Abstract
Consumer perceptions of brand motives related to corporate environmental responsibility affect the decisions of both corporations and consumers. Yet prior literature has typically viewed these firm motives as dichotomous, either solely intrinsic or solely extrinsic. The authors argue for a novel approach to positioning sustainability motives, where the brand communicates both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits together, as a joint motive. With a joint motive, a brand can highlight how an effort can benefit both planet and business with a “doing well by doing good” approach. Across five experiments, including a field study on Facebook, this research investigates the positive impact of the joint motive and its ability to enhance the credibility of sustainable initiatives via heightened perceptions of trustworthiness and expertise. Results provide converging evidence for the benefits of presenting a joint motive for sustainability efforts with implications for policy and practice.
Brands vary considerably in terms of how they communicate their underlying motives for engaging in certain business activities, including their sustainability initiatives. For example, in 2018, Patagonia reached a net worth of $1 billion and stated in its marketing campaigns, “We’re in business to save our home planet.” This is an unambiguous statement of the brand's commitment to sustainability that also conveys an intrinsic motive, suggesting that profit-centered motives come second. Patagonia recently took its intrinsic-focused messaging a step further by declaring that “Earth is our only shareholder” and promising that all profits will go directly toward sustainability efforts. This contrasts with more traditional statements highlighting a main objective of profit-centricity, such as Carnival Corporation pledging to deliver “breakthrough shareholder returns.” Other companies communicate a joint motive, such as Adidas, which states, “We are socially and environmentally responsible … and financially rewarding for our employees and shareholders.” Table 1 provides additional examples of these approaches in how companies portray motive in their communications. While firms differ in how they communicate their business motives, the literature is unclear as to how these actions may impact consumer support. Some research suggests that messages communicating intrinsic motives produce favorable outcomes (e.g., Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill 2006; Chernev and Blair 2015; Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen 2007), while other research suggests that consumers may appreciate multiple types of motives (e.g., Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006).
Examples of Consumer-Facing Motives Communicated by Firms.
The current research demonstrates the synergistic effects of conveying an intrinsic or altruistic motive (i.e., good for the environment) and extrinsic motive (i.e., good for the company) together in a brand's sustainability efforts. In doing so, it makes several contributions to the literature. We build on previous corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature by studying the impact of a firm's intrinsic, extrinsic, and joint motives as articulated in this article. We demonstrate the value of a joint motive, finding that combining intrinsic and extrinsic benefits can positively impact perceptions better than either type of stated benefit would alone. We test the increased value of a joint motive with respect to both consumer products and public goods such as a city park. Further, we provide a needed contribution to the CSR literature by revealing a novel examination of certain mechanisms tied to motive and consumer outcomes. Researchers have stated that our “understanding of the underlying mechanisms linking CSR with outcomes” is “lacking” (Aguinis and Glavas 2012, p. 953). Only 7% of articles related to CSR focus on mediation effects (Habel et al. 2016). Specifically, we demonstrate the importance of brand credibility, which consists of trustworthiness and expertise, as a mechanism that helps further an understanding of motive evaluations in consumer decision making. This research contributes to an understanding of the positive impact of a joint motive used in strategy with implications for marketing and brand management as well as policy and society.
Theoretical Development
CSR includes company programs such as cause-related marketing, charitable donations, humanitarian aid, and several other types of prosocietal actions (Brown and Dacin 1997). In this research, we focus on sustainability in the form of environmental responsibility. Corporate sustainability includes initiatives around the nature of the product (i.e., recyclability) and the process by which it was produced (i.e., materials or resources used to make the product; Gielens et al. 2018). Like other CSR efforts, corporate sustainability helps create “shared value” (i.e., value for the company and for society) and thus can be used to align multiple corporate identities (e.g., internal and external; Hildebrand, Sen, and Bhattacharya 2011). Firms need to have a nuanced understanding of consumer opinions of their efforts in this area because any negative perceptions of these identities can significantly hurt the effectiveness of CSR initiatives and lead to decreased interest in the firms’ products (Rim and Song 2016).
Extensive marketing literature has examined consumer acceptance of sustainable products. This literature has addressed questions such as how ecofriendly product formulation impacts consumer perceptions of performance (e.g., Chernev and Blair 2021; Luchs et al. 2010; Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014), how consumer motivations may vary when engaging with sustainable products (e.g., Edinger-Schons et al. 2018), and how consumers interpret green product benefits (e.g., Goldsmith, Newman, and Dhar 2016; Haws, Winterich, and Naylor 2014; Tezer and Bodur 2020). Although some research has examined the “doing well by doing good” approach (e.g., Apte and Sheth 2016; Eichholtz, Kok, and Quigley 2010), scant research has addressed whether firms can effectively emphasize both firm-centric and environmentally conscious approaches simultaneously in their marketing efforts. Highlighting the known importance of motive to consumers, research shows that consumers often care more about why a company is doing something than what it is doing (Gilbert and Malone 1995). In addition, with the increased consumer consciousness of non–environmentally friendly products (i.e., plastic straws), the widespread use of words such as “greenwashing” and “composting,” and the increased availability of green alternatives, it seems that consumers are embracing sustainability but may also be somewhat skeptical of firm efforts. Indeed, in 2018, consumers spent $128.5 billion on sustainable products, making up an impressive 22% of total retail store sales (Nielsen 2018). Even so, little attention has been given to how companies communicate their intentions, or motives, for launching new sustainable products, and how consumers might interpret these motives. In this research, we examine various ways in which companies can frame their motivations for engaging in sustainable efforts and how these different types of motives can influence consumer perceptions of the brand.
Motives for Sustainability Initiatives
The way in which marketers communicate company motives can be influential in shaping consumer opinions and perceptions of a given firm (e.g., Forehand 2000; Forehand and Grier 2003). Consumers form opinions about marketer intentions, and these opinions can significantly shape consumer responses (Marín, Cuestas, and Román 2016). Indeed, consumers’ perception of a brand's motives for socially responsible action plays an essential role in their response (Vlachos et al. 2009), and they show great interest in understanding why brands engage in CSR practices such as sustainability initiatives (Gilbert and Malone 1995). Firms with better advertising, research, and development resources obtain better results from their CSR initiatives, which suggests that their ability to shape consumer perceptions through these resources is advantageous (Luo and Bhattacharya 2009). Brands’ sustainability efforts and “green” product offerings often rely on the product itself advancing an environmental cause. Because the product itself also generates revenue, consumers may perceive sustainability efforts as either cause-beneficial or cause-exploitative.
Typically, research on consumers’ perceptions of company motives for CSR distinguishes motives that benefit individuals and society (intrinsic, or helping-based, motives) from motives that benefit the firm itself (extrinsic, or monetary-based, motives). The academic literature in this area has consistently defined these as dichotomized motives (Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor 2000; Chernev and Blair 2015; Forehand and Grier 2003; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig 2004; Romani, Grappi, and Bagozzi 2016). Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2007, p. 226) define these terms as follows:
Research that takes the dichotomized approach to understanding consumers’ reaction to sustainability efforts and green products generally finds that consumers react positively to intrinsic motives and negatively or neutrally to extrinsic motives (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill 2006; Chernev and Blair 2015; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun 2006). Consumers may perceive brands that acknowledge extrinsic motives alone as opportunistic (Habel et al. 2016).
However, some research finds that consumers are suspicious of intrinsic motivations (Fein 1996; Forehand and Grier 2003). They may suspect that a brand that professes an entirely altruistic motive is hiding something, leaving them feeling misled or even duped (Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006). In general, consumers distrust corporations, and recent scandals in the popular press have increased their distrust in advertising and other marketing-related messages (Olenski 2017). Disbelief in CSR-related messages, activities, and motives has been well documented in previous work (e.g., Forehand and Grier 2003; Romani, Grappi, and Bagozzi 2016). As such, when a brand solely communicates its unselfish sentiment toward an effort, consumers may view this as a strategy to deceive or manipulate them (Campbell 1995; Forehand 2000). This suggests that consumers recognize the need of a business to focus on its profitability, including long-term viability, in addition to the needs of society (Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006). However, research has not addressed how consumers perceive the possibility that a firm has both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for making an environmental product.
The scant literature examining a nondichotomized view of motive has produced mixed results. On the one hand, some research suggests that consumers may prefer a singular motive. Edinger-Schons et al. (2018) examined the impact of joint appeals in the context of consumer motives for their own involvement with sustainable products and found that consumers may prefer a singular motive (e.g., “Purchase this green product to save the environment!”) when the persuasive message is framed as a consumer-focused motive. On the other hand, Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) found that when asked to explain why companies engaged in social responsibility, three-quarters of respondents suggested more than one reason in their open-ended responses. They also were more likely to react positively to CSR efforts they judged as being more complex.
The current research proposes that a joint motive may ameliorate some of the challenges that occur when brands use intrinsic motives. By including firm benefits along with social benefits, brands may alleviate some of the concerns that they are hiding something when they profess intrinsic motives alone. Consumers often want to understand and appreciate intrinsic motives, but they may also legitimize a firm's recognition of extrinsic motives since corporate survival requires it. Thus, we propose that a joint motive, which acknowledges the benefits to the business and to the planet will be evaluated more positively and lead to a higher purchase intent by the consumer, which leads to the following hypothesis.
Perceived Brand Credibility
Brand credibility is often thought of as an antecedent to evaluating marketing claims, in that consumers trust claims from more credible brands (e.g., Erdem and Swait 2004; Morhart et al. 2015). Brand credibility specific to the domain of sustainability may impact consumer reactions to firm motives. We propose that the motives communicated by a brand related to sustainability initiatives can also influence perceptions of brand credibility in the sustainability domain.
Brand credibility requires that consumers perceive the brand as being able to continuously deliver on what has been promised. Essentially, brands can function as signals; when a brand does not deliver on the expectations it has set, brand equity will erode. Similar to previous work, in this research we conceptualize brand credibility as the brand's openness and honesty toward the consumer (i.e., transparency) along with the brand's perceived willingness and ability to fulfill its claims (i.e., expertise; Erdem and Swait 2004; Giffin 1967; Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953). The efficacy of a message depends on these two components, as both transparency and expertise enhance positive perceptions of the message source (e.g., Tripp, Jensen, and Carlson 1994; Wiener and Mowen 1986).
Trustworthiness is defined as the apparent honesty and integrity of the source (McGinnies and Ward 1980). A trustworthy brand is perceived as making valid claims when stating its motives for engaging in sustainability initiatives. Consumers want to understand that the brand will be able to deliver on what has been promised and that the firm is committed to its stated efforts (Nelson 1974). Consumers often want to feel that a stated claim is believable or honest, and trustworthiness tends to increase believability of a message (Hovland and Weiss 1951; Vlachos et al. 2009).
Expertise is defined as competence and knowledge (McGinnies and Ward 1980). Expertise addresses the extent to which the brand is seen as being capable of doing what it promises when stating its motives. Consumers may wish to assess whether the brand has a demonstrated track record that is consistent with its claims. When consumers view a brand as having higher competence and knowledge (i.e., more expertise), they tend to be more persuaded by the brand's message (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Ohanian 1990). Expertise impacts trustworthiness such that as expertise increases, trustworthiness also tends to increase (Erdem and Swait 2004).
Trustworthiness of Sustainability Motives
Both intrinsic and extrinsic articulations of motives may negatively affect trustworthiness. Specifically, research on consumer perceptions of cleaning products sold through marketing messages articulating an intrinsic motive suggests that consumers fear the products won't work that well (Luchs et al. 2010; Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014). Similarly, research on consumer perception of products sold as sustainable but where the underlying motive articulated is intrinsic indicates that consumers are concerned that sustainability claims may be unreliable (Forehand and Grier 2003; Leonidou and Skarmeas 2017). Both circumstances erode consumer trust. Research shows that consumer uncertainty about a brand's motive leads to concerns of trustworthiness (Mayer, Scammon, and Zick 1993). Decreased brand trust comes with decreased purchase intention and willingness to support an initiative.
We propose that the communication of the brand's motives for offering environmentally friendly products can shape perceptions of brand credibility with respect to sustainability, which can, in turn, influence purchase intentions, primarily through the trustworthiness dimension of credibility. Specifically, we propose that a joint motive may increase perceived brand trustworthiness. Consumers can appreciate the brand's intrinsic motive while simultaneously understanding its need to serve extrinsic motives. There is no question of hidden motives, as the business rationale is acknowledged. Thus, perceived brand trustworthiness may increase and therefore improve consumer purchase intent. A joint motive should often be perceived as more believable than an intrinsic motive. Qualitative research has shown that consumers understand that firms are profit-driven and therefore expect this to be part of CSR business decisions (Mohr, Webb, and Harris 2001), but they also expect companies to work for the good of society (Green and Peloza 2014). Enhanced trustworthiness from a joint motive highlighting both types of efforts should lead to higher purchase intent. Stated formally,
Expertise via Green Brand Heritage
We further hypothesize that firms can influence their sustainability-related credibility via perceived expertise. One way a firm can signal its expertise in sustainability is through its green brand heritage (GBH). A longstanding commitment to sustainability signals competence and knowledge. Brand heritage is considered a key strategic asset for brands (Urde, Greyser, and Balmer 2007), and it increases legitimacy (Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014). Messaging related to brand heritage promotes consumer perceptions of brand reliability (Beverland 2006). Moreover, internal consistency in messaging, particularly over time, benefits brands (Rose et al. 2016; Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella 2012).
We hypothesize that joint motives do not outweigh brand heritage. Brands known for their ecofriendly/green traditions already appear credible in their sustainability efforts, and messaging about motives will not have significant impact on purchase intent. Conversely, for brands low in GBH, motive should significantly impact purchase intent, such that the joint motive will be the most beneficial. Stated formally,
The conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1.
Conceptual Model.
Overview of Studies
We tested these three hypotheses in a series of five experiments investigating consumer reactions to marketing messages featuring different types of brand motive(s). Specifically, these studies tested the proposition that consumers respond more positively to a joint motive, which combines intrinsic and extrinsic motives. Experiment 1 examines the hypothesis that a product communicating a joint motive will result in higher purchase intent than an intrinsic motive, an extrinsic motive, or a control condition. Experiment 2 shows the superiority of a joint motive in a real-world field experiment on Facebook. Experiment 3 demonstrates the mediating effect of brand trustworthiness on purchase likelihood. Experiment 4 shows that the moderator of expertise, as conceptualized by GBH, attenuates the impact of a joint motive for brands with high GBH. Experiment 5 establishes that these results can also apply to a public policy context. Collectively, these studies provide evidence that firms and policy makers may be able to increase consumer support for proenvironmental policies via their stated motives.
Experiment 1: The Impact of Joint Motive on Product Purchase Intent
The goal of Experiment 1 is to test the proposition that a brand using a joint motive that includes an intrinsic and an extrinsic benefit together will result in higher purchase intent than any of the following individually: control condition (no motive), intrinsic motive, or extrinsic motive. We use the scenario of Tide detergent launching new packaging. The only difference among the scenarios is the motive communicated by the brand for its new initiative. In this study, the motives are presented in a news article by a third-party source. The text of the news story was the same in all four conditions, and only the headline conveying the motive changed.
Method
Pretest for treatment conditions
In a separate pretest, we asked 50 Amazon Mechanical Turk adult participants in the United States (20% female, 80% male; Mage = 35 years) to rate the stimuli used in this study as either intrinsic or extrinsic. We gave pretest participants the definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic motives provided previously (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen 2007). Participants rated the stimuli on a 101-point bipolar scale (0 = “Entirely Intrinsic,” and 100 = “Entirely Extrinsic”).
The results of the pretest showed that the intrinsic headline was rated as significantly more intrinsic (M = 32.88) than the extrinsic headline (M = 85.71; t(49) = −7.30, p < .001) on the 101-point scale, confirming that the intended manipulation was successful. The joint headline was rated as being near the middle of the scale (M = 52.59) and was significantly different from both the intrinsic (t(49) = −4.45, p < .001) and the extrinsic (t(49) = 7.44, p < .001) headlines.
Main study
For the main study, 199 adult participants in the United States (38% female, 62% male; Mage = 20 years) were recruited from an undergraduate subject pool at a private southeastern U.S. university in exchange for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) control, (2) intrinsic motive, (3) extrinsic motive, or (4) joint motive (intrinsic and extrinsic). All participants viewed a news article about Tide detergent introducing new packaging. The article included a visual of the new design and information on the product. In the control condition, there was no mention of why the packaging was changed. The headline read, “Tide changes packaging.” In the intrinsic motive condition, the headline read, “Tide changes packaging to be more eco-friendly.” In the extrinsic motive condition, the headline read, “Tide changes packaging to be more profitable.” In the joint motive condition, the headline stated, “Tide changes packaging to be more profitable and eco-friendly.” See Web Appendix A for stimuli.
After reviewing the stimuli, respondents were asked to rate their purchase intent by providing a response to the statement, “I am interested in purchasing Tide more/less after reading this,” on a nine-point scale (1 = “much less,” and 9 = “much more”). At the end of the study, participants indicated their age and gender and were thanked for their participation.
Results
We predicted that consumers in the joint motive condition would have higher purchase intent than the other conditions. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with four conditions (control, intrinsic, extrinsic, and joint) as the factor and purchase intent as the dependent measure showed a significant effect of condition (F(3, 195) = 7.96, p < .001). Planned contrasts revealed higher purchase intent in the joint motive condition versus control (Mjoint = 6.53 vs. Mctrl = 5.43; t(195) = 3.19, p < .01), joint versus intrinsic motive condition (Mjoint = 6.53 vs. Mint = 5.78; t(195) = 2.17, p < .05), and joint versus extrinsic motive condition (Mjoint = 6.53 vs. Mext = 4.99; t(195) = 4.77, p < .001). These results show that consumers in the joint motive condition had higher purchase intent than the other three conditions.
Moreover, there is no significant difference in the extrinsic versus control conditions (Mctrl = 5.43 vs. Mext = 4.88; t(195) = 1.61, p = .11) This is important to highlight because while there is no significant difference in purchase intent between the control (no motive) and extrinsic (profit motive) conditions, there is a significant difference between the joint (eco and profit) and extrinsic (profit) conditions. This provides some evidence that the combination of the eco and profit motives together as a joint motive drives higher purchase intent rather than the mere mention of a profit motive.
Discussion
In line with H1, the results of Experiment 1 demonstrate that the joint motive led to higher purchase intent than any of the other conditions. Only the headline changed in these different news article versions, while the same story text, brand name, packaging, and visual cues were shown across all conditions. Further, there were no differences between the extrinsic motive and control (no motive) conditions. This suggests consumers may have a default assumption that firms’ ecofriendly actions are typically undertaken for extrinsic reasons when no motives are provided. This study used a third-party news source to communicate the firm's motives. Using an independent source to communicate sustainability initiatives may enhance consumer perceptions (e.g., Chernev and Blair 2015). While this enhancement may apply to all four of the conditions, it is also possible that the extra credibility that applies to joint motives would not be present without it. Therefore, in the following studies we examine the firm itself communicating its own motives.
Experiment 2: Facebook Advertising Field Study
The purpose of Experiment 2 is to examine whether enhanced consumer perceptions of a joint motive extend to social media advertising in the context of a field study. This study uses a real-world field experiment with click-through rates (CTRs) as the dependent variable. We partnered with Grin, an ecofriendly toothbrush brand from Canada, to conduct this experiment. This field study uses two separate creative campaigns that ran concurrently to test the hypothesis and to potentially help rule out an alternative explanation related to positive versus negative emotion.
Method
Pretest for treatment conditions
We ran a separate pretest with 50 adult U.S. respondents from Amazon Mechanical Turk (26% female, 74% male; Mage = 37 years). The ads were pretested with two main objectives: (1) test whether the motives in the stimuli were categorized correctly and (2) test whether the two different creative images (an image of discarded plastic toothbrushes in a landfill vs. an image of nature including mountains and water) used in the ads differed significantly in perceived emotional response (i.e., negative/positive affect). We were interested in the role that affect may have in evaluating these ads because previous research shows that images of nature in advertisements can potentially boost positive emotions (Moran and Bachi 2019). Affect was captured using three items: pleasantness (unpleasant–pleasant), feeling (bad feeling–good feeling), and liking (dislike very much–like very much). Each was measured using nine-point scales. These measures were averaged together to form an affect index (α = .93). To rate the motives, participants received the same definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic motive as in Experiment 1. Participants rated the stimuli on a 101-point bipolar scale (0 = “Entirely Intrinsic,” and 100 = “Entirely Extrinsic”).
The results of the pretest showed that the “nature” visual resulted in higher positive affect (M = 7.73, SD = 1.26) than the “brushes” visual (M = 3.05, SD = 1.84; t(49) = 12.53, p < .001). The pretest further showed that the intrinsic messaging was rated as significantly more intrinsic (M = 31.78) than the joint messaging (M = 49.50; t(49) = −3.34, p < .01) on the same 101-point scale used in the previous pretest, confirming the intended motive manipulations were perceived as intended.
Facebook study
For the main study, we used four distinct advertisements. In Experiment 1, we had four conditions, which showed that that the control and extrinsic motive conditions had the lowest purchase intent. Because this was a real ad campaign for a real company, those two conditions were not used in this study. “Grin wants to help our planet” was used as the intrinsic motive tagline. “Consumers want change. Grin wants to help” was used as the joint motive tagline.
At Grin's request, the ads used two creative looks, which were called internally “nature” and “brushes.” The former contained a photograph of mountains and water, while the latter contained a photo of discarded plastic toothbrushes (see Web Appendix B for ads).
The field experiment on Facebook is a 2 (motive: joint vs. intrinsic) × 2 (creative: brushes vs. nature) between-subjects design. The dependent variable of primary interest for ads created on Facebook's advertising platform is advertising CTRs, a function of clicks and impressions. CTRs are widely used to determine advertising effectiveness in A/B testing (Paharia 2020), and they are the most-used success metric for digital advertising (O’Neill 2010). CTR is the preferred metric over views and impressions because it represents customer engagement. When a customer clicks on an ad, they are likely interested in the message and want to learn more. Thus, the study is optimized for number of clicks, resulting in varying levels of impressions depending on impressions required to generate a certain number of clicks (Paharia 2020). The duration of this advertising test was set in advance to hold the time period constant and to allow for an equivalent evaluation of how each ad performed.
Results
A log-linear regression based on number of views (impressions) and whether viewers clicked on the ad (CTR) as a binary choice (1 = click, 0 = no click) showed the predicted main effect of motive. Facebook reports the number of impressions and the number of clicks for each creative execution. Combined, the four ads generated a total of 27,800 impressions, 1,274 of which were clicked on (CTR = 4.64%). This CTR is within the normal range for digital display ads and within range for Facebook advertisements (Irvine 2017). The regression model showed that the joint motive had a significantly higher CTR (5.08%) over the intrinsic motive (4.20%; χ2(1) = 12.21, p < .001). The model also revealed a nonsignificant effect for affect (χ2(1) = .17, p = .68), in which CTR did not vary between nature (4.63%) and brushes (4.53%). Although the emotionality of the ads did not elicit a main effect, this finding is consistent with previous research, which has shown that emotion-evoking ads designed to promote environmental behaviors can fail to elicit attitude change (e.g., Matthes, Wonneberger, and Schmuck 2014; Schwartz and Loewenstein 2017). Further, the use of these disparate images helps demonstrate the robustness of the findings related to motive, since the “brushes” image helps rule out the impact of positive emotion invoked by the “nature” image. The main effect of motive received additional support from the nonsignificant interaction between motive and affect (χ2(3) = 12.35, p = .76). See Table 2 for detailed results.
Facebook Ad Results (Experiment 2).
Discussion
In this real-world field study, there was a statistically significant CTR difference between joint versus intrinsic motives, regardless of a difference in positive affect related to the images used in the ads. This indicates that using a joint motive in real-world marketing efforts, such as Facebook ads, can yield positive results for a brand, as those consumers who were exposed to the joint motive were significantly more likely to click on the ad than those who were exposed to the intrinsic motive, again supporting H1.
We found that, across multiple creative designs with different levels of affect, ads featuring a joint motive significantly outperformed ads that included only an intrinsic motive. This study also shows the results generalize whether the firm communicates its own motives via advertising or a third-party news organization communicates on behalf of the firm, as in the first study. While the results of the first two studies collectively suggest that a joint motive may be perceived as being more credible, we more directly test for the underlying mechanism of brand trustworthiness in the next study.
Experiment 3: Mechanism of Trustworthiness
Our previous two studies have shown that a joint motive results in higher purchase intent (Experiment 1) and higher CTRs (Experiment 2), as compared with an intrinsic-only or extrinsic-only motive. In Experiment 3, we aim to gain insight into the mechanism driving this effect. We argue that perceptions of brand credibility stemming from the communication of the brand's sustainability-related motives can, in turn, influence purchase intentions through perceived trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is a component of brand credibility when gauging the brand's ability and commitment to deliver what it is promising (Erdem and Swait 2004; Morhart et al. 2015). Therefore, the current study directly tests the impact of trustworthiness on purchase intent. A consumer's perception of a brand or firm's trustworthiness can be particularly useful in the domain of sustainability where claims surrounding environmentally friendly efforts are seemingly ubiquitous. Because a joint motive features both intrinsic and extrinsic rationale for sustainability efforts, we have hypothesized that the joint motive will lead to higher trustworthiness than either the intrinsic motive or the extrinsic motive, resulting in higher purchase intent.
Method
Pretest for treatment conditions
First, we ran a separate pretest to ensure that the treatment conditions of intrinsic motive, extrinsic motive, and joint motive were perceived as intended. One hundred adult U.S. respondents from Prolific participated. The pretest respondents had similar demographics (68% female, 32% male; Mage = 35 years) to the respondents in the main study. As with previous pretests, all participants were given definitions for intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations. They were then shown a proposed headline for Dasani bottled water and were asked to classify whether it was intrinsic, extrinsic, or both using a slider that started at 0 as the default and could be moved up to 100. The left side of the slider near 0 was labeled “intrinsic,” while the right side near 100 was labeled “extrinsic.”
Pretest results showed a significant difference in how all three motives were perceived relative to the definitions provided. As expected, there was a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 45.00) and the extrinsic motive (Mext = 90.46; t(99) = 12.23, p < .01). Likewise, there was a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 45.00) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 21.84; t(99) = 8.57, p < .01). It follows that there was also a significant difference between the intrinsic motive (Mint = 21.84) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 90.46; t(99) = 16.09, p < .01).
Main study
For the main study, we recruited 222 adult U.S. participants from Prolific (64% female, 36% male; Mage = 36 years). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) joint motive, (2) extrinsic motive, or (3) intrinsic motive. All participants viewed a social media announcement about Dasani water introducing new packaging. All conditions included an Instagram post with a visual of the new packaging, including a plant bottle logo. The only difference across conditions was the brand motive for the packaging change. In the joint motive condition, participants were told, “We at Dasani are launching a new bottle to help our planet. We recognize that changing our packaging helps us stay competitive for the future.” In the extrinsic motive condition, participants were told, “We at Dasani are launching a new bottle to increase profits for our stockholders. We need to keep corporate investors satisfied.” In the intrinsic motive condition, participants were told, “We at Dasani are launching a new bottle to help our planet. We want to stop the tribulations of temperature change.” Across all three conditions the amount of information was held constant, such that two pieces of motive-related information were communicated in each condition. All visuals and detailed language for the stimuli can be found in Web Appendix C.
After reviewing the stimuli, respondents answered questions about perceived trustworthiness and purchase intent. Five items were used to measure the trustworthiness dimension of brand credibility (Erdem and Swait 2004; Morhart et al. 2015): (1) “This brand is committed to environmentally friendly packaging” (“not at all committed”/“extremely committed”), (2) “This brand is being transparent in its efforts to help the planet” (“not at all transparent”/“very transparent”), (3) “This brand is able to honor its promise to consumers” (“not at all”/“absolutely”), (4) “This brand will not betray” (“strongly disagree”/“strongly agree”), (5) “This brand has the ability to deliver on its promise to create more ecofriendly packaging” (“strongly disagree”/“strongly agree”). Participants signaled their agreement level to all items on an 11-point scale, and their responses were collapsed into a single index of trustworthiness (α = .93). A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the five items loaded onto one factor, and all items had factor loadings greater than .83. In addition, participants were asked about purchase intent with the question, “Assuming you were purchasing a bottle of water, what is your likelihood to buy this bottle?” on an 11-point scale (1 = “not at all likely,” and 11 = “very likely”) Lastly, they were asked to indicate their age and gender and were thanked for their participation.
Results
Trustworthiness
A one-way ANOVA with condition as the factor and trustworthiness as the dependent measure showed a significant main effect of motive on trustworthiness (F(2, 219) = 29.19, p < .001). Contrasts revealed a significant difference in trustworthiness scores for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.82) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 5.99; t(219) = 2.16, p = .03) conditions. In addition, there was a significant difference in trustworthiness scores for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.82) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 4.02; t(219) = 7.43, p < .001) conditions. There was also a significant difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic motives (Mint = 5.99 vs. Mext = 4.02; t(219) = 5.20, p < .001). Thus, as predicted, the joint motive condition had higher trustworthiness than both the intrinsic motive and the extrinsic motive conditions.
Purchase intent
A separate one-way ANOVA with condition as the factor and purchase intent as the dependent measure also showed a significant effect of condition on purchase intent (F(2, 219) = 18.06, p < .001). Contrasts revealed a significant difference in purchase intent for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.60) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 5.64; t(219) = 2.01, p = .046) conditions. In addition, there was a significant difference in purchase intent for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.60) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 3.82; t(219) = 5.91, p < .001) conditions. There was also a significant difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic motives (Mint = 5.64 vs. Mext = 3.82; t(219) = 3.85, p < .001). Thus, as predicted, the joint motive condition had higher purchase intent than both the intrinsic motive and the extrinsic motive conditions.
Mediation
Finally, we tested the mediating effect of trustworthiness on purchase intent with motive as the independent variable, trustworthiness as the mediator, and purchase intent as the dependent variable. Since the independent variable of motive had three categories, the extrinsic and intrinsic categories were coded as separate variables and were each tested against the joint motive condition as the reference category. We used the Process macro (Model 4; Hayes 2018) to test the indirect effect of the joint motive (both joint and extrinsic as well as joint and intrinsic) on purchase intent via perceived trustworthiness using 5,000 bootstrap samples. In line with our theorizing, the results (see Table 3) reveal a significant indirect effect from a joint motive to purchase intent via perceived trustworthiness when tested with the extrinsic condition (95% confidence interval [CI] = [−3.19, −1.74]) and when tested with the intrinsic condition (95% CI = [−1.36, −1.00]).
Mediation Model (Experiment 3).
Notes: x1 = extrinsic motive, x2 = intrinsic motive, m = trustworthiness, y = purchase intent. Reference level is joint motive.
Discussion
The results of Experiment 3 show that trustworthiness mediates the relationship between motive and purchase intent. This effect holds true whether contrasting intrinsic and joint motives or extrinsic and joint motives. These findings support H2 and show that consumers find a motive that indicates both planet and profit to be more trustworthy than a singular motive. This enhanced trustworthiness increases purchase likelihood. Next, we further test this process mechanism by examining the impact of a strong GBH.
Experiment 4: Moderating Impact of Green Brand Heritage
Our previous studies have shown that a joint motive results in higher purchase intent (Experiment 1) and higher CTR (Experiment 2), as compared with an intrinsic-only or extrinsic-only motive, and this is mediated by brand trustworthiness (Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, we aim to examine process by moderation (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong 2005) by manipulating firm expertise. Higher expertise has been linked to increased trustworthiness (Erdem and Swait 2004). Therefore, we propose that brands higher in sustainability expertise, or those that have more competence and knowledge, will be perceived as more trustworthy. With high expertise, the effectiveness of a joint motive should be attenuated since the brand is already perceived as trustworthy and the stated motive becomes less important.
This study examines the moderating impact of GBH on motive. We introduce a 2 (GBH: high vs. low) × 3 (motive: joint, intrinsic, extrinsic) experimental design. We have hypothesized that for brands with a high GBH, or a history of being known for their ecofriendly/green traditions, the framing of the motive will not impact consumers as much. This is tied to previous research on the importance of brand heritage as a key indicator that shows consistency with the brand's current efforts and its origins (Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella 2012). Brands with a high GBH should appear more credible in their sustainability efforts regardless of their stated motive(s). As such, GBH is consistent with the brand's current eco-effort, showing that the specific motive communicated for the eco-effort is less important. Thus, the goal of Study 4 is to test the impact of the brand's green heritage on consumer response to a sustainability initiative.
Method
Pretest for treatment conditions
First, we ran a pretest to ensure that the treatment conditions of intrinsic motive, extrinsic motive, and joint motive were perceived as intended. Sixty adult U.S. respondents from Prolific participated. The pretest respondents had similar demographics (45% female, 55% male; Mage = 37 years) to the respondents in the main study. All participants were given the same definitions and information as in previous pretests on how to classify intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations. They were then shown a proposed headline for a cosmetics company and asked to classify whether it was intrinsic, extrinsic, or both.
Pretest results showed a significant difference in how all three motives were perceived relative to the definitions provided. As expected, there was a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 55.93) and the extrinsic motive (Mext = 85.40; t(59) = 6.66, p < .01). Likewise, there was a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 55.93) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 14.10; t(59) = 13.02, p < .01). It follows that there was also a significant difference between the intrinsic motive (Mint = 14.10) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 85.40; t(59) = 15.24, p < .01).
Main study
For the main study, we recruited 353 adult U.S. participants from Prolific (50% female, 50% male; Mage = 36 years). They were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 2 (GBH: high vs. low) × 3 (motive: joint, intrinsic, extrinsic) between-subjects design. All participants evaluated a hypothetical cosmetics company called Hush. Across all conditions, respondents were told that Hush was launching an environmentally friendly line of skin creams in the United States and provided details on its ingredients. In the low-GBH condition, participants were told that Hush was a brand already in Europe but now launching in the United States, with no mention of previous sustainability efforts. However, in the high-GBH conditions, they were told that Hush was a brand that had been creating ecofriendly products since it began more than 30 years ago, and the environment was central to its brand name.
For motive, the intrinsic condition stated, “At Hush, we put an enormous amount of care into the products we make. We know that together we can create environmentally friendly products that do not harm the planet. We believe that we can create products that have a positive impact on helping clean water and society.” The extrinsic condition stated, “At Hush, we put an enormous amount of research into the products we make. We know that together we can be a successful business. We believe that we can create products that have a positive impact on shareholders and be a profitable business.” The joint condition stated, “At Hush, we put an enormous amount of care and research into the products we make. We know that together we can be a successful business by creating environmentally friendly products that do not harm the planet. We believe that we can create products that have a positive impact on helping clean water and be a profitable business.” Detailed stimuli can be found in Web Appendix D.
All respondents were asked to rate purchase intent by responding to the statement, “I would purchase products from Hush,” on a nine-point scale (1 = “never,” and 9 = “absolutely"). In addition, as a manipulation check, participants were asked to rate perceptions of GBH based on the information provided. The GBH assessment used a three-item index from the literature (Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella 2012): (1) “Hush has a long history of doing efforts that fit with helping the environment,” (2) “Hush has been helping the planet for a long time,” and (3) “This effort reflects the brand's heritage of being environmentally responsible.” These three statements were all assessed on nine-point scales (1 = “completely disagree,” and 9 = “completely agree”) and were subsequently collapsed into a single measure of GBH (α = .93). A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the three items loaded onto one factor, and all had factor loadings greater than .90. Lastly, participants were asked to provide their age and gender and were thanked for their participation.
Results
Manipulation check
A 2 (GBH: high vs. low) × 3 (motive: joint, intrinsic, extrinsic) between-subjects ANOVA showed that the GBH manipulation was successful. There was a significant main effect of low versus high GBH on the GBH index (F(1, 345) = 69.22, p < .001) such that participants with the scenario of a high-GBH brand rated the brand as having significantly higher GBH (Mhigh = 6.68 vs. Mlow = 5.34). There was no main effect of motive on the GBH index (F(2, 345) = 2.51, p = .08), and there was no low- versus high-GBH motive interaction (F(2, 345) = .40, p = .67). This shows that the scenarios of “high” and “low” GBH were assessed as intended.
Purchase intent
A 2 (GBH: high vs. low) × 3 (motive: joint, intrinsic, extrinsic) between-subjects ANOVA showed a nonsignificant main effect for GBH on purchase intent (F(1, 347) = .84, p = .36). Although the results were not significant, the purchase intent was directionally higher with high (vs. low) GBH (Mhigh = 6.71 vs. Mlow = 6.55). The results also showed a significant main effect for motive on purchase intent (F(2, 347) = 3.84, p = .02). As predicted, the main effects were qualified by a marginally significant interaction between GBH and motive on purchase intent (F(2, 347) = 2.82, p = .06).
Contrasts revealed a significant difference in purchase intent for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.91) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 6.34; t(347) = 2.77, p < .01) conditions. There was no significant difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic motives (Mint = 6.63 vs. Mext = 6.34 t(347) = 1.39, p = .17). There was also no significant difference between the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.91) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 6.63; t(347) = 1.37, p = .17) conditions, likely because of the high purchase intent across the GBH conditions.
None of the three motive conditions were significantly different from one another when participants were told the brand had high GBH: joint versus intrinsic motive (Mhigh-joint = 6.71 vs. Mhigh-int = 6.84; t(347) = -.46, p = .65), joint versus extrinsic motive (Mhigh-joint = 6.71 vs. Mhigh-ext = 6.57; t(347) = .48, p = .63), and intrinsic versus extrinsic motive (Mhigh-int = 6.84 vs. Mhigh-ext = 6.57; t(347) = .94, p = .35).
As hypothesized, for scenarios with a low GBH, results replicated our prior findings such that participants reported significantly higher purchase intent with the joint motive versus intrinsic motive (Mlow-joint = 7.12 vs. Mlow-int = 6.42; t(347) = 2.42, p = .02) and the joint motive versus extrinsic motive (Mlow-joint = 7.12 vs. Mlow-ext = 6.12; t(347) = 3.44, p < .001). There was no significant difference with the intrinsic versus extrinsic motive (Mlow-int = 6.42 vs. Mlow-ext = 6.12; t(347) = 1.03, p = .31).
Because Hush is a cosmetics company, we separately tested whether gender would significantly moderate the results in the low GBH scenario. A 3 (motive: joint, intrinsic, extrinsic) × 2 (gender: male, female) between-subjects ANOVA showed a nonsignificant interaction on purchase intent (F(2, 169) = .41, p = .66). The main effect of gender was marginally significant in this model (F(1, 169) = 3.46, p = .07), and the main effect of motive was still significant (F(1, 169) = 6.00, p < .01). 1
Discussion
The results of Experiment 4 show that when a brand has a history of being ecofriendly, the communicated motive for a specific sustainability initiative is less impactful on the consumer's assessment of the brand, in support of H3. This further confirms the importance of a joint motive with low-GBH brands and provides additional evidence for enhanced credibility of joint motives. In addition, our results show that it is not the motive of profit or the environment that separately decrease purchase intent but, rather, the combination of both with a joint motive that increases purchase intent. As such, we replicate previous findings that the joint motive results in higher purchase intent, as compared with either an intrinsic or extrinsic motive, for a low-GBH brand. In the final study, we turn our attention to an examination of whether these motives similarly apply to a public policy context.
Experiment 5: Examining the Impact of Motive in a Public Policy Context
We have found that a joint motive increases the credibility of the brand's sustainability initiatives, resulting in increased purchase likelihood. This increased brand credibility was shown via the dimensions of trustworthiness (Experiment 3) and expertise (Experiment 4). The goal of Experiment 5 is to extend the findings of our previous studies involving sustainable, or ecofriendly, products by applying these motives to a public good. This answers a call to apply marketing knowledge to sustainability and public resources (Griskevicius, Cantú, and Van Vugt 2012; Shultz and Holbrook 1999).
Knowing how different motives impact sustainability initiatives can benefit both brands and public policy markets. Extending this theory, we suggest that the motive of the public goods application is more likely to be framed as benefits to the greater public (i.e., society, local businesses, environment), rather than benefits at the individual level (i.e., specific firm or consumer). The purpose of this study is twofold: to test whether the positive effect of a joint motive can also apply to a public goods context, and to test whether motives framed as a city government offering benefits to the greater public will be perceived similarly to a firm communicating its motives to consumers.
Method
Pretest for treatment conditions
We ran a pretest to ensure that the treatment conditions of intrinsic motive, extrinsic motive, and joint motive were perceived as intended. Fifty-six adult U.S. respondents from Prolific participated. The pretest respondents had similar demographics (60% female, 40% male; Mage = 33 years) as the respondents in the main study. All participants were given definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic motives. They were then shown a communication about a new park for a city that included these motives. Pretest results showed a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 44.80) and the extrinsic motive (Mext = 75.71; t(55) = 8.81, p < .001). Likewise, there was a significant difference in how respondents rated the joint motive (Mjoint = 44.80) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 16.73; t(55) = 8.56, p < .001). It follows that there was also a significant difference between the intrinsic motive (Mint = 16.73) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 75.81; t(55) = 10.90, p < .001).
Main study
For the main study, we recruited 344 adult U.S. participants from Prolific (52% female, 48% male; Mage = 36 years). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) joint motive, (2) extrinsic motive, or (3) intrinsic motive. All participants viewed an ad from Madison City, a fictitious locale trying to gain public support for a new public park. All conditions included images of trees and the sun with the name of the city, Madison City, at the top. The only difference across conditions was the language regarding motive. In the joint motive condition, the ad said, “Our new park will help offset the city's carbon emissions and help our local businesses.” In the intrinsic motive condition, the ad said, “Our new park will help fight rising sea levels and help offset the city's carbon emissions.” In the extrinsic motive conditions, the ad said, “Our new park will improve the city's property values and help our local businesses.” Similar to previous studies, the amount of information was held constant across conditions and, as shown in the pretest, these motives were perceived as intended. All visuals and detailed language for the ad stimuli can be found in Web Appendix E.
After reviewing the stimuli, all participants were asked to rate trustworthiness. This experiment used the same measures of trustworthiness from previous studies, but they were revised to evaluate perceptions of the city, rather than perceptions of a brand or firm. The questions were an index of the following statements, all rated using 11-point Likert scales: (1) “This city is committed to being environmentally friendly” (“not at all committed”/“extremely committed”), (2) “This city is being transparent in its efforts to build a park” (“not at all transparent”/“very transparent”), (3) “This city is able to honor its promise to the public with the park” (“not at all”/“absolutely”), (4) “This city will not betray the community” (“strongly disagree”/“strongly agree”), (5) “This city has the ability to deliver on its promise to create a new park” (“strongly disagree”/“strongly agree”). The questions were collapsed into a single index of credibility (α = .77).
Next, participants were asked to indicate their willingness to donate to help fund the park on an 11-point scale (1 = “not at all,” and 11 = “absolutely yes”) by responding to the question, “Would you be willing to donate to help fund this park in your town?” This is similar to previous donation intent measures in a public goods setting (e.g., Peck et al. 2021). Lastly, all participants were asked to provide their age and gender and were thanked for their participation.
Results
Trustworthiness
A one-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of condition on trustworthiness (F(2, 341) = 22.41, p < .001). Contrasts revealed a significant difference in trustworthiness for the joint motive (Mjoint = 8.20) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 7.59; t(341) = 3.23, p = .001) conditions. In addition, there was a significant difference in trustworthiness for the joint motive (Mjoint = 8.20) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 6.69; t(341) = 6.69, p < .001) conditions. There was also a significant difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic motive conditions (Mint = 7.59 vs. Mext = 6.93; t(341) = 3.47, p < .001). Thus, as predicted, the joint motive condition had higher trustworthiness than both the intrinsic motive and the extrinsic motive conditions.
Willingness to donate
A separate one-way ANOVA showed a marginally significant effect of condition on willingness to donate (F(2, 341) = 2.68, p = .07). Contrasts revealed there was a significant difference in willingness to donate for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.80) and the intrinsic motive (Mint = 6.03; t(341) = −2.01, p = .046) conditions. In addition, there was a significant difference in willingness to donate for the joint motive (Mjoint = 6.80) and extrinsic motive (Mext = 6.03; t(341) = −2.01, p = .046) conditions. There was no significant difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic motive conditions (Mint = 6.03 vs. Mext = 6.03; t(341) = .00, p = 1.0). Thus, as predicted, the joint motive condition had higher willingness to donate than both the intrinsic motive and the extrinsic motive conditions.
Mediation
Finally, we tested the mediating effect of trustworthiness on willingness to donate with motive as the independent variable, trustworthiness as the mediator, and willingness to donate as the dependent variable. Since the independent variable of motive had three categories, the extrinsic and intrinsic categories were coded as separate variables and were each tested against the joint motive condition as the reference category. We used the Process macro (Model 4; Hayes 2018) to test the indirect effect of the joint motive (joint and extrinsic as well as joint and intrinsic) on purchase intent via perceived trustworthiness using 5,000 bootstrap samples. In line with our theorizing, the results (see Table 4) reveal a significant indirect effect from a joint motive to willingness to donate via perceived trustworthiness both when tested with the extrinsic condition (95% CI = [−1.11, −.42]) and with the intrinsic condition (95% CI = [−.65, −.12]).
Mediation Model (Experiment 5).
Notes: x1 = intrinsic motive, x2 = extrinsic motive, m = trustworthiness, y = willingness to donate. Reference level is joint motive.
Discussion
The results of this study show that a joint motive also tends to be perceived as more trustworthy in a public policy context—in this case, a proposed public park. All of the motives in this study were framed as offering benefits to the community rather than benefits to a company or individual. Results show that participants prefer both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits combined for a public park, in the form of a joint motive, when considering supporting a public policy initiative. An economic focus and an environmental focus together are perceived more favorably than a singular focus (two environmental reasons as intrinsic or two economic reasons as extrinsic). This suggests that policy makers may be able to help encourage sustainable initiatives when they explicitly discuss joint movies for these actions.
General Discussion
Marketers frequently communicate motives for company decisions to consumers and stakeholders. Given this, what is the best way for firms to position their sustainability motives? The present research provides an investigation of brands, including city governments as brands, outwardly utilizing a joint motive—communicating both intrinsic (i.e., environmental and social well-being) and extrinsic (i.e., profit maximization) motives—for sustainability efforts related to their marketing strategy. These results indicate that (1) communicating both society- and firm-serving benefits together increases brand credibility, (2) increased brand credibility with this approach leads to higher purchase intent, (3) and the results are moderated at the firm level with GBH, which is one way to increase credibility. Our findings are inconsistent with the explanation that companies should simply not discuss profit but, rather, that the inclusion of profit and planet together establish credibility and trust. This was shown across various scenarios of motive communications, whether with incremental information (Experiments 1 and 2), a different focus of the motive (Experiment 3), or combining one piece of information from each (Experiments 4 and 5).
In 2012, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission published a revision to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”) in reaction to the public perception that companies were making “misleading claims” about environmental impact (Lyon and Montgomery 2015). Corporations are also devoting substantial resources to make effective communications a high priority on the global corporate agenda to reach all types of stakeholders (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen 2011). However, skepticism continues among consumers. While more than two-thirds of corporate executives think CSR is a genuine commitment for companies, only one-third of the general public believes it is genuine (Nielsen 2018). Communications related to such initiatives may be able to address this gap.
Consumers tend to view for-profit social ventures (e.g., Toms, Bombas) with some skepticism related to whether their altruism is genuine (Lee, Bolton, and Winterich 2017). The current research shows that consumers may respond differently to joint motives at the firm level than the product level. Firm-level motives may be met with more uncertainty than product-level motives. Prior research suggests some of this uncertainty at the firm level can be alleviated via consumer participation, as consumers who have firsthand experience with a brand's CSR initiative may tend to trust the brand's motivations more than consumers who are simply aware of such initiatives (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen 2011). Nevertheless, in addition to having a segment of participant consumers, brands need to also generate initial awareness of their CSR efforts in an optimal way.
The current research shows that one method to increase brand credibility is by using a joint motive when conveying sustainable efforts to the public. Joint motive messages offer consumers a more complex rationale that sustainability efforts can enact both societal good and benefits for a firm. The firm's enhanced transparency about having dual motives leaves consumers less likely to doubt the effort or wonder about hidden motives. This is an important benefit for firms, as previous research has shown that consumer attributions of CSR motives can have an enormous impact on consumer responses to firms (Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006). Thus, when the consumer perceives enhanced credibility from the brand or firm, they are more likely to support its initiatives. As shown across this research, when consumers were informed of both the firm- and planet-serving motive together, they perceived the firm messages to be more credible and reported higher purchase intent. These efforts also have implications for public policy initiatives, such as gaining increased acceptance for a public good that contributes to proenvironmental consumption (e.g., public green space, clean energy, natural land conservation).
In addition, these studies answer the call for research using marketing knowledge to address sustainability issues for public resources (Griskevicius, Cantú, and Van Vugt 2021; Shultz and Holbrook 1999). Accordingly, this work elucidates the importance of motive with sustainability initiatives with regard to brand management, communications, policy design, and public funding strategies.
Public Policy Implications
Sustainability initiatives aim to meet the needs of consumers via markets that frequently interact with public policy (Iyer and Reczek 2017). Although previous research on consumer acceptance of sustainability initiatives has focused on issues such as product formulation changes (e.g., Chernev and Blair 2021; Luchs et al. 2010; Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014), consumer motivations for engaging with these products (e.g., Edinger-Schons et al. 2018), and perceived green product benefits (e.g., Goldsmith, Newman, and Dhar 2016; Haws, Winterich, and Naylor 2014; Tezer and Bodur 2020), few studies have examined how firms can frame their messages related to sustainability.
In addition to the managerial implications of this work, this research suggests that public policy makers should require corporations to be more transparent about their motives for engaging in environmentally friendly production. On the one hand, the issue of “greenwashing” suggests that consumers are often skeptical of motives for engaging in sustainability initiatives. This research shows that transparency can combat such skepticism. On the other hand, green investing is becoming more of a priority for companies, shareholders, and society. Investors may prefer to hold shares of green firms (i.e., those that are more socially responsible). This research suggests that transparency about why they are engaging in green initiatives may enhance their perceived brand credibility—and, therefore, investors’ interest.
This research also suggests there is untapped potential for corporations to enhance purchase intention by joint motive messaging, as many organizations are not engaging in such messaging. Public policy makers can emphasize sudden climate shocks such as massive icebergs shrinking in the arctic, natural disasters such as hurricanes and forest fires, and extreme weather events to encourage additional green consumption. They can also try to increase the extrinsic motive by the passing of laws that favor environmentally friendly goods, recognizing that companies can not only leverage these circumstances for profit but also leverage them in joint motive messaging.
Our public park study shows that public policy makers may be able to increase support for sustainability initiatives at the community level by emphasizing joint motives for these actions. Building new public parks is only one example; this strategy could also apply to garnering support for the passage of laws to encourage more sustainable actions at the community level, such as limiting the use of plastic. Public policy makers could also “nudge” consumers to adopt clean energy and other public goods (e.g., public green space, natural land conservation) by highlighting both environmental and money-saving benefits for the public. This joint framing increases perceived credibility of the messaging but also encourages two different segments of consumers (i.e., those who care more about saving money and those who care more about saving the planet) to adopt sustainable options.
Managerial Implications
This research has implications for marketing management. Consumers may be somewhat skeptical of sustainability motives designed to sound purely altruistic. Indeed, consumers today understand the need for profit maximization and become skeptical when brand messaging focuses only on the firm's own benevolence (Forehand and Grier 2003). Thus, the findings establish that brands can achieve increased credibility by communicating both the firm's benefits and society's benefits of the sustainability initiative. This helps reduce concerns that a firm may have an ulterior motive with its sustainability efforts. Moreover, our findings suggest that conveying a joint motive to consumers can lead to higher purchase intent. This research further shows that joint motives are viewed more favorably regardless of whether the firm engages in public relations efforts (e.g., engaging a third-party news source to communicate its motives) or whether the firm communicates its own motives (e.g., via advertising).
From a consumer standpoint, this research has implications for improving consumer well-being. Consumers can feel more confident about supporting their favorite brands when those brands are honest about the fact that they are profit centers in addition to change agents. In addition, purchasing sustainable products can become part of a consumer's self-concept (e.g., “I am someone who wants to help protect the planet”; Mazar and Zhong 2010). As such, this segment of consumers is highly motivated to support their favorite companies who share in that philosophy.
Limitations and Future Research
This research is not without limitations, which may suggest future avenues of exploration. This research focused on internal, external, and joint motives generally, although other, more specific motives may be worthwhile to investigate. For example, supply chain complications have become more prominent during a global pandemic and due to extreme weather events. If certain firms position their sustainability motive as increasing a clean manufacturing capacity, they may be able to communicate that they are both job creators and resilient to supply chain disruptions. In another example, retailers that wish to promote their buyback and resale programs may be able to do so most effectively through messaging that conveys both monetary benefits and planet-conscious benefits to consumers.
In addition, even though we examined a moderator directly tied to credibility—GBH—there may be several other boundary conditions for our effects. Individual difference variables that influence how much consumers care about sustainability initiatives—such as education, political affiliation, and/or the extent to which consumers are future-oriented—may influence perceived credibility of these messages more broadly. We examined green consumption, but some consumers may be more likely to engage in ecofriendly shopping as part of their self-concept. These consumers who are highly engaged in saving the planet may be more engaged in interpreting the motives of the firm, or they may be even less skeptical of joint firm motives given their experience with sustainability. We examined our effects across three categories (consumer packaged goods, cosmetics, and public goods), but these effects may also be moderated by product category or industry, depending on prior consumer attributions (e.g., the oil and gas industry may be generally thought of as more of a polluter than environmentally friendly, despite its marketing efforts).
The field study conducted on Facebook (Experiment 2) suggests that the effects we found in our lab studies can also extend to the real world. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to observe these effects across additional advertising mediums. An examination of additional categories of imagery and emotional responses to these images, combined with company motives, may lend additional insight into when and where joint motives may be more or less useful.
In addition, the participants across all experiments were from North America, and aside from Experiment 2, which examined Facebook advertising data collected in Canada, all were American. It would be interesting to see if these results extend to other large economies, such as China or Japan. Due to cultural differences, and more specifically, the collective traditions of these Asian cultures, the same credibility challenges may not exist as strongly in these countries. Furthermore, as consumers continue to gain experience with various ecofriendly products, it is possible they will become savvier with their interpretation of marketing motives over time, thus making them more experienced in interpreting corporate motives.
In most of our studies, brand credibility was assessed with the messaging coming directly from the firm itself. Additional research is needed to determine to what extent it matters if the company's motives are being communicated by the company itself, a news agency, via word or mouth, or other sources. Finally, it would be interesting to examine whether these effects apply to other ethical traits (e.g., fair trade). Sustainability initiatives, and the motives behind these initiatives, will continue to be important drivers of growth for companies well into the future, but the grand challenges of the 21st century and beyond will require a host of efforts.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-ppo-10.1177_07439156221138755 - Supplemental material for Cause Beneficial or Cause Exploitative? Using Joint Motives to Increase Credibility of Sustainability Efforts
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ppo-10.1177_07439156221138755 for Cause Beneficial or Cause Exploitative? Using Joint Motives to Increase Credibility of Sustainability Efforts by Karen Anne Wallach and Deidre Popovich in Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Footnotes
Editor
Kelly D. Martin
Associate Editor
Rebecca Reczek
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1
Gender also did not moderate any of the results in a three-way interaction model with motive × GBH × gender.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
