Supply Chain Visibility and Social Responsibility: Investigating Consumers’ Behaviors and Motives

References

• Akerlof G (1982) Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 97(4):543–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alexander RD (1987) The Biology of Moral Systems (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ).Google Scholar
• Anderson L, Mellor J, Milyo J (2004) Social capital and contributions in a public-goods experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(2):373–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersson O, Holm HJ, Tyran JR, Wengstrom E (2016) Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. Management Sci. 62(1):29–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Au W, Kwong J (2004) Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas. Suleiman R, Budescu DV, Fischer I, Messick DM, eds. Contemporary Psychological Research on Social Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press, New York),71–98.Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Loewenstein G (1997) Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. J. Econom. Perspect. 11(1):109–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Wang X, Loewenstein G (1996) Choosing the wrong pond: Social comparisons in negotiations that reflect a self-serving bias. Quart. J. Econom. 111(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Weber R, Yao L (2015) Do markets erode social responsibility? Quart. J. Econom. 130(1):219–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloomfield RJ, Wilks TJ (2000) Disclosure effects in the laboratory: Liquidity, depth, and the cost of capital. Account. Rev. 75(1):13–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blount S (1995) When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process. 63(2):131–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Katok E (1998) An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis: The nature of beneficent behavior. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 37(3):315–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2013) Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. Management Sci. 59(2):265–285.Link, Google Scholar
• Bolton LE, Alba JW (2006) Price fairness: Good and service differences and the role of vendor costs. J. Consumer Res. 33(2):258–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brennan G, González LG, Güth W, Levati MV (2008) Attitudes toward private and collective risk in individual and strategic choice situations. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 67(1):253–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock JM, Lange A, Ozbay EY (2013) Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(1):415–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buell R, Norton M (2011) The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Sci. 57(9):1564–1579.Link, Google Scholar
• Buell R, Kim T, Tsay C (2016) Creating reciprocal value through operational transparency. Management Sci. 63(6):1673–1695.Link, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty S, Harrison GW, Haruvy EE, Rulstrom EE (2011) Are you risk averse over other people’s money? Southern Econom. J. 77(4):901–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G (2004) Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J. Labor Econom. 22(3):665–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Haruvy E (2002) Altruism, equity, and reciprocity in a gift-exchange experiment: An encompassing approach. Games Econom. Behav. 40(2):203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cone Communications/Echo (2013) Global CSR study. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2013-cone-communications-echo-global-csr-study#download-research.Google Scholar
• Cox JC (2004) How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 46(2):260–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang J (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econom. Theory 33(1):67–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Kwaadsteniet EW, van Dijk E, Wit A, de Cremer D (2006) Social dilemmas as strong versus weak situations: Social value orientations and tacit coordination under resource size uncertainty. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 42(4):509–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Pelsmacker P, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J. Consumer Affairs 39(2):363–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devinney TM, Auger P, Eckhardt GM (2010) The Myth of the Ethical Consumer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• d’Innocenzio A (2013) It’s incredibly difficult to prove that clothing is “ethically made.” Associated Press (May 1), http://www.businessinsider.com/hard-to-find-ethically-made-clothing-2013-5.Google Scholar
• Doorey DJ (2011) The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nike and Levi-Strauss. J. Bus. Ethics 103(4):587–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel C (2011) Dictator games: A meta study. Exp. Econom. 14(4):583–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Fischbacher U (2009) Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game. Games Econom. Behav. 67(2):399–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 54(2):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2008) Testing theories of fairness: Intentions matter. Games Econom. Behav. 62(1):287–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2004) Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol. Human Behav. 25(2):63–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2006) The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism—Experimental evidence and new theories. Kolm S-C, Ythier JM, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Vol. 1 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam), 615–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forsythe R, Horowitz J, Savin N, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econom. Behav. 6(3):347–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• García-Gallego A, Georgantzís N (2011) Good and bad increases in ecological awareness: Environmental differentiation revisited. Strateg. Behav. Environ. 1(1):71–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Norton M, Weber R (2016) Motivated Bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. J. Econom. Perspect. 30(3):189–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Nelson L, Brown A (2010) Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science 329(5989):325–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldstein W, Weber E (1995) Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. Busemeyer JR, eds. Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective, Volume 32: Advances in Research and Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Academic Press, San Diego), 83–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W, Huck S, Ockenfels P (1996) Two-level ultimatum bargaining with incomplete information: An experimental study. Econom. J. 106(436):593–604.Google Scholar
• Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ, Sequeira S (2015) Consumer demand for the fair trade label: Evidence from a multi-store field experiment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 97(2):242–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haisley EC, Weber RA (2010) Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games Econom. Behav. 68(2):614–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy Y (2007) Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica 75(2):503–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• HP (2016) Supply chain responsibility. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/global-citizenship/society/supplychain.html.Google Scholar
• Kagel J, Roth A (1995) The Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1986) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):728–741.Google Scholar
• Kalkanci B, Ang E, Plambeck EL (2016) Strategic disclosure of social and environmental impacts in a supply chain. Atasu A, ed. Environmentally Responsible Supply Chains (Springer, New York),223–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanagaretnam K, Mestelman S, Nainar SMK, Shehata M (2010) Trust and reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions. J. Bus. Res. 63(3):241–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katok E (2011) Using laboratory experiments to build better operations management models. Foundations Trends Tech., Inform. Oper. Management 5(1):1–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimeldorf H, Meyer R, Prasad M, Robinson I (2006) Consumers with a conscience: Will they pay more? Contexts 5(1):24–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klos A, Weber E, Weber M (2005) Investment decisions and time horizon: Risk perception and risk behaviour in repeated gambles. Management Sci. 51(12):1777–1790.Link, Google Scholar
• Kosfeld M, Okada A, Riedl A (2009) Institution formation in public goods games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(4):1335–1355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krawczyk M, Le Lec F (2010) “Give me a chance!” An experiment in social decision under risk. Exp. Econom. 13(4):500–511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lang M, Maffett M (2011) Transparency and liquidity uncertainty in crisis periods. J. Account. Econom. 52(2):101–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee HL, O’Marah K, Geraint J (2012) The chief supply chain officer report 2012. SCM World. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://www.scmr.com/subs/E2open_SCMWorld_CSCOreport2012.pdf.Google Scholar
• Levine DK (1998) Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev. Econom. Dynam. 1(3):593–622.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List J (2006) The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. J. Political Econom. 114(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luhan W, Kocher M, Sutter M (2009) Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Exp. Econom. 12(1):26–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marks and Spencer (2015) M&S plan A report. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://planareport.marksandspencer.com/.Google Scholar
• Marshall D, McCarthy L, McGrath P, Harrigan F (2016) What’s your strategy for supply chain disclosure? MIT Sloan Management Rev. 57(2):37–45.Google Scholar
• Mintel Group (2015) The ethical consumer—U.S.—July 2015. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://store.mintel.com/the-ethical-consumer-us-july-2015.Google Scholar
• Muthulingam S, Corbett CJ, Benartzi S, Oppenheim B (2013) Energy efficiency in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms: Order effects and the adoption of process improvement recommendations. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 15(4):596–615.Link, Google Scholar
• New S, Brown D (2011) The four challenges of supply chain transparency. Eur. Bus. Rev. (July 20), http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/challenges-supply-chain-transparency/.Google Scholar
• Nielsen (2013) Consumers who care. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2013/consumers-who-care.html.Google Scholar
• Nowak MA, Sigmund K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393(6685):573–577.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oosterbeek H, Sloof R, van de Kuilen G (2004) Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Exp. Econom. 7(2):171–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ortmann A, Gigerenzer G (2000) Reasoning in economics and psychology: Why social context matters. Streit M, Mummert U, Kiwit D, eds. Cognition, Rationality, and Institutions (Springer, New York), 131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 86(2):404–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paharia N, Vohs K, Deshpandé R (2013) Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 121(1):81–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patagonia (2014) The footprint chronicles. Accessed August 7, 2014, http://www.patagonia.com/us/footprint.Google Scholar
• Pigors M, Rockenbach B (2016) Consumer social responsibility. Management Sci. 62(11):3123–3137.Link, Google Scholar
• Roch S, Samuelson C (1997) Effects of environmental uncertainty and social value orientation in resource dilemmas. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 70(3):221–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rode J, Hogarth R, Le Menestrel M (2008) Ethical differentiation and market behavior: An experimental approach. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 66(2):265–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roels G, Su X (2013) Optimal design of social comparison effects: Setting reference groups and reference points. Management Sci. 60(3):606–627.Link, Google Scholar
• Rubin J, Sheremeta R (2016) Principal—Agent settings with random shocks. Management Sci. 62(4):985–999.Link, Google Scholar
• Seinen I, Schram A (2006) Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment. Eur. Econom. Rev. 50(3):581–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen S, Bhattacharya C (2001) Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. J. Marketing Res. 38(2):225–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith A (2013) Food and Drink in American History (ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA).Google Scholar
• Stanca L (2009) Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch? J. Econom. Psych. 30(2):190–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starbucks (2014) Global responsibility report. Accessed May 16, 2018, http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/ea2441eb7cf647 bb8ce8bb40f75e267e.pdf.Google Scholar
• Trudel R, Cotte J (2009) Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Rev. 50(2):61–68.Google Scholar
• TSC (2016) Greening global supply chains. The Sustainability Consortium 2016 impact report. Accessed May 16, 2018, https://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/wp-content/themes/enfold-child/assets/pdf/2016-impact-report.pdf.Google Scholar
• Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude—Behavioral intention” gap. J. Agricultural Environ. Ethics 19(2):169–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Verrecchia RE (1983) Discretionary disclosure. J. Account. Econom. 5:179–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wells W (1975) Psychographics: A critical review. J. Marketing Res. 12(2):196–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar