Consumer Boycott Responses To Corporate Social Irresponsibility: Evidence From Taiwan

The irresponsible practices of financial institutions could raise concerns about damaging the environment or stakeholders’ rights, thereby prompting consumers to impose boycott sanctions. Drawing upon previous literature, this study develops a conceptual framework incorporating both external and internal antecedents of the perceived egregiousness and anticipated guilt that subsequently induce consumers’ boycott. This study collects 377 valid samples and employs structural equation model (SEM) to test the hypotheses. The findings show that negative publicity is insignificantly associated with the perceived egregiousness; however, blame attribution could generate consumers’ perceived egregiousness and, in turn, lead to consumers’ boycott. On the other hand, internal factors (i.e., self-accountability and justice restoration potential) are found to directly or indirectly influence boycott participation. Specifically, a greater extent of self-accountability will yield boycott intention via the anticipated guilt whereas justice restoration potential will directly facilitate boycotting. As expected, a higher substitute cost will reduce boycott intention. Compared with those who had prior consumption experiences, those who did not tended to reveal higher levels of boycott intention. In addition, consumers are more likely to engage in a boycott when the corporate social irresponsibility is related to a product/service crisis rather than corporate culture.