University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An intercultural study on how consumers’ attitudes about corporate sustainability influence purchase intention

(USC Thesis Other)

An intercultural study on how consumers’ attitudes about corporate sustainability influence purchase intention

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content I

An Intercultural Study on How Consumers’ Attitudes about
Corporate Sustainability Influence Purchase Intention

by
Zhixian LU

A Thesis Submitted to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
AUGUST 2017
II

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Literature review ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Sustainability and corporate social responsibility .................................................................. 7
2.3 Purchase intention and consumer behavior .......................................................................... 9
2.4 Corporate sustainability, CSR and consumer purchasing .................................................... 11
2.5 Interaction between culture and consumer behavior ......................................................... 14
3. Research questions.................................................................................................................. 19
4. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Model selection: IKEA ........................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Focus group .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Survey Instrument ................................................................................................................ 24
4.3.1 Pre-test, participants and distribution ........................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Questionnaire structure ................................................................................................ 25
4.3.3 Measurements of purchase intention ........................................................................... 25
5. Results...................................................................................................................................... 26
5.1 Focus group findings ............................................................................................................. 26
5.2 Survey results .............................................................................................................................. 28
5.2.1 Chinese section .................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.1.1 Reliability test ............................................................................................................ 28
5.2.1.2 Validity test ................................................................................................................ 28
5.2.1.3 Demographic statistics .............................................................................................. 29
5.2.1.4 Correlation assessment ............................................................................................. 30
5.2.1.5 Regression assessment .............................................................................................. 33
5.2.1.6 T-test ......................................................................................................................... 38
5.2.2 American section .................................................................................................................. 40
5.2.2.1 Reliability test ............................................................................................................ 40
5.2.2.2 Validity test ................................................................................................................ 40
5.2.2.3 Demographic statistics .............................................................................................. 41
5.2.2.4 Correlation assessment ............................................................................................. 42
5.2.2.5 Regression assessment .............................................................................................. 45
5.2.2.6 T-test ......................................................................................................................... 50
5.2.3 Comparative analysis of two countries ................................................................................ 52
III

6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 53
6.1 Corporate sustainability and purchase intention ................................................................. 54
6.2 Differences between different categories of sustainability principles ........................................ 55
6.3 Differences between Chinese and American consumers ............................................................ 56
7. Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 57
Reference ................................................................................................................................. 59
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 66

1

1. Introduction
Because in recent years abuse of Earth’s finite resources and the severity of global
warming are more broadly noticed and accepted, the issue of sustainability has become
one of the most important concerns of the United Nations and related academia and
authorities (Harris, 2007).

In the marketplace, some consumers consider sustainability as a factor influencing
their purchase decision. Due to the fact that more and more green consumers are
influenced by environmentally related issues, sustainability has increasingly become an
index against which potential buyers estimate a corporation’s brand image, reputation and
ethical standards.

On the corporate side, various strategies and methods have been developed to
address sustainability concerns, such as improving production procedures, controlling
pollution and contributing to communities. However, the role that corporate sustainability
plays in the corporate marketing and communication system is still controversial. For
instance, a UK research study shows that 30 percent of consumers claim they care about
environmental issues, but such concern doesn’t result in actual purchasing behavior
(Young, Hwang, McDonald and Oates, 2010). In this case, whether consumers are indeed
willing to pay a higher price for sustainable products (or what Young et al call the
“attitude-behavior gap”) may be still the main concern for corporations evaluating the
2

effectiveness of their sustainability efforts.

To assess the relationship between consumers’ attitude and their purchase intentions,
this study used the IKEA brand as the model. The author conducted a quantitative, online
survey to examine the relationships between the consumers’ attitude towards
sustainability principles, and their purchase intention. Based on IKEA’s practical
classification of its sustainability principles, this study classified the sustainability
principles in three different domains and respectively examined the effects and discussed
their mutual relationships and interactions.

Furthermore, given the fact that consumers from different societies and cultural
backgrounds can results in disparate purchasing behaviors, this study made an
intercultural comparison between Chinese and American consumers in order to better
understand corporate sustainability in a global context.

The paper concludes that:
(1) Consumers’ attitude towards a corporation’s sustainability principles and
strategies are positively related with purchasing intention;
(2) For both Chinese and US consumers, neither their attitude nor purchase intention
differed significantly when considered among IKEA’s three defined sustainability
domains (“Sustainable Lifestyle at Home”, “Energy & Resource Independence” and “A
3

Better Life for People and Communities”);
(3) Chinese consumers expressed a significantly more positive attitude towards all
three of IKEA’s sustainability principles, and stronger purchase intentions based on their
awareness of the environment-related principles, than did US consumers.

2. Literature review
2.1 Sustainability
Sustainability has become an important term, not only from an environmental
perspective, but also from a political, economic and social point of view (Szolnoki, 2013).
However, several decades ago, the term “sustainable development” did not even have a
uniform definition. Bansal (2005) notes that the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED)’s influential 1987 report, “Our Common Future” generalized the
term “sustainability” for the first time. The WCED’s report stated that sustainable
development” is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Common Future, 1987, p.
43), and it entreated humans to pay attention to the challenges presented by the world’s
projected population growth, food security, ecosystem degradation and energy issues.

Based on the WCED’s definition, more scholars and practitioners began to work on
sustainability issues during the 1990s (Montiel, 2008). At the early stage, their thoughts
and arguments centered mostly on “sustainable development” from the standpoint of
4

organizational management and human development. Even though sustainability was
associated with a corporation’s strategies and development (Gladwin, Kennelly and
Krause, 1995), the economic benefits of corporate sustainability, or economic
sustainability were not paid much attention at that time.

In addition, even though the WCED’s elaboration of sustainability was widely
accepted, scholars’ understanding of this term is still influenced by their personal
preferences and different concerns to some extent. For example, Gladwin et al. (1995)
interpret sustainability as “a process of achieving human development in an inclusive,
connected, equitable, prudent, and secure manner,” in which the macro-level of human
development is the core concern. They also connected sustainability with different moral
standards regarding social justice, environmental protection and human resources.

In an opposing view, other scholars such as Shrivastava (1995) believed that
sustainability was much more closely related with ecology. He claims that sustainable
development can be achieved through “total quality environmental management,”
“ecological sustainable competitive strategies,” “technology for nature swaps” and
“corporate population impact control.”

Schaefer and Crane (2005) suggest that sustainability can be defined either narrowly or
broadly. In the narrow sense, sustainability can be understood as the prevention of
5

environmental problems, the improvement of management systems and the avoidance of
imposing negative influences on the Earth’s long-term survival and development.

In the broader sense of its definition, sustainability is involved with a much more
macroscopic and comprehensive economic, ecological, and social line of issues (Schaefer
and Crane, 2005). Scholars such as Bansal (2005), Sharma and Henriques (2005) tend to
support the broader definition. With academia’s studies on sustainability going deeper,
and more scholars tend to support the position that the concept of sustainability cannot be
merely limited to the environmental aspect.

In 2002, PricewaterhouseCoopers explored 140 US companies’ positions on
sustainability (Signitzer and Prexl, 2008); 75 percent of companies said sustainability was
part of their business practices, while 89 percent predicted that corporate sustainability
would play a more important role in their business within the next five years. With
growing attention from the industry side, the concept of sustainability also has received
additional attention in organizational and management studies (Linnenluecke and
Griffiths, 2009).

On the corporate level, Bansal (2005) finds that sustainable development consists of a
company’s ability to demonstrate integrity across Economic, Social and Environmental
principles, and provides a number of specific actions supporting each principle:
6

1. Economic integrity: manufactured environmental-friendly products, reduced
environment-damaging inputs, chose renewable sources, reduced the production
processes’ environmental impacts, reduced operations in environmentally sensitive
districts, minimize environmental accidents, reduced waste, recycled waste,
responsibly disposed waste and disposed toxic waste responsibly

2. Social equity: built positive government relations, reduced the inputs’ cost, reduced
the cost for waste management, differentiated products based on their
environmental performance, sold waste product, created spin-off technologies

3. Environmental integrity: considered the stakeholders’ interests, communicated the
environmental risks to the public, improved the staff’s welfare, protected the local
communities’ rights, concerned about the facilities and operations’ visual aspects
and funded local communities

Bansal’s construction of sustainability principles basically encompasses modern
conceptions of sustainability, and its effects can be easily sought by evaluating various
corporations’ sustainability practices and strategies.

Strictly speaking, an absolutely sustainable corporation cannot exist (Signitzer and
7

Prexl, 2007), because pure sustainability demands an impossibly permanent progress. In
this case, we can consider the idea of corporate sustainability as an idealist terminology,
with an ultimate goal of having a long-term, profound influence on corporate
development.

2.2 Sustainability and corporate social responsibility
When discussing corporate sustainability (CS), it is important to also mention the
corporate social responsibility (CSR). Both academic and corporate practitioners have
had intensive debates about these two terms. Some argue that corporate sustainability can
be seen as representing the organization’s social responsibility (Carroll, 1999) and do not
differentiate these two terms.

Other scholars consider CS and CSR to have a hierarchical relationship. For instance,
Signitzer and Prexl (2007) suggest that CS is a synonym for sustainable development and
“an umbrella term for various other concepts” such as CSR, corporate citizenship and
corporate social performance. In their interpretation, CS is a broader concept, with CSR
being only a subset of CS.

Other researchers hold the view that CS and CSR have an equal relationship. For
example, Panapanaan, Linnanen, Karvonen, and Phan (2003) maintain that a company’s
pursuit of CS can help enhance CSR’s status in the business system, but they do not think
8

the CS effort can totally cover the work of CSR. Keijzers (2002) indicates that the
notions of CSR and CS evolved from different historical backgrounds, but they share a
common future. Montiel (2008) holds similar thoughts, adding that although the two
notions have some inevitably different points, the measures and conceptualizations of
CSR and CS seem to converge in the end.

In this study, the author considers CSR and CS as two closely relevant and partly
overlapping concepts. They have similar influences on corporate vision and value, and
they provide environmentally-friendly, socially-beneficial and human-concerned
instructions and constraints to corporate executives. However, because of CS’s
“resource-based” characteristics (Bansal, 2005) and emphasis on future generations, the
author believes that CS is more future-oriented and focuses more on the supply chain
than CSR. Thus, CS is involved with the corporate business model and internal
management on a deeper level. Nevertheless, the author believes that the arguments
related to precisely defining CS and CSR do not make a material difference in this
study’s methodology and results.

Additionally, instead of limiting its exploration only to corporate sustainability
communication, namely “corporate communications about sustainability issues”
(Signitzer and Prexl, 2008), this research focuses on how consumers’ awareness of
corporate sustainability principles and practice may influence their purchase intentions
9

and behaviors.

2.3 Purchase intention and consumer behavior
Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) define intention as “a person’s evaluation of his or her
subjective probability of performing certain action, and a person’s intention at any given
point in time can determine some kind of behavior at that given point in time.” Hence, a
high degree of correlation between a person’s intention and their actual behavior is
expected.

Purchase intention belongs to the field of behavioral intention, and therefore,
according to Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975) definition, the author believes that purchase
intention can be understood as the subjective probability of a consumer purchasing a
certain product or service. In marketing, purchasing intentions are also an effective tool
used to forecast the potential market for new products, and the sales of existing products
(Armstronga, Morwitzb and Kumarc, 2000). There is interplay between the “perceived
quality,” “perceived sacrifice” and “perceived value,” which are important factors that
impact purchase intention (Dodds, Monroe and Grewal, 1991).

Ajzen and Fishbein also constructed the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) in 1967,
which is still considered to be one of the most important and influential achievements in
the field of consumer behaviors. This model’s function is not only to predict the
10

consumer’s intentions, but to offer a relatively simple method of forecasting consumers'
changes in behavior (Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw, 1988).

According to the TRA, “the behavior can largely be predicted by the individual’s
attitudes towards performing the behavior in question, through the intervening effect of
behavioral intention” (Al-Suqri, 2015, p.189). As shown in Figure 1, the individual's
intention to express a behavior (whether or not to make a purchase) is a combination of
subjective norm, which impacts individual’s perception of whether perform a behavior,
and the individual’s attitude towards the behavior. The attitude towards the behavior
involves with individual’s expectation of certain behaviors (behavioral beliefs) and
evaluations of the behavioral outcome (Zheng, 2014). Subjective norms, also known as
social pressure, which arise from the “perceptions about the popularity of the behavior”
(Lapinski and Rimal, 2005) is influenced by the individuals’ perceptions of other people’s
attitudes to performing certain behaviors, which is called normative belief, and the
motivation to comply.

Fig. 1 TRA Model [Adopted from Zheng (2014)]
11

2.4 Corporate sustainability, CSR and consumer purchasing
Throughout the research evolution, the relationship between corporate sustainability
and consumers’ purchase intention can be roughly classified into three categories:
uncorrelated, faintly correlated and strongly correlated.

In earlier days, a number of research studies showed that corporate sustainability
didn’t have a significant connection to the consumer’s purchasing attitude or intention.
For example, prior to electronic commerce, Holmes and Kilbane (1993) stated that
consumers would show a more positive attitude towards a store’s message that included
the promise of a charitable donation, but their attitude towards the store, or their purchase
intention, could not be influenced. Similarly, Lafferty (1996) found that consumers’
purchase intention had no significant differences whether they responded to ads that
promised donations or did not.

Over time, many researchers considered that either CS or CSR could positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards a certain brand, corporation or product, but might
not directly impact consumers’ purchasing intention or behavior.

For instance, Brown and Dacin (1997) declared that CSR performance was positively
related with the consumer’s evaluation of the company and its products, but how the
relationships between such evaluation and purchase intention is not stated. Schaefer and
12

Crane (2005) discuss different conceptualizations of consumption, and finding that only a
small amount of consumers were concerned about their consumption’s ecological value
or sustainability. Moreover, they believed that consumers’ attitudes may probably last for
a relatively long period of time in the future. Auger, Devinney and Louviere (2007) hold
similar views.

To have a better understanding of the attitude-behavior gap, Oberseder, Schlegelmilch
and Gruber (2011) reported that, on a spiritual level, consumers claimed they would have
a more positive attitude towards the purchase of products from socially responsible
corporations, but in real life, such attitudes didn’t directly result in an actual change in
purchasing behavior. Galbreth and Ghosh (2012) did not totally deny CS’s influence on
purchasing behavior, but suggested that CS could only directly influence the public’s
awareness instead of the general sustainability concern during consumption.

Some researchers oppose this point of view, stating that sustainability is a very
influential factor in predicting purchasing decisions. In academia, a number of scholars
have found that the phenomenon of identification is closely related with organizational
science, especially in the areas of “self-identity, organizational identification, brand
identification and corporate identity” (Wu and Tsai, 2007). Among them,
Company-Consumer (C-C) identification is used to assess and analyze the relationships
between the consumer and the corporation.
13

Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail (1994) first put forward the concept of C-C
identification. They described it as the consistency between a consumer’s self-concept
and their perception of a company. They suggest that the satisfaction of the consumer’s
multiple self-definitional needs can often lead to a strong consumer-company relationship.
Choi and Ng (2011) concluded that consumers’ C-C identification with sustainability can
effectively improve their attitudes towards sustainable firms.

Mohr, Webb and Harris (2001) found that most consumers were concerned about their
purchase’s environmental impact, and had high expectations for companies’ socially
responsible performance, and suggested that companies that choose to ignore these
expectations might even suffer from consumer boycotts. Furthermore, Mohr et al. (2001)
found that, although social responsibility was not a regular purchasing criteria for most
consumers, it was still a factor that could influence a consumer’s purchasing decision.
They also constructed a positive correlated relationship between a corporation’s social
responsibility activities and consumers’ purchases.

Harris (2007) researched the issue of sustainability certification, and declared that
more consumers had begun supporting environmentally-friendly products, stating that
“demand for sustainable products (was) becoming mainstream.”

With the development of more research on corporate sustainability and CSR, some
14

scholars have begun exploring what the in-depth roles that certain domains of
sustainability practices play in corporate communication and marketing. Lee and Shin
(2010) believe that consumers’ awareness of CSR activities can positively impact their
purchase intentions. In addition, instead of analyzing a company’s general sustainability
strategy, specific sustainable practices have also begun to be of concern to consumers.
They found that consumers’ purchasing intentions were especially positively related with
their level of awareness toward a company’s “corporate social contribution” and “local
community contribution.” Choi and Ng (2011) stated that a company’s sustainability
message could positively enhance consumers’ evaluation of the company and their
purchase intention. Moreover, if the company’s sustainability information was aligned
with consumers’ areas of interest or orientations, they were more likely to evaluate a
company more positively.

In recent years, as the reporting of sustainability has become more prevalent, Cazier,
Corley and Gora (2011) suggest that sustainability reporting, a typical form of
cause-related marketing, can provide companies with a long-term competitive edge.

2.5 Interaction between culture and consumer behavior
As one of the most significant components of human society, the concept of culture has
been defined and explored by numerous scholars from different perspectives. The famous
social psychologist Hofstede (2011) defines culture as "the collective programming of the
15

mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others." His
model indicates that national culture consists of six main dimensions: Power Distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/Short
Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint.

For an organization, culture is the common value and norm, and it can mirror the
members’ various characteristics, such as beliefs, customs, traditions and religions
(Rasouli, Jamaati-e-Somarin and Jahan, 2015).

In terms of consumer behavior, a number of scholars have shown that cultural
backgrounds can influence behavior both in social contexts and individual consumer
activity (Hall, Shaw and Doole, 1997), and different ethnic groups may show disparities
in their consumption criteria. Moutinho (1987) defines culture as “the total of learned
beliefs, values and customs, including the material elements”, and he also believes that
the culture of a particular community can control the members’ consumption patterns.
Sardana (2015) holds the same view.

Fig. 2 illustrates Hollensen’s model of layers of culture in cross-national businesses.
It implies that an individual consumer’s behavior may be impacted by the three levels of
cultural factors: “national culture”, “business/industry culture” and “company culture”
(Hollensen, 2014).
16

Fig. 2 Layers of culture [Adopted from Hollensen (2014), p. 246]

In Luna and Gupta’s (2001) model (Fig. 3) on “the mutual influence of culture and
consumer behavior”, an individual’s behavior results from a particular cultural value
system in which the “societal culture”, “regional subculture” and “familiar values” jointly
make up an individual’s cultural value system. They argue that even if individuals share
common elements with the group to which they belong, they also have their own unique
personal values. In addition, this model suggests that marketing communications can
impact culture’s influence on consumer behavior.
17

Fig. 3 Model of interrelationships between cultural value systems, marketing
communications and consumer behavior [Adopted from Luna and Gupta, (2001)]

In light of the literature noted above, consumers from different countries could be
considered as the members of different cultural systems, based on their nationality.
National culture is the culture of a country, which is dependent on a country’s overall
religious beliefs, customs and traditions (Rasouli, Jamaati-e-Somarin and Jahan, 2015).
Moreover, the differences found at the individuals and groups levels between nations are
probably more significant than the differences found within nations (Mooij and Hofstede,
2011). It is reasonable, then, to assume that consumers from different countries probably
adopt different purchasing behaviors due in part to their national cultural influences.

18

Because they have quite different historical, social and environmental factors, Asian
and American consumers present disparate and sometimes opposing cultural
characteristics. For instance, Chung (1992) found that Asian consumers tended to be
more “environment-centered”, whereas American consumers tended to be more
“individual-centered”. Asian culture’s “group-rooted sense of identity” demands a high
degree of commitment to social relationships, while the cultural identity of Americans
stems from “individual accomplishments”. Asian consumers generally tend to be more
“process-oriented”, while American consumers are usually “task-oriented”. Asian
consumers tend to value more of a “hierarchical social structure”, while American
consumers come from a more “egalitarian environment”. And finally, Chung suggests
that Asian consumers are often relatively “indifferent” in their social participation, but
American consumers are more active.

19

3. Research questions
Even though many researchers have explored the relationships between notions of
sustainability and purchase intention under various conditions, the author was unable to
find consensus on one generally accepted conclusion. The author has thus developed her
own series of research questions in hopes of more directly addressing the
attitude-behavior gap. The first question:
RQ1 What is the relationship between consumer attitudes toward corporate sustainability
and consumer purchase intentions?

When discussing corporate sustainability practices, most researchers tended to
consider various measures and actions as an all-encompassing, single variable. However,
as noted before, corporate sustainability principles are actually comprised of different,
relatively independent domains and dimensions (e.g., economic integrity, social equity,
and environmental integrity), although few researchers appear to have focused solely on
the distinctions or similarities between them. The author thus poses the following two
research questions:
RQ2 Do consumers have different attitudes towards different categories of sustainability
principles?
RQ3 Do consumers’ purchase intentions vary after learning different categories of
corporate sustainability principles?

20

Due to differences in their social and cultural backgrounds, Chinese and American
consumers may develop markedly different attitudes toward the same sustainability
principles. These attitudes may be transferred into purchase intentions in different ways
as well. The author poses the following two questions in order to further explore this
possibility:
RQ4 What are the differences between Chinese and American consumers’ attitudes
towards different categories of corporate sustainability principles?
RQ5 What are the differences between Chinese and American consumers’ purchase
intentions based on their awareness of these categories?

4. Methods
4.1 Model selection: IKEA
IKEA, the largest furniture retailer in the world, is also considered to be a global
leader in sustainability. TIME Magazine (May 2009) nominated IKEA as among the
world’s top eight most eco-conscious companies (IKEA to Install Solar Panels on Eight
California Locations 2010). GlobeScan/ SustainAbility Surveys (2015) listed IKEA sixth
in global corporate sustainability leadership. IKEA was also the Impact Winner in supply
chain and net positive categories in The Guardian’s Sustainable Business Awards in 2015
(Guardian Sustainable Business Awards 2015: The winners, 2015).

Guided by founder Ingvar Kamprad’s management philosophy, IKEA’s environmental
21

policy strictly insists upon “no waste in the economics of the business, environmentally
or with energy” (Gad and Moss, 2008). The company also gave a major push to the
promotion of energy-saving products, which has made it the leading distributor of
low-energy light bulbs across the globe (Gad and Moss, 2008). In addition, based on
IKEA’s statement of its sustainable practices in 2015, Bansal’s three principals of
sustainable development – environmental integrity, economic prosperity and social equity
– are all covered in IKEA’s sustainability practices as well.

Fig. 4 IKEA’s achievements of sustainability in FY2015 [Adopted from “IKEA Group
FY2015 Sustainability Report”]
IKEA first began making their annual sustainability reports available to the public in
2009, detailing their progress in every aspect of their business intended to create a
positive impact on people and the planet. According to IKEA’s2015 sustainability report
22

highlighted in Fig. X, the company made three major achievements in regards to
sustainable lifestyles at home, resource and energy independence, and better lives for
people and communities. In considering the concept of mindful consumption (Sheth,
Sethia and Srinivas, 2011), which claims that the consumer has a conscious sense of “self,
community, and nature” (p.27), the author would attribute IKEA’s “sustainable lifestyle”
factor to “self”, its “energy and resource independence” to “nature,” and “a better life for
human and community” to “community”. For the purposes of this thesis, IKEA’s already
well-established history of corporate sustainability practices, and its status as a world
leader in this regard, also make it a reasonable and effective model for research on
corporate sustainability practices.

4.2 Focus group
Prior to 2012, IKEA’s sustainability report featured five main parts: customers,
environment, suppliers, co-workers, and communities. Starting in 2012, these were
regrouped into three wider but more mission-driven categories: sustainable lifestyle at
home, resource and energy independence, and better life for people and community. The
information contained in these categories did not effectually change in meaning or
structure – “sustainable life” is an extension of the “customer” category while “co-worker”
and “community” merge into “better life for people and communities” and “supply chain”
is distributed across the remaining categories.

23

The author conducted a pre-test with a small focus group (eight participants) to
investigate consumer perceptions of these categories as legitimate and distinct. The
pre-test was held on November 2 in the ANN building (415) at the University of Southern
California.

Participant Demographics:
Due to limitations of feasibility, all participants were USC students. Among them:
 Six were Chinese, two were American
 Two were undergraduate students, six were graduate students
 Four were female and four were male
 All were 21-25 years old at the time of the study
 All had experience shopping at IKEA
 Three were Business majors, two were Communications majors, and three were
Engineering majors

Although gender ratio of the participants was balanced, the distribution of their
nationalities was not. However, all the participants belonged to IKEA’s primary audience
and were from different professional backgrounds, which was considered desirable by the
author.

The pre-test and discussion were centered around the following outcomes:
24

 To understand consumer perspectives about Sheth et al’s classifications of
mindful consumption and IKEA’s corporate sustainability practices
 To determine whether participants considered the categories to actually be distinct,
and to determine what changes (if any) they would make
 To gain a preliminary understanding of participants’ awareness, attitude and
purchase intention with regard to the three different dimensions of sustainability

4.3 Survey Instrument
Following the pre-test, the author considered the feasibility and research conditions,
and selected a questionnaire (survey) that was administered online as the primary
research method.

4.3.1 Pre-test, participants and distribution
To confirm face validity of the questionnaire, a draft version of the survey that had
been constructed by the author was sent to 10 volunteers as a pilot test. They were asked
to comment on the content and logic and suggest any items that should be added or
excluded.

The questionnaires were distributed through Qualtrics by anonymous links and emails
from November 10, 2016, to November 30, 2016. A total of 230 valid responses to the
survey were collected. The participants were all consumers who reported they had
25

purchased products or services from IKEA and still would potentially purchase products
or services from IKEA in the future. Among them, 117 identified as Chinese citizens and
113 identified as American citizens.

4.3.2 Questionnaire structure
Based on the results of the focus group, the main body of the questionnaire included
three dimensions corresponding to IKEA’s three categories of sustainability principles.
Every dimension included questions to examine consumer attitudes towards specific
principles and their purchase intentions based on their awareness of said principles. The
questionnaires were written in two languages (Simplified Chinese and English) to satisfy
different respondents’ needs, and respondents were allowed to choose their preferred
language version.

4.3.3 Measurements of purchase intention
Measurements of purchase intention can be used to evaluate the likelihood that
individuals will purchase certain products or services. Putrevu and Lord’s (1994) scale,
which was developed to evaluate the effects of advertising, and Zeithaml’s (1996) scale
of assessing service quality are widely cited by scholars who research purchase intentions.
To create the purchase intention scale used in this study, shown in Table 1, the author
drew from Putrevu and Lord’s and Zeithaml’s scales as well as scales described by
Chinese scholars He (2014) and Luo (2012).
26

Table1
Measurements

Variable Measurement Reference

PI
I am willing to purchase products or services from this
corporation
Putrevu and
Lord (1994)
I am willing to try the new products or services launched by
this corporation
He (2014)
I will recommend this brand and its products to others Luo (2012)
I believe this corporation is the best choice among others
offering similar products or services
Zeithaml (1996)

5. Results
5.1 Focus group findings
 In the initial focus group, seven participants stated that they agreed more with
IKEA’s newer set of three classifications, because the “environment” section and
“suppliers” sections noted in the older model seemed to have some redundancy
with other sections; they also found the newer classifications easier to understand
overall.
 All participants said IKEA’s newer classifications, “more sustainable lifestyle”,
“resource and energy independence”, and “better life for people and community”
could be considered three distinct categories that were independent of one another.
 Six participants stated that content about suppliers could be included in other
categories.
 Six participants suggested that IKEA’s stated principles regarding co-workers,
27

workers in the supply chain, communities, and human rights should be collapsed
into one category.
 No participant was aware of IKEA’s sustainability policies or practices before the
focus group.
 No participants reported particular sensitivity to any of IKEA’s designated
categories. Therefore, their attitudes towards the different categories did not
significantly differ.
 Five participants claimed that corporate sustainability would not influence their
purchase intentions, because the quality and price of products were the only factors
they considered when making purchases.
 Three participants stated that their attitude towards the IKEA brand and purchase
intentions were improved after learning of IKEA’s sustainability principles.

According to the above findings, the author chose to retain IKEA’s classification of
sustainability principles into three dimensions per their own 2012 classifications:
Sustainable lifestyle, energy and resource independence, and better life for people and
community in the quantative survey instrument. The author also considered that the focus
group participants’ attitudinal differences regarding corporate sustainability and purchase
intention to be meaningful and expected that further systematic research would yield
useful information regarding the subject.

28

5.2 Survey results
All of the survey data were analyzed in SPSS 24. The results were split into three
sections per the research objectives described above: Chinese consumers, American
consumers, and comparisons between the two groups’ data.

5.2.1 Chinese section
5.2.1.1 Reliability test
Table 2
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Principles of A More Sustainable Life at Home .817 5
PI of A More Sustainable Life at Home .842 4
Principles of Resource and Energy Independence .951 14
PI of Resource and Energy Independence .880 4
Principles of A Better Life for People and Community .939 7
PI of Resource and Energy Independence .896 4
As shown in Table 2, the author found that all the variables’ Cronbach α coefficients
were greater than or equal to 0.817, i.e., greater than 0.7, suggesting that the items had
relatively high internal consistency. Therefore, the scales of this research are highly
reliable.
5.2.1.2 Validity test
Table 3
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .905
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 4188.491
df 703
Sig. .000
29

The KMO values were 0.905>0.90, so significant partial correlation between the
variables was confirmed. The P value (Sig.) from the Bartlett's Test was 0, i.e., less than
0.05, indicating that the questionnaire was structurally valid.

5.2.1.3 Demographic statistics
Table 4
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Male 50 42.7 42.7 42.7
Female 66 56.4 56.4 99.1
Uncertain 1 .9 .9 100.0
Total 117 100.0 100.0

Table 5
Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
18-24 73 62.4 62.4 62.4
25-34 36 30.8 30.8 93.2
35-44 2 1.7 1.7 94.9
45-54 6 5.1 5.1 100.0
Total 117 100.0 100.0

Table 6
Education level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
High school 4 3.4 3.4 3.4
College 53 45.3 45.3 48.7
Graduate 60 51.3 51.3 100.0
Total 117 100.0 100.0
30

Tables 4 to 6 show the following.
 Gender: The participants included 42.7% males and 56.4% females, i.e., the
gender ratio was balanced and there was little deviation in the results between
them.
 Age: The 18-24 category accounted for 62.4% of the total participants, 25-44 for
30.8%, 35-44 for 1.7%, and 45-54 for 5.1%. A large population of the participants
(92.4) were Millennials, which is consistent with IKEA’s Chinese consumer base
and conformed to the author’s expectations.
 Education level: 45.3% of the participants had a college level of education, and
51.3% of the participants had a graduate level of education background. Therefore,
most of the participants were relatively well educated and would be expected to
have better comprehension of the sustainability issue.

5.2.1.4 Correlation assessment
A More Sustainable Life at Home
Table 7
Descriptives
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude to the principles
of A More Sustainable
Life at Home
4.06496 .802938 117
PI of A More Sustainable
Life at Home
3.72009 .854225 117

31

Table 8
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude to the principles of A
More Sustainable Life at Home
Pearson Correlation 1 .668
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
PI of A More Sustainable Life at
Home
Pearson Correlation .668
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value (Pearson’s Correlation test) was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a
significant correlation between IKEA’s “sustainable lifestyle” principles (stated as “A
More Sustainable Life at Home”) and consumer purchase intentions. The correlation
coefficient was 0.668, indicating a strong positive correlation between these two
variables.

Resource and Energy
Table 9
Descriptives
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude to the principles
of Resource and Energy
Independence
3.91909 .699690 117
PI of Resource and
Energy Independence
3.82692 .864445 117

32

Table 10
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude to the principles of
Resource and Energy
Independence
Pearson Correlation 1 .754
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
PI of Resource and Energy
Independence
Pearson Correlation .754
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a significant correlation
between IKEA’s “Resource and Energy Independence” principles and consumer purchase
intentions. The correlation coefficient was 0.754, indicating a strong positive correlation
between these two variables.

People and Community
Table 11
Descriptives
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude to the principles of A
Better Life for People and
Community
3.95482 .881958 117
PI of A Better Life for People
and Community
3.80342 .895889 117

Table 12
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude to the principles
of A Better Life for
People and Community
Pearson Correlation 1 .796
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
33

PI of A Better Life for
People and Community
Pearson Correlation .796
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 117 117
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a significant correlation
between IKEA’s “a better life for people and community” principles and consumer
purchase intentions. The correlation coefficient was 0.794, indicating a strong positive
correlation between these two variables.

5.2.1.5 Regression assessment
A series of simple linear regressions were calculated to predict consumers’ purchase
intention based on their attitude to the sustainability principles.

Sustainable lifestyle
Table 13
Coefficients
a
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) .830 .306 2.714 .008 .224 1.435
A More Sustainable
Life at Home
.711 .074 .668 9.636 .000 .565 .857
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 13, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient had statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “more sustainable life at home” principles had a regression
34

relationship with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=0.830+0.711X. Here, the regression coefficient
was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

Table 14
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 37.812 1 37.812 92.849 .000
b

Residual 46.833 115 .407
Total 84.645 116
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), attitude
Table 14 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (Sig.)
is 0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid.

Table 15
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F Change df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .668
a
.447 .442 .638157 .447 92.849 1 115 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to ‘A More Sustainable Life at Home’
Table 15 shows that the Adjusted R Square is 0.759, so the fitting degree of the
35

regression equation is acceptable.

Resource and energy
Table 16
Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std. Error Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) .174 .301 .579 .564 -.422 .771
Resource and
energy
independence
.932 .076 .754 12.324 .000 .782 1.082
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 16, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient has statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “resource and energy independence” principles had a
regression relationship with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=-0.174+0.932X. Here, the regression coefficient
was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

36

Table 17
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 49.329 1 49.329 151.871 .000
b

Residual 37.353 115 .325
Total 86.683 116
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to "Resource & Energy Independence”
Table 17 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (Sig.)
is 0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid.

Table 18
Model Summary
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
.565 .569922 .569 151.871 1 115 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), attitude to “Resource and Energy Independence” principles
Table 18 shows that the Adjusted R Square is 0.569, so the fitting degree of the
regression equation is acceptable.

People and community
Table 19
Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) .345 .225 1.530 .129 -.102 .791
A Better Life for
Human and Community
.905 .062 .812 14.673 .000 .783 1.028
37

a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 19, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient has statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “a better life for people and community” principles had a
regression relationship with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=0.604+0.809X. Here, the regression coefficient
was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

Table 20
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 50.513 1 50.513 215.297 .000
b

Residual 26.043 111 .235
Total 76.555 112
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to “A Better Life for People and
Community”
Table 20 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (Sig.)
is 0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid.

38

Table 21
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .812
a
.660 .657 .484374 .660 215.297 1 111 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude
Table 21 shows that the Adjusted R Square is 0.634, so the fitting degree of the
regression equation is acceptable.

5.2.1.6 T-test
Attitude
Table 22
Descriptives

Table 23
ANOV A
The number of independent groups was 3≥3, so a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to compare the means of consumer attitudes. As shown in
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximu
m
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 117 4.06496 .802938 .074232 3.91793 4.21198 1.000 5.000
2 117 3.91909 .699690 .064686 3.79097 4.04721 1.733 4.667
3 117 3.95482 .881958 .081537 3.79333 4.11632 1.571 5.000
Total 351 3.97962 .798497 .042621 3.89580 4.06345 1.000 5.000

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.353 2 .676 1.061 .347
Within Groups 221.807 348 .637

Total 223.159 350
39

Table 23, the F value =1.061 and P value (Sig.)=0.347>0.05, so these three group means
did not have statistically significant differences.

Purchase intention
Table 24
Descriptives

Table 25
ANOV A
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .738 2 .369 .485 .616
Within Groups 264.432 348 .760
Total 265.169 350
The number of independent groups was 3≥3, so a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to compare the means of consumer purchase intention. As
shown in Table 25, the F value =0.485 and P value (Sig.)=0.616>0.05, so these three
group means did not have statistically significant differences.

N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
PI 1 117 3.72009 .854225 .078973 3.56367 3.87650 1.000 5.000
PI 2 117 3.82692 .864445 .079918 3.66864 3.98521 1.500 5.000
PI 3 117 3.80342 .895889 .082825 3.63937 3.96746 1.500 5.000
Total 351 3.78348 .870417 .046459 3.69210 3.87485 1.000 5.000
40

5.2.2 American section
5.2.2.1 Reliability test
Table 26
Reliability Statistic
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Principles of A More Sustainable Life at Home .688 5
PI of A More Sustainable Life at Home .716 4
Principles of Resource and Energy Independence .888 14
PI of Resource and Energy Independence .612 4
Principles of A Better Life for People and Community .789 7
PI of Resource and Energy Independence .698 4
As shown in Table 26, the author found that all the variables’ Cronbach α coefficients
were greater than or equal to 0.712, i.e., greater than 0.7, suggesting that the items have
relatively high internal consistency. Therefore, the scales of this research were highly
reliable.

5.2.2.2 Validity test
Table 27
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .958
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 2897.698
df 703
Sig. .000
The KMO values were 0.958>0.90, so significant partial correlation between the
variables were confirmed. The P value (Sig.) from the Bartlett's Test was 0, i.e., less than
0.05, indicating that the questionnaire was structurally valid.

41

5.2.2.3 Demographic statistics
Table 28
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male 51 45.1 45.1 45.1
Female 58 51.3 51.3 96.5
Uncertain 4 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total 113 100.0 100.0

Table 29
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Under 18 5 4.4 4.4 4.4
18-24 15 13.3 13.3 17.7
25-34 29 25.7 25.7 43.4
35-44 24 21.2 21.2 64.6
45-54 22 19.5 19.5 84.1
55-64 14 12.4 12.4 96.5
Above 65 4 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total 113 100.0 100.0

Table 30
Education level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
8th grade or less 18 15.9 15.9 15.9
High school graduate 30 26.5 26.5 42.5
College graduate 51 45.1 45.1 87.6
Graduate degree 14 12.4 12.4 100.0
Total 113 100.0 100.0
Tables 28 to 30 show the following.
 Gender: The participants included 45.1% males and 51.3% females, i.e., the
gender ratio was balanced and there was little deviation in the results between
them.
42

 Age: The 18-24 category accounted for 13.3% of the total participants, 25-44 for
25.7%, 35-44 for 21.2%, and 45-54 for 19.5%. A large population of the
participants (92.4) were Millennials. The age distribution is basically balanced
and Millennials still had a large proportion, which is basically consistent with
IKEA’s American market.
 Education level: An estimated 45.1% of the participants had a college level of
education, and 12.4% of participants had a graduate level of education. Therefore,
most of the participants were relatively well educated and would be expected to
have better understanding of the sustainability issue, which conformed to this
study’s anticipation.

5.2.2.4 Correlation assessment
The author performed Pearson Correlation analysis to assess the linear dependence
between American consumers’ attitude regarding to IKEA’s sustainability principles and
their purchase intention.

Sustainable lifestyle
Table 31
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude to the principles of Sustainable Lifestyle 3.58407 .735402 113
PI of Sustainable Lifestyle 3.53097 .864821 113
43

Table 32
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude to the principles of A More
Sustainable Life at Home
Pearson Correlation 1 .873
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000
N 113 113
PI of A More Sustainable Life at Home
Pearson Correlation .873
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 113 113
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value (Pearson’s Correlation test) was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a
significant correlation between “sustainable lifestyle” principles and consumer purchase
intentions. The correlation coefficient was 0.836, indicating a strong positive correlation
between these two variables.

Resource and energy
Table 33
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude to Resource and Energy principles 3.56637 .735261 113
PI of Resource and Energy principles 3.59735 .770866 113

Table 34
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude of the principles of
Resource and Energy
Independence
Pearson Correlation 1 .837
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000
N 113 113
PI of Resource and Energy
Independence
Pearson Correlation .837
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 113 113
44

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a significant correlation
between “resource and energy independence” principles and consumer purchase
intentions. The correlation coefficient was 0.668, indicating a strong positive correlation
between these two variables.

People and community
Table 35
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Attitude for the principles of
A Better Life for People and
Community
3.57522 .741684 113
PI of A Better Life for People
and Community
3.58186 .826758 113

Table 36
Correlations
Attitude PI
Attitude for the principles of
A Better Life for People and
Community
Pearson Correlation 1 .812
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000
N 113 113
PI of A Better Life for People
and Community
Pearson Correlation .812
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 113 113
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The P value was 0.00<0.05, suggesting that there was a significant correlation
between “better life for people and community” principles and consumer purchase
45

intentions. The correlation coefficient was 0.812, indicating a strong positive correlation
between these two variables.

5.2.2.5 Regression assessment
A series of simple linear regressions were calculated to predict American consumers’
purchase intention based on their attitude regarding IKEA’sthree sustainability principles.

Sustainable lifestyle
Table 37
Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) -.147 .199

-.736 .463 -.542 .248
A More Sustainable
Life at Home
1.026 .055 .873 18.822 .000 .918 1.134
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 37, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient has statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “sustainable lifestyle” principles had a regression relationship
with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=-0.147+1.026X. Here, the regression coefficient
46

was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

Table 38
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 63.782 1 63.782 354.254 .000
b

Residual 19.985 111 .180

Total 83.767 112

a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), attitude
Table 38 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (Sig.)
is 0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid.

Table 39
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F Change df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .873
a
.761 .759 .424317 .761 354.254 1 111 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to ‘A More Sustainable Life at Home’
Table 39 indicates that the Adjusted R Square equals 0.761, so the fitting degree of
this regression equation was acceptable.

47

Resource and energy
Table 40
Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std. Error Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) .469 .198

2.364 .020 .076 .862
Resource and energy
independence
.877 .055 .837 16.091 .000 .769 .985
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 40, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient has statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “resource and energy independence” principles had a
regression relationship with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=0.469+0.877X. Here, the regression coefficient
was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

48

Table 41
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 49.329 1 49.329 151.871 .000
b

Residual 37.353 115 .325
Total 86.683 116
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to “Resource & Energy Independence”
Table 41 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (sig,) is
0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid.

Table 42
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F Change df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .837
a
.700 .697 .424158 .700 258.931 1 111 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), attitude to “Resource & Energy Independence” principles
Table 42 shows that the Adjusted R Square is 0.697, so the fitting degree of the
regression equation was acceptable.

49

People and communities
Table 43
Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
(Constant) .345 .225

1.530 .129 -.102 .791
A Better Life for Human
and Community
.905 .062 .812 14.673 .000 .783 1.028
a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
As shown in Table 43, the P value (Sig.) of purchase intention’s regression
coefficient was 0.00<0.05, so the regression coefficient had statistical significance;
consumer attitudes towards “better life for people and community” principles had a
regression relationship with their purchase intentions.

Purchase intention is the dependent variable Y and attitude is the independent
variable X in the regression equation Y=0.345+0.905X. Here, the regression coefficient
was positive, so consumers’ purchase intentions increased as their attitude towards
sustainability principles improved.

Table 44
ANOV A
a

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 50.513 1 50.513 215.297 .000
b

Residual 26.043 111 .235
Total 76.555 112
50

a. Dependent Variable: purchase intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude to “People and Community”
Table 44 shows the variance test of the regression equation, where the P value (Sig.)
is 0.00<0.05, thus the regression equation is valid

Table 45
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .812
a
.660 .657 .484374 .660 215.297 1 111 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), consumers’ attitude
Table 45 shows that the Adjusted R Square is 0.660, so the fitting degree of the
regression equation is acceptable.

5.2.2.6 T-Test
Attitude
Table 46
Descriptives

N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 113 3.58407 .735402 .069181 3.44700 3.72114 1.800 5.000
2 113 3.56637 .735261 .069168 3.42933 3.70342 1.857 5.000
3 113 3.57522 .741684 .069772 3.43698 3.71346 1.857 5.000
Total 339 3.57522 .735305 .039936 3.49667 3.65378 1.800 5.000
51

Table 47
ANOV A
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .018 2 .009 .016 .984
Within Groups 182.730 336 .544
Total 182.748 338
The number of independent groups was 3≥3, so a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to compare the means of consumer attitudes. As shown in
Table 47, the F value =0.016 and P value (Sig.)=0.984>0.05, so these three group means
did not have statistically significant differences.

Purchase intention
Table 48
Descrptives

Table 49
ANOV A
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .272 2 .136 .202 .817
Within Groups 226.876 336 .675
Total 227.149 338
The number of independent groups was 3≥3, so a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to compare the means of consumer purchase intention. As
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
PI 1 113 3.53097 .864821 .081356 3.36978 3.69217 1.000 5.000
PI 2 113 3.59735 .770866 .072517 3.45366 3.74103 1.750 5.000
PI 3 113 3.58186 .826758 .077775 3.42776 3.73596 1.500 5.000
Total 339 3.57006 .819779 .044524 3.48248 3.65764 1.000 5.000
52

shown in Table 49, the F value =0.485 and P value (Sig.)=0.817>0.05, so these three
group means did not have statistically significant differences.

5.2.3 Comparative analysis of two countries
Table 50
T-test

Nation N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t Sig.
(2-tailed)
Attitude to Sustainable Lifestyle China 117 4.06496 .802938 .074232 4.732 0.000
America 113 3.58407 .735402 .069181
PI of Sustainable Lifestyle China 117 3.72009 .854225 .078973 1.668 0.097
America 113 3.53097 .864821 .081356
Attitude to Resource and Energy China 117 3.91909 .699690 .064686 3.728 0.000
America 113 3.56637 .735261 .069168
PI of Resource and Energy China 117 3.82692 .864445 .079918 2.127 0.034
America 113 3.59735 .770866 .072517
Attitude to People and Community China 117 3.95482 .881958 .081537 3.537 0.000
America 113 3.57522 .741684 .069772
PI of People and Community China 117 3.80342 .895889 .082825 1.947 0.053
America 113 3.58186 .826758 .077775
A series of independent samples T-tests were performed respectively comparing the
means of Chinese and American consumers’ attitude regarding the different categories of
principles and their purchase intention based on the awareness of the different categories
of principles.

The results indicated that the mean scores of consumers’ attitude regarding principles
of “A More Sustainable Life at Home” (p=0.000), “Resource and Energy Independence”
53

(p=0.000), “A Better Life for People and Community” (p=0.000) all showed significant
differences between Chinese consumers and American consumers. For “A More
Sustainable Life at Home” principles, the mean score of Chinese consumers’ attitude
(4.065±0.803) was greater than American consumers’ (3.584±0.735). For IKEA’s
“Resource and Energy Independence” principles, Chinese consumers’ attitude mean
(4.065±0.803) was greater than American consumers’ (3.531±0.865). Finally, for “A
Better Life for People and Community” principles, the mean score of Chinese consumers’
attitude (3.954± 0.881) was also greater than American consumers (3.575± 0.742).

In terms of purchase intention and IKEA’s sustainability principles, a significant
difference was observed only in “Resource and Energy Independence” section (p=0.034);
there were no significant differences related to either “A More Sustainable Life at Home”
section (p=0.097) nor “A Better Life for People and Community” (p=0.053).

6. Discussion
This research explored the role that consumers’ attitudes regarding corporate
sustainability plays relative to their purchase intentions. The results offer several
meaningful implications for corporate public relations, advertising, and marketing.

Previous research has focused mainly on examining organizations’ sustainability
practices or policies as a whole. This study instead focused on the potential relationships
54

among three well-defined dimensions of corporate sustainability and consumers’
purchase intentions, and included a comparative analysis between Chinese and American
consumers’ attitudes regarding corporate sustainability and future purchase intention.
This work may provide a more practical reference for the industry and pave the way for
future intercultural and empirical studies on the interrelationships between sustainability
and consumer purchase intent.

6.1 Corporate sustainability and purchase intention
Many previous researchers have explored the ‘attitude-behavior gap’ in regards to
CSR and corporate sustainability. The results of this study demonstrate that consumer
attitudes towards corporate sustainability principles were directly positively related with
their purchase intentions, which supports Lee and Shin’s (2010) findings on consumer
awareness of CSR activities. Corporations would do well to understand that the consumer
responds favorably to information on sustainability, and develop communication systems
to promote their sustainability strategies . To effectively impact consumers’ purchase
intentions, corporations also must refine their sustainability principles to reflect the
consumers’ preferences. In addition, the author suggests that corporations take advantage
of social media’s wide, engaged audience base to improve consumers’ awareness of their
commitment and contribution to sustainability practices.

55

6.2 Differences between different categories of sustainability principles
The author’s findings support Choi and Ng’s (2011) report that “consumers are
influenced by multiple dimensions of sustainability”, but the results also indicate that
consumer attitudes and purchase intentions did not significantly differ across different
categories of the three defined sustainability principles. In terms of mindful consumption,
the findings presented here suggest that, although consumers express concern for self,
nature, and the community, there is no clear preference for which one of the three is
reflected in their purchasing choice. Thus, these results apply only to the overall situation
at a macro level, , and do not reflect any other factors, including those which might be of
a more personal nature.

Considering personal factors, Choi and Ng (2011) claim that the consumer evaluates a
company more positively if the company’s sustainability information satisfies the
consumer’s personal interests. This finding and the results of the present study together
suggest that a corporation can positively impact the consumer’s purchase intentions by
controlling the promotion of certain categories of sustainability practices. The corporation
also should segment its targeted audience into subgroups, as opposed to directly targeting
the overall consumer population, because collective consumer responses are generally
balanced while individual preferences may differ considerably.

56

6.3 Differences between Chinese and American consumers
The results of this study showed that Chinese consumers had a significantly more
favorable attitude towards all three of IKEA’s defined domains of sustainability principles,
than did American consumers. Environment and sustainability issues have become a
widespread public concerns in developed countries, while developing countries are only
recently prioritizing environmental protection (Chen and Chai, 2010), so it is reasonable
to assume that American consumers are less susceptible (or may even be resistant) toward
the leveraging of corporate sustainability practices.

Further, there were only slight differences in purchase intentions between Chinese
and American consumers with regard to the principles of resource and energy
independence. This result supports the survey data presented at the Economist
Conferences’ Fifth China Branding Roundtable in Beijing, indicating “…thirty-one
percent (31%) of Chinese consumers reported that the environment was a higher priority
than the economy, a percentage that was significantly higher than consumers in the US
[17%]” (Chinese consumers place higher priority on environment than Americans and
Britons, 2008). The findings of this research provide possible future consideration for
global companies’ transnational campaigns, particularly those targeting Chinese
consumers. China’s rapid industrialization over the past 30 years has resulted in major
environmental problems, so companies seeking to build a dialogue and launch
communications campaigns targeted towards energy and environmental suitability would
57

be more likely to achieve more ideal outcomes than other domains in Chinese
marketplace.

7. Limitations
There are several limitations of this study that could be improved by future research.
First, due to the limitations of feasibility and budget, participants of this research were
recruited by convenience sampling and snowball sampling methodologies, so not
statistically representative of the studied populations as a whole. They were mostly from
Eastern China and the West Coast of the US, so the samples’ geographical distribution
was less than ideal. The ages and educational levels of the participants were relatively
concentrated as well; college students accounted for a large proportion of the sample.
Future studies should enlarge the samples’ age and background distribution, and use
scientific sampling techniques to recruit a more representative population, to better
guarantee generalizable results.

Second, the survey answers represented the personal and subjective judgments of the
respondents themselves, and were provided without any supervision or verification.
Because the topic is related to ethical principles, respondents may have preferentially
selected options that were more positive and ethical than their actual behaviors, which
may have complicated the results to some extent.

58

The author selected IKEA as the paradigm against which to explore consumer
perceptions in a practical context. Although IKEA’s three major sustainability domains
encompassed the aspects of self, nature, and community per the concept of mindful
consumption, IKEA’s model did not directly classify its sustainability principles
according to the three well-established domains of environmental, economic, and social
sustainability. If these could be considered simultaneously in a future study, a more
complete framework for corporate sustainability issues could be established accordingly.

In addition, though the author carefully referenced and selected valid measurements
for the survey, existing measurements and scales for assessing consumers’ attitudes
regarding corporate sustainability and purchase intentions are limited. Further research
exploring more complex relationships and the mutual effects of these measurements is
merited.

Finally, the author examined only the relationships of consumer attitudes regarding
the specific sustainability principles and purchase intentions identified in this study. Other
key consumer issues such as “product value”, “price”, and “quality” (Carrigan and Attalla,
2001) also should be built into the system of interactions to more comprehensively reflect
the impact of corporate sustainability on the consumer.

59

Reference
Al-Suqri, M. N. (Ed.). (2015). Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption:
Theories and Trends: Theories and Trends. IGI Global.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research.
Armstrong, J. S., Morwitz, V . G., & Kumar, V . (2000). Sales forecasts for existing
consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy?.
International Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 383-397.
Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Using best–worst scaling
methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of
Business Ethics, 70(3), 299-326.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development. Strategic management journal, 26(3), 197-218.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate
associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour?. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 560-578.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
Cazier, J., Corley, K., & Gora, D. (2011). Do Independent Sustainability Audits Provide a
Competitive Advantage?. EDP ACS, 43(2), 1-14.
60

Chen, T. B., & Chai, L. T. (2010). Attitude towards the environment and green products:
consumers' perspective. Management science and engineering, 4(2), 27.
Chinese consumers place higher priority on environment than Americans and Britons.
(2008).http://www.cohnwolfe.com/en/media-room/chinese-consumers-place-higher-p
riority-environment-americans-and-britons
Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and
price effects on consumer responses. Journal of business ethics, 104(2), 269-282.
Chung, D. K. (1992). Asian cultural commonalities: A comparison with mainstream
american culture. In S. M. Furuto, R. Biswas, D. K. Chung, K. Murase & F.
Ross-Sheriff (Eds.), Social work practice with asian americans.
Clark, W. C. 1989. Managing planet earth. Scientific American, 261(3): 47-54.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review of
research findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 181-192.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 307-319.
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational Images and Member
Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.
doi:10.2307/2393235
Gad, T., & Moss, S. (2008). The second wave of sustainability hits Swedish brands.
Journal of Brand Management, 16(1-2), 110-115.
Galbreth, M. R., & Ghosh, B. (2013). Competition and sustainability: The impact of
61

consumer awareness. Decision Sciences, 44(1), 127-159.
Guardian Sustainable Business Awards 2015: the winners. (2015).
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/30/guardian-sustainable-
business-awards-2015-the-winners
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of
management Review, 20(4), 874-907.
Gore, A. 1992. Earth in balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hall, J., Shaw, M., & Doole, I. (1997). Cross-cultural analysis of wine consumption
motivations. International journal of wine marketing, 9(2), 83-92.
Harris, S. M. (2007). Does sustainability sell? Market responses to sustainability
certification. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(1),
50-60.
He, T. (2014). A study on the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers’
purchase intention—base on the electronic industry.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.Hollensen, S. (2014). Global Marketing,
Harlow. Sixth edition
Holmes, J. H., & Kilbane, C. J. (1993). Cause-related marketing: Selected effects of price
and charitable donations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1(4), 67-84.
62

IKEA to Install Solar Panles on Eight California Locations. (2010).
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/about_ikea/newsitem/phase_out_incandescent_lighting_pr
ess_release
Keijzers, G. (2002). The transition to the sustainable enterprise. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 10(4), 349-359.
Lafferty, Barbara A. (1996), “Cause-Related Marketing: Does the Cause Make a
Difference in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions Toward the Product?”
working paper, Florida State University, Department of Marketing.
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication
Theory, 15(2), 127-147.
Lee, K. H., & Shin, D. (2010). Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage
between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relations Review, 36(2),
193-195.
Panapanaan, V . M., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M. M., & Phan, V . T. (2003). Roadmapping
corporate social responsibility in Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics,
44(2-3), 133-148.
Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V ., & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subcultures and sustainability
practices: The impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18(7), 432-452.
Luna, D., & Forquer Gupta, S. (2001). An integrative framework for cross-cultural
consumer behavior. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 45-69.
63

Luo, L. F., (2014) Empirical research of corporate social responsibility’s effect on brand
trust and purchase intention
Madden N., (2008). Green issues are gaining traction with Chinese. Adage.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be
socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior.
Journal of Consumer affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability separate
pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245-269.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European journal of marketing,
21(10), 5-44.
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.
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising:
Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of
Advertising, 23(2), 77-91.
Rasouli, E., Jamaati-e-Somarin, S., & Jahan, M. H. (2015). Study of Culture and its Role
in the Marketing Process (A review). Journal of Current Research in Science, 3(6),
27.
Sardana, N. (2015) How Culture Affects Consumer Behaviour?.
Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. (2005). Addressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of
64

macromarketing, 25(1), 76-92.
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.
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in
the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic management journal, 26(2), 159-180.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of consumer research, 15(3), 325-343.
Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A
customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 21–39.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Academy of management review, 20(4), 936-960.
Signitzer, B., & Prexl, A. (2007). Corporate sustainability communications: Aspects of
theory and professionalization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 1-19.
Sustainability Leaders the 2015 A GlobeScan/SustainAbility Survey. (2015).
http://www.globescan.com/component/edocman/?view=document&id=179&Itemid=
591
Szolnoki, G. (2013). A cross-national comparison of sustainability in the wine industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 53, 243-251.
65

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2010). Sustainable consumption:
green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable development, 18(1),
20-31.
Zeithaml, V . A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of
customers: what we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 28(1),
Zheng. Z. (2014). Empirical Study on the Effects of Corporate Public Welfare Marketing
on the New Consumers' Brand Attitude and Purchase Intentions—Take Lenovo for
Example

66

Appendix
1. Questionnaire

Section 1
The next few questions are about IKEA’s sustainability practice of ‘A More Sustainable
Life at Home’, which involves with inspiring IKEA’s visitors and customers to live more
sustainable lives by encouraging and helping them use fewer resources, such as energy
and water, reduce waste and save money on bills.

1) On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you agree that the following principles are
ethical and beneficial to society and environment? 1=extremely disagree, 5=
extremely agree

2) After learning about these IKEA principles, how much do you agree with the
following statements? Please answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1=extremely
disagree, 5= extremely agree

a. Create products that enable healthier living (e.g. Indoor
gardening products) and are improving the food on offer in
IKEA’s restaurants.
1 2 3 4 5
b. Make many of the electrical products more efficient and
providing customers with options to better understand and
manage their energy use.
1 2 3 4 5
c. Products are designed to save water. 1 2 3 4 5
d. Motivate customers to turn waste into resources by offering low
price, functional and easy to use solutions for sorting and
minimizing waste at home.

1

2

3

4

5
e. Inspire consumers and co-workers to lead better and more
sustainable everyday lives
1 2 3 4 5
67

Section 2
The next few questions are about IKEA’s sustainability practice of ‘Resource and
Energy Independence’, which involves with finding sustainable sources of natural
resources and energy, and using them efficiently, shrinking environmental footprint and
working with suppliers, governments, businesses and other partners to find new ways to
innovate and have a positive influence beyond IKEA’s operations and products.

1) (Ignore Section 1) On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you agree that the
following principles are ethical and beneficial to society and environment?
1=extremely disagree, 5= extremely agree

a. Wood and paper are from more sustainable sources (FSC
certified or recycled material)
1 2 3 4 5
b. Source cotton from more sustainable and recycled sources
(avoid child labor, reduce agricultural pollution)
1 2 3 4 5
c. Minimize the environmental and social problems that can occur
in leather supply chains (deforestation, violation of indigenous
land rights, forced labor and chemical pollution.)

1

2

3

4

5
d. Serve healthy, safe and sustainably-produced food by sourcing
the food from more than 600 global and local suppliers
1 2 3 4 5
e. Design products to use fewer resources and use renewable,
recyclable materials
1 2 3 4 5
g. Choose the right materials and making high quality, durable
products
1 2 3 4 5
h. Use safer chemicals in materials, surface treatments and
production processes
1 2 3 4 5
i. Produce as much renewable energy as the energy we consume 1 2 3 4 5
a. I am willing to purchase products or services from this
corporation
1 2 3 4 5
b. I am willing to try the new products or services launched by this
cooperation
1 2 3 4 5
c. I will recommend the brand and its products to others 1 2 3 4 5
d. I believe this corporation is the best choice among others
offering similar products or services
1 2 3 4 5
68

by 2020
j. Improve energy efficiency, reduce running costs and carbon
emissions in every store, office, distribution center and factory.
1 2 3 4 5
k. Strive to reduce emissions from transport and shrink carbon
footprint (co-worker and customer travel)
1 2 3 4 5
l. Track emissions and monitor progress towards IKEA’s goal to
tackle climate change
1 2 3 4 5
m. Make responsible water management across the value chain, on
farms or in supplier factories, stores and distribution centers.
1 2 3 4 5
n. Create less waste and change the mindset to think of waste as a
resource
1 2 3 4 5
o. Work together with suppliers to find ways to be even more
resource and energy efficient.
1 2 3 4 5

2) After learning about these IKEA principles (ignore Part 1), how much do you
agree with the following statements? Please answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where
1=extremely disagree, 5= extremely agree

a. I am willing to purchase products or services from this
corporation
1 2 3 4 5
b. I am willing to try the new products or services launched by this
cooperation
1 2 3 4 5
c. I will recommend the brand and its products to others 1 2 3 4 5
d. I believe this corporation is the best choice among others
offering similar products or services
1 2 3 4 5

Section 3
The next few questions are about IKEA’s sustainability practice of ‘A Better Life for
People and Community’ which involves with making a big difference to people’s lives
around the world, across the value chain, from co-workers through to the millions of
people who work in the extended supply chain

1) (Ignore Section 1 and Section 2) On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you agree
that the following principles are ethical and beneficial to society and
environment? 1=extremely disagree, 5= extremely agree
69

a. Provide better life for co-workers (respect their voice, diversity,
provide training)
1 2 3 4 5

b.
Work together with suppliers to develop decent jobs, support
human rights and have a positive impact on the lives of the
many people in supply chain

1

2

3

4

5
c. Secure children’s rights across the entire value chain. 1 2 3 4 5
d. Committed to the responsible recruitment of migrant workers
and set clear standards for the recruitment and employment of
workers.
1 2 3 4 5
f. Have partnership with social entrepreneurs are people who
establish a business with the aim of solving a social problem or
effecting social change.
1 2 3 4 5
g. Establish IKEA foundation to improve opportunities for
children and youth in some of the world’s poorest communities
1 2 3 4 5
h. Contribute time, resources and expertise to local communities 1 2 3 4 5

2) After learning about these IKEA principles, how much do you agree with the
following statements? Please answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1=extremely
disagree, 5= extremely agree

a. I am willing to purchase products or services from this
corporation
1 2 3 4 5
b. I am willing to try the new products or services launched by this
cooperation
1 2 3 4 5
c. I will recommend the brand and its products to others 1 2 3 4 5
d. I believe this corporation is the best choice among others
offering similar products or services
1 2 3 4 5

Section 4
1) What is your gender?
a. Male b. Female c. Uncertain
2) What is your age?
a. Under 18 b. 18-24 c. 25-34 d. 35-44 f. 45-54 g. 55-64 h. Above 65
3) What is the highest education level that you have completed ？
70

a. 8
th
grade or less b. High school graduate c. College graduate d. Graduate
degree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In recent years, the issue of sustainability has become one of the most important concerns for the whole society. To assess the relationship between consumers’ attitude and their purchase intentions, this study used the IKEA brand as the model. The author conducted a quantitative, online survey to examine the relationships between the consumers’ attitude towards sustainability principles, and their purchase intention. The paper concludes that: (1) Consumers’ attitude towards a corporation’s sustainability principles and strategies are positively related with purchasing intention; (2) For both Chinese and US consumers, neither their attitude nor purchase intention differed significantly when considered among IKEA’s three defined sustainability domains (“Sustainable Lifestyle at Home”, “Energy & Resource Independence” and “A Better Life for People and Communities”); (3) Chinese consumers expressed a significantly more positive attitude towards all three of IKEA’s sustainability principles, and stronger purchase intentions based on their awareness of the environment-related principles, than did US consumers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Public awareness campaign for dementia in Taiwan

PDF

Starbucks Reserve Roastery Shanghai’s 2017 launch campaign

PDF

Just buy it: Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and branded activism

PDF

Mexican-Americans & higher education: understanding cultural appeals as an effective recruiting tool for first-generation students

PDF

Saving public relations: tackling the underrepresentation of Latino professionals in U.S. communications industry

PDF

The role of public relations in sustainable development

PDF

Empowering equity: an exploration of how Black women-owned brands can harness social media to overcome public relations’ equity gap to build influence

PDF

Experiential public relations: the importance of strategic messaging, understanding target audiences, and analysis of successfully curated brand-consumer interactions

PDF

Memes, meme marketing, and how brands and influencers can leverage them on social media

PDF

A comparison of corporate PR practices in U.S. and China: a case study approach

PDF

The CSR paradox: how communicating about good can turn out bad

PDF

Corporate reputation crisis in the digital age: a comparative study on Abercrombie & Fitch’s reputation crisis in the U.S., China and Taiwan

PDF

The grass is already greener: how insights have given non-profit leverage over their for-profit counterparts in digital communication strategies

PDF

Strategic planning model: how KFC China can attract Gen Z and Millennials through appreciating Chinese values

PDF

The influence of brand placement in Bollywood on the Indian consumer

PDF

We care about you during trying times: analyzing U.S. Fortune 500 companies' Facebook posts on COVID-19 responses

PDF

The future of branding: capturing audiences through sound experiences & podcasting, an exploratory guide for today's strategic communicator

PDF

Comparative analysis of nuclear crisis communication: 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis and 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear crisis

PDF

An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

Public relations as a diversity management approach: a big-data examination of CSR strategies and activities for corporate LGBTQ advocacy

Asset Metadata

Creator Lu, Zhixian (author)

Core Title An intercultural study on how consumers’ attitudes about corporate sustainability influence purchase intention

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Degree Conferral Date 2017-08

Publication Date 06/20/2017

Defense Date 05/20/2017

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag America,China,IKEA,OAI-PMH Harvest,purchase intention,sustainability

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yang, Aimei (committee chair), Cook, Fred (committee member), Jackson, Laura (committee member)

Creator Email 939841021@qq.com,zhixianl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11255876

Unique identifier UC11255876

Identifier etd-LuZhixian-5430.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LuZhixian-5430

Dmrecord 386676

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lu, Zhixian

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu