The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.

htm

BFJ 115,1

Consumers awareness of CSR in the German pork industry

Monika Hartmann, Sarah Heinen, Sabrina Melis and Johannes Simons
Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research, Institute for Food and Resource Economics at the University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Abstract
Purpose All food sectors, especially meat production and processing, has been in the dock over the last decades. CSR is considered as a way for an enterprise to increase its reputation and safeguard against risks, e.g. food safety, environmental or social incidence. Thus, it is not surprising that CSR has gained importance for meat companies. However, the question arises whether consumers are indeed aware and appreciative of this involvement. This paper seeks to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach A convenient sample of 123 consumers was interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. The data were analyzed using descriptive as well as uni- and multivariate methods. Findings The results show that CSR is hardly known by German consumers and only plays a moderate role in their present purchase behavior. However, consumers are interested in CSR and the survey results reveal a potential for CSR to become an important determinant in consumers purchase decision of meat. Research limitations/implications Concerning the interpretation of the results, there exist potential limitations that arise from the small sample size, the method of data collection and a social desirability bias in responses. Future research may analyze the role of CSR in consumers purchase decisions using non-hypothetical choice experiments. Practical implications There is scope for companies to gain competitive advantage by responsible conduct and by spreading information about that in a thoughtful and authentic manner. This holds especially for the area of animal welfare. Originality/value There exists little research that analyzes consumers attitudes towards and perception of CSR for the food sector and no study so far has concentrated on the meat industry. This study provides information for decision makers in food companies and researchers interested in the impact of CSR on consumers attitudes and behavior. Keywords Consumer purchase behaviour, Corporate social responsibility, Meat (pork), Germany, Social responsibility, Consumers Paper type Research paper

124

1. Introduction From all food sectors especially meat production and processing has been in the dock over the last decades. Scandals on rotten meat, dioxin, animal torture or inadequate labor conditions have gained considerable media attention and put the reputation of the whole sector at risk (Albersmeier and Spiller, 2009; Heyder and Theuvsen, 2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is considered as a way for an enterprise to
British Food Journal Vol. 115 No. 1, 2013 pp. 124-141 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/00070701311289911

The authors thank the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia and the European Union for funding this study which was accomplished within the scope of the project tskommunikation (FIN-Q.NRW). Forschungsnetzwerk Innovation durch Qualita

safeguard against risks following, e.g. food safety, environmental or social incidence (Hartmann, 2011). Thus, it is not surprising that CSR has gained importance by meat companies. However, the question arises whether consumers are aware and appreciative of this involvement. While there is considerable research that analyzes consumers perception of CSR in general (e.g. European Commission, 2009; Brown and Dacin, 1997; DLG, 2010), there exist little for the food sector (e.g. Hingley, 2010; Lindgreen et al., 2009 for some aspects of CSR). To the knowledge of the authors no study so far has concentrated on the meat sector. Against this background the paper focuses on analyzing consumers awareness of meat companies CSR involvement, their appreciation of different CSR activities as well as the inuence of CSR on consumers purchase behavior. In our study we concentrate on pork and thus the meat, which has by far the highest relevance in Germany (BMELV, 2009). The paper is structured as follows. After a discussion of the CSR concept, an overview is provided with respect to studies analyzing consumers perception of CSR and their willingness to consider responsible conduct in their purchase decision. In section 3 the methodologies used for data collection and data analysis are described while the results are summarized in section 4. Finally, the ndings are discussed (section 5) and conclusions are drawn (section 6). 2. Background of the study 2.1 The concept of corporate social responsibility In 2011 CSR has been ranked as the most important issue by managers in the Global Retail and Consumer Goods Sector (The Consumer Good Forum, 2011)[1]. Also in the scientic, political as well as public arena CSR has gained considerable importance over the last decade (Hansen and Schrader, 2005). There exist a large number of CSR denitions that though often similar in core items differ in their focus (Dahlsrud, 2008; Caroll, 1999). For this paper we will rely on the denition of the ISO 26000 (2011):
Social responsibility (SR) is the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that contributes to sustainable development, including health and welfare of society, takes into account expectations of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behavior and is integrated throughout and practiced in an organizations relationships.

CSR in the German pork industry 125

The denition, rst, indicates that businesses are accountable for their impact on society and the environment. Second, the denition acknowledges that the management of a company includes the management of the relationship with its stakeholders with the latter being those individuals or groups who have a stake in the company and thus are and can be inuenced by the company (Freeman et al., 2010). There is an ongoing debate in the literature on the economic effects of CSR. While irresponsible conduct of rms in general has a negative inuence on rm performance (Frooman, 1997), the results are more equivocal regarding the effects of rms responsible conduct on performance (Wood, 2010; Schreck, 2009; for the food sector see Heyder and Theuvsen, 2009). Indeed, positive effects can only materialize if stakeholders reward responsible conduct of rms. In the following an overview will be provided whether consumers as one of the central stakeholder groups are aware of

BFJ 115,1

CSR, how they perceive companys responsible conduct and whether it is reected in their purchase decision. 2.2 Literature overview: consumer awareness, perception and response towards CSR 2.2.1 Consumers awareness of CSR. Consumers awareness of CSR has been investigated in several studies. In general the ndings indicate that most consumers do not know the term CSR[2], search not actively and are little informed about companies CSR activities (Sempora, 2008; Schoenheit et al., 2007; Penn Schoen Berland, 2010). According to a recent survey among US adults only 11 per cent state to have heard about CSR messages from a company in the past year and the large majority (80 per cent) has never read about a companys CSR agenda on their website (Penn Schoen Berland, 2010). But even though only few consumers state to be familiar with the term CSR and are rather passive in obtaining information, most have clear associations what they expect from rms. In this respect, consumers mention accountability, honesty, lawfulness, environmental responsibility, responsibilities regarding employees and local suppliers (Schoenheit et al., 2007). 2.2.2 Consumers perception and response of CSR. The relationship between companys responsible conduct and consumers perception, attitudes and purchase (intention) has been addressed in a large number of surveys, in several experimental studies as well as in focus group discussions. Based on the Millennium Poll with 25,000 respondents in 23 countries MORI (2000) shows that the most commonly mentioned factors inuencing the view held by citizens regarding a company relates to employee treatment, community commitment, ethics and the environment and thus to CSR. Recent surveys carried out at a global (e.g. Nielsen, 2008), EU (European Commission, 2009), as well as at a single country level (e.g. PSB, Landor and Burson Marsteller, 2009 and Do Well Do Good, 2010a, 2010b for the US; Dawkins, 2009 for the UK; BVE, Roland Berger and GfK, 2009; Icon Added Value, 2010 and Sempora, 2008) reveal that the vast majority of consumers cares about the responsible conduct of a company and that a large share of those is willing to consider socially responsible activities of enterprises in their purchase decision. Furthermore, consumers declare to be willing to pay higher prices for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Most of them would accept a 5 percent surcharge, while only few would pay 15 percent more (Sempora, 2008; SevenOneMedia, 2009; DLG, 2010). While surveys and opinion polls suggesting high levels of consumer interest in corporate responsibility and an impact of CSR on consumption (Smith, 2009; Mohr et al., 2001) the results of experimental studies reveal that the strength and in some cases even the sign of this link is mediated by several factors (Hartmann, 2011). According to Mohr and Webb (2005), Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) and Klein and Dawar (2004) the effect of CSR initiatives on company evaluation and product purchase intention is a function of company-specic (e.g. CSR issues, company reputation) and consumer specic features (e.g. relevance of CSR) as well as the interaction between the two. Other studies point to the relevance of perceived t between consumers lifestyle and consumers value on the one hand and CSR activities on the other hand (Lee et al., 2011), perceived importance of and expectation about ethical behavior (Creyer and Ross, 1997), demographics (Auger et al., 2003), CSR strategy (pro-active versus reactive, e.g. Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Wagner et al., 2009 and Groza et al., 2011), information source (e.g. Groza et al., 2011), country (and thus cultural differences; Maignan, 2001)[3] and distance (e.g. domestic versus foreign CSR activity; e.g. Russel

126

and Russel, 2010) as mediating and modifying factors with respect to perception, purchase intention and/or willingness to pay. Furthermore, several studies indicate that CSR initiatives do not per se lead to positive effects (e.g. Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) but that, e.g. initiatives with a perceived low CSR-company t or those that are perceived as being prot motivated may negatively impact consumers believes, attitudes, and purchase intention (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). In addition, research has revealed a negativity bias consumers evaluation of companies seems far more sensitive regarding negative compared to positive CSR information (see, e.g. Creyer and Ross, 1996; Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Klein and Dawar, 2004; Mohr and Webb, 2005). Finally, the experimental studies by Klein and Dawar (2004) and Eisingerich et al. (2011) show that CSR activities can help rms build up general goodwill. The results suggest that a rms prior positive CSR record leads to resistance regarding negative information[4] while a negative CSR reputation can turn to be a considerable burden for a rm facing a crisis (Klein and Dawar, 2004). The success of CSR as an insurance factor is mediated by the importance consumers place on CSR (Klein and Dawar, 2004), by customers expertise and also by the area of crisis (e.g. CSR, service or customer related; Eisingerich et al., 2011). Finally, there are some qualitative studies based on in-depth interviews that analyze in more detail what consumers think and feel about socially responsible conduct of rms as well as their own approach regarding ethical consumption (e.g. Brunk, 2010; Mohr et al., 2001; Szmigin et al., 2009). Brunk (2010) investigates the dimensions of corporate ethics from a consumer perspective and identies main dimensions of consumers perceived companies responsibility and nd that those partly differ from companies perspective. The complexity of (ethical) consumption is revealed in the studies by Mohr et al. (2001) and Szmigin et al. (2009). The results show that though respondents were in general positive about socially responsible companies only a small group actively practices socially responsible consumer behaviour (Mohr et al., 2001). For the majority of consumers competing priorities between ethical values, price, quality and convenience request exibility in real decision making (Mohr et al., 2001; Szmigin et al., 2009). Previous studies indicate the high complexity regarding the relationship between (un)responsible conduct of rms on the one hand and consumer perception, evaluation and purchase behavior on the other hand. So far no study investigated the consumer response of CSR in the meat industry. However, especially this sector seems to be interesting to analyze as meat production has been criticized in the past due to, e.g. animal welfare incidences, high green-house gas emission, low labor standards and rainforest destruction due to GMO feed. Thus, the potential for responsible conduct seems to be especially pronounced in this sector leading us to focus on meat production in the empirical analysis of this paper. 3. Methodology Referring to the results mentioned before, consumers awareness and perception and their potential purchase behaviour towards CSR in the German pork industry were examined. The design of the study and its results are presented in the following paragraphs. The data were obtained from face to face interviews based on a standardized questionnaire in the city of Bonn (Germany) in spring 2010. Respondents were

CSR in the German pork industry 127

BFJ 115,1

128

recruited as a convenient sample on different public places in the city. Only those respondents that declared to consume pork and do the grocery shopping for their household regularly were considered. A total of 123 consumers took part in the survey. The distribution of selected socio-demographic parameters within the sample and the German population is shown in Table I. Comparing the two distributions reveals that males who do grocery shopping, younger consumers, highly educated consumers as well as consumers in households without under aged children are overrepresented in the sample. The questionnaire consists of four parts. The rst part of the survey aims to analyze respondents shopping habits regarding meat. The second part covers consumers knowledge, awareness and association with respect to the terms corporate social responsibility and the German equivalent Unternehmensverantwortung, rst in a
Characteristics Gender grocery shopping Male Female Age group 15-29 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years . 60 years Household Of one person Of two persons Of three persons Of four persons Of ve or more persons Education No graduation Low education Modest education High education College education Other Career Pupil/student/apprentice Housewife/househusband Blue-collar White-collar Civil servant Self-employed Retired person Unemployed Sample (n 123) 38.2 61.8 30.1 17.9 21.1 18.7 12.2 22.0 48.8 17.1 10.6 1.6 0 12.2 18.7 39.0 26.8 2.4 20.5 4.1 0.8 45.1 5.7 10.7 7.4 5.7 German population (2009) 27.7 72.3 17.6 12.6 17.0 13.8 25.6 19.6 33.6 18.8 19.0 9.0 4.0 40.1 22.3 12.2 14.2 7.2 17.2 Not available 12.3 26.9 2.6 5.2 18.4 4.2

Table I. Comparison of the characteristics of the sample and the German population (in %)

Source: Own illustration based on survey results, on data of the Federal Statistical Ofce (2010, 2011), the Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (2010) and the MRI (2008)

general and thereafter with a special focus to the meat producing industry. Third, consumers perception of different CSR activities is analyzed, while the fourth section deals with the relevance of CSR for consumers purchase behavior and consumers willingness to pay for pork produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. The Data were analyzed using the SPSS/PC program applying descriptive as well as uni- and multivariate methods (e.g. binomial regression, exploratory factor analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA)).

CSR in the German pork industry 129

Results Consumers buying behavior Consumers were prompted in an open question to name those criteria they consider in their purchase decision for meat. As Figure 1 reveals appearance, freshness, amount of fat, price and overall quality are the attributes most mentioned by consumers. Only few consumers seem to consider CSR factors like animal welfare (8 percent), origin (12 percent) or organic production (4 percent) while shopping for meat. Figure 1 also shows that only 1 percent mention labels as being a relevant factor in their purchase decisions. However, when asked specically whether they consider (quality) labels when buying meat 28 percent declared to do so (12 percent always, 16 percent sometimes) though only one third of those were able to name a label (e.g. local origin, organic production, QS, DLG). A total 19 percent out of the 72 percent who do not consider labels buy their meat at the butchers or the meat counter where personal trust likely substitutes for the credibility signaled by a label.

Figure 1. Criteria consumers consider in their purchase decision of meat (in %)

BFJ 115,1

130

4.2 Consumers awareness of CSR One aim of the study was to investigate consumers awareness of CSR in general and, more specically, in the German meat producing sector. Consumers were asked whether they knew the term Corporate Social Responsibility and, since the survey took place in Germany, also whether they were familiar with the equivalent German term Unternehmensverantwortung (UV). We asked for both terms because they are both used in Germany. Moreover many companies communicate their engagement in this eld under the term Corporate Social Responsibility, e.g. on their German websites. About 50 percent of the respondents are familiar with the German term while the English term corporate social responsibility is only known by 28 percent of the respondents. Of the survey participants 19 percent knew both terms, whereas 42 percent have never heard either. Those consumers familiar with CSR and/or UV were asked to name the information source they heard or read about those terms. As Figure 2 shows, newspaper, television or consumers workplaces are most often mentioned and thus seem to be the primary sources where respondents obtained their information with respect to CSR or UV. Respondents were prompted to rate the credibility of different information sources regarding a companys CSR record on a ve-point scale ranging from not credible at all (1) to very credible (5). Respondents evaluated label of independent groups (mean: 3.9) as most credible followed by non-management employees of a company and word-of-mouth recommendation (both mean 3.1) (see Figure 3). Especially company reports (mean: 2.1) and information provided by senior executives of a company (mean: 2.1) lack credibility from survey respondents point of view. Consumers were, in addition, asked whether they actively search for information about companies CSR (UV) measures in general and with respect to the meat industry. Results show that the large majority of consumers (92 percent) had in the past never actively searched for a companys CSR information. Regarding the meat sector this share is slightly higher with 96 percent. Meat enterprises information was gathered about Kauand, Wiesenhof and Du Darfst.

Figure 2. Sources where consumers have heard or read the term CSR or UV (in %)

CSR in the German pork industry 131

Figure 3. Credibility of different information sources regarding a companys CSR record (mean)

A Fisher Exact Test shows that consumers active information search depends on whether they are familiar with CSR and/or UV or not (p 0:005) with those familiar with either one of the terms are, as expected, more likely to inform themselves about a companys social or ecological actions than consumers who have never heard or read about CSR/UV. In contrast, demographics (e.g. age, sex or educational level) seem not to inuence the probability that consumers search for information as a binomial regression did not provide any signicant results. Being asked to name a company they consider responsible, 78 percent of the respondents were not able to mention any, while the remaining participants mentioned one or several of the following enterprises, e.g. Adidas, Ritter Sport, Krombacher, McDonalds, Hipp. Those respondents were invited to also name a meat company they consider active in the area of CSR. Indeed 11 percent were able to provide an example nnies, organic farmers, Du Darfst, the local butcher). (e.g. Rasting, To Consumers perception of CSR in the meat producing industry Independent of their familiarity with the terms CSR or UV, consumers were asked about their associations regarding responsible enterprise conduct in the pork producing industry. A total 43 consumers (35 percent) did not have any associations (see Figure 4). From the remaining 80 consumers, 76 mention animal welfare. As indicated in Figure 4, consumers mention a number of additional aspects they link to CSR in the meat industry, with residues/feeding and quality taking second and third place, however, being far less often mentioned compared to animal welfare. Since many consumers were unfamiliar with both the English and the German term, CSR was briey explained to survey participants prior to further questioning[5]. This way it was assured that all respondents had the same general understanding of the term. Following this clarication respondents were asked to judge the CSR record in the meat producing industry on a scale ranging from very bad (1) to very good (5). Furthermore, survey participants were requested to compare the CSR in the meat industry with the one in other industries as well as over time (scale ranging from much worse (1) to much better (5)).

BFJ 115,1

132

Figure 4. Consumers associations with CSR in the pork producing industry (absolute numbers)

As Figures 5-7 illustrate, about every third respondent did not answer the questions. They stated not to know enough about CSR in the meat producing industry to judge it. Those who felt able to answer the questions rated CSR performance in the meat producing industry rather low (negative) (mean: 2.5) and slightly (mean: 2.7), though statistically signicant worse (p 0:004, test value 3 (neutral category)), than in the overall economy. Interestingly, survey participants see an improvement in the responsible conduct of enterprises in the meat producing sector over the last years (mean: 3.2), which is signicantly different from the neutral category 3 (p 0:022), too. Inuence of CSR activities on consumers purchase behavior The fourth part of the survey investigated the potential impact of CSR activities on consumers purchase behavior. On a scale ranging from 1 (no inuence at all) to 5 (very strong inuence), respondents were asked to indicate for 12 CSR activities and 3 traditional purchase criteria how inuential each of those is for their purchase decision, assuming appropriate information were given. Table II provides the mean for each criterion.

Figure 5. Consumers judgment of CSR in the meat producing industry (in %)

Based on consumers statements quality has the strongest inuence on consumers purchase behavior, closely followed by those CSR-criteria regarding animal welfare (animal welfare, short transport times, adequate anaesthesia). Also, the CSR item transparency while producing has a rather strong impact on respondents purchase decision. Criteria linked to employees and the environment have a comparable inuence as the traditional purchase criteria price or amount of fat, while charitable donations as well as employees volunteering seems hardly able to inuence consumers purchase behavior. To structure results according to the action elds of CSR we summarized the items in four indices, one for animal welfare, one for environment, one for employee issues and one regarding philanthropy. These index values demonstrate that animal welfare is by far rated highest and has according to the statements of the respondents more impact on consumers purchase behavior than the other CSR activities. The results are in line with the answers to the open question above (see 4.3). Companies involvement in philanthropy is the CSR area with the lowest potential impact (see Table III). To be able to investigate coherences between the relevance of CSR-criteria and consumers demographics, rst an exploratory factor analysis with a Varimax rotation was conducted followed by an ANOVA. The factor analysis identied four different CSR factors (employees, animal welfare, environment, philanthropy) (compare Table IV). The results of the factor analysis reveal that statements referring to the same eld of action can be subsumed to one factor. The factor analysis, thus conrms our approach above to summarize the items regarding CSR areas based on four indices.

CSR in the German pork industry 133

Figure 6. Consumers judgment of CSR in the meat producing industry in comparison to other industries (in %)

Figure 7. Consumers judgment of the development of CSR in the meat producing industry over the last years (in %)

BFJ 115,1

Variable CSR-criteria Animal welfare Short transport time for living animals Adequate anesthesia before slaughter Transparency while producing Local origin of the meat Employees adequate payment Employees good working conditions Exclusive assignment of trained employees Companys environmental protection No assignment of contract workers Companys charitable donations Employees volunteering Other purchase criteria Quality Amount of fat Price

Mean 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.1 2.0 4.7 3.5 3.5

134

Table II. Inuence of CSR activities on consumers purchase behavior

Notes: Values for the criteria were obtained by asking respondents to indicate on a scale ranging from 1 (no inuence at all) to 5 (very strong inuence) to what extent the respective criteria inuences their purchase behavior Source: Survey results

The four factors were considered as dependent variables and consumers demographics (sex, age, educational level, income and career) were included as independent variables in the ANOVA analysis. A signicant model could only be found for one of the CSR factors, CSR environment (F 7.466; p 0.000). The demographics age ( p 0.001) and career ( p 0.001) as well as the interaction of sex and age ( p 0.014) and the interaction of age and income ( p 0.000) have a signicant inuence on the importance of the CSR factor environment. However, we were unable to detect signicant models for the other three CSR factors (CSR employees (F 1.063; p 0.489), CSR animal welfare (F 1.157; p 0.415), CSR philanthropy (F 1452; p 0.242)). Moreover we did not succeed in building reasonable segments by means of cluster analysis.
Field of action Animal welfare Environment Employees Philanthropy Table III. Indices of the inuence of CSR-issues on consumers purchase behavior Index value 4.43 3.75 3.55 2.05

Notes: Indices for the different issues are non weighted averages of those criteria characterising the specic issue (see Table II); values for the criteria were obtained by asking respondents to indicate on a scale ranging from 1 (no inuence at all) to 5 (very strong inuence) to what extent the respective criteria inuences their purchase behaviour Source: Survey results

CSR-criteria Companys environmental protection Local origin of the meat Animal welfare Short transport time for living animals Adequate anesthesia before slaughter Assignment of trained employees Employees adequate payment No assignment of contract workers Employees good working conditions Employees volunteering Companys charitable donations Source: Survey results

CSR employees

Factor loadings CSR animal CSR CSR welfare environment philanthropy 0.759 0.767 0.857 0.871 0.825

CSR in the German pork industry 135

0.670 0.815 0.853 0.852 0.948 0.957 Table IV. Exploratory factor analysis of CSR criteria

In addition to the question about the general use of (quality) labels in meat purchase decisions (see section 4.1) we asked respondents whether they would appreciate a label on meat produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Almost 90 percent of the respondents would welcome such a label. A Fisher Exact Test could not detect a signicant relation between consumers approval of a CSR label and the use of a label in their purchase decision ( p 0.649). Finally, respondents additional willingness to pay for meat produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way was analyzed. Based on the assumption that a pound of regular ground meat is worth 2e, respondents had to indicate how much they would be willing to pay for ground meat produced in a socially and environmentally sound way. Of the respondents 82 percent indicated that they are willing to pay more while 18 percent said they would not. On average, consumers are willing to pay 68 per cent (34 percent) more for responsibly produced ground meat compared to regular meat. 5. Discussion The results of our survey reveal that the discussion on CSR though prominent in the business, political and research arena has not reached most consumers yet. The large majority of respondents had never heard or read the term CSR before and even the German term Unternehmensverantwortung was only familiar to every second consumer. In addition, hardly anybody could mention a context. Merely 8 percent have ever actively searched for information about a companys CSR record, probably because they do not know the concept of CSR or UV. But even without being aware of the concept people could inform themselves about company actions in the eld of CSR. Only few could name a company they consider to have a positive CSR prole. Those ndings conrm the results of previous studies (see section 2.1; Schoenheit et al., 2007; Sempora, 2008; Penn Schoen Berland, 2010). Despite consumers low awareness of CSR most of them have clear associations with respect to responsible conduct in the meat producing industry with animal welfare (e.g. species appropriate husbandry and treating of animals, short transport

BFJ 115,1

136

time for living animals, adequate anesthesia before slaughter) being by far the issue most often mentioned by consumers. Given the lack of familiarity with CSR it is not surprising that almost every third survey participant felt unable to rate the CSR conduct of the meat producing sector on an absolute scale and/or relative to the economy as a whole and over time. Those however, who provided a rating, evaluated the sector rather negatively. However, the comparison with the overall economy indicates that survey participants seem to have an overall negative view on the responsible conduct of enterprises in Germany. The latter is likely due to a lack of information regarding the CSR conduct of rms. The fact that consumers do not actively search for respective information and that information sources such as newspapers/magazines and TV most heavily used by consumers have a bias in providing negative information (information on scandals rather than on positive conduct) might explain this result as well as consumer cynicism around companies motives. This, however, also reveals the importance of informing consumers about rms social and environmental activities and the relevance of safeguarding against scandals by, e.g. responsible social and environmental conduct and quality assurance. When asked in an open question about relevant criteria while purchasing meat, consumers hardly regard CSR criteria. Thus, one could assume that CSR is of little relevance in consumers purchase decision for meat. However, if consumers assume that information is available, the rating of different CSR items and traditional purchase criteria provide a different picture. Though the traditional purchase criteria quality ranks highest, it is closely followed by animal welfare issues, transparency and local origin, all of which are according to respondents evaluation more important than the price or the amount of fat. The results also provide a hint that different areas of CSR activities vary in their relevance for consumers purchase decision with issues such as philanthropic criteria like employees volunteering or companies charitable donations being of little relevance. According to our analysis we could only detect a signicant inuence of demographics on consumers interest in responsible conduct of rms for one of the four identied factor areas, environment. Our study shows on the one hand, that consumers do not inform themselves about CSR. On the other hand CSR is regarded as important and information about the CSR performance of companies may gain inuence on consumers purchase decision. Taking this into account, there is scope for companies to gain competitive advantage by responsible conduct and by spreading information about that in a thoughtful and authentic manner. As the results show, for respondents animal welfare is most important, thus information in this area promises the highest impact. Considering the results regarding trust in information and information sources (Figure 3), a label approved by independent organizations meets best the preferences of consumers. But even though consumers express a need for such a label conrming socially and environmentally responsible meat production, the market effect of such a label may be small as according to our results only few consumers consider labels in their present purchase behavior. 6. Conclusion We start with the limitations of this study. A rst limitation relates to the question whether or not the results can be generalized. Data were collected in the city of Bonn. Thus only those who were at this location at the time of the survey had the opportunity

to take part in the survey. The location of the survey might explain that the sample includes more males who do grocery shopping, more young and highly educated consumers as well as more consumers in households without under aged children than the entire population of Germany. Second the random sample of 123 people is quite small which means, that it is difcult to get signicant results. Response bias is a third potential limitation of the study. In spite of these limitations the paper gives evidence for the relevance of CSR for German consumers. Even though most consumers do not know the terms Corporate Social Responsibility or Unternehmensverantwortung they seem to have ideas about the way companies should behave. Regarding meat production and processing, animal welfare plays a dominant role. Though there is hardly an unaided awareness of CSR, information about irresponsible companies conduct can easily gain considerable public attention and thus negatively inuence markets. This especially holds for animal welfare as people feel close to animals and uncomfortable if they learn that a company does not treat those in an appropriate way (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Recent efforts to nd ways to avoid piglet castration provides evidence for the fact that members of the value chain want to prevent public discussion about this subject. Future research should have a closer look at the way consumers make their purchase decision and how they take CSR in this process into account in an environment of information overload and saturated markets. Getting a deeper insight into the way consumers manage to select just a few products out of a choice set with thousands of opportunities would contribute to better understand the relevance of CSR in purchase decisions and to explain the gap between consumers statements and behavior in the market. Moreover it could help to develop appropriate information strategies that could support consumers in making responsible choices.
Notes 1. The Top of Mind Survey of the Consumer Goods Forum aims at detecting the most relevant issues for consumer goods companies estimated on a recurring survey. The sample of the 2011 survey encompasses 443 decision-makers in consumer goods companies from 45 countries. In the 2011 survey CSR was ranked rst, food and product safety second and the overall economic environment including demographic change and trends in consumer demands took place three. 2. In contrast the term sustainability is known by the majority (84 percent) of consumers according to a survey conducted in 2010. Respondents dene this term as regeneration, environmental protection and looking at the future (DLG, 2010). 3. The relevance of country for consumers ethical beliefs is analysed in Auger et al. (2003). Though the authors are able to detect differences in attitudes with respect to social and ethical issues similarities between most of the countries analyzed dominate. 4. However, Wagner et al. (2009) also point to the danger that inconsistent CSR information (e.g. positive communication by rms and negative reports on rms by third parties) may lead to perception of corporate hypocrisy and thus induce a negative attitude of consumers towards those rms. 5. We explained CSR as follows: CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations. This implementation is voluntary and goes beyond laws.

CSR in the German pork industry 137

BFJ 115,1

138

References Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (2009), Das Ansehen der Fleischwirtschaft: zur Bedeutung einer bergreifenden Perspektive, in Bo hm, J., Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (Eds), Die stufenu ffentlichkeit, EUL Verlag, Lohmar, hrungswirtschaft im Scheinwerferlicht der O Erna pp. 213-50. Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J. (2003), What will consumers pay for social product features?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 281-304. Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 46-53. ber Erna hrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 2009, BMELV (2009), Statistisches Jahrbuch u NW-Verlag, Bremerhaven. Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84. Brunk, K. (2010), Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions a consumer perspective of corporate ethics, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 255-62. BVE, Roland Berger and GfK (2009), Consumers Choice 09 Corporate Responsibility in der rnberg. hrungsindustrie, Nu Erna Caroll, A.B. (1999), Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a denitional construct, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95. Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1997), The inuence of rm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics?, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 421-32. Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1996), The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 173-85. Dahlsrud, A. (2008), How corporate social responsibility is dened: an analysis of 37 denitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-13. Dawkins, J. (2009), Down but not out: corporate responsibility in turbulent times, Ipsos MORI. Review of the Year Things Can Only Get Better. Key Findings for British Business, Ipsos MORI, London. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (2010), Rentenversicherung in Zahlen, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, Berlin. DLG (2010), Nachhaltigkeit aus Verbrauchersicht. Studie 2010. Do Well Do Good (2010a), The Do Well Do Good Public Opinion Survey on corporate social responsibility Summary Report, available at: http://dowelldogood.net/wp-content/ uploads/2011/03/DWDG_CSR_Final.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011). Do Well Do Good (2010b), The Do Well Do Good Public Opinion Survey on cause marketing Summary Report, available at: http://dowelldogood.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ DWDG_Cause_survey.pdf (accessed 8 November 2011). Eisingerich, A., Rubera, G., Seifert, M. and Bhardwaj, G. (2011), Doing good and doing better despite negative infomation? The role of corporate social responsibility in consumer resistance to negative information, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-75. European Commission (2009), Europeans attitude towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ash/_ 256_en.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011).

Federal Statistical Ofce (2010), Statistisches Jahrbuch 2010, Federal Statistical Ofce, Wiesbaden. lkerung und Erwerbsta tigkeit, Beruf, Federal Statistical Ofce (2011), Mikrozensus, Bevo tigen Fachserie 1 Reihe 4.1.2 Ausbildung und Arbeitsbedingungen der Erwerbsta uterungen 2009, Federal Statistical Ofce, Wiesbaden. Allgemeine und Methodische Erla Folkes, V. and Kamins, M. (1999), Effects of information about rms ethical and unethical actions on consumers attitudes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-59. Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, W. and de Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory The State Of The Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Frooman, J. (1997), Socially irresponsible and illegal behaviour and shareholder wealth: a meta-analysis of event studies, Business and Society, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 221-49. Groza, M., Pronschinskee, M. and Walker, M. (2011), Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 639-52. Hansen, U. and Schrader, U. (2005), Corporate social responsibility als aktuelles Thema der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 373-95. Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. (2002), Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Nos 3/4/5, pp. 287-99. Hartmann, M. (2011), Corporate social responsibility in the food sector, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 297-324. hm, Heyder, M. and Theuvsen, L. (2009), Corporate social responsibility im agribusiness, in Bo hrungswirtschaft im Scheinwerferlicht der J., Albersmeier, F. and Spiller, A. (Eds), Die Erna ffentlichkeit, EUL Verlag, Lohmar, pp. 47-73. O Hingley, M. (2010), Networks in socially embedded local food supply: the case of retailer co-operatives, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 111-28. rnberg. fstand 2010, Icon Added Value, Nu Icon Added Value (2010), CSR auf dem Pru ISO 26000 (2011), DIN ISO 26000, Leitfaden zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung (ISO 26000:2010), ISO, Berlin. 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, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-17. Lee, E., Park, S.P., Rapert, M.I. and Newman, C.L. (2011), Does perceived consumer t matter in corporate social responsibility issues?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1558-64. Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M.K. and Vanhamme, J. (2009), The Crisis of Food Brands: Sustaining Safe, Innovative, and Competitive Food Supply, Gower Publishing, Aldershot. Maignan, I. (2001), Consumers perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72. Mohr, L. and Webb, D. (2005), The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-47. Mohr, L., Webb, D. and Harris, K. (2001), Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility and buying behavior, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72. MORI (2000), The First Ever European Survey of Consumers Attitudes towards Corporate Social Responsibility, Research for CSR Europe, MORI, Brussels, London.

CSR in the German pork industry 139

BFJ 115,1

140

MRI (2008), Nationale Verzehrsstudie II. Ergebnisbericht, Teil 1 einschlielich nzungsband/Schichtindex. Die bundesweite Befragung zur Erna hrung von Erga Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen, available at: www.was-esse-ich.de/uploads/media/ NVS_II_Abschlussbericht_Teil_1_mit_Ergaenzungsbericht.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011). Nielsen (2008), Corporate Ethics and Fair Trading. A Nielsen Global Consumer Report, available at: http://pt.nielsen.com/documents/tr_200811_CSR_Fairtrade_global_reportOctober08. pdf (accessed 6 May 2011). Penn Schoen Berland (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility Branding Survey 2010, available at: www.psbresearch.com/les/CSR%20Branding%20Survey%202010%20EXTERNAL% 20FINAL.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011). PSB, Landor and Burson Marsteller (2009), Corporate Citizenship Study, available at: www.bursonmarsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog /Documents/Corporate%20Citizenship%20Executive%20Summary.pdf (accessed 7 May 2011). Russel, D. and Russel, C. (2010), Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: egocentric tendencies and their moderators, Marketing Letters, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 65-81. Schoenheit, I., Bruns, M. and Gruenewald, M. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility als Verbraucherinformation, IMUG Arbeitspapier 17/2007, Hannover. Schreck, P. (2009), The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Understanding and Measuring Economic Impacts of Corporate Social Performance, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg. Sempora (2008), Corporate Social Responsibility Bedeutung aus Konsumentensicht, press release, 19 May, Bad Homburg. 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, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-43. n, available at: www.sevenone.ch/imperia/md/ SevenOneMedia (2009), Trendreport Gru content/content/Research/Marktanalyse/branchen/specials/TrendReport_Gruen.pdf (accessed 6 May 2011). Smith, N.C. (2009), Consumers as drivers of corporate social responsibility, in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 281-302. Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. and McEachern, M. (2009), The conscious consumer: taking a exible approach to ethical behavior, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 224-31. Wagner, T., Lutz, R. and Weitz, B. (2009), Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 77-91. Wood, D.J. (2010), Measuring corporate social performance: a review, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 50-84.

Further reading The Consumer Goods Forum (2011), Economic concerns and consumer demand remain top priorities for consumer goods industry, press release, 4 March 2010, Paris.

About the authors Professor Dr Monika Hartmann is Chair of the Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. She received her Doctoral degree from the University of Giessen. Prior to her position in Bonn she was at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Halle, Germany. Her current research interests include information and communication policy in the food industry, demand for food products and consumer protection policies, ethical consumption, corporate social responsibility in the food industry as well as the competitiveness of the food sector. Monika Hartmann is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: monika.hartmann@ilr.uni-bonn.de Dipl.-Ing. agr. Sarah Heinen got her diploma from Bonn University in 2009. Her major was in agricultural economics. Currently she is a PhD student at the Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. Her research interests are corporate social responsibility in the pork industry, sustainability in the food industry and standards and certications in the food sector. Dipl. oec. troph. Sabrina Melis was a student at the Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. She graduated from Bonn University in 2010 with a degree in home economics. Dr Johannes Simons is Senior Researcher at the Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Bonn University, Germany. He received his PhD from the University of Bonn. His research interests include markets for agricultural products and food, food safety, organic food, consumer information, commodity future markets and methods of market research.

CSR in the German pork industry 141

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints