-
nicated on packages of essential food as found in this study, food
companies producing essential food are likely to reap discernable
benefits by communicating CSR initiatives through food packages. On-
package CSR claims are thus recommended as an effective tool to entice
consumers' purchase of essential foods.
Lastly, this study provides implications for public policy makers and
consumers. According to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s
Food Labeling Guide, while health-related on-package claims (e.g.,
nutrient content claims and health claims) are legally regulated, em-
ployee-related messages (e.g., provide excellent health care benefits to
employees) have not been legally regulated or monitored. Based on the
identified halo effects of employee-oriented CSR claims on consumers'
taste perception and attitude toward the company, this study calls
public policy makers to regulate the validity of employee-related CSR
claims conveyed on packaged foods in order to help consumers make
more accurate decisions. This study also advocates for the development
of educational programs for unconscious buyers. Promoting mindful
food consumption can train consumers to be more aware of the halo
effects of on-package CSR claims. Relevant education programs should
be designed to inform consumers of what CSR means and how different
CSR claims may potentially influence their purchase decisions. For
example, food companies such as Nestle, ConAgra, and General Mills
have invested in CSR efforts regarding nutrition education. Eventually,
consumers need to be equipped with both knowledge and ability to
evaluate the authenticity of CSR claims and to make healthy purchase
decisions as well as fair company inferences.
5.4. Limitations and future studies
Several limitations about the current study need to be addressed.
First, the main purpose of this study was to examine the impacts of CSR
claims on consumer inferences under the assumption that grocery
shopping of packaged food as studied in this study involves low moti-
vation and low cognitive ability, where CSR claims displayed on food
packages could serve as heuristic cues upon the point of purchase.
However, when consumers' motivation is high (e.g., buying expensive
packaged food) and/or cognitive capacity permits (e.g., having suffi-
cient subjective knowledge and time) in certain contexts, they may
engage in a more central route by collecting, integrating, or general-
izing multiple cues provided on food packages to make inferences and
purchase decisions. For instance, when consumers are aware that a food
company produces foods with high calories and less desirable nutrition
ingredients, it remains questionable if consumers still perceive the
company advertising their employee welfare CSR initiatives as caring
and committed. Future studies should consider the potential impacts of
individual consumers' situated motivation and ability as well as other
information on product inferences. Second, this study used the most
recognized CSR activities to represent each CSR domain. Since different
CSR activities in the same CSR domain may trigger different inferences,
future studies should include multiple CSR activities to provide a more
holistic understanding of how each CSR domain influences consumer
inferences. Third, in recognition of the importance of food type in
consumers' food choices, this study tested the potential moderating
effects of essential versus indulgent food items on the proposed re-
lationships. Considering that individuals have different dietary restric-
tions and interpretations of hedonic consumption, it will be theoreti-
cally interesting for future research to examine whether the
relationships tested in the present study may vary with food items of
different perceived levels of healthiness or tastiness and with in-
dividuals holding different perceptions of hedonic versus essential
consumption. Finally, this study used an experimental design to
W. Wei et al.
improve the internal validity by controlling potential impacts of con-
founding factors. When CSR is communicated to food consumers via on-
package information, it is likely to compete with a plethora of other
existing food claims, such as health information, organic or nutritional
claims (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). It will be interesting for future
Appendix A. Experimental stimuli (food packages)
197
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
research to replicate this study in real grocery shopping settings and to
take into consideration other food claims, potential situational factors
(e.g., level of hunger), as well as consumers' actual level of cognitive
capacity.
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

Appendix B. Measurement items

Construct Questions Scale Operationalization Source

Perceived overall How healthy do you think X is? Likert Very unhealthy Provencher et al. (2009)
healthiness (1) – very healthy
(7)
Do you consider this product as appropriate in a Very
healthy menu? inappropriate (1)
– very appropriate
(7)
If you were eating this product regularly, how would it Do not affect at all
affect your weight? (1) – Affect very
much (7)
Perceived I think the nutrition level of X is Likert Poor (1) – good Kozup et al. (2003)
nutritional (7)
value How important would X be as part of healthy diet? Not at all
important (1) –
very important (7)
I think X is ____. Bad for my heart
(1) – good for my
heart (7)
How nutritious do you think X is? Not at all
nutritious (1) –
very nutritious (7)
Chronic disease Compared to other products of X, how likely do you Likert Not at all likely (7) Garretson & Burton (2000); Kozup
concerns think it is that eating X regularly would put a person at – very likely (1) et al. (2003); Schuldt (2011)
risk for chronic illnesses, such as heart disease and
diabetes?
Calorie estimation Do you think that one serving of this X contains fewer Likert Fewer calories (1) Schuldt (2011); Wansink & Chandon
calories or more calories compared to other similar - More calories (7) (2006a); Wansink & Chandon
products? (2006b)
Taste perception How much do you think you would enjoy eating X? Likert Not at all (1) – Raghunathan et al. (2006)
How tasty do you think X would be? very (7)
Willingness to pay Buying X seems smart to me even if it cost more. Likert Strongly disagree Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001);
premiums I'm ready to pay a higher price for X. (1) - Strongly Perrini et al. (2010)
I would still buy X if other brands reduced their prices. agree (7)
Purchase How likely is it that you would buy this food from Likert Not at all likely (1) Kozup et al. (2003)
intention Tadd's company? – very likely (7)
Assuming that you were interested in buying [product
category (milk)], would you be more likely or less
likely to purchase X, given the information shown
above?
Given the information shown, how probable is it that Not at all probable
you would consider the purchase of the product, if you (1) – very
were interested in buying [product category (milk)]? probable (7)
Attitude toward Based on the information shown for this food product, Likert Unfavorable (1) – Modified from Kozup et al. (2003)
the company what is your overall attitude toward Tadd's food Favorable (7)
company? Bad (1) – Good (7)
Manipulation - It seems that the description focuses on the company's Nominal (1) Eco-friendly –
CSR domains efforts in: packaging
(2) Employee-
welfare
(3) Food
manufacturing
Manipulation - I consider X as: Nominal (1) Indulgent food –
type of food (2) Essential food
Source How credible do you think the package claim of this X Likert Not at all credible Andrews & Shimp (1990)
characteristics is? (1) – Very credible
-credibility (7)
Source How appealing do you think the package of this bread Likert Not at all Andrews & Shimp (1990)
characteristics is? appealing (1) –
- appealing Very appealing (7)
Ease of How easy the claim on the X package is to understand? Likert Not at all easy (1) –
understanding – Very easy (7)

198
W. Wei et al. Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201

Realism How realistic do you think the claim on the X package Likert Not at all realistic –
is? (1) – Very realistic
(7)
Have you ever seen a similar claim in your past grocery Likert Not at all likely (1) Modified from Mueller
shopping experience? – Very likely (7) Loose & Remaud (2013) (Have you
ever purchased a wine with the
claim? (Y/N))
Liking of the food How much do you like eating X? Likert Not at all (1) – Raghunathan et al. (2006)
Very (7)
Importance of a It really bothers me to find out that a firm that I buy Likert Strongly disagree Creyer (1997)
firm's socially from has acted socially irresponsible. (1) – strongly
responsible I really care whether the stores I patronize have a agree (7)
behavior reputation for socially responsible behavior.
Whether a firm is socially responsible is not important
to me in
making my decision what to buy.
I really care whether the companies whose products I
buy have a reputation for socially irresponsible
behavior.
It is important to me that the firms I deal with do not
have a reputation for socially irresponsible behavior.
It really pleases me to find out that a firm I buy from
has acted socially responsible.
I really care whether the stores I patronize have a
reputation for socially responsible behavior.
Whether a firm is socially irresponsible is not important
to me making my decision what to buy.
I really care whether the companies whose products I
buy have a reputation for socially irresponsible
behavior.
It is more important to me that the firms I deal with
have a socially irresponsible reputation.
Cognitive diet I use food nutritional labels to make my food choices. Likert Never (1) – always Irmak, Vallen, & Robinson (2011);
restraint I plan out what I am allowed to eat for the day. (7) Martz et al. (1996)
behaviors I have eaten foods that I don't prefer just because they
are low in calories.
I have been dieting to help control my weight.
I would have eaten much differently if I had not been
concerned about my weight.
Subjective I know pretty much about nutrition. Likert Strongly disagree Flynn & Goldsmith (1999)
knowledge in I do not feel very knowledgeable about nutrition. (1) – strongly
nutrition Among my circle of friends, I'm one of the “experts” on agree (7)
nutrition.
Compared to most other people, I know less about
nutrition.
When it comes to nutrition, I really don't know a lot.
Nutrition I pay close attention to nutrition information. Likert Strongly disagree Chandon & Wansink (2007)
involvement It is important to me that nutrition information is (1) – strongly
available. agree (7)
I ignore nutrition information.
I actively seek out nutrition information.
Calorie levels influence what I eat.

References
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.
Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and
source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychol.
Mark. 7(3), 195–214.
Antonides, G., & Cramer, L. (2013). Impact of limited cognitive capacity and feelings of
guilt and excuse on the endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian types of foods.
Appetite, 68, 51–55.
Assiouras, I., Ozgen, O., & Skourtis, G. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsi-
bility in food industry in product-harm crises. British Food Journal, 115(1), 108–123.
Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions.
Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology,
38(4), 685–696.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how
consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review,
47(1), 9–24.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The missing link between cor-
porate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair trade products.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1–15.

199
W. Wei et al.
Chandon, P. (2013). How package design and packaged-based marketing claims lead to
overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(1), 7–31.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health
claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal
of Consumer Research, 34(3), 301–314.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65(2),
81–93.
Creyer, E. H. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers
really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421–432.
Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J., & Ward, L. (2010). Examining CSR disclosure strategies within
the Australian food and beverage industry. Accounting Forum, 34(3–4), 169–183.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud.
Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.b., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
European Commission (2011). Corporate social responsibility: a new definition, a new
agenda for action. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-
730_en.htm.
Feeney, N. (2014). Coca-Cola drops Powerade ingredient linked to flame retardants. Time.
Retrieved from http://time.com/87320/powerade-ingredient-bvo/.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge.
Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition
claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related risks,
and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 213–227.
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value for
consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 48–56.
Hartmann, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. European Review
of Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 297–324.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 92–101.
Holbrook, M. B. (1980). Some preliminary notes on research in consumer esthetics. ACR
North American Advances.
Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2007). Food and sustainability: Do con-
sumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production
standards? Appetite, 49(1), 47–57.
Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat
purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 822–829.
Hur, W. M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR leads to corporate brand equity:
Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 125(1), 75–86.
Irmak, C., Vallen, B., & Robinson, S. R. (2011). The impact of product name on dieters'
and nondieters' food evaluations and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,
38(2), 390–405.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2007). What's in store? Retail marketing and cor-
porate social responsibility. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(1), 17–30.
Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of
processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3),
230–256.
Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions
and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The in-
fluence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers' evaluations of
packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
19–34.
Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Renaudin, V. (2012). Why might organic labels fail to
influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 35(1), 85–104.
Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do
organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33–39.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard business review. 37. Harvard business review
(pp. 117–119). (July–August).
Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain:
An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.
Martz, D. M., Sturgis, E. T., & Gustafson, S. B. (1996). Development and preliminary
validation of the cognitive behavioral dieting scale. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 19(3), 297–309.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed). Princeton, N.J: Van
Nostrand.
Montgomery, D. C. (2008). Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
Moratis, L. (2017). The credibility of corporate CSR claims: A taxonomy based on ISO
26000 and a research agenda. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
28(1–2), 147–158.
Mueller Loose, S., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims
on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food Journal, 115(1),
142–166.
Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the
effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm:
200
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), 141–159.
N'Goala, G. (2007). Customer switching resistance (CSR): The effects of perceived equity,
trust and relationship commitment. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 18(5), 510–533.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration
of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store
grocery shopping behavior: The role of store environment and time available for
shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 422–433.
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create
value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 117–135.
Perrini, F., Castaldo, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2010). The impact of corporate social
responsibility associations on trust in organic products marketed by mainstream re-
tailers: A study of Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8),
512–526.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
L. Berkowitz (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 19. Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). Academic Press. Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260108602142.
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 609–647.
Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence
on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 281–293.
Pino, G., Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., & Peluso, A. M. (2016). The influence of corporate
social responsibility on consumers' attitudes and intentions toward genetically
modified foods: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2861–2869.
Provencher, V., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2009). Perceived healthiness of food. If it's
healthy, you can eat more. Appetite, 52(2), 340–344.
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = Tasty intuition
and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of
Marketing, 70(4), 170–184.
Raju, P. S., Lonial, S. C., & Mangold, W. G. (2015). In M. Levy, & D. Grewal (Eds.).
Subjective, objective, and experience-based knowledge: A comparison in the decision-
making context (pp. 60). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-13159-7_14.
Ramanathan, S., & Menon, G. (2006). Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on
impulsive behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 628–641.
Ross Jr, W. T., & Creyer, E. H. (1992). Making inferences about missing information: The
effects of existing information. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 14–25.
Schuldt, J. P. (2011). Health halo effects of values-based food claims. The University of
Michigan (Doctoral dissertation).
Schuldt, J. P., & Hannahan, M. (2013). When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative
inferences from ethical food claims. Appetite, 62, 76–83.
Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The “fair trade” effect health halos from
social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581–589.
Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims in-
fluence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision
making, 5(3), 144.
Schwartz, S., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures – Taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(2), 225–243.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(December),
278–292.
Smith, N. C., Read, D., & Lopez-Rodriguez, S. (2010). Consumer perceptions of corporate
social responsibility: The CSR halo effect. Faculty and Research Paper.
Van Kleef, E., Shimizu, M., & Wansink, B. (2012). Serving bowl selection biases the
amount of food served. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44(1), 66–70.
Verboven, H. (2011). Communicating CSR and business identity in the chemical industry
through mission slogans. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 415–431.
Vlachos, P. A., Krepapa, A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Tsamakos, A. (2013). Curvilinear
effects of corporate social responsibility and benevolence on loyalty. Corporate
Reputation Review, 16(4), 248–262.
Voon, J. P., Ngui, K. S., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Determinants of willingness to purchase
organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation modeling. International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(2), 103–120.
Wansink, B. (1989). The impact of source reputation on inferences about unadvertised
attributes. Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 399–406.
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006a). Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity?
Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.
605.
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006b). Meal size, not body size, explains errors in esti-
mating the calorie content of meals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(5), 326–332.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-5-200609050-00005.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of
virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17(4), 317–337.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9.
W. Wei et al.
Dr. Wei Wei is an assistant professor at Rosen College of Hospitality Management,
University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on consumer behavior and psychology
in hospitality service encounters, such as consumer food choices and pro-environmental
behavior.
Ms. Gaeul Kim received her Master's degree in hospitality and tourism management from
Purdue University. Her thesis is about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) message
design and communication in the food industry.
Dr. Li Miao is an associate professor at the School of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Oklahoma State University. She is also a research fellow at the School of
201
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 186–201
Economics and Management, Chongqing Normal University in China. The research in-
terests of Dr. Miao include consumer responses to food labeling and consumer behavior in
hospitality service consumption.
Dr. Carl Behnke is an associate professor at School of Hospitality & Tourism
Management, Purdue University. His research interests include food safety, foodservice
operations, culinary education and training.
Dr. Barbara Almanza is a professor and the HTM PhD and MS graduate programs di-
rector at School of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Purdue University. Her research
interest centers on food safety.