The Greed Perception of consumers towards Social Enterprises

(1)

NBS8199 Dissertation Dual Award / Master’s thesis IB&M DD Newcastle

The Greed Perception of consumers towards Social

Enterprises

Supervisors: Dr Mariko Klasing and Dr Jonathan Kimmitt

Author: Maximiliaan Maurits van Veldhoven

University: University of Groningen and Newcastle University Business School DDM - Advanced International Business Management and Marketing

Theme: Entrepreneurship Submission date: 03-12-2018

Address: Amersfoortseweg 196, 3888 NR, Uddel Phone number: 06 46 81 03 88

Mail: m.van-veldhoven2@newcastle.ac.uk m.m.van.veldhoven@student.rug.nl Student number: 170807348 / S2717123

(2)

2

The Greed Perception of consumers

towards Social Enterprises

Abstract

Due to overconsumption, global warming and other devastating problems for the earth, a change is needed. A new organisational form, a ‘hybrid organisation’, proposes giving something to society beyond making a profit. Specifically, this thesis looks into the social entrepreneurship form of a hybrid organisation. This research attempts to examine whether the purchase intention of consumers is influenced by perceptions of greed. Greed is the desire to acquire more and the dissatisfaction of never having enough of any desirable thing, be it material or social (Seuntjens et al., 2015). Furthermore, greed is assessed by finding the perceptions of promotional strategy and the perception of price.

The perception of consumers towards hybrid forms is likely to be greedier than normal, for-profit business forms. Therefore, this research helps in finding the optimal way of promoting a hybrid organisation by understanding the greed perception and purchase intention. The research methodology is based on a positivist point of view, using deductive reasoning. Furthermore, the hypotheses are tested with cross-sectional, survey data of 208 consumers using a quantitative approach.

The results of this research are that the perceptions of greed are not mediating between promotional strategies or price fairness perceptions and purchase intentions of consumers. On the other hand, price fairness perceptions and promotional strategies are influencing the greed perceptions in social enterprises. Moreover, purchase intentions are being negatively influenced by a consumers’ perception of greed in commercial businesses. This research will contribute to future research in many fields and have implications for researchers and managers.

Keywords: Purchase Intention, Greed perception, Entrepreneurship, Social

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Environmental change is becoming more and more important due to global warming and its impact on the earth (NASA, 2018). In the upcoming 30 years, a radical social change is needed to solve issues such as overexploitation and over-extraction (Donaldson, 2010). Within this radical social change, businesses play an enormous role as they fulfil the needs of customers, sometimes even creating needs for them. The changing role of businesses in society requires the most sophisticated and adaptive systems to change, such as the human mind (Nordberg, 2010). In this change, people should focus on value for society rather than personal gain (Donaldson, 2010). Now, commercial businesses are assessed by their financial performance in the market, therefore they are not able to meet the needs of society (Doherty et al., 2014)

Policy-makers, researchers and practitioners are attracted by a new hybrid organisation form, a social enterprise, since it presumably meets the need of society. A social enterprise is an enterprise with a social or environmental purpose and a financial sustainability (Doherty et al., 2014; Haigh et al., 2015; Kerlin, 2010). A social enterprise is considered a hybrid form as it pursues both a for-profit and non-profit objective. Furthermore, a social enterprise differs from other hybrids since it is able to achieve financial sustainability, the creation of social wealth, and the potential to solve social problems such as illiteracy, poverty and global warming (Bacq & Janssen, 2011: Estrin et al., 2013: Mair & Martí, 2006). Even consumers are attracted by this form because social enterprises produce responsible products and services (Porter and Kramer, 2011). In addition, investors are recognising social enterprises as entities, they invested $22.1 billion in them in 2016 (McMullen, 2018). Therefore, social enterprises are likely to change the role of businesses dramatically in the forthcoming years (Nordberg, 2010).

(6)

6

thing (Seuntjens et al., 2015). Although most social enterprises are selling expensive goods or services due to the fact that their costs are generally higher than those of commercial businesses (Liu and Ko, 2012). For instance, one of the causes of this is paying a minimum wage, which is above the market value (Doherty et al., 2014). Therefore, Lee et al. (2017) suggested assessing whether greed perceptions of expensive goods are higher in social enterprises than in commercial businesses.

Hence, research into greed perceptions is needed to increase the growth of the social enterprises. Additionally, ethical behaviour and misconduct issues are becoming more and more important with recent scandals such as the emission scandal of Volkswagen. Therefore, the topic of greed is becoming more important as well (Carnevale et al., 2016). In recent times, the role of greed perceptions has not been widely studied because greed was perceived as an individual trait (Grégoire et al., 2010). Moreover, academia had focused on finding benefits for social enterprises without taking into account consumer perceptions (Battilana et al., 2012; Dees and Anderson, 2003). Finally, the social enterprise literature is relatively new, meaning that there is little research that currently exists on the topic (Dwivedi and Weerawardena, 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011).

(7)

7

To what extent are the promotional strategy and consumers’ price fairness perceptions influencing consumers’ purchase intentions and to what extent is this association mediated through greed perceptions for expensive goods in the retail trade industry in

commercial businesses and social enterprises?

(8)

8

2. Background

Literature

2.1. Background of Social Enterprises

The literature around social enterprises is relatively new, stemming from when environmental change and poverty were addressed as problems during the economic crisis of 2008 (Doherty et al., 2014). However, social enterprises date back to a concept that was born in the early 1990s. The concept was created as a few nongovernmental organisations were unable to keep up with the demand of loans for poor people. As a result, they worked together in creating a commercial microfinance organisation to be able to provide more loans. This organisation could be called a social enterprise because there was a societal goal of helping the poor whilst at the same time having a goal to create sufficient profits (Battilana and Dorado, 2010).

Over the past few years, social enterprises have proven that they are able to generate financial sustainability. Therefore, academics, practitioners and policy-makers are interested in social enterprises as they are able to survive the market in its current state (Doherty et al., 2014). Moreover, the emergence, management and ethics and power and emancipatory aspects of a social enterprise are explained in detail which encouraged the study of social enterprises in academia (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Chell, 2007; Pache and Santos, 2013; Teasdale, 2012; Tracey et al. 2011). Early research focused on the definition of social enterprises, why social enterprises exists and what the characteristic of a social enterprise are (Chell, 2007). Today, researchers agree upon what social entrepreneurs do and a well-founded measure is found for the social enterprise construct (Dwivedi and Weerawardena, 2018). This research is needed, as a social enterprise is in its nature contradicting, because a social objective and profit objective were strictly separated in for-profit businesses and non-profit businesses (Doherty et al., 2014).

(9)

9

(Doherty et al., 2014). Therefore, a social entrepreneur should make a choice between a for-profit or not-for-profit entity. Hence, in a not-for-profit entity, social entrepreneurs are not allowed to maximise profits (Doherty et al., 2014). For this reason, a for-profit entity must be chosen, but this leads to problems with grants, donations and other forms of philanthropy where a social enterprise or hybrid organisation draws on (Doherty et al. 2014; Pache and Santos, 2013).

A social enterprise is the most important hybrid organisation, since it bridges institutional fields and faces conflicting institutional logics. Moreover, the private, public and non-profit sectors are all spanned by a social enterprise (Doherty et al., 2014; Pache and Santos, 2013; Tracey et al., 2011). Further, the social enterprise enables the development of social virtues, which include cooperative behaviour and a sense of duty towards others in society (Macke et al, 2018). The social virtues are created by innovative activities in either the profit or social purpose of commercial businesses (Cherrier et al., 2018; Dees & Anderson, 2003; Emerson & Twersky, 1996). The activities of a social enterprise are based on ordinary activities such as trading goods in private and public sectors. A typical example of a social enterprise is a Fairtrade organisation, for example labour conditions for farmers are improved alongside making a profit.

2.2. Social Enterprises and Policies

(10)

10

Moreover, according to Osborne et al. (2008) policies are improving the innovative capacity of social enterprises because the innovation is rewarded. Therefore, social demands are met and strategic innovativeness is enabled which leads to new ways of meeting the needs of society (Di Domenico et al., 2010; Mair & Martí, 2006). However, social entrepreneurs are increasingly opting to employ a reconfiguration of existing products or services rather than creating a new configuration (Austin et al., 2006). Some social entrepreneurs achieve sustainability by using existing configurations without even making a reconfiguration (Amin, 2009). The use of existing configurations might be a result of a low consumer support towards social enterprises. Lee et al. (2017) argued that the support might be even lower than in commercial businesses. A reason might be that consumers have misperceptions of social enterprises and do not understand their practice (Doherty et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2017). These misperceptions might result in the use of existing configurations, since these configurations are proven.

2.3. Social Enterprises and Perceptions

The (mis)perceptions of consumers might also be influenced by a prominent social objective. In a non-profit organisation, a social objective enables the adaptation of communal norms and promotes the expectation that the non-profit organisation shows care, concerns for society and behave altruistically (Aggarwal, 2004). On the other hand, a for-profit organisation is perceived as greedy by consumers, but this is accepted as these businesses add value to consumers. By combining a for-profit and non-profit objective, negative perceptions may occur (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). This happens since consumers identify a potential conflict through the combination of having a for-profit objective and a non-profit objective (Lee et al., 2017).

(11)

11

perceptions and promotional strategies might influence the consumers’ purchase intentions. For this reason, background information about greed perceptions, price fairness perceptions, promotional strategies, and purchase intention is given.

2.3.1. Perceptions of Greed

Perceptions of greed might occur when consumers have the feeling that the profit is made at the expense of others, in this case at the expense of society (Grégoire et al., 2010). Moreover, they may also occur when low-quality products are sold for an unfair or high price (Homburg et al., 2005). The control theory describes that greed towards organisations may occur when enterprises perceive inputs, such as a profit, as insufficient. Moreover, the organisation tries to achieve more compared to other businesses and have higher ambitions. Therefore, an enterprise may try to, for instance, reduce costs in order to achieve its goals and generate a higher profit (Carnevale et al., 2016).

The foundation of greed can be found in the organisational justice theories according to Gilliland and Anderson (2011). This is the case since greed often involves an unfair allocation of resources and therefore consumers may perceive this as injustice. However, injustice only results in greed when an organisation actually has the aim of improving certain goals, for example, the allocation of resources (Carnevale et al., 2016). Consumers perceive greed as immoral behaviour and this results in feelings of anger and envy. Moreover, greed can even result in a desire for revenge (Grégoire et al., 2010). However, greed may also be seen as positive, because as a result of it, economic development is created. Greed motivates companies to create new configurations of products and developments of new industries (Seuntjens et al., 2015).

(12)

12

2.3.2. Promotional Strategy

Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly important for businesses to create a promotional strategy and to plan to attract consumers to their products or services (Adefulu, 2015). Moreover, a promotional strategy is also used for customer retention (Moideen and Sreeranganadhan, 2013). The promotional strategy is one of the key factors of a marketing mix and is key in successfully attracting consumers. Commonly used tools are advertisements, sales promotion, personal selling, publicity and public relations (Adefulu, 2015; Grewal et al., 2002)). Within the mix, advertising is the most useful and powerful tool for selling to the mass market. On the other hand, advertising is the most expensive channel for small businesses (Singh, 2010). The personal selling tool is the second most costly marketing method which is able to achieve high impact on sales (Adefulu, 2015). In this era of digital transformation, personal selling is becoming harder and the efficiency and effectiveness is decreasing (Paesburgghe et al., 2018). Personal selling comprises a personal presentation performed by a sales force in order to generate sales and build customer relationships (Kotler and Armstrong, 2009). Today, commonly used channels of personal selling are social media, email and mobile assistants (Paesbrugghe et al., 2018; Sharma and Sheth, 2010).

(13)

13

A dual strategy is used as social marketing to influence social behaviours of consumers or other businesses. For example, a liquor manufacturer might launch a campaign to promote irresponsible and underage drinking in order to pursue the social goal (Bakan, 2016). With this campaign, the manufacturer does not necessarily try to sell its products. Therefore, a traditional marketing strategy is needed as well (Madill and Ziegler, 2012). The dual strategy makes decision making hard to guide and control. Furthermore, in many instances advertising knowledge is absent and therefore ineffective methods are used. Even a lot of social entrepreneurs do not utilise advertisements since the costs of this channel are generally high (Bolton et al. 2003; Lee et al., 2017; Singh, 2010).

In order to exploit a successful promotional strategy, a social entrepreneur must understand and thoroughly research the market and identify its critical needs. After the needs have been determined, the value proposition should be designed. Lastly, a social entrepreneur should critically assess their options for communicating with their target consumers. However, this should not be done at any cost to the entrepreneur and financial planning should be conducted beforehand (Facca-Miess and Santos, 2014)

2.3.3. Price Fairness Perceptions

(14)

14

However, a high price is not always directly perceived as unfair. As mentioned previously, unfairness of a price is a result of the price being judged as unreasonable, not acceptable or unjust (Bolton et al. 2003). The judgement is based on a comparison between prices or procedures and these are based on standards, references, or the norms of society (Xia et al., 2004). According to the equity theory and the theory of distributive justice, the perception of fairness is induced when consumers compare outcomes (Xia et al., 2004). According to distributive justice, the fairness is based on the reward a consumer receives compared to what they have invested in the relationship, in this case, with a social enterprise (Homans, 1961). Furthermore, the equity theory broadens this perspective and notes that consumers compare more than the relationship, an individual, a group of people, or an organisation, can all be used to compare, but this includes the experiences from the past (Adams, 1965).

(15)

15

2.3.4. Purchase Intentions

(16)

16

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Greed Perceptions and Purchase Intentions

In a social enterprise as well as in a commercial enterprise, greed might play an enormous role, because a desire for revenge is the result of perceptions of greed (Grégoire et al., 2010). The desire for revenge is resulting to concrete behaviours of consumers. Consumers are actually trying to harm the business as a result of the perceived damages. These damages rely on customers’ judgements and this may be perceived when a consumer perceives a price or procedure, such as a promotional strategy, as unfair (Grégoire et al., 2008; Grégoire et al., 2010). As a result, consumers might feel anger and therefore negative worth of mouth is given which influences the purchase intentions of consumers. Moreover, based on the desire of revenge, consumers may also be directly influenced in their purchase intention. This is the case because the relationship between a consumer and an enterprise is harmed which results in a reduced consumers’ intention to buy products or services (Grégoire et al., 2010).

Additionally, a purchase intention may also be influenced since greed is about improving the social enterprise or commercial enterprise and try to be better than others (Seuntjens et al., 2015). According to the theory planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), the purchase may be negatively influenced by this. These purchase intentions may also be influenced by social pressure. This social pressure to avoid a certain company, product or service may be generated by perceptions of greed (Lee et al., 2017). Therefore, the behaviour of individuals may be influenced which makes it more difficult to have a purchase intention.

In commercial businesses, the purchase intention might be less influenced since levels of greed perceptions are expected to be lower than in social enterprises. As a result, the desire of revenge is higher and this is affecting the relationship with the social enterprise.

(17)

17

3.2. Promotional Strategies and Greed Perceptions

A promotional strategy is one of the key factors of a marketing mix to successfully attract consumers in social enterprises and commercial enterprises (Adefulu, 2015). However, the promotional strategy for social enterprises is based on social marketing and traditional marketing which makes it harder to attract consumers. The attraction of consumers is made even harder by perceptions of greed. In a tradition marketing strategy, the perceptions of greed might be enlarged if consumers have the feeling that the business is trying to make a profit by using a social problem (Lee et al., 2017). Consumers may perceive this use of a social problem as a mean to an end, to maximize profits (Antonetti and Maklan, 2016; Grégoire et al., 2010; Grieco, 2018).

Both aspects of greed perception might be influenced by promotional strategies. As mentioned before, the greed perception is defined as the desire to acquire and the dissatisfaction of never having enough of any desirable thing (Seuntjens et al., 2015). The aspect of desire to acquire more is influenced as a consequence of the enterprise not being satisfied with the profit that they have. Furthermore, the dissatisfaction of never having enough is influenced by a social enterprise regularly using promotion channels to achieve their profit goal. Consumers may perceive signals via these promotional channels that triggers the perceptions of greed. The regular use of different promotional channels enables this as the enterprise keeps attracting new consumers. In addition, enterprises try to encourage existing consumers to buy more goods or services (Moideen and Sreeranganadhan, 2013). For these reasons, the traditional promotional strategy may positively influence the greed perceptions in social enterprises.

(18)

18

In the case of a commercial business, the promotional strategy may also influence perceptions of greed. However, these perceptions are not generated by the use of a social problem. These perceptions may be generated since the commercial business is aiming to maximize its profits by attracting as much consumers as possible. This is also affecting the desire to acquire since this is used to generate profits. Furthermore, the dissatisfaction of never having enough is influenced since the enterprise wants to, regularly, achieve more sales. However, consumers do not have the idea that social problems are used as a mean to an end. Therefore, commercial businesses are likely to be perceived as less greedy than social enterprises.

Hypothesis 2: A firm’s promotional strategy positively influences the greed perception of consumers

3.3. Price Fairness Perceptions and Greed Perceptions

In social enterprises and commercial enterprises, consumers have perceptions about businesses only judged by the price of a product or service. These perceptions are about the appropriateness of actions and motives of businesses (Campbell and Percival Carter, 2014). Specifically, price fairness is based on a violation of a reference price. The reference price is based on a previous purchase of an individual. However, unfairness might also occur when a price is lower or similar to the reference price (Campbell, 2007). For instance, if an enterprise is considered with using harmful ingredients in their products, the consumer welfare is negatively influenced (Campbell and Percival Carter, 2014). Therefore, consumers perceive price unfairness and this may result in perceptions of greed. By harming the consumer welfare, production costs are likely to be reduced which is done to achieve more financial success. Moreover, the reduction is also likely to happen because of a dissatisfaction of never having enough. The enterprise wants to achieve more than it already has and wants to be better than other firms.

(19)

19

set, turnover of staff is higher and they have less business knowledge than commercial businesses (Doherty et al., 2014; Liu and Ko, 2012). However, the product price is accepted to be slightly higher than in commercial businesses since social enterprises claim to help society (Doherty et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the price is likely to be higher than consumers’ reference price since the business knowledge, turnover of staff and minimum prices are costly (Bolton et al., 2003; Doherty et al., 2014). Therefore, the greed perceptions are likely to be higher in social enterprises.

Hypothesis 3: There is a negative relation between the price fairness perception of a firm’s products/services and the perception of greed of consumers towards that firm.

3.4. Conceptual Model

In the previous section, I have hypothesized that the purchase intention, for expensive purchases, is negatively influenced by the perception of greed of consumers in social enterprises. Besides, the greed perception is positively influenced by the promotional strategy and price of the products sold by the social entrepreneur.

Figure 3.1.: Conceptual model

(20)

20

4. Research Design

4.1. Research Method

A research method is important since it provides direction for collecting and analysing of data (Churchill and Gilbert, 1979). This methodology is based on the Research Onion developed by Saunders et al. (2007). The onion is a metaphor to describe stages of the research process: philosophies, approaches, strategies, choice, time horizons, and techniques and procedures. Firstly, the philosophy of this research is based on a positivist point of view because the research questions and hypotheses can be tested. The second layer of the onion is about the research approach. A deductive approach is used since theories and ideas are found in the literature and are tested by the use of primary data (Dubé and Paré, 2003; Saunders et al., 2007). Followingly, quantitative data is gathered by using a survey. This is appropriate since a relationship is investigated (Zefeiti and Mohamad, 2015). Furthermore, a cross-sectional approach is considered as most appropriate since a descriptive survey is used. A cross-sectional design is the collection of data which includes data of all variables at a particular moment (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).

4.1.1. Hypothesis Methodology

Firstly, a preliminary analysis is performed to ensure the quality of the database. The database is assessed by looking at missing values and duration time. Further, descriptive statistics are created to have a deeper understanding of the respondents. This is necessary to understand better understand results.

(21)

21

age, nationality, education level, understanding of what a social entrepreneur is, and the price of the last purchased jeans are used.

Furthermore, greed perceptions are used as independent variable and as dependent variable, so this indicates a possible mediating effect. Hayes’ (2013) Process Tool is used to find a mediating effect. Specifically, a simple mediation analysis, template 4, is performed since there is only one mediator (APPENDIX C). Five simple mediation analyses were performed and these are 5000 times bootstrapped. These five simple mediation tests are needed as there are two vignettes. In the vignette of Bérgenère Jeans, there are three independent variables and Hayes’ Process Tool only allows one independent variable per test. In the vignette of Armand Jeans, two independent variables are used. As stated by Hayes (2013), the mediation model is focused on estimating if X predicts M, which in turn predicts Y (X→M→Y). The bootstrapping process is performed to generate a bootstrap sampling distribution of the total and specific indirect effects by a process of resampling (Wang et al., 2018). Multiple mediating analyses are needed since there are two cases (Bérengère Jeans and Armand Jeans) and multiple independent variables. The mediation test of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) is used since this test is appropriate for small sample testing (Sobel, 1982).

4.2. Survey

Design

(22)

22

only available in English. This is the case to overcome limitations in translating the standard scales.

The survey will start with a general introduction to the subject and a set of general questions which reflect the control variables. This is suggested by the funneled approach, meaning that questions are ranked from general to specific (Saunders et al., 2007). After the general questions, the case of Bérengère Jeans is introduced. This is a for-profit business and the objective is explicitly stated: ‘Becoming the biggest jeans brand in the world’. Furthermore, an international aspect is added by describing a production plant in China. Both may result in perceptions of greed or unfairness. Moreover, promotional channels are communicated and this may have influence on the greed perceptions. Further, several claims are made such as claims about the quality and durability.

The second case is based on the case of Armand Jeans. This is a social enterprise with a for-profit and non-profit objective statement. Both statements are communicated with the consumer. The for-profit objective is similar to the objective of Bérengère Jeans and the social goal is

“

Everyone deserves to wear proper jeans, made in an environmentally friendly way”. Moreover, the jeans are, as the Bérengère Jeans vignette, produced in China. However, to strive for the social goal, labour circumstances are tried to improve by this company. Besides, there is a possibility to donate jeans to be recycled for the production of new jeans. The new jeans will be donated to society, since everyone deserves to wear proper jeans. Furthermore, the promotional channels are communicated in the same way as in the Bérengère Jeans vignette.

(23)

23

4.3. Sample

An online survey (Qualtrics) has been held based on convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is used since participants are easy to access. Furthermore, practical criteria of the target population are easy to meet in this way, such as accessibility and geographical proximity (Etikan et al., 2016). By promoting this online survey in Facebook groups, LinkedIn, survey exchange websites and in the researchers’ network. To spike interest in filling in my/these questionnaires, the opportunity to receive the research is given.

Specifically, Dutch consumers between 18 and 25 are targeted with this online survey. Social enterprises started late in the Netherlands compared to countries as the United States and United Kingdom. Moreover, the growth in this sector is also behind compared to other countries (Keizer et al., 2016; Verloop et al., 2011). This is remarkable since the Dutch are seen as highly innovative, entrepreneurial and socially engaged (Verloop et al., 2011). Therefore, it is useful to look specifically in the Netherlands. This research may shed light in the perceptions of Dutch consumers since this is unclear (Keizer et al., 2016; Verloop et al., 2011). Furthermore, Dutch consumers between 18 and 25 are targeted since these their role is seen as vital for social enterprises. This group is massively entering the labour market and shape the economy and business practices. Moreover, their youthful energy, technological twist and new perspectives may result in a high growth rate of social enterprises (Tkacz, M., 2016). Within the pool of respondents, there is aimed to include 50% women and 50% men since answers per gender might differ. According to Donnellan and Lucas (2009), these answers may differ because of differences in gender traits, for instance, females are more focused on society than males.

(24)

24

differences may occur between these groups or ages and this may give directions for further research. However, this is not expected since the openness of both groups are almost similar (Donnellan and Lucas, 2009). Moreover, 42.8% males have attended and 57.2% females in this research. Lastly, 84.7% of all participants attained tertiary education.

4.4. Variables

4.4.1. Greed Perception

Seuntjens et al. (2016) have assessed the features of greed and, after testing, they concluded that the core determinants are the desire to acquire more and the dissatisfaction of never having enough. Acquisitiveness refers to keeping what one has and acquiring more than one currently has (Seuntjens et al., 2016). Furthermore, the dissatisfaction of never having enough is based on the concepts of stinginess and not being generous (Levine, 2000; Seuntjens et al., 2016). Within this definition, the desire to acquire can be seen as positive and never being satisfied as negative (Seuntjens et al., 2016). Both core determinants of greed perceptions can be measured with a seven-point Likert-scale. The specific scales are available in APPENDIX B. These core determinants should closely relate to each other (Seuntjens et al., 2016). This is tested with a factor analysis.

According to Seuntjens et al. (2016), the desire to acquire more is the need for acquiring more be it material or social. Furthermore, the dissatisfaction of never having enough reflects the need to constantly acquire more than you already have. Specifically, the following questions are conducted:

1- As a business, Bérengère Jeans/Armand Jeans, appear to be solely focused on acquiring money and achieving the financial objectives of the business. (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”)

(25)

25

4.4.2. Promotional Strategy

As lined out in the background literature, advertisements and personal selling are the most important promotion tools since they are the most costly and effective (Adefulu, 2015; Adetayo, 2006; Paesbrugghe et al., 2018; Sharma and Sheth, 2010). Therefore, the promotional strategy is operationalized as the degree of advertisements and the degree of personal selling. The advertisements are not likely to be promoted via one channel, therefore multiple channels have been described in the case such as TV, radio, internet and in jeans stores to inform consumers. These channels are likely to be used by a jeans manufacturer. Consumers are asked if more advertisements influence them to buy products. Further, the degree of personal selling is described as interactions via email, phone, social media and in-store and if this withhold consumers from buying products. In all questions, a seven-points Likert-scale is used. The specific scales are available in APPENDIX B. Both promotion channels are tested in a factor analysis in order to determine whether it can be used as single variable (promotional strategy).

Specifically the following questions are conducted:

1- Advertisements of a for-profit business/non-profit business withhold me from buying products (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”)

2- Email interaction with a salesperson of a for-profit business/non-profit business withhold me from buying products (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”) 3- Phone interaction with a salesperson of a for-profit business/non-profit business

withhold me from buying products (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”) 4- Social media interaction with a salesperson of a for-profit business/non-profit

business withhold me from buying products (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”)

5- In-store interaction with a salesperson of a for-profit business/non-profit business withhold me from buying products (1= “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly agree”)

4.4.3. Price Fairness Perception

(26)

26

offer is mainly based on this (Homburg et al., 2014; Leinsle et al., 2018). Xia et al. (2004) used the operationalization to come up with three questions with a nine-points Likert-scale. The specific scales are available in APPENDIX B. These questions should closely relate and reflect a single variable, the price fairness perception. To confirm this, a factor analysis is performed. The following questions are conducted:

1- The retail price of Bérengère Jeans/Armand Jeans is … (1 = “Extremely unfair”, 9 = “Extremely fair”)

2- The retail price of Bérengère Jeans/Armand Jeans is … (1 = “Extremely unjust”, 9 = “Extremely just”)

3- The retail price of Bérengère Jeans/Armand Jeans is … (1 = “Extremely unreasonable”, 9 = “Extremely reasonable”)

4.4.4. Purchase Intention

The purchase intention construct is measured with a standard scale, with known psychometric properties, developed by Spears and Singh (2004). These questions reflect to the tendency of consumers’ purchase intention of a certain product or service (Bagozzi et al., 1979; Ostrom 1969). The construct is based on three questions with a Likert-scale. The specific scales are available in APPENDIX B. These questions should closely relate and reflect one variable, the purchase intention. A factor analysis is performed to confirm this. Specifically, the following questions are conducted:

1- I would … consider buying these jeans (1= “Never”, 7= “Definitely”)

2- I … intend to buy these jeans (1= “Definitely do not ” / 7= “Definitely”) 3- I have … purchase interest (1= “Very low”, 7= ”High”)

4- I would… buy it (Definitely not, Probably not, Neutral, Probably, Definitely) (Likert-scale with 5-items)

4.4.5. Control variables

(27)

27

The gender variable is used to examine whether males are responding differently than females. Females are expected to act in a behaviour that is cooperative and other-oriented and therefore likely to support a social enterprise. On the other hand, males are more independent and action-oriented and therefore less likely to support a social enterprise (Akinola et al., 2018). Further, the age and nationality variable are used to narrow the population and target the audience.

Also the educational level is assessed since the understanding of a hybrid might depend on this. Tertiary educated people are more likely to understand a social enterprise since they have, for instance, studied this form. As mentioned before, consumers might not understand what a hybrid organisation is and therefore the understanding of a hybrid is measured. As a result, consumers may have different perceptions. The last purchased variable has a multiple purpose. First, the price is asked to let the consumer think of the last purchased jeans. The consumer will use the price implicitly to compare the price with the vignettes. Second, it is used as control variable. Specially, participants are asked to select which price is closest to the price they have paid for the last purchased jeans. The price answer categories are 20, 35, 65, 100,160 and 200 euro (Terra, 2017). These are based on the Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay for a jeans.

(28)

28

5. Results

This chapter provides the results of the analysis. Firstly, the descriptive statistics are given in order to have insights in the number of participants, means, standard deviations and correlations of the predictors and control variables used in this research. In Table 5.1., the descriptive statistics are given and the correlations based on a Spearman Correlation analysis are presented in Table 5.2.

5.1. Descriptive

Statistics

(29)

29

Table 5.1.: Descriptive statistics

Vignette Variables N Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Predictor variables Bérengère

Jeans

Greed Perception 208 .73 .19 .17 1 Promotional Strategy Factor 1 208 .52 .22 0 1 Promotional Strategy Factor 2 208 .34 .20 0 .83 Price Fairness Perception 208 .44 .22 0 1 Purchase Intention 208 .30 .22 0 .81 Predictor variables Armand Jeans Greed Perception 208 .44 .24 0 1 Promotional Strategy 208 .43 .20 0 .9 Price Fairness Perception 208 0.56 0.20 0 1 Purchase Intention 208 0.41 0.20 0 0.96

Control variables

Age 208 2.14 0.347 2 3

Nationality 208

Gender 208 1.57 0.496 1 2

(30)

30

5.2. Correlation

To begin with, there are several significant, reliable correlations. In the case of Bérengère Jeans, the purchase intention is correlating with the price fairness perception (r = .58, p < .001). This is already studied in previous research and shows an expected sign. On the other hand, there is a negative correlation of greed perception on purchase intention, however this is not reliable (r = -.24, p < .001). Moreover, the price fairness perception is correlating with greed perceptions, however this is not reliable (r = -.25, p < .001).

In the case of Armand Jeans, the promotional strategy is correlating, significantly and reliable with the greed perception (r = .39, p < .001). Further, the Purchase intention is also correlating with the Price Fairness Perception. There is also a weak correlation with the Greed Perception and Price Fairness Perception, but this is not a reliable correlation (r = .15, p < .001).

Table 5.2.: Spearman Correlation analyses (N=208)

Vignette 1 2 3 4 5 Bérengère Jeans Promotional Strategy (factor 1) 1 Promotional Strategy (factor 2) .38*** 1

Price Fairness Perception -.02 -.7 1

Greed Perception -.11 -.04 -.25** 1

Purchase Intention -.09 .03 .58*** -.24** 1 Armand

Jeans

Promotional Strategy 1

Price Fairness Perception -.04 1

Greed Perception .39*** -.15* 1

(31)

31

5.3 Hypothesis Testing

As mentioned before, the Simple Mediation analyses and multiple linear regressions are used to empirically examine the hypotheses. Specifically, Hayes’ (2013) Process Tool is used to calculate a direct and indirect effect of the Greed Perception (mediator). All results of the multiple regressions and mediator analyses can be found in APPENDIX C.

The multiple regression analyses and simple mediation analyses are performed to assess each component of the proposed mediation model. The regression analysis is divided into two parts, the first part contains the Bérengère Jeans analysis and the second part the Armand Jeans analysis.

5.3.1. Bérengère Jeans Regression Analysis

5.3.1.1. Greed Perception and Purchase Intention

Firstly, the regression equation for greed perceptions on purchase intentions can be found in Table 5.3., 5.4. and 5.5.. By looking at Table 5.3., a significant regression equation was found for greed perception and purchase intention model (F(11,196) = 5.5, p < .000), with an R2 of .23. The participants’ greed perception is negatively and significantly relating to

purchase intention (β = -.24, SE = .07. 95% CI [-.38, -.10]).

(32)

32

In conclusion, there seems to be a significant negative relation between greed perceptions and purchase intentions. This effect is stronger for Portuguese consumers than it is for Dutch consumers. Moreover, consumers that are willing to spend more on jeans are more likely to have lower greed perceptions and therefore higher purchase intentions.

5.3.1.2. Promotional Strategy factor 1 and Greed Perception

A multiple linear regression was performed to estimate the effect of promotional strategies factor 1 on greed perceptions (Table 5.3.). There is a weak insignificant regression equation for the effect of promotional strategy factor 1 on greed perceptions model (F(10,197) = .68, p = .74), R2_{.033). Specifically, the effect of promotional strategy factor}

(33)

33

Table 5.3.: Promotional Strategy factor 1 regressions

(34)

34

5.3.1.3. Promotional strategy factor 2 and greed perception

A multiple linear regression was performed to estimate the effect of promotional strategies factor 2 on greed perceptions (Table 5.4.). There is a weak insignificant regression equation for the effect of promotional strategy factor 2 on greed perceptions model (F(10,197) = .59, p = .82), R2_{.03). There was no significant difference in response by}

nationality, gender, age, education level, price of last purchased jeans or understanding of a hybrid. In conclusion, hypothesis 2 cannot be accepted in the case of Bérengère Jeans.

5.3.1.4. Promotional strategy and Purchase intention

(35)

35 Table 5.4.: Promotional Strategy factor 2 regressions Bérengère Jeans

COLUMN1 COLUMN2 COLUMN3 COLUMN4 COLUMN5 COLUMN6 COLUMN7

(36)

36

5.3.1.5. Price Fairness Perception and Greed Perception

A multiple linear regression was performed to estimate the effect of price fairness perceptions on greed perceptions (Table 5.6.). There is a regression equation for the model of price fairness perception on greed perception (F(10, 197) = 1.6, p = .10), with an R2 _{of .08. However, this regression equation is not significant. Within this effect,}

participants’ price fairness perception is significantly negatively relating to the greed perception (β = -.2, SE = .07. 95% CI [-.34, -.08]). The effect doesn’t significantly differ for Belgians, British, Portuguese, Americans, gender, age, tertiary education, price of last purchased jeans or understanding of a hybrid. In conclusion, hypothesis 3 cannot be accepted as the model equation is not significant.

5.3.1.6. Price Fairness Perception and Purchase intention

(37)

37 Table 5.5.: Price Fairness Perception regressions Bérengère Jeans

COLUMN1 COLUMN2 COLUMN3 COLUMN4 COLUMN5 COLUMN6 COLUMN7

OUTCOME: GREED PERCEPTION MODEL SUMMARY R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .276 .0762 .0353 1,6246 10 197 .1018 MODEL β SE BCA 95 % lower CI upper

PRICE FAIRNESS PERCEPTION -.2072 .0649 -.3351 -.0793

BELGIAN -.0958 .0884 -.27 .0785 BRITISH .0179 .0477 -.0761 .1119 PORTUGUESE .073 .0991 -.1225 .2686 AMERICAN -.0789 .0619 -.2011 .0432 GENDER .0197 .0287 -.0369 .0764 AGE .0387 .0393 -.0389 .1163 TERTIARY EDUCATION -.0101 .0388 -.0865 .0664 PRICE OF LAST PURCHASED

JEANS .0194 .0153 -.0107 .0496 UNDERSTANDING OF A HYBRID .0128 .0324 -.0511 .0767 MODEL SUMMARY R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .6554 .4295 .0279 13,4153 11 196 .0000 OUTCOME: PURCHASE INTENTION MODEL β SE BCA 95 % lower CI upper GREED PERCEPTION -.129 .0634 -.254 -.0039 PRICE FAIRNESS PERCEPTION .4856 .0592 .3688 .6023

BELGIAN -.0393 .0789 -.1948 .1163 BRITISH -.0023 .0424 -.086 .0814 PORTUGUESE .1341 .0884 -.0401 .3083 AMERICAN -.0363 .0553 -.1454 .0729 GENDER .0432 .0256 -.0072 .0937 AGE -.0425 .0351 -.1117 .0267 TERTIARY EDUCATION -.0019 .0345 -.07 .0662 PRICE OF LAST PURCHASED

JEANS

.0394 .0137 .0125 .0664

UNDERSTANDING OF A HYBRID

(38)

38

5.3.1.7. Mediator Analysis

Mediating role of greed perceptions Bérengère Jeans

Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 together propose that greed perception mediates the relationship between promotional strategy and price fairness perception and the purchase intention (APPENDIX D). In the case of Bérengère Jeans and the promotional strategy factor 1, there is an insignificant indirect effect on purchase intentions through greed perceptions, ab = -0.18, BCa CI [-0.06, 0.02]. The mediator could account for almost half of the total effect, Pm = .37 (Figure 5.2.).

Figure 5.2.: promotional strategy factor 1 mediating effect

Furthermore, in promotional strategy factor 2, there is an insignificant indirect effect on purchase intentions through greed perceptions, ab = -0.22, BCa CI [-0.04, 0.02]. The mediator could account for only a small part of the total effect, Pm = -.17. (Figure 5.3.)

Figure 5.3.: promotional strategy factor 2 mediating effect

(39)

39

perceptions, ab = -0.34, BCa CI [0.004, 0.07]. The mediator could account for only a small part of the total effect, Pm = .05 (Figure 5.4.).

(40)

40

5.3.2. Armand Jeans Regression Analysis

5.3.2.1. Greed Perceptions and Purchase Intention

Firstly, a multiple linear regression was performed to estimate the effect of greed perceptions on purchase intentions for Armand Jeans (Table 5.6.). There is a significant regression equation for the model of promotional strategies on purchase intentions mediation by greed perceptions (F(10, 197) = 6.1, p = .0000), with an R2 _{of .42. However,}

greed perceptions are insignificantly relating to purchase intentions (β = -.06, SE = .07. 95% CI [-.19, .07]). Within this effect, consumers who paid more for the last purchased jeans than others are significantly more likely to have lower perceptions of greed and were more likely to purchase the Armand Jeans (β = -.049, SE = .015. 95% CI [.019, .08]). All other control variables were not resulting in significant effects. In conclusion, hypothesis 1 cannot be accepted in the case of Armand Jeans.

5.3.2.2. Promotional Strategy and Greed Perception

A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict the effect of promotional strategies on greed perceptions for Armand Jeans (Table 5.6.). A significant regression equation was found for the model of the effect of promotional strategy on purchase intentions, mediated through greed perceptions (F(10,197) = 6.1, p < .000), with an R2 _{of .24. The}

participants’ greed perception was positively significantly related to purchase intention (β = .42, SE = .08. 95% CI [.027, .57]).

(41)

41

5.3.2.3. Promotional Strategy and Purchase Intention

(42)

42

Table 5.6.: Promotional Strategy regressions

(43)

43

5.3.2.4. Price Fairness Perception and Greed Perception

Firstly, the regression equation for price fairness perceptions on greed perceptions model can be found in Table 5.7. A significant regression equation is found (F(10,197) = 3.3, p = .0005), with an R2 _{of .14. There is a significant negatively effect of price fairness}

perception on greed perceptions (β = -.19, SE = .08. 95% CI [-.35, -.035]).

Males are responding significantly different than the females. The negative effect of price fairness perception on purchase intentions is for males stronger (β = .11, SE = .035. 95% CI [.046, .18]). Moreover, there was no significant effect of Belgians, British, Americans, Portuguese, age, education, price of last purchased jeans or understanding of a hybrid. In conclusion, hypothesis 3 can be accepted in the case of Armand Jeans. There is a significant negative effect of price fairness perception on purchase intention. Males responded differently than females in this case.

5.3.2.5. Price Fairness Perception and Purchase intention

(44)

44

Table 5.7.: Price Fairness Perception regressions Armand Jeans

COLUMN1 COLUMN2 COLUMN3 COLUMN4 COLUMN5 _COLUMN6 _COLUMN7

(45)

45

5.3.2.6. Mediator Analysis

In the case of Armand Jeans, two mediator analyses are performed (APPENDIX D). In the first test, the promotional strategy is tested . There is an insignificant indirect effect on purchase intentions through greed perceptions, ab = .36, BCa CI [-0.09, 0.03]. The mediator could account for almost the total effect, Pm = .91 (Figure 5.5.)

Figure 5.5: Promotional strategy mediating effect

Furthermore, the price fairness perception is also tested in the mediation analysis. In this case, there is an insignificant indirect effect on purchase intentions through greed perceptions, ab = -0.22, BCa CI [-0.03, 0.01]. The mediator could account for almost half of the total effect, Pm = -.01 (Figure 5.6.)

(46)

46

5.4. Comparison of Vignettes

In Bérengère Jeans, the greed perceptions is having a significant negative effect on purchase intentions (β = -.24, SE = .07. 95% CI [-.38, -.10]). A significant effect is not found in the case of Armand Jeans (β = -.06, SE = .07. 95% CI [-.19, .07]). However, both effects are negative. Therefore, consumers perceive the greed preceptions in Bérengère Jeans as more greedy and are therefore less likely to buy the jeans. This is different from expected.

Furthermore, the promotional strategy factor 1 (F(10,197) = .68, p = .74), R2_{.033) and}

promotional strategy factor 2 (F(10,197) = .59, p = .82), R2_{.03) of Bérengère Jeans are}

not having an effect on greed perceptions since the model is insignificant. On the other hand, is a moderate significant effect (F(10,197) = 6.1, p < .000), with an R2 _{of .24 in the}

case of Armand Jeans. The promotions have a strong positive effect on greed perceptions, meaning more promotions is resulting in enlarged perceptions of greed (β = .42, SE = .08. 95% CI [.027, .57]).

Moreover, price fairness perceptions are not having an effect on greed perceptions in the case of Bérengère Jeans (F(10, 197) = 1.6, p = .10), with an R2 _{of .08. On the other hand,}

a regression equation was found for this construct in Armand Jeans (F(10,197) = 3.3, p = .0005), with an R2 _{of .14. A significant negatively effect of price fairness perception on}

greed perception is found (β = -.19, SE = .08. 95% CI [-.35, -.035]). So, a perception of fairness is having an effect to reduce perceptions of greed in the case of Armand Jeans.

Lastly, In the case of Bérengère Jeans, a mediating effect is found in the indirect effect of price fairness perceptions on purchase intentions. However, this effect is too weak to draw conclusions on. The mediator is only accountable for a total effect of Pm = .05 (Figure

(47)

47

6. Discussion and Recommendations

The main purpose of this research is trying to show a relation of greed perceptions on purchase intentions. Contrary to expectation, the negative relation is only found in the case of a traditional business. The purchase intention in a Social Entrepreneurial business is not influenced, significantly, by perceptions of greed. Various reasons may play a role in this relationship. For instance, age could be one factor that plays a role in greed perceptions and intentions to purchase goods. Younger people (18 to 35) are more open for new business forms than older people are. Therefore, older people are more likely to refuse the idea of social enterprises and affect perceptions. (Donnellan and Lucas, 2009). Furthermore, consumers’ purchase intentions may also be influenced by social pressure. Younger people might feel pressure by society to avoid traditional businesses and buy products from social aware businesses.

The recommendation for managers in traditional businesses and for social entrepreneurs is to understand and reduce the greed perception of its customers. This can be done by responding adequately to complaints (Grégoire et al., 2010). Perceptions of greed might result in a desire for revenge. To avoid this, the managers should focus on a recovery procedure to re-establish a healthy relationship with the customer. The recovery procedure should be failsafe and a balance is needed. An automatic system is not helpful in the re-establishment of the relationship and may have the potential to even worsen it. On the other hand, unreasonable complaints should not be accepted, but being too conscious about costs might heighten the greed perception (Grégoire et al., 2010). This recommendation is more important for traditional businesses since the purchase intention is influenced by the greed perception. Moreover, managers could reduce the threat of revenge and anger of customers by resolving the most severe cases first.

(48)

48

Grégoire et al., 2010; Grieco, 2018). Therefore, a social entrepreneur must think critically about their promotional strategy. As mentioned previously, the promotional strategy for small sized companies is one of their most expensive costs (Adefulu, 2015). The conclusion is also in line with the thoughts of Lee et al. (2017). The authors mentioned that the social entrepreneur might be perceived as greedier than a traditional business, which is confirmed by the results of this paper. However, the greed perception is not a mediator to purchase intention in all of the performed tests, which is remarkable.

The recommendation for social entrepreneurs is to assess the exploited promotional strategy multiple times during its running cycle. In this assessment, the social entrepreneur needs to consider the perceptions of greed of its customers. In this research, a relationship between greed perception and purchase intention is not found. However, perceptions of greed might result in a desire for revenge. As a result, negative word-of-mouth may occur and this affect the relationship with consumers (Grégoire et al., 2010). Therefore, the social entrepreneur should adjust its promotional strategy based on the information gathered by its customers.

(49)

49

The recommendation for managers in a social entrepreneurial business is to assess the perception of fairness of its customers. Even in traditional business, it is important to assess the price since the price fairness perception influences the purchase intention in both cases. However, managers should be aware that the perception of unfairness is triggered by many factors such as discrimination policies with coupons, quantity discounts and memberships (Wu et al., 2012).

(50)

50

7. Future Research

This specific research can be performed for cheaper products. However, it is less likely that those businesses act socially as a social enterprise generally faces high costs (Bryson and Buttle, 2005; Liu and Ko, 2012). On the other hand, in the future, a change is needed in the way we do business. Hence, in the forthcoming years, we will see a shift from traditional businesses to more socially aware businesses. Therefore, it is likely that we will see socially aware businesses in lower price segments in the near future.

In future research, researchers should further investigate how consumers perceive hybrid businesses. There is too little information regarding consumers and their understanding of the business models, operations and profits of hybrid organisations (Lee et al., 2017). On a more in depth level, the greed perception is an important construct that is not studied enough. This research has examined the relation between the promotion strategy and price with the perceptions of greed. Future research should examine other antecedents of perceptions of greed such as operation, transaction fairness perceptions and different promotional strategies (Lee et al., 2017). Other promotional strategy variables are sales promotion, publicity and public relations, all of which are important to consider. The mix of different promotion methods is the key to a successful strategy, which is why every part should be assessed.

(51)

51

There is also a need to develop a standard tool to measure the greed perception, since there are limitations with the construct of Seuntjens et al. (2015). Besides, only a moderate correlation is found in this research, which is remarkable. A standard construct would be useful since the greed perception is an upcoming construct and a standard scale helps in finding valid data.

(52)

52

8. Limitations

This research contains several limitations that are necessary to acknowledge. First of all, this research is only generalisable for the retail trade industry. The vignettes in this research are based on a specific product which makes it more difficult to generalise the results towards other industries. Moreover, this research is focused on expensive jeans as other authors, such as Lee et al. (2017), have already focused on cheap products. In the literature, the expectation is that only businesses with expensive products are able to act responsible in a social way.

Further, the vignettes of Bérengère jeans and Armand jeans are fictitious and consumers do not know the brands. Using well-known existing brands for research, for example Levi’s, could have produced different results. In this case, consumers have an idea of the company but this might be perceived differently. For instance, the questions about the promotional strategy are measured based on general questions. Consumers have an impression of certain advertisements and when consumers think of certain well-known brands they remember certain advertisements based on the reputation of the firm (Aaker et al., 2010).

Moreover, this research is only generalisable in the Netherlands as it is mostly Dutch consumers that have been used for this research. The results might be generalisable towards other European countries if the stance is taken that cultural values do not differ too much. Besides, there is also a limitation in the construct of greed perception. The desire to acquire and dissatisfaction of never having enough (Figure 3.1.) are supposed to correlate which each other. However, remarkably, there is only a moderate correlation between the two constructs constructed by Seuntjens et al. (2015). Further, the desire to acquire contains a double-barreled question, meaning there are two statements in one question.

(53)

53

(54)

54

9. Conclusions

(55)

55

References

Aaker, J., Vohs, K.D and Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and for‐ Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter. Journal of Consumer Research,

37 (2), pp. 224-37.

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, L. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 267–99.

Adefulu, A.D. (2015). Promotional Strategy impacts on organizational market share and profitability. Acta Universitatis danubius: oeconomica, 11 (6), pp. 20-33.

Adetayo, J. O. (2006). Marketing- Concepts and Applications. Ile-Ife: Akin’s printing press.

Aggarwal, P. (2004). The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), pp. 87–101.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 50 (2), pp. 179-211.

Akinola, M., Martin, A.E. and Phillips, K.W. (2018). To delegate or not to delegate: Gender differences in affective associations and behavioral responses to delegation. Academy of

management journal, 61 (4), pp. 1467-1491.

Amin, A. (2009). Extraordinarily ordinary: working in the social economy. Social

Enterprise Journal, 5, pp. 30–49.

(56)

56

Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, pp. 1–22.

Ashoka (2015). What Is Social Entrepreneur? Available at: http://www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur.

Bacq, S. & Janssen, F. (2011).The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and

Regional Development, 23 (5–6) , pp. 373-403.

Bakan J. (2016). Social marketing: Thoughts from an empathic outsider. Journal of

marketing management, 32 (11-12), pp. 1183-1189.

Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 1419– 1440.

Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J. and Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal.

Stanford social innovation review, 10 (3). 1-4.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp. 1173-1182.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A and Hill, R.P. (2006). The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business

Research, 59 (1), pp. 46–53.

(57)

57

Bryson, J.M. and Buttle, B. (2005). Enabling inclusion through alternative discursive formations: the regional development of community development loan funds in the UK.

The Services Industries Journal, 25, pp. 273–288.

Campbell, M.C. (1999). Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 , pp. 187–199.

Campbell, M.C. (2007), ‘Says who?!’ How the source of price information and affect influence perceived price (un)fairness. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), pp. 261-271.

Campbell, M.C. and Percival Carter, E. (2014). Consumer perceptions of unfairness and greed. Advances in consumer research, 42, pp. 118-122.

Carnevale, J.B., Walker, A.G. and Walker, H.J. (2016). Organizational greed: Behavior perception, or trait? Toward an integrated theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016 (1), 1-19

Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25, pp. 5–26.

Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., Ray, S. (2018). Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity. Journal of Business Research, 86, pp. 245-325.

Churchill, J. and Gilbert A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), pp. 64-73.

Dees, J.G. & Anderson, B.B. (2003). For‐ profit social ventures. International Journal of

(58)

58

Di Domenico, M.L., Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: theorising social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, pp. 681– 703.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16 (4), pp. 417-436.

Donaldson, T. (2010). The Values Realignment in Modern Industrial Society. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 20 (4), pp. 728-729.

Donnellan, M.B. and Lucas, R.E. (2009). Age differences in the big five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology aging, 23 (3), pp. 558-566.

Dwivedi, A. & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, pp. 32-40.

Emerson, J. & Twersky, F. (Eds). (1996, September). New social entrepreneurs: The

success, challenge and lessons of non‐ profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts Foundation, Homeless Economic Development Fund.

Estrin S., Mickiewicz T., Stephan U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 37, pp. 479-504.

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A., Alkassim, R.S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5 (1), pp. 1-4.

Facca-Miess, T.M. and Santos, N.J.C. (2014). Fostering fair and sustainable marketing for social entrepreneurs in the context of subsistence marketplaces. Journal of marketing