bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Socio-demographical antecedents of responsible

consumerism propensity
Matteo Pedrini and Laura Maria Ferri
ALTIS-Postgraduate School Business & Society, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy

Keywords
Demographical characteristics, ethical
consumers, responsible consumerism,
responsible consumption propensity,
responsible consumers, responsible
propensity.
Correspondence
Matteo Pedrini, ALTIS-Postgraduate School
Business & Society, Università Cattolica del
Sacro Cuore, Via San Vittore 18, 20123
Milano, Italy.
E-mail: matteo.pedrini@unicatt.it
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12074
Abstract
The paper analyses consumers’ propensity for socially and environmentally friendly prod-
ucts through socio-demographic indicators. Although the topic has been object of a wide
literature, most of the previous studies suffered from methodological or sampling limita-
tions. Hence, the present work addresses such limitations and proposes a study based on a
wide heterogeneous sample of 5098 consumers, observed in their real settings. Results
show the most responsible consumers are older, well-educated and wealthy, while gender
is not a significant antecedent. The in-depth analysis of findings thus confirms the useful-
ness of socio-demographic variables to understand and determine the profile of responsible
consumers. However, the study denies that the propensity to buy responsible products
relates to the different sensitiveness of men and women, whereas it underlines that age,
education and wealth have a positive relationship. Moreover, the analysis identifies four
different profiles of consumer based on the different levels of propensity towards respon-
sible products, which confirms the influence of the socio-demographic variables. This also
allows identifying relevant indications on consumers’ decision making, useful to draw
indications on possible effective marketing strategies for responsible products.

1999). However, a significant number of authors have recognized

Introduction
The paper analyses consumers’ propensity for socially and envi-
ronmentally friendly products through socio-demographic indica-
tors. Interest around consumers’ social and environmental attitude
has stimulated the debate on responsible consumerism (Devinney
et al., 2006), highlighting a growing number of consumers expect-
ing firms to match their personal social and environmental values
in addition to their request for quality and low price (Handelman
and Arnold, 1999; Devinney et al., 2006). The present paper
assume that firms increasingly invest in social and environmental
dimensions so as to gain competitive advantage and profit through
exploiting consumers’ preference for firms demonstrating a higher
responsibility (Harrison, 2003; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). This
is in line with the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR), although no widely accepted definition exists. Hence, the
study accepts the idea that it refers to how business takes into
consideration the economic, social and environmental dimensions
in its daily activity (Elkington, 1997), so as to contribute to fulfil
stakeholders’ interests (Matten et al., 2003; Waddock, 2004) and
improve the quality of society (Carroll, 1999).
Over the years, the field of research on the so-called ‘ethical
consumers’ moved from an initial attention to consumers paying
exclusive attention to social issues (Webster, 1975), to those
taking only into considerations environmental implications
(Prothero, 1990; Vandermerwe and Oliffe, 1990; Peattie, 1995;
Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Menon and Menon, 1997; Fuller,
the convergence of social and environmental orientation into a
unique construct (Engel and Blackwell, 1982; Roberts, 1996;
Strong, 1996; Shaw and Newholm, 2002; Newholm and Shaw,
2007). Following Shaw and Newholm (2002, p. 168) such conver-
gence can be described as ‘the inextricable link between consump-
tion and ethical problems, such as environmental degeneration
and fairness in world trade’.
Although the topic has been object of a range of studies
(Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Pol,
1986; Roberts, 1995), there is still a general need to further
research in the field because results have been mixed and contra-
dictory (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Wagner, 1997; Straughan and
Roberts, 1999; McDonald and Oates, 2006) and have not been
successful in providing clear understanding of responsible
consumers.
Before this backdrop, the present study contributes to move the
debate forward by proposing an original measure – namely
‘Responsible Consumption Propensity’ (RCP) – which measures
both consumers’ commitment to gather information on responsible
products and his/her awareness on the possibility to exercise the
power of legitimacy or sanction. The paper overcomes the frequent
limit determined by studying the social and environmental dimen-
sions separately (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997; Creyer and Ross,
1997; Maignan and Ferrell, 2000; Maignan, 2001; Uusitalo and
Oksanen, 2004; Sen et al., 2006) and by discussing a unique
construct (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Eventually, the

International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138 127

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP
investigation involves a large and varied sample of 5098 consum-
ers in real daily settings thus strengthening the reliability,
generalizability and representativeness of results. Previous studies
have focused on either limited student samples, which have not
proved to be effective surrogates for other populations
(Cunningham et al., 1974; Vinson and Lundstrom, 1978; Soley
and Reid, 1983; Yavas, 1994; Peterson, 2001), or on experimental
design, which are less representative than actual sample although
effective (Kuhfeld et al., 1994; Kessels et al. 2012).
These contributions are of importance within the CSR and the
marketing fields, both at the academic and practitioner levels. By
exploring the characteristics that may affect consumers’ percep-
tions and willingness to purchase socially and environmentally
responsible products, this paper proposes insights useful to deepen
the understanding of the relationship between CSR commitment
of the company and its competitive advantage and performance
(Moskowitz, 1972; Vance, 1975; Alexander and Bucholtz, 1978;
Aupperle et al., 1985). Whereas articles exploring this relationship
have increased in recent years, efforts are still required in order to
identify further evidences (Wood, 2010). As well, companies look
for consumers’ recognition of their efforts in CSR through pur-
chasing behaviours (e.g. Creyer and Ross, 1997; Ellen et al., 2000;
Maignan, 2001; Mohr et al., 2001; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001;
Nelson, 2004; Beckmann, 2007; Valor, 2008). Moreover, profiling
consumers with regard to their preference towards responsible
products has relevant implications for the understanding of con-
sumer decision making (Bettman et al., 1998; Simonson et al.,
2001; Bargh, 2002), thus providing managers with better capabil-
ity to position social and environmental products in the market.
Eventually, understanding consumers’ decisions also has positive
implications for consumers (Koklic & Vida 2011), as it may con-
tribute to improve their understanding of how to reward companies
for their engagement into CSR.
Foundations of the ‘RCP’
RCP is here defined as consumer’s personal orientation to consider
the social and environmental implications related to their purchas-
ing decisions. Two factors can be identified as antecedents: on one
side, consumer’s commitment to gather the information necessary
to evaluate the social and environmental content of their consump-
tion; on the other side, the awareness on the possibility to exercise
the power of legitimacy or sanction when performing the
purchase.
As far as the former factor is concerned, the majority of con-
sumers tend not to gather information around the social and envi-
ronmental attributes of the products they buy and the firm selling
them (Elliott and Freeman, 2001; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004),
as they base their purchasing decision on traditional criteria of
quality, price and availability (Zeithaml, 1988; Dodds et al.,
1991). However, extant studies evidenced that there is a fast-
growing number of consumers who begin to pay attention to
information provided about the social and environmental impact
of the goods (Clark, 1990; Herr et al., 1991; Rawwas et al., 1994;
Simon, 1995; Amine, 1996; Al-Khatib et al., 1997; Doane, 2001;
Nicholls, 2002) although no clear indications on how they drive
actual purchasing decisions have been given (Shaw et al., 2005).
Although social and environmental dimensions did not result to
be the dominant purchasing criteria (Roberts, 1996; Boulstridge
128
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
and Carrigan, 2000; Norberg, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001;
Tallontire et al., 2001), various models which explored consumer
behaviour proved the information available to consumers affected
their purchasing decisions (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985, Hunt and
Vitell, 1993; Strong, 1996; Vitell et al., 2001; Shaw and Shiu,
2002, 2003; Carey et al., 2008).
Moving to the exercise of the power of legitimacy through the
consumption process (Valor, 2008), previous articles have high-
lighted the propensity of responsible consumers to pay higher
prices for goods or services with social and environmental features
(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Maignan and
Ferrell, 2001; Anderson and Hansen, 2004; De Pelsmacker et al.,
2005; Kimeldorf et al., 2006) and to change brands so as to
encourage companies which support social causes (Smith and
Alcorn, 1991; Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001; Björner et al., 2004; Berens et al., 2005; De
los Salmones et al., 2005). On the contrary, the power of sanction
is the decision to refuse to buy products that are not perceived as
socially or environmentally friendly or that are offered by compa-
nies recognized as irresponsible or immoral (Nebenzahl et al.,
2001). Examples of sanctioning behaviours are the boycott cam-
paigns against Nike found to abuse workers and Nestlé for the
infant milk scandal (Strong, 1996; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Shaw
and Clarke, 1999; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Auger et al., 2003).
Hence, it is possible to assume that consumers’ awareness on the
power of consumption decisions to influence firm performance
can foster their propensity to consider CSR criteria in their buying
process.
The socio-demographical
characteristics as antecedents of RCP
The relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of
consumers and RCP has been studied by previous research.
Anderson and Cunningham (1972) first hypothesized the existence
of a direct relationship between demographic characteristics and a
consumer’s sense of ethics. Later, Hunt and Vitell (1986) pointed
out that personal characteristics determine the nature of an indi-
vidual’s social decisions. Roberts (1995), in particular, concludes
that demographic characteristics are significant in identifying
responsible consumers, emphasizing characteristics such as age,
gender and level of education.
In order to provide a significant construct to hypothesis devel-
opment, the following paragraphs discuss previous contributions
in literature taking into consideration each single socio-
demographic variable and its relationship with consumers’ prefer-
ence for social and environmental attributes. In general terms,
each construct suffers for limitations due to sample composition
that determined mixed and unclear results.
Gender and RCP
Initial studies on the relationship between gender and personal
social and environmental perception showed women have higher
consideration of social and environmental attributes than men (e.g.
Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Jones and Gautschi, 1988; Rüegger and
King, 1992; Whipple and Swords, 1992; Ford and Richardson,
1994). The observed difference can be justified by diverse concep-
tions of morality. Indeed, men tend to conceive morality as an
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
attempt to ensure fairness and impartiality, while women see
morality as a requirement to contribute to others’ needs (Flanagan
and Jackson, 1987). In other words, Callahan (1990) explained
this difference by saying men incorporate the principle of impar-
tial justice through rules and laws, while women translate it more
into human interpersonal behaviours.
Most of the studies about gender’s different perception of social
and environmental attributes, however, analysed narrow and homo-
geneous sample of students (Beltramini et al., 1984; Rawwas and
Isakson, 2000), managers (Chonko and Hunt, 1985; Jones and
Gautschi, 1988; Whipple and Swords, 1992) and researchers
(Ferrell and Skinner, 1988). Hence, results have a limited explica-
tory power, as they are less generalizable to wider populations.
Findings from studies which have applied these gender differ-
ences into consumption behaviour investigations remain mixed.
While some works confirmed a higher propensity towards social
and environmental dimensions of products from female consum-
ers than from male ones (Arlow, 1991; Crow et al., 1991;
Deshpande, 1997), others have found small or irrelevant differ-
ences (Kidwell et al., 1987; Trevino, 1992) or even no significant
relationship (Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990; Sikula and
Costa, 1994).
These divergences might be related to results by Derry’s (1987,
1989) and Smith and Oakley’s (1997) articles who suggested that
gender differences tend to be context-specific. Therefore, in order
to overcome the limits associated to sample homogeneity dis-
cussed above and bias related to context-specific studies, the
present work tested the gender-RCP relationship using a large
sample of consumers. In line with the findings suggesting a dif-
ferent conception of morality among women and men in the
present research, the first hypothesis is as follow:
H1: Women have higher RCP than men.
Age and RCP
The age of consumers can be an antecedent of RCP, mainly related
to two distinct factors: first, the development of personal maturity
over time, which increases the possibility to control consuming
behaviour (Stead et al., 1990); then, the growing influence of the
social and cultural environment over the person (Chiu et al.,
1998). However, as for the gender variable, mixed results have
been obtained in previous works. Hetherington and Feldman
(1964) and Lane and Schaupp (1989) found no significant differ-
ences among people of different age, whereas other empirical
studies have indicated age as positively associated with social
attitude, beliefs and lifestyle (Deshpande, 1997; Emerson and
Conroy, 2004).
Regarding the influence of age on RCP, Kohlberg (1984)
showed that people of legal age attribute more importance to social
and environmental issues than younger people. Later researches
supported this assertion, underlining that on average older indi-
viduals are more ethical than younger ones. For example,
Serwinek (1992) found workers of legal age to have a more rig-
orous interpretation of ethical standards. Rüegger and King (1992)
suggested older students tend to be more ethical than younger
ones. Again, Rawwas and Isakson (2000) have shown how indi-
viduals tend to be more ethical as they age. The lack of attention
paid to ethical aspects by young people is explained by their
greater attention to more material aspects (Chiu et al., 1998). In
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP
the light of this literature, the present study contributes to foster
the understanding of the relationship of age and RCP testing the
following hypothesis:
H2: Older consumers have higher RCP than young.
Educational level
Researchers have studied level of education as a further significant
antecedent of personal social and environmental awareness.
Although some studies have failed to identify a relationship
between the level of education and responsible consumption (e.g.
Kidwell et al., 1987; Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987; Serwinek,
1992; Stevens et al., 2005), in general, it has been established that
subjects with higher levels of education are more sensitive to
social and environmental dimensions (e.g. Goolsby and Hunt,
1992). For example, Browning and Zabriskie (1983) and Kohlberg
(1984) showed that highly educated managers have greater levels
of ethical judgment than managers who have studied less. This is
supported by the results obtained both by McNeel (1986) and Rest
and Narvaez (1994), who found that individuals with a higher level
of education seem to have sensitivity to ethics. There are also a
number of elements that conflict with the hypothesis of a relation-
ship between the two factors. Shaub (1994) found that the effects
of education on students’ moral reasoning were insignificant.
Similarly, Terpstra et al. (1993) reached no clear results when
analysing the influence of years of study on ethical orientation in
consumers, and Woodbine (2004) showed that level of education
has a negative effect on consumer responsibility. Despite these
contradictory studies, the present research has tested a hypothesis
based on cultural improvement due to education:
H3: Highly educated consumers have higher RCP than low
educated consumers.
Income
Research conducted on the socio-demographic characteristics of
consumers has also considered the level of personal income.
Extant studies suffer from the same limitations already observed
for previous variables. Anderson and Cunningham (1972) and
Dickson (2001) lately found that the level of income was not
relevant to explain RCP, while on the contrary Carrigan and
Attalla (2001) and Maignan and Ferrell (2001) showed that a large
majority of subjects with an above-average level of income
declared attention to ethics in consumption. As there is a wider
support for a positive relationship in recent studies, the following
hypothesis was considered:
H4: Consumers with high income have higher RCP than those
with lower incomes.
Methodology
Participants and procedure
During summer 2009, a telephone questionnaire was conducted on
a sample of 12 000 Italian residents over 14 years old, representa-
tive of the overall population. After three telephonic recalls we
collected, 5098 completed questionnaires, with a final response
rate of 42.5%. The sample is made up by consumers randomly
chosen throughout the country and composed proportionally to
population density (Istat, 2009).
129
Antecedents of RCP
A wave analysis using t-tests and chi-squares was conducted to
check for non-response bias by comparing demographics of those
who responded in different moments (Armstrong and Overton,
1977). No significant differences have been evidenced.
The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the former
measured respondents’ attitude towards information on both social
and environmental characteristics of products and firm responsi-
bility; the latter focused on consumers’ propensity towards prod-
ucts with strong environmental and/or social commitment and
firms they judged as either responsible or not.
Socio-demographic measures
Socio-demographic measures used in the analysis are explained
below, with the exception of gender as it is a clear two-group
categorical variable.
Age
Consumers’ age was coded on seven groups: the first group is
composed of consumers between 14 and 18 years of age then there
are five different groups between 24 and 64. A residual group
includes consumers over 65.
Educational level
The educational level of consumers was measured according to the
qualifications they had achieved. The minimum legal level of
education in Italy has been taken as the lowest, followed by High
School degree and University degree.
Income
In order to estimate income, consumers have been classified into
four groups according to the distribution of their level of annual
incomes. In the low-income group, we included those with a
monthly income in the first quartile of distribution; in the low-
medium income group, consumers in the second quartile; in the
medium-high those in the third quartile and in the high-income
group those in the fourth quartile.
Analysis
The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (IBM,
Armonk, NY, USA) and AMOS and included three consecutive
steps. The former was aimed at constructing the RCP scale, using
an exploratory factor analysis of the data collected through the
questionnaire. A reliability test and a confirmatory factor analysis
were conducted to assess the validity of the scale (Churchill, 1979;
Mentzer and Flint, 1997). The second step included hypotheses
validation through analysing the significance of the RCP mean
among the different groups identified on socio-demographic vari-
ables. The last step of analysis was a cluster analysis to identify
how RCP differs among groups of consumers.
RCP scale development
The goal of the first step in the analysis was to measure the level
of RCP for each consumer. An exploratory factor analysis was
130
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
applied using Keiser’s criterion and experimenting with different
numbers of factors to find an adequate solution (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2008).
Multicollinearity test (determinant of the correlation matrix
0.84), Kaiser, Mayer and Olkin (0.774) and the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (P < 0.05) were all tested and confirmed. Moreover, the
analysis of Eigenvalue Plot confirmed that the best option was to
have one only component. Cronbach’s α (0.842) was used as the
measure of reliability of the RCP. In the light of such results, RCP
scale shows adequate reliability.
The assessment of validity of the scale was produced using a
confirmatory factor model with maximum likelihood estimation.
The final model displays acceptably fit of indices (χ2 = 123.24
(15), P = 0.002; GFI = 0.91; CFI = 0.98; RSMEA = 0.07;
NNFI = 0.98), which meet the recommended levels for a model
with a good fit (Hair et al., 2006). This indicates that the developed
RCP scale is valid.
Test of hypothesis
In the second phase of the analysis, the hypotheses stated above
were validated. Before performing the analysis, the existence of a
correlation between socio-demographical variables was checked.
To test the difference in RCP mean between the socio-
demographic characteristics collected, t-tests and analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) tests were controlled. For each variable, Levene’s
test for homogeneity of variances was carried out. The results were
of no significance (<0.05) for all the analysed variables.
To test the mean differences among the groups, the Tukey USD
was calculated using a post hoc comparison, while the effect of
size was checked through the eta-squared statistic (η2). Before
using post hoc comparison, normal distribution of data was ana-
lysed with the Normality Q-Q plots. As the sample is sufficiently
large (n = 5098), fairly small differences can become statistically
significant, even if the difference among groups is smaller than the
usual value accepted. Consequently, we could consider the effect
to be large when the eta-squared was higher than 0.02 (Cohen,
1988).
Cluster analysis
In the last phase, a cluster analysis was used to categorize con-
sumers and create subgroups with minimized within-group varia-
tion and maximized between-group variation in terms of RCP
(Hair and Black, 2000). This analysis allows identifying groups of
consumer with different levels of RCP and verifying whether
demographic features of consumers are different among the rec-
ognized groups. Two-stages clustering approach was used (Punj
and Stewart, 1983). The first stage consisted of determining the
number of groups of consumers and using hierarchical analyses
with Wards’ method and squared Euclidean distances (Malhotra
1996); we found that the number of clusters was equal to four. The
second stage involves the non-hierarchical K-Means analysis
based on the number discovered in the hierarchical clustering
procedure to assigns consumers into clusters. A discriminate
analysis was used to determine whether clusters could be distin-
guished based upon the demographical characteristics of their
components. As the demographical variable was categorical, the
differences between genders were analysed through a t-test, while
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri Antecedents of RCP

Table 1 The structure of the factor responsible consumption propensity

Behaviour towards/items Load

CSR information
1. I pay attention to information on social and environmental (soc/env) performance of the firms 0.516
2. I know products/services whose price is partially transferred to soc/env initiative 0.516
3. I don’t know firms that I think have good soc/env performance −0.421
4. I don’t know firms that I think have bad soc/env performance −0.454
5. I don’t care about information on soc/env performance of the firms −0.659
Decision making
6. I’ve bought a fair trade product in the last year 0.550
7. I’ve bought products/services whose price is partially transferred to soc/env initiatives in the last year 0.578
8. I try to purchase products/services by firms that I think have good soc/env performance 0.620
9. I try not to purchase products/services by firms that I think have bad soc/env performance 0.580
10. I speak badly about firms that I think have bad soc/env performance 0.462
11. I suggest to purchase products/services by firms that I think are soc/env responsible 0.456
12. I think that firms are soc/env responsible only to impose a higher price −0.430
13. I think the cost of soc/env responsible products is too high for my budget −0.456
14. I do not change my behavior with the firms that I think have bad soc/env performance −0.481

Table 2 The descriptive statistics and tests for

Socio-demographic variables n Mean Median SD Differences
responsible consumerism propensity
Gender
Females 2605 0.057 0.067 0.302 t(5,098) = 1.907; P = 0.057
Males 2493 0.041 0.060 0.310 η2 = 0.004
Age
14–19 232 –0.192 –0.235 0.280 F(5,098) = 38.696;
20–24 180 –0.080 –0.116 0.325 P = 0.000
25–34 721 0.029 0.039 0.307 η2 = 0.043
35–44 1509 0.074 0.092 0.294
45–54 890 0.101 0.128 0.293
55–64 759 0.075 0.089 0.296
>65 807 0.037 0.050 0.310
Income
Low 838 –0.036 –0.040 0.292 F(5,098) = 42.304;
Low-medium 1461 0.027 0.039 0.301 P = 0.000
Medium-high 1799 0.075 0.089 0.306 η2 = 0.024
High 1000 0.109 0.144 0.305
Educational level
Minimum 3298 0.014 0.021 0.293 F(5,098) = 2.073; P = 0.003
High school 1366 0.085 0.089 0.301 η2 = 0.023
Graduate 434 0.224 0.182 0.308
Total 5098 0.049 0.065 0.306

the impact of other variables was explored using a one-way
between-group ANOVA. For each variable, the Levene’s test for
homogeneity of variances was conducted and it was not significant
at a level of 0.05 (Cohen, 1988).
Results
Table 1 presents the results of the factor analysis. A logical analy-
sis of the loading values shows that the identified factor is repre-
sentative of RCP. Indeed, as discussed in previous paragraphs, it
includes both the orientation of consumers towards social and
environmental information (items 1 to 5) and the inclusion of these
dimensions in purchasing decision making (items 6 to 14).
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of RCP conditioned to
the socio-demographical variables and the result of the test. As
observed, the table shows how differences in RCP are due to the
socio-demographical characteristics of the analysed customers.
H1 predicted that women would have a higher RCP than men.
The performed t-test actually did not provide evidence of a highly
significant difference in scores between men (M = 0.041;
SD = 0.310) and women (M = 0.058; SD = 0.302) t (5.098) =
1.907, P = 0.057 (two-tailed). The difference between the two
means (mean difference = 0.016, 95% CI: −0.0046 to 0.033) is
tight (η2 = 0.004). In conclusion, the first hypothesis is not statis-
tically verified, therefore gender cannot be assumed as socio-
demographical variable that significantly influences consumers’
RCP.
H2 predicted that RCP is positively related to the consumers’
age. Support for this has been found (Table 2) as statistically
significant differences (P < 0.05) can be noted among the RCP

International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138 131

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri

Table 3 The post hoc Tukey honest significant difference test for age Table 4 The post hoc Tukey honest significant difference test for
income
Mean difference
Age (I) Age (J) (I–J) Sig. Mean
difference
14–19 20–24 −0.113* 0.003
Income (I) Income (J) (I–J) Sig.
25–34 −0.221* 0.000
35–44 −0.266* 0.000 Low Low-medium −0.063* 0.000
45–54 −0.293* 0.000 Medium-high −0.111* 0.000
55–64 −0.267* 0.000 High −0.145* 0.000
>65 −0.229* 0.000 Low-medium Low 0.063* 0.000
20–24 14–19 0.112* 0.003 Medium-high −0.048* 0.000
25–34 −0.109* 0.000 High −0.082* 0.000
35–44 −0.154* 0.000 Medium-high Low 0.111* 0.000
45–54 −0.180* 0.000 Low-medium 0.048* 0.000
55–64 −0.155* 0.000 High −0.034* 0.022
>65 −0,116* 0.000 High Low 0.145* 0.000
25–34 14–19 0.221* 0.000 Low-medium 0.082* 0.000
20–24 0.109* 0.000 Medium-high 0.034* 0.022
35–44 −0.045* 0.014
*P < 0.05.
45–54 −0.072* 0.000
55–64 −0.046* 0.046
>65 −0.008 0.999 45–54 (M = 0.101 SD = 0.293) and 55–64 (M = 0.075;
35–44 14–19 0.266* 0.000 SD = 0.296) are not statistically different, but they differ from the
20–24 0.154* 0.000 group over-65 (M = 0.037; SD = 0.310) and from the three groups
25–34 0.045* 0.014 under 34 years old. Thus, it is possible to identify three distinct
45–54 −0.026 0.359 groups of consumers based on age: consumers under the age of 34,
55–64 −0.001 1.000 characterized by a negative or zero RCP; a second group com-
>65 0.038 0.059 posed by consumers between 35 and 64 years old which has the
45–54 14–19 0.293* 0.000 highest degree of RCP; finally, the over-65 group whose propen-
20–24 0.180* 0.000 sity decreases.
25–34 0.072* 0.000 H3 predicted that the level of education produces a positive
35–44 0.026 0.359 effect on RCP. The comparison of RCP at different educational
55–64 0.025 0.601
levels shows a statistically significant effect (P < 0.05) for the
>65 0.064* 0.000
three groups: F(1.685, 698, 222) = 2.073, P = 0.003. The differ-
55–64 14–19 0.267* 0.000
ence in mean scores among the groups is smaller than the value
20–24 0.155* 0.000
observed in age differences (η2 = 0.023). The results of post hoc
25–34 0.046* 0.046
35–44 0.001 0.000
test are presented in Table 4. The post hoc comparison using the
45–54 −0.025 0.601
Tukey HSD test indicated the mean score for minimum level of
>65 0.039 0.139 education (M = 0.014, SD = 0.293) is statistically different from
>65 14–19 0.229* 0.000 the group of graduates (M = 0.224; SD = 0.308). The high school
20–24 0.116* 0.000 group (M = 0.085; SD = 0.308) did not differ significantly from
25–34 0.008 0.999 either of the other groups.
35–44 −0.038 0.059 H4 forecasted that the higher the income the higher the RCP.
45–54 −0.064* 0.000 Table 2 shows statistically significant differences with F(459, 756,
55–64 −0.039 0.139 917,473) = 42.304 and P = 0,000 and a relevant size effect
because of the sample dimension (η2 = 0,024).
*P < 0.05.
The post hoc comparison based on Tukey HSD (Table 5) shows
the mean score was significantly different among all the observed
score of the seven groups analysed: F(113, 89, 405, 787, 426, 408, groups. The difference between the medium-high (M = 0.075;
377) = 38.696, P = 0.000. The effect size computed using eta- SD = 0.306) and the high-income group (M = 0.109; SD = 0.305)
squared is significant if related to the number of people included in is significant at P = 0.022. All the other differences are statistically
the data analysis (η2 = 0.043). significant at P = 0.000, with strong evidence of differences in
Table 3 presents the results of post hoc comparisons using the RCP between low income (M = −0.036; SD = 0.292) and low-
Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test. It indicates that the medium income (M = 0.027; SD = 0.301) and the two higher
mean score of consumers aged between 14 and 18 (M = −0.192; levels of income. The ANOVA tests show that an increase in
SD = 0.280) and between 19 and 25 (M = −0.080; SD = 0.325) are income level is related to a higher measure of RCP of the consum-
significantly different from all other groups. The group gathering ers. Income is therefore positively related to RCP.
consumers who are 25–34 years old (M = 0.029; SD = 0.307) is For the better understanding of the relationship between socio-
statistically different from all but the over-65 group (M = 0.037; demographic variables and RCP, the study also included a cluster
SD = 0.310). The other groups 35–44 (M = 0.074; SD = 0.294), analysis. This methodology allows a more in-depth understanding

132 International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri Antecedents of RCP

Table 5 The post hoc Tukey honest significant

Educational level (I) Educational level (J) Mean difference (I–J) Sig.
difference test for educational level
Minimum level High school −0.071* 0.003
Graduate −0.139* 0.000
High school Minimum level 0.071* 0.003
Graduate −0.139* 0.000
Graduate Minimum level 0.210* 0.000
High school 0.139* 0.000

*P < 0.05.

Table 6 Clusters based on responsible consumption propensity (RCP)

Clusters

Total Indifferent Circumspect Moderate Responsible

Variables n = 5098 n = 911 n = 1529 n = 1892 n = 766 Differences

RCP
Mean 0.049 −0.411 −0.099 0.208 0.499
SD 0.306 0.116 0.087 0.095 0.091
Gender (%)
Females 51.1 47.6 52.3 51.0 53.3 t(5,098) = 1.907
Males 48.9 52.4 47.7 49.0 46.7 P = 0.057
Age (%)
14–19 4.6 11.3 5.5 2.0 0.9 F(5,094) = 23.664
20–24 3.5 6.5 3.9 2.4 2.1 P = 0.000
25–34 14.1 15.9 14.3 14.2 11.6
35–44 29.6 24.6 29.2 31.8 30.9
45–54 17.5 12.3 16.4 18.8 22.5
55–64 14.9 13.0 14.5 15.0 17.6
>65 15.8 16.5 16.3 15.8 14.4
Income (%)
Low 16.4 23.7 17.7 15.0 8.7 F(5,094) = 38.588
Low-medium 28.7 31.3 29.8 28.0 24.9 P = 0.000
Medium-high 35.3 31.0 34.5 36.4 39.3
High 19.6 14.0 18.0 20.6 27.1
Educational level (%)
Minimum level 65.8 80.4 70.6 57.1 49.0 F(5,094) = 12.073
High school 26.1 15.9 22.5 32.7 36.9 P = 0.023
Graduate 8.1 3.7 6.9 10.2 14.1

of above discussed findings as it allows comparing different
groups of consumers with different RCP level and socio-
demographic mix. In this sense, the study does not limit itself to
the analysis of socio-demographic characteristics separately.
Results of this third step allowed identifying four groups of
consumers with different level of RCP. Table 6 presents the
descriptive statistics of RCP and demographical characteristics of
consumers in each cluster.
The first cluster named ‘indifferent’ includes all those consum-
ers with a clear negative RCP (M = −0.411; SD = 0.116; n = 911).
The second includes ‘circumspect’ consumers with RCP closed to
zero, who have not declared a clear (either positive or negative)
orientation towards social and environmental issues in consump-
tion process (M = −0.099; SD = 0.087; n = 1529). The third
cluster involves ‘moderate’ consumers, who declared a positive
but fair RCP, characterized by a temperate interest in social and
environmental characteristics (M = 0.208; SD = 0.095; n = 1892).
The last cluster included the ‘responsible’ consumers. It includes
those consumers with the highest RCP, who are highly aware of
social and environmental issues (M = 0.499; SD = 0.091; n = 766).
The cluster of responsible consumers is the least numerous,
involving the 15.0% of the consumers.
The mean of demographical characteristics of consumers in
the four groups were compared using t-tests and ANOVA tests.
Regarding the gender, an independent sample two-tailed t-test
was conducted and results showed a weak difference in
scores between men (M = 0.041; SD = 0.310) and women
(M = 0.058; SD = 0.302), t(5098) = 1.907, P = 0.057. The other
demographical variables are significant for consumers’ identifica-
tion in responsible cluster. Responsible consumers are mainly
between 35 and 64 years old, have a high income and a high
educational level. Based on the seven analysed ranges, the age of
consumers is statistically different in responsible cluster at the
P < 0.05 level: F (113; 89; 405; 787; 426; 408; 377) = 38.696,
P = 0.000. The comparison at different educational level shows a
statistically significant effect at P < 0.05 level for the cluster of
responsible consumers: F (1.685; 698; 222) = 12.073, P = 0.023.
Consumers in responsible cluster also have a level of monthly

International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138 133

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP
income statistically higher than other clusters: F (459; 756; 917;
473) = 42.304, P = 0.000. The cluster analysis pointed out that
responsible consumers are mainly females, between 35 and 54
years old, with a high level of income and education. Conversely,
the consumers in the indifferent group have a large presence of
consumers with less than 24 years old, low income and minimum
level of education. The results of cluster analysis confirmed the
demographical variables considered in the analysis are reliable
enablers of RCP.
Discussion and managerial implications
The paper explored the influence of socio-demographic variables
on consumers’ propensity to buy socially and environmentally
friendly products. Although the theme has been at the centre of
numerous studies, findings were often contradictory thus requiring
further efforts in the examination of the relationship in hand.
Different from the past research, the present study proposed an
original measure of RCP which combined social and environmen-
tal attention in a unique construct, providing a more complete
understanding of the role of socio-demographic variables.
However, the main contribution of the paper is represented by the
analysis of an extremely large sample, observed in the daily real
settings. Indeed, main limitations in previous studies can be
ascribed to methodological issues, as they were based on less
representative student samples or on experimental studies in arti-
ficial ad hoc settings.
Although based on the socio-demographical variables already
considered in extant literature, the methodology adopted in the
present study allows observing consumers’ propensity towards
responsible products without modifying the conditions which may
affect the two antecedents of RCP, namely information availability
and the possibility to exercise the power of legitimacy or sanction,
which are usually not guaranteed by experimental studies. Conse-
quently, results contributed to extend the understanding of the
relationship between socio-demographic variables and RCP and
verify whether previous experimental findings were confirmed in
real setting or, contrary, differences could be evidenced. Accord-
ingly, the statistical analysis supported the usefulness of socio-
demographic variables to segment responsible consumers,
although not all the hypotheses based on extant researches were
validated.
Contrary to extant studies, evidence of a different propensity
towards social and environmental contents of products/services
between men and women did not emerge. The differences in the
behaviour of male and female consumers in the sample were not
significant thus suggesting gender does not help to explain RCP.
This result corroborates the studies which suggested the existence
of no significant gender effect on RCP (Kidwell et al., 1987;
Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990; Trevino, 1992; Sikula and
Costa, 1994).
Differently, positive relationships were found with regard
to age, educational level and income, confirming the other
hypotheses.
Regarding the age of consumer, results suggest older consumers
are more likely to choose social or environmental products.
Indeed, the cluster analysis evidenced that group with the higher
RCP includes the larger number of older the consumers (>35).
This result is consistent with previous works, which found that
134
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
older consumers have a stronger sense of ethics (Kohlberg, 1984;
Rüegger and King, 1992; Serwinek, 1992) and are therefore better
able to interpret the social and environmental characteristics of the
products beside the more traditional criteria of price, quality and
availability (Chiu et al., 1998).
As far as educational level is concerned, a positive relationship
with RCP was identified, highlighting that consumers with a
higher knowledge capital are more likely to appreciate the social
and environmental content of products and therefore to purchase
responsible product. In this sense, more educated consumers
might be better able to evaluate the information on the impacts and
implications of such products. This result is in line with earlier
literature on the relationship between educational level and RCP
(Browning and Zabriskie, 1983; Kohlberg, 1984; McNeel, 1986;
Goolsby and Hunt, 1992; Rest and Narvaez, 1994), whereas more
recent studies found no clear support.
Eventually, the last socio-demographic variable included in the
analysis refers to personal income which resulted to be positively
related to RCP thus indicating responsible consumers with a
higher purchasing power are more likely to buy socially and envi-
ronmentally responsible products. In this case, the study supports
previous literature, which already agreed on the positive relation-
ship between income and RCP. However, no previous research had
considered the real income constraints of consumers, as they were
put in artificial settings. Looking at the results of the cluster
analysis, most of the consumers included in the moderate and
responsible groups show a medium-high or high-income level.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that socio-demographic
variables are relevant in the identification of those groups of
customers who will be more likely to prefer a socially and/or
environmentally responsible product when performing their pur-
chasing act. Older, well-educated and wealthy consumers might
represent the most interesting customers for companies which
offer products with social or environmental features. Conversely,
define responsible products characteristics based on the gender of
the customers might not be an effective decision.
Before this backdrop, managers can find reliable and general-
izable indications on how to segment the market so as to better
define the marketing mix and the positioning strategy and thus
lever on the higher sensitiveness of those customers that emerged
as having a higher RCP.
Limitations and further development
The study confirmed all the hypotheses but one on the positive
relationship between socio-demographic variables and RCP, thus
providing further and more generalizable insights on responsible
consumer profile. Indeed, the study overcame some of the major
limitations in previous researches and contributed to develop an
original measure of RCP.
These improvements allowed interpreting consumers’ propen-
sity and behaviour towards responsible consumption within the
real and more complex daily purchasing context. Notwithstanding
these relevant contributions, it is useful to highlight some limita-
tions. First, findings are limited in scope as sample only included
Italian consumers. Hence, researches replicating the same analysis
in other countries are encouraged, so as to highlight whether the
relationship between socio-demographical characteristics and
RCP are affected or mediated by cultural factors. In line with this
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
cross-cultural development, studies could focus on religious tra-
ditions, as they might influence the importance given to specific
social/environmental attributes. Second, the study did not consider
the potential relationship or influence that the traditional criteria of
price, quality and availability might have on the ability to consider
and give importance to the new social and environmental attrib-
utes. Future studies may explore whether a cross-effect exists
which may affect the purchasing decision notwithstanding the
level of RCP. Third, other works could address the differences
in RCP along consumer’s life, therefore contributing to further
explore the changes in consumers’ propensity to buy social/
environmental products as his/her life evolves with regard to both
the socio-demographic variables already considered in the study
and those that were not taken into consideration such as family
composition and job position.
References
Al-Khatib, J.A., Vitell, S.J. & Rawwas, M.Y.A. (1997) Consumer ethics:
a cross-cultural investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 31,
750–767.
Alexander, G.J. & Buchholtz, R.A. (1978) Corporate social performance
and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21,
479–486.
Amine, L.S. (1996) The need for moral champions in global marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 30, 81–94.
Anderson, R.C. & Hansen, E.N. (2004) The impact of environmental
certification on preferences for wood furniture: a conjoint analysis
approach. Forest Products Journal, 54, 42–50.
Anderson, T.W. & Cunningham, W.H. (1972) The socially conscious
consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23–31.
Arlow, P. (1991) Personal characteristics on college students’ evaluations
of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 10, 63–69.
Armstrong, J.S. & Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in
mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.
Auger, P., Burke, P. Devinney, T.M. & Louviere, J.J. (2003) What will
consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business
Ethics, 42, 281–304.
Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. & Hatfield, J.P. (1985) An empirical
examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibil-
ity and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.
Bargh, J.A. (2002) Losing consciousness: automatic influences on con-
sumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29, 280–285.
Beckmann, S. (2007) Consumers and corporate social responsibility.
Australasia Marketing Journal, 15, 27–36.
Beltramini, R.F., Peterson, R.A. & Kozmetsky, G. (1984) Concerns of
college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,
3, 195–200.
Berens, G., Van Riel, C. & Van Bruggen, G. (2005) Corporate associa-
tions and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corpo-
rate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 35–48.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. & Payne, J.W. (1998) Constructive consumer
choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.
Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2004) Doing better at doing good: when,
why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 47, 9–24.
Björner, T.B., Hansen, L.G. & Russell, C.S. (2004) Environmental label-
ling and consumers’ choice – an experimental analysis of the effect of
the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment, 47, 411–434.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP
Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M. (2000) Do consumers really care about
corporate responsibility? Highlighting the aptitude–behaviour gap.
Journal of Communication Management, 4, 355–368.
Brown, T. & Dacin, P. (1997) The company and the product: corporate
associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing,
61, 68–84.
Browning, J. & Zabriskie, N.B. (1983) How ethical are industrial
buyers? Industrial Marketing Management, 12, 219–224.
Callahan, S. (1990) Is gender germane? Health Progress, 71, 21–24.
Carey, L., Shaw, D. & Shiu, E. (2008) The impact of ethical concerns
on family consumer decision-making. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 32, 553–560.
Carrigan, M. & Attalla, A. (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer do
ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing,
18, 560–577.
Carroll, A.B. (1999) Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of defini-
tional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295.
Chiu, R.K., Wong, M.M. & Kosinski, F.A. (1998) Confucian values and
conflict behavior of Asian managers: a comparison of two countries.
Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 11–22.
Chonko, L.B. & Hunt, S.B. (1985) Ethics and marketing management:
an empirical examination. Journal of Business Research, 13,
339–359.
Churchill, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Clark, T. (1990). International marketing and national character: a
review and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing,
54, 66–79.
Cohen, J.W. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sci-
ences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Creyer, E.H. & Ross, W.T. (1997) The influence of firm behavior on
purchase intentions: do consumers really care about business ethics?
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6, 421–432.
Crow, S., Fok, L., Hartman, S. & Payne, D. (1991) Gender and
values: what is the impact of decision–making? Sex Roles, 25,
255–268.
Cunningham, W.H., Anderson, W.T. Jr & Murphy, J.H. (1974) Are stu-
dents real people? Journal of Business, 47, 399–409.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driessen, L. & Rayp, G. (2005) Do consumers care
about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Con-
sumer Affairs, 39, 363–385.
Derry, R. (1987) Moral reasoning in work-related conflicts. In Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9 (ed. by W.C.
Frederick), pp. 25–50. JAI Press, Greenwich, MA.
Derry, R. (1989) An empirical study of moral reasoning among manag-
ers. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 855–862.
Deshpande, S.P. (1997) Managers’ perception of proper ethical conduct:
the effect of sex, age, and level of education. Journal of Business
Ethics, 16, 79–85.
Devinney, T., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G.M. & Birtchnell, T. (2006) The
other CSR: consumer social responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 4, 30–37.
Dickson, M.A. (2001) Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers:
profiling label users and predicting their purchases. Journal of Con-
sumer Affairs, 35, 96–119.
Doane, D. (2001) Taking Flight: The Rapid Growth of Ethical Consum-
erism. New Economics Foundation, London, UK.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. & Grewal, D. (1991) Effects of price,
brand, and store information on buyers product evaluations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with forks. the triple bottom line of 21st
century business. Capstone Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. & Webb, D.J. (2000) Charitable programs and
the retailer: do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76, 393–406.
135
Antecedents of RCP
Elliott, K.A. & Freeman, R. (2001) White Hats or Don Quixotes?
Human rights vigilantes in the global economy. NBER Working Paper
8102. January.
Emerson, T.L.N. & Conroy, S.J. (2004) Have ethical aptitudes changed?
An intertemporal comparison of the ethical perceptions of college
students in 1985 and 2001. Journal of Business Ethic, 50, 167–176.
Engel, J.F. & Blackwell, R.D. (1982) Consumer Behaviour. The Dryden
Press, New York, NY.
Ferrell, O.C. & Gresham, L.B. (1985) A contingency framework for
understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 49, 87–96.
Ferrell, O.C. & Skinner, S.J. (1988) Ethical behavior and bureaucratic
structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25, 103–109.
Flanagan, O. & Jackson, K. (1987) Justice, care, and gender. Ethics, 97,
622–637.
Ford, R.C. & Richardson, W.D. (1994) Ethical decision making: a
review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13,
205–221.
Fuller, D.A. (1999) Sustainable Marketing: Managerial-Ecological
Issues. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Goolsby, J.R. & Hunt, S.D. (1992) Cognitive moral development and
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–69.
Hair, J.F. & Black, W.C. (2000) Cluster analysis. In Reading and
Understanding More Multivariate Statistics (ed. by L.G. Grimm &
P.R. Yarnold), pp. 147–205. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. & Tatham, R. (2006)
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Handelman, J. & Arnold, S. (1999) The role of marketing actions with a
social dimension: appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of
Marketing, 63, 33–48.
Harper, G.C. & Makatouni, A. (2002) Consumer perception of organic
food production and animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104,
287–299.
Harrison, R. (2003) Corporate social responsibility and the consumer
movement. Consumer Policy Review, 13, 127–131.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. & Kim, J. (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and
product attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-
diagnosticity perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 454–
462.
Hetherington, E.M. & Feldman, S.E. (1964) College cheating as a func-
tion of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 55, 212–218.
Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S.J. (1993) The general theory of marketing ethics:
a retrospective and revision, in Smith, N.C. & Quelch, J.A. (eds.),
Ethics in Marketing. Irwin Inc., Homewood, IL, 775–784
Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S.J. (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics.
Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16.
Istat (2009) Bilancio Demografico 2008. Istat, Rome, Italy.
Jones, T.M. & Gautschi, F.H. (1988) Will the ethics of business change?
A survey of future executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
231–248.
Kessels, R., Goos, P. & Vandebroek, M. (2012) Comparison of criteria
to design efficient choice experiments. Journal of Marketing
Research, 43, 409–419.
Kidwell, J., Stevens, R. & Bechke, A. (1987) Differences in ethical per-
ceptions between male and female managers: myth or reality? Journal
of Business Ethics, 6, 451–457.
Kimeldorf, H., Meyer, R., Prasad, M. & Robinson, I. (2006) Consumers
with a conscience: will they pay more? Contexts, 5, 24–29.
Kohlberg, L. (1984) Essays in Moral Development: The Psychology of
Moral Development. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
136
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
Koklic, M.K. & Vida, I. (2011) Consumer strategic decision making and
choice process?: prefabricated house purchase. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 35, 634–643.
Kuhfeld, W.F., Tobias, R.D. & Garratt, M. (1994) Efficient experimental
design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 545–557.
Laczniak, G. & Inderrieden, E. (1987) The influence of stated
organizational concern upon ethical decision making. The Journal of
Business Ethics, 6, 297–307.
Lane, M.S. & Schaupp, D. (1989) Ethics in education: a comparative
study. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 943–949.
Maignan, I. (2001) Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsi-
bilities: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30,
57–72.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in
two countries: the case of the United States and France. Journal of
Business Ethics, 23, 283–297.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O.C. (2001) Antecedents and benefits of corpo-
rate citizenship: an investigation of French Businesses. Journal of
Business Research, 51, 454–469.
Malhotra, N.K.: 1996, Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Matten, D., Crane, A. and Chapple, W. (2003) Behind the mask: reveal-
ing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics,
45, 109–120.
McDonald, S. & Oates, C.J. (2006) Sustainability: consumer perceptions
and marketing strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15,
157–170.
McNeel, S.P. (1986) College teaching and student moral development.
In Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied
Ethics (ed. by J.R. Rest & D. Narvaez), pp. 27–49. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Menon, A. & Menon, A. (1997) Enviropreneurial marketing strategy:
the emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy.
Journal of Marketing, 61, 51–67.
Mentzer, J.T. & Flint, D.J. (1997) Validity in logistics research. Journal
of Business Logistics, 18, 199–216.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. & Harris, K.E. (2001) Do consumers expect
companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social
responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35,
45–72.
Moskowitz, M. (1972) Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business
and Society, Spring, 71–75.
Nebenzahl, I.D., Jaffe, E.D. & Kavak, B. (2001) Consumers’ punish-
ment and rewarding process via purchasing behavior. Teaching Busi-
ness Ethics, 5, 283–305.
Nelson, J. (2004) Risks, Opportunities and New Models on the CSR
Horizon. Opening Remarks at CSR Initiative Launch Event. Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility Initiative. John F. Kennedy School of Gov-
ernment, Cambridge, UK.
Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (2007) Studying the ethical consumer: a
review of research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6,
253–270.
Nicholls, A.J. (2002) Strategic options in fair trade retailing.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 30,
6–17.
Norberg, J. (2000) Resource-niche complementarity and autotrophic
compensation determines ecosystem-level responses to Cladoceran
species richness. Oecologia, 122, 264–272.
Peattie, K. (1995) Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting the
Green Challenge. Pitman Publishing Company, London, UK.
Peterson, R.A. (2001) On the use of college students in social science
research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 28, 450–461.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri
Pol, L. (1986) Marketing and the demographic perspective. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 3, 57–65.
Prothero, A. (1990) Green consumerism and the societal marketing
concept- marketing strategies for the 1990s. Journal of Marketing
Management, 6, 87–103.
Punj, G.N. & Stewart, D.W. (1983) Cluster analysis in marketing
research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 20, 134–148.
Rawwas, M.Y.A. & Isakson, H. (2000) Ethics of tomorrow’s business
managers: the influence of personal beliefs and values, individual
characteristics, and situational factors. Journal of Education for Busi-
ness, 75, 321–330.
Rawwas, M.Y.A., Vitell, S.J. & Al-Khatib, J.A. (1994) Consumer ethics:
the possible effects of terrorism and civil unrest on the ethical values
of consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 223–231.
Rest, J. & Narvaez, D. (1994) Summary: what’s possible? In Moral
Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics (ed.
by J. Rest & D. Narvaez), pp. 213–224. Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Roberts, J.A. (1995) Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer
behavior: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for market-
ing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3, 97–117.
Roberts, J.A. (1996) Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implica-
tions for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217–231.
Rüegger, D. & King, E.W. (1992) A study of the effect of age and
gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,
179–186.
de los Salmones, M.G., Crespo, A.H. & del Bosque, I.R. (2005) Influ-
ence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of
services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 369–385.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996) The
link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environ-
mental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 35–55.
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, 225–244.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya , C. B. & Korschun, D. (2006) The role of corpo-
rate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder rela-
tionships: a field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 158–166
Serwinek, P.J. (1992) Demographic and related differences in ethical
views among small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 555–
566.
Shaub, M.K. (1994) An analysis of the association of traditional demo-
graphic variables with the moral reasoning of auditing students and
auditors. Journal of Accounting Education, 12, 1–26.
Shaw, D. & Clarke, I. (1999) Belief formation in ethical consumer
groups: an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
17, 109–119.
Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L. & Thomson, J. (2005) An
exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 4, 185–200.
Shaw, D. & Newholm, T. (2002) Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of
consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 167–185.
Shaw, D. & Shiu, E. (2002) The role of ethical obligation and self-
identity in ethical consumer choice. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 26, 109–116.
Shaw, D. & Shiu, E. (2003) Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate
modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37,
1485–1498.
Sikula, A. Sr & Costa, A.D. (1994) Are women more ethical than men?
Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 859–871.
Simon, F.L. (1995) Global corporate philanthropy: a strategic frame-
work. International Marketing Review, 12, 20–37.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Antecedents of RCP
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., Dhar, R., Drolet, A. & Nowlis, S.M. (2001)
Consumer research: in search of identity. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 52, 249–275.
Smith, S.M. & Alcorn, D.S. (1991) Cause marketing: a new direction in
the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Services Market-
ing, 5, 21–37.
Smith, P. L., Oakley, E. F. (1997) Gender-related differences in ethical
and social values of business students: implications for management.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 37–45.
Soley, L.C. & Reid, L.N. (1983) On the validity of students as subjects
in advertising experiments. Journal of Advertising Research, 23
(August/September), 57–59.
Stead, W.E., Worrell, D.L. & Stead, J.G. (1990) An integrative model of
understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organiza-
tions. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 233–242.
Stevens, J., Steensma, H., Harrison, D. & Cochran, P. (2005) Symbolic
or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial
executives decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
181–195.
Straughan, R.D. & Roberts, J.A. (1999) Environmental segmentation
alternatives: a look at green consumer behaviour in the new millen-
nium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 558–575.
Strong, C. (1996) Features contributing to the growth of ethical consum-
erism. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 14, 5–13.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2008) Using Multivariate Statistics,
5th edn. Pearson education, Boston, MA.
Tallontire, A., Rentsendorj, E. & Blowfield, M. (2001) Ethical consum-
ers and ethical trade: a review of current literature. Social and Eco-
nomic Development Department, NRI; Natural Resources Institute;
University of Greenwich.
Terpstra, D.E., Rozell, E.J. & Robinson, R.K. (1993) The influence of
personality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related to
insider trading. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 375–389.
Trevino, L. (1992) Moral reasoning and business ethics: implications for
research, education, and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,
445–459.
Tsalikis, J. & Ortiz-Buonafina, M. (1990) Ethical beliefs differences of
males and females. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 509–517.
Uusitalo, O. and Oksanen, R. (2004) Ethical consumerism: a view
from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28,
214–221.
Valor, C. (2008) Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions
for market failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31, 315–326.
Vance, S.C. (1975) Are socially responsible corporations good invest-
ment risks? Academy of Management Review, 1, 18–24.
Vandermerwe, S. & Oliffe, M.D. (1990) Customers drive corporations
green. Long Range Planning, 23, 10–16.
Vinson, D.E. & Lundstrom, W.J. (1978) The use of students as experi-
mental subjects in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 6 (Winter), 114–125.
Vitell, S.J., Anusorn S. & James T. (2001) Consumer ethics: an applica-
tion and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 18, 153–178.
Waddock, S. (2004) Parallel universes: companies, academics and the
progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109,
5-42.
Wagner, S.A. (1997) Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour.
Routledge, London.
Webster, F.E. (1975) Determining the characteristics of socially con-
scious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188–196.
Whipple, L.P. & Swords, D.F. (1992) Business ethics judgments: a
cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 671–678.
Wood, D.J. (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: a review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50–84.
137
Antecedents of RCP M. Pedrini and L.M. Ferri

Woodbine, G.F. (2004) Moral choice and the declining influence of tra- Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value,
ditional value orientation within the financial sector of a rapidly a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
developing region. Journal of Business Ethics and Organization, 9, 52, 2–22.
1–9.
Yavas, U. (1994) Research note: students as subjects in advertising and
marketing research. International Marketing Review, 11, 35–43.

138 International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 127–138

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd