Low consumer social responsibility increases willingness to buy from large vs. small companies

Uzdavinyte, Elze; Kaminskiene, Zivile Article Low consumer social responsibility increases willingness to buy from large vs. small companies Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies Provided in Cooperation with: Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vilnius University Suggested Citation: Uzdavinyte, Elze; Kaminskiene, Zivile (2023) : Low consumer social responsibility increases willingness to buy from large vs. small companies, Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, ISSN 2345-0037, Vilnius University Press, Vilnius, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 152-170, https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2023.14.86 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317226 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 152 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 2023, vol. 14, no. 1(27), pp. 152–170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2023.14.86 Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies Elze Uzdavinyte (corresponding author) ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania Institute for Advanced Behavioral Research, AdCogito, Lithuania [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1180-1404 Zivile Kaminskiene ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania Institute for Advanced Behavioral Research, AdCogito, Lithuania [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2655-3570 Abstract. Previous research mainly concentrated on the link between the company size and consumer perceptions related to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here we aim to extend the previous findings to the context of the consumer’s individual trait of social responsibility. Building on signaling theory, we analyze such signals as company size and demonstrate that consumers have a decreased willingness to buy a product originating from a large company as compared to a small company. However, the effect flips for consumers with low social responsibility as they show a higher willingness to buy large company products. We contribute to signaling theory by showing that consumer traits such as consumer social responsibility can play an important role in the effectiveness of the signal. In addition, these findings contribute to consumer social responsibility research as well as consumer behavior literature by showing that the company size effect is moderated by consumer social responsibility. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed together with directions for future research. Keywords: company size, willingness to buy, consumer social responsibility Received: 24/1/2023. Accepted: 26/3/2023 Copyright © 2023 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Contents lists available at Vilnius University Press 153 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies Introduction Such terms as “Big Pharma” and “Big Tech” show that the adjective “big” has become more than a descriptor of company size but refers to the general demonization of large companies (Ovide, 2020; Thiessen, 2021). Indeed, sometimes large companies receive negative consumer evaluations and are seen as less ethical than small companies (Fre- und et al., 2023), less authentic (Özsomer, 2012), and tend to be associated with such wrongdoings as higher pollution (Grant et al., 2002) or illegal actions (Mishina et al., 2010). However, another line of research shows rather contradictory findings indicating consumers’ support for large companies (e. g., Bartsch et al., 2016) due to their superior quality, strong image, global appeal, conformity to consumption trends (Zhou et al., 2008; Strizhakova et al., 2008), or status and prestige (Davvetas & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Liu et al., 2021; Steenkamp, 2014). As the previous research findings are mixed, it could be argued that there is an additional explanation that can elucidate why consumer support for large and small companies differs. One reason why consumers prefer small companies over large companies is related to the consumer tendency to evaluate small companies as more sincere (De Vries & Duque, 2018) or more trustworthy (Green & Peloza, 2014). Another explanation proposed by the previous research might be that consumer traits drive the company size effect (e. g., Thompson & Arsel, 2004; Paharia et al., 2011). Knowing that consumers show more favorable attitudes (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and a willingness to pay a premium (Rahman & Norman, 2016) when a small locally-owned company is performing CSR and that small companies are de facto considered socially responsible compared to large companies (Green & Peloza, 2014), we propose that there is a trait linking company size and CSR – namely, consumer social responsibility, defined as the conscious and deliberate choice to make certain consumption choices based on personal and moral beliefs (Devinney et al., 2006). Building on this knowledge, we propose that consumers will show a higher willingness to buy a small company’s product rather than a product originating from a large company and that the company size effect will flip for individuals with low consumer social responsibility as they will show a higher willingness to buy a product originating from a large company. This paper aims to contribute to the existing knowledge in four ways. First, even though the effect of the company size on consumer perceptions and decisions has been addressed in previous literature (e. g., Green & Peloza, 2014; De Vries & Duque, 2018; Uzdavinyte et al., 2023 under review), there is still little knowledge of the company size effect on a consumer’s willingness to buy, and our research aims to shed light on this phenomenon. Second, we analyze the company size effect in regard to signaling theory. Existing research analyzed competence and quality‐related signals (e. g., Boulding & Kirmani, 1993; Erdem & Swait, 1998, 2004; White &Yuan, 2012, Zhang & Wiersema, 2009) or signals related to the family nature of the company (Rauschendorfer et al., 2021). We aim to address these shortcomings by following the 154 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies suggestion by Connelly et al. (2011) to explore different signals, precisely in reference to company size. Third, while the majority of research has concentrated on corporate social responsibility and how it impacts consumer behavior, this study looks into consumers and how their internal trait of social responsibility can affect their behavioral decisions. This is the first study that addresses the consumer social responsibility trait in the context of the company size signal and willingness to buy a product. We contribute to the signaling theory by showing that consumer traits such as consumer social responsibility can play an important role in the effectiveness of the signal. Furthermore, we aim to reconcile the contradictory findings of previous research by showing that consumer support for different company sizes depends on the consumer’s internal trait of social responsibility. Finally, our findings provide insights for marketers by showing that it is not only company attributes, in this case company size, that matter to consumer decisions, but also how intrinsic individual traits such as consumer social responsibility can affect consumer intentions. We discuss how this knowledge might enable practitioners to tailor specific communication messages for different consumers. 1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development 1.1 Organizational Stereotypes and Signaling Theory Stereotypes are conceptualized as evaluations about an individual or entity, such as a company, based on its membership in a specific category (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993). Recent research has identified one fundamental characteristic that shapes judgments, namely company size (Freund et al., 2023), as an important category used for evaluation and classification of organizations (Hall et al., 1967; Kimberly, 1976). Company size may refer to different measures such as the number of employees, market share, or value of the company. Though small companies are sometimes associated with locally based organizations (e. g., Rahman & Norman, 2016; Paharia et al., 2014), and large companies are often understood as multinational corporations (e. g., Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013; Rahman & Norman, 2016; Jamali et al., 2009), in this research we conceptualize small and large companies in terms of the number of employees, market share, and product assortment (see Appendix A). A tendency to form certain expectations and perceptions driven merely by the signal of a company’s size has been noted before. For instance, small companies are seen as more capable of developing close and direct relationships with their customers (Spence, 1999), more trustworthy (Green & Peloza, 2014), more communal (Yang & Aggarwal, 2019), and more sincere (De Vries & Duque, 2018). Consumers support small companies for several underlying reasons: willingness to emphasize their beliefs regarding anti-commercialization (Thompson & Arsel, 2004), a tendency to identify with underdogs (Paharia et al., 2011), or a consumer’s quest for authenticity (Newman & Bloom, 2012). 155 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies Given the variety of different research related to the company size effect on consumer perceptions and evaluations, it is still unclear what can be the underlying theory explaining why small and large companies garner such differing support from consumers. Our suggestion is signaling theory with its core idea that one party credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (Spence, 1973). Applied in a wide variety of disciplines and different contexts (Smith & Bliege Bird, 2005), signaling theory was also tested in consumer behavior research (Boulding & Kirmani, 1993; Erdem & Swait, 1998, 2004; White & Yuan, 2012). Previous research has noted various signaling effects on consumer perceptions and evaluations. For instance, the extrinsic signals of price or warranties are used by consumers as “signals” of product quality (Wright 1986; Zeithaml 1988; Boulding & Kirmani, 1993). Brand credibility signals affect consumer choices and brand consideration (Erdem & Swait, 1998). More recent research by Rauschendorfer et al. (2021) shows that consumers consider a product signaling the family nature of a firm to be made with love and are willing to pay a price premium. We apply signaling theory as a framework for our argument that the company size signal plays an important role in forming a consumer’s willingness to buy. Our research model is comprised of the independent variable of company size (small vs. large) representing the signal, the dependent variable of the willingness to buy (the intention formed by the receiver of the signal) and the moderator of consumer social responsibility. We aim to contribute to signaling theory by showing that consumer traits such as consumer social responsibility can play an important role in the effectiveness of the signal. Figure 1 Research Model Company size (a small company signal vs. a large company signal) Consumer social responsibility Willingness to buy 1.2 Company Size Effect on Willingness to Buy Previous research has demonstrated that company size affects consumer expectations (Yang & Aggarwal, 2019) and perceptions (Green & Peloza, 2014; De Vries & Duque, 2018). Moreover, company size has become an important factor in consumer purchase behavior. For instance, consumer preference for large brands declines, and preference for small brands boosts when these two brands are framed to be competing against each 156 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies other (Paharia et al., 2014). Consumers are motivated to have an impact on the marketplace as a result of the competitive context of conditions; consumers’ support for large companies declines, and it manifests as decreased purchase intentions, lower real purchases, and less favorable online reviews (Paharia et al., 2014). In addition, some consumers do not identify with large companies, as small underdog brands are better at addressing their identity needs (Paharia et al., 2011). Also, recent research has demonstrated that the large company size signal leads to a decreased perception of product healthiness, and this in turn decreases consumer willingness to buy that product (Uzdavinyte et al., under review). Building on this knowledge, we expect that: H1: A large company signal (vs. a small company signal) leads to a decreased willingness to buy a product. 1.3 Corporate Social Responsibility and Company Size Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a well-known concept defined as a “firm’s considerations of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social [and environmental] benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firm seeks” (Davis, 1973). The European Commission has defined CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society” (2011). Consumer preference for companies showing CSR behavior has been well documented (Murray & Vogel, 1997; Mohr & Webb, 2005; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). CSR improves company image and product evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997), and increases purchase intentions (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Lee & Shin, 2010). Meanwhile, sometimes consumers also tend to punish companies that exhibit corporate social irresponsibility (Grappi et al., 2013; Sweetin et al, 2013; Valor et al., 2022). Previous research agrees that CSR is an important factor, and consumer awareness of CSR is growing (Jung et al., 2022; Field, 2021). However, sometimes consumers form CSR-related perceptions based on information about the company size (Green & Peloza, 2014). CSR and company size links have been investigated previously both in emerging economies (Aras et al., 2010; Dartey-Baah & Amoako, 2021) and developed markets ( Green & Peloza, 2014), but knowledge in this area is still scarce as large multinational companies have been the center of attention when discussing the topic of CSR (Rahman & Norman, 2016; Spence, 2007). However, small companies also deserve the spotlight as CSR has not been extensively studied before, and small companies contribute a significant part of economic value (Jamali et al., 2009). Previous research has shown that consumers respond positively when a relatively small company behaves in a way that is beneficial to the community (Miller, 2001; Rahman & Norman, 2016; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Also, consumers have greater trust in small rather than large companies (Green & Peloza, 2014) and perceive small companies engaging in cause-related marketing as exerting greater effort compared to large companies, and this 157 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies leads to small companies being perceived as more sincere (De Vries & Duque, 2018). When small locally owned companies conduct CSR, consumers show more favorable attitudes (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and a willingness to pay a premium (Rahman & Norman, 2016). Furthermore, some scholars even propose that small companies are de facto considered socially responsible compared to large companies merely because of their size (Green & Peloza, 2014). Indeed, research supports the notion that smaller companies are strong in implementing CSR-related practices in their business operations (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013). Moreover, as small companies often operate in local communities, such moral proximity to the community stimulates a firm’s engagement in socially responsible actions (Spence, 2004). 1.4 Consumer Social Responsibility While research on CSR has been extensively analyzed, very little attention has been paid to the consumers themselves and how they differ in terms of their attitudes towards social responsibility (Schlaile et al., 2018; Caruana & Chatzidakis, 2014; Quazi et al., 2016). Webster (1975) made the first attempt to define a socially responsible 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)”. Later definitions followed as “ones who purchase products and services perceived to have a positive (or less negative) influence on the environment or who patronize businesses that attempt to affect related positive social change” (Roberts, 1993, p 140) or as “a person basing his or her acquisition, usage and disposition of products on a desire to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects and maximize the long term beneficial impact on society” (Mohr et al., 2001, p. 47). Researchers agree that consumers demonstrate an increasing interest in CSR initiatives (Jung et al., 2022; Durif et al., 2011), however, the concept of a socially responsible consumer has been largely unexplored (Caruana & Chatzidakis, 2014). Previous research notes that socially responsible consumers are essential for corporate social responsibility to thrive (Vitell, 2015) and play a significant role in ensuring the success of social initiatives undertaken by businesses leading to economic gains (Quazi et al., 2016). For example, consumers who respond favorably to CSR activities are the ones who are more eager to consume responsibly themselves (Mohr & Webb, 2005; Öberseder et al., 2011). Hypothesis 1 states that exposure to a large company signal (vs. a small company signal) leads to a decrease in consumer willingness to buy a product. However, this process will likely be not uniformly evident for everyone. According to the Conscious Consumer Spending Index, 64% of consumers supported socially responsible brands in 2021 (Field, 2021) demonstrating an increasing interest in CSR initiatives by consumers (Jung et al., 2022). However, there is still a considerable share of consumers (based on the recent data, 36%) with a low level of concern for CSR initiatives (Roberts, 1993; 158 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies Belk et al., 2005; Pomering& Dolnicar 2009; Öberseder et al., 2011; Stankovic, 2019). Previous research provided evidence that consumers who are not socially responsible tend to justify themselves by pointing out that large companies are also replete with ethical abuses (Belk et al., 2005). We try to extend this notion by proposing that consumers with low social responsibility not only justify their lack of responsibility but they also are willing to buy products from large companies more than from small ones as it suggestively is more in line with their own values. Building on these notions, we propose that: H2: A large company signal (vs. a small company signal) leads to an increased willingness to buy for consumers with low social responsibility. 2. Methodology, Data Collection and Results 2.1 Overview of Empirical Research We carried out two experiments to test the impact of the company size signal on the willingness to buy a product. We also investigated the nature of this effect by addressing the role of consumer social responsibility. The hypotheses were tested with different product categories (water bottles and smoothies). By manipulating company size, we expect that a large company size signal will decrease consumer willingness to buy a product as compared to a small company size signal (H1). Using a different product, Experiment 2 aims to test if the company size effect on willingness to buy is moderated by a consumer’s social responsibility. Specifically, we expect that consumers with low social responsibility will demonstrate a higher willingness to buy a product from a large company rather than a small company (H2). 2.2 Experiment 1 Experiment 1 aims to show the initial effect of a company size signal on the willingness to buy a product. We expect that a large company signal (vs. a small company signal) will lead to a lower willingness to buy a product. Method and measures. 400 adult participants were recruited from a professional research agency based in a mid-sized European country, Lithuania (Mage=49.5 years, SD=17.61, 55% female). The design was a single-factor experiment with three-levels (small vs. medium vs. large of the company size signal; the dummy coded large company signal being the reference condition; 0=small, 1=large, medium=2). The participants were randomly assigned to read one of the three experimental conditions about a company producing water bottles and thermoses and were shown a picture of the water bottle that they make. In the large company condition, participants read: “In the photo below, you can see a bottle made by a large manufacturer named Foodcy that produces thermoses, bottles, thermos cups and lunch boxes”. While in the small company condi- 159 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies tion, they read: “In the photo below, you can see a bottle made by a small manufacturer named Foodcy that produces thermoses, bottles, thermos cups and lunch boxes”. In the medium-sized company condition, they read: “In the photo below, you can see a bottle made by a medium-sized manufacturer named Foodcy that produces thermoses, bottles, thermos cups and lunch boxes” (for full wording of manipulations, see Appendix A). Participants were asked to evaluate their willingness to buy the water bottle shown in the picture using a five-item 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=‘totally disagree’ to 7=‘totally agree’ (adapted from Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991), Cronbach’s α=0.92; M=3.20; SD=1.44, see Appendix B, sample item: If I were going to buy a water bottle, I would consider buying this one) with higher scores representing a higher willingness to buy the product. Results. To assess if the manipulation of the company size signal was successful, we asked if participants recalled what kind of company was described at the beginning of the questionnaire and asked them the following question: “How big is the company described in the text? 1 – not big at all, 7 – very big”. The company size signal manipulation was successful as respondents evaluated the large company condition to be significantly larger than the condition of the small company (Mlarge=5.93, SDlarge=1.23vs. Msmall =1.65, SDsmall =1.05, t(264)=30.58, p <.001) or medium-sized company (Mmedium=3.78, SDmedium=1.38, t(265)=13.43, p<.001). To test the effect of the company size signal on the willingness to buy the product, an independent sample t-test was conducted. The result indicates a main effect t(264)=- 2.07, p=.04, so that the willingness to buy a water bottle from a large company is significantly lower than the willingness to buy the identical product from a small Figure 1 Company Size Signal (Large vs. Small vs. Medium) Effect on Willingness to Buy 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 a small company signal a large company signal a medium company signal Willingness to Buy Company Size Signal 166 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies sumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 6606.2005.00006.x Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0148-2963(96)00061-6 Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0026035 Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (2011). “Why Don’t Consumers Care About CSR?”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0925-7 Ovide, S. (2020, October 23). Why Washington Hates Big Tech. The New York Times. Özsomer, A. (2012). The Interplay between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 72–95. Paharia, N., Avery, J., & Keinan A., (2014). Positioning Brands against Large Competitors to Increase Sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0438 Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J. & Schor, J. (2011). The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography. Journal of Consumer Research,37(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1086/656219 Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the Prerequisite of Successful CSR Implementation: Are Consumers Aware of CSR Initiatives?. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285–301. Quazi, A., Amran, A., & Nejati, M. (2016). Conceptualizing and measuring consumer social responsibility: A neglected aspect of consumer research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12211 Rahman, F., & Norman, R. T. (2016). The effect of firm scale and CSR geographical scope of impact on consumers’ response. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 189–198. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.10.006 Rauschendorfer, N., Prügl, R., & Lude, M. (2022). Love is in the air. Consumers’ perception of products from firms signaling their family nature. Psychology & Marketing, 39, 239–249. https://doi. org/10.1002/mar.21592 Remmé, J. H. M. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Netherlands. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. In S. O. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter & M. S. Fifka (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe (Edition 127, pp. 93–123). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-13566-3_6 Roberts, J. A. (1993). Sex Differences in Socially Responsible Consumers’ Behavior. Psychological Reports, 73(1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.1.139 Schlaile, M. P., Klein, K., & Böck, W. (2018). From Bounded Morality to Consumer Social Responsibility: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Socially Responsible Consumption and its Obstacles. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 561–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3096-8 Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838 Smith, E. A., & Bliege Bird, R. (2005). Costly Signaling and Cooperative Behavior. In H. Gintis, S.Bowles, R.Boyd & E.Fehr (Eds.), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (pp. 115–148). Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility, 8(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00144 Spence, L. J. (2004). Small firm accountability and integrity. In G. Brenkert (Ed.), Corporate Integrity and Accountability (pp. 115–128). London: Sage. 167 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies Spence, L. J. (2007). CSR and Small Business in a European Policy Context: The Five “C” s of CSR and Small Business Research Agenda 2007. Business and Society Review, 112(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2007.00308.x Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets. American Economic Review, 92, 434–459. Stankovic, K. (2019, September) Do Consumers Actually Care about Corporate Social Responsibility? GWI. https://blog.gwi.com/chart-of-the-week/corporate-social-responsibility/ Steenkamp, J. B. (2014). How global brands create firm value: The 4V model. International Marketing Review, 31(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2013-0233 Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). The Meanings of Branded Products: A Cross-National Scale Development and Meaning Assessment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.01.001 Sweetin, V. H., Knowles, L. L., Summey, J. H., & McQueen, K. S. (2013). Willingness-to-punish the corporate brand for corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1822– 1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.003 Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2002). The Effects of Price on Brand Extension Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Extension Similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994380 Thiessen, M. A. (2021, March 4). Democrats demonized Big Pharma. Now it’s saving us from covid-19. The Washington Post. Thompson, C., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631–642. https://doi. org/10.1086/425098 Uzdavinyte, E., Gineikiene, J., Kaminskiene, Z. (2023 under review). It’s the Smallness that Counts: Consumer Preferences for Small vs. Large Companies Products Valor, C., Antonetti, P., & Zasuwa, G. (2022). Corporate social irresponsibility and consumer punishment: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 144, 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.063 Vitell, S. J. (2015). A Case for Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR): Including a Selected Review of Consumer Ethics/Social Responsibility Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 767– 774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2110-2 Webster Jr, F. E. (1975). Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/208631 White, T. B., & Yuan, H. (2012). Building trust to increase purchase intentions: The signaling impact of low pricing policies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 384–394. Wright, P. (1986). Presidential Address Schemer Schema: Consumers’ Intuitive Theories about Marketers’ Influence Tactics. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 1–3. Yang, L. W., & Aggarwal, P. (2019). No Small Matter: How Company Size Affects Consumer Expectations and Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(6), 1369–1384. https://doi. org/10.1093/jcr/ucy042 Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2–22. Zhang, Y., & Wiersema, M. F. (2009). Stock Market Reaction to CEO Certification: The Signaling Role of CEO Background. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7), 693–710. https://doi. org/10.1002/smj.772 Zhou, L., Teng, L., & Poon, P. S. (2008). Susceptibility to global consumer culture: A three‐di- mensional scale. Psychology & Marketing, 25(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20212 168 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies Appendix A Scenarios of Experiments Scenario for Experiment 1 Small company condition Large company condition Medium company condition 169 Elze Uzdavinyte, Zivile Kaminskiene. Low Consumer Social Responsibility Increases Willingness to Buy from Large vs. Small Companies Scenario for Experiment 2 Small company condition Large company condition Medium-sized company condition 170 ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037 Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies Control condition Appendix B Measurement of Constructs Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Willingness to Buy (adapted from Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991) The likelihood that I will purchase this water bottle is: (1-very low, 7-very high). α=0.92 M=3.20 SD=1.44 N/A If I were going to buy a water bottle, I would consider buying this one (1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree). The probability that I would consider buying this water bottle is: (1-very low, 7-very high). My willingness to buy this water bottle is: (1 very low, 7 very high). I would recommend this water bottle to other people in the future (1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree). Willingness to buy (adapted from Aaker & Keller, 1990; Taylor & Bearden, 2002) I have the intention of buying this smoothie. N/A α=0.93 M=4.38 SD=1.35 I would recommend this smoothie to other people in the future. I prefer buying this smoothie. Consumer social responsibility (self-developed scale) In my opinion, I am a socially responsible person. N/A α=0.81 M=5.07 SD=1.06 I am very concerned about the well-being of society. I follow high ethical standards. Note. N/A – not assessed