Full Title

Consumers’ responsible attitude: discovering the role of demographical characteristics

1. Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has assumed increasing importance in recent years both as part

of the theoretical constructs developed by scholars in the field and as an innovative way of working in

firms (Klein and Dawar, 2004; Mele et al. 2006; Waddock and Smith, 2000). A variety of firms have

implemented practices which develop a positive relationship with society (Whitehouse, 2006), leading

to the growing affirmation of CSR.

The commitment of firms to CSR is motivated by both moral and economic concerns (Michael, 2003),

although it is worth noting that economic motivation has been more effective in encouraging businesses

to engage with social and environmental issues (De la Cuesta and Valor, 2004; European Commission,

2002, 2006). Early research on economic reasons focused on measuring the potential outcome of

responsible business conduct and the relationship of that behaviour to economic performance

(Moskowitz, 1972; Vance, 1975; Bucholz, 1978; Aupperle et al. 1985). Subsequently, other studies

addressed the implications of CSR for firms, focusing on the ways in which it can be deployed in the

company (Lewin et al. 1995; Clarkson, 1995; Joyner and Payne, 2002) and the benefits obtained in

terms of attractiveness and retention of workers (Greening and Turban, 2000; Backhaus et al. 2002).

Other attempts to study the relationship between CSR and performance have investigated the influence

that CSR has on consumer choices and behaviours (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Lafferty and Goldsmith,

1999; Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Maignan et al. 1999; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001; Vogel, 2005).

The idea that CSR can foster a positive perception on the part of customers is therefore the economic

basis of a relationship between the adoption of responsible practices and consumer willingness to

1

reward responsible firms through their purchase behaviour (Creyer and Ross, 1997; Ellen et al. 2000;

Nelson, 2004; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Valor, 2008). CSR has been acknowledged to have a

positive influence on consumers, generating a better attitude towards products and firms (e. g.

Maignan, 2001; Mohr et al. 2001), but there is a general lack of information on consumers who reward

CSR efforts.

The present study addresses this lack of data by investigating the relationship between demographical

characteristics and Responsible Attitude - a consumer’s propensity to pay attention to social and

environmental dimensions in their consumption. Although using demographics implies a tacit

acceptance of their importance in determining behaviour, consumer demographics are relatively

uncomplicated, represent valid predictors of consumer behaviour and are of interest to both marketing

studies and company management (Pol, 1986).

This article provides two contributions to our understanding of social and environmental consumers.

The first is the development of a Responsible Attitude scale, a single measure to evaluate the attention

given by consumers to both social and environmental concerns in their purchasing behaviour. This

measure allows us to move from the notion of an ethical consumer, interested exclusively in social

issues, to the notion of a responsible consumer, a person who integrates both social and environmental

concerns in a unique construct (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Secondly, we have developed and tested

five hypotheses concerning the realtionship between demographics and Responsible Attitude on a

sample of 5,098 Italian consumers. This research is the first large-scale analysis conducted in Italy on

these issues. Given that Italian society is largely homogeneous in terms of shared culture and religion,

it is of especial interest in the study of the relationship between demographics and responsible attitude

(Vitell, 2003, Honkanen et al. 2006). This fact allows us to avoid the problem of the relationship

2

between different religious groups and Responsible Attitude, which can be a significant variable in

studies on demographics and consumer behaviour.

2. From the ethical to the responsible consumer

Interest in studying the social and environmental attitude of consumers as a way of developing a

company’s sales has fuelled a debate about ethical consumerism, a phenomenon of increasing

importance in business management (Devinney et al. 2006). This phenomenon is manifest in customers

who do not ask companies simply for quality products at low costs, but also expect them to correspond

to their personal values and contribute to community development (Handelman and Arnold, 1999).

Although the importance given by consumers to ethics is generally acknowledged, firms choose to

adopt CSR to capitalize on consumers’ willingness to prefer socially-oriented firms (Bhattacharya and

Sen, 2004; Harrison, 2003). The increasing importance of ethical consumption is confirmed by the

growing space it is given in both the press and academic journals (Crane and Matten, 2004). The

visibility of issues such as child labour in developing countries and the environmental impact of global

production (and consumption) seem to influence consumer purchasing decisions around the world to an

ever-increasing extent (Auger et al. 2003; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Elliott and Freeman, 2001).

Over the years, the concept of ethical consumer has evolved from a notion encompassing purely social

issues to one embracing both social and environmental concerns (Newholm and Shaw, 2007). An initial

definition was suggested by Webster Jr. (1975), who described the ethical consumer as “a consumer

who takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption or who attempts to

use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change” (p. 188). Indeed, during the second half

of the 1980s, consumers were hit by environmental crises, leading to a growing emphasis on the

environmental effects associated with consumption and the subsequent affirmation of the concept of

3

“green consumer”. The number of green consumers gradually increased during the 1990s (Fuller,

1999), resulting in a proliferation of research on this segment of the market (Menon and Menon, 1997;

Peattie, 1995; Prothero, 1990; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996; Vandermerwe and Oliffe, 1990).

The concept of ethical consumer has moved beyond its initial conception towards identifying

consumers who pay attention to social issues, but who are also interested in the environmental

implications of their purchasing processes. Engel and Blackwell (1982) expanded the concept by

extending the focus from social issues to a broader ethical orientation, including issues relating to the

environment. They portrayed ethical consumers as “those persons who are concerned not only with

their own personal satisfactions, but also with the same consideration of the social and environmental

well-being of others” (p. 610). The convergence of social and environmental concerns in a unique

construct was recognised by Roberts (1996, p. 140), who defined the ethical consumer as “one who

purchases products and services perceived to have positive (or less negative) influence on the

environment or who patronizes related businesses that attempt to effect positive social change”. In the

same vein, Strong (1996) also claimed the existence of a link between the environmental and social

aspects, and noted how the focus on the environment has gradually become an ethical concern among

consumers, and social and environmental issues are often simultaneous considerations. Similarly, Shaw

and Newholm (2002, p. 168) argued that “the inextricable link between consumption and ethical

problems, such as environmental degeneration and fairness in world trade, has since resulted in the

emergence of a group of consumers commonly referred to as ethical consumers”.

To avoid confusion deriving from different definitions, in this article we have decided to adopt the term

"Responsible Consumer". Our intention is to study consumers who are concerned with both the social

and environmental aspects of their consumption processes, and to consider these two variables as part

of the consumer’s intention to accept the responsibility related to their consumption. We thus posit that

4

Responsible Consumers are characterised by a Responsible Attitude that leads them to become

interested in the wider implications of consumption processes. This attitude manifests itself, firstly, in

consumer commitment to gather the information necessary to evaluate the social and environmental

aspects of their consumption and, secondly, in attention to these issues in their consumption choices.

2. 1 Responsible Attitude and information

Studies of consumer knowledge of the information provided by companies on goods/services suggest

that, in general, consumers do not know the environmental and social characteristics of the majority of

goods/services they consume (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Elliott and Freeman, 2001). This is due to

the fact that most of them do not have direct information concerning the social and environmental

aspects of goods/services, thus indicating the existence of a potential, latent demand of responsible

consumer (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2006).

As posited above, a Responsible Attitude leads to a greater awareness of available information on the

social and environmental aspects related to purchase decisions. The early development of the concept

of ethical consumption focused on the effects determined by the information related to products or their

use, as evidenced by the definitions above.

The relevance of information in the assessment of Responsible Attitude is confirmed by studies (e. g.

Simon, 1995) which suggest that when consumers receive more information about social and

environmental responsibility, they pay more attention to the selection of goods/services in their

purchasing processes. Moreover, other studies (Herr et al. 1991; Amine, 1996) have suggested that

negative information attracts more consumer attention than positive information, and that it is therefore

easier to support the idea of consumer boycotts than that of rewarding behaviour.

5

A deeper Responsible Attitude allows the consumer to evaluate the information available, even if it is

scarce. Consumer interest in gathering information is a prerequisite of a consumer’s decision to

purchase in a responsible way. The consumer with a responsible attitude freely takes note of

information regarding the factors related to certain social issues (Doane, 2001), including

environmental issues and social justice in their decisions to purchase (Nicholls, 2002).

2. 2 Responsible Attitude and decision-making

A Responsible Attitude in consumers leads them to evaluate information about goods/services and

firms with regard to their personal beliefs and choose to include such matters as labour standards,

human rights, health-related issues, and, of course, environmental issues among the criteria that govern

the process of their purchasing decisions (Strong, 1996; Shaw and Shiu, 2002, 2003; Carey et al.,

2008).

Once consumers defined by a Responsible Attitude have arrived at a judgment on either goods/services

or businesses, their buying behaviour will be influenced by it. This influence can manifest itself in the

exercise of a power of legitimacy and sanction in their consumption processes (Valor, 2008).

The first is the choice to support the purchase of goods/services that meet specifications set by personal

and moral beliefs (e. g. not being manufactured by children or not tested on animals). In this regard,

research has supported the existence of a willingness among consumers to pay higher prices for goods

or services from companies considered reliable (Creyer and Ross, 1997). Other early studies showed

that consumers were willing to change brands of goods/services purchased to encourage companies that

link the purchase of their goods/services to the support of social causes (Smith and Alcorn, 1991). In

some cases researchers have tried to estimate the overall willingness of consumers to pay for

goods/services of an ethical nature (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005).

6

The second is the decision to penalize, i. e. not buy goods/services that do not meet these criteria or that

are marketed by companies that do not respect moral values. In this case, the decision not to purchase

goods/services from companies judged to be irresponsible is a signal that consumers increasingly take

social and environmental issues into account in their purchasing decisions (Nebenzahl et al. 2001).

Such customers thus play an important role in furthering the development of CSR among firms who do

so to improve their reputation. Examples of sanctioning behaviours are the campaigns against Nike

related to abuse of workers, and the Nestlé infant milk scandal (Auger et al. 2000; Carrigan and Attalla,

2001; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Strong, 1996).

Responsible Attitudes influence consumers’ purchasing patterns, as tested by various models which

evaluate consumer behaviour (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985, Hunt and Vitell, 1993; Vitell et al. 2001).

However, these elements are generally considered insufficient to predict consumer behaviour (Cobb-

Walgren and Ruble, 1995). The dimension of responsibility does not appear to be the dominant criteria

of purchasing decisions, and traditional criteria such as convenience, price, quality and familiarity with

the brand seem to remain the most important (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla,

2001; Norberg, 2000; Roberts, 1996; Tallontire et al. 2001).

Research has also been carried out on the relationship between Responsible Attitude and consumer

behaviour. From a theoretical point of view, Maignan and Ferrell (2001) placed the dimension of

responsibility among the positive influences that are taken into account by consumers in their process

of evaluating products and businesses. This view has already been verified empirically by Brown and

Dacin (1997) who noted that CSR affects the evaluation of products and overall company image. Sen

and Bhattacharya (2001) highlighted how the association of a product to a social cause is moderated by

the support that consumers intend to give to these social causes (De los Salmones et al., 2005). Bjorner

et al. (2004) addressed the issue by presenting results limited to specific market areas (e. g. limited

7

distribution to special stores, lack of consumer information) and results of the different terms of

purchase that consumers might encounter.

Previous studies that have tested the importance of Responsible Attitude as a criterion of choice are in

fact mostly experimental in nature (e. g. see Berens et al., 2005; Handelmann and Arnold, 1999; Sen

and Bhattacharya, 2001). Such experiments may produce significantly different results from those

observed in real settings where products and brands are familiar. This is, firstly, because CSR practices

are often not known and, secondly, because in reality the factors at play in the purchasing process are

more complex and more numerous than these experimental studies have shown (Mohr et al. 2001).

More recently, researchers have conducted field experiments in an attempt to analyze the gap.

Anderson and Hanson (2004) conducted an experiment in two outlets of household objects in Oregon

where "eco-labelled" and "unlabelled" products were sold side by side. They show how the labelled

versions recorded 37% of total sales with a price premium of 2%. Similarly, Kimeldorf et al. (2006)

used a "good working conditions" label to differentiate between their equivalent sports socks in a store

in Michigan. They showed that, despite a price premium of 40%, about a quarter of total sales were of

products with eco-labelling, demonstrating how consumers are sensitive to price changes.

Although scientists are not able to give clear indications of how knowledge of CSR factors affect actual

purchasing decisions (Shaw et al. 2005), it is interesting to note that in recent years an increasing

number of companies have started to highlight indications on their products regarding the

environmental and/or “fair” conditions (e. g. no child labour or no exploitation of agricultural workers)

under which they were produced. Similarly, other research has noted a growing focus among marketing

managers on social and environmental dimensions and a greater attention to such dimensions in the

marketing mix they adopt (Clark, 1990; Al-Khatib et al. 1997; Rawwas et al. 1994).

8

3. The responsible consumer and demographical characteristics

The possible relationship between demographic characteristics and a consumer’s responsible attitude

has been the object of studies over the last forty years. Anderson and Cunningham (1972) first

hypothesised the existence of a link between demographic characteristics and a consumer’s sense of

responsibility. Later, Hunt and Vitell (1986) pointed out that personal characteristics determine the

nature of an individual’s social decisions. This particular contribution gave impetus to the present study

of socio-demographic characteristics of responsible attitude in order to understand responsible

behaviour.

Although some studies have pointed out that there is a relationship between demographic and social

and/or environmental orientation, these dimensions also seem to be directly connected to a Responsible

Attitude. Roberts (1995), in particular, concludes that demographic characteristics are significant in

identifying responsible consumption, emphasizing characteristics such as age, gender and level of

education. In the following section we summarize previous contributions to the understanding of the

individual socio-demographic characteristics of consumers and propose research hypotheses we test

and report on in the second half of the paper.

3. 1. Gender

The influence of gender on Responsible Attitude has been examined in studies such as Ford and

Richardson (1994). Studies in this field have shown that women tend to have a greater propensity to

consider social and environmental issues than men (e. g. Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Jones and Gautschi,

1988; Rüegger and King, 1992; Whipple and Swords, 1992).

Initial studies helped to evaluate the orientation differences between men and women by analysing the

behaviour of students or managers. Among others, Beltramini et al. (1984) found that female students

9

are more interested in social issues than men. Chonko and Hunt (1985) reported that women managers

are more oriented towards ethical issues than men, and Ferrell and Skinner (1988) found the same

result among researchers. Jones and Gautschi (1988) also pointed out that women are less loyal to their

company if it demonstrates dubious social and/or environmental behaviour. Similarly Whipple and

Swords (1992) found that women are more critical in terms of ethics than their male counterparts.

Rawwas and Isakson (2000) revealed how gender tends to explain unethical behaviour during student

examinations.

This difference may be justified by differing conceptions of morality. While men are more likely to

conceive of morality as essentially consisting of obligations and rights and motivated by an attempt to

ensure fairness and impartiality, women seem to see morality as a necessary requirement to meet the

needs of others (Flanagan and Jackson, 1987). This vision is better explained by Callahan (1990) who

argues that men are characterised by a principle of impartial justice through rules and laws, while

women believe that morality is more related to aspects of the concept and has to do with human

interpersonal needs.

The study of the application of these differences in consumption has revealed some interesting facts.

While some empirical studies have shown that female consumers care more about social and

environmental dimensions than men (Arlow, 1991; Crow et al., 1991; Deshpande, 1997), others have

found small or insignificant differences (Kidwell et al. 1987; Trevino, 1992). Derry (1987, 1989)

suggested that gender differences found in studies tend to be context-specific. This hypothesis was

partially supported by Smith and Oakley (1997), who found that there were no differences in the

evaluation of unethical behaviour in breach of the law, even though women seemed to have a higher

ethical standard than men. Although, in that particular study, responsible consumers were in most cases

women, other studies conclude that ethical behaviour in the process of purchase is not influenced by

10

gender (Sikula and Costa, 1994; Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990). In line with the hypothesis of a

different conception of morality among women and men in the present research, the first hypothesis we

tested was:

Hypothesis 1: On average, women have a more Responsible Attitude than men.

3. 2. Age

The age of consumers can influence a Responsible Attitude. This influence may be motivated by two

distinct factors: firstly, the development of personal maturity over time (Stead et al. 1990), in that,

presumably, as people age, they become increasingly aware of the importance of controlling their

behaviour, and secondly, due to the presence of certain factors in a particular social and cultural

environment which are reflected in the person (Chiu et al. 1998). Some researchers found that it was

not possible to detect significant differences in the attitude of ethics as a function of age (Hetherington

and Feldman, 1964; Lane and Schaupp, 1989). However, other empirical studies indicate age as

positively associated with ethical attitude, beliefs and life-style (Emerson and Conroy, 2004;

Deshpande, 1997).

Regarding the influence of age on Responsible Attitude, Kohlberg (1984) showed that people of legal

age attribute more importance to social and environmental issues than younger people. Subsequent

research has also supported this assertion, stressing that older individuals are on average more ethical

than younger ones. For example, Serwinek (1992) found that workers of legal age have a more rigorous

interpretation of ethical standards. Rüegger and King (1992) established that older students tend to be

more ethical than younger ones. In addition, Rawwas and Singhapakdi (1998) have shown how

individuals tend to be more ethical as they age. The greater lack of attention paid to ethical aspects by

11

young people is explained by their greater attention to more material aspects (Chiu et al. 1998). In the

light of this literature we verified the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The age of consumers has a positive relation with Responsible Attitude.

3. 3. Educational level

Researchers have studied level of education as a further significant marker of Responsible Attitude.

While some studies have failed to identify a relationship between the level of education and responsible

consumption (e. g. Kidwell et al. 1987; Serwinek, 1992; Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987, Stevens et al.

2005), in general, it has been established that subjects with higher levels of education, regardless of

curriculum, are more sensitive to social and environmental dimensions (e. g. Goolsby and Hunt, 1992).

For example, Browning and Zabriskie (1983) showed that purchase managers who have studied for a

greater length of time judge gifts and favours as unethical more often than managers who have studied

less. This is also in line with Kohlberg (1984), who found that such managers manifest a greater

capacity to take appropriate responsible decisions even in complex situations. This is supported by the

results obtained by Rest and Narvaez (1994), who found that individuals with a higher level of

education seem to have sensitivity to ethics. In the same way, McNeel (1986) showed that attending

graduate school is associated with a higher attention to social and environmental dimensions.

There are also a number of elements that conflict with the hypothesis of a relationship between the two

factors. Shaub (1994) found that the effects of education on students’ moral reasoning were

insignificant. Similarly, Terpstra et al. (1993) reached no clear results when analyzing the influence of

years of study on ethical orientation in consumers, and Woodbine (2004) showed that level of

12

education has a negative effect on consumer responsibility. Despite these contradictory studies, the

present research has tested a hypothesis based on cultural improvement due to education:

Hypothesis 3:Level of education has a positive relationship with Responsible Attitude.

3. 4. Income

Research conducted on the socio-demographic characteristics of consumers has also included

information about income. On a sample of consumers, Anderson and Cunningham (1972) and

subsequently Dickson (2001) found that the income level of consumers appears to be irrelevant to the

understanding of Responsible Attitude. In contrast, other studies pointed out that there was a positive

relationship between the level of income of individuals and their propensity for ethical behaviour.

Carrigan and Attalla (2001) and Maignan and Ferrell (2001) show that a large majority of subjects with

an above-average level of income declared attention to the ethics of consumption. Given the belief that

the level of income includes a greater willingness among consumers to pay a personal financial

sacrifice in order to incorporate a social and environmental dimension in their processes of

consumption, we tested the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The level of income has a positive relationship with Responsible Attitude.

3. 5. Geographical area

Belonging to different cultures has been documented as a major variable of influence on ethical

decisions (Rawwas, 2001; Rawwas et al., 2005). The ethics of consumers has been shown to vary from

one geographical region to another due to the historical patterns of behaviour and different concepts of

norms and values (Babakus et al. 2004). This has been studied previously in works generally focused

13

on students or groups from different cultures, such as in the work of Vitell and Paolillo (2004) and

Ahmed et al. (2003). Other studies, such as Maignan (2001) have focused more on the concept of CSR

to examine the ethical differences in economic, legal and philanthropic matters between students of

different cultural strains - the USA and Hong Kong in the first case and the U. S. and Europe in the

second. Individuals that live in a geographical area where there are many firms are found to be more

conscious of the social and environmental impacts of business. These individuals are more aware of

manufacturing processes and tend to pay greater attention to responsibility in the consumer process.

Based on the idea that living in a geographical area with a high number of firms could generate a

certain kind of business culture, in the present study we tested the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Living in a highly industrialised area has a positive relationship with Responsible

Attitude.

4. Methodology

4. 1. Participants and procedure

The research presented in this paper is based on a sample of Italian consumers. During the summer of

2011 a telephone survey was conducted on a sample of 12,000 Italian residents aged over 14. The aim

of the survey was to determine how Italian consumers view a number of important issues concerning

the social and environmental dimensions of consumerism. The questionnaire method was selected as

the aim of the study was to obtain insight into consumer attitudes towards social and environmental

aspects of consumerism processes. Participants were part of the AC Nielsen Home Scan Panel, a

monitoring panel of consumerism that involves people randomly chosen throughout the country and

composed proportionally to population density.

14

The questionnaire was divided into two parts of structured, closed questions. The first measured the

declaration of behaviour towards information about social and environmental characteristics of the

product or responsible efforts on the part of firms. The second part collected data about the declared

behaviour of consumers towards products whose profits are given to social causes or who have a strong

environmental commitment, and towards firms they judge to be responsible or not responsible. The

response rate was 42. 5% (n=5. 098).

By using the data of the Nielsen Home Scan Panel, we accessed the demographic characteristics of

consumers, both respondent and non-respondents. This data was used to carry out a T-test to examine

the non-participation bias and, in each case, the results were not significant and confirm the absence of

bias in the sampling process. The final sample of the consumers who took part in the research

represents the demographic distribution of the entire population (Istat, 2009).

4. 2. Demographical measures

In this paragraph we present all but one of the measures used to define the demographical profile of

each consumer. Gender is an exception as it is a clear two-group categorical variable.

Age. The consumers were coded in seven different groups on the basis of age. The first group is

composed of consumers between 14 and 18 years of age. The other groups are based on a scale that

includes five different groups between 24 and 64, and a residual group including consumers over 65.

Educational level. The educational level of consumers was measured according to the level of

qualifications they had achieved. The first group consists of the minimum legal level of education in

Italy, which is a total of nine years. The second level is High School, indicating a qualification

15

achieved five years after the minimum level. The third level is Graduate, which includes all those with

a bachelor’s degree or equivalent level of higher education.

Income. To estimate income we divided consumers into four groups according to the distribution of

their level of annual incomes. In the low-income group we included those with a monthly income in the

first quartile of distribution, in the low-medium income group, consumers in the second quartile, in the

medium-high those in the third quartile and in the high income group those in the fourth quartile.

Geographical area. Different geographical areas in Italy present significant disparities in economic and

business contexts. We observed these differences, considering geographical areas as a demographical

variable that could be related to Responsible Attitude. It is widely recognised that Northern Italy has a

higher density of business than Southern Italy, and we were able to observe the degree of industrial

growth moving from the south to the north (ISTAT, 2001). Accordingly, we divided our consumers

into four groups representing the geographical area they inhabit: north-east; north-west; centre and

south. Consumers living in northern Italy were expected to have a more sophisticated business culture

than those living in the south.

4. 3. Analysis

The statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 18. 00 and AMOS, and are divided into two

consecutive steps. First, using exploratory factor analysis of the data collected by the first and second

part of the questionnaire, a scale of Responsible Attitude was constructed. We evaluated the scale for

reliability and then conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess validity (Churchill, 1979,

Mentzer and Flint, 1997). Subsequently, the various hypotheses were validated, analysing the

significance of the mean in Responsible Attitude (an independent variable) among different

demographical groups identified by the variables illustrated above (dependent variables).

16

Responsible attitude scale development

The goal of our first step in the analysis was to measure the level of Responsible Attitude claimed by

each of the consumers surveyed. An exploratory factor analysis was applied using Keiser’s criterion

and experimenting with different numbers of factors to find a satisfactory solution (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2008). The variables included in the factor analysis referred to the questions submitted to the

consumers through the above-mentioned telephone survey, and was developed on the basis of literature

presented in the section above.

Running the factor analysis, we first checked for multicollinarity among variables, looking at the

determinant of the correlation matrix (0. 84) to ensure that it was greater than the generally accepted

value of 0. 000001. We also checked for the Kaiser, Mayer and Olkin (0. 774) measure to evaluate the

adequacy of the sampling and ensure we had a distinct and reliable factor. We conducted Bartlett’s test

of sphericity to check the existence of relations between the variables we included in the analysis (p<0.

05). We verified whether the factor analysis would have been better with two or more factors, and the

analysis of eigenvalue plot confirmed that the best option was to have only one component. This choice

was also confirmed by the analysis of total variance that showed an eigenvalue of the second

component that was less than one. Cronbach’s α was used as the measure of reliability of the

responsible attitude scale, with a result of 0. 843. We conclude, therefore, that the Responsible Attitude

scale shows adequate reliability.

The assessment of validity of the scale was produced using a confirmatory factor model with maximum

likelihood estimation. The final model displays acceptably fit of indices (χ2=123. 24 (15), p=. 002;

GFI=. 91; CFI=. 98; RSMEA=0. 07), which meet the recommended levels for a model with a good fit

(Hair et al. 2006). This indicates that the developed responsible attitude scale is valid.

17

Text of hypothesis

In the second phase of the analysis, the various hypotheses stated above were validated. Before starting

the analysis we verified the existence of a correlation between the demographical variables. A

Pearson’s Chi Square test was conducted that revealed only a statistically significant relation between

geographical areas and income level with a value of 2. 465 at a statistical significance of 0. 033.

To test the difference in Responsible Attitude mean between the various demographical characteristics

collected, we used T-tests and one-way ANOVA tests. T-tests were used to analyze differences in

gender, because of the two levels of this demographic category. ANOVA was conducted to explore the

impact of age, income, geographical area and city dimension level on the CSR orientations as measured

by the factor analysis. As explained above, the subjects were divided into seven age groups, four

geographical area groups, four city dimension groups and four income-level groups. For each variable,

Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variances was carried out. The results of this test were of no

significance (less than 0. 05) for all the variables analysed.

To evaluate the mean differences between groups we used the Tukey USD test to make a post-hoc

comparison, and also calculated the effect of size with the eta-squared statistic (η2). Since the sample is

sufficiently large (n=5,098), fairly small differences can become statistically significant, even if the

difference between groups is smaller than the usual value accepted. Consequently, we could consider

the effect to be large if the eta-squared was more than 0. 02 (Cohen, 1988).

5. Results

Table 1 presents the results of the factor analysis, reporting the loading factors. A logical analysis of the

loading factor and value shows that the factor identified is the Responsible Attitude of the consumers

we surveyed. The loading factor includes both the orientation of consumers towards social and

18

environmental information and the inclusion of these dimensions in the declared decision-making

processes.

[Table 1 about here]

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of Responsible Attitude conditioned to the demographical

variables, and the result of the test conducted. As observed, the table shows how a difference in

Responsible Attitude is due to the demographical characteristics of the customers analysed.

[Table 2 about here]

Hypothesis 1 predicted that women would have a more Responsible Attitude than men. An

independent-sample T-test was conducted to compare Responsible Attitude in men and women, and, in

fact, there was no highly significant difference in scores for men (M=0. 041; SD=0. 310) and women

(M=0. 058; SD=0. 302) t (5. 098)=1. 907, p=0. 057 (two-tailed). The size of the differences in the

means (mean difference=0. 016, 95% CI: -0. 0046 to 0. 033) was small (η2=0. 004). The first

hypothesis is not statistically verified, so it can be observed that men and women have a similar score

in Responsible Attitude. Gender is thus not a demographical characteristic that influences the

Responsible Attitude of consumers in any significant way.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that Responsible Attitude is positively related to the age of consumers. Support

for this is seen in Table 2, which shows a statistically significant difference at the p<0. 05 level in

Responsible Attitude of the 7 groups analysed: F(113, 89, 405, 787, 426, 408, 377)=38. 696, p=0. 000.

19

The effect size, calculated using eta-squared, is significant if related to the number of people included

in the data analysis (η2=0. 043).

[Table 3 about here]

Table 3 presents the results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test. It indicates that the

mean score of consumers aged between 14-18 (M=-0. 192; SD=0. 280) and between 19 and 25 (M=-0.

080; SD=0. 325) are significantly different from all other groups. The 25-34 group (M=0. 029; SD=0.

307) is statistically different from all but the over-65 group (M=0. 037; SD=0. 310). The 35-44 (M=0.

074; SD=0. 294), 45-54 (M=0. 101 SD=0. 293) and 55-64 (M=0. 075; SD=0. 296) groups are not

statistically different among themselves, but they differ from the group of over-65s (M=0. 037; SD=0.

310) and from the three groups under 34. Thus three distinct groups of consumers based on age

emerge: consumers under the age of 34, characterised by negative or close to zero Responsible

Attitude; a second group, composed by consumers between 35 and 64, which has the highest degree of

Responsible Attitude; and finally a group of over 65 in which this attitude decreases.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the level of education produces a positive effect on the Responsible

Attitude of consumers. The comparison of Responsible Attitude at different educational levels shows a

statistically significant effect at p<0. 05 level for the three groups: F(1. 685, 698, 222)=2. 073, p=0.

003. The difference in mean scores between the groups is smaller than the value observed in age

differences (η2=0. 023). Table 4 presents the results of post-hoc test.

[Table 4 about here]

20

The post-hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for minimum level

education (M=0. 014, SD=0. 293) is statistically different from the group of graduates (M=0. 224;

SD=0. 308). The high school group (M=0. 085; SD=0. 308) did not differ significantly from either

group of minimum or maximum level of education.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that Responsible Attitude increases with a high level of monthly income. Table

2 shows that there was a statistically significant difference: F(459, 756, 917,473)=42. 304; p=0,000. In

this case the effect size is relevant because of the sample dimension (η2=0,024).

[Table 5 about here]

The post-hoc comparison based on Tukey HSD, presented in table 5, shows that the mean score was

significantly different among all the groups observed. The difference between the medium-high (M=0.

075; SD=0. 306) and high income group (M=0. 109; SD=0. 305) is significant at p=0. 022. All the

other differences are statistically significant at a level of p=0. 000, with strong evidence of differences

in Responsible Attitude between low income (M=-0. 036; SD=0. 292) and low-medium income (M=0.

027; SD=0. 301) and the two higher levels of income. The ANOVA tests show that an increase in

income level is related to a higher measure of Responsible Attitude of the consumers. We can conclude

that incomes are positively related to Responsible Attitude in consumerism.

The final hypothesis predicted the influence of the degree of industrialization as a driving force of

Responsible Attitude. We used the differences in Responsible Attitude between different industrial

areas in Italy to address this test hypothesis. The results of the ANOVA test score for the group based

on geographical area are: F(929, 418, 490, 768)=14. 547, p=0. 000. Despite reaching statistical

21

significance, the difference observed in the groups’ mean scores was very small as regards geographical

area (η2=0,008).

[Table 6 about here]

Table 6 presents the Tukey HSD conducted on geographical area. It shows that there is a statistically

significant difference only between people that live in the south of Italy (M=0. 007; SD=0. 300) and

people in the centre (M=0. 071; SD=0. 302), North-West (M=0. 080; SD=0. 306) and North-East

(M=0. 059; SD=0. 308). The North-East, North-West and Centre consumers did not show significant

differences at a level of p <0. 05.

6. Discussion

The research confirms that Responsible Attitude differs from one consumer to another, and it also

confirms that demographical characteristics could help to predict Responsible Attitude in consumers.

The results suggest that there is a relation between age and income of consumers and Responsible

Attitude. Younger consumers are minimally interested in social and environmental concerns while

making purchasing decisions. In particular, Italian consumers under 34 years of age are generally

uninterested or little interested in the social and environmental implications of their purchases.

Responsible Attitude is not a main feature of these groups of consumers, although some of these

consumers have shown a Responsible Attitude. Responsible Attitude increases in people over 35, and

the highest level was observed in those aged between 45 and 54. So the relationship between age and

Responsible Attitude is not perfectly linear. This finding could be explained by two contrasting reasons.

The first is based on the idea that Responsible Attitude is related to personal maturity. In this case,

22

responsibility in consumers is an expression of self-awareness and becomes part of one’s personal

values only when the person reaches complete maturity. This interpretation could justify the low level

of Responsible Attitude observed in the young, as an incompletely developed dimension, and suggests

that more time is necessary to reach maturity in this field. This could suggest that future responsible

consumers are likely to be at least as numerous as at present. A second interpretation of this result is

based on the potential difference in consumers based on generational changes. In this case, Responsible

Attitude is a function of the consumers’ generation, and is the result of the particular values shared by

people who have faced the same cultural changes in their lives. This interpretation implies that

consumers who are 45-54 years old today developed their Responsible Attitude in the past, particularly

during the 1970s or 1980s, when an intense debate on society and environmental issues took place. In

this case, we could interpret negative Responsible Attitude in younger consumers differently, in that

Responsible Attitude in consumers would be expected to decrease year on year when the current young

consumers become mature.

The research confirms that a second demographical characteristic positively related with Responsible

Attitude is consumers’ income, and indicates that responsible consumers would be expected to have

high spending power. This is basically due to the conviction that “responsible” products typically have

a higher price than traditional ones. The perception of a difference in price causes consumers with a

low incometo be less willing to pay a premium for products with a social or environmental value. This

financial burden produces greater scepticism in low-income consumers, and the Responsible Attitude

of this type of consumer is reduced.

The research also indicates a positive relationship between Responsible Attitude and educational level:

the awareness of social and environmental aspects in consumers is generally higher in graduates than in

consumers with lower levels of education. This difference could be due to the role that education has in

23

the reaching of personal maturity. The educational process is oriented both towards developing

professional competencies and skills and towards improving the ability to deal with complex problems

and take account of all possible implications. An attitude which considers the overall impact of a

purchase could increase an individual’s instinctive consideration of social and environmental issues..

The final demographical feature included in the analyses is geographical area, and this demonstrates

that people living in more industrialised areas tend to develop Responsible Attitudes. A person who

lives in a densely industrialised area would be expected to develop a higher business culture, and be

more aware of the impact of business on society and the environment. The important role played by

firms in industrialised zones leads consumers to expect those companies to contribute to the

development of society in significant ways. At the same time, consumers that live in industrialised

zones usually face environmental concerns such as pollution in their own lives. They are

understandably more interested in the environmental aspect of business as their lives are directly

affected by the environmental impacts of production systems.

In synthesis, the research presents a detailed demographical profile of consumers with a high

Responsible Attitude. These are individuals aged between 35 and 55, with a high level of education and

income, who usually live in more industrialised geographical zones.

7. Conclusion

Although our research was conducted on a large number of consumers, our findings are limited in

scope as we confined our study to Italy. In this respect, replication research in other countries would be

desirable to broaden understanding of the relationship between demographical characteristics and

Responsible Attitude in consumers.

24

One interesting variable not considered here, would be the effect on Responsible Attitude of cultural

backgrounds - specifically differing religious traditions.

Despite this limitation, the research contributes to the understanding of the demographical

characteristics of responsible consumers and fills a knowledge gap, providing useful results both from a

business and academic point of view.

The research improves understanding of consumers who have a Responsible Attitude, who are mainly

the final target of CSR initiatives and are probably interested in social and environmental products.

Starting from the hypothesis that CSR profitability is closely linked to the ability of consumers to affect

the success of responsible firms, the research states that approaching CSR as a competitive advantage

means targeting a specific demographical population. Given that the improvement in sales based on

CSR initiatives is influenced by the awareness of a customer’s tendency to award responsible firms,

managers who deal with CSR need to be aware of the demographical characteristics of the target

customers. The findings state that, although CSR is desirable from the point of view of society, when

aimed at end customers with demographical features that predict Responsible Attitudes, it is more

likely to generate better performance.

The research contributes to a better understanding of Responsible Attitude in all consumers and, more

generally, of responsible consumers themselves. Importantly, it has shown that the demographical

characteristics of consumers are predictors of Responsible Attitude in the consumer. Future research

could usefully investigate the cognitive gap between consumers and firms regarding their social and

environmental efforts. The alignment in cognition of responsible initiatives between consumers and

firms is interesting as it influences the effectiveness of CSR initiatives in improving sales and

generating a competitive edge. A second area of research into responsible consumers could address the

differences in Responsible Attitude in the consumer’s life. The main topic that could encourage

25

research in this field is the understanding of changeability or non-changeability of consumers’

Responsible Attitude in the different stages of the consumer’s life. Basically, the question is whether

Responsible Attitude is expected to change or if it is closely related to personal characteristics and

tends to be stable over time. This question is promising as a way of explaining the reduced Responsible

Attitude observed in younger consumers and could help us to understand whether Responsible Attitude

could become a characteristic of these consumers, or whether it is expected to decrease in the future

when the current younger generation become mature. The study of the efficiency of external initiatives

to encourage and improve Responsible Attitude in consumers is closely linked to differences in

Responsible Attitude during the consumers’ life. This issue is also important to firms that flank CSR

initiatives with programs aimed at educating their consumers to be conscious of social and

environmental issues related to their purchasing.

Given that firms increasingly seek to develop a competitive advantage using CSR initiatives and

advertising campaigns, it would be interesting if future research also analysed Responsible Attitude

using data on the effective purchasing choice of consumers. This research could address the issue of

how conventional purchase criteria (price, quality, convenience) factor into purchasing decisions

compared to Responsible Attitude. The core topic of this field of research is the determination of the

premium price that consumers are willing to pay to satisfy their Responsible Attitude towards the

purchasing of responsible products.

26

References

Ahmed M. K., Chung Y. and Eichenseher J. W. (2003). Business Students Perception of Ethics and

Moral Judgment: a Cross-cultural Study. Journal of Business Ethics 43: 89-102.

Al-Khatib J. A., Vitell S. J. and Rawwas M. Y. A. (1997). Consumer Ethics: a Cross-cultural

Investigation. European Journal of Marketing 31 (11/12): 750-767.

Amine L.S. (1996). The Need for Moral Champions in Global Marketing. European Journal of

Marketing 30 (5): 81-94.

Anderson R. C. and Hansen E. N. (2004). The Impact of Environmental Certification on Preferences

for Wood Furniture: a Conjoint Analysis Approach. Forest Products Journal 54 (3): 42-50.

Anderson T. W. and Cunningham W. H. (1972). The Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of

Marketing 36: 23-31.

Arlow P. (1991). Personal Characteristics on College Students’ Evaluations of Business Ethics and

Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 10: 63-69.

Auger P., Devinney T. M. and Louviere J. J. (2000). Wither Ethical Consumerism: do Consumers

Value Ethical Attributes?. Unpublished working paper. Australian Graduate School of

Management. University of New South Wales.

Auger P., Burke P., Devinney T. M. and Louviere J. J. (2003). What Will Consumers Pay for Social

Product Features?. Journal of Business Ethics 42 (3): 281-304.

Aupperle K. E., Carroll A. B. and Hatfield J. P. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship

Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal:

446-463.

27

Babakus E. C., Bienstock C. and Scooter J. R. V. (2004). Linking Perceived Quality and Customer

Satisfaction to Store Traffic and Revenue Growth. Decision Sciences 35 (4): 713-737.

Backhaus K. B. B., Stone A. and Heiner K. (2002). Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate

Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness. Business and Society 41 (3): 292-318.

Beltramini R. F., Peterson R. A., and Kozmetsky G. (1984). Concerns of College Students Regarding

Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 3: 195-200.

Berens G., Van Riel C. and Van Bruggen G. (2005). Corporate Associations and Consumer Product

Responses: the Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Dominance. Journal of Marketing 69 (6):

35-48.

Bhattacharya C. B. and Sen S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers

Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review 47 (1): 9-24.

Björner T. B., Hansen L. G. and Russell C. S. (2004). Environmental Labeling and Consumers’ Choice

- an Experimental Analysis of the Effect of the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management 47 (3): 411-434.

Boulstridge E. and Carrigan M. (2000). Do Consumers Really Care About Corporate Responsibility?

Highlighting the Aptitude-Behaviour Gap. Journal of Communication Management 4 (4): 355-

368.

Brown T. and Dacin P. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer

Product Responses. Journal of Marketing 61: 68-84.

Browning J. and Zabriskie N. B. (1983). How Ethical Are Industrial Buyers?. Industrial Marketing

Management 12: 219-224.

Buchholz A. R. (1978). Corporate Social Performance and Stock Market Performance. Academy of

Management Journal 21: 479-486.

28

Callahan S. (1990). Is Gender Germane?. Health Progress: 21-24.

Carey L., Shaw D. and Shiu E. (2008). The Impact of Ethical Concerns on Family Consumer Decision-

Making. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (5): 553-560.

Carrigan M. and Attalla A. (2001). The Myth of the Ethical Consumer Do Ethics Matter in Purchase

Behavior?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (7): 560-577.

Chiu R. K., Wong M. M. and Kosinski F. A. (1998). Confucian Values and Conflict Behavior of Asian

Managers: A Comparison of Two Countries. Social Behavior and Personality 26 (1): 11-22.

Chonko L. B. and Hunt S. B. (1985). Ethics and Marketing Management: an Empirical Examination.

Journal of Business Research 13: 339-359.

Churchill G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal

of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64-73.

Clarkson M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social

Performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 65-91.

Cobb-Walgren C. J. and Ruble C. A. (1995). Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Inten.

Journal of Advertising 24 (3): 25-41.

Cohen J. W. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey, NJ.

Crane, A. and Matten D. (2004). Business Ethics: a European Perspective. Oxford University Press:

New York, NY.

Creyer E. H. and Ross W. T. (1997). The Influence of Firm Behavior on Purchase Intentions: Do

Consumers Really Care About Business Ethics?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 6 (14): 421-

432.

29

Crow S., Fok L., Hartman S. and Payne D. (1991). Gender and Values: What Is The Impact Of

Decision-Making?. Sex Roles 25 (3/4): 255-268.

De la Cuesta C. and Valor C. (2004). Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility Through Public

Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case. Journal of Business Ethics 55: 275-93.

de los Salmones M. G, Crespo A. H. and del Bosque I. R. (2005). Influence of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Loyalty and Valuation of Services. Journal of Business Ethics 61: 369-385.

De Pelsmacker P., Driessen L. and Rayp G. (2005). Do Consumers Care About Ethics? Willingness to

Pay For Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39 (2): 363-385.

Derry R. (1987). Moral Reasoning in Work-Related Conflicts. In W. C. Frederick (ed. ), Research in

Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9. JAI Press: Greenwich, MA.

Derry R. (1989). An Empirical Study of Moral Reasoning Among Managers. Journal of Business

Ethics 8: 855-862.

Deshpande A. (1997). The Debt Overhang and the Disincentive to Invest. Journal of Development

Economics 52 (1): 169-187.

Deshpande S. P. (1997). Managers' Perception of Proper Ethical Conduct: the Effect of Sex, Age, and

Level of Education. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 79-85.

Devinney T., Auger P., Eckhardt G. M. and Birtchnell, T. (2006). The Other CSR: Consumer Social

Responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation Review: 30-37.

Dickson M. A. (2001). Utility of No Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers: Profiling Label Users and

Predicting Their Purchases. Journal of Consumer Affairs 35 (1): 96-119.

Doane D. (2001). Taking Flight: the Rapid Growth of Ethical Consumerism. New Economics

Foundation: London, UK.

30

Ellen P. S., Mohr L. A. and Webb D. J. (2000). Charitable Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?.

Journal of Retailing 76 (3): 393-406.

Elliott K. A. and Freeman R. (2001). “White Hats or Don Quixotes? Human Rights Vigilantes in The

Global Economy. NBER Working Paper 8102. January.

Emerson T. L. N. and Conroy S. J. (2004). Have Ethical Aptitudes Changed? An Intertemporal

Comparison of the Ethical Perceptions of College Students in 1985 and 2001. Journal of Business

Ethic 50 (2): 167-176.

Engel J. F. and Blackwell R. D. (1982). Consumer Behavior. The Dryden Press: New York, NY.

European Commission. (2002). “Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility: a Business

Contribution to Sustainable Development. Available at: http://ec. europa.

eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr_index. htm

European Commission (2006). New Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility Implementing

the Partnership for Growth and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on CSR. Available at:

http://ec. europa. eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr_index. htm.

Ferrell O. C. and Gresham L. B. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical

Decision Making In Marketing. Journal of Business Research 49 (3): 87-96.

Ferrell O. C. and Skinner S. J. (1988). Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Structure In Marketing

Research Organizations. Journal of Marketing Research 25: 103-109.

Flanagan O. and Jackson K. (1987). Justice, Care, and Gender. Ethics 97: 622-637

Ford R. C. and Richardson W. D. (1994). Ethical Decision Making: a Review of the Empirical

Literature. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (2): 205-221.

Fuller D. A. (1999). Sustainable Marketing: Managerial-Ecological Issues. Sage Publications:

Thousand Oaks, CA.

31

Fullerton S., Kerch K. B. and Dodge H. R. (1996). Consumer Ethics: an Assessment of Individual

Behavior in the Marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 805-814.

Goolsby J. R. and Shelby D. (1992). Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing. Journal of

Marketing 56: 55-69.

Greening D. W. and Turban D. B. (2000). Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage

in Attracting a Quality Workforce. Business and Society 39: 254-280.

Hair Jr J. F., Black W. C., Babin B., Anderson R. and Tatham R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis.

6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Handelman, J., and Arnold, S. (1999). The Role of Marketing Actions With a Social Dimension:

Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing 63 (3): 33-48.

Harper G. C. and Makatouni A. (2002). Consumer Perception of Organic Food Production and Animal

Welfare. British Food Journal 104 (3): 287-299.

Harper G. C. and Makatouni A. (2002). Consumer Perception of Organic Food Production and Animal

Welfare. British Food Journal 104 (3/4/5): 287-299.

Harrison R. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Consumer Movement. Consumer Policy

Review 13 (4): 127-131.

Harrison R. T., Newholm T. and ShawD. (2005). The Ethical Consumer. Sage: London, UK.

Herr P. M., Kardes F. R. and Kim J. (1991). Effects of Word-Of-Mouth and product Attribute

Information On Persuasion: an Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. The Journal of Consumer

Research 1 (4): 454-462.

Hetherington E. M. and FeldmanS. E. (1964). College Cheating as a Function of Subject and

Situational Variables. Journal of Educational Psychology 55: 212-218.

32

Honkanen P., Verplanken B. and Olsen S. O. (2006). Ethical Values and Motives Driving Organic

Food Choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5 (5): 420-430.

Istat. (2001). 8° Censimento Generale dell’industria e dei servizi. Istat: Rome, IT.

Istat. (2009). Bilancio Demografico 2008. Istat: Rome, IT.

Jones T. M. and Gautschi F. H. (1988). Will the Ethics of Business Change? A Survey of Future

Executives. Journal of Business Ethics 7: 231-248.

Joyner B. E. and Payne D. (2002). Evolution and Implementation: a Study of Values, Business Ethics

and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 41: 297-311.

Kidwell J. Stevens R. and Bechke A. (1987). Differences in Ethical Perceptions Between Male and

Female Managers: Myth or Reality?. Journal of Business Ethics 6: 451-457.

Kilbourne W. E. and Beckmann S. C. (1998). Review and Critical Assessment of Research on

Marketing and the Environment. Journal of Marketing Management 14 (6): 513-533.

Kimeldorf H., Meyer R., Prasad M. and Robinson I. (2006). Consumers With a Conscience: Will They

Pay More?. Contexts 5 (1): 24-29.

Klein J. and Dawar N. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumers' Attributions and Brand

Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3):

203 -217.

Kohlberg L. (1984), Essays in Moral Development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development.

Harper and Row: New York, NY.

Laczniak G. and Inderrieden E. (1987). The Influence of Stated Organizational Concern Upon Ethical

Decision Making. The Journal of Business Ethics 6: 297-307.

Lane M. S. and Schaupp D. (1989). Ethics in Education: a Comparative Study. Journal of Business

Ethics, 8: 943-949.

33

Lewin A., Sakano Y. T., Stephens C. U. and Victor B. (1995). Corporate Citizenship in Japan: Survey

Results From Japanese Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (2): 83-101.

Maignan I. (2001). Consumers’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsabilities: a Cross-Cultural

Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics 30: 57-72.

Maignan I. and Ferrell O. C. (2001). Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an investigation

of French Businesses. Journal of Business Research 51 (1).

Maignan I. and Ferrell O. C. (2003). Nature of Corporate Responsibilities: Perspectives from

American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research 56 (1): 55.

Maignan I., Ferrell O. C. and Huit G. T. M. (1999). Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and

Business Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (4.

Matthews V. (1994). Give Farmers a Coffee Break. Marketing Week 13, May: 26.

McNeel S. P. (1986). College Teaching and Student Moral Development. in Rest J. R. and D. Narvaez

(ed. ), Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Lawrence

Erlbaum Ass: New Jersey, NJ: 27-49.

Melé D., Debeljuh P. and Arruda M. C. (2006). Corporate Ethical Policies in Large Corporations in

Argentina, Brazil and Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 63: 21-38.

Menon, A. and Menon A. (1997). Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: the Emergence of Corporate

Environmentalism as Market Strategy. Journal of Marketing 61: 51-67.

Mentzer J. T. and Flint D. J. (1997). Validity in Logistics Research. Journal of Business Logistics 18

(1): 199-216.

Michael B. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility in International Development: An Overview and

Critique. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, (10): 115-128.

34

Mohr L. A., Webb D. J. and Harris K. E. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to Be Socially

Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of

Consumer Affairs 35 (1): 45-72.

MORI (2000). European Attitudes Towards Corporate Social Responsabilities. Research for CSR

Europe: London, UK.

Moskowitz M. (1972). Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks. Business and Society, Spring.

Nebenzahl I. D., Jaffe E. D. and Kavak B. (2001). Consumers’ Punishment and Rewarding Process Via

Purchasing Behavior. Teaching Business Ethics 5 (3): 283-305.

Nelson J. (2004). Risks, Opportunities and New Models on the CSR Horizon. Opening Remarks at CSR

Initiative Launch Event. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. John F. Kennedy School of

Government: Cambridge, UK.

Newholm T. and Shaw D. (2007). Studying The Ethical Consumer: a Review of Research. Journal of

Consumer Behaviour 6 (5): 253-270.

Nicholls A. J. (2002). Strategic Options in Fair Trade Retailing. International Journal of Retail and

Distribution Management 30 (1): 6-17.

Norberg J. (2000). Resource-niche Complementarity and Autotrophic Compensation Determines

Ecosystem-Level Responses to Cladoceran Species Richness. Oecologia 122: 264-272.

O’Rourke D. (2003). Outsourcing Regulation: Analyzing Nongovernamental Systems of Labor

Standards and Monitoring. The Policy Studies Journal 31 (1).

Peattie K. (1995). Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting the Green Challenge. Pitman

Publishing Company: London, UK.

Pol L. (1986). Marketing and the Demographic Perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing 3 (1): 57-

65.

35

Prothero A. (1990). Green Consumerism and the societal Marketing Concept-Marketing Strategies for

the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management 6 (2): 87-103.

Rawwas M. Y., Swaidan A. Z. and Mine O. (2005). Consumer Ethics: a Cross-Cultural Study of the

Ethical Beliefs of Turkish and American Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 57 (2): 183-195.

Rawwas M. Y. A. (2001). Culture, Personality and Morality: a Typology of International Consumers'

Ethical Beliefs. International Marketing Review, 18 (2): 188-209.

Rawwas M. Y. A. and Isakson H. (2000). Ethics of Tomorrow's Business Managers: the Influence of

Personal Beliefs and Values, Individual Characteristics, and Situational Factors. Journal of

Education for Business 75 (6): 321-330.

Rawwas M. Y. A. and Singhapakdi A. (1998). Do Consumers' Ethical Beliefs Vary with Age? A

Substantiation of Kohlberg's Typology in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

6 (2): 26-38.

Rawwas M. Y. A., Vitell S. J. and Al-Khatib J. A. (1994). Consumer Ethics: the Possible Effects of

Terrorism and Civil Unrest on the Ethical Values of Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 13

(3): 223-231.

Rest J. and Narvaez D. (1994). Summary: What’s Possible?” In J. Rest and D. Narvaez (Eds. ), Moral

development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:

Hillsdale, NJ.

Rest J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and Research. in Rest J. R. and D. Narvaez (ed. ), Moral

Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., New

Jersey, NJ: 1-26.

Roberts J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. Journal

of Business Research 36 (3): 217-231.

36

Ruegger D. and King E. W. (1992). A Study of the Effect of Age and Gender Upon Student Business

Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 11: 179-186.

Schlegelmilch B. B., Bohlen G. M. and Diamantopoulos A. (1996). The Link Between Green

Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness. European Journal of

Marketing 30 (5): 35-55.

Scott M. S. and Alcorn D. S. (1991). Cause Marketing: a New Direction in the Marketing of Corporate

Responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 8 (3): 19-35.

Sen S. and Bhattacharya C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer

Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 225-44.

Serwinek P. J. (1992). Demographic and Related Differences in Ethical Views Among Small

Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics 11: 555-566.

Shaub M. K. (1994). An Analysis of the Association of Traditional Demographic Variables with the

Moral Reasoning of Auditing Students and Auditors. Journal of Accounting Education 12 (1): 1-

26.

Shaw D. and Clarke I. (1999). Belief Formation in Ethical Consumer Groups: an Exploratory Study.

Marketing Intelligence and Planning 17 (2): 109-119.

Shaw D. and Newholm T. (2002). Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption. Psychology

and Marketing 19 (2): 167-185.

Shaw D. and Shiu E. (2002). The Role of Ethical Obligation and Self-Identity in Ethical Consumer

Choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies 26 (2): 109.

Shaw D. and Shiu E. (2003). Ethics in Consumer Choice: a Multivariate Modeling Approach.

European Journal of Marketing 37 (10): 1485-1498.

37

Shaw D., Grehan E., Shiu E., Hassan L. and Thomson J. (2005). An Exploration of Values in Ethical

Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4 (3): 185-200.

Sikula A. Sr., and Costa A. D. (1994). Are Women More Ethical Than Men?. Journal of Business

Ethics 13 (11): 859-871.

Simon F. L. (1995). Global Corporate Philanthropy: a Strategic Framework. International Marketing

Review 12 (4): 20-37.

Stead W. E., Worrell D. L. and Stead J. G. (1990). An Integrative Model of Understanding and

Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (3): 233-242.

Steenhaut S. and Van Kenhove P. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships Among a

Consumer's Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics 64

(2): 137-155.

Stevens J., Steensma H, Harrison, D. and Cochran P. (2005). Symbolic or Substantive Document? The

Influence of Ethics Codes on Financial Executives Decisions. Strategic Management Journal 26:

181-95.

Strong C. (1996). Features Contributing to the Growth of Ethical Consumerism. Marketing Intelligence

and Planning 14 (5): 5-13.

Tabachnick B. G. and Fidell L. S. (2008), Using Multivariate Statistics 5th edition. Pearson education:

Boston, MA.

Tallontire A., Rentsendorj, E. and Blowfield M. (2001). Ethical Consumers and Ethical Trade: A

Review of Current Literature. Social and Economic Development Department, NRI; Natural

Resources Institute; University of Greenwich.

38

Terpstra D. E., Rozell E. J. and Robinson R. K. (1993). The Influence of Personality and Demographic

Variables on Ethical Decisions Related to Insider Trading. The Journal of Psychology 127 (4):

375-89.

Trevino L. (1992). Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research, Education, and

Management. Journal of Business Ethics 11: 445-459.

Tsalikis J. and Ortiz-Buonafina M. (1990). Ethical Beliefs Differences of Males and Females. Journal

of Business Ethics 9 (6): 509-517.

Valor C. (2008). Can Consumers Buy Responsibly? Analysis and Solutions for Market Failures.

Journal of Consumer Policy 31 (3): 315-326.

Vance S. C. (1975). Are Socially Responsible Corporations Good Investment Risks?. Academy of

Management Review 1 (3): 18-24.

Vandermerwe S. and Oliffe M. D. (1990). Customers Drive Corporations Green. Long Range Planning

23 (6): 10-16.

Vitell S. J. (2003). Consumer Ethics Research: Review, Synthesis and Suggestions for the future.

Journal of Business Ethics 43 (1/2): 33-47.

Vitell S. J. and Paolillo J. (2004). A Cross-Cultural Study of the Antecedents of the Perceived Role of

Ethics and Social Responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review 13 (2/3): 185-199.

Vitell S. J., Lumpkin J. R. and Rawwas M. Y. A. (1991). Consumer Ethics: an Investigation of the

Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (5): 365-375.

Vogel D. (2005). The Market For Virtue: the Potential and Limit of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Brooking Institute: Washington, DC.

Waddock S. and Smith N. (2000). Relationships: the Real Challenge of Corporate Global Citizenship.

Business and Society Review 105 (1): 47-62.

39

Webster Jr. F. E. (1975). Determining the Characteristics of Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of

Consumer Research 2 (3): 188-196.

Whipple L. P. and Swords D. F. (1992). Business Ethics Judgments: a Cross-Cultural Analysis.

Journal of Business Ethics 11: 671-678.

Whitehouse L. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Views From the Frontline. Journal of Business

Ethics 63: 279-96.

Woodbine G. F. (2004). Moral Choice and the Declining Influence of Traditional Value Orientation

Within the Financial Sector of a Rapidly Developing Region. Journal of Business Ethics and

Organization 9: 1-9.

40

Tables

Table 1. The structure of the factor Responsible AttitudeBehavior toward Items Loadin

gCSR information 1. I pay attention to information on social and environmental

behavior of the firms when someone speaks about it0. 516

2. I know products and services that give a part of the price to social initiative

0. 516

3. I don’t know firms that I think are responsible -0. 4214 I don’t know firms that I think are not responsible -0. 4545 I don’t care about information on social and environmental

behavior of the firms-0. 659

Decision making 6 I bought a fair trade product in the last year 0. 5507 I bought products/services that are give a part of the price to social

or environmental initiative in the last year0. 578

8 I try to purchase products/services of the firms that I think are responsible

0. 620

9 I try to not purchase products/services of the firms that I think are not responsible

0. 580

10 I speak badly about the firms that I think are not responsible 0. 46211 I suggest to purchase the product of the firms that I think are

responsible0. 456

12 I think that firms are responsible only to have a higher selling price -0. 43013 I think that today the cost of responsible products is too high for

my budget-0. 456

14 I do not change my behavior with the firms that I think are not responsible

-0. 481

41

Table 2. The descriptive statistics and Tests for Responsible Attitude

Demographic variables Groups N Mean Median Std. Dev. Min Max Differences

Gender Females 2,605 0. 057 0. 067 0. 302 -0. 791 0. 861 t(5,098)=1. 907; p=0. 057;η2=0. 004Males 2,493 0. 041 0. 060 0. 310 -0. 887 0. 860

Age 14-19 232 -0. 192 -0. 235 0. 280 -0. 813 0. 586 F(5,098; 6)=38. 696; p=0. 000

η2= 0. 04320-24 180 -0. 080 -0. 116 0. 325 -0. 801 0. 75725-34 721 0. 029 0. 039 0. 307 -0. 761 0. 80935-44 1,509 0. 074 0. 092 0. 294 -0. 767 0. 86045-54 890 0. 101 0. 128 0. 293 -0. 887 0. 79555-64 759 0. 075 0. 089 0. 296 -0. 740 0. 743> 65 807 0. 037 0. 050 0. 310 -0. 863 0. 861

Income Low 838 -0. 036 -0. 040 0. 292 -0. 863 0. 716 F(5,098; 3)=42. 304; p=0. 000

η2= 0. 024Low-Medium 1,461 0. 027 0. 039 0. 301 -0. 754 0. 795

Medium-High 1,799 0. 075 0. 089 0. 306 -0. 887 0. 860

High 1,000 0. 109 0. 144 0. 305 -0. 774 0. 861Educational level Minimum

level 3,298 0. 014 0. 021 0. 293 -0. 887 0. 861 F(5,098; 2)=2. 073; p=0. 003

η2= 0. 023High school 1,366 0. 085 0. 089 0. 301 -0. 664 0. 785

Graduate 434 0. 224 0. 182 0. 308 -0. 774 0. 861Geographical area North-East 1,804 0. 059 0. 083 0. 308 -0. 813 0. 855 F(5,098; 3)=14.

547; p=0. 000η2= 0. 008

North-West 856 0. 080 0. 090 0. 306 -0. 761 0. 861

Centre 934 0. 071 0. 083 0. 302 -0. 757 0. 757South 1,504 0. 007 0. 019 0. 300 -0. 887 0. 814

Total 5,098 0. 049 0. 065 0. 306 -0. 887 0. 861

42

Table 3. The Post-Hoc Tukey HSD Test For Age

(I) Age (J) Age Mean difference (I-J) Sig. 14-19 20-24 - 0. 113* 0. 003

25-34 - 0. 221* 0. 00035-44 - 0. 266* 0. 00045-54 - 0. 293* 0. 00055-64 - 0. 267* 0. 000>65 - 0. 229* 0. 000

20-24 14-19 0. 112* 0. 00325-34 - 0. 109* 0. 00035-44 - 0. 154* 0. 00045-54 - 0. 180* 0. 00055-64 - 0. 155* 0. 000>65 - 0,116* 0. 000

25-34 14-19 0. 221* 0. 00020-24 0. 109* 0. 00035-44 - 0. 045* 0. 01445-54 - 0. 072* 0. 00055-64 - 0. 046* 0. 046>65 - 0. 008 0. 999

35-44 14-19 0. 266* 0. 00020-24 0. 154* 0. 00025-34 0. 045* 0. 01445-54 - 0. 026 0. 35955-64 - 0. 001 1. 000>65 0. 038 0. 059

45-54 14-19 0. 293* 0. 00020-24 0. 180* 0. 00025-34 0. 072* 0. 00035-44 0. 026 0. 35955-64 0. 025 0. 601>65 0. 064* 0. 000

55-64 14-19 0. 267* 0. 00020-24 0. 155* 0. 00025-34 0. 046* 0. 04635-44 0. 001 0. 00045-54 - 0. 025 0. 601>65 0. 039 0. 139

>65 14-19 0. 229* 0. 00020-24 0. 116* 0. 00025-34 0. 008 0. 99935-44 - 0. 038 0. 05945-54 - 0. 064* 0. 00055-64 - 0. 039 0. 139

*=p<0. 05

43

Table 4. The Post-Hoc Tukey HSD Test For Income

(I) Age (J) Age Mean difference (I-J) Sig. Low Low-Medium - 0. 063* 0. 000

Medium-High - 0. 111* 0. 000High - 0. 145* 0. 000

Low-Medium Low 0. 063* 0. 000Medium-High - 0. 048* 0. 000High - 0. 082* 0. 000

Medium-High Low 0. 111* 0. 000Low-Medium 0. 048* 0. 000High - 0. 034* 0. 022

High Low 0. 145* 0. 000Low-Medium 0. 082* 0. 000Medium-High 0. 034* 0. 022

*=p<0. 05

Table 5. The Post-Hoc Tukey HSD Test For Educational Level

(I) Educational level (J) Educational level Mean difference (I-J) Sig. Minimum level High school - 0. 071* 0. 003

Graduate - 0. 139* 0. 000High school Minimum level 0. 071* 0. 003

Graduate - 0. 139* 0. 000Graduate Minimum level 0. 210* 0. 000

High school 0. 139* 0. 000*=p<0. 05

Table 6. The Post-Hoc Tukey HSD Test For Geographical Area

(I) Geographical area (J) Geographical area Mean difference (I-J) Sig. Nord-est Nord-Ovest - 0. 020 0. 355

Centre - 0. 011 0. 780Sud 0. 052* 0. 000

Nord-Ovest Nord-est 0. 021 0. 355Centre 0. 009 0. 921Sud 0. 072* 0. 000

Centre Nord-est 0. 012 0. 780Nord-Ovest - 0. 009 0. 921Sud 0. 063* 0. 000

Sud Nord-est - 0. 051* 0. 000Nord-Ovest - 0. 072* 0. 000Centre - 0. 063* 0. 000

*=p<0. 05

44