Download - Willness to Pay - HaBrookshire Norum
1
Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: Case of Cotton Apparel
This report was written for Dr. Richard C. Leventhal as a manuscript for
the Journal of Consumer Marketing
by
Jung E. Ha-Brookshire Assistant Professor
Textile and Apparel Management University of Missouri
137 Stanley Hall Columbia, MO 65211 Phone. 573-882-6316 Fax. 573-882-3289
E-mail. [email protected]
Pamela S. Norum Associate Professor
Textile and Apparel Management University of Missouri
137 Stanley Hall Columbia, MO 65211 Phone. 573-882-2934 Fax. 573-882-3289
E-mail. [email protected]
April 15, 2010
Funding for this project was awarded in part through research grants and/or in-kind support awarded to the authors by Bayer CropScience, Missouri Department of Agriculture, and Issues
and Answers.
2
About the authors
Jung E. Ha-Brookshire is an assistant professor in the Department of Textile and Apparel
Management at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include firm/industry identity
issues, global sourcing strategies, corporate/consumer social responsibility practices in textiles
and apparel marketplaces, and experiential learning. She is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at [email protected].
Pamela S. Norum is an associate professor in the Department of Textile and Apparel
Management at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include consumer demand
analyses, household expenditures, and retail pricing in the marketplace.
3
Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: Case of Cotton Apparel
Abstract
Purpose – This study investigated significant factors influencing consumers’ willingness to pay
a premium for three different socially responsible products—organic cotton, sustainable cotton,
and U.S.-grown cotton shirts.
Design/methodology/approach –Through random-digit-dialing, the study data was collected
from 500 respondents nationally via telephone surveys. The survey data was analyzed using
stepwise regression and mean comparisons.
Findings –More than half of the respondents indicated that they were willing to pay a premium
for organic, sustainable, and U.S.-grown cotton shirts ($5.00 or more for these cotton shirts at the
$30.00 retail value). Consumer attitudes toward socially responsible apparel, attitudes toward
environment, age, and gender were found to be significant factors for consumers’ willingness to
pay a premium. Four apparel product evaluative criteria, brand name, laundering requirements,
color, and fit, were also found important for consumers’ willingness to pay a premium.
Research limitations/implications – Generalization from the study findings must be done with
care due to the telephone survey mode.
Practical implications –Apparel businesses planning to offer organic, sustainable, or U.S.-
grown cotton apparel products may want to emphasize certain tangible benefits, such as strong
brand, reasonable price, easy care, color, and fit, concurrently with intangible benefits, such as
feeling good by helping society and environment.
Originality/value – The findings showed relationships among attitudes, product evaluative
criteria, demographic characteristics, and willingness to pay a premium for three different
4
options of socially responsible cotton apparel, in order to help close the gap between attitudes
and behavior in consumer research.
Keywords – Social responsibility, Willingness to pay, Attitudes, Consumers
Paper type – Research paper
5
Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: Case of Cotton Apparel
Introduction
It is not surprising to receive over 1.26 million hits when “socially responsible products” is typed
into the Google search engine. This result demonstrates the popularity of socially responsible
products and the extent of consumer demand for socially responsible consumption. Businesses
are paying attention to these demands as sources of new sales and profit. Products with
certifications, such as “Environmentally Friendly,” “Dolphin Safe® Tuna (Tuna caught by
fishing methods that do not harm dolphins and protect the marine ecosystem),” “Fair-trade
Coffee,” and “Child Labor Free,” have become popular as a way to target specific consumers
who are concerned with the social and natural environments. These certifications help explain
producers’ causes and products’ benefits; however, the bottom line question for business
managers is “will consumers pay more for socially responsible products?” or “does it pay to
offer socially responsible products?”
While businesses are searching for answers, today’s consumers are faced with multiple
competing decision-making factors, such as price, style, quality, and convenience, in addition to
their moral and ethical responsibility. Consumers are constantly measuring and evaluating
options between their wants to be socially responsible and their desire for positive shopping
experiences. Sometimes, consumers’ sense of moral responsibility is greater than their need for a
bargain price while, in other cases, they may choose convenience over ethical obligations. Thus,
a gap between consumers’ attitudes and actual purchase behaviors exists, and this gap is even
greater in the area of ethical or socially responsible consumption (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005).
Consequently, it is extremely difficult to find out what truly affects consumers’ willingness to
pay a premium for socially responsible products.
6
To help answer business managers’ bottom line question while reducing the consumers’
attitude-behavior gap, this study examined the significant factors influencing consumers’
willingness to pay for three different types of socially responsible products— (a) a shirt made out
of organic cotton, (b) a shirt made out of cotton produced through sustainable farming practices,
and (c) a shirt made out of U.S. grown cotton. Cotton is one of the major fibers used in apparel,
constituting over 52% of the worldwide demand for apparel fiber in 2004 (Kadolph, 2007).
Despite being natural, renewable, and recyclable, cotton has been criticized due to its excessive
water consumption and growers’ high use of pesticides and other insecticides. To overcome
these negative images, the cotton farming and production industries have pushed for more cotton
to be produced organically or through sustainable farming practices. In addition, in an effort to
save jobs and increase economic activities within the United States, cotton producers have
promoted U.S.-grown cotton consumption as socially responsible.
The study first offers a brief overview of social responsibility, social responsibility in
cotton consumption, and willingness to pay research. Then the research questions are presented
followed by the research method and data collection procedures. The study results follow, and,
finally, the paper concludes with a summary of the study findings, the contributions to the
literature, the implications of the findings, and future research opportunities.
Literature review and research questions
Socially responsibility
As consumers’ awareness about societal and environmental issues rises, many businesses have
been finding ways to tap into the consumers’ concerns regarding social responsibility. Although
corporate social responsibility [CSR] is nice to have, businesses must consider both the
economic expectation for profits and the potential legal consequences of marketing that
7
emphasizes social responsibility when considering it (Carroll 1999). Similarly, the majority of
consumers do not make their consumption decisions solely based on social responsibility without
considering other product attributes, such as price, quality, convenience, and/or brand name
(Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000). In other words, although social responsibility is important for
businesses and consumers, profitability often overrides CSR, and price and quality tend to be
more important for consumers in many cases.
Social responsibility means different things to different people. In an effort to define the
concept of social responsibility clearly, Dickson and Eckman (2006) recently presented the three
major conceptual dimensions of CSR in the textile and apparel field. They are (a) a business
orientation focusing on the environment, people, products, and the impact on society, (b) a
business philosophy that balances ethics/morality with profitabilty, and (c) a business drive for
outcomes that would positively effect, or do little harm, to the world and people. From the
consumer perspective, Ha-Brookshire and Hodges (2009) defined socially responsible consumer
behavior (SRCB) as the behavior of a consumer who in one or more consumption steps from pre-
purchase to post-disposal stages (including product information search, acquisition, usage,
storage, disposal, and post-disposal evaluation) bases his or her decision on a desire to minimize
or eliminate any harmful effects and to maximize any beneficial impacts on society.
Business and consumption activities based on social responsibility can be seen in many
different aspects of our lives. Some consumers strive for socially responsible consumption, and
various businesses are tapping into those consumers’ needs and wants. Some forms of socially
responsible consumption benefit the natural environment, while others are concerned with
human welfare. Product labels such as “Environmentally Friendly,” “Dolphin Safe® Tuna,” and
“Legally Logged Timber” are specifically targeting consumers who are concerned about the
8
natural environment. Certifications such as “Fair-trade Coffee” and “Child Labor Free” serve
consumers who would like to benefit other people during their consumption. Some consumers
exercise their social responsibility by purchasing more products that help society, while others
boycott certain products that harm society.
Efforts to shorten the distance between the actual beneficiaries and consumers have also
been made. For consumers who are more specifically interested in improving the environment
and helping people close to them, many businesses have been using place (or location) as one of
the focal points of branding efforts. Products with local growers’ signatures or stamps help
consumers be close to the actual beneficiaries of their responsible consumption choices. The
California wine industry has developed successful place-based marketing and regional branding
strategies, specifically targeting “consumers who are anxious to know where products come
from” (Bruwer and Johnson 2010; Dimara and Skuras 2005, p. 91). Since September 11, 2001
(9/11 hereafter), the popularity of products that are “Made in USA” has been increasing across
product categories (Lee et al., 2003).
Today, consumers who would like to make responsible consumption choices face many
different factors and situations. The question of how consumers perceive and evaluate the
differences in the impact of their socially responsible consumption is still being explored, and the
answers are not straightforward. For example, what are the differences in the social and
environmental impacts of organic coffee grown by Peruvian farmers in comparison to
conventional cotton grown by Texan farmers? How about tuna caught by American fishermen
with conventional fishing methods as opposed to organic wine produced by French wine
makers? Previous research suggests that the answers to these questions depend on personal
values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment and people in local, regional,
9
and national settings (Dickson, 2000; Pelsmacker et al., 2005). Thus, many studies have been
conducted that examine consumers’ decision making processes and influential factors in those
processes.
Particularly, in the national setting, consumer researchers were interested in country-of-
origin (COO) effects. COO has been typically associated with the terms: ethnocentrism,
nationalism, bias toward imported products, stereotyping, and patriotism (Bannister and
Saunders, 1978; Drozdenko and Jensen, 2009; Chao and Rajendran, 1993; Lee et al., 2003;
Olsen et al., 1993; Sharma et al., 1995; Wang and Lamb, 1983). Sometimes, these terms were
used to describe a consumer movement against globalization, and open-door trade policies. In
the history of the United States, patriotism has been “an ebb and flow fervor” (Kosterman and
Feshbach, 1989, p. 257). More recently, after 9/11, patriotism was shown to be stronger than
ever before. The economic recession in 2008 further promoted nationalism or ethnocentrism in
the United States. Saving jobs in the United States has been a top priority of the U.S.
government. In this light, purchasing goods made in the United States has come to be considered
socially responsible consumer behavior. Online directories of U.S.-made products, such
as www.madeinusa.org and www.stillmadeinusa.com, demonstrate this consumer desire for
U.S.-made goods. These sites clearly communicate the message of “Made in America may save
America; so do the right thing,” specifically appealing to consumers who are concerned about
U.S. jobs and communities. According to this view, consuming U.S.- made goods is a socially
responsible behavior.
Social responsibility in cotton consumption
Cotton is one of the major fibers used in apparel, meeting over 52% of the worldwide demand
for apparel fiber in 2004 (Kadolph, 2007). Despite being natural, renewable, and recyclable,
10
cotton has been criticized due to excessive water consumption and use of pesticides and
insecticides during its production. Just as consumers developed negative opinions of food grown
from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) increasing the demand for organic food, cotton
consumption has followed similar trends. Although GMO food and GMO cotton may have
different usages and applications (i.e., food is eaten while cotton is worn), GMO cotton has
suffered from the negative image of being considered an “unnatural” product. To help solve
these issues, Cotton Incorporated, a non-profit cotton research and promotional organization, has
recently launched a campaign to educate consumers and industry members about the sustainable
aspects of cotton farming and consumption (Cotton Incorporated, 2010).
When it comes to social responsibility in cotton consumption, there are a few different
options for consumer choices—organic cotton, cotton from sustainable farming practices, and
U.S. grown cotton. First, organic cotton is cotton produced within a set of strict United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards, enforced by USDA-certifying agents who
annually inspect fields and growing operations for adherence to National Organic Program
(NOP) standards (Cotton Incorporated, 2010). NOP standards require a three-year conversion, or
change over, of land before organic crops can be harvested (USDA, 2008). NOP standards
specify farming practices must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation,
including soil and water quality. Thus, synthetic substances are prohibited and GMOs are not
allowed (USDA, 2008).
Second, cotton produced from sustainable farming practices is cotton produced from
certain farming practices that involve new technologies, methods, and uses for the cotton plant.
The core focus of sustainable farming practices is to meet the current needs for productivity and
profit without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Cotton
11
Incorporated, 2010). These practices focus on reducing the use of pesticides, water, land, and
energy from levels typical of conventional farming practices. Sustainable farming may or may
not use GMOs.
While the first two options are centered on the impact of cotton production on the natural
environment, the third option, U.S.-grown cotton, specifically focuses on saving jobs and
increasing economic activities within the United States. Currently, there are more than 18,000
cotton farmers and support staff in the United States and approximately 13.5 million bales are
produced annually (Anderson, 2009). U.S.-grown cotton appeals to consumers who are
concerned about saving jobs and being able to produce agricultural products in the United States.
Willingness to pay in cotton apparel consumption
Whether individuals consume certain products to help people or improve the environment, the
bottom line question for businesses is “will consumers pay any premium for the products that are
developed, manufactured, and delivered in socially responsible manners?” De Pelsmacker and
his colleagues (2005, p. 364) pointed out that there has been a major discrepancy in the
relationship between consumers’ attitudes and behaviors, especially in the area of ethical or
socially responsible consumption, resulting in the “attitude-behavior gap.” This gap exists
because people tend to provide socially desirable answers to attitude research and, thus, attitudes
measured based on self-reporting methods tend to be more positive than actual behavior (King
and Bruner, 2000).
To reduce this gap, De Pelsmacker and his colleagues (2005) suggested that, in order to
effectively evaluate the importance of socially responsible or ethical attitudes in purchase
decision, other measures that are closely related to the actual purchase behavior must be included
in the study. These measures would provide realistic and multi-faceted purchase situations in
12
which the respondents will be able to consider other factors in addition to attitudes toward social
responsibility when reporting their purchase intentions. In the literature, many researchers
showed that price, quality, convenience, and brand name are important factors affecting
consumer purchasing decisions (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla, 20010;
Roberts, 1996; Tallontire et al., 2001).
In the apparel consumption literature, multiple attempts were made to identify important
factors that would influence socially responsible consumption. Shen and Dickson (2001)
evaluated cultural identification, ethnicity, and Machiavellianism on consumers’ acceptance of
unethical clothing consumption behavior. Dickson (2000) investigated the impact of personal
values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes on socially responsible apparel purchase intentions.
Hustvedt and Dickson (2009) examined the influence of attitudes and self identity on organic
cotton apparel purchases. However, few studies have investigated the consumer attitude-behavior
relationship after accounting for other product evaluation criteria, especially in socially
responsible consumption.
Consequently, this study examined significant factors influencing consumers’ willingness
to pay for a variety of socially responsible cotton apparel products. More specifically, given that
today’s consumers have different options for socially responsible cotton consumption, the study
investigated the relationships between attitudes and willingness to pay for (a) apparel made out
of organic cotton, (b) apparel made out of cotton produced through sustainable farming practices,
and (c) apparel made out of U.S. grown cotton. In addition, considering that product evaluative
criteria, such as price, quality, convenience, and brand name are important factors influencing
purchase intention, the study examined the relationships between attitude and willingness to pay
13
including product evaluative criteria (see Figure 1 for the study’s conceptual model). In sum, this
study investigated the following research questions:
1. What are the attitudinal and product evaluative criteria influencing consumers’
willingness to pay a price premium for apparel products that are made out of organic
cotton (organic cotton apparel hereafter), after accounting for demographic
characteristics?
2. What are the attitudinal and product evaluative criteria influencing consumers’
willingness to pay a price premium for apparel products that are made out of cotton
grown using sustainable farming practices (sustainable cotton apparel hereafter), after
accounting for demographic characteristics?
3. What are the attitudinal and product evaluative criteria influencing consumers’
willingness to pay a price premium for apparel products that are made out of U.S.-
grown cotton (U.S.-grown cotton apparel hereafter), after accounting for demographic
characteristics?
Figure 1 here
Research method
Sample
Nationwide telephone surveys were conducted by a market research firm in order to investigate
consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for various socially responsible cotton apparel
products. Through random-digit-dialing (RDD), the study’s sample frame was established.
Anyone who was under the age of 21 was not included in the study. Because the objective of this
study was to obtain the purchase intention for cotton shirts, the respondents were screened to
include the primary shopper of the household, regardless of gender or age.
14
A total of 500 respondents participated in this study across the nation. Each phone survey
took approximately 15-20 minutes. The majority of the sample (50.2%) was 55 years old or
older. Of the 500 respondents, 79% of the sample was female. Approximately, 59% of the
respondents were married and 81.8% were identified themselves as Caucasian or white. Over
28% of the study samples resided in the mid-Western region and 24.6% declared that their
household’s annual income before taxes was between $25,000 and $55,000. Table 1 displays the
detailed demographic information for the sample.
Table 1 here
Survey instruments
Attitudinal variables. Three attitudinal variable measures developed by Hustvedt and Dickson
(2009) were used in this study as they were shown to be strongly associated with organic cotton
apparel purchase intention. Because Hustvedt and Dickson’s measures were specifically
designed to investigate psychological factors for organic cotton apparel consumption, we have
slightly modified these scales to include those for sustainable and other socially responsible
cotton apparel consumption. First, we added a new item, “I would be willing to pay more for
cotton apparel produced with sustainable farming practices” to a measure of attitudes toward
socially responsible cotton apparel products. Second, we modified these measures from 7-point
Likert-style scales to 5-point Likert style scales (with 1= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree). This change was made to reduce the amount of reading that the phone interviewer would
need to have during the phone survey. In total, 14 questions were asked to measure attitudes
toward socially responsible cotton apparel products (4 items; Cronbach’s alpha =.765), attitudes
toward the environment (5 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .567), and the degree of self-identification
as a socially responsible consumer (5 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .722).
15
Product evaluative criterion variables. Although there are many apparel product evaluative
criteria established in the literature, the study focused on the six most commonly discussed
factors in apparel consumption. In addition to price and brand name, in apparel consumption,
color, style, and fit are also important for consumers’ purchase intention (Hsu & Burns, 2002)1
Demographic variables. In order to examine the differences across various groups of consumers,
six demographic variables were included in this study. They were age, gender, race, region,
annual income before taxes, and marital status. Age and income were asked in ranges; however,
the midpoints were used for data analysis and interpretation. All other variables were considered
categorical.
.
Laundering (or care) requirements were also added to this study as cotton apparel tends to get
wrinkled significantly and laundering (or care) is an important apparel evaluative criterion. The
respondents were asked to rate the importance (1= not at all important to 5 = very important) on
the question: “when you shop for apparel for yourself and/or your family, how important is
_____ in your decision to buy one item vs. another?” Six apparel evaluative factors were then
presented for the respondents’ ratings.
Willingness to pay. Consumers’ willingness to pay for a premium was measured using three
different sustainable cotton apparel products: (1) an organic cotton shirt, (2) a sustainable cotton
shirt, and (3) a U.S.-grown cotton shirt. The respondents were informed of the definitions of two
terms (organic and sustainable) before answering any questions. The telephone interviewer read
that “organic farming practice refers to a process that does not use chemical pesticides or
chemical fertilizers, and avoids using genetically modified seeds.” The telephone interviewer
1 Consumers’ perceptions of “quality” are ambiguous and hard to define in apparel consumption. They also differ before and after purchase. Some consumers may judge an item’s quality by price and brand before purchase, others by durability and ease of care after purchase (Cotton Incorporated, 2005). Thus, we did not include quality as an apparel evaluative criterion.
16
also spelled out that “sustainable farming practice is a process that reduces the use of pesticides,
water, land, and energy compared to conventional farming practices. This process may or may
not use genetically modified seeds.” The respondents were then asked “if you were shopping for
a long-sleeved, button down shirt, made of 100% cotton, for yourself, and it was priced at
$30.00, how much more would you expect to pay for a shirt that was made out of ____?” Then,
the three options, 100% organic cotton, 100% cotton grown using sustainable farming practices,
and 100% U.S. grown cotton, were rotated in the order. For each option, the respondents had an
opportunity to indicate their wiliness to pay for a premium in seven different price brackets
($0.00 or nothing more, $1:00-$3.99, $4:00-$5.99, $6:00-$8.99, $9.00-$10.99, $11.00, and $15-
$20). Midpoints of each price brackets were used and missing vales were replaced with means
for further statistical analyses.
Results and discussion
Overall, more than half of the respondents were willing to pay more for each of the three
different choices of cotton shirts. Over 57% of the respondent stated that they were willing to
pay more for a cotton shirt made out of 100% U.S.-grown cotton. Slightly fewer consumers,
55.1% and 54.9% of the respondents expressed that they were willing to pay more for an organic
or a sustainable cotton shirt, respectively. On average, the respondents were willing to pay the
most, or $5.59, for an organic cotton shirt with the retail price of $30.00, followed by $5.54 for a
sustainable cotton shirt and $5.19 for a cotton shirt made out of 100% U.S.-grown cotton.
In general, the study respondents showed a strong and positive attitude towards the
environment (Mean=4.315; Standard deviation [s.d.] = .620) and identified themselves as
socially responsible consumers (Mean=3.906; s.d. = .765), while expressing a slightly positive
yet neutral attitude toward socially responsible cotton apparel (Mean=3.044; s.d. = 1.105).
17
Among the six apparel evaluative factors, fit was the most important factor (Mean= 4.904; s.d. =
.373), followed by price (Mean= 4.607; s.d. = .704), laundering or care requirements (Mean=
4.366; s.d. = 1.087), style (Mean= 4.23; s.d. = 1.017), and color (Mean= 4.124; s.d. = 1.052). The
respondents, however, indicated that brand name is not an important evaluative factor in their
apparel purchase decisions (Mean = 2.587: s.d. = 1.372). Table 2 show the means and standard
deviations of attitudinal variables and apparel evaluative variables included in this study.
Table 2 here
Stepwise regression was conducted on each dependent variable (i.e. willingness to pay a
premium for each option of socially responsible cotton apparel products). Three attitudinal
variables, six apparel evaluative factors, and six demographic variables were used as independent
variables. The results of stepwise regression revealed, first, four statistically significant factors
influencing consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for organic cotton shirts (the study
research question 1). The respondents’ attitudes toward the use of socially responsible cotton
(Standardized β = .359; p-value =.000) and brand name of the cotton shirt (Standardized β =
.081; p-value =.056) had a statistically significant positive impact, while the respondents’ ages
(Standardized β = -.132; p-value =.002) showed a statistically significant negative impact on
consumers’ willingness to pay for organic cotton apparel. In addition, the respondents’ attitudes
towards environment (Standardized β = -.088; p-value =.070) and the price of the cotton shirt
(Standardized β = -.073; p-value =.081) also had statistically significant negative effects. Other
factors were not found statistically significant.
Table 3 here
Second, the results of stepwise regression also showed four statistically significant factors
that affect consumers’ wiliness to pay a premium for sustainable cotton shirts (the study research
18
question 2). The respondents’ attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel (Standardized
β = .285; p-value =.000) and laundering or care requirements (Standardized β = .089; p-value
=.055) were found to be statistically significant. Gender was also a statistically significant factor;
females showed a greater willingness to pay for sustainable cotton apparel than males
(Standardized β = .111; p-value =.016). Similar to organic cotton shirts, the respondents’
attitudes towards the environment (Standardized β = -.132; p-value =.009) and price
(Standardized β = -.088; p-value =.046) showed statistically significant negative impact on their
willingness to pay for sustainable cotton apparel. Other variables did not show any statistical
significance.
Finally, the stepwise regression results showed three statistically significant factors for
consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for U.S.-grown cotton shirts (the study research
question 3). The respondents’ attitudes towards socially responsible cotton apparel (Standardized
β = 249; p-value =.000) and color (Standardized β = .089; p-value =.041) were found to have a
positive effect on their willingness to pay more for U.S.-grown cotton shirts. In addition, a cotton
shirt’s fit also had a statistically significant positive impact on their willingness to pay
(Standardized β = .072; p-value =.097).
These results showed interesting relationships among consumers’ willingness to pay a
premium for an organic, sustainable, and U.S.-grown cotton shirts, demographic variables,
attitudinal variables, and apparel evaluative factors. In terms of demographic variables, the
findings showed that age and gender were only important factors for willingness to pay a
premium for organic and/or sustainable cotton shirts. The younger consumers were more willing
to pay a premium for organic cottons shirts than the older, while females were more willing to
pay for sustainable cotton shirts than males.
19
In terms of consumers’ attitudes, it seemed logical that the stronger attitudes consumers
have toward socially responsible cotton apparel, the more likely they are willing to pay for
organic, sustainable, and U.S.-grown cotton shirts. Interestingly, however, the study showed that
the stronger attitudes the consumers have toward the environment, the less likely they were
willing to pay a premium for organic and sustainable cotton shirts. Perhaps, consumers may
think that if they are truly concerned about the environment, less or non-consumption of apparel
would help protect the environment more effectively than paying a premium for such products.
With regards to apparel evaluative factors, consumers seemed to be willing to pay more
for organic cotton shirts if brand names are a priority in making apparel purchase choices.
Possibly, consumers believe that strong brands, typically with more financial resources, are
better able to develop and offer organic cotton apparel product lines than smaller or lesser known
brands. It is also possible that as organic apparel provides certain messages of self-identity and
belief, consumers are willing to pay more if the brand presents a clear and strong message as
being an organic product.
When all other factors considered, consumers seemed willing to pay more for sustainable
cotton shirts if they think laundering or care requirements are important for their apparel
purchase choices. It is possible that consumers think that fewer launderings or easy care save
energy, water, and other resources and, thus, they seemed to be willing to pay more for easy care
products for the long-term effect. In both cases, however, the amount of a premium that they are
willing to pay decreases as the price of the shirt rises.
For the U.S.-grown cotton shirts, color and fit were important apparel evaluative factors
for consumers’ willingness to pay a premium. That is, the more weight consumers put on color
and fit for their apparel purchase choices, the more they were willing to pay a premium for U.S.-
20
grown cotton shirts. Perhaps, consumers see color and fit as a proxy for high quality for cotton
apparel products when other information is not available. Thus, when they encounter shirts with
100% U.S.-grown cotton fibers, they may assume that the products are made in the United States
and, thus, the shirts would offer high quality, particularly color and fit. Thus, if color and fit are
important for their apparel purchase choices, they may be willing to pay more for U.S.-grown
cotton shirts.
Conclusions
Today’s consumers want to do more for society and the natural environment through the
consumption process than simply meeting their immediate needs. Businesses now have no
choice but to understand what consumers want in terms of social responsibility and offer such
products and services to satisfy their consumers, while gaining and maintaining economic
profits. Specifically focusing on cotton shirts, this study investigated significant factors
influencing consumers’ willingness to pay for three different socially responsible products—
organic cotton apparel, sustainable cotton apparel, and U.S.-grown cotton apparel.
The study results from the national telephone surveys showed that more than half of the
respondents indicated that they were willing to pay more for organic, sustainable, and U.S.-
grown cotton shirts. On average, the respondents were willing to pay an additional $5.00 or more
for these cotton shirts at the $30.00 retail value. For all three of the cotton shirt options,
consumers were willing to pay more (less) when they have stronger (weaker) attitudes toward
socially responsible cotton apparel. For the organic and sustainable cotton shirts only, consumers
were willing to pay more (less) as they have stronger (weaker) attitudes towards the environment
while their willingness to pay seemed to decrease as the shirt’s price increases.
21
More specifically, the findings showed that consumers were willing to pay more (less)
for organic cotton shirts if they put a greater (less) emphasis on brand. The younger consumers
were willing to pay more for organic cottons shirts than the older. Consumers who look for
simpler laundering or care requirements on apparel and female consumers indicated that they
were willing to pay more for sustainable cotton shirts. Finally, consumers who emphasize color
and fit when evaluating apparel products suggested that they were willing to pay more for U.S.-
grown cotton shirts.
The study findings have several important contributions and implications. The study
showed the relationships among attitudes, product evaluative criteria, demographic
characteristics, and willingness to pay a premium for three different options of socially
responsible cotton apparel, in order to help better describe the attitude and behavior gap in
consumer research. Indeed, the study findings suggested that some attitudes impact consumers’
willingness to pay for socially responsible products, while others do not, even when other factors
were considered. In this study, consumers’ attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel
had a positive impact on willingness to pay a premium for all three choices, while attitudes
towards the environment had negative impact on willingness to pay a premium for organic and
sustainable cotton shirts. Self-identity in socially responsible consumption, however, did not
show a significant effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for any of the three
socially responsible cotton apparel choices. These findings suggest that certain attitudes, such as
consumers’ attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel in this study, are still more
important in consumers’ willingness to pay than demographic characteristics or product
evaluative criteria. Other attitudes, such as self-identity in socially responsible consumption, no
22
longer become important when demographic characteristics and product evaluative criteria are
considered.
Second, the study showed that over half of today’s consumers are willing to pay a
premium for various socially responsible apparel products (over $5.00 for a shirt with the $30.00
retail value). This is good news for apparel businesses seeking additional sales and profit
sources; however, how to approach consumers to justify a premium price is another question.
The study findings showed several interesting aspects of consumers’ willingness to pay a
premium for these products. Consumers who are more concerned about the natural and/or local
environment do not seem to be willing to pay more for organic and sustainable cotton shirts.
Furthermore, consumers who identify themselves as socially responsible consumers showed little
interest in organic, sustainable, and U.S.-grown cotton shirts, in terms of willingness to pay a
premium. Therefore, apparel businesses planning to offer such products may want to provide
other tangible benefits, such as strong brand, reasonable price, easy care, color choice, and fit, in
addition to promotional campaigns appealing to moral issues.
Finally, the study results showed that only age and gender were important demographic
characteristics influencing consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for organic and sustainable
cotton shirts. Thus, apparel businesses should carefully choose the right age and gender to
maximize profits and sales, depending on the type of socially responsible product choices. For
example, organic apparel would be more appealing to the younger group and sustainable apparel
for female consumers.
Despite these contributions and implications, the study bears some limitations and, thus,
it offers future research opportunities. First, although the phone survey has been considered one
of the best survey modes for general population surveys due to its high coverage, ability to
23
randomly sample through RDD, and great response rates (Dilmman, Smyth, and Christian,
2009), today, the widespread usage of the cellular phone has significantly reduced the coverage
rates of traditional phone surveys. One estimate shows that approximately 18% of the U.S. adult
population is missed by traditional RDD sampling (Dillman et al., 2009). Thus, the extrapolation
of the study findings to a greater population must be done with caution. Second, because the
responses were collected through telephone conversations, it is possible that the respondents
might have provided more socially desirable responses than self-administered survey modes. To
help alleviate these issues, further research is recommended using different survey modes, such
as online, mail, and/or mixed.
Second, when responding to surveys, the information of three choices of socially
responsible cotton shirts were given verbally, leaving the product attributes constructed by the
respondents by themselves. Although we tried to be as specific as possible, it is probable that
each respondent may have had different product attributes and characteristics in mind, depending
on his or her past experience with such products. Thus, more studies would be helpful if the three
product choices of socially responsible apparel were visually and/or viscerally presented to the
respondents in real-life shopping situations, both on- and off-line. The results would help reduce
the attitudes-behavior gap.
Third, in addition to the variables and factors used in this study, further examination of
consumers’ willingness to pay research using other demographic, attitudinal, and product
evaluative variables would help deepen our understanding of consumers’ willingness to pay and
other factors that are concurrently considered during purchase. Finally, this study used a cotton
shirt at the $30.00 retail value as a product. Although we believe that it is a commonly used
apparel product that most consumers have purchased at least once in their lives, it could mean
24
different things to different people. Thus, future research using different product items is
recommended to advance consumers’ willingness to pay research.
25
References
Anderson, C.G. (2009), “Cotton market comments: little change expected in cotton market”,
Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.cottoninc.com/CottonMarketComments/Little-
Change-Expected-in-Cotton-Market/
Bannister, J.P. and Saunders, J.A. (1978), “UK consumers’ attitudes towards imports: the
measurement of national stereotype image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 12,
No. 8, pp. 562-70.
Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), "Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? highlighting the attitude-behavior gap", Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 355-368.
Bruwer, J. and Johnson, R. (2010), "Place-based marketing and regional branding strategy
perspectives in the California wine industry" Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27,
No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), "The myth of the ethical consumer: do ethics matter in
purchase behavior?", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 560-577.
Carroll, A. (1999), "Corporate social responsibility", Business & Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.
268-295.
Chao, P. and Rajendran, K.N. (1993), "Consumer profiles and perceptions: country-of-origin
effects", International Marketing Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 22-39.
Cotton Incorpoated (2010), "About cotton sustainability", Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://cottontoday.cottoninc.com/sustainability-about/
26
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2005), "Do consumers care about ethics?
willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee", Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.
363-385.
Dickson, M. A. (2000), "Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to intentions
to purchase apparel from socially responsible businesses", Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Dickson, M. A. and Eckman, M. (2006), "Social responisbility: the concept as defined by apparel
and textile scholars", Clothing and Textiles Reserach Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 178-
190.
Dimara, E. and Skuras, D. (2005), "Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food
and drink products: a European case study." Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Drozdenko, R. and Jensen, M. (2005), "risk and acceptable maximum discount levels", Journal
of Product & Brand Managemnet, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 264-270.
Ha-Brookshire, J. E. and Hodges, N.N. (2009), "Socially responsible consumer behavior?
exploring used clothing donation behavior", Clothing and Textiles Research Journal Vol.
27, No. 3, pp. 179-196.
Hsu, H-H and Burns, L. (2002), "clothing evaluative criteria: a cross-national comparison of
Taiwanese and United States consumers." Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol.
20, pp. 246-252.
Hustvedt, G. and Dickson, M.A. (2009), "Consumer likelyhood of purchasing organic cotton
apparel: inflience of attitudes and self-identity", Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 49-65.
27
Kadolph, S. (2007). Textiles, 10th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, NJ.
King, M.F. and Bruner, G.C. (2000), "Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity
testing", Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 79-103.
Kosterman, R. and Feshmach, S. (1989), "Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic
atttitudes", Political Pscyhology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 257-274.
Lee, W-N, Hong, J-Y and Lee, S-J. (2003), "Communicating with American consumers in the
post 9/11 climate: an empirical investigation of consumer ethnocentrism in the United
States," International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22, pp. 487-510.
Roberts, J.A. 91996), "Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward?",
Business Horizons, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 79-83.
Olsen, J.e., Granzin, K.L. and Biswas, A. (1993), "Influencing consumers' selection of domestic
versus imported products: implications for makreting based on a model of helping
behavior", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 307-321.
Sharma, S., Shimp, s.A., and Shin, J. (1995), "Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and
moderators", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Shen, D. and Dickson, M. A. (2001), "Consumers' acceptance of unethical clothing consumption
activities: influence of cultural identification, ethnicity, and machiavellianism", Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 76-87.
Tallontire, A., Rentsendorj, E. and Blowfield, M. (2001), Ethical consumers and ethical trade: a
review of current literature, Policy Series 12. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.
United States Department of Agriculture (2008), “National Organic Program”, Retrieved March
15, 2010, from
28
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004346&acct=nopg
eninfo
Wang, C. and Lamb, C. (1983), “The impact of selected environmental forces upon consumers’
willingness to buy foreign products”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 71-84.
29
Figure 1. Research Conceptual Model
Willingness to Pay
Organic cotton shirts
Sustainable cotton shirts
U.S.-grown cotton shirts
Attitudes toward socially responsible
cotton apparel
Demographic characteristics
Apparel product evaluative criterion
30
Table 1. Sample Characteristics
Description
Frequency
Percentage
Age
21-34 35-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64
65 and over Refused
54 60 45 90 75 44
124 8
10.8% 12.0% 9.0%
18.0% 15.0% 8.8%
24.8% 1.6%
Gender
Male
Female 105
395 21.0%
79.0% Primary shopper
Yes No
500
0
100.0%
0.0% Marital status
Single, that is never married
Married Widowed Divorced Separated
Refused
69
295 63 58 7 8
13.8% 59.0% 12.6% 11.6% 1.4% 1.6%
Race Caucasian/While
Black Hispanic
Asian American Indian
Other Refused
409 36 15 5
10 12 13
81.8% 7.2% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.4% 2.6%
Region
North
Northeast Mid-Atlantic
Southeast Deep South
Mid-West Northwest Southwest
30 87 22 60 52
142 51 56
6.0%
17.4% 4.4%
12.0% 10.4% 28.4% 10.2% 11.2%
Household Income Under $25,000
$25,000 to $55,000 $55,000 to $75,000
$75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000
Over $150,000 Refused
68 83 60 52 35 24
138
13.6% 24.6% 12.2% 10.4% 7.0% 4.8%
27.6%
Total 500 100%
31
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for non-categorical variables included in the study
Variables
Sample size (N)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel Psychographic variables1
Attitudes toward environment Self-identity as a socially responsible consumer
Fit Apparel product evaluative factors1
Price Laundering (or care) requirements Style Color Brand
Organic cotton apparel Willingness to pay (in dollars) for:
Sustainable cotton apparel U.S. grown cotton apparel
500 500 500
500 499 498 499 500 499
460 478 471
3.044 4.315 3.906
4.904 4.607 4.366 4.227 4.124 2.587
5.589 5.537 5.187
1.105 .620 .765
.373
.703 1.087 1.017 1.052 1.372
5.593 5.916 5.425
Note. 11 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
32
Table 3. Stepwise regression results on factors influencing consumers’ willingness to pay
for three different socially responsible cotton apparel choices
Variables
Standardized β Coefficients
Adjusted R2
t-value
p-value
Attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel Organic cotton apparel
Age Attitudes toward environment Brand Price
Attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel Sustainable cotton apparel
Gender (male=1; female=2) Attitudes toward environment Price Laundering (or care) requirement
Attitudes toward socially responsible cotton apparel U.S. grown cotton apparel
Color Fit
.359 -.132 -.088 .081
-.073
.285
.111 -.132 -.088 .089
.249
.089
.072
.108
.123
.128
.132
.136
.053
.064
.076
.079
.084
.062
.070
.073
7.344 -3.155 -1.815 1.912
-1.748
5.678 2.418
-2.642 -2.004 1.923
5.766 2.045 1.661
.000
.002
.070
.056
.081
.000
.016
.009
.046
.055
.000
.041
.097