Ward%Gaartman
Amsterdam%Business%School
5810973
Msc.%Business%Studies
24@2@2014
1st%Supervisor:%Drs.%R.E.W.%Pruppers
Master%thesis
2nd%Supervisor:%J.%Labadie
Table of contents
1. Introduction
1
1.1. CSR-‐labelling 1
1.2. CSR-‐labels in a marketing context 4
1.3. Problem definition 4
1.4. Delimitations of the study 5
1.5. Theoretical contributions 6
1.6. Managerial contributions 7
1.7. Outline of the study 7
2. Corporate social responsibility strategy
9
2.1. CSR-‐labelling 10
2.2. CSR-‐label functionalities 12
2.2.1. Consumer perspective 12
2.3. CSR-‐labels as a marketing tool 13
2.4. Intention-‐behaviour gap 14
2.5. CSR-‐label influence on brand associations 15
3. Associative learning
16
3.1. Associative networks 16
3.2. Associative networks in a marketing context 18
3.3. Secondary knowledge 20
3.4. Leveraging associations 22
3.5. Leveraging secondary knowledge 23
4. Hypotheses
24
4.1. Number of associations 25
4.2. Accuracy of associations 25
4.3. Brand and CSR-‐label familiarity 25
4.5. CSR-‐label presence 27
5. Method
29
5.1. Research design 294.1.1. Procedure 30
4.1.2. Materials 30
5.2. Pre-‐test 31
5.2.1.Label type 32 5.2.2.Label familiarity 33 5.2.3.Brand familiarity 34 5.2.4.Brand CSR reputation 34
6. Results
36
6.1. Data preparation 366.1.1. Population 36 6.1.2. Randomization 36 6.2. Reliability analysis 36 6.2.1. Brand CSR reputation 36
6.2.2. CSR involvement 36
6.3. CSR-‐labels 37 6.3.1. Manipulation check 37
6.3.1.1. Label type 38
6.3.1.2. Label familiarity 38
6.3.2 Analyses CSR-‐label associations 42
6.4. Brands 47
6.4.1. Manipulation check 47
6.4.1.1. Brand familiarity 47
6.4.1.2. Brand CSR reputation 49
6.5. Additional analysis 60
6.5.1. Label attitude 60
6.5.2.Brand attitude 60
6.5.3. Direction of associations 61
6.5.4. Uniqueness of associations 61
6.5.5. Personal CSR involvement 62
7. Discussion
63
7.1. Interpretation results 63 7.1.1. Study 1 63 7.1.2. Study 2 64 7.2. Theoretical implications 69 7.3. Managerial implications 718. Conclusion
74
8.1. Summary 74 8.2. Limitations 74 8.3. Recommendations 759. List of references
81
9.1. Websites 84
1.Introduction
1.1. CSR-‐labelling
In general, awareness around environmental, social and health issues has grown over the last decades. Both consumers and producers have, under the emerging pressure of governments, become more and more concerned with their behaviour and how this influences themselves and the environment surrounding them. In a consumer context, this development has influenced producers in the way they produce their products, governments in the terms and conditions they develop to guide market behaviour and consumers in their evaluation and selection of the products and services they consume. Simultaneously producers and governments have strengthened attempts to communicate their acts and adjustments to consumers and the overall environment. One example of such an attempt that, over the last couple of years, has been adopted more and more by both governments and producers, are Corporate Social Responsibility labels (CSR-‐labels). CSR-‐labels are certificates developed by governments, independent organizations or the producers of products and services themselves and form a way for brands to communicate their sustainability performance towards the environment. This environment exists of different target groups, such as: the brand, the consumer, the producer and policy makers.
One internationally familiar example of a CSR-‐label, is the Forest Stewardship Council (Figure 1.1.). Principles and criteria of this CSR-‐label describe the essential elements or rules of environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable forest management (Forest Stewardship Council, 2013). Brands carrying the FSC label aim to communicate towards their stakeholders that their product has been produced with respect to the FSC principles and criteria. A second well-‐known label is GoodWeave (Figure 1.2.). This global, not-‐for-‐profit organisation is responsible for operating the GoodWeave certification programme internationally. GoodWeave’s mission is to work to end illegal child labour in the rug industry and to offer educational opportunities to children in South Asia (GoodWeave, 2013).
Figure 1.2. GoodWeave-‐label. (GoodWeave, 2013).
CSR-‐labels can be related to different sustainability topics, such as: the environmental impact of the production of the product, its’ biological measures, the social-‐ethical norms endured by the brand, or its’ measurement for consumer well being, and are being communicated on the packaging of the product. Drawing from existing literature, two major distinctions can be made between the orientations of CSR-‐ labels. Either they focus on environmental ideals, concentrating on issues like production pressure on the ecosystem, for this research referred to as Eco labels, or they maintain a more social-‐ethical orientation, stimulating for example safe working environments and controlling for child labour, for this research referred to as Socio-‐Ethical labels. For the current research, a third category in CSR-‐label orientations has been distinguished: consumer oriented labels. In the present research referred to as Consumer labels. These are labels representing matters that concern consumer wellbeing, like healthy food.
One well-‐known example of an environmental CSR-‐label used in the Netherlands is the EKO-‐ label (Figure 1.3.). This CSR-‐label supports the biological sector in the Netherlands by certification of products and services (Stichting EKO-‐keurmerk, 2013).
Figure 1.3. EKO checkmark. (Stichting EKO-‐keurmerk, 2013).
In the Netherlands Max Havelaar (Figure 1.4.) is a popular example of a Socio-‐Ethical CSR-‐label. This CSR-‐ label controls for fair trading conditions for smaller producers in developing countries (Max Havelaar, 2013).
Figure 1.4. Max Havelaar label. (Max Havelaar, 2013).
One well-‐known Consumer label in the Netherlands is the ‘Kies Bewust’ checkmark (Figure 1.5.). The “checkmark” makes clear in one glance, which products within a product category contain less sugar, salt or saturated fat (Kies Bewust, 2013).
Figure 1.5. Kies Bewust green circle checkmark. (Kies Bewust, 2013).
Communication regarding CSR, as represented in the use of CSR-‐labels, serves mainly two purposes: to inform consumers about the degree to which producers take responsibility and take certain matters into account with the production of their products and services, and to differentiate products and services of one producer from another in their strategic market positioning. This last purpose serves more marketing and consumer related goals and therefore makes the interest of the effect of CSR-‐labels towards brand and product performance in scientific research justifiable. Previous research has found mixed evidence with regards to the influence of CSR-‐labels on actual consumer behaviour. While researchers have concentrated on the consumer attitudes towards CSR related topics and presented increasing motivations to buy sustainable, simultaneously a majority of research measuring for the actual consumer consumptions of sustainable products and services shows that this attitude change has not resulted in a major uplift in consumption of sustainable products and services. In light of the earlier described marketing function of CSR-‐labels, it might be questionable whether these labels indeed function in the way assumed by both the managerial and the scientific environment. In order to describe these functions more accurately research needs to go back one step in the process and pay attention first to what happens in consumers’ minds when they are being exposed to CSR-‐labels, individually and in a brand related context. By measuring consumer associations with CSR-‐labels and how these associations possibly might be transferred to brands with which they are being connected, for example when used on product packaging, an insight in the brand associative functions of CSR-‐labels might be created.
1.2. CSR-‐labels in a marketing context
CSR-‐labels, as a source of CSR related brand communications, provide a one-‐way communication from producers and policy-‐makers, as messengers, to consumers, as recipients. This serves a functional purpose for the consumer, who may use the label as a source of product related information that helps him selecting from multiple options in the same product category. Simultaneously this CSR-‐label, when connected to a brand on the packaging of its product, might also influence the overall evaluation of the brand by the consumer. Information connected to the CSR-‐label might become part of the consumer’s brand knowledge due to the linking of the two elements in a brand context. From this point of view brand managers might use CSR-‐labels to serve strategic marketing purposes; creating CSR related brand values derived from the proposition of the CSR-‐label. Within this line of reasoning, the question rises whether these expected values, as proclaimed by the producer, evolve similarly in consumer’s minds when they are being exposed to the CSR-‐labels. In order to investigate this, research needs to pay attention to the associative functions of CSR-‐labels. In other words focussing on what happens in consumer’s minds when these labels are being communicated to them, both individually and in combination with a brand. Research regarding the associations brands evoke with consumers has shown the ability of a variety of brand elements, to activate the association between a brand and one such element. Think about the appliance of celebrity endorsement by Nespresso with George Clooney, or Heineken as the prominent sponsor of the UEFA Champions League. Repeated combination of the brand with such elements has proven to stimulate this process and even create the possibility for the brand to exchange certain values with the external element or stimulus. In other words, the brand and external stimulus become part of each other’s associative network.
Since the popularity of the use of CSR-‐labels by brands has seen such growth over the last couple of years, the relevance for both brand managers and theorists to investigate to what degree CSR-‐ labels function similar to the above described external brand elements grows significantly.
1.3. Problem definition
The general question for this research was: “Which associations do CSR-‐labels evoke with consumers and how do these associations influence the consumer brand knowledge?”. Next to this attention has been paid to the characteristics of both CSR-‐labels and brands that might influence the answer to the general research question.
Empirical research towards the associative networks brands hold in consumer’s minds has shown consumer brand memory structures influenced by many different external brand elements. Simultaneously the popularity of the use of CSR-‐labels by brands as means of product related brand communication has grown over the last couple of years. Yet, so far no empirical research has focussed on the functionally of CSR-‐labels as such an external brand element or its ability to influence the brand’s associative network.
Answering the presented research question for the present research has been a first attempt to close this gap in marketing research literature. Besides, it provides brand managers with strategic insights on the functionality of CSR-‐labels for their brands as a marketing tool. For researchers, answers to the proposed research question will contribute to the examination of the limitation or expansion of existing literature regarding brand knowledge, brand associations and brand associative networks.
1.4. Delimitations of the study
Since the interest of the present study was with to understand how CSR-‐labels might influence consumer knowledge about the brand, it was desirable to select brand cases in different levels of familiarity. Research has shown brand familiarity influences brand awareness (Keller, 2003) and subsequently the size and depth of the brand associative network (Krishnan, 1996; Henderson, Iacobucci, 1998; Till, 1998). It is important to notice that the present study investigates knowledge about the brand and the CSR-‐label both separately and collectively. This setup is chosen in order to investigate the possible effect of linking the brand to another external element, the CSR-‐label, on consumer brand knowledge (Keller, 2003).
Therefor the present study has distinguished multiple research conditions regarding both individual CSR-‐labels and brands, based on their level of familiarity. Simultaneously, the type of CSR-‐ labels and brands has been distinguished as a factor for conditioning in the present research. Earlier research regarding brand associations has suggested that brands from different categories may evoke different brand association (Krishnan, 1996). For the present research, interest goes out to the influence of CSR-‐labels on consumer brand knowledge, measured through consumer brand associations. Therefore differentiations for the type of brands included in the research have been based on the CSR reputation of the brand. Since category differences may exist (Krishnan, 1996), brands selected for the present study have been selected to represent the same product category. For CSR-‐labels however, the
categorical differences might influence the effect of linking brands with CSR-‐labels and therefore has been included as a condition factor.
The mechanism of brands attempting to borrow equity from other entities (Till, 1998), is often described in empirical research as work related to brand equity investigation. Though, in order to understand this leveraging process, insides in (1) consumer brand knowledge and (2) how this knowledge might be influenced by linking the brand to external brand elements, is required (Keller, 2003). Subsequently, with the creation of different consumer brand responses and influencing the successes of brand related marketing programs, brand knowledge is the driver of brand equity (Keller, 2003). The current research can therefore serve as an important indicator of how CSR-‐labels influence brand equity, though its main focus lays with consumer brand knowledge.
This knowledge will be measured through the number and accuracy of associations evoked by individual brands and CSR-‐labels and brands in combination with CSR-‐labels, displayed on their product packaging. Both the number (Krishnan, 1996; Till, 1998) and accuracy (Krishnan, 1996; Keller, 2003) of associations have been suggested in earlier research as indicators of brand knowledge. As applied in earlier research (Chen, 2001) free associations are measured and scored towards their general number, the number of associations related to CSR and the number of CSR related associations actually meeting the propositions of either the CSR-‐label or the brand.
1.5. Theoretical contributions
The present research investigates how CSR-‐labels might influence the level and direction of consumer based brand knowledge by focussing on its ability to serve as a source of secondary knowledge (Keller, 2003), from which the brand is able to borrow values and information. With this proposition, results will add value to existing literature regarding the scope of the multidimensionality of brand (Keller, 2003). More specifically, it will describe the extent to which CSR-‐labels are able to serve as a leveraging factor for brands (Till & Nowak, 2000; Keller, 2003). This relates to the associative learning theory, or classical conditioning, (McSweeney & Bierley, 1984; Shimp, 1991; Till, 1998) as it investigates how associative links might possibly be built by the presentation of CSR-‐labels on the brand’s product packaging. Insights in these associative functions of CSR-‐labels might also contribute to existing literature by bridging the gap in empirical research regarding the difference between consumer intentions and behaviour around sustainable consumption. Like stated by Horne (2009), academic research has shown that consumers
show motivation to purchase sustainably, yet this motivation has not yet translated into a widespread uptake in the purchase of more sustainable products. Results still show wide variation in the understanding of effects of the use of CSR product labels on consumer behaviour (OECD, 2005). Uncovering consumer the actual knowledge consumer CSR-‐label and brand knowledge and how these influence each other (Keller, 2003), might provide valuable information for theorist concentrated on sustainable consumer behaviour.
1.6. Managerial contributions
The growing concerns regarding the sustainability of our planet indicate the need for people to change their behaviour. Producers of consumer products and services contribute to this development by innovating existing-‐ and introducing new products and services that take into account their environmental impact. Environmental and social product information programs have become a widespread instrument aiming to fulfill the need of effective market communication around sustainable consumption (Bratt et al., 2011). Heightened interest in climate change over the past couple of years has led to rising calls for CSR-‐labelling to allow consumers to differentiate between more or less sustainable options (Horne, 2009). The present research not only aims to reveal how this information, as aimed to communicate by the labels, is interpreted by consumers, it also looks into the possible way in which this information influences the overall evaluation of the brand by these consumers. For brand managers this provides valuable insights on how CSR-‐labels might be used as an external stimulus from which the brand can extract equity. In this way, not only would CSR-‐labels serve as a functional tool to communicate product specific information, it could also function as a strategic marketing tool for brand managers, strategically adding value to the consumer brand knowledge and subsequently influencing the consumer brand equity.
1.7. Outline of the study
In the following section a literature review will be presented, which will address the following topics: Corporate Social Responsibility, definitions and application of CSR-‐labels and the functionalities of CSR-‐ labels in a marketing context. The following chapter discusses theory regarding associative networks, associative learning, brand knowledge and the brand-‐leveraging process. After the literature review
hypotheses will be presented, followed by a presentation of the methods used for the data collection and control measurements. Results will be presented per hypothesis in the following chapter, which will be succeeded with a chapter including the discussion of these results, together with their theoretical and practical implications. The research will be concluded with the research conclusion, summarizing content presented in earlier chapters, presenting limitations of the present-‐ and recommendations for
future research.
2. Corporate Social Responsibility
Since the late 1990’s, organizations are experiencing increasing pressure to take responsibility for the effects of their performances on the environment, with special interest for the effects that go beyond the firm’s primary commercial interests (Mohr et al., 2001; van den Brink et al., 2006). Governments, consumers, employees, suppliers and many other groups have shaped the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through their expectations that corporate organizations will perform their practices in a responsible way (Bondy, et al., 2012). This responsibility might refer to different areas of attention. Nowadays corporate organizations need to justify the environmental, social and economic impact of their performances towards a variety of stakeholders. The business case for CSR focuses on how consideration of social or environmental concerns contributes to the financial position of the business (Bondy, et al., 2012). This lays in line with the priority for the use of CSR by organizations, as described in current literature, as a way to create value for organizations, for example how it can contribute to the improvement of the competitive position or profitability of the organization (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). From this point of view, CSR might result in positive outcomes for society, though the main goal is to protect the corporation (Bondy, et al., 2012). For the present research CSR is defined by the definition of Maignan et al. (1999):
The extent to which businesses assume the economic, legal, ethical, environmental and discretionary responsibilities imposed on them by their various stakeholders.
Logically, these priorities have influenced the interest towards CSR in the field of marketing. Academic marketing literature regarding CSR has predominantly focussed on its effect on consumer behaviour and brand performances (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Some marketing studies suggest that perceptions of CSR may generate increased resources from one specific category of stakeholders: consumers (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). In particular, scholars have examined consumer responses to CSR initiatives by organizations and how important ethics and social responsibility are to them, together with the marketing results as a consequence from corporate actions with a CSR related orientation (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). CSR related marketing studies have also focussed on specific dimensions, such as the support of charitable causes or the protection of the environment (van den Brink et al., 2006).
Within these studies several findings regarding consumer responses towards CSR activities have been presented. Answering to these promising findings, CSR related marketing programs have seen a major uptake over recent years (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). This has resulted in multiple forms of
marketing programs aiming to fulfil the need of organizations to carry out these CSR performances to their stakeholders.
Cause Related Marketing (CRM) is one example of such a marketing program which simultaneously powerfully illustrates the way brands attempt to increase their brand equity by borrowing equity (Keller, 2003) from external, CSR related, elements. A CRM campaign aims at two objectives: to support a social cause, and to improve marketing performance (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; van den Brink et al., 2006). This last called, marketing related, goal of CRM exists of contributing to the brand image by enhancing the parent company’s reputation as a corporate good citizen (Till et al., 2000). The relation between the brand and the social cause serves the purpose of the brand to connect values and associations initially related to the individual social cause, to the brand.
As described earlier, besides the functional communication of product related information, the question in the current research exists if CSR-‐labels could be used for similar purposes.
2.1. CSR-‐labelling
In recent years the ‘green consumer’ has become a specified and established consumer profile across almost all consumer industries, being anticipated on by organizations all around the globe. Ethically minded consumers feel a responsibility towards their environment and seek to express their values through ethical consumption and purchasing behaviour (Connolly & Shaw, 2006; Carrington et al., 2010). Motivated to foresee in the demands of this new market segment, firms have assigned significant amounts of resources to CSR related organizational areas such as environmental management and corporate citizenship (Pedersen & Neergaard, 2009). But, like with all ‘new’ performances by an organization, consumers need to be properly informed about these efforts taken by the firm in order to create awareness and support for them. Product information programs related to environmental and social matters have become a popular tool that aims to answer to the growing demand for solid market communication around sustainable consumption (Bratt, et al., 2011). Because, to turn current patterns of consumption and production in a sustainable direction, solid and understandable market information on the ecological and social-‐ethical performance of products is needed (Bratt, et al., 2011). Current empirical research claims that CSR-‐labels play an important role in the communication of these efforts taken by organizations towards the consumers of their products (Bratt et al., 2011). CSR-‐labels provide consumers with information at the point of purchase regarding the producer’s sustainability performances.
1970’s (Bratt et al., 2011), a German certification label for products that have environmentally friendly aspects. A rapid increase in the use of CSR-‐labels started ten years later and CSR-‐labelling programmes currently exist in large numbers and many forms at national, European and international levels (Bratt et al., 2011).
CSR-‐labels can be categorized in multiple ways: territorial coverage (i.e. national -‐ Germany’s Blue Angle; Supranational -‐ EU Eco label; international -‐ Fairtrade), thematic scope (the type of products covered by a label), etc. (Koszewska, 2011) or the type of causes it represents. Generally, drawing from academic literature, two main types of CSR-‐labels can be distinguished: environmental or ecological (Eco-‐) labels and Socio-‐Ethical labels (Thøgersen, et al., 2010).
Eco labels
Eco labels are a type of CSR-‐labels that justify the degree to which producers take into account their environmental impact with the development and production of their product(s). The labels are being provided to products or services with lower degrees of environment pollution than qualitatively similar products or services; also referred to as “environmentally friendly” or “green” products and services. According to the Global Eco labelling Network an Eco label identifies environmental preference of a product or service within a specific product-‐ or service category (Bratt et al., 2011; Global Eco labelling Network, 2011a). Some well-‐known examples of ecological labels are: Green/organic (EKO), Energy safe (Der Grüne Punkt), Recyclable (Energy star) and Biological (Skal).
Socio-‐Ethical labels
Socio-‐Ethical labels are labels that measure for the degree to which producers take social and ethical topics into account with the development and production of their product(s) (Koszewska, 2011). Some popular examples of Socio-‐Ethical topics and product labels are Fairtrade (Max Havelaar) and Child labour (GoodWeave).
Consumer labels
In addition to the so far distinguished types of CSR-‐labels -‐ environmental and Socio-‐Ethical -‐ for the current research, a third type will be investigated: consumer oriented CSR-‐labels. Like described in the introduction of this research, these are these labels claim responsibility for consumer well being. Examples found for these labels on the Dutch consumer market are: Kies Bewust and Gezonde Keuze (See, resp. Appendix 9 and 10).
Figure 2.1. display's a general distinction between Eco-‐ and Socio-‐Ethical labels, classifying existing CSR-‐ labels along this dichotomy of CSR-‐label orientations (Koszewska, 2011).
Figure 2.1. Classification of CSR-‐labels. Source: Koszewska, 2011.
2.2. CSR-‐label functionalities
Currently, knowledge about the impacts of products and services is in most cases asymmetrically allocated between buyers and producers (Schubert & Blasch, 2010; Bratt et al., 2011). CSR-‐labelling is a means to adjust this, and thereby increase market efficiency. Eco labelling is also a means, through market mechanisms, to prepare the way for governmental measures, such as legislation (Bratt et al., 2011). Resent literature regarding CSR-‐label functionalities (de Boer, 2003), has distinguished three main groups of stakeholders: consumers, producers and policymakers. Since the present research investigates the influence of CSR-‐labels on brand knowledge from a consumer perspective, existing theory regarding functionalities of CSR-‐labels for this stakeholder group will be discussed in more detail.
2.2.1. Consumer perspective
The functionality of CSR-‐labels for consumers can be described as an indicator of the accountability for environmental and/or social-‐ethical causes by the producer of a product, that the consumer cannot ascertain himself due to lack of knowledge and time-‐limited decision-‐making at the point of sales (Bratt et al., 2011). A CSR-‐label is a distinctive symbol revealing differences between more sustainable and less
sustainable practices, which consumers might have been aware of but which they could not identify in the market (de Boer, 2003).
CSR-‐labels normally attract the already environmentally and socially aware market segment of consumers, but it serves as a communication vehicle for awareness transfer to the market at large (Bratt et al., 2013). Though, great differences exist between consumers in the strength of their motivation to include pro-‐environmental or moral considerations into their purchasing decisions (Browne et al., 2000). Those consumers who are highly motivated to include pro-‐environmental or moral considerations into their purchasing decisions may also be highly motivated to investigate the claims and the premium prices of labelled products (de Boer, 2003). The impact of CSR-‐labels therefore depends largely on how consumers understand, trust and value its claim in relation to other choice criteria (de Boer, 2003). As a result of the bad reputation of the ‘green’ claims in the early 1990s, many consumers have become very sceptical about the sustainable behaviour of companies (Peattie, 2001).
When looking at the influence of CSR-‐labels on actual consumer behaviour, CSR-‐labels are actually evaluated as a marketing tool. For the present research it is interesting to know what academic research towards the influence of CSR-‐labels on consumer behaviour has resulted in so far.
2.3. CSR-‐labels as a marketing tool
Especially the interest of organizations towards the influence of CSR-‐labels on consumers has grown over the past decades. Due to growing concerns regarding the environment among consumers in recent years, the attention of companies seeking to profit from sustainable responsibility marketing programmes has been attracted (Carlson et al., 1993). Marketing communication containing environmental claims are becoming more and more prominent for organizations that seek a way to communicate with consumers who are concerned about this topic.
From this perspective CSR-‐labelling forms a method for differentiating products that better meet Socio-‐Ethical and ecological standards compared to traditional products (Koszewska, 2011). This differentiating function is an opportunity for marketers to claim a certain proposition with their brand and/or product in consumers’ minds. A review of various CSR-‐communication initiatives by Koszewska (2011) shows that certification and labelling systems belong to the most effective instruments that can induce positive changes in consumer behaviour. According to the 1999 Cone/Roper Cause-‐Related Marketing Report (Spethman, 1999; Till et al., 2000) 83% of Americans have a more positive image of a company that supports a cause they care about. Eventually, CSR-‐labels are expected to affect the purchasing decision in favour of the labelled product and thereby be morally as well as economically
rewarding for those companies that have been awarded the label (Bratt et al., 2011).
Though, the attitudinal change created by CSR-‐labels did not result in a major uplift in sustainable consumptions by consumers. Academic literature has revealed the differences between consumer’s motivations to consume sustainably and the actual purchases of sustainable products (Horne, 2009). This intention-‐behaviour gap reveals the lack of current understanding of the effects of CSR-‐labels on consumer knowledge about the brand.
2.4. Intention-‐behaviour gap
By enabling consumers to identify differences between sustainable and less sustainable products or services through CSR-‐labels, marketers expected consumers to become motivated change their consuming behaviour in favour of the CSR-‐labelled products (de Boer, 2003).
In fact, what happens in practice seems to be that consumers often say to be very concerned about sustainability issues, but that their actual purchases are somewhat of a disappointment to many companies that have tried to create ‘green’ market segments (Peattie, 2001). Although public interest in CSR increases and consumer attitudes towards the topic and organizations focussing on it are mainly positive, consumer behaviour does not show to be consistent with attitudes (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). According to de Boer (2003) this discrepancy is partly caused by the correlation between sustainability and premium prices in ‘green’ consumer products. Additionally, the gap between consumer attitudes and behaviour in sustainable consumption might as well be caused by a lack of trust or recognition of the intentions of the producer (de Boer, 2003). This might be due to remaining evidence that convinces consumers of the reduced environmental impacts (Horne, 2009), or that the consumers simply need more time to adapt their consuming behaviour to the changing market situation (de Boer, 2003). Besides that, consumers who are well aware of the ethical nature of purchase decisions may not change their buying pattern as long as that would be inconsistent with their loyalty to a particular taste, brand or supplier (Newholm, 2000).
All of the above stated arguments support the need for further research investigating the influence of CSR-‐labels on the consumer knowledge about the brand. Only if insides in consumer brand knowledge are created and the way CSR-‐labels might influence this knowledge (Keller, 2003) is revealed, the possibility for CSR-‐labels to positively influence above intention-‐behaviour gap (de Boer, 2003) becomes clear. Therefore, CSR-‐label influence on the associations evoked by brands needs to be investigated.
2.5. CSR-‐label influence on brand associations
Consumer brand associations represent the collection of perceptions and preferences in consumer memory towards a certain brand (Aaker, 1991). These associations form important contributors to the equity-‐, image and knowledge about a brand (Henderson, 1998). Consumer brand associations assist consumers to process information and structure this in their memory (Aaker & Keller, 1990). Each brand knows its own unique collection of associations, varying from consumer to consumer (Till, 1998). This collection of association is referred to by Meyers-‐Levy (1989) as the brand association set. When a CSR-‐ label is presented in combination with a CSR-‐label, two independent association sets are combined. In order to understand how CSR-‐labels might influence consumer knowledge about the brand, first attention needs to be paid to how these CSR-‐labels influence consumer associations individually (Keller, 2003). After measuring the independent association sets, it becomes measurable how associations originally connected to the CSR-‐label have transported to the association set of the brand. In other words, if the brand-‐leveraging process as described by Keller (2003) has succeeded.
Therefore, in order to investigate CSR-‐label influence on brand associations, attention needs to be paid to the associations evoked by CSR-‐label itself first. Besides, one needs to understand how this information is linked in relation to the associative network in consumers’ minds and, subsequently, how it can serve as a source of secondary knowledge that can eventually leverage the brand. In order to familiarize with this concept, the following section will pay attention to the associative network theory and the cognitive process of associative learning.
3. Associative network theory & associative learning
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate how associative learning principles provide a conceptual framework for understanding how CSR-‐labels might influence consumers in their brand evaluation. Principles behind associative learning are based on the conceptualization of memory as a structured network consisting of various information units, or nodes, connected by associative links (Rumelhart, Hinton & McClelland, 1986). In the present research CSR-‐labels and brands both represent units of information (Henderson et al., 1998) between which associative links can be build. At first these information units are unconnected but because due to the linking process on the packaging of the product, an associative link might be created. If the use of CSR-‐labels on product packaging appears to be functioning similar to this essential understanding of memory and associative learning, this could be very valuable for both theorists and marketing practitioners (Till, 1998). Therefore, the basic principles behind associative learning, followed by their application within a marketing context and the possible role of CSR-‐labels as cues within this process, will further be discussed here.
First, in order to understand the associative learning principle with regards to CSR-‐labels, basic knowledge on cognitive networks and the spreading of knowledge in consumers’ minds needs to be familiarized.
3.1. Associative networks
So again, long-‐term memory is being described by Martindale (1991) as a network of nodes connected via associative links. Rumelhart et al. (1986) describe the associative view of memory as consisting of a set information units that are connected via associative links that collectively form a structured network, wit the ability to be rearranged depending on experiences that influence the learning of the individual (Till & Nowak, 2000). This structured network of associations may be referred to as the associative network and can be related to people, places, objects, also products and brands (Rumelhart et al., 1986). More specifically, the associative network is build out of informational units, or nodes, which represent the individual elements, as described above, from which certain information can be extracted.
These informational units can cause varying forms of associations, depending on what the unit means for someone emotionally, socially or economically, or on the interpretation of certain characteristics by the individual (Anderson, 1983). These differences lead to different patterns of connectivity for different people (Rumelhart et al., 1986). The pattern of connectivity is what is of most importance for the understanding of the present study. This refers to the connection of one unit to
