Seize the Day or Save the World? The Importance of Ethical Claims and Product Nature Congruity

When does an ethical attribute matter for product evaluation? The role of warm‐glow feelings for low‐rated products

“…Our results thus support the finding that ethical attributes do not affect consumer response uniformly, their effect being dependent on product ratings. This study extends previous literature showing that the effects of ethical attributes may vary according to different contexts or variables, including product category (Luchs et al, 2010), attribute type (Bodur et al, 2014), price discounts (Andrews et al, 2014), type of brand (Arora & Henderson, 2007), the need communicated with the ethical attribute and the justice restoration potential (White, MacDonnell, & Ellard, 2012) or the level of sophistication of the product (Herédia‐Colaço & do Vale, 2018).…”

“…The above example illustrates the potential power of ethical attributes—those that reflect moral principles (Irwin & Naylor, 2009; Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, & Raghunathan, 2010)—in consumer decision‐making. Such attributes have been increasingly used in the marketplace (e.g., Das, Agarwal, Malhotra, & Varshneya, 2019; Olsen, Slotegraaf, & Chandukala, 2014) but—in spite of recent attention in consumer research (e.g., Bodur, Tofighi, & Grohmann, 2016; Herédia‐Colaço & do Vale, 2018; Schamp, Heitmann, & Katzenstein, 2019)—evidence about how consumers react to ethical attributes for products of different ratings is still lacking. Specifically, the recent literature has identified under which conditions—such as which product categories, types of brand, marketing tactics, or types of ethical claim (e.g., Andrews, Luo, Fang, & Aspara, 2014; Bodur et al, 2016; Herédia‐Colaço & do Vale, 2018; Luchs et al, 2010)—the effects of ethical attributes vary.…”

Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of desire for unique products, culture, and brand self‐congruence

“…Unfortunately, sustainable consumption (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009) is not ubiquitous because consumers see it being too time‐consuming, difficult, and expensive (Valor, 2008). They are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption when there is a self‐benefit (egoistic) interest beyond helping the environment and society (Herédia‐Colaço & Coelho do Vale, 2018). According to the green bundle approach (Delmas, 2018), sustainable products are associated with a set of complementary individual and altruistic co‐benefits (health, quality, economy, status, and emotion).…”

“…Some authors (Hennigs et al, 2013) suggest the two notions can be compatible, but others (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013; Dekhili et al, 2018) find a weak association between luxury and sustainability. While researchers have focused more on the environmental dimension (Hosta & Zabkar, 2020), there is increasing concern for both environmental and social sustainability (Herédia‐Colaço & Coelho do Vale, 2018). Additionally, there is an attitude‐behavior gap, the “green gap” (Johnstone & Tan, 2015), as consumers’ positive attitudes toward sustainability are not reflected in their consumption (Aagerup & Nilsson, 2016; Eckhardt et al, 2010; Groening et al, 2018).…”

When sustainability backfires: A review on the unintended negative side‐effects of product and service sustainability on consumer behavior

“…Sustainability liability is particularly detrimental for sophisticated products (Herédia‐Colaço & Coelho do Vale, 2018), food, fashion, and luxury brands. Despite sustainable foods being perceived as healthier (Cho & Baskin, 2018), they are consumed less because they are perceived as less tasty (Raghunathan et al, 2006).…”