What Sustainability Claims Move Consumers the Most? the Role of Moral Satisfaction in the Consumption of Sustainable Products

What sustainability claims move consumers the most? The role of moral satisfaction in the consumption of sustainable products. The case of Colombia.

Abstract

Sustainable claims about products have become increasingly diverse. While consumers are increasingly concerned about sustainable practices and responsible consumption, information is often misunderstood, and consumers feel they have to make trade-offs between certain attributes. Linking sustainability and consumer behavior theory and focusing on agricultural products, we conducted a mixed-model experiment to evaluate the effect of different sustainable claims on moral satisfaction and purchase intention. Claims related to certain sustainability areas are more effective than others: locally produced food, fair prices for farmers and support for childhood education are the claims that move consumers the most. In terms of implications, we suggest that specific, self- explanatory claims, rather than labels, enhance meaningful connections with consumers in developing countries through a moderator effect of moral satisfaction.

Keywords: sustainability related claims, sustainable consumption, developing countries, consumer behavior, standards.

1. Introduction Consumers no longer only evaluate products in terms of quality, innovation, and price: They are also increasingly concerned about sustainability (Delmas & Colgan, 2018) and the impact of their purchase decisions (Angus & Westbrook, 2019). Indeed according to these authors, global consumers show a growing preference for locally produced, fresh, and organic food and new generations prefer food that has a lower environmental impact in its production process.

Responding to these consumer demands and to those of other stakeholders like investors or partners, companies are increasing their sustainable offering (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009) and communicating about their sustainability efforts (Türkel & Akan, 2015) through different means: sustainability reports, advertising activities, cause-related marketing or sustainable labels. Labels, one of the most widely used approaches, build on a certification and usually have a corresponding logo or graphic on the product packaging (Grunert, Hieke, & Wills, 2014). However, consumers may be confused by the multiple labels found in the marketplace: there are more than 463 sustainable labels in 199 countries and 25 industry sectors (Big Room Inc., 2019). Current research points to a poor understanding of labels among consumers (Cho & Berry, 2019; Grunert et al., 2014). Moreover, as different labels on diverse aspects of sustainability have been proliferating in markets, consumers seem to be confused. They find them redundant, ambiguous or difficult to interpret when the logo is not self-explanatory (Janßen & Langen, 2017). This lack of understanding can explain why, when buying food products, consumers use price, quality,

1 nutritional information and expiration date as their first cues in their purchase decision, sometimes ignoring sustainability related information (Grunert et al., 2014). Consumers may not only be confused by the lack of an explicit message, they also barely know sustainability related practices companies are adopting (or avoiding) (Cerri, Testa, & Rizzi, 2018; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009; Rees, Tremma, & Manning, 2019). Thus, some sustainable products may be considered by consumers as niche products for wealthy and well-educated consumers (Johnston, Szabo, & Rodney, 2011), posing challenges for their diffusion in developing countries with low levels of knowledge. Existing research is not conclusive about purchase behaviors concerning sustainable products. Some studies show that consumers may perceive sustainable products as more expensive or of lower quality and believe they may have to forego attributes such as price and quality to buy sustainable products. Such trade-offs constitute barriers to sustainable consumption lifestyles (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). The concern for these attributes is so strong that consumers will buy a less ethical product as long as they can satisfy their needs (Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, & Raghunathan, 2010). Other studies point to an enhanced experience gained from sustainable products: a food product from a company that ensures its employees' welfare is described as tastier (Wei, Miao, Kim, Behnke, & Almanza, 2018) and headphones produced with sustainable materials can enhance the enjoyment of music (Tezer & Onur, 2019). If the product is perceived as healthier and with more nutritional value, consumers will be willing to pay a premium price (Rousseau, 2015; Vecchio & Annunziata, 2015). Current research about consumers’ responses to sustainable products and labels highlights the emotional and cognitive components of sustainable purchases (Ladhari & Tchetgna, 2017). Emotions elicited by a marketing tool (e.g. logos, messages) generate a cognitive process that influences consumers' attitudes towards companies, brands, and products. As a result, emotions influence their behavior (Holbrook & Batra, 1987): positive emotions can increase product evaluations and purchase intention (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999). In the purchase of sustainable products, it has been demonstrated that moral emotions such as pride, gratitude, and guilt are positively correlated with purchase intention (Liang, Hou, Jo, & Sarigöllü, 2019). In this article, we follow this line of inquiry exploring consumers’ reactions to different sustainability related claims. Understanding what sustainability related claims work best for consumers was our guiding idea. We first conducted a preliminary study to understand reactions towards sustainable labels. Labels are now familiar in developed regions but this is not necessarily the case for developing regions. The results showed that most participants could not identify the sustainability related practice for each label confirming confusion around labels that might even be greater in developing countries. Thus, we decided to conduct a second study, based on a mixed-model experiment to evaluate consumer responses to sustainability related claims. Specifically, we focused on how consumers reacted to different claims about diverse social and environmental issues for different fruits, a product particularly appropriate for our context, Colombia. We also chose fruit because claims can be easily read (e.g., with a sticker).

We find that moral satisfaction mediates the purchase intention of sustainable products because consumers’ emotions vary depending on the social or environmental issue. Local food, fair wages for workers, and support for childhood education are the domains that move consumers the most. Our study makes a twofold contribution. First, by bringing experiential marketing to understand sustainable consumption, we delve into the cognitive approach to understand the consumption of sustainable products. Our contribution lies in showing that emotions, particularly, moral satisfaction acts as a complete mediator of the purchase intention of products with sustainability related claims. Second, this refines the question of what business claims about sustainability might be significant for consumers (Klein & Dawar, 2004; Maignan, 2001). The effect of sustainability-related practices on consumers’ perceptions is not yet clear. Consumer responses vary according to their perception of companies’ actions (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), which are increasingly diverse and cover multiple social and environmental topics. Moreover, as there are multiple actions, it is unclear which different claims related to sustainability might be effective (Brach, Walsh, & Shaw, 2018). Our study clarifies what claims are more effective to increase purchase intention of fruit. In terms of policy and managerial implications, by showing how consumers react to different sustainability related messages; our results help company managers and policy makers define most suitable practices to foster the consumption of sustainable products particularly healthy products such as fruit. In developing countries, companies could include the most successful claims when promoting their products that can make meaningful connections with consumers.

The significance of our results is particularly important for developing countries where research on perceptions social and environmental actions remains limited (Pisani, Kourula, Kolk, & Meijer, 2017). Companies face uncertainty about consumers’ requirements, as they are diverse and constantly changing, and there is little information about how consumers will react to the adoption of standards (Montiel, Christmann, & Zink, 2019). Our results also point to the importance of rethinking the use of labels as means to make social and environmental commitments visible.

The remainder of the paper presents first our theoretical background. Then we detail our experiments methodology before moving onto the results. Finally, we discuss these results particularly in terms of policy implications.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Consumer’s responses to different sustainability-related claims As consumers are increasingly looking for sustainable options in the market, companies have diversified their responses to different sustainability-related issues (Peloza & Shang, 2011). The multiplicity of sustainability issues may be an explanation to the abundance of sustainable labels (Janßen & Langen, 2017) and the increasing presence of sustainable products in retail (Jones, Comfort, & Hillier, 2007). For instance, when buying coffee, consumers can come across diverse brands addressing different sustainability issues: the support of fair trade in their value chain, a recyclable package, the protection of the rainforest, or an origin denomination. All these arguments compete in the same grocery shelf.

While social and environmental claims influence consumers’ behavior, existing research is not conclusive about which claims and/or labels move consumers the most. Research points to the importance of label recognition, but is not conclusive about the sustainability related domain (i.e., social or environmental issues). Concerns of consumers vary significantly. Vecchio and Annunziata (2015) found that consumers prefer food production that respects human rights and does not exploit woman or children, which attests to the value they place on socially responsible actions. The results of this study also show that environmentally sustainable production was considered quite important, but that consumers felt unsure about the importance of supporting local farmers, sustainable agricultural practices, respect for animals and environmentally friendly packaging. Conversely, Annunziata, Mariani, and Vecchio (2019) found that what concerns consumers the most in food production is the use of pesticides, while they are less worried about the poor treatment of animals. A significant step in this direction was made by Grunert et al. (2014), who found that child labor and deforestation generated the most concern among consumers. In the same vein, Janßen and Langen (2017) found that for milk products the most important claims for consumers are “organic”, “GMO-free”, “locally produced” and "CO2-reduced". Contrasting different sustainable labels and sustainability-related claims, authors have studied willingness to pay for a variety of food products. Rousseau (2015), compared Fair Trade, organic and regular chocolates, finding that after sensory (flavor) and marketing attributes (e.g. price, packaging), fair trade is the first sustainable aspect that consumers think of. Vecchio and Annunziata (2015) consistently found greater willingness to pay for Fair Trade chocolate than Rainforest Alliance and Carbon Footprint. In the context of wine, Loose and Remaud (2013) conducted a cross-cultural study comparing the willingness to pay for wine with sustainability- related claims. They found that consumers would pay more for organic wine, and in turn, would pay more for an environmentally friendly wine than a socially responsible wine. Supporting the importance of organic production methods among other sustainability related issues, Song et al. (2019) found that USDA Organic is the sustainable label that most captures the visual attention of consumers. Consistently, Van Loo et al. (2015) found that although consumers rated the USDA Organic label as the most important and Rainforest Alliance as the least important, however, Fair Trade was the label that most caught their attention, measured using eye-tracking technology. Other authors have analyzed purchase intention sustainable labels and sustainability-related claims. Rees et al. (2019) concluded that there are differences in the level of recognition and purchase intention for sustainable labels. “Fair Trade” and “5-a-day” were the most recognized sustainable labels, which in turn have a bigger influence on purchase intention than lesser-known labels such as UTZ. Zander and Hamm (2010) compared eight different ethical attributes or claims related to organic food. Simulating a purchase action, they found that “animal welfare”, “local production” and “fair prices to the farmers” were the claims that most persuaded consumers to buy a product. A standout study by Wei et al. (2018), comparing food manufacturing, employee welfare and eco- friendly packaging claims, found that consumers associate claims about safety in food manufacturing with a healthier product, and employee welfare with a tastier product, supporting the idea that tackling social issues moves consumers the most. One aspect that may explain this preference for social issues lies in moral satisfaction.

2.2 Moral satisfaction and purchase intention of sustainable products In purchasing products with sustainability-related claims, consumers relate to their own moral foundations. Consumers may value making a positive contribution to reducing social problems or supporting companies tackling them (Baskentli et al., 2019; Winterich, Zhang, & Mittal, 2012). Moral satisfaction is a positive feeling experienced when doing what is considered to be the right thing, which means being aware of the problems and wellbeing of the community and acting accordingly, while aiming to have a positive impact (Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002). From a consumption perspective, moral satisfaction is akin to the good feeling people get when buying something produced with moral practices or that will positively impact society and the environment. When consumers feel they are contributing to a good cause through a consumption decision, they consider themselves valuable members of society and feel better about themselves. This influences feelings about the whole product (Tezer & Onur, 2019) and consequently give better product evaluations (Bratanova et al., 2015). Moral satisfaction has an effect on taste expectations, willingness to pay, and willingness to purchase (Andrews, Luo, Fang, & Aspara, 2014; Bratanova et al., 2015; Kahneman & Knetsch, 1992; Steenis, van der Lans, van Herpen, & van Trijp, 2018). However, moral satisfaction varies because it depends highly on community values and the individual’s inclination to support social-related programs (Winterich et al., 2012). Hence, some social issues tend to be more closely linked to moral satisfaction than others (Kahneman & Knetsch, 1992). The effect of this feeling on food choices is stronger for pro-social claims than pro-environmental claims (Iweala et al., 2019). For instance, Catlin, Luchs, and Phipps (2017) conclude that, on a general level, consumers differentiate between social responsibility and environmental responsibility, and that they evaluate each side of corporate social responsibility actions differently. Social action is affective and in the eyes of consumers, it affects short-term and local issues, while environmental responsibility is cognitive and has a long-term and global effect. The Theory of Planned Behavior describes the motivational influences, attitudes and subjective norms that influence intended behaviors and explains how the perception of some product attributes increases purchase intention (Arvola et al., 2008; Davies et al., 2002). Although most of these studies focus on the cognitive process of consumers, the effect of particular emotions such as moral emotions on decision-making is recognized; they elicit the cognitive processing of sustainable products and affective processes that influence consumers’ behavior (Arvola et al., 2008; Olsen, Sijtsema, & Hall, 2010). Hence, we argue that consumers’ perception of a sustainability-related claim will generate a moral effect that is reflected in greater purchase intention (see figure 1). Previous research shows that sustainability-related claims can generate various feelings in consumers (Tezer & Onur, 2019), one being moral satisfaction (Bratanova et al., 2015) (Figure 1, step 1). Claims for sustainable products also influence purchase intention (Cho & Berry, 2019; Grunert et al., 2014; Rees et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2018) (Figure 1, step 2). Moreover, it seems that emotions generated by sustainability-related actions act as triggers for purchase intention (Iweala et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2019; Trudel et al., 2019). Therefore, we expect that moral satisfaction will mediate the relation between sustainable claims and purchase intention (Figure 1, step 3). Because there are other variables that may influence consumers’ perceptions about sustainable claims (e.g., trust or social desirability, individual characteristics, and product attributes such as

5 price and quality) (Barone et al., 2000; Baskentli et al., 2019), the relationship between sustainable claims and purchase decisions may result in a partial mediation model (Figure 1, step 2). Overall, most previous studies compare consumers’ responses to a reduced group of sustainable claims, and we have yet to identify which sustainability related claims are the most effective for consumers. Comparative studies that address the growing diversity of sustainability issues remain limited. Our study takes a step in that direction by specifying how a wide range of sustainability related claims influence purchase intention focusing on an emotional moderator (i.e., moral satisfaction) that reflects contextual, community values. To work in this direction we developed a two-stage study where we evaluate how consumers react to different sustainability-related claims. In the first stage (pre-study), we confirmed for the context of our research, results pointing to the fact that consumers find it difficult to understand sustainable labels (Pisani et al., 2017) and may not recognize them (Rousseau, 2015). To do so, we evaluated recognition of 12 sustainable labels. Because labels were not self-explanatory, in the second stage, we conducted an experiment to evaluate purchase intention of sustainability-related claims. We detailed these stages in the next section.

[Figure 1: claims affecting purchase intention] 3. Methods

3.1 Pre-study: Understanding Sustainable Labels

In order to explore the perception of sustainable labels in the context of our study, we studied undergraduate Colombian students (mean age=19.71; SD= 2.25; n =108) from the first year of college. They participated in the study as volunteers and did not know the real purpose of the study. Subjects observed 12 sustainable labels that were randomly presented, and were told that they were used by organizations on their products to certify their sustainability-related practices. After looking at each logo, subjects were asked “If this is a label related to sustainability, which sustainable actions does this organization do to get certified?” Participants wrote down what actions they believed the company was doing to get that label. They took as much time as they wanted for this task.

[Figure 2: Understanding sustainable labels]

Responses were coded by the three researchers based on whether the subject correctly identified the meaning of the label as expressed on each organization's website. Figure 2 summarizes the results of this pre-study. It is clear that most participants could not identify the action for each label. FSC was the label that most subjects recognized and correctly associated with the actual meaning (37.98%). Subjects do not seem to understand what these sustainable labels are intended to certify as they do not know them or the labels are not self-explanatory, confirming previous findings (Grunert et al., 2014; Janßen & Langen, 2017; Pisani et al., 2017). Because of this, for our main study testing the effect of different actions, we developed specific, self-explanatory claims that capture different corporate social and environmental actions in order to evaluate their effect on moral satisfaction and purchase intention. We describe the process in the following section. To test the effect that different sustainability-related claims have on product evaluation, moral satisfaction and purchase intention, we first put together a set of claims that had been used in previous studies and we proved their content validity in a series of in-depth interviews. We then conducted a mixed-model experiment. 3.2 Mixed methods experiment

3.2.1 Claims In selecting claims to test, we used the six Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) domains proposed by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) that were consistently found in the literature: community support, diversity, employee support, environment, operations in developing countries/human rights and products. We also used the taxonomy created by Jones et al. (2007) that examines the most recurrent sustainability-related claims found on retail products: fair trade, health-related claims, and organic procedures. These sources served to create a panorama that represents the diversity of sustainability- related actions; we selected 15 claims that impact one or more of these domains and that were consistently found in literature. Additionally, we included two claims that express local issues in Colombia and that have a significant social impact: “Allows replacement of illicit crops” (related to the community support idea) and “Employs demobilized military” (related to community support / diversity ideas). These topics are highly related to Colombian social and economic reality, appear daily in the news, are a concern for Colombians and a source of social and political discussions. Thus, a total of 17 claims were initially selected, which we then simplified by removing any possible association with a specific product or company. Table 1 presents these claims and the references they were drawn from. TABLE 1 Claims initially formulated based on sustainability-related claims found in the literature

Adapted Claim References Idea captured Domain Efficient use of water Grunert et al. (2014) and Production does not waste or Environment Shao & Ünal (2019) pollute water. Respects the natural forest Grunert et al. (2014) The company's operations do Environment not have a negative effect on biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Reduces the use of pesticides Grunert et al. (2014) and The product is organic: it is Environment / Product Marette, Messéan, & grown avoiding synthetic safety / Partly Organic Millet (2012) chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Grown using energy efficiently Grunert et al. (2014), Production does not waste Environment Schäufele & Hamm energy and promotes (2017), and Shao & Ünal renewables, avoiding coal (2019) consumption. Reduces greenhouse emissions Pomarici & Vecchio Production reduces the use of Environment in production (2014), Sarkar & Searcy fossil fuels and energy that (2016), Schäufele & produce large quantities of Hamm (2017), and Shao & CO2. Ünal (2019) Minimizes the impact on climate Jones et al. (2007) Production is environmentally Environment change friendly; it makes efficient use of resources, reduces CO2 emissions, avoids pollution, and manages waste. Respects employees’ rights Anselmsson & Johansson The company guarantees that Employee support (2007) its employees’ human rights and freedoms are respected. Respects human rights Swaen & Chumpitaz The company guarantees that Respect for human (2008) it respects basic human rights rights in its operations. Supports childhood education Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) The company makes Community support and Pomering & Dolnicar donations to schools that allow (2009)

Adapted Claim References Idea captured Domain children access to education or improve their education. Sponsors cultural and artistic Pomering & Dolnicar The company donates money Community support activities (2009) to organizations in cultural industries (dance, plastic arts, sports, etc.), helping them to develop their activities. Supports gender, ethnic and Sen & Bhattacharya The company supports Diversity / religious minorities (2001) diversity in the community by Community support creating opportunities for gender, ethnic and religious minorities and by promoting equality of opportunities and rights. Grown by local farmers Jones et al. (2007) The product is grown by local Community support farmers, which promotes the social development of farmers and reduces transportation distances, which translates into a smaller carbon footprint. Supplied by local and regional Jones et al. (2007) The product is supplied by Community support farmers local farmers, which promotes the social development of farmers and reduces transportation distances, which translates into a smaller carbon footprint. Pays a fair price to farmers Öberseder et al. (2013) Promotes ethical trade, where Community support / farmers receive a fair amount Employee support / of money for their products, Fair Trade which allows them to live in decent conditions and promotes their development. It’s healthy Jones et al. (2007) The product has low sugar/ Product information / salt/ saturated fat content. Health-related claim

To assess the content validity of these claims, we conducted 11 in-depth interviews with undergraduate students that were in the first year of diverse majors (55% female, 45% male, average length of 35 minutes). We asked participants for their thoughts about each of the claims. The claims were contextualized: We told interviewees that these claims were attached to some fruit, without telling them which type of fruit it was. From this open-ended question, we assessed the meaning of the claims. After the qualitative assessment of the claims, the responses were analyzed by the three researchers to identify common patterns in the interviews. Upon analysis of the results, we decided to remove five claims. We deleted “This product was grown using energy efficiently” because it was difficult to associate with fruit production; interviewees associated energy consumption with highly industrialized production, a distant concept from the agricultural field work they have in mind when they think about fruit. “Reduces greenhouse emissions” and “Minimizes the impact on climate change” were ambiguous claims; consumers could not relate these to specific actions, and respondents were skeptical because they are not self-explanatory. “Our company is supplied by local and regional farmers” was perceived to be similar to other claims that capture fair-trade issues, but the others express this idea better. “Supports gender, ethnic and religious minorities” was found

9 to be ambiguous. We believe that this is because these issues are very different from each other and must be considered separately. Table 2 shows the final set of 12 claims. We also decided to merge the claim “It’s healthy” with “5 per day”, a campaign based on the recommendation of the World Health Organization to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day (WHO, 2013). We used this claim to represent the domain concerning product information. TABLE 2 FINAL SET OF CLAIMS USED IN THE STUDY (All of them begin with: The company that produces this fruit […], except for 10 and 12) 1. […] Uses water efficiently 2. […] Respects the natural forest 3. […] Reduces the use of pesticides 4. […] Respects employees’ rights 5. […] Respects human rights 6. […] Supports childhood education 7. […] Sponsors cultural and artistic activities 8. […] Replaces illicit crops 9. […] Employs demobilized military 10. […] Is grown by local-farmers 11. […] Pays a fair price to farmers 12. […] It is necessary to eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day

Design We developed a mixed-model (13 x 7) laboratory experimental design. Our between-groups condition was the claim that expresses a sustainability related issue e and is communicated through a product. We included an additional control group where the product had no claim. This experiment therefore has 13 cells: 12 cells where the product has a sustainability-related claim (Table 2) and one control group without a claim. We tested the effect that claim had on moral satisfaction, product evaluation (mediator variables) and purchase intention (dependent variable). In the same experiment, subjects rated different products with the same claim as a within-subject condition, appearing in random order, to be sure that the effect of CSR claims was consistent for different products. 3.2.2 Stimuli Seven types of fruit were included in the experiment: guava, pineapple, red apple (Malus pumila Gala variety), green apple (Malus Granny Smith variety), red grapes (Red globe variety), green grapes (Chardonnay variety), and Hass avocado. We ran the experiment with several different types of fruit to check that the effect of moral satisfaction was consistent across different fruit. The selection criterion was the variety in color, texture, shape, taste, which translates into consumers' preferences for them. Moreover, these fruits are widely available in Colombian shops. We took photos of the fruits in a professional photography lab using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II with a focal length of 105 mm. A tag was visually attached to each fruit to include a sustainable claim (Figure 3). The wording was added to the tag using Adobe Photoshop CS6 software.

[Figure 3: Example of the stimuli]

3.2.3 Participants A total of 442 undergraduates from a university in Colombia participated voluntarily in the experiment; they received partial course credit as an incentive. Respondents ranged from 18 to 38 years old, with a mean age of 20.38 years (SD=1.97). Of the total sample, 36.7% were male, 63.1% female and 0.2% identified themselves as "other". All subjects reported weekly consumption of fruit and vegetables, which ranged from 1 to 35 times per week, with a mean weekly consumption of 5.78 events (SD=4.29). Participants were in the last two years of college, hence, if they took part of the experiment, they were not part of the previous phases of the research. 3.2.4 4.4 Procedure We invited subjects to participate in an experiment where they would be asked to evaluate a set of fruits using a questionnaire administered on SurveyMonkey®; they did not know the real purpose of the experiment. Subjects went to a laboratory, where they were randomly assigned to a cell (Table 2), 34 subjects per cell. They clicked on a link and the questionnaire appeared on a 22-inch screen with the browser window expanded, normal color adjustments (75% brightness/contrast) and 1024 x 768-pixels of resolution, as we controlled for the online setting. Each participant was exposed to the seven fruits with a single sustainability-related claim (they answered all the questions for one fruit, and then moved on to the next fruit until they had evaluated all seven). The control group was shown the same fruits but without claims. Systematic responses were avoided as the fruits were shown in random order. After looking at each image, participants rated their product evaluation, moral satisfaction, and purchase intention on the questionnaire. Subjects answered the same set of questions for each of the seven fruits. This repeated measure of subjects’ perception for one claim across seven fruits contributed to the reliability assessment. Afterward, as a manipulation check, subjects identified the claim that they had been surveyed on from 13 options: the 12 claims and one stated as “My survey did not have a tag”. 3.2.5 Measures Moral satisfaction

Subjects rated items of moral satisfaction and purchase intention (described below) on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=totally disagree and 6=totally agree. Moral satisfaction as an expected emotion after buying one of the fruit was addressed with a survey prompt that began "When thinking about buying fruit" and the following statements: “This fruit would feel like doing the morally right thing”, “This fruit would make me feel like a better person”, “I would feel like making a personal contribution to something better” and “This fruit would give me a good feeling, because I am supporting an ethically responsible practice”. These items were designed to assess moral satisfaction and the scale was previously validated in the context of buying food products such as organic/fair trade foods (Bratanova et al., 2015) and choosing sustainable packages (Steenis et al., 2018). Cronbach alpha= .945. Product evaluation We adjusted our product evaluation’ scale from Becker et al. (2011) as subjects rated their agreement with the following statements: “This is a superior product”, “This is an eye-catching product”, and “This is a high-quality product”. Cronbach alpha= .878. Purchase intention Purchase intention items were adapted from a validated scale presented in prior literature (Elder & Krishna, 2012). We asked participants to rate their agreement with the following items: “I would purchase this fruit”, “The next time I purchase fruit, I will actively seek out fruit with a similar statement”. We also included: “I would consume this fruit”, and “I would recommend this fruit to friends and relatives”. Cronbach alpha= .936. 4. Results We use IBM SPSS Statistics 26 for the analysis. A within-subject analysis tested for the consistency of responses across the seven different fruits for moral satisfaction, product evaluation, and purchase intention. Three one-way ANOVAs show no significant differences in moral satisfaction by type of fruit (F (6,3087) = 2.033; p>.05), but significant differences for product evaluation (F (6,3087) = 92.562; p<.01), and purchase intention (F (6,3087) = 59.134; p<.01), which seems to indicate that beyond the emotional experience, there is a consumer preference for certain types of fruit. Hence, we used an ANCOVA to determine the effect that claims have on moral satisfaction and purchase intention, while controlling for the type of fruit. Results indicate a significant effect of claims on moral satisfaction (F (12,3080) = 40.598; p<.001) and purchase intention (F (12, 3080) = 6.549; p<.001). Because of this observed variance across different fruits, these are included in the mediation model as control variables (pineapple being in the intercept). Next, for our analysis, we followed the mediation test approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Therefore, we will first describe the results for the effect of sustainable claims, and then the mediating effect of moral satisfaction. 4.1 Sustainability-related claims Dummies were specified for each of the 12 sustainable claims. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics by claim for moral satisfaction and purchase intention; X13 represents the control group.

Table 4 shows the regression results. Step 1 (see Figure 1) indicates a significant effect for all sustainable claims on moral satisfaction. Most sustainable claims increase consumers’ moral satisfaction compared to not having a claim on the product. There is one exception to this positive effect: X12 – "It is necessary to eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day" is negatively correlated with moral satisfaction. Step 2 (see Figure 1) of the regression shows that 8 of the 12 claims increase consumers’ purchase intention. The other four, “Reduces the use of pesticides”, “Supports childhood education”, “Allows the replacement of illicit crops” and “Employs demobilized military” have a non-significant effect on purchase intention. TABLE 3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Moral satisfaction Purchase intention Item Mean SD ρ Mean SD ρ X1 3.494 1.571 -.009 4.127 1.509 -.007 X2 3.725 1.362 .034 4.124 1.464 -.007 X3 3.539 1.520 -.001 3.995 1.387 -.033 X4 3.328 1.418 -.041* 4.121 1.446 -.008 X5 3.315 1.314 -.043* 4.198 1.264 .007 X6 4.166 1.320 .118** 4.069 1.565 -.018 X7 3.356 1.432 -.035* 4.168 1.393 .001 X8 3.841 1.503 .056** 4.058 1.489 -.021 X9 3.332 1.349 -.040* 3.976 1.372 -.037* X10 4.515 1.309 .184** 4.759 1.342 .119** X11 4.306 1.425 .144** 4.525 1.278 .073** X12 2.437 1.435 -.210** 4.126 1.578 -.007 X13 2.714 1.523 -.157** 3.849 1.464 -.062** **p<.01; *p<.05. Labels for claims 1 through 12 are identified in Table 2. X13=control group with no claim.

4.2 Moral satisfaction and purchase intention A preliminary analysis shows there is a positive relationship between moral satisfaction and purchase intention (ρ = .367; p<.001). Table 4 shows the mediation analysis. The regression model in step 3 (see Figure 1) combines the effect of claims with moral satisfaction to evaluate its mediating effect. When moral satisfaction is included in the model, the predictive capacity of most claims diminishes; nine of the twelve claims lose their significance and it is moral satisfaction that has the most significant effect. Moral satisfaction thus fully mediates the effect of sustainability- related claims on purchase intention. “Grown by local farmers”, “Supports childhood education” and “It is necessary to eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day” are the three claims that remain significant, but with the weight of beta coefficients significantly reduced, indicating partial mediation. The claim related to child education now has a negative effect. Finally, the idea of eating 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day increases purchase intention significantly by an effect other than moral satisfaction.

TABLE 4 MEDIATION EFFECT (B; standard errors in parenthesis) Path coefficients To Moral To Purchase To Purchase Satisfaction intention (PI) intention (PI) (MS) From Moral 0.340** (.016) satisfaction (Mediator) From X1 0.779** (.130) 0.277* (0.51) 0.012 (.117) From X2 1.011** (.130) 0.274* (.051) -0.070 (.117) From X3 0.825** (.130) 0.145 (.027) -0.136 (.117) From X4 0.613** (.130) 0.271* (.050) 0.062 (.116) From X5 0.601** (.130) 0.348* (.064) 0.143 (.116) From X6 1.452** (.130) 0.220 (.040) -0.275* (.118) From X7 0.642** (.130) 0.318* (.059) 0.100 (.116) From X8 1.127** (.130) 0.208 (.038) -0.176 (.117) From X9 0.618** (.130) 0.126 (.023) -0.084 (.116) From X10 1.800** (.130) 0.910** (.017) 0.297* (.120) From X11 1.591** (.130) 0.675** (.012) 0.134 (.119) From X12 -0.284* (.130) 0.276* (.005) 0.373** (.116) Controls Guava -0.301* (.096) -1,534** (-.37) -1.431** (.085) Red Apple -0.089 (.096) -0.442** (-.11) -0.412** (.085) Green Apple -0.057 (.096) -0.235* (-.057) -0.216** (.085) Red Grapes -0.169 (.096) -0.454** (-.11) -0.397* (.085) Green Grapes -0.159 (.096) -0.809** (-.19) -0.755** (.085) Avocado -0.229* (.096) -0.833** (-.20) -0.755** (.085) Overall effect F (12,3080) = F (12, 3080) = 40.598** 6.549** **p<.001; *p<.05

Indirect effects Estimate Sobel Z X1→MS→PI 0.265 5.767** X2→MS→PI 0.344 7.303** X3→MS→PI 0.281 6.081** X4→MS→PI 0.209 4.603** X5→MS→PI 0.494 4.517** X6→MS→PI 0.219 9.886** X7→MS→PI 0.384 4.810** X8→MS→PI 0.210 8.027** X9→MS→PI 0.613 4.639** X10→MS→PI 0.542 11.601** X11→MS→PI -0.097 10.605** X12→MS→PI -0.103 -2.173* **p<.001; *p<.05

5. Discussion Connecting consumers with sustainable products is important for a shift towards a society that practices sustainable production and consumption. Unfortunately, today sustainable consumption is not straightforward, particularly in developing countries. Our first study suggest that knowledge regarding labels in developing countries is limited. Indeed, while standards are useful to signal assure consumers they are doing a responsible purchase and eventually lead to more sustainable supply chains, developing countries are not adequately represented or involved in standard setting processes (Hensen & Loader, 2001). Local companies usually learn about standards from foreign customers, have less access to information about the standards but are required to access international markets (Montiel et al., 2016). Thus, circulation and diffusion of labels at the local level is limited. Therefore, we argue that labels might not be a suitable approach, at least for now, to sell sustainable food products in developing countries, not because of the confusion originated in their proliferation and high numbers, but because of the lack of knowledge in local settings. Sustainable consumption refers consumers’ awareness of long-term social, environmental, and economic consequences of their buying, use and disposal behavior (Epstein, Buhovac, Elkington, & Leonard, 2017), but in developing countries the use of labels to go into that direction has yet to prove useful. Our results suggest that companies wishing to enter the market of sustainable products in a context of less- informed consumers, could either educate their consumers, or use explicit claims and self- explanatory labels. Companies should explicitly communicate their actions because they have a positive effect on consumers’ behavior and sustainability related claims influence purchase intention. However, we want to point out that although these claims can have positive effects on consumers, they will only be effective if consumers are able to understand them (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Our second study shows that beyond the fundamental value that consumers seek in products (i.e. quality, price), our results show that a mechanism by which sustainable claims influence consumers is the feeling experienced when doing the right thing: moral satisfaction. Previously, in separate studies, Bratanova et al. (2015) demonstrated that products that claim to be organic, locally produced, or associated with fair trade production practices, increase moral satisfaction in contrast to products that do not have a sustainable claim. We refine this research by showing that first, moral satisfaction works as a consumer engagement mechanism as it increases purchase intention. Second, we find that the effect of claims differs for different sustainability issues. Not all socially or environmentally oriented claims operate in the same way. Moral satisfaction varies according to the issue at stake: “Pays a fair price to farmers”, “It’s locally produced” or “Supports childhood education” are the claims (in our sample) that move consumers the most. However, other social issues such as human or employees’ rights and supporting cultural and artistic activities, rank below in terms of moral satisfaction. Two main reasons may explain these findings. First, consumers have feelings of solidarity and empathy for the people (such as agricultural workers) that they perceive to be in need, and these feelings translate into purchase behaviors, especially when the beneficiaries of corporate programs are humans with little responsibility for their plight and suffer from social injustices (Lee,

Winterich, & Ross Jr., 2014). Such solidarity approach may build on the Catholic roots of Colombia. Using the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), it could be argued that subjects of our experiment may express greater individualization foundations, and their moral concerns are related to the protection and fair trade of individuals instead of more general topics such as the environment (Winterich et al., 2012). This is like the “warm-glow” effect that motivates people to give donations and adopt pro-social behaviors. Empathy increases for people who are perceived to have been abused by society, and consumers will feel better by supporting them. It is as if consumers could contribute to paying the debt that society owes these people. Also, consumers can easily relate to them as they are perceived as vulnerable human beings. This is one reason why social claims generate higher moral satisfaction than environment-related claims. Farmers in particular are considered representative actors for Colombian society given the economy of the country and they have a significant place in people’s imagination based on the historic importance of agriculture. They are also outraged by political, environmental, economic, and social realities. The replacement of illicit crops is also associated with farmers and their wellbeing because it allows them to improve their working conditions and break away from illicit activities. On the other hand, children are considered the future of society and they arouse feelings like hope. In this sense, empathy drives moral satisfaction (Delmas & Colgan, 2018, p. 128). Second, consumers tend to prefer sustainable claims supporting the empowerment of producers, such as fair trade. When consumers understand what fair trade means, they tend to choose products with this label over products that claim other socially responsible practices and also declare a higher willingness to pay (Öberseder et al., 2013; Pomarici & Vecchio, 2014). Previous research has concluded that consumers with high purchase intention in relation to fair trade products exhibit higher levels of pride, enthusiasm, satisfaction and happiness than consumers who are not interested in these products (Ladhari & Tchetgna, 2017). Our results support these findings: Testing the effect on moral satisfaction showed that a fair price paid to farmers (related to the fair trade idea) is the claim that generates the greatest response in terms of moral satisfaction. Sustainable claims related to the environment do not generate the same level of moral satisfaction as claims related to community support. The perceived effectiveness of consumer actions could be an explanation for this finding. People know about the environmental crisis, but they may feel that their actions are not enough to solve these problems (Ghvanidze, Velikova, Dodd, & Oldewage- Theron, 2016). Additionally, consumers may not have enough information about environmental problems to integrate this awareness in their purchase decisions (Cerri et al., 2018). The lack of resources exacerbates this trend in developing countries. Respect for employees’ rights may generate less moral satisfaction as consumers may assume, given that workers are contractually employed by a company, which therefore must follow labor law, that they will get fair treatment. In this sense, employees are different from farmers, who may not enjoy employees’ rights, benefits, or responsibilities. An interesting result is the one obtained for the claim related to the employment of demobilized military. Colombia is at the beginning of a post-war context, and former guerrillas divide public opinion. Our results show that consumers seem to distance themselves from actors associated with the national conflict. Future research could explore this result in depth.

Although previous research shows that consumers think that buying sustainable products implies a trade-off with lower quality or higher prices, companies should understand that some elements such as moral satisfaction, operating through an emotional process, will affect consumers' consideration of the company’s offer in the market. In turn, moral satisfaction prompts consumers to buy sustainable products: When the idea of purchasing a product with a given claim makes consumers feel better about themselves, purchase intention will increase. Companies should pay attention to which emotions their social and environmental actions induce in their consumers; companies may find that moral satisfaction is a tool to encourage consumers to buy ethically. As noted in the results, different sustainable claims generate different responses in consumers. Thus, it is strategic for companies to know what social and environmental actions their target market values the most. For example, our findings show that "supporting local producers" could be used as a social cause-related marketing strategy for fruit, and consumers’ response would be more positive than if they used other statements. Conversely, form a normative point of view, some sustainability issues might be important, even if consumers do not recognize them. In our case, purchase intention does not increases for fruits with the claim “uses water efficiently” rank low in terms of moral satisfaction, however, water scarcity and access is a topic of increasingly importance at a global scale. Government policies and company strategies could design actions that build on emotional processes linked to the topic of water to encourage consumption of products that tackle that issue. We recognize some limitations in our findings: First, we evaluated the effect of different claims on purchase intention. However, some research has demonstrated that consumers’ declarations of ethical consumption are different from their actual behavior (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006): There is an “ethical-purchase gap”, as many consumers declare that they would buy sustainable products but they do not purchase them at all (Bray, Johns, & Kilburn, 2011). Thus, future research should evaluate the effect of different claims on moral satisfaction in real purchase environments. Second, future research could explore whether different food products, such as packaged food and beverages, generate different levels of moral satisfaction and, consequently, purchase intention. As suggested by Grunert et al. (2014), concerns about food products should vary depending on the item, e.g. packaged food should generate concerns about packaging. In such a case, other sustainable claims might generate more moral satisfaction in consumers. This confirms the importance of continuing to do research on what is the most effective claims. Third, future research could test the effect that different CSR policies have on moral satisfaction in consumers from different generations as they could be concerned about other issues. It is important to note that while our study suggests that self-explanatory claims could be added to labels to foster purchase intention, more research is needed to fully understand the emotional processes triggered by labels in developing countries. 6. Conclusion The United Nations calls for a commitment to sustainable development goals (SDG) confronting a predicted crisis in 2030. A SDG that caught attention is number 12: Sustainable production and consumption. This goal aims to promote efficiency in the use of resources, and reduce economic, environmental, and social costs related to production/consumption rhythms (United Nations, 2019)

17 such that it requires the commitment of both producers and consumers. This goal carries doubts about what is sustainable consumption and what role do consumers have on achieving it (Jaca, Prieto-Sandoval, Psomas, & Ormazabal, 2018). This research opens avenues for companies and governments to connect consumers with different sustainability issues. We argue that there is an emotional process whereby consumers approve of and prefer some sustainability related actions. Such emotional process implies that moral satisfaction moderates the effect between and a sustainability-related claim and purchase intention of the fruit presenting the claim. However, not all self-explanatory claims work equally: consumers support local issues that for which they perceive their action matters in solving the problem addressed, out of solidarity and empathy for the cause exposed. Future research could expand on consumers’ emotional experience generated by their perception of sustainability related practices. For example, the idea that an organization supports a social cause may evoke pride and gratitude, or if the cause is not supported by the individual it could lead to negative emotions. A challenge for researchers is to build more knowledge about which claims move consumers the most, and the mechanisms through which this movement occurs to define strategies that improve sustainable consumption.

7. References Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z., & Aspara, J. (2014). Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the Moderating Role of Price Discounts. Journal of Marketing, 78(November), 120–142. Angus, A., & Westbrook, G. (2019). Las 10 principales tendencias globales de consumo para 2019. In Euromonitor. Retrieved from https://blog.euromonitor.com/inteligencia-el-hilo-que- une-a-las-10-principales-tendencias-globales-de-consumo-para-2019/ Annunziata, A., Mariani, A., & Vecchio, R. (2019). Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 17, 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.005 Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2–3), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.010 Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272005 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and stratistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0671

Baskentli, S., Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of CSR domains. Journal of Business Research, 95(February 2018), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.046 Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001 Big Room Inc. (2019). Eco-Label Index. Retrieved from http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ Brach, S., Walsh, G., & Shaw, D. (2018). Sustainable consumption and third-party certification labels: Consumers’ perceptions and reactions. European Management Journal, 36(2), 254– 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.03.005 Bratanova, B., Vauclair, C.-M., Wood, R., Kervyn, N., Schumann, S., & Klein, O. (2015). Savouring morality. Moral satisfaction renders food of ethical origin subjectively tastier. Appetite, 91, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.006 Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 010-0640-9 Catlin, J. R., Luchs, M. G., & Phipps, M. (2017). Consumer Perceptions of the Social Vs. Environmental Dimensions of Sustainability. Journal of Consumer Policy, 40(3), 245–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-017-9356-x Cerri, J., Testa, F., & Rizzi, F. (2018). The more I care , the less I will listen to you : How information , environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers’ attitudes and the purchasing of sustainable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.054 Cho, Y. N., & Berry, C. (2019). Understanding the effects of retailer- and manufacturer-provided sustainability labels on product evaluations and purchase-related outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 100(May 2018), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.019 Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the Intention–Behaviour Mythology. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593102002001645 Delmas, M. A., & Colgan, D. (2018). The Green Bundle: Pairing the market with the planet. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001 Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The “Visual Depiction Effect” in Advertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation through Product Orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1086/661531 Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976

Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T. H., & Oldewage-Theron, W. (2016). Consumers’ environmental and ethical consciousness and the use of the related food products information: The role of perceived consumer effectiveness. Appetite, 107, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.097 Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001 Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404. https://doi.org/10.1086/209123 Iweala, S., Spiller, A., & Meyerding, S. (2019). Buy good, feel good? The influence of the warm glow of giving on the evaluation of food items with ethical claims in the U.K. and Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.266 Janßen, D., & Langen, N. (2017). The bunch of sustainability labels – Do consumers differentiate? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 1233–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.171 Johnston, J., Szabo, M., & Rodney, A. (2011). Good food, good people: Understanding the cultural repertoire of ethical eating. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(3), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540511417996 Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2007). What’s in store? Retail marketing and corporate social responsibility. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 25(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500710722371 Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., Micevski, M., Dlacic, J., & Zabkar, V. (2019). Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults. Journal of Business Research, (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.040 Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003 Ladhari, R., & Tchetgna, N. M. (2017). Values, socially conscious behaviour and consumption emotions as predictors of Canadians’ intent to buy fair trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(6), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12382 Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross Jr., W. T. (2014). I’m Moral, but I Won’t Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678–696. https://doi.org/10.1086/677226 Liang, D., Hou, C., Jo, M. S., & Sarigöllü, E. (2019). Pollution avoidance and green purchase: The role of moral emotions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1301–1310.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.103 Loose, S. M., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food Journal, 115(1), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701311289920 Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18 Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross- Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57–72. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303258971 Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x Montiel, I., Christmann, P., & Zink, T. (2019). The Effect of Sustainability Standard Uncertainty on Certification Decisions of Firms in Emerging Economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3350-0 Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.005 Olsen, N. V., Sijtsema, S. J., & Hall, G. (2010). Predicting consumers’ intention to consume ready-to-eat meals. The role of moral attitude. Appetite, 55(3), 534–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.08.016 Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0213-6 Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How global is international CSR research ? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.003 Pomarici, E., & Vecchio, R. (2014). Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: An exploratory study on Italian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.058 Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(SUPPL. 2), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9729-9 Rees, W., Tremma, O., & Manning, L. (2019). Sustainability cues on packaging: The influence of recognition on purchasing behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.217

Rousseau, S. (2015). The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.002 Schäufele, I., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118 Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243. Seo, H.-S., Van Loo, E. J., Verbeke, W., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., & Zhang, B. (2015). Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.011 Shao, J., & Ünal, E. (2019). What do consumers value more in green purchasing? Assessing the sustainability practices from demand side of business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1473–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.022 Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004 Song, L., Lim, Y., Chang, P., Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Wang, X., … Cai, H. (2019). Ecolabel’s role in informing sustainable consumption: A naturalistic decision making study using eye tracking glasses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.283 Steenis, N. D., van der Lans, I. A., van Herpen, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2018). Effects of sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 854–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.137 Tezer, A., & Onur, H. (2019). The Greenconsumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves Consumption Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2003.03935.x Trudel, R., Klein, J., Sen, S., & Dawar, N. (2019). Feeling Good by Doing Good: A Selfish Motivation for Ethical Choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 0(0), 0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04121-y Türkel, S., & Akan, A. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Communication: A Turkish Industry Example. In P. J. Kitchen & E. Uzuno\uglu (Eds.), Integrated Communications in the Postmodern Era (pp. 151–174). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137388551_7 United Nations. (2019). Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. https://doi.org/10.1556/socec.33.2011.1.5 Vecchio, R., & Annunziata, A. (2015). Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: An experimental auction approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.006

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - Behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3 Wei, W., Miao, L., Kim, G., Behnke, C., & Almanza, B. (2018). Consumer inferences of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims on packaged foods. Journal of Business Research, 83(October 2016), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.046 WHO. (2013). OMS | Fomento del consumo mundial de frutas y verduras. Who. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/es/ Winterich, K. P., Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2012). How political identity and charity positioning increase donations: Insights from Moral Foundations Theory. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.05.002 Wood, D. J. (1991). Revisited Corporate Social Preformance. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718. Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.006