Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR–Consumer Paradox

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consumer surveys repeatedly suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and products’ social, environmental, or ethical attributes enhance consumers’ purchase intentions. The realization that CSR still has only a minor impact on consumers’ actual purchase decisions thus represents a puzzling paradox. Whereas prior literature on consumer decision making provides valuable insights into the factors that impede or facilitate consumers’ socially responsible consumption decisions, such elements may be only the tip of the iceberg. To gain a fuller understanding of the CSR–consumer paradox, this study proposes investigating the phenomenon through additional theoretical lenses, namely, a clinical psychology, an evolutionary psychology/biology, a social psychology, and an economic and economic psychology lens. From these four unique theoretical lenses, the authors derive an integrative framework and draw several propositions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(9), 1108–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Does what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions, Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, D. M., & Rips, L. J. (2010). Psychological connectedness and intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, D. M., & Urminsky, O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: The perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 182–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Toward a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behavior of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catlin, G., & Epstein, S. (1992). Unforgettable experiences: The relation of life events to basic beliefs about self and world. Social Cognition, 10, 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1825–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Society Psychological Bulletin, 25, 1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, S., & Martin, A. (2011). As shoppers reduce spending, ‘green’ loses allure, The New York Times, April 22 [available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/business/energy-environment/22green.html?pagewanted=all], (accessed November 6, 2012).

  • Cohn & Wolfe. (2011). The 2011 green brand survey, [available at www.cohnwolfe.com/en/ideas-insights/white-papers/green-brands-survey-2011], (accessed September 24, 2012).

  • Cone. (2004). Multi-year study finds 21% increase in Americans who say corporate support of social issues is important in building trust, [available at www.yourtravelbiz.com/rta/CRTA%20Site%20Content/Resource%20Center/Resources/Third%20Party%20Articles/cone.pdf], (accessed September 24, 2012).

  • Cone and Echo Research. (2011). 2011 Cone/Echo global CR opportunity study, [available at: http://www.coneinc.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/2fcb9351e2bea95addb6c4413bcf39a4/files/2011_cone_echo_global_cr_opportunity_study.pdf], (accessed October 21, 2012).

  • Davies, I. A., Lee, Z., & Ahonkhai, I. (2012). Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair trade coffee, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behavior: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(August), 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1973), The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, May, 404–416.

  • Epstein, S. (2003), Cognitive experiential self-theory of personality. In Th. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, personality, and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159–184) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley’s & Sons.

  • Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. Human Relations, 16, 233–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002), Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Darley, J., & Spence, B. T. (2009). Dual effects of implicit bystanders: Diffusing vs. facilitating helping behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaucher, D., Hafer, C. L., Kay, A. C., & Davidenko, N. (2010). Compensatory rationalizations and the resolution of everyday undeserved outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 186–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38(69), 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., den Bergh, V., & Bram, (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin, B. (2003). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Diffusion of responsibility effects with competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(3), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on justworld theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardisty, D. J., Appelt, K. C., & Weber, E. U. (2012), Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Online first doi:10.1002/bdm.1771

  • Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505–2528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iron, W. (2005). How has evolution shaped human behavior? Richard Alexander’s contribution to an important question, Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R. (1999). Introduction to the special issue on ethical trade-offs in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R.W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, P. D., & Fast, N. J. (2013). Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science, 24(4), 432–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Kulik, J. (1980). Schematic effects of social attitudes on information processing and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, M. E., Frazier, P. A., Anders, S. L., Tashiro, T., Tomich, P., Tennen, H., et al. (2008). Assessing the psychometric properties of the world assumptions scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 326–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. (1997). “…and besides, I probably couldn’t have made a difference anyway”: Rationalizing defection in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, M. M., Valdez, C. E., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2011). The mediating effect of world assumptions on the relationship between trauma exposure and depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2499–2516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(September), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marymount University. (1999). The consumer and sweatshops, November, [available at http://connect.marymount.edu/news/garmentstudy/overview.html], (accessed September 24, 2012).

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2007). Research Design Explained. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 45–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (2011). Why don’t consumers care about CSR? A qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. (2011). UK households spent an average of £474 a week in 2010, November 29, [available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-spending/family-spending/family-spending-2011-edition/general-nugget.html]. (accessed November 6, 2012).

  • Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimé, B. (2005). Le partage social des émotions (p. 420). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, coll. Psychologie sociale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Business Horizons, 39(1), 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies, 4, 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A multivariate modeling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1485–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(1), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion of well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Co-operative Bank. (2011). Ethical consumerism report 2011. http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethicalconsumerismreport. (accessed November 6, 2012).

  • Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. S. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 943–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, P., & Sarasin, C. (1995). Facing public interest: The ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communications. London: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 926–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behavior and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voelpel, S., Eckhoff, R., & Förster, J. (2008). David against Goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing. Human Relations, 61(2), 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, R. E., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Positive illusions of preference consistency: When remaining eluded by one’s preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(1), 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge MA: Harvard university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing, integrating customer focus across the firm (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), Socle de la Grande Arche, 1 Parvis de la Défense, 92044, Paris La Défense Cedex, France

    Catherine Janssen

  2. Edhec Business School, 24 Avenue Gustave Delory, CS 50411, 59057, Roubaix Cedex, France

    Joëlle Vanhamme

Authors
  1. Catherine Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joëlle Vanhamme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joëlle Vanhamme.

Additional information

The authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J. Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR–Consumer Paradox. J Bus Ethics 130, 775–787 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2111-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2111-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation