Assessing Consumers’ Valuations of Socially Responsible Products with Controlled Experiments

  • Yanchong ZhengEmail author
  • Tim Kraft
  • León Valdés
Part of the Springer Series in Supply Chain Management book series (SSSCM, volume 3)


This chapter discusses the use of controlled experiments to study consumers’ valuations of socially responsible products. We review three common experimental methodologies: conjoint analysis, controlled laboratory experiments, and controlled field experiments. We contrast these methods with examples and highlight the strengths of each method. Despite the large literature on consumers’ valuations of social responsibility, few studies link consumers’ valuations with a company’s supply chain strategy. We present a recent study that fills this gap by utilizing a controlled laboratory experiment to investigate how the level of supply chain transparency may influence consumers’ valuations of a company’s social responsibility practices. We conclude by discussing a few interesting topics for future studies.


Supply Chain Social Responsibility Random Condition Dictator Game Transparent Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are thankful to Atalay Atasu, Buket Avci, Beril Toktay, and the participants at the 2015 Sustainable Operations Workshop at Georgia Institute of Technology, Scheller College of Business, for their constructive feedback.


  1. Agrawal V, Atasu A, van Ittersum K (2015) Remanufacturing, third-party competition, and consumers’ perceived value of new products. Manag Sci 61(1):60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora N, Henderson T (2007) Embedded premium promotion: why it works and how to make it more effective. Mark Sci 26(4):514–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3):226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton G, Katok E (2008) Learning-by-doing in the newsvendor problem: a laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 10(3):519–538Google Scholar
  7. Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter CR, Easton PL (2011) Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 41(1):46–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness G (2004) Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J Labor Econ 22(3):665–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlsrud A (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Pelsmacker P, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J Consum. Aff. 39(2):363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delmas MA, Nairn-Birch N, Balzarova M (2013) Choosing the right eco-label for your product. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 54(4):10–12Google Scholar
  13. Devinney TM, Auger P, Eckhardt GM (2010) The myth of the ethical consumer. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Doorey DJ (2011) The transparent supply chain: from resistance to implementation at Nike and Levi-Strauss. J Bus Ethics 103(4):587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Economist T (2012) A “distinctly South Asian” tragedy. Accessed 28 Mar 2015
  16. Elfenbein DW, McManus B (2010) A greater price for a greater good? Evidence that consumers pay more for charity-linked products. Am Econ J: Econ Policy 2(2):28–60Google Scholar
  17. Engelmann D, Munro A, Valente M (2011) On the behavioural relevance of optional and mandatory impure public goods: results from a laboratory experiment. Working paper, Universidade do Minho – NIMA, Braga, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  18. Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2008) Testing theories of fairness – intentions matter. Games Econom Behav 62(1):287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2004) Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol Hum Behav 25(2):63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart J Econom 114(3):817–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1998) Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets. Eur Econ Rev 42(1):1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feinberg F, Kinnear T, Taylor J (2012) modern marketing research: concepts, methods, and cases, 2nd edn. Cengage Learning, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsythe R, Horowitz JL, Savin NE, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ Behav 6(3):347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García-Gallego A, Georgantzís N (2011) Good and bad increases in ecological awareness: Environmental differentiation revisited. Strateg Behav Environ 1(1):71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Nelson LD, Brown A (2010) Shared social responsibility: a field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science 329(5989):325–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ (2012) The socially conscious consumer? Field experimental tests of consumer support for fair labor standards. Working paper no. 2012-15, MIT Political Science Department, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ, Sequeira S (2015) Consumer demand for Fair Trade: evidence from a multistore field experiment. Rev Econ Stat 97(2):242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halevy Y (2007) Ellsberg revisited: an experimental study. Econometrica 75(2):503–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Irwin JR, Naylor RW (2009) Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. J Mark Res 46(2):234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim H, John DR (2008) Consumer response to brand extensions: construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit. J Consum Psychol 18(2):116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klos A, Weber E, Weber M (2005) Investment decisions and time horizon: risk perception and risk behaviour in repeated gambles. Manag Sci 51(12):1777–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koschate-Fischer N, Stefan IV, Hoyer WD (2012) Willingness to pay for cause-related marketing: the impact of donation amount and moderating effects. J Mark Res 49(6):910–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kraft T, Valdes L, Zheng Y (2016) Transparency in social responsibility: Investigating consumers’ behaviors and motives. Working paper, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  34. Kremer M, Debo L (2015) Inferring quality from wait time. Manag Sci (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  35. Krishna A, Rajan U (2009) Cause marketing: spillover effects of cause-related products in a product portfolio. Manag Sci 55(9):1469–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine DK (1998) Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev Econ Dynam 1(3):593–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohr LA, Webb DJ (2005) The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. J Consum Aff 39(1):121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mohr LA, Webb DJ, Harris KE (2001) Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. J Consum Aff 35(1):45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Montiel I (2008) Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: separate pasts, common futures. Organ Environ 21(3):245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munro A, Valente M (2009) Green goods: are they good or bad news for the environment? Evidence from a laboratory experiment on impure public goods, working paper, Universidade do Minho – NIMA, Braga, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  41. Nestlé (2013) Nestlé empowers consumers with new digital labelling scheme. http://\penalty0www.\penalty0nestle.\penalty0com/\penalty0Media/NewsAndFeatures/global-qr-codes. Accessed 7 Aug 2014Google Scholar
  42. Nowak MA, Sigmund K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393(6685):573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olson EL (2013) It’s not easy being green: the effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. J Acad Mark Sci 41(2):171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Orme B (2005) Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Research Publishers, LLC, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  45. Özer Ö, Zheng Y, Chen K (2011) Trust in forecast information sharing. Manag Sci 57(6):1111–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Özer Ö, Zheng Y, Ren Y (2014) Trust, trustworthiness, and information sharing in supply chains bridging China and the United States. Manag Sci 60(10):2435–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Patagonia (2014) The footprint chronicles. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  48. Prasad M, Kimeldorf H, Meyer R, Robinson I (2004) Consumers of the world unite: a market-based response to sweatshops. Labor Stud J 29(3):57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reed II A (2004) Activating the self-importance of consumer selves: exploring identity salience effects on judgments. J Consum Res 31(2):286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schweitzer M, Cachon G (2000) Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: experimental evidence. Manag Sci 46(3):404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Straughan RD, Roberts JA (1999) Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J Consum Mark 16(6):558–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thøgersen J, Haugaard P, Olesen A (2010) Consumer responses to ecolabels. Eur J Mark 44(11/12):1787–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(2):169–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations