Consumers’ awareness of CSR in German Pork Industry

Consumers awareness of CSR inthe German pork industry

Monika Hartmann, Sarah Heinen, Sabrina Melis andJohannes Simons

Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research,Institute for Food and Resource Economics at the University of Bonn,

Bonn, Germany

Abstract

Purpose All food sectors, especially meat production and processing, has been in the dock over thelast decades. CSR is considered as a way for an enterprise to increase its reputation and safeguardagainst risks, e.g. food safety, environmental or social incidence. Thus, it is not surprising that CSRhas gained importance for meat companies. However, the question arises whether consumers areindeed aware and appreciative of this involvement. This paper seeks to address these issues.

Design/methodology/approach A convenient sample of 123 consumers was interviewed with astandardized questionnaire. The data were analyzed using descriptive as well as uni- and multivariatemethods.

Findings The results show that CSR is hardly known by German consumers and only plays amoderate role in their present purchase behavior. However, consumers are interested in CSR and thesurvey results reveal a potential for CSR to become an important determinant in consumers purchasedecision of meat.

Research limitations/implications Concerning the interpretation of the results, there existpotential limitations that arise from the small sample size, the method of data collection and a socialdesirability bias in responses. Future research may analyze the role of CSR in consumers purchasedecisions using non-hypothetical choice experiments.

Practical implications There is scope for companies to gain competitive advantage byresponsible conduct and by spreading information about that in a thoughtful and authentic manner.This holds especially for the area of animal welfare.

Originality/value There exists little research that analyzes consumers attitudes towards andperception of CSR for the food sector and no study so far has concentrated on the meat industry. Thisstudy provides information for decision makers in food companies and researchers interested in theimpact of CSR on consumers attitudes and behavior.

Keywords Consumer purchase behaviour, Corporate social responsibility, Meat (pork), Germany,Social responsibility, Consumers

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionFrom all food sectors especially meat production and processing has been in the dockover the last decades. Scandals on rotten meat, dioxin, animal torture or inadequatelabor conditions have gained considerable media attention and put the reputation ofthe whole sector at risk (Albersmeier and Spiller, 2009; Heyder and Theuvsen, 2009).Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is considered as a way for an enterprise to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The authors thank the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia and the European Union forfunding this study which was accomplished within the scope of the projectForschungsnetzwerk Innovation durch Qualitatskommunikation (FIN-Q.NRW).

BFJ115,1

124

British Food JournalVol. 115 No. 1, 2013pp. 124-141q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701311289911

safeguard against risks following, e.g. food safety, environmental or social incidence(Hartmann, 2011). Thus, it is not surprising that CSR has gained importance by meatcompanies. However, the question arises whether consumers are aware andappreciative of this involvement. While there is considerable research that analyzesconsumers perception of CSR in general (e.g. European Commission, 2009; Brown andDacin, 1997; DLG, 2010), there exist little for the food sector (e.g. Hingley, 2010;Lindgreen et al., 2009 for some aspects of CSR). To the knowledge of the authors nostudy so far has concentrated on the meat sector.

Against this background the paper focuses on analyzing consumers awareness ofmeat companies CSR involvement, their appreciation of different CSR activities as wellas the influence of CSR on consumers purchase behavior. In our study we concentrateon pork and thus the meat, which has by far the highest relevance in Germany(BMELV, 2009).

The paper is structured as follows. After a discussion of the CSR concept, anoverview is provided with respect to studies analyzing consumers perception of CSRand their willingness to consider responsible conduct in their purchase decision. Insection 3 the methodologies used for data collection and data analysis are describedwhile the results are summarized in section 4. Finally, the findings are discussed(section 5) and conclusions are drawn (section 6).

2. Background of the study2.1 The concept of corporate social responsibilityIn 2011 CSR has been ranked as the most important issue by managers in the GlobalRetail and Consumer Goods Sector (The Consumer Good Forum, 2011)[1]. Also in thescientific, political as well as public arena CSR has gained considerable importanceover the last decade (Hansen and Schrader, 2005). There exist a large number of CSRdefinitions that though often similar in core items differ in their focus (Dahlsrud, 2008;Caroll, 1999). For this paper we will rely on the definition of the ISO 26000 (2011):

Social responsibility (SR) is the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of itsdecisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethicalbehavior that contributes to sustainable development, including health and welfare of society,takes into account expectations of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law andconsistent with international norms of behavior and is integrated throughout and practiced inan organizations relationships.

The definition, first, indicates that businesses are accountable for their impact onsociety and the environment. Second, the definition acknowledges that themanagement of a company includes the management of the relationship with itsstakeholders with the latter being those individuals or groups who have a stake in thecompany and thus are and can be influenced by the company (Freeman et al., 2010).

There is an ongoing debate in the literature on the economic effects of CSR. Whileirresponsible conduct of firms in general has a negative influence on firm performance(Frooman, 1997), the results are more equivocal regarding the effects of firmsresponsible conduct on performance (Wood, 2010; Schreck, 2009; for the food sector seeHeyder and Theuvsen, 2009). Indeed, positive effects can only materialize ifstakeholders reward responsible conduct of firms. In the following an overview will beprovided whether consumers as one of the central stakeholder groups are aware of

CSR in theGerman pork

industry

125

CSR, how they perceive companys responsible conduct and whether it is reflected intheir purchase decision.

2.2 Literature overview: consumer awareness, perception and response towards CSR2.2.1 Consumers awareness of CSR. Consumers awareness of CSR has beeninvestigated in several studies. In general the findings indicate that most consumers donot know the term CSR[2], search not actively and are little informed aboutcompanies CSR activities (Sempora, 2008; Schoenheit et al., 2007; Penn SchoenBerland, 2010). According to a recent survey among US adults only 11 per cent state tohave heard about CSR messages from a company in the past year and the largemajority (80 per cent) has never read about a companys CSR agenda on their website(Penn Schoen Berland, 2010). But even though only few consumers state to be familiarwith the term CSR and are rather passive in obtaining information, most have clearassociations what they expect from firms. In this respect, consumers mentionaccountability, honesty, lawfulness, environmental responsibility, responsibilitiesregarding employees and local suppliers (Schoenheit et al., 2007).

2.2.2 Consumers perception and response of CSR. The relationship betweencompanys responsible conduct and consumers perception, attitudes and purchase(intention) has been addressed in a large number of surveys, in several experimentalstudies as well as in focus group discussions. Based on the Millennium Poll with 25,000respondents in 23 countries MORI (2000) shows that the most commonly mentionedfactors influencing the view held by citizens regarding a company relates to employeetreatment, community commitment, ethics and the environment and thus to CSR.Recent surveys carried out at a global (e.g. Nielsen, 2008), EU (European Commission,2009), as well as at a single country level (e.g. PSB, Landor and Burson Marsteller, 2009and Do Well Do Good, 2010a, 2010b for the US; Dawkins, 2009 for the UK; BVE, RolandBerger and GfK, 2009; Icon Added Value, 2010 and Sempora, 2008) reveal that the vastmajority of consumers cares about the responsible conduct of a company and that alarge share of those is willing to consider socially responsible activities of enterprisesin their purchase decision. Furthermore, consumers declare to be willing to pay higherprices for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Mostof them would accept a 5 percent surcharge, while only few would pay 15 percent more(Sempora, 2008; SevenOneMedia, 2009; DLG, 2010).

While surveys and opinion polls suggesting high levels of consumer interest incorporate responsibility and an impact of CSR on consumption (Smith, 2009; Mohr et al.,2001) the results of experimental studies reveal that the strength and in some caseseven the sign of this link is mediated by several factors (Hartmann, 2011). According toMohr and Webb (2005), Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) and Klein and Dawar (2004) theeffect of CSR initiatives on company evaluation and product purchase intention is afunction of company-specific (e.g. CSR issues, company reputation) and consumerspecific features (e.g. relevance of CSR) as well as the interaction between the two.Other studies point to the relevance of perceived fit between consumers lifestyle andconsumers value on the one hand and CSR activities on the other hand (Lee et al.,2011), perceived importance of and expectation about ethical behavior (Creyer andRoss, 1997), demographics (Auger et al., 2003), CSR strategy (pro-active versusreactive, e.g. Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Wagner et al., 2009 and Groza et al., 2011),information source (e.g. Groza et al., 2011), country (and thus cultural differences;Maignan, 2001)[3] and distance (e.g. domestic versus foreign CSR activity; e.g. Russel

BFJ115,1

126

and Russel, 2010) as mediating and modifying factors with respect to perception,purchase intention and/or willingness to pay. Furthermore, several studies indicatethat CSR initiatives do not per se lead to positive effects (e.g. Sen and Bhattacharya,2001; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) but that, e.g. initiatives with a perceived lowCSR-company fit or those that are perceived as being profit motivated may negativelyimpact consumers believes, attitudes, and purchase intention (Becker-Olsen et al.,2006). In addition, research has revealed a negativity bias consumers evaluation ofcompanies seems far more sensitive regarding negative compared to positive CSRinformation (see, e.g. Creyer and Ross, 1996; Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Sen andBhattacharya, 2001; Klein and Dawar, 2004; Mohr and Webb, 2005). Finally, theexperimental studies by Klein and Dawar (2004) and Eisingerich et al. (2011) show thatCSR activities can help firms build up general goodwill. The results suggest that afirms prior positive CSR record leads to resistance regarding negative information[4]while a negative CSR reputation can turn to be a considerable burden for a firm facinga crisis (Klein and Dawar, 2004). The success of CSR as an insurance factor ismediated by the importance consumers place on CSR (Klein and Dawar, 2004), bycustomers expertise and also by the area of crisis (e.g. CSR, service or customerrelated; Eisingerich et al., 2011).

Finally, there are some qualitative studies based on in-depth interviews that analyzein more detail what consumers think and feel about socially responsible conduct offirms as well as their own approach regarding ethical consumption (e.g. Brunk, 2010;Mohr et al., 2001; Szmigin et al., 2009). Brunk (2010) investigates the dimensions ofcorporate ethics from a consumer perspective and identifies main dimensions ofconsumers perceived companies responsibility and find that those partly differ fromcompanies perspective. The complexity of (ethical) consumption is revealed in thestudies by Mohr et al. (2001) and Szmigin et al. (2009). The results show that thoughrespondents were in general positive about socially responsible companies only a smallgroup actively practices socially responsible consumer behaviour (Mohr et al., 2001).For the majority of consumers competing priorities between ethical values, price,quality and convenience request flexibility in real decision making (Mohr et al., 2001;Szmigin et al., 2009).

Previous studies indicate the high complexity regarding the relationship between(un)responsible conduct of firms on the one hand and consumer perception, evaluationand purchase behavior on the other hand. So far no study investigated the consumerresponse of CSR in the meat industry. However, especially this sector seems to beinteresting to analyze as meat production has been criticized in the past due to,e.g. animal welfare incidences, high green-house gas emission, low labor standards andrainforest destruction due to GMO feed. Thus, the potential for responsible conductseems to be especially pronounced in this sector leading us to focus on meat productionin the empirical analysis of this paper.

3. MethodologyReferring to the results mentioned before, consumers awareness and perception andtheir potential purchase behaviour towards CSR in the German pork industry wereexamined. The design of the study and its results are presented in the followingparagraphs.

The data were obtained from face to face interviews based on a standardizedquestionnaire in the city of Bonn (Germany) in spring 2010. Respondents were


industry

127

recruited as a convenient sample on different public places in the city. Only thoserespondents that declared to consume pork and do the grocery shopping for theirhousehold regularly were considered. A total of 123 consumers took part in the survey.The distribution of selected socio-demographic parameters within the sample and theGerman population is shown in Table I. Comparing the two distributions reveals thatmales who do grocery shopping, younger consumers, highly educated consumers aswell as consumers in households without under aged children are overrepresented inthe sample.

The questionnaire consists of four parts. The first part of the survey aims to analyzerespondents shopping habits regarding meat. The second part covers consumersknowledge, awareness and association with respect to the terms corporate socialresponsibility and the German equivalent Unternehmensverantwortung, first in a

Characteristics Sample (n 123) German population (2009)Gender grocery shoppingMale 38.2 27.7Female 61.8 72.3

Age group15-29 30.1 17.630-39 years 17.9 12.640-49 years 21.1 17.050-59 years 18.7 13.8. 60 years 12.2 25.6

HouseholdOf one person 22.0 19.6Of two persons 48.8 33.6Of three persons 17.1 18.8Of four persons 10.6 19.0Of five or more persons 1.6 9.0

EducationNo graduation 0 4.0Low education 12.2 40.1Modest education 18.7 22.3High education 39.0 12.2College education 26.8 14.2Other 2.4 7.2

CareerPupil/student/apprentice 20.5 17.2Housewife/househusband 4.1 Not availableBlue-collar 0.8 12.3White-collar 45.1 26.9Civil servant 5.7 2.6Self-employed 10.7 5.2Retired person 7.4 18.4Unemployed 5.7 4.2

Source: Own illustration based on survey results, on data of the Federal Statistical Office (2010, 2011),the Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (2010) and the MRI (2008)

Table I.Comparison of thecharacteristics of thesample and the Germanpopulation (in %)

BFJ115,1

128

general and thereafter with a special focus to the meat producing industry. Third,consumers perception of different CSR activities is analyzed, while the fourth sectiondeals with the relevance of CSR for consumers purchase behavior and consumerswillingness to pay for pork produced in a socially and environmentally responsibleway.

The Data were analyzed using the SPSS/PC program applying descriptive as wellas uni- and multivariate methods (e.g. binomial regression, exploratory factor analysisand analysis of variance (ANOVA)).

ResultsConsumers buying behaviorConsumers were prompted in an open question to name those criteria they consider intheir purchase decision for meat.

As Figure 1 reveals appearance, freshness, amount of fat, price and overall qualityare the attributes most mentioned by consumers. Only few consumers seem to considerCSR factors like animal welfare (8 percent), origin (12 percent) or organic production(4 percent) while shopping for meat. Figure 1 also shows that only 1 percent mentionlabels as being a relevant factor in their purchase decisions. However, when askedspecifically whether they consider (quality) labels when buying meat 28 percentdeclared to do so (12 percent always, 16 percent sometimes) though only one third ofthose were able to name a label (e.g. local origin, organic production, QS, DLG). A total19 percent out of the 72 percent who do not consider labels buy their meat at thebutchers or the meat counter where personal trust likely substitutes for the credibilitysignaled by a label.

Figure 1.Criteria consumers

consider in their purchasedecision of meat (in %)


industry

129

4.2 Consumers awareness of CSROne aim of the study was to investigate consumers awareness of CSR in general and,more specifically, in the German meat producing sector. Consumers were askedwhether they knew the term Corporate Social Responsibility and, since the survey tookplace in Germany, also whether they were familiar with the equivalent German termUnternehmensverantwortung (UV). We asked for both terms because they are bothused in Germany. Moreover many companies communicate their engagement in thisfield under the term Corporate Social Responsibility, e.g. on their German websites.

About 50 percent of the respondents are familiar with the German term while theEnglish term corporate social responsibility is only known by 28 percent of therespondents. Of the survey participants 19 percent knew both terms, whereas42 percent have never heard either. Those consumers familiar with CSR and/or UVwere asked to name the information source they heard or read about those terms.

As Figure 2 shows, newspaper, television or consumers workplaces are most oftenmentioned and thus seem to be the primary sources where respondents obtained theirinformation with respect to CSR or UV.

Respondents were prompted to rate the credibility of different information sourcesregarding a companys CSR record on a five-point scale ranging from not credible at all(1) to very credible (5). Respondents evaluated label of independent groups (mean:3.9) as most credible followed by non-management employees of a company andword-of-mouth recommendation (both mean 3.1) (see Figure 3). Especially companyreports (mean: 2.1) and information provided by senior executives of a company (mean:2.1) lack credibility from survey respondents point of view.

Consumers were, in addition, asked whether they actively search for informationabout companies CSR (UV) measures in general and with respect to the meat industry.Results show that the large majority of consumers (92 percent) had in the past neveractively searched for a companys CSR information. Regarding the meat sector thisshare is slightly higher with 96 percent. Meat enterprises information was gatheredabout Kaufland, Wiesenhof and Du Darfst.

Figure 2.Sources where consumershave heard or read theterm CSR or UV (in %)

BFJ115,1

130

A Fisher Exact Test shows that consumers active information search depends onwhether they are familiar with CSR and/or UV or not (p 0:005) with those familiarwith either one of the terms are, as expected, more likely to inform themselves about acompanys social or ecological actions than consumers who have never heard or readabout CSR/UV. In contrast, demographics (e.g. age, sex or educational level) seem notto influence the probability that consumers search for information as a binomialregression did not provide any significant results.

Being asked to name a company they consider responsible, 78 percent of therespondents were not able to mention any, while the remaining participants mentionedone or several of the following enterprises, e.g. Adidas, Ritter Sport, Krombacher,McDonalds, Hipp. Those respondents were invited to also name a meat company theyconsider active in the area of CSR. Indeed 11 percent were able to provide an example(e.g. Rasting, Tonnies, organic farmers, Du Darfst, the local butcher).

Consumers perception of CSR in the meat producing industryIndependent of their familiarity with the terms CSR or UV, consumers were askedabout their associations regarding responsible enterprise conduct in the porkproducing industry. A total 43 consumers (35 percent) did not have any associations(see Figure 4). From the remaining 80 consumers, 76 mention animal welfare. Asindicated in Figure 4, consumers mention a number of additional aspects they link toCSR in the meat industry, with residues/feeding and quality taking second and thirdplace, however, being far less often mentioned compared to animal welfare.

Since many consumers were unfamiliar with both the English and the German term,CSR was briefly explained to survey participants prior to further questioning[5]. Thisway it was assured that all respondents had the same general understanding of theterm. Following this clarification respondents were asked to judge the CSR record inthe meat producing industry on a scale ranging from very bad (1) to very good (5).Furthermore, survey participants were requested to compare the CSR in the meatindustry with the one in other industries as well as over time (scale ranging from muchworse (1) to much better (5)).

Figure 3.Credibility of different

information sourcesregarding a companys

CSR record (mean)


industry

131

As Figures 5-7 illustrate, about every third respondent did not answer the questions.They stated not to know enough about CSR in the meat producing industry to judge it.Those who felt able to answer the questions rated CSR performance in the meatproducing industry rather low (negative) (mean: 2.5) and slightly (mean: 2.7), thoughstatistically significant worse (p 0:004, test value 3 (neutral category)), than in theoverall economy. Interestingly, survey participants see an improvement in theresponsible conduct of enterprises in the meat producing sector over the last years(mean: 3.2), which is significantly different from the neutral category 3 (p 0:022), too.

Influence of CSR activities on consumers purchase behaviorThe fourth part of the survey investigated the potential impact of CSR activities onconsumers purchase behavior. On a scale ranging from 1 (no influence at all) to 5 (verystrong influence), respondents were asked to indicate for 12 CSR activities and3 traditional purchase criteria how influential each of those is for their purchasedecision, assuming appropriate information were given. Table II provides the mean foreach criterion.

Figure 4.Consumers associationswith CSR in the porkproducing industry(absolute numbers)

Figure 5.Consumers judgment ofCSR in the meat producingindustry (in %)

BFJ115,1

132

Based on consumers statements quality has the strongest influence on consumerspurchase behavior, closely followed by those CSR-criteria regarding animal welfare(animal welfare, short transport times, adequate anaesthesia). Also, the CSR itemtransparency while producing has a rather strong impact on respondents purchasedecision. Criteria linked to employees and the environment have a comparableinfluence as the traditional purchase criteria price or amount of fat, while charitabledonations as well as employees volunteering seems hardly able to influenceconsumers purchase behavior.

To structure results according to the action fields of CSR we summarized the itemsin four indices, one for animal welfare, one for environment, one for employee issuesand one regarding philanthropy. These index values demonstrate that animal welfareis by far rated highest and has according to the statements of the respondents more impact on consumers purchase behavior than the other CSR activities. Theresults are in line with the answers to the open question above (see 4.3). Companiesinvolvement in philanthropy is the CSR area with the lowest potential impact (seeTable III).

To be able to investigate coherences between the relevance of CSR-criteria andconsumers demographics, first an exploratory factor analysis with a Varimax rotationwas conducted followed by an ANOVA. The factor analysis identified four differentCSR factors (employees, animal welfare, environment, philanthropy) (compareTable IV).

The results of the factor analysis reveal that statements referring to the same fieldof action can be subsumed to one factor. The factor analysis, thus confirms ourapproach above to summarize the items regarding CSR areas based on four indices.

Figure 6.Consumers judgment of

CSR in the meat producingindustry in comparison to

other industries (in %)

Figure 7.Consumers judgment of

the development of CSR inthe meat producing

industry over the lastyears (in %)


industry

133

The four factors were considered as dependent variables and consumersdemographics (sex, age, educational level, income and career) were included asindependent variables in the ANOVA analysis. A significant model could only befound for one of the CSR factors, CSR environment (F 7.466; p 0.000). Thedemographics age ( p 0.001) and career ( p 0.001) as well as the interaction of sexand age ( p 0.014) and the interaction of age and income ( p 0.000) have asignificant influence on the importance of the CSR factor environment. However, wewere unable to detect significant models for the other three CSR factors (CSRemployees (F 1.063; p 0.489), CSR animal welfare (F 1.157; p 0.415), CSRphilanthropy (F 1452; p 0.242)). Moreover we did not succeed in buildingreasonable segments by means of cluster analysis.

Variable Mean

CSR-criteriaAnimal welfare 4.6Short transport time for living animals 4.4Adequate anesthesia before slaughter 4.3Transparency while producing 4.0Local origin of the meat 4.0Employees adequate payment 3.8Employees good working conditions 3.7Exclusive assignment of trained employees 3.6Companys environmental protection 3.5No assignment of contract workers 3.1Companys charitable donations 2.1Employees volunteering 2.0

Other purchase criteriaQuality 4.7Amount of fat 3.5Price 3.5

Notes: Values for the criteria were obtained by asking respondents to indicate on a scale ranging from1 (no influence at all) to 5 (very strong influence) to what extent the respective criteria influences theirpurchase behaviorSource: Survey results

Table II.Influence of CSRactivities on consumerspurchase behavior

Field of action Index value

Animal welfare 4.43Environment 3.75Employees 3.55Philanthropy 2.05

Notes: Indices for the different issues are non weighted averages of those criteria characterising thespecific issue (see Table II); values for the criteria were obtained by asking respondents to indicate on ascale ranging from 1 (no influence at all) to 5 (very strong influence) to what extent the respectivecriteria influences their purchase behaviourSource: Survey results

Table III.Indices of the influence ofCSR-issues on consumerspurchase behavior

BFJ115,1

134

In addition to the question about the general use of (quality) labels in meat purchasedecisions (see section 4.1) we asked respondents whether they would appreciate a labelon meat produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Almost90 percent of the respondents would welcome such a label. A Fisher Exact Test couldnot detect a significant relation between consumers approval of a CSR label and theuse of a label in their purchase decision ( p 0.649).

Finally, respondents additional willingness to pay for meat produced in a sociallyand environmentally responsible way was analyzed. Based on the assumption that apound of regular ground meat is worth 2e, respondents had to indicate how much theywould be willing to pay for ground meat produced in a socially and environmentallysound way.

Of the respondents 82 percent indicated that they are willing to pay more while18 percent said they would not. On average, consumers are willing to pay 68 per cent(34 percent) more for responsibly produced ground meat compared to regular meat.

5. DiscussionThe results of our survey reveal that the discussion on CSR though prominent in thebusiness, political and research arena has not reached most consumers yet. The largemajority of respondents had never heard or read the term CSR before and even theGerman term Unternehmensverantwortung was only familiar to every secondconsumer. In addition, hardly anybody could mention a context. Merely 8 percent haveever actively searched for information about a companys CSR record, probablybecause they do not know the concept of CSR or UV. But even without being aware ofthe concept people could inform themselves about company actions in the field of CSR.Only few could name a company they consider to have a positive CSR profile. Thosefindings confirm the results of previous studies (see section 2.1; Schoenheit et al., 2007;Sempora, 2008; Penn Schoen Berland, 2010).

Despite consumers low awareness of CSR most of them have clear associationswith respect to responsible conduct in the meat producing industry with animalwelfare (e.g. species appropriate husbandry and treating of animals, short transport

Factor loadings

CSR-criteriaCSR

employeesCSR animal

welfareCSR

environmentCSR

philanthropy

Companys environmental protection 0.759Local origin of the meat 0.767Animal welfare 0.857Short transport time for living animals 0.871Adequate anesthesia before slaughter 0.825Assignment of trained employees 0.670Employees adequate payment 0.815No assignment of contract workers 0.853Employees good working conditions 0.852Employees volunteering 0.948Companys charitable donations 0.957

Source: Survey results

Table IV.Exploratory factor

analysis of CSR criteria


industry

135

time for living animals, adequate anesthesia before slaughter) being by far the issuemost often mentioned by consumers.

Given the lack of familiarity with CSR it is not surprising that almost every thirdsurvey participant felt unable to rate the CSR conduct of the meat producing sector onan absolute scale and/or relative to the economy as a whole and over time. Thosehowever, who provided a rating, evaluated the sector rather negatively. However, thecomparison with the overall economy indicates that survey participants seem to havean overall negative view on the responsible conduct of enterprises in Germany. Thelatter is likely due to a lack of information regarding the CSR conduct of firms. The factthat consumers do not actively search for respective information and that informationsources such as newspapers/magazines and TV most heavily used by consumers havea bias in providing negative information (information on scandals rather than onpositive conduct) might explain this result as well as consumer cynicism aroundcompanies motives. This, however, also reveals the importance of informingconsumers about firms social and environmental activities and the relevance ofsafeguarding against scandals by, e.g. responsible social and environmental conductand quality assurance.

When asked in an open question about relevant criteria while purchasing meat,consumers hardly regard CSR criteria. Thus, one could assume that CSR is of littlerelevance in consumers purchase decision for meat. However, if consumers assumethat information is available, the rating of different CSR items and traditional purchasecriteria provide a different picture. Though the traditional purchase criteria qualityranks highest, it is closely followed by animal welfare issues, transparency and localorigin, all of which are according to respondents evaluation more important than theprice or the amount of fat. The results also provide a hint that different areas of CSRactivities vary in their relevance for consumers purchase decision with issues such asphilanthropic criteria like employees volunteering or companies charitable donationsbeing of little relevance. According to our analysis we could only detect a significantinfluence of demographics on consumers interest in responsible conduct of firms forone of the four identified factor areas, environment.

Our study shows on the one hand, that consumers do not inform themselves aboutCSR. On the other hand CSR is regarded as important and information about the CSRperformance of companies may gain influence on consumers purchase decision.Taking this into account, there is scope for companies to gain competitive advantageby responsible conduct and by spreading information about that in a thoughtful andauthentic manner. As the results show, for respondents animal welfare is mostimportant, thus information in this area promises the highest impact.

Considering the results regarding trust in information and information sources(Figure 3), a label approved by independent organizations meets best the preferences ofconsumers. But even though consumers express a need for such a label confirmingsocially and environmentally responsible meat production, the market effect of such alabel may be small as according to our results only few consumers consider labelsin their present purchase behavior.

6. ConclusionWe start with the limitations of this study. A first limitation relates to the questionwhether or not the results can be generalized. Data were collected in the city of Bonn.Thus only those who were at this location at the time of the survey had the opportunity

BFJ115,1

136

to take part in the survey. The location of the survey might explain that the sampleincludes more males who do grocery shopping, more young and highly educatedconsumers as well as more consumers in households without under aged children thanthe entire population of Germany. Second the random sample of 123 people is quitesmall which means, that it is difficult to get significant results. Response bias is a thirdpotential limitation of the study.

In spite of these limitations the paper gives evidence for the relevance of CSR forGerman consumers. Even though most consumers do not know the terms CorporateSocial Responsibility or Unternehmensverantwortung they seem to have ideas aboutthe way companies should behave. Regarding meat production and processing, animalwelfare plays a dominant role.

Though there is hardly an unaided awareness of CSR, information aboutirresponsible companies conduct can easily gain considerable public attention andthus negatively influence markets. This especially holds for animal welfare as peoplefeel close to animals and uncomfortable if they learn that a company does not treatthose in an appropriate way (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Recent efforts to find waysto avoid piglet castration provides evidence for the fact that members of the valuechain want to prevent public discussion about this subject.

Future research should have a closer look at the way consumers make theirpurchase decision and how they take CSR in this process into account in anenvironment of information overload and saturated markets. Getting a deeper insightinto the way consumers manage to select just a few products out of a choice set withthousands of opportunities would contribute to better understand the relevance of CSRin purchase decisions and to explain the gap between consumers statements andbehavior in the market. Moreover it could help to develop appropriate informationstrategies that could support consumers in making responsible choices.

Notes

1. The Top of Mind Survey of the Consumer Goods Forum aims at detecting the mostrelevant issues for consumer goods companies estimated on a recurring survey. The sampleof the 2011 survey encompasses 443 decision-makers in consumer goods companies from 45countries. In the 2011 survey CSR was ranked first, food and product safety second and theoverall economic environment including demographic change and trends in consumerdemands took place three.

2. In contrast the term sustainability is known by the majority (84 percent) of consumersaccording to a survey conducted in 2010. Respondents define this term as regeneration,environmental protection and looking at the future (DLG, 2010).

3. The relevance of country for consumers ethical beliefs is analysed in Auger et al. (2003).Though the authors are able to detect differences in attitudes with respect to social andethical issues similarities between most of the countries analyzed dominate.

4. However, Wagner et al. (2009) also point to the danger that inconsistent CSR information(e.g. positive communication by firms and negative reports on firms by third parties) maylead to perception of corporate hypocrisy and thus induce a negative attitude of consumerstowards those firms.

5. We explained CSR as follows: CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social andenvironmental concerns in their business operations. This implementation is voluntary andgoes beyond laws.


industry

137

References

Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (2009), Das Ansehen der Fleischwirtschaft: zur Bedeutung einerstufenubergreifenden Perspektive, in Bohm, J., Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (Eds), DieErnahrungswirtschaft im Scheinwerferlicht der Offentlichkeit, EUL Verlag, Lohmar,pp. 213-50.

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J. (2003), What will consumers pay for socialproduct features?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 281-304.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), The impact of perceived corporate socialresponsibility on consumer behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1,pp. 46-53.

BMELV (2009), Statistisches Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 2009,NW-Verlag, Bremerhaven.

Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations andconsumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Brunk, K. (2010), Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions a consumerperspective of corporate ethics, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 255-62.

BVE, Roland Berger and GfK (2009), Consumers Choice 09 Corporate Responsibility in derErnahrungsindustrie, Nurnberg.

Caroll, A.B. (1999), Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct,Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.

Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1997), The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: doconsumers really care about business ethics?, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14No. 6, pp. 421-32.

Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1996), The impact of corporate behavior on perceived productvalue, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 173-85.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008), How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 1-13.

Dawkins, J. (2009), Down but not out: corporate responsibility in turbulent times, Ipsos MORI.Review of the Year Things Can Only Get Better. Key Findings for British Business, IpsosMORI, London.

Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (2010), Rentenversicherung in Zahlen, DeutscheRentenversicherung Bund, Berlin.

DLG (2010), Nachhaltigkeit aus Verbrauchersicht. Studie 2010.

Do Well Do Good (2010a), The Do Well Do Good Public Opinion Survey on corporate socialresponsibility Summary Report, available at: http://dowelldogood.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DWDG_CSR_Final.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

Do Well Do Good (2010b), The Do Well Do Good Public Opinion Survey on cause marketingSummary Report, available at: http://dowelldogood.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DWDG_Cause_survey.pdf (accessed 8 November 2011).

Eisingerich, A., Rubera, G., Seifert, M. and Bhardwaj, G. (2011), Doing good and doing betterdespite negative infomation? The role of corporate social responsibility in consumerresistance to negative information, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-75.

European Commission (2009), Europeans attitude towards the issue of sustainableconsumption and production, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_256_en.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

BFJ115,1

138

Federal Statistical Office (2010), Statistisches Jahrbuch 2010, Federal Statistical Office,Wiesbaden.

Federal Statistical Office (2011), Mikrozensus, Bevolkerung und Erwerbstatigkeit, Beruf,Ausbildung und Arbeitsbedingungen der Erwerbstatigen Fachserie 1 Reihe 4.1.2 Allgemeine und Methodische Erlauterungen 2009, Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden.

Folkes, V. and Kamins, M. (1999), Effects of information about firms ethical and unethicalactions on consumers attitudes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-59.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, W. and de Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory The State Of The Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Frooman, J. (1997), Socially irresponsible and illegal behaviour and shareholder wealth:a meta-analysis of event studies, Business and Society, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 221-49.

Groza, M., Pronschinskee, M. and Walker, M. (2011), Perceived organizational motives andconsumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102No. 4, pp. 639-52.

Hansen, U. and Schrader, U. (2005), Corporate social responsibility als aktuelles Thema derBetriebswirtschaftslehre, Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 373-95.

Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. (2002), Consumer perception of organic food production andfarm animal welfare, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Nos 3/4/5, pp. 287-99.

Hartmann, M. (2011), Corporate social responsibility in the food sector, European Review ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 297-324.

Heyder, M. and Theuvsen, L. (2009), Corporate social responsibility im agribusiness, in Bohm,J., Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (Eds), Die Ernahrungswirtschaft im Scheinwerferlicht derOffentlichkeit, EUL Verlag, Lohmar, pp. 47-73.

Hingley, M. (2010), Networks in socially embedded local food supply: the case of retailerco-operatives, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 111-28.

Icon Added Value (2010), CSR auf dem Prufstand 2010, Icon Added Value, Nurnberg.

ISO 26000 (2011), DIN ISO 26000, Leitfaden zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung (ISO26000:2010), ISO, Berlin.

Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004), Corporate social responsibility and consumers attributions andbrand evaluations in a product-harm crisis, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-17.

Lee, E., Park, S.P., Rapert, M.I. and Newman, C.L. (2011), Does perceived consumer fit matter incorporate social responsibility issues?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11,pp. 1558-64.

Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M.K. and Vanhamme, J. (2009), The Crisis of Food Brands: SustainingSafe, Innovative, and Competitive Food Supply, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.

Maignan, I. (2001), Consumers perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-culturalcomparison, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Mohr, L. and Webb, D. (2005), The effects of corporate social responsibility and price onconsumer responses, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-47.

Mohr, L., Webb, D. and Harris, K. (2001), Do consumers expect companies to be sociallyresponsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility and buying behavior, TheJournal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.

MORI (2000), The First Ever European Survey of Consumers Attitudes towards Corporate SocialResponsibility, Research for CSR Europe, MORI, Brussels, London.


industry

139

MRI (2008), Nationale Verzehrsstudie II. Ergebnisbericht, Teil 1 einschlielichErganzungsband/Schichtindex. Die bundesweite Befragung zur Ernahrung vonJugendlichen und Erwachsenen, available at: www.was-esse-ich.de/uploads/media/NVS_II_Abschlussbericht_Teil_1_mit_Ergaenzungsbericht.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

Nielsen (2008), Corporate Ethics and Fair Trading. A Nielsen Global Consumer Report, availableat: http://pt.nielsen.com/documents/tr_200811_CSR_Fairtrade_global_reportOctober08.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

Penn Schoen Berland (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility Branding Survey 2010, available at:www.psbresearch.com/files/CSR%20Branding%20Survey%202010%20EXTERNAL%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

PSB, Landor and Burson Marsteller (2009), Corporate Citizenship Study, available at:www.bursonmarsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Documents/Corporate%20Citizenship%20Executive%20Summary.pdf (accessed 7 May2011).

Russel, D. and Russel, C. (2010), Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate socialresponsibility initiatives: egocentric tendencies and their moderators, Marketing Letters,Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 65-81.

Schoenheit, I., Bruns, M. and Gruenewald, M. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility alsVerbraucherinformation, IMUG Arbeitspapier 17/2007, Hannover.

Schreck, P. (2009), The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Understanding andMeasuring Economic Impacts of Corporate Social Performance, Physica-Verlag,Heidelberg.

Sempora (2008), Corporate Social Responsibility Bedeutung aus Konsumentensicht, pressrelease, 19 May, Bad Homburg.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 225-43.

SevenOneMedia (2009), Trendreport Grun, available at: www.sevenone.ch/imperia/md/content/content/Research/Marktanalyse/branchen/specials/TrendReport_Gruen.pdf(accessed 6 May 2011).

Smith, N.C. (2009), Consumers as drivers of corporate social responsibility, in Crane, A.,McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook ofCorporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 281-302.

Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. and McEachern, M. (2009), The conscious consumer: taking a flexibleapproach to ethical behavior, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2,pp. 224-31.

Wagner, T., Lutz, R. and Weitz, B. (2009), Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threat ofinconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73No. 6, pp. 77-91.

Wood, D.J. (2010), Measuring corporate social performance: a review, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 50-84.

Further reading

The Consumer Goods Forum (2011), Economic concerns and consumer demand remain toppriorities for consumer goods industry, press release, 4 March 2010, Paris.

BFJ115,1

140

About the authorsProfessor Dr Monika Hartmann is Chair of the Department of Agricultural and Food MarketResearch at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. Shereceived her Doctoral degree from the University of Giessen. Prior to her position in Bonn shewas at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO),Halle, Germany. Her current research interests include information and communication policy inthe food industry, demand for food products and consumer protection policies, ethicalconsumption, corporate social responsibility in the food industry as well as the competitivenessof the food sector. Monika Hartmann is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Dipl.-Ing. agr. Sarah Heinen got her diploma from Bonn University in 2009. Her major was inagricultural economics. Currently she is a PhD student at the Department of Agricultural andFood Market Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University,Germany. Her research interests are corporate social responsibility in the pork industry,sustainability in the food industry and standards and certifications in the food sector.

Dipl. oec. troph. Sabrina Melis was a student at the Department of Agricultural and FoodMarket Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany.She graduated from Bonn University in 2010 with a degree in home economics.

Dr Johannes Simons is Senior Researcher at the Department of Agricultural and Food MarketResearch at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. Hereceived his PhD from the University of Bonn. His research interests include markets foragricultural products and food, food safety, organic food, consumer information, commodityfuture markets and methods of market research.


industry

141

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Consumers’ awareness of CSR in German Pork Industry

Documents

Transcript of Consumers’ awareness of CSR in German Pork Industry