“The Fair Trade Dilemma”: How Fair Trade Claims Impact New Product Introductions.

(1)

1

Master thesis, Msc Marketing Management

“The Fair Trade Dilemma”:

How Fair Trade Claims Impact New Product Introductions.

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Department of Marketing

Thijs van Hoevelaak

Student number: 1705830

Schoolholm 6

9711 JG Groningen

T.van.hoevelaak@student.rug.nl

+31612393553

Supervisors:

1

st

Supervisor: Dr. J. van Doorn

2

nd

Supervisor: Dr. J.W. Bolderdijk

(2)

2

Management summary

Faced with growing ethical concerns and rising environmental issues, many consumers pretend to act according to a more sustainable lifestyle. A growing number of consumers adjust their attitudes towards more ethical and socially responsible behavior. However, the international market for Fair Trade products represents only a minor share of global trade and the market shares remain quiet low despite high growth rates. In this research, we examine the impact of Fair trade claims on the success of new product introductions. We explore whether this relationship differs between vice and virtue category products and between national brands and private labels. We provide the consumer underlying motivations that should influence these decision-making processes, but our main focus is on actual purchase data of new product introductions. The success is measured with use of actual purchase data from the Dutch household consumer panel services Benelux. The research includes measurements of both the actual sales and the survival rates of new product introductions as parameters for measuring success. The main results indicate a negative effect of Fair Trade claims on the actual sales of new product introductions, but no differences were found on this impact between vice or virtue category goods and national brand or private labels. The survival rates of new product introductions are positively influenced by Fair Trade claims. This positive impact is stronger for vice goods than for virtue goods. No differences were found on the survival rates between national brands Fair Trade product introductions and private label Fair Trade product introductions. Implications for the marketing strategy of retailers and manufacturers are offered. Keywords:

(3)

3

1. Introduction

"Goods produced under conditions which do not meet a rudimentary standard to decency should be regarded as contraband and not allowed to pollute the channels of international commerce." - Franklin D. Roosevelt-

1.1 Background

In the last decades, attention for the topic of sustainability has made rapid progress. Environmental problems and ethical behavior are nowadays topics of daily conversations. Some forms of ethical behavior benefit the environment (organic production), while other forms of ethical behavior concerns the people (Fair Trade). There is evidence for a growing number of socially and ecologically concerned consumers who adjust their attitudes towards more ethical and socially responsible consumption (Ozcaglar-Toulouse, 2006; De Pelsmacker, 2006). Likewise, there is a growing interest among top managers, stakeholders and academics regarding ethical marketing strategies (Cronin et al., 2011), such as Fair Trade. Fair Trade is an alternative approach to trading partnerships that aims for sustainable development of excluded or disadvantaged producers in Third World (Pelsmacker and Janssens, 2007). Though the international market for Fair Trade products represents only a minor share of global trade, it is growing rapidly (Raynolds, 2002). Consumers can translate their ethical concerns by means of buying products for these positive qualities or by boycotting products for their negative qualities (Pelsmacker et al., 2006). The rise of corporate social responsibility has made mainstream companies aware that Fair Trade production could be an ideal opportunity to demonstrate ethical concerns (Becchetti and Huybrechts, 2008).

(6)

6 products (Thøgersen, 2005; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2008; Bezawada and Pauwels, 2010). Current literature contains a few studies about the concerns, attitudes towards Fair Trade products and the consumers’ willingness to pay (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005; De Pelsmacker and Janssen, 2006; Loureiro and Lotade, 2005). However, to the best of our knowledge, up-to-date studies about consumers’ actual purchase behavior concerning Fair Trade claims are missing yet. In addition, as far as we know, there is a lack of research about the performance of new introduced Fair Trade products in competitive markets. In our research we want to investigate how Fair Trade claims affect the performance of new product introductions. We consider the consumer motivations and attitudes to base our predictions on, but our main focus will be on the actual performance of Fair Trade certified products.

Although Fair Trade is an ethical trading partnership where companies engage in to ensure farmers a greater equity, Fair Trade claims could be part of a competitive strategy based on ethical standards communicated to the consumers as well (Welford et al., 2003). Welford et al. (2003) mentioned that in a world of globalization, reputation, image and brands are all important factors that influence consumer behavior. In addition, prior literature shows that different brands and product categories result in divergent consumers’ perceptions, attitude and responsive behavior (Richardson, 1997; Burt, 2000; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011; Mishra and Mishra, 2011). The underlying motivation of customers for certain purchase behavior differs across products wherefore it seems valuable to make a distinction between type of brands and type of products. Based on this reasoning, a distinction between vice and virtue category products seems appropriate in this study. Vice products are relatively “wanted” products that satisfy desires on the short-term, but contribute negatively on the long-term. Vice are relatively “needed” products, which are less gratifying and appealing in the short-term but have less negative long-term consequences than vice products (Wertenbroch, 1998; Okada, 2005; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011).

(7)

7 or trademark through their own outlets (Baltas, 2003). Conversely, national brands are products that are distributed (inter)nationally under a brand name owned by the producer.

1.2 Research questions

The purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding of how Fair Trade claims affect the success of product introductions. This study will be executed on the basis of data collected from households’ actual grocery purchases and consist mainly of food and beverages. The main study includes the following research question: What is the relationship between Fair Trade claims and the success of new product introductions?

The study has been extended with an examination of the impact of Fair Trade claims on new product introductions under different conditions. We investigate the impact of Fair Trades claims for different types of brands and products. We examine whether the relationship between Fair Trade claims and the success of new product introductions differs between vice category products and virtue category products. Based on the differences in preference order, consumption consequences and product benefits (Okada, 2005; Wertenbroch, 1998; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011) it is conceivable that this variable has significant influence on the assumed principal relationship. We will use a holistic approach of the vice and virtue products creating a clear distinction between both constructs were characterize vice (virtue) alternatives as being relatively more vice (virtue). This is line with earlier work of Okada (2005) and van Doorn and Verhoef (2011).

(8)

8 perceptions and preferences. This could have its influence on the range, the value and the credibility of Fair Trade claims on the products perceived by customers. Are there differences in attractiveness between private label brands and national brands in using Fair Trade product claims as part of their strategy? We examine whether the type of brand strengthens or weakens the relation between Fair Trade products and the success of new products introductions?

1.4 Structure of study

(9)

9

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter provides relevant academic literature that will be discussed in order to create a theoretical framework. With this framework, a theoretical foundation for our problem statement and research question will be laid. First, we will discuss relevant existing literature about the constructs we use in our research. Subsequently, we provide our conceptual framework which is followed by new theories to base our hypotheses on.

2.1 Current literature

2.1.1 Fair Trade products

Through the growing concerns about ethical and sustainability issues, sustainability is a regular topic of academic study. However, extensive research about the Fair trade topic is still insufficient. Studies of attitudes towards Fair Trade products have been provided by authors such as de Pelsmacker and Janssen (2006), De Pelsmacker et al. (2005; 2006; 2007), Loureiro and Lotade (2005), Raynolds (2002), Castaldo (2008), Doran (2008) and Krier (2007). According to Pelsmacker and Janssen (2006), the main reasons consumers buy Fair Trade products are the fair price to farmers in developing countries, the safe and honest product processes and the retention of dignity and autonomy. As a starting point in our study, we use the general accepted definition that defined Fair Trade as a: trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seek greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers, especially in the South (Krier, 2008; Renard, 2003; EFTA, 2001).

(10)

10 for regular coffee (De Pelsmacker et al, 2005; Loureiro and Lotade, 2005). Loureiro and Lotade (2005) found evidence that consumers are very receptive toward Fare Trade coffee and therefore are willing to pay higher premiums (approximately 21.64 cents for each pound). In addition, De Pelsmacker et al. (2005) found evidence that the average price premium consumers were willing to pay for a Fair trade claimed product was 10%. They defined four clusters of consumers were ‘Fair Trade lovers’ and ‘Fair Trade likers’ were most susceptible to Fair Trade purchase behavior. Their study concluded that although the ‘Fair Trade lovers’ are a considerable niche, the size of the ‘Fair Trade likers’ segment indicated an ever larger market potential of Fair trade labeled coffee. This is in accordance with a survey report of Krier (2007) on Fair Trade in 33 consumer countries. Krier mentioned that Fair Trade products nowadays extensively sold in mainstream stores and no longer belongs to niche markets. Furthermore, Schuldt (2011) investigated the health halos from social ethics claims and found evidence that Fair Trade claims on food packaging could promote the misperception that foods are healthier and therefore more appropriate to consume. The previous studies prove that consumers are influenced by the use of Fair Trade claims, which can result in consequences for consumers’ decision-making processes for the purchase of new product introductions.

2.1.2 Success of New product introductions

(11)

11 Prior literature mentioned the consumer trial probability as a determinant for the actual sales of NPI’s (Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003). Steenkamp and Gielens distinguish four major drivers of the consumer trial probability in their study. The trial probability of new products is a result of the consumer characteristics, moderated by elements of the marketing strategy, category and product characteristics. They found that the relative advantage of more differentiated innovations is more likely to be high but uncertain (‘risky’) as well. A consumers’ extensive behavioral change might be required and the consequences of the consumption might not be clear. In addition, Selnes (1993) proved customer loyalty to be an important driven for the product performance, which should increase the survival rate of products. Customer loyalty should result from customer satisfaction and brand reputation (Selnes 1993; Walsh, 2008). Hahn and Kim (2009) found evidence for a positive relationship between customer loyalty and the repeated purchase intention. Hahn et al (1994) mentioned that the repeated purchase intention of consumers is an important driver for the success of products, in terms of survival.

Furthermore, research has shown other factors and strategies to influence the sales of NPI’s. According to Cooper (1979), product uniqueness and superiority, market knowledge and marketing proficiency are the most important keys to success or failure of NPI’s. Furthermore, the strength of the marketing communication, market characteristics (needs, growth and size) and customer satisfaction are important. These factors should influence the consumer in their decision-making process regarding purchasing certain products.

2.1.3 Virtue and Vice products

The distinction between ‘virtue’ and ‘vice’ products is very common in today’s literature. Previous studies have examined differences in consumers’ responses towards virtue and vice category products in relation to price promotions, assortment and their willingness to pay. Mishra and Mishra (2011) found evidence that consumers prefer bonus packages for relative virtue products, but favor price discounts for relative vice products. This is a result of the presence or absence of post-consumption guilt and need for justification of consumption.

(12)

12 the short-term effect and ignore the long-term consequences, and vice versa. The time between purchasing and consumption has an impact on these evaluations. In addition, Okada (2005) confirmed this with the annotation that consumers prefer these vice products only when products are presented solely. Furthermore, after purchasing virtue categories, consumers are more likely to shop at locations that carry vice products (Hui et al., 2009).

Bezewada and Pauwels (2010) found differences in consumer responses regarding the promotion of virtue and vice organic products. They found that the promotion of virtue organic products has a greater impact on consumers’ behavior than the promotion of vice organic products, but fall short in explaining the direction of the effect of organic claims. Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) provided a deeper understanding of how the willingness to pay for organic products differs between both categories. Organic claims on vice products are associated with lower quality, which is partly compensated through higher perceived prosocial benefits. Evidence is found that a lower willingness to pay for organic vice products indeed lowers the actual sales (van Doorn and Verhoef, 2008).

2.1.4 National brands and private labels

Previous research has shown changes in the consumer perceptions regarding private labels (retailer brands) and national brands. The growth of private labels is a regular topic in today’s studies and assumptions about the quality are not unanimous among researchers. The prevailing assumption suggests that consumers perceive private labels as of lower quality goods than national brands (Bellizzi et al., 1981; Cunningham et al 1982). Meanwhile, De Wulf et al. (2005) and Richardson (1997) state that private label products can offer the same or even better quality compared to national brands. The penetration of private label brands is an important evolution in many European countries (Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997).

(13)

13 and national brands (Livesey and Lennon, 1978; Sethuraman and Cole, 1999; Burt, 2000; Batra and Sinha 2000). Batra and Sinha (2000) showed that private label brand buying declines as the consequences of making purchasing mistakes increases. An increase of the purchase of national brands might occur. Consumers are more willingly to pay for national brands due to the lower perceived potential risk (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999).

2.2 Conceptual framework

We examine in our study the impact van Fair Trade claims on the success of NPI’s, under different conditions. It is assumed that the success of NPI’s may not be a homogeneous construct and therefore, we made a distinction in our conceptual model between the survival rates and the actual sales of NPI’s (see figure 1). Together, both constructs should determine the success of NPI’s. First, we consider the unit sales of NPI’s which can indicate how profitable a NPI is (Cooper, 1979). The presence or absence of a Fair Trade claim should influence consumers’ perception of a product, which influences the overall evaluation and contributes to the determination of how much consumers actually buy certain products.

Survival rates of NPI’s Fair Trade claim Brand vs. Private label Vice vs. Virtue Category H2a H1a H3b H1b

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Unit sales of NPI’s

H2b H3a

(14)

14 Second, we consider the survival rates of NPI’s. According to Crawford (1977) product failures can be defined as products that disappear from the shelves. In our framework, the survival rate can be defined as the number of products that did not disappear from the shelves during the introduction period. A Fair Trade claim is a differentiating product characteristic that should have an influence on the considerations of retailers to maintain or remove product from the assortment.

Figure 1 proposes that the extent to which Fair Trade claims affect both unit sales and the survival rate of NPI’s may vary under different conditions. We assume that the differences between vice and virtue category goods suggests that a Fair Trade claim affects both the unit sales and survival rates of NPI’s differently. The underlying motivations to consume certain products differs between vice and virtue goods (Okada, 2005; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011; Mishra and Mishra, 2011), and consequently this may cause differences in the success of the NPI. Furthermore, we assume that the extent to which Fair Trade claims affect the success of NPI’s, is partially dependent on the type of brand under which the claim is used. We propose that private label and national brands influence the impact of Fair Trade claims differently based on differences in the perceived level of differentiation (Richardson, 1997; Hill 1988), quality (De Wulf, 2005; Richardson 1997), brand equity (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Völckner and Sattler, 2006) and credibility (Erdem and Swait, 1998). The conceptual model defines the relationships that will be examined in our research and reflects our hypotheses as described in the next paragraphs.

2.3 Research hypotheses

2.3.1 Impact of a Fair Trade claim on NPI’s

(15)

15 of Steenkamp and Gielens (2003), we assumed that the trial probability is the most important driver of new products sales, during their introduction period. A higher trial probability should increase the sales of NPI’s.

In order to make an assumption about the impact of Fair Trade claims on the trial probability of NPI’s, we first need to understand the consumers underlying motivations in their decision-making process.Attempts to understand the ethical decision-making are associated with the development of several ethical decision-making models. The theory of planned behavior (TPB-model) of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) could be used as a guideline to explain the decision-making process. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) describe the consumers purchase behavior as a function of the beliefs and attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control regarding products. In our research, the subjective norms can be defined as the perceived social pressure to perform the ethical behavior. The perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior and the ‘control beliefs’. The attitudes toward the behavior refer to the degree to which consumers have favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

(16)

16 Furthermore, altruistic reasons of ethical consumers should make consumers’ more willingly to take risks (Strahilevitz and Meyers, 1998). External properties of Fair Trade products are valued by customers and make the consumption more enjoyable. The placebo effects of Fair Trade claims and positive attitudes, in combination with the subjective norms that nowadays promote altruistic giving and ethical purchase behavior, should increase the trial probability of Fair Trade NPI’s more than NPI without Fair Trade claim.

Despite of these lines of reasoning, several studies found evidence for a gap between the attitude and actual behavior regarding Fair Trade products (Thøgersen, 2011; Pelsmacker, 2007). This attitude-behavior gap could be partly explained through the attitude strength. It depends on the attitude strength how strong the impact of an attitude is on consumer purchase behavior. Only “extreme” attitudes will drive behavior (Van Doorn, Verhoef and Bijmolt, 2007; Peterson and Dutton, 1975). Verbeke and Viaene (1999) mentioned identical problems as confusing and misunderstanding of the meaning of the label. This is mainly due to a lack of information communication and promotion to consumers (Jones, 2003; De Pelsmacker, 2006) and will reduce the attitude strength. In addition, a lack of trust in the quality of Fair Trade-labeled products might negatively influence the attitude towards these products. Prior literature has shown that organic claims on products have a negative impact on consumers’ perception of quality due to the mainly focus on appearance of fresh produce rather than the whole process (Bourn and Prescott, 2002; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011). Without generalizing among all sustainable claims, we mention it to be a possible explanation for negative quality perception of Fair Trade claimed products. People might think that production was mainly focused on Fair Trade, rather than on quality. This lack of trust in the quality could be crucial in determining consumers’ attitudes and choices (Castaldo et al., 2009) and could increase the perception of risk of buying the new product. This inhibits the willingness of consumers to try the Fair Trade certified product introduction.

(17)

17 Albeit the inconsistent evidence in literature so far, we propose that the consumers’ underlying motivations that positively influence the purchase behavior of NPI’s with a Fair Trade claim are more powerful. Therefore:

H1a: Fair Trade claims will positively influence the actual sales of new product introductions.

Nowadays, corporate social responsibility is a broadly supported standard to which companies must comply. An increasing number of companies try to differentiate their products through ethical production processes (Castaldo, 2009). Major retail markets have responded to the opportunity to build up an ethical image and claim to stock more Fair trade products than other retailer (Jones, 2003), making it part of their marketing strategy. This could be advantageous because ethical customer will tend to trust retailers that have a reputation for ethical conduct more than other retailers (Castaldo et al., 2009). Providing a certain number of Fair Trade products can improve the store-loyalty of these ethical consumers (Uncles, 2003). In addition, a certain group of ethical consumers remain loyal to these products (i.e. they will buy them repeatedly anyway due to the Fair Trade claim). These consumers will often purchase their other groceries in the same store, which increase the retailers’ profitability.

Consumers concerns and ethical obligations lead to an increased self-identification with the Fair Trade issues and attract ethical consumers towards Fair Trade products (Ozcaglar-Toulouse et al., 2006). The external properties of Fair Trade products have a great influence on the products evaluations by consumer (Pohl, 2004), which increases the product-loyalty. The trust of ethical consumers in Fair Trade products translates into product- loyalty (Castaldo, 2009). Dissociated from considering the sales of NPI’s, stores will benefit more from maintaining Fair Trade labeled products rather than product without a Fair Trade claim. This leads to the following assumption:

(18)

18

2.3.2 Differences in the impact of Fair Trade claims on the success of NPI’s between vice and virtue products

Research has shown that consumer responses to products can differ between virtue and vice products (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011; Okada, 2005; Mishra and Mishra 2011). Vice products, in comparison to virtue products, are more likely to be consumed on impulse and are more susceptible to in-store decision making (Inman et al., 2009). Vice products also provide immediate satisfying desires. In contrast, consumers more thoroughly consider the purchase of virtue products and the mindset of consumers when purchasing virtue products is often more rational. Virtue products are less gratifying and appealing in the short-term but have less negative long-term consequences than vice products (van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011).

On the surface, an assumption that pairing Fair Trade claims with virtue category products reinforcing their effects is quickly made. Both virtue and Fair trade products, in contrast to vice goods and products without ethical claims are characterized by their positive consequences on the long-term. Reasons for buying vice products are not line with the underlying motivations that consumers trigger to purchase Fair Trade products. However, the reverse seems to be true after further evaluating the characteristics of both constructs. Prior research of Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) proved that respondents perceived virtue products already as more healthy than vice products. Mishra and Mishra (2011) support these assumptions in using the terms virtue or vice to denote healthy versus unhealthy. Schuldt (2011) found evidence that social ethic claims can promote the misperception that products are healthier. This “Halo” effect ensures that consumers perceive poor nutrition products relatively as more healthy (i.e., lower- calorie) when they assume that companies treating its workers ethically (Fair Trade) as compared to unethically. Because virtue products already have a healthy reputation, the positive influence of a Fair trade claim on the health-perception should be less powerful. The motivation to try NPI’s with a Fair Trade claim is therefore considered to be less important.

(19)

19 Guilt and justification are interrelated concepts rather than competing theories (Okada, 2005). This stems for the theory that guilt makes it harder to justify the consumption of vice products. When making unjustifiable choices, guilt will arise and consumers like to have a guilt-reducing offset. Experiencing guilt can significantly increase an individual’s likelihood of engaging in a charitable behavior and altruistic giving (Strahilevitz and Meyers, 1998), such as purchasing Fair Trade products. Product benefits can serve to justify the purchase of these vice products. In addition, Mishra and Mishra (2011) stated that product benefits could justify certain purchases as the benefits acts as a guilt-mitigating mechanism. Fair trade claims are such ethical product benefits (Wertenbroch, 1998). Based on this theory, a Fair Trade claim seems to be a more powerful product benefit to convince consumers to try vice products, compared to its strength to increase the trial probability of virtue NPI’s. The effect of a Fair Trade claim on the trial probability of NPI’s should therefore be stronger for vice products.

H2a: The positive effect of a Fair Trade claim on the actual sales of NPI’s is stronger for vice products than for virtue products.

In line with the reasoning of H1b, the focus is on the consumer loyalty regarding vice and virtue Fair Trade NPI’s. Vice products provide immediately desired pleasurable experiences (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011) and are bought more on impulse. Impulse buying and product-loyalty show no relationship (Shrum et al., 1995), were less gratifying choices are often associated with a low level of brand switching. In addition, impulse buying has a greater level of brand switching due to the susceptibility of stimuli. This, combined with the long-term negative consequences, should make consumers less loyal towards vice products. Virtue products are less gratifying to buy, but have no bad consequences on the long term. According to Shrum et al. (1995), ethical consumers tend to be careful shoppers, not prone to impulse buying. Therefore, we expect that a Fair Trade claim have a more positive influence on the survival rates of virtue NPI’s. This results in the following hypothesis:

(20)

20

2.3.3 Difference in the impact of Fair Trade claims on the success of NPI’s between national brands and private labels

Brand equity, brand awareness and brand image are very important drivers for success of brand extensions and product innovations (Keller, 1993; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). Brand equity can be defined as the value of brand to customers (Kim et al., 2003). Brand equity mainly results from marketing effects and contains the difference between consumers’ perceived value of a product with brand name compared to the same product without the brand name (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). Firms may use brands to inform consumers about product positions and to ensure that their product claims are credible (Erdem and Swait, 1998). Credibility seems to be a very important factor for consumers in the purchase decision of Fair-trade products. Brand credibility is broadly defined as the believability of an entity’s intentions at a particular time and is posited to have two main components: trustworthiness and expertise (Erdem and Swait, 2004). In other words, it consists of the ability and willingness to a continue delivering of the promises the brand made to its consumers. This suggests that credibility is closely related to brand equity. National brand often enjoy a greater level of brand equity than private label brands, which is built over many years. This brand strength should have a positive influence on the trial probability of new products (Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003).

(21)

21 In addition, consumers poorly rate the availability, reliability and knowledge of product claims (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2004). Private labels are often less familiar to consumers, because most of these brands are not promoted with professional national marketing campaigns (Garretsen, 2002). A situation involving a decision to try or not to try a Fair Trade NPI would present itself as being riskier when it concerns an unfamiliar brand (Popielarz, 1967). National brands in general are more familiar to consumers and reach consumers more easily. Therefore national brands are better able to improve the constructs of availability, reliability and knowledge of the Fair Trade claims. The perceived risk of buying a Fair Trade NPI should therefore be lower for national brands.

Furthermore, a Fair trade claim should be seen as a differentiating characteristic of a product that will gain attention for the ethical conditions of production. This product claim is more likely to be recognized as differentiated and reliable due to the accumulated brand equity and credibility of national brands. National brands are often evaluated as more differentiated compared to store brands. Store brands may be perceived to be just another brand in the market and are undifferentiated in consumers’ mind (Richardson, 1997; de Wulf et al., 2005). Moreover, Sethuraman and Cole (1999) stated that consumers are willing to pay a premium for national brands due to the perceived risk they associate with private labels. This lack of credibility of private label brands should inhibit the trial probability of Fair Trade NPI’s, based on the unwillingness to pay these premiums for private labels.

The combination of brand strength, familiarity and credibility of national brands should lead to a lower perceive risk-level of trying a Fair Trade NPI. Therefore, we expect a higher trial probability of Fair Trade NPI’s of national brands compared to Fair Trade NPI of private label brands. As already mentioned before, we assume that the trial probability of NPI’s is the main driver for actual sales of NPI’s during their introduction period. Therefore:

(22)

22 The brand loyalty of the customer base is often the core of the national brand’s equity (Aaker, 1991). Where the brand equity of national brand exceeds the brand equity of private labels (De Wulf et al., 2005), national brands enjoy a higher level of consumer loyalty than private labels. To enjoy the benefits of loyal customers, retailers should keep these national brands in their assortment as that could improve the consumers’ store-loyalty (Uncles, 2003) and simultaneously reduces store-switching of brand-loyal consumers. Private labels products enjoy less consumer-loyalty (de Wulf., 2005), which enables retailer to remove these products without big consequences. Therefore, we expect longer lifetime duration of Fair Trade NPI’s of national brands compared to Fair Trade NPI’s of private label brands.

(23)

23

3. Data and Methods

The following chapter outlines the research methodology that will be used in order to provide answers to the hypotheses and problem statement. The approaches to determine whether there is evidence for the hypotheses will be elaborated upon. We used a descriptive conclusive research design, where conclusive research is defined as a research based on large, representative samples, with data obtained through quantitative analysis (Malhotra 2007). Because the hypotheses are formulated preceding the research stressing the importance of a clearly defined research problem, the study can be defined as a descriptive conclusive research.

3.1 Operationalization variables

We operationalized the described constructs into measurable dependent and independent variables in order to make our hypotheses testable. In addition, we included a number of existing independent variables as possible covariates with the other independent variables. We use these variables as control variables, in order to reduce alternative influences on the dependent variable.

3.1.1 Dependent variable: Success of product introduction

In this research, the success of NPI’s is measured by the actual sales of NPI’s and the survival rates of NPI’s, measured under a consumer panel of households in the Benelux. The unit sales volume of the products is measured monthly for about eighteen months after their introduction date. The output variable ‘actual sales of NPI’s’ is measured by the unit sales per month. Only the cases in which the NPI was available in stores are included in our analyses. The output variable ‘survival rate of NPI’s’ is measured after several numbers of month after introduction.

Table 3.1 Dependent variables

Dependent Variable Parameter Operationalization

Actual sales UnitSales Metric variable Ratio scale

(24)

24

3.1.2 Independent variables

The study includes three independent variables based on which we test the influence on the success of NPI’s. We test both the single direct relationships with the dependent variables as well as the interaction effects between the Fair Trade claim variable and the two moderators. The examined variables are listed in table 3.3.

Independent Variable Parameter Operationalization

Fair Trade claim FairTrade Dummy coded nominal variable were 1 = Fair Trade , 0 = Non-Fair Trade

Independent Moderator Variables

Vice / Virtue products Virtue Dummy coded nominal variable were 1 = Virtue, 0 = Vice or neither

Brands / Private Labels Brand Dummy coded nominal variable were 1 = Brand, 0 = Private Label

Table 3.2 Independent variables

We based the classification of virtue and vice products on the studies of Hui et al. (2009) and Wertenbroch (1998). All examined independent variables are dichotomous or dummy coded nominal variables. When measuring the main relationship between one independent variable and the dependent variable, the other independent variables serve as control variables.

3.1.3 Independent control variables

(25)

25 Controlling for these covariates provides a stronger test of our hypotheses and produces more accurate parameter estimates for the focal constructs (Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003). The covariates included in our study are mentioned in de table 3.4 together with their operationalization.

Control Variable Parameter Operationalization

Relative Price to prices in cat. RelPrice Metric variable Ratio scale, eurocents per unit volume (i.e. grams).

Unit sales in previous month Lagsales Metric variable Ratio scale, measured in units

Category Competitiveness at introduction

IntroComp Interval variable Ratio scale, number of competitors in the product category at introduction

Eco-label EcoL Dummy coded nominal variable were Non Eco-label = 0, Eco-label = 1

Category sales CatSales Metric variable Ratio scale, total sales in category measured in units

Promotion Promo Dummy coded nominal variable, were No promotion = 0, Promotion = 1

Sustainability in category SustCat Interval variable Ratio scale, number of sustainable products in category.

Category Competitiveness* CatComp Interval variable Ratio scale, number of competitors in the product category

Introduction price IntroPrice Metric variable Ratio scale, eurocents per unit volume (i.e. grams).

Time dummy TimeD Dummy coded nominal variable.

(26)

26 Some of the control variables need some further explanation. Promotion: We added the promotion dummy variable to control for the influence of price promotions on the unit sales volume. Price promotion causes sales to increase caused by brand switching and through purchase acceleration in time (Kumar and Leone, 1988; Gupta, 1988). Sustainability in category: Ethical consumers are more likely to buy Fair Trade products and Organic products. The higher the number of sustainable products in a particular category, the higher the competition between these products is. Furthermore, Cooper (1979) mentioned the relative price of product to prices in the category and category competitiveness also as important dimensions one might logically expect in a study of NPI’s. And last, a time dummy is added to control for the variation in sales that might occur through the specific differences between particular months (i.e.: the first month after introduction might generate more excitement by customers, or the December month might enjoy a greater sales of certain product categories).

All the variables mentioned in table 3.3 could have influence on the success of new product introductions. The study examines the influence of Fair Trade claims on the success of new product introductions, including as much as possible alternative factors that could have any influence on this relationship. By holding the control variables constant, we have tried to eliminate those possible influences to make our findings more powerful and valid.

3.2 Data

(27)

27

Overall N

No claim N

Fair Trade claim N N 7585 7512 73 Virtue products 3496 3486 10 Vice products 4089 4039 50 Brand 2765 2735 30 Private label 4820 4777 43

Table 3.4 Descriptive statistics GfK panel service Benelux

Variable Unit of measurement Mean SD Fair Trade 0-1 .01 .098 Virtue 0-1 .4609 .499 Brand 0-1 .3645 .481 Eco-label 0-1 .02 .130

Unit sales in previous month Units 17.12 82.239

No. competitors at introduction Number 376.35 220.491

Category sales per month Units 812,359.36 797,901.437

Promotion 0-1 .15 .358

No. sustainable products in category Number 12.22 17.276

Introduction price Euros .88 7.296

Relative price Euros 1.32 8.905

(28)

28

3.3 Regression analyses

We precede the estimation of the different effects of our variables on the success of new product introductions with the development of regression models. Multiple regressions involve a single interval-scaled dependent variable and two or more independent variables (Malhotra, 2007). The purpose is to analyze the relationship between our dichotomous independent variables and the metric dependent variable. First, a baseline regression model is estimated to test hypothesis 1A concerning the impact of Fair Trade claims on product introductions. Second, regression models are built up to test the interaction effects of both hypotheses 2 and 3. These regression models include the moderating influence of vice versus virtue category products (Model 2) and brands versus private labels (Model 3) on the unit sales of NPI’s.

3.3.1 Estimation of Fair Trade claim effect on product introductions Model 1

We expected that a Fair Trade claim would positively affect the success of product introductions, or in this case: the unit sales volume. The basic regression model for the unit sales (Y) is expressed as a linear function and is estimated by the following equation:

= Regression intercept = Regression coefficient

FairTrade = Independent variable Fair Trade claim yes/no Brand = Control variable Private label yes/no

Virtue = Control variable yes/no = Error Term

(29)

29 may occur from products that are previously removed from the shelf. Only cases where the NPI’s were available in stores are included in the model.

3.3.2 Estimation of moderator effects on product introductions

The basic multiple regression model as described in paragraph 3.3.1 is extended in order to estimate whether the impact of Fair Trade claims on the success of the NPI’s is influenced by one of our moderators. We added interaction terms to the equation between the Fair Trade claim and both moderators. The equations of the multiple regression models with the independent variables including the interaction effects of the moderators are described in the next two models.

Model 2: Independent variable Vice versus Virtue category

We expect that the positive effect of a Fair Trade claim on the unit sales is stronger for vice products than for virtue products. A second model is used to test this relationship. The equation of the multiple regression model extended with the moderating (interaction) effect of virtue products on the relationship between fair trade claims and unit sales (Y):

Where,

FairTrade = Independent variable Fair Trade claim Virtue = Independent variable Virtue product yes/no

FairTrade*Virtue = Interaction effect Fair Trade claim and Virtue products Brand = Independent variable Brand yes/no

(30)

30 We estimated our model in the same way as model 1 except for the added interaction effect between Fair Trade products and Virtue products on the dependent variable sales (Y).

Model 3: Independent variable Brand versus Private Label

We expect a stronger positive effect of a Fair Trade claim on the unit sales for national brands than for private labels. A third model is estimated to test for this hypothesis. The equation of this multiple regression model with the moderating (interaction) effect of brands versus private label on the relationship between fair trade claims and unit sales (Y) is formulated as:

Where,

FairTrade = Independent variable Fair Trade claim Brand = Independent variable Brand yes/no

FairTrade*Brand = Interaction effect Fair Trade claim and Brand Virtue = Independent variable Virtue product yes/no

= Error Term.

(31)

31

3.4 Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity arises when inter-correlations among the predictors are very high (Malhotra, 2008).We assessed the independent variables on their inter-correlations in order to check if multicollinearity is an issue in our study. The control variable ‘category competitiveness’ showed signs of multicollinearity with the variable ‘number of competitors in category at introduction’, with a VIF value of 14,273 and Tolerance .070 (<.1) based on a used threshold of 10 for the VIF-score to indicate multicollinearity (Mason and Perreault, 1991; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011). Keeping both variables included in our regression models could harm the significance and reliability of our model. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to assess the relative importance of the independent variables in explaining the variation in the dependent variable (Malhotra, 2010). The explanatory power of the ‘category competitiveness’ is quite low which means that is does not explain much of the variation of the dependent variable sales (Y). It is therefore not necessary to include category competitiveness as control variable yet and conduct the regression analysis with the mean centered variables. Therefore, we exclude the ‘category competitiveness’ from the estimated equations. All other VIFs, inclusively the interaction variables in models 2 and 3, had a maximum of 1.8, well below the threshold of 10 (Mason and Perreault, 1991; van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011).

3.5 Survival analysis

(32)

32 Where,

S(t) = the survivor function

t = number of month after introduction ni = number of products

di = number of removed products

(33)

33

4. Results

This section will present the results of our study. The results are split into two parts: the results of the survival analysis and the results of the regression analyses. The analyses were conducted to provide answers to the three hypotheses as stated in the theoretical framework. First, multiple regression models will be presented in order to test H1a, H2a and H3a. Second, survival analyses will test for evidence on H1b, H2b and H3b.

4.1 Regression analysis

Three regression analyses were performed to find evidence for our hypotheses. An overview of the important findings of these regressions can be found in table 4.1. The regression models provide the main effects (Model 1) and interaction effects (Model 2 and 3) of the examined variables. The first model tests the main relationship between Fair Trade claims and the success of product introduction (H1A). As mentioned before, the success of new product introductions is measured on the basis of unit sales volume (Y). The second regression model is extended with the moderating effect of virtue product on the main relationship between Fair trade claims and unit sales of NPI’s (H2). The third model examines the interaction effect of national brand and Fair Trade claims on the unit sales of NPI’s (H3).

4.1.1 Impact of a Fair Trade claim Model 1

(34)

34 Table 4.1 Results regression analysis; Determinants of Unit sales (DV)

Unit sales (DV) Predictor (IV) Main effects

Model 1 (H1A) Interaction effects Model 2 (H2) Interaction effects Model 3 (H3) Unstandardized coefficients Unstandardized coefficients Unstandardized coefficients

Fair Trade label (H1) -3.206** -3.657** -4.653**

Brand -.423 -.414 -.461

Virtue category -2.508*** -2.523*** -2.500***

Eco label -2.967** -2.937** -2.898**

Sales in previous month .796*** .796*** .796***

Intro price .018 .018 .018

Relative Price -.020 -.020 -.020

Promotion 10.501*** 10.503*** 10.500***

Category sales 4.519E-006*** 4.530E-006*** 4.531E-006***

No. competitors at introduction -.014*** -,014*** -.014***

Sustainable products in cat. .007 ,006 .007

Time dummy month 1 12.919*** 12.945*** 12.951***

Time dummy month 2 5.071*** 5.067*** 5.073***

Time dummy month 3 .927 .923 .929

Time dummy month 4 -1.111 -1.115 -1.109

Time dummy month 5 -.863 -.867 -.861

Time dummy month 6 -1.707* -1.710* -1.704

Time dummy month 7 -1.286 -1.289 -1.283

Time dummy month 8 -.805 -.808 -.803

Time dummy month 9 -1.078 -1.081 -1.077

Time dummy month 10 -1.114 -1.117 -1.112

Time dummy month 11 -1.206 -1.207 -1.205

Time dummy month 12 -.383 -.384 -.383

Time dummy month 13 2.417** 2.417** 2.418***

Time dummy month 14 .706 .705 .706

Time dummy month 15 -.003 -.003 -0.002

Time dummy month 16 -.513 -.513 -.513

Time dummy month 17 .474 .474 .474

Interaction

Fair trade * Virtue (H2)

- 4.184

(H2)

- Interaction

Fair trade * Brand (H3)

(35)

35 The model weighted R² was highly significant (F (28, 117,148) = 7206,604, P < .01). Inconsistent with our expectancies, we found evidence that Fair Trade claims reduced the level of unit sales of NPI’s (β=-3.206, P <.05) as shown in table 4.1. These outcomes indicating that hypothesis 1A is not supported, meaning that Fair Trade claims do not have a positive influence on the success of new product introductions. In fact, these results are indicating a negative effect of Fair Trade claims on the sales of NPI’s.

In order to measure the influences of the moderators on the relation between Fair Trade claims and Unit sales volume, we conducted multiple regression models with the interaction variables on both hypothesized moderating variables. The results of these regression analyses are described in the next paragraph.

4.1.2 Covariates

Table 4.1 also reports the results for the main effects of the control variables. The unit sales were lower among the virtue products (β=-2.508, P <.01) than the vice category products. The impact of brands on the level of unit sales shows no significant difference with the sales of private labels. Promotion shows the greatest influence on the sales volume (β= 10.501, P <.01), which means that a NPI in promotion, increases the sales with 10,5 units on average. In addition, the sales in the previous month influence the sales of NPI’s in the current month positively (β=.796, P <.01). Furthermore, Eco-labels have consistent with Fair Trade-labels a negative impact on the sales of NPI’s (β= -2.967, P <.05). The results are indicating that the category sales influences the unit sales volume positive (β=4.519E-006, P <.01). Finally, the number of competitors at introduction influences the sales of NPI’s significantly negative (β=-.014, P <.01). The number of sustainable products in the category, the price of the NPI’s at introduction and the relative price in the category showed no significant impact on the unit sales of NPI’s.

4.1.3 Moderating effect virtue products Model 2

(36)

36 hypothesized that the positive effect of Fair trade claims would be stronger for vice products than for virtue category products.

The R–square of the overall model was high (R² = .633), which means that 63, 3% of the variation in the sales of NPI’s is explained by the contribution of the independent variables included in the regression model. The weighted R² of the model is highly significant (F (29, 117,119) = 6958,103, P < .01). As shown in table 4.1 under model 2, the main effects of both Fair Trade claim and Virtue products are significantly negative (β = -3.657 and β = -2,523 respectively, P < .05). However, we found no significant interaction effect of Fair Trade claimed and Virtue category products on the sales of NPI’s (β = 4,184, P > .1). This means that hypothesis 2 is not supported.

4.1.4 Moderating effect national brands Model 3

In model 3, the moderating effect of national brand and private labels on the relationship between Fair Trade claims and unit sales of NPI’s was measured. We expected that national brands have a stronger positive impact of Fair Trade claims when compared to private labels.

(37)

37

4.2 Survival analysis

In order to test hypothesis 1B, we used a survival analysis to measures the survival rates of product introductions. We expected that Fair Trade claims products have a positive effect on the survival rates S(t) of new product introductions.

4.2.1 Survival rates of Fair Trade products

The Kaplan-Meier method is used to compare the survivor functions of NPI’s with or without a Fair Trade claim (H1b). We measured the survivor rate for different moments in time after introduction (t = 1, 12, 15 and18). The results of the test are listed in table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Survival rate of NPI’s

(38)

38

4.2.2 Survival rates of moderating variables

In order to test hypotheses 2b and 3b, we used the Kaplan-Meier method including our interaction variables. We tested both on differences in the survival rates of vice and virtue Fair Trade NPI’s (H2b), and on difference in the survival rates of national brands and private label (H3b). Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the results of these survival analyses:

(39)

39

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1 Discussion

Ethical behaviors and a sustainable lifestyle are commonly discussed topic nowadays through the rising concerns about ethical issues and our environment. Therefore, there is a substantial grow in both the offering of Fair Trade products (more mainstream) and the sales of Fair Trade products (Raynolds, 2002; Jones, 2003; Doran, 2008). Companies recognize the consumer concerns and become more conscious about CSR en ethical issues around production processes. Consumers pretend to be ethically concerned and say they are committed to Fair Trade practices. However, various sources show that most of the ethical brands have yet small market shares (De Pelsmacker, 2007; Jones, 2003).

To examine why the market share of Fair Trade products still remains low, we developed a framework by which Fair Trade claims may impact the success of NPI’s. We included both the actual sales and the survival rates as determinants to measures the success of NPI’s. Our expectation was that the success of NPI’s depends on whether a NPI contains a Fair Trade claim. In addition, we assumed that this impact differs between vice and virtue products and between national brands and private labels. We conducted several analyses to test these propositions. Table 5.1 summarizes the results of this research.

Table 5.1 Summary of hypotheses and results

Hypotheses

Result

H1a Fair Trade claims will positively influence the actual sales of

new product introductions

Not confirmed

H1b Fair Trade claims will have a positive influence on the survival

rate of new product introductions

Confirmed

H2a The positive effect of a Fair Trade claim on the actual sales of

NPI’s is stronger for vice products than for virtue products

Not confirmed

H2b The positive effect of a Fair Trade on the survival rates of NPI’s

is stronger for virtue than for vice products.

Not Confirmed

H3a The positive effect of a Fair Trade claim on the actual sales of

NPIS’s is stronger for national brands than for private labels.

Not confirmed

H3b The positive effect of a Fair Trade on the survival rates of NPI’s

will be stronger for national brands than for private labels

(40)

40

5.1.1 Fair trade claims and NPI’s

Our examination of the impact of Fair Trade claims on the success of NPI’s is split up into two hypotheses and two different analyses. Our regression and survival analyses showed inconsistent but interesting associations between Fair Trade claims and the unit sales of NPI’s.

Sales

The results of our research prove the opposite of our theory-based assumption. The sales of Fair Trade claimed NPI’s is significantly lower when compared to the sales of NPI’s without a Fair Trade claim. This result may be the consequence of multiple reasons. First, according to literature of Jones (2003) and De Pelsmacker et al. (2006), identical problems as confusing and misunderstanding of the meaning of the label can deter people from purchasing. Consumers indicate that too much effort is required to acquire Fair Trade products (Jones, 2003; De Pelsmacker et al., 2006). Second, the lack of information about Fair Trade products and promotion to create higher awareness about the altruistic product benefits could harm the sales of NPI’s. Literature confirms that many consumers are not aware of the availability of Fair Trade products in stores (Jones, 2003) and this could create the discrepancy between the positive attitude and ethical purchase behavior. Third and probably most important of all, the differences in distribution of both Fair Trade products and non-Fair Trade products can explain the negative sales number of Fair Trade products. Fair Trade products are not as mainstream as conventional products are and therefore available in fewer stores. This could be an explanation for the lower actual sales of Fair Trade NPI’s as well.

(41)

41 in previous month’ variable contains probably much of the unobserved heterogeneity of other variables. It is likely that the impact of higher prices for Fair Trade NPI’s is already included in the ‘sales in previous month’. We conduct a regression analysis without the ‘sales in previous month’, but this results in a model that does not fit well (R-square =.036). Therefore, we maintained the ‘sales in previous month’ in our regression models.

Survival

The findings partially confirmed our theory-based assumptions that NPI’s with a Fair Trade claim enjoy higher survival rates than product without a Fair trade claim. Twelve and fifteen months after introduction show no significant differences between both groups. This could be explained by the trial period for NPI’s. Pretests before introductions may not be perfect indicators of the ultimate success or failure of a product (Claycamp and Liddy, 1969) and therefore products can last longer on the shelf, despite disappointing results. Our results show that this is only significant after a period of about eighteen month after introduction. We assumed that after eighteen months the trial period is over, making significant differences arise. The higher survival rate of Fair Trade products after 18 month can be attributed to the increased ethical consciousness of grocery stores. According to Raynolds (2002), maintaining Fair Trade certified products helps to shield companies from negative publicity. In other words, it could be an image-related strategy of stores to keep a certain number of Fair Trade products in their shelves, even if the sales are disappointing. In addition, it could serve as strategy to retain ethical consumers and avoid an increasing churn rate.

5.1.2 Effect of vice or virtue category and Fair Trade claim on NPI’s Sales

(42)

42 ethical and altruistic motivations for purchasing Fair Trade products could not stroke with the characteristics of vice goods.

Survival

The findings do not confirm our theory-based assumptions that virtue category Fair Trade NPI’s enjoy higher survival rates compared to vice category Fair Trade NPI’s. The results indicate that Vice Fair Trade NPI’s have significantly higher survival rate than virtue Fair Trade NPI’s on all measured moments in time after introduction. A possible explanation is the stronger preferences for certain vice products compared to preferences of virtue products. Men for example, often do have a favorite beer product, but do not care about which rice they eat. However, as shown table 4.3, the dataset contains only 10 virtue category products that include a Fair Trade claim. It is therefore not valuable to provide further explanations of these results.

5.1.3 Role of brand or private label and Fair Trade claim on NPI’s Sales

The results of the study do not provide evidence for our theory-based expectations that national brands strengthen the impact of Fair Trade claims on NPI’s more positively when compared to private labels. We expected that the higher level of credibility of national brands (Aaker, 1991; Erdem and Swait, 1998) causes more believability of Fair Trade claims, but these theories are not confirmed through significant results. This may be the result of the closing gap between the perception of national brands and private label, especially in terms of quality (Richardson, 1997; De Wulf et al., 2005). Grocery retailers nowadays increasingly successful manage their retail brands, which is now regarded by customers as being at least equal to, if not better than, the established national brands (Burt, 2000).

Survival

(43)

43 are becoming more popular and an increasing number of consumers based their store choice on their perceptions of these store brands.

5.2 Managerial implications

Our study provides some important implications for both retail store managers and brand manufacturers that could increase the consumers’ trial probability of Fair Trade NPI’s and stimulate ethical purchase behavior.

First, retailers and brand manufacturers should reconsider the marketing strategy of Fair Trade products carefully. A lack of information communication causes confusion about Fair Trade products. The problem lies in the attitude-behavioral gap. Consumers’ sustainable attitudes do not translate into buying behavior. Much more correct and credible information is needed to convince consumers to buy fair trade products (De Pelsmacker et al., 2006). This information should be primarily available at points of sale (in stores) and through product promotion on the shelves (De Pelsmacker et al., 2006).

Second, the distribution (Route to market) needs improvements. Offering fair trade in specialty shops is not enough. Fair Trade is becoming more main stream but the products should be much more available in regular supermarkets (De Pelsmacker et al., 2006).

Third, a focus on Fair Trade could be seen to provide a distinctive niche for retailers and they can consider it to become part of their marketing mix strategy (Jones, 2003), especially for positioning their image. This could be a future competitive advantage through sustainable positioning in the belief that the number of ethical consumers is rapidly growing. Companies must take these implications into account to ensure that Fair Trade products are become a more prominent element in the consumers’ shopping basket.

5.3 Research limitations and future research

(44)

44 and this study did not control for possible differences in distribution of the measured NPI’s. It could be argued that Fair Trade NPI’s enjoy a sufficient level of actual sales in places where they are sold, but the distribution is not sufficient to compete with the sales volumes of well distributed NPI’s without Fair Trade claim. For this reason, we could not 100% guarantee, that Fair Trade claims negatively influence the actual sales of NPI’s. Further research should therefore account for the influence of distribution and examine the impact in different countries.

In addition, the Kaplan-Meier method uses one predictor variable to predict the survivor function, but it do not adjust for the covariates that we examined in our regression analyses. Only the survival rate of Fair Trade labeled products is tested compared to the survival rate of non-Fair Trade certified product introductions. In further research, a cox probability hazards model could make the survival analysis of Fair trade claimed product more reliable.

(45)

45

6. References

Aaker, D. A. (2009). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free press

Basu, A. K., & Hicks, R. L. (2008). Label performance and the willingness to pay for Fair Trade coffee: a cross‐national perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 470-478. Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175-191

Becchetti, L., & Huybrechts, B. (2008). The dynamics of Fair Trade as a mixed-form market. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 733-750.

Bellizzi, J. A., Krueckeberg, H. F., Hamilton, J. R., & Martin, W. S. (1981). Consumer perceptions of national, private, and generic brands. Journal of retailing, 57(4), 56-70. Bezawada, R., & Pauwels, K. H. (2010). Are organics that special? Managing organic and conventional products across categories. Istanbul: Working paper, Ozyegin University.

De Boer, J. (2003). Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions for stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(4), 254-264.

Burt, S. (2000). The strategic role of retail brands in British grocery retailing. European Journal of Marketing, 34(8), 875-890.

Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of Fair Trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1-15.

Claycamp, H. J., & Liddy, L. E. (1969). Prediction of new product performance: An analytical approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 414-420.

Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. The Journal of Marketing, 93-103.

Corstjens, M., & Lal, R. (2000). Building store loyalty through store brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 281-291.

“The Fair Trade Dilemma”: How Fair Trade Claims Impact New Product Introductions.

Master thesis, Msc Marketing Management