IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China

Listed author(s):
  • Cai, Zhen
  • Aguilar, Francisco X.
Registered author(s):

    The impacts of disclosed level of corporate social responsibility (CSR), domestic versus imported origin and type of construction on consumers' stated wood product purchasing preferences were examined in the U.S. and China. Hierarchical logit models based on a Bayesian framework were utilized to test the magnitude and statistical significance of each wood product attribute using survey data. Results indicate that U.S. and Chinese respondents: (a) were more likely to choose products from manufacturing companies with a higher level of CSR rating compared with an unknown one; (b) preferred domestically manufactured wood products compared to imported ones; and (c) expressed higher interest in wood products made of solid wood compared with composites. In terms of demographics, respondents' higher education levels corresponded with higher preferences for products from companies with the highest (five-star) CSR rating in the U.S. Statistically-significant income effects were detected only in the Chinese sample when respondents indicated their purchasing preferences for wood products with three-star or five-star CSR levels. Implications for improving wood products companies' managerial performance and suggestions for future studies are provided.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913002747
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 95 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 118-127

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:118-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.017
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Isabelle Maignan & David A Ralston, 2002. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses' Self-presentations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 33(3), pages 497-514, September.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. William Shafer & Kyoko Fukukawa & Grace Lee, 2007. "Values and the Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility: The U.S. versus China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 265-284, February.
    4. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    5. Norbert L. W. Wilson, 2012. "How the Cookie Crumbles: A Case Study of Gluten-Free Cookies and Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(2), pages 576-582.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    7. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    8. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    9. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    10. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen, 2010. "Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 308-316, December.
    11. David A Ralston & David J Gustafson & Fanny M Cheung & Robert H Terpstra, 1993. "Differences in Managerial Values: A Study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC Managers," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 24(2), pages 249-275, June.
    12. Zhang, Jian & gan, Jianbang, 2007. "Who will Meet China's Import Demand for Forest Products?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2150-2160, December.
    13. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Vlosky, Richard P., 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1100-1112, May.
    14. Dmitrovic, Tanja & Vida, Irena & Reardon, James, 2009. "Purchase behavior in favor of domestic products in the West Balkans," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 523-535, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:118-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.